Monday, December 31, 2012

G-Cloud - Still A Hobby? Or More Fundamental?

It's been an intense ride for G-Cloud in 2012 - a small team, woefully under-resourced, has accomplished much:

- Two iterations of the framework in the bank and a third underway
- Hundreds of suppliers (many new to government) represented
- Its first IL2 assured services (from Memset)
- Its first IL3 accredited services (both IaaS and email from SCC)
- An internal review of frameworks that killed off several other frameworks that were in flight
- A change in leadership navigated as Chris Chant retired and Denise McDonagh took over 

Early purchases are perhaps disappointing - 95 separate purchases totalling a little under £4m (through the end of November).  Even if you factor in that many of these purchases are, anecodotally, being made at prices that are 50-90% cheaper than government has previously achieved, it is easy for critics to argue that G-Cloud is, at best, a hobby for government.

That said, the Strategic Implementation Plan for the ICT Strategy, published in March 2011, had an idea for moving it from a hobby to a fundamental part of ICT delivery in government:

This metric has rarely been commented on but it's interesting, to me, for several reasons:

1) Four Years

It suggests a roughly four year journey for cloud to become mainstream in central government.  There are no interim metrics available and, one year in, we are, any way you cut the numbers, not yet 1/4 of the way to achieving this.  In OeE days, when the target was "100% online by end 2005" we saw many departments peg their services as likely to be online by Q4 2005 - a classic "it will be all right on the night" hockey stick pattern.  Doomed to fail in other words.

What's needed are interim targets coupled with plans for their realisation.  What percentage of new ICT spend will be transitioned to public cloud computing services by the end of 2013? And by the end of 2014? 

Suppliers who have entered the market or who are thinking about entering it would massively benefit from seeing these targets made more granular.  Departmental customers wondering how do make the transition happen would have more choice and would be able to work with other departments, in concert, to achieve the targets.

Even more aggressively, then, where will we be by the end of June 2013?

2) New ICT Spending

As far as I know, no one has ever measured or defined what is "new" spending or ever defined what the opposite of new spending is (one assumes "maintenance" but I could be wrong).  We know that any proposals for spend in excess of £1m or £5m (depending on the category) go to Liam Maxwell's ICT Reform team for approval but it's not clear if that is new spending - it could, for instance, be £5m of disk drives to support a legacy system.

Departments that I have spoken with suggest that their maintenance spending accounts for some 65-80% of total spend.  Given the heavy spend controls, it might be even higher for some departments.  Does that mean that 20-35% of total central government spend could be classified as "new"?  That would be something like £1.2-2bn on the basis of a £6bn total (I could make up any number for that total, going as high as £13bn even).

But what if new spend turns out to be far less than that?  Or what if it turns out to be far more?  MoJ are out to market for a suite of new suppliers to manage their ICT - some of those suppliers will be new to MoJ; Does that mean that spend with those suppliers will count as new? Or because they are looking after legacy will it get counted as maintenance?  As I said, the definition of "new" needs to be made clear.

On the bright side, putting up to £2bn into public cloud over the next 4 years would certainly count as more than a hobby. 

3) What Kind of Spending

Government has at least two kinds of money - capital and operating.  Traditionally - simplifying massively - ministers like to spend capital on delivering major policy commitments.  Many departments are thus capital heavy in their spending (and all the more likely so in ICT given that buying hardware & software or developing systems usually results in having an asset on the balance sheet). 

Cloud purchases are, though, on a pay as you go basis - they are operating expenditure.  Switching £2bn from capital to operating will create quite a shift in the way government departments think about their money.  It's not clear to me that many people are planning for that shift - departmental budget settlements still look capital heavy at least for this upcoming year.

ICT moving from a drain on capital funds to a routine operating cost is a necessary consequence of the move to buying services (there will also be interesting consequences on VAT recovery).

4) Public Cloud

There's a clear statement of intent here and it is that Government isn't interested in private cloud services (or cloudwashed services as the more acerbic commentators might label them - that is existing capabilities that are rebranded as cloud).  But getting to the heart of what "public cloud" really means might be interesting - if a supplier puts a service together that is available only to the public sector and is priced to compete with pure public clouds, why would government say no to that? 

Some suppliers on the G-Cloud framework today already look to be very competitive with public cloud providers - even though they have gone through more hoops to achieve the assurance and accreditation required by central government.

Also, somewhere in the middle of government, the debate about security levels continues to rage.  A change in policy is seemingly imminent.  IL3, the most common security level in central government, will disappear apparently to be replaced by T1, a simpler level of control that should open the door to far more services that already exist.  This looks, to me, to be far from done and dusted but it is an important change that would make delivering on the cloud commitment far easier.

Not so much public cloud as public sector cloud as well.

5) 50%

If 50% of new spending is to go on public cloud, where is the other 50% to go to?  And what is the aim of moving this 50%?  Underpinning the aim, I am sure, is the desire to reduce, very substantially, the spend on maintenance - that is, the 65-80% of spend that goes on keeping the legacy ship running.  

For every £1 of new spend, what reduction should be achieved in legacy cost?

6) Central Government

The Cabinet Office only aims to control (or perhaps influence) central government of course, but it's likely that local government could make the fastest and most dramatic steps in its use of cloud (be it public or public sector cloud) mostly because they are smaller and more fleet of foot, have lower security considerations (IL2 rather than IL3) and

Local government probably spends as much on ICT as central government, although it is a far more fragmented spend (with, I believe, a much higher spend maintained in house rather than through outsourced service providers).

A commitment to move an agreed amount of spending from local government ICT budgets to public or public sector cloud would be a huge boost to the emerging UK public sector cloud marketplace. I say "UK" deliberately - this would create a chance for our truly local service providers to create new offers, expand existing capabilities, create jobs in the UK and boost the economy.

Beyond A Hobby

The G-Cloud team will doubtless be thinking about how they grow usage of their framework as they ready the third version (now released from purgatory following the endorsement of G-Cloud in the frameworks review).  They need some help, though, some of which can, I believe, be provided by addressing the points above.

Happy New Year to all readers of this blog.  I hope that 2013 brings all of you success and happiness, whether you have your head in the clouds or your feet on the ground.

Monday, December 17, 2012

How The Story Can Change ... AAPL, NOK, RIMM

Who'd have thought?  Candlestick chart is Apple over the last three months, blue line is Nokia, brown line is Research in Motion.

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

Conference Call App

Is there a "conference call" app out there? One that will dial the number for the call and enter the pin at the right time?

I seem to spend time scribbling PIN numbers down it switching back and forth between mail/calendar and phone entering 9 digit PINs in groups of 3.

I'm thinking something like tripit - you forward the invitation to the app (or better, it plucks it from your calendar) and it cues up dialling and PIN entry for whichever concall provider is in use without any hassle.

Too much to ask for?

Friday, November 02, 2012

Place the Citizen At the Centre

I've posted on Scribd the original customer research and thinking that we did with Sapient in October 2001 when looking to rebuild (and this same work later fed into along with other research).  We called the work "Project Kane".  Here are three snapshots from the work - the links follow those.

Where is Citizen?

Transactional Thinking
Post Its
There are two documents:

- the executive summary


- the whole document

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The Emperor's New Clothes

They hung around in post offices and job centres videoing people interacting with government services, they carried out surveys on the street asking people about the different forms they needed to fill in, they watched people use both paper services and online ones so as to understand what did and didn’t work, there was much angst over why the tax credits forms said on the last page (and in very small print) “also available in large font”, they built tables of what services were used and by who and figured out which services were the most complicated and needed to be joined up, they counted transactions across the whole of central and local government looking for services to take online that would have the most impact...

... and they stitched together technology in an attempt to deliver on a promise that government should be online and joined up, they wrote an entire web site delivery platform from scratch integrating existing search engines and databases, they made sure the engine rendered on mobile devices and, yes, tablets as well as every possible browser the world had ever seen, their deliveries were rapid and iterative and user testing was prevalent throughout with videoed sessions with users (pulled from the street) working with the site (leading to yet more iterative deliveries), they released beta test versions for the public and watched what happened...

... they were a mixed team of civil servants (many borrowed from right across government), contractors and supplier staff, they walked the floor of government in casual gear using macs alongside a restricted network and with all types of the latest smartphones in use, they owned the government's approach to online identity and worked with all of government to deliver authenticated transactions, and they supported the rest of government in their efforts to get services online as well as to recover things that hadn't gone so well …

... and they relentlessly published facts and figures of what they were doing whilst secreting themselves in a building far away from the madding crowds of the rest of Whitehall … and created a single website for all of government that could be accessed from the URL

Who am I talking about? 

GDS 2012?  

No, e-Delivery team 2001-2005.

June 2001

We embarked on a similar journey then as the one GDS is on now, though we were under the watchful eye of the e-Envoy (and then the head of the e-Government Unit) rather than the Executive Director, Digital. We too inherited an existing site - - that didn't quite do what the vision (outlined some years before in a paper called had proposed.  We set ourselves the grand aim of transforming the users’ experience of government - yes, a huge focus on the citizen - into something that truly represented 100% online and joined up.   A dozen years ago this was all going on before the words agile, digital by default, user experience and easier
done than said
were coined.   After all, we put men on the moon before any of those words were used so I can’t say that we were breaking even a little bit of new ground.

Watching GDS from afar, it is hard not to see the similarities, but much harder to see the differences. Perhaps that’s because I am at a distance.   We achieved a lot in a short space of time, whether measured in government cycles or geological ages (which are often much the same).  GDS too, appear to be achieving a lot, though separating smoke and mirrors from reality is difficult for an outsider.

We got a lot right - and much of what was done then is still running and is still referred to in government documents published during the Coalition’s term as the best examples of delivery - but we also got a lot wrong.  I'd like to think it balanced out to the positive, but others will be better judges of that than I am.  

I was never sure, back then, whether I was the Emperor and everyone else was really unable to see the wonder that lay before them or whether I really didn’t have any clothes on.

I am fascinated by what I see in GDS now - the diverse people, the agile approach, the focus on delivery, the excitement, the enthusiasm, the arrogance (well, the hubris really) and also the sense (wrapped up in that arrogance) that this is all new and that those who went before are not worth listening to.

Government is crying out for change.  Change needs new ideas, new people and new ways to execute. This kind of change is very hard to get rolling and many times harder than that to sustain.   I watch, then, with fascination wondering if this is change that will stick and, especially, if it is change that will pervade across government.  Or whether its half-life is actually quite short - that when the difficult stuff comes along (as well as the routine, mind-numbing stuff), things will stall.  Perhaps the departments will rebel, or the sponsors will move on, or delivery will be undermined by some cockups, or the team will tire of bureaucracy once they move into the transaction domain.

If GDS now is much like eDt then, and with the launch of the new website only hours away, I wanted to think through some of the issues that need to be addressed.

Are You Just Too Different?

Different is good in some ways. It creates a shared identity amongst those who are in the new team - they consciously step away from the constraints and limitations of the old ways of doing things. They cast aside contracts, process, bureaucracy, legacy IT, dress codes and whatever else they need to do to get things done. Meanwhile those who aren't part of the new club look in, some jealously very much wanting to be part of it and some expectantly, waiting for the seemingly inevitable failure - the egg on the
face, the fall from the ivory tower, the crash and the prolonged burn. I suspect
the camps are pretty evenly split right now, with everything to play for.

July 2000

The question is really how to turn what GDS do into the way everyone else does it.  In parallel with GDS’ agile implementations, departments are out procuring their next "generation" of IT services - and when you consider that most are still running desktop operating systems released in 2000 and that many are working with big suppliers wrapped up in old contracts supporting applications that often saw the light of day in the 80s or, at best, the 90s, “generation” takes on a new meaning.  To those people, agile, iterative, user experience focused services are things they see when they go home and check Facebook, use Twitter or Dropbox or have their files automagically backed up into the cloud.  Splitting procurements into towers, bringing in new kinds of integrators, promising not to reward "bad" suppliers and landing new frameworks by the dozen is also different of course, but not enough to bridge the gap between legacy and no legacy. 

I am on the record elsewhere as noting that, today, GDS is an aberration, not the new normal.  Becoming the new normal is a massive, sustained job – and one that needs a path laid out so that everyone gets it.  Some will take what I say below as an attack on GDS; that's far from what it is, it's an attempt to look ahead and see what is coming that will trip it up and so allow action to be taken to avoid the trouble.

The Absence of Roadmap

One of the strengths of the approach that GDS is adopting is that the roadmap is weeks or maybe months long.  That means that as new things come along they can be embraced and adopted - think what would have happened if a contract for a new site had been let three months before the iPhone came out? Or a month before the iPad came out? 

It is, though, also a significant weakness.  Departments plan their spending at least a year out and often further; they let contracts that run for longer than that.  If there is – as GDS are suggesting – to be a consolidation of central government websites by April 2013 and then all websites (including those belonging to Arm’s Length Bodies) by April 2014 then there needs to be a very clear plan for how that will be achieved so that everyone can line up the resource.  Likewise, if transactions are to be put online in new, re-engineered ways (from policy through to user interaction), that too will take extensive planning.

Having a roadmap that shows, even roughly, what is planned and when is one way to bring departments towards you rather than have them wait to be told.  The digital strategies that are due out around the end of the year look, so far, too vague to count as a roadmap.  They contain aspirations rather than commitments and look a lot like what we saw in 2001.

Beware The Hockey Stick

In 2001, we looked at departmental plans for achieving the Prime Minister’s stated aim of 100% of government services online by 2005.  What we saw, perhaps obviously in hindsight, was a very high proportion of services magically appearing online in the last quarter of 2005 – a hockey stick shaped graph.  It feels like we are heading that way again.  It’s not clear how things will be done in the new way (who will pay, what will need to be done, how will it be contracted, what’s the sequence etc) so departments are hedging and putting things out, quite conveniently I imagine, to around the time of the next election.

Can You Do It Yourself?

GDS have taken what is, in my view, a brave decision to do the bulk (if not all) of the work in-house - it is, in many ways, an approach that is entirely inconsistent with everything that the government preaches elsewhere, in IT and business.  As a result not only am I unclear what problem they are solving, but I’m also wondering whether they are solving the wrong problem the wrong way.

It is, though, an interesting bet. In five years, is it likely that the same model will be in place? 

In 2001 we formed a small team of folks skilled in business and technical architecture, project delivery and commercial/finance/procurement.  We wrote no code ourselves (not for production at least - we had a team that worked on proof of concept ideas that tested out what we might get others to do).  We believed that code writing was one of the many things that government outsourced.

We contracted with various suppliers to do the work - the supply chain for the government gateway (often described as built by Microsoft) involved, for instance, over 40 UK-owned  small businesses.  We consciously did this because government - and especially the Cabinet Office - had little desire to maintain a substantial delivery team in house after it had spent the last decade outsourcing it. We created an intelligent customer that represented the whole and not just the single parts of the government. 

We chose that model because we believed that building a team for the long term is very difficult, especially within the constraints of the civil service. We also believed that suppliers, over the long term, would outperform us because they would bring in new talent, train staff and keep them focused on the task. If one person, or one supplier, didn't work out, there'd be another one behind that one, and another one and another one.  Quite different from the civil service model that makes hiring difficult (especially in this fiscal environment) and exiting staff near impossible.

Sustained Sponsorship

There is no doubt that Francis Maude is a key driver, perhaps even the key driver, of the change agenda across government, particularly in ICT.  I’m told, frequently, that when issues with departments arise, Mr Maude is briefed and he handles the issue in a bi-lateral with the relevant departmental minister and progress is then unlocked.   That is certainly a big help – though I suspect some departments are readying their rebellious faces whether or not Mr Maude moves to be Government Chief Whip.

Being closely associated with a political sponsor is, to my mind, quite new for those involved at the sharp end of technology delivery.  I expect Ministers to champion policies – where would Universal Credit be without the sustained sponsorship of Ian Duncan Smith (and, conversely, where will NHS reform go now that Andrew Lansley has moved on).  But to see such close involvement from Ministers (ok, from one Minister) in website reform and the technology choices that underpin that is fascinating and potentially dangerous for GDS.

During the time of the e-Envoy we had four Ministers and, if you add in eGU, nine.  I suspect that my experience of the Cabinet Office is more common than the current experience where there has been stability for the last 2 ½ years.  GDS will need a plan B if Mr Maude does move on to something new.  There will also need to be a 2015 plan B if power changes hands.  Of course, if your roadmap goes out only weeks or months, then no one is looking at 2015.  That’s a mistake.

What’s The Model, Really?

Any delivery model can be made to work and, of course, any delivery model can be done badly.  Picking a model is necessary but it’s not the only part of success.  How that model gets optimal impact needs to be understood along with how it will evolve.

eDt felt that they were in the wrong place notwithstanding outstanding support from our sponsors. We were in a policy department with no reputation or desire to own delivery.  Indeed, the Cabinet Office had acquired this very team by accident after bidding for, and winning, some money from HMT which was then supplemented by further funds from the Inland Revenue).  Over a couple of years, we explored all of the available options then - trading funds, agency status, spin off, joint ventures with the private sector - but, in the end, the team was folded into a big department, the DWP, and there ended government's flirtation with a very different approach for delivering services across the whole of government.  Until, of course, somewhat unexpectedly, some of it returned to the Cabinet Office.  It truly is a funny world.

Cabinet Office has, then, acquired GDS by accident. History repeats.  Chris Chant landed in the somewhat foundering G-Cloud programme, arranged for a lot of Macs to replace some ageing and expensive PCs and, somewhere along the way, fired up a programme to replace and achieve massive cost savings and so was born  Not a lot of people know that I think.

It would be a shame for history to continue to repeat. If and everything that underpins it from a delivery approach is to survive 5 years, let alone 10 years there needs to be thinking about how this will work.  I’ve said on this blog before that I believe the right answer may be a spin-off of GDS or a mutual so that it can get access to capital, bid for work and fully reflect its costs.  There are other choices; what’s important is to look at them and lay the ground work for making a choice and achieving it.

Transparency Of Everything

The GDS approach looks similar to a startup backed by a venture capitalist prepared to lose everything if the bet doesn't work out (and who was anyway backing multiple other horses running the same and similar races). The VC in this case is UK government.

GDS have succeeded in being wildly transparent about their technology choices and thinking.  They are not, though, transparent about their finances.  That should change.  The close association with politicians seems to mean that GDS must champion everything that they do as a cost save – witness recent stories on identity procurement costs, website costs comparing and and so on.

Comparative costs need to be properly comparative, not presented only in the best possible light. Use fully loaded costs (that is, costs including items such as accommodation, pensions, employer NI contributions and so on, all of which would be included were the numbers like for like with a supplier cost).  Let’s see the numbers.

Given the inhouse staffing model that GDS is operating, changes are really represented only by cost of opportunity.  That makes comparing options and, particularly, benefits difficult.  In a beta world, you make more changes than you do in a production world – once you’re in production, you’re likely to make incremental changes than major ones (because, as Marc Andreessen said long ago, interfaces freeze early – people get used to them and are confused by too big a change).

It is important to know what "done" is - and not to claim that done is never done because there are always new things to do. The budget for "done" needs to be known - so that variances to that status are clear, so that opportunities can be embraced are understood in the context of scope done and cost done.  

In this agile world, done is never done; there is always another iteration to deliver. In government IT as a whole, done is never done too - requirements change, new transactions appear new devices come into play and others fade away.  

The important thing is to be clear what is going to be delivered in return for X million pounds so that the consequences of that can be measured – a gambler (that is, the government when acting as a VC) only  backs a horse that keeps running races and that wins more than it loses.

It’s Transactions That Are Important

GDS' most public delivery is "just another website” - those who know (and care) about these things think that it might be one of the sexiest and best websites ever developed, certainly in the government world.  But it isn't Facebook, it isn't iTunes, it isn't Pirate Bay.  It's a government website; perhaps “the” government website. Once you've packaged a lot of content, made wonderful navigation, transformed search, you end up with the place where government spends the real money - transactions (and I don't just mean in IT terms).  

Back when I published graphs on how many websites government had, I guessed that there was an easy £250m spent on front ends each year.  The figure spent on transactions is many times that - probably ten or even a hundred times that, especially if you add in the cost of fraud, error, debt, call centres, support and so on.  That's also where the legacy applications are - and all of the legacy processes that are tied up in complex outsourcing agreements that were written a few years ago and certainly
don't mention agile, iterative or quick.  Worse, many of those very same contracts are being replaced this year and next year - and the signs so far are that the contracts will look much the same; though they will be shorter duration and smaller in value (because of the split into towers).  They’re not being replaced with the thought that transactions will be fundamentally different and that the user experience will be at the forefront.

September 2001

In building the Government Gateway, we came up against the back end legacy systems.  Once you are integrating to those, the complex dance between interlocking systems governs your speed of process - you can change this one here, but that one needs to change at the same time, or you can change this end, but not that end.  Change control, version control, security, data protection and all kinds of other constraints become the norm.  There's a reason that 10 years on the Gateway is still in place, operating much as it did on day one - it's because it has integrated very well into the engines that drive government transactions as well as the dozens of third party products who talk to it when they talk to government - and when they need to change, it needs to be for a good reason that benefits the customer as well as the supplier of the third party product; most are not in it for charity.

Soon GDS will tell departments that their top transactions need to be re-engineered from policy through to service provision with a clear focus on the user.  At that point we move away from the technologists who are attracted to shiny new things and we hit the policy makers who are operating in a different world – they worry about local and EU legislation, about balancing the needs of vastly differing communities of stakeholders and, of course, they like to write long and complicated documents to explain their position having evaluated the range of possible options.

Tackling transaction is both fundamentally necessary and incredibly hard, though most of that isn’t about the shiny front end – it’s about the policy, the process and the integration with existing back end systems (which absorb some 65% of the £12-16bn spent per year on IT in government).  There is a sense of “Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here.”

It’s more than ten years since a single website for government was proposed (I know, I was the one who proposed it and wrote it up); it was an idea that was successively endorsed in various reports and strategies.  In a couple of years it may even be a reality.  There isn’t, though, a vision, let alone an action plan, for how transactions will be delivered – where will they be hosted, how will they integrate with identity providers (and how will the government gateway be retired), how will personal data be managed, how will pre-population take place, what will be done with the transactions that are already out there and working (some with take up of 80% or more). 

There is also no proposal for how local government will be integrated into this offering, though many of the transactions undertaken by the average citizen are at a local level (and still with “government” rather than “central government”).

Beyond that, there isn’t a vision for how the need for some transactions will be removed entirely – why should I apply for a tax disc for my car, why isn’t personal tax handled automatically and so on.  That would be truly transformational - until we do that, we are persisting two centuries or more (in only some cases admittedly) of process.

July 2002

All of that needs to be laid out – I’ll take bite-sized chunks for now but it needs to be thought through to avoid dead ends.

Reliability, Resilience, Testing, Process, Bureaucracy

When turns on - and turns off after 8 years of operation it will be different, better, faster, smoother, have nicer fonts, easier search and a thousand more things. 

When a site needs to cater for 30m visitors a month and not just a few thousand beta testers who are interested in the technology, the presentation and what’s new on the web, then a new kind of discipline appears.  Breaking such a site is a bad idea – it will make news, cause disruption and make life harder.

From tomorrow, a new kind of operational rigour is inevitable.  The live site can’t break.  It can’t be taken down for a few hours for an upgrade or a database refresh. As transactions are made available, that pressure only increases. Suddenly there are complex windows when services absolutely must be available; freeze dates take over from the previous free-wheeling approaches and lots of people need to be involved to ensure that the end to end process – from the shiny new front end all the way to the ugly, old, legacy back end – works.

It will be interesting how the worlds of agile and operational rigour collide.  Things can slow down quite dramatically as regression tests are run and re-run and fixes
are made and then tested again (and not just at the front end, but across the entire delivery chain from new to old).  It’s all part of the evolution process but I suspect it will come as a shock to some on the team.

The Vision and the Roadmap

In their seminal article, "the importance of being agile", GDS quote Louis Gerstner (of IBM) who said "the last thing [we] need right now is a vision".  I'm making that up but it feels like it could be true.  

The first thing the rest of government needs - and is looking for - is a sense of how does this all work in the future.  What does it look like and feel like when government has only one (or a few) website(s); how will transactions work when identity is provided from a market of potentially many suppliers; when will sites and services close down; how will service levels work across government; who will pay for what when transactions are put on; how will transition from one model to the next work and so on.  A million questions, some of which could do with being answered now so that plans can be made.

eDt tried very hard to paint a picture of how we thought it would play out.  We got it wrong on almost every count.  Progress was neither as rapid nor as far reaching as we expected.  Services that we thought would do very well - secure email to support exchange of personal information, payments to government, or SMS services for notifications - didn't do anything like the volume that we expected.  

eDt was around in an environment where there were almost no fiscal constraints.  Bidding for money was certainly a lengthy process but if you put together a compelling case, you had a good chance of being allocated funding.  The Treasury soon got fed up with being hoodwinked by departments who promised huge savings yet didn’t deliver on them and tightened the controls.  Today, though, it’s a different world.  There
isn’t any money, there aren’t many people (and there are progressively fewer)
and so making a case for investing to save further money will see scrutiny
unlike any time before now.  Does the lack of money and the lack of capacity mean, though, that much of this won’t be, or can’t be done? And if it does, how will that be resolved?

Wrap Up

What is happening now has the air of a great science experiment - ironically, that's what GDS call some of the work that they do internally as they test out concepts.  Such experiments can go bang of course.  Sometimes, or at least once if scientists are right, there is a big bang.  That's largely inconsistent with a government approach where requirements are mapped out and delivered over a period of years, fulfilling policy objectives as they are ticked off.

Of course, the historic approach has not worked out so well - we only need look at NHS IT, ID cards, Fire Control and so on to see that a new model is needed.

The question is whether the GDS model is the one that achieves scale transformation right across government, or whether it is another iteration in a series of waves of change that, in the end, only create local change, rather than truly structural change.

It seems unlikely that GDS can scale to take on even a reasonable chunk of government service delivery.  It also seems unlikely that enough people in
departments can be trained in the new approaches to the point where they can
shoulder enough of the burden so as to allow GDS to only steer the ship. If we add in the commercial controls, the supply chain and the complexity of policy (and the lack of join up of those policies), the challenges look insurmountable.

None of that is an argument for not trying. is old and tired and needed a
massive refresh; transactions are where the real potential can be unlocked and they need to be tackled in a new way.  Much of this has been tried before, painful lessons have been learned and it would be more than a shame if the latest effort didn’t achieve its aims too.  The trick, then, is to pick the battles to fight and create the change in the right areas with the aim of infecting others.  Taking on too much at once will likely lead to failure.

Perhaps GDS is the new emperor and I am the little boy, or perhaps it is the other way round.

Fingers crossed for tomorrow’s launch of then.  A successful launch will be a
massive boost.  Great feedback from consumers would help create a rolling wave of change that would be sustained by successive iterations of high quality transaction delivery.  That would be a very good place to be.  It would, though, only be the start.

Friday, October 05, 2012

The Facebook Identity Fallacy / Fiasco

The Cabinet Office is getting a lot of press regarding new plans to allow social network sites to act as the identity brokers for government services.  The Guardian, for instance, says:
Under the Cabinet Office scheme people wanting to apply for services ranging from benefits and tax credits to passports will be able to access them using their logins for websites such as Twitter and Facebook.

Once they have logged on via computer or mobile phone, the social networking site will send an email confirming their identity to the relevant government agency, the Cabinet Office said.
It's all so bizarre I don't even know where to start.  But here are a couple of points at least:
  • Facebook and Twitter have no idea who I am.  They may not even know my real name.  They certainly don't know where I live.  And they have no idea of my connection with any government services.  At best, they know the name I've registered with and whatever email address I used.  I don't think government wants to get to the place where it somehow allows a bunch of friends (none of whom it knows are who they say they are anyway) to vouch for me as a good chap and deserving of benefits
  • The DWP identity procurement, which notified successful suppliers this week, expected to spend £25m (external costs, not including any DWP costs) over 18 months to manage identities from somewhere between 4 and 12 suppliers.  It seems unlikely that they will be handing that money over to Facebook and Twitter.  And even less likely that HMG will accept an email from them that says "This is Alan Mather, he's ok, give him the benefits he needs".
That said, I see nothing wrong with using Facebook and Twitter logins as the seed for an identity - it's just that you need an awful lot more data from a wide range of sources to verify that you are who you say you are.   And that's before we get into what happens if your Facebook or Twitter password is compromised - I've lost count of the number of spam DMs I've received from people in that situation.

Identity is very complicated and whilst there are some simple steps to be taken, GDS needs to get a far, far better handle on what it is telling the media lest the wrong expectations are set.  Ooops, too late, they already have.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Making An Identity Market

Any day now, if the timetable holds, DWP should announce the winners in their identity procurement.  The plan was to create a market of competing identity providers so as to allow Universal Credit claims to proceed with some certainty regarding the person claiming (it's not as simple as that, but that will do for now).

The procurement was originally released as a £250m, 5 year contract (spread across multiple suppliers) before being pulled a day or so later after Cabinet Office intervention.  The revised procurement came out some weeks later for a £25m, 18 month contract (the headlines claimed massive cost reductions; it's not clear that there are any).

Whilst the aim is to create a market, DWP are not buying a commodity product that exists today.  If I want to assert your identity on the Internet I do whatever each site asks me to do - at the lowest level, that's an email address; at the highest level it can include postal address, credit card number, date of birth and some other details.  But the identity I've created is relatively unportable (Facebook connect notwithstanding).  Being trusted by my bank does not make me trusted by the government (and vice versa).

The government wants to change that.  DWP are, as Cabinet Office say, "the first cab off the rank" but they will be followed by others (HMRC are discussing their approach with the market and will perhaps issue a procurement later this year or early next year).

I was reminded of the challenges of creating a market by this graph in a recent issue of Fortune magazine.

It shows how in the 60s, the US military essentially funded the microchip business by buying up the vast bulk of their products.  As the market grew - and consumer products began to use chips - the portion of the market supported purely military purchases fell.  And so everyone carries a smartphone, a tablet and, if they want, their fridge can surf the web whilst figuring out what dinner might be.

The trouble is, DWP aren't creating a market that way - they're promising some funds (and we don't know how much yet) to several vendors (we don't know how many yet) for a short period without saying how many customers there will be for Universal Credit (and, given the history of this kind of thing, you'd be forgiven, I think, for guessing that rollout will be slower and longer than expected).

And yet suppliers entering this market are building, largely from scratch, the capability that government needs - because government, being government, inevitably has some onerous and entirely bespoke requirements that mean that whatever is already out there won't work just as it works not and so will need customisation (and sadly not configuration).

Now, if HMRC speedily come along and have the same requirements as DWP, the volume of customers will increase.  And if other departments - for instance - say that they want to play too, then all might still be rosy.  And if the private sector picks up on this and wants to make use of the same, then things really will be impressively rosy.

But it's unclear how it's all going to work.  If you bid, and win, DWP identity, will you even need to compete to provide identity to HMRC?  It's hard to see why you would need to - if you have UK citizens with identities in your system that were triggered by DWP, they are just as likely to be needed by HMRC (or any of the other departments).   Will the private sector want to use the same identities - after all, government will not validate the identity in any way (that is, if I successfully transact with DWP, my identity doesn't get an additional stamp saying "DWP trusts me"?)

Government is certainly seeding this market which is a good thing.  It's looking for the market to provide solutions, also a good thing.  The mechanisms for how this will all work are still being defined and there is plenty that could still go wrong.  Fingers crossed it doesn't, this is important stuff.

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Five Years Of Value Destruction

Stock chart comparing Sony ($SNE), RIMM ($RIMM) and Nokia ($NOK)

Sony down >75%, RIMM down >90%, Nokia down >90%

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Where Did All The Big Shots Go?

Is it me or did all the big players in UK Government IT take up roles at names you've never heard of?

Joe Harley ... joins Amor Group as an advisor ... revenue £34m.

Steve Lamey ... joined Kelway as COO ... revenue £350m.

John Collington ... joined Alexander Mann Solutions as COO ... revenue unknown (hideous website too).

Is this a sign that the "usual suspects" are #unacceptable employers for former government leaders? Or that opportunities are better in smaller companies? Or that the government A team isn't quite so A? Three is perhaps the start of a trend but not the confirmation of a trend.

Meanwhile, in other news, government has now lost two female permanent secretaries in a matter of weeks - Helen Ghosh (Home Office) leaves to be CEO at the National Trust, Moira Wallace (DECC) is leaving with no new role yet announced; Ursula Brennan has moved on from MoD to MoJ (leaving MoD, ummm, rudderless?) and Melanie Dawes (who stood in for Ian Watmore after his departure) has not been confirmed in the role.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Keeping Things Dinging

Denise McDonagh's latest blog post provides some interesting clues as to what we might expect next from G-Cloud.  Earlier this year I wrote what I thought it would be good to see in 2012.  Well, we're 8 months on from that post, how are we doing:
Proposal: The Government Digital Service were, last I looked, hosting (and presumably with amazon web services.  Within a month, they should move it to a company on the gCloud framework. If Amazon are on there, they should skip the easy decision and move it to a UK company hosting in the UK.

Status: I think any day now we will hear that this is done.  Ok, it took 6 months longer than I proposed, but the GDS folks will come good on this - both on the move to the framework and to the UK company.

Proposal: A dozen departments should engage a dozen different companies to produce cloud strategies that, having inventoried what the department has in place, provide a route map to the far cheaper IT that will result from this radical transparency.  The departments should publish those studies to help everyone else see what is possible. 

Status: I expected to see much more activity on Lot 4 and I certainly expected to see some publication of cloud strategies by now.  I hear they're coming, at least before the end of the year.  I'm hopeful of a fully transparent roadmap that (a) defines what "50% of new spend" means and (b) explains how, over the next 3 years, that spend will move to public cloud.

Proposal: One small, one medium and one large department should buy its email service from a gCloud company before the end of June 2012. 
Status:  At least one of each of these is in evaluation.  On the "large" side, actually more are in evaluation.  I'm not holding my breath but I'd like to see one press the "Buy it now" button and make the move before the end of the year.  The lack of IL3 accredited email services is not helping there, but that (according to Denise's blog is not far from being resolved).

Proposal: Five local authorities and one central government department should move 80% (by spend) of their IT to be provisioned by the gCloud framework before the end of this iteration
Status: I know I was dreaming.  I thought someone might go for this.  No sign of anyone taking the radical approach yet.  Even the relatively small departments with upcoming contract renewals are shying away from this.
I also said "The gCloud team have started something here.  Predicting how it will look in 10 years, or even 5, is by difficult of course. But one thing is for sure, markets rarely turn back from transparency once it has been achieved." - Don't see any reason to change that view.

Monday, July 09, 2012

Mobile Monopoly #RIM

Governments don't like monopolies.  Except when they have no choice (at which point they usually, but not always, bring in constricting regulation).  Windows on the desktop might be considered an example where governments have had little or no choice. Today, though, there is a real option of moving to a Bring Your Own Device model though I think this is still rare in government (even the Government Digital Service which is perhaps the most relaxed about these kinds of things still buys Macs for its staff).

There is, though, a complete monopoly in the mobile world.  Every single central government department that wants to allow on the move access to email supports only one device, a Blackberry.  This is because, today, it's the only device that is accredited to run at Restricted (otherwise known as IL3) level.  All central government departments (and many that connect to those) run at this level, mostly because they connect to the GSI which kind of forces you there.  That said, most emails sent and received to or from these devices are, of course, not about important matters of state - doubtless 20% are about what's for lunch, a further 20% about whether the squash court is free, 40% about information that is already subject to FoI and the remaining 20% might be considered to be sensitive in some way, thought perhaps only a quarter of that is truly restricted.

If you're curious about IL3, for something to be classified at that level it needs to demonstrate any one of the following:

- Risk to an individual's personal safety or liberty
- Minor loss of confidence in government
- Make it more difficult to maintain the operational effectiveness or security of UK or allied forces
- Cause embarrasssment to diplomatic relations
- Disadvantage a major UK company
- Damage unique intelligence operations
- Hinder the detection or impede the investigation of low level crime

You can see, I think, how hard they are to assess for any given email and so perhaps understand why it's easier for everything to be classified as restricted rather than to assess any individual mail.

The Blackberry has achieved the hallowed status of IL3 because Research In Motion (RIM), the parent company, actively focused on it - and then ran away with it whilst everyone else just watched.  It was a genius move made all the more astonishing as they then failed to capitalise on it and offer more services - after all, their servers were on the inside of the government firewall; you couldn't ask for a better position.  They would have gone through a lengthy process of review and certification, submitted their code for review, agreed to provide tools that disabled the camera, Bluetooth, web browsing and pretty much everything that actually made the device useful.  And so they monopolised the market - in the UK, the USA and, I imagine, pretty much everywhere.  Even though all of the emails wing their sweet way to Canada and back, no state is worried because the encryption is all at the device end (hence the panic when nations such as the UAE and India asked to be able to see emails composed on Blackberries).

RIM is now facing all sorts of problems (how fast it has come - in 2007 I certainly didn't see the big switch.  Within weeks it may look nothing like it does now.  It could, perhaps, be owned by a Chinese company such as Huawei (something that would probably not bother the British or the Canadians but would certainly both the US government), it could be broken up into several pieces (with its patents going one way, its BBM service another and its hardware division being offered on eBay).  RIM claim to be readying a new operating system (and hardware device ranger) based on an operating system that has never previously been used on mobile devices (the Playbook excepted, though I think that really doesn't count) and that lacks a comprehensive set of published APIs that developers could access so as to speed production of applications.  They announced only the other day that this new release would be much delayed - certainly into 2013.  It's easy to speculate that it will never see the light of day because RIM, by then, will realise that they just can't catch up with iOS6 or Jelly Bean or whatever is on the market by the time they do think they're done.

So with RIM fading (and perhaps already finished as I've written before), it must be time for government to open up to alternatives - potentially ones that would allow even greater productivity rather than shutting down all of the interesting features in today's mobile devices.  After all, the Blackberry has been ensconced in this monopoly position for nearly 10 years - a time in which the mobile market has turned itself inside out perhaps 3 or even 4 times.

UK government is now doing one thing that could blast this market right open - looking at moving away from the current IL0 to IL6 to a far simpler model.

Some have entirely misunderstood what this move is about and labelled it has halving the number of impact levels.  In fact - and this is by no means confirmed yet but it looks that way - within the next few weeks we will see guidelines published that move much of Government's day to day traffic (perhaps as much as the 95% I suggest above) to a new level of accreditation which would be roughly equivalent to IL2.  Suddenly, vast numbers of new entrants could bring products to market (collaboration, email, social networks, project planning tools etc) and a new set of mobile devices would be eligible for government use, including Apple, Android and Windows.  This change in impact levels need not reduce security or increase the risk of data loss - devices would still be protected with various types of management software and could be wiped remotely (with plenty of choices available on the market).

At the same time, I hear talk that other device manufacturers are investing in the accreditation process to bring their device security up to the current IL3 level - not a daft move given that other countries or are not as progressive as the UK are also monopolised by Blackberry and would like alternatives.

Surely it is then a short step away from Windows pervasively on the desktop to other computers, whether they be iPads, Macs, Linux or whatever?