By Tony Hallett, 23 May 2005 15:10
NEWS One of the UK's highest profile public sector IT bosses has spoken of the need to see beyond IT in overhauling public services, a view backed up by several of his peers today.
HM Revenue & Customs CIO Steve Lamey, appointed to that post last September, said he was surprised to hear, at the time he took over, how many Inland Revenue letters wouldn't reach their intended recipients - and that it even took him time to dig up the statistic on how many are sent each year.
He has identified a long list of challenges facing the combined tax entity, which came together from the merger of Customs & Excise and the Inland Revenue.
"Business process management is the key to efficiency," he said. "IT is a massive stimulator but not the only thing."
Keynoting at the Government UK IT Summit 2005 in London, he spoke several times about having "killer KPIs", referring to key performance indicators that many organisations use to improve how they operate.
Having IT goals in isolation is not the right way forward, was the clear message.
His views were widely backed by other users within the public sector, who are also feeling a change in providing services.
Some see the move to self-service as significant.
Stephen Hickey, director general DVO Group at the Department for Transport, said on a users panel: "The public sector is going through the same changes as supermarkets 30 years ago - it's about self-service," he said. "It's not just about taking cost out but empowering [citizens]."
Others point to shared services - where government departments or units don't reinvent the wheel - as an answer.
"But you can be hamstrung by the shared services agenda," added Lamey, saying the private sector - his background - demands faster change and even with the best will, cultural differences can make shared services difficult.
Andrew Budge, corporate services workstream leader at the OGC, said collaboration may be desirable and has been successful in cases but may not always be appropriate. "The vast majority of the public sector is not in central government," he said, alluding to the difficulty of finding some problems in common.
Outsourcing was also raised again in relation to public sector efficiency. While it has had its critics - and there are all types of examples, good and bad, of public sector outsourcing - Budge pointed to the example of Xansa working with the NHS.
"Xansa have brought rigour and consistency of process design, as well as marketing expertise," he said. "The private sector can bring something to the table but outsourcing per se is not the answer."
Comments
There is 1 comment. Join the discussion
1. Nick Cole
There are a number of factors involved. The biggest one is political interference and the propaganda impression that costing less equals being more efficient. No doubt it is cheaper but the fact you get what you pay for remains valid.
Secondly too many people fail to realise that technology is an enabler or a tool. Nothing else. It may be the be-all and end-all to an IT practitioner but whatever it is it must fit with the business need or process. At the end of the day it remains to meet the human to human need, whether it be groceries or social services. The limitations of technology will always incur limitations and constraints, and because human to human need encompasses an almost infinite number of probabilities then the technology tool must accommodate as much of these as possible in a cost-effective manner. If technology cannot cope with some of those probabilities then manual intervention must be included in the process.
If there are viable fall-backs for these extremities other than the call-centre black hole then they need to be exploited in the interests of efficiency. And efficiency merely reflects the costs and impact of meeting the demand. Cutting costs does not meet demand and in fact in strict terms is less efficient. But the conundrum is that paying more also doesn't make it more efficient.
The bean coounters will always prefer to spend their money on the 80% that is easily achievable, but it is the remaining 20% that creates inefficiency. Ignoring that 20% as is too often done nowadays generates the problems. So ultimately efficiency is all down to how well the whole is handled and not to how little the 80% costs.