The leaders of the three main parties, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, are promising - threatening - public spending cuts. IT has been singled out by the Tories and Liberal Democrats.
But when you look at what IT money is spent on, it's difficult to see how large-scale cuts can be made without affecting services, renegotiating contracts with large and canny suppliers, or losing (or reassigning) many jobs.
Even if the ID Cards project is scrapped the savings are limited because the technology is interwoven with that of biometric passports. Too much has already been spent on the NPfIT [about £4bn] to scrap it.
We've published a list of the government's biggest or mission-critical projects and programmes.
Can these schemes really be cut? - ComputerWeekly.com
Links:
Only 14% think Labour is telling the truth on public finance - Labourlist.org
Spending cuts won't derail the recovery - Taxpayers' Alliance
Are cuts dangerous? - Liberal Conspiracy?
Public spending cuts would hit the private sector too - Touchstone blog
The cuts debate - UK after the recession
Only 14% think Labour is telling the truth on public finance - Labourlist.org
Spending cuts won't derail the recovery - Taxpayers' Alliance
Are cuts dangerous? - Liberal Conspiracy?
Public spending cuts would hit the private sector too - Touchstone blog
The cuts debate - UK after the recession
Comments (2)
It is a very naive way of looking at things. IT is just an integral part of wider business change as is HR, buildings, people and processes.
Therefore the question should be what business change should be cut. You can look at the IT spend as part of these.
Posted by Anon | September 25, 2009 12:32 PM
Posted on September 25, 2009 12:32
"too much has already been spent ... to scrap it".
This is the "sunk value fallacy" well known to economists. Popularly, it's called "throwing good money after bad".
The right question, always, is "will the money that still has to be spent provide good value?".
With NPfIT, it seems no-one can be sure what the answer is - which is why you, and others, have repeatedly called for an open, technical, supportive, thorough review.
Posted by Martyn Thomas | September 28, 2009 11:05 AM
Posted on September 28, 2009 11:05