Computer Weekly readers have their say
Government should make much more of Prince
2
You publish many pieces on ID cards and government-run projects.
These all strike the same chord with me, and match in with your
campaigns on the tax system and all the other projects that the
government sets up and runs until it gets bored. It seems not to be
able to manage projects for nuts, although it is excellent at
setting up inquiries once the things go bad. If only it had trained
project managers.
What I find particularly wondrous is that Prince 2 is a UK
government procedure of managing a "Project In a Controlled
Environment" owned by our Office of Government Commerce, and it
ought to be a defined requirement right from the outset for any UK
government-sponsored project.
The management of the building of the Holyrood parliament
building was a high-profile example of how not to manage projects
when it failed to define the scope of the project, failed to list
costs in advance, failed to plan what deliverable achievements
would mark success points all the way through and (presumably)
failed to get such a list signed off by the clients. Frequent clear
and useful reporting through the life of the project should have
brought howls from worried stakeholders in time to fix many
problems. The end result should have been signed off by the buyers
too.
I find it close to impossible to understand why the year-long
Fraser Inquiry into why that one went pear-shaped did not produce a
short, sharp report within a week showing the baseline project
report as signed off in advance, and the comparison of this with
what actually happened. Names of all stakeholders would have been
clear, fault easily apportioned, and anything that might have gone
wrong would have been seen early enough to be dealt with and
limited in its effect!
I have seen much in your columns about IT-related projects going
awry, much about exposing or keeping secret Gateway reports. Prince
2 is not a panacea, but it certainly promotes good project
management. Why is more not made of it?
Jonathan McColl, Dingwall, Rossshire
Focus shift required to tackle project
failure
Socitm makes an interesting point that the public sector must
shift its focus from technology if it is to tackle the problem of
project failureÊ(Computer Weekly, 25 October). Although I would
argue that there is still a clear need for IT tools, technology
alone is pointless if employees are uninspired and unmotivated from
the outset.
It is vital that senior management has full visibility into
projects, made possible by today's technology, but some seem
oblivious to the need to engage with both staff and customers. A
more collaborative approach must be adopted in order for project
management to succeed.
David Oates, Primavera Systems
Maths A-levels give a head start for IT
studies
Rob Cunniffe (Letters, 11 October) suggests that studying
computer science A-level gives students a head start when they go
on to study this subject at degree level. On the contrary, I
suspect that those studying A-level maths walk away with top
honours and this might explain why universities prefer to recruit
mathematicians.
Besides, studying maths develops a systematic approach to
problem solving - a useful attribute for someone working in
software development.
Mike Follows, Open University
Aliases offer a logical solution for NHS
e-mail
Your correspondent (Letters, 1 November) highlights the problem
of personal e-mail addresses in the NHS system not indicating
location or job function.
The obvious, and common, solution to this is to overlay aliases
on the system. If you wish to e-mail the holder of a particular
job, or all those with a particular function, you use the alias
address, and the system forwards your e-mail to the correct
personal e-mail address(es). When the personnel move, the aliases
are changed to reflect the new structure.
If none of the people implementing this multimillion-pound
system have thought of that, then we really should be worried!
Clive Chitty
Common sense view for a just licensing
world
Although I would not advocate that anyone break the law, I think
that the situation outlined in the article on second-hand software
(Computer Weekly, 11 October) illustrates why users do not always
respect the attitudes of software providers.
If a manufacturing firm produces a piece of hardware it has to
devote resources to each and every item manufactured - materials,
labour and power in varying proportions. When it sells the machine,
the purchaser will use it until it is of no further use to them and
then dispose of it for whatever price they can obtain.
Both hardware and software are subject to obsolescence, but
hardware also suffers wear with use. Software becomes unsuitable
for new generations of hardware.
Both hardware and software have to be designed before they can
be mass-produced and the designer of hardware is protected against
others blatantly copying his design by copyright. If he is truly
inventive the ideas he produces may be covered by patents. Apart
from the intellectual rights attached to the design, the inventor
and manufacturer will expect no further income from their product
once it is sold.
Why should a firm that produces software which it sells for a
fair price expect an income stream forever?
In a common sense world the purchaser should buy the rights to
one copy of the software to be used on one device for as long as
that device operates.
If the device is scrapped they should be able to use the
software on a replacement device. If the software supplier provides
updates they should be able to charge for them - providing the
update isn't to correct a flaw in the original. If they provide the
services of a help desk then they would of course charge for that
under whatever contract was agreed.
The above description is not that far removed from what happens
in practice - with programs being replaced as new and usually more
powerful hardware is introduced. Sometimes the old version software
is used on old hardware to introduce the program to a new
generation of potential users. Is that a bad thing?
If some people produce unauthorised copies of software to sell,
then they are guilty of theft - a crime which should be dealt with
by catching and prosecuting the criminals. The rest of us should be
allowed to get on with using the programs for which we have
paid.
Name and address supplied