A while back I mentioned that I was planning to re-qualify as an ADI (approved driving instructor). Today, some two or three weeks after completing my application form, I have a letter (with my name spelled incorrectly) advising me that my application has been approved and that I may now apply to take part 1 of the qualifying test; the theory and hazard perception tests. The letter comes with an application form, but advises that the quickest way to do this is on-line at the DSA’s (Driving Standards Agency) website. My, how things have moved on in the intervening twenty years…. or not, as the case may be.
I logged onto the DSA’s site and found the link for test applications. Good, so far. I chose the ADI Part 1 option and was asked for my driving licence number and PRN.
PRN? WTF is a PRN? Nowhere on the site does it explain what a PRN is. I checked and rechecked just in case it was me being dense, but, no, nowhere is it explained. I checked the letter. No, nothing there that says “PRN”. I checked the application form. This asks for an ADI number (I know what one of those is, but my old one is no longer applicable and I don’t have a new one yet) or Personal Reference Number. Ah, so that’s what PRN stands for, so now I know. Now, which number is my PRN? The letter has two reference numbers; a user ID and an application reference number. It must be one of those. I put in the user ID. Nope, the system is not playing this one… I am, apparently, despite a letter to the contrary, not eligible for this test. Oh, well, let’s try the application reference number. No, I’m still not eligible. Bugger! Well, I said a few more choice words too, but I’ll leave that to your imagination.
So, abandoning the high-tech method, I resorted to the telephone and booked in the old fashioned way. This was somewhat more long winded, although sometimes talking to real people after a long menu system of computer generated voices is something of a relief. I booked a test date for later this month and have ordered some practice material, so hopefully, I’ll be well prepared.
So what does all this tell us? Er, that the government and its agencies still haven’t got to grips with computer technology, I suspect. I mentioned my difficulties to one of the agents I spoke to. It wasn’t her problem, of course, she was there to talk to me about preparation for the test, not computer technical support, but she did confirm that I wasn’t the only one to have had difficulties booking on-line.
So, National Identity Register, anyone?
This one is not the Government, its the UK banking sector as a corporate entity, setting standards and procedures (that are, I think, then paid for by us through the UK retail sector):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/08/nchip08.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_08052006
We know how to do these things (and the NIdS too, though I doubt you’ll thank me for saying it). That is at least to the extent of making it really really difficult for the bad guys.
I could cry.
Nigel, I saw the worrying Shell PIN fraud story last week. Red faces all round…
My issue here – with government agencies such as the DSA is that a simple system such as on-line booking should be seamless for the end user. A combination of unexplained terms and a booking process that just bombed me out without explanation suggests that they haven’t got it right. I had similar difficulties with my Road Fund Licence on the DVLA site – it wouldn’t accept the numbers on the renewal notices.
Spelling my name incorrectly – though fairly typical is, again, an indication of sloppy procedures and lack of attention to detail.
My reference to the NIR is, while facetious in tone, a recognition that if they cannot get simple single-issue systems right, what will happen when they attempt a massive project with interlinking systems? The mind boggles. At least, I think boggles is the right word… :whistle:
So, is camalg going to tender for the work?
@Longrider. I think you’re right, that there are (at least) two somewhat different problems here.
First the considerable deficiency in the relatively simple process of getting end-user instructions and documentation consistant with the computer system.
Secondly, the more difficult issue of IT security, which does need quite a bit of expertise to get right. However, such expertise is available, quite widely, and also from those more skilled than me in that particular field. [My website shows, principally, expertise in biometrics.]
However, there is an extremely important combined aspect. IT security impinges on total system function. It needs to be considered at the very outset and, quite rightly, sometimes system functionality should be reduced to improve system security. [Consider the analogy of the external door. Security facilities include: a good multi-tumbler lock, burglar alarm sensor, strong internal night bolts, and peephole and/or chain for checking visitor. It’s all pretty inconvenient and expensive. One might chose to have less doors to one’s house, or less that can be opened just the outside, hence lower functionality but better security and at lower cost.]
We both raise the National Identity Scheme from time to time. You because you are against the whole concept; me because the function is security (of identity):- it needs serious and careful design to make it worthwhile. We both have doubts.
Best regards