Conclusions and recommendations
Lack of information
1. Having
access to up-to-date and accurate information about government
IT is essential if the Government is to reform its IT successfully.
Without it the Cabinet Office will be unable to monitor and enforce
its programme of reforms. We were particularly shocked to learn
that, on coming to office, the Minister had to ask the IT suppliers
for information about the value of their contracts. We welcome
the Government's commitment to rectifying this situation. We recommend
that the Government work with the NAO to identify which data it
needs to gather to monitor the progress of its reforms and outline
in its response to this Report what information will be collected
by departments and how frequently this data will be gathered.
(Paragraph 15)
Benchmarking
2. The
poor benchmarking of central government's IT expenditure is unacceptable.
Without this information it will not be possible for the Government
to advance effectively its cost reduction agenda. We recommend
that the Government should investigate the claims of overcharging
put to us and seek to identify reliable and comparable cost benchmarks,
and collect accurate information from departments in order to
compare with those benchmarks. Where possible bespoke projects
should also be benchmarked, and the Government should trial ways
of conducting benchmarking exercises for its more complex projects.
The Government should use independent and specialist advisers
and the NAO to assist with identifying objective benchmarking
measurements. (Paragraph 20)
3. Making data about
expenditure available is not only a good discipline for departments;
it also allows the Government to harness independent views on
how to deliver services more cost effectively. The Government
should publish in full all contracts. It should publish as much
information as possible about how it runs its IT to enable effective
benchmarking and to allow external experts to suggest different
and more economical and effective ways of running its systems.
Feedback it receives based on this information should be used
to challenge and hold to account current providers, and to renegotiate,
disaggregate and re-compete existing contracts where it becomes
clear that more cost effective delivery mechanisms are available.
(Paragraph 25)
Large Systems Integrators
4. Extremely
serious allegations have been made about the behaviour of some
large suppliers. There are clearly very strong feelings on both
sides of this debate. We are not in a position to come to a firm
verdict on this matter. Having described the situation as an "oligopoly"
it is clear the Government is not happy with the current arrangements.
Whether or not this constitutes a cartel in legal terms, it has
led to the perverse situation in which the governments have wasted
an obscene amount of public money. The Government should urgently
commission an independent, external investigation to determine
whether there is substance to these serious allegations of anti-competitive
behaviour and collusion. The Government should also provide a
trusted and independent escalation route to enable SMEs confidentially
to raise allegations of malpractice. (Paragraph 30)
5. We recommend that
the Government develop a strategy to either replace legacy systems
with newer, less costly systems, or open up the intellectual property
rights to competitors. Alternative means of dealing with legacy
systems should be explored with the widest possible range of suppliers,
including SMEs. (Paragraph 34)
6. We take seriously
the concerns expressed by many SMEs that by speaking openly to
the Government about innovative ideas they risk losing future
business particularly if they are already in a sub-contracting
relationship with an SI. The Government should reiterate its willingness
to speak to SMEs directly, and commit to meeting SMEs in private
where this is requested. We recommend that the Government establish
a permanent mechanism that enables SMEs to bring innovative ideas
directly to government in confidence, thereby minimising the risk
of losing business with prime contractors. (Paragraph 42)
7. Where SMEs do subcontract
with a large SI, the SI should ensure that it pays the SMEs on
the same terms on which the Government pays the large SI. We welcome
the Government's own efforts to improve the speed with which it
pays its contractors, and we encourage it to ensure its prime
contractors pass these benefits on to SMEs. (Paragraph 44)
8. We welcome plans
for IT contracts to be broken up to allow for more effective competition
and to increase opportunities for SMEs to win Government work.
We urge the Government to create more contracting opportunities
worth much less than £100 million. (Paragraph 46)
9. We welcome the
efforts the Government is making to reduce the cost it pays for
IT. However the Government's plan to act as a single buyer appears
to be leading to a consolidation towards a few large suppliers.
This could act against its intention to reduce the size of contracts
and increase the number of SMEs that it contracts with directly.
We are particularly concerned with plans to move SME suppliers
to an "arm's length" relationship with Government. The
Government needs to explain how it will reconcile its intentions
to act as a single buyer, secure value for money and reduce contract
size to create more opportunities for SMEs. (Paragraph 50)
10. The way procurement
currently operates favours large companies that can afford to
commit the staff and resources to navigate the convoluted processes.
It also encourages the Government to confine discussions to as
few potential contractors as possible. If the Government is serious
about increasing the amount of work it awards to SMEs it must
simplify the existing processes. We welcome the Minister's assurance
that the Government is simultaneously seeking to change the current
European Directive regarding procurement and taking steps to simplify
official guidance that surrounds the procurement process. We ask
the Government to update us on the progress it is making on both
initiatives in its response to this Report. (Paragraph 57)
11. We recommend that
the Government investigate the practices which seem unintentionally
to disadvantage SMEs. When contracts and pre-qualifying questions
are drawn up thought must be given to what impact they could have
on the eligibility and ability of SMEs to apply for work, and
whether separate provision should be made for SMEs. We believe
it would be preferable if the default procurement and contractual
approach were designed for SMEs, with more detailed and bespoke
negotiation being required only for more complex and large scale
procurements. (Paragraph 60)
12. The Government
presumption in favour of smaller, disaggregated contracts should
lead to more direct contracting with SMEs. This will require Departments
to invest more effort in managing relationships directly with
SMEs meaning that more systems integration work is performed in-house,
but this will yield longer term benefits through increased innovation
and lower costs. Ministers need to ensure their officials have
the skills, capacity and above all the willingness to deliver
on ministerial commitments to SMEs. (Paragraph 64)
Integrating IT
13. Government
should ensure that the IT implications of new initiatives are
properly considered near the start of the policy process on a
par with the legal and financial considerations. This should simply
be an extension of thinking about how the policy will be implemented
in practice. We recommend that analysis of these issues be included
in all policy submissions to Ministers. (Paragraph 69)
Over-specifying
14. We
agree with our witnesses who argued that there was no such thing
as an IT project - only policy initiatives and business programmes
that use technology in their delivery. One of the primary reasons
for these project failures is a lack of focus on the outcome and
how the IT project fits into the wider benefits the Government
wants to achieve. The Government must stop departments specifying
IT solutions and ensure they specify what outcomes they wish to
achieve, within the broad technical parameters to ensure interoperability.
The market should then be able to provide a range of possible
IT solutions. (Paragraph 75)
Challenges to using Agile
15. Agile
development is a powerful tool to enhance the effectiveness and
improve the outcomes of Government change programmes. We welcome
the Government's enthusiasm and willingness to experiment with
this method. The Government should be careful not to dismiss the
very real barriers in the existing system that could prevent the
wider use of agile development. We therefore invite the Government
to outline in its response how it will adapt its existing programme
model to enable agile development to work as envisaged and how
new flagship programmes will utilise improved approaches to help
ensure their successful delivery. (Paragraph 87)
16. The Government
should examine how it can remove barriers to agile development
as an integrated part of its wider efforts to reform the procurement
process and increase the role of SMEs. The Government will have
to bear in mind the need to facilitate agile development as it
renegotiates the EU procurement directive and revises the associated
guidance. (Paragraph 90)
Security and Privacy
17. Governments
have learnt that they must secure both personal data and data
relating to national security, whilst also guarding against gold-plating
its security requirements - which can greatly inflate costs without
delivering any tangible benefits. Over-classifying routine administrative
and operational information causes unnecessary technology and
operational costs, and prevents the public sector taking advantage
of the economies and efficiencies of commodity software and new
opportunities. It also acts as a further barrier to more effective
use of SMEs in the supply of IT goods and services. Government
must do more to demonstrate how a risk-based approach is helping
achieve a better balance in information assurance. (Paragraph
99)
An intelligent customer?
18. Managing
suppliers is as important as deciding who to contract with in
the first place. To be able to perform both of these functions
government needs the capacity to act as an intelligent customer.
This involves having a small group within government with the
skills to both procure and manage a contract in partnership with
its suppliers. Currently the Government seems unable to strike
the right balance between allowing contractors enough freedom
to operate and ensuring there are appropriate controls and monitoring
in-house. The Government needs to develop the skills necessary
to fill this gap. This should involve recruiting more IT professionals
with experience of the SME sector to help deliver the objective
of greater SME involvement. (Paragraph 108)
19. The strategic
importance of Government developing and maintaining an intelligent
customer function has been repeatedly highlighted throughout our
inquiry. We are very supportive of the Government's efforts to
develop its own talent in-house through the Technology in Business
Fast Stream. The Government should use this scheme as a basis
for a strengthened IT Profession within Government. It must ensure
that it aligns the training curriculum with its ICT Strategy and
wider developments in the world of technology outside of Government.
(Paragraph 112)
Spread of skills
20. Knowledge
about how modern information systems and technology can be used
to improve public services should not be restricted to the IT
profession - this knowledge is essential to the work of all senior
civil servants responsible for designing and delivering policy.
The Government should explore how departmental boards and senior
officials can best benefit from professional training and support
in technology policy. A systematic programme to improve these
skills across the senior civil service would also help support
the Government's aim of ensuring public services become "digital
by default" by improving the integration of technology and
policy throughout the policy-making process. (Paragraph 115)
Leadership
21. We
welcome the Government's intention to strengthen the role of Senior
Responsible Owner (SRO) by ensuring that they stay in post until
an appropriate break point in the project. Wherever possible SROs
should stay in post to oversee the delivery of the benefits for
which they are accountable and which the project was intended
to deliver. It should be in Ministers' interests to ensure that
this happens, and Ministers should take a personal interest in
the leadership of politically sensitive programmes. (Paragraph
117)
22. We are concerned
that despite the catalogue of costly project failures rarely does
anyone - suppliers, officials or ministers - seem to be held to
account. It is therefore important that, when SROs do move on
they should remain accountable for those decisions taken on their
watch, and that Ministers should be held accountable when this
does not happen. (Paragraph 118)
23. Ministers should
reconsider the governance arrangements for their departments'
information systems and associated IT. Whilst it may not always
be appropriate for the CIO to be a board level appointment, we
think that more department boards should include CIOs given the
essential role that information and technology play in delivering
Departments' services. Where CIOs are not on a departmental board,
another member of their Board should have proven expertise in,
and act as a champion for, information and technology issues.
(Paragraph 124)
Public data release
24. Publicly
releasing data has the potential to transform public services
radically by allowing individuals to use data in ways most useful
to them, rather than having to use and access the data in a way
prescribed by the provider. We welcome the Government's commitment
routinely to release public data. We recommend that the Government
should release live, as well as historic, data sets where this
is possible and that in future its information systems are designed
to do so by default. (Paragraph 135)
25. Bringing in outside
developers to demonstrate to departments the potential of the
information they already hold is an exciting way to innovate and
provide new tools and services for the Government. We applaud
the departments that have already been involved in "hack
days" and recommend that all departments work in a similar
way. (Paragraph 136)
26. Government must
continue to address the issue of public data access by removing
licences from its own data and by encouraging publicly funded
organisations to do the same. Placing this information into the
public domain for free is in the long-term interest of data owners,
users and the wider economy. (Paragraph 137)
Open standards
27. Adherence
to open standards is important if the Government is to make data
more readily accessible. It will also help the Government avoid
lock-in to any one provider. We welcome attempts to identify the
open standards to be used across departments. However, we are
concerned that the recent Government survey indicates that the
current understanding of open standards is incomplete. The Government
should prioritise the adoption of a set of core open standards
which focus on interoperability between systems, making data available
through open interfaces and formats that allow meaningful public
access. (Paragraph 141)
28. Government should
omit references to proprietary products and formats in procurement
notices, stipulating business requirements based on open standards.
The Government should also ensure that new projects, programmes
and contracts, and where possible existing projects and contracts,
mandate open public data and open interfaces to access such data
by default. (Paragraph 142)
Personal data ownership
29. Giving
control of personal data to the individual has the potential to
improve data quality while reducing both costs and risks. Individuals
are used to controlling their own data with private sector companies,
such as Amazon and with utility companies. Moving to a model where
the citizen maintains their own personal data with an independent,
trusted provider and then can choose whether to authorise the
sharing of that information with other organisations is an ambitious
vision that will need to be trialled extensively. We also recognise
that there may be legal constraints and concerns about privacy
which could act as a barrier to implementing such a radical reform.
We therefore recommend that the Government, working with the Information
Commissioner, review potential barriers to the personal data model
and explore the ways in which this model could best be developed.
(Paragraph 156)
30. We welcome the
work being done to create an integrated identity assurance trust
model for simplifying access to Government services. We suggest
that Government consider integrating this work with the personal
data model. This could represent an important step, placing responsibility
and control of personal data with citizens in their interactions
with public and other online services. (Paragraph 157)
User engagement in service design
31. It
is self-evident that the people using systems, be they frontline
officials or members of the public are best placed to provide
suggestions on how to improve them. User feedback should be directly
integrated into the design of new systems and the development
of existing systems and processes to ensure continuous improvement.
We recommend that Departments exploit the internet and other channels
to enable users to provide direct online feedback both in the
design of services and in their ongoing operation and improvement.
(Paragraph 162)
Open delivery of online Government services
32. Government
should open up online service delivery to non-public sector organisations
and explore ways in which public services can be offered through
other websites, applications, devices and providers. This should
be developed by providing an open Government platform around which
others can innovate and improve, built on the principles of open
data, open standards and open source. (Paragraph 167)
33. In doing so Government
will need to address issues of liability for the external delivery
of Government services. Moving to a model where third parties
provide online Government services will require clarity about
where citizens should turn for help when they encounter difficulties,
as well as clarifying who is accountable for service delivery.
(Paragraph 168)
| 
