IAP - Age of innocence

The Information Age Partnership is designed to carry the UK into the digital world, but is it a naive government vision and does anyone really know what's on the agenda?

The government's desire to be 'with it' extends to more than invitingdigital world, but is it a naive government vision and does anyone really know what's on the agenda? pop stars to Number 10 for a nice cup of tea. IT has been perceived as cool for Britannia and Tony & Co want to be seen at the forefront, even if it means rehashing old Tory initiatives.

But it's a long and rocky road between realising that IT is central to keeping the UK competitive in the global economic sweepstakes and actually doing something about it. We aren't exactly starting in a hole, but the divisions with Europe, economic upsets in the Far East and the technological and commercial lead of the US all conspire to make it an uphill struggle.

The Labour administration has to remove itself from the horns of a dilemma if it is to lead the UK into the great wired 21st century. The use of IT by individuals and businesses has to be promoted and the government must use it to gain the efficiencies required to deal with budgetary exigencies.

For all Labour's electoral posturing and photo-ops with Microsoft chief executive Bill Gates, IT has yet to find a comfortable and visible place in the halls of power. But it has been successful in the 'meet and greet' bit. Hardly a week goes by without a minister solemnly inking legislative frameworks or a charter that demonstrates the government's commitment to IT.

But putting e-commerce on the agendas of international trade and finance bodies such as GATT and the OECD isn't the same as getting the message down to individuals and small businesses that are vital to the UK's success in the information age. That has been delegated to the UK's IT vendors.

In March, the DTI quietly announced the Information Age Partnership (IAP).

Its purpose was to set up a forum that would drag the UK - kicking and screaming if necessary - on to the world IT stage. There was no fixed agenda. Instead, the partnership set up various task forces to guide the effort.

The IAP is actually a Tory legacy - its roots are in the Conservative government's Multimedia Committee. And the DTI connection gives it a common heritage with efforts to establish the National Information Infrastructure and other government sponsored schemes. The constituents of the IAP read like a Who's Who of IT in the UK - BT, ICL, Bull, IBM, Compaq, UUNet, BBC, Microsoft, Intel and other leading hardware, software, IT service and consultancy businesses.

Peter Horne, president of the PC division at Mitsubishi Electric (MEPCD), is a vocal member of the IAP head table. 'We are all committed to making IT a part of the country's life, from small businesses through to all branches of the government,' he declares.

As yet, there is a lack of visibility among the IAP's participants. Horne admits it hasn't yet been determined how the planned IT infiltration will happen and the task forces are not due to submit their reports until later this autumn. In the meantime, aspiring IT businesses, such as MEPCD, are happy to apply their own philosophy to the policy vacuum, until a stand is articulated. Horne says: 'We have been working under the banner of Computing for a Connect World for some time and it seems to fit in with the general gameplan.'

As the task force works out to uncover common ground for the IAP members, the groups are concentrating on a number of areas - the competitiveness of the UK in an international market, national skills and education capabilities, and e-commerce and the internet.

So what is the extent of government backing? It doesn't appear to have put its money where its mouth is. 'It's no gravy train, that's for sure,' says Horne. 'It's more like a black hole. This is a long-range project for the vendors involved and we have no expectation for immediate gains.' In some cases, it's even hard to give away equipment under government programmes, he adds, recounting the curiously non-commercial terms on which the government accepts the IT industry's support.

'We were getting somewhere as an industry under the Conservatives and it's our hope that Tony Blair will listen to the UK IT industry and make substantive government policy,' Horne says. There is no established support channel yet. That will presumably be created when the task forces can assemble the makings of a directional statement.

There are plenty of opportunities for UK IT providers, says Horne. 'We set up some Business Links and Training and Enterprise Councils with Apricot kit and they began to compete with our channel for the provision of some services. They are under the gun to produce real revenue to support their other training and consultancy activities, but that doesn't make the conflicts any easier to resolve.'

The IAP and similar government programmes are 'the only game in town', says Horne: 'The IT industry has never been able to reach down effectively to SMEs and accelerate the use of computing at that low level. SMEs aren't exploiting e-commerce or IT in general. They will get there, but the quicker they do, the better it will be for the country and its IT providers.'

Internet service provider UUNet has provided training sessions for various government departments and business partners and has worked with a number of Business Link centres. Richard Wood, UK representative of UUNet, echoes the sentiments expressed by other IAP partners: 'No one can argue with the aims of programmes such as the IAP, but there appears to be a lack of co-ordination between all the government departments that are claiming a piece of the action. The internet is sexy and the government is willing to listen to proposals by UK business and even itself, but it's early days for action.'

However, Woods expresses reservations about the sustained effort required to make programmes such as IAP work all the way down to the grass roots level. 'Education is in the hands of the government and that's really where it all has to start. Schemes that promote local ties, such as Business Link, are also necessary.'

Intel, understandably, is ready to do whatever is required to get a PC - preferably with 'Intel Inside' - into every business and front room.

'We're keen to foster an understanding of IT,' says an Intel representative.

'We are concerned about the level of ongoing participation at a senior level by government and IAP partners. Without senior direction, progress will take a hit. But if the IAP has too many great and goods aboard, it will be hard to reach a consensus. On the other hand, if too many junior staff fill in, it can be hard to push for any decision.'

While everyone agrees the IAP's main purpose will be to relay the IT message to economic enterprises, its path is still a little sketchy. There's no clear-cut route for the UK's dealers, distributors or independent software vendors to follow if they want to get involved with it.

'The best thing to do is get together with your main suppliers and find out where your skills and capabilities fit best,' advises Thomas.

Also at the top of the IAP roster is David Svendsen, chairman of Microsoft UK. It's no surprise to find his name on the list - Microsoft is always committed to anything that sells software to the greater good of the UK and the world. While Svendsen attends to top level political and industrial businesses, his staff are also getting involved. They include Andrew Lees, director of the organisational customer unit; Dale Borland, director of retail and consumer; Andrew Matson, e-commerce manager; and David Burrows, group manager for skills and development.

Two directors seconded to the IAP effort suggests organisational commitment at the outset, at least.

Microsoft has worked with the government in the past and has committed to putting its shoulder behind the IAP. More recently, it has worked with EDS and NatWest under the auspices of David Clark's former Cabinet office, to lighten the administrative load for small businesses in the UK. More efforts of this sort are anticipated under the IAP banner.

The government's rate of adoption of IT for its own infrastructure is scarcely better than its hesitant start with the IAP. While promoting the use of the internet as a vehicle for commercial, educational and personal communication, it appears, in conjunction with other European governments, to be bent on clipping online wings by changing the liberal, 'all-comers welcome' attitude that has allowed its rapid growth.

So, if and when adult Websites are legislated out of existence, e-commerce transactions are thoroughly and comprehensively taxed and the police can peruse email communications, will the Net enjoy quite the rate of growth that it does today?

One hardly need mention the government's recent fudging of the cryptography issue. Or its alignment with the 'tax the Net' European trend. Or even the eagerness exhibited by the police for sifting through the servers of ISPs for the taint of child pornography, money laundering or international terrorists, as part of a clampdown that could be seen as curtailment.

The UK is sustaining internet growth better than some of its fellow EU states, but they all need to increase their efforts if Europe is to remain competitive with the US. In May, IBM commissioned the 1998 European Electronic Government Progress Report to measure progress in implementing 'electronic government' - one that makes its processes available and gathers information electronically. The report found that governments throughout Europe need to close the gap between their grand strategies and rather modest pilot programmes.

Considering the twin distractions of EMU and year 2000, Jo Wright, director of government and public services business at IBM, believes a good effort has been shown but needs to be continued. 'Governments must ensure today's pilots and know-how are comprehensively integrated into, and genuinely lead towards, tomorrow's large-scale systems,' she says. 'Finding the budget to do this is critical, but it will be difficult given the competition for IT investment from EMU and the year 2000 date change.'

The IBM report suggests European governments are aware that the electronic government of the future will provide a means to improve services and promote economic development as opposed to hindering it. But opinion is divided as to what it is and how it will be achieved. The biggest challenge, Wright surmises, will be the development of a business model for electronic government that both the public and private sector can understand and buy into.

'With today's IT, we have the chance to re-invent rather than automate government processes. We must think of IT as an enabler and apply the best entrepreneurial skills to identify and exploit the opportunities,' Wright adds.

Time is of the essence, but more than half the research respondents in the IBM study were only in the planning or pre-implementation stage and cited lack of budget and infrastructure as the main barriers to electronic government.

Funding challenges are not an unusual problem for government programmes, whether it is for guns or butter. But what's appalling is the lack of priority given to the one method open to governments to increase their efficiency and accountability to those governed and create budgetary elbow room for other critical programmes.

As might well be expected, the pattern of adoption throughout Europe is varied. The Scandinavians are relatively blessed, with a techno-conscious government and the necessary infrastructure already in place. To put that in context, some countries in southern Europe are still without clean water and electricity in some areas, while their governments tend to matters such as creating a stable currency and reducing rampant unemployment.

That said, the grade card for Labour's effort can hardly be marked above a C and a notation that says 'good effort but must try harder' seems appropriate.

It is the government's role to provide leadership and support for the IAP. Fine words are the easy part, but it remains to be seen whether that extends to dedicating real resources to the effort within the government and the UK at large.

BUT WHAT'S ON THE IAP AGENDA?

By now, we expected more concrete results from the Information Age Partnership.

The proposed intention to set an agenda (which will presumably lead to government policy) is to be commended, but the past six months have produced little that is worthy of the quality of the participants. Surely, by now, there should at least be a Website to declare who is involved, how the information gathering is organised and where to look for other governmental and industry sites of interest.

Once an agenda is agreed, it remains to be seen whether the government will back up its fine sounding words with resources. Given Mr Brown's death-like grip on the purse strings, it is hard to see substantial investment arriving in the short term. We need government programmes that invest in IT education, training and publicly accessible IT.

Surely the government is not reliant on the continued charity of the UK's IT industry? Even the most far-sighted and philanthropically inclined companies (and their channel partners) need to see some return for the brainpower and kit that they seem willing to invest in the Information Age Partnership.