scte long read
incompetency, that is a lazy approach and ignores the sheer number of projects that have failed and the similarities their failures share. Each of the projects over-run in the time they take to roll out, they all bloat considerably in budget, and many of them never even make it to fruition. Often the solution during the process is to terminate the contract with the service provider and start again or fire the senior manager responsible. Neither of these options saves money or time, and usually achieves the reverse in compensation pay outs and more red faces in front of the NAO or the PAC (Public Accounts Committee). Meanwhile the approach of these committees, while well-intentioned, probably knocks the confidence of humiliated managers already out of their depth and the damning language attributed to their reports does not help: “Optimism bias and failing to set clear objectives”, “a masterclass in incompetency”, “a catastrophic waste of money” are just a few.
and Technology Committee in 2020 for a clear definition of its mission. The latest update on the GDS website itself is revealing: “We’ll soon be publishing the first version of the 2021/2022 roadmap so you can see more of the details of the work we’re intending to do.” Management styles Taking a step back, it is more likely that the application of 20th century management styles are not fit for purpose in a 21st century setting. Steve Denning is a Management Consultant and author of several books on the subject. His view is straightforward.
Management as most of us know it is characterised like this:
n The goal of the firm is to make money for the firm and its executives. Maximising shareholder value has been the catch cry of large organisations for the last 50 years and is still, despite recent language change, driving the behaviour of most large organisations. n The architecture of work is bureaucratic with individuals reporting to bosses and filling defined roles. n The dynamic of the firm is a top-down hierarchy of authority. The top is assumed to know best.
withering assessment of the knowledge gap between digital leaders and senior management in a report published only last year: ‘Initiating digital change involves taking a difficult set of decisions about risk and opportunity, but these decisions often do not reflect the reality of the legacy environment and do not fit comfortably into government’s standard mechanisms for approval, procurement, funding and assurance. This report found that digital leaders understand these issues well and bring much needed expertise to the public sector, but they often struggle to get the attention, understanding and support they need from senior decision-makers who lack sufficient digital expertise.’ Last year an NAO Cross Government Report entitled ‘The Challenges in Implementing Digital Change’ even spent tax-payers money looking into why so much tax-payer’s money had been wasted, concluding that “only a small proportion of permanent secretaries and other senior officials have first-hand experience of digital business change and as a result many lack sufficient understanding of the business, technical and delivery risks for which they are responsible.” This means that many of the problems stem from the inability of senior decision- makers to engage effectively with the difficult decisions required to implement technology-enabled business change.” While it is tempting to work ourselves up into a froth about inefficient government departments and their collective
Government Response
You can’t knock the government for trying. There are white papers, strategies, committees and units all over Whitehall trying to get to grips with the problem and avoid further staggering losses, scathing reports and embarrassment. A common response to failed public sector projects is to set up a crack response team, a task force dedicated to weeding out the rot and instilling best practice all along the supply chain. Boris Johnson announced one just last week in response to the ongoing Partygate scandal even, the new “Office of the Prime Minister”, in order to “improve the No 10 operation and deliver the change necessary to get on with the job.” It makes for good optics in the media, and voters like to see their governments “delivering for the British people.” Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, these departments are often no more fit for purpose than the projects they are overseeing. The Government Digital Service (GDS) is one example, founded in 2011 as a ‘Cabinet Office unit in charge of driving digital transformation within government.’ While it has achieved some of its objectives, it has seen off countless directors and at the time of writing the exact brief for the department remains unclear, despite calls from the Science
(Source: Forbes Magazine, Sept 2020)
We have seen this in other areas covered by Broadband Journal but the broad thrust is that technology is moving faster than large companies can keep pace with it. Apply that to public sector departments not driven by profit and the problem is even more acute. Senior management will likely not have grown up with technology as it is in 2022 (case in point: Nadine Dorries, Culture Secretary told Sky News only last week that ‘we’ve had the Internet for ten years’ to hoots of derision on social media. She also boasted on Twitter in 2017 than she and her staff, including interns on exchange programmes, routinely shared each other logins. Such poor education is endemic and not helpful to the overall IT ecosystem) and while they may certainly be computer literate, they are not pioneers. In technology pioneers appear at a junior level, hence the tech landscape is characterised by young, dynamic
18
Volume 46 No.1 March 2024
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter maker