Accounts committee report contains lessons for
supporters of ID card scheme and calls for a revision of the Office
of Government Commerce's review policy
Ministers and senior Whitehall officials determined to press
ahead with the national identity cards scheme would do well to
study a report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee
that was published last week.
Introducing the report, MP Edward Leigh said, "Far too often, major
IT-enabled projects in government departments are late, well over
budget, or do not work at all - an enormous waste of taxpayers'
money."
That is why the committee chose not to simply report on yet another
public sector IT disaster, but to look at the effectiveness of the
government's main agency involved in preventing such problems
recurring: the Office of Government Commerce.
Like many other reports from the PAC, which oversees public
spending, it makes salutary reading.
The committee focused in particular on the OGC's Gateway review
process. Leigh said, "Of all the OGC initiatives, [Gateway reviews]
have the most potential to secure significant improvements in IT
procurement."
Unfortunately, the committee found this "potential" was too often
not realised. The statistics make grim reading.
A total of 440 reviews on 254 IT projects have been carried out,
with 33% of projects entering the review process after the business
case had been prepared.
Sixty two reviews have completed Gateway 4, which looks at a
project's readiness for service, the PAC heard. Of these, only
eight (13%) proceeded to Gateway 5, which assesses whether the
expected benefits are being delivered.
This failure to put initial project business cases up for external
scrutiny or to allow outside analysis of whether the expected
business benefits had been realised, was condemned by MPs.
Equally concerning to MPs was the apparent failure of those
delivering high-risk government IT projects to learn from past
mistakes.
By March 2004, 50% of the projects reviewed were given green status
in the Gateway review's traffic light system. A further 28% were
amber, which allows the project to continue while remedial action
is taken, and 22% were red, a sign that the project was at risk and
in need of immediate action.
Eight projects received red status at two consecutive Gateway
reviews: a sign that they faced major difficulties. Of all projects
that have undergone more than one review, 22% have got worse as
they went through the process, and 40% failed to improve their
status.
The PAC noted that the issues raised by Gateway review teams have
remained consistent since their introduction in 2001. It said,
"This suggests that despite a clear body of evidence, departments
are failing to foresee obstacles to successful delivery."
If Gateway reviews are the best chance of improving the delivery of
high-risk IT projects, they have yet to make a fundamental
difference. This failure was a key reason for Computer Weekly's
campaign last year to increase the public scrutiny of government IT
projects through the publication of Gateway reviews. It is a view
the PAC agreed with and the OGC seems determined to resist.
OGC fights reluctance >>
PAC recommends
- Gateway reviews should be published. The committee said, “There
is a strong case for the publication of Gateway review reports,
particularly given the repeated failures of public sector
IT-enabled projects and programmes in recent years.”
- The Treasury should determine criteria for withholding funds
from IT projects where departments choose consistently to ignore
stages of the Gateway process.
- The National Audit Office should be informed of all projects
that receive consecutive red Gateway reviews.
- Government departments should spell out their plans to put
their projects through Gateway 5, which assesses whether the
benefits of a project have been fully realised, lessons learned and
value for money secured.
- Government departments’ centres of excellence should receive as
a matter of routine all Gateway reports, and provide feedback to
the OGC on the quality and usefulness of reviews.