WRITTEN ON September 30th, 2008 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Foundation of Trust, Political engagement, Power of Information, Transformational Government, What do we want?

Computer Weekly picked up some comments at the Labour conference

Former home secretary Charles Clarke said Labour has experienced “all kinds of problems” since coming into power in 1997. “The potential of IT, whether it is individual records in the NHS or ID cards, is enormous understanding it and how to procure it is very difficult,” he said. “I would say, to the credit of the government, that it has tried to see the potential of IT, and tried to use it. But in so doing, it has run into all kinds of problems. What is needed is a stronger partnership between the IT industry and government, and I do think it is changing now.”

Noooooooooo! No! No! I mean, of course government has had problems and indeed it needs to work well with its IT suppliers. But it’s not just the mechanics of procurement; it’s the underlying intention.

This isnt fixed by more talks with Intellect. You need to talk to NGOs and civil society.

The whole “groupthink”-based problem of wrongly-intentioned computerisation of government (including childrens databases and mass data retention as well as the ID scheme and centralised health records he mentions comes from the fallacy that if you put government, Intellect and IT industry lobbyists in a room they’ll come up with something Ideal. History shows that what they come up with is far from Ideal. eGovernment 1.0 fails to take into account the creative participation of people at large. It fails to build on a proper foundation of trust, and it ignores the quick wins that the contempory internet offers for free.

It fails to recognise, as Tom Steinberg and Ed Mayo put it rather better, the Power of Information.

Charles Clarke should be required by statutory instrument to study Tom Watson’s recent work, including the Showusabetterway competition. He should be exposed, using special administrative measures to the Eclectech notional Identity video morning and evening until he gets it.

The way to cure the problem (as the Design Council, thinkpublic, Kable research and Kable’s ThePublicOffice project all showed) is to get close to the people these systems are supposed to help, and let them help you get it right. The tools and techniques are there. It’s easy and it’s fun. Let those most in need of the outcomes help specify the problem, design, choose, and monitor the system and provide untainted, unspun feedback. Care about the customer. Get over your authoritarian, centralising, mind-guarded assertions that you know best.

One Response to “Charles Clarke doesn’t seem to get it”

 
ukliberty wrote on September 30th, 2008 8:58 pm :

I wonder if the NAO ever get bored with writing the same old thing.

What are the common causes of government IT project failure?

1. Lack of clear link between the project and the organisation’s key strategic priorities, including agreed measures of success.
2. Lack of clear senior management and Ministerial ownership and leadership.
3. Lack of effective engagement with stakeholders.
4. Lack of skills and proven approach to project management and risk management.
5. Lack of understanding of and contact with the supply industry at senior levels in the organisation.
6. Evaluation of proposals driven by initial price rather than long term value for money (especially securing delivery of business benefits).
7. Too little attention to breaking development and implementation into manageable steps.
8. Inadequate resources and skills to deliver the total portfolio.

Wibbi Charles Clarke had remained in the private sector.