2.3 In April 1995, the Agency engaged the Central Computer & Telecommunications Agency (CCTA), then an Executive Agency of the Cabinet Office, now an Executive Agency in the Office of Government Commerce in the Treasury, to assist the Agency's project manager in defining the partnership. The terms of reference governing CCTA's engagement included the requirement for CCTA to define the partnership in the best interests of the Agency.
2.4 CCTA commenced their work by interviewing individually all the members of the Agency's management board about their understanding of and objectives for the partnership. They identified 12 objectives, which are listed in Figure 1. CCTA did not identify preferences for particular objectives, or views on how these should be attained; rather they used the results of the interviews as a guide when determining the objectives and critical success factors for the partnership.
2.5 In preparing their definition of the partnership CCTA also took soundings of the market, obtaining in May 1995 the views of seven IT services companies. The results of the interviews were encouraging with CCTA finding six of these companies enthusiastic about the prospect. At the time, however, CCTA did not appreciate the importance the management board placed on maintaining an in-house capability and not giving the partner a guaranteed minimum workload, thereby indicating to potential bidders that what was on offer was not an outsourcing contract.
1 |
| Objectives for the strategic partnership expressed by members of the Agency’s Management Board during interviews with CCTA |
|
|
| ■ To improve the value for money in providing the Agency with IT services by replacing singleton contractors with employees from the partner. ■ To sustain the value for money in providing the Agency with IT services. ■ To provide the Agency’s IT services staff with the widest possible choice of employment opportunities. The Agency had undertaken not to make any staff redundant. ■ To ensure that the Agency have the right to participate actively in the supply of IT services. ■ To retain, within the Agency, employees with the IT skills necessary to operate the Agency’s systems. ■ To involve the partner in the demand side for IT services. The partner would be rewarded if their contribution improved the Agency’s business performance. ■ To exploit internationally the Agency’s expertise and information systems. ■ To meet the Agency’s increasing demand for IT services. ■ To allow the Agency’s management more time to focus on the Agency’s core business. ■ To be flexible enough to cope with business changes within the Agency. ■ To provide the Agency with up-to-date information technology and solutions. ■ To comprehend fully the Agency’s core business and technical requirements. Source: The Agency |
2.6 In August 1995, CCTA proposed that the first transferred service should be infrastructure facilities management, that is the maintenance and management of hardware and non-business specific software. This service required little, if any, knowledge of the Agency's spectrum management business, and as such, the transfer could be completed within six to nine months. CCTA reasoned that this transfer would provide the Agency with a relatively early opportunity to gauge performance and the partner's commitment to the principles of partnership.
2.7 CCTA saw the Agency's satisfaction with the partner's delivery of infrastructure facilities management as the trigger for transferring the more business specific IT services, i.e. the development of new and the maintenance of existing services. It was, however, in the supply of these services that most of the Agency's contractors were engaged. To the management board, CCTA's proposed sequence for transferring IT services would not achieve the objective of early financial savings through the rapid replacement of contractors and posed a threat to the objective of retaining an in-house capability. Moreover the management board were concerned that the suppliers main interest would be in a conventional outsourcing arrangement. If the suppliers were given responsibility for the delivery of infrastructure facilities management first, as CCTA proposed, the board were not confident that they would be able to secure from the supplier the parts of the project that were most important to the Agency, namely the development services. Although CCTA amended their report defining the project to reflect a transfer of IT services meeting the management board's objectives, the differences of opinion that had arisen persisted for eleven months. In June 1996, the management board, with CCTA's agreement, reorganised the procurement team and redefined CCTA's role to that of providing advice on an ad hoc basis. This reorganisation caused a five-month delay to the procurement process (Appendix 3).
2.8 If CCTA and the Agency had prepared an agreed statement identifying and prioritising the objectives for, and constraints on, the partnership at an early stage CCTA would have had the information they needed, in their discussions with the IT companies, to represent accurately the Agency's objectives for the partnership. CCTA's feedback would then have given the Agency a direct insight into the acceptability of the management board's proposals.