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 Omotn on
-
Assuming the figures (face-to-face - £8.23; telephone - £3.21; and web - £0.39) can be relied upon then for the website to break even the equivalent of 55,499 telephone calls would need to be converted to web enquiries. I'd let them off a few of these in that I think in this day and age LBH could not not have a website. I wonder how many such transaction LBH believes it has saved?
Is Kevin right to judge the costs on a comparative basis? I think not, surely it must be judged in absolute terms.
I'm also slightly doubtful about the rows of zeros on the spreadsheet. Someone somewhere must be paying for the Limehouse consulatation system - if it is not charged to the website cost centre then it must go thorugh the planning department, or be paid fro by soem central precept.
-
-
Apparently some councils do save money with their websites, e.g. http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=14023 Manchester and Edinburgh, and other unnamed councils http://www.internetbusiness.co.uk/2010/09/07/uk-councils-save-230m-... save evn more. Pity they are not named.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
