The
Department for Transport(DfT)showed "stupendous incompetence"
when implementing its shared services project, according to an
influential group of MPs.
The Public Accounts Committee, which oversees government
spending, said the implementation was "one of the worst cases of
project management" it had seen.
Officials did not hold a competitive tender, did not specify the
project's requirements clearly, managed suppliers poorly, and did
not leave enough time for testing.
The committee said Department for Transport staff do not trust
the system. "This was hardly surprising when we hear that on
occasion it took to issuing messages in German," their report
said.
The MPs said a tight timetable led to a "lamentable" result,
describing the computer system as "unstable" because of a lack of
testing.
While the project was supposed to save £57m by 2015, it will now
cost the taxpayer £81m after costs soared from an expected £55m to
£121m.
And in keeping with other recent large-scale failures, senior
management have not been properly held to account, according to the
PAC.
The original plan was for the central part of the Department for
Transport and its seven agencies to be sharing corporate services
by April 2008, but only the central department and two of its
agencies are currently using the system. The way forward, MPs said,
is for the DfT to overhaul its project management capabilities, set
up systems that will rigorously challenge future projects like
this, and establish penalties for failure.
The Cabinet Office has estimated that the government
could save £4.1bn annually through greater sharing of corporate
services. But to do this, departments need to avoid three major
pitfalls: delay in introducing planned developments increased cost
or poorer services. According to the committee, the DfT suffered
all three in its shared services implementation.
The report said, "In an attempt to meet its original timetable,
the department took shortcuts which subsequently caused problems.
For example, it did not subject its IT support arrangements to full
competitive tender, specify its requirements precisely enough or
manage its suppliers sufficiently closely. It also reduced the time
available for testing which meant that the system was unstable when
it was switched on."