Socitm Blog

Chaired by John Suffolk, this was a 'full house' of CIOs from across government, though I was the only local authority representative.

There was a good discussion about how we need to reduce costs in IT contracts and projects, and confirmation of the freeze on all new IT expenditure over £1m - both new projects or contract modifications. This applies to all government departments, agencies and NDPBs.

Naturally there was some anxiety about what actually is being cut, when, and by how much. CIOs are tasked with reviewing projects and contracts, and at speed over the next few weeks. There are, in essence, as I understand it, two tests to pass for every project, and these will be more stringent for the really big programmes (over £50m):

TEST 1:Does the project contribute directly to the new Government's stated aims? If 'yes', go to test 2. If 'No' then stop doing it

TEST 2:How robust is the project delivery structure? Eg:

• Is it deliverable? Has it had problems? What are the current risks?
• Can it be scaled back/delivered differently or by someone else to reduce costs?
• How quickly will the benefits be delivered? Is the benefits plan rigorous?
• Is there a clear and acceptable payback period/ROI?

You get the idea. This sort of filter will catch projects with a long payback, high risk, recent problems, uncertain benefits, or which could be delivered more cheaply by other means. If they don't tick the right boxes they will have to fight for survival.

Many people will rightly point out that these seem like very reasonable tests for project proposals which we should be doing anyway, 'business as usual'. I agree, but it does make it harder to justify any big, complex or risky programme. Whilst such large scale IT public sector projects often have problems and get rightly criticised, they can also bring real transformation and are inherently difficult.

I made the point at the meeting that at least some large scale national IT programmes would be more deliverable and lower cost if they were split into smaller chunks and given, with resources, to local government to implement. I'd like to think that our rather 'low cost' mentality would weed out any potential 'gold plating'. But then I would say that, wouldn't I?

There was also discussion about the recruitment freeze and cut back on use of consultants. If you are serious about cutting costs and reducing headcount this has to be the way to begin. Again, I think there are positives. Its been too easy to employ an external consultant (someone to blame or who appears independent?). And given we talk about technology making public sector more efficient, shouldn't we set an example by reducing headcount?

In my own team we have just completed a painful IT restructuring which has reduced senior headcount by nearly 30% and overall headcount by nearly 10%- and we did not have idle hands before. Our new structure is leaner, more focused and simpler. However, it wasn't easy and had to be managed as a change programme. It also had transitional costs to bear before the savings are delivered. There are lessons there as we start cutting back more generally.