Comments on: DTI website: response from National Audit Office

By: Bob Howard

Bob Howard — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:12:25 +0000

Hey everyone I wanted to share a new online business guide that I found to be in-depth and complete that walks you step-by-step through the process of starting your own online business. It’s called the Website Startup Guide and it works hand in hand with a free online business homepage called WebPalPro. Check both of their sites out and let me know what you think. Website Startup Guide WebPalPro

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:36:43 +0000

I’ve only just found this story, but as soon as I saw the name ‘Percussion’ (the CMS supplier) I had a sneaky feeling they may have been the cause. I had the misfortune on working with them when developing a large site for a very famous singer a few years back, and they were dreadful… cost loads, took ages, never delivered to brief, blamed us for the issues. To top it all off the ‘CMS’ they sold us didn’t even manage content, it simply spat out xml files. They have a nice plush office in Soho square though and loads of blokes with spikey hair and suits, so they get lots of big contracts like this.

Unfortunately, they will inevitably get plenty more jobs just like this in the future too, probably from the same managers at the DTI who they took out drinking to get this gig… ‘lessons learnt’ my arse.

By: anon2

anon2 — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:58:58 +0000

C Oates, sorry no faith. I can confirm everything anon said. It’s pretty much the way it works across the board in the public sector. I too, left.

By: C Oates

C Oates — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:50:23 +0000

Anon I think you’re putting too much faith in their hands! I think they specced it, it was delivered, everyone thought it was a job well done. Then Bruce and Blether got hold of it, they still thought they’d done a good job, and then suddenly the penny dropped. Queue much internal scrabbling around (aren’t the DTI trying to tell other people how accessible websites are a must!?) to cover things up, and then eventually they release a “lessons learned”, vague apologies, and it all goes away. Oh, after they spend probably as much again on fixing their cock-up: but it’s not their money remember. And it won’t affect their bonuses, even at the top.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:04:48 +0000

Going to hell, eh? I believe I know the perfect musical accompaniment to their perpetual torment in the fiery pits of Hades. “C’mon girlfriend!”…

By: anon

anon — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:15:05 +0000

As someone previously involved in public sector IT systems procurement, allow me to speculate what happened.

The requirements for the project receive input from project staff “who know what they’re doing.” Hence the WCAG-AA requirement. Vendors submit proposals stating their product/solution will meet all these requirements, even if it doesn’t (this seems to be standard practice, especially W.R.T. accessibility).

Two or more levels of senior management have “deliver IT project on time” set as one of the performance measures upon which they will be appraised. This performance measure is inevitably defined as “deliver IT project on time” rather than “deliver IT project that meets requirements on time.”

At some point, the project staff realise that the supplier’s product does not meet one (or more) requirements. Supplier than equivocates, plays down requirement, says how difficult it will be to meet the requirement – and, crucially, exaggerates how much longer it would take to implement. These supplier meetings are inevitably attended only by senior management.

The senior managers take the suppliers at their word: the suppliers are helping the managers meet their performance measure, whereas their own staff are arguing against (in the managers’ view) delivering the project on time.

The project staff’s concerns are over-ruled, the project gets implemented (roughly) on time, the suppliers get away with supplying a product that does not meet requirements, and the managers get a favourable performance review and in some cases a performance-related pay bonus.

The project is (internally) deemed a success, regardless of whether it meets the original requirements, and regardless of the degree of “external” success (i.e. how well it serves the public/users). It is in no-one’s interest to highlight any shortcomings. If the shortcomings are unavoidable and/or sufficiently public, a second project is set-up to do what should have been done in the original project. This is seen as building on the “success” of the first project, and again counts as a tickbox performance measure for the managers. Two management performance measure ticks instead of one!

The project staff either tow the line, leave, or are gently made to understand that their concerns, though well-intentioned, are not helping the organisation or their personal career prospects. The next generation of managers understand all too well what their performance will, and will not, be measured against.

And so it goes. I left