By Tim Ferguson, 20 December 2007 15:37
NEWS
A third of public sector data systems are not sufficiently robust for the demands they face.
A report by the National Audit Office (NAO) into the quality of government data systems said although these systems were broadly appropriate, 35 per cent need strengthening to be resilient enough for purpose.
Full Disclosure campaign
silicon.com is aiming to make businesses and government take data security more seriously. Read more here.
The NAO looked at 237 data systems in 17 government departments to measure progress against Public Service Agreements for improvements made between 2005 and 2008.
A further eight per cent of these were deemed "not fit for purpose" while it was judged too early to tell with another six per cent. One per cent of the systems the government had committed to had not even been built.
The remaining 50 per cent of data systems required no further work according to the NAO.
The report found government departments have generally improved the quality of their data systems.
According to the NAO although improvements have been made to existing systems, there seemed to be a lack of learning from past mistakes when developing new data systems.
Head of the NAO, Sir John Bourn, said good quality data is essential for the effective operation of targets for public sector accountability.
He added that departments must learn from improvements made on existing systems and transfer these to new projects for people to have confidence in their performance.
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. Jeremy Wickins
This implies that two-thirds of public sector data systems are okay. There is little practical evidence of this, so how was the measuring done?? We need to know, because this report could lead to complacency.
2. Karen Challinor
only a third ?
from the stories we've seen lately HMG computer systems seem to consist of an ancient 8086 based machine in the corner of a filing cabinet, under a dust sheet with instructions from on high to new staff saying "if you need any of that computerey stuff speak to jenkins when he gets back from his hols, his son has one of those console thingeys, he'll know what to do"
as for the "lack of learning from past mistakes" this can be explained by looking at transfers of staff within HMG
the sequence goes start a project and get about 50% of the way through, get promoted or transferred off the back of this, then the fundamental flaws are found in the project
in other words the people who need to learn from the mistakes are no longer there to learn from them