19 Jan 2010
The Labour government has wasted over £25bn on IT projects that have run over budget, suffered delays or been scrapped, according to a new investigation by The Independent published today.
The paper said that the cost of Labour's 10 worst IT failures are equivalent to more than half of the budget for Britain's schools last year.
It quoted comments by parliament spending watchdog the National Audit Office, which said that the projects were "fundamentally flawed" and that the ministers in charge were guilty of "stupendous incompetence".
The infamous NHS National Programme for IT unsurprisingly tops the list of most costly failures at £12.7bn, while second and third place go to the £7.1bn Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) project and the £5bn National Identity Scheme.
The report highlights poorly managed IT projects across Whitehall. One that was meant to save the Department for Transport about £57m eventually cost £81m, while the aforementioned DII is 18 months late and running more than £180m over budget, said The Independent.
However, not all commentators agreed that the current government is to blame for the current situation.
"The Public Sector is littered with stories of IT disasters that go back many years, and pre-date 1997. With a mandate to make transformational change, this government has been compelled to put in place highly ambitious IT to enable its modernisation objectives," argued Farhan Mirza, principal at consultancy A.T. Kearney.
"So when we talk about recent 'failures', how much has actually been spent? In the case of NPfIT in the NHS, little of the vast sums talked about has actually traded hands, since the contracts were designed to pay on delivery, which hasn't materialised."
Mark Davison, head of public sector at IT services provider Getronics, suggested that the risk of project failure could be reduced by mapping business objectives closely with IT solutions, and ensuring that technology is the means, not the end.
"If one lesson needs to be learned from these perceived 'IT failures', it should be that technology for the sake of technology is not a solution, just another problem," he said.
"The government needs to be clear that it appreciates this, and set its strategy accordingly, beginning by publishing its ICT policy direction that was leaked in November 2009."
Tory leader David Cameron has already pledged that a future Conservative government would end the era of "big IT projects", decentralising power and ushering in a "new era of transparency".
Latest stories from Public Sector
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
Orange and Intel talk us through the ins and outs of their San Diego smartphone
Connect with V3.co.uk
Social networking is almost ubiquitous. This white paper examines the benefits and risks and it looks at the different ways companies can reconcile them
The importance of understanding your infrastructure
Project Manager - Credit Risk - Finance IT - Investment...
Infrastructure Configuration Manager/Analyst/Data Modeler...
Lead Perl Developer, Apache, SQL, Unix/Linux, Shell Scripting...
**Perl /Java Developer, Web/ JEE application servers...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
It is inevitable due to Civil Service practice
Since Thatcher decided to cut down the Civil Service administrators have been getting rid of professional experts in the service. Result people with no knowledge of the subject brief consultants who do not know the real problem. They produce the system asked for which of course does not work and no one ever asks the potential users what the actual need is. As a civil servant now retired I saw this happening during my career.
Posted by: misceng 20 Jan 2010
Test and communicate!
This report on botched IT projects resulting in a £26bn bill for the government should act as a startling wake-up call to any organisation, of any size, looking to embark on such projects. But while the hefty debt, and the litany of failure it represents, suggests an insurmountable challenge ahead of us to stop bills spiralling out of control, the answer need not be as complex as the IT systems themselves. IT success relies on business alignment ? which means asking the users what they need, and then continually testing against these requirements as the projects move on. Too many of these failures were clearly doomed from the start because of this most fundamental breakdown in communication and process. We desperately need the efficiencies that IT can bring to the way we govern and run our country, and no one would suggest that these are simple projects, but to fail in this most basic of ways is unforgivable. Testing at every stage of the process, from requirements through to implementation, is the only way to ensure we avoid such colossal IT waste and we build the quality systems the users, and the country, needs.
Posted by: Julian Dobbins, Micro Focus 20 Jan 2010
NPfIT
The basic problems with Whitehall 'projects' in general, and NPfIT in particular have been: 1. No clear 'why and what' and too much scope creep. 2. Failure to mandate change on the recipient organisations. In particular individual Health Trusts have been too free to pick and chose what they do when. 3. Too big! Break down the 'super' projects into component parts, and projectise them turning these juggernauts into programmes in their own right. When a project is too all embracing, there is more chance of lack of clarity on the 'why and what'. Pin it down! 4. The programmes and projects are either knee-jerk or ideallistic, drawn up by peole with little or no experience of the field of work that is being impacted (eg Civil Servants, not staff working in Health Trusts or the Local Authorities doing the real work). Next to fail will be the Location Strategy, where the consultation did not include real Local Authorities, and wild assumptions have been made over the capacity and resourcing of the existing situation at the front line...
Posted by: Steve Atkinson 20 Jan 2010
TAX PAYERS MONEY
I DO AGREE WITH WHAT CARL BARRON STATES AS CENTRAL GOVERMENT AND ALSO LOCAL GOVERMENT DO NOT SEEM TO CARE AT ALL JUST HOW THEY WASTE AND THROW OUR MONEY AWAY.ITS TIME THEY PAID FOR THEIR INCOMPETENCE.ITS NOT FAIR TO JUST UP OUR TAXES ETC TO COMPENSATE FOR THEIR LACK OF CONTROL.
Posted by: d corrick 20 Jan 2010
Why no safeguards on Taxpayers Money?
Why is it, that from central Government to local Town and County Councils they all seem incapable of drawing up contracts, which state, ?Payment Only Upon Completion and to the Payees Satisfaction?? Why whenever it?s ?Taxpayers Money? are there none if any safe guards on costs spiraling beyond the original estimate? The manner in which this country governs the expenditure of the ?Taxpayers Money? is wholly and utterly unacceptable and bordering on what may well be considered as criminally incompetent. Signed Carl Barron Chairman of agpcuk http://carl-agpcuk.livejournal.com/ http://disqus.com/Carl_Barron/
Posted by: Carl Barron 19 Jan 2010