"The programme will only achieve value for money in future if the Cabinet Office shows clear leadership"
Little chance of that happening then, you can't really expect clear leadership from the government.
Moves to shift departments' back office servers and ERP systems into two privately owned shared services centres - which had been touted as set to save the taxpayer £128m - have failed to prove "value for money", according to a report by the National Audit Office. The shared services centres, run separately by IT provider …
This post has been deleted by its author
Dear [Enter department name here],
We have recently noted that you are paying [a big number] for [something mildly useful]. Our shared service centre will, by buying efficiently in bulk ,save you [that big number multiplied by another big number we just made up].
Your sincerely
[Random management consultancy]
followed a few years later by
Dear [Enter department name here],
We have unfortunately discovered that [a big number] for [something mildly useful] was actually quite a fair price, given how your professional and experienced purchasing staff weren't idiots. We however have to add a) our commission, b) charges for services provided by our [enter tax haven here] subsidiary and c) the cost of writing this letter [we learnt point c) from the banks :-)] . Because of this the price of [something mildly useful] will be [a fair amount] higher than before. Please send the dosh in a brown envelope to [enter tax haven here] promptly.
Your sincerely
[Shared service manager (formerly of Random management consultancy plc]]
[Shared service manager (formerly of Random management consultancy plc]]
I can do you one better on that one. How about running an audit by the NAO when the head of said NAO just "happens" to be a former senior partner in the organisation under audit?
Yes, that really happened.
This post has been deleted by its author
The principle is absolutely sound - why on earth would you have multiple departments buying the same functional solutions from multiple vendors? The problem of course (as we all know) is the absolutely fantastic level of incompetence shown by those in charge of both setting up and running the Shared Service, along with those local departments that insist on the "I want to be in control and run things myself" attitude.
These sorts of initiatives can be extremely beneficial - for the consultants, vendors, and public servant careerists who successfully promote the mostly imaginary benefits. I understand the Canadian government is having much the same experiences with its version of shared services Hell. The reality is that the vendors quickly figure out how to game whatever system is set up.
Some years ago when I worked for the Canadian government, We were forced to buy IT hardware and software via standing offer arrangements with a few fortunate suppliers. This was supposed to save lots of money. In reality, the main effects were:
1. You ended up buying underspeced and often obsolescent gear. Upgrades were exorbitantly expensive.
2. Service was pathetically bad.
3. You were effectively restricted to buying software from a handful of well known US companies.
4. If you worked in an area, such as R&D, where the requirements did not fit the standard mold, at best it was difficult and time consuming to get what you needed, even if your management supported you. And God help you if they didn't.