FiReControl – a catalogue of poor judgement and mismanagement

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).

This will come as no surprise to regular readers who may remember my December 2008 post on this project:

“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.”

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:

“The problem stems again from a lack of user engagement at the early stages of the project.”

“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
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.”

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:

• Government under-defines requirement
• Suppliers bid knowing that the requirements will change
• Government awards contract on the basis of price rather than value
• Government then involves end users who identify substantial changes to requirements
• (in many cases like this, initial software solution is found not to meet the new requirements)
• 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
• Contractor and Supplier fall out – to the overall detriment of the project

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?).

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.

P.S. You may be interested in some of my other posts on these topics:

• definition of a successful Central Government project
• Government IT projects – time for change
• a war story

Microsoft Mix 10 – designing Modern Web Apps

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).

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).

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 Modern Web Form Design. 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.

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).

P.S. For those who want to know more about the Azure cloud computing platform at a fairly high level, then I recommend a Lap around the Windows Azure platform (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……

How to split large Government IT projects

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 manifesto. 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.

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)?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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…..

Fraudulent misrepresentation – what now?

There has been a lot of press comment 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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….

iPad – not yet for me

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, oleophobic screen and touch interface, but will it perform? (Many thanks to gizmodo for the picture – they also have a good overview of the iPad).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cameras? – not yet – so no video conferencing.

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.

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.

2010: Another year of “if it ain’t broken….

…. don’t fix it”.

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.

As I predicted 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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

So 2010 – an even tougher year for the software suppliers.

Agile vs waterfall – the debate continues

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.

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 - Agile vs. waterfall methods), I’ve yet to find anyone that is using agile development methods for new application package products effectively.

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.

As noted in my post Agile methods for package enhancements?, 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).

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.....