GDS are drowning. Time to launch the lifeboats

17 April 2013, Welcoming DWP to GOV.UK:

Today we welcome the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to GOV.UK. DWP is the 21st department to move to the Inside Government section of GOV.UK. It has joined Inside Government with almost 900 publications, 9 new policies, a host of case studies, and detailed guidance on Universal Credit and workplace pensions.

That's what it says on the Government Digital Service (GDS) blog. What does it mean?

GDS are meant to be creating a single government domain. Taking DWP as an example, all of their web content should now appear under https://www.gov.uk (known as "GOV.UK"), and their old website, http://www.dwp.gov.uk, should have disappeared.

When GDS welcome DWP to GOV.UK does that mean that http://www.dwp.gov.uk has disappeared?

One way to find out. Do a test.

This test is suggested by last week's Private Eye, #1338.

Go to DWP's State Pension if you retire abroad page. That's on GOV.UK alright. Under You’ve only worked in the UK click on online and you are taken to an http://www.dwp.gov.uk page. That shouldn't exist any more – like HMRC, DWP has been only partially welcomed to GOV.UK, the rest of it is still in its old principal primary residence.

Take a look at that DWP page.

This service doesn’t work with some modern browsers and operating systems. Tell me more We are considering how best to provide this service in future. You may want to claim in another way.

So much for public services becoming digital by default. It is GDS's job to make it possible for people to claim on-line:

• To do that, GDS want to replace the Government Gateway with something better. They may want to but they haven't.
• They have also promised to provide identity assurance services so that applicants can be identified. They may have promised to but they haven't.

GDS have left DWP no alternative but to tell claimants that "you may want to claim in another way".

Click on the Tell me more link on the DWP page above. You are greeted with:

What do I need? This page explains: what software you need to use this service how to print your transaction how the service uses cookies. If you use Jaws or Supernova screen readers, we apologise for any problems you may experience. You may wish to claim in another way. Operating systems and browsers The service does not work properly with Macs or other Unix-based systems even though you may be able to input information. You are likely to have problems if you use Internet Explorer 7, 8, 9 and 10, Windows Vista or a smartphone. Clearing temporary internet files may help but you may wish to claim in another way. There is also a high risk that if you use browsers not listed below, including Chrome, Safari or Firefox, the service will not display all the questions you need to answer. This is likely to prevent you from successfully completing or submitting the form. You may wish to claim in another way. What the service was designed to work with The service was designed to work with the following operating systems and browsers. Many of these are no longer available. Microsoft Windows 98: Internet Explorer versions 5.0.1, 5.5 and 6.0 Netscape 7.2 Microsoft Windows ME Internet Explorer version 5.5 and 6.0 Netscape 7.2 [and so it goes on ...]

GDS have a project called "assisted digital" which is meant to help people unfamiliar with the web to use it to communicate with the government. What are these people to make of the page above?

What is anyone to make of it?

As far as the Government Gateway is concerned, someone has designed an alternative and Mr Toby Stevens has kindly provided a recent progress report, Real Time Identity?. The alternative gateway depends on identity assurance services (IDA), which GDS have failed to provide, and on a number of communications hubs:

In the IDA model, the government provides a number of ‘federation hubs’, which provide the data-matching, anonymisation and audit services to support interaction between a market of identity providers (IDPs) and the government departments that will consume identity information.

If communication between claimants and government departments is to be anonymous, it's hard to see how transactions can be audited. If, on the other hand, transactions can be audited, then how can communication be anonymous?

Mr Stevens, it should be said, is not responsible for this dilemma, he is merely reporting it.

While this dilemma of GDS's persists there is nothing the UK's eight so-called "identity providers" (IDPs) can do. They only have an 18-month exclusive contract. Their time is running out. Soon they could face competition from the banks and the phone companies and Google and Facebook and Twitter and ... with nothing to show for all their efforts to date.

And while DWP and the IDPs are suffering this frustration what are GDS doing?

Apart from publishing self-congratulatory blog posts about partially re-writing websites, GDS are working on individual electoral registration (IER).

They have been retained to see if the electoral register can be made more complete and accurate by cross-referencing it to DWP's national insurance number (NINO) database.

Why?

You would expect that job to be given to a university or to one of the credit referencing agencies or maybe to one of the management consultancies. GDS are website designers. They have no special expertise in data-matching.

Nor do GDS have the time. They've got work to do on identity assurance and the Government gateway and assisted digital. They don't have time to work on IER as well.

What's more, this cross-referencing is illegal.

And further, the IER pilot studies GDS have taken part in demonstrate that, legal or not, cross-referencing isn't going to help.

The exercise is matching no more than 72% of the people on the electoral register to the people on the NINO database. That's even worse than the Identity & Passport Service achieved with biometrics. It's a waste of time. Someone should call a halt now. But, no, GDS are due to conduct an illegal, pointless and nationwide IER cross-referencing exercise this summer.

The National Audit Office has noticed the problem and so has Parliament – an early day motion has been put down to debate digital-by-default. Someone in the upper echelons of the civil service must have noticed these deficiencies. Some ministers may even have noticed – GDS are drowning. Time to launch the lifeboats and bring them back to shore and to safety.

Leave a gift in your will

GDS are drowning. Time to launch the lifeboats

17 April 2013, Welcoming DWP to GOV.UK:

Today we welcome the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to GOV.UK. DWP is the 21st department to move to the Inside Government section of GOV.UK. It has joined Inside Government with almost 900 publications, 9 new policies, a host of case studies, and detailed guidance on Universal Credit and workplace pensions.

That's what it says on the Government Digital Service (GDS) blog. What does it mean?

GDS are meant to be creating a single government domain. Taking DWP as an example, all of their web content should now appear under https://www.gov.uk (known as "GOV.UK"), and their old website, http://www.dwp.gov.uk, should have disappeared.

When GDS welcome DWP to GOV.UK does that mean that http://www.dwp.gov.uk has disappeared?

One way to find out. Do a test.

Joined up government – national identity register rejected, and will be compiled this summer

What was it Mr Maude said? Oh yes:

We want people to be able to interact with government online, for example, in applying for benefits or a disabled parking permit, in a way that is quick, easy and secure. To do this we need to give them a way of proving their identity online, but only if they choose to. This would be done without a national, central scheme.

That was back in April 2012 when he was angry with the Guardian for misrepresenting him:

This is not a question of increasing the volume of data-sharing that takes place across government, but ensuring an appropriate framework is in place so that government can deliver more effective, joined-up and personalised public services, through effective data-linking.

There it is. Government policy:

• No single, central, national identity register.
• No increase in data-sharing between government departments.
• Effective data-linking, on the other hand, is a good thing because it will allow people to identify themselves on-line when transacting with the government.

Here we are now a year later and what do we find?

We find the Cabinet Office paper Simplifying the transition to Individual Electoral Registration (hat tip: Owen Boswarva).

Individual electoral registration is designed to make sure that the data held on the electoral register is accurate and up to date and it is designed to make sure that all eligible electors and only eligible electors are registered.

We've come across this before in Identity assurance – shall we vote on it?. Individual electoral registration is being championed by Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister. He wants to continue the practice of creating a single, national electoral/identity register:

13. ... The full register is already made available under current legislation to a number of government organisations for official purposes ... In addition the full register is also supplied to credit reference agencies ...

And he wants to tidy up the data on the register by sharing data between Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and DWP and other government departments. That is illegal according to the impact assessment report on individual electoral registration:

Key assumptions/sensitivities/risks: Data matching – national rollout would require primary legislation.

But he wants to proceed anyway and in this simplifying-the-transition document, the Cabinet Office say (para.3.3):

In summer 2013 every Local Authority in England, Wales and the Scottish Valuation Joint Boards will participate in a Confirmation Dry Run. This will provide the opportunity for each ERO to complete a fully IT enabled dry-run of the confirmation process and obtain indicative match results for their area. This information can then be used to assist in the planning and allocation of resources for the transition.

"Match results"? What's that? It involves comparing the electoral register with the Department for Work and Pensions national insurance number database and (para.2.5):

Where they had the capacity to do so, a number of pilot areas also opted to use locally held data sets (for example Council Tax data or Housing Benefit data) to conduct supplementary data matching.

and (para.3.3):

Comparisons of ward level match rates and data from the 2011 England and Wales Census provide further support ...

There has been no primary legislation to legalise this increased national data-sharing. It is proceeding against the law and against Mr Maude's stated policy. And it will produce a single, central database which, Mr Maude said last year, is anathema.

Who is responsible for testing data-matching for individual electoral registration?

You can bet that the Home Office's Identity & Passport Service (IPS) are involved. They hold all the passport data and their chief executive doubles as the Registrar General of England and Wales.

As it happens, you lose your bet (para.2.3). IPS are still persona non grata:

This process was carried out by the Government Digital Service (GDS) for the purposes of the pilot, using criteria developed by the Cabinet Office in conjunction with ...

What do you make of all that?

Joined up government – national identity register rejected, and will be compiled this summer

What was it Mr Maude said? Oh yes:

We want people to be able to interact with government online, for example, in applying for benefits or a disabled parking permit, in a way that is quick, easy and secure. To do this we need to give them a way of proving their identity online, but only if they choose to. This would be done without a national, central scheme.

That was back in April 2012 when he was angry with the Guardian for misrepresenting him:

This is not a question of increasing the volume of data-sharing that takes place across government, but ensuring an appropriate framework is in place so that government can deliver more effective, joined-up and personalised public services, through effective data-linking.

There it is. Government policy:

• No single, central, national identity register.
• No increase in data-sharing between government departments.
• Effective data-linking, on the other hand, is a good thing because it will allow people to identify themselves on-line when transacting with the government.

Here we are now a year later and what do we find?

GDS: not governance as we know it

Still no progress on identity assurance, but the Government Digital Service (GDS) have now published From the centre and here to help.

GDS have produced the Government Service Design Manual and the question is, how can they enforce these standards across Whitehall and local government?

That governance question is tackled by ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, executive director of GDS and senior responsible officer owner for the pan-government Identity Assurance programme (IDAP). He abjures the old-style "dead hand of bureaucratic overkill". (Who doesn't?) He recommends instead a more collaborative form of governance, "help from the centre".

How does that work? What will GDS do if a department of state ignores the new Government Service Design Manual?

The matter is raised in a comment on his blog post (submitted too late to be published today). We look forward to the answer:

dmossesq # Please Note: Your comment is awaiting moderation. When Martha Lane Fox wrote the Constitution for GDS and said that “[GDS] SWAT teams … should be given a remit to support and challenge departments and agencies … We must give these SWAT teams the necessary support to challenge any policy and legal barriers which stop services being designed around user needs” never had support sounded so minatory. The department’s policy displeases GDS? Support it out of the way! What GDS want is illegal? Challenge the law until it complies with the users’ needs and, if there’s any doubt what those needs are, let GDS decide. It was hard to believe at the time – 14 October 2012 – that this constitution would be adopted but, wrong, it now has the support of Sir Jeremy Heywood, Sir Bob Kerslake and Minister of State, Francis Maude. According to the post above: “… ‘Governance’ is a top-down term. Monthly meetings, forests of paper, dozens of steering boards and the natural exclusivity, which comes with managers of large budgets making decisions for all – these are all indicators of a hierarchical approach”. That sounds a bit old-fashioned, perhaps. These days: “The centre of government’s digital estate needs to free up departments and agencies to deliver; it needs to provide support, link up a sometimes divided community and help bottom-up, user-focused services to develop. Setting standards and managing them have their place, but this manual is designed to free up government from the dead hand of bureaucratic overkill. This browser-based service will accelerate decision making and remove the need for many boards and unwieldy processes. As our digital services become primarily digital, the tools and governance we use should reflect that”. Governance now is more about freeing up and support and linking up and helping. But hang on a minute. What does a modern, supportive GDS do if a department departs from the published standards? If they just ignore this derogation, that’s not governance at all. If, on the other [hand], GDS remonstrates with the department and finally imposes its will, how is that different from the old-fashioned “dead hand of bureaucratic overkill”? It may help to take an example. GDS wants digital-by-default. DWP have elected for the opposite when it comes to Universal Credit. They’re planning for face-to-face meetings, telephone calls and letters in the post. There’s a little test of the new governance model. Are GDS going to support DWP until UC becomes digital-by-default? Or are they going to stand by and watch while DWP ignore them? 16/04/2013

----------

29 April 2013

A response to the comment above has now (29.4.13 09:52) been published on the GDS blog. See what you make of it.

GDS: not governance as we know it

Still no progress on identity assurance, but the Government Digital Service (GDS) have now published From the centre and here to help.

GDS have produced the Government Service Design Manual and the question is, how can they enforce these standards across Whitehall and local government?

That governance question is tackled by ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, executive director of GDS and senior responsible officer owner for the pan-government Identity Assurance programme (IDAP). He abjures the old-style "dead hand of bureaucratic overkill". (Who doesn't?) He recommends instead a more collaborative form of governance, "help from the centre".

How does that work? What will GDS do if a department of state ignores the new Government Service Design Manual?

Cloud computing – away with the fairies

We all know that the present arrangements for government computing in the UK can't go on. We're in the pan fat.

Instead, we should adopt cloud computing. That would solve the problem, say many commentators. They're well-meaning, no doubt. But wouldn't cloud computing simply move us into the fire?

It certainly looks like it. Cloud computing is meant to be a sort of utility – you get rid of the overheads and only pay for what you use. It sounds eminently sensible until you remember what's happening to your utility bills right now – they're going through the roof.

But that wouldn't happen with cloud computing, say the well-meaners. The G-Cloud people in Whitehall, for example, claim to believe that the suppliers of cloud services want nothing more than to cut their prices and increase the quality of service.

Amazon, for example. They're the biggest suppliers of cloud in the world. They wouldn't put their prices up. Would they?

They just did. Amazon's fees hike for third-party traders provokes fury:

'Marketplace' traders in UK and major European markets to be hit by fee hikes of up to 70% after Easter, following similar rises in US ... Amazon is facing a revolt from small traders as the internet retailer – which describes itself as "Earth's most customer-centric" company – plans to impose a wave of fee rises on third parties who use its network to sell consumer electronics, automotive parts and other goods in the UK and across Europe ... The fee increases – which in some cases amount to as much as 70% – have left traders furious, although none are prepared to go on the record because they are concerned about how Amazon will respond.

Cloud computing – away with the fairies

We all know that the present arrangements for government computing in the UK can't go on. We're in the pan fat.

Instead, we should adopt cloud computing. That would solve the problem, say many commentators. They're well-meaning, no doubt. But wouldn't cloud computing simply move us into the fire?

It certainly looks like it. Cloud computing is meant to be a sort of utility – you get rid of the overheads and only pay for what you use. It sounds eminently sensible until you remember what's happening to your utility bills right now – they're going through the roof.

But that wouldn't happen with cloud computing, say the well-meaners. The G-Cloud people in Whitehall, for example, claim to believe that the suppliers of cloud services want nothing more than to cut their prices and increase the quality of service.

Amazon, for example. They're the biggest suppliers of cloud in the world. They wouldn't put their prices up. Would they?

Martin Sorrell: if you don’t eat your children, someone else will

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks back, Mr Sorrell explained quite openly what he means when he says that Business must embrace this digital revolution:

How can legacy businesses keep their traditional, profitable operations going, while the new digital upstarts bite into their businesses? It’s the old cannibalisation argument – if you don’t eat your children, someone else will.

He makes two points. One about data ...

We are increasingly embracing the application of technology to our business, along with big data, which means we are Maths Men as well as Mad Men ... the application of technology and big data have become areas of competitive differentiation ... the new and more complex sources of data, which these new media bring, mean that measurement of effectiveness and return on investment has become more achievable – although media fragmentation has made it more complex ... Big data – which to me means the collection of all sources of data (ours and our competitors’) and deployment on dashboards in real time – is for the first time a real possibility.

... and one about clients:

... our target customer is no longer just the chief executive officer and chief marketing officer but, increasingly, the chief information officer or chief technology officer, along with the chief procurement officer and chief financial officer.

Mr Sorrell's companies, remember, are the true users of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, et al –  together, the latter-day Pied Pipers of Hamelin.

You don't spend a farthing on using Google, Facebook and the others. Whereas Mr Sorrell's companies spend £46 billion a year with the Pied Pipers. They count. You don't.

To make sure that the money is spent wisely, the Mad Men need data. Lots of it. Remember that, when you read about the Department for Business Innovation and Skills's midata initiative. BIS may say that you will be in control of your own data. With £46 billion at stake, forget it.

The personal data to be stored by midata is indistinguishable in Whitehall's eyes from the government/public data to be mined for the UK's big data applications. You know that. That's why the same man is in charge of both projects – Professor Nigel Shadbolt.

Ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, chief executive of the Government Digital Service (GDS), has recently announced changes in the governance of Whitehall, promoting CIOs (chief information officers) as the main ideas men for new digital services. When Mr Sorrell's men come knocking, they will be warmly welcomed. £46 billion buys you a lot of welcome.

It also buys you a lot of space. And GDS's GOV.UK has a lot of space. Take a look. All that lovely space down the left- and right-hand sides of the web page is just begging for advertisements.

And it buys you a lot of eyeballs. And with public services becoming digital-by-default, GDS can offer up to 60 million pairs.

It's a dish cooked in Heaven. Willing buyer, willing seller, everybody's happy. Everybody that counts, at least.

Feeling peckish, anyone?

Martin Sorrell: if you don’t eat your children, someone else will

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks back, Mr Sorrell explained quite openly what he means when he says that Business must embrace this digital revolution:

How can legacy businesses keep their traditional, profitable operations going, while the new digital upstarts bite into their businesses? It’s the old cannibalisation argument – if you don’t eat your children, someone else will.