113 Million Pound Website
Discussion
55palfers said:
Please, please don't tell me that this is just for Army recruitment and there is a separate system for RN and RAF!
Wouldn't surprise me.But £495M for a recruitment service!?!?!? What the actual F?????
Our company spent £150 on one of the director's kids to do a pretty decent website, admittedly a small family company, but it has contact forms, 'about us', a gallery, various links, current jobs available, etc. If we really need employees with certain skills that can't be found by word of mouth, we use Indeed or similar for a nominal fee. What is it with gov IT schemes???
Biker 1 said:
55palfers said:
Please, please don't tell me that this is just for Army recruitment and there is a separate system for RN and RAF!
Wouldn't surprise me.But £495M for a recruitment service!?!?!? What the actual F?????
Our company spent £150 on one of the director's kids to do a pretty decent website, admittedly a small family company, but it has contact forms, 'about us', a gallery, various links, current jobs available, etc. If we really need employees with certain skills that can't be found by word of mouth, we use Indeed or similar for a nominal fee. What is it with gov IT schemes???
/sarcasm
tangerine_sedge said:
I totally agree with you! I also dont see why F1 teams have to spend so much money on their cars, why cant they just put some stripes on my diesel Passat and enter that at Monaco? Surely they meet the same requirement?
/sarcasm
It'd probably do quite well, no one can overtake anyway. Couple of engine penalties with other teams which means you'd be ahead of at least two cars at the start and if you can hold em back up the hill to the Casino you'd finish where you started. No points mind. /sarcasm
/sarcasm
tangerine_sedge said:
I totally agree with you! I also dont see why F1 teams have to spend so much money on their cars, why cant they just put some stripes on my diesel Passat and enter that at Monaco? Surely they meet the same requirement?
/sarcasm
It'd probably do quite well, no one can overtake anyway. Couple of engine penalties with other teams which means you'd be ahead of at least two cars at the start and if you can hold em back up the hill to the Casino you'd finish where you started. No points mind. /sarcasm
/sarcasm
Edited by Harry H on Friday 14th December 09:41
Biker 1 said:
Wouldn't surprise me.
But £495M for a recruitment service!?!?!? What the actual F?????
Our company spent £150 on one of the director's kids to do a pretty decent website, admittedly a small family company, but it has contact forms, 'about us', a gallery, various links, current jobs available, etc. If we really need employees with certain skills that can't be found by word of mouth, we use Indeed or similar for a nominal fee. What is it with gov IT schemes???
It is a multi-faceted and quite complex topic.But £495M for a recruitment service!?!?!? What the actual F?????
Our company spent £150 on one of the director's kids to do a pretty decent website, admittedly a small family company, but it has contact forms, 'about us', a gallery, various links, current jobs available, etc. If we really need employees with certain skills that can't be found by word of mouth, we use Indeed or similar for a nominal fee. What is it with gov IT schemes???
But in short they aren't buying a website, they are buying a complex business system with (probably quite deep) security requirements, business process change and then a run cost for (normally) 5 years within that cost.
As I noted the cost was driven by the functional specification, which as with many projects, probably got way "over specified".
Capita are also s
t at IT projects; they will have underbid on the core project believing that would then use the endless change controls from the client to recover their (slim) margins.Put it this way, if it was an attractive project then IBM/Accenture/Deloitte/etc would have won.
tangerine_sedge said:
Biker 1 said:
55palfers said:
Please, please don't tell me that this is just for Army recruitment and there is a separate system for RN and RAF!
Wouldn't surprise me.But £495M for a recruitment service!?!?!? What the actual F?????
Our company spent £150 on one of the director's kids to do a pretty decent website, admittedly a small family company, but it has contact forms, 'about us', a gallery, various links, current jobs available, etc. If we really need employees with certain skills that can't be found by word of mouth, we use Indeed or similar for a nominal fee. What is it with gov IT schemes???
/sarcasm
F1 teams spending loads of money on their cars is the same as MOD spending loads of money on uniforms, etc.
Why does the Army need to spend £113 million on a website?
What exactly is needed that makes it cost that much?
I cant think of any tech or any code that would cost that much to build a bespoke platform that does it all for a few thousand (lets call it £40k for 5 devs) and new servers (£50k again), some of the stuff we build are massively more complex than a website and it doesnt even come close to that kind of money.
You can read more here:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/...
The overall contract with capita was for the whole process of recruiting against a target of soldiers.
e.g. (from 2014 assessment)
17 The Department failed to provide ICT infrastructure critical to the success of
the Army’s Recruiting Partnering Project with Capita. Capita’s performance, agreed
in its contract with the Army, depended on the Department providing supporting ICT
infrastructure for Capita’s new recruitment software by an agreed date. The Department
did not provide this infrastructure which meant Capita could not run the recruitment
process as it had planned to. Capita had to develop an interim approach which
introduced new processes and built on existing recruitment software. This means
poor recruitment performance cannot be distinguished from the impact of ICT failings
and the Army could not implement its performance regime. Capita has, however,
voluntarily agreed to an interim performance regime which is planned to be in place
from June 2014 (paragraph 2.17).
18 The Department’s failure to enable the setting up of new recruitment
software has impacted on recruitment activities and increased costs. Recruitment
software that was to be launched in March 2013 is now not expected to be ready until
summer 2015. In the interim, the Army is incurring increased operational costs of around
£1 million a month. These costs relate to the Army having to use legacy recruitment
systems for longer, support manual ‘workarounds’ by funding extra civilian staff to help
Capita with recruitment activities and pay Capita extra interim operational costs. If Capita
launches the software in summer 2015 as planned, these extra costs are likely to total
some £25 million. These costs do not include the opportunity costs of using additional
soldiers to support the interim recruitment arrangements (paragraph 2.17).
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/...
The overall contract with capita was for the whole process of recruiting against a target of soldiers.
e.g. (from 2014 assessment)
17 The Department failed to provide ICT infrastructure critical to the success of
the Army’s Recruiting Partnering Project with Capita. Capita’s performance, agreed
in its contract with the Army, depended on the Department providing supporting ICT
infrastructure for Capita’s new recruitment software by an agreed date. The Department
did not provide this infrastructure which meant Capita could not run the recruitment
process as it had planned to. Capita had to develop an interim approach which
introduced new processes and built on existing recruitment software. This means
poor recruitment performance cannot be distinguished from the impact of ICT failings
and the Army could not implement its performance regime. Capita has, however,
voluntarily agreed to an interim performance regime which is planned to be in place
from June 2014 (paragraph 2.17).
18 The Department’s failure to enable the setting up of new recruitment
software has impacted on recruitment activities and increased costs. Recruitment
software that was to be launched in March 2013 is now not expected to be ready until
summer 2015. In the interim, the Army is incurring increased operational costs of around
£1 million a month. These costs relate to the Army having to use legacy recruitment
systems for longer, support manual ‘workarounds’ by funding extra civilian staff to help
Capita with recruitment activities and pay Capita extra interim operational costs. If Capita
launches the software in summer 2015 as planned, these extra costs are likely to total
some £25 million. These costs do not include the opportunity costs of using additional
soldiers to support the interim recruitment arrangements (paragraph 2.17).
Eric Mc said:
What is more important here is the fact that we have yet another example of a government inspired "IT Solution" creating problems rather than solving them - and costing way more than it should.
I have always been puzzled why this is so.I worked for 12 years in the (as was) National Blood Service and the IT system was unbelievably good. I don't know how many realise this but each individual donation is tracked by barcode all the way from the donor's arm to the bedside of the patient, through all the complex transport and processing stages. Without a functioning IT system nothing moves and we would be out of blood within 48 hours.
Yet not once in all those years did I witness a single hiccup in this process. In other government run services, including the NHS as a whole, pandemonium seems to reign.
Could it be that the blood service system is run in-house while these terminally disfunctional new regimes seem to be in the hands of outside contractors?
Du1point8 said:
tangerine_sedge said:
Biker 1 said:
55palfers said:
Please, please don't tell me that this is just for Army recruitment and there is a separate system for RN and RAF!
Wouldn't surprise me.But £495M for a recruitment service!?!?!? What the actual F?????
Our company spent £150 on one of the director's kids to do a pretty decent website, admittedly a small family company, but it has contact forms, 'about us', a gallery, various links, current jobs available, etc. If we really need employees with certain skills that can't be found by word of mouth, we use Indeed or similar for a nominal fee. What is it with gov IT schemes???
/sarcasm
F1 teams spending loads of money on their cars is the same as MOD spending loads of money on uniforms, etc.
Why does the Army need to spend £113 million on a website?
What exactly is needed that makes it cost that much?
I cant think of any tech or any code that would cost that much to build a bespoke platform that does it all for a few thousand (lets call it £40k for 5 devs) and new servers (£50k again), some of the stuff we build are massively more complex than a website and it doesnt even come close to that kind of money.
Don't get me wrong, I'm suprised that it's cost so much, but if that was the winning bid, then that tells me that several other suppliers thought it was even *more* expensive to deliver than the winner... by the sounds of things the other bidders were probably correct.
don'tbesilly said:
but has failed to hit soldier recruitment targets every year since.
The very fact there is a "soldier recruitment target" tells you everything you need to know!This isn't the Xfactor lets face it. The way to get more people to join the army has nothing to do with marketing and websites!
Vaud said:
55palfers said:
Please, please don't tell me that this is just for Army recruitment and there is a separate system for RN and RAF!
Inefficiencies and duplication are rife in the services. Edited by Guybrush on Friday 14th December 13:22
Vaud said:
It is a multi-faceted and quite complex topic.
But in short they aren't buying a website, they are buying a complex business system with (probably quite deep) security requirements, business process change and then a run cost for (normally) 5 years within that cost.
As I noted the cost was driven by the functional specification, which as with many projects, probably got way "over specified".
Capita are also st at IT projects; they will have underbid on the core project believing that would then use the endless change controls from the client to recover their (slim) margins.
Put it this way, if it was an attractive project then IBM/Accenture/Deloitte/etc would have won.
Agreed. Although don't think for a second the big consultancies wouldn't also massively over price everything.Despite this they then went on to sign this after 10+ years of pain.But in short they aren't buying a website, they are buying a complex business system with (probably quite deep) security requirements, business process change and then a run cost for (normally) 5 years within that cost.
As I noted the cost was driven by the functional specification, which as with many projects, probably got way "over specified".
Capita are also s
t at IT projects; they will have underbid on the core project believing that would then use the endless change controls from the client to recover their (slim) margins.Put it this way, if it was an attractive project then IBM/Accenture/Deloitte/etc would have won.
I worked alongside Accenture on the HR stuff and the amount they charged for the smallest customisation was eye-watering. Unilever brought my old employer (small consultancy) in to do some work and then found out that in the small print Accenture would charge for receiving our customisations, using a cost model that made them the cheaper option.
A truly awful experience for all involved.
dazwalsh said:
It just goes to show that “austerity” didnt go far enough if this senseless waste still continues.
Im all for outsourcing in the right areas but why MOD recruitment??, surely this can be done in house and run a few tv ads at a tenth of the cost of the shambles Capita have made of it.
Typical Tory cost-cutting. Pisses people off and achieves nothing.Im all for outsourcing in the right areas but why MOD recruitment??, surely this can be done in house and run a few tv ads at a tenth of the cost of the shambles Capita have made of it.
wiggy001 said:
Agreed. Although don't think for a second the big consultancies wouldn't also massively over price everything.Despite this they then went on to sign this after 10+ years of pain.
I worked alongside Accenture on the HR stuff and the amount they charged for the smallest customisation was eye-watering. Unilever brought my old employer (small consultancy) in to do some work and then found out that in the small print Accenture would charge for receiving our customisations, using a cost model that made them the cheaper option.
A truly awful experience for all involved.
I've worked in IT services on the provider side since 2003 (bid management, solution architecture, etc)... trust me, I know.I worked alongside Accenture on the HR stuff and the amount they charged for the smallest customisation was eye-watering. Unilever brought my old employer (small consultancy) in to do some work and then found out that in the small print Accenture would charge for receiving our customisations, using a cost model that made them the cheaper option.
A truly awful experience for all involved.
At the point of tender/RFP/contract the margins are slim. Even a level of open book in some cases. Everyones structural costs are broadly similar for onshore delivery (though offshore ratios vary). Most will sign based on a minimal viable profit rate - but you are right they make it make on either change requests (especially Accenture), minimal meeting of SLAs, renegotiation of SLA/goals based on the buyer being too disorganised and not want to re-tender, etc and of course, cross selling of other projects.
My general point is the supplier is always the fall guy but keeps their mouth shut about institutional failings because they want to be considered for the next contract.
Outsourcing doesn't solve everything (though we only hear about the failures, there are very good projects in the market, but then nor does insourcing - the same internal buying behaviour applies, except then you have civil servants performing the role with even less incentive to complete.
dazwalsh said:
It just goes to show that “austerity” didnt go far enough if this senseless waste still continues.
Im all for outsourcing in the right areas but why MOD recruitment??, surely this can be done in house and run a few tv ads at a tenth of the cost of the shambles Capita have made of it.
Hello, Im all for outsourcing in the right areas but why MOD recruitment??, surely this can be done in house and run a few tv ads at a tenth of the cost of the shambles Capita have made of it.
21st century here.
We just wanted to let you know that the majority of 18-25 olds are not watching TV.
They're online, watching subscription based services like Netflix that don't show commerical advertisement. When they do see an advert for something; its usually on facebook, twitter, instagram or snapchat. And when they click on it, they're going to need to be directed to a website. And they're going to want to sign up online.
And since its the British Armed Forces, they're a big target for foreign states with very capable cyber warfare divisions. So this website, thats signing up people; and managing their applications online, needs to be very secure. Wouldn't want hostile states getting nice and easy access to who's signing up.
Seriously tho; defence procurement is always a license to print money for the companies that supply the service or goods.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff