Gov't must learn the digital lessons from Universal Credit shambles, says Lord Freud

Written by Rebecca Hill on 10 February 2017 in News
News

Former minister tells watchdog MPs Whitehall has made "bad mistakes" in outsourcing IT projects

Lord Freud

The minister tasked with overseeing the creation of the Universal Credit programme has admitted Whitehall's outsourcing of IT was a “fundamental mistake” and that government needs to work to attract more digital talent.

Giving evidence to MPs on the Work and Pensions Select Committee, Conservative peer Lord Freud - who resigned from his position as minister for welfare reform in December last year - said that government “has to bring IT back in”.

The introduction of Universal Credit, the brainchild of Iain Duncan Smith, has been beset with problems and has repeatedly seen target implementation dates pushed back.


DWP urged to "reclaim" Universal Credit from the Treasury

DWP's Neil Couling defends Universal Credit progress as elements of welfare shake-up pushed back

Has the 'reset' saved Universal Credit?


The programme’s aim was to combine six in-work and out-of-work benefits into a single, simpler system, but poor planning, repeated changes of senior civil servant leadership and a lack of understanding of the underlying IT requirements led to it running years behind its initial schedule.

Freud has previously said that both his team and the Government Digital Service team that was later helicoptered in to assist were “naïve” about the complexities of building the service.

In his evidence to MPs, however, Freud indicated that the main issue was the government’s attitude to managing IT projects.

“What I didn’t know, and I don’t think anyone knew, was how bad a mistake it had been for all of government to have sent out its IT,” Freud said.

“It happened in the 1990s and early 2000s. You went to these big firms to build your IT. And I think that was a most fundamental mistake, right across government and probably across governments in the western world.”

He said it had resulted in the Department for Work and Pensions having not an IT department, but an “IT commissioning department” that didn’t know how to do the work required for the project.

“The civil service thought it had the capacity because it could commission the big firms to do it. They didn’t see it as a problem – government as a whole didn’t see it as a problem,” Freud said. “It’s only when you get into it that you realise what a big problem it was.”

Freud added that the DWP had worked to bring that knowledge back in-house, and urged other departments to do the same.

However, he said it was hard to do this because the “image of government with the IT industry is not great”, particularly with uncompetitive pay scales. This, he said, was something that IT has in common with the specialisms of running contracts and project management.

“We need, in government, to be able to pay for those specialisms if we are to pay for those projects."

After the 2013 reset of the Universal Credit programme, the department took a “twin-track” approach.

This involved rolling out the “live service” – a programme that allowed people to register online but with all further transactions being done over the phone or by post – while continuing to develop the ‘digital’ service that would allow all interaction online.

In his evidence, Freud said that he would have built something smaller, earlier so the team had something to test and learn from.

“It’s impossible to envisage how it will work, something as big as that,” he said, adding that it was very difficult to manage something that was “just conceptual”.

Instead, Freud said, organisations need something to coalesce around and start progressing – even if it isn’t perfect at the start.

Another issue Freud identified in his evidence was a lack of continuity on the civil service side, with six senior responsible officers and six project managers in his first five years on Universal Credit.

About the author

Rebecca Hill is the online editor of PublicTechnology, where a version of this story first appeared

Share this page

Further reading in our policy hubs

Add new comment

Comments

MoD employee (not verified)

Submitted on 10 February, 2017 - 11:53
I wonder - how big a mistake will it be to reduce your staff by 30% at the same time as the work to mange, design, deliver and support an IT system is being brought in house? I am looking forward to reading a Government report and CSW article in a few years that points out why that went wrong. Hindsight, and ignoring the bleedin' obvious, is a wonderful thing.

Tim Hilton (not verified)

Submitted on 10 February, 2017 - 14:44
Department makes every mistake in the book not just once but multiple times when it comes to managing an IT project, then blames suppliers. Remember this is a project when the department's own project manager delegated signing off supplier invoices to his PA. A revolving door of SROs, continued false optimism bias and a "good news" culture, and neither the Secretary of State or the Perm Sec had a clue what was going on. When the whistle eventually was blown, it was the suppliers who did it. This is classic misdirection. Maybe Ministers and Departments should look at themselves before they decide it's someone else's fault?

Contact the author

The contact details for the Civil Service World editorial team are available on our About Us page.

Related Articles

Related Sponsored Articles

Mind the Gap
3 April 2014

Given the rhetoric surrounding the shift to the modern workplace and the importance of centring...

The image contains text summarising the following article 5 Effective Approaches for Learning Management
27 June 2014

Cornerstone provide advice on effective approaches for learning management.

A picture of the bringing government to life Bringing government data to life
8 June 2016

Microsoft shows a few of the ways that governments can turn data into insight