EURIM Working Group Minutes

Working Party:	Theme 01/ Working Group
Ref:	02-T02-Min01
Minuter:	Emma Fryer
Date:	14/05/02
Circulation:	Attendees and Apologies
Queries to:	Emma Fryer, Tel: 0191 384 0282 Mob: 07714 803 650 Emma.fryer@eurim.org

Minutes of the EURIM Presentation Meeting Theme 2 (Modernising Government) briefings 35: Interoperability- Joined up government needs joined-up systems 36: Modernising Government - Time for the next steps 37: Getting IT right- the pre-conditions for public sector systems success 16^th July 2002, Committee Room 20
Summary
Purpose of Meeting
To review the three draft briefings, propose amendments and agree changes. To ensure the briefings reflected a consensus view of EURIM’s members.
General amendments agreed to papers
In addition to a number of minor amendments (see text) it was agreed that the briefings would be re-numbered to present their messages in a more logical order. Briefing No. 36 - Time for the Next Steps, would be renumbered 35 and Briefing 35 - Interoperability, would be re-numbered 36. It was agreed that the papers should be more closely cross-referenced and be considered a trio with Time for the Next Steps as the lead paper.
Actions Agreed
1. Each of the three authors would revise their briefing in line with the amendments agreed. 2. TA would oversee the inclusion of links and cross-references between the papers. 3. Once amended, the briefings would be re-circulated before being submitted to EURIM’s editorial board.
Tabled Papers
Draft Briefing 35: Interoperability- Joined up government needs joined-up systems Draft Briefing 36: Modernising Government - Time for the next steps Draft Briefing 37: Getting IT right- the pre-conditions for public sector systems success Comments on Briefing 36 from Nig Greenaway of Fujitsu Services
Next Meeting Date:	A further meeting would only be held if necessary

Meeting Notes

			Action
1		Chairman’s introduction
	1.1	BW welcomed everyone, asked them to introduce themselves, and outlined the format of the meeting. There were three draft briefing papers for approval. TA would give a brief overview of them within the context of EURIM’s Modernising Government theme and then the papers would be addressed in turn. Each author would give a summary of their paper, then general points would be taken followed by a more detailed review, paragraph by paragraph
2		Overview of drafts – Tom Abram
	2.1	TA noted that these briefings (35, 36 & 37) followed on from the earlier papers produced by the Modernising Government group (29, 30, 31, 32 and 33). The most appropriate order for presentation was 36, followed by 35 and then 37 because the former (Time for the Next Steps) followed on from briefing 33 and focused on the three strategic issues that had to be addressed to make modernised government deliver value. The other papers were more specific in their approach. 35 addressed the need for interoperability, in the form of a checklist of issues that had to be tackled if joined-up-government was to be achieved, and 36 outlined the lessons from previous failures in public sector IT systems and identified why these were not being implemented.
3		Introduction to Briefing 36 – Tom Abram
	3.1	Briefing 33[1] raised the issue of programme management and made 8 recommendations for action needed to successfully deliver real benefits. Subsequent dialogue with a number of cross-cutting government organisations had revealed an impressive range of actions and initiatives being undertaken to improve government’s performance;- the implementation of project and programme management, raising awareness of risk management, etc. The key issue was to ensure those inputs resulted in successful services used universally and offering benefits to the citizen.
	3.2	Briefing 36;- Time for the next Steps drew attention to three fundamental obstacles to that successful delivery:- 1. Cultural issues around decision making and risk taking within departments and non departmental government bodies 2. The way in which targets and performance measures were structured 3. The need for take-up strategies and targets to ensure delivery was compelling and cost effective
	3.3	The key message was that Government could feasibly achieve its 2005 targets without delivering any benefit, so targets must be meaningful and citizen-centric. In order to deliver noticeable change within a reasonable timeframe, prioritisation was needed to ensure that the most important services were online. For these benefits to be realised citizens must actually be using services via the different channels and a major marketing exercise was required to educate and inform.
4		Comments on Briefing 36 – Time for the next Steps
	4.1	There were no comments on the overall paper so BW proposed they move straight on to a more detailed review.
	4.2	Introduction
	4.2.1	Para 2:- NG and NP noted that the focus was on central government and there was no mention of local authorities and associated services. It was agreed that this would be worded more inclusively by the use of the term “public servant” or similar.	A
	4.2.2	Intro, para. 4:- NG noted that it was more appropriate for the OEE to facilitate access to online services than ensure it – which was out of their remit. This amendment was agreed.	A
	4.2.3	Intro, para 4, it was agreed to reword the second sentence “the UK is scheduled” as it was ambiguous and things were already behind schedule.	A
	4.3	Recommendations
	4.3.1	IB suggested that where possible the paper should identify to whom the recommendations were addressed. This was agreed. BW noted that primary targets were specific units in Cabinet office under Geoff Mulligan, Wendy Thompson and Michael Barber among others.	A
	4.3.2	Recommendation 1:- TA tabled comments from Government stressing that the cultural issues were not just cultural but also organisational and asking for the recommendation to be strengthened to include words such as “to embrace change, manage ambiguity, focus on delivery and put the citizen first. It was agreed that the word customer should be replaced by “citizen and business” or a similar phrase.	A
	4.3.3	Recommendation 1 - See point 4.2.1
	4.3.4	Recommendation 3:- NG asked for clarification of the 524 services mentioned. TA replied that the source of the numbers was the National Audit Office report on Modernising Government (reference 2). It was agreed that the contents of the brackets were not particularly illuminating without an explanation and would be removed.	A
	4.3.5	Recommendation 3: It was agreed that an “s” be inserted on the end of “programme”.	A
	4.3.6	Recommendation 4:- there was a concern that timescales extending to 2010 might imply that there was no urgency to get services online. The point should emphasise that whilst the introduction of services could be phased, each one should be the subject of a rapid delivery program with early result reporting to recognise immediate benefits.	A
	4.4	Programme Management section
		Para 2 (col 2) “govt has clearly recognised….” TA referred to input from Cabinet Office asking that the paper should stress the importance of leadership style “that proactively seeks out opportunities for change rather than management change as directed” as well as management capability. This change was agreed.	A
	4.5	Targets, Performance Measures & Priorities Section
		This section was agreed without amendment
	4.6	Take up of services section
		This section was agreed without amendment
	4.7	A new Government Culture section
		This section was agreed without amendment
	4.8	Conclusions
		These were agreed without amendment
	4.9	References
		It was agreed that the other briefings referred to would be quoted in full.	A
	4.10	Annex
		TA outlined this as a strategic checklist of things to do. CH noted that it was not clearly associated with the paper since there were no explicit references to it within the text. It was agreed that a sentence or two would be inserted into the conclusions referring to it. All were happy with the content of the annex.	A
	4.11	The Briefing was approved subject to the agreed amendments.
5		Introduction to Briefing 35, Interoperability – Henryk Trzebiatowski
	5.1	The message of this briefing was very simple – the systems that needed to be joined up were not just computer systems but administrative systems, frameworks of responsibility and accountability. Otherwise any technical interoperability achieved would fail. This was a widespread problem and the key issue the paper sought to address.
	5.2	The focus was often too much on delivery of products, services and solutions and not on what had to be done to ensure operability after delivery.
	5.3	The benefits of systems did not accrue symmetrically:- within interoperating systems, one or more might be doing all the work and incurring the bulk of costs in building core functionality whilst other systems (some not even conceived yet) accrued the benefits. Financial frameworks must be built to take that into account.
	5.4	Systems must be designed to handle errors and upgrades – many “interoperable” systems have suffered where some elements could not upgrade and the whole system was disabled.
	5.5	A level of sophistication was needed by all participants in interoperating systems, and this varied depending on the kind of interoperability - whether front-end or back-end.
	5.6	The main observation of the paper was that government must commit to maintaining an appropriate environment when it required joined-up systems. The paper had attempted to make this point in a non-technical way so that it could be accessible to generalists. However, the more technical aspects were available in an annex.
6		General Comments on Briefing 35
	6.1	BW asked for comments on the paper as a whole
	6.2	Open relationships had to be part of the procurement contract – it was not only necessary to define standards but also the way in which contracts were created.
	6.3	AN noted that the emphasis on joining up should not be restricted to the public sector. Other sectors needed to interoperate too.
	6.4	NG noted that he made extensive comments on the paper, only some of which had been adopted. He still felt that the paper could link more explicitly with the other two papers. This paper should be written from the viewpoint of those delivering services and from a citizen centric, technology-neutral perspective.
	6.5	It was agreed that the papers should be more closely cross-referenced and be considered a trio. The Next Steps paper was the lead paper and therefore the numbering would be re-ordered to reflect this. (i.e. 35 would become 36 and vice versa).	A
7		Detailed Review of Briefing 35
	7.1	Introduction
	7.1.1	CG suggested that the phrase “getting computer system to interoperate is difficult” be rephrased to sound more positive so that the solution was presented along with the problem, for example “computer systems benefit enormously from standard setting and pre planning”. HT agreed but was keen to retain the key message that interoperability was not a chore that could be handed out to a systems integrator. TA proposed that they retain the initial sentence but follow it with “but the payoff is very significant and essential” or words to that effect. This was agreed. An noted that systems should be designed to grow and work together, not be built together.	A
	7.1.2	NG suggested they include a sentence spelling out why interoperability was important. This was a good opportunity to cross-reference to briefing 36 where the sentence “A new govt. culture etc” on P3 could be copied across. This was agreed.	A
	7.1.3	CH noted that the paper was about getting business and administrative systems to work together. As one moved up the system it became more and more to do with partnership, so essentially it was a cultural issue. This was the point of interface between this paper and the other two and it should be explicitly set within this context.	A
	7.2	What is Interoperability
		NG proposed that the paper use the e-GIF definition for interoperability. This was agreed.	A
	7.3	What are the problems
	7.3.1	3^rd para. It was agreed that developers should be required to follow open standards.	A
	7.3.2	3^rd para:- CH noted that the paper should refer to standards that had been agreed for use within government or for public sector projects rather than government standards. This change of emphasis was agreed.	A
	7.3.3	AN noted that standards must be allowed to evolve. NG noted that the e-gif system allowed the standards they used to evolve.
	7.3.4	HT proposed that para 3 be split into one section dealing with standards and the other looking at recommendation 2 - using e-gif standards. This was agreed.	A
	7.3.5	4^th para;- AN noted that successful interoperability had come not from overarching management structures but from underneath – eg the Internet.
	7.3.6	Ownership is defensive - sharing should be part of normal service delivery. BW noted that without offering rewards they could not expect to change culture. HT noted that the paper was trying to point out that commonly there was asymmetric balance of benefit and cost so there had to be a structure that rewarded the inclusion of interoperability in systems. He agreed to reword it to make this clearer.	A
	7.3.7	Ownership is defensive – CH noted that the phrase ”to extract the maximum possible value etc..” could be ambiguous and imply a variety of situations. HT agreed to look again at this section.	A
	7.3.8	Ossification- It was agreed that dependent should be changed to interdependent.	A
	7.3.9	Semantics- AN noted that rather than agreed data formats it was the meta data that should be common. NG noted that the govt data standards catalogue referred to metadata. EofE felt that it was too technical a term and should at least be in the glossary. This was agreed.	A
	7.4	Conclusions
		First sentence - CH suggested that standard protocol should be extended to communications, rather than be restricted to computers. This was agreed.	A
	7.5	Annex 1
		This was agreed without amendment.
	7.6	Case Studies
	7.6.1	Benefits agency and local authority;- BW commented that this interoperability pilot had only been partially successful. The successful aspects - Benefits Agency and Job Centre Plus had been retained and the local authority housing benefit aspect had been dropped. EF agreed to revise the case study to reflect this.	A
	7.6.2	Camden:– It was agreed that this case study must be changed since DKTV were no longer in operation.	A
	7.6.3	ICL Kiosks;- It was agreed that ICL would be changed to Fujitsu Services.	A
	7.6.4	East Riding Citizen Link:– It was agreed that in this case, the interoperability was with both private sector and central government organisations. EF agreed to insert this.	A
	7.6.5	EF noted that most case studies focused more on capability than on real benefits to the citizen and asked for all members to submit other case studies.
	7.7	Recommendations
	7.7.1	1^st point:- DH noted that “computer” should be changed to ICT for consistency. This was agreed.	A
	7.7.2	3^rd point:– CG proposed that “considered” be changed to “integral”. This was agreed.	A
	7.7.3	3^rd point:- It was agreed that “contract” or “framework agreement” would be inserted.	A
	7.7.4	Managerial, Points 2 & 3:- AN noted that ownership was often unclear in interoperating systems and government found the concept of partnership difficult. IB agreed with the paper that accountability should never fall between stools but felt that the sentence could be more elegantly phrased. LC stressed that what was important in partnerships was clarity of responsibility. This was agreed.	A
	7.7.5	Technical, point 2:- It was agreed that “open non-proprietory standards” should be replaced by “open standards”.	A
	7.7.6	Technical, point 3:- NG suggested that the term “interface standards” was confusing. HT noted that data management standards were things like security when applied to different entities. NG suggested the paper be more explicit to avoid confusion between stored data, visible data and moving data.	A
	7.8	The Briefing was approved subject to the agreed amendments.
8		Paper 37 – Getting IT Right – Philip Virgo
	8.1	PV outlined the main message of this paper – that despite many lessons having been learned from mistakes of the past, and lots of good practice guidance being available, both were being ignored and the same mistakes were being made. The paper sought to explain why this happened and to draw people’s attention to available guidance.
9		Comments on Briefing 37
	9.1	Introduction
	9.1.1	1^st para;- BW noted that HMG should be written as “government” and OGC should be in full. This was agreed.	A
	9.1.2	1^st para:- IB suggested that “HMG is about to embark” should be changed to “has embarked” and that the paper should be less journalistic in tone. This was agreed.	A
	9.1.3	1^st para:- LC asked why the paper only focused on certain aspects of government (health, education, justice) when it should be concerned with the whole sphere. There was also inconsistency since Transport was included in some places but not others. BW noted that the Delivery Unit had highlighted 5 areas for special attention - health, education, law and order, transport and housing. It was agreed that the wording should reflect the delivery unit priorities and if necessary cite these as particularly important examples, not the only areas for attention.	A
	9.2	Why Projects Fail
	9.2.1	5th bullet:- – CH noted that this point on team management was too important to be last. Plain bad management was more of a problem than the B team trying to the do the job of the A team and care must be taken here to avoid inconsistency with briefing 33. This was agreed.	A
	9.2.2	5^th bullet:- HT suggested that a reference to interoperability would be appropriate here and this was agreed.	A
	9.2.3	5^th bulIet:- B noted that there were simply not enough people with the appropriate experience so it was not just a case of finding the right individual, but of training them.
	9.3	Lessons from the past
	9.3.1	Bullet 8:- – conduct regular reviews - LC stressed the need for a fundamental review at the end of each project, as well as progress reviews, even if the team were no longer together. This was agreed.	A
	9.3.2	Bullet 12:– Don’t be an early adopter – BW noted that this point provided an excuse for the Luddites to do nothing and contradicted Briefings 33 and 36, which supported innovation. There were circumstances when early adoption could be very advantageous. It was more important to understand the risks of using unproven technology and share the successes. AN noted that in some cases the introduction of new technology had enabled change. It was agreed that this point would be amended accordingly.	A
	9.3.3	AN noted that the pathfinder projects were an excellent example. If successful they could be expanded and if they failed their small scale kept losses affordable.
	9.4	Why are lessons so often ignored?
	9.4.1	Bullet 4 - Motivation and skills - AS noted that this section must be consistent with the section on risk taking. These qualities should be applied within a structured context. BW noted, and it was agreed, that risks had to be appropriate, calculated and managed.	A
	9.4.2	Motivation and skills - LC proposed that the negative role of the Public Accounts Committee should be mentioned here. There was a wonderful cover-up mechanism in the public sector that allowed problems to escalate by the time the NAO started reporting.	A
	9.4.3	AN suggested that the paper should distinguish between advice that was out of date and advice that was still relevant. This was agreed.	A
	9.4.4	AN noted that managing risk effectively relied on responding rapidly when things went wrong. Government approval systems and training style actually slowed things down. It was agreed that a section on timescales would be added.	A
	9.5	Conclusions
		The conclusions were approved without amendment.
	9.6	Recommendations
		The recommendations were approved without amendment.
	9.7	The Briefing was approved subject to the agreed amendments.
10		Next Steps
	10.1	BW proposed, and it was agreed, that the three authors would implement the changes and the revised briefings would be circulating. Provided there were no major objections they would then be submitted to EURIM’s editorial board and be checked for political balance before publication.
	10.2	KN noted that the re-drafts would need to be circulated by the end of July to enable publication by September.

Attendance – 16^th July 2002

Name	Surname	Organisation
Brian	White MP (Chair)	House of Commons
Tom	Abram	Mantix
Ian	Bruce	EMTA
Lord	Crickhowell	House of Lords
Earl	Of Erroll	House of Lords
Emma	Fryer	EURIM
Chris	Godwin	IBM
Nigel	Greenaway	Fujitsu
Dot	Hodge
Neil	Hollins	ITNET
Charles	Hughes	e-Management
David	Morriss	BCS
Charles	Nevis	Mantix
Adrian	Norman	BCS
Kate	Norman	EURIM
Nick	Penston	CISCO Systems
John	Riley	Computer Weekly
Richard	Sarson	PITCOM Journal
Andy	Smith	Oracle
Henryk	Trzebiatowski	Consignia
Philip	Virgo	EURIM
Apologies
Patsy	Calton	MP
Richard	Hackworth	BCS
Lee	Johnson	Computacenter
Rob	Nayler	Qinetiq
Barbara	Nielsen	Observer
Mike	O’Brien	MP
Tim	Suter	DCMS
Ian	Taylor	MP
No Shows
Tony	Singleton	Office of the e-Envoy
Christina	Smyth	Office of the e-Envoy

---

[1] The Critical Success Factor – Delivering Modernised Government through Programme Management