Report - Guardian

More documents

Recommendations

Info

220 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005Project Departments IT Supplier Dates NotesNPSISS-CaseRecord andManagement SystemBenefitsPaymentCardNewSystemNIRS2ITINDCaseworkProgramLIBRANewSystemITE-RevenueDisclosureVATOnlineGatewayIndividualLearningAccountsCensusOnlineCPSTrackingSystemHousingBenefits ITSystemProbationUnit/HomeOfficeDSS/POCounters LtdPassportAgencyContributionsAgencyBullInformationSystems1995-99 Suspended at £6 million over budget. Poorplanning, coordination and supplierproblems blamed.ICL Pathway 1996-99 Suspended in 1999 with £1 billion inabortive expenses. Over ambition, poorplanning/coordination and supplier problemsblamed.Siemens 1997-99 Technical problems cost £12.6 million and40-day delays in passport turnover.Andersen(nowAccenture)Management and supplier blamed.1995-99 Continuing problems led to compensation of38 million to pensioners.Home Office Siemens 1996-99 Delays and hardship were experiencedthrough a 176,000 backlog of asylum andnationality cases.LordChancellor’sOfficeICL/FujitsuService1998- Collapsed in 2002 at 136 million over theinitial budget and little improvement inservice.CSA EDS 2002- Huge delays in a new IT system, 50 millionover budget. Contributed to the CSA failingto collect £200 million.InlandRevenueCriminalRecordsBureauHM Customs& ExciseOffice of thee-EnvoyEDSothersand2001- Technical/Supplier problems led to slowtake up in online tax services. Securitybreaches and major error (£15 million ofdebts were wiped) also tarnished thisflagship e-government project.Capita 2001- Supplier errors caused delays and frustrationfor users. The project received significantnegative press attention.Microsoft/E 2001- Pilot project had 66% dropout rate, as usersDSwere not attracted to the service.Compaq 2001- Following project problems relations withthe suppliers broke down costing 6.7million,mostly recouped by the OeE selling offproject assets.DfES Capita 2000- Allegations of security breaches and fraudled to its suspension. The relationshipbetween DfES and supplier was criticised.PublicRecordsOfficeCrownProsecutionServiceDSS/BenefitsAgencyESS/QinetiQ 2000- Service was overwhelmed and suspendedfor months after 4 days. Supplier/departmentrelations were criticised.(PFIcontract)1990- Over budget and delayed, the project wasdownscaled in 1997, to the detriment of theintended service improvements.EDS/IBM 1999- Delays in the roll out of the systemexasperated attempts to combat widespreadbenefits fraud.Table 9 - Government project failures, from "The Coordination of e-Government in HistoricalContext", Joe Organ, Public Policy and Administration Volume 18, No.2, Summer 2003.
The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005 221Two trends that may be identified from the above list of failures are the problems withsecurity and the poor relations with contracting companies. This was subsequentlyhighlighted by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, which raisedprivacy, security and accordingly confidentiality as a particular concern to users. 532These prior failings led the UK Computing Research Committee to warn the HomeAffairs Committee:“UKCRC believes that a major factor in these failures is theunwillingness of Departments and of major IT suppliers to accept thatdeveloping software-intensive systems is an engineering task ofequivalent complexity to designing a modern aircraft or building anovel sky-scraper. Because the engineering complexity of the task isnot recognised, insufficient attention is given to using the best scienceembedded in the strongest engineering processes (a mistake thatwould never be made by aeronautical or civil engineers). We believethat the quality of software engineering employed on many projects islamentable and exposes the projects to unacceptable risks of failure;unless this problem is addressed vigorously and successfully, webelieve that any national ID card system will overrun dramatically andwill almost certainly fail to achieve its objectives.” 533The UKCRC is an Expert Panel of the British Computer Society, the Institution ofElectrical Engineers and the Council of Professors and Heads of Computing. Theyconcluded that significant changes in the practice of Government Computing would berequired.A Challenging Environment for Successful ProjectsThe UK Government has been generally unsuccessful at reigning in costs andconcluding successful projects. According to one report,“[Private Finance Initiatives] processes were supposed to cut costs andimprove deliver reliability by forcing contractors to internalise therisks of new IT systems development and to manage these processesmore rigorously and tightly. For almost a decade a body of evidenceaccumulated casting doubt on this fundamental logic in relation to ITprojects, where government could rarely bare the costs of catastrophicnon-delivery and the asset value of non-working systems forcontractors was also negligible. Only in 2003 did Treasury advice atlast acknowledge that this was a doomed hope for government IT,withdrawing PFIs for IT projects because agencies and departmentseffectively had to keep intervening to bail out PFI contractors indifficulties every bit as much as with conventional procurements.” 534532 ‘Progress in Achieving Government on the Web’, Sixty-Sixth Report of Session 2001-02, HC 936, p.6 and 9.533 ‘Memorandum submitted by the UK Computing Research Committee’, submitted to the Select Committee onHome Affairs, available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/130/130we52.htm.534 Ibid., p.20.
Page 1:
The Identity Projectan assessment o
Page 5 and 6:
The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 7:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15:
Page 19:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
Page 36 and 37:
22 The LSE Identity Project Report:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
100 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 183 and 184: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 199: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 202 and 203: 188 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317:
show all

Report - Guardian

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?