Slashdot Mirror
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."
Then either they needed something highly specific, or this guy isn't qualified to evaluate technology.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Even though the article is also lean on the details, at least it provides the actual quote, which is:
"It relies not on large amounts of tin, black boxes, but uses open source and mechanisms on the web to store and access data,” Shiplee told MPs. When asked why he didn’t adopt this approach two and a half years ago at the start of the project, Shiplee said: “Technology is moving very rapidly, such things weren’t available as they are today.”
Ok, so "such things" - does not necessarily refer to "open source". It may (and probably does) refer to "mechanisms on the web to store and access data". Perhaps something "in the cloud", given that article does not provide sufficient detail - hard to say.
Before people blow up :-)
- This usually means that the department wasn't permitted to use 'un-vetted/approved/etc' software at that time (it may have been that they actually /wanted/ to use something open source 2 years ago, but various bits of bureaucracy didn't allow for it)
This is government after all :-)
Shiplee said: “Technology is moving very rapidly, such things weren’t available as they are today.”
If you actually read the contents of the article, it seems that Howard Shiplee was taken out of context. (Say it aint so)
It seems to me that lots and lots of small components were available for the final software product, but due to the complexities of navigating a large bureaucracy, larger systems that closely fit the requirements were needed. At the end of the day, it's just boxes on a piece of paper to an architectural "expert" somewhere. At the end of the day, it's all about risk, and how that risk is managed. The usual trick for middle management to keep their jobs, is to get the risk exported.
“You would find it very hard to find vendors in the market place to do this work at full risk. So the department took up the risk.”
Anyone who understands the concept that an entity, both corporate or government can't export risk is deserving of respect. Sure, you can have contracts with vendors that give guaranteed SLA's, but at the end of the day, if a government service goes down, and there's a 100% risk export, for sure when the media gets to it, "IBM messed up, it's not our fault!" simply doesn't cut it. A ton of mud will still stick to those who are beholden to the responsibility of a service that they provide.
Even financially, the risk that is exported is only ever as good as the other companies working capital and professional indemnity insurance.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
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.
Some of these people literally believe that the Internet is a corporate creation that was spearheaded by Bill Gates... so you can see how solidly they understand the history of networking.
A buddy of mine was once consulting for a firm whose new "CTO" argued with him, vehemently insisting that Bill Gates invented TCP/IP...
Pretty funny coming from a guy who didn't bother reading the article.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
"Keeping up with the times" is important, if you're - for example - administering a hospital, and physician satisfaction (an item that's almost entirely perception) is a major consideration for retaining high-quality staff.
I've worked in healthcare IT pretty much forever, and there's a lot more to appearances than meets the eye... ..or I suppose it's exactly what meets they eye :)
I've been using the OpenOffice suite in one of its various previous or successor incarnations for nearly 15 years now, so yeah, its clearly not true that there were no usable Open Source alternatives 2 and a half years ago.
However, what has happened in the last two and a half years is that Google Docs acquired the capability to use old Microsoft formats (in April of 2010 to be precise) and work offline (September of 2011). If they are using Google Docs and consider all its cloud-based collaboration features along with Microsoft file support and/or offline capability essential features that make their new setup worthwhile, then its perfectly fair to point out that this alternative was not available two and a half years ago.
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Bah! The Internet and the World were only created last Tuesday. Any history before that is just a test of true believers in Last Tuesday-ism I dare you to prove otherwise! Also, don't listen to those Last Wednesday heretics. They're just crazy.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The guy must have just broke out of a block of ice and still thinks it's 1978. On the plus side, he missed Jersey Shore and the Kardashians.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
No. He was just mis-quoted to get people all pissed off and get some ad revenue.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
(should be +5 insightful right there)
There have been many companies *cough* Microsoft *cough* whose stock answer since the early 1990s has been "throw more hardware at the problem" (because of the implicit "our new software soaks up so much more system resources than the old stuff, that you'll need it").
It's only in the last few years that the hardware has overtaken the software so much that people forget how bad the "new stuff isn't any faster than the old stuff" had got.
instead of the software supporting the business, the business has to adapt to the way the software works.
A previous boss of mine (company director) stated "the needs of the business dictate the IT required. Not the other way round" Unfortunately, there are so many instances of the IT tail wagging the business dog that it really isn't funny any more (as if it ever was). Sharepoint, I'm looking at you, here (amongst many others on the wall of shame)
"She's furniture with a pulse"
No, the World was created 1386723418 seconds ago, according to date +%s.
before giving the headline or summary any attention what so ever you need to take note of "Posted by Soulskill", that is all you needed to do to be certain that the summary bears no resemblance to the actual article and has been twisted to some sort of flamebait.