Chamber and committees

That is not quite an answer to the question that I asked, but I will let it go in order to let other members come in.

My last question, the subject of which we have been dancing around, references the concept of agency. We have alluded to top-down structures and to bodies taking ownership in different ways, but we can think about the matter from a bottom-up perspective. Going back to what Jennifer Wallace said about subsidiarity, rather than thinking about the very bottom of the triangle and the person in the street, how would you go about ensuring that agency is instilled in every touch point of the national performance framework? I am thinking about the issue from a completely different perspective; we have not used the word “agency” in the evidence session today, but it is jumping out at me.

I can see that you are all thinking about that. Who wants to go first?

You have now gone on to the bit that I was specifically asking about. In effect, your neck is on the block and we have heard various people say, “Well, I have never run an IT project,” which to me indicates a much higher risk with regard to scrutiny and the need for governance at the SPCB level. It is almost as if you are operating at board level, and any typical board would say that those are the projects that carry more risk and are therefore the ones for which we need greater scrutiny or capacity for scrutiny.

You have reflected that you will certainly look at the matter more carefully, but I now feel a wee bit alarmed that, for various reasons, the SPCB is not able to fulfil its role in scrutinising the workings of Parliament. I am not surprised at the fact that, guess what, IT projects are always complex and always go over budget and take longer—I know that because I have run IT projects.

To pick up on what Daniel Johnson has said, I personally would like to see out of this discussion a report that is produced on behalf of the SPCB and which the SPCB has signed off saying, from a governance perspective, what specifically will change in the light of this project and what we will learn from it.

I am entirely familiar with everything that you said, and I have no doubt that it is happening. However, given today’s session and the concerns that have come out of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, it is clear that there has been a mismatch. It is that mismatch that I am pulling out. If it were me, I would be looking carefully at avoiding that mismatch happening again. However, I want to move on, because I know that every colleague wants to come in.

I will pick up on a comment that Daniel Johnson made. I would not necessarily agree about the methodology that is used for projects. We know that the world has moved on from waterfall projects. However, where we have an agile methodology—which is of course sold by the IT consultants as much more flexible—it can often mean that we have increased costs. We are developing multiple prototypes and so costs can mount in that area. The fact that we do not have to do a big, huge analysis project up front, which is then out of date, is sold as a benefit.

I am not entirely sure what fits in where. However, looking at the figures, I notice that—[Interruption.].

My thing has just died, so I have to log in again. I may be able to quote the figures in a minute. However, between the alpha and beta phases, quite a number of prototypes were clearly going on. It looks to me like a disproportionately high number of prototypes, which could even suggest that different personnel were coming in and going out. The whole point of agile methodology is that you develop a prototype and test it and that it is iterative as compared to the old waterfall approach. Perhaps Alan Balharrie will give us more context on that.

However, knowing what you know now, will you ask in future about what is being traded in relation to time, cost and quality?

Before you come in, Dr Elliott, you specifically mentioned the Auditor General’s role in relation to accountability, which gets more complex when policy decisions bypass the Scottish Parliament and go directly to local councils without a clear line of sight on scrutiny and accountability, and just a promise to look at it later. Do you have any thoughts about the complexity of that? I noted with interest what you said about attributive accountability; that is an interesting theme.

Thank you, convener.

To follow on from a couple of earlier points, I have a question for Jackson Carlaw. I appreciate that the corporate body sits at accountability level and that a multitude of projects are going on, as Michelle Hegarty set out. However, given what we know now, it is fair to say that the cost of development of the new Parliament website has at least raised some eyebrows and caused some interest. What recommendations will you be looking to put in place on how the corporate body can fulfil its accountability responsibilities more carefully? I am sure that you have reflected on that.

I perhaps take a different view from some of the committee members in that I was surprised that the work had not been started in the 10 years when it was known that the operating system had become obsolete. Provisioning for IT is invariably expensive and only goes one way in any organisation. That seems to have been quite a long time to wait to start the project. I would appreciate your reflections on that, Alan. As I said, everyone needs to understand that it is a continuing, risky, built-in cost to the Parliament all the time, because that is the nature of IT and digital services. However, I would like to understand why it took so long.

I am not surprised to hear that.

I will bring Susan Duffy in. There have been a few points at which we have talked about comms with the various governing bodies and the committee. Would you like to add anything to the record on what you would consider doing differently?