Politicians and Computer Systems

[Mikero]

How is it they get screwed over by the industry every time? Is there nobody who understands IT there to give them advice? Huge sums of money have been lost over the last few decades on systems that never ever worked, great work if you can get it. Now the 'world beating' (BJ) tracking is not working and probably never will. Time to cut down on the number of 'Classics' graduates being taken on in the civil service and make it up with 'Information Systems' and 'Computer Engineering' expertise. The industry cannot be trusted.

Mikero

[Real Al]

Has a computer system ever been implemented on time, on budget and doing what was wanted?

Doubt it.

[RientO]

Has a computer system ever been implemented on time, on budget and doing what was wanted?

Doubt it.

The internet has been pretty successful.

[Real Al]

Has a computer system ever been implemented on time, on budget and doing what was wanted?

Doubt it.

The internet has been pretty successful.

Seriously? This board is what Tim Berners-Lee wanted?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

How is it they get screwed over by the industry every time? Is there nobody who understands IT there to give them advice? Huge sums of money have been lost over the last few decades on systems that never ever worked, great work if you can get it. Now the 'world beating' (BJ) tracking is not working and probably never will. Time to cut down on the number of 'Classics' graduates being taken on in the civil service and make it up with 'Information Systems' and 'Computer Engineering' expertise. The industry cannot be trusted.

Mikero

It's not as if a load of civil servants are sitting around a PC trying to learn coding. They've just outsourced it to someone - Dominic Cummings mate, in this instance - and told them to get on with it.

[Celtient]

I think the final bill for the computer system introduced for the Child Support Agency was in excess of £1 billion. And it was still useless and needed loads of workarounds from day one.

[Adz]

Has a computer system ever been implemented on time, on budget and doing what was wanted?

Doubt it.

Yes, frequently, just not in the public sector.

[Dohnut]

Has a computer system ever been implemented on time, on budget and doing what was wanted?

Doubt it.

Yes. Plenty on budget, even early. Don’t judge a whole industry on what clowns in Government do! Computer systems contribute massively to everyday life.

[Dohnut]

I think the final bill for the computer system introduced for the Child Support Agency was in excess of £1 billion. And it was still useless and needed loads of workarounds from day one.

From day 1?

Even the best computer systems will be constantly updated post go live. This is not necessarily failure but natural evolution. All technology gets updated after launch. Like software or whatever ware you want to call it, in operating systems, mobile phones, cars, televisions and so on. Changes don’t automatically mean the initial delivery was poor and did not work. Though of course some can be.

Continually learning and improving is normal.

Plus the complexity of delivering a major computer system is awesome. Mind blowing. I had a sign behind my desk which read “All people make mistakes but a computer can make thousands every second”. A daily reminder of the IT department’s ability to screw up a business, and quick.

[Mikero]

It is only poor computer systems that need constant upgrades, as a good system would have the scope to cover the changes required by users, as an MIS does with new queries. The Y2K nonsense was proof of that. The only reasons a system would need rewrites for are radical changes to legislation or the poor way it was written in the first place, the rest are just companies making money out of upgrades.

Mikero

[EliotNes]

Before I retired I ran my own businesses for 25 years (from 94) and had to put into the offcie, computers, internet, email and all sorts of software. As a rule of thumb I soon learnt that:

1) It would cost me double the estimate
2) take 3 times as long to implement
4) 25% of the time, not do what I wanted and what I thought I'd ordered.

The most successful software we ever had (apart from Sage Accounting software) I got by chance. It was written by an amateur as a hobby and was great. Unfortunately, as we grew he didn't want to re-write it to do more things so we had to change to the professionals. Nuff said.

Only God knows how much money I spent over 20+ years for the IT guy/gal to sit in front of the server, workstation waiting for it to re-boot i.e. they were doing nothing. That so used to get me worked up.

And apologies to all you IT professionals out there, but this is just recounting my experiences.

[Sid Bishop]

How is it they get screwed over by the industry every time? Is there nobody who understands IT there to give them advice? Huge sums of money have been lost over the last few decades on systems that never ever worked, great work if you can get it. Now the 'world beating' (BJ) tracking is not working and probably never will. Time to cut down on the number of 'Classics' graduates being taken on in the civil service and make it up with 'Information Systems' and 'Computer Engineering' expertise. The industry cannot be trusted.

Mikero

Quote '' Time to cut down on the number of 'Classics' graduates being taken on in the civil service and make it up with 'Information Systems' and 'Computer Engineering' expertise.''
Like him or loath him, this is exactly what Dominic Cummings is looking for, more tech savvy people coming in to work for the Civil Service.

[gshaw]

If you take the measure of success as how much money it makes for Government buddies then it's been very successful. Look at the links between Cummings and those who were "making" the failed app, there's your answer.

[Dohnut]

It is only poor computer systems that need constant upgrades, as a good system would have the scope to cover the changes required by users, as an MIS does with new queries. The Y2K nonsense was proof of that. The only reasons a system would need rewrites for are radical changes to legislation or the poor way it was written in the first place, the rest are just companies making money out of upgrades.

Mikero

Sorry but I could not disagree more.

At IT system should be a reflection of what a business needs and not what some IT amateur thinks they need, which happens. An IT professional spends a large part of the development cycle working within the business to understand what people want and explaining to non technical people what a computer system can offer them. IT systems are very much the result of collaboration. Exactly how I’ve delivered many computer systems in areas where my expertise is not extensive. I relied on the expertise of the professionals in their area. It can only be that way. As an IT professional I could not be expert in Finance, Logistics, Sales, Marketing, Payroll etc. But I worked with people who were In order to deliver solutions.

The IT professional skill is converting that Collaboration into a system that delivers what the business want.

Computer systems should reflect business activities. Business activities, goals, needs constantly change and therefore computer systems need to be changed accordingly. Quite often these changes are generated when people see exactly what benefits computerisation can offer, generating a flood of new ideas or improvements.

Evolution not revolution.

Not too sure of your Y2K point.

[Sid Bishop]

If you take the measure of success as how much money it makes for Government buddies then it's been very successful. Look at the links between Cummings and those who were "making" the failed app, there's your answer.

I have a relative who recently took early retirement from the civil service. He struggles to use computers, in fact he distrusts them, dislikes them a lot. His background and things he studied at University are subjects completely out of touch with the modern day IT skills needed in this day and age. More civil servants needed with engineering and IT background and as previously stated ''Time to cut down on the number of 'Classics' graduates being taken on in the civil service and make it up with 'Information Systems' and 'Computer Engineering' expertise. The industry cannot be trusted.''

[Dohnut]

The IT industry like any other have different levels of professionals. Bit like footballers ranging from NL to PL. The quality and cost varies greatly. People want Harry Kane quality at James Alabi prices. Then they are surprised when they don’t get what they want.

In my experience too many people running businesses get involved in computers because they have no choice. Historically the advent of email and the Web Etc. To remain competitive. So they bring in some person without the sort of research you would do when buying a second hand car, Then hand over a key business operation to that person, the “Expert”. Leaving it to the experts so to speak and walking away from the detail whilst running the business. Putting in computer systems is running the business. When it goes tits up they blame the contractor.

I’ve seen it so many times. The “I've brought in the experts and they screwed it up” And “it’s cost me a fortune” I wouldn’t expect people running a business to know the difference between Hifi and WiFi But all to often they just want to leave the development alone. Bury their heads in the sand. It’s collaboration that works.

Sorry but I have no sympathy with people who simply hand over a key business strategy development without paying it due attention. Then whinge when it goes wrong.

For sure the correct processes can be followed and it can still go wrong, happens everywhere even if football as we know. But paying attention reduces risk.

[BoniO]

One of the biggest issues I've seen is how Government bodies use Procurement Departments to source contractors. The procurement people are hard nosed negotiators who are usually tasked with getting in the materials and/or services at "lowest price".

They'll do this by writing a tender document, which they believe to be water-tight, then reviewing responses, short-listing and then awarding the contract. Too often, this will be the lowest cost, or very close to, but they believe they can hold the contractor accountable anyway.

Where this goes pear-shaped is that the procurement personnel often aren't capable of tying down a service provider/contractor to a fixed cost. The contractor will almost always have a "moves/adds/changes" section in the contract. I've seen cases where the cost of the "moves/adds/changes" is considerably higher than the price of the original contract that the procurement people signed up to.

Basically, the procurement model used by government is unwieldy and out of date, often staffed by Luddites (comparative to the contractors they deal with), whilst the contractor has top IT/Computer skilled people backed up by really smart legal departments who can run rings round the procurement people. Hence why the "original" price of the system/hardware is always way below what the government ends up paying - "moves/adds/changes"....

I'm not even touching on Governments alleged preferential treatment of some large players in the outsourcing space.

[Dohnut]

One of the biggest issues I've seen is how Government bodies use Procurement Departments to source contractors. The procurement people are hard nosed negotiators who are usually tasked with getting in the materials and/or services at "lowest price".

They'll do this by writing a tender document, which they believe to be water-tight, then reviewing responses, short-listing and then awarding the contract. Too often, this will be the lowest cost, or very close to, but they believe they can hold the contractor accountable anyway.

Where this goes pear-shaped is that the procurement personnel often aren't capable of tying down a service provider/contractor to a fixed cost. The contractor will almost always have a "moves/adds/changes" section in the contract. I've seen cases where the cost of the "moves/adds/changes" is considerably higher than the price of the original contract that the procurement people signed up to.

Basically, the procurement model used by government is unwieldy and out of date, often staffed by Luddites (comparative to the contractors they deal with), whilst the contractor has top IT/Computer skilled people backed up by really smart legal departments who can run rings round the procurement people. Hence why the "original" price of the system/hardware is always way below what the government ends up paying - "moves/adds/changes"....

I'm not even touching on Governments alleged preferential treatment of some large players in the outsourcing space.

Totally agree BoniO. I’ve had dealings with Government Procurement teams, always seemed to have lots of people involved, but all too often it’s quantity not quality and professional “sellers” have little difficulty in selling expensive options that at face value look cheap. Chalk and cheese when comparing with private companies who want a good deal but realise the seller too must make a profit.

Having an Oxbridge degree don’t stop them from being eaten alive by smart, experienced, business savvy professionals who happily massage their egos whilst picking their pockets.

[Sid Bishop]

One of the biggest issues I've seen is how Government bodies use Procurement Departments to source contractors. The procurement people are hard nosed negotiators who are usually tasked with getting in the materials and/or services at "lowest price".

They'll do this by writing a tender document, which they believe to be water-tight, then reviewing responses, short-listing and then awarding the contract. Too often, this will be the lowest cost, or very close to, but they believe they can hold the contractor accountable anyway.

Where this goes pear-shaped is that the procurement personnel often aren't capable of tying down a service provider/contractor to a fixed cost. The contractor will almost always have a "moves/adds/changes" section in the contract. I've seen cases where the cost of the "moves/adds/changes" is considerably higher than the price of the original contract that the procurement people signed up to.

Basically, the procurement model used by government is unwieldy and out of date, often staffed by Luddites (comparative to the contractors they deal with), whilst the contractor has top IT/Computer skilled people backed up by really smart legal departments who can run rings round the procurement people. Hence why the "original" price of the system/hardware is always way below what the government ends up paying - "moves/adds/changes"....

I'm not even touching on Governments alleged preferential treatment of some large players in the outsourcing space.

Totally agree BoniO. I’ve had dealings with Government Procurement teams, always seemed to have lots of people involved, but all too often it’s quantity not quality and professional “sellers” have little difficulty in selling expensive options that at face value look cheap. Chalk and cheese when comparing with private companies who want a good deal but realise the seller too must make a profit.

Having an Oxbridge degree don’t stop them from being eaten alive by smart, experienced, business savvy professionals who happily massage their egos whilst picking their pockets.

Correct.

[EastDerehamO]

Am in agreement with the above too.

Working in IT it has to be said that for large projects – both within and outside government circles – it’s not at all uncommon for them to slip and go over budget, for there’s a tendency for people wanting the project to work to give too optimistic a view up front as to its benefits/ timescales/ cost, which then makes it more likely to get the box ticked by those with the purse-strings to go ahead. But in reality there is a lot of stuff which can and often does go wrong along the way.

Universal Credit another good example. But that’s not only an IT project issue, we see the same with the likes of Crossrail too.

[tuffers#1]

Ive had a couple or 3 friends/associates who have
worked for the old girl in Buck house , 1 in I.T
1 who built Display units for the prince & american bride's Royal wedding that led to years of work for him & another decorative detailing in buck house.

All of whom were highly regarded in there fields & a long way from Cheap .
Maybe Liz can have a word & tell govts to stop being cheap skates.

[StillSpike]

Am in agreement with the above too.

Working in IT it has to be said that for large projects – both within and outside government circles – it’s not at all uncommon for them to slip and go over budget, for there’s a tendency for people wanting the project to work to give too optimistic a view up front as to its benefits/ timescales/ cost, which then makes it more likely to get the box ticked by those with the purse-strings to go ahead. But in reality there is a lot of stuff which can and often does go wrong along the way.

Universal Credit another good example. But that’s not only an IT project issue, we see the same with the likes of Crossrail too.

Think you've hit the nail on the head here

Especially with Government projects, the promise has already been made by the politicians that they're going to get "the thing" done (whatever that might be - let's say cross border freight admin system, or UC, or track and trace or HS2, or Scottish Parliament, or Edinburgh Trams etc etc ). The thing HAS to go ahead, as it's been promised, and the loss of face is too much to bear for the politicos, so everyone sitting around the table at the pitch meetings knows that it's going to go ahead. If they have to come up with a lower cost to suit the bean counters, they just cut functionality / features / something , knowing full well it can be added back in once the project is going.

[Dohnut]

Am in agreement with the above too.

Working in IT it has to be said that for large projects – both within and outside government circles – it’s not at all uncommon for them to slip and go over budget, for there’s a tendency for people wanting the project to work to give too optimistic a view up front as to its benefits/ timescales/ cost, which then makes it more likely to get the box ticked by those with the purse-strings to go ahead. But in reality there is a lot of stuff which can and often does go wrong along the way.

Universal Credit another good example. But that’s not only an IT project issue, we see the same with the likes of Crossrail too.

Think you've hit the nail on the head here

Especially with Government projects, the promise has already been made by the politicians that they're going to get "the thing" done (whatever that might be - let's say cross border freight admin system, or UC, or track and trace or HS2, or Scottish Parliament, or Edinburgh Trams etc etc ). The thing HAS to go ahead, as it's been promised, and the loss of face is too much to bear for the politicos, so everyone sitting around the table at the pitch meetings knows that it's going to go ahead. If they have to come up with a lower cost to suit the bean counters, they just cut functionality / features / something , knowing full well it can be added back in once the project is going.

Not just in Government, though I’m willing to bet for reasons said they are the worst.

Frustrating when having done significant research, put together an honest report covering functionality, costs and timescales, someone decides its going to take too long or cost too much etc. So of course timeframes and functionality get cut and the delivered product, may be well written, gets criticised for not having the functionality that was originally built in but removed.

It then costs even more to add it in later than in the first place. A gripe of mine being the IT function who get labelled by the end userS as idiots who should have thought about these things in the first place.

[Adz]

The thing the government get wrong every time with tech projects is that if the processes are not standardised first you cannot create an IT system for it.

[Mikero]

The other problem is that ministries and departments that have had failed IT implimentations do not pass on the experience to anyone else, they just sit back and watch the next mugs suffer.

Mikero