The costly delay to CSA reform is further proof that government IT
projects need to be tackled in smaller, more manageable chunks?
James Rogers reports.
The £200m IT system commissioned for the Child Support Agency (CSA)
from Texas outsourcing firm EDS is more than just another troubled
government IT project. It could become a textbook example of how
poor communications between user and supplier can compromise a
major deal.
Martin Sexton, director of IT at systems integration specialist
London Market Systems, believes that while the Government and the
supplier have blamed one another for delays that may put the
project £50m over budget, both parties share responsibility for the
late delivery.
"The customer should have asked the right questions of
the supplier, which itself should have been more forthcoming with
available options, such as making the system more configurable and
able to handle change," Sexton said. He maintains that breaking
projects down into more manageable chunks and prioritising
deliverables would reduce the level of risk involved in an
undertaking of this scale.
The case hit the headlines last week when the Government found
itself unable to deny BBC reports that the CSA's new computer
system is £50m over budget and likely to be delayed until next
year, more than a year beyond its original implementation date of
April 2002.
A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions, which is
responsible for the CSA, would only confirm that the system is
undergoing "rigorous testing" by EDS - suggesting it is not yet
ready. He was unable to say when the system, which is being
developed under the private finance initiative (PFI), will be
delivered or how much the delayed introduction will cost the public
purse.
However, in a rare move EDS later appeared to lay the blame for the
over-run at the Government's door. A statement from the company
confirmed that the system, although undergoing testing, is already
complete.
It went on to suggest that the goalposts had moved. "The system is
highly complex and more sophisticated than originally anticipated
due to a change in government requirements," the statement said.
It also claimed that the "go live" date when new cases can be input
into the system is a ministerial decision, which will be based on
the Government's reform agenda, not just on technical performance.
"This is separate from the delivery of the IT systems and is
dependent on a number of readiness factors," it said.
There appears to be confusion about who is responsible for the
delay, with the Government refusing to comment on the statement
from EDS, which also runs contracts for the Inland Revenue and is
supplying the new NHS e-mail system. In turn, EDS is forwarding all
enquiries to the CSA.
The Government's planned reforms of the CSA, under the terms of the
Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, will provide
simple maintenance calculations based on 15% of a parent's income
for one child, 20% for two children and 25% for three children. But
implementation of the reforms is dependent on completion of the IT
system to support it.
Questions have also been raised about the impact that the delays
will have on those most affected by the work of the CSA.
Garry Deakin, a father-of-two who contacted
Computer Weekly,
estimated that the delays in implementing the new system could cost
him £3,000 in payments that he would not have had to make if the
system had gone live on time and his maintenance payments had been
recalculated according to the new formulae. "And there must be
others in my situation," he said.
The delay in introducing the CSA's new system raises more questions
about whether PFI is an appropriate method of funding major
government IT projects, although some experts argue that the
funding structure itself is not to blame.
Roger Barber, senior consultant at consultancy Morgan Chambers,
said the problems encountered by the CSA are typical of many major
public sector IT projects. "PFI is not at the core of any issues
which may be developing with the CSA. It is more to do with the
innate and complex nature of meeting the demands of a government
contract in terms of trying to stabilise the requirement against
evolving government legislation and policies," he said.
Barber urged the Government to consider the impact on IT systems
when planning new policies, and involve suppliers as early as
possible.
"The Government needs to engage the suppliers earlier in the
process," he said.