Cabinet Office spurns opportunity to rein in procurement costs

By Derek du Preez

13 Apr 2011

Comment: 1

The Houses of Parliament and Big Ben

The Cabinet Office has turned down an offer to have public sector procurement expenditure data aggregated from all major central departments for free.

The offer came from Rosslyn Analytics and business intelligence company QlikTech at the end of March.

Further reading

The two companies requested central government departments send their spend data in a standard format via a secure FTP web site.

Rosslyn claimed that HM Treasury would then be able to see all departments' spend as of 1 May.

"[The government] should be developing better information so that the public and analysts within the public sector are better able to understand where money is going," said Matthew Sinclair, director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, commenting on the announcement from Rosslyn.

"The work Rosslyn Analytics did with the COINS database, which so many organisations found very difficult to work with effectively, was very impressive," he added.

Earlier this year Rosslyn developed Combined Online Information System (COINS), which is a similar government expenditure database.

"Their offer to develop a comprehensive analytical tool for public spending was ambitious and potentially very valuable, and they were staking a lot in delivering it," said Sinclair.

According to Rosslyn, John Collington, head of procurement in the Cabinet Office's Efficiency and Reform Group (ERG), cited three reasons for declining the offer:

• The Cabinet Office did not want to ask departments to provide their data in a standard template to Rosslyn Analytics

• It did not believe that Rosslyn Analytics and QlikTech could deliver what they proposed within the one-month timeframe

• The Cabinet Office has already decided to build a data warehouse that will serve as a central repository of department spending data.

"The Cabinet Office's rejection of our offer to finally centralise the government's procurement data for free beggars belief," said Charles Clark, chief executive of Rosslyn Analytics.

"The lack of an aggregated view of departmental spend undermines the credibility of ministers who are asking taxpayers to bear the brunt of deficit reduction efforts while they spend millions on out-dated technologies and consultants that won't deliver savings," he added.

The companies say that in making the offer, their reputation was at stake to deliver on time, so the offer would not have been made if this was not possible.

The Cabinet Office was not available for comment at the time of writing.

Reader comments

The limits of one’s imagination are rarely the limits of possibility

Great write-up Derek.

Regarding the three reasons cited by the The Cabinet Office:

1. Will Rosslyn Analytics publish here a link to the format specification that it suggested ‘based on the reporting standard used by the government’ so one might evaluate how suitable it was?

2. The limits of one’s imagination are rarely the limits of possibility. Perhaps The Cabinet Office should be more imaginative! They might start by reading Clarke’s Law of Revolutionary Ideas:

Every revolutionary idea — in science, politics, art, or whatever — seems to evoke three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the phrases:

(a) “It’s completely impossible — don’t waste my time”;
(b) “It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing”;
(c) “I said it was a good idea all along.”

3. “already decided to build...data central repository” (slaps forehead in despair)

Nice try Charles. Keep it up.

David Pidsley
Social entrepreneur. Open data developer.

http://davidpidsley.com

Posted by: David Pidsley  13 Apr 2011

Have your say on this article

All fields required. Your email address will not be displayed on the site.

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

  • Digg
  • Tweet

Newsletters

Sign up for our FREE newsletters

Technology Patent Wars

Large companies such as Microsoft, Facebook and Google have been hoovering up technology patents recently. Is this stifling innovation?

88 %

4 %

8 %