@Telford why is your agreement relevant? How does your agreement do anything to anyting, bearing in mind that the Ship does not operate by vote but by actual argument.
Oh sorry, totally fucking over a country with a catchy slogan entitles you never to think again, or act in anyone's interest but your paymasters'. Forgot that bit.
@Telford why is your agreement relevant? How does your agreement do anything to anyting, bearing in mind that the Ship does not operate by vote but by actual argument.
Oh sorry, totally fucking over a country with a catchy slogan entitles you never to think again, or act in anyone's interest but your paymasters'. Forgot that bit.
I state my agreement rather than posting the same thing myself. I apologise if this offends you.
The thing about the "bit in bold" is that the sentence that follows it is a necessary consequence of it.
We agree that those responsible for the design of the track and trace system failed to ensure data integrity.
Data integrity is a basic goal of any data handling system of this nature. It therefore follows that a failure to ensure data integrity (and in case anyone is tempted to weasel, let's be clear that this is a design failure, and not some tiny implementation bug) is a failure of the project manager in charge of the project. And such an elementary failure reflects rather badly on the people who selected the project manager.
The thing about the "bit in bold" is that the sentence that follows it is a necessary consequence of it.
We agree that those responsible for the design of the track and trace system failed to ensure data integrity.
Data integrity is a basic goal of any data handling system of this nature. It therefore follows that a failure to ensure data integrity (and in case anyone is tempted to weasel, let's be clear that this is a design failure, and not some tiny implementation bug) is a failure of the project manager in charge of the project. And such an elementary failure reflects rather badly on the people who selected the project manager.
The thing about the "bit in bold" is that the sentence that follows it is a necessary consequence of it.
We agree that those responsible for the design of the track and trace system failed to ensure data integrity.
Data integrity is a basic goal of any data handling system of this nature. It therefore follows that a failure to ensure data integrity (and in case anyone is tempted to weasel, let's be clear that this is a design failure, and not some tiny implementation bug) is a failure of the project manager in charge of the project. And such an elementary failure reflects rather badly on the people who selected the project manager.
Does the project manager escape scott free ?
A lot depends on whether a cursory glance at the project manager's CV indicates they had the appropriate competencies for the job. If not, then why were they selected? (Looking at you, Dido Hardings...)
And such an elementary failure reflects rather badly on the people who selected the project manager.
Does the project manager escape scott free ?
You make it sound like you think that if one of them is at fault then the other ought to get off scot free. Both the project manager and their line manager can be at fault.
And such an elementary failure reflects rather badly on the people who selected the project manager.
Does the project manager escape scott free ?
You make it sound like you think that if one of them is at fault then the other ought to get off scot free. Both the project manager and their line manager can be at fault.
Or it could be those who work for the project manager
Or it could be those who work for the project manager
There's no "or" about it. A failure of this sort is a basic failure in project management, as well as incompetence in the implementation.
So the project manager is obviously at fault. @Doc Tor's question is about culpability. Did the project manager actually have the ability to manage a project of this nature, or were they given a job beyond their competence, and told to get on with it. In the former case, the buck pretty much stops with the project manager. In the latter case, the people who chose the project manager are clearly at fault, and whilst the project manager was part of the problem, is it reasonable to assign blame to someone if they do a bad job that they lack the skills for?
Once again Matt has been let down by people not doing their job properly.
I'll add here: it's not
'Matt' who has been let down. It is the people who have caught the virus who wouldn't have if the test and trace regime worked.
There does seem to be a total reversal of the convention of ministerial responsibility.
Covid death toll? We were following the scientists' advice
Exams? Ofqual's fault
General lack of coordination and responsiveness? PHE's fault
Spreadsheet error? Some minion's fault
Even Cameron and May weren't that bad from what I remember. But I suppose they had the option of blaming everything on Gordon Brown.
ETA: maybe the civil service genuinely is that bad, but, if so, the government has had ten years to get a grip on it.
ETA: maybe the civil service genuinely is that bad
If it's anything like my experience of data management in other public and semi-public bodies, I can well believe that it is. All the important but boring stuff gets done on the cheap because all the money is going on vanity projects that make the leaders look good.
They probably spent more on consultants to decide which colour the new app should be than they did on actually making sure the system it relies on works properly.
I suspect that a lot of problems with government IT projects go back to the dissolution of the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) in 2000. CCTA provided expertise available to all departments in a way that is no longer visible.
Similar problems with other areas of government infrastructure have been traced back to the abolition of the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works in 1970.
Dispersing specialist expertise means that it is very rare for anyone in a senior position in a government department to have the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to competently oversee technical projects.
I think the £12b is for the entire test and trace system - costs of the tests (including setting up testing centres which may mean a 100mile drive to get to), the data processing through Excel and the hundreds of people hired to sit at home waiting to get a list of people to call.
ETA: maybe the civil service genuinely is that bad
If it's anything like my experience of data management in other public and semi-public bodies, I can well believe that it is.
My impression from working with the public sector is that outsourcing bears a large share of the blame; it has left many organisations without the expertise to properly understand the things they are trying to contract out.
Not only should there be someone making sure things are done right (including appointing the right people), but when something is as important as saving lives by tracing coronavirus contacts they should Excel at that job.
Not only should there be someone making sure things are done right (including appointing the right people), but when something is as important as saving lives by tracing coronavirus contacts they should Excel at that job.
The NHS employs over one million people. Far too many for Mr Hancock to supervise, or have any control over the vast majority of appointments
The NHS employs over one million people. Far too many for Mr Hancock to supervise, or have any control over the vast majority of appointments
We're talking about the design for a national system to track Covid tests in the middle of a pandemic, not about the latest porter to be hired at your local hospital.
Also, the testing is not being done by the NHS. "Matt" and his colleagues in government have sidelined the NHS labs. The testing is being done by private laboratories brought in at great expense by "Matt" and his colleagues.
The NHS employs over one million people. Far too many for Mr Hancock to supervise, or have any control over the vast majority of appointments
We're talking about the design for a national system to track Covid tests in the middle of a pandemic, not about the latest porter to be hired at your local hospital.
Matt did not design the system. He was obliged to employ people who were qualified to do so.
And the private labs are contracted by PHE, or NIfHP now Dido Lost Data Harding's in charge.
NIfHP is not NHS.
Although there is an overlap in the sense that they oversee things like population screening programmes, in terms of what is offered, and in setting and monitoring performance indicators, that are run by the NHS.
Matt did not design the system. He was obliged to employ people who were qualified to do so.
We agree he had an obligation to employ people qualified to do so, and we are agreed the people he employed were not so qualified.
He hath not employed those people whom he ought to have employed; and he hath employed those people whom he ought not to have employed; And there is no health in us.
Because if appoint incompetent nincompoops to do an important job, it's *your* fault when it goes horribly wrong.
As we've all been telling you for at least two pages now. Besides, there used to be a thing called Ministerial Responsibility, but that seems to have lapsed under the current administration.
Not only should there be someone making sure things are done right (including appointing the right people), but when something is as important as saving lives by tracing coronavirus contacts they should Excel at that job.
The NHS employs over one million people. Far too many for Mr Hancock to supervise, or have any control over the vast majority of appointments
Comments
Bit in bold, I would assume.
Oh sorry, totally fucking over a country with a catchy slogan entitles you never to think again, or act in anyone's interest but your paymasters'. Forgot that bit.
Ah, I see. You could well be right - thx.
I state my agreement rather than posting the same thing myself. I apologise if this offends you.
We agree that those responsible for the design of the track and trace system failed to ensure data integrity.
Data integrity is a basic goal of any data handling system of this nature. It therefore follows that a failure to ensure data integrity (and in case anyone is tempted to weasel, let's be clear that this is a design failure, and not some tiny implementation bug) is a failure of the project manager in charge of the project. And such an elementary failure reflects rather badly on the people who selected the project manager.
Does the project manager escape scott free ?
A lot depends on whether a cursory glance at the project manager's CV indicates they had the appropriate competencies for the job. If not, then why were they selected? (Looking at you, Dido Hardings...)
So the project manager is obviously at fault. @Doc Tor's question is about culpability. Did the project manager actually have the ability to manage a project of this nature, or were they given a job beyond their competence, and told to get on with it. In the former case, the buck pretty much stops with the project manager. In the latter case, the people who chose the project manager are clearly at fault, and whilst the project manager was part of the problem, is it reasonable to assign blame to someone if they do a bad job that they lack the skills for?
'Matt' who has been let down. It is the people who have caught the virus who wouldn't have if the test and trace regime worked.
At your place of work did the project managers take any responsibility for their projects? Or did they just cover their backsides?
Covid death toll? We were following the scientists' advice
Exams? Ofqual's fault
General lack of coordination and responsiveness? PHE's fault
Spreadsheet error? Some minion's fault
Even Cameron and May weren't that bad from what I remember. But I suppose they had the option of blaming everything on Gordon Brown.
ETA: maybe the civil service genuinely is that bad, but, if so, the government has had ten years to get a grip on it.
If it's anything like my experience of data management in other public and semi-public bodies, I can well believe that it is. All the important but boring stuff gets done on the cheap because all the money is going on vanity projects that make the leaders look good.
They probably spent more on consultants to decide which colour the new app should be than they did on actually making sure the system it relies on works properly.
Similar problems with other areas of government infrastructure have been traced back to the abolition of the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works in 1970.
Dispersing specialist expertise means that it is very rare for anyone in a senior position in a government department to have the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to competently oversee technical projects.
35 million, although that's still a lot.
And all Poor Little Mattie can say is 'it shouldn't have happened' (or words to that effect). No shit, Sherlock...
My impression from working with the public sector is that outsourcing bears a large share of the blame; it has left many organisations without the expertise to properly understand the things they are trying to contract out.
We didn't actually have anyone called project managers.
Foreman? Overseer? Gangmaster? Unless you worked in an anarchist collective somebody was responsible for seeing whatever you did got done.
I disagree. I understand them very well. It's you I have a problem with
The NHS employs over one million people. Far too many for Mr Hancock to supervise, or have any control over the vast majority of appointments
We're talking about the design for a national system to track Covid tests in the middle of a pandemic, not about the latest porter to be hired at your local hospital.
NIfHP is not NHS.
Although there is an overlap in the sense that they oversee things like population screening programmes, in terms of what is offered, and in setting and monitoring performance indicators, that are run by the NHS.
He hath not employed those people whom he ought to have employed; and he hath employed those people whom he ought not to have employed; And there is no health in us.
So why are people blaming Matt? He has enough to do already
As we've all been telling you for at least two pages now. Besides, there used to be a thing called Ministerial Responsibility, but that seems to have lapsed under the current administration.
Honestly, this is like trying to push soup uphill.
'Chain of command' mean anything to you?
It's not the NHS as I just mentioned.
Because they are overseen by the DoH, of which he is in charge.
Exactly. And his failure to do so is what people are now blaming him for.