EURIM Working Group Minutes

Working Party:	Theme 01/ Working Group
Ref:	03-T02-Min05
Minuter:	Emma Fryer
Date:	10/04/03
Circulation:	Attendees and Apologies
Queries to:	Emma Fryer, Tel: 0191 384 0282 Mob: 07714 803 650 Emma.fryer@eurim.org

Minutes of EURIM’s Modernising Government Steering Group

Meeting. Defining Terms of Reference for the Group

10^th April 2003, kindly hosted by Intellect, 20 Red Lion Street

Summary

Meeting Outline

Representatives of each group of EURIM members – corporate, associate, individual and parliamentary – explained why EURIM was valuable to their respective organisations. They were then asked to identify their priorities for action on modernising government agenda and this information was used to suggest how EURIM’s Modernising Government group might change its terms of reference to match these priorities with ongoing activity. In a more general sense this feedback would also help to evaluate EURIM’s value to members and identify how it could be enhanced.

Main Value of EURIM identified by the members

1. Both corporate and associate members valued EURIM’s ability to bring together parliamentarians, officials and industry.

2. EURIM’s value was that whilst it could command a powerful consortium of organisations, it was a flexible vehicle.

3. EURIM could make observations and recommendations that others were not in a position to make publicly.

Main Priorities identified by the members

1. Waste of resource and lack of professional standards in central government.

2. The need to educate those civil servants responsible for briefing Ministers.

3. The need to view e-government as an integral tool instead of an end in itself.

4. The lack of a coherent framework for continued e-government delivery.

5. Looking ahead beyond 2005.

Political imperatives

1. The danger of slippage over targets.

2. The lack of inter-departmental co-operation and the gulf between Central government and the departments.

Current group activities

The Modernising Government group was currently running 6 activities – 4 sub-groups and 2 associated groups. The topic areas were Open Source software, Social Exclusion, e-Government Strategy and Programme Management. The associated groups were Medical Records and Personal Identity.

How do the members’ priorities match current group activity?

The proposed work on a Strategic Framework for e-Government could incorporate issues such as delivery beyond 2005, targets and slippage.

The gulf between central governments and the departments had been addressed by the Programme Management group which had successfully delivered on its objectives and could not do much more. However TA agreed to produce a checklist of questions that a select committee might ask about a programme.

There was currently no activity underway to address the need for professionalism and professional standards in government and the ICT industry, although Intellect was working on a code of practice.

How does EURIM need to change?

1. EURIM needed to develop another route to help educate MPs which would supplement – and in some cases replace – the formal briefing notes.

2. EURIM had to align industry and parliamentary agendas more closely in order to get better parliamentary participation.

3. EURIM should work more closely with All Party Parliamentary Groups to achieve this.

Meeting Notes

			Action
1		Chairman’s Introduction
	1.1	TA welcomed everyone. The meeting had been convened to poll views from a cross section of EURIM members, to identify what they wanted from EURIM. This was the opportunity to raise any frustrations they might have about what EURIM was and was not delivering and air any concerns about getting value out of their subscriptions. Some members had suggested that EURIM was not driving results in terms of changes in government behaviour, and they were not getting the air time with parliamentarians they wanted. This same frustration had been expressed by EURIM’s governing Council:- that changes were not happening, that there was too much talk and not enough action.
	1.2	With those two perspectives in mind, it had been resolved to convene a small group to identify how EURIM’s Modernising Government theme should best be focused to meet the aspirations of members and the concerns of the EURIM Council. Each invitee represented a particular group of members:- corporate, associate, professional body, trade association, individual and parliamentary. Those invited were known to be action-oriented with clear views.
	1.3	TA reviewed the agenda: firstly they would examine the priorities of the different kinds of members. What did they want from EURIM? What could EURIM offer that was unique? What was the particular kind of issue relevant for EURIM to deal with - as opposed to other organisations? Then they would consider whether there were any particular political objectives that aligned with these priorities. In the light of this they would try and identify group objectives, keeping in mind the Council’s requirement that action must be focused with well-defined targets, outcomes and timescales for delivery.
2		Member perspectives
	2.1	DR (from the perspective of BCS, a professional body) was concerned with addressing the waste of money and resources that went on in central government. BCS were keen to be involved to help improve the situation and saw the introduction of professional standards as a means of achieving this because both government and suppliers would benefit from the introduction of proper business standards.
		As a professional body they sought to influence both government and industry. EURIM’s parliamentary contacts were useful to BCS but in particular EURIM’s contacts with the civil service were better than BCS, who had less clout, or Intellect, which was a supply led organisation so did not cover end-user perspectives. EURIM had excellent links to OGC, OEE, Intellect and Parliament so it did bring all sides together and was better placed than others to seek influence. It was agreed that civil service contacts were key to EURIM’s effectiveness.
	2.2	JT (representing major corporate members) saw EURIM primarily as a means of getting access to the decision making process, to be able to input into those elements that were actually effecting change. Secondarily EURIM could be seen as a means of doing some more general good. EURIM offered a parliamentary angle that others could not. He summarised EURIM’s value as bringing together the suppliers, the officials and parliamentary communities. Having these different dimensions put pressure on the system to deliver more. Many of EURIM’s parliamentary members were select committee members and were already engaged with the issues.
	2.3	RS, representing individual members, observed that EURIM presented a tremendous opportunity to bring together the parliamentary community, the civil services stream with attached ministers, the supply side and the private side. He suggested that in addition to clear objectives, deliverables and timescales for each group, it was important to be sure that any issue had a campaigning commitment from all three of those communities to exert real pressure. From the perspective of an individuaI member, EURIM’s value was that it was a clearly defined but potentially flexible vehicle with strong links to parliamentarians, and strong links to the private sector. At one time the focus might be on civil servants, at another in helping the supply side depending on member interests. It was very difficult to describe coherently why EURIM was successful. It was a flexible vehicle that could marshall consortia of strong interests.
	2.4	NK (from the Trade Association perspective) noted that there was always a danger of duplication of effort but EURIM did add another dimension – the relationship with parliamentarians and its ability to play an educative and informing role there. Both those who sat on select committees, and the majority of MPs, who did not really understand much about ICT, comprised an important constituency that Intellect had not yet been able to tap into.
	2.5	From the Local Government perspective, BG noted that SOCITM had not been very involved in EURIM’s modernising government programme because they were running a big programme themselves on a more specific agenda. Their concern was that central government was losing focus. Local Government was delivering the modernised government agenda much faster than central government. SOCITM and EURIM’s agendas aligned well and they were happy to support EURIM’s work on refocusing government. They had witnessed a major culture change in local government over the last 4-5 years, as everyone geared up to achieving the 2005 targets. Whether all authorities met the 2005 targets did not really matter because the essential culture change had been achieved, it was accepted that providing electronic service delivery for the citizen relied on a lot of back office work, things were now being done differently, and anyway, modernised government was an ongoing process that would continue into the future. Providing easily digested information to people was a priority to avoid the general information overload.
	2.6	From the parliamentary perspective, BW noted that EURIM had an important educative role for MPs. The briefing notes were useful background information for those MPs who were already aware of the issues, but another route was needed to get the attention of other MPs.
	2.7	Chairman’s Summary
		TA summarised – For Trade associations, EURIM’s key value was in helping to give officials and parliamentarians, including select committee members, the industry perspective, and inform them of other work underway. For Corporate members, EURIM offered parliamentary angles that other organisations could not, and a chance at least to present ideas to those individuals. The danger with some of EURIM’s groups was that there was good participation from suppliers and officials but not from parliamentarians. The agendas had to be right to attract the interest of MPs.
3		Current group activities
	3.1	It was agreed that the programme of activity for the modernising government group should be considered in the light of the different membership perspectives presented. Then they could evaluate the work and decide whether EURIM was focusing effort in the right place.
	3.2	JT agreed to run through the activities that were currently underway, which included work on a Strategic framework for e-government, Social exclusion issues, Open Source Software and Programme Management (which had now delivered on is objectives). Other associated EURIM groups were handling Medical Records and Personal Identity issues. He asked whether those activities represented the priorities of everyone present. Were these the kind of issues where EURIM could really make a difference?
	3.3	On request, JT recapped the purpose of the e-Government strategy group. Currently there was no single, overarching strategy for delivering modernised government. BW noted that there were also political issues, - budget cuts in the OEE and Ed Richards being moved from No 10, and now there was nobody with a broad understanding of the issues:- the Delivery Unit had moved to Treasury and the Prime Minister’s focus had become external rather than internal and that there was a wide perspective that managing change was too difficult. There was no longer a champion for delivery. (Douglas Alexander also had responsibility for civil contingencies.) This issue had to be raised politically, some issues would be raised in the broadband debate on 1^st May. Government had to be made aware that a champion was needed.
4		Issues and concerns specific to the modernising government agenda
	4.1	Industry was concerned that Ministers were briefed by civil servants who did not have a comprehensive understanding of the issues. OGC accepted that changing the perceptions of civil servants was their job and they were not keen on industry intervention. The important thing was seeing IT projects not as IT projects but as business change processes with wide ranging benefits.
	4.2	TA agreed that it was OGC’s job to influence departments, but EURIM could be very helpful to OGC by saying things that they could not – for instance, OGC could criticise industry for promising more than they could deliver, but they were not in a position to make observations on their own role. EURIM could do that, even going so far as to suggest that OGC could be put in charge of running the modernising government programme, cutting across departmental silos.
	4.3	BW noted as Chair of EURIM that his priority was to ensure resources were used as effectively as possible. If OGC had signed up to improved professionalism for IT contracts, was there added value in EURIM saying anything more? The argument had been won and it might be more valuable to take a monitoring role to ensure there was no slippage.
	4.4	JT observed that from the OGC perspective, they had made recommendations, provided guidance and put actions in place that were gradually being implemented. It was now up to industry to sort out their side. Both industry and government could gain much from applying the concept of professionalism as a common goal for customers and suppliers of IT programmes to create a more mature procurement environment.
	4.5	It was agreed that EURIM had better relations with ODPM, OGC and OeE than in some cases they had with each other and could use this to help tackle the consequent lack of cooperation at departmental level.
	4.6	BW noted that EURIM’s original concerns had been addressed in the Modernising Government White paper and taken on by Cabinet office. Slippage was now the problem.
	4.7	BG was concerned that it was too late to be lobbying government to sort out their strategy for 2005, they would have to look further ahead. BW noted that an investigation into targets should note whether or not they had been met, the targets had resulted in a cultural change and a transformation in business processes and working practice. Government would not remove 2005 targets because it would be accused of failure.
	4.8	BW noted that things were changing in the Civil service. Richard Wilson had made it clear that promotion to key departmental positions within the civil service was dependent on successful delivery as opposed to policy. Changes would not happen overnight but things were improving. NK hoped that eventually there would be a shift in perception from seeing e-government as a distinct goal as opposed to what it meant for social exclusion, healthcare, society in general.
	4.9	RS observed that new agendas would emerge as issues became better understood. Then they had to decide whether any campaign would be led by EURIM or conducted through partnerships with other organisations. The important thing was to have an alliance of committed players.
5		Co-operation with other groups
	5.1	BG asked whether this group should have more of a co-ordinating role to support other initiatives.
	5.2	BW noted that it depended who the group was trying to influence:- with the programme management it was clearly OGC, Cabinet Office, the delivery unit, and IT managers within each department.
	5.3	BW noted that one aim of EURIM was to work more with All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) to streamline the interests of parliamentarians with EURIM. They had worked successfully with the AP internet group and others. It was a case of setting agendas in advance.
	5.4	BW added that with the plethora of organisations, it was important that EURIM did not duplicate activity. If another group was in a better position to influence, EURIM would support that group in their activities rather than undertake a programme of its own. Successful partnership was about EURIM doing the bits that added value.
		Resources
6	6.1	BW reminded members that EURIM only had limited resource which had to be used as effectively as possible. It was necessary to evaluate the relative priorities of the group so that BW could allocate resources where they were most needed. Council was the arbiter of EURIM group activity. All activities therefore had to be justified. To this end they had agreed to concentrate on several key themes and were happy to continue to put in resources provided that objectives were being achieved. A good case had been made for work on e-Government strategy and on Open Source, EURIM was a neutral forum where the opposing factions could meet.
7		Potential roles for EURIM
	7.1	DR asked whether EURIM was looking for more topics to address. EF replied that they were trying to establish whether EURIM’s current activity matched the members’ priorities and if not, whether EURIM should cease some activities and replace them with more appropriate ones.
	7.2	BG noted that the modernising agenda was broad base, was there a role for EURIM ensuring people understood broadband? BW agreed – broadband underlay a huge range of things, such as social exclusion. EURIM would stimulate parliamentarians to take these issues more seriously.
	7.3	BW noted that EURIM was at its best when it pulled together a subset of civil servants with interested MPs to address issues of common interest so that normal lines of communication could be short-circuited and the different perspectives better understood.
	7.4	It was agreed that EURIM’s ability to operate either openly or under Chatham House rules enabled it to hold up a mirror to government.
	7.5	DR asked whether there was a role for EURIM to review existing technology and suggest ways in which it would be used for better programme delivery - for instance in social inclusion, identity management, etc.
	7.6	RS noted that EURIM’s effectiveness depended on its activity being tightly aligned to fundamental issues. This was agreed.
8		Other Issues
	8.1	TA asked whether there were any burning issues where parliamentary and industry agendas aligned.
	8.2	RS cited the problems encountered with Learn Direct, and Universities for Industry. It had become obvious that simply providing the kit and technical infrastructure was not enough:- enablers and teachers were needed as interfaces. More people than ever were needed at the delivery end and this had not been allowed for in the funding models. A new group of people was needed at the community end to tailor delivery to need rather than constraining it within an inflexible structure. BW agreed. SureStart was a successful scheme because it had recognised the additional delivery costs.
	8.3	BG noted that in the modernisation of the financial sector, e-service delivery was now part of infrastructure and regarded as a tool. This should be the aim of modernised government. This was agreed.
	8.4	RS noted that social exclusion was emerging as a genuine issue. He also noted that using IT for learning and its impact on the educational infrastructure would become a clearer issue in a year or so, how it could be used, the skills agenda, the skilling process and getting value from the capability.
	8.5	JT felt that some form of restatement of 2005 targets was needed and they needed to raise the issue of all the nugatory expense of putting unwarranted services on line just for the sake of it. Good targets would transform working practices, bad targets would reinforce them. Targets were now linked to public service agreements. SOCITM insight publicising standards and setting benchmarks was an alternative way of moving things forwards.
	8.6	BW observed that Personal Identity was becoming an increasingly important issue, with smart cards and identity cards. Government would need extensive input from the private sector, which was already involved in large scale plastic card schemes, on the pragmatic issues of proving identity, and new issues would emerge about the amount of data that government held about individuals.
	8.7	NK felt that the issue of Entitlement cards and their consequences would become a priority.
9		Forward plans
	9.1	TA was interested in forward-looking activities that transcended some of the technical specifics. Some aspects would be covered by the strategy group but there were fundamental issues affecting all modernised government – such as whether the delivery mechanisms – traditional policy-based departments - were adequate. How would things be organised if we there were a blank sheet? Civil servants would be asked for policy guidance and some other vehicle would manage change and delivery.
	9.2	BW referred to two recent reports:- the NAO report on executive agencies and the Cabinet Office report dealing with progress on EEC agencies, both of which took on board many of the messages put forward by EURIM’s Modernising Government working groups.
	9.3	TA proposed a hypothesis: What was needed was an activity that played to the corporate members in terms of them staking a claim to their position in terms of delivery, that played to intellect’s role in terms of representing the vision of industry, to BCS in terms of technical professionalism, and to parliamentarians in terms of getting re-elected in 2005. The fundamental flaw was the perception that modernising government was about 2005, when in fact it was about the next 25 years – this was just the beginning. There was no way that e-services could be delivered without partnership between government and the members of Intellect. What was important for period 2005 – 2020 was not whether the civil service would be transformed into effective customers for IT, but whether the civil service could learn to manage change.
	9.4	BW also noted that there was scope to try and influence the political parties, particularly when they were formulating their manifestoes. The Liberal Democrats were the only party who had prepared an IT policy. Should EURIM be trying to influence the parties in the run up to the September conferences?
	9.5	BG noted that the private sector appeared unwilling to work with the public sector on standards and this might be an important point of influence for EURIM to bring the two sides together. The issue was not the cards themselves but the infrastructure to read them. BW suggested SOCIM be introduced to the existing financial services forum.
	9.6	TA asked how Modernising Government would look in six months time. There were six things running, five of which would have delivered, although there might be an activity following on from the e-strategy thinking on a vision of 2010 and beyond.
	9.9	TA summarised the forward programme for the existing sub-groups:- Open Source, Medical Records and Programme Management would work towards a target and close down. Social exclusion and Strategy for e-Government would continue to work after the summer for autumn activity. Issues of Personal Identity would be looked at separately.

Attendance – 10^th April 2003

F name	Surname	Organisation	Email
Tom	Abram	Mantix Systems
Sam	Baglioni	Intellect
Emma	Fryer	EURIM
Bob	Griffith	SOCITM
Nick	Kalisperas	Intellect
Richard	Sykes
Jonathan	Tamblyn	LogicaCMG
Brian	White	MP