Lectern

By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

The Lectern: A British government IT system that works

I'm in London for the next few days, working on a case for use in classroom instruction at Harvard (and maybe elsewhere, if other professors want to buy the case from our case program!). The case involves the Joint Personnel Application. This system is similar to Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System, except that it is actually in operation and has replaced the legacy systems of each of the three British military services.


The system, based on modified commercial off-the-shelf technology, was built based on the principle that for the services to achieve significant cost savings, they had to harmonize their business processes and adapt them to the COTS technology. So an important part of the case study is understanding how such harmonization was able to take place, despite inherent difficulties familiar to anyone involved in such efforts.


One thing that has made an impression on me so far is how the Ministry of Defense made it clear to the contractor, EDS, that its success on the program would have an important influence over its future as a supplier to the British military. EDS has had a number of high-profile failures, and the government let the company know that there could be no lose-win on the program -- either both EDS and the government won, or EDS and the government lost. This message, coming from high levels of the Ministry of Defense, was made clear to the highest levels of EDS leadership.


In other words, it was an aggressive use of past performance.


We need to be in the habit of being as aggressive about our use of past performance in our government as well.


BTW, for readers following my various travelogues, my teaching in the MPP (Master's of Public Policy) program -- aka "the kids" -- starts again next Wednesday, after a year's sabbatical. I am juiced up to be getting to know a new cohort of Kennedy School students. But I'll be travelling less -- maybe there'll be more blogs about the classroom and the kids.

Posted by Steve Kelman on Jan 24, 2008 at 9:41 AM


Reader comments

Wed, Jan 30, 2008 John Monroe

Michael, as always I really appreciate your thoughtful comments, which I very much respect even when we disagree. Incidentally, since writing the post I learned that the UK Office of Government Contracts, in the Treasury, actually tries to look at the performance of major contractors on major contracts on a governmentwide basis, and try to leverage the past performance ability of the British government that way.Agencies shouldn't need an incentive to use past performance, since it is a way to get better contractors who help them meet the mission better. We do have some regulatory barriers to honest past performance report cards, such as the ability of a contractor to complain formally one level above the rater if they don't like the rating. And the workforce shortage makes it difficult to give this the time it needs. My own view is that revitalizing the use of past performance in the government should be at the top of the procurement agenda.The example you gave at the end illustrates why contracting shouldn't be a mechanistic process. Contracting officials should have the discretion to make judgments about the kinds of factors you raise.Thanks again for reading and commenting. Best Steve Kelman

Sun, Jan 27, 2008 Michael Lent

Steve,UK byplay w EDS is very interesting. I wonder if such threats, plus the knowledge that EDS would lose money on a contract, would lead to any different UK government jawboning.Am all for using past perf aggressively here. But how do you incent agencies to do this? A favorite example: DHS cans Monster Worldwide for its work on a critical recruiting Web site, yet OPM hires the firm weeks later to do similar work. It happens all the time. But to be fair, should there be a statute of limitations on bad past perf? E.g., if the project manager and staff and company executive overseer who did poorly on a job are gone, and firm has demonstrated good work of this type since, should the govt discount the bad past perf when evaluating competitive proposals? This would be like expiring points on a drivers license. If bad past perf -- the kind that companies don't submit in proposals--never "expired" there would be few top 100 companies in the federal market, I am afraid. Like the govt, they all have their exceptionally trying projects. Your thoughts?

Post your comment here

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above
John Monroe

FCW Insider

Federal Computer Week eNewsletters

  • Subscribe to Newsletters Subscribe

    Federal Computer Week's eNewsletters deliver the latest policy and management news to your inbox.

eSeminar

Current Issue of FCW