FBI chooses Accenture for IT project to modernise its HR systems

By David Bicknell

Yesterday I mentioned the challenges that the FBI is having in bringing a case management IT project in on time.

It’s good to know then that the FBI will now be assisted in its ongoing delivery of IT by Accenture.  Not for the case management project, but for an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system  to support the FBI’s Human Resources Information System (HRIS).

The award, under a  General Services Administration IT schedule that provides technology support services to the FBI through a ‘Blanket Purchase Agreement’ (BPA) plus four task orders’ will enable Accenture Federal Services to oversee selection, installation, testing and support to the agency’s HR systems.  Accenture also will complete a fit gap analysis to determine possible future costs to replace the FBI’s current HRIS systems.

Accenture said that by modernising its Human Resources information System, the FBI ‘will be able to increase effectiveness and streamline processes. These improvements will help the FBI develop a modern, on-demand system for accessing personnel information.’

The contract, which includes one base year with four option periods, also requires Accenture to submit a report with recommendations the FBI can use to determine whether to customise software, re-engineer business processes or combine both options to support future needs.   
 
Accenture, as its press release puts it, will also be ‘eligible to receive additional task orders under the BPA.’
 

Agile approach ‘reduces risk’ but offers no delivery guarantee for FBI as Sentinel project slips again

By David Bicknell

A recent story by the US magazine InformationWeek Government has cast some doubt over whether a move to Agile development will necessarily bring IT projects in on time and to budget, despite the best intentions. Sometimes other technology factors, such as legacy hardware, come into play.

The report says an FBI project to develop a digital case-management system to replace outdated, paper-based processes has been further delayed, despite a move to use Agile development to hasten the project’s completion.

The system, dubbed Sentinel, is now due to go live in May, eight months later than the FBI planned when it embarked on the Agile development plan.

It follows a number of delays going back to 2006 in the plans to build a replacement for the FBI’s 17-year-old Automated Case Support system, which is used by agents and analysts to manage their cases.

 In 2006, Information Week Government reports, the FBI awarded Lockheed Martin a $305 million contract to lead development of Sentinel, but took back control of the project in September 2010 amid delays and cost overruns.

Then, the FBI said it planned to finish Sentinel within 12 months using Agile development. But that worked has slipped (the FBI had earlier pushed Sentinel’s deployment from September 2011 to January 2012), and a four-hour test of the system in October resulted in two outages, according to a report by  the Inspector General released in December which contains details of the Agile development’s sprints’ progress.

The FBI said the glitches  were down to overburdened legacy computer hardware and said the hardware will need to be upgraded to support Sentinel’s use across the agency, according to the Inspector General.

The report’s conclusion says:

The FBI’s transition to an Agile development approach has reduced the risk that Sentinel will either exceed its budget or fail to deliver the expected functionality by reducing the rate at which the FBI is spending money on Sentinel and by instituting a more direct approach to the FBI’s monitoring of the development of Sentinel.

!When we provided our initial draft of this report to the FBI in October 2011, we expressed concern that the rate at which the FBI was developing Sentinel’s functionality indicated the project was at risk of falling behind the FBI’s then planned January 2012 deployment date.

“In December 2011, after we completed our fieldwork for this report and after we provided the FBI with a revised draft report, FBI officials told us that the FBI extended the Sentinel deployment date to May 2012. While we have not had the opportunity to fully review the FBI’s plan to meet these revised completion dates, we continue to believe it will be challenging for the FBI to meet this latest goal for deploying Sentinel to all FBI users in this timeframe.

“It is too early to judge whether the FBI’s Agile development of Sentinel will meet its newly revised budget and completion goals and the needs of FBI agents and analysts. While the Sentinel Advisory Group responded positively to the version of Sentinel it tested, results from wider testing were not as positive. Also, none of the Agile-developed Sentinel has been deployed to all users to give them the ability to enter actual case data and assist FBI agents and analysts in more efficiently performing their jobs.

“Despite the FBI’s self-reported progress in developing Sentinel, we are concerned that the FBI is not documenting that the functionality developed during each sprint has met the FBI’s acceptance criteria.

“Our concerns about the lack of transparency of Sentinel’s progress are magnified by the apparent lack of comprehensive and timely system testing. Our concerns about the lack of transparency also extend to Sentinel’s cooperation with internal and external oversight entities, to which Sentinel did not provide the necessary system documentation for them to perform their critical oversight and reporting functions. We believe that this issue could be resolved, at least in part, with a revision to the FBI’s Life Cycle Management Directive to include standards for Agile development methodologies.”

Responding to the report the FBI said:

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appreciates the opportunity to review and respond to your draft report entitled, “Status of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Implementation of the Sentinel Project.”

“We are pleased with your conclusion that, by adopting an Agile development approach, the FBI bas “reduced its rate of spending on Sentinel” and instituted a more “direct approach to monitoring the development of the system’s functionality.”

“Indeed, as the FBI’s figures included in this Report demonstrate, while we have expended only 52% oftbe Agile development budget of$32.6 million. as of December 6 we had completed 88% of the required system functionality. The percentage of functionality completed has further increased during the time that has passed since your report was last updated.

“This accomplishment is significant. In mid-2010, the FBI charted a new course for completing the remaining two phases oftbe Sentinel program using an Agile development approach, which represented a substantial departure from its prior development activities. As a result, you concluded in this Report that the FBI is “expending significantly fewer dollars per month than it had in Phases 1 and 2 for the project.”

“In sum, we agree with your conclusion that the FBI’s transition to an Agile development approach has “reduced the risk that Sentinel will either exceed its budget or fail to deliver the expected functionality.” As you note, “at this point in time, the FBI does not foresee exceeding the $451 million budget to complete the Sentinel project.”

“With that in mind, we are mindful of the short delay we have recently encountered under our new” Agile” approach. The Sentinel development schedule has recently been extended by two months (from December 2011 to February 2012), and the FBI-wide deployment is now scheduled for May 2012, as described in this Report.

“This modest extension is due primarily to the need to implement a standard five-year “refresh” of computer hardware, so the Sentinel software will provide the required functionality as intended. Indeed, you have determined that, given the pace at which the program has proceeded under the Agile approach over the time period you reviewed, your estimate for completion is essentially the same – June 2012.”

Inspectorate General report

Agile for Universal Credit a good choice

A swift round-up of 2012 previews, mutuals and social enterprise stories

By David Bicknell

The Transition Institute has done a good job of rounding up some of the New Year look-ahead pieces around social enterprise, mutuals and what 2012 has in store for local government, health and social care.

You can see the round up here

Data centre temperatures go up to cut costs and reduce carbon footprints

It’s only a few weeks since the United Nations summit on climate change in Durban at the back end of last year and  I came across this story.

The piece argues that IT managers can save money and reduce their carbon footprint by increasing the temperature in their data centres.

Intel, for example, is reportedly advising its customers to increase the temperature in data centres, arguing that companies can actually save four percent in energy costs for every one degree in centigrade they turn up the heat.

That is because most data centres in Europe run at a temperature of between 19 and 21 degrees centigrade to avoid creating hot spots that might cause equipment to malfunction. The cooling equipment required to maintain that temperature costs around $27 billion a year to run and consumes 1.5 percent of total world power, according to Intel.

Many companies worldwide are now looking at increasing the temperature of their data centres up to 27ºC (80.6ºF), in a move that could help them save costs and reduce their carbon footprint. Facebook has saved over $200,000 a year in energy bills by reprogramming its cooling to run at 81ºF. Microsoft too has saved $250,000 a year by increasing the temperature by just 2-4ºC.

Interesting story – I think there is more to come on this as the year develops though I’d venture to suggest that rightly or wrongly, in today’s austere times, the driver is more likely to be saving costs than reducing the carbon footprint i.e. talk green, mean lean.

Will companies be counting the cost of DIY IT in 2012?

By David Bicknell

I enjoyed this piece by Susan Cramm commenting on what she calls ‘DIY IT projects’ where business executives think they can meet their technology needs more efficiently by circumventing IT.  She suggests that these are almost always a bad idea, but adds that killing the project can be worse.

As she argues, ‘nobody wins in these do-it-yourself projects. The executive who sponsors the project puts his or her reputation on the line by promising outcomes dependent on technologies that he or she is ill-equipped to develop, implement, or manage. The IT executive finds him – or herself powerless, relegated to integration and support tasks without having had adequate resources and time allocated for the project. Meanwhile, the CFO watches dollars flying out the window as the budget for ill-conceived and poorly executed initiatives becomes a moving target.’

With managing consumerisation arguably the hottest topic for IT organisations, I wonder how many business (IT) projects that don’t effectively involve IT will turn out by the end of the year to have been failed projects that in today’s austere times, their companies can ill afford.

ConsumerizeIT

Cloud specialist claims China public sector IT success

By David Bicknell

It’s not too often you see a press release announcing the successful conclusion of a public sector IT project.

But it’s perhaps a sign of the times that there is such an announcement, and that it comes not from the West, but from the East. It’s in China.

China Intelligence which provides virtualisation technology application and cloud computing related consulting services, products, solutions and implementation service in China says it  has completed the third phase of a datacentre virtualisation project for the Hebei Maritime Safety Administration of China.

‘Hebei MSA’ is a governmental agency which oversees all matters related to the safety of the sea, including shipping, of  Hebei Province in the north of China. The project which began in October 2010 was completed in November 2011.

I have to admit I didn’t know too much about China Intelligence, but apparently, it’s a virtualisation and cloud computing specialist and a VMware partner  with a string of Chinese clients, including  the State Grid Corporation of China, China Unicome, China Southern Power Grid, China Life Insurance Group, China Huaneng Group and China Power Investment Corporation.

I have at this stage no way of verifying whether the virtualisation project was as successful as has been claimed, but it’s rather interesting that a Chinese IT services company announces a successful project on PR Newswire.

Perhaps it’s looking for overseas business.

Australia faces public sector IT challenges in 2012

By David Bicknell

It may be early 2012, but it sounds as it if  will be later in the year before the Australian state of New South Wales gets on top of the latest in a series of public sector  IT headaches that are challenging the Aussies.

Last last year, it was the state of Victoria that warned that an extra A$1.44bn of expenditure would be needed on failing IT projects. Now, it looks as  remedial action to try and save a A$386m New South Wales schools administration system will be needed throughout 2012. A$176 million has already been spent for little tangible reward so far.

The  ‘Learning Management and Business Reform (LMBR)’ project for the NSW Department of Education, has already failed to deliver what was promised, which was a system replacing finance, human resources, payroll and student administration systems.

According to reports Down Under late last year, IBM and Accenture are bidding for a multimillion dollar contract to implement the system. Accenture reportedly wrote the business case for the SAP-based system.

The LMBR project has been likened in a YouTube video to root canal therapy or even giving birth to a 20 pound baby – with teeth.

Schools IT scheme ‘a stuff-up’

CSC to change hands in 2012?

By Tony Collins

Techmarketview analyst Tola Sargeant who has followed the NPfIT closely, and particularly the ups and downs of CSC, says the implications for CSC of the government’s tough stance against the company are “dire”. She adds:

“Indeed, we wouldn’t be at all surprised to see CSC change hands in 2012 as a result”.

Maude gets tough 

Within the Department of Health and CSC in May last year executives were confident a new memorandum of understanding under the NPfIT would be signed.

Now the Government, in the form of the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, has declined so far to sign any new deal with CSC. This is the way CSC put it in a filing to the SEC, the US regulators, on 27 December 2011:

“… Since mid-November 2011, the parties [Department of Health, Cabinet Office and CSC) have been engaged in further discussions relating to the MOU [Memorandum of Understanding], which have included discussions regarding a proposed contract amendment with different scope modifications and contract value reductions than those contemplated by the MOU.

“However, CSC recently was informed that neither the MOU nor the contract amendment then under discussion would be approved by the government.

“Notwithstanding the failure to reach agreement, CSC anticipates that the parties will continue discussions in January 2012 regarding proposals advanced by both parties reflecting scope modifications and contract value reductions that differ materially from those contemplated by the MOU.

“As a result of the circumstances described above, CSC has concluded, as of the date of this filing, that it will be required to recognize a material impairment of its net investment in the contract in the third quarter of fiscal year 2012.

“Until CSC and NHS conclude their on-going discussions concerning a possible contract amendment, including any scope modifications and contract value reductions that might be part of any such amendment, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of such impairment.

“However, depending on the terms of such an amendment or if no amendment is concluded, such impairment could be equal to the Company’s net investment in the contract, which, as of November 30, 2011, was approximately £943m ($1.5bn).

“Additional costs could be incurred by CSC depending on the nature of such an amendment, or if no amendment is concluded. The Company is unable to estimate the amount of such additional costs; however, such costs could be material.”

Why the Cabinet Office has left draft MoU unsigned?

The non-signing of a new deal with CSC is the firmest indication so far that the Cabinet Office is prepared to bring a rigorous, independent scrutiny to big IT projects and contracts.

Though the DH had wanted to sign a new deal with CSC, at least to assure continued support and upgrades to the few NHS trusts that have installed CSC and iSoft’s “Lorenzo” patient records system,  Maude is said to have seen a new deal with CSC as rewarding the company for failings in the past.

Also Cabinet Office officials regarded the terms of a new deal with CSC as unattractive. One Cabinet Office official wrote in a memo dated March 2011 that CSC’s proposals would mean a reduction in Trusts using CSC IT from the original number of 220 Trusts to 80.

 “My view is that, on the face of it, while the additional savings are appealing, the offer is unattractive. This is because the unit price of deployment (per Trust) under offer roughly doubles the cost of each deployment from the original contract.

“Ultimately, we [Cabinet Office] are not convinced the [Department of] Health commercial team are approaching this in the best way.”

It is possible that a new deal for signing was put before Maude – and went unsigned. Had any appeal gone to the Prime Minister David Cameron it is highly likely he would have given his full backing to Maude.

David Cameron’s view?

Cameron may be delighted that at least £2bn remains uncommitted to the NPfIT and could be saved by not signing a new deal with CSC.

Conservative MP Richard Bacon, a member of the Public Accounts Committee who has become an authority on the NPfIT, said of CSC’s warning of write-offs on the Programme:

“It was always a worry that the Department of Health was initially keen to sign a new deal with CSC that would have been poor value. Now it seems the Cabinet Office has done its job as an independent scrutineer and has made sure the interests of taxpayers are protected.

“This shows how important it is for the Cabinet Office to have the final say on big Government IT-based projects.”

What does CSC’s plight mean for the NHS?

NHS trusts have long wanted open competitive tendering and now, to a large extent, they have it. More than a dozen acute trusts are likely to tender for major systems replacements this year which is a big increase on the annual rate for past years.

Some iSoft and Cerner sites may also seek to renew contracts or find replacement systems. CSC, which may be lifted of the burden of meeting high-priced NPfIT commitments, may be a strong competitor in the UK health market.

One problem for NHS trusts will be finding enough strong candidates for their shortlists. They may look to the US market – but end up with products that need anglicising, which will be risky process.

Techmarketview says that what is doom and gloom for CSC is an opportunity for others. Rival suppliers “will be cheered by the prospect of more NHS Trusts procuring systems that CSC should have delivered by now”.

Happy New Year from Campaign4Change

By David Bicknell

A Happy New Year to all our readers from both Tony Collins and me. Let’s hope that 2012 brings success in the development of IT projects – and satisfactory resolution for those that weren’t quite so successful – as well as continued progress for Pathfinder mutuals.

I’d like to see the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham’s Schools IT mutual successfully get off the ground early this year, and for another  mutual, Central Surrey Health that I spoke with in 2011 to make the continued business progress its efforts deserve. I hope that all growing, developing and prospective mutuals get all the political and economic support they need to thrive.

I came across a few stories at the end of 2011 from other blogs that made for interesting reading, plus a few Campaign4Change favourites. Here’s a selection:

Taking Stock

Lessons from the GoDaddy Customer Revolt

Top Harvard Business Review Blog posts of 2011

Top 10 Green Business stories

The unavoidable truths about GovIT

Government’s new ICT Plan – the good, the bad, and what’s needed

Agile can fix failed GovIT

Some post-Christmas reading on mutuals

By David Bicknell

It’s a few days after the Christmas closedown and time to browse a few sites and catch up on articles written around Christmas but which possibly got missed in the festive rush.

I liked this piece from Dom Potter, director of the Transition Institute  in the latest issue of Ethos magazine.

He argues that the Public Services (Social Value) Bill currently going through Parliament may have a very real impact on those who work with or deliver public services for years to come.

“The Bill aims to reform the commissioning process undertaken by public sector commissioners to consider how they can maximise the ‘social value’ – the social, economic and environmental wellbeing – of local areas through public procurement,” he says. “The changes in the Bill, should they come into full force, will have a profound impact on the commissioning and procurement of public services in the decades ahead. The focus will shift from the bottom-line price or cost of a service towards the overall value of the outcomes delivered.”

Over the Christmas period, I caught some of the marvellous 1951 film version of Scrooge with the incomparable Alastair Sim in the title role. So with a lack of joy, Christmas spirit and misery in mind, I give you the Shadow Civil Society minister Gareth Thomas, who argues  in this piece that the government’s mutuals project is failing.

Bah, Humbug!