Freedom of Information failures shine light on governments’ records management projects

Posted on 21/04/2012 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

The struggles that a number of governments and agencies are having in coping with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests has raised questions over the need for – or the status of – their IT projects for records management.

The UK government is itself in a tizzy about the number of requests it receives.   And it appears from this ZDNet article Down Under that state governments and public services in Australia are struggling to keep up too.

The article cites a recent report from the Victorian auditor-general that the Victorian Department of Human Services (DHS) needs a new electronic records-management system. It argues that not only is the department completely failing to fulfil FOI requests, which was the topic of the audit, but it is also probably losing hours of staff time as employees comb through its records for the information they need to do their jobs.

Apparently, the DHS received 1047 FOI requests in 2010-2011. However, instead of meeting the 45-day deadline for fulfilling these requests, the average fulfilment time was 75 days.

Admittedly, Australia has had 30 years of dealing with FOI, where here we have had twelve. But the report’s background and conclusions on FOI make for informative reading.   I wonder how many government departments and councils it might apply to over in the UK; what IT projects (if any) they have underway in terms of electronic records management; and just how long it might be before a similar critical report is written here.

Background

Freedom of information (FOI) is a cornerstone of a thriving democracy. FOI upholds the public’s fundamental right to access information held by the government. The community’s ability to scrutinise public sector activities and hold the government of the day accountable for its decisions is affected by the transparency and accessibility of government information.

Since the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) was introduced, both the number and the complexity of requests for information have increased considerably. In 2010–11 there were 34 052 FOI requests, compared to 4 702 requests in 1984–85, the first full year the Act was in operation.

The Victorian Ombudsman identified systemic problems in his 2006 review of FOI. These included a lack of timely responses, inconsistent application of the Act and lost or non‑existent documents. In his 2011 Annual Report the Ombudsman concluded that these problems still remained five years later.

The audit examined the extent to which all 11 Victorian public sector departments and Victoria Police meet the requirements of the Act and associated guidelines. A detailed assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of FOI processes in Victoria Police and the Department of Human Services (DHS) was also performed. These two agencies were selected because they process 68 per cent of the FOI requests received by the 12 agencies audited.

Conclusions

Since FOI legislation was introduced 30 years ago, Victoria has gone from being at the forefront of FOI law and administration to one of the least progressive jurisdictions in Australia. Over time, apathy and resistance to scrutiny have adversely affected the operation of the Act, restricting the amount of information being released. As a result, agencies are not meeting the object of the Act, which is ‘to extend as far as possible the right of the community to access information’.

The public’s right to timely, comprehensive and accurate information is consequently being frustrated. The Victorian public sector’s systemic failure to support this right is a failure to deliver Parliament’s intent.

The prevailing culture and lack of transparent processes allow principal officers—secretaries and chief executive officers of agencies—to avoid fulfilling their responsibilities. Principal officers are not being held to account for their agency’s underperformance and non-compliance:

  • In 2010–11, the average response time for eight of the 12 audited agencies exceeded the statutory deadline for responding to applicants’ requests.
  • Of these agencies, four exceeded the 45-day time limit for over half of their requests.
  • None of the agencies adequately complied with the mandatory reporting requirements of the Act.
  • The principal officers of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC), the Department of Health (DOH) and DHS have not managed adherence with ministerial noting periods consistent with the Attorney-General’s 2009 Guidelines on the Responsibilities and Obligations of Principal Officers and Agencies(the FOI Guidelines). This has led to delays in the release of documents.
  • Agencies have not managed to reach agreement on a consistent, whole‑of‑government approach to the proactive release of information, which would reduce the reliance on FOI processes for the release of non-personal information.
  • The more detailed review of DHS and Victoria Police revealed serious flaws in record keeping practices and FOI searches.

The cumulative effect of the multiple cultural and process issues is that the community does not receive the information it is entitled to receive, when it should receive it. Agency senior management is aware of these longstanding issues and their consequences, but has not taken sufficient action to address these systemic weaknesses.

This points to an absence of leadership and responsiveness, and a willingness of agencies to compromise the fundamental public service principles of integrity, accountability and respect. These are values that all public sector officials are expected to demonstrate under the Code of Conduct for Victorian Public Sector Employees. Principal officers who do not observe these values are failing the community and Parliament.

Embedding the appropriate pro-disclosure culture and processes, which underpin the intent of the Act, requires effective leadership. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has not adequately championed FOI across the public sector and, as such, has not satisfactorily fulfilled its role as the lead agency for FOI.

The introduction of the FOI Commissioner presents an opportunity for more proactive FOI leadership—in particular driving the cultural shift that is necessary to provide better quality services to the community. Significant change will only be possible if the commissioner is granted sufficient powers and resources. Since these amendments have not yet commenced, recommendations relating to the lead agency for FOI are addressed to DOJ, but will subsequently need to be reviewed once the FOI Commissioner has been appointed.

Findings

Department of Justice leadership

As the lead agency for FOI, DOJ is accountable for providing agencies with guidance and advising the minister responsible for the administration of the Act through the production of annual reports to Parliament on FOI performance. There have been significant shortcomings in the department’s approach in both of these areas.

Freedom of information culture and practices

DOJ has not adequately promoted and modelled the intent of the Act and accepted better practice, either in its own department or across the public sector. Specifically, DOJ has not:

  • developed a proactive release framework for agencies
  • addressed its own or other agencies’ processing delays
  • complied with the reporting or timeliness requirements of the Act, nor encouraged other agencies to do so
  • complied with the five-day ministerial noting time frame before documents are released.

The tolerance of these longstanding substandard practices, particularly with regard to proactive release, reflects an apathetic and obstructive culture. DOJ has acknowledged that it could have taken a stronger approach with agencies, but stated that its ability to address substandard practices is limited because it does not have adequate powers to mandate good practices. This lack of powers is not sufficient justification for DOJ to not exercise leadership. Further, there is no evidence that DOJ sought to extend its powers to address its inability to achieve an acceptable level of practice, consistent with the object of the legislation.

Proactively releasing information is an effective means of disseminating the maximum possible amount of information. It is recognised as better practice and, accordingly, is the approach adopted in other jurisdictions. Although Victorian agencies are publishing information, this does not necessarily constitute proactive release unless they have properly assessed the information to determine whether it is of significant public interest, appropriate, accurate, accessible and easy to use. This, combined with the continued reliance on formal FOI applications, means Victoria is less progressive than other jurisdictions.

Performance reporting

The apathy with regard to FOI is also evident in the reporting regime. The minister responsible for the Act relies on DOJ to collect, check and prepare data for inclusion in the FOI Annual Report to Parliament. However, DOJ is not reporting to the minister aspects of agencies’ performance as the letter and spirit of the Act requires.

DOJ does not report on measures that are explicitly specified in the Act, including disciplinary action taken against officers in respect to the administration of the Act, such as a breach of duty or misconduct.

DOJ collects information on the timeliness of agencies’ responses to FOI requests but does not include this information in the minister’s report to Parliament. Although DOJ is not specifically required to disclose this information to the minister, it is not precluded from doing so. Releasing agencies’ timeliness statistics would be in the spirit of the Act and encourage better performance.

Parliament and the public have the right to know if agencies’ performance is unsatisfactory. DOJ’s lack of comprehensive and transparent reporting in relation to the minister’s annual report does not satisfy the community’s expectations of a public sector agency.

Training

Training is an effective way to instil a positive FOI culture in agencies and to emphasise the importance of openness and transparency. DOJ’s FOI training program places too much emphasis on basic administrative process, rather than the intent of the Act. An important opportunity to promote a positive pro-release FOI culture has been missed.

Agency management

Timeliness of response is a good indicator of senior management’s attitude towards the importance of FOI. The number and complexity of requests can influence performance against the statutory time limit, however, the onus is on principal officers to provide adequate resources and support to meet the timeliness requirements. Only two of the audited agencies meet both the 45-day time limit and the five-day ministerial noting period.

Of the 12 agencies audited, only four had average request processing times that met the 45-day statutory limit in 2010­–11. These were the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Department of Transport, Department of Primary Industries and Department of Treasury and Finance. The worst performing agencies were Victoria Police, DPC and DHS, which averaged 98, 92 and 75 days respectively.

Victoria’s underperformance against its legislative target is even more concerning when compared with other states. Other states have better processing completion rates against shorter or similar standard time limits. Extensions to these time limits may be granted, in certain circumstances.

The five-day ministerial noting period recommended in the FOI Guidelines was exceeded by eight of the 12 agencies. The worst performing department was DPC, with an average noting period of 41 days. One FOI request was with the Office of the Premier for 88 days. DHS and DOH also recorded noting periods in excess of 20 days. Long noting periods delay the release of information and impede the effective operation of the Act.

When agencies do not respect the FOI Guidelines, this not only compounds the delays in processing FOI requests but also contributes to the public perception that there is political interference in the FOI process, particularly when there is repeated consultation between an agency and a minister’s office on requests.

Victoria Police and DHS have both attempted to improve the timeliness of their responses. At Victoria Police, timeliness improved when additional resources were temporarily assigned to the FOI unit, while DHS improved its response time by prioritising requests.

Department of Human Services and Victoria Police

An effective FOI system relies on strong agency leadership and support, a robust understanding and application of the Act, good records management, appropriately defined searches and open communication with applicants.

DHS and Victoria Police, the two agencies reviewed in more detail, have significant deficiencies in these areas. As a consequence, the public is being denied access to information.

Processing fees and waiver of time frame

DHS is offering applicants the opportunity to waive processing charges if they forgo the requirement for DHS to meet the 45-day processing time limit. DHS is not advising applicants who have little or no money and are seeking information that relates to their personal affairs that they have a right to request a waiver of charges under the Act without waiving the 45-day time limit.

This unacceptable practice was not observed in any of the other audited agencies. It allows DHS to extend its time frame for responding to requests without recording those requests as overdue, giving the mistaken impression that the department’s timeliness performance is better than it actually is.

Records management

DHS and Victoria Police need to address deficiencies in their record keeping practices as a priority. Records are being lost, disposed of incorrectly or rendered inaccessible.

DHS’s record management facility has inappropriate physical storage conditions—causing records to deteriorate—and inefficient indexing systems. As a result, information cannot be found when needed.

Although Victoria Police has a policy outlining the appropriate storage of records, it has not addressed the informal practice of police officers storing records, such as note books, at their homes. This practice increases the likelihood that these records may be lost or difficult for Victoria Police to locate.

Search techniques

DHS and Victoria Police both need to remedy weaknesses in their FOI searches to provide appropriately scoped responses.

DHS does not include records held by its contracted community service organisations (CSO) in the FOI requests the department processes. Instead, DHS refers applicants to the relevant CSOs. The quality of record keeping practices of CSOs varies widely and, consequently, so does the amount of information available to DHS’s clients.

DHS is failing to discharge its obligations to its clients. The Act refers to ‘possession’ when defining a document, not ownership. DHS has a right to possess CSO records under its service agreements, therefore CSO documents are subject to the Act. Furthermore, the department is contravening the specifications set out by the Public Records Office Victoria and the FOI Guidelines.

Victoria Police’s FOI unit does not conduct sufficiently thorough and diligent searches. The unit does not inspect proof of disposal documents to confirm whether documents cannot be provided because they no longer exist.

Related Links

FOI debate: the genie of freedom will never be put back

One in three public bodies failing on freedom of information requests

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, Freedom of Information, Government IT, IT projects, public sector, public services

Tagged , , , , ,

How do you create successful software development teams? (Part 2: Outsourcing)

Posted on 20/04/2012 | 3 comments

By David Bicknell

I recently reported on a roundtable organised by the Dutch software specialist Software Improvement Group (SIG) which set out to determine what makes successful teams in software development.

The roundtable featured two specialists in creating specialist teams: Andrew de la Haye, chief operating officer, at RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre (RIPE NCC), one of five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) providing Internet resource allocations, registration services and coordination activities that support the operation of the Internet globally; and author and management expert Kevan Hall, chief executive of Global Integration.

In Part One of the discussion, which focused on creating excellent teams in software development, we examined teamwork, Agile empowerment, a commitment to quality, remote working and getting the right level of teamwork.

In this part of the discussion, we focused on managing multi-disciplinary teams, structure, reducing waste, and outsourcing.

Managing multi-disciplinary teams

Kevan Hall pointed out that when you’re working in a multi-disciplinary environment – for example, if you’re building a very complex piece of kit with tens of thousands of bits – there is a point at which you need to have some co-ordination.

But he added, “There is also a big part of the work where I’m an engineer off doing actual work or I’m somewhere writing code. And that’s not teamwork.  If we have this mentality that everything we do is a team, then we can’t make a decision until the next meeting. I distinguish between a team, which is kind of truly interdependent i.e. if you’ve got multi-disciplinary skills, R&D etc,  you really need to work collaboratively, tightly, and you can’t do it on your own, you need teamwork. But most work isn’t like that: most work is me doing my stuff.

“And therefore a simple hub and spoke group of organisations might be much simpler to do that. When you’re working globally, or virtually, that’s much, much easier because in a hub and spoke structure, if I want to talk to you, I just pick up the phone.  If I’m in a team, I have to go into all your Outlook diaries and hope that in the next month, you’ve got some time where we can at least all get on the phone.

“So hub and spoke is much simpler for virtual teams and for remoteness and those kind of things. So when we are  working collaboratively that’s when we really need to focus because it’s really expensive and quite hard to do.”

Waste reduction and communication

Andrew de la Haye from RIPE explained the need for what he describes as ‘waste reduction.’

“One of the things we do as standard culture in our software teams is every three to four months we do waste reduction sessions. So in the old methodology, you do retrospectives. You start a sprint – a sprint is two weeks – you deliver to the business, and after that, the team sits together and then they discuss what went well and what should be improved in the next sprint. And as a larger group in the whole department, we get them together once every four months for an hour or two at the most and we say, ‘OK. Where is waste? Where do we see waste?”

“And most of the time it is not coding or the real work they do, most of the time it is in the communications area.  And we try to get rid of it. So we changed the team from 2 x 6 to 3 x 4 people. It’s just part of our being to look at the waste we created after the last period and where can we improve. And they became  much more efficient and effective.”

According to Kevan Hall, one of the things you often see with teams is the ‘community decay curve’.

“When you have a team, virtual or not, you have a kick off and everyone’s very enthusiastic. And then you start doing the work, and it’s quite hard. And then you come to the end of something and you’ve succeeded and you have a celebration. Successful virtual teams create a rhythm. For our teams, it’s a year. You have a long old slog and there is a ‘periodicity’ of communication. A software team is perfect because you have a closure, a learning opportunity, a celebration and then you go and do it again. If it’s longer than that, then you have to think about other things that are going to have an impact, like a conference call or a coaching call.

“Even worse, if you’re managing a remote organisation or a remote supplier, the risk is that you only call them when you need something or you’ve got a problem. So they don’t really look forward to your next call. ‘Oh, no. Look who’s on the phone.’ You demotivate people just by your number coming up. It’s about keeping that rhythm. It’s a bit like an ECG. You’ve got to create those peaks to keep motivation high.

“Social media has a very powerful role to play in virtual teams, because it’s much easier to share the other things that I’m doing rather than just project updates. I also like Instant Messenger because if you have people in Asia you can see that they’re ‘on’ and to me it’s just like passing someone in the corridor. It’s the virtual coffee machine. Occasionally, people will see say, ‘If you’re there, can we have a quick call?’ And it’s another part of the rhythm for me – like keeping the heartbeat going.”

Outsourcing

“I used to sell a lot of outsourcing,” said Andrew de la Haye. “But I haven’t seen it really working (teamwise). One of the issues with outsourcing is the commitment bit, which is very important in my teams. My people are committed to me because they know me, and they know what the company stands for. If you outsource to somebody, who are they committed to? You hope that they are committed to the organisation they’re working for, but they’re certainly not committed to you. And they are probably more committed to themselves, especially in India because people move around like crazy.

“So one of the issues with outsourcing is the lack of commitment, I think. I don’t see a solution to that. There are two ways of outsourcing: outsourcing commodity items, where there is a new version of SAP and people need to upgrade. That kind of stuff. That’s good enough – it will work fine. But if you truly need to build applications and you need to work together with a company to create business value, and that’s what a lot of outsourcing is about as well, I haven’t seen it working.

“I tried it again last year, and I gave a company a chance. I had a really good relationship with this consulting firm and they told me that they had an excellent team in India, and ‘Let’s try this project just for a three-month trial.’ And it was more or less the only project in the last five years that went belly-up.”

As Kevan Hall pointed out, when you’re managing across distance, culture, time zones, working through technology, and commercial considerations, outsourcing is so much more complex.

“One of the things we see a lot with clients who have outsourced is what I call the balance of trust and control. Because I don’t know you and I don’t trust you, I tend to control you. And so we go out to India and we have these incredibly heavy processes which we beat you up to make sure you follow without any sense of initiative or change, and then you start complaining that the Indians don’t have any initiative and don’t innovate.

“Well, you’ve told them not to and they’ve very smart people, albeit with higher turnover, and then you’re finding that problem of ‘how do we build trust?’ So many organisations outsource processes and spend an enormous amount of time on process, but they don’t have the travel budget to even go and meet the people who are doing a service for them.

“So how are you ever going to build a relationship? You wouldn’t do it in your own business. So doing it in an even more complex environment…how’s that going to work?”

“You have to look at the type of activity being outsourced,” said Dr Joost Visser, SIG’s Head of Research . “There is a lot of success in outsourcing in all sort of activities. In software application development where you are trying to create business value and where people are being creative, like in the automotive industry, thinking of the next engine or concept car, I think that by basically taking the team you need and pulling it out over locations and over time zones, you’re creating a challenge for the teamwork you need for that activity.”

There is another factor: the customer, suggested Kevan Hall.

“If you decided that you’re going to bring your development team into one place and therefore take away one barrier to complexity, which is distance, which makes a lot of sense, then aren’t you just exporting that level of complexity to the customer? Because they still have to manage with the fact that they still have stakeholders spread around the world in different time zones and different cultures. And they’ve got complex needs. It’s OK for you now. But is that the right thing to do for the customer?

“Human Resources has done that. They’ve gone to specialist centres and business partners. And all that’s done is that the business partner has to manage all the complexity rather than the organisation.”

How do you create successful software development teams? (Part 1)

3 Comments

Posted in Agile, Campaign4Change, change management, India, managing outsourced services, outsourcing, software development, software quality

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why nations – and organisations – fail

Posted on 19/04/2012 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

I just came across an excellent piece by Craig Dearden-Phillips on why nations – and organisations – fail.

In it, he discusses a book,  ‘Why Nations Fail’, by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson.

He writes: “The opener of the book contrasts two halves of a city, Noglales which straddles the Mexico-US border. One sits in the region on Sonala, Mexico, the other in Arizona, US. Here the people, culture, climate and operating conditions are the same. On one side of the border, incomes are many times higher, there are good public services and crime is uncommon. On the other, people are mostly poor, there are few public services and crime is rampant because the state isn’t in real control on the ground.

He continues: “Perhaps what has capitivated me most, though, is the read-across to why certain types of public services fail, despite wonderful resources and high levels of native talent. Analogous to the extractive and exclusive institutions described at state level in this book could be placed the large public sector monopolies which still dominate much of public service in Europe and certainly in the UK.

“Here, power is often monopolised and change, even ‘good change’ does run against the interests of many of those involved. Initiative is often powerfully suppressed. It is hard, frequently impossible, to set up in business against these monopolies and there are often few political processes which can be used to break these systems down.

“What am I thinking of here? Well, if you haven’t guessed, I am alluding to many of the organisations from which spin-outs do or don’t emerge.

“The truth of the matter, and I see this every day, is that setting up a new business to deliver public services feels like it probably does to set up any ordinary business in parts of the developing world. You need the buy-in of a variety of power-brokers, all of whom need to see their interests satisfied. You need to go through all sorts of bureaucratic processes to show you’re not a risk and are ‘worthy’ of delivering services.

“From there, you need to make all sorts of promises to the system that its interests will not be threatened and create opportunities for the system to have it’s say even when the business is up and running.

“All of this, of course, creates a massive disincentive for any sane person in public services who wants to change things. The risks are massive – to career, to sanity, to reputation – that most people, quite understandably either stay put or move out. Those that try to start a public service business have to run a gamut that looks far more like something you’d see in Mexico than in Midshire, UK.”

Dearden-Phillips makes some excellent points and the whole piece is worth reading.

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, employee ownership, mutualisation, mutuals, public sector, public services, social economy, social enterprise

Tagged , , , , , , ,

FDA: “Much work remains” to modernise its IT systems, says US oversight team

Posted on 19/04/2012 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

Sometimes you have to applaud how seriously the US government takes accountability in its departments over their approach to IT projects.

One of the latest by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is on the IT management at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In a title, ‘Why the GAO did this study’, it points out that the FDA, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), relies heavily on IT to carry out its mission of ensuring the safety and effectiveness of regulated consumer products. Specifically, it says, IT systems are critical to the FDA’s product review, adverse event reporting, and compliance activities.

Recognising the limitations in its IT capabilities, the FDA has undertaken several initiatives to modernise its systems, with the GAO now being asked to assess the FDA’s current portfolio of IT systems, including the number of systems in use and under development, and their purpose and costs; assess the status and effectiveness of the FDA’s efforts to modernise the mission-critical systems that support its regulatory programs; and examine the agency’s progress in effectively integrating and sharing data among key systems.

In its report, the GAO argues that while the FDA has taken several important steps toward modernising its IT environment, much remains to be done.

According to the GAO, the FDA reported spending about $400 million for IT investments in the last  financial year (2011). But, it says, the agency currently lacks a comprehensive IT inventory that identifies and provides key information about the systems it uses and is developing.

It points that both Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the GAO’s own guidance calls for federal agencies to maintain such an inventory in order to monitor and manage their IT investments. The inventory should include information on each system, such as costs, functionality or purpose, and status. However, the GAO says, the FDA does not have such a comprehensive list of its systems, although budget documents included information on 44 IT investments for fiscal year 2011. 

Until the agency has a complete and comprehensive inventory, the GAO says, it will lack critical information needed to effectively assess its IT portfolio.

GAO goes on to point out that “much work remains on the FDA’s largest and costliest system modernisation effort, the Mission Accomplishments and Regulatory Compliance Services program.” The program is estimated to cost about $280 million and is intended to enhance existing applications and develop new systems that provide information for inspections, compliance activities, and laboratory operations.

However, the GAO argues, much of the planned functionality has not been delivered and its completion is uncertain. Moreover, the program lacks an integrated master schedule identifying all the work activities that need to be performed and their interdependencies.

The FDA’s CIO stated that the agency is now reevaluating the scope of the initiative. As a result, it is uncertain when or if FDA will meet its goals of replacing key legacy systems and providing modernised functionality to support its mission.

In addition, FDA has not yet fully implemented key IT management capabilities essential for successful modernisation, previously recommended by GAO. These include developing an actionable IT strategic plan, developing an enterprise architecture to guide its modernisation effort, and assessing its IT staffing needs.

One of the problems for the FDA has been changes in its management structure, which has meant that since 2008, the agency has had five different CIOs, hampering its ability to plan and effectively implement a long-range IT strategy.

The GAO recommended that the FDA should develop both a comprehensive inventory of its IT systems and an integrated master schedule for a major modernisation effort, and assess its  information needs to identify opportunities for greater sharing.

GAO Report

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, government, Government IT, IT projects, IT-related failures, US Government

Tagged , , , , , ,

Innovation and change: a world tour

Posted on 19/04/2012 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

With innovation and change in mind, I was interested in this blog by a French writer, Francis Pisani, who is undertaking a ‘five continent tour’ taking in innovation worldwide.

He’s been in Australia, South America, and India in April, before heading to Africa (South Africa, Rwanda and  Israel) in May, then Eastern Europe in June and July, and finally the Far East in August and September.

Here is his interview on his travels in India with Raveev Suri, an old contact from Infosys who is now a CEO and entrepreneur based in Bangalore.

Related Reading

UK technology firms spurn BRICS deals in favour of home investment

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Some mutuals reading and listening

Posted on 18/04/2012 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

I just came across a couple of items on mutuals: a piece by Kevin Jaquiss from the Cobbetts law firm about how to register as a mutualised service provider  and a piece on the Baxi Partnership website about a documentary showcasing employee-owned enterprises, including Mondragon.

If you’re interested in Mondragon, there is a BBC radio programme which you can also listen to.

Leave a comment

Posted in employee ownership, mutualisation, mutuals, social economy, social enterprise

Tagged , , , , ,

Are your IT projects ‘drivers’ or ‘supporters’?

Posted on 18/04/2012 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

An article by Art Langer in the Wall St Journal argues that IT projects are either ‘drivers’ or ‘supporters’.

Drivers are those projects and activities that affect the relationship with an organisation’s clients i.e. projects that drive revenue directly or indirectly. Supporters, on the other hand, are those everyday activities that are more operational in nature.

Langer cites the work that Dana Deasy has done firstly at Siemens  and more recently at BP.

He writes: “We all know that executives are more interested in implementing technologies to drive the business, than they are in using cutting-edge technology for its own sake. For Deasy, the biggest challenge was mostly building internal consensus about  how the technology would help  customers–and how Siemens could be more competitive in the marketplace.

“Deasy also had to show his executives that the evaluation of investments in these projects would be different than evaluations of other kinds of IT work. With e-business, the market reaction to different product and service offerings can be less certain.

“So Deasy established the concept of “revalidation.” Approved technology projects were reviewed every 90 days to determine whether they were indeed providing the planned outcomes, whether new outcomes needed to be established, or whether the technology was no longer useful.

“Siemens was moving from a traditional process of analyse-develop-deliver to a new process of sensing what a customer might want, and then responding to it more dynamically.”

Langer concludes by saying that, “The idea that all IT projects must succeed is outdated and unrealistic in true “driver” initiatives. CIOs must learn from Deasy’s lesson: If you are engaging in true “driver” initiatives, you cannot evaluate them on the “supporter” method of simple success rates.”

Interesting piece – worth a read.

How to Develop and Evaluate Strategic IT Projects

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, change management, Government IT, IT and the Business, IT projects, IT-related failures, project management

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

UK technology firms spurn BRICS deals in favour of home investment says Grant Thornton report

Posted on 17/04/2012 | 2 comments

By David Bicknell

Medium-sized UK technology companies are forgoing demonstrable investment opportunities in the BRICS economies in favour of domestic deals, according to new research from audit specialist Grant Thornton. 

The research shows that three-quarters (75%) of medium sized UK technology companies have no plans to invest in new markets in the next 12 months.

The study reflects trends over the last five years for mergers and acquisitions in the technology market, which show that domestic investment continues to be the number one priority for ICT businesses. 141 UK to UK deals were completed in 2011,  a higher volume than with any other market.

In terms of outbound investment from the UK technology sector, mature markets such as the USA, Australia and Germany have consistently remained at the top of the league in comparison to other emerging markets. 

Wendy Hart, Head of Technology at Grant Thornton UK, is calling on investors in the UK’s technology mid-market to think beyond traditional investment regions and seize opportunities. She says: “Over the last five years the volatility of the global market has inevitably had an impact on the volume of cross-border deals taking place.

“Traditional, mature markets such as those in the G7 remain attractive to UK firms because of a familiar business environment, language commonalities and greater access to highly skilled employees. In contrast, outbound investment into fast-growing, tech-friendly economies such as India, China, Brazil and Israel is still relatively low.”

To help highlight the opportunities available, Grant Thornton has produced an ‘expansion index’ guide, which compares existing UK investment markets such as the UK, the USA, Germany, France and the Netherlands with emerging economies. The data demonstrates that the markets with the biggest opportunities are also the markets that present the biggest challenge for investors.

Wendy Hart continued: “The sheer volume of information that a business has to get to grips with before making an investment into an unfamiliar market can be daunting. There are three key stages that are vital foundations for a market entry strategy: full assessment of the opportunity available; thorough preparation so that a business is ready for execution; and management of the actual execution itself.”

In the report, Grant Thornton has also called on technology investment experts from around the world to provide detailed insight about key technology markets, both traditional and emerging.

Nick Farr, Head of China Britain Business Services at Grant Thornton UK, said: “One of the reasons that UK technology businesses are reluctant to enter China is a fear of copying or reverse-engineering of their products. Whilst this is still a risk, as China’s patent system evolves there are increasing opportunities for businesses to protect their intellectual property (IP). These opportunities are being noticed. Recent research by the China-Britain Business Council showed that 59% of UK businesses with a presence in China want to increase their R&D activity there.”

Some snapshots from the report:

China

“Grant Thornton’s Technology Expansion Index ranks China second for economic growth and third for infrastructure and technology. On the flip side, China is one of the lowest ranked markets for political and legal landscape and has one of the most complex systems in the world for business start-ups. It is this dichotomy, paired with the complexities of Chinese culture, that best explains the lack of UK businesses looking to enter the Chinese market.

“However, great returns are never easily achieved. The opportunity in China is huge, not just in terms of salary arbitrage and tax incentives. Despite the recent slowdown in China, growth is still upwards of 8% and this high growth potential means that those companies able to access the Chinese market will be better at meeting consumer needs and faster to market, leaving those who shied away from early investment trailing in their wake.”

Brazil

“At 8.5 million square kilometres, Brazil is the size of a continent, and currently accounts for 40% of Latin America’s economy. IMF GDP growth forecasts through 2013 are strong at 4%, potentially underpinned by the impact of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games, which will drive technology investment. The domestic market for IT in Brazil is now the seventh largest in the world. $165.7bn was spent on ICT in 2010 with only $2.4bn of services exported.

“Brazil is a potential technology investment hotspot because of its large, stable, growing economy; a modern financial system that has largely escaped the global financial crisis; a strong base of local investors; and robust capital markets and a middle class of almost 100 million people aspotential technology consumers.”

India

“The Indian Government’s new ICT policy aims at speeding up development, including plans for fibre optic cable installation and aggressive broadband implementation.

“A strong driver for IT investment is India’s own Generation Y who are primed to become hungry consumers, particularly of IT, consumer technology and social media. India’s consumermarket, currently the world’s thirteenth largest, is expected to become the fifth largest by 2025. Its telecommunication industry, the world’s fastest-growing, added 227 million subscribers duringthe period 2010–11.” 

UK

“According to our survey, 18% of UK technology companies plan domestic investment in the next 12–18 months. Despite the economic downturn, or perhaps because of it, many technology companies are still lookingto consolidate and strengthen theirpresence at home rather than seeking out riskier, but potentially more rewarding climates.

“There is a trend in the UK technology market where large corporates are increasingly looking to acquire companies that provide specialist services or offer some innovation that addresses a niche they want to reach. Importantly, the current state of the overall market means that these companies can be acquired more cheaply than might have been possible pre credit-crunch,” says Wendy Hart.

For more details or for a hard copy of the report, which also features case studies on a number of UK technology companies, including Galleon Holdings, Ideal Industries, Mobile Tornado, Kelkoo, and Tessella, contact Emma Ap-Thomas at Grant Thornton. Tel: 0207 728 2348 or emma.ap-thomas@uk.gt.com

Grant Thornton UK website

2 Comments

Posted in Brazil, BRICS, Campaign4Change, China, India, investment, technology

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

New York’s CTO to leave as row deepens over city’s handling of IT projects

Posted on 17/04/2012 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

New York, New York (So Good They Named It Twice) – as the song goes -though not so good at delivering successful IT projects, it would seem.

According to The New York Times, the city’s chief technology official Carol Post has resigned after clashing with a deputy mayor over the management of several costly, ambitious IT projects.

According to the newspaper, city government spokespeople said Ms. Post, who is the commissioner of the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, should not be blamed for the mismanagement of the $2.3 billion 911 project, whose problems predated her arrival in the job. She is reported to be leaving to take up a new position at the New York Law School. 

Post’s departure  was announced a day before New York’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg said the city would challenge a judge’s order to release a report by consultants McKinsey on an overbudget, much-delayed modernisation of the city’s 911 emergency calls and dispatching system.

According to The New York Times story, concerns have been expressed about the cost of an upgrade to CityNet, the city’s internal data network; there are continuing problems and shortcomings with CitiServ, a data centre that was supposed to consolidate dozens of city agency servers; and a shortage of users for NYCWin, a secure municipal wireless network.

The wireless network cost $500 million to build and a further $40 million a year to operate, and is underused and arguably outdated.

CityNet has experienced interruptions in service, despite a system of redundant fiber optic rings intended to enable it to withstand a breakdown. The $95 million CitiServ project is reported to have confounded agency officials, with the technology department, DoITT, struggling to migrate old systems into the new data centre.

“The technology department is officially referred to by its acronym, DoITT, but is sometimes derided as “Don’t Do It” by city workers who seek to avoid working with the department,” The New York Times said.

Of Post’s departure, Bloomberg said, “Over the past ten years, we have fundamentally transformed the operations of New York City agencies and elevated New Yorkers’ expectations of how efficient, user-friendly and transparent their government should be, and a large part of that is because of the tirelessness and talent of Carole Post. From her work at the Department of Buildings to the Mayor’s Office of Operations to DoITT, Carole has brought agencies together in common cause, finding efficiencies, defining legal strategies and creating collaborations that use taxpayers’ dollars more effectively. There’s nobody better to help a great institution like New York Law School climb to new heights, and though I’m very disappointed to see her go, I wish her well in tackling this new challenge.”

NY’s CTO Resigns, As Some Question Bloomberg’s Handling of City’s Tech Projects

New York’s emergency call IT project: just seven years behind schedule and $1bn overbudget

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, change management, CIO, Government IT, IT projects, IT-related failures, local government, public sector

Tagged , , , , ,

Corporate IT Forum mobile enterprise conference will discuss: ‘Is it time to sunset the desktop?’

Posted on 16/04/2012 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

HM Revenue & Customs’ Director General for Change and CIO, Phil Pavitt, will be the keynote speaker at The Corporate IT Forum’s June conference, ‘Enterprise Everywhere.’

Sub-titled, ‘Is it time to sunset the desktop?’, the conference has been organised following requests from corporate IT professionals from enterprise organisations for an exploration into the future of the mobile enterprise.

The development of new technologies, an influx of smart devices, the advent of increasing cross-border legislation, new employment policies, and a business requirement for a flexible approach are demanding that organisations keep on top of all their options.

The event will discuss why now is the time to embrace the mobile age, providing employees and partners with access to key systems at any time, on any (and many) devices, to deliver significant business benefits. That opens up new opportunities and allows organisations to support a truly flexible workforce. But what are the realities behind making this possible?  

Other speakers will include John Harris, Chairman of the Corporate IT Forum and Chief Architect & VP of Global IT Strategy at GlaxoSmithKline;  Sheridan Hindle, Head of IT, Midcounties Co-operative Society; Neil Jarvis, Global Head of IT Security and IT Risk, DHL Supply Chain; and Steve Parker, Technical Architect at John Lewis Partnership.

The one-day conference is on Wednesday, 20th June in London. You can find out more details here.

It follow another recent  conference organised by the Forum around consumerisation.

Leave a comment

Posted in BYOD, enterprise, mobile, virtualisation

Tagged , , , , , , , ,