Sunday, August 30, 2009

The Gateway 9 Years On

Looking for something entirely unrelated, I came across these two slides from July 2000. When I used these, they were printed on transparencies and displayed using an Overheard Projector. From there to pico-projectors!

200908301703.jpg


200908301704.jpg

Looking at that second slide, not one of the departments named still exists:

IR and C&E became HMRC, DSS became DWP, DTI iterated a few times and is now DBIS, MAFF is now defra (and DECC).

16 comments:

  1. Twitter-DavidGaleUK6:57 pm

    A reminder that the 'concrete wall' architecture of the current Gov Connect implementation was never mandated in the first place. You'll note too that there isn't a single reference to the hundreds of other public / voluntary sector organisations with whom local authorities need to work.

    Current CoCos (unless Clueless & Witless alow you to certify your own, ehem!) rule out leveraging the voluntary sector to mediate delivery of public sector services directly inside communities. Why? Because can't envisage any situation where they don't have control...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Twitter-DavidGaleUK8:29 pm

    <span>A reminder that the 'concrete wall' architecture of the current Gov Connect implementation was never mandated in the first place. You'll note too that there isn't a single reference to the hundreds of other public / voluntary sector organisations with whom local authorities need to work. 
     
    Current CoCos (unless Clueless & Witless alow you to certify your own, ehem!) rule out leveraging the voluntary sector to mediate delivery of public sector services directly inside communities. Why? Because DWP can't envisage any situation where they don't have direct control...</span>

    ReplyDelete
  3. i struggle to follow your point, perhaps i'm being slow.  little is or ever was mandated in this space - certainly not the gateway; gov connect was largely after my time so i don't know where that go to.  i put the post office and the cab in there to point to the possible intermediaries, not as an attempt to list them all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Twitter-DavidGaleUK12:11 pm

    "little or nothing was mandated" - precisely. The original Gateway vision was flexible enough to be able to cope with concepts that included federated ID management. Even the suppliers assumed that federation was going to be the logical way forward. Only when it became obvious that this was about a power-play by a single government department did the suppliers fall into line with the current GovConnect architecture. What we have now with GovConnect is a million miles away from Gateway, horribly inflexible, hugely expensive and completely unsustainable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Twitter-DavidGaleUK12:15 pm

    <span>"little or nothing was mandated" - precisely. The original Gateway vision was flexible enough to be able to cope with concepts that included federated ID management. Even the suppliers assumed that federation was going to be the logical way forward. Only when it became obvious that this was about a power-play by a single government department did the suppliers fall into line with the current GovConnect architecture, which is a million miles away from Gateway. GocConnect is horribly inflexible, hugely expensive and completely unsustainable.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  6. Twitter-DavidGaleUK12:16 pm

    <span><span>"little or nothing was mandated" - precisely. The original Gateway vision was flexible enough to be able to cope with concepts that included federated ID management. Even the suppliers assumed that federation was going to be the logical way forward. Only when it became obvious that this was about a power-play by a single government department did the suppliers fall into line with the current GovConnect architecture, which is a million miles away from Gateway. GovConnect is horribly inflexible, hugely expensive and completely unsustainable.</span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  7. Twitter-DavidGaleUK12:22 pm

    <span><span><span>"little or nothing was mandated" - precisely. The original Gateway vision was flexible enough to be able to cope with concepts that included federated ID management. Even the suppliers assumed that federation was going to be the logical way forward. Only when it became obvious that this was about a power-play by a small government unit, that aligned itself with the political aspirations of a large government department, did the suppliers fall into line with the current GovConnect architecture, which is a million miles away from Gateway. GovConnect is horribly inflexible, hugely expensive and completely unsustainable.</span></span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  8. true - federation was always on the roadmap. only sensible thing to do - a concentrated store serves no one well.  i think you're thinking too much to map it on to a power play by anyone; little is that thought through.  it's a shame if anything is viewed as inflexible and unsustainable - something will come along and replace it, and it could easily go the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  9. true - federation was always on the roadmap. only sensible thing to do - a concentrated store serves no one well.  i think you're thinking too much to map it on to a power play by anyone; little is that thought through.  it's a shame if anything is viewed as inflexible and unsustainable - something will come along and replace it, and it could easily go the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Twitter-DavidGaleUK7:37 pm

    I wish it were paranoia, Alan, except that I have made it my mission over the past five years to personally tell (face to face) every senior player involved the error of their ways. True, some are not listening simply because they are simply ignorant of the importance of strategic vision and direction for public sector IT. However, a few, closest to the top, are perfectly aware and are guilty of malfeasance on a grand scale. I direct interested parties to "The Emperor's New Clothes" and "Tactical versus Strategic" at www.sitfo.org/blog.htm for a deeper understanding. That these same people accept that 'something else may come along' is indicative of a willingness to waste hundreds of millions of pounds of public money on nothing other than political window-dressing and personal career advancement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Twitter-DavidGaleUK8:45 am

    <span>I wish it were paranoia, Alan, except that I have made it my mission over the past five years to personally tell (face to face) every senior player involved the error of their ways. True, some are not listening because they are ignorant of the importance of strategic vision and direction for public sector IT. However, a few, closest to the top, are perfectly aware and are guilty of malfeasance on a grand scale. I direct interested parties to "The Emperor's New Clothes" and "Tactical versus Strategic" at <span>www.sitfo.org/blog.htm</span> for a deeper understanding. That these same people accept that 'something else may come along' is indicative of a willingness to waste hundreds of millions of pounds of public money on nothing other than political window-dressing and personal career advancement.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  12. so we just call you marvin then?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Twitter-DavidGaleUK9:05 pm

    You can call me anything you like providing that you fulfil your obligation as a public servant...

    ReplyDelete
  14. every day

    ReplyDelete
  15. Twitter-DavidGaleUK6:56 pm

    Super! Look forward to spotting your whislte-blowing attempts.

    You have the ability, now follow your conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Twitter-DavidGaleUK8:02 pm

    <span>Excellent! Look forward to spotting your whistle-blowing activity. 
     
    You have the ability, now all you have to do is follow your conscience.</span>

    ReplyDelete