Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

#11

Post by gmac »

ZoFreX wrote: post #7
arethuza wrote: post #3

I honestly don't know who is worse, the companies who manage to fleece the taxpayer this way or the idiots in the upper levels of the civil service who don't really care because "it's just taxpayers money".

Or the people that deliberately organised purchasing things in a convoluted manner that channels taxpayer's money to a few preferred companies, in a manner that while increasing our actual debt, puts it on different books, so we don't look quite as in debt as we are.

In the UK, that would be PFI or PPP (Private Finance Initiative and Public-Private Partnership)? These are indeed a dog's dinner... for which we can blame only the people some of us elected.

Re: IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

#12

Post by arethuza »

gmac wrote: post #10
arethuza wrote: post #3

I honestly don't know who is worse, the companies who manage to fleece the taxpayer this way or the idiots in the upper levels of the civil service who don't really care because "it's just taxpayers money".

I know which is worse: the companies. Because barring evidence to the contrary, I don't believe that these 'idiots in the upper levels of the civil service who don't really care because "it's just taxpayers money"' exist. I'm sure some of them are incompetent as regards IT, and that's a problem that needs addressing, but this sort of baseless castigation of public servants irritates the hell out of me.

Unfortunately they really do exist - I've met some. I suspect this attitude is actually more prevalent amongst very senior civil servants (who are extrelemy elitist) rather than the rank and file.

Re: IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

#13

Post by gaius »

arethuza wrote: post #6
gaius wrote: post #5

Windfall tax on Accenture, EDS, IBM Global Services and all the rest. Claw back the tens of billions of British taxpayer's money they've squirreled away. Go after their shareholders too.

How's this for a completely crazy idea - sack a few civil servents who have been responsible for creating and managing such spectacularly awful contracts? I know that traditionally amateurism and incompetence haven't been seen as a barrier to a splendid career in the civil service, but maybe that should change?

That too! Accountability for decisions is anathema to the unions however. They will need to be broken first.

Re: IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

#14

Post by arethuza »

gaius wrote: post #13
arethuza wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's this for a completely crazy idea - sack a few civil servents who have been responsible for creating and managing such spectacularly awful contracts? I know that traditionally amateurism and incompetence haven't been seen as a barrier to a splendid career in the civil service, but maybe that should change?

That too! Accountability for decisions is anathema to the unions however. They will need to be broken first.

Maybe the FDA (AKA First Division Association) should be outlawed then? Or perhaps broken in the same way as the NUM....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_%28trade_union%29

Re: IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

#15

Post by quanticle »

arethuza wrote: post #3

I honestly don't know who is worse, the companies who manage to fleece the taxpayer this way or the idiots in the upper levels of the civil service who don't really care because "it's just taxpayers money".

Its not that they don't care. Its that they don't know any better. Look, these people are probably less tech-savvy than your parents. As far as they're concerned, those little boxes on or underneath their desks are magic. Now, given that, do you really expect them make informed and rational decisions about how much a computer should cost to install and maintain?

Re: IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

#16

Post by _delirium »

mgkimsal wrote: post #9
wisty wrote: post #4

Government contracts - fixed price, big upfront design, and ever-shifting acceptance standards (which the contractor will not have any input into). A contractor has to charge 3-10X the price, just for the brain damaged way decisions are made.

Having done a bit of work for a state agency here, I have to say the "fixed price" aspect is the most frustrating. Having to estimate the needs/demands of a system 1-2 years ago, and budget for it today , then earmark all that money ahead of time... argh. It's a recipe for wasteful spending. Compared to "just in time" philosophies of only paying for what you need when you need it, current procurement and budgeting st…

The U.S. uses pay-as-you-incur-costs type billing for some large projects, exactly for that reason (hard to estimate up front, would have to overprice it due to the risk), but I'm not sure it reduces waste overall. It provides a different kind of incentive, since now companies like Lockheed have a monetary incentive to drag projects on for years, overstaff them, etc. At least with fixed-price billing they have an incentive to finish the project, since they aren't going to get more money by dragging it out longer.

Re: IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

#17

Post by gaius »

quanticle wrote: post #15
arethuza wrote: post #3

I honestly don't know who is worse, the companies who manage to fleece the taxpayer this way or the idiots in the upper levels of the civil service who don't really care because "it's just taxpayers money".

Its not that they don't care. Its that they don't know any better. Look, these people are probably less tech-savvy than your parents. As far as they're concerned, those little boxes on or underneath their desks are magic . Now, given that, do you really expect them make informed and rational decisions about how much a computer should cost to install and maintain?

They are paid to care. That's their job. They are custodians of the public purse. We castigate irresponsible bankers - civil servants should not be excempt.

Re: IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

#18

Post by wisty »

mgkimsal wrote: post #9
wisty wrote: post #4

Government contracts - fixed price, big upfront design, and ever-shifting acceptance standards (which the contractor will not have any input into). A contractor has to charge 3-10X the price, just for the brain damaged way decisions are made.

Having done a bit of work for a state agency here, I have to say the "fixed price" aspect is the most frustrating. Having to estimate the needs/demands of a system 1-2 years ago, and budget for it today , then earmark all that money ahead of time... argh. It's a recipe for wasteful spending. Compared to "just in time" philosophies of only paying for what you need when you need it, current procurement and budgeting st…

The government loses a lot of money by being so incredibly tight-fisted.

All costs must be approved in advance, to ensure nothing is wasted. So nobody in government can run a small project, see how it works out, then scale up if needed. It's all-or-nothing.

Ironically, governments have less to lose if budgets go a little under or over - they get pretty cheap financing, and they are a big outfit who can absorb small variances within the system (as long as it's not systematic). If a small company has a project go over budget, it can kill them. But governments (who can afford the risk) pay extra for the surety.

Re: IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

#19

Post by wisty »

ZoFreX wrote: post #8

"In its report, the public administration committee recommends that departments across Whitehall use more small and medium-sized IT suppliers to increase competition and bring down prices." This is exactly what already happens, not that I think MPs know about it. I've personally worked on and even in some cases BUILT government websites, yet you won't find my name or my employer's (at the time) name on their books. T…

The big company probably eats the risk of the small company stuffing up, or the government changing requirements halfway through the project.

They also do all the unexciting tender work, certifications, negotiations, rainmaking, etc.

If a government employee asked a savvy web dev to scope out and implement a solution, it would be cheap. But they can't work that way. The project has to be specified upfront, in advance, because otherwise the government might get cheated by an unscrupulous developer. They would rather be sure they are getting cheated, that way there's no way they can be accused of favoritism.

Re: IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs

#20

Post by pbhjpbhj »

wisty wrote: post #19
ZoFreX wrote: post #8

"In its report, the public administration committee recommends that departments across Whitehall use more small and medium-sized IT suppliers to increase competition and bring down prices." This is exactly what already happens, not that I think MPs know about it. I've personally worked on and even in some cases BUILT government websites, yet you won't find my name or my employer's (at the time) name on their books. T…

The big company probably eats the risk of the small company stuffing up, or the government changing requirements halfway through the project. They also do all the unexciting tender work, certifications, negotiations, rainmaking, etc. If a government employee asked a savvy web dev to scope out and implement a solution, it would be cheap. But they can't work that way. The project has to be specified upfront, in advance…

>But they can't work that way. The project has to be specified upfront, in advance, because otherwise the government might get cheated by an unscrupulous developer

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying the risk of losing a few £10k is worth paying a few £100k over the odds to avoid?

Surely the gov should be using their own web devs and having a consistent CMS used across all gov online estates. Yes there will be db integrations and things but a single shop of web dev working for the gov would surely save money.

They could get 3 whole websites and employ a 4th body to choose the best and still do it cheaper than hiring the big firm in the first place.

Post reply on HN