In a digital forum?
Hold on I'll get my quill
Or did you mean to write "agreed"
10 posts • joined 18 Oct 2007
GDS build an excellent, user centric website which is rarely down, sets a model for other government sites worldwide, has revolutionised citizen engagement and which is highly regarded in terms of putting the citizen first and of rollout out agile ways of working. As far as I know GDS has saved the government a fortune which is more than can be said for how things used to be done. If GDS makes a mistake, it learns from it quickly - that's modern management thinking and the sort of thinking which has made Amazon, Facebook and Google into similar leaders in their fields.
GDS had a huge task on their hands, they have had successes and they have had failures. But they have had more successes than failures with less money than the way things used to be done. There is always a better way, there are always ways to learn and to improve. However chucking the baby out with the bathwater is hardly a positive approach.
Why shouldn't the government build everything in house? They run the country, they protect our national security, they pay benefits to millions of people every day, they protect the nation. They are our democracy and they are accountable to the people. Why then should we require a 3rd party subcontractor to run a website? What's the challenge that a 3rd party can do that a national government can't?
Funnily I applied last week for a position of project manager at Tesco.com. They turned me down, evidently my experience project managing tesco.com grocery previously didn't seem to count.
Maybe they should have given me the job instead, looks like their existing practices have a few faults. I have a strong background in system testing.
I live in the UK and work in Ireland. The number of CCTVs in one street in the UK is probably more than all of Dublin put together. It's like a UK time warp in Dublin - the only CCTV you see is the occasional camera for monitoring busy roads. No traffic light camera and few if any cameras for watching individuals. Even the UK government is happy to admit that the UK has more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/topic_specific_guides/cctv.aspx and it is only when you go to other countries that you realise just how vast the gulf is. Incidentally, the Irish government isn't talking about ID cards, another UK government Big Brother obsession.
This is just so much rubbish. If phones were in fact dangerous to planes they would take them off people. If having phones roam to multiple masts was a problem then the thousands of people leaving their phone on would cause a problem for people living under the flight path. Yet for about 25% of people who leave their phone on (or put it on silent rather than actually turn it off) this has never caused a problem to a plane, despite thousands of phones a day being left switched on whilst on a plane. In any case, even if the phone is off then the signal from the mast is still penetrating the cabin during take off and landing. Why is this not a problem?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019