Memorandum submitted by Mr David Gale,
CEO, SITFO—Strategic IT Framework Organisation (EM 38)
THE FINANCIAL
BURDEN CAUSED
BY THE
LACK OF
CLEAR NATIONAL
STRATEGIES RELATING
TO THE
DELIVERY OF
PUBLIC SECTOR
IT IN THE
EAST MIDLANDS
I have been engaged at a senior level as both
customer and supplier in both public and private sector IT for
the past twenty years. I am the originator of TADAG (tadag.com),
the Strategic IT Framework (sitfo.org), and the architecture for
CSIS (Customer Services Information System), and have worked with
senior Microsoft Corp (Redmond) personnel and IBM on strategic
product development and associated marketing. I was the principal
customer speaker at Microsoft's product launch of BizTalk 2006
at the Stock Exchange, and have participated in speaker roles
at numerous major European conferences. I have been the guest
of both the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, and have consulted
with European governments, up to and including ministerial level.
I have hosted and delivered a major seminar for the Chinese government
attended by Xin Renzhou and all 21 of China's regional CIOs. I
am currently engaged with the EU, via the cabinet of Viviane Reding,
in trying to identify a mechanism for the EU's adoption of the
Strategic IT Framework as a long-term, Europe-wide enabler of
service transformation. By contrast, I have had a particularly
poor relationship with the English government, and the Cabinet
Office in particular. I am seen as an individual that seeks to
call-in the money-wasting antics of window-dressing Whitehall
IT tacticians and their lucrative arrangements with major UK suppliers
of public sector IT that should and do know better.
There is a complete lack of cohesion with English
public sector IT that perpetuates "point solutions"
in the vacuum that is long-term vision.
Delivery mechanisms are a complex, interwoven mire
of accountancy and bean-counting, where the mitigation of risk
to the cv's of involved parties and the need to show an almost
instantaneous return, outweigh the need for the long-term strategic
investment that could deliver substantial savings and improvements
in public services.
The national malaise is too large a subject
area for me to give details in this brief email but I submit the
following as examples that link directly to emda and the
Derby and Derbyshire Economic Partnership (DDEP) for your consideration:
DDEP broadband hot-spot project—funding
for "consultants" to deliver broadband to areas of Derbyshire
without broadband. The consultants looked to wi-fi small market
towns like Chesterfield, Glossop, Matlock and Bakewell, all of
which already have broadband. Rather than give the £100,000
back to emda they gave the money to a Derby City Council
project to wi-fi Derby's Cathedral quarter with a tactical, window-dressing
solution. This despite there being an unfunded long-term strategy
to deliver wi-fi as a public utility within the city, using substantially
different technology.
The consultants did try to get wi-fi into Peak
Forest by going to tender but received no bids. The consultants
seem to be keeping a low profile.
Lightspeed is a 21st century Derby project to
deliver public access fibre run by another DDEP-funded consultant.
This project has been running for two years and, so far, not a
single metre of fibre has been laid. The opportunity to lay fibre
inexpensively, when refurbishing roadside kerbs which could have
had precast conduit, has been ignored because of the level of
joined-upness required.
Derby City Council has had the opportunity to
make savings in excess of £10M by seeing through its early
deployment of a strategic IT framework. This world-leading development
successfully demonstrated (video case studies available) a sustainable,
cost effective, transformation enabling IT framework but has been
abandoned as a handful of officers seek to window-dress their
cv.s with short-term, tactical solutions. Politicians are ill-equipped
to deliver the requisite governance to prevent this substantial
waste of public money, instead focussing on smoothing potentially
troubled waters by ignoring the issue completely.
The Quad—Derby: emda contributed
£3.5 million to Derby's Quad project, with £1.2 million
coming from DDEP. This was despite my advice to Derby City Council
that the basic premise of the Quad was unsustainable. Alterative
proposals for a world-leading, showcase building demonstrated
a sustainable building and business model, funded by cooperation
with major global partners from the private sector. These plans
were ignored by the project board and alternative consultative
advice was found by the city council that concurred with the project
board's plans. The over-riding rationale for continued investment
by Derby City Council was that the money had to be spent within
a particular time-frame.
Friargate Studios—Derby: DDEP invested
over £1 million. This predates the Quad but essentially follows
the same pattern. I gave unpopular, consultative advice that both
the design and the business model were unsustainable.
Alternative plans were ignored. "Money
had to be spent". Alternative, "friendly consultancy"
was sought and delivered. The tax payer picks up an ever-increasing
burden:
"DDEP funding has helped develop the Creative
Industries Network (CIN) website. Grant funding has also facilitated
the appointment of a full-time Network Co-ordinator to oversee
its growth and develop working relationships with the City and
County Creative Industries Development Officers. The funding has
also ensured more companies in the area are making the most of
ICT, and are made aware of funding opportunities. This support
has meant the CIN will become involved in the Friar Gate Studios
project, which is part-funded by DDEP, with support through European
Regional Development Funds, Derby City partnership and Derby City
Council". The modern technology consultancy offered to companies
in the area appears to be little more than a pre-ordained shopping
catalogue from favoured suppliers.
On both of the above building projects, I raised
significant concerns over the ability of the incumbent architects
to understand how technology could be used to deliver buildings
that could also act as a catalyst for sustainable building technology
across the region. I lined up both CISCO and Microsoft (Corp,
not UK) who demonstrated both the technical capability and the
willingness to get involved. This route was ignored with an evident
bias towards established supplier relationships. emda has
already been approached with a view to "renegotiating the
agreement around Friargate Studios".
The above are just a few examples of how budgetary
pressures to spend within a window, reluctance to step outside
of senior managers' comfort zones, and a desire to maintain commercial
relationships with unsuitable suppliers and consultants, demonstrate
the symptoms of a lack of overall vision. We no longer live in
a world where technology can be considered along with the pot
plants when designing a new building, or a transformed service.
Suppliers know that there is a better way but are happy to milk
the gravy-train for as long as they are allowed. I have some shocking
examples from major suppliers of public sector IT, as part of
one of my presentations. Those empowered with delivering the requisite
governance are ill-equipped to do anything other than follow the
established line of least resistance, relying on marketing and
PR to window-dress questionable returns on substantial public
investment.
In my international experience, the role of
technology and technologists is best understood by the Chinese
who have a central government cabinet stuffed with scientists
and engineers who don't have to answer to newspaper proprietors
or points-scoring politicians. Regional CIOs would be a good start
for England but long-term change can only come when politicians
bite the bullet and start to talk about 10-20 year strategies
driven by cross-party consensus and a shared, coherent vision.
David Gale
|
