on 11 January 2004If you’re reading this in MacUser, and you’re not at the dentist’s, you’re probably someone who uses computers for a living. What you’re probably not – and pardon us if you are, but feel free to read on – is an IT person.
IT is a completely different thing from computers. Back when I went to school, there were kids who knew about computers, and kids who did IT. Not the same kids. Kids who knew about computers had a Sinclair Spectrum, a Commodore 64, or, in a few unfortunate cases, a Dragon. Contrary to the Myth Of The Geek, we didn’t spend a lot of time reading about computers, or talking about computers. We spent time using them. We knew them inside out. We could do stuff.
Kids who took the IT course knew about Winchesters and CP/M. Some of them also knew about punch cards, because the text books weren’t the newest. They might even know about the IBM PC. If any of these mystical things had ever materialised in the school’s IT suite, they wouldn’t have had the first clue what to do with them. Meanwhile, the computer kids were working out how to program sprites in machine code.
What was in the IT suite? A BBC Model B and three Commodore PETs. The PET was a classic of 1970s design, but displaying faint green letters on a black background was the zenith of its talents. The BBC Micro was much more advanced. To prove this, it was a pig to do anything with, featuring umpteen different modes for everything, like Russian grammar. It had been specified by a teacher who’d been on an IT course.
I was reminded of all this while reading the recent news stories about IT outsourcing. For example, a report from the Association of Technology Staffing Companies (bet their Christmas party is a rip-roarer) found that paying other people to do your IT can turn out more expensive than doing it yourself. Hmm. Which of these – just as a vague guide, a rule of thumb - is generally cheaper: doing something yourself or getting someone else to do it? Well, it sounds obvious when you put it like that, but of course IT is a very complicated business.
Even more striking was a story about GCHQ, the Government ‘communication headquarters’. The spy base’s recent office move (change of address cards not required) was supposed to cost £41m, but, oh, actually cost £308m. An enquiry found that the IT people hadn’t understood the job they were taking on. Or, to quote a vnunet.com headline: ‘Naïvety led to GCHQ IT crisis.’
Naïvety! We’re talking about one of the most secret, powerful, ruthless and arguably corrupt agencies of technocracy in history, an organisation that makes the Supreme Council of Freemasons look transparent and the Spanish Inquisition tentative. But lead them into the complicated business of IT and suddenly they’re innocent little lambs. For example, they’d planned to switch each computer off, cart it down the road, then set it up again. Until someone pointed out that this would, wait for it, ‘damage continuity of services’. Hmm. Sounds obvious when you put it like that, but…
But what, for heaven’s sake? GCHQ isn’t the only major Government IT project that’s gone wildly over budget. In 1998, the Lord Chancellor’s department started building a new system to connect magistrates’ courts to agencies such as the police and Crown Prosecution Service, so they could keep track of what was going on and maybe even look up defendants’ criminal records rather than taking their word for it. It awarded the IT contract to ICL, which was already in the process of failing to deliver a benefits payment system, at a cost of £700m.
So far, ICL’s bill has risen by £50m, and now includes only part of the courts system, with the rest costing £150m extra. Has ICL been ripping off the Government? Nope – the company itself has lost over £200m on these projects. Apparently ICL’s IT people and the Government’s are as naïve as each other.
I can’t help thinking these projects should have been run by computer kids. People who instinctively grab hold of things and make them work. People who think they’ve succeeded when they deliver results, not when they finish writing a paper demonstrating that their strategic approach is valid in terms of current thinking on best practice. People who can do stuff. People like us.
Or maybe I’m being naïve?
adambanksdotcom @crazycolours @flayman @pauljchambers I'm quite surprised nobody who "does know" has offered Paul a job, the way he's handled it = great CV