IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs
bbc.co.uk
Government departments have been ripped off by a "cartel" of big IT firms, a damning report by a committee of MPs has found.
bbc.co.uk
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. They contract stuff out to the same companies again and again, ostensibly because they trust them / rely on them / any number of obviously not true reasons, and I don't think they realise that when they pay a big company £300,000 to make a website, they just turn around and sell it on to a small company who does it for £40,000.
I won't name websites or companies for obvious reasons, but those are quite close to actual numbers.
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.
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.
Completely the other way around, actually - our business relationship with the larger company was that we fixed their messes, some of which were gov contracts. Their sub-par developers would hack something together which eventually collapsed under its own weight, at which point they'd try to sell it anyway. If the client didn't accept it, we would then be brought in to close all the blocking bugs.
> or the government changing requirements halfway through the project
I don't think we were very insulated from this, but obviously by definition I can't tell you anything that we were shielded from!
The lack of technical knowledge prevents people from seeing it as problem.
Combine this with a culture of "if you don't spend as much this year as you did last year, you won't get all of the money you request" and we're in a never-ending cycle of bad decisions.
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.
The first example I saw was in the Northern Territory in 2000 when the Power and Water Authority was "corporatised". Something similar is happening with NBN Co, which while representing The Greatest Infrastructure Investment Evar, will also apparently Cost Nothing, Honest.
Just a little of bit of competence doesn't seem a lot to ask.
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?