In 1989, the Passport Department of the Home Office was implementing the Passport Issuing and Management Information system (PIMIS), the Agency's existing system for processing passports. On that occasion, the Department had begun the roll-out in its Glasgow office and had rolled out to Liverpool. Difficulties with the operation of the new PIMIS system in Glasgow and then Liverpool led to losses in productivity and output, and the roll-out was halted. Following the implementation of PIMIS, Coopers & Lybrand were commissioned to review the suitability and performance of the system. The review included the following key conclusions in respect of system implementation:
■ probably the most fundamental weakness of the project was the narrow and unimaginative view of the possibilities of computerisation….The mirroring of an existing clerical operation by a computerised operation rarely provides the best solution or achieves real benefits;
■ the second fundamental weakness of the PIMIS project has been insufficient user manager and staff involvement throughout the project's life;
■ in view of the difficulties which were met in Glasgow (passport office) and the consequent requirement for design changes, it was, at the least, optimistic to press ahead with the implementation in Liverpool (passport office) before these problems had been resolved. As a general principle, we would recommend that a system be implemented in one location and all problems resolved, before the system is replicated elsewhere….This was a high risk decision;
■ linked to this premature implementation in Liverpool was the earlier than expected surge in demand for passports….We are surprised that more adequate contingency arrangements were not available;
■ computer-based systems which provide the basis of routine office operations must operate sufficiently quickly not to slow down their users; and
■ the surges and, in part, the unpredictability of passport application demand result in difficulties in operations planning. The Department has had to operate within the strongest financial and staff resource constraints, while introducing a system for which the financial justification was finely balanced. However, we believe that these factors were either given or foreseeable, and we believe that their impact should have been managed better.