Councils that have outsourced their IT don't perform as well as those running an in-house service, according to the latest research from Socitm, and industry group for public-sector IT managers.
The report shows that user satisfaction is 13 percent lower among councils with outsourced services than in those with more traditionally run IT.
Socitm conducted a detailed examination of two large councils measuring user satisfaction before and after outsourcing. The findings show a 27 percent reduction in satisfaction in one and a 32 percent reduction in the other.
There were similar differences across a range of other criteria including perception, value for money and the performance of the IT unit.
The survey also measures user satisfaction across groups of councils giving ratings out of seven points.
It looked at 10 councils with outsourced services finding that four achieved a score of less than 4.0 compared to just three out of the 75 in-house providers. Scores for the 10 outsourced councils ranged from 3.38 to 4.89. This compares to the average user satisfaction of 4.57 with the highest score being 5.65.
According to Martin Greenwood, programme manager for Socitm's research service, user satisfaction is important but councils should avoid seeing this as an end in itself.
"Efficiency gains through investment in IT will only be made if the IT service is credible. A large slice of that credibility must come from what users think of the service they receive and the degree to which IT helps them deliver high-quality services," he said.
The report, compiled with Wolverhampton Business School, is available from Socitm. Results are based on a dataset of 87 organisations, and 22,871 user responses.
Talkback
When will governments (at all levels) learn that privatisation does not save money in the long run and inevitably costs the consumer money.
I know from my economics modules at university the issue is complicated but at the end of the day, adding a profit taking element to any service will only take money out of the service, not put money into it (over time), 'efficiency' savings and 'decreasing buearcracy' are and will always be little more than alternate names for for staff cuts which can be equally done by a non-profit public entity as a commercial company.
The only difference I guess is that commerical companies always seem to be more willing to make them, but for profit reasons rather than for any benefit to the public. This is an important factor because it means that (as this report shows) commercial companies tend to prefer the easy job cuts which result in decressed levels of service (e.g. system support, customer service areas).