conservatives are

[SirGalahad]

There's your problem - trying to change the world from the offset. No wonder it goes wrong, and is manna from heaven for the legal teams......

What is so wrong with saying "Yes; we want it to cover the NHS eventually (so it needs to be scaleable) but, bearing that in mind, let's start with a small pilot scheme."?

Or is it really that the big providers want to sign the billion-pound contract, knowing that they'll cash in to a huge extent, regardless of the outcome?

Which is why I said it must be ideology or corruption as to why so much of this work is contracted out rather than the government build up its own capacity which would expand its economies of scale and economies of scope.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

The iterative approach works in some specific cases but would you build a warship by iteration? lol - You can have the hull and we can add the tower and systems later.

An iterative approach is not a recognised methodology for introducing new systems.
Certainly continuous development is part, but that is hardly an iterative approach.

Apart from that your "idea" of building a hull and then later the superstructure etc, is not an iterative approach. That is a phased or 'in tranches' approach.

An iterative approach would be to build the ship, then when you decide that the battle ship does not fully resolve your problem, and you needed something different, to go back to the drawing board to design a better solution.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

....where ex ministers and civil servants having signed the contracts end up working for the suppliers / providers.

It is quite right and proper that a designated person remains the lead person, working for the procurer to provide feedback, and further requirements to the supplier. But they remain working for the procurer, not the supplier.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

What transpires is that the legal contracts and project documents get so large no one person has a clue anymore and the clock is ticking as you still haven't signed it.

Which is why 'a team' is normally used, and that team has the various responsibilities spread among them.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Which is why I said it must be ideology or corruption as to why so much of this work is contracted out rather than the government build up its own capacity which would expand its economies of scale and economies of scope.

So we should all be writing our own word processing programs, accountancy programs, databases, websites, etc?
Or alternatively we could decide that we are better concentrating on our core business and out-source the specialisms to more experienced organisations.

 

[SirGalahad]

So we should all be writing our own word processing programs, accountancy programs, databases, websites, etc?
Or alternatively we could decide that we are better concentrating on our core business and out-source the specialisms to more experienced organisations.

The core business - whatever that is. It's great in theory but in reality never seems to achieve many of the supposed results.

What happens with this idiotic approach of concentrating on the core- you end up contracting more and more out until the organisation is nothing more than a co-ordinator. Look at how Dell, HP quality fell as they started from outsourcing production to outsourcing design until eventually they started to go back on that.

Look at how Apple has invested billions in its suppliers and supply chains - rather than focus just on the core to maintain quality but also buyer power when it comes to raw materials and components.

Look into Coase 'Transaction cost theory of the firm' and Christensen 'Innovators Dilemma'

You mentioned databases - well why is it that Facebook decided to bring their servers and hosting in house just like what Google had done far earlier than them. Why don't they use the tech from Oracle?

 

[Doggit]

Having worked in the IT industry, you often come across the situation where the internal department is good enough to keep the system under control, but not to develop things further, hence the reason that you go outside for more specialised knowledge. I was always under the impression that the NHS didn't have the relevant programmers to handle the project. But you should normally have someone who's good enough to oversee what the outside guys are proposing. Was this just a case of everybody getting their nose in the trough, or the blind leading the blind. It is very easy to lose sight of what's wanted, and unless you keep on top of the design process, then it can get out of hand. It seems that the comp week guys were suggesting that each authority should have been alowed to go and get the bits they wanted, but that suggests two things to me. The first is that there are possibly systems out there that could have been modified and extended, and two, as every authority is part of the NHS, shouldn't they be working the same way, and using a harmonised system - which is partially what the failed system was intended to do.

 

[JohnD]

here are some easy questions.

Where are the people who know most about the NHS business processes? In the NHS, or working for Capita and Accenture?

Where are the people who know most about the NHS IT systems? In the NHS, or working for Capita and Accenture?

Where are the people who know most about sucking unlimited taxpayers money out of unending government contracts? In the NHS, or working for Capita and Accenture?

Where are the people who have the most to gain from scope creep, hazy specification, budget overrun, and extended dates? In the NHS, or working for Capita and Accenture?

Where are the people the government places its trust in? In the NHS, or working for Capita and Accenture?

Did you answer "Jeremy Hunt" to any of those questions?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

The core business - whatever that is. It's great in theory but in reality never seems to achieve many of the supposed results.

If the business is not achieving their 'core business' they will not survive as a business.
Which is why they decide they may want to put their energies into their 'core business'.

What happens with this idiotic approach of concentrating on the core- you end up contracting more and more out until the organisation is nothing more than a co-ordinator.

Under your 'strategy' builders will be constructing their own cement mixers, building their own ladders and scaffold.
One can outsource, or buy in the required expertise as and when it is needed without losing sight or control of one's core business.
One of the fundamental advantages of buying-in expertise is that one takes advantage of similar applications.

Look at how Dell, HP quality fell as they started from outsourcing production to outsourcing design until eventually they started to go back on that.

Look at how Apple has invested billions in its suppliers and supply chains - rather than focus just on the core to maintain quality but also buyer power when it comes to raw materials and components.

Why not supply some reference to support your claim.

Look into Coase 'Transaction cost theory of the firm' and Christensen 'Innovators Dilemma'

You mean Coase's Nature of the Firm, written in the '30's? He was more concerned with economic decisions, than strategic ones.
Christensen's Innovators Dilemma is about development of systems and not applicable to this discussion.

You mentioned databases - well why is it that Facebook decided to bring their servers and hosting in house just like what Google had done far earlier than them. Why don't they use the tech from Oracle?

Did they? Security?
Why not ask them?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

here are some easy questions.

Where are the people who know most about the NHS business processes? In the NHS, or working for Capita and Accenture?

There may be similarities, solutions or paradigms not thought of by the 'procurers'.
Ideally, a systems designer would work with the procurer to ascertain the requirements and write the specification.

Where are the people who know most about the NHS IT systems? In the NHS, or working for Capita and Accenture?

There may be 'clued-up' people working in NHS that do have a 'flair' for IT systems who might have some considerable contribution to make.

Where are the people who know most about sucking unlimited taxpayers money out of unending government contracts? In the NHS, or working for Capita and Accenture?

This is usually a result of a poorly designed or inadequately explored requirements. It could be a result of 'scope creep'.

Where are the people who have the most to gain from scope creep, hazy specification, budget overrun, and extended dates? In the NHS, or working for Capita and Accenture?

Look at it in reverse, who has most to lose? Hence why a persistent pursuance of the original requirements may be the outcome.

Where are the people the government places its trust in? In the NHS, or working for Capita and Accenture?

A good working and transparent relationship is a fundamental requirement for success, normally.

 

[JohnD]

the government hates and distrusts its own employees, and foolishly puts its trust in those whose prime objective is to syphon money out of the public purse.

 

[Doggit]

The problem with those who buy the argument that we do not have money to spend we are broke do not know how governments and economies work

Lets get back to this one Kankerot, i'm interested to see how you view things. Is there a valid argument for spending more to extend the economy, or are we living beyond our means. And if we are, why are we; are any of those that have been in power over over the last 15 years, actually capable of doing the job.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

the government hates and distrusts its own employees, and foolishly puts its trust in those whose prime objective is to syphon money out of the public purse.

I think you have been having too many discussions with Firedhand and arse end. You have been suckered into saying the kind of things they would say.

 

[JohnD]

quite the reverse

 

[JohnD]

Jeremy congratulates Theresa on her temp summer job.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1856569951261610