Why can't this country implement public sector IT

[drivin_me_nuts]

It's not that hard. It takes strong lead, commitment and focus.

But why does it always have to be a complete shambles. I just don't get it. Multinationals of enormous sizes and complexity implement IT highly effectively, yet the public sector in the UK seems incapable of managing to stir their coffee whilst whilsting a tune.

"The project has been a shambles".

Shambles - as in butchery of a carcass. Yes, that sounds about par for the course there then.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8339084.stm

[ViperDave]

1) if you go for the cheapest option you are likely to have something missing or the contractor will be squeezing its staff to the point they don't care.

2) Private sector IT is not watched to the same degree, it is also just as %*&!, there is just no one watching and shouting about it.

[ATG]

drivin_me_nuts said:

Multinationals of enormous sizes and complexity implement IT highly effectively,

Not in my experience. Get enough people involved in a process, mkae the process very big and shiney, and it usually fails.

Key errors in many projects are that they're just too big, and forecast to take far too long, so everyone is st scared of making any mistakes. They try to plan too much up front when they are inevitably pretty ignorant about the problems they will encounter, yet are unwilling to make binding decisions. They try to spec a Rolls Royce from the outset so that there is nothing they've overlooked - but they're speccing it at a time when they still don't really understand what a car is, let alone a Rolls Royce.

And then when the project is well under way, they aren't honest about how it is panning out, they don't seek to restructure it as new stuff comes to light, until far too late in the day at which point there is a crisis.

Edited by ATG on Tuesday 3rd November 07:30

[mrmr96]

It appears to me that it's down to the structure of the financing of the deal. I believe it should be structured so that there is a lead IT contractor which employs subcontractors. The Gov only have a contract with the lead contractor. The lead contractor is required to take out insurance in case the project is a complete balls up. The deal is a (generous) fixed fee with clawbacks/retentions if/when things don't go to plan.

This shifts the risk away from Gov and to the lead contractor. They have access to both risk and reward which they are in control of. This will align their goals to that of the Gov and they should (in theory) do a good job.

My understanding is that is not how things are run at present. Instead I beleieve there is a lot of troughing and back slapping going on where overruns are paid for and therefore practically encouraged. The Gov IT projects are just cash cows to the industry, rather than being oppertunities for competent people to EARN money by doing a good job.

In a nutshell, the contractors aims are not presently in line with the Gov aims and so a restructuring of the finances around the contrat is required to encourage/force alignment.

[miniman]

It is entirely down to the **specific** public sector body involved. We have a few public sector clients, some of whom we have delivered complex projects for bang on time, on budget and on spec. Others have such laughable internal processes and vastly oversized teams that we simply can't deliver for them in a sensible way. I recall a project meeting where our entire team who were responsible for all the technical delivery of a solution met with their entire team. There were 5 of us, and 17 of them.

[Jasandjules]

Because it's not their money they are spending. Then, you have to account for the added costs of being politcally correct and/or green (I think I've already told the story of how over £250,000 was wasted by the NHS). Then, add in the fact that the companies who somehow get the tenders have previously f***ed up yet still get the next job.

[cs02rm0]

Fujitsu.
CSC.
Accenture.
EDS.

[Get Karter]

drivin_me_nuts said:

It's not that hard. It takes strong lead, commitment and focus.

But why does it always have to be a complete shambles. I just don't get it. Multinationals of enormous sizes and complexity implement IT highly effectively, yet the public sector in the UK seems incapable of managing to stir their coffee whilst whilsting a tune.

Maybe because they employ the sort of people who can't spell 'whistling' if it follows 'whilst'

[grumbledoak]

There are two main reason it is usually such a fk up.
o The Ministers.
o The companies they choose to do the work.


IT projects are by their nature complex. Keeping them on target is hard work, requiring pretty deep understanding of what you are doing, and long term focus. You could hardly get further from a description of our government- they've normally got no real world training or skills, and their career lives or dies on a one minute media soundbite. Add that to the 'lowest bidder' mentality (i.e. "Cost Plus") and it's a miracle any of them ever deliver.

[thehawk]

Multiple failures at multiple levels. From the pigs with their noses in the trough to the workers who lack skills.

[loltolhurst]

because as far as i understand it they never seem to sack people / companies or hold anyone responsible for the mistakes so they just keep doing it every time. tossers.

[Fittster]

The idea that public IT is much different from private IT projects is a load of old tosh. The only difference is that public sector failures come to light. I know of major project cock-ups at London banks.

[mrmr96]

Fittster said:

The idea that public IT is much different from private IT projects is a load of old tosh. The only difference is that public sector failures come to light. I know of major project cock-ups at London banks.

I disagree that there's no difference. Yes, of course there are big fckups in the private sector too but at least they are pi55ing their own money up the wall, not mine (as a taxpayer).

[Tuna]

grumbledoak said:

There are two main reason it is usually such a fk up.
o The Ministers.
o The companies they choose to do the work.

Got it in one, I'd say.

It seems to me that these projects are specced not against realistic business goals but against political goals that inevitably shift. They are usually designed as monolithic systems that by definition have little flexibility. Rather than building up a tool box of small working solutions, it suits everyone to aim for an all encompassing 'uber project' that is even more vulnerable to changes in leadership, implementation problems and so on.

Typically, engineers only get involved after the (non technical, however much they delude themselves) managers, bean counters and end customers have come up with a plan that is too broad, too complex and too inflexible to ever work properly.

[Dunk76]

mrmr96 said:

Fittster said:

The idea that public IT is much different from private IT projects is a load of old tosh. The only difference is that public sector failures come to light. I know of major project cock-ups at London banks.

I disagree that there's no difference. Yes, of course there are big fckups in the private sector too but at least they are pi55ing their own money up the wall, not mine (as a taxpayer).

Having spent four years selling outsourcing for the big blue, I can confirm that it's just as likely to fail in the private sector than the public.

The difference is that in the private sector it tends to get dealt with far more quickly and efficiently than in the public one - partly due to the nature of the individuals, and partly due to the (normally) less onerous contractual obligations of the buyer.

Fundamentally, the problem with public sector IT is that they try and make any new project do everything for everyone, instantly. It's always a revolution. Therefore it's more likely to fall flat on it's face. It's compounded by the same problem which afflicts large company IT projects of similar scope: too many people get stuck in, adding their ideas and opinions on what it should do, and often the original purpose of the project is lost in the clamour.

[ewenm]

Fittster said:

The idea that public IT is much different from private IT projects is a load of old tosh. The only difference is that public sector failures come to light. I know of major project cock-ups at London banks.

And, amazingly, the BBC don't see fit to publish news stories about successful public sector IT projects.

Why do IT projects fail?

• Poor requirements definition.
• Lack of stakeholder commitment/decision making.
• Emphasis on cost over value or quality.
• Scope creep.

All of these occur on pivate and public sector projects and need to be carefully managed. If they aren't managed well, projects tend to fail to meet the targets (be they cost/time/functionality targets etc).

The other problem which is common in the public sector is not having the quality of staff to maintain and run a system effectively when the consultants/contractors have handed it over. Of course, they could get the staff trained or hired but that would require more taxpayer expense and that's unacceptable according to some. The best people work in the private sector as that's where the decent wages are.

[hondafanatic]

Still, I'm sure that when ID cards are implimented, along with the DNA held for every citizen, they'll have all this ironed out.

[fido]

cs02rm0 said:

Fujitsu.
CSC.
Accenture.
EDS.

People that can do .. well they ain't working for this lot .. IMO.

Even in private companies, they end up spending millions on a system that doesn't work, because a) it's run by consultants from the management downwards - you need some permanent staff who understand the system that is being delivered and can therefore set criteria for delivery b) related to the first point - they should be paid on delivery to an exact specification - don't produce the results and you don't get paid c) why the hell would you want to be paid as a lowly civil servant when you can rake it in as a contractor/consultant (assuming you're good at what you do).

Edited by fido on Tuesday 3rd November 11:01

[plasticpig]

cs02rm0 said:

Fujitsu.
CSC.
Accenture.
EDS.

Fujitsu are going to be in trouble with their contracts. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/markets/article.html?...

[The Black Flash]

mrmr96 said:

It appears to me that it's down to the structure of the financing of the deal. I believe it should be structured so that there is a lead IT contractor which employs subcontractors. The Gov only have a contract with the lead contractor. The lead contractor is required to take out insurance in case the project is a complete balls up. The deal is a (generous) fixed fee with clawbacks/retentions if/when things don't go to plan.

This shifts the risk away from Gov and to the lead contractor. They have access to both risk and reward which they are in control of. This will align their goals to that of the Gov and they should (in theory) do a good job.

Exactly how they did the NPfIT (NHS) system contracts.
Still went to st though, although in fairness the taxpayer hasn't lost as much as they otherwise might. IIRC the terms of the contract were found to be about the only good thing about it.

So I think you're partly right, but that only protects you if it goes wrong, it doesn't stop it going wrong in the first place...