Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Opinion: A technology lesson from the Soham case

by
25th Dec 2005
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Last week the Bichard enquiry reported on police intelligence failures that allowed suspected sex offender Ian Huntly to clear vetting at Soham school - with tragic results. This topic is not immediately relevant to business professionals, but since it revolves round the computerised intelligence systems used by the police, David Carter sees some important lessons for other IT users.

The Bichard report apportioned most of the blame to Humberside Police chief David Westwood, for 'systemic failures'. But to anyone who understands IT, while it's obvious that systemic failures are at the root of the matter, they certainly don't lie at the door of the Humberside Police force.

Let's take a parallel case in business. You are a company with 43 local branches around the country. Each branch records details of its local customers on its own separate database. Many of these 43 local systems hold information about the same customer, but none of them talk to each other so it is impossible to get an overall view of all our activities with a single customer. And since none of the local branches has very much expertise at designing IT systems, the systems vary widely and have no common standards.

The board of directors has decided that having information about your customers spread over 43 separate, non-communicating, databases is unacceptable. The organisation has to set up a central database where all the information about its customers will be stored. All 43 local branches will be able to access this central data, and in turn they will update their customer information to the central database so that it can be shared by all the other branches.

The benefits of this are self-evident to everyone, but the 43 local branches cannot agree on the design of the national database. They have all designed their own databases and, naturally enough, want the national one to be similar to their own, but of course they are all different.

So what do you do in this situation? In a business organisation the task of agreeing a common specification for the new system would be given to central staff. They would visit the local branches, identify the source of the disagreements, and perhaps by banging a few heads together they would bring the problem to a head and get everyone to agree a solution. They would also specify a set of common standards which everyone must use. When you are trying to put together a single centralised system, it is only central staffs who can take on this job; in fact this is what central staffs are FOR.

In the business world, then, this sort of problem would be solved easily. But what happens in government? Sir Michael tells us that 43 local police forces all have their own intelligence systems to hold details of crimes, and that it was agreed in 1994 that a single centralised database was essential. However, because the 43 police forces couldn't agree amongst themselves, the project was abandoned four years ago.

So who plays the central co-ordinating role in government? It can only be the permanent officials in the civil service: they after all are the administrative experts. The civil servants's failure to take charge of IT projects is the real source of the problem. Theirs is the 'systemic failure' that results in almost constant series of IT disasters in the public sector.

Now if Sir MichaelBichard had recommended that the permanent secretary of the Home Office should resign, that would really improve government IT. But Sir Michael is an ex-permanent secretary himself, so obviously that was never going to happen. Home secretary David Blunkett demanded the resignation of the Humberside police chief, when his own department was the one that shirked its responsibilities to get to the root of the problem. While failing as a strategic manager of information technology projects, Blunkett nevertheless proved himself to be a master of political cheek.

Tags:

Replies (12)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By AnonymousUser
20th Jul 2004 11:52

False premise?
I may be utterly wrong here, but I was under the impression that Huntley did not work at the school that his victims went to. They went to St Andrew's Primary. His then girfriend worked there and that is how he came to know the two girls. He was "site manager" at Soham Village College.

The best database in the world could not have prevented this, short of locking him up without actually being convicted of a crime.

I rather think that the failures of the police and the Home Office are actually not realy contributory factors here. There are problems that need to be addressed, but even if the systems had been perfect, it does not seem to me that the murders would have been prevented.

Thanks (0)
Dennis Howlett
By dahowlett
20th Jul 2004 16:18

More faces than BIg Ben
Blunkett is only reading from Blair's script. This government has matered the art of saying one thing, doing another and making everyone else accountable except itself. We voted with our feet a long time ago and left the country. Many of those we see coming to live here share a sense of outrage at what appears to be a government drunk with power, obsessed with economics but with no meangingful agenda for social justice.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By donfisher
21st Jul 2004 09:40

Dennis
In which haven of responsible government and social justice do you now reside?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
16th Jul 2004 19:27

Avoiding blame takes precedence over common sense
Your comments, David, emphasise again how little has been achieved in spite of advances in technology. The simple fact is that most really creative and innovative work is achieved by small companies that do not get a look in when the big projects are handed out. These go to the large amorphous consultancies that are rarely innovative when it comes to software solutions. It becomes a case of enormous fees which often deliver little, slowly and painfully. Despite their claims, small companies continue to be ignored.

That such a tragedy should result, and then have the blame passed away from the centre, is itself criminal. That is what risk management is becoming - self preservation at all costs.

But the failure to deal with the Police database issue is also a classic example of not tackling the underlying IT problem correctly. If the problem had been given to smaller companies to find a solution, I think it could have been solved quickly and without recourse to costly, lengthy processes that frequently under perform. A committee solution driven by consultants rarely delivers, let alone on time.

I am sure there are a number of smaller companies – we are one - that could accelerate solutions cost-effectively to what are perceived to be big challenges if only they were allowed a window of opportunity. There are many organisations with legacy databases that require similar integration without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

This applies to businesses, central and local government alike.

How can we persuade those who have the power to change things, to listen?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
16th Jul 2004 17:29

non-accountability endemic in civil service
I agree with David Carter that there is a need for SOMEBODY TO BE IN CHARGE... to be allocated authourity and to accept responsibility. But any hopes of this happening have been dashed by the Butler Report, which concluded that although there had been a number of fundamental failures in the intelligence system, no-one should be held accountable due to the supposed "principle of collective responsibility".

The scary part of this is that Butler's views derive from his many years as a senior civil servant, so presumably reflect the culture of those who run our affairs and spend our taxes.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By John Savage
16th Jul 2004 17:42

Scary
It is a scary society when my clients can be late with filing a piece of paper by one day, and they are punished by automatic penalties and such like. In addition I can 'turn a blind eye' to a trivial crime with proceeds of 1p or more and I am held liable to prosecution with a 5 year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine hanging over my head.

Yet top civil servants and the prime minister can screw up information and send a whole nation to war on this pretence, killing hundreds (maybe thousands) of people, and we seem to have a culture of "Oh well, we screwed up but never mind - eh"!!!

Those in charge are accountable, be they senior civil servants or senior politicians.

It is now time for change in our outlook and attitudes.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By allanr
16th Jul 2004 18:06

Systematic Failure and Mendacity
Why does systematic failure in a Police force require the head of the force to resign when it was a ministerial failing, whereas a systematic failure in the intelligence service gets the head of the service promoted, even though the failure was ultimately at ministerial level? Do you have to be involved in a case where there are more deaths, or is a more seniour minister the key... or both?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By David Carter
15th Jul 2004 12:09

Management by consensus for a national system?
The need for a national intelligence database was identified and the project approved in 1994. In 2000, we are told, the project was abandoned because the 43 police forces couldn't agree.

Neil, if your " management by consensus" approach is allowed to continue, we shall continue to see an endless series of government IT disasters as reported in the computer press. The whole point is that to build a national IT system of anything, there has to be someone IN CHARGE at a national level.

The only people capable of taking on this role are the civil servants, because they are permanent officials and can see a long-term project through.

I think John is wrong to blame Mr Blunkett. This lets the civil servants off the hook yet again. They have responsibilities and must be accountable for failure to discharge them. It is the permanent secretary of the Home Office who should be sacked.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By John Savage
13th Jul 2004 18:56

The buck stops with Blunckett
If a ship flounders on the rocks, who is it who takes ultimate responsibility for the error? Is it the engineers, the mates or the crew? No, it is the skipper.
I fail to understand how Blunckett has the gall to demand the suspension of subordinates, when the debate should be centered around his own resignation!!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neileg
14th Jul 2004 10:08

Management by consensus
The Public Sector does not work like a business, however. There are few clear lines of responsibility and there is a high degree of autonomous action. Ministers may have to resort to the courts to enforce policy decisions. Who ever heard of a board of directors using the courts as a managemnt tool?

The private sector uses varying degrees of carrot and stick to ensure that staff toe the company line. Where's the carrot in the public sector? And the stick is such a blunt instrument that it's difficult to wield with any degree of precision.

You end up with a form of management by consensus, persuading people to come to some form of compromise, at least on the surface. When compromise fails, as it has here, an impass results. You can blame the minister at the top, as you would blame the chairman of a plc, but the reality of the systems of control and policy formulation are very different.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Supercal
15th Jul 2004 14:57

Who was responsible
Your predicate is flawed. What would have happened in the real commercial world is that the person on £70K p.a. who hired the bloke without pbothering to make one phone call to inquire about the job applicant would have been fired.
In this case, that was the Headmaster in charge of the hiring

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neileg
16th Jul 2004 13:53

David
I'm not advocating management by consensus, in fact it's one of my daily bugbears, working in the public sector as I do.

Never the less, if the Home Secretary has to get a Court Injunction to enforce his clearly identified legal powers, then overturning this embedded culture will be a long process.

Thanks (0)