Government tech procurement branded 'simplistic’

National Audit Office criticises lack of CDIO involvement when talking to suppliers

The UK government plans tech procurement “without detailed assessments of technical feasibility,” says an analysis by the National Audit Office.

A report by the NAO, an independent body that scrutinises public spending, estimates the UK public sector spends a minimum of £14 billion on digital procurement annually, touching everything from new policy initiatives to hardware.

“Our work over the last decade has shown that government’s attempts at digital transformation have had mixed success,” the report says, with flagship programmes failing to deliver expected results.

Problems mainly arise at the department, rather than central government, level. The NAO says, “Too often[,] departments fall short of good practice.”

The watchdog notes departments “can present investment cases without a detailed assessment of technical feasibility, for which there is no detailed central government guidance.” This means funding allocations can be based on “simplistic high-level assumptions,” and makes any issues that arise later more difficult to resolve.

Simplifying supply

“Very large suppliers” dominate some areas of procurement, such as Big Tech firms for cloud services and AI capabilities.

The report notes the government lacks a shared strategic approach for dealing with these large suppliers, especially in areas like cloud services where switching providers can be complex and expensive.

“Just three very large multinational providers now have a combined global market share of over 60% of cloud services provision. Moving from one cloud infrastructure provider to another can be challenging and disruptive and it is overly simplistic to treat large providers as if they are offering generic services that departments can easily switch between at will.”

The report concludes that the government’s long-standing need to improve its use of technology suppliers, and slow progress in doing so, has contributed to “poor outcomes” in attempts to modernise.

Recommendations include a clearer ownership model for supplier relationships; more data-sharing to inform better central decision-making; and ensuring CDIOs are involved in commercial contracts with technology suppliers.

While the NAO is independent, the chair of the government’s own spending review body, the Public Accounts Committee, commented on the report.

"Digital commercial skills are in short supply and government is not making the most of the limited expertise it has,” said Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, MP. “Government has managed digital suppliers poorly, and the centre of government has not provided direction to help departments become intelligent clients.

"The Public Accounts Committee has long maintained that technology can transform the way government delivers public services. Without a more strategic approach from the centre, and a sourcing strategy that is fit for purpose for the digital age, the government risks wasting more money and squandering the opportunity to modernise the public sector.”