Directgov Is Dead - part 2

This morning I was going to launch a devastating attack on Directgov and all its works, but I've become preoccupied with my own problems. I should know the difference between alpha.gov.co.uk and www.alphagov.co.uk - I'm sure it's something I need to read up on. Within ten years, everything I know about developing websites and online services will be obselete. There's no way I'll be able to keep up with a young university graduate. I'd better make sure I get a promotion to senior management by then.

I feel that one of the reasons why Directgov exists is because  of the anxieties of well-meaning middle aged civil servants and politicians. Instead of a multitude of government websites and services, with the risk that they will go feral if left unattended, why not just have one?

A good starting point for the history of Directgov is Michael Cross' interview with Jayne Nickalls in 2007, when Directgov was still in its infancy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/aug/22/guardiansocietysupplement.egovernment

At the moment, most e-government transactions go through thousands of agency, departmental and local authority sites. Directgov is supposed to replace the lot. Nickalls says rationalisation would be good for citizens: "All our research shows that people want a single channel to government." She says that once people find Directgov, they like it: "More than 80% of users think it's a very good site."

Rationalisation is a centrepiece of government IT strategy. Consolidating the rambling government estate in cyberspace was an idea promoted by Sir David Varney's review of government services, published by the Treasury last December. Varney estimated that the government could save £400m over three years by channelling all its e-activities through just two sites, Directgov and its business equivalent, businesslink.gov.uk.

However, the "supersite" scheme may be at odds with public agencies' desire to promote their own brand identities on the web. Nickalls says she is looking forward to the challenge. But does she realise she could be blamed for every problem encountered with government websites? "Of course!"

And blamed she was. On 20 November 2010, Nickalls announced her resignation, along with several high-profile members of the Directgov board. Some of us took this as a tacit admission that Directgov had failed.

Or did it succeed? As woeful as Directgov's design and navigation are, hundreds of government websites, many of them poorly written and inaccessible, were duly closed down and migrated. The government's momentum is still in the direction of greater centralisation, control and hierarchy. Nickalls announced that 'phase one of Directgov is complete' and by that time the Alphagov project was already underway.

On 23 November 2010 Martha Lane Fox published her 'letter' to the Minister of the Cabinet Office, Francis Maud -

Directgov 2010 and Beyond: Revolution Not Evolution - Letter from Martha Lane Fox to Francis Maude

From page two, her Key Recommendations were -

1. Make Directgov the government front end for all departments' transactional online services to citizens and businesses, with the teeth to mandate cross government solutions, set standards and force departments to improve citizens' experience of key transactions.

2. Make Directgov a wholesaler as well as the retail shop front for government services & content by mandating the development and opening up of Application Programme Interfaces (APls) to third parties.

3. Change the model of government online publishing, by putting a new central team in Cabinet Office in absolute control of the overall user experience across all digital channels, commissioning all government online information from other departments.

4. Appoint a new CEO for Digital in the Cabinet Office with absolute authority over the user experience across all government online services (websites and APls) and the power to direct all government online spending.

I'm not sure what paragraph 2 means. I'm doomed unless I get that promotion. But the rest seems straightforward enough - easy enough for a middle aged politician to grasp, with a compelling sense of urgency.

From Nickalls' 'rationalisation' we have moved on to words like 'teeth', 'absolute control' and 'absolute authority'. Far from being scrapped, the Directgov ideal was taking on a more militant form.

Simon Dickson's recently Puffbox article 22 more well-paid GDS jobs up for grabs mentioned the £1.5 bill for GDS executive posts. Tom Loosemore's comment was:

Yes, you're correct, GDS is setting its very high indeed when it comes to digital skills. To deliver a gov.uk revolution GDS needs the very best developers, designers, operations & systems people in the UK. And that means offering appropriate salaries for world-class digital talent.

That's right, a revolution. I've got a feeling we'll be coming back to this notion over the next few months. There's not date for the revolution just yet but I understand the Beta version is going live for public comment in February 2011.

Directgov may be dead, but the rhetoric which kept it alive up until now is looking for a new host body.