BBC took 'too long to realise DMI project was in trouble'

[Guest]

PriceWaterhouseCooper (PwC)'s report on the BBC's Digital Media Initiative is deeply critical of the BBC's oversight of the project and its failure to take action in good time ...

"The BBC should have identified that the Digital Media Initiative was set to fail as early as July 2011, almost two years before it was eventually shut down at a cost of almost £100m to licence fee payers, according to an internal report that found a failure of governance and management oversight were to blame.

On Wednesday the BBC Trust published the findings of a 54-page report by PwC into the failed technology project, designed to replace video tape libraries with a digital archive and editing system, which was axed in May to stop "throwing good money after bad".

The report, which cost the BBC £263,340 to produce, found no single issue or event caused DMI to fail. But PwC concluded that the BBC took too long to realise DMI was in serious trouble and likely to fail because of weaknesses in project management and reporting, a lack of focus on business change, together with piecemeal assurance arrangements.

BBC insiders were critical of the tone and scope of the report, arguing that the corporation has got off lightly for its £98.4m technical blunder.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/18/bbc-dmi-project-pwc-report

[french frank]

'Some BBC insiders said they thought the internal inquiry should have been more robust. One said: "The BBC Trust set a very narrow set of questions that would always restrict the review and stop it asking the real questions. The report doesn't address if or why public accounts committee was misled. It relies on BBC information and narrative much of which is already queried." '

Hmm. Patten might not wriggle out of that, if it's considered to be true.

[eighthobstruction]

Surely the truth is that they were waiting to buy in an algorithm to sort the problem [as we all do] and it just didn't turn up....should have gone to Maplins....

[amateur51]

Surely the truth is that they were waiting to buy in an algorithm to sort the problem [as we all do] and it just didn't turn up....should have gone to Maplins....

Is that Maplins the Butlins-esque holiday place featured in 'Hi Dee Hi'?

[amateur51]

'Some BBC insiders said they thought the internal inquiry should have been more robust. One said: "The BBC Trust set a very narrow set of questions that would always restrict the review and stop it asking the real questions. The report doesn't address if or why public accounts committee was misled. It relies on BBC information and narrative much of which is already queried." '

Hmm. Patten might not wriggle out of that, if it's considered to be true.

"MPs have accused the BBC Trust chairman, Lord Patten, of "obstruction and secrecy" for stopping the corporation publishing key documents about a failed £100m IT project. Patten ordered the corporation not to disclose sensitive material in response to a freedom of information request from the Guardian, warning its release would cause damage and prompt a "trial by media".

The BBC had been asked to publish briefing material prepared for the former director general Mark Thompson before he gave evidence to parliament in 2011. MPs later claimed that BBC executives' statements "just weren't true"."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/22/bbc-trust-lord-patten-accused-mps

"In a rare personal intervention, Patten said the BBC should withhold the briefing material because it could result in a "partial and potentially incoherent picture" and cause damage to "various accountability mechanisms in place"."

"However, his decision was attacked by MPs on the Commons public accounts committee, which is scrutinising the BBC's handling of the DMI project.

Tory MP Guto Bebb said: "Not for the first time the BBC under Lord Patten prefers obstruction and secrecy to confronting real concerns about waste within the BBC. His leadership is damaging the good name of the BBC."

Stephen Barclay, a Tory MP on the committee, said there was a "clear conflict of interest" in Patten deciding whether the BBC should release material. He called for Patten to be stripped of the responsibility and said: "This is briefing material prepared at the expense of the public for people whose salary is paid for by the public and who have a duty to be open and honest with parliament. It is difficult to see why they will say one thing in private but be unwilling to say the same thing before parliament."

Not looking good for the BBC Trust or its Chairman.