Rarely has so little been said in so many words. The
government has reacted with 17 pages of platitudes to the cogent
and succinct recommendations of a committee of MPs which has
investigated government IT projects.
At first glance, last week's government response was respectful of
the points made in a report in July of the Work and Pensions
Committee. The committee had backed Computer Weekly's
recommendations on improving accountability and transparency, which
we said were at the heart of all major IT disasters.
But when we read carefully the government's response to the
committee's report, we had the feeling that was compiled by
software, not humans.
The first one or two sentences acknowledge the recommendations of
the Work and Pensions Committee. The next section comprises past
press releases and government announcements about the work of the
Department for Work and Pensions. At best, these statements have
only a vague relevance to the committee's recommendations. And
where the committee's report makes a request for specific action,
the government's response ignores this or is politely dismissive.
After each one of its IT disasters over the past 30 years, the
civil servants and the government have issued similarly bland
statements.
The response is also an insult to those who keep government IT
systems running smoothly and find their status is debased by the
poor reputation of government for delivering successful projects.
Public sector IT professionals know, as we do, that most major
failures have little to do with the systems, and much to do with an
organisation's culture, a lack of training, a lack of understanding
of the impact of IT on processes, or inadequately informed
political management.
Yet too often the systems are blamed by those who do not have the
full facts.
The hope now is that Gateway Reviews of IT projects will be
published under the Freedom of Information Act. Some departments -
Work and Pensions and the Department of Health - will have to be
dragged kicking and screaming into the age of freedom of
information.
Meanwhile, we deplore the government for saying to the committee in
essence: "Trust us - we know what we are doing, and you do not need
to know."
We, and the committee, would rather form judgements on the
condition of IT projects from facts and stringent process of
accountability than platitudes, untestable propositions and
unsubstantiated assurances.