I've cross-posted what follows in RumoursAndNews and AirTrafficControl, and I appologise now for any typos...........

Ok, these are from two articles both in Computer Weekly of 3rd Dec 98.



[From Page 2]

An MP this week warned that an independant report on the £217m air traffic control system at the New Enroute Centre at Swanwick in Hampshire raise as many questions as it had answered.

The audit of systems by the government-owned Defence Evaluation Research Agency was carried out after Computer Weekly, backed by Transport committee MPs, campaigned for a short independant assessment of the project.

Dera's 78-page report gives qualified support for the project. Although it has some concerns, Dera says, "There is no real doubt the the New EnRoute Centre (system) will work technically." In a summary of the report Dera adds, "We see no reason to abondon the project at this stage."

But Tom Brake, aviation spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and a former IT specialist, said, "It's ambiguous to say that there's no reason to abandon the project at this stage. At what stage might it be abandonment be considered? I shall be asking some questions because the report poses as many questions as it answers."




[From Page 8]

A report by a government agency into Swanwick's £217m IT project haas concluded that although six years behind schedule, the system will work and should not be abandoned.

But the report, by the Defence Evaluation Research Agency (Dera), contains more than a dozen caveats, some of which highlight "significant" risks to the timetable and whether the system will ultimately be fit for its purpose.

Computer Weekly has questioned the independence of Dera as an auditor because the agency has a close working relationship with National Air Traffic Services, which runs the Swanwick centre.

Also the government-appointed chairman of the Dera audit, Sir Donald Spiers, chairs two companies which have major contracts with Lockeed Martin, the main contractor with the Swanwick project.

However, the Department of Transport denies any links between Speirs and Lockeed Martin lead to a conflict of interests.

The "headline" findings of the Dera report, as picked out in the Department of Transport press release and by national newspapers, is that "Swanwick has been given the thumbs up".

Transport minister John Reid told BBC Radio Four 'Today' programme on Tuesday morning: "That lays the scare stories that have been running in the media to rest, hopefully."

The 'Today' programme, briefed by Computer Weekly, asked Reid about the mention in the Dera report that there were 1,260 "significant" bugs in the systems.

He claimed this represented only 10 weeks of work.

Reid did not mention that new bugs were appearing as the old ones were cleared, which was another of the report's findings.

In the body of the 78-page report, Dera auditors say that :-

. The "high" number of bugs remains a "main concern" and also represents a "significant risk"to the target operational date of 2001/2002.
Although the system passed its formal acceptance tests in April 1998 this did not show the system interacting with others and thus "left much important work to be done".

. They are concerned about the possibility that testing may be curtailed. "This is a high risk strategy that could result in serious problems later, probably after the system has entered operational service."

. National Air Traffic Services gave assurances to auditors that many issues were "in hand" but supplied no documentary evidence to support this.

. Up to 50 change requests have yet to be implemented. Further changes may be needed or particularly difficult ones raised during development , testing and simulations.
"This remains a considerable risk to the programme timescales."

. There is little evidence that National Air Traffic Services has adequately specified the acceptance procedures and criteria for future project stages.

. The first time air traffic controllers will have a chance to test the system under a full system load is when it goes into operation.

. There needs to be more understanding of the current system's maximum safe capacity

Liberal Democrat aviation spokesman Tom Brake who used to work in the IT industry said that the Dera report "poses as many questions as it answers". He said he planned to write to Reid.

I've cross-posted what follows in RumoursAndNews and AirTrafficControl, and I appologise now for any typos...........

Ok, this article is from Computing of 3rd Dec 98.

[From the front page]

An independant report into Swanwick has urged imporovements to poor project managment to ensure the air traffic control centre, already six years late, is not delayed beyond 2002, writes Lisa Kelly.

The audit, published by The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) this week, recommended establishing a project managment team to oversee National Air Traffic Services (NATS) procedures. It has also pushed for the system's supplier, Lockeed Martin, and NATS not to share the same business area.

The software has been plagued with bugs, which are still being ironed out.

DERA said that the project should not be abandoned 'in view of the good progress on the technical development of the National EnRoute Centre (Nerc) system' and that software at Swanwick could be 'safely used' at its sister site in Prestwick, Scotland.

Ayrshire MP Brian Donohoe welcomed the news as it means more employment for his Cunninghame South constituency, but cautioned: "If there is any compromising of safety, a lot of people could end up in jail."

The enquiry was commissioned by the Department of Transport last August after concerns over the viability of the £475 million system.

Please note that you should treat with extreme caution anything that is put out by Computer Weekly or the self-styled Aviation Study Group.
The CW editor seems to be on a personal crusade to do the NERC project down - goodness knows why. But he is a journalist! See comments in the World Inaction posting in R&N.
If you pick out of the articles the facts and discard the speculation and fiction you will be left with a very short item. Anyone that believes what a Liberal Democrat MP has to say needs some kind of counselling.

R Slicker
...I think I know why, I believe that he is writing a book about Govt projects.
A bit of publicity perhaps ?.

W.r.t. "Please note that you should treat with extreme caution anything that is put out by Computer Weekly or the self-styled Aviation Study Group"

Oh I do dear boy, I do !

I'm sure we've all heard the fable 'The emporors new clothes'. Well maybe, just maybe, there's something in it ?

I faithfully (I hope) reproduced what has been written for the enlightenment of all, such that they may form their own conclussions with input from all sides (biased of otherwise).

As not many of the folks who will be customers of the service actually (or are sad enough to) subscribe to both Computing and ComputerWeekly I thought I'd pass on what seems like a relevant article.

And I state here and now that I express no bias favourable or otherwise, towards the technical aspects of project - the project management does though seem to warrant a close inspection.

Anyone know where I can see a copy of the report ?

2 six 4
What you have to do is speak to a VERY nice lady called Barbra D'Souza on 0171 890 3831 from the DETR and she will send you a copy.
...have a good read.
POMPI

R Slicker criticises Computer Weekly's investigative articles relating to the NERC. If any examples of any inaccuracies are cited, CW can give a response. There are some v. competent people working on the Swanwick project and we have met some of them, but does that mean to say that Computer Weekly, in its coverage of the project, should select only good things to say about the centre? So far NERC has cost £450m,the project is running six years behind the original schedule, and DERA expresses concern about the "high" number of bugs in the software. On the other hand, DERA praises Bill Semple, Chief Executive of NATS, for his diligent efforts to overcome the problems.

Other projects with fewer problems at this stage have ended up being abandoned. It's also our experience that the suppression of criticism of a project can lead to a false optimism about its progress. Is Computer Weekly wrong to be scrutinising the project?

Nice to see you on-board Tony.

I see from your profile that this is your first post (using your own name?).

Tony, you may (or may not) realise it, but PPRuNe is probably more widely read than 'Flight' ! http://pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/wink.gif

Tell you what mate, could you do us a favour and publish (in the relevant forums, of course) any / all aviation topics that come your way - it'd really add value.

And Tony, I know that Capt.PPRuNe (aka. Danny Fyne) is not adversed to a little advertising coming this sites way, if you get my drift. http://pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/smile.gif

Oh yes and before I forget, PPRuNe'rs if your interested in an impartial look at the management of large software projects, I suggest a visit to the library to peruse a copy of 'The Mythical Man-Month - Essays on Software Engineering' by Frederick P Brooks Jr.

2 six 4,
Did you get a copy of the report ?.
POMPI

Tony Collins - i was not criticising the factual content of your reports in CW, merely the speculation which goes with them. The fact is that we do not yet have a new enroute centre up and running - nor will we have until ALL the problems are sorted.Whats the point in speculating on the opening date and crowing when that proves to be wrong? Speculation based on biased leaks from Swanwick staff only serves to antagonise those who are working hard to get the project up and running. The DERA report criticises the management of the project - probably rightly - but that does nothing to help the project forward.
Hindsight is 20/20 vision.

Crashdive.

Sorry about the real name. havn't got enough imagination to come up with a good psydonym. No problem re posting aviation topics, though I might need reminding as I cover other things. Re advertising: if there's anything that comes up on the site which might interest a general IT readership please get in touch. I'm also interested in any concrete info re progress on Swanwick project. Thanks for book recommendation.

R Slicker

Sorry to be boring but I agree with everything you say. Nothing worse than carping and not suggesting any alternative. Ay, there's the rub. Please indulge me a moment and consider this: You work on building a bridge and you see parts of the steel superstructure bending. You tell senior management which says the steel chords were bent when they left the workshop. Then the bridge collapses. A few years later you're working on another bridge construction and you see some of the chords bending. You tell senior managers and they say the steel was bent when it left the workshop. Do you keep quiet because all the construction managers are, individually, highly competent and commited? Or do you try and point out about what you see are the early warning signs of a possible disaster?

At CW we see IT disasters every week. we also see potential disasters turned into successes, often because there's the political will for drastic surgery.

We don't want to see the Swanwick project scrapped. But there do seem to be serious issues relating to the misalignment of the original design, which dates back to 1992, and today's requirements.

Nobody seems to have considered that it may be quicker to get new systems up and running by calling a halt to the existing project,, reappraising it, scrapping parts of it that are redundant, re-using the best modules and topping up with packaged software.

CW doesn't think this re-appraisal will be done because senior management doesn't see the need for it. I ought to point out that this attitude has prevailed in other disasters.

If the worst comes to the worst - and this is what CW wants to avoid - then we get to 2002/3, and find that the software still isn't in operation. The blame may be put on changes in 2001/2 to European ATC rules and legislation. The project may then be abandoned and senior management has to resort to an emergency installation of software packages and a re-use of modules that are successful. This could still more years to implement.

Isn't it better to do the re-appraisal now rather than in 2001/2/3/4 or 5?

An independent audit ought to consider several options, including the possibility that the software as currently designed may not be right for the job, and if this proves to be the case, what then? The DERA report assumes the software will work. But should DERA have also asked the question: what if it doesn't?

Sorry this is lengthy but I hope it explains CW's position. I want to stress that we don't have it in for Swanwick's management. If the steel chords are still bending, silent subservience may not be the best approach for CW.

Tony Collins - Your explanation of CWs position falls neatly into what R Slicker was talking about. seeing the problem was never difficult - suggesting a solution was. You suggest - without the benefit of fact - that the project was never re-appraised. Of course it was and many times over. It was even suggested that the current LATCC system - known as mediator - was taken to Swanwick and the project rebuilt sector by sector. But those who had the facts realised that the alternatives were a worse option than continuing with the project as planned. Its easy to say that because you have seen other bridges collapse, the first sign of twisted metal means this one will too.
As it happens the system does work - albeit in 1994 mode and bringing it up to date will take until 2001/2002.
If you can come up with a solution that is better than the one being proceeded with, let's hear it now. Looking at the project again has been done - lets have a real answer. Or failing that some support for the greatest project in ATC terms ever. Let's make it a success instead of carping on about why it might not work or why its late or why it costs so much or ... or ...!

Err sorry, you can't be serious and this is a wind-up, isn't it ?!

So UBNadd, lets just chuck more money at it, and why not sing the company song whilst we're about it.

This project is WAY over budget, WAY WAY late and is still not at a point where its operational success is guaranteed !

And who's paying for it ?

One can only summise that BungleOhhh Bill Semple and his management team (LOL) must be some kind of silver tongued devils, that they still have their jobs.

If I, or any of my managers, ran a software / systems project as poorly as this we'd have been out the door years ago.

Whilst the technological bits may be impressive, project management / planning wise it's a bloody disaster.

Personally I find this aspect of it simply staggering - but what do I know ? I only do it for a living !

UB Nadd
The info on mediator is interesting. Thanks. You've put your finger on it, so to speak. I don't know the facts, so I must be wrong.

I am merely a reporter, an observer on the bridge. I see the buckled steel but I am not a consultant engineer so I cannot propose any solution.

I can observe from previous projects what seems to work and what doesn't seem to work but I know nothing for certain. All I can do, as does every other business reporter, is ask questions and report the answers. But when reporters ask specific questions and don't get answers, and are criticised for asking difficult questions, they begin to wonder: why the reticence?

On another large and difficult IT project, which has been described in a national press as a disaster (the New National Insurance Recording System) Computer Weekly has been v. supportive because we have been given all the facts. which appear to show that the project is back on course. Confidence in the culture of the Contrbutions Agency is engendered by having all of our questions answered. Even the minister responsible who used to work in the IT industry rang to give us a technical briefing.

We'd be happy to write good things about the Swanwick project when there are good things to say. It's only in places like China that the press is expected to write good things when questions go unanswered and specific facts which might support the articles are witheld.

If Swanwick managers give us some specifics on the problems they have overcome, and how, and put this into context by answering all of our questions, I cannot see any reason why we shouldn't give them some good publicity.

Pompi - been on leave and not got a copy yet. Will talk nicely to the lady and get one.

Tony Collins / Crash Dive. Can someone enlighten me on the NERC costs. CD says the project is way over budget. Tony Collins says it has cost £450m. My understanding is that it was a fixed price contract and cost some £350m. Any extra costs have been paid by that nice Lockheed Martin company.

Who has the right figures and what are they based on?

A bit like the so called £1bn that NATS needs to spend in the next ten years. The actual figure is about 60% of that - but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

PS Having lost so much on NERC maybe that is why Lockheed are now pushing to buy NATS in a Trade Sale for privatisation.

'Buttons',
I know you read this second hand, but how about a response in here about NERC ?.

2 six 4:

NERC total project costs:

NATS says that the total capital and revenue budget for NERC is £475m. By November about £450m had been spent. The confusion about the £350m figure which is usually quoted in the press comes about because ministers in Parliamentary answers have, in the past, only given the capital spend (£350m) whereas a further £175m has been allocated from the NATS revenue account.

IT costs: Within the £475m, £217m had been paid to Lockheed Martin by April 1998. The original fixed price contract awarded in 1992 to IBM Federal Systems (later taken over by Lockheed) was £130m. Hope this helps.

National Grid has expressed an interest in buying NATS. I was not aware that Lockheed is also interested. Do you have any more info?

Tony Collins

I didn't say you were wrong - nor did I imply that you shouldn't ask ifficult questions. Quite the opposite.
2 six 4 has the figures nearly correct - the project isn't "way over budget".
But to return to my theme. How about some answers? I believe NATS is doing its best to get the project working and they will succeed. Imagine what would be said by CW and others if it was introduced in a part-finished state. To quote Bill Semple, "NERC will be introduced when it works and is safe." Can anyone fault that, even if it is later than forecast by former Chief Exec. McLaugh-Line. Let's stick to the facts and forget the what-ifs. Real answers on a postcard please . . . . .