WHEN news of the nature of the Social Security Department’s mishandling of its major IT project reached Frossard House, the political response was one of horror: how on earth can ‘the States’ be associated with yet another bungled project – and just before a general election?
What the clinical language of the Public Accounts Committee report and the findings of PricewaterhouseCoopers show is that this was something completely out of control and, despite a headline overspend of £3m., the actual amount is far higher.
A further £1.4m. of internal costs must be taken into account and the annual running and maintenance costs are close to a further £1m. a year compared with the £109,000p.a. it was supposed to cost when originally calculated back in 2000.
Moreover, this calamitous result is only for half a job because the second phase has yet to be completed and no one has stood back to see whether what has been done is working properly.
But perhaps the biggest concern is that no one – other than the department – knew of the unfolding catastrophe and nor had the States approved the project. It took an internal audit, PAC’s involvement, PwC’s report and then a letter to Treasury and Resources early this month before something out of control for years was finally drawn to the attention of the politicians.
Much as it looks like a cover-up, SSD was entitled to go ahead off its own bat and the consequences are that it has wasted considerable amounts of money that should be going to pensioners and other beneficiaries.
This process has been an inquiry and, in that favourite governmental phrase, lessons are there to be learned.
However, the report shows that that is a futile exercise. The department blithely ignored the lessons from other botched projects as it steered its own into another overspend which will damage public confidence in the States.
It has sole responsibility for that. Which begs one more question: what of accountability?
Errors will prove costly
WHEN news of the nature of the Social Security Department’s mishandling of its major IT project reached Frossard House, the political response was one of horror: how on earth can ‘the States’ be associated with yet another bungled project – and just before a general election?
What the clinical language of the Public Accounts Committee report and the findings of PricewaterhouseCoopers show is that this was something completely out of control and, despite a headline overspend of £3m., the actual amount is far higher.
A further £1.4m. of internal costs must be taken into account and the annual running and maintenance costs are close to a further £1m. a year compared with the £109,000p.a. it was supposed to cost when originally calculated back in 2000.
Moreover, this calamitous result is only for half a job because the second phase has yet to be completed and no one has stood back to see whether what has been done is working properly.
But perhaps the biggest concern is that no one – other than the department – knew of the unfolding catastrophe and nor had the States approved the project. It took an internal audit, PAC’s involvement, PwC’s report and then a letter to Treasury and Resources early this month before something out of control for years was finally drawn to the attention of the politicians.
Much as it looks like a cover-up, SSD was entitled to go ahead off its own bat and the consequences are that it has wasted considerable amounts of money that should be going to pensioners and other beneficiaries.
This process has been an inquiry and, in that favourite governmental phrase, lessons are there to be learned.
However, the report shows that that is a futile exercise. The department blithely ignored the lessons from other botched projects as it steered its own into another overspend which will damage public confidence in the States.
It has sole responsibility for that. Which begs one more question: what of accountability?
Article posted on 22nd February, 2008 - 9.00am