£90.3m - money well spent!

I can't resist it. I was going to quit, honest. Yet how could I have missed this Guardian article from December last year?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/dec/09/national-audit-office-digital-investment-unclear-directgov-government-gateway-businessgovov

Benefits of government's £90.3m digital investment 'unclear'

National Audit Office accuses government of failing to measure the benefits of Government Gateway, Directgov and Business.gov

The government has failed to routinely measure the benefits of its main portals - the Government Gateway, Directgov and Business.gov - which together have cost £90.3m over the past three years, says the National Audit Office (NAO).

In its report titled Digital Britain one: shared infrastructure and services for government online, the spending watchdog accuses the government of making investment decisions without sufficient information on costs and benefits.

In 2005 the government began converging online services on Directgov and Business.gov in an effort to reduce its public service websites, of which there were more than 2,500. Since 2006 1,526 government websites have closed.

The NAO found only one instance where the government had estimated the benefits of its investment in online services. Business.gov, which provides government information for businesses, was reported to have saved business £21 for every £1 spent in 2010-11.

Although there are likely benefits to providing business information in one location, the NAO found that it was not possible to say how much of this benefit would have been delivered anyway, if the information had only been available from multiple websites.

There's another figure for how many websites got closed as a result of convergence - 1,526 in fact.

Sounds like that NAO report could be jolly interesting reading.

Here's my earlier speculation about the projected cost of government supersites and the reality: Whatever happened to that 400 million?