G-Cloud boss begs UK.gov wonks: 'Speak out against s**t IT'
Outsourcing handed suppliers the keys to Blighty's tech
The UK government's technology shopping catalogue G-Cloud is creeping through the corridors of power - but a wave of outsourcing decisions has sapped Whitehall’s ability to set the nation's tech strategy, and the entrenched interests of incumbent IT suppliers stand in its way.
That’s the takeaway from outgoing G-Cloud director Chris Chant, who this week signs off from the programme he’s overseen for the past 18 months.
In presenting at the Socitm spring conference in London on Wednesday and speaking to The Reg afterwards, Chant outlined the challenges ahead for G-Cloud and its achievements during his brief time at the helm. The programme will now be led by Home Office IT head Denise McDonagh.
G-Cloud is supposed to break the grip big tech companies have on the government by making it easier for small biz to supply IT services to the public sector – 80 per cent of IT contracts are controlled by an "oligopoly" of just six companies, according to government figures. Central to G-Cloud is the Cloudstore, a catalogue of 280 IT suppliers and 1,700 services.
Chant reckoned Cloudstore has drawn 8,000 visits and 5,500 unique page impressions in the last month, leading to 350 inquiries and 30 purchases ranging in value from “a few hundred pounds” to more than £1m. Interest has come from local authorities, health service organisations, and large departments including the Department for Works and Pensions.
G-Cloud has been a hit with tech companies: the goal was 50 services on Cloudstore by the end of 2012 – instead there are 34 times that target listed online. Version two of the G-Cloud is due in the first two weeks of May, and Chant reckons a similar number of tech companies will be listed. And among them are expected to be Amazon and Salesforce, companies synonymous with cloud systems unlike many of the IT suppliers on Cloudstore. Version 2.0 of the store will introduce the ability to rate suppliers’ services, we’re told.
Existing IT contracts have been reworked as a result of G-Cloud. Chant said central government has stepped in to “help manage” some large projects for the remainder of their time, clawing back £800m in the process. Also it’s now possible for government buyers to discuss contracts - something forbidden in the past.
It’s a start, but the government’s a huge place so change comes slowly and the challenges to G-Cloud are human and cultural rather than technical.
The tech industry’s mania for outsourcing has had a damaging impact on the government’s ability to think strategically, Chant said. Outsourcing has eliminated a class of people who’d normally have set IT direction, and handed the responsibility to those supplying systems. Some big central government departments now need to recruit and train people capable of setting such strategy as these jobs have been sent out of house.
“For central government, skills have been lost – over the years some departments have outsourced their IT strategy. I find it difficult to image how anybody came to that decision. So those skills need to be replenished to help us work in this space,” Chant told The Reg.
Another problem, he reckons, is incumbent suppliers with vested interests: the responsibility of selecting the technology used in kit has been passed to these suppliers - thanks to outsourcing.
Chant didn’t go into details, but pointed to this discrepancy: some companies are selling services to government at a higher price and with longer contracts than their G-Cloud offerings. Surf through Cloudstore and you’ll find all of the familiar government computing blue bloods listed.
The UK government doesn't care about shit IT.
Shit IT brings more bums on seats.
If we made 20,000 NHS jobs redundant tomorrow due to some super software, the government wouldn't implement it, because that's 20,000 people unemployed, and voting against them. As can be seen by the unemployment whining since Cleggaron got in, (more women than men in the public sector unemployed,) it goes out of its way to generate sort of non jobs for single mothers, women with arts degrees, and so on. This is its job. If it didn't do this, and the boiler failed, would you call a diversity officer? No. So they have to make jobs for people who can't do anything.
It would rather waste 10 Billion on a five year job which fails, one day after re-election, than make four major league techies, millionaires for delivering it for one hundredth of the price, in 6 weeks.
Politicians win popularity contests. They don't win IQ tests, honesty competitions, the Miriam Stoppard award for niceness etc. Popularity contests are won by making large numbers of people happy, and large numbers of those large numbers are happy when they're deluded into thinking their job is worthwhile, so finding ways to actually sack them is the quickest way of getting unelected. The Cabinet Office spends way, way, way more time thinking about what people will think of what they're doing, than whether what they're doing will work.
On one memorable occasion I refused to sign off a project as fit for purpose (little things like locking remote workers out) in our section and not fulfilling the stated aims. So they changed the aims and rolled it out anyway and my next job included being section champion for the adoption. Oh how I laughed.
@AC 16:31 PFI has not been allowed for IT projects since a HMT report in 2003. So they don't call it that anymore.
Re: In reality....
> unlike their smaller competitors they can afford to take on the risks associated
It's called Product & Public Liability Insurance plus Professional Indemnity insurance my dear.
If you think the big firms pay for their more significant ****-ups out of their own pockets, you are mistaken.
> punitive penalties and onerous terms
Perhaps the contracts shouldn't have "punitive penalties and onerous terms" in the first place.