Our e-government programme is built upon a political
rather than a technology principle, says Simon Moores.
UK e-government is taking on the appearance of an
ideological struggle. Karl Marx once said that "the bureaucracy
takes itself to be the ultimate purpose of the state" and,
with around a third of our workforce employed by the public
sector, they have a lot of bureaucracy to wade
through.
Elsewhere in the world, other countries have been a little less
revolutionary in mixing new technology with a political vision of
public sector reform.
But here, e-envoy Andrew Pinder has admitted that government
will miss its ambitious target for putting all its services online
by 2005. We all knew this in 2002. What matters, says Pinder, is
that sites deliver, but deliver what?
Pinder is quoted as saying “There are some brilliant offerings
available — the JobCentre Plus site, where people can find
virtually every job in the country, and the Foreign Office site’s
travel information.
"But there are an awful lot of other sites which are very little
used," he added. "The public sector needs to understand we’re about
providing access based on our customers’ needs — not those which
government sees as important.”
What interests me about this e-Marxism is that its costs and its
consequences, like its arguments, remain largely unchallenged. The
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), in the
face of fierce criticism from MPs, is outsourcing its IT services
to the private sector under a deal worth almost £1.5bn.
One Labour MP, David Taylor, expressed concern that decisions
had been made to outsource IT delivery before a departmental IT
strategy was in place. He accused Defra's management of "rushing"
to finalise its IT strategy by the end of March to meet its
timetable for procurement.
"It is, therefore, a strategy to support the programme rather
than reflect the true business needs of Defra," he told the
House.
Examples like this exist perhaps because our e-government
programme is built upon politics rather than technology, so it
stumbles from one expensive departmental fudge to the next.
There are many examples of where technology and IT investment is
working at the local government level, but these still represent
silos of progress and certainly don’t offer citizens an impression
of joined-up government.
What are we really trying to achieve other than build websites
that deliver? You and I in business know that behind every website
there has to be a fully integrated Backoffice system, a streamlined
and joined-up process that doesn’t exist across our own public
sector.
What makes Singapore different from Streatham or Sunderland, and
what should we expect from an unrestrained government pouring
expensive technology into what appears to be a bottomless pit of
bureaucracy?
Karl Marx may have had the first word but when it comes to
discussing the progress of joined-up government in the UK, the last
word should go to Groucho Marx. “I've had a wonderful time, but
this wasn't it.”
What do you think?
Do you perceive e-government to be a bureaucratic snarl-up?
Tell us in an e-mail >> ComputerWeekly.com
reserves the right to edit and publish answers on the website.
Please state if your answer is not for publication.
Setting the world to rights with the collected thoughts and
opinions of leading industry analystDr Simon
Mooresof Zentelligence.
Acting globally, Zentelligence (Research) advises
governments, suppliers, business and the media on the evolution,
application and delivery of leading-edge technologies and
specialises in the areas of eGovernment and information
security.
For further information on Zentelligence and its research,
presentation and analyst services visitwww.zentelligence.com