 Mae arddur i chi, ymlaen i'w adnew Au, a fe wnaeth i chi arbennig i'r cyfноз Bring 360. Ar hyn rhai yw llawer, mae'r amlwg yn unrhywun i gael, mae'nhaid i'ch cefnwyr o'i ei daccuned yn cyffredinol i chi'r cyfeddau eu rai'r cymorth, ac mae'r cyffredinol i chi'r cyffredinol i chi clywed i ei dda, yn ymddiwch y gweithio gyda'r ddwy o'r ddweud o'r ddweud hwn. Ac mae'n gweithio'n... Mae'n gofyn am gweithio'n gweithio'r ddwy o'r ddweud, ac mae'n gweithio'n gofyn yw'n gwneud o'r tancoedol yn gyffredinol. Felly, mae'n gofyn yn Gweithio'n gweithio'n gofyn o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae gennym ni'n golygu'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gofyn ar gyfer oedgol. Rwy'n gweithio'n meddwl i'n ddweud o'r cyflogol yn wych yn gweithio a'r gweithio'n ddata i'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n dda i gael, i'n ddweud i'r cyflogol yn gweithio'r cyflogol yn gweithio'n ddweud i gael cyflogol. ac yn dweud y bwysig yn ymddangos y llwyddiad. Yn ystod, y dyfodol y byddai'n gweithio'r ddechrau, ac rwy'n dweud y grwp ymgyrchol Fy Llywodraeth Cymru. A yn y bwysig, mae'n gweithio'r ddweud yn ymddiad o'r ddweud o'r cymdeithas, yn ymddiad o'r ddweud yng Nghymru, dwi'n dda i'n ddweud y gweithio'r ddweud. A'n ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud hynny, erbyn i'r cefnodd y bwysig wneud ychydig. Gwes i'n ffyrdd o'r ffordd, o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd ar y cyfnod ac yn y bydd y gwaith ymryd. Roedd angen i'r bydd. Roedd yma'r gwneud yn cyhoedd o'r ffordd i chi'r ffordd y gydig o gael ymwyb yn cyhoedd ychydig ar y gwaith, ac roedd yn cyhoedd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r wneud. Roedd yma'r gwneud i'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r gwaith yw pob ni hyn o gwkeiniw arweithio eich Cyfnod, yw weld yn gwyrdd iawn yn gwneud i ni, a'r gwahol yn gwneud yn gwiri'r shipment. Byddwn yn iawn yn cyhoeddiol yn unig y byddai'r gynhywys yn cyfrifio'r cyfnod, mae'n gwrtho'n ei ddiwedd yn gweinydd hyn. Ar y dwi gweithio'n cysyllturef yma o eich cyffredig. Yr eich cyffredig, rydyn ni wedi fy mhwyfledog llawer yw eich cyffredig yn gwneud o petiynau ychydig sy'n gweithio ei gcaf. I need to actually. Joseph Stieglitz and some other economists in the 1970s did some groundbreaking analysis that won them the Nobel Prize, which was simply to say that in a market, and Joseph Stieglitz used the used car market as an example, and he said that a lack of information on behalf of the buyer actually depresses the prices, he proved that it depresses the prices. And he called this research buying a lemon. So that's why the lemon is there. Not a used car, but the suppression of data and the lack of data when you come into a tender actually kills competition. The downside for the government is that it raises prices. So information asymmetry in the public sector means we pay more. And the difficulty is simple. It's not about goodwill on behalf of government. It's that tendering is a really crude way of exchanging information about what you want to buy. Now I can't come up with a better way. I'm not suggesting we do something other than tendering. But there's a lot of information that we could share outside of tenders that would make life more competitive. Now, the problem with information asymmetry is that it happens at every stage. And you end up with the buyer perhaps presenting less information than they might like about what their service requires. And that comes back to bite them later on because it's too late to go out to tender again once you're contracted with someone and they can sit there and go, well, you didn't tell us about this, so it's going to cost you more. And then you've got the supplier who will say, well, I didn't really know what was going on, but I know enough about how to make money in my business and I know that government doesn't know enough about how we make money. So I'm just going to keep this back and I'm going to raise the prices because people don't know what it should cost. And that's particularly true of IT. And then we have the incumbent. I was recently in somewhere in the north of England, I weren't so aware, but they had a real problem that their roads contract, the supplier for their roads contract was refusing to give them any of the data about how much, how much, how much it costs. How many repairs have been undertaken in the last 10 years? And they were saying, well, you can't have it because you're going to put it in your tender document and that's proprietary data. So you would be, that's anti competitive. So other suppliers coming in and finding out how to do the job that you've just done was seen as anti competitive. So the incumbents have a real power position. And this is the result. You end up with consolidation towards the front end where you end up with more and more spend going to fewer and fewer suppliers directly in contravention of what the capital office and the rest of government is trying to do. You get this sort of gravitational pull because it's really hard to determine what you want or to express what you want. And so this is 2013. These are the biggest suppliers in government in 2013, central and local. And if I click forward, you can see the paler means that you'll be spending less. It's paler and smaller means we're spending less. So if I go back again, you can just see that shift towards the big guys is part of what's happening in government. And it's a really difficult thing to overcome. This is not by intent. This is not government saying, right, we've got to spend more money with capital. And it's more that it happens as part of the process because we make it really difficult to compete for government tenders. And the people who are good at competing for government tenders are sometimes good at delivering tenders, but not always. Sometimes they're just good at competing for tenders. So how can open data overcome this? And this is this is the Large Hadron Collider, which is a really sort of crappy illustration of a catalyst. And really what we're talking about is by radically opening up data, smashing open this idea that you have to be big to win or that you have to be good at bidding to win. What about if every contract in the UK had enough data around it that when you came to time to bidding it, not only did you know when it was up for renewal. You knew what was asked of last time, what was likely to be expected this time and how the last person did and how much they spent, how much it cost. Because then every SME, every business could compete on a basis of saying, I'm going to do better for you. Because we trap ourselves into this idea that our procurement teams are going to other people who are going to deliver savings in our contracting. There aren't enough of them. There are so many contracts that we need a much more open approach to creating competition so that people can actually save you money without even asking for it. And we want to bid on a contract that's due for renewal in March. And we want to cut, we want to do something that effectively will increase the volume of what's been the work that's done sixfold and do it at about a third of the cost. Now the only reason I know we can do that and I know what's going on is because I know someone in the Crown Commercial Service. I know the incumbent supplier and I'm really good at knowing where all the procurement data is because that's my job. You can't rely on every supplier being like me in order to come in and compete and say we're going to do sixfold better at a third of the cost. But I guarantee to you there are people out there who are ready to step into those shoes. So we've got to make that open. So this is where we think you should go. This is where we think everything should be linked and open and available. From right from your budget to knowing your project to knowing your tenders and then your contracts right down to the receipts because the receipts will tell me actually what you're getting. And if I want to know how much it costs to fill to Mender Road in Bolton and Regis then it would be on the receipt. And then that's what happens. You get growth. You encourage growth. You encourage people to engage with government. It becomes easy to challenge the incumbent. And this is not just for us. This is for everyone. I'm channeling to Tim at that point but it's the truth if we can open up contracts so that we can know who bought what when and what they require next time when and what was paid last time will have a much more competitive and a much more cost effective government. Thank you. Thank you very much Ian. Do we have any questions? It wins lunch. With a question. I guess I'm just wondering what's next. Do you mean for Spend Network or for solving the world's problems? Not that we're capable of that. I think for Spend Network we're really interested in looking. We've been running some experiments with text mining on data so natural language processing and what you can do with tender data and we found some really interesting results on that. We're really keen to be working with the open contracting partnership to funnel in as much international tender data as we can into an open contracting standard and making that available to everyone. So we're really committed to making lots of tender data open. We'd really, dearly love government to improve the way they handle spending data. It's bordering on scandalously poor, I'm afraid, that for example the Cabinet Office hasn't published any spending data for over a year despite us having to write numerous FOIs to them. I was really heartened by what Matthew Hancock said earlier around saying we're going to dog food our data but really to be honest if you want to ask all of government to produce this stuff you've got to do something with it. So there's a bit of, forgive the analogy of perform or get off the pot for government around how they manage their open data, I think, especially spending data. Another question? Oh, I've got two more questions here, I think. I will be brief. You won't go hungry, I promise. Hi, Margaret Hardy from Parliament. Very interesting on the tenders. Do you have any plans to do more on the transparency of the cost of projects? So I really like the pyramid and how you go from the budget to the receipts, that the receipts are often for services but enormous amounts of money go actually into the activity around delivery. That may be some ongoing work. Yeah, we're doing some ongoing work around how you might save money in government without cutting services because we think the data that is out there indicates that there's lots of money to be saved in different commodities. It might be mobile phones or it might be construction, but the sort of way we can already look at the data indicates that there's significant savings to be made. So we're doing some of that research and it will be not specific to projects. One of the biggest problems we find is that I've got a whole load of spending data and I've got a whole load of tender data. Only 30% of contracts in the UK of tenders have matching contract awards and most of those only actually comes down to 1.5% of all the tenders in the UK have a contract award that tells me who won it and how much it was for. So it's really difficult to do project work like that because I can't marry my spending data to my contract data. So the guys at 360Given will know how difficult it is to push some person writing a document saying we're going to do this and actually where are the transactions that match with that. So that's the area we're looking at as well. And actually the work leading towards a bigger report has been released as a series of blogs on the ODI website. So the first one was on consultancy day rates and the second one is on tender time frames. The third is on construction projects and we value your feedback on those. So on consulting day rates we looked at how much it would cost if you were an SME to provide consulting and bear in mind there's a target of 25% spend to SMEs when we did the analysis. And 8% was the margin that we identified. So there's a lot that we can do. Is it a very quick question? Ask it really quickly. Chirdeep Chhabra from the digital catapult. Have you done any work around the data coming in from the European Union? There's a lot of strict oversight on for example grant data and the follow up around that. Is there being any study around that that you have done? We don't handle grant data in that we've had so much. But we do handle all of the European Union tenders and we look at that. And one of the real problems is that the European tender data has been abject to a point of depressing. I actually bought the data three years ago we bought the data because it wasn't open then and then we made it open. And part of the reason we made it open was because it was utterly valueless and having paid for it. It was so poor for analysis terms but we've improved the way we analyse it. So yeah we are getting on top of it and I just watched this space I think. Thanks once again Ian.