Also known in these parts as "Make-it-up-as-they-go-along shysters"
Hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted on plans to digitise the criminal justice system due to the mismanagement of a key programme that has so far delivered little value to the taxpayer, according to multiple insiders. The Common Platform Programme (CPP) was supposed to be complete by March 2019. However, a …
Snake Oil Salesmen promoting something that is clearly FRAGILE
Then they come to the "Roundabout"
where they debate about "Five Percent of Nothing"
before going on a "Long distance Runaround"
And there is all ends with nothing delivered as all those involved get burned in the "Heart of the Sunrise"
You have to be of a certain age to get that.
Mines the one with a set of well thumbed "Yes" lyrics in the pocket.
The problem is that if you have no idea what you're actually buying (due to this damn political fetish for "new" and "hip" technology instead of something that has a solid and robust track record), you are likely to end up with Agile Excuses instead - all, of course, at the taxpayer's expense, because that is the one cert in all of this: someone is raking it in regardless, without a worry in the world about any consequences.
* small projects that are easy enough for people to fit all the components into their heads at once.
Anything seriously big needs proper design, otherwise the obvious things are done and the corner cases forgotten and the various pieces don't quite fit well with remote components.
The other thing about this project is that it will result in UK government outsourcing a lot of work to call centers, etc, India at a loss of UK jobs and skills - it might save MoJ some money but will end up costing the treasury many times more: less tax receipts and more dole money.
This is a common misconception - agile doesn't mean "no design" or "no planning", you should be doing that regardless of the size of your project.
This. A thousand times, this.
The trouble, I reckon, is that people fail to read sufficiently accurately; the Agile Manifesto says:
we have come to value ... Working software over comprehensive documentation
That's an entirely reasonable position, IMO - it is better to ship something that works and is not fully documented than to ship something with plenty of documentation that doesn't work. But countless groups have decided to interpret the above as "we don't need no steenking documentation", and have included all facets of project planning in the above.
Seems that, at this point in time, the UK Courts have neither.
Personally I think Agile or Waterfall make no difference if the project is not clearly defined and the steps to realizing said project not perfectly understood by everyone, from top managers to the underpaid code monkeys that hammer their keyboards.
It's time to stop thinking that we can implement country-wide IT projects without a year or two of high-level, expert study and preparation, followed by ruthless implementation of said project.
I'll always remember the best project manager I ever met - it was in an industrial tire-making plant. When we went to progress meetings, there was an agenda he had sent to the participants. Anything outside the agenda was mercilessly swatted aside with an imperious remark to the effect that that was not on the agenda. Any suggestion for additional functionality or unplanned functionality improvement was automatically put on the list for v1.1. And nobody dared complain.
End result ? Project delivered on spec, on cost and on time, with discussions for that famous v1.1 to happen later.
Greatest project I ever worked on.
This, 1000x this.
I work in public sector "digital" and it's a constant source of dismay how many projects try to disguise a lack of getting the fundamentals right (be that understanding requirements, senior-level buy-in, having a PM who understands what they're doing, whatever) behind the veneer of "Agile".
The reason these projects fail often has little to do with the methodology they employ, and a lot more to do with the people involved.
It's nothing new - ten years ago everyone in the public sector blindly applied PRINCE2 and hoped for good outcomes as well.
"Anything outside the agenda was mercilessly swatted aside with an imperious remark to the effect that that was not on the agenda."
I take it that if the plant caught fire during a meeting the fire alarm would have been ignored because it wasn't on the agenda.
True, but most things called "agile" depend more on user engagement.
Seems to me that, instead of overselling the product, which is what normally happens with government IT projects, here what's been oversold is the methodology. Somebody heard about "agile", went and read a book about "scrum" and assumed it was the same thing. Someone else - didn't. So as well as "no agreed product plan", there's also "no meeting of minds on project plan".
The Common Platform Programme (CPP) was supposed to be complete by March 2019 at a total cost of £350m. However, a spokeswoman from HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) said the programme will not be complete until 2020 at a revised cost of £270m.
Hi, Kat Hall/El Reg,
??? Does that paragraph need revision and rewriting...... for it does not support the report headline ...Hundreds of millions 'wasted' on UK court digitisation scheme
I see it's been revised now - by taking out the initial figure.
So it still doesn't support the headline, but at least it doesn't actively contradict it any more...... veti
Hmmm? If/When the correct initial figure is £35m (rather than a typo £350m) is the undisputed £270m a disgraceful abuse and scandalous misuse of privilege and quite PAR for the course of serially inept and conveniently exempt from punitive accountability, exclusive executive office. A sad and sorry perverse and naturally corrupting state for both national and international, and virtually internetional affairs, and then is the headline more than just accurate and supportive.
New research suggests Stonehenge was (ancient) Britain's first multi-role combat aircraft project.
Of course as requirements changed and the technology under-delivered on promised performance
some aspects of the aircraft role were reduced in line with expected outcomes.
In a boiler plate response, an HMCTS spokeswoman said: "The Common Platform Programme is a partnership between HMCTS, the Crown Prosecution Service and police and has strong support from the judiciary.
"It provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to design and build a fully connected criminal courtroom by 2020.
As so frequently the case, laudable aims. As frequently the case a shame no one had the nouse to plan it properly. Without any attempt to to do any sort of rapid prototyping either (with there intention of throwing away the prototypes rather than incorporating them into the end design, I would be prepared to bet that the requirements developed over 18 months(!) will be a long way from optimal, and when the have to be redeveloped will further add to cost and delay.
It reminds me about talking with some of the people tasked with speccing and delivering part of the crashed & burnt NHS system. I was flabbergasted to discover that at this point they had not even discussed them with the medical staff who were due to use the damn thing. "we wanted to get it right before we showed them". Honest not making it up.
The management consultants responsible (I have no reason too suppose they were lying) know who they are - as do most of the readers of this piece.
a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to modernise the criminal justice system
This point of view seems to embody the characteristic failure mode of these monster public-sector projects. Instead of building on what's already in place, they have a megalomaniac urge to throw everything away and start again.
My experience (admittedly on a relatively microscopic scale) is that this attitude is common among people who lack the patience, or the ability, to examine the existing solutions properly.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
As a US reader, I am left wondering if any Government IT project in the UK has ever worked. I am continually astonished at the vast amounts of money used to build a database, since most of these projects are to build a database. With what they need, wouldn't a simple database containing the case info (names, charges, judge, attorneys) that links to a moodle course with all the information be sufficient? Moodle is open-source, free, robust, and can store and display all the types of files (and more) needed.
"As a US reader, I am left wondering if any Government IT project in the UK has ever worked."
There are projects that have worked. However they're not as newsworthy as those that fail so you don't hear about them. That's a pity on several levels. One advantage of publicising them would be to let it be known in the public sector that failure shouldn't be regarded as an expected outcome. Another would be to have exemplars of how to do things right.
The UK-Gov approach is one (like many other governments) of Babble and Dabble.
The main supplier is usually mr. Rubble and the main promotions, bonusses usually go to the lawyers and managers who have been liberated of having to produce something on-time that actually works, by automating concepts like "flexibility" "agility" and replacing "specifications" and "designs" with those.
If we compare IT to regular construction it is probably akin to making construction more agile by denying the need for separate electricians, gas-fitters, but instead divide "technicians" into small groups where they will informally receive "wishes" and immediately set about making them. Since this method is bound to be cheaper and better than working with designs, the scope can easily be up-scaled to maximize the output.
Agile was supposed to fix the problems of vast specs that didn't respond to change very well.
The thing is, the problem wasn't really the system, it's the people on the whole.
Divas. BOFHs. Lazy gits. Incompetent PMs. Clueless bosses. Those are the real problems.
Moving all that crap to Agile doesn't fix it, it just makes it more self-contained.
'We’ve developed the video (below) that outlines how the CJS Common Platform Programme is designing and delivering a shared process to transform the way practitioners in the criminal justice system work'.
"an identity access management system to allow professionals to log on and view cases remotely, has yet to be delivered despite £40m having been spent on it."
How? Is it being delivered by someone who sent them an unsolicited email. "I would be happy to provide your idenitity management system, for just £10,000" "sadly your transfer failed" "a local tax change means I need 25,000" ... ... "gangsters" ... ... "wombats" ... ... "nearly there, I just need another 5 million, then I will be able to provide the system and marry you
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021