The Cabinet Office has insisted that it will publish details of the progress of major government IT projects, despite fears that government promises of transparency were in danger of being watered down in the face of departmental opposition. Reports earlier this week suggested that although the Cabinet Office has won plaudits …
I'm struggling to belize that this will happen, especially when things begin to go wrong which they inevitably do.
I think we will end up with selective information at the very best.
The thing that puzzles me more than anything else is with the amount they pay for desktop computers why not buy from a company like Zoostorm that can build themselves and provide pcs for £190+VAT, employ an IT support person with the savings, don't get maintenance / warranty and if the pcs die just chuck em and buy another one. Massive savings for little work.
It'll never happen
That sounds too much like common sense Benjamin.
I'm no fan of govt computing, but while that's a great idea if you want a basic PC for yourself or your gran, it's a different matter if you need to support many thousands of them. You need a supplier that can guarantee to deliver PCs that are essentially identical in large numbers, not built from whatever bits are left over in the parts bin. Then, when you need to roll out a change across your fleet, you don't find you've bricked half of them because they have a different hardware driver that you haven't tested.
That's why these large-scale contracts (public or private) end up with large-scale suppliers, who can meet these requirements.
Why enterprise-level PC admin is different.
> why not buy ... pcs for £190+VAT,
Will your built-from-the-cheapest-bits-in-the-parts-bin PCs retain a standard hardware build from one batch purchase to the next or are you going to budget to re-test, update and regression test your standard software build for each hardware purchase?
Oh, you don't believe in having a standard software build? Good luck administering a Govt department with thousands of PCs, each with its own software fit, then. And why waste money buying PCs with enterprise-style remote admin BIOSes? Much better to send a technician round with a pile of CDs to sit in front of each PC than just remotely update them all overnight.
> and if the pcs die just chuck em and buy another one.
Were you thinking the Government should fly tip them or should they be arranging secure destruction of the hard disk and WEEE-compliant disposal of the remainder? Perhaps it might be cheaper to buy stuff that lasts until the next refresh cycle?
Desktop computers they can build themselves?
> The thing that puzzles me more than anything else is with the amount they pay for desktop computers why not buy from a company like Zoostorm that can build themselves and provide .. Massive savings for little work.
If the Gov did that, then there wouldn't be the massive mark-up for some private company, that the minister gets a directorship with when he leaves office - in'it !
Including the CCDP?
The only figure *ever* give out on it's predecessor was £12Bn for a *centralised* database.
Making it the biggest UK govt IT programme ever *before* cost overruns (remmber the NHS IT project *started* at c£4Bn)
Does anyone doubt it's successor will be on *that* much a smaller scale?
The £1.8Bn given to the ISP's over 10 years will be *nothing* to the overall cost of a secret programme which will have little or no *effective* oversight.
Government Transparency ?
`the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill .. aims to create "the right conditions for economic recovery" by reducing the amount of bureaucracy dealt with by businesses'.
"NHS whistleblowers could be discouraged from speaking out by a proposed change in the law, HSJ has been told. Plans to impose a public interest test on those wanting to raise the alarm are contained in the draft Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, published last month"
`14 Disclosures not protected unless believed to be made in the public interest
In section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (disclosures qualifying for protection), in subsection (1), after “in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure”, insert “is made in the public interest and”.
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO