Then someone updates HMRC digital team plights troth to wrong Liege and forgets about it ...
... until recently.
You will notice that GDS were trying to measure how digital central government is, department by department. The data they used is repeated below. You won't be surprised which department wins ...
Department |
Digital take-up*
|
Total cost*
|
Data coverage*
|
Transactions per year
|
HM Revenue and Customs |
91.90%
|
£528m
|
77.30%
|
1,233,662,926
|
Department for Transport |
57.40%
|
£268m
|
73.60%
|
130,337,698
|
Home Office |
4.83%
|
£1.43bn
|
76.20%
|
126,270,677
|
Department for Work and Pensions |
17.20%
|
£3.77bn
|
95.80%
|
107,781,180
|
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills |
82.40%
|
£242m
|
54%
|
40,513,661
|
Department of Health |
40.80%
|
£308m
|
61.90%
|
33,647,220
|
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs |
86.60%
|
£101m
|
76.20%
|
22,580,710
|
Ministry of Justice |
21.40%
|
£5.02m
|
52.40%
|
8,508,685
|
Cabinet Office |
100%
|
£32.1k
|
100%
|
4,870,984
|
Department of Energy and Climate Change |
1,331,834
|
|||
Foreign and Commonwealth Office |
549,065
|
|||
Department for Communities and Local Government |
515,756
|
|||
Ministry of Defence |
477,707
|
|||
Department for Education |
245,144
|
|||
Attorney General's Office |
65,658
|
|||
Department for Culture, Media and Sport |
33,589
|
|||
Department for International Development |
21,001
|
|||
* Figures are based on data for high-volume services only |
... yes, the Cabinet Office, which includes GDS, has 100% digital take-up (whatever that means) and 100% data coverage (whatever that means) and it's the winner.
That was 18 months ago. The figures were questionable.
Now, if you look at the services data on the performance platform, you find that GDS have stopped trying to measure digital take-up and data coverage. They list 802 public services and they have data on 571 of them which, between them, notch up 2.38 billion transactions p.a.
Take a look at GDS's data and you see that the 802 public services are divided up, department by department, as follows:
Department | No. services |
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills | 177 |
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs | 118 |
Department of Health | 98 |
Department for Transport | 77 |
Department of Energy & Climate Change | 67 |
Department for Work and Pensions | 48 |
Department for Culture, Media & Sport | 43 |
Home Office | 41 |
HM Revenue & Customs | 34 |
Ministry of Justice | 29 |
Foreign & Commonwealth Office | 18 |
Department for Education | 11 |
Cabinet Office | 11 |
HM Treasury | 10 |
Valuation Office Agency | 9 |
Department for International Development | 3 |
Department for Communities and Local Government | 3 |
Ministry of Defence | 2 |
Attorney General's Office | 2 |
UK Export Finance | 1 |
Does the Department for Communities and Local Government really offer only three services? And the Ministry of Defence just two?
Again, the figures seem questionable.
GDS keep promising us canonical registers. On which government policy can be based rationally. Their performance platform omits data on the Government Gateway. And it omits data on the Basic Payment Scheme for farmers. And it doesn't look as though GDS can even count public services.
The Office for National Statistics have got a lot of work to do to bring GDS up to speed on data science. Willing enthusiasm isn't enough.
How can GDS be ready to build Government as a Platform?
Tomorrow they're attending – or possibly even hosting – a seminar on blockchain, Blockchain: exploring uses in government. Are they ready for that?
2 comments:
The counting has been poor for over 3 years. GDS asked departments to report how many services they had. BIS counted every single application form they offered as a service and came out top. Meanwhile, HMRC counted a service at the level of Business Tax, not even Corporation tax, and woefully understating the complexity of the tax system. Nobody in GDS questioned the numbers and they appeared *everywhere*.
As for transaction explorer, the numbers don't add up. There are some gaping holes that make the data useless apart from as isolated data points at the lowest level. Such a missed opportunity.
Thank you for your comment, Anonymous at 12:13 on 26 April 2016.
From what you say, GDS aren't interested in data after all. In that case, their policy is not the logical implication of the facts before them. It must be driven by something else. What? Some prior agenda? Personal preference? Fashion?
Post a comment