The Rules of Engagement

There have been many words of wisdom from so-called experts telling the public sector about the management of IT problems.  The trouble is, when you boil it all down the message is "If I were you I wouldn't start from here!"  Good advice that may be, but not very helpful when the transition from where we are to where we would like to be must take into account of the continued needs of citizens.  Government rarely has a blank sheet to work on and this constrains system design in a way that many companies fail to understand.

I do not seek to attribute blame for NIRS II, or the passport agency or Horizon etc, etc.  What is obvious is that the relationship between customer and supplier has been inadequate, in many cases, to meet either the best interest of the shareholder or the taxpayer.

So, what can be done to maximise the exploitation of technology, essential to the Government's modernising agenda, whilst at the same time avoiding the pitfalls we have seen with some well publicised procurement?  I think that can be broken down into a few simple rules:

1) Ask why the function is needed

2) Involve the end user and customer in design and development

3) Ensure the project is scaleable

4) Purchase by outcomes not by grey boxes.

The Rules

Rule 1

When dealing with experts one would expect to get exactly what one asks for.  The problem may be that you are not very good at asking questions. So rule 1 simply begs a seemingly obvious question; are you sure you are asking the right question.  And even if it has been answered; do you know how the reply impacts on the business as a whole?

When evaluating both the task and the methodology one needs to be mindful of two simple principles.  Namely, how does this impact upon my cost centre and how does it impact upon the business as a whole.  Replace "cost centre" with "Government Department" and "business" with "Great Britain plc" and those principles apply equally to Government as they do to Unilever.

Rule 2

Having established why the task is needed and how it impacts upon other departments we now need to design it.  This is where there is a real risk of failure in the absence of any real market testing.  But in doing this one must be committed to the concept that the customer is the citizen and the person delivering the particular service, not the Minister or Permanent Secretary.  As much as they may think otherwise the latter pair have little knowledge of the realities of sitting either side of the counter in a social security office.  It is the understanding of these people that turns political dreams into working models that can then be tested against the business or political objectives.

Rule 3

We've now got as far as having a legitimate concept that needs to be turned into reality. This provides a great temptation to rush of to the press and say that in x months we will have removed this or that problem and all this will be so much better for the tax payer.  In the words of Sir Humphrey, "That would be extremely brave Minister".  We are not buying paperclips or manila folders that have changed little in the stationery catalogue since Sir Humphrey was a lad. We should be about changing whole systems and ways of working.

To ensure that all the angles are covered scalability is essential.  Systems should be piloted and tested against all the necessary criteria and only when complete, scaled up.  Tempting as it may seem development should not be signed off as complete until the project has been grown to its full size.  There has been many a model shop prototype that cannot be turned into a production line product.  Scalability is not just about the management process it is also about the robustness of the technology and feasibility of ideas that are by definition close to the leading edge.

Rule 4

Now we need to look at my fourth rule. No longer can we consider the procurement process as being just buying; we are dealing with immensely complex processes.  Yes, we need solutions that work.  They must also be dynamic to meet the changing needs of the service and must advance in parallel with changing technology. Can the public sector be on top of the whole issue? Probably not.  The role of the private sector becomes very interesting. If the

Government tender specification simply requires n boxes at the lowest price then by all means suppliers should bid and try and beat the competition.

My preferred tender process would be about buying outcomes not boxes.  I appreciate that the potential exposure for suppliers could be enormous and that means a totally new relationship than that which existed in the past.

What are the benefits?  Firstly we get it right first time by developing products that are designed for the job, achieving policy-objectives as well as meeting both user and citizen needs.  Secondly, and this is where the supplier should see some longer term benefit, the design process will be able to take into account technological developments.  This can produce a sufficiently flexible system to ensure that they are locked in for a very long period of time.

I suspect that a number of the "guilty parties" responsible for past errors may be getting on the defensive by now, but the blame culture gets us precisely nowhere.  There is no doubt that over ambitious contracts have failed to understand the complexities of running the country.  There is also no doubt that Government can not predict the exact shape of the delivery system for more than a few years hence, in fact nobody can.  The civil service tend to be afraid of risk. But (almost) everyone now realises the potential we have at our fingertips. Whilst I would encourage all players to "go for it", I would also plead for the application of these four simple rules.