113 Million Pound Website
Discussion
BoRED S2upid said:
Someone needs to start one of those petitions along the lines of stop giving Capita government contracts immediately it would reach 100,000 signatures over night. Why continue to pay them when they fail to hit a target?
You crack on: https://petition.parliament.uk/helpGuybrush said:
Remove the word 'services' and replace with 'public sector', then you'll be spot on. (I know Capita are not public sector, but the problem is with the public sector: poor specifcations, moving goalposts, weak negotiating, etc.)
It's a problem with corporatism, public sector or not. Max_Torque said:
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!
Why have you written something yourself and then attributed the post to me?
Was it then to make your response which was in fact made to yourself make you look clever?
JPJPJP said:
£113m website
I would have been shocked if it had been as much as £113k
Crazy world
While I don't justify the cost, I think to call it a web site is over simplifying but it is a handy journalistic tag. There will be a web "front end" the cost goes into the back end systems that enable that front end.I would have been shocked if it had been as much as £113k
Crazy world
Vaud said:
While I don't justify the cost, I think to call it a web site is over simplifying but it is a handy journalistic tag. There will be a web "front end" the cost goes into the back end systems that enable that front end.
True. But why allow crapita to spend so much when there are dozens already available with proven track records that could have used to far better effect & value for money?E.g https://www.ibm.com/us-en/marketplace/talent-acqui...
JPJPJP said:
Vaud said:
While I don't justify the cost, I think to call it a web site is over simplifying but it is a handy journalistic tag. There will be a web "front end" the cost goes into the back end systems that enable that front end.
True. But why allow crapita to spend so much when there are dozens already available with proven track records that could have used to far better effect & value for money?E.g https://www.ibm.com/us-en/marketplace/talent-acqui...
Max_Torque said:
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!
There is a place for marketing in recruitment for the armed forces. If you want to attract people, you need to let the people know what you do and what the rewards are. It is not obvious to the public, what a junior rank gets from the army. There are perceptions that you are "cannon fodder", "you get shouted at all day" blah blah.
Sadly it appears the marketing folk in Capita don't know what the army offers because they are probably cubbly media studies types who's playing of CoD is the nearest they got to a soldier. The latest campaigns have been abysmal to the point that Snr Officers have as much as admitted it. They have been met with dismay amongst the ranks. The whole BAME/Sexuality appealing commercials have done exactly the opposite o the intent, which was to reassure that BAME soldiers or soldiers of non-traditionally recognised sexuality they will not be treated differently. By making a TV commercial about it only re-enforces stereotypes that minorities will be treated differently. The reality is, no-one gives a s
t, if you can do your job.Then there is the issue of what is called the "Glide Path" of application to starting training being nearly a year. A f
king year to get someone to fill out an online form, see a doctor and go to the assessment centre. Jesus Christ!In a year, a young person could go through all manner of life changes in a year which might dissuade them from completing the process. This is especially more likely if that candidate has not been exposed to real life information from a marketing campaign.
The Navy and RAF dropped the computer system as soon as they realised it was problematic. The Army persevered.
As quite rightly pointed out earlier, the website is the tip of the iceberg. THe candidate interface seems to work. There were massive issues with the army recruiter interface and the data base which resulted in the loss of months worth af applications.
Capita made a right pigs ear of it, but the Army should carry some of the blame. They are s
t at defining scope for project and the 2yr posting and promotion cycle means there is limited continuity and some just sit it out.Vaud said:
JPJPJP said:
£113m website
I would have been shocked if it had been as much as £113k
Crazy world
While I don't justify the cost, I think to call it a web site is over simplifying but it is a handy journalistic tag. There will be a web "front end" the cost goes into the back end systems that enable that front end.I would have been shocked if it had been as much as £113k
Crazy world
Total cost is about 4m
98elise said:
That doesn't even begin to justify the cost. I'm currently involved in a project for a major household name. It has a web front end, a mobile solution (is separate app), and interfaces to suppliers systems and other business systems.
Total cost is about 4m
Without knowing the functional spec defined by the MOD, the split of app dev/run/infra, how much is people process, etc we are just guessing... Total cost is about 4m
Vaud said:
98elise said:
That doesn't even begin to justify the cost. I'm currently involved in a project for a major household name. It has a web front end, a mobile solution (is separate app), and interfaces to suppliers systems and other business systems.
Total cost is about 4m
Without knowing the functional spec defined by the MOD, the split of app dev/run/infra, how much is people process, etc we are just guessing... Total cost is about 4m
I can imagine even gather requirements would take at least a year in a large organisation like that.
Throw in politics and I don't envy the team orchestrating that project!
£113m for the website and £500m on the project ruddy hell.
to put it into perpective.
Uber they have spent somewhere in the region of £70 million on their entire platform, thats cabs food etc.
the cab side supports 15 million bookings a day over 400 cities.with full back end services and facilities various other offshoot systems such as uber eats and various other offshoots.
army £113 million on a website and i'd imagine on comparison limited back end functions supporting their recruitment.
public vs private sector just remember that that the nhs sunk £10 billion into a system only to abandon it.
to put it into perpective.
Uber they have spent somewhere in the region of £70 million on their entire platform, thats cabs food etc.
the cab side supports 15 million bookings a day over 400 cities.with full back end services and facilities various other offshoot systems such as uber eats and various other offshoots.
army £113 million on a website and i'd imagine on comparison limited back end functions supporting their recruitment.
public vs private sector just remember that that the nhs sunk £10 billion into a system only to abandon it.
Vaud said:
The whole contract is more than a platform - it is essentially outsourced recruitment- people, processes, tech, even advertising (I think). The original public tender document would show what’s in the number.
Yea it starts to look more realistic when put in that light.If they really wanted to save money then they'd take a COTS or service based product that's ready to go and integrate that with existing systems. Changing business processes to match off the shelf solutions is usually vastly cheaper than trying to meet a million bespoke needs, but I'd guess making that kind of change in an organisation like the MoD is not easy unless there is real backing from on high.
There seems to be a real ethos of "just get it done even if it's pointless" and you can understand why that's necessary to maintain secure operations in war zones but does make it hard to deliver change.
Europa1 said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Someone needs to start one of those petitions along the lines of stop giving Capita government contracts immediately it would reach 100,000 signatures over night. Why continue to pay them when they fail to hit a target?
You crack on: https://petition.parliament.uk/helpGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff