Tag Archives: Francis Maude

NPfIT to be “dismantled” – brick by brick

Posted on 22/09/2011 | 6 comments

By Tony Collins

A Department of Health press release issued this morning is headlined:

                        Dismantling the NHS National Programme for IT

I asked a senior official at the Department what is new in the announcement. The official’s diplomatic reply was simply: “I am not sure how to answer that.”

There is nothing new. There is no evidence in the press release of the Department’s claim that the NPfIT is being dismantled. Negotiations continue with CSC over its £3bn worth of NPfIT contracts and BT’s deals will remain in place.

Spending on the NPfIT has been about £6.4bn so far – and about £4bn has yet to be spent. The Government has succeeded in persuading some in the general public that the NPfIT is dead. The Daily Mail’s front page has the headline:

                                £12bn NHS Computer System is Scrapped

The online version of the story has had more than 460 comments, which suggests it has been widely read.

The actual announcement gives a hint of the conflicting views among civil service and ministers. The first paragraph of the Department of Health’s press release says the NPfIT is being dismantled and the second paragraph praises the scheme.

“The government today announced an acceleration of the dismantling of the National Programme for IT, following the conclusions of a new review by the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority (MPA). The programme was created in 2002 under the last government and the MPA has concluded that it is not fit to provide the modern IT services that the NHS needs. In May 2011 the Prime Minister announced in the House of Commons that the MPA would be reviewing the NHS National Programme for IT. 

 “The MPA found that there have been substantial achievements which are now firmly established, such as the Spine, N3 Network, NHSmail, Choose and Book, Secondary Uses Service and Picture Archiving and Communications Service.  Their delivery accounts for around two thirds of the £6.4bn money spent so far and they will continue to provide vital support to the NHS. However, the review reported the National Programme for IT has not and cannot deliver to its original intent.”

The signs are that the scheme will be dismantled brick by brick – and will be almost completely dismantled by the time the NPfIT contracts with BT and CSC expire in 2013 and 2014.  The coalition has achieved a PR coup with the Daily Mail story because the public has the impression that in these austere times a £12bn NHS IT scheme initiated by Labour has been scrapped.

The reality is that nothing has changed.

Department of Health announcement

6 Comments

Posted in Government IT, NHS, npfit, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

End of NPfIT? – Campaign4Change on BBC R4 Today programme

Posted on 22/09/2011 | 3 comments

By Tony Collins

Link to Campaign4Change audio on BBC R4 Today programme

BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning reported a Daily Mail article that the National Programme for IT in the NHS is being scrapped and that a coalition announcement is to be made this morning.

The Mail says that the money spent on the NPfIT would pay for 60,000 nurses for a decade, and that the scheme will be replaced by a “cheaper alternative”.

It says that there will be a new urgency in “dismantling the scheme”. Campaign4Change told the BBC R4 Today programme this morning that the NPfIT is not being scrapped and that about £4bn has yet to be spent on it. It said that trusts have the freedom to buy their own IT systems but using their budgets. The NPfIT will continue to provide Cerner and Lorenzo systems that are subsidised centrally, which gives the NHS an incentive to continue using NPfIT.

There is a difference of opinion within Whitehall over the NPfIT: that the Cabinet Office takes a rigorously independent view of the NPfIT and wants to wind it down. The Department of Health’s civil servants at a press conference last year justified the spend on the programme and said the contracts with CSC and BT would continue.  Campaign4Change told Today that the Cabinet Office should have the final say, not the Department of Health.

The Government clearly wishes it to be known that the NPfIT is being scrapped but that is not what is happening in practice. Contracts with CSC, which at present are worth about £3.2bn, are unlikely to be scrapped because of the compensation that would have to be paid to the supplier. The contracts may be cut back  by about £800m, though the cost of deployments remaining may double. BT’s contracts worth more than £1bn are also likely to remain.

The Daily Mail says the NPfIT will be “replaced with cheaper regional alternatives” and that the Coalition will “today announce it is putting a halt to years of scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money on a system that never worked”.

“Following an official review, the ‘one size fits all’ IT project will be replaced by much cheaper regional initiatives, with hospitals and GPs choosing the IT system they need.

“And a new national watchdog will be established to ensure such huge sums can never again be thrown away on uncosted projects.”

The decision to accelerate the dismantling of the scheme has been made by Health Secretary Andrew Lansley and Francis Maude, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, says the Mail.

It quotes from what appears to be a leaked memo from the Major Projects Authority of the Cabinet Office which has been reviewing CSC’s contracts.

“The authority said the IT scheme, set up in 2002, is not fit to provide services to the NHS – which as part of austerity measures has to make savings of £20billion by 2014/15.

It concluded: ‘There can be no confidence that the programme has delivered or can be delivered as originally conceived.’

The report is said to recommend that the Government  “dismember the programme and reconstitute it under new management and organisation arrangements”.

It added: “The project has not delivered in line with the original intent as targets on dates, functionality, usage and levels of benefit have been delayed and reduced.

“It is not possible to identify a documented business case for the whole of the programme.Unless the work is refocused it is hard to see how the perception can ever be shifted from the faults of the past and allowed to progress effectively to support the delivery of effective healthcare.”

Daily Mail article on the NPfIT today

Department of Health announcement

3 Comments

Posted in change, Government IT, NHS, npfit, procurement, public sector, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Open Government? Up to a point Lord Copper

Posted on 11/08/2011 | Leave a comment

By Tony Collins

There is much we know about Universal Credit.

Ian Watmore, the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, has told MPs that the project is built on agile methods: it is split into two-to-three-week drops of code. The coding is divided into customer types  – and there are several thousand different types of customer. The simplest cases are those who have lost their job and the complicated ones are people who are in and out of work.

For each customer type the whole IT solution is being developed and is then tested with benefits claimants. Following agile principles, the problems encountered during testing are understood and the software re-coded.

The plan is to go live  with selected customer types by October 2013  – and it’s probably right that nobody in government will guarantee the deadline will be met.

This all sounds impressive but there’s one big drawback:  officials are refusing to release the “starting gate” review on the Universal Credit project.

Every major project now has to undergo a starting gate review to check it’s feasible before money is committed. It’s a good idea – and all credit to the team led by Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude for enforcing it.

But officials are doing their best to stop starting gate reviews being published, even under the FOI Act. Officialdom  has even ignored an MP’s request for the starting gate report on Universal Credit. That MP, Richard Bacon, a Conservative member of the Public Accounts Committee, will pursue the matter.

Why the secrecy? 

It is likely that the civil service doesn’t want to publish starting gate reports for the reasons they don’t want to publish Gateway reviews: they’d rather not be accountable for what they say. If the advice is wrong it can be known years later when those involved have moved on. But the civil service would prefer that assessments of projects are not published while the advice is contemporaneous.

Hence the Department of Health has published Gateway review reports that are several years old. More recent reviews are published in a form that’s so heavily redacted – edited – that they contain no useful information.

Without the publication Gateway reviews,  the media, MPs and the public have no independent information on the progress or otherwise of large IT-based projects and programmes, unless they are scrutinised by the National Audit Office which has only limited resources. Without the publication of starting gates there’s no independent information in the public domain on the feasibility of big public sector projects and programmes.

So much for open government.

Links:

What is a starting gate?

The DH documents that mock open government

Leave a comment

Posted in Agile, Campaign4Change, change, openness and transparency, public sector, public services, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

CSC ambivalent on prospects of new NHS IT deal

Posted on 11/08/2011 | 2 comments

By Tony Collins

CSC is not quite as confident as it was on new NPfIT contracts

CSC is meeting UK Government officials next month to discuss the company’s £3bn worth of NHS IT contracts. It follows a review of the NPfIT contracts by the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority.

It’s likely officials will discuss a major revision of CSC’s contracts – and possibly an end to them. The Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude is thought to favour termination but the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, on the advice of NHS Chief Executive Sir David Nicholson, wants to keep CSC in a revised NPfIT.

Recommendations from the Cabinet Office have gone to David Cameron for a decision.

In a conference call yesterday on the company’s first quarter results CSC’s executives said the outcome of the NHS contracts represented an “elevated” risk factor.  But they said CSC is still on target for signing a new deal.

Mike Laphen, CSC’s Chief Executive, said his company has included in its forecasts about $250m [£155m] of NHS turnover until the end of its financial year in April 2012. Any delay in reaching a new deal in September could affect the $250m forecast said Laphen.

He said: “Right now we are assuming that we are still on target with the MoU [Memorandum of Understanding between CSC and the Department of Health]. We are absolutely staffed up ready to execute. We’ve got the products in the delivery pipeline and we believe we have the demand…”

On its NHS work CSC continues to “execute and deliver against our current commitments across primary and secondary care”. CSC’s iSoft “Lorenzo” remains in production routinely supporting daily operations at three early adopter sites.

“We are progressing delivery modules… including emergency care and outpatient prescribing which are anticipated to be installed at the University Hospitals Morecambe Bay once an agreement is reached with the authority,” said a CSC spokesman.

The company told analysts that for its 2012 financial year “there are still a number of large balls still in the air” which include the NHS contract, integration of iSoft and US government spending. “Our business is sound and we have one of the strongest balance sheets in our industry,” said the company.

UK IT market analysts Techmarketview said CSC’s management team “isn’t quite as confident of a positive outcome [on talks over NHS contracts] as it was a few months ago – and rightly so.”

CSC also noted there had been a “significant shift in the market”  from outsourcing to cloud, though with cloud many companies are still deciding “what they’re going to do, or not do”.

MP contacts No 10 and Cabinet Office on CSC’s NHS IT contracts.

BT slammed over NPfIT value-for-money claim.

Was NPfIT really a programme?

Trust forced to buy NPfIT software or face fine

NPfIT has proved unworkable – BCS

2 Comments

Posted in change, change management, Cloud, Cloud Computing, managing change, NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Big Society Capital launched to help provide investment for mutuals and social enterprises

Posted on 29/07/2011 | Leave a comment

The Government, backed by the High St banks, has launched the Big Society Bank,  to support organisations that invest in the sector, helping them:

  • Provide a greater range of financial services to social sector organisations;
  • Raise more money for onward investment into the sector; and
  • Become more sustainable and resilient themselves.

The bank, to be known as ‘Big Society Capital’ will, the Government says, also be a champion for social investment with policy makers, investors, stakeholders in the sector and the public at large. Venture capital pioneer, Sir Ronald Cohen, will serve as the unpaid, interim Chair of Big Society Capital Limited, the operating company of the group, until it is fully operational.  Nick O’Donohoe, formerly Global Head of Research at JP Morgan, will become Big Society Capital’s first CEO.

The Government insists Big Society Capital will play a critical role in speeding up the growth of the social investment market. Socially orientated financial organisations will have greater access to affordable capital, using an estimated £400million in unclaimed assets left dormant in bank accounts for over 15 years and £200million from the UK’s largest high street banks. Big Society Capital and the four Merlin banks have also come to an agreement on heads of terms for the banks’ £200m investment in the company.

Couple of quotes, first of all from Prime Minister David Cameron:

“When I announced the idea of a Big Society Bank, I wanted to help social enterprises and other groups to grow and expand their vital work. I am delighted that with today’s announcement of the organisation’s first investment, this vision is becoming a reality. I’ve seen the amazing work that Britain’s social enterprises already do to tackle some of our country’s most intractable problems.

“I believe that Big Society Capital will play a major role in injecting significant resources and financial innovation into these social enterprises, while at the same time attracting further funding from charitable foundations, private individuals and other investors. That’s why I wholeheartedly welcome today’s launch and the organisation’s first investment.

And also from Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude:

“There are few moments like this when something happens that can really change the world. We’ve all heard about a small charity or social enterprise sweeping away entrenched local social problems. But we have not seen a significant commitment to help social innovations grow and be implemented on the national stage until now. Big Society Capital will undoubtedly change this and unlock the money that charities and social enterprises need to grow when a big opportunity comes along. This government is proud to support this achievement. I want to thank Sir Ronald Cohen and Nick O’Donohoe and everyone else, including the banks, who have made this a reality so quickly.”

There is more detail on the Cabinet Office website

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, mutualisation, mutuals, public sector, public services, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

MPs to publish report on Govt IT rip-offs – “time for a new approach”

Posted on 26/07/2011 | 2 comments

By Tony Collins

On Thursday the Public Administration Select Committee will publish “Government and IT— a recipe for rip-offs: time for a new approach”.

The report is the culmination of months of investigation by the Committee and its advisers into the way government buys and uses IT.

The Committee’s witnesses included representatives of SMEs who suggested that government IT is dominated by a few large suppliers that charge too much and suppress innovation.

One of the SME representatives, Martin Rice, said the IT industry should apologise.  He told the Committee: “I think the IT industry should  publicly apologise to the citizen for the rip-offs of the last 10 or 20 years.”

He added:
“We are reinventing the wheel and it should not be allowed.  As a taxpayer, I am very angry about this … A lot of these problems have been solved; they are not being brought to the Government because of the oligarchy.  It is not in a profitable interest to bring you these paradigms.  That is why I feel the oligarchy has to stop…”
In written evidence Rice said that prime contractors, being the gatekeepers for some projects, “can and do prevent deployment of innovation that can make subsequent change requests cheap or quick to do as they threaten their lucrative revenue streams”.
Lawyer Susan Atkinson was among those who argued in their written evidence that agile methods can be usefully adopted by departments.

2 Comments

Posted in Agile, innovation, managing change, public sector, public services, reforms, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Cameron needs to ride out Murdoch affair

Posted on 20/07/2011 | Leave a comment

Comment

By David Bicknell and Tony Collins

It would be a pity if David Cameron were forced to stand down over the phone hacking affair. Cameron is the force behind Francis Maude’s reform plans for central government, in particular the plans for finding and implementing innovative ways of cutting costs, mutualisation, simplifying and standardising ways of working and breaking the stranglehold  of the few big IT suppliers to government. Cameron and Maude are trying genuinely to find ways of giving creative SMEs more government work.

Were Cameron to go, Maude would probably be much more isolated. As it is permanent secretaries would be more than happy to see Maude’s reforms melting away, though they would continue to express support for radical change. As the Cabinet Secretary Sir Arnold says in the first episode of “Yes Minister” on Open Government:  “The less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep talking about it.”

The signs we have seen are that Maude and his team are full of good ideas that some senior civil servants in departments would rather talk about than implement. We’ll shortly be publishing a piece on how officials at the Department for Work and Pensions still default to secrecy despite Maude’s attempts to change the mindset of the civil service.

Cameron will make some mistakes. Nobody is perfect. And prime ministers are always at the mercy of a previous Conservative prime minister, Harold Macmillan’s warning of “events, dear boy”.

Even Churchill made mistakes such as the Dardanelles landings. The media loves scalps and Cameron’s opponents will make the most of Murdoch’s woes. We hope for the sake of the reforms of central government – and the huge savings to be made – that Cameron stays.

David Cameron is an asset. His would be a resignation too far.

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, mutualisation, reforms

Tagged , , , , ,

Did officials tell MPs the whole truth on NPfIT payments to CSC?

Posted on 15/07/2011 | 2 comments

By Tony Collins

Conservative MP Richard Bacon wrote to the NHS Chief Executive Sir David Nicholson yesterday warning that a failure to disclose information to the Public Accounts Committee was a “very serious matter”.

Bacon, a long-standing member of the Public Accounts Committee, wrote to Nicholson about advance payments to CSC under the NHS National Programme for IT.

The MP is concerned that the Department of Health did not mention a £200m advance payment to CSC at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on the NPfIT detailed care records systems on 23 May 2011; and the payment wasn’t mentioned in the Department’s subsequent memo to the committee.

Said Bacon in his letter:

“I understand that the advance payment of £200m to CSC was made in April 2011 but the Department of Health’s memo of 7 June 2011 doesn’t mention it. 

“The failure to disclose to the PAC an advance payment of £200m is a very serious matter.  The fact that the payment appears to have happened after 31 March 2011 is scarcely the point.

“What is going on? … 

CSC declared the £200m advance payment in regulatory announcement

CSC has told regulatory authorities in the US that on 1 April 2011, pursuant to the NPfIT contract, the “NHS made an advance payment to the Company of £200 million ($320 million) related to the forecasted charges expected by the Company during fiscal year 2012”.

The payment was reported by E-health Insider last month.

It appears that the Department decided to give the committee details of advance payments to CSC up until 31 March 2011. The undisclosed £200m payment to CSC was made the next day, 1 April.

As the Department of Health wrote to the committee on 7 June there is no clear reason for its choice of 31 March as the cut-off date for informing MPs of advance payments to CSC.

It would not be the first time the Department has withheld the latest information on the NPfIT from what it regards as outsiders, such as Parliament and the media.

When the National Audit Office was investigating the NPfIT several years ago it was not told of the latest Ipsos MORI survey on NHS perceptions of the National Programme.

The Department instead gave the NAO an older and more positive Ipsos MORI survey. The NAO confirmed to me it had not seen the latest survey [which had some negative findings on the NPfIT].  

Today some in the Cabinet Office are exasperated at the disdain with which some officials at the Department of Health – not all – treat outside supervisory organisations such as the NAO, the Public Accounts Committee and the Cabinet Office.

It appears that some in the Department regard these organisations as necessary by-products of democracy that must be tolerated but not encouraged.

Comment:

Major change is unlikely to happen in Whitehall or at least within the Department of Health and NHS Connecting for Health if officials are allowed, with ease, to dismiss their scrutineers with a wave of their hand.

The culture of allowing the DH to withhold the truth about the NPfIT needs tackling. All credit to Bacon and the Cabinet Office for trying to do just that. It’s likely that Katie Davis, the interim health CIO, will also seek to make the DH less introspective and defensive, at least in terms of the NPfIT and health informatics generally.   

**

Bacon’s letter to Sir David Nicholson

This is Bacon’s letter dated 14 July2011 to Nicholson, copied to the head of the National Audit Office Amyas Morse, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee Margaret Hodge, and the Cabinet Office. 

Dear Sir David

NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR IT IN THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

I do not seem to have received a reply to my email of 27 June below.

Making advance payments of any kind at all is wholly at variance with the Department of Health’s long-stated boast that the NPfIT contracts “only pay for delivery”, but let us leave aside this basic point for the moment.

I understand that the advance payment of £200 million to CSC was made in April 2011 but the Department of Health’s memo of 7 June 2011 doesn’t mention it.  The failure to disclose to the PAC an advanced payment of £200 million is a very serious matter.  The fact that the payment appears to have happened after 31 March 2011 is scarcely the point.

What is going on?  Please reply to my email below with its various questions without further delay.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bacon MP for South Norfolk, Member of the Public Accounts Committee

Bacon’s earlier letter to Nicholson, dated 27 June 2011

Dear Sir David

NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR IT IN THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

I am writing following the hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on Monday 23 May 2011, to follow up on two important issues that were raised during your evidence:

1.       ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS

In your supplementary memorandum to the PAC following the hearing you gave a total of advance payments made up to 31 March 2011, in respect of all contracts over the whole period of the Programme, of £2,532m of which suppliers have retained £1,328m. You also identified a further £119 million of advance payments to be earned or refunded.  Since the memorandum was received by the PAC, it has been reported that the NHS made an advance payment of £200 million to CSC in April 2011. http://www.ehi.co.uk/news/acute-care/6971/nhs-made-£200m-april-advance-to-csc

I should be most grateful if you would let me know the answers to the following questions:

1.       Is this report accurate?

2.       Why was this payment was not reported to the PAC, either during the hearing or in the subsequent memorandum?

3.       What was the justification for this payment and what value does it represent to the NHS?

4.       What will happen in respect of this payment if a new memorandum of understanding is not in fact signed with CSC?

5.       I would also be grateful if you would comment on the CSC filing with the US Security and Exchange Commission, which states that in the opinion of the company, if the NHS were to terminate the current contract “for convenience” it would owe fees totalling less than the $1 billion asset value CSC now has on its books for the contract.   How is this consistent with the claim at the PAC  hearing by Ms Connelly that the cost of terminating the CSC deal could “potentially leave us exposed to a higher cost than if we completed as it stands today”?

2. THE COST OF DEPLOYING CERNER MILLENNIUM AT NORTH BRISTOL

Second, I would be grateful if you could comment on the cost of deploying Cerner Millennium at North Bristol, reported in your memorandum as £21 million, including service for 56 months, and on the current expected go-live date.  Specifically:

6.       Can you explain why the delivery date agreed with BT at the contract “reset” was 4th June 2011?

7.       Why it was then revised to 2nd July 2011?

8.       And why it now appears that there is no agreed delivery date at all?

9.       Can you also give your best comparison of the cost of deploying the Cerner Millennium system at North Bristol, with the cost to University Hospitals Bristol of deploying the System C Healthcare Medway system outside the National Programme?  It would appear from media reports that this latter contract includes deployment of functionality including PAS, Accident and Emergency, maternity, theatres, clinical data collection, and a data warehouse and reporting system, as well as integration of third party and current Trust applications.  According to the National Audit Office, the average cost for each new site under the BT South contract is £28.3 million, but the cost of the Medway system to UHB has been reported as £8.2 million over seven years. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2011/may/19/university-hospitals-bristol-foundation-trust-awards-e-patient-contract)   What is the justification for this apparent difference?

10.   As the Senior Responsible Owner for the National Programme, can you give your explicit undertaking that the North Bristol contract represents value for money for taxpayers?

I look forward to receiving your reply.

With many thanks

Yours sincerely

Richard Bacon

2 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, improving communications, NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Firecontrol shows how much Major Projects Authority is needed

Posted on 07/07/2011 | Leave a comment

When an investigative team from BBC File on 4 went to a business estate near Taunton, they saw an empty “hi-tech fortress” that looked like a NASA control room.

Nobody was working there. Nearly an entire wall of the control room was fitted with 50-inch monitors – 20 of them. They were blank.

That centre – and a further eight purpose-built buildings like it – remain empty because control room software has yet to be installed.

The £469m wasted on the centres and the failed IT project to support them – together called Firecontrol – was the subject yesterday of a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mistaken recommendation

At the hearing Sir Bob Kerslake, Permanent Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, said that officials made a “mistaken” recommendation to go-ahead of a new IT and control centres for fire services.  

Kerslake accepted points made the Committee’s chair Margaret Hodge that officials recommended the go-ahead of the Firecontrol IT project without reliable figures on likely costs, savings or benefits

No finalised business case or project plan 

Also absent when the IT procurement went ahead was a finalised project plan or business case, MPs heard yesterday. The full business case for Firecontrol wasn’t published until June 2007, three years after the start of the IT project. A revised business case was published in 2009, the year before the project was cancelled. 

Rush to buy new systems – as with the NHS IT scheme

The Committee was told that procurement of new systems was underway by May 2004, amid a deep level of ignorance, because officials were in a rush.

It was a similar story on the NPfIT: officials were in a hurry to complete the procurement of new systems. And as with the NPfIT, there was no local buy-in. “Firecontrol was flawed from the outset because it did not have the support of the majority of those essential to its success – its users,” said the NAO.

Local fire services were under no statutory duty to use the regional control centres. As with the NPfIT, central government officials thought they could persuade local services to use the centres. They failed.

Firecontrol has lost a minimum of £469m, according to the NAO. The Department cancelled the scheme in December 2010 because of continued uncertainties. The coalition has approved a new project due to cost about £84m – which prompted MPs to ask yesterday why the original scheme could not have been done much cheaper.

What about the officials who made the flawed recommendation to go ahead?

Margaret Hodge, chair of the committee, asked Kerslake why his department did not seek a “ministerial direction” before embarking on a project that was so flawed. Ministerial directions are issued by departments’ most senior civil servants when they disagree with their minister’s decision so strongly that they refuse to be accountable for it.

Kerslake replied that no ministerial direction was issued because it was officials who were recommending the project’s go-ahead.

Said Kerslake: 

“I don’t think it came to that [Ministerial Direction] because the view of officials was to recommend, with some of issues identified as concerns, that the scheme went ahead. This was not a case where a Direction would have applied because the recommendation from officials, as I understand it, was to go ahead with the scheme.”

MPs heard that Kerslake was a non-executive director at the department when the decision was taken to go ahead with Firecontrol. Didn’t he object to the scheme’s approval?

Kerslake said he raised concerns to the board about the large scale of the investment compared to the problem. “The concern I had at the time, whether fire and rescue services were willing to take on this technology, were all points that were discussed. The view of the officials on balance at the time was that the benefits of doing the scheme outweighed the risks and costs.”

Kerslake said that as a non-executive he was on the board in an advisory role.

Conservative MP Richard Bacon, a long-standing member of the committee, asked Kerslake if his scepticism as a non-executive was recorded.

“It was clearly part of the discussion. I have not gone back and checked every note of the meetings.”

Comment:

MP Richard Bacon suggested yesterday that the only accountability for the failure of the project was Sir Robert Kerslake’s having an uncomfortable two hours before the Public Accounts Committee.

As for his officials, the only accountability for the waste of £469m was to sit in seats behind him, periodically passing him notes. An observer at the hearing said public seats in the committee room “seemed to be packed full of advisers passing notes to the four people hauled before the committee”.

It’s a civil service tradition that officials are not generally held responsible for recommendations because the final decision on major projects is taken by the department’s minister; yet ministers will tend to know only what they are told by department’s civil servants. 

If the officials are incompetent in drawing up their recommendations, they may be incompetent in the briefings they give their ministers.

Even so it would be a brave minister who rejected the recommendation of permanent and supposedly expert staff.

That’s why the coalition’s setting up of the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority is such a good move: it will challenge departmental complacency and over-confidence in its own abilities and decisions. 

Cabinet Office Francis Maude announced on 31 March 2011 that “from today all major projects will be scrutinised by the new Major Projects Authority”. 

Most importantly it has powers from the Prime Minister to oversee and direct the effective management of all large-scale projects. Though there are still uncertainties among Cabinet Office officials about the extent to which the Major Projects Authority can intervene in major projects, it has an enforceable mandate from Cameron to scrutinise proposals for major projects; and the Authority is run by the redoubtable Australian David Pitchford who reports to the Cabinet Office’s Chief Operating Officer Ian Watmore whose brief includes making efficiency savings.

With the Major Projects Authority central government has the chance to stop flawed projects such as Firecontrol going ahead. Yesterday’s PAC hearing showed how badly the Authority is needed as an independent challenge. The existence of the Authority is one of the most important developments in government IT for decades – provided it makes effective use of the PM’s mandate. 

Firecontrol chiefs list reasons for project’s collapse.

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, npfit, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

FireControl – should PA Consulting share some responsibility for what happened?

Posted on 01/07/2011 | 4 comments

By Tony Collins

The defence and aerospace supplier EADS is widely regarded as the main supplier of the FireControl project which was cancelled in December 2010, with wasted costs of at least £469m.

But did the project have too many consultants, some of whom were  accountability-free? The question is raised by report published today on FireControl by the National Audit Office.

Says the report:

 “The implementation of FiReControl was heavily reliant on consultants and interim staff, who contributed around half the Department’s [for Communities and Local Government] project team at a cost of £68.6m, over three-quarters of the total spend on the national team supporting the project.

“PA Consulting was contracted to provide consultancy services at a cost of £42m to the end of March 2011. Its staff held key positions throughout the project, including the Project Manager, one of only two senior members of the team who remained on the project throughout its duration.

“Despite the Department’s reliance on consultants, there was no framework to assess their performance until the end of 2008, when the National Audit Office recommended that the Department’s contracts with consultants should include mechanisms to enable regular objective monitoring of performance, such as performance indicators and key milestones.

“Without such mechanisms, the Department was unable to determine whether or not the services provided offered value for money.

“A review of the FiReControl project by the Office of Government Commerce in 2008 similarly found that some consultants in key management roles did not have a level of authority matching their responsibilities, which led to decisions being referred to others.

“Other consultants were found to hold a disproportionate (and accountability-free) amount of authority. In response, the Department reviewed its use of consultants and interims within FiReControl and reduced the number employed, leading to a fall of 24% in consultancy costs between 2008-09 and 2009-10, and a further fall of 26 per cent in the following year.”

The failure of the FireControl project – and many other central government IT-based programmes dating back decades – shows the need for independent challenge as projects progress or otherwise.

Gateway reviews are independent reports on the state of a project but they appear to be ignored if they’re too critical, as in the cases of FireControl and the Rural Payments Agency’s Single Payment Scheme; and the Gateway review reports are secret – even today – so there is no outside pressure on departments to act on them.

What’s to be welcomed is the intervention of the Cabinet Office in major projects. FireControl systems could have been delivered. They could have worked. But there were too many missed deadlines and continuing uncertainties, as the NAO points out in today’s report.

The Cabinet Office’s major Projects Review Group, as it was then, said the FireControl contract should be ended – and it was a few months later, amicably, in December 2010.

All credit to the NAO for naming PA Consulting, as well as the main supplier EADS.

NAO report on FireControl.

What FireControl and NPfIT have in common.

FireControl disaster blasted by unions

4 Comments

Posted in legal disputes, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,