Will Atos Origin, originally formed in 2000 by the merging of French (Axime + Sligos = Atos) & Dutch (Origin = Royal Philips Electronics subsidiary) IT management and services companies, who later acquired KPMG Consulting (to trade in the UK as Atos KPMG Consulting) turn out to be the soon-to-be-appointed "development partner bringing in detailed expertise from outside Government" as announced in last week's Home Office press release?
They are, after all, the ones running the current UK Passport Service Six Month Biometrics Enrolment Trial, which started only a couple of months behind schedule - an all-time record for a UK Government IT project!
Of course, their very recent acquisition of the world's leading smartcard solution provider, SchlumbergerSema (in January 2004) would make them the *obvious* choice - but could it possibly be a little arrogant of them to assert on their UK home page that:
"The increased strength and depth of our end-to-end solutions and services, coupled with our expertise in Enterprise, Financial Services, Medical Services, Public Sector, Telecom, Media and Utilities and Transport ensures that the new Atos Origin is the future of IT services in the UK." [emphasis added]
Is Atos Origin becoming so powerful that it can basically take over any company that it sees as having the potential to 'interfere' with its lucrative Public Sector contracts? Are current or future Governments likely to act (e.g. regarding anti-competitive practices) against a supplier that delivers the very core of their information infrastructure?
I'm not a great one for conspiracy theories - its hard to believe in an all-powerful, evil 'them' when greed, stupidity and untrammelled 'free' market forces seem to do just as good a job of screwing things up. The managements of the mega-consultancies, manufacturers and service companies are simply doing what comes naturally in business - i.e. keeping an eye to the bottom line - while certain politicians seem hell-bent on pissing away billions of our tax pounds, while simultaneously and systematically corrupting and undermining the fundamentals of an equal and fair Information Society.
UPDATED 5/5/04: Thanks to Trevor Mendham for pointing out the recent FT article 'Companies wary about running ID cards scheme' on his UK ID Cards blog. The article refers to concerns voiced by Capita and Serco - and mentions that Atos, EDS and Capgemini (who just last week were 'embracing a new consulting paradigm') are 'talking to the Home Office about how to build the database'!
Actually the Passport Office trial, which is not technically about a National ID card, but, according to the European Journal tender document about a Passport smartcard only valid in the European Union, should have *finished* by Christmas 2003.
"Title: pu/03/008 pilot trial biometric enrolment.
Software integration consultancy services. Hardware integration
consultancy services.
The aim of the trial is to:
- Test the capture of biometrics for use as a one to many identity
verification through a simulation of the passport process;
- Include exception cases, e.g. people who may have difficulties in
enrolment;
- Measure the process time and hence estimate costs;
- Assess customer perceptions and reactions;
- Assess practical aspects of incorporation of biometrics into a
biometric database and the required secure links to the database;
- Trial the use of biometrics to prevent duplicate identities;
- Qualitative testing using a pre-populated database of anonymous
biometrics;
- Fingerprint and iris biometrics are to be tested for one to many
identification. Facial recognition to be tested for one to one
verification;
- Report on findings of above along with issues and risks, and outline "
"8. Time limits for completion or duration of the contract, for starting
or providing the service: Estimated Award of Contract Mid-June 2003 and
Completion of Work by December 2003"
The six month trial is now shorter by 3 months, despite having to chuck out some of the original equipment and start again !
10,000 users is not sufficient to test the reliability and scalability and security of a system that will have to cope with 60 million people.
The "development partner" will, according to David Blunkett;s evidence in fron of the HAC this week, not actaully be the same company which gets the big contract:
"As part of their recommendations and as part of going through zero gateway we agreed to develop a development partner, which will be done *this month*, and will hold a seminar on 24 May with the sector to try to ensure that we now bottom this once and for all in terms of the ongoing costs, the technology that is known to be available, the challenges and the pitfalls. With a private development partner, which again has been done under proper competition rules, and *this partner will not be seeking to win contracts, so they have won a contract to be the partner, they will not seek to be a contractor,* they will be able to advise and helps us."
Posted by: Watching Them, Watching Us at May 7, 2004 11:45 AMThanks for the correction re. the UKPS trial, wtwu, I was going on second hand info [see link above] as the UKPS themselves were not very forthcoming - see http://www.ukps.gov.uk/identity.asp !
(I hope) I'm learning fast, though, and am beginning to spend a little more time tracking down primary sources for things...
Posted by: lankyphil at May 7, 2004 02:06 PMRe. "development partners", so how the hell is this monster going to get built?
Will one of the (mega-)consultancies win the right to effectively design and implement a scheme - based on God knows what principles, as Blunkett hasn't even sorted his Functional Specification out yet - utilising some other company/companies' ('the contractor'?) kit?
Will the Gov't be led by the development partner's advice / choice of contractor - on best of breed / best value / best known principles - or will they impose one on them? [N.B. either way has potentially serious downsides]
We HAVE to stop this before it gets started. Its such a mess already - logically, technologically and financially - that it can only get worse :(
Posted by: lankyphil at May 7, 2004 02:19 PM