Is consumerisation a threat or an opportunity for IT departments?

By David Bicknell

I just came across a good read, a piece by Galen Gruman on Infoworld in the US, continuing the discussion over consumerisation of IT.

Under the headline, ‘Relax, IT: Endpoint diversity is nothing to fear’, Gruman points out that ‘old IT hands’ remember the days of widespread business computing – the early to mid-1990s – when every department had its own computers and software, each different than the rest.

“Then, ‘Best of breed and ‘departmental computing’ became dirty terms, and IT and business leaders went about transforming both their technologies and work processes into integrated, standardised, homogenised approaches. That helped businesses take advantage of the Internet and tap into what is now a global supply chain of goods, services, ideas – and customers. Ever since, IT has guarded against a return to that chaos of incompatibility and inconsistency.”

“People bought ‘best of breed’ tools that didn’t work well together. That was OK at first, before corporate networking, much less the Internet, took off, and sneakernet – sharing information via paper memos and in meeting presentations – was the communications channel for most. As soon as real networks and the Internet became common, it became painfully clear how siloed businesses were, how incompatible data and processes were, and how much labor was involved in making the work products and technologies compatible across the systems.”

So, it’s perhaps no wonder IT’s nervous of what consumerisation may bring/is already bringing.  Now, the Economist Intelligence Unit has played down the impact of consumerisation,  describing it as an opportunity, not a threat.

Gruman concludes his piece like this: “Consumerisation can be a catalyst for IT to get rid of the legacies that bedevil it, as well as the unnecessary silos that have grown over time. That should create space for the value-added aspects of consumerisation’s diversity of apps, OSes, and devices, and even reduce the effort spent on the endpoint and low-level activities.”

The issues will be discussed at a forthcoming Corporate IT Forum ‘summit’ which will balance real-world user experience with supplier expertise, and present case studies, master classes, Q&A sessions and technical surgeries. You can view the Agenda here

Corporate IT Forum site

Can officials stop TPP offering gifts to GPs?

By Tony Collins

On 13 July 2011 CSC gave this written assurance to NHS Connecting for Health at its headquarters in Leeds.

“CSC can confirm that its subcontractor TPP will no longer be sending out letters to practices offering  gifts in return for organising demonstrations of SystmOne.”

TPP has continued to offer gifts, and the Department of Health is now concerned enough to divulge the letters it has sent to CSC.

It can do little more, for GPs are not bound by NHS rules on the acceptance of gifts.

NHS Connecting for Health became involved after TPP sent out a letter in April 2011 offering tea at The Ritz or two tickets to a West End show of the GP choice.

“All we ask for in return is a short slot at your [local practice manager] meeting so we can demonstrate the benefits of SystmOne,” TPP said. “We’re [sic] a proven system and a real alternative to EMIS and Vision. With a third of the country’s patient records and more than 90,000 users, SystmOne is the leader in hosted clinical systems.

“Following recent success in the London area, TPP are looking to sponsor local practice manager meetings. We’ll provide lunch and refreshments for all your attendees. As a thank-you the organiser of the event will will also receive afternoon tea at The Ritz or two tickets to a West End show of their choice …Don’t wait around for an alternative that might not arrive – SystmOne is available, right here, right now…”

SystmOne is supplied to the NHS by CSC under the National Programme for IT, at a cost to taxpayers that remains confidential under NPfIT contracts. GPs can also buy the system directly under GP Systems of Choice. Some PCTs are said to be putting pressure on GP practices to replace existing systems with SystmOne.

Three months after TPP’s “tea at The Ritz” letter, on 6 July 2011, NHS Connecting for Health’s Programme Director, GP IT, wrote to CSC.

Dear Sirs

GPSoC [GP Systems of Choice] Marketing Activity by Subcontractor (TPP)

It has come to the attention of the Authority [Connecting for Health/Department of Health] that TPP have been sending letters to practices which include offers of gifts in return for organising meetings of practice managers  during which SystmOne would be demonstrated. The gifts on offer include tea at The Ritz, two tickets to a West End show and £50 of Marks and Spencer vouchers.

The activities being carried out by TPP state that they are in relation to the provision of SystmOne through GP Systems of Choice. As the Supplier of SystmOne under the Framework Agreement, the Authority requests that CSC review these activities and provides a response to the Authority, by no later than 13 July, to advise whether TPP, as their subcontractor, will be continuing with such activity.”

CSC’s Primary Care Product Executive replied on 13 July:

“CSC was not aware of such activities being undertaken by TPP and immediately entered into dialogue with TPP.

CSC can confirm that its subcontractor TPP will not be sending out letters to practices offering gifts in return for organising demonstrations of SystmOne.”

In December 2011 Campaign4Change learned that TPP was offering £25 Marks and Spencer vouchers to GPs in return for a “short slot at your meeting so we can talk to you and demonstrate the benefits of SystmOne”. By that time TPP put the number of its users at more than 100,000.

We asked the Department of Health in December 2011 whether it approved of TPP’s incentives. It replied:

“We were made aware and asked the supplier about this activity. The supplier has subsequently confirmed that they have ceased offering incentives to GPs.”

Then we learned of a TPP offer of Hotel Chocolat chocolates.

“Happy Christmas and a Happy New Year from TPP.

“To find out why 1800 GP practices have already moved to SystmOne, just call me on the number below to book your short GP demo. Book before 24th December to get a box of Hotel Chocolat chocolates on the day of your demonstration…”

This month, February 2012, TPP sent out this message:

TPP sponsorship for your practice meeting

“TPP are looking to sponsor your practice manager meeting! We’ll provide lunch and refreshments for all of your attendees. As a thank-you, the organiser of the meeting will also receive £25 Marks and Spencer vouchers! All we ask for in return is a short slot at your meeting so we can talk to your attendees and demonstrate the benefits of SystmOne to those practices not yet using it. Anyone that books a SystmOne demonstration on the day of the meeting will also recieve £25 Marks and Spencer vouchers!

“You already know all the great reasons to move to SystmOne, why not share them with other practices in your area? The more practices that move to SystmOne, the more benefits you’ll see.

“To arrange sponsorship for your next meeting and take advantage of this great offer, just contact us on the number below or reply to this email.”

We asked DH why it had suggested that the gift offers had ceased when they hadn’t. Its reply:

“The Department contacted CSC (as the GPSoC supplier) about this activity by their subcontractor TPP. CSC confirmed that TPP would cease offering gifts to GPs in return for organising demonstrations of SystmOne. We have contacted CSC about TPP’s position which is not in line with the assurances previously provided.”

We also asked the DH why it was concerned about the gifts. It did not reply directly but sent us copies of the letter it had sent to CSC, and CSC’s reply.

Is the DH powerless to stop TPP offering gifts?

TPP told Pulse this week:  “We momentarily stopped offering the incentives over Christmas but will be resuming during February … The incentives were offered only to GPs and practice managers and were completely optional.

“Our ‘Tea at the Ritz’ offer actually costs considerably less than the cost of catering for such a practice meeting. We at TPP appreciate that GPs and their staff are extremely busy and so any thank-you gifts we offer staff are simply that, a thank-you for an hour or two of their time.”

CSC has made no comment.

Pulse reports that the GP Systems of Choice framework agreement prohibits software providers from offering gifts to any servant of the authority or a PCT. The ban does not include GPs because they do not sign the framework. Suppliers can offer gifts to GPs without breaching the framework agreement says Pulse.

It quotes Dr Charlie Stuart-Buttle, a former chair of the EMIS user group and a GP in Tonbridge, Kent, as saying the incentives were an unacceptable way of going about things. It also quotes Dr Trefor Roscoe, a GP in Sheffield and former medical IT consultant, as saying the incentives were not a problem as long as the GPs felt the system in question was worth demonstrating in the first place.

Comment

Some will say that GPs are bombarded with offers of freebies from drug companies. So why does it matter if an IT company offers gifts?

Another argument is that drugs are different. GPs can stop offering drugs that become too expensive. They cannot simply stop using a GP system. It’s a big decision for any GP practice to choose a new system even with subsidies from the Department of Health under GP Systems of Choice GPs, while the GPSoC framework lasts. Any new GP system is likely to be a long-term commitment because of the disruption of changing.

GPs should surely choose their IT supplier on the basis of the facts and after shortlisting suppliers.

We dislike the expression “level playing field” but if applied here it would mean that GPs chose new systems only after demos at which all shortlisted suppliers offered tea at the Ritz or Marks and Spencer vouchers to certain GPs.

Alternatively the suppliers could agree that none offers gifts.

IT company’s tea at The Ritz offer to GPs.

Pulse article on TPP incentives

Are PCTs putting GPs under pressure to switch to SystmOne?

Veterans Affairs lines up contractors for landmark health records IT project

By David Bicknell

A US IT project is being developed to provide  US military veterans with instant electronic access to their health and benefits information and other services.

According to Federal Times, the Veterans Affairs Department is now working with companies it already has on a $12 billion information technology contract to help it develop the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Health Record (VLER)

Last July, Veterans Affairs awarded 14 contractors, including CACI, Harris and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services, a place on the departments Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology( T4) programme. The 15th and final spot is reported to have gone to SAIC.

Under the “five-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity task-order contracts”, vendors will provide program management and strategy planning, systems and software engineering, and other support.

The T4 contract has already been the subject of multiple bid protests – presumably because it appears so lucrative – including one filed last year Standard Communications in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

According to Federal Times, “nearly 39,000 US military veterans in 12 regions across the country — including Indianapolis, Richmond, and San Diego — have signed up to have their health information shared electronically among the Veterans Affairs, the US Department of Defence (DoD), and private health care providers.

“When participating veterans receive care, their physicians can request their laboratory results and other health data using the Nationwide Health Information Network (NwHIN), a project led by the Health and Human Services Department to provide a secure, standards-based method of sharing health information over the Internet. However, veterans must first agree to have their health information shared.”

The next project milestone for VLER will be this summer when Veterans Affairs and DoD decide how to expand health information exchange pilots nationwide.

Will the project succeed? It’s too early to say, although there are already some suggestions that the project has too many mouths to feed. One comment on the story so far argues that (the project) “has way too many contractors and staff involved. As we say, there are too many chiefs and not enough workers. It’s my bet that we will be talking about the 100 million dollar failure of the EMR at the expense of the US Taxpayers with in the year. They aren’t even getting the right type of people involved in the process. This is mainly a group of systems geeks and executives. They are leaving out the Health Information Management Professionals and the Medical providers…. it’s a boon doogle from the start, but at least the contractors are making money.”

Links

VA announces expansion of Virtual Life Electronic Record

10 Lessons Learned from Linking VLER to private health orgs

Veterans Affairs CIO on VLER progress

Why effective project management should focus on people, not just processes

By David Bicknell

I recently read an interesting post in the Gallup Management Journal which argued that when it comes to project management, most organisations put their practices before their people.

In other words, they place more emphasis on ‘rational’ factors, such as the process itself, and rather less on emotional drivers that could actually deliver project excellence – actually, just a project success would do! – such as their employees’ engagement with the project and company.

The piece, by Benoit Hardy-Vallee, points out that, “Project management is integral to the business world. Milestones, kickoff meetings, deliverables, stakeholders, Gantt charts, and work plans constitute the everyday world of most managers, whether they are called “project managers” or not. Given the vast experience organisations have with project management, it’s reasonable to wonder why all projects aren’t completed on time, on scope, and under budget.”

It argues that cost and time overruns on IT projects have had a profound effect on national economies, and suggests that one estimate of the IT project failure rate is between 5% and 15%, which represents a loss of $50 billion to $150 billion per year in the United States. In Europe, although the figures look pretty dated, they are still staggering in size: IT project failures  cost the European Union €142 billion in 2004.

What’s more, the piece argues, this trend is here to stay. With an ever-growing need for accessible and integrated data, organisations require larger platforms to manage supply chains, customer relationships, and dozens of other crucial systems.

“Mega-software projects are now common in private and governmental organisations, and development is not slowing down, especially in emerging economies.”

The blog argues that large projects, especially those in the IT sectors, already have a poor record. And forcing team members to adapt to project management processes and procedures only makes it more likely that the project will fail.

It goes on to suggest that a different, more powerful behaviour-based project management might be a better way of  enabling project groups to gain higher levels of emotional commitment and performance from their team members, as well as increased levels of emotional involvement from stakeholders to help improve both engagement and performance.

“A typical project management approach focuses on processes, policies, and procedures. Every task and step is described in detail by a set of rules.  Many companies implement rigid processes that dictate behaviour and use statistical methods to control quality (such as total quality management, kaizen, lean management, and Six Sigma). Process guides and rulebooks support work practices, while quality control systems assess and improve these practices.

“The problem with a single-minded focus on processes and methodologies is that once people are given procedures to follow, compliance replaces results. Everybody is concerned about how to do the job, not about the outcome if the job is done well.

“Companies that take this approach do so for valid reasons: They can’t manage what they don’t measure. More importantly, they can’t let projects run without any direction, hoping for the best. However, by relying on managing only these rational factors, organisations fail to harness the power of human nature by engaging employees’ emotions.”

The article concludes: “It’s time to update project management not with more methodologies, but with more emotional content. Employees’ and stakeholders’ disengagement can make a project fail, but behaviour-based management can make projects succeed.”

Gallup Management Journal

Mutuals: a novel means of driving down demand for public services?

By David Bicknell

A recent piece in the Guardian local government network has come up with the intriguing idea that mutuals can help drive down demand for public services.

The article, by Ross Griffiths, a partner at law firm Cobbetts,  suggests that if  as a service user, you are dealing with a provider that is your mutual, you are more likely to think twice about the demands you are making on it, and the effect that might have on the service and other users. It argues that this is the ‘Holy Grail’ of the mutual project – allowing providers to deliver services more cheaply not by making cuts, but by reducing demand.

The piece asks whether in today’s local government, where efficiency must be a big part of any changes to services, this is something that mutual structures can deliver. Or are they, as the article asks, ‘little more than a frivolity that should be saved for less straitened times?’

Links

http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2011/dec/08/new-mutuals-pick-winners

http://www.number10.gov.uk/take-part/public-services/start-a-public-service-mutual/

Part equity models for mutuals could revive outsourcing sector

By Robert Morgan

Few can be in any doubt of the coalition government commitment to worker inclusive mutuals and the potential for not only smaller government as a result but a revival of the outsourcing services industry.  This model acts as a template to appease European workers councils who have long held back the greater use of outsourcing in country like France and Germany.

Headline grabbers like ““Ministers are poised to launch one of the biggest experiments in public sector reform … a John Lewis-style mutual – the first to be created in central government”, and “… three or four more Mutuals THIS year …” and “…1,000,000 public sector workers in Mutuals by 2015” in the Financial Times this week has not been picked by the bulk of the popular press. But they and the continental press soon will.

Francis Maude, Mutualisation’s marketing guru has said of the MyCSP mutual ““I don’t … view this as the ultimate model … we have learnt … The next one should be easier to do”. The award of the MyCSP contract, rumoured to be ten years with a break clause at year seven, will administer 1.5m government pensions, transfer 500 DWP staff into the SPV, see CEO compensation capped at 8% above average employee salary, net profits shared with the supplier but only after 1% going to charity and 1% going to apprenticeships, and employees interests will be represented by an externally advertised director. So part of the model are clear – a new form of privatisation with Jon Lewis style employee participation and share ownership and a “caring” social charter.

But has government learnt from Labour’s disasters in PFI / PPP – you know the £120 to change a light bulb stories. Key questions need answers:

  • To what extent will the mutual be given freedom to operate?
  • At least in the short-term, a mutual remains tied to its public sector background and delivery and is therefore subject to the rigours and constraints of regulation, OJEU and accountability to the Auditor General. Will these restrictions be “officially loosened” any time soon?
  • Everyone agrees that the public sector will continue to shrink and by definition therefore, so will a dependent mutual’s service revenues, this throws up questions on it’s ability to survive – and to attract external revenues, and so …
  • … will the choice of partner be heavily dependent on their demonstrated ability or commitment to develop such services?
  • What penalties are there for NOT securing external business?
  • How might the Mutual formula vary and evolve between different circumstances?

More importantly for the outsourcing industry is, are more commercial models going to spring up and be accepted. The consensus of clients I have spoken to is “yes”, but this needs to be balanced with the fact that there was not a single tier one outsourcer (IBM, CSC, HP) in the short-list for MyCSP.  Demand says “yes” and Supply says “yawn”. 

Robert Morgan, formerly the founder of Morgan Chambers and now director of outsourcing advisory Burnt Oak Partners, is delivering a speech on Part Equity models for commerce on Wednesday 8th February 2012 at Berwin Leighton Paisner – the event is free and tickets can be coordinated via  shan,murad@blplaw.com  – yes it is a comma!

Robert also writes the influential Outsourcing Lex column at

http://www.burntoak-partners.com/viewpoint/outsourcings-lex-column/

Bridging the divide: an engineered approach to IT projects

The State Auditor in California recently criticised a planned high speed rail system between San Francisco and Los Angeles because the project suffered from critical, on-going oversight problems. In this guest blog, Bob Evans, founder and Managing Director of TestIT Software Assurance, explains why it is critical to have a ‘single source of truth’ for any IT development, to provide the required level of cohesion, discipline, control and transparency that should be expected from any engineering project.

The risks associated with developing or changing IT systems are well documented. IT failures always bring despair and reputational damage to all involved.

Do you remember the scene in Blackadder where General Melchett suggested that walking slowly (again) towards the German machine guns would be “the last thing they’d expect” – and so “that’s what we’re going to do”? This seems to be the attitude found in many IT procurements. What’s needed is a fresh, radical and innovative approach, especially in these changed times where senior management focus is on delivery and cost.

Keeping Control

Establishing and maintaining control of an outsourced project is the single, most important part of IT development; it is imperative for the purchaser to remain in full control at all times. In all of the failure scenarios that we have researched, it is obvious in every case that control has been lost, with always calamitous consequences.

The nature of the procurement process and inevitable time pressure means that the requirements of a new software system aren’t always well-defined at project inception. Typically, specifications are incomplete or ambiguous and put together from a range of disparate sources, with non-existent internal process and control. The “silo” attitude that is often encountered across departmental organisations is usually a key factor here.  Requirements that are not made clear at the start of the project will inevitably lead to confusion, delays, additional cost and even to dispute.

And if a contract is awarded on the basis of a flawed specification, the chosen vendor is in a strong position to justify delays and ramp up the costs. When planned schedules are missed and costs spiral out of control, well intended remedial actions can then create new, unforeseen problems, leading to even more rework.

The culture of care and diligence found in many traditional engineering environments is sometimes lacking in the IT industry and in our experience, engineering discipline is usually the first casualty when pressure is applied. Very quickly, the focus shifts to fire-fighting and a project loses sight of its objectives. It’s like building a bridge – but when halfway across, only fitting every other bolt.

 Contrived Tests

It’s no surprise that applications that have seemingly passed an Acceptance Test, when deployed on a live system, prove to be problematic. Validating the effectiveness of an IT system is typically a contrived process – put simply, tests are designed to pass! They would be – they are usually designed, controlled and often even run by the software vendor.

If you were buying a used car from a local garage, you’d get the RAC to come along and check out the mechanics. You wouldn’t even think of asking the mechanic who worked at that garage to do the inspection would you? But invariably this is the case in IT.

As discussed above, it is imperative that full control of the project remains with the purchaser. But without, continual up to date feedback and independent metrics, it’s hard to know what’s really going on. And the critical decision – when to go live – cannot be made with confidence.

Agile Development

The concept of Agile Development has been round for many years. However, it is still to be seen whether this approach can really work on a large, complex project. A properly managed set of sprints – with precise objectives, proper controls and diligent, independent validation at appropriate times may indeed lead to a more rapid and successful conclusion. However, it should be noted that as development continues, the needs of the business will necessarily change. If controls are not adequately maintained, no process – not even “Agile” ones – can keep up. What is delivered is what the vendor believes is required, rather than what is actually required by the business. And no matter what methodology is used for developing software, at the end of the development cycle it is essential to verify, independently and thoroughly, that the product meets the needs of the business.

The Agile Manifesto focuses on “working software over comprehensive documentation”. Documentation is of course often cumbersome. However, minimising the amount of information while maximising the value of the information is what’s really needed.

When it’s too late – and organisations end up mired in a legal dispute, we’ve been called in to play the part of the pathologist. It is soon apparent that the project was doomed from the start – no spec, no metrics, no control, no hope. Suppliers who didn’t listen, purchasers who didn’t actually know what they needed in the first place.

But there is another way. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency recently used independent software assurance to ensure success of its high-profile CERS/SVD project. There was an acknowledgement right from the start that requirements were bound to change and controls put in place to manage this. There were efficient, timely tests – not at the project end, but continuous tests, right from project inception. There was an approach that asked:  “What can we do given the available time and budget?”, rather than the popular “one-shot, whistle and bells” approach. And there was pro-active searching for and identifying issues early on – when the supplier was still on site – which meant that remedial actions were fixed by the supplier, at no additional cost to the project. Independent, constantly updated metrics also meant that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency stayed in complete control.

It isn’t rocket science. But for IT projects, the discipline driven by an engineering-based approach is generally more likely to lead to success. That’s why bridges get built – and IT projects often don’t. 

TestIT Software Assurance

CIOs must lead business change with consumerisation, Cloud focus

By David Bicknell

Some work published by PwC in the US has argued that top-performing U.S. organisations show greater mastery in how they leverage digital technologies by the way they embrace consumerisation, the Cloud and social media.

The management company’s Digital IQ survey says these companies are offering mobile tools for customers, measuring data through social media, mobilising applications to the public cloud and are applying innovative use of business intelligence. It also finds that most enterprises are still playing catch-up on the consumerisation of IT.

PwC believes the CIO plays a critical role in the planning process for increasing a company’s Digital IQ. It argues that CIOs must be excellent at managing the internal factory, but also excel at mobilising new plans into action.  

The Digital IQ findings call for business leaders — and, in particular, today’s CIOs — to lead their organisations to change and innovate from the inside out. The report findings suggest that excellence in IT has not been commoditised and is still differentiating as a competitive advantage. Indeed, IT-enabled, multi-channel connections with customers can make a marked difference to business results. But to succeed, today’s CIOs — and the C-suite more broadly — must excel at not just managing internally, but also mobilising new plans into action.

PwC argues that a high Digital IQ requires the CIO to find better ways to sift through and drive insight from the increasing torrent of data streaming from every manner of device and interaction, and to create a platform that can deliver these capabilities across a varied set of changing mobile devices.

PwC’s survey showed that 63 percent of respondents revealed their greatest challenge is the inability to gather, understand and act on customer data. Fifty-eight percent cite an inability to quickly understand and adopt the new information technologies needed to be competitive.

“Consumerisation of IT is on the rise, and in the Survey we continue to see a need to serve the mobile customer, move to cloud services, and use data more effectively,” said Chris Curran, principal at PwC. “Organisations that have an integrated strategy—which includes technology—seem to perform better.”

For those interested in the consumerisation of IT, the Corporate IT Forum is holding a summit on the subject in London on 22nd February.  You can find out more details here

Transition Institute launches mutuals ‘spin-out’ camps

By David Bicknell

The Transition Institute has come up with a good idea: spin out camps. It plans to hold three over the coming months which will feature networking sessions and practical workshops discussing business design, implementing the business plan and service innovation, all delivered by experts in the field.

The scheduled months for the camps are:

  • North West – March 2012
  • North East – May 2012
  • Midlands – July 2012

Visit the Transition Institute website for more details

Some success in cutting Whitehall costs

By Tony Collins

The coalition government, Cabinet Office, Treasury, departments and agencies have succeeded in cutting central government costs, according to a National Audit Office report published today.

The NAO found that “in particular, large reductions have been made in spending on consultants, temporary staff, property and information technology” in 2010-11.

Departments cut their spend on consultants by £645m in – a real-terms reduction of 37%, said the NAO which also identified “£537m reduced capital spending on IT-related items”.

Unlike some previous reports of the NAO that have questioned the credibility of officialdom’s claims of savings, the NAO’s latest report “Cost reduction in central government: summary of progress” found that the savings claimed by the Cabinet Office, Treasury and government were usually genuine.

Where departments have cut costs by cancelling IT projects or having contracts renegotiated – as opposed to simplifying and streamlining the way they work – the NAO was unsure whether the savings could be sustained.

Said the NAO

“Central government departments took effective action in 2010-11 to reduce costs and successfully managed within the reduced spending limits announced following the 2010 election.

“This resulted in a 2.3% real-terms reduction in spending within departments’ control, compared with 2009-10. Some £3.75bn or around half the reduction was in areas targeted by the Efficiency and Reform Group for cuts in back‑office and avoidable costs.”

Are IT cuts sustainable without a change in working practices?

The NAO said:

 “The fall of 35 per cent in IT capital spend is partly the result of decisions to permanently halt or reduce spending on specific projects, and partly the result of action to reduce the costs of IT products and services including through contract renegotiation.

“However, it is unlikely that IT capital spending will remain at this lower level in total, given the key role of IT and online services in increasing productivity.”

The NAO mentioned the actions of some departments by name.

–          The Home Office cut costs in part by “significant reductions in IT, estates and consultancy spending”.

– HM Revenue & Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence aimed to secure the bulk of cost reductions from within their organisations. HM Revenue & Customs has established comprehensive governance arrangements to reduce costs, with a central team and programme management infrastructure. The Department for Work and Pensions put in place a transformation programme board in May 2011 to oversee the redesign of its corporate centre and broader cultural change. “However, it cannot finalise plans beyond 2011-12 as they depend on the future business model after the introduction of Universal Credit,” said the NAO. The DWP’s finance team has provided ‘What the Future Holds’ updates and interactive briefings for staff.

– The NAO said it “identified strong leadership as a key factor in the success of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s cost reduction efforts”.

– The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Services within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs “held sufficiently detailed information to be able to challenge its project managers to reduce costs without affecting services”. The NAO said the “resulting savings identified from some 200 projects made up 30 per cent of the Agency’s efforts to meet their efficiency savings target”.

In July 2011, the Cabinet Office’s Efficiency and Reform Group reported to the Public Accounts Committee that it had helped save some £3.75bn through various initiatives. “Our analysis of the audited accounts of the 17 main departments confirms that spending in the areas targeted was reduced on this scale”, said the NAO.

Comment

The NAO report shows that within some departments officials are cutting costs by simply reducing grants but some parts of central government are making an effort to do things differently.

We hope the coalition and Cabinet Office keep up the pressure for cost-cutting because, in IT alone, the potential savings are in the billions. The NAO report shows there has been a good start. We hope that the officials who are achieving lasting success will pass on their learning experiences to those who are struggling to make cuts sustainable.

NAO report Cost reduction in central government – a summary of progress