Observer re government IT projects

[eek]

i'm working on a bid for a single government department at present, to provide a full outsource of their it infrastructure. It's not a major department, about 800 users, and the technology required is not that complex. The preliminary rfi runs to 239 pages, with 17 pages of service levels (at least 40% of which are dependent on the customer doing something so are utterly unacceptable).

The problem is not that they hand everything over to the experts (if they did we could solve their problems very effectively; the infrastructure in question is less than half the size of our own), the problem is they are a bunch of clueless muppets who don't listen.

ftfy hth bidi

[malvolio]

I'm working on a bid for a single government department at present, to provide a full outsource of their IT infrastructure. It's not a major department, about 800 users, and the technology required is not that complex. The preliminary RFI runs to 239 pages, with 17 pages of Service Levels (at least 40% of which are dependent on the customer doing something so are utterly unacceptable).

The problem is not that they hand everything over to the experts (if they did we could solve their problems very effectively; the infrastructure in question is less than half the size of our own), the problem is that they demand you meet a set of totally unrealistic requirements then want to micromanage everything.

[Churchill]

If you want evidence of the kind of damage that management can cause read "The Nimrod Review" Report by Charles Haddon-Cave.

[DirtyDog]

They know it.

When money isn't your hiring big con is a no brainer because their main purpose is to take the blame - if it's an Ltd in Leeds then the blame would fall onto the person who picked it.

I did a big project a few years back for a central government department, where the whole project team was done by contractors and permies.

Unfortunately, the permies did the costings and were about £7million out. So to get round that £7million shortfall, management paid a consultancy £12million to finish the project. Senior management kept referring to needing someone with "skin in the game", ie. someone to blame when it all goes wrong, even if it's more expensive this way.

[TykeMerc]

You forget the inter-departmental inability to communicate and the general insistence of all gov't depts to document everything into a quagmire of write/review/re-write/re-review followed by late changes that have to go through the entire process again.

After 7 years of public sector contracting I have finally reached the 'happy place' of being able to work with the insanity of it all, then invoice.

Same here. It's impossible to avoid being cynical about government procurement when you've seen it up close and personal. Take it from me it's far from just IT projects that suffer from the problems, but the IT ones are the easiest to identify.

[AtW]

Problem is they don't know that the big consultancies are not the experts they're looking for.

They know it.

When money isn't your hiring big con is a no brainer because their main purpose is to take the blame - if it's an Ltd in Leeds then the blame would fall onto the person who picked it.

[bless 'em all]

Its a bit more complex. The real problem is the providers front off the the public sector with salesmen with little delivery experience. The real delivery leaders are kept from the buyers in the public sector, and most of the incentives in the system prevent the providers from telling the buyers the mistakes they are making.

The public sector also hires the same old consultancies to write the invitation to tender documents, and these firms routinely tie up the bidders into using inappropriate structures and approaches.

And you get some idiots in the cabinet office sticking their oar in who have read all about how to do projects in text books but have delivered the square root of nothing in their careers, but hey they went to the same public schools as the ministers so they are listened to.

And so on

You forget the inter-departmental inability to communicate and the general insistence of all gov't depts to document everything into a quagmire of write/review/re-write/re-review followed by late changes that have to go through the entire process again.

After 7 years of public sector contracting I have finally reached the 'happy place' of being able to work with the insanity of it all, then invoice.

[CoolCat]

Problem is they don't know that the big consultancies are not the experts they're looking for.

Its a bit more complex. The real problem is the providers front off the the public sector with salesmen with little delivery experience. The real delivery leaders are kept from the buyers in the public sector, and most of the incentives in the system prevent the providers from telling the buyers the mistakes they are making.

The public sector also hires the same old consultancies to write the invitation to tender documents, and these firms routinely tie up the bidders into using inappropriate structures and approaches.

And you get some idiots in the cabinet office sticking their oar in who have read all about how to do projects in text books but have delivered the square root of nothing in their careers, but hey they went to the same public schools as the ministers so they are listened to.

And so on

[Paddy]

Problem is they don't know that the big consultancies are not the experts they're looking for.

I have no doubt that similar has happened to others…

At old client co they insisted that the project management to be outsourced. Outsource consultancy won the tender, within days agent was on the phone to me asking if I would like the PM role with the consultancy for client co project.

I took the role, what could have cost about £250,000 cost £2,000,000 via the large well-known consultancy.

[expat]

It's perfectly right for relevant mandarins to seek advice and direction from experts.
Problem is a complete lack of technological awareness means the civil servant (savant?) hasn't the basic understanding to know if he is being hoodwinked or not.

Problem is they don't know that the big consultancies are not the experts they're looking for.

[minestrone]

We should introduce a new methodology for Properly Engineered New IT Systems.

Consultancies under new technology?

[evilagent]

We should introduce a new methodology for Properly Engineered New IT Systems.

It's perfectly right for relevant mandarins to seek advice and direction from experts.
Problem is a complete lack of technological awareness means the civil servant (savant?) hasn't the basic understanding to know if he is being hoodwinked or not.

Anyway, what we need is a Chancellor for the Understanding of New Technologies?

With any luck, they will merge with above organisation.

[doodab]

We should introduce a new methodology for Properly Engineered New IT Systems.

[expat]

How government does IT:

British civil servants have traditionally been technologically illiterate, so when ministers demand a new IT system to fix some failing that is annoying the Daily Mail, Sir Humphrey breaks into a cold sweat. He knows nothing about this stuff, except that it costs a bomb and that it usually bombs. The spectre of the National Audit Office looms over him. He does not want another IT disaster attached to his personnel file. So what does he do?

Simple: he calls up the big consultancy firms asking for tenders. These in turn call up their chums in brain-dead firms called "system integrators" who know only how to do one thing, namely to build massive integrated IT systems the way they were built in the 1960s. And thus begins another death march to oblivion; another project that is billions over budget and years behind schedule. But Sir Humphrey sleeps easy in his bed. After all, the shambles was approved and designed by the boffins who understand this stuff.