The States agreed in 2019, as part of the deal to sign up with Agilisys as its strategic IT partner for 10 years, to spend up to £16.7m. on a digital transformation project to reform the public service.
The Policy & Resources Committee then signed off on £8.9m. in 2019 and a further £7.8m. in 2021, and over the years added another £4.2m. from other transformation projects that ended up being consumed within MyGov.
Collectively these projects should have saved more than £7m. a year from 2021.
Instead, all the spending realised almost nothing, with £1.3m. of savings claimed, though that came with limited evidence that it was even linked to the MyGov programme.
Mr Smillie said that even if accepted, the savings were ‘not remotely proportionate to the scale of investment’.
£16.2m. of £21.6m. spent went to Agilisys, with £1.6m. spent on external consultancy, £2.3m. for internal recharges, and £1.5m. on other costs.
Mr Smillie said that financial control was ‘weak and inconsistent’. Agilisys initially took responsibility for monitoring spending on the programme, until a ‘significant’ overspend was spotted.
Reporting did not offer a clear or reliable picture and spending was not clearly linked to delivery or outcomes, he added.
‘There was a disconnect between expenditure and what was being delivered. Significant funds were committed without clear evidence of progress, and it was often unclear whether spending was contributing to tangible outcomes or benefits.’
As money was drawn from multiple sources and applied across numerous workstreams and projects, it was difficult to establish a single consolidated view of the total programme cost.
And the benefits of MyGov were initially ‘significantly overstated’ and then not realised at all.
‘The programme fell significantly short of what was promised.
‘The original business case delivered less than 10% of the anticipated financial savings in its first year, and the overall expected benefits were effectively halved by the time the second funding request was prepared,’ said Mr Smillie.
Where it all went wrong for the MyGov project
James Falla takes an overview of the background of the MyGov project – and where it all went wrong...
MyGov should have delivered improvements for customers and staff as part of a digital reform of the public service.
It became closely associated with the digitalisation and redesign of government services, but was also locked into enthusiasm to cut 200 public service jobs – a target that was never realised.
‘As a result, the programme was often judged less on its ability to improve services and more on its perceived role in delivering savings through headcount reduction,’ said Boley Smillie in his report.
‘In the end, neither were successfully delivered.’
The MyGov programme evolved into a broad and ever-shifting programme, with limited clarity as to realising results. Control and discipline on the project ebbed away as it became more difficult to manage progress.
The report said that MyGov was never properly defined and its scale and complexity exceeded the organisation’s capacity to deliver it. The partnership with IT contractor Agilisys did not work.
The scope of the programme kept on changing. Projects were renamed, overly complex governance arrangements reset and services redefined, and all more than once. It became difficult to understand what was being achieved and who was accountable.
Delivery was scaled back rather than underlying issues being addressed as the gap grew between ambition and delivery.
The business case drawn up was not a credible foundation for the programme. It was ‘bypassed’, the report said, overtaken by ‘increasing volumes of material’ that was aimed at securing approval, which, the report said, made decision-making harder.
Governance and leadership
Responsibility for spending and decision-making were delegated by the Policy & Resources Committee to a programme steering group, which went through several membership changes and even a name change.
The programme board included senior leaders from the States and Agilisys.
At one point programme documentation referenced more than 20 different boards, groups and teams as part of its governance, below the programme board.
The report said this made it difficult to understand who was accountable for what, and increased the risk of issues passing between groups rather than be resolved.
‘Rather than strengthening oversight, the proliferation of governance bodies diluted it,’ said the report.
Reporting was said to be ‘polished’ and presented to a high standard, but it masked underlying issues and was not reliable. The information was not challenged enough and warning signs were not acted upon.
There were clear points during the programme where stronger challenge and intervention were required, but were not taken.
Some key decisions were progressed outside of established governance structures and were not consistently reported back on for formal consideration. This weakened management controls and was not effectively challenged.
Roles and accountabilities were not clearly defined, and this resulted in duplication and gaps in decision-making.
The complexity of the programme and the approach to reporting effectively left deputies frozen out of any chance of oversight.
‘The combination of optimistic reporting and limited transparency meant that deputies could not reasonably have been expected to fully challenge or penetrate the position being presented,’ the report said.
Organisational changes were implemented before the supporting systems were in place. Staff were expected to deliver outcomes with reduced resource, without the tools required to do so, which had a negative impact on morale and service delivery, which, the report said, is still being felt today.
Supplier and contractor management
MyGov relied heavily on external suppliers, with Agilisys its key partner. This external expertise should have developed internal capability but this was not achieved.
The programme became increasingly dependent on external contractors with no meaningful accountability.
The role of Agilisys staff on the programme board ‘created a conflict’, according to the report, letting them effectively mark their own performance and shape how it was reported. The report said they were ‘afforded a level of influence that went beyond what should have been their role’, with no significant independent challenge on the programme board.
‘The result was an environment where supplier-led interpretation of progress went largely undealt with at the point where scrutiny was most needed. This weakened oversight and contributed directly to poor decision-making,’ the report said.
High turnover of staff reduced organisational stability and staff feedback indicated that challenge was unwelcome. Individuals who raised concerns had their views dismissed or were marginalised, and the environment was described as one where speaking up was seen as risky.
Senior staff deliberately excluded from standard civil service disciplinary policies
The most-senior leaders in the public sector have been deliberately excluded from standard civil service disciplinary and capability policies.
This is one of the shock findings of chief executive Boley Smillie’s investigation into the MyGov shambles.
Mr Smillie said that different rules for senior staff was not uncommon in many organisations, but the civil service had no alternative framework in place to address conduct or capability at a senior level.
‘It creates a lack of clarity, increases legal and reputational risk, and undermines confidence that senior leaders are subject to consistent and transparent standards,’ he said.
And he also uncovered that performance management was not linked to the delivery of the MyGov programme.
‘I have seen no evidence that individual performance was assessed against the outcomes of MyGov, or that underperformance was reflected in performance reviews or development actions,’ he said. ‘Taken together, these issues represent a material gap in the organisation’s ability to hold its most senior leaders to account.
‘Without a defined framework for managing performance, conduct, and capability, and without a clear connection between outcomes and individual accountability, governance is weakened and the organisation’s ability to respond effectively to failure is limited.’
He said that there was limited evidence of individual accountability being identified or addressed on MyGov.
‘This creates a perception that responsibility is collective, rather than owned, and reduces confidence in leadership oversight,’ he said.
Mr Smillie has made no reference to individual conduct in his report, saying it would be dealt with separately.
‘The most significant and lasting impact of MyGov has been on our people’
The launch of MyGov was a time for ‘genuine optimism’ across the organisation.
Staff welcomed the scale of investment being made and it was being seen as an opportunity to modernise services and move away from outdated systems and ways of working.
Transformation relied heavily on external expertise. Advisers were brought in to support change and delivery, but the support fell well short of what was expected and required, with the new ‘experts’ lacking a sufficient understanding of how to deliver transformation within a complex public sector organisation.
The importance of engaging and enabling the organisation’s own staff went unrecognised – not uncommon in public service transformation.
The report said it was fairly common to see the people who best understood the challenges and held many of the solutions were not properly involved.
Staff were not sufficiently engaged, communication was limited, and as confidence declined, ‘the gap between ambition and delivery became increasingly apparent’. A consistent theme from staff feedback was that individuals who raised well-founded concerns were often characterised as ‘resistant or unhelpful’, they were excluded from discussions and forums and even reprimanded.
‘This created a culture where challenge was discouraged, limiting the organisation’s ability to respond to emerging risks,’ said chief executive Boley Smillie in his report.
‘I cannot stress strongly enough that the most significant and lasting impact of MyGov has been on our people.
‘The programme led to the loss of experienced staff, while many others experienced reduced morale and confidence. This was against, for much of the programme, the backdrop of the Covid pandemic which was already placing exceptional pressures on the public service.’