IT AND DATA
Government legacy IT systems holding back public sector transformation
Damien Venkatasamy, public sector director at Tata Consultancy Services, discusses legacy IT. R
ecently, the National Audit Offi ce published a report on the UK Government’s legacy IT systems. The report found these systems pose a signifi cant risk to public service delivery. This is a belief we have long held at Tata Consultancy Services (TCS).
Legacy government IT systems do not only hinder effi ciency efforts. They also hinder the improvement of quality of service for the public.
The Government’s reliance on these systems is often because they are tied in to long-term, infl exible contracts. The commercial terms of these contracts can be very limiting. This is exacerbated by cost and risk aversion, especially in the current economic conditions.
The public’s expectations of public services continue to rise due to their interactions and experiences with the private sector.
In the private sector services are increasingly being delivered digitally, so the public is asking why that isn’t happening to the same in extent in the public sector.
The answer is that many of the Government’s legacy IT systems just aren’t capable of the same level of digitisation; they cannot deliver the self-serve experience that is commonplace in the private sector.
For a digital experience comparable to the private sector, government IT systems need fundamental re-engineering.
46 | public sector executive Sep/Oct 13
The changes to Government IT systems need to go beyond just improving user interfaces.
Government needs to create an online journey for the public; increasing use of automation, straight-through processing and
self-help.
Most legacy IT systems were not engineered in a way that would make an online journey possible.
Assuming it was possible to re-engineer these systems, the cost would most likely be prohibitive.
Furthermore, the majority of the technology that legacy IT systems are based upon is not current or suitable for digitisation. Breaking the constraints of legacy IT systems is not simple. The challenge though should be evaluated against the risk of remaining with a legacy IT system and also the potential benefi ts of transformation. The private sector has been very effective at moving their customer interactions to digital – called ‘channel shifting’ – and they have realised massive savings from doing it. Digital won’t ever entirely replace person-to-person interactions, but evidence shows that most customers will choose a good digital channel over a person-to-person interaction.
Where Government has invested in modern IT systems that make a digital channel possible, the majority of the public are using it.
A good example of this is that most people now renew their car tax online using the DVLA
website, dramatically reducing costs, whilst at the same time increasing convenience to motorists in applying for car tax. The issue of legacy IT systems does not just extend to those that deliver public services. Questions should be asked about the cost and risk of not replacing legacy IT systems in the back and middle offi ce too.
There is enormous scope for back- and middle- offi ce effi ciencies in the public sector, most though cannot be realised without modern IT systems. However, the implications are broader than just replacing legacy IT systems; the civil service also needs to adopt different styles of working and change cultures.
The National Audit Offi ce report recognises the need to go beyond just technological change. It highlights the risk of no action, but also gives thought to other obstacles. It looks at the direction Government should take, the kinds of delivery model it could use, how to overcome the cultural obstacles to change, and whether the skills exist within Government to address the issue. Acknowledging the threat of legacy IT systems is critical. Once Government does that, it needs to think beyond just how to fund replacement systems and focus on transforming services for the public if it wants to achieve the best outcomes.
Damien Venkatasamy
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
opinion@publicsectorexecutive.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84