Agile v. digital-by-default

Are GDS agile?

Or are they digital-by-default?

When it comes to Universal Credit,

it may not be possible to be both.

Manifesto for Agile Software Development

We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:

• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
• Working software over comprehensive documentation
• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
• Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.

Principles behind the Agile Manifesto

We follow these principles:

1. Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.
2. Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage.
3. Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.
4. Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.
5. Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.
6. The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
7. Working software is the primary measure of progress.
8. Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.
9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.
10. Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.
11. The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.
12. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

History: The Agile Manifesto

... Representatives from ... and others sympathetic to the need for an alternative to documentation driven, heavyweight software development processes convened ...

... attendees voiced support for a variety of "Light" methodologies ... articles were written that referenced the category of "Light" or "Lightweight" processes. A number these articles referred to "Light methodologies ...

... Early on, Alistair Cockburn weighed in with an epistle that identified the general disgruntlement with the word "Light": "I don't mind the methodology being called light in weight, but I'm not sure I want to be referred to as a lightweight attending a lightweight methodologists meeting. It somehow sounds like a bunch of skinny, feebleminded lightweight people trying to remember what day it is" ...

[which is how the methodology came to be called "agile"]

GDS, the Government Digital Service, are committed to making public services in the UK digital-by-default.

They are committed to achieving this goal by using so-called "agile" methods.

What are agile methods when they're at home?

Agile
As noted by the National Audit Office in their report Universal Credit: early progress (p.53), agile methods derive from the admirably short Agile Manifesto published by the Agile Alliance in 2001 and reproduced opposite.

The Agile Alliance acknowledge that their thinking is based on earlier methodologies in software engineering – it wasn't new in 2001 and it certainly isn't new now, 12 years later.

The reader may note en passant that "agile" is just a word. The Agile Alliance could have been called the "Lightweight Alliance", please see opposite, and they could have published the Lightweight Manifesto.

More important, please note the 12 principles that the Agile Alliance distilled from their professional experience in the world of software engineering.

Digital-by-default
Universal credit to be first service 'digital by default', said the Guardian on 3 February 2012, when Steve Dover was still the director of major programmes at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The article quotes him as follows:

The starting point, I said to our telephony collaboration teams based in Newcastle, was just think of a contact centre, but it has got no people in it and think of an operating model that has got no back office, and start from there.

Mr Dover is no longer the director of major programmes at DWP.

The Cabinet Office's Digital Efficiency Report estimates the savings to be made by introducing digital-by-default. These savings would be made only if 80% or more of public service transactions take place on-line. The report estimates that it could take 11 years to reach that goal. On p.19 the report says:

If the proportion of savings estimated to relate to staff costs ... is applied to the total estimated annual savings and then divided by an average cost per FTE [full-time equivalent, what we used to call a "person"], this amounts to a total FTE savings estimate of at least 40,000. This represents the number of FTEs [people] that could be saved [scrapped] if a shift towards digital transactions right across government were achieved.

"Digital-by-default" means empty call centres, unmanned back offices and 40,000 fewer public servants, minimum, all replaced by computer systems.

This is Tony Blair's deceased transformational government agenda. Dead, but still walking.

No.6
Take a look at the principles behind the Agile Manifesto reproduced above. Particularly principle no.6:

The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.

"Requirements elicitation" as it's known. The best way for a development team to understand or elicit what is required of them is by "face-to-face conversation".

As keen followers of agile methods, GDS may be expected to adhere to that principle. They will not rely on documentation printed on paper or displayed in browsers, they will not rely on emails or texts or instant messages or phone calls or memos. Face-to-face conversation. That's what works.

We can think of other scenarios where face-to-face conversation works best. Teaching children in class, for example, and diagnosing a medical problem.

Let's call this class of requirements elicitation scenarios "Class H", where the "H" stands for "human".

And let's distinguish Class H requirements elicitation from Class D, "digital".

Amazon doesn't need a teacher or a doctor to find out which book you want to buy. That simple piece of requirements elicitation can be accomplished digitally. Buying a book on Amazon is in Class D. You want to buy a heated towel rail on eBay? Ditto. Class D. You want to hire a car at Catania airport for five days beginning 12 December 2013? Class D. Etc ...

Universal Credit
Now suppose that you don't want to buy a book or hire a car, instead you want to register for Jobseeker's Allowance or any of the six state benefits that Universal Credit is meant to replace. DWP need to elicit your requirements. Is that a Class H or a Class D requirements elicitation?

The answer isn't obvious. We need an intelligent argument based on facts to convince us that registration for state benefits could be achieved exclusively digitally.

GDS simply assume that registering for state benefits is comparable to buying a book on Amazon – they haven't provided any argument to support digital-by-default in this case.

And in the absence of any such argument, it is imprudent – to put it mildly – simply to assume that registration could be digital by default. If we look at the evidence, we may find that the Agile Manifesto is right and that, in this case, "the most efficient and effective method of conveying information ... is face-to-face conversation".

Are GDS agile? Or are they digital-by-default? When it comes to Universal Credit, it may not be possible to be both.

----------

Updated 11.11.13:

Should G-Cloud and the GDS be taken seriously as contenders to run Universal Credit?

Among the offenders are those who trumpet "digital by default" as the "answer", without considering the question.

Agile v. digital-by-default

Are GDS agile?

Or are they digital-by-default?

When it comes to Universal Credit,

it may not be possible to be both.

Manifesto for Agile Software Development

We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:

• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
• Working software over comprehensive documentation
• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
• Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.

Principles behind the Agile Manifesto

We follow these principles:

1. Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.
2. Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage.
3. Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.
4. Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.
5. Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.
6. The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
7. Working software is the primary measure of progress.
8. Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.
9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.
10. Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.
11. The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.
12. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

History: The Agile Manifesto

... Representatives from ... and others sympathetic to the need for an alternative to documentation driven, heavyweight software development processes convened ...

... attendees voiced support for a variety of "Light" methodologies ... articles were written that referenced the category of "Light" or "Lightweight" processes. A number these articles referred to "Light methodologies ...

... Early on, Alistair Cockburn weighed in with an epistle that identified the general disgruntlement with the word "Light": "I don't mind the methodology being called light in weight, but I'm not sure I want to be referred to as a lightweight attending a lightweight methodologists meeting. It somehow sounds like a bunch of skinny, feebleminded lightweight people trying to remember what day it is" ...

[which is how the methodology came to be called "agile"]

GDS, the Government Digital Service, are committed to making public services in the UK digital-by-default.

They are committed to achieving this goal by using so-called "agile" methods.

What are agile methods when they're at home?

Agile
As noted by the National Audit Office in their report Universal Credit: early progress (p.53), agile methods derive from the admirably short Agile Manifesto published by the Agile Alliance in 2001 and reproduced opposite.

The Agile Alliance acknowledge that their thinking is based on earlier methodologies in software engineering – it wasn't new in 2001 and it certainly isn't new now, 12 years later.

The reader may note en passant that "agile" is just a word. The Agile Alliance could have been called the "Lightweight Alliance", please see opposite, and they could have published the Lightweight Manifesto.

More important, please note the 12 principles that the Agile Alliance distilled from their professional experience in the world of software engineering.

Digital-by-default
Universal credit to be first service 'digital by default', said the Guardian on 3 February 2012, when Steve Dover was still the director of major programmes at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The article quotes him as follows:

The starting point, I said to our telephony collaboration teams based in Newcastle, was just think of a contact centre, but it has got no people in it and think of an operating model that has got no back office, and start from there.

Mr Dover is no longer the director of major programmes at DWP.

The Cabinet Office's Digital Efficiency Report estimates the savings to be made by introducing digital-by-default. These savings would be made only if 80% or more of public service transactions take place on-line. The report estimates that it could take 11 years to reach that goal. On p.19 the report says:

If the proportion of savings estimated to relate to staff costs ... is applied to the total estimated annual savings and then divided by an average cost per FTE [full-time equivalent, what we used to call a "person"], this amounts to a total FTE savings estimate of at least 40,000. This represents the number of FTEs [people] that could be saved [scrapped] if a shift towards digital transactions right across government were achieved.

"Digital-by-default" means empty call centres, unmanned back offices and 40,000 fewer public servants, minimum, all replaced by computer systems.

This is Tony Blair's deceased transformational government agenda. Dead, but still walking.

No.6
Take a look at the principles behind the Agile Manifesto reproduced above. Particularly principle no.6:

The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.

"Requirements elicitation" as it's known. The best way for a development team to understand or elicit what is required of them is by "face-to-face conversation".

As keen followers of agile methods, GDS may be expected to adhere to that principle. They will not rely on documentation printed on paper or displayed in browsers, they will not rely on emails or texts or instant messages or phone calls or memos. Face-to-face conversation. That's what works.

We can think of other scenarios where face-to-face conversation works best. Teaching children in class, for example, and diagnosing a medical problem.

Let's call this class of requirements elicitation scenarios "Class H", where the "H" stands for "human".

And let's distinguish Class H requirements elicitation from Class D, "digital".

Amazon doesn't need a teacher or a doctor to find out which book you want to buy. That simple piece of requirements elicitation can be accomplished digitally. Buying a book on Amazon is in Class D. You want to buy a heated towel rail on eBay? Ditto. Class D. You want to hire a car at Catania airport for five days beginning 12 December 2013? Class D. Etc ...

Putting the user first – what does it mean?

Co-operating with Korea to put users first – that was the big news two days ago from GDS, the Government Digital Service.

According to Liam Maxwell, Her Majesty's Government's Chief Technology Officer: "As demonstrated in last month’s Conference on Cyberspace in Seoul, we have much in common with Korea, but we also have much to learn from each other. Yesterday’s signing commits both of our countries to creating digital public services that put the needs of the citizen first, and I'm excited that we’ll be working more closely together".

Francis Maude signing an agreement with Korea for no apparent reason

while Martha-now-Lady Lane Fox looks on

Ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken was equally excited after his presentation to the Cabinet a few weeks ago: "Starting with the needs of users has led to a radical shift in the way we build and provision government services. That’s a huge thing. It means an end to big IT, it means smarter and cheaper services which meet users needs, and it means digital sitting at the heart of teams all around government".

Does "starting with the needs of users" mean "an end to big IT"? No. Does it mean "smarter and cheaper services"? No. Does it mean "digital sitting at the heart of teams all around government"? No. Not in English. And not in Korean.

GDS imply that "starting with the needs of users" distinguishes them from other government bodies. It's "led to a radical shift in the way we build and provision government services".

But does it?

If you ask the Department for Education "do you put the needs of students first", will they say "good lord no, we've got much more important matters to consider"? If you ask the department of Health "do you put the needs of patients first", will they say "don't be ridiculous, there's no time for any of that nonsense"? If you ask the London Borough of Merton "do you put the interests of Mertonians first", will they say "we used to but ever since Francis Maude signed that agreement we're concentrating more on Korea"?

No. Putting the needs of users first doesn't distinguish GDS from any other government body.

GDS may say that the other government bodies, with the disgracefully old-fashioned ways they "build and provision government services", don't really mean it.

But do GDS really mean it? Never mind the other government bodies, do GDS really put the needs of users first? The progress (complete lack thereof) of their assisted digital project suggests not.

What does "putting the user first" mean? Nothing? Whatever you want it to mean?

----------

Updated 16 December 2013:

Why is [are?] design and creativity important to your organisation? That was the question Design Week was asking last Friday and a jolly good question it is.

Can you guess GDS's answer? Are you beginning to get the hang of this user needs business?

‘Because the organising principle of GDS is the user, and the user deserves services designed for the user, not the Government. Design and creativity are central to recasting public services, and indeed the civil service, if we are to create public services fit for a digital era.’

Deflect your eyes from the screen for a moment, look around you and look back, and you may see that the "organising principle" of every government department is meant to be the user, that doesn't distinguish GDS, it's not a new idea.

Design and creativity are of course important but again, that's not a new idea. You may remember that each government department website once had its own branding, designed to suit its users. Arguably, the award-winning GOV.UK took an undesign step backwards when it standardised the lot of them.


Updated 29 January 2014:

It's that time of the year again. Reinvigorating the troops with self-congratulatory jamborees. This time last year we had The future is here. Today it was Sprint 14 (which remained coyly imprecise about where the future is now).

Rt Hon Francis Maude MP gave a speech today which returns to the theme of the post above, viz. the useful versatility of the phrase "user needs":

Sir Jonathan Ive, Apple’s British born designer, put it best when he said: ‘The word design is everything and nothing. We think of design as not just the product’s appearance: it’s what the product is and how it works. The design and the product are inseparable.’ So what does that mean for government? It means putting users at the heart of public services.

Updated 31 January 2014:

Anyone can play the what-does-user-needs-mean children's game to achieve any result they want. It's easy. Here's an example. Look:

A year ago, four professors reviewed the Government Digital Strategy and said: "We see little discussion of a concrete and practical change management process to support the “digital by default” strategy in the current [Government Digital Strategy]. We view this as a potentially fatal omission. Put another way, trying to drive cultural change via technology (IT) is highly risky and almost never succeeds".

What does that mean?

It means that users have not been put at the heart of public services. It means that the 25 digital-by-default exemplars (1 live, 24 not) haven't been designed. The creativity needed to recast public services is missing. It means no end to big IT, more expensive and dumber public services, and no digital sitting at the heart of teams all around government.

The following comment was submitted  at 9:14 yesterday morning, 30 January 2014, by someone remaining anonymous. The computer said no – the length of the comment exceeds some limit – which is why none of DMossEsq's millions of readers have seen it until now.

It is posted here, where the size limit is more generous, so that people can see a more grown-up way of playing what-does-user-needs-mean:

Of course putting users first is right - a sound marketing phrase that is too easy to say but in reality in enterprise software is a lot more than "design" of a user interface. GDS have built expertise in doing that for information web sites but building "a digital” service is a whole different ball game. Historically enterprise software in all its forms was “system” centric and as a result users had to mould their action and needs to the “system”. As a result users resort to off line activity spreadsheets access database even post it notes! Over the past 15 years Business Process Management BPM emerged as the industry’s recognition of this “problem. As ever in an industry that puts hype before reality early iterations were overhyped in actually delivery capabilities but this is changing as new players now can deliver on the requirements to cover all user needs internal and external. Here are all the requirements in software that are needed to “put users first” Process engine - to ensure all works to plan Rules engine - reflecting real world of compliance Calculation engine - automating system work State engine - real time feed back from any point BPM - focus on people and their processes Workflow - everything connected in right order Audit trail, events, escalations = control Rapid prototyping - user involvement in build Time recording - supports activity based costing Real time reporting - become predictive Prebuilt configurable dashboard - operational visibility Build mash ups - one screen multiple data sources Linked intelligent Ajax grids - enter data only once Roles and performers - people and machines indentified Management hierarchy - see who does what and when reallocate work Orchestrating legacy - recognising valuable data in legacy User interface dynamically created - linking people, roles, task type and data via forms for specific instances recognising that user forms needs to be specific for that task in hand Pre-built templates for custom documents, letters, e-mails, messages etc dynamically populated with instance specific data and edit capability in browser - automating yet giving users ultimate control over external communications Process and task versioning control - recognising change is inevitable The supporting technology to do all this is now available without need to resort to custom coding. The speed and thus cost of build on any requirement is significant better than either custom coding or moulding a Custom Off The Shelf to the business. It is clear GDS just do not get this evidenced by their very poor “digital frameworks” which do not reflect such capability. Also recent the Minister in an interview on BBC radio reported by Campaign 4change http://linkis.com/wp.me/ERyPg I was amazed to learn that GDS spent 750 man days building a prototype for UC at DWP.. Using such a “BPM Platform” with such capabilities it would have been a fraction of that? Something is badly wrong with the Cabinet Office research to ensure best value for money? Time to find out “why” So I have a few FOIs out and I will report back.

Our commentator, Mr Anonymous, is saying that a lot of tools for software engineering exist and that he suspects that GDS, the Government Digital Service, to the detriment of their performance, aren't using them. Item #19 in his list, for example, would address the four professors' concern about change management.

There is some evidence that he's right.

Consider, for example, this post on the GDS blog, Scaling Agile Practices to the GDS Portfolio. It's all about how GDS manage projects. Their preferred method is to use a wall.

There are at least two problems with that – walls are predominantly two-dimensional, whereas project management has many more dimensions, and you can't put walls in your briefcase and take them to another office to discuss them.

GDS have attempted to resolve those problems by developing a project management system, starting by asking the users what they need:

We addressed the portfolio implementation project, much like we would any project at GDS, in an agile way: We spent time with the users and stakeholders to understand what their needs were; we spent time workshopping to understand drivers, what success looked like, what we hoped the project would do, and what our fears were – as well as opportunities that could arise from the project.

And what did they come up with? All they tell us about is a pie chart:

That's it.

A pie chart.

Day 1 of Graphics 101.

And yet the world is full of sophisticated project management tools. Has been ever since the first Pharaoh started running up pyramids. See #9 in Mr Anonymous's list.

There's no dishonour in using other people's software. But GDS seem to have preferred in this instance to reinvent the wheel.

And not just this instance.

As part of their doomed identity assurance project, IDA, GDS have elected to develop a brand new "hub" to link government departments, people and so-called "identity providers". There was no need to do that. We already have the Government Gateway.

When the Electoral Commission complained that GDS wouldn't tell them their costs for working on individual electoral registration, you may have assumed that GDS preferred to withhold the numbers, perhaps because they were embarrassing. But there is another possibility – maybe GDS don't record time and don't cost it, maybe they simply didn't have any figures to give the Commission.

Prima facie, Mr Anonymous seems to have rather a good point. Perhaps someone at GDS should take another look at the software engineering tools already available and consider using them instead of building new ones.

But who?

Who in GDS has experience of large-scale complex software engineering? And in particular, large-scale complex government software engineering?

This is another matter that worried the four professors:

... there are many discussions on the need for better architectural insight to resolve challenges in understanding core service properties, there are frameworks for investigating the unpredictability of ultra-large-scale systems behaviour, and there are studies highlighting the challenges that arise at the sociotechnical boundary of where systems thinking meets system usability. The [Government Digital Strategy] shows no evidence that it is aware or has taken account of the impact of such thinking ...

The lights may be on when Mr Anonymous knocks on GDS's door to talk about user needs. But is there anyone in?

Putting the user first – what does it mean?

Co-operating with Korea to put users first – that was the big news two days ago from GDS, the Government Digital Service.

According to Liam Maxwell, Her Majesty's Government's Chief Technology Officer: "As demonstrated in last month’s Conference on Cyberspace in Seoul, we have much in common with Korea, but we also have much to learn from each other. Yesterday’s signing commits both of our countries to creating digital public services that put the needs of the citizen first, and I'm excited that we’ll be working more closely together".

Francis Maude signing an agreement with Korea for no apparent reason

while Martha-now-Lady Lane Fox looks on

Ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken was equally excited after his presentation to the Cabinet a few weeks ago: "Starting with the needs of users has led to a radical shift in the way we build and provision government services. That’s a huge thing. It means an end to big IT, it means smarter and cheaper services which meet users needs, and it means digital sitting at the heart of teams all around government".

Does "starting with the needs of users" mean "an end to big IT"? No. Does it mean "smarter and cheaper services"? No. Does it mean "digital sitting at the heart of teams all around government"? No. Not in English. And not in Korean.

Universal Credit 40 years on

University of London Computer Centre Newsletter No. 53 March 1973

An alternative, more legible version:

what marketing suggested
what management approved
as designed by engineering
what was manufactured
as maintenance installed it
what the customer wanted

Universal Credit 40 years on

University of London Computer Centre Newsletter No. 53 March 1973

An alternative, more legible version:

DWP v. the Cabinet Office – seconds away

The Department for Work and Pensions  (DWP) want option A – please see Universal Credit and GDS – think twice – and the Cabinet Office want option B. Neither option will benefit Universal Credit but that won't stop them fighting.

Normally there would be no contest between the country's biggest-spending department and the Cabinet Office – DWP spend even more than the Department of Health. You may think it's different this time and that DWP haven't got a leg to stand on, having wasted over £100 million of public money so far on Universal Credit.

You're wrong. It isn't different this time. DWP are still huge and anyway, it's not obvious that the Cabinet Office have got a leg to stand on either, with their "agile"-is-a-magic-bullet and big-companies-are-all-useless-unless-they're-Apple arguments. Just in case these points aren't clear to the protagonists, DMossEsq issued a press release the other day, please see below. That should help.

It promises to be a bitter fight otherwise.

Long-term readers will remember Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, saying: "... soon Identity Assurance Services will be used to support the Department for Work and Pension’s Universal Credit scheme and the Personal Independence payment which, from 2013, will replace the complex and outdated benefit system".

That was on 6 March 2012, at the Information Commissioner's Conference, and of course it never happened, please see Universal Credit – GDS's part in its downfall.

Relations between DWP and the Cabinet Office can't have improved the other day when ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, blogging about his presentation to the Cabinet, wrote: "GDS [the Government Digital Service] is here to support everyone building Digital by Default services, wherever they are. We’ve already had public betas from teams at MOJ and DWP, and I’m excited to see what other teams build. It’s hard work, but it’s work people outside of government are already starting to appreciate".

In support of his claim that "people outside of government are already starting to appreciate" GDS's hard work he refers to a post on the FT blog, What HealthCare.gov could learn from Britain, which includes this:

GDS has avoided becoming fully involved in projects such as Universal Credit, where big data and big government collide. The UK government’s flagship welfare reform is having problems which would be familiar across the Atlantic, such as integrating multiple databases, managing a project with dozens of separate teams and dealing with what Mr Bracken calls “oligopolistic supply chain[s]”.

"Thank you, ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken", Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, may say, "for your support and hard work. It has been noticed inside of government as well as outside".

Needless to say but let's say it anyway, that is the flimsiest of surmise.

To get back to terror firmer, there was Mr Maude 18 months ago telling the Information Commissioner that DWP would soon have the benefit of identity assurance services.

Actually it goes back further than that. Computer Weekly magazine told us in September 2011, two years ago, that: "The first service to be delivered using identity assurance will be the Department for Work and Pensions' Universal Credits scheme", please see Identity assurance - how it will affect public services and your personal data. The deadlines came. Identity assurance didn't. The deadlines went.

So a second candidate had to be nominated as the first recipient of identity assurance – HMRC: "There were two announcements about Identity Assurance this week: HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) are going to be the first department to use the identity platform, and updated privacy principles were published for consultation so we can make sure privacy is at the heart of the services we provide", please see This week at GDS, 21 June 2013, and GDS, agile PAYE on-line.

There is still no news about the privacy principles.

And there is still no news about HMRC's planned October 2013 trial of identity assurance for PAYE on-line. What was the result? Did it happen?

You've got to be agile in this business. Be prepared for the announcement of a third candidate to be the first user of GDS's elusive identity assurance services.

Seconds away:

PRESS RELEASE The Universal Credit tragedy 4 November 2013 It is over a year since Frank Field wrote The universal credit programme is on course for disaster. He was right then and he still is. According to an internal DWP report leaked to the Guardian, a decision will be made in the next few days what to do about Universal Credit. DWP are said to have backed themselves into the anomalous position where there are only two options to choose between, Aor B, and neither of them will help, please see: Universal Credit and GDS – think twice http://www.dmossesq.com/2013/11/universal-credit-and-gds-think-twice.html Will DWP waste hundreds of millions of pounds more of public money and add another government IT failure to our unenviable tradition? Or will they turn Act IV of a tragedy into Act I of a new play where Whitehall starts to behave rationally and responsibly? ---------- Notes to editors The word “agile” is endlessly incanted in favour of option B. That’s all it is. A word. A noise made by people clinging helplessly to the mirage of £38 billion of savings to be made by Universal Credit. About David Moss David Moss has worked as an IT consultant since 1981. What started 10 years ago as a campaign against the Home Office’s plans to introduce government ID cards into the UK has turned into a campaign against Whitehall’s misfeasance in public office.

----------

Updated 11.11.13:

Should G-Cloud and the GDS be taken seriously as contenders to run Universal Credit?

First G-Cloud Cookie land: This may indeed be a very sensible approach towards providing a common front-end to citizen-facing on-line and commodity services (like Payroll and HR) that have been unnecessarily "customised". But it is, as yet "unproven" for "heavy lifting" service delivery. Cabinet Office  has not yet demonstrated that it can deliver anything more than comparative trivia (e.g. website rationalisation) - although it has demonstrated that it can help prevent others from wasting money.

Updated 16.11.13:

Who won the battle between DWP and Cabinet Office over ID Policy? 

We know who lost in the battle between DWP and Cabinet Office over ID Policy - the taxpayer and the private sector bidders. Who won, apart from the fraudsters?

DWP v. the Cabinet Office – seconds away

The Department for Work and Pensions  (DWP) want option A – please see Universal Credit and GDS – think twice – and the Cabinet Office want option B. Neither option will benefit Universal Credit but that won't stop them fighting.

Normally there would be no contest between the country's biggest-spending department and the Cabinet Office – DWP spend even more than the Department of Health. You may think it's different this time and that DWP haven't got a leg to stand on, having wasted over £100 million of public money so far on Universal Credit.

You're wrong. It isn't different this time. DWP are still huge and anyway, it's not obvious that the Cabinet Office have got a leg to stand on either, with their "agile"-is-a-magic-bullet and big-companies-are-all-useless-unless-they're-Apple arguments. Just in case these points aren't clear to the protagonists, DMossEsq issued a press release the other day, please see below. That should help.

Whitehall's rethink headache. And the Whitehouse's

That wailing you heard throughout the land last week, the rending of shirts clothes and the clatter of teeth being gnashed – what caused it?

Company		Market cap ($bn)
Exxon Mobil		385.65
Apple		378.25
Google		259.13
Wal-Mart		258.49
Microsoft		241.45
General Electric		236.04
Johnson & Johnson		234.67
IBM		233.68
Chevron		223.04
Pfizer		221.82

Was it the fact that only-one-way-to-go-from-there Apple was knocked off the top spot in the list of the world's biggest companies by market capitalisation?

Probably.

But there is another hypothesis to explore.

Even though it shouldn't have been, the world was shocked by the failure of the Obamacare website. Millions of dollars spent on it, and it didn't work. And the seven or eight of us who follow these things were also a bit agitated at the failure of Universal Credit here in the UK, millions of pounds spent on it, etc ...

How can so many experienced professionals work so hard and be paid so much and yet the ObamaCare and Universal Credit IT systems don't work?

The thoughtless answer that has launched a thousand lazy-minded op-ed pieces is that these big government systems are written by ponderous, greedy, bloated contractors, so huge that if they stub their toe it's two years and a couple of billion dollars before the signal registers with their brains.

This sort of development work should be done by small, hungry, lithe, agile, lissom, innovative, imaginative companies – SMEs, small- and medium-sized enterprises. It's the end of "big IT", ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken told the Cabinet last week, and Washington DC the week before.

But then the logic gates short-circuit and the previously bien-pensant brain starts to overheat.

After all, they don't come much bigger than Apple and Google, and what are they famous for? In a word, "agility". Imagination and innovation.

Bigness isn't necessarily the problem.

And then the agile, innovative, little CloudStore only went and fell over for four days. Smallness isn't necessarily the solution.

Intellectual over-heating, having to think again and re-assess the evidence, ... Bound to give you a headache. It's a poser, isn't it. No wonder a few shirts went for a burton amid the general brouhaha of wailing and gnashing.

Whitehall's rethink headache. And the Whitehouse's

That wailing you heard throughout the land last week, the rending of shirts clothes and the clatter of teeth being gnashed – what caused it?

Company		Market cap ($bn)
Exxon Mobil		385.65
Apple		378.25
Google		259.13
Wal-Mart		258.49
Microsoft		241.45
General Electric		236.04
Johnson & Johnson		234.67
IBM		233.68
Chevron		223.04
Pfizer		221.82

Was it the fact that only-one-way-to-go-from-there Apple was knocked off the top spot in the list of the world's biggest companies by market capitalisation?

Probably.

But there is another hypothesis to explore.

Even though it shouldn't have been, the world was shocked by the failure of the Obamacare website. Millions of dollars spent on it, and it didn't work. And the seven or eight of us who follow these things were also a bit agitated at the failure of Universal Credit here in the UK, millions of pounds spent on it, etc ...

How can so many experienced professionals work so hard and be paid so much and yet the ObamaCare and Universal Credit IT systems don't work?