Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey Council cited as top five spender for web redesigns
A story in the Telegraph this morning picked up the issue of councils spending large sums on website redesigns.
A redesign and revamp of the technology underlying a council website costs half of the councils which replied to a Telegraph survey less than £15,000, but the paper found 10 examples of councils paying between £100,000 and £600,000.
Haringey Council was in the top five spenders:
Birmingham City Council - £2.8 million (Completed in 2009)
Essex County Council - £800,000
Medway Council - £600,000
London Borough of Haringey - £540,000
Northamptonshire County Council - £450,000
The Telegraph says:
"Haringey Council spent more than £500,000 on a redesign in 2003, which included annual recurring costs of up to £200,000 per year, not including staff salaries.
Haringey has said it intends to cut the cost of some of these services, including a £36,925 per annum contract to provide webcasting and video hosting.
"The council has already started to use YouTube, and has put the webcasting contract out to tender again.
"A spokesperson from Haringey told the Telegraph: "Where real savings can be made without affecting service quality, usability and our legal requirements then we will certainly look to using alternatives".
Haringey also secured a top five place in a piece of research done earlier in the year and covered by the Telegraph.
This study looked at website spending by councils in the 2008/2009 financial year:
Top five councils for website spending:
1. Westminster City Council - £728,584
2. Barking and Dagenham - £335,811
3. Norfolk County Council - £233,961.97
4. Knowsley Council - £220,000
5. Haringey Council - £208,480
The redesign expenditure is now seven years back (and I imagine it comes from decisions taken even longer ago). The more recent spending figures, it seems, may stem from that decision.
We know little about the whys and wherefores of the decision and it's likely that whatever the logic that underpinned it, most of the people responsible are no longer in post anyway. So, I'm not minded to harp on about that expenditure.
What it does point to though is the need for Haringey, along with all councils, to consider what might be the most effective ways to derive the efficiencies of connecting with and serving residents online.
I'd welcome some insight into current thinking from the Council and have asked for comment.
A redesign and revamp of the technology underlying a council website costs half of the councils which replied to a Telegraph survey less than £15,000, but the paper found 10 examples of councils paying between £100,000 and £600,000.
Haringey Council was in the top five spenders:
Birmingham City Council - £2.8 million (Completed in 2009)
Essex County Council - £800,000
Medway Council - £600,000
London Borough of Haringey - £540,000
Northamptonshire County Council - £450,000
The Telegraph says:
"Haringey Council spent more than £500,000 on a redesign in 2003, which included annual recurring costs of up to £200,000 per year, not including staff salaries.
Haringey has said it intends to cut the cost of some of these services, including a £36,925 per annum contract to provide webcasting and video hosting.
"The council has already started to use YouTube, and has put the webcasting contract out to tender again.
"A spokesperson from Haringey told the Telegraph: "Where real savings can be made without affecting service quality, usability and our legal requirements then we will certainly look to using alternatives".
Haringey also secured a top five place in a piece of research done earlier in the year and covered by the Telegraph.
This study looked at website spending by councils in the 2008/2009 financial year:
Top five councils for website spending:
1. Westminster City Council - £728,584
2. Barking and Dagenham - £335,811
3. Norfolk County Council - £233,961.97
4. Knowsley Council - £220,000
5. Haringey Council - £208,480
The redesign expenditure is now seven years back (and I imagine it comes from decisions taken even longer ago). The more recent spending figures, it seems, may stem from that decision.
We know little about the whys and wherefores of the decision and it's likely that whatever the logic that underpinned it, most of the people responsible are no longer in post anyway. So, I'm not minded to harp on about that expenditure.
What it does point to though is the need for Haringey, along with all councils, to consider what might be the most effective ways to derive the efficiencies of connecting with and serving residents online.
I'd welcome some insight into current thinking from the Council and have asked for comment.
Tags for Forum Posts: haringey council website
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
What I'd like to know is how much the Borough spends on software licences with a certain well-known company known to have a criminal conviction (in the United States) for abusing monopoly position in the marketplace.
-
Permalink Reply by Lesley Ramm on
-
They should obviously get best value for money but i do think Haringey has the best council website i have accessed. It must save on paper if they can reach more people via IT means.
-
-
Haringey Council's website is not bad.
If the Council Majority Group have to produce Haringey People magazine, they could save much expense if they simply produced a PDF version and put the propaganda online for downloading by those who want to believe it.
Such a move would at least save the cost of paper, the cost of printing and the cost of distribution.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I had a look at what they got for their money and the Barking and Dagenham adult social care section of their website is a fantastic example of how to do it right.
-
-
I know the libDems want to get rid of Haringey People but i personally like it. However the council could distribute online and only post to those who have no IT access to save money.
-
Permalink Reply by Mr Growbag on
-
Continuing the HP tangent: I think one person's "self-congratulatory articles" are another's "celebrating the good things about the local area".
I've just had a look over this month's issue and it has lots of info on local opportunities for the elderly, people with dementia, health-checks at libraries etc, in addition to a historical article about the Olympics, a "what's on" section, write up of the Green Fair and loads of other reasonably interesting stuff.
Sure, there's a debate to be had over whether having a borough magazine at all is worth the cost, but let's not automatically write it off as worthless "propaganda" just because it's produced by the council. It's good to have a monthly reminder of the positive things going on in the borough - both those the council is responsible for and those it isn't. That seems to me to be what HP is doing.
-
-
Personally, I'm happy for whatever microscopic % of my council tax goes towards it to continue to be used to celebrate good things happening locally.
Yes, the council should inform people if it wins awards or achieves stuff. I'm pleased for example that they've mentioned their recycling team winning an Employer of the Year award in this issue. Don't you think that that team deserves local recognition for their achievement? Mentioning achievements isn't party-political stuff, this is recognising hard work done by civil servants in a difficult borough. Granted, the various soundbites by councillors are sometimes going to be partisan, but that's hardly the purpose of the magazine.
As to balance, there are plenty of sources of discussion on what the council is not doing right. Name me one other where they have a chance to put their successes out there?
-
-
Fair enough - that was rhetoric leading to a bit of an easy challenge! ;)
The point I was trying ineffectually to make was that the press and people in general are very quick to focus on things the council do badly - there's a lot more negative reporting than positive; therefore I don't begrudge them flagging up their successes (so long as they are factually accurate) in the context of a useful magazine with lots of other stuff in too. -
-
Permalink Reply by Omotn on
-
"whatever microscopic % of my council tax"
many a mickle maks a muckle.
Other people's money, etc.
-
-
Continuing the HP tangent - this month's edition isn't too bad - the only really blatant politicking I spotted was the repeated announcement, for the umpteenth time, that Hornsey Town Hall is saved for mankind. It hasn't been ever since these announcements started, and granting yourself planning permission (all that has happened and not explicitly mentioned in the article) does not constitute a renaissance.
-
Permalink Reply by Lydia R on
-
Will Hoyle makes a good point that the Haringey website might not justify its expense because of low internet access locally. I seem to remember being told two or three years ago that internet use in Tottenham [i.e. the general area of greatest need] was just about the lowest in the country, at a quite horrendous 10 percent. The figures for all of Haringey are probably saved from being totally embarrassing by the west end of the borough [i.e. the general area of least need]. Maybe the Tottenham figures have changed a bit since then but I shouldn't think by much.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
