I read with interest your article and comment on the Gateway reviews for the NHS National Programme for IT (Unheeded warnings highlight NHS flaws, www.computing.co.uk/2244750).

This large-scale programme has fundamental, but not unique, challenges. With a culture of non-accountability, no one wants to have to shoulder the responsibility for a lack of basic communication, the misinterpretation of the scheme as merely an IT project, limited ongoing buy-in from clinical staff as the programme changed, and inadequate programme and resolution management.

Effective communication is the lifeblood of any programme. If the scope and scale of the business requirements are not adequately recognised and understood, the complexity of the execution spirals, and without the hearts and minds of all stakeholders on board, there is little or no chance of success.

The view of the effort as an IT programme is also flawed. There is no such thing as an IT project. Every project has a business impact and benefit. The business case should be compelling and work for everyone. In this case, there is a substantial gap between the stated objectives and strategies of the programme and the real context in which they are delivered.

There has never been a widely accepted view of the “do-ability” of the programme. Perhaps what has been detrimental to this programme and many others is that suppliers are keen to win the business without full definition and acceptance of scope, challenge and risk.

Continuing failure to meet deadlines necessitates a fundamental change in approach to overcome root causes – for example, requirements not understood, business case not defined/believed, or a lack of delivery competency. I wonder how helpful the repeated “warnings” you mentioned have been. Do they come with remedies taking into account the deficiencies and defining what success looks like and how the programme can get back on track?

These reviews could be more proactive. Remedies must be specific and an action plan agreed with the relevant programme team. Collaboration is key – it is unclear whether or not the findings of these reviews were accepted by the people who matter. If a remedy is necessary, the governance for that review should include the execution of those remedies. If the remedies are not achieved, warning flags should be raised immediately without waiting for the next Gateway review to recognise that the same problem still exists. What is the point of project assurance if it doesn’t fix anything?

Peter Mayer

If you have staff who “take a mile rather than an inch”, I would suggest you have recruitment problems (Communication control, letters.computing.co.uk).

I manage a company that imposes no restrictions on the sites employees can access on the internet from work and we have not had any problems.

People spend time on the net when things are slack, but as long as they deliver their projects as expected, I don’t care. It is all about empowerment and responsibility rather than treating employees like children.

If your employees are not delivering, I would suggest they have bigger problems than being distracted by social networking sites. If they are delivering, why do you care when and how they take their brain breaks?

If your employees are not pulling their weight now, I’m fairly certain they will find other distractions if you block their net access. Such actions do not cure any problems, they merely drive the symptoms elsewhere.

Hugh, submitted on the web

I read the two recent letters of the week on recruitment agents with interest, being one of the mass unemployed myself (IT recruitment agents don’t know enough…, …then again, perhaps it’s the clients, letters.computing.co.uk).

I was made redundant at the end of April and, like Patrick Hobb-Chambers, I have applied for copious amounts of jobs – all of which my CV would match.

Like Patrick, I believe that either my age and experience could put off potential managers, or that the agents use word-matching to pick what they consider to be the best candidates.

I can also relate to what recruiter Ben Sugden says in his letter, that given two equal candidates, he would try to get that something special from assessing the attitude of each candidate.

Unfortunately, what both have failed to say is that a good proportion of agencies advertise jobs to which they do not have the rights.

It seems it is common practice for agencies to trawl job sites – both company and public – looking for jobs to advertise. When candidates apply, the agencies approach the recruiter with some “perfect candidates”. They then try to sell their services, usually unsuccessfully, and when they are rejected, they simply drop the poor candidates without even the courtesy of an email to let them know.

Before they all scream their innocence, I would like to add that my better half works in HR and she receives these calls all the time.

So to answer both sides – yes, it is important to have a good CV and sell yourself and yes, the recruitment agencies could do better. However, shouldn’t something be done to stop the underhand practices – it’s hard enough out there without being conned.

David Spoors

It is tough to expect graduates to be rounded, moulded employees immediately after university (Skills for a global industry, markkobayashihillary.computing.co.uk).

An academic institution is, by its very nature, not a vocational training institution. Its role is not to prepare you for work or the work environment, but rather to teach you a skill or a subject area.

Perhaps if the stigma were removed from vocational institutions and more people enrolled, we would have a more balanced graduate workforce. Perhaps if companies could afford more graduate recruitment roles, this would not be an issue.

The truth is that every appointment has to be 100 per cent right these days and a graduate is rarely going to suit.

Howard, submitted on the web

It is clear from the comments on your article that people recognise that we [the government] favour no one (Government and outsourcing – a mixed bag of issues, markkobayashihillary.computing.co.uk).

We are passionate about keeping a level playing field just as we are about bringing new entrants into the market. As your article says, this can be tough. It is both expensive and time consuming to bid and whether we like it or not, this will put off some suppliers because they are short of resources and/or money.

What matters to me is getting suppliers that are exceptionally good at not just winning business, but executing the contract.

In relation to offshoring, it is not just a political issue. The reality of government work means I must provide a high level of safety and security of citizen data as well as ensure that any application we build and then connect to a secure government network remains safe.

John Suffolk, government chief information officer

I found last week’s letters of the week extremely interesting (IT recruitment agents don’t know enough…, …then again, perhaps it’s the candidates, letters.computing.co.uk). I agree with both sides, while also disagreeing.

Recruitment agents are salespeople. As with any salesperson, they know the buzz words for the industry in which they work. But when was the last time you believed the word of a salesman who knocked on your door? Answer: rarely.

Recruiters have a job, and that is to work for clients who are looking for staff. They are not there for the candidates, and in all honesty, like any good salesman, they are looking at the commission they can get.

Candidates think they can send off a CV and wait for recruiters – who apparently have nothing to do all day but look for a job just for one candidate – to give them a heap of jobs, all with a pay rise, fewer hours, and more interesting work.

Recruiters fall down because they do not give feedback. Responding to 250 applicants to say: “Sorry, you were not selected this time” costs nothing at all. If the recruiters’ IT systems work well, it’s a matter of hitting a single button.

Having said that, candidates let themselves down by not accepting that they must do 95 per cent of the work themselves. They need to customise every CV they send, with a personalised cover letter. And they need to keep chasing.

B Parker

I agree with Simon Perry’s comments on the virtuous circle benefits for telehealth (The opportunities and risks of telehealth in the NHS, quocirca.computing.co.uk).

As a university lecturer, I frequently teach the topic to student nurses. I emphasise that this equipment provides tools that enable us to deliver healthcare in much the same way as we use electronic equipment to provide healthcare in hospitals.

As healthcare professionals, we must not allow the technology to replace patient contact. Used correctly, the benefits should allow us to reduce unnecessary visits and hospitalisations, allowing us to use freed-up time to visit patients who require interventions and care. Human contact is an essential component of healthcare and we must not forget how important it is for both patients and care providers.

Ray McKinnie

These days, users are not fixed to a specific location or PC – so software should not be either (The unspoken software licensing debacle, jasonslater.computing.co.uk).

Although many people have laptops and can work anywhere, there is often a need to share licences, or for software to be floated between work and home.

Most software vendors do not consider the licensing of their software as a key component of the customer relationship. Increasingly, companies want to be able to share their software with vendors and/or outside consultants and this common demand is often only solved with piracy.

The demands for licensing flexibility do not align with the current business models in the software industry. Even software-as-a-service vendors have not figured it out – they still try to sell named-user access instead of a shared-access model. But offering a true service to customers should be independent of named users or machines. A more flexible approach to licensing would result in a competitive advantage, with more profit per unit/subscription sold.

Dave, submitted on the web

Coming just days after the bullish note struck by the Digital Britain report, this news shows just how far we have to go as a nation to increase the role played by technology (UK slips down global IT league table, www.computing.co.uk/2244252).

Despite the downturn, the UK’s largest technology companies continue to post positive results, and these show no signs of abating. Yet the size of Britain’s IT sector still pales in comparison with that of other nations. The results achieved by our top tech companies highlight the need and potential to have a larger and more influential UK IT industry, which could improve our GDP.

It is the responsibility of government and industry to ensure that technology’s recent success is used as a launchpad to make UK plc great again. While other industries have suffered in the downturn, given the right encouragement, the UK’s IT sector is well positioned to play a vital role in leading the UK out of recession.

Peter Anderton

While the article on the relative merits of Microsoft and Google (Microsoft vs Google: you choose, www.computing.co.uk/2244381) was good, it failed to mention information security as one of the main issues.

Availability was rightly mentioned, but not confidentiality nor integrity of information. If a company entrusts its information to a public cloud, what standards will protect that data and who will indemnify the firm should their valuable information leak or be maliciously modified or deleted?

Cloud computing has a place for business, but how big a place will depend on how much trust it can generate and not how capable or cheap the solutions are.

Peter Wenham