At Think Cloud for Government conference last week, he reviewed what’s changed - and what’s stayed the same. Here is his speech in full.
So much has changed since 2011, so much has been done. We now speak openly about the need for change and what is wrong.
We have done some great stuff. Stuff to be really proud of, stuff for users – I’ve heard even the departmental lawyers have been talking about user centricity.
Government is commissioning work from SMEs, the process is faster, cheaper and more relevant - people who need and use services are buying them rather than the “experts” in procurement.
Costs are dramatically down. The Government Digital Service’s (GDS) NAO-reviewed costings show 50 percent savings and in some examples as much as 90 percent. We even managed 40 percent savings with an end user device project in the Cabinet Office - delight doesn’t come easy there.
The mood has changed. Government was not happy three years ago. Now, from the “mood music”, buyers seem much more positive about the quality of services they are buying from SMEs.
GDS is embedded in central government and appreciated, even by politicians.
Lots of SMEs are now selling direct to Government, delivering to government, innovating for Government - faster, cheaper, more reliably.
We created a marketplace [G-Cloud] and it has traded nearly half a billion pounds. It could be described as one of the best internet companies in the UK today.
We have inspired the creation of new companies, see growth in SMEs and as a result more employment at a time when it was needed most.
And most importantly, money is being spread across the country and not concentrated into a few suppliers in the south west.
We have effectively gone from around eight suppliers to hundreds in a very short space of time.
But we should not rest on our laurels now. We have a long way to go still.
It’s unacceptable that some organisations in central government seem to be ignoring Francis Maude’s cloud first mandate.
Surely it is the Crown Commercial Service’s (CCS) responsibility to support this cloud first policy. Because if it is, we are seeing little or no evidence of it. Have you tried finding G-Cloud or mention of it through the CCS website?
It’s unacceptable that organisations are still letting contracts way over the two-year G-Cloud limit, when it has been proven that regular competition trumps term commitment for best total value.
As an SME, that locks us out and leads us to believe that change is not here to stay.
Recently a local authority let a 10 year contract to a large SI [systems integrator].
In fact one of the suppliers to that contract approached us to help them create value through a more agile and iterative approach. The first thing I asked is: would they be prepared to reduce their contract by eight years?
It’s unacceptable that organisations are still buying before they have designed what they need to do.
This costs us real money in time and resource. If you are unsure or not ready and just want some options, tell us that than rather lead us down the route of a procurement that will probably get pulled.
In fact it’s unacceptable that procurement folk are still doing the specifications and buying.
It’s unacceptable that we don’t have data on IT spend in the public sector.
It’s unacceptable that we are still only rarely truly working out loud.
Frankly that organisation has not been itself disaggregated and rebuilt and led in a manner fit for wha'ts needed by users now. You remain in the way, step aside.
It’s unacceptable that some folk still think you can outsource risk.
It’s unacceptable that the public sector still asks suppliers to “smooth” payment profiles, creating lock-in and a change-control bonanza.
It’s unacceptable that some commercial and procurement teams are still wasting almost half a year on technology OJEU procurements.
It’s unacceptable that processes are being invented to make it necessary to have procurement teams even for straight forward catalogue purchases.
It’s unacceptable that some are still working with suppliers in contracts that don’t allow experimentation and iteration around user needs.
It’s unacceptable that there is still not some sort of pipeline of what the public sector needs, opening up opportunities to the wider market. CCS publish what they are doing, but every organisation should be working out loud on this.
It’s unacceptable that some CCS let pan government frameworks still have hurdles that unnecessarily exclude small innovative suppliers and are let so infrequently that suppliers are locked out for long periods.