This week the Treasury admitted there are "systemic problems" with
government IT projects. Tony Collins asks what can be done to
prevent disasters and improve the public sector's reputation for
getting it wrong.
Better guidelines and advice will not prevent IT disasters. This
was the first, and so far unheeded, message that
Computer
Weekly gave to the IT supplier's trade association, the
Computing Services & Software Association (CSSA), when it asked
for this newpaper's comments on how to avoid IT disasters.
"What is needed," our briefing paper to the CSSA continued, "are
tough decisions and direct language, and the ability to listen to
warnings that are 'off message'."
The conclusion of Computer Weekly's briefing paper was
that the Cabinet Office, which was being advised by the CSSA on
avoiding IT failures, should not issue more recommendations.
"In themselves, recommendations are ineffective," we said. "For
more than 20 years, the civil service has published recommendations
on improving the management of computer projects. The need is for
genuinely independent assessments and tough decisions. The danger
with recommendations alone is that they may be perceived as taking
action without achieving anything."
We went on to suggest a small number of key actions that could
circumvent some of the deep-set cultural problems, such as lack of
individual account and openness, that afflict many public sector
projects.
A few weeks after this was written, however, Cabinet Office
minister Ian McCartney went on to announce a new set of
recommendations.
"McCartney announces blitz on IT project problems," read the
headline of the government press release. "Cabinet Office report
contains 30 recommendations to drive up performance".
Alex Allan, government e-envoy, was appointed to oversee
implementation of the Cabinet Office report, which was called
Successful IT - Modernising Government in Action.
Allan welcomed the CSSA's parallel study, Getting IT right for
Government, and remarked that the results of the research would
"not be left on the shelves of Whitehall to gather dust. All
recommendations set out actions, owners and key delivery dates, and
I will work with departments to ensure that this comprehensive
report makes a real difference."
So far, there is little hard evidence that the CSSA's
comprehensive report on avoiding IT project problems has, or will,
make any significant difference.
There is also no evidence that the CSSA or the Cabinet Office
lack the resolve to make tough decisions or force through major
changes. The question is whether they have the power to do so.
It could be said that one reason the Cabinet Office is creating
committees, forums, and issuing more guidelines and
recommendations, rather than making tough decisions on problem
projects, is that this is all it can do, despite its best
intentions.
A Cabinet Office spokeswoman this week said, "We cannot impose
our will on departments. We can make suggestions but it is up to
the departments how they respond."
It is the Cabinet Office and the Treasury's newly-formed Office
of Government Commerce that have been given the responsibility of
preventing further disasters and putting current problem projects
on the track to success.
But observers of Cabinet Office routine over the past decade
have noted that its lack of power leads to civil servants writing
press releases that make its ministers only appear to be tough and
innovative.
In the Conservative administration, the Cabinet Office wrote a
series of ministerial press releases, reported widely in the media,
that said an initiative called market testing - checking in-house
IT costs against general market prices - had saved hundreds of
millions of pounds. When closely examined, it became apparent that
the savings had not been achieved but were "anticipated".
When the Cabinet Office was asked by Computer Weekly what
independent assessments of specific IT projects it has
commissioned, and what IT schemes have been cancelled, curtailed,
or revised to deliver the intended benefits, we were given a list
of the "action that has been taken so far".
This includes "interim guidance on the role and responsibilities
of the Senior Responsible Owner" of IT projects, a "skills toolkit"
to identify gaps in IT skills in departments, work on "further
documents and guidance on best practice", a seminar on
"understanding of the dimensions of risk in the context projects"
and "discussions with departments and agencies on their plans for
implementing" the Cabinet Office's recommendations.
This is a far cry from the actions that were suggested in
Computer Weekly's briefing paper.
Our main finding was that the UK Government should set up a
financial auditing organisation similar to the General Accounting
Office in the US that, unlike its UK equivalent, the National Audit
Office, has the power to audit IT projects and contracts before
they are signed. It can stop or curtail projects or contracts, and
follow through afterwards with reports that show no deference to
departmental sensitivities. In the UK, the National Audit Office is
restrained by having to agree the facts of its reports with the
department before publication, leading sometimes to prolonged
semantic debate about what is factual.
This week, at a packed meeting at the CSSA's headquarters in
London on the association's plans to take forward its report and
the parallel study by the Cabinet Office, Computer Weekly was
thanked informally for its contribution. Indeed, the CSSA's report
includes many of the specific points we made.
Peter Gershon, chief executive of the Office of Government
Commerce, said there had been important developments: departments
can now re-invest savings from IT projects to fund other
initiatives. "This has not existed in the government system
before," he said.
He added that there is a ministerial recognition that "projects
are coming in late and over cost".
But rather than any specific actions, the Office of Government
Commerce announced that it is sponsoring a "senior forum between
Government and the IT industry".
A cynic may say that if words speak louder than actions, prepare
to be deafened.
Computer Weekly's messages to the CSSA
Five key messages in Computer Weekly's briefing paper to
the Computing Services & Software Association:
- Tough decisions cannot be taken by committee: named individuals
must be accountable
- Openness is the first casualty of a project in trouble. Civil
servants must tell ministers what they do not want to hear about a
project's progress
- Do not expect suppliers to tell the whole truth. Those that do
will not win the contract
- Nobody running a problem project wants an independent
appraisal. Therefore, regular independent appraisals are
essential
- Split large projects into small phases that may or may not
integrate with the whole. Forcing together chunks of projects that
refuse to be integrated is a major cause of disasters.
Read our recommendations
in full.