A report
published today by MPs of the three main parties
vindicates some of the harshest criticisms by academics and others
of the £12.7bn
NHS National
Programme for IT (NPfIT).
The attack on the NPfIT by the Committee of Public Accounts
reaches even into the questioning of policy, which is normally a
no-go area for the committee.
>> See also:
NHS IT warnings the government ignored,
MPs question the future of £12bn NHS IT scheme
The report questions whether it was a good idea for the
Department of Health to have awarded £6.2bn worth of national
contracts for suppliers to deliver systems to the NHS as a
whole.
If the report of the committee were the result of consultants
scrutinising a big project on behalf of directors of a private
company, the NPfIT would probably be declared a failure by the
board and radical action taken. Possibly the project would be
stopped, reduced in scope or greatly revised.
But in central government there is no such thing as an IT
disaster: project names are usually changed or the failed scheme
continues indefinitely. A project to deliver unified systems for
magistrates has continued for about 17 years, complete with name
changes.
So it is unclear whether the well-informed criticisms of the
Public Accounts Committee will make any difference. Nearly a
quarter of a century ago, the committee was criticising failing IT
projects and programmes. In its report on centrally-controlled
computer schemes in June 1984 the committee criticised the £6m
wasted on the aborted “Camelot” scheme to computerise welfare
benefits.
It warned of over-optimism – as have many of the committee’s
reports since. Only this month the committee published a report
which showed how officials at the Ministry of Defence were
illogically optimistic over the simplicity, timescale, scope and
cost of the £7bn Defence Information Infrastructure (DII).
Parliamentary debate
So how is it that seemingly impossible projects – such as DII
and the NPfIT – get approved? The answer is that there is no proper
approvals process. Papers unearthed as a result of a request by
Computer Weekly under the Freedom of Information Act show that the
NPfIT was approved after a short chat in Downing Street with
potential suppliers and other enthusiasts. NPfIT was the product of
the so-called “sofa” style of government.
The NPfIT and the DII were announced without any genuinely
independent challenge to the schemes – and no parliamentary
debate.
This flaw in the approvals process for big IT projects and
programmes has been accepted by Tory and Labour governments alike.
Computer Weekly believes that nothing will change until parliament
debates the spending on projects which cost billions of pounds
before the schemes are approved.
MPs are not IT experts and they do not need to be. They could
challenge assumptions made in the enthusiastic period before
contracts are awarded, test whether officials understand fully the
commitments they want to make, and find out if they have
underestimated the complexity of the programme and the task of
implementing it.
MPs could seek public assurances from named officials. They
could ask for independent pre-contract assessments of the project’s
feasibility and the likely reactions of those who would use or
refuse to use the new systems.
Congressional-style oversight of big government investments needs
to come to Whitehall.
Read more on the IT Projects Blog >>