It is good news to see momentum gathering on the UK's digital infrastructure, with funding being released by Broadband UK (BDUK) for early adopters and the selection of delivery partners for the national framework contracts. However, concerns have been expressed about lack of progress and difficulties with the procurement regime. The Local CIO Council would like to hear from Socitm members about their experience - please submit your comments in this blog or by email to martin.ferguson@socitm.gov.uk by cop Friday 13th January.

The background is that, on 15th December 2011, Culture Secretary,Jeremy Hunt, announced that draft plans for rolling out superfast broadband need to be submitted to the Government by the end of February.

Some, including Socitm, believe that the ambition of broadband for all has taken rather too long. This was known to be important to economic prosperity and social well-being over a decade ago - so why is it not enshrined in building regulations? Why do we not join up road and ducting projects? Why have we taken so long to make the connection between internet access in rural areas and jobs, education and business? Its not as if there were not examples across the world we could have followed.

That said, we should now put our support behind the government initiative. They have connected the economic imperative and the social benefits (e.g. Race Online 2012) and made a compelling case for broadband access for all, with funding being made available.

The funding is not sufficient for 100% coverage, but I am less worried about this than some. Achieving 90% coverage will be good, and the last 10% can follow with satellite, new technologies (eg reuse of the FM spectrum), greater wireless reach, reuse of public service networks and greater private sector investment.

There are some bigger challenges along the way. For example, reuse of existing infrastructure is essential to drive down costs and to make the investment go further. This includes ducts and public service networks. We should work together to make the most of these existing assets, overcoming legal and commercial barriers.

Take up will also be key - the higher the take up the more commercially viable the solution (reducing the dependency on public sector capital). Whilst it might be in the short term interest of suppliers to downplay the likely level of take up in order to encourage government intervention, we all have a common goal to maximise demand and adoption. And this means people need to be able to afford the service, be skilled enough to use it and then can then find something useful to do with it.

Securing matched funding by local authorities in the current climate is undoubtedly hard, especially since a business case which demonstrates tangible savings in public sector costs by a move to digital enabled by broadband is not always easy to make. But the benefits are significant, more so in times of financial difficulty.

In any country broadband is a vital part of a prosperous economy and it will increasingly underpin the UK's ability to compete. Small and large businesses alike demand access to good electronic services and communications. Being able to sell services on the internet can transform the prospects of smaller companies and this is especially important in rural areas where broadband is often poor or absent.

Communities benefit as well. Broadband access helps people to find jobs and creates employment opportunities. It helps children get access modern education resources. It opens up the choice and competitiveness of online shopping whilst promoting local services. It makes health advice and services available to everyone in ways never dreamed of 10 years ago, and on a more equal basis than geography would otherwise allow.

The national broadband programme must also be seen as part of the plans for public service reform, espoused in the Local CIO Council-Socitm Planting the Flag strategy. Digital delivery and channel shift are essential in becoming more efficient. Moreover, if people are to challenge their local public services and play a greater part in their delivery then they need access to information and tools to communicate, such as email. The Government is pushing for more public information and services to be available electronically, putting the public in control of their dealings with public services.

As a result, people will be able to take more personal responsibility and need less intervention from the state. We want our communities to take ownership and responsibility and everyone to be able to look after their own affairs and records where possible. And we want electronic public services to be designed around the citizen, not around our public institutions. People who do not have broadband access will therefore be disadvantaged in this new world, regardless or wealth or geography.

There will be more on this subject in the next Socitm Insight Briefing - look out for this at the end of January.

Jos Creese, Chair of Local CIO Council and Past President - Socitm

Martin Ferguson, Policy Director - Socitm

Of course, at a time when all budgets are under unprecedented pressure and all public sector expenditure subject to intense scrutiny, it is perhaps tempting to decide to give the conference a miss this year. A temptation to be resisted, I feel, for three reasons.

First, Socitm 2011 provides the opportunity to gain a real understanding of how the national digital policy agenda is developing. This is bound to impact significantly on the delivery of local public services and it is always true that forewarned is forearmed.

Second, the conference provides the chance to learn how others are addressing the challenges we all face. Importantly, the conference format means you can dig behind their approach; to ask not only what went well but what didn't, to understand how relevant it is to you. This is rarely available through alternative approaches - for example, reading case studies - other than by personal visit, a far more time consuming approach.

Third, Socitm 2011 is a superb opportunity to network. Its importance is recognised this year by the first evening's dinner being specifically designated a networking event. Our ability to network with our peers from a diversity of backgrounds - different types of organisation from different geographies serving different demographics - will be critical in helping us transition from 'survive' back to 'thrive'.

So, yes, there is a modest price for attending Socitm 2011 but its value far outweighs its cost. I look forward to welcoming you, sharing with you and networking with you.

Glyn Evans, Socitm President

This year has also seen the emergence of social networking as a force for good, 'cloud' computing and the new Government ICT strategy. All have been topics Socitm has addressed and will continue to do so in the forthcoming Routemap.

At the start of the year set I out some personal priorities, especially in developing the contribution I wanted to make to change in the breadth and vision for Socitm: expanding membership beyond the traditional Heads of IT and local government; working with the private sector much more openly; building affiliations with other organisations. Our success in these areas is due credit to the professionals within Socitm and the support of many colleagues. I believe we now have a much broader foundation to develop our future services and influence.

I have tried to use the role to ensure that IT professionals in the public sector are better understood and better represented, especially in local public services planning and policy. This includes persuading key decision makers across the public sector to engage more openly and actively with their IT professional teams. In particular, I have strongly advocated that IT must be seen as a centre of innovation, an agent of change, and a differentiator of exceptional public service and efficiency - not just as a support service, a utility or a back office function, often as too risky. Others have taken up this mantra as strongly as I have, and Socitm's profile recently at the Public Accounts Committee speaks for itself in this respect.

I feel sure I have gained much more than I have been able to give during my year as President. I have made valuable contacts and new friends. I have learned much from the experience of working with so many talented professionals. And I have a far greater knowledge of what Socitm does and the contribution we make. I was privileged to take on the role and I feel privileged to have had so many opportunities during the year.

Above all, I am hugely indebted to so many people at Hampshire and across Socitm, without whose help, encouragement and support I would not have done half as much.

However, this has typically been about extending the corporate network and corporate security, not allowing, the, intrusion of personal devices into the workplace.

But this is about to change. The strategy of central control is not viable in the longer term, and CIOs need a new strategy to ensure necessary security without unduly restricting the power of technology to drive efficiency and productivity offered by mobile and flexible working.

A number of trends have come together that make this an inevitability. There is a blurring of the distinction between work and home - we are nearly at a point when the majority of people in any organisation will be doing some home working, or accessing services and information on the move. CIOs need new policies that deliver secure and sensitive data 'anywhere, anytime, any device' - including personal equipment such as smart phones.

With the emergence of smart phones in particular, the concept of a desktop PC is disappearing. Next year Smart phone purchases will exceed personal computer purchases for the first time. Employees typically have their own equipment and there is an inevitable pressure on IT departments to allow these to be used. But trying to control multiple devices in the way we have done previously is just not feasible.

The rise of social media is another opportunity or threat, dependent on your perspective. It is just not possible to control social media take-up within a corporate environment, and to try and do so would be counter-productive. Social networking is a valuable tool to get close to the public, customers and employees, should be embraced as such.

As a result of these trends, employee expectations of corporate IT are changing. People expect to be able to use their own devices at work and at home and rigid technology controls which worked so well for the last ten years are increasingly looking outdated and inflexible. A more liberal approach can significantly improve efficiency and unlock the power of technology as well as being a desirable direction for employees. And employees will arguably take more responsibility for security of information than they might have felt necessary in the past, when this was left to the safeguards put in place by the IT department.

This is not to say security does not matter - it is vital for any private or public service. But new risk based approaches are needed coupled with greater personal responsibility to protect systems and data whilst allowing more flexibility. Employees must equip themselves to understand the risks and potential of technology and be accountable for the actions. The biggest security risks are, after all, human, not technical (revealing a password, losing a memory stick).

IT departments need to have suitable policies, training and perimeter protection, often at a system level - locking down breaches if they occur, not trying to treat the whole corporate network as Fort Knox. Firewalls at the gateway, web or application is more practical than trying to control devices. Ironically, this can overall strengthen, not weaken, security.

Consumerisation of IT and the adoption of leisure IT applications in the workforce is now happening. Indeed, arguably such a trend has been in place since the advent of the personal computer. CIOs would do well to learn from history.

"HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has defined the APIs for its online services and made these, together with validation rules and test scripts, publicly available so that third parties can build software products which can calculate and submit information online. In addition to the filing products offered by HMRC, 1,500 commercial software developers now provide online filing products for more than 20 HMRC online services. Products and payroll packages developed by third parties have allowed employers to file 58 million P14 end-of-year submissions online."



In essence, what is being talked about here is the 'democratisation' of information and technology, which is further evident in what the Government ICT Strategy calls 'opening up IT' and in the transparency and open data agenda.

In prospect is a radical restructuring of ICT deployment and architecture, with ubiquitous access, citizen ownership of data, freely available APIs and widespread apps. This will have major implications for the ICT industry supply-side and will take us away from the provider-driven, technology-led approaches (and system failures) of the past.

So why could you not take the same approach to Universal Credit? App on a smartphone or any other device, (mediated or not depending upon the user), ID and authenticate yourself, download your HMRC data, download PAYE data from your employer if you have one, download relevant data from other agencies, calculate your Universal Credit and upload the result to the authorising authority?

Why do we need a big, centralised database and processing system? A shared, pan-local approach would take advantage of the wealth of experience and expertise that exists amongst local authority staff and suppliers. Here, they deliver Benefits (under what has been an ever -changing regime) to applicants in ways that are sympathetic to their needs and capabilities, and are cost effective.

I wonder if the Cabinet Office skunkworks team is working along these lines, or perhaps the agile methods being employed by the Department for Work an­d Pensions will surprise us all?

What are your views?­

Not surprisingly, some of the best speakers were not necessarily those who have to make the cuts. It is relatively easy for ministers, suppliers, pundits, the press and part of the general public to spot things that could be better, or to find areas where savings could be made. The challenge is making the change in such a way that delivers cashable savings whilst protecting public services. As a senior manager in a social services department said to me recently, "the impossible is easy for he who does not have to do it".

I spoke about how we can use technology to modernise public services and increase efficiency. But it's not easy given the pace of change. Local government feels in a hard place - in the past when I said "local government is at the cutting edge" I meant something different. But given that 80% of transactions with the public are undertaken at a local level, a lead must be given by local councils, local public health organisations and others.

There are two particular challenges facing IT.

The first is that across the public sector IT is often seen as a cost centre - a risky activity to be avoided, a support service. Problems with IT projects which often receive high press coverage (and the reports are still flooding in!), which inevitably exacerbate the fear of technology. In the private sector, IT is more commonly seen as an 'agent of change', a centre of innovation, a source of competitive edge and improved customer service. The public sector needs to learn from this.

The second issue which has to be addressed is the balance between centralisation and localism. Centralisation provides more control and economies of scale, essential in dealing with a too fragmented IT operation across the public sector. At the same time, large scale national projects have a poor track record, and typically fail to deliver best value in an acceptable time scale. Local delivery of national 'blueprints' is a better course, prioritising the integration of services around the needs of individual communities based on a local circumstances.

Whilst there are plenty of examples of how public services can be made more efficient, this is not to say that the public sector is less efficient than the private sector. Indeed, benchmarks prove that parts of the public sector are significantly more efficient than some of the best examples in the private sector. There is no doubt that pressure to improve competitiveness, profit and the reward structure within the private sector incentivise efficiency, but the level of cuts now facing the public sector is creating an equivalent incentive.

So where do efficiencies lie? There are plenty of areas to examine:

We have too many contracts, often delivering too little value with too much supplier control. Greater risk management and understanding of risk by the public sector, rather than passing risk management to the private sector, is often a lower cost option. Suppliers need to take more ownership of the burden of change and the pressures facing the public sector - margins on some contracts are too high and contracts are too inflexible. Often a more intelligent client is needed to secure better value.

Standardising processes, especially around procurement, and administration but also in delivery. Operating through buying consortia on a shared service basis would significantly reduce the cost of contracts and allow rationalisation of those contracts without necessarily eroding profit margins.

A new balance needs to be struck between aggregation and disaggregation. Some things need to be aggregated and shared on a framework basis across all public service organisations. Other things should be disaggregated, especially to allow smaller companies to get involved with public service delivery. And, a particular 'bug bear' of mine, the number of contracts that have expensive embedded 'day rates' within them, need to be reviewed.

As the public service shrinks, we will have spare equipment which could be shared and passed on to others. But more importantly, why can't our own staff use their own equipment? Information security and protecting confidentiality is critical to retaining public confidence, but there are ways in which we can ensure a more sensible balance between the need for security and the flexibility that is going to become an inevitability to increase the productivity of those working in the public sector.

We can expect to see more use of personal equipment, more use of thin client technologies and Open Source, and in particular (and another 'bug bear' of mine) fewer printers. Printer ink costs more than rocket fuel and the environmental costs of printers serving small clusters of staff are high. Too many of us are lured by the low price of printers and forget the ongoing costs. Multifunction devices with 'pull' security are significantly cheaper, more secure, and have lower paper consumption and carbon footprint.

We also need to consider reducing internal support and access costs. Whether internal or outsourced, support services must shrink. Staff should be self sufficient for the majority of internal processes, and demands on internal help desks should reduce. This would allow us to cut back on IT, procurement, finance, HR, legal and other internal support. It is not that these are not important, its just that they are used far too heavy at times. If we expect citizens to use self service, we should expect our staff to do so as well. It is every employees' personal responsibility to ensure they have the skills to do this - and that includes using IT effectively. We should be less tolerant of IT illiteracy in our midst and of some excuses for not using perfectly good systems simply because they do not support the traditional ways of doing things.

Support costs can be reduced further by sharing them - eg: shared disaster recovery, out of hours support, reducing our dependence on external contractors and consultants by employing our own people at lower cost, and more.

We should also examine whether we really are using all our systems as effectively as we might? To what extent have we introduced costly tailoring around applications which make them impossible to share with other organisations? Do we enforce adoption and drive out paper based systems? Are we measuring and driving productivity improvements in delivery of projects and use of systems? Do we have business cases and business ownership for everything we do, leading to projects being better aligned and prioritised to service outcomes?

Channel shift is also vital in the drive to cut costs. Organisations should by now have identified all top transactions and be planning migration using a 'digital by default' strategy. This approach must include being prepared to switch off channels, adopting social networking tools and using customer insight to drive an overarching customer access strategy.

Done in the right way this can put the public in control of their data, records and their interactions with government - delivering a genuinely personalised service. And we need to dispel the myth that 'digital by default' is not inclusive - the majority of people have access to the internet, and this is going to grow. More importantly, designing services around the individual can reduce social exclusion and reflect the needs of minitorities.

Internal productivity is also important, can all employees work securely at home (or using a smart phone) when necessary, using their own equipment? Can you work in any local public service office, through an integrated PSN? Can you be contacted through a personalised number with presence management, or is your telephone system tied to a desk phone? Can you access core systems on the move and or on client premises or do you have to go back to the office or home in order to get secure access? Can you print anywhere - home or office - using a secure print service that does not leave paper churning out for others to see? All these things are possible today, and all of them will save cost within IT and more widely.

Across local government we are seeing clusters of organisations choosing to pool both back office and front office services. Collaboration is possible between Police, Fire, local councils, schools, Health services, the third sector, DWP and other central government services delivered locally. I know this is not easy. In particular requires IT as a pre-requisite - depending on shared communication systems, information systems, and infrastructure. This is why IT needs to come first, not as a support service afterthought in shared service planning.

We also need to be careful that in the changes ahead we do not end up with greater fragmentation. It would be disastrous in my view, if every group of GPs, academy school and other local public services decided to design, procure, negotiate, manage and develop their own IT infrastructure and services in the name of 'independence'.

In summary, IT has a key part to play in shaping the future of public services. It can underpin localism, public service efficiency and reform, shared services and transparency.

But we do need a different approach which sees IT as a source of innovation and a driver of change, not a simply as a support service. We also need to dispel some of the myths - that IT doesn't work well in the public sector, or that the private sector knows all the answers, or that outsourcing or 'cloud' are 'magic bullets'.

Above all, to be successful, there has to be cultural and business change within the public sector to exploit IT potential, achieved through strong leadership from within - innovation, inspiration, energy and commitment. That is easier with real support from the press, politicians and indeed the public.

So let's work together to make the impossible, possible.

Importantly, the research detailed inthe Shared Necessities Reportrecognises the role that IT has to play in enabling shared services. IT is not just a support service or a back office function which can be shared - it is a critical part and a vital component necessary to unlock wider shared services. Other ingredients matter, such as a willingness to change, competent change leadership and alignment of processes- but it is IT which will unlock the door and precede any significant shared service initiative.

These days there are few differences between the public and private sector - the level of risk, the complexity of delivery chains, customer drivers, even mergers and acquisitions. Ian Watmore (Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office) stated as much in a recent letter to the Times regarding transferability of public sector IT skills to the private sector.

Yet it seems to me at least that we do still see IT differently in the public sector. The public sector will still often view IT as a support service, a back office function and a cost centre - something about 'technology' and inherently high risk. Leaders in the private sector tend to view IT as a strategic enabler and a differentiator of customer service which can give competitive edge. They nurture IT as a source of innovation and as an agent of change - often as a resource more important than others.

There are examples of this difference. The recent 'Better Connected Survey' from Socitm, highlights very clearly that many local councils are still not seeing the opportunity of a 'digital by default' strategy. It also seems acceptable for some public sector employees to remain IT illiterate, even in senior positions.

Some public sector CIOs and IT Heads (still a more common title in the public sector) do not help. The mystique of the data centre is often still seen as a safe place to hide.

Suppliers are also at times part of the problem, over-selling technology - note for example that social networking and cloud computing are tools, not solutions.

Above all, we need to exorcise the public sector's fear of IT. IT is complex and risky, but the rewards in terms of efficiency, shared services, workforce productivity, asset rationalisation and customer service delivery are too compelling to ignore, and fear of the journey is sometimes resulting in a reluctance to travel at all.

Ironically, another barrier lies in the apparently flexibility of IT. As a district council Chief Executive said to me recently, 'why can't my corporate IT be like Amazon?' Of course it can be, but only with standardisation, and frankly the complexity of a typical local authority is greater than anything Amazon has to deal with, yet our resources far more limited.

Nonetheless, a lack of standardisation in the way we use systems and a lack common business processes, are inhibitors to shared services. A willingness to change and adopt new working practices and permit the integration of services across organisational boundaries, is only a starting point.

How often de we see the same system from the same supplier in neighbouring councils implemented differently with different costs, levels of support and integration challenges? This is one of the key reasons why shared services fail - the complexity and difficulties of integrating systems to integrate services has to be tackled, through standardisation and simplification.

So, whilst IT can be optimised to reflect local service needs, this can also result in a local lock-in which constrains shared services. So IT is both a key and a lock. The trick is to see it not as a support service, as a catalyst for change, with teams expected to work in new ways rather than allowed to continue in traditional furrows.

A blurring of the distinction between 'front office' and 'back office' would also help - what, for example, is web self service if it is not a front service delivered directly by IT?