tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68926478870087113032024-03-05T14:15:03.893-01:00pssst..... Public Sector Software, Services and TechnologyComments and views on software, services and Information Technology systems supplied and used in the UK Public Sector.Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-44405566653309090182010-08-11T09:51:00.002+00:002010-08-11T09:56:50.356+00:00Fraud–if only Government knew what Government knows….<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">The Government has announced yet another attack aimed at getting fraud out of the benefit system. But like all such pledges made over the past 15 or so years, will it succeed?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">The use of external credit checking organisation is a worthwhile step forward – these organisations have the sorts of sophisticated databases and search engines that, despite continual recommendations by the IT industry, Government has consistently failed to put in place over the past two decades. (Within Radius we submitted numerous proposals to central government, and yet not one was picked up – the common reason being given that “there’s no money for fraud detection”).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">At the time our strap-line was:</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;color:#3333ff;"><em>“If only local authorities knew what local authorities know”</em></span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">It’s still the same today – within local authorities (and some Government departments), data is held in individual departmental silos – inaccessible to their own internal fraud teams, yet alone front-line staff dealing with benefit claims. Then each local authority is an island of information separated from its neighbouring (and all other) authorities – how many housing benefit claimants claim benefit in one local authority area whilst having a taxi driver licence in another (or even working for another authority?).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Meanwhile, central government has numerous lists of relevant names (e.g. the names of tens of thousands of immigration/asylum offenders and absconders who have exhausted the appeals process, and are not entitled to public funds), that, even if they were made available to local authorities and other departments, could not be used because of the lack of investment in counter-fraud computer systems.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">The National Fraud Initiative (NFI) operates a data matching service for participating organisations, using data matching across a large number of databases to identify potentially fraudulent activity. In its last report, the NFI claims to have found £215M p.a. of fraud, perhaps a reasonable result in absolute terms, but a very small percentage of the National Fraud Authority’s figure of £7 billion p.a. of public sector fraud estimated to be in the system. The biggest gap in this initiative is that only one government agency took part – not a single central government department participated.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">The next gap is within local authorities and other organisations using NFI – in 2008/09 only 269 prosecutions resulted from the NFI – and although 16,535 blue badges and 21,534 concessionary travel passes were cancelled, this is hardly tackling serious benefit fraud. NFI sends authorities lists of ‘potentially fraudulent activity’ – many (most?) authorities lack the funds/staff/time to investigate the people identified by NFI. As one councillor told me “there’s no money in fraud detection” whilst another told me “I don’t want to catch housing benefit fraudsters amongst my electorate – they clearly need the money to live, and if government is prepared to pay them, why should the council seek to stop them?”.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Also, as most Officers will say, it is a lot easier to detect fraud at the point it tries to enter the system, rather than after it is in the system. Carrying out an annual data matching exercise is too little too late – such data checking should be available at the time a claim is submitted – not up to 12 months later. Also, where authorities’ fraud teams are investigating individuals, or have a known fraudster, there are very few ways that the information on that individual can be shared with other authorities or organisations (worthwhile regional initiatives such as LTAF – London Team Against Fraud – have been starved of cash and doomed from the time of their birth).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">So how to move forward?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">The best way may be to have a unified benefits system under the control of a single body. If this were assisted by each claimant having a unique ‘entitlement’ number or card then so much the better (NINO’s would have helped, had there not been, reputedly, over half a million extra NINOs in existence). This may be the new government's aspiration, but I doubt that it will happen quickly, so in the meantime key initiatives should include:</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">local authorities must be encouraged (via much more generous financial subsidies/payments) to find and stop fraud both entering the system, and once it is in the system</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">the NFI must be expanded to include <strong>all</strong> government departments, and </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">the NFI’s systems should be re-engineered to allow for much more frequent data checks (to help stop fraud entering the system)</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">a secure, centralised database/network must be created to allow the fraud departments with local authorities and other public sector (and perhaps private sector) organisations to share information on confirmed and suspected fraudsters.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">P.S. Many Councillors and Officers try to hide their lack of support for counter-fraud data matching behind the Data Protection and other Acts. I won’t try to examine the detail of the complex legal framework, nor add the caveats about informing citizens, but suffice it to say that data matching exercises are OK provided they are solely ‘for the purpose of assisting in the prevention and detection of fraud’.</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-79207903017999113812010-08-05T09:14:00.002+00:002010-08-05T09:31:13.058+00:00Wave goodbye to Google Wave<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Only just over a year after its launch, Google has </span><a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-on-google-wave.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">announced</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> the end of its Google Wave initiative as a stand alone product.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As I noted in my </span><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2009/06/google-waves-hello-to-microsoft.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Google Waves hello to Microsoft</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> post last year, the initiative introduced an integrated set of tools around email and instant messaging that would make it a whole lot easier to manage internal collaboration that other tools then on the market. It has driven some changes in other suppliers’ offerings, with Microsoft’s Outlook 2010 introducing a small part of the same functionality (and I think more will come over the coming years).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">However, Google apparently never overcame the security implications of Google Wave – one of the factors that has contributed to a very poor take up of the technology by corporate customers. To quote from the Google announcement:</span></p><p><em><span style="font-family:verdana;">“ …. Wave has not seen the user adoption we would have liked. We don’t plan to continue developing Wave as a standalone product, but we will maintain the site at least through the end of the year and extend the technology for use in other Google projects.”</span></em></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">So perhaps some of the technology will find its way into other Google products….</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-50882584434689555662010-08-02T10:43:00.002+00:002010-08-02T10:44:12.075+00:00SaaS is the answer – not G-Cloud<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve posed an interesting conundrum to a number of decision makers involved in purchasing software applications for local authorities. All discussions started off on the premise that ‘cloud’ computing is the way forward, and the question was:</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">If you were looking for a new back office application, assuming the 5-year cost of ownership is the same, which of the following would have the greatest impact on your decision:</span></p><ol><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">the application runs in G-Cloud?</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">the application runs in a supplier-managed cloud?</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">the application runs on the LA-managed cloud/data centre?</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">the licence agreement is on a SaaS basis?</span></li></ol><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">In all but one case, the answer was a pricing based on SaaS, where the LA pays based on usage – there was little concern about where the application was run, the focus was on price and matching that price to usage. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">To me this was a surprise, firstly, because LA’s have historically disliked the ‘blank cheque’ approach of true SaaS agreements, where if usage increases so does the cost – they have typically liked to budget for a cost and know that that budgeted cost will not be increased, come what may. In discussions, most did not expect transaction volumes to increase, and wanted the flexibility of SaaS agreements to allow them to manage and move their transaction volumes as the years progressed. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">This led to discussions on the types of SaaS agreements being offered. Most said that they did not regard SaaS agreements that stipulated a minimum level of commitment as true SaaS contracts. They regarded volume pricing as acceptable under SaaS (i.e. if volumes decline below certain levels, then per unit pricing increases), but only if they were not punitive. (However, perversely, one person believed that suppliers should have a maximum cap on total annual cost - whilst not having a minimum level of commitment on the LA).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">I was also surprised by the lack of emphasis on, or questioning about security levels. Either the messages about overcoming the security hurdles are getting through, or there is a growing cynicism about IT departments over-stating the potential problems to support their own preferred solution. Not surprisingly, the one dissenting voice came from Social Services who put security top of his list, and would insist on the applications only running under the management of the LA.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Although my survey size was not large enough to draw firm conclusions, it would appear that suppliers will need to look harder at their own commercial terms, rather than just the technical hosting solution, if they are to win over new customers in the future. </span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-6216711419679615912010-07-15T14:49:00.002+00:002010-07-15T14:50:26.545+00:00G-Cloud – data centre or true cloud?<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">My latest project has given me considerable exposure to the design and development of new applications to be hosted in the ‘cloud’ - albeit for a commercial company rather than a public sector customer. However, it has led to a number of contacts asking for my opinion on the Government’s G-Cloud initiative.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">On paper, G-Cloud is potentially a money-saving initiative even if, as I suspect, it is more a shared data centre than a true cloud computing initiative. The question is whether the project can be made attractive to the many, largely autonomous, organisations that form the UK Public Sector. Whilst Central Government departments can perhaps be expected to sign up to this initiative (although I doubt that there will be universal acceptance without the use of a stick or a very large carrot), past experience has shown that other organisations like local authorities, police and others will be far more reluctant.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As I’ve discovered in my cloud projects, once the security issue has been overcome, the next most important factor is cost and the ease with which additional computing power can be bought on stream to deal with peaks in demand. Can G-Cloud match commercial cloud providers such as Microsoft, Amazon or others?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">My view is that it is unlikely to. Running a cloud purely for the UK Public Sector means that it will have to be sized to cope with the peak demands of its customers – peaks that will in many cases all occur at the same time. If a flexible pricing policy is adopted, then I suspect that it cannot be competitive with commercial cloud suppliers who manage a wide variety of peak demands, and can therefore spread their costs better. And what comes first? – the computing power or the demand? – in a public sector heavily constrained by budget restrictions can the computing power be put in place before the demand is contracted?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">No – I suspect that G-Cloud will be more a shared data centre, with organisations committing to take up a dedicated level of computing power, with the level of pay-for-what-you-use computing limited by relatively high on-demand pricing (but still likely to be cheaper than running in-house options).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Also, it will be interesting to see if the concept of the Government App Store succeeds or not. In theory it should, but in practice I fear it will be limited by the current architecture of many of the existing applications used within the UK Public Sector. In the short-term, what I expect instead is a few suppliers cleverly offering a SaaS pricing approach on existing ‘legacy’ applications without embracing a true on-demand use of hardware – most probably against a ‘minimum commitment’ that will limit the cost savings for users.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">But given a software generation or two, I believe new applications will be developed that have been designed to make optimum use of true on-demand, cloud computing systems. Only then will the real cost benefits of cloud computing possibly be realised by the UK Public Sector.</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-89017787095397447032010-07-12T13:49:00.002+00:002010-07-12T13:52:02.097+00:00No surprises with cancellation of BSF<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">I guess that the largest announcement whilst I was in N America was the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">The cancellation should not come as a surprise to suppliers – the Conservatives’ opposition to such programmes was very clear, and even Alastair Darling’s announcements on capital spending (in the 2009 Budget Report he signalled a halving of the government’s capital programme from £44 billion to £22 billion per annum) meant that were Labour re-elected, the BSF programme was unlikely to continue. Over the past 18 months I’ve worked on a number of business plans in the Education sector, and each one identified the potential cancellation of BSF as a major external risk factor.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Leaving aside the political arguments, working in the software supplier space, personally I’m pleased to see the back of BSF. The programme was vastly complicated, bid processes involved crowds of unnecessary people, far too many tiers of contractors and sub-contractors were involved, and the resulting main contracts seemed over-priced and poor value to the customer.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">The impact on the ICT main contractors will be immense. They have incurred massive bid costs on the basis of gaining volume and recouping their costs from rolling out solutions to multiple schools across the regions – roll-outs that are now unlikely to happen. However, I believe that the canny suppliers will keep in there – the BSF programme may be dead, but the need for new build and modernisation of secondary schools remains – the building programme will be cut back, but the need for ICT will remain – and if the procurement is devolved more, then perhaps that ICT procurement will become less complex, it may again be possible to deal with the customer staff that matter, and perhaps, just perhaps, customers will focus more on the real educational computing needs, rather than the <em>suits’</em> view of life…..</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">However, in the post-BSF (and post-BECTA) era, if we are to have devolved procurement of new ICT for schools, I believe it will be essential for central government to retain a central advisory and supervision role to help the agreement and implementation of open standards across all areas of software in use at schools. Allowing an unmanaged explosion of small-system developments/implementations could result in a bigger long-term waste of taxpayers’ money than the planned ICT expenditure in the expensive BSF programme.</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-83749795513250701672010-07-12T11:31:00.002+00:002010-07-12T11:32:48.170+00:00Seeing off the grizzly in my OWL…<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">I was fortunate to spend the last week of my time in North America in Yellowstone, where I was able to knock off another item on my OWL (Outrageous Wish List) when I met up (at a safe distance) with a grizzly bear (and its 3 cubs).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">In talking to my hosts about my OWL, I was, once again, made aware of the American focus almost exclusively on work, and their general lack of planning of their own personal lives. At this stage I can plug the services of </span><a href="http://richardmaybury.co.uk/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Richard Maybury</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> who, in addition to helping me manage my work activities better, taught me the need to use the same techniques in managing my personal life – one of the ideas being to build an OWL of 10-20 things that you want to do in your life – and plan to knock 1-2 items off the list each year.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">OK – so I’ve only managed to knock 4 items off my OWL in the past 5 years (getting to Yellowstone and meeting a bear was one) – but having the OWL (as well as using several of other time-management techniques in my personal, as well as my work, life) has made a big difference in my life.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">In the USA they talk of bucket lists instead of OWLs, but surprisingly none of the people I met out there have one – do you?</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-67376234490805846112010-05-20T13:41:00.002+00:002010-05-20T13:42:11.470+00:00Is the FiReControl project at risk?<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">In today’s document outlining the new coalition government’s programme for government there is a short comment about the fire services, namely that the government will “stop plans to force regionalisation of the fire service.”</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Whether this refers to the FiReControl project or Prescott’s wishes for a merging of the existing 46 English fire services into 9 regions is unclear. Personally I hope that this does not spell the end of FiReControl.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As I’ve said before, the case for FiReControl is very strong – as a nation we would have far a better response to major emergencies were an effective FiReControl system implemented. As ever, the problem is that the procurement of the technology for this project was fatally flawed from day 1 (see </span><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2010/04/firecontrol-catalogue-of-poor-judgement.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;">FiReControl – a catalogue of poor judgement and mismanagement</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> ).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Whilst the incoming government will inevitably focus on the costs of the project, and the potential savings from cancelling the project, I hope that it doesn’t <em>throw the baby out with the bath water</em>. The current project may be flawed, but the underlying ideas and vision aren’t. If the current project is to be cancelled, let’s hope that the vision remains, and that it is taken forward more effectively and efficiently in a well-specified project with strong user engagement.</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-33656504317891042732010-05-20T11:11:00.002+00:002010-05-20T11:12:44.057+00:00HIPs to go – at last….<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">OK – I predicted the demise of HIPS prematurely (see </span><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2008/09/hips-will-go-but-when.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;">HIPS will go - but when...</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> ) – but the new coalition government has today suspended the use of Home Information Packs (HIPs) by home sellers. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Introduced in 2007, the aim was to speed up the house selling process by obliging sellers to provide much of the required conveyancing information when properties are first put up for sale. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">The packs were paid for by sellers and contained property information, title deeds, and local searches. But in practice many prospective purchasers ignored the HIP whilst making their decision, and actual purchasers resorted to getting their own local authority searches.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">"<em>Today the new government is ensuring that home information packs are history</em>," said Housing Minister Grant Shapps.</span> </p><p>"<em>By suspending home information packs today, it means that home sellers will be able to get on with marketing their home without having to shell out hundreds of pounds upfront. We are committed to greener housing so from now on all that will be required will be a simple energy performance certificate"</em> he added.</p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-5647522761203046302010-04-01T09:32:00.003+00:002010-04-01T09:37:18.016+00:00FiReControl – a catalogue of poor judgement and mismanagement<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">No – that title isn’t mine – it’s from Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee Chair Dr Phyllis Starkey when launching the report of an enquiry into the FiReControl project (a programme to replace 46 local fire and rescue service control rooms with nine purpose-built regional control centres).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">This will come as no surprise to regular readers who may remember my December 2008 </span><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2008/12/firecontrol-success-or-failure.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">post</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> on this project:</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;"><em>“the project itself smacks of Government’s usual inability to follow best practices when procuring new IT systems….….. it has failed to involve key users in its design early enough, initially imposed a massively optimistic timescale for implementation, and seemingly failed to allow any contingencies in its plans and budgets.”</em></span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Yet again Central Government is giving us a lesson on how not to procure and implement new IT projects. Quotes from the evidence presented to the committee include:</span></p><p><em><span style="font-family:verdana;">“The problem stems again from a lack of user engagement at the early stages of the project.”</span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-family:verdana;">“the rush to procurement meant the level of detail in the specification did not reflect what the professional people were saying. That has plagued the project ever since, both in terms of delays and being over-optimistic about how quickly it could<br />be delivered, how much it was going to cost, and why certain things that were absolutely necessary were never specified and other things were put in that were not needed.”</span></em></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As I have posted so many times, this is yet another project that has gone wrong before the initial contract was signed. The matter appear to have been compounded by (yet again one of my pet topics) the “adversarial relationship between the customer and contractor”. Central Government must get out of the current ways of procurement of these innovative systems:</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Government under-defines requirement </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Suppliers bid knowing that the requirements will change </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Government awards contract on the basis of price rather than value </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Government then involves end users who identify substantial changes to requirements </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">(in many cases like this, initial software solution is found not to meet the new requirements) </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Suppliers use change control procedures to delay the schedule and increase the price of the contract to reflect the additional work required to meet the changes</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Contractor and Supplier fall out – to the overall detriment of the project </span></li></ul><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">I have great sympathy with both the supplier’s and the CLG’s management staff on this project. They appear to have done the best they can given the framework under which Government procures these types of projects. Although I do wonder what the unsuccessful bidders for the original project said in their proposals – did they point out the likely problems, allow for them in their bids (and get ruled out because of the resulting higher price and/or delayed schedule?).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As I noted in my 2008 posts, we need this project to work – once implemented it should give us one of the best operational systems in the world. The good news is that main contractor EADS has entered into a new subcontract with Intergraph for its well-respected I/CAD product. Intergraph already appears to have stamped its authority and experience on this project and, whilst the lack of fully defined requirements so late in the project gives cause for concern, I have more confidence that they will be able to deliver a working central system than before their appointment.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">P.S. You may be interested in some of my other posts on these topics:</span></p><ul><li><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2009/01/nhs-npfit-successful-government-project.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">definition of a successful Central Government project</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> </span></li><li><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2009/06/government-it-projects-time-for-change.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Government IT projects – time for change</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> </span></li><li><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2009/02/too-much-haste-not-enough-speed.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">a war story</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> </span></li></ul>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-43867563680655752752010-03-18T14:21:00.002-01:002010-03-18T14:23:29.537-01:00Microsoft Mix 10 – designing Modern Web Apps<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">My current project is based around an interactive application delivered over the Internet to both full screen browsers and mobile devices with small form factors. Of key importance to the business plan is that the application be easy to use, and be capable of use by citizens who are not necessarily computer literate. (It’s also going to be delivered via Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing platform – but that’s another story).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As the product is being built with Microsoft tools, I’ve been up early this week watching the videos from the sessions given at Microsoft’s Mix 10 event in Las Vegas (you need to have downloaded or streamed the videos before the east coast of the US wakes up – from about midday onwards the response is very, very slow).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">There is a lot about technologies not strictly relevant to my current project, but out of the Azure and Web Apps presentations I’ve seen to date, the best has been from Luke Wroblewski (not an MS employee) on the topic of </span><a href="http://live.visitmix.com/MIX10/Sessions/EX03" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Modern Web Form Design</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;">. In summary, Luke describes how to use modern web technologies/tools to deliver better end user experiences, and illustrates his talk with results from research into the end user acceptance, and use of, tools/techniques such as in-line validation, AJAX accordions and other such tools aimed at providing a better end user experience.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">If, like me, you have an interest in this area (and would like to learn more about the methods to adopt in building web apps for small form factor mobile devices), then I thoroughly recommend the video (although be advised that it is over an hour long, just).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">P.S. For those who want to know more about the Azure cloud computing platform at a fairly high level, then I recommend a </span><a href="http://live.visitmix.com/MIX10/Sessions/SVC04" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Lap around the Windows Azure platform</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> (although, yet again, this is about an hour long). This demonstrates the ease with which apps can be deployed to the cloud – although I can’t believe it’s as easy as the demo……</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-3873564220125989782010-03-15T08:56:00.002-01:002010-03-15T09:02:55.161-01:00How to split large Government IT projects<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">I’ve been intrigued by the debate on large Government projects and the use of the larger service suppliers that has been prompted by the Conservative Technology </span><a href="http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/~/media/Files/Draft%20Manifesto/ConservativeTechnologyManifesto.ashx?dl=true" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">manifesto</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;">. Some rush to the defence of the larger suppliers, whilst others, typically coming from the SME sector like me, point to the way the current procurement process fails to include SME’s adequately.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">My experience of working as potential subcontractors to the big service suppliers is that even though you may have a market-leading software solution, they will try to find a way to prove that the end customer will be better off with a customised solution built, typically from scratch, with lots of chargeable days from the main contractor, rather than making use of an SME solution. And how many software package selections do main contractors make on the basis of the amount of services required from the main contractor to implement the solution (rather than possibly a better/cheaper solution that doesn’t involve oodles of services from the main contractor)?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">These large services companies are in these large projects to generate services revenue for themselves, maximise their margins, and to make money for themselves - not their subcontractors – who they will use only when they really need to – and typically then only with loads of chargeable time from the main contractor to oversee the subcontract procurement and subsequent management of the implementation project. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">But why would we expect otherwise – it costs a great deal to bid for Government work, and once it’s won, who would expect the supplier to do anything else. No – the problem lies in the way Government structures, procures and manages these projects, not the way the big services companies work.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Even with the Conservatives’ proposed limit of £100M on IT projects, the projects are likely to fall outside the types of project that SMEs can bid for directly. Central government needs to change the way that it structures larger deals, and uses the larger services suppliers to oversee them. Yes, use a main contractor in a management role or responsible for integration, but making it clear how far that role goes, and in particular that whoever manages the procurement and oversees the project cannot fulfil any of the other roles. Why not set a minimum percentage of the project value that must be spent with SME subcontractors?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">More importantly, split the application software development out into separate projects from the implementation and roll out (and have separate infrastructure supply and support projects). For major new developments, fund two or three SMEs to develop software in competition, keeping the best solution but being prepared to throw away one or more developed solutions before the cost of implementation and roll out – even though the developments have been paid for. Get experienced software developers involved sooner, and in touch with the end users to develop software that really meets their needs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Let’s get a contractual framework where the main contractors are focused less on where their own services revenue will come from, and more on how to provide the best solution for the customer.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">P.S. The Conservative plan for a small in-house ‘skunkworks’ team, to develop low cost applications and advise on the procurement of larger projects seems like step in the right direction. But will Government be able to recruit the appropriate resources – with all due respect to the IT civil servants I’ve met, in most cases, they are not the types of staff that will be the best for this new role. As noted above, why not make use of those staff in SMEs, calling on a much wider pool of experience, and in many cases with experience relevant to the specific project in mind…..</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-28515265403830659632010-02-04T11:15:00.002-01:002010-02-04T11:17:22.580-01:00Fraudulent misrepresentation – what now?<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">There has been a lot of </span><a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/01/26/240081/Update-Court-rules-in-favour-of-BSkyB-in-163700m.htm" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">press comment</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> over the past week about the recent Court ruling that HP/EDS must pay damages (“in excess of £200M”) to BSkyB for a failed CRM system. Surprisingly, much of this comment seems to suggest that this case will result in significant changes to the ways that IT suppliers will sell and contract in the future.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Yet the basis of the Court decision is that HP/EDS was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation, and that HP/EDS could not rely on its ‘limit of liability’ clause to limit he amount of damages it had to pay to BSkyB. But this is neither a change to contract law – nor a new interpretation – under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) suppliers have always been unable to exclude fraudulent misrepresentation, and under UCTA they cannot limit liability for such fraud.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">What are surprises are the size of the likely damages (several times the value of the original contract), the apparently blatant misrepresentation carried out, and that the case ever came to court (it most similar cases there is an out of court settlement – note that in this case HP/EDS is rumoured to have spent over £40M in legal fees to date – suggesting that, yet again, the real winners in such cases are the legal eagles).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Hopefully, this case will serve as a wake-up call to Directors and senior managers to revisit their own internal procedures, training and guidance to all their customer-facing staff – and not just their sales staff (although they are the main concern), as it is just as likely that pre-sales staff, consultants and/or other staff could misrepresent the capabilities of a system being proposed to a prospect.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Most importantly, in addition to the proposal/tender vetting process, the contractual negotiation phase must be used by a supplier to fully vet its own proposal, collecting together any documentation and/or ‘side letters’, to try to avoid any prospect from relying on any statements that could be false. When I used to negotiate larger contracts I always openly asked the customer if there were any statements, email or documents that he was relying upon – and if so I insisted that they were referenced or included in the contract. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As I have said many times before, from my own experience gained in trying to turn around problem projects – as clearly happened in this BSkyB project - most failed projects have gone wrong before the contract is signed….</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-91748961122332463152010-01-28T10:36:00.004-01:002010-02-13T08:42:05.540-01:00iPad – not yet for me<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoB5qxg3epz8z9ujDml-6oLSpFsRKYBSSOXaJ9H0kbWxyymZnuwAOzvl-yRxDdJRWdR0yfqktgAAFTdVZuO5mwB5rBWwOpOlwXORN-gFMwxWooT-qNAAeS14U9bBm8YYtcynG3wrnozes/s1600-h/iPad.JPG"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 152px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5431753530277314898" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoB5qxg3epz8z9ujDml-6oLSpFsRKYBSSOXaJ9H0kbWxyymZnuwAOzvl-yRxDdJRWdR0yfqktgAAFTdVZuO5mwB5rBWwOpOlwXORN-gFMwxWooT-qNAAeS14U9bBm8YYtcynG3wrnozes/s200/iPad.JPG" /></a> <span style="font-family:verdana;">After all the hype the iPad is released – and it looks as if it’s just a larger version of an iPhone or iPod touch. Yes, it looks great with its sharp colour display, </span><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5302097/giz-bill-nye-explains-the-iphone-3gss-oleophobic-screen/gallery/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">oleophobic</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> screen and touch interface, but will it perform? (Many thanks to gizmodo for the picture – they also have a </span><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5458292/apple-ipad-everything-you-need-to-know?skyline=true&s=i&autoplay=true" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">good overview of the iPad</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;">).</span><br /><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">If one steps back from the hype (Steve - great launch by the way), and compares this to, say, a tablet PC running Windows 7, then the iPad comes up as lacking many key features that existing laptop, PC and Mac users would require. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">The biggest failing I’ve seen is the iPad’s lack of any multi-tasking (already a major failing on the iPhone) – except, of course, for Apple’s own applications. So forget writing an e-mail whilst writing a document or having a Twitter.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Then of course there is Apple’s continuing refusal to support Flash – apparently to be continued with the iPad – this rules out many of the best web sites – which will appear on the iPad with large blank holes.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Will the iPad run any applications? – almost certainly not – Apple will retain its control over the apps it allows – all of which can only come through the Apple applications store – allowing Apple to control the types of application one can access, effectively censoring the apps that individual users have access to. Want to run Google Voice or a Browser other than Safari? – not allowed.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Cameras? – not yet – so no video conferencing.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">So my view is that the iPad will be solely a consumer device – and one bought primarily by individuals who don’t make heavy use of computers at the moment – functionally, it really is like an iPhone with a larger screen.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">What is more interesting is what the impact on the market will be. Microsoft, HP and others have pushed tablet PCs in the past without much success, and the touch-screen user interface of Windows 7 has not had much success to date. Will the launch of the iPad revitalise these initiatives and see the rise in keyboard-less, touch screen netbooks and tablets? – I certainly think so. Like many initiatives started by Apple, in the longer term, I think the iPad will result in significant changes to the way we view and interact with mobile computers and PCs. </span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-38952542231941723962009-12-16T12:51:00.002-01:002009-12-16T12:52:30.805-01:002010: Another year of “if it ain’t broken….<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">…. don’t fix it”.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">I’ve had the opportunity to talk to a number of software and service suppliers to the UK local authority market over the past few weeks, and with the exceptions of out-sourcers and suppliers into the social services, education and housing sectors, they are broadly pessimistic about the opportunities for new business in 2010.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As I </span><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2009/04/it-forecasts-holways-rant.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;">predicted</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> early this year, 2009 has not been too bad a year, with the April re-organisation throwing up some good new contracts and opportunities, whilst some existing customers have had the budget to buy additional functionality and services from existing suppliers. But now supplier orderbooks seem to be depleted, and without significant new business in the offing, many suppliers continue to review their costs and staffing structures to batten down the hatches for a tough 2010.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As 2010 is an election year (both general and local), it will spread uncertainty in many purchasing areas and exacerbate the opportunities for indecision. In normal times suppliers would have expected a poor year, but in today’s troubled financial times, it promises to be even worse.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Not surprisingly, several companies are looking at acquisitions as a way of growing their customer base, and with poor sales forecasts for many smaller suppliers potentially driving down their valuations, I think 2009 will see further consolidation in the application software market. Indeed, a few suppliers are not expecting their competitors to survive the the next couple of years, and I would agree that there are a number of smaller suppliers that will not survive what I believe will be an orders drought through to at least 2012.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As I've said before, existing suppliers will try to maximise revenue from existing customers, both through increased services offerings and new modules & functionality for existing systems. Larger suppliers will attempt to cross-sell between departments within existing customer sites (I think, in 2010, with limited success, although customers may be tempted by the lower cost of procurement).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">However, the corollary to all this, particularly for the smaller or bolt-on applications, is that we may see the arrival of new, smaller players with new offerings that are significantly cheaper and potentially technically superior to existing suppliers who have not invested enough in their products. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">So 2010 – an even tougher year for the software suppliers.</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-88187600633447550822009-12-15T13:01:00.002-01:002009-12-15T13:02:25.925-01:00Agile vs waterfall – the debate continues<p><span style="font-family:verdana;">It’s been good to see the number of new readers that have found this blog by searching for this topic – and I welcome the many comments that I’ve received on my previous posts.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Over the past year I’ve met with a number of advocates of agile methods, and had the opportunity to review a number of new software products being developed using agile methods. Whilst my view remains that it’s “horses for courses” when deciding on agile vs. waterfall methods for development (see my original post - </span><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2009/04/agile-vs-waterfall-methods.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Agile vs. waterfall methods</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;">), I’ve yet to find anyone that is using agile development methods for new application package products effectively.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Yes – I’ve seen some very successful agile developments of bespoke systems for single customers, but agile methods seem unable to cope with the development of package products that need to be designed to meet multiple and differing customer needs. The key appears to be the need to understand the many different customer requirements in advance, so as to be able to decide upfront on the core parameters for the product.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">As noted in my post </span><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2009/04/agile-methods-for-package-enhancements.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Agile methods for package enhancements?</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;">, when there is an existing product, where the majority of core parameters have been defined already, agile methods can be used effectively to develop new modules – always providing that you have the right types of team members and a true agile methodology (rather than a “let’s give the techies control of this development” approach).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">However, do any of my readers know of new application software products that have been built successfully using agile methods? If so, please let me know.....</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-36397579923913504422009-12-15T12:54:00.003-01:002009-12-15T13:03:10.270-01:00OT - America’s Cup 2010<span style="font-family:verdana;">For those of you that don’t keep up-to-date on sailing, the next meeting of the giants of match-race sailing, the America’s Cup, has been totally changed by the courts following legal battles between Larry Ellison (CEO of Oracle) and the Swiss challengers, Alinghi. Rather than a competition open to all entrants to fight to challenge the holders, next year’s competition will be solely between the holders, Alinghi and BMW Oracle Racing – racing in mighty multi-hulls rather than the normal 12 metre yachts. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">We may not yet know for sure where the February competition will be held (my betting is on Valencia), but next year’s America’s Cup racing looks as if it will be more a technology rather than a tactical race. Just look at the competitors....</span><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIIBvMEPUtRb1IaGAUlm1AMk1C089hAMLMNocfv_Z_UTr5GR4S9DV-gJObhDX1_JBEnvQ2aX5fLXx3n8Vrk5oFAZwU4dbWeRCQv1TJ2N4MeSvlWoreHTK4nLDXF_pxa1u5HXkq7eP7D-o/s1600-h/Alinghi.JPG"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 163px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415461549875765138" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIIBvMEPUtRb1IaGAUlm1AMk1C089hAMLMNocfv_Z_UTr5GR4S9DV-gJObhDX1_JBEnvQ2aX5fLXx3n8Vrk5oFAZwU4dbWeRCQv1TJ2N4MeSvlWoreHTK4nLDXF_pxa1u5HXkq7eP7D-o/s200/Alinghi.JPG" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRfq925RmPqq7iciAYSAGRjJNS27nSGCNGJFR5QmvDAKTLWMSoZUFi95pTVpq0NFoqOpZVHbxa1g9gcR_P2kX6sAsNIs9T7W-Lfyz70QO_-ejs3w8EqqKkSHo_B-hTaPpM5fdTAh29tKU/s1600-h/BMW+Oracle.JPG"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 192px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415461778260427042" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRfq925RmPqq7iciAYSAGRjJNS27nSGCNGJFR5QmvDAKTLWMSoZUFi95pTVpq0NFoqOpZVHbxa1g9gcR_P2kX6sAsNIs9T7W-Lfyz70QO_-ejs3w8EqqKkSHo_B-hTaPpM5fdTAh29tKU/s200/BMW+Oracle.JPG" /></a><br /><br /><br /><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Visit the </span><a href="http://bmworacleracing.com/en/index.html?track.refer=/en/index.html&track.type=hn"><span style="font-family:verdana;">BMW Oracle Racing</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> and </span><a href="http://www.alinghi.com/en/"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Alinghi</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> web sites for more information, photos and videos.</span></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">I can’t wait to see who wins this competition next year – I just hope that the two boats are relatively evenly matched, otherwise the competition could be as boring as some Formula 1 GPs, where one car can be so dominant as to result in predictable, processional races. I don’t see multi-hulls as the ideal vehicles for close match racing, however, if we get some good breezes, just watching these monsters at speed could prove exciting on its own....</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">I hope that we will see a return to common sense rather the courts after 2010, with the competition returning to open races in boats built to an agreed specification (ideally 12 metres, but if not, let’s have a tight standard that puts the emphasis back onto the skills of the teams).</span>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-9914837926654460512009-12-11T10:02:00.002-01:002009-12-11T10:04:17.844-01:00After the downturn<p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Let me draw your attention to a joint </span><a href="http://www.solace.org.uk/library_documents/After_the_Downturn.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">paper</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"> by CIPFA and SOLACE on the Pre Budget Report – a paper that tries to start the discussion on how Local Authorities will have to start planning for public spending cuts. A bit like the PBR, it neither identifies specific areas for change, nor the levels of cuts, but discusses the strategies that LA’s will have to adopt over the coming years.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">The paper focuses on two scenarios, one envisaging a 7.5% cut in real terms over 2011-14, the other 15%. Whilst the 7.5% cut is possible, I believe that the 15% cut scenario is much more likely, and I believe it may even be more than 15% – particularly as I believe the ability for LA’s to increase Council Tax will be substantially reduced over the same period.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">I won’t repeat the contents of the paper here, other than to say that I strongly agree with the need to re-think the delivery of services, and the paper’s three options of:</span></p><ol><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">redefining the relationship between the state and the individual </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">a significant de-layering of the public sector </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">a major initiative to maximise economies by much more effective collaboration between public bodies </span></li></ol><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">After the ‘ring fencing’ of some key services, I believe that many LA’s will have no choice but to terminate or almost remove some other services (e.g. the library service is one area that could be under threat in some areas). However, de-layering of the public sector, combined with more effective collaboration between public bodies, in my mind, potentially gives the greatest potential for savings.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Perhaps severe cutbacks in funding will force organisations into sharing services, and the government into more ‘vertical integration’ of services (e.g. between national, regional and local bodies). This will inevitably lead to more out-sourcing, but if the public sector was to think more in an out-of-the-box way, perhaps we will see the more innovative use of out-sourcing to commercial operations where true synergy is possible – e.g. local supermarket chains, or even banks (or can some of them be already regarded as part of the public sector?).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Congratulations to CIPFA and Solace on their paper. Hopefully it will encourage the public sector to discuss the major shifts in service delivery that the current crisis in public sector finance demands.</span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-3749587266419853022009-11-03T08:44:00.002-01:002009-11-03T08:50:53.814-01:00Tories to reduce Government’s commitment to large IT vendors?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTk0IT4EGZlhc5wA_q4rhy_fTpBRl0vVik7-DU6aNWLaacRCmYONbZCmTCy36T7j5dcPycziVqTKnjOqkTbGEpcSgUAWnQpBJO_D7rPdFahcUaYGmWhbzAzP88bvQHDFrt9gbu9-5OCLE/s1600-h/Adam+Afriyie.JPG"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 172px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5399812308878902930" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTk0IT4EGZlhc5wA_q4rhy_fTpBRl0vVik7-DU6aNWLaacRCmYONbZCmTCy36T7j5dcPycziVqTKnjOqkTbGEpcSgUAWnQpBJO_D7rPdFahcUaYGmWhbzAzP88bvQHDFrt9gbu9-5OCLE/s200/Adam+Afriyie.JPG" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><p></span><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:100%;">The Tory Shadow Minister for Science and Innovation, Adam Afriyie gave a very interesting </span><a href="http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/10/Adam_Afriyie_Empowering_citizens_through_open_IT_policies.aspx"><u><span style="color:#0000ff;"><span style="color:#0000ff;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">speech</span></u></span></span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> last Thursday, in which he outlined some of the Tories plans for major IT projects if/when they get into power.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Regular readers will know of my confirmed belief in the vital importance of true inter-operability, and it was a pleasure to hear Adam’s views on this....</span></p><i><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">"By using standard data formats, like XML, government can open up the procurement process to the widest possible base of suppliers. With inter-operability, large projects can be split into manageable, modular chunks. The outcome is a more flexible procurement process where it is easier to change suppliers and resolve problems as they emerge."</span></p></i><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Then, as if he had been reading my post on </span><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-nhs-npfit-should-have-been-procured.html"><u><span style="color:#0000ff;"><span style="color:#0000ff;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">How NHS NPfIT should have been procured</span></u></span></span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="color:#333333;"><span style="color:#333333;">,</span></span> he announced that...</span></p><i><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">"One option we are considering is the use of multiple proof-of-concept pilot projects. If several suppliers are asked to come up with working solutions, they can then be piloted, and the most successful can be scaled up and rolled out nationally. The use of multiple early-stage pilot projects could reduce reliance on a handful of big vendors and increase the proportion of IT budgets spent with innovative young companies."</span></p></i><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">I only hope that the Civil Service allows this to happen – I remember that one of the objectives of the LA Pathfinder projects in 2001-02 was to involve smaller companies who were more innovative and faster to react than larger IT companies – unfortunately 24 of the 25 Pathfinder projects went to the major service suppliers – some of whom had no track record of LA application software development at all.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">But perhaps, given the spate of government IT disasters over the past few years, these sorts of initiatives will have a chance over the next couple of years.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Adam also gave what was, in my view, a very good summary of the current government’s e-initiatives:</span></p><i><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">".... some worthy objectives, such as joined-up government and personalised public services. But their approach has been deeply flawed. While the pace of technological change was breath-taking, the response from government was not.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Internet access empowers people. It improves productivity and opens the door to self-improvement. But while the internet was empowering individuals to take control over their lives Labour was attempting to maintain the old bureaucratic machinery.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Ministers were mesmerised by the transformative potential of technology but failed to integrate it seamlessly into everyday use</span></i></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Perhaps the next few years will see significant changes in the way government procures and develops new IT systems – let’s hope so.....</span></p></div>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-13930409796450271742009-11-03T08:17:00.005-01:002009-11-03T08:31:56.976-01:00Capita divests IBS R&B unit to Civica<span xmlns=""> <p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Over the summer, Civica acquired IBS's revenues & benefits unit from Capita - following the Competition Commission's decision to force Capita through a divestment – see </span><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2009/06/capita-to-divest-ibs-revenues-benefits.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Capita to divest IBS Revenues & Benefits unit.<br /></span></a></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">I was quite surprised that Capita divested the unit to Civica as, with Civica's existing base of R&B back office and Comino workflow/DIP customers, it makes a serious competitor to Capita's own R&B business. But as I understand it, Civica were the only credible bidder with the cash to complete the deal.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">In practice, I believe that Civica has done well and bought the unit at an apparently bargain price. I'm sure that the indecision brought about by the CC investigation has harmed both the IBS business and staff, but now Civica has a complete, competitive R&B offering – and a good upgrade offering to its existing R&B back office customers running Civica's very old, Pick-based, back office software. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">However, I still believe that Civica will have an uphill struggle to sell its now Progress-based solution to new customers – particularly the larger users such as the new unitaries. But perhaps they will win a sympathy vote from those customers unhappy with Northgate's decision to switch off support for the old Anite Pericles product (and unwilling to move into Capita's extensive grasp). </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;">Over the past year I've spent some time with external companies looking at the UK local authority market and considering trying to enter the R&B market by developing new back office products from scratch, but all seem put off not just by the development cost, but also by LA prospects' desire to see three live reference sites, the resulting lengthy time to market, and the possibilities of future central government changes in the way revenues are collected and benefits handed out.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Seeing no potential new entrants, we now must live with the three R&B suppliers, each of them with competent solutions, but neither of them with clearly the best solution, and each of them with at least one major drawback.......</span><br /></span></p></span>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-16119242250685838242009-11-01T15:36:00.000-01:002009-11-01T15:38:28.346-01:00Back to blogging<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana', 'sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span style="font-family:verdana;">As regular readers will have recognised, I’ve not been posting to this blog during the summer, primarily due to pressure of work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But after a very busy summer, including a stint as interim Operations Director of an AIM-listed software company, work has reduced a bit, so I’ll be getting back to posting a few items each week.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-85321627798132940872009-06-08T11:43:00.002+00:002009-06-08T11:46:41.155+00:00Government IT projects – time for change<span style="font-family:verdana;">The debacle of the C-Nomis project (see </span><a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/tony_collins/2009/05/what-went-wrong-with-234m-c-no.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Tony Collins blog</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> for the background) highlights the need for fundamental changes in the way that government (primarily Central Government – local government seems to be far better) procures new IT systems.<br /><br />As I have previously </span><a href="http://pssstpb.blogspot.com/2009/02/projects-over-2-years.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;">posted</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;">, I recommend breaking large projects down into smaller, more manageable chunks. But, perhaps more importantly, ensuring that the requirements for the project have been accurately and completely defined – prior to a specification stage that includes detailed walk-throughs with real-life end users. This is the most important phase of an IT project – yet is typically rushed or overlooked, and frequently completed without adequate reference to the managers and end-users that will be using the system.<br /><br />I’m a great believer in “phased fixed price” contracts for dealing with large projects that require the development of customised software – splitting out each phase into separate contracts where the current phase is on a fairly firm basis (ideally fixed price against an agreed definition), with budgeted prices for the next phases (typically based on some broad brush assumptions of what will come out of the each phase). Such an approach allows for the requirements collection phase to be contracted separately and carried out by potential eventual developer (if you want to know how to do this in a way that allows for subsequent changes in contractor, please contact me).<br /><br />All too often, major government IT contracts are awarded to big service suppliers rather than splitting off the development stages (that frequently generate lower revenues than the roll-out and related infrastructure stages) to specialist software developers, and leaving the other stages to the service suppliers. The culture of specialist software development businesses is different to that of the major service suppliers, a culture which is more likely to deliver a better software solution (whilst service suppliers would be better at the other stages of a large new IT project).<br /><br />As the C-Nomis project proved, a lack of focus on the core requirements, system design and expected benefits, has resulted in a system that met neither the business objectives, nor the project budget and timescale. I suspect that it’s been a great business success for the service supplier who has benefited from the budget increase from £234M to £513M – no doubt far outweighing any bad PR from this obvious failure.<br /><br />How many more project failures will there have to be before we see Government recognising the need for splitting up large projects into smaller, more manageable chunks, ideally allocated to different specialists for the different types of contract?</span>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-55144671690726736912009-06-04T08:54:00.002+00:002009-06-04T09:04:40.222+00:00Capita to divest IBS Revenues & Benefits unit<span style="font-family:verdana;">The Competition Commission has published its final </span><a href="http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/2009/fulltext/547.pdf"><span style="font-family:verdana;">report</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> on Capita’s acquisition of IBS and, unsurprisingly, it has <a href="http://www.investegate.co.uk/article.aspx?id=200906040700093263T&fe=1">announced </a>that it is requiring Capita to divest the IBS Revenues & Benefits unit.<br /><br />The report points to the several problems with the partial divestment of the R&B unit (Capita would be allowed to keep the Social Housing unit if it can achieve the partial divestment of the R&B unit), but has apparently obtained assurances from Capita that it will pick up any additional customer costs such as additional licensing costs and/or separation of an integrated IBS database into separate R&B and SH databases.<br /><br />I would imagine that existing joint R&B/SH customers of IBS will not be too pleased about losing their single contractor, single point of contact and integrated database, but if Capita had been allowed to keep the IBS R&B unit, in the long run, perhaps Capita would have moved the customers off the IBS R&B product any rate, so the customers would have lost many of these benefits without the forced partial divestment.<br /><br />There seems little doubt that the value of the R&B unit to purchasers will be reduced by the partial divestment, rather than a full divestment of the whole IBS business including the SH unit, but I suspect that Capita will much prefer such a partial divestment. Although the value realised will be less, and the partial divestment will be more time consuming and messy, given the likely smaller price tag, there are likely to be more potential purchasers – and, given the unknowns, I suspect that it will be some time before the divested unit becomes a forceful competitor again in the R&B market.<br /><br />There is the risk that if a partial divestment is not achieved, the CC will require Capita to go down the full divestment route – a route that I’m sure Capita will wish to avoid at all reasonable costs. Although Capita has </span><a href="http://www.investegate.co.uk/article.aspx?id=200906040709503460T&fe=1"><span style="font-family:verdana;">announced</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> that it is “in early discussions with interested parties”, no doubt the due diligence and purchasing process will take several months, but it will be very interesting to see who the succesful purchaser of the IBS unit turns out to be .....</span>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-23019087983842997692009-06-03T08:32:00.001+00:002009-06-03T08:32:46.696+00:00FOI to apply to suppliers?<span style="font-family:verdana;">UKauthorityITy.com has pointed out that there is an impending extension of Freedom of Information powers to cover suppliers (see </span><a href="http://www.ukauthority.com/NewsArticle/tabid/64/Default.aspx?id=2504"><span style="font-family:verdana;">here</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> for the article).<br /><br />However, I believe that software and associated service suppliers will not be affected – any extension is likely to be limited to BPO contractors – and not software suppliers operating on either a conventional licensing or SaaS approach.<br /><br />It will be interesting to see where any extension stops as far as IT services and managed services are concerned. Where a managed service is limited to supplying a working computer system for use by public sector employees and/or their contractors, then I believe that any FOI extension will not affect this sort of service any more than current contracts/legislation require.<br /><br />Where a service supplier provides a fully-outsourced IT service, any extension is likely to be less well defined. My personal view is that FOI should not apply to such contracts, but from the comments flying around at the moment, I believe that there is pressure to bring these types of contracts into the FOI arena. This will no doubt provide lots of work for the legal profession over the coming months/years....</span>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-59847439180261717512009-06-01T08:36:00.002+00:002009-06-01T08:39:32.750+00:00Google Waves hello to Microsoft<span style="font-family:verdana;">Possibly to try to counter Microsoft’s launch of its new search engine Bing, Google last week pre-announced its new <em>Google Wave</em> product - a “new-age communication and collaboration tool” that seems to combine e-mail, instant messaging, and bulletin board functionality, with strong support for multi-media, into a single product.<br /><br />I’ve only seen the developer preview at last week’s Google I/O 2009 conference (see </span><a href="http://wave.google.com/"><span style="font-family:verdana;">here</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> for the 80-minute video of the presentation), and whilst it was clearly still buggy in its development form, and will not be on general release before the end of this year, it seems to be a serious future competitor to the Microsoft tools that currently dominate corporate communications.<br /><br />Particularly impressive to me were the collaboration aspects of Google Wave – potentially very effective for project teams to communicate ideas and make decisions – together with the ability to replay the messages/discussions in order to see how the discussion went from initiation through to current time. Given the potential benefits for improved collaboration, I can see that small technology operations (like software houses) – particularly those using a high level of remote working, be they home-working or distributed offices – will be the early adopters; the question is, will the major corporates follow?<br /><br />However, whilst such tools would be great for in-house use, I struggle to see how one might manage the security implications of opening up such ‘waves’ to users external to one’s own organisation – or even across departments in large corporates or organisations.<br /><br />I also wonder about the level of server computing power (and network capacity) necessary to support just internal heavy usage – let alone the power/bandwidth necessary for public utilisation.<br /><br />Google is planning for Google Wave to be open source, and through its pre-launch in San Francisco last week, is trying to encourage the developer community to embrace the product, and use the API’s to produce bolt-ons (‘gadgets’ and ‘robots’). The plan appears to promote open networks, with anyone being able to become a Wave operator, with ‘Wave’ running on a distributed network model operating on a peer-to-peer basis.<br /><br />Whilst I suspect that Google Wave will need to change before its open launch - to address both potential security and performance issues - its innovative functionality will undoubtedly drive significant changes in the way we all use e-mail and instant messaging in the future. I’m intrigued to see how Microsoft will respond....</span>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6892647887008711303.post-41286180087325976252009-06-01T08:33:00.000+00:002009-06-01T08:36:08.257+00:00Bing launches this week<span style="font-family:verdana;">Wednesday 3 June sees Microsoft launch Bing, its new search engine– although Microsoft describes Bing more as a “decision engine”.<br /><br />If you want to know more then there are a number of write-ups around, or try looking at Microsoft’s </span><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/bing/default.mspx"><span style="font-family:verdana;">press kits</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> or view a short (less than 3 Minutes) </span><a href="http://www.decisionengine.com/Default.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;">video</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;">.<br /><br />However, the initial launch will focus on the American market, with only a Beta version available in the UK – where we’ll have to wait around another 6 months before we see a version of Bing optimised for UK searches.<br /><br />I had the opportunity to have a demo of Bing when it was known as Kumo, and I was impressed by the potential of Kumo to make better sense of the search results. But the demo had a very strong American bias, and worked best to the demo script – adhoc departures from that script showing up the early stages of the development.<br /><br />Only in practice will we be able to see if Microsoft has come up with a Google-beater. It will be interesting to try out Bing in anger – even if the results will be focussed towards users on the other side of the Atlantic....</span>Phil Bentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07712947402203015037noreply@blogger.com0