Government And IT - "A Recipe For Rip-Offs": Time For A New Approach - Public Administration Committee Contents

Written evidence submitted by Hewlett Packard (HP)


HP is the world's largest technology company and the largest provider of IT products and services to the UK public sector. We welcome the Public Administration Select Committee's timely enquiry into this topic. Government IT has been a contentious issue in recent years, for a number of reasons. However, we believe that there is much to be proud of in the positive impact that we are able to have on the lives of the citizens and public servants that we support through the work that we and our counterparts in other suppliers do for our Government customers.

We are far from complacent though and recognise that, particularly in the straightened economic circumstances through which we are living, IT suppliers and the government IT community must work together to reduce the cost of the services that we provide to our Government customers, and help them to use IT to deliver efficiencies in their wider business operations so that they can protect and improve the services that they deliver to the public.

Our response to the committee's questions is summarised below.

—  Historically, Technology Policy is not extensively coordinated across government. Though there have been some notable successes in delivering cross-government solutions and rationalising diverse policies at a departmental level, there remains a culture of organisational autonomy, driven by financial models which align funding with the implementation of specific policy initiatives. As a result, the government often pays more than it should for under-utilised IT assets, engenders redundant software customisation and as a result IT is sometimes a barrier to, not a facilitator of change.

—  The Governance arrangements for Government IT have improved markedly in recent years, but no-one has yet been given the responsibility, authority and mandate for those parts of technology policy where greater coordination would be useful. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has expressed the view that what is needed is a combination of "tight and loose" controls to increase standardisation where doing so would reduce cost and support variation where doing so would add value. HP fully supports this view.

—  There have been multiple studies into Government IT by bodies such as the NAO which have produced useful insights into the determinants of successful outcomes and the causes of failure. Whilst these lessons are generally understood there is scope for further reinforcement of governance processes to ensure that they are adopted and to facilitate an environment where the governance process can be used to diagnose and address problems before they become critical.

—  Good IT is critical, to the delivery of public services and to the realisation of the Prime Minster's vision for a "post-bureaucratic age". Delivering these outcomes demands proper consideration of IT during the development of new policy—something which is not always done effectively now. At the same time, taking a more coordinated approach to technology policy has an important role to play in enabling the implementation of wider government policy by helping to remove barriers and facilitate collaboration.

—  Although outsourcing is the predominant and most appropriate model by which IT capability is acquired by Government, there are key roles which should be retained within the public service. At present, Government is over-reliant on external advisors for some functions (particularly architecture and procurement expertise) and needs to adopt a more consistent approach to the role of departmental CIO as a key actor in developing policy and determining business strategy.

—  Procurement processes are often considered to be one of the key barriers to achieving success in IT programmes. There is little wrong with current processes, but there are key issues which must be properly addressed by departments in order to use these processes effectively. Strong leadership, using the right procurement vehicle, a more strategic approach to framework contracts and clarity of purpose are key factors in achieving successful outcomes.

—  Cloud computing and "Everything as a Service" delivery models will be a dominant trend in both consumer and enterprise IT in the next few years. These will have significant impact on the way that government commissions IT, although there will still be a requirement for Government to own some assets in order to secure the levels of security and value for money that it requires. Government should not seek control over IPR for IT solutions where doing so would inhibit reuse.

—  IT has a key role to play in helping the public sector adapt to "the age of austerity". A more coordinated approach to technology policy would help to reduce the direct costs of government IT, but it is equally if not more important to consider the role that IT has in helping drive down the wider costs of government through its ability to help change delivery models, for example, through a shift to more on-line services.

—  It is not important for Government to be an "early adopter" of new technologies unless there is a clear business case for their deployment, but there are some technologies such as mobile telephony and risk profiling in fraud reduction which are commonplace in the private sector and significantly underused by public sector organisations.

—  Current approaches to Information Security and Information Assurance have improved markedly since a flurry of data loss incidents in 2007-08. Whilst this area of technology policy is now strong and one of the best coordinated across government there is scope for adoption of more pan-government solutions in this field which would drive down costs, facilitate wider deployment of shared services and ease the transfer of staff between different government organisations.

—  Whilst spend on government IT in the UK is high, international studies do indicate that the UK compares well with other countries in the effectiveness of its IT. The UK government market for IT products and services is fair and amongst the most open that HP has experienced anywhere in the world, with strong competition and few barriers to changing suppliers. However, some other governments are taking stronger positions to standardise their IT, maximise their purchasing power and driver wider policy outcomes through their IT procurements from which the UK could learn. Global suppliers like HP have a key role to play in helping the UK to benefit from the experiences of other countries.


1.  How well is technology policy co-ordinated across Government?

1.1  In general, Government technology policy is not coordinated to any great extent. Each organisation enjoys autonomy in setting IT Strategy and does so with little consideration of those of other departments. Until recently there have been few attempts to establish a more coordinated approach and no-one has been given both the responsibility and a clear mandate to do so.

1.2  The lack of coordination is a reflection of the fact that most ICT investment is still aligned to the specific policy imperatives of spending departments. What should be the common elements (eg datacentres, networks, office computing platforms, enterprise finance and HR systems etc) are bought over and over again as a patchwork quilt, which is extended each time a new large policy initiative is put into action, each initiative growing its own autonomous organisational and ICT machinery. In this regard therefore, the UK government has all the disadvantages of scale and few of the benefits.

1.3  There are limited areas in which coordination has been attempted and has been effective. These include the recent measures to improve Information Security and Assurance, the use of common networks such as the Government Secure intranet (GSi) and key applications which operate across it, such as the Government Gateway. These are however small in scale, when set against the government's total spend on IT.

1.4  There are other good examples where departments have consolidated historically diverse technology policies and achieved significant reductions in cost and improved effectiveness. Through the TREDSS and ICONS programmes that the department undertook with HP (then Electronic Data Systems) and BT, commencing in 2005, the DWP achieved savings of more than £1bn over five years and has a demonstrably more robust, adaptable and better performing IT infrastructure as a result. Such examples are the exception, not the norm.

1.5  Early last year, publication by the previous Government of the first cross-Government ICT strategy[3] started to put in place some building blocks of a common Technology Policy for Government, which offered the potential for a more coordinated approach. HP understands that strategy is currently under review by the new Government.

2.  How effective are its governance arrangements?

2.1  Recent years have seen new structures established to improve IT governance. The Government Chief Information Officer (CIO), CIO and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Councils have had a positive impact on the professionalism of the government IT community and played an important role in improving communication and collaboration within Government and with suppliers. They have as yet had little impact in shifting the balance away from organisational autonomy over technology policy towards a more coordinated approach.

2.2  Effective governance over technology policy is not solely an issue of organisation, but one of culture and leadership (from ministers and officials). HP believes that the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, understands this challenge fully. He talks about the need for a combination of "loose and tight" controls over technology policy:

—  Loose controls over those aspects of technology policy which are clearly within the expert domain of individual departments, agencies, or, as is the case in some increasingly market-oriented parts of the public sector, where organisations need the autonomy to diversify in order to innovate and compete effectively.

—  Tight controls over those aspects of technology policy where variation adds only cost and not value, where customisation is often redundant (such as IT infrastructure), or where adherence to standards is essential in order to allow those elements over which only loose control is desired to interoperate and coexist on the standardised infrastructure.

2.3  One further challenge which hampers attempts to establish more effective governance of technology policy is the lack of information on what is spent on IT. This has been noted as a barrier in earlier studies into Government IT, including the Operational Efficiency Programme conducted under the previous government[4].

2.4  HP understands that the Coalition Government intends to issue its own IT strategy. If this strategy sets out plans to increase the extent to which Technology Policy is coordinated on a cross-Government basis, then it must also turn its attention to how it proposes to strengthen existing (or establish new) governance arrangements. Without doing so, there is a risk that it will be unable to monitor and control compliance effectively, and the status quo of strong departmental autonomy will prevail.

3.  Have past lessons from NAO and OGC reviews about unsuccessful IT programmes been learnt and applied?

3.1  HP does not doubt that the government IT community is aware of and understands the lessons identified in reports produced by the NAO and other bodies. The extent to which these are fully applied does however vary. Whilst it can appear in that the recommendations have been followed, in some cases this can be superficial.

3.2  For example, the NAO's recommendation that a programme should have a defined SRO is rendered impotent if what happens in practice is that the role is fulfilled by many different people throughout the lifecycle of the programme, each juggling their SRO role with other duties, and with no continuity to ensure accountability for decisions taken during the procurement phase later in the lifecycle.

3.3  In other words, there remains a risk that the current environment can lead to potential or impending problems being masked by programme teams becoming adept at presenting a positive face to the governance regime, which is itself focussed on checking adherence to a process rather than delivery of business benefit. HP suggests that there is a role for stronger scrutiny of issues known to be critical to successful outcomes.

4.  How well is IT used in the design, delivery and improvement of public services?

4.1  IT plays an essential role in the delivery of public services. There are many examples of services which could not exist at all without IT (eg Transport for London's Oyster card system), and others which would be extremely expensive to deliver without it (such as the Post Office Card Account). The UK can point to many examples of IT-enabled policies and business processes which are world-class and have simultaneously improved both the experience for the citizen and cost-effectiveness. We would however offer the following observations.

4.2  IT is now on the critical path of almost any significant policy initiative. It is not sensible for policy to be developed without considering the way in which IT might support its delivery, and considering the impact of the relationship between policy, business process, information architecture and technology.

4.3  In particular, it is important that IT is not treated as an afterthought which comes at the end of the policy development process. This can lead to situations where the IT is perceived to have "gone wrong", when in fact the whole programme has slipped and the IT delivery becomes squeezed as a result, with obvious consequences.

4.4  A more coordinated technology policy itself has a role to play in improving the ease of implementation of new policy. It can support this by:

—  helping to remove barriers to cross-organisational collaboration and restructuring,

—  establishing IT infrastructures and applications which can be reused so policy can be implemented through customisation rather than construction, and

—  by establishing standards which can used to allow a diversity of different and innovative IT solutions to coexist and operate across common government IT infrastructures without sacrificing interoperability or transparency.

5.  What role should IT play in a "post-bureaucratic age"?

5.1  Based on the PM's speeches, HP's interpretation is that IT support for the post-bureaucratic age might manifest itself in a number of different ways, including:

—  Greater transparency—through increased access to spending data.

—  Improved citizen choice—by widening access to performance data.

—  Enabling innovation—by empowering people to access government datasets to create new online services.

—  Changing delivery models—by supporting public sector organisations to evolve their role to one where they are responsible for commissioning and orchestrating services from a range of different delivery partners.

—  Managing resources efficiently—by introducing smart grids for power generation and usage.

—  Widening participation—by members of the public in the processes operated by government.

5.2  Whilst the concept is not about technology, it depends absolutely upon technology for its realisation. The realisation of the PM's vision will demand a more coordinated technology policy, one which utilises "tight and loose" controls to deliver a cost-effective and standards-based IT infrastructure platform. This in turn can support applications which enable the openness, transparency and collaboration between different public sector organisations and the public which are central to the concept of the post-bureaucratic age.

5.3  There is a misconception amongst some that the sort of IT which enables the post-bureaucratic age is an alternative to the large, transaction-processing systems which have traditionally been operated by government.

5.4  The IT which supports the post-bureaucratic age must work alongside traditional systems. These "line of business" systems may need changing to support new ways of working, for example through the addition of standards-based interfaces to allow them to be accessed in new ways. But no-one should assume that a proliferation of web-based services or downloadable apps can displace the requirement for governments to continue to invest in their core IT systems, or that the well-proven ways of managing these highly complex systems, many of which form part of our Critical National Infrastructure, have been rendered obsolete.

6.  What skills does Government have and what are those it must develop in order to acquire IT capability?

6.1  Outsourcing is the dominant model by which Government acquires its IT capability. This approach allows the public sector to leverage investments made in skills by the private sector, helps avoid the costs of obsolescence, ensures a competitive market for these services and allows the transfer of knowledge between different public and private sector organisations on a global basis.

6.2  Within an outsourced model, HP would suggest that the following roles are those which should generally be maintained "in-house":

—  Chief Information Officer.

—  Development of IS and IT Strategy and Architecture*.

—  Security and Information Assurance Policy.

—  Business Analysis and Business Relationship Management.

—  Procurement and Contract Management*.

—  Business Change and Programme Management.

6.3  Almost all the other IT functions required by a typical government organisation can be more effectively provided by the private sector.

6.4  With regard to these functions, HP would offer the following comments:

—  Establishing a better coordinated Technology Policy across government will also demand a central cross-government analogue to lead each of these functions—a move which we recognise the ERG has begun to put in place.

—  The importance of the departmental CIO is increasingly recognised, with a number of strong appointments having been made in recent years. However, the function remains inconsistently adopted—some are members of their department's board and accountable to the Permanent Secretary, others less senior. More could be done to strengthen the role of the departmental CIO in policy development.

—  Of the roles listed above, those marked with * are often fulfilled either by staff on fixed-term contracts or external advisors. This is less than ideal, as it prevents the development of a professional cadre of staff with these essential skills and does not foster a culture of long-term accountability for outcomes within these functions.

—  Business Programme Management, especially for large, IT-enabled policy initiatives, is a highly specialised capability. The relatively small cadre of professionals with this experience should be recognised and managed as a cross-government asset.

7.  How well do current procurement policies and practices work?

7.1  HP believes that there is nothing inherently wrong with current procurement processes. There are however four issues which are of critical importance for organisations embarking on a major procurement:

7.2  Leadership—Having the right SRO (Senior Responsible Officer) is the cornerstone of a successful procurement—someone who really understands what Government wants and the place of procurement in achieving that outcome. Too often we see an SRO whose only remit is the procurement itself. This leads to a focus on running a procurement which is scrutiny-proof, rather than a programme which is geared up for successful delivery.

7.3  Using the Right Vehicle—Problems occur when departments rush to begin procurements before they have properly considered the best way to get the outcomes they want. Before embarking on a major procurement, departments should consider:

—  Do we need a procurement at all? Is there an existing solution which can be reused or extended to meet the requirement?

—  If we do need something new do we need a formal procurement or can the same outcomes be achieved by creating a market for the relevant product or service?

—  If we do need a procurement, can we use an existing contractual framework to accelerate the process?

—  If a full-blown OJEU procurement is needed, have we selected the right procurement pathway?

—  If we do need a full-blown procurement, are we approaching it in a way which will allow other departments to benefit from its outcomes?

7.4  A more strategic approach to frameworks—The increasing number of these, and the resulting lack of volume placed through each is adding cost to suppliers but more importantly, stopping the government from maximising its purchasing power by consolidating demand. A more strategic approach to frameworks, particularly those which support a stated IT strategy, combined with a stronger hand from ERG to support their use and restrict the proliferation, would provide benefits to both HMG and the supplier community.

7.5  Clarity of Purpose—Many procurements which go awry do so due to poor management or a lack of stability of the requirements, an absent or poorly articulated business case; and the suitability of the selection criteria used to assess suppliers' bids. In the worst case, this can lead to procurements decided predominantly in terms of price or a supplier's willingness to accept punitive contractual Terms and Conditions rather than capability, total cost of ownership and underlying risk.

8.  What infrastructure, data or other assets does government need to own, or to control directly, in order to make effective use of IT?

8.1  The current trend in the world of IT is the move towards "Cloud Computing". Here, rather than own IT assets, organisations purchase the IT that they require as a utility, paid on a usage basis. Responsibility of provisioning complex technology is removed from the commissioning organisation and the relevant IT function is provided as a service. One often hears terms such as Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) or Software as a Service (Saas) describing different variations of this model.

8.2  This approach will have a profound effect on the way in which businesses and citizens consume all kinds of IT service. In this context, the question of owning IT will become less important. There will still be a requirement for government to own certain assets, either because they cannot be economically procured in this way or due to specific security or resilience purposes, but the balance of what can be provided as a service by the market will shift.

8.3  One often contested issue between Government and suppliers is the question of IPR ownership for IT solutions. Though there are some areas where it is desirable for government to own these rights, there are others where this position drives up costs and prevents wider economic growth by inhibiting reuse and resale.

8.4  Ownership of data is a more philosophical and political question. Much of the data processed by government relates to individuals, in many cases to private matters such as health or finances. Adopting the principal that it is the citizen who owns the data about them, and that they, not the Government should be in control of it is not technically difficult if it is desired, but would need to be an explicit aim of a cross-government technology policy.

9.  How will public sector IT adapt to the new "age of austerity"?

9.1  In an "age of austerity" it is right that spending on IT should come under scrutiny and HP is fully supportive of the measures established by the Government to reduce IT expenditure through contract renegotiations, the moratorium process, and moving to a model where government is able to act as a "single client" in its dealings with suppliers.

9.2  Notwithstanding the potential which exists to deliver savings in direct expenditure on IT, IT still represents only around 4% of the Government's overall spend. Whilst reducing this by an average of, say 30%, may be feasible, the resulting overall reduction in public sector expenditure will have minimal impact on the deficit. Ultimately, IT is a tool for improving productivity; its potential to help deliver efficiencies in the remaining 96% of expenditure is relatively untapped.

9.3  The interesting question is what IT can do to help alleviate the impact of the age of austerity on the public sector. We would suggest:

—  ERG's moratorium process should evolve so that as well as halting investment in certain IT programmes it also plays a proactive role in coordinating a more appropriate cross-government technology policy by directing departments and agencies towards the sort of cost-efficient and transformative solutions which can reduce both direct IT costs and wider costs of government.

—  Plans for the transfer of some public services to online-only delivery should be accelerated (with suitable support mechanisms for those unable to get online).

—  The Government should find ways of harnessing the private capital of IT suppliers like HP, many of whom are ready and willing to make investments in delivering more standardised IT infrastructure or transformational programmes to public sector organisations. This would however rely on agreement of a more predictable business model than the "build it and they will come" approach, in which the market has little faith due to the historical lack of a more coordinated government technology policy.

10.  How well does Government take advantage of new technological developments and external expertise?

10.1  Perhaps surprisingly, HP would argue that it is not always desirable for Government to be at the leading edge of new technologies. Unlike for a private sector organisation, there is little "competitive advantage" to be had by Government taking big risks in order to be an early adopter.

10.2  It is right that Government should continuously evaluate new technologies, but it should only move to their widespread adoption when they are sufficiently mature to be implemented without the taxpayer having to fund the costs of upscaling, and where there is a clear business case for doing so. In some cases, technology can be exploited to deliver significant benefit at low risk and low cost—such as social networking. Exploitation of other technologies can demand a more considered approach. Often technology is considerably cheaper to deploy a few years downstream when initial implementation problems have been ironed out.

10.3  There are some areas however, where the Government is behind the private sector in the adoption of what are now tried and tested technologies. Examples include mobile telephony and email for contact with citizens, and the use of risk profiling to reduce fraud.

10.4  With regard to external expertise Government organisations tend to be over-reliant in the areas of procurement advice and management, setting IT strategy and architecture and defining and implementing security policy. Conversely, they tend to avoid taking advantage of external expertise when formulating new policy, particularly in terms of considering the resulting complexity of implementing the necessary IT and how policy might be tuned from the outset to address these challenges.

11.  How appropriate is the Government's existing approach to information security, information assurance and privacy?

11.1  The need for effective information security and assurance is a strong feature of current government technology policy.

11.2  Since a series of well-publicised data loss incidents in 2007-08, there has been an increased focus on Information Assurance (IA) within the government supply chain, for example through the joint Intellect/HMG IS&A Board. For information risk management to be fully effective the products of this work (eg the Supply Chain IA Tool - SIAT) should be fully implemented. To date this has not happened.

11.3  Whilst the need to ensure security of sensitive and personal data is paramount, there are occasions when current practice in these areas can create barriers to delivering more cost-effective IT solutions. For example:

11.4  The Security Policy Framework (SPF) is a key element of HMG's security strategy. Although strongly supported by each organisation, different interpretations of the SPF, and the requirement for individual accreditation of IT solutions by each department or agency can prove an obstacle to sharing services. Pan-government accreditation could achieve significant cost savings and streamline procurement and implementation without compromising security.

11.5  Differing risk appetites amongst Senior Information Risk Owners (SIROs) can be an obstacle to more consistent solutions. The appointment of a pan-government SIRO (eg within Cabinet Office), and the adoption of proven information security management schemes (eg those from DWP) more widely would give focus for normalisation, improve governance of security and information assurance, and reduce cost.

11.6  Security Clearances are required for staff in many roles but clearances are not transportable between departments and processes are inefficient, leading to delays in the assignment of staff to role with inevitable exposure to risk and cost increases. Clearances should be transportable between organisations with activity specific checks being an addition only rather than requiring a re-vet.

12.  How well does the UK compare to other countries with regard to government procurement and application of IT systems?

12.1  UK government IT spend rates as high in almost every international comparison. However, surveys of the sophistication and availability of online government services, including recent EU benchmarks[5] reflect the UK in a positive light and illustrate progress over time.

12.2  Technology companies such as HP can play a vital role in importing know-how from other countries. Our experience leads us to the following observations:

12.3  UK Government organisations are consistently open in their adherence to procurement regulations and fair in their evaluation of bids from different suppliers. The market functions effectively, with few barriers to changing supplier and with a large number of competitive suppliers. Our perception is that the UK market is amongst the most open in the world.

12.4  Whilst there are barriers to direct participation in government procurements by SMEs, there is a strong culture of larger suppliers facilitating access to government contracts through "eco-systems" of SME subcontractors.

12.5  Government organisations elsewhere in Europe who operate under the same underpinning procurement regulations tend to conclude their IT procurements more quickly than in the UK and with less reliance on external support.

12.6  Governments elsewhere in the world have been more willing to adopt tighter controls over cross-Government technology policies. The Australian Government commissioned Sir Peter Gershon to conduct a review of its use of IT.[6] His report identified a "current model of weak governance of ICT at a whole-of-government level and very high levels of agency autonomy" (a situation which mirrors that in the UK). He proposed "change from a status quo where agency autonomy is a longstanding characteristic". The Australian Government adopted his recommendations in full, and now departments who wish to deviate from the new model can only do so with Ministerial permission following a value for money assessment.

12.7  Other Governments have been more willing to combine tight control with moves which maximise their purchasing power by undertaking procurement on a cross-Government basis. The New Zealand government has just launched a procurement[7] which will see nine government organisations move to the Infrastructure as a Service model (question 8).

12.8  Some Governments have been bolder in using their procurement activity to secure wider policy outcomes. In the United States there is a federally-mandated quota which demands that Government prime contractors pass through a proportion of their contract value to "disadvantaged" companies. In a similar vein, "Mentor-Protégé" programmes have been established at both Federal and State level to encourage prime contractors to assist Small and Medium Enterprises, with formal evaluation of outcomes undertaken by the Federal Government's Small Business Administration.



HP is the largest supplier of IT services to Her Majesty's Government. Its principal clients are currently the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Justice, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Northern Ireland Office.


HP has been providing IT services and delivering modernisation programmes for the various agencies and departments of the DWP since 1989. More than 3,000 of HP ES' staff, clustered in three main areas in the North West, North East, and South Yorkshire, support most of DWP's business systems for the Department's key agencies, including JobCentre Plus, the Pension Service and the Child Support Agency. The TREDSS agreement, signed in 2005, realigned HP's contracts with the department into an industry-standard tower-based model, consolidating multiple previous commercial arrangements and leading to cost savings approaching £200 million a year for the DWP. This model is now being adopted as the basis of the emerging government IT strategy.

Through a separate contract HP is a subcontractor to Post Office Limited for the support of the Government Card Account (GCA), formerly the Post Office Card Account, which provides electronic payment services to around four million recipients of both DWP benefits and tax credits (paid by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) who do not possess a bank account.


HP has worked in partnership with the MOD for over 25 years in support of both frontline and "back office" activities, delivering information and technology services, from specific "battlespace" applications, to logistics and personnel services. In April 2005, HP (then EDS), as the prime contractor for the ATLAS consortium, was awarded the Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) contract, the delivery of which remains underway. HP also works with the Service Personnel and Veterans' Agency (SPVA) in support of the Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) programme. This initiative has seen the consolidation of HR and payroll services for all three branches of the armed forces into a single agency, and was re-awarded to HP following a competitive tender during 2008.


HP is the primary supplier of IT services to Her Majesty's Prison Service, now part of the Ministry of Justice. Through the QUANTUM contract, HP provides desktop, network and other infrastructure services to HMPS headquarters and all 143 prisons, and has completed more than 150 separate IT projects, including the development of the Offender Assessment System (OASys). HP is the IT partner for HMPS' Phoenix Shared Services programme providing HR, finance and procurement to all public sector prisons and is currently working with the MoJ to deliver its DOME (Delivering on Ministry Efficiencies) programme.


In 2005 HP agreed a contract with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to deliver "Future Firecrest", the FCO's global technology infrastructure platform, which will replace the desktop computing platform for the FCO's UK operations and in embassies and consular offices around the world. FCO staff overseas and in the UK are now using the new platform.


HP is currently operating two contracts in Northern Ireland—the e-Planning project for the Northern Ireland Office, and the Classroom2000 programme for the Western Education and Library Board (WELB) which supports education, library and youth services in the council areas of Omagh, Fermanagh, Derry, Strabane and Limavady.

January 2011

3   HM Government ICT Strategy, Smarter, Cheaper, Greener. Cabinet Office, January 2010. Ref: 299388/0110 Back

4   Operational Efficiency Programme, Final Report, HM Treasury 2009, ISBN 978-1-84532-587-9 Back

5   "Smarter, Faster, Better eGovernment, 8th Benchmark Measurement, November 2009" 

6   "Review of the Australian Government's Use of Information and Communication Technology" 

7   "Government in $2bn shake-up of data systems" 

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 28 July 2011