Agilisys partnership has ‘matured since contract’s inception’ – P&R
Policy & Resources claims to have sorted out a catalogue of problems which plagued the first few years of the States’ IT partnership with Agilisys.
Scrutiny’s damning review of what went wrong includes an initial response from P&R which insists that the partnership has ‘matured since the contract’s inception’ and is working well.
‘It is accepted that mistakes were made in the contract’s early stages but these have been identified and rectified, leading to significant improvements more recently,’ said P&R.
‘The committee is disappointed that the timing of the Scrutiny report did not allow for it to fully capture this more recent work.’
P&R said that improving digital services was ‘a priority’ and pointed to additional funding and extra job roles which had been agreed to speed up the modernisation of IT systems, and enhance capacity and expertise in the States’ IT department.
The senior committee said it would ‘take into account’ recommendations made in Scrutiny’s report.
It has already acted on one recommendation, by appointing a new chief digital and information officer last year, but it also said it had ‘no immediate plans’ to adopt Scrutiny’s suggestion of appointing an advisory board with IT industry and business expertise.
An initial response provided by Agilisys supported all of Scrutiny’s recommendations. The company accepted little blame for what went wrong, and cited numerous deficiencies on the States side of the partnership.
Agilisys said that the States had rejected its offers to create an IT service continuity plan and transfer UK staff to help in Guernsey.
Senior figures in the States tasked Agilisys with making financial savings, but the company claimed that changes it introduced were frustrated lower down in the organisation.
It said the States lacked understanding from the outset of the contract, did not always have clear requirements, and failed to provide plans for its old IT systems.
Scrutiny suggested that Agilisys did not prepare adequately, but the company said it ‘performed due diligence on the information that was known and made available by the States’.
It also claimed that it continued to face resistance to IT services being provided by a private company, especially one based in the UK.
Read more coverage in Monday’s Press.
