Thread by @bryanglick

🧵
It's great to see the BBC keeping #PostOfficeScandal front and centre in its headlines- but I found this a slightly odd story (and not only because there's nothing you wouldn't already know if you've been reading @computerweekly regularly...) (1/8)

bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

When the Horizon deal was signed in late 1990s it was common for companies to not own the IP of software developed in an outsourcing contract. It was a negotiating point- you could own the IP if you wanted to, but the supplier would charge you extra for it. Caveat emptor... (2/8)

Most likely, a copy of the software code would be stored in escrow to protect the buyer if the supplier went bust.

The reason Post Office couldn't get off Horizon was nothing to do with IP ownership... (3/8)

...it was simply that PO didn't have the skills or institutional capability and knowledge to bring the entire support operation in-house. Even today, Horizon IS the Post Office - without Horizon you can't run the business... (4/8)

No company can simply switch off such mission-critical software and move to something else overnight.

For Post Office, it's always been a risk management issue... (5/8)

...the combined cost and risk of bringing Horizon in-house was prohibitive, at least it was until they were forced to accept liability for the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history... (6/8)

And even then, the £1bn+ compensation bill (paid by taxpayers of course, not by PO itself) was not enough to counter the risk of bringing Horizon in-house or of ditching it entirely... (7/8)

That's why - as we exclusively revealed last year - the final bill for replacing Horizon is likely to be about the same £1bn+ figure as the compensation bill.

Only when keeping Horizon became a bigger risk for Post Office than ditching it, did they decide they had to do so (8/8)