• Do business users, with real business problems, really need an intermediary (in the shape of a consultant or systems integrator) to talk to specialist application providers about their business challenges ?
   
• Must IT software applications always be supplied by a large well branded software provider or systems integrator ?
   
• Must project, transformation and change management projects always be large ? Can software projects only be successfully delivered by systems integrators carrying the contractual risk ? (note that smaller value COTS solutions are often not attractive to large systems integrators because the project value and margins tend to be small relative to perceived risk and contractual complexity);
   
• Is a single OGC ICT Model Agreement appropriate for all commercial arrangements ? Is a multi-million pound deal to outsource the whole of IT delivery for 10 years that similar to the licensing and implementation of a COTS solution costing under £500k ?

Here is what happens in our commercial relationships with local government and with police authorities. Perhaps this approach (or something similar) could be taken as a model for teams under particular pressure in central government departments ?

• We know what we do, where we have been successful in the past, and the sorts of business problems we might be able to help solve;
   
• It is easy for us to approach local government and police managers of teams that have similar problems. They want to improve efficiency. They are welcoming and willing to explore potential for us to assist them in meeting their challenges. They want to hear what we have done for others. We are part of their community;
   
• If there is a genuine business problem and we can offer a potential business solution, the discussion will typically progress in a tripartite manner as between the end users, their IT provider, and us;
   
• We discuss potential costs, the relationship of our solution to the corporate IT strategy and the potential return on investment to the client within their business improvement plan. What would be the business case, and how would successful delivery be measured post hoc ?;
   
• We discuss costs in relation to the competitive procurement process. These are often sufficiently low for “three competitive quotes” to suffice. On other occasions a formal tender process is required;
   
• We bid, and hopefully we win. We negotiate contracts on a fair and equitable basis taking account of clients’ commercial imperatives, licensing of our COTS solution and our business and service delivery model;
   
• As a specialist provider we work in partnership with clients and their IT departments. Using an adapted Prince 2 framework we deliver everything necessary to successfully implement our software and ensure that the business case is met. This includes project & change management, business continuity planning, configuration, data migration, installation (in partnership with IT), training and long term support;
   
• This is followed up by a long term client care programme to ensure that clients continue to deliver productivity improvements within their service plans.

As an example we have recently rolled out a 250 user system in a local authority in a period of 4 months from contract signature to all users going live. We don’t claim to be unique. There are many excellent SME providers to local government successfully using similar delivery models to us.

Here, on the other hand, is an example of a couple of near misses in central government: Please don’t cry.

In 2008, with a major provider of systems integration as prime contractor, we jointly bid for two UK central government contracts. These were to be low cost, COTS solutions. The standard OGC ICT Model Contract terms (then at version 2.2) were to apply as part of the conditions of tender.

We were shortlisted for one contract and selected as one of two preferred suppliers for the other. Our prime contractor withdrew from both opportunities because they considered the OGC ICT Model Contract terms to be over complex and inappropriate for such a small value deal.

Despite this being a COTS solution, one of the schedules to be scored by one of the clients as part of their tender evaluation related to our responses about TUPE of their staff (although TUPE was not appropriate for a contract of this size and indeed was not a requirement).

One of the client project managers called me to ask if there was any way we could ask our partner to reconsider the withdrawal. I was on a narrow boat on holiday on the Stratford Canal at the time. He subsequently said to me and the prime contractor’s representative: 

        “Every government department should have this solution”

Sad story, but very true. (I told you not to cry). Encouraging for the future however.