Open Source 'Wasn't Available' Two Years Ago, Says UK Gov't IT Project Chief

An anonymous reader writes "The head of delivery for the UK's Department for Work and Pensions' flagship welfare reform project, Universal Credit, has said that the department didn't adopt open source and web-based technologies at the beginning of the project because 'such things weren't available' two and a half years ago. Howard Shiplee told the Work and Pensions Committee this week that the department is now using open source technologies in its enhanced version of Universal Credit, which was initially developed by the Government Digital Service (GDS) and will be rolled out nationally by 2017 for most claimants. The existing system being used in pathfinder pilots and developed by the likes of IBM, HP and Accenture will be largely be replaced by the digital version."

Comments

WTF?

[gstoddart]

The head of delivery for the UK's Department for Work and Pensions' flagship welfare reform project, Universal Credit, has said that the department didn't adopt open source and web-based technologies at the beginning of the project because 'such things weren't available' two and a half years ago.

Then either they needed something highly specific, or this guy isn't qualified to evaluate technology.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Then either they needed something highly specific.

My guess is: a non-functional, extremely expensive closed-source product offered by a good friend

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

You gotta understand, to a lot of stuffed shirt types Microsoft *is* (or at least was) all of I.T. It's because there idiots listen to the loudest marketing department, and FOSS doesn't really have one by design.

Where I work we're dealing with same thing because of our MBA shit leadership. They firmly believe that the more money paid the better the software, meaning our "enterprise" labors under super-expensive and horrible software.

Re:WTF?

[compro01]

And closed source stuff only costs the price they quote if your time has no value.

Re:WTF?

[exomondo]

I was wondering myself, incompetent or corrupt?

You mean the author of the article right?

Re:WTF?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Not really. You're forgetting the additional support and customization costs which are not covered by the standard contract. And the yearly upgrade/renewal costs.

Re:On inappropriate expectations

[sd4f]

Probably not far off the mark. I'm noticing it in Australia, and not just in the public service, that hardware like tablets, don't appear to be solving anything or improving productivity, it mostly appears like as if they're shoehorning them in because people want them or they want to appear like they're keeping up with the times.

Re:Asleep at the switch

[GodfatherofSoul]

Pretty funny coming from a guy who didn't bother reading the article.

Re:On inappropriate expectations

[Bert64]

It's not just tablets, organisations everywhere have for years been deploying new technology that brings with it the promise of improved productivity. In reality it often does not... You take old hardware and old software that works just fine, and spend a fortune replacing it with new faster hardware running new slower software. The end result often isn't any faster, and users have to take time getting used to it while not using any of the new features. Often the new version is much worse than what it replaced, and instead of the software supporting the business, the business has to adapt to the way the software works.