The Inquiry's governance experts second report and what it tells us. A long post but with some shorter sections at the beginning and end for those who do not want the detail.
The “gaze” should always have been on the role of Fujitsu in providing national security computing. Protected by: 1) The ‘untouchables’ (referred to, then denied by Nick Read) who ensured that nothing stopped Fujitsu; 2) ‘Arms length’, the essential policy so Government could not be held responsible. These together formed the “turning away”. Will the Public Inquiry be no more than a savaging by librarians?
A wasted opportunity but also clutching at straws to believe that throwing the rule book at PO would offer some enlightenment. It more questions the practicalities of the rule book. How many other Government Departments where following the governence rules are found to be wanting. It also requires the right calibre of people in the senior positions. Not easily found. All par for the course. Look at the MOD - a shambles (has been for decades) but no indiviudal tax-payer harmed so not the same attention.
A couple of underlying points. Priorites and incentive. As mentioned, RMG/PO were dealing with billions of tax payers money, the operational issues financially were just not important enough. Then, incentive, as a tax payer funded organisation there was no incentive to behave with integrity and go the extra distance for the business. Not many cared enough to live and breath their role. Many just did the minimum as nothing more was expected.
Many of the failings occurred in 2000-2003 but focus more on the players coming many years later.
No mention of how Fujitsu was managed. Hiding behind off-the-shelf or proprietary was convenient
No mention of how Government arms-length excuse was so flawed. An insult to risk management.
Where any of the POL execs due to get stock (free or at low cost) in the newly independent PO when it went public.
The “gaze” should always have been on the role of Fujitsu in providing national security computing. Protected by: 1) The ‘untouchables’ (referred to, then denied by Nick Read) who ensured that nothing stopped Fujitsu; 2) ‘Arms length’, the essential policy so Government could not be held responsible. These together formed the “turning away”. Will the Public Inquiry be no more than a savaging by librarians?
A wasted opportunity but also clutching at straws to believe that throwing the rule book at PO would offer some enlightenment. It more questions the practicalities of the rule book. How many other Government Departments where following the governence rules are found to be wanting. It also requires the right calibre of people in the senior positions. Not easily found. All par for the course. Look at the MOD - a shambles (has been for decades) but no indiviudal tax-payer harmed so not the same attention.
A couple of underlying points. Priorites and incentive. As mentioned, RMG/PO were dealing with billions of tax payers money, the operational issues financially were just not important enough. Then, incentive, as a tax payer funded organisation there was no incentive to behave with integrity and go the extra distance for the business. Not many cared enough to live and breath their role. Many just did the minimum as nothing more was expected.
Many of the failings occurred in 2000-2003 but focus more on the players coming many years later.
No mention of how Fujitsu was managed. Hiding behind off-the-shelf or proprietary was convenient
No mention of how Government arms-length excuse was so flawed. An insult to risk management.