Villa Park Redevelopment

[LeeB]

Should have gone with SAP.

Same old penny pinching tories/lefties/........

No matter how much more SAP would have cost, if they'd done it in Salesforce, it would have cost more.

I've never come across a product that requires the constant throwing of ever increasing money more than Salesforce. No wonder Marc Benioff is so rich.

They also have a sales network which is freakishly devoted to the company, like a cross between drug reps pushing Oxycontin and a cult.

I hate that product.

One of my daughter's friends is the head of sales for EMEA (whatever that actually means) for Salesforce. A slimier, bigger wanker you will never meet.

In a just world, IT software sales people would be employed to clean the sewage from our rivers but only using their mouths.

[paul_e]

Should have gone with SAP.

Same old penny pinching tories/lefties/........

It was to replace SAP.

Surely the worst roll out of public sector IT is the Post Office system that wound up putting innocent people in prison.

True, there's loads of good examples but the NHS one not only cost a fortune but it also got abandoned after 9years of failing to implement it - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn

It's one of those stories that I'm amazed most people seem to have missed.

[itbrvilla]

No idea.

I think it’s a British disease whereby large  organisations bring in consultants / third parties for these projects, but the people in charge at the commissioning organisation have no actual idea of what they are doing.

It’s not just public sector either. A few years ago a friend of mine was on a large project for BT. For about two years he charged them top daily rate and 90% of the time was doing absolutely nothing because they couldn’t make their minds up what they wanted.

Going back 25 years I worked as full time staff at the bbc. I did next to nothing, basically just took on loads of freelance projects I did in work time. The bit I worked in, making content for the OU, had about 20 producers. Some of them had been there 30 years since the OU was founded and basically spent most of their time in the office bar sitting around drinking cheap beer.

They then got rid of most of them (with eye watering redundancy pay offs as they’d been there so long) and there was absolutely no adverse effect on our output.

Seeing this through my Dad atm. He's a consultant working at SSE. He's just left Severn Trent because they had nothing for him and he got bored. SSE have got a big project but they haven't got their ducks in a row, so again he's got bored and is probably going to apply to move to a different project within SSE.

Incidentally, my Dad was involved in a £20bn IT with the NHS and he said back then that it was a waste of money. There's so much waste in the economy.

As for public spending, I wonder about checks and balances. The inefficiency is mind boggling and if some of it is questionably corrupt, then there needs to be some oversight on local councils to make sure public money is being used responsibly.

Where's the Audit Commission when you need it?

[The Edge]

Should have gone with SAP.

Same old penny pinching tories/lefties/........

It was to replace SAP.

Surely the worst roll out of public sector IT is the Post Office system that wound up putting innocent people in prison.

True, there's loads of good examples but the NHS one not only cost a fortune but it also got abandoned after 9years of failing to implement it - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn

It's one of those stories that I'm amazed most people seem to have missed.

Whenever anything goes tits up in the NHS the management response is always the same. Just shoehorn in yet another layer of middle management.

[OCD]

There's probably more managers than there are doctors in the NHS by now.

[brontebilly]

No idea.

I think it’s a British disease whereby large  organisations bring in consultants / third parties for these projects, but the people in charge at the commissioning organisation have no actual idea of what they are doing.

It’s not just public sector either. A few years ago a friend of mine was on a large project for BT. For about two years he charged them top daily rate and 90% of the time was doing absolutely nothing because they couldn’t make their minds up what they wanted.

Going back 25 years I worked as full time staff at the bbc. I did next to nothing, basically just took on loads of freelance projects I did in work time. The bit I worked in, making content for the OU, had about 20 producers. Some of them had been there 30 years since the OU was founded and basically spent most of their time in the office bar sitting around drinking cheap beer.

They then got rid of most of them (with eye watering redundancy pay offs as they’d been there so long) and there was absolutely no adverse effect on our output.

That's not a uniquely British disease nor public sector specific in my experience. The problem I've seen at first hand when it comes to public sector management (or ex semi states that still have the same culture) is a complete inability to make hard decisions in a timely fashion so things just drift along aimlessly. Responsibility and accountability can be dirty words for the Teflon types that stick around at middle management in these places, easier to spend more money on consultants for a "independent review". There are colossal Tech programme failures in private industry too but generally the plug gets pulled a lot quicker under the guise of a re-org or C suite shuffle usually.

I cut my teeth on that BT NHS programme many moons ago. A contractor's wet dream!

[algy]

I think public sector IT comes under an awful lot of criticism.  Some of which is deserved, but some consists of forced missteps.

The funding model for these things seems to be more based around capital spend (rather than ongoing annual spend) going towards software development.  That's absolutely fine to work with in my book - I'm a software developer within the NHS and accept that as part & parcel of the work - but I don't think software development is ever done in a way that really supports that.

To me, public sector software needs to follow a model closer to how open source software is developed, where you might have a small team (maybe just one person) that steers the software's direction from a technical standpoint.  Then funding is used to pay 3rd party contractors to build a single, specific feature for that software.  They are in effect directed by a single stakeholder (who would use that feature) and the person/team who steers the technical side of the software.  This would allow the software to be developed far more organically, with features/requirements being able to be designed and specced out completely independently from the 'build' process.

I/we have been trialling this approach within a piece of software within the NHS, and I've become increasingly evangelical about it - the way public sector software is built can be rethought and reengineered from the ground up to absolutely maximise the value-for-money aspects from contractors, whilst really leaning in to the existing expertise in whatever public sector body it is.


I dunno, I don't like to criticise others really.  They do their best, and it's rare for anything to be attempted in bad faith IMO.  But I do believe there's a better way for public sector IT to be 'done', even if it turns out not to be my way.


--

And herein ends my sermon on the mount about computer programming. 

[Risso]

I know we like to stray off topic, but this international break must be the most random ever. Smurfs and the NHS IT system!

[Clampy]

And Scampi Fries.

[Gareth]

I know we like to stray off topic, but this international break must be the most random ever. Smurfs and the NHS IT system!

Having worked on the NHS IT projects there were plenty of smurfs out there working on and users.

My favourite was the lady who told me she couldn’t get her ‘new computer thing’ to work….walked over, opened her desk drawer, took out the mouse, plugged it in and showed her how to use it.  Expecting people to go from green screen dumb terminal where navigation was by the tab key to a PC overnight was a massive stretch for some.

[algy]

I know we like to stray off topic, but this international break must be the most random ever. Smurfs and the NHS IT system!

Having worked on the NHS IT projects there were plenty of smurfs out there working on and users.

My favourite was the lady who told me she couldn’t get her ‘new computer thing’ to work….walked over, opened her desk drawer, took out the mouse, plugged it in and showed her how to use it.  Expecting people to go from green screen dumb terminal where navigation was by the tab key to a PC overnight was a massive stretch for some.

The computer system for the electrodiagnostic (eye) testing in Manchester is a thing of beauty.  I'm sure it was cutting edge at some point, but all of the results are saved to 5 1/4" floppy disks, which then have to be taken to a separate (also ancient) computer in another room to covert those to more modern 3 1/2" floppies, which then have to be taken to a third computer - IIRC running Windows 95 - which is then used to copy the data first from the floppy to a hard drive, then from the hard drive to somewhere on the network.  From there it gets picked up by a more modern machine, and where they write a letter containing the results in MS Word, then print it off and file it in a beige folder.  Not sure where it goes after that.

[Gareth]

I know we like to stray off topic, but this international break must be the most random ever. Smurfs and the NHS IT system!

Having worked on the NHS IT projects there were plenty of smurfs out there working on and users.

My favourite was the lady who told me she couldn’t get her ‘new computer thing’ to work….walked over, opened her desk drawer, took out the mouse, plugged it in and showed her how to use it.  Expecting people to go from green screen dumb terminal where navigation was by the tab key to a PC overnight was a massive stretch for some.

The computer system for the electrodiagnostic (eye) testing in Manchester is a thing of beauty.  I'm sure it was cutting edge at some point, but all of the results are saved to 5 1/4" floppy disks, which then have to be taken to a separate (also ancient) computer in another room to covert those to more modern 3 1/2" floppies, which then have to be taken to a third computer - IIRC running Windows 95 - which is then used to copy the data first from the floppy to a hard drive, then from the hard drive to somewhere on the network.  From there it gets picked up by a more modern machine, and where they write a letter containing the results in MS Word, then print it off and file it in a beige folder.  Not sure where it goes after that.

Brilliant, to think they spent 10 years thinking they were getting a ‘supercomputer’ that did it all rather than looking at integrating existing systems-that sounds awesomely efficient algy :-)

[astonvilla82]

Before it went commercialised,if any money was left over before end of the financial year April 1st, the housing department had to find ways to spend it or it went straight back into council coffers,at least they spent it on projects that was worthwhile, anyone to blame it's the public because they sat on their arses and let it happen and now moan like f**k when it's too late

[Chris Smith]

I think public sector IT comes under an awful lot of criticism.  Some of which is deserved, but some consists of forced missteps.

The funding model for these things seems to be more based around capital spend (rather than ongoing annual spend) going towards software development.  That's absolutely fine to work with in my book - I'm a software developer within the NHS and accept that as part & parcel of the work - but I don't think software development is ever done in a way that really supports that.

To me, public sector software needs to follow a model closer to how open source software is developed, where you might have a small team (maybe just one person) that steers the software's direction from a technical standpoint.  Then funding is used to pay 3rd party contractors to build a single, specific feature for that software.  They are in effect directed by a single stakeholder (who would use that feature) and the person/team who steers the technical side of the software.  This would allow the software to be developed far more organically, with features/requirements being able to be designed and specced out completely independently from the 'build' process.

I/we have been trialling this approach within a piece of software within the NHS, and I've become increasingly evangelical about it - the way public sector software is built can be rethought and reengineered from the ground up to absolutely maximise the value-for-money aspects from contractors, whilst really leaning in to the existing expertise in whatever public sector body it is.


I dunno, I don't like to criticise others really.  They do their best, and it's rare for anything to be attempted in bad faith IMO.  But I do believe there's a better way for public sector IT to be 'done', even if it turns out not to be my way.


--

And herein ends my sermon on the mount about computer programming. 

I spent most of my working life in public sector IT. The organisation I have recently left has spent the last 5 years implementing along similar lines to you describe. It involved trying to create an integrated national system from dozens of disparate packages built on a variety of platforms over the previous 25 years as formerly separate agencies were amalgamated. It is roughly a 25/75% split between internal and public facing. We haven’t used contractors but instead hired on fixed term contracts as required.

It has been done by breaking it down into the basic functions and releasing these on a rolling programme whilst simultaneously running down the legacy systems. There’s oversight from a central body to ensure compatibility and a common look and feel but each team works largely as a self-contained entity. It has, to date, worked extremely well but with a few years still to go the worry is that funding will not be maintained and that it ends up with compromises and politicians then blame officials when it doesn’t do everything promised.

[algy]

I think public sector IT comes under an awful lot of criticism.  Some of which is deserved, but some consists of forced missteps.

The funding model for these things seems to be more based around capital spend (rather than ongoing annual spend) going towards software development.  That's absolutely fine to work with in my book - I'm a software developer within the NHS and accept that as part & parcel of the work - but I don't think software development is ever done in a way that really supports that.

To me, public sector software needs to follow a model closer to how open source software is developed, where you might have a small team (maybe just one person) that steers the software's direction from a technical standpoint.  Then funding is used to pay 3rd party contractors to build a single, specific feature for that software.  They are in effect directed by a single stakeholder (who would use that feature) and the person/team who steers the technical side of the software.  This would allow the software to be developed far more organically, with features/requirements being able to be designed and specced out completely independently from the 'build' process.

I/we have been trialling this approach within a piece of software within the NHS, and I've become increasingly evangelical about it - the way public sector software is built can be rethought and reengineered from the ground up to absolutely maximise the value-for-money aspects from contractors, whilst really leaning in to the existing expertise in whatever public sector body it is.


I dunno, I don't like to criticise others really.  They do their best, and it's rare for anything to be attempted in bad faith IMO.  But I do believe there's a better way for public sector IT to be 'done', even if it turns out not to be my way.


--

And herein ends my sermon on the mount about computer programming. 

I spent most of my working life in public sector IT. The organisation I have recently left has spent the last 5 years implementing along similar lines to you describe. It involved trying to create an integrated national system from dozens of disparate packages built on a variety of platforms over the previous 25 years as formerly separate agencies were amalgamated. It is roughly a 25/75% split between internal and public facing. We haven’t used contractors but instead hired on fixed term contracts as required.

It has been done by breaking it down into the basic functions and releasing these on a rolling programme whilst simultaneously running down the legacy systems. There’s oversight from a central body to ensure compatibility and a common look and feel but each team works largely as a self-contained entity. It has, to date, worked extremely well but with a few years still to go the worry is that funding will not be maintained and that it ends up with compromises and politicians then blame officials when it doesn’t do everything promised.

I'm unreasonably excited by that. The whole thing for us started maybe a year before the pandemic - the first ideas of how to develop a piece of software where funding for it was highly variable. And I'd taken a kind of extremist view (based on a book - The Cathedral and the Bazaar) that maybe if it was treated as an open source project, not so much around releasing the code itself but in modelling how a suitably interested person would add a single feature they wanted, then maybe that would fit in with funding - but rather than the doctor programming the feature themselves, they'd pay some external agency £x to do that bit for them.

So far it'd worked out pretty well, but you're always a bit - is it just because it's these specific people, or this specific situation, or just dumb luck, that everything's gone well? So, hearing that ... Well, it feels like maybe it's not just this one isolated case and it actually works pretty well as a model.