07.03.08
By Bill Goodwin
Weak management and a lack of openness were key factors behind the failure
of a £17 million flagship information-technology project by the government's
housing agency. This is the conclusion of a previously confidential report
by consultants released by the housing corporation after a 17-month battle
under the freedom of information act (FOIA).
A string of management blunders by government officials led to the
project, which was beset by technical problems, failing to meet either its
deadlines or budget. The report says that the project’s failure left
staff demoralised, and damaged the organisation’s reputation.
It also reveals that documents dating from early in the project appear
to have gone missing.
The project was commissioned in 1999 as part of a programme to update
the corporation’s ageing IT systems, and to provide housing associations
with direct electronic access to them.
The corporation, which provides funding to housing associations, initially
refused to release the report, but backed down following a complaint to the
information commissioner, who regulates FOIA.
In 2005, the corporation asked Methods Consult-ing to compile a report
on the failed IT project, providing access to its staff and project documents
during the firm’s 10-month investigation.
The 60-page Methods Consulting report suggests, however, that some
significant documentation had gone missing. Some documents mentioned by current
and former corporation staff during formal interviews by the consultants “could
not be located in the electronic or paper records.”
The report says: “There were also allegations that some paper
records were destroyed early in 2004 for unknown reasons.”
The missing records included board IT group minutes between 1997 and
2000, the report reveals.
On the project itself, the report says that the corporation allowed
poor relations between managers and the IT department to create “a mutually
distrustful environment”. This left managers with little control.
Disgruntled staff leaked documents on the project to the press, prompting
the corporation to hire private detectives in an unsuccessful attempt to identify
the employees responsible.
Although the procurement followed a well thought-through procedure,
the corporation failed to consult its legal advisors in the early stages of
the contract for the project and the procurement team missed key warning signs
during the procurement process. As a result, the corporation awarded the contract
to an inexperienced supplier, Elonex, now in liquidation.
And although the corporation's external advisor, KPMG, endorsed its
choice of IT technology for the project, managers wrongly presented this as
an endorsement of the IT strategy.
User needs were not properly defined, and man-agement resources were
overstretched. During the project, decisions went unrecorded, and minutes
of meetings were poor.
The project team lacked managers with strategic IT understanding, skills
in procurement and contract management. The investigation found that man-agers
relied too heavily on technical advice from a single freelance IT consultant,
despite warnings that this posed a risk.
“Important detail was frequently overlooked and decision-makers
were often presented with sub-stantial document and little time to review
it. Strategic procurement mistakes were made at strategy, final award and
implementation stages,” the report says.
“There was no systematic assessment of risks, no evidence of
implementation or resource planning, and unrealistic expectations were raised
of an early timetable for implementation.”
The project faced repeated technical difficulties, with pilots suffering
from service failures and poor performance. But neither the corporation nor
its then supplier, Elonex, appeared to have understood the technology sufficiently
to solve the problems, says the report.
The corporation ended its deal with Elonex in Dec-ember 2005, on the
grounds of material breach of contract, the report reveals.
The report says that the corporation has taken steps to turn around
its IT strategy.
The corporation’s IT director, Peter Marsh, said in a statement:
“We fully accept the report’s findings and its recommendations.
The purpose of the review was to find out what went wrong and to identify
lessons for the future.”
Another version of this article first appeared in Computer Weekly.
FOIA Centre commentary
We have seen, once again, how FOIA can root out reports that government
agencies would rather keep secret. But, once again, it has proved a lengthy
battle.
In this case, the housing corporation reluctantly released an embarrassing
report on a failed IT project nearly a year after a complaint was lodged with
the information commissioner – a year and five months after the initial
FOIA request. Once again, the FOIA regulator has proved far too slow at regulating
FOIA.
Indeed, we might still be waiting for the information commissioner’s
conclusion had the corporation not decided to release the report after all.
And we believe that this decision was influenced by Bill Goodwin’s
previous revelations – based on confidential memos not, of course, disclosed
under FOIA – on how corporation officials had planned a secret strategy
to frustrate any request for the report. The leaked documents showed that,
while the corporation recognised that a public body must work from the presumption
of disclosing material requested under FOIA, it did the exact opposite.
Comment on this article
Memos reveal
strategy to prevent FOIA disclosure
‘Openness on IT
projects would spark clashes’
Government attacks FOIA
watchdog over order
NHS
neutered NAO’s criticisms of IT scheme
With
obsessive official secrecy, is FOIA any use?
Headlines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||