I am currently undertaking a cloud computing brokerage consultancy (on behalf of a client), market testing for various supply side capabilities. I am discovering old colleagues re branding themselves using cloud computing language but discovering their behaviour has not changed. Indeed, I can remember them in workshops and meeting 10-15 years ago saying and doing the same things – only with a different wave of technology eg three tier client server to n tier technology and ESP a decade ago.

They are still technologists seeing a business opportunity for themselves. (just as they did with previous waves of technology).

Will cloud computing suffer the same hype cycle as everything else and is it just another /next wave of technology which will suffer the same problems of every other technology wave?

Without adequate and mature client/supplier and business /technology relationships it seems to me that we will continue have the QH payroll situation repeated only with a new set of technologies.
Removing or going around a poorly performing internal IT department direct to cloud computing when there is also abdication of managerial and executive leadership with regard to the use of technology will not change anything.

http://ovum.com/2012/07/17/its-time-to-understand-the-organizational-catalysts-for-cloud-adoption/

The Ovum Cloud Services Catalysts Framework defines the key leadership decisions, business needs, and Internet-age-thinking catalysts that empower agencies to embrace the cloud in case studies of early adoption. These catalysts include: an imperative or willingness to act; an acknowledged mismatch between business needs and ICT means; an opportunity for a fresh “greenfield” start; willingness to use a service with no/minimal customization; the need for a scalable solution (up and down); the need for ubiquitous access (any device, any location); the preparedness to access iteratively evolving functionality to drive innovation; and the enthusiasm to embrace an agile and flexible platform and an ecosystem of solutions.

The catalyst framework provides a tool for thinking about the degree to which a cloud service is a good fit with the characteristics of an agency. It also provides a diagnostic tool for agency executives and for vendors to highlight the catalysts that may need to be created or nurtured in order to enable agencies to understand and embrace cloud services.

I think the reality is that the discussion is better framed agency-by-agency because as soon as it becomes part of a whole-of-government agenda it all gets bogged down in very risk averse thinking and is quite insensitive to the pursuit of real policy or service delivery outcomes.

The real value of the cloud model is revealed when outcomes-focused executives use cloud services to get stuff done with a pragmatic approach to risk management … whereas the central agencies are more inclined to focus on risk management even if it totally frustrates the achievement of outcomes …

Dont disagree with those points – but you are essentially defaulting to hoping that a disruptive technology will resolve these issues. There are still many forces that are very strong that keep the status quo going. Not least of all the business models of large global consulting houses and systems integrators. Would be good for you to consider more closely and publish what will drive the approaches you have been publically espousing. Will treasury have to simply stop giving agencies money for IT? When/why might this occur. What are the conditions for large gov agencies to adopt agile project management when they are politicalised/risk adverse and prince 2 etc provides many with a cash cow to milk. How might this play out?What has to happen for those points to really occur and not simply for those with noses in the trough to morph themselves and their language.

1. Invest in strengthening in-house executive skills and ICT capabilities? (no money)
2. Traditional outsourcing? (no economies of scale, bad track record)
3. In-house shared services? (are you joking!)
4. Enterprise-grade cloud services? (“cloudy is as cloudy does” … sweet!)

Solution? 4+1 Stop squandering goverment’s limited executive attention, skills and resources on activities that are better done by proven cloud services providers (IaaS, PaaS and appropriate SaaS apps) and invest the efficiency dividend on strengthening Agile project management capabilities and delivering strategic ICT-enabled business transformation projects using modern technology … IMHO ….

I suspect a number of comments re project failures are from people in Queensland. Problem is if you speak out or rock the boat of those that have their noses in the trough you risk loosing work/job/career.

Brisbane IT market is small – and probably only going to get smaller.

I agree that this is a major problem in government. And when new people come in, they often get socialised to the same culture, and then lose many of the attributes which the Government needed to start with. It’s an ongoing issue, and I’m far from sure where the ‘circuit-breaker’ can be found in many situations.

That looks like a basket of clean laundry!

Leadership is a constant failing in government – both at political and senior public service levels.

However the people asked to fix it (time after time) are the people responsible for the failure in the first place.

There is no way to get movement without bringing in talented, well-supported, outsiders – willing and empowered to bang heads together and sack under-performing senior executives.

I commented on the Ombudsman’s report at the time:

http://ovum.com/2011/12/21/ict-enabled-projects-are-a-core-responsibility-of-senior-execs/

The problem with this whole scenario is that the issues run much deeper than “ICT projects” that can be solved by a CIO. The reality is that ICT pervades all aspects of policy and service delivery in the public sector … so a failure to deliver ICT-enabled business change projects is a failure to manage the modernisation of public services … which is a core responsibility of department secretaries and agency CEOs. The Ombudsman’s report could equally be renamed “Own motion investigation into the ability of senior executives to run public services in the 21st century”.

The essence of the problem is the pressure on agencies to deliver more with less and the inability of executives to say “no” to ministers. Everyone in the system is caught up in a mad whirlwind of trying to cope with a set of impossible demand/supply challenges that create an “emperor’s new clothes” effect. In too many cases it was obvious at the outset that a project was unachievable, but the incentives were simply to hope for the best, go with the flow, try to work things out along the way … and hope it all blows up on somebody else’s watch.

The solution for major projects is all about executive accountability and focus. Making real and sustainable improvements requires resetting the basic parameters of executive accountability. Hoping for the best quickly becomes a suboptimal strategy if there is a real expectation that you will be held accountable for the project outcomes via a disciplined Benefits Management Plan.

The solution should be approached from the perspective of ensuring that departmental secretaries, deputy secretaries, and agency CEOs have the skills and are paying adequate attention. When they are paying attention they will more carefully consider which projects are mobilized relative to their capacity to deliver, how projects are resourced and managed, and how critical decisions are made.

If department secretaries and agency CEOs are expected to provide unequivocal assurance to government that projects are achievable and on track then they would actually need to know that the projects are, in fact, achievable and on track. The knowledge of this accountability would flow through into the way decisions are made to propose projects for funding, to set up projects for success, and to ensure that the right decisions, and timely decisions, are made during implementation. Oh, and also that capable CIOs were appointed and supported.

All ITIL does is shine a light on what’s already occurring. It makes everyone’s tasks in service management visible. It’s unfortunate that not all IT departments started afresh with new infrastructure, commissioned according to vendor standards and best practices. The fixing (or upgrading) of it isn’t up to the service management framework, it’s up to the engineering teams (and their managers).

“The issue is that “standards” like ITIL are essentially attempts to deal with an underlying problem of inadequate professional expertise and experience.”

I’m not sure what you mean by this? ITIL only provides a framework of accountability, role responsibility and reporting. Dealing with inadequate professional expertise and experience isn’t part of ITIL. I’d refer that to HR, although reports from ITIL infrastructure (like missed deadlines) may assist in that.

“The core difference between successful software firms and disasters is that successful software firms, like Google and Microsoft, demand that project managers have professional expertise. Most government IT projects don’t. ”

“This results in a recognisable pathology where projects drift, genuine expertise escapes or avoids the project, conflict arises in relationships with vendors and users, and extortionate amounts get spent on external analysis.”

Agreed. Too many projects have gone down because the person leading it had one or both of 2 problems.

1. They didn’t know what the hell they were talking about.
2. They weren’t listening to the people that do know.

Sadly, I’m finding this appears to be endemic in government (as opposed to when I worked in private enterprise it’s less so).

“Early on in my career, I learnt an important lesson, and most private corporations know it too. It is that boring is good. Those boring old highly paid IT managers who schedule big delays in projects are the ones whose departments work like clockwork. Government is about ten years behind.”

Unfortunately (government being 10 years behind), yes. Boring is good. Boring means there’s no emergencies. Boring means that everything works. The problem with boring though, is that when things are boring for an extended period, management gets a little twitchy, and start questioning perfectly competent people about their roles and whether they really need to be there. That last part I’ve noticed in both government and private enterprise.

I don’t understand. IT provides services. ITIL provides a service management framework. You can elect to use it, or not. But unmanaged services means you effectively are trapezing with no net. Most businesses want a little more certainty than that. A service management framework, like ITIL, providers that.

“And frankly you’ve offered some huge caveats to blame failure on the users and not the inherent flaws in the system.”

The system isn’t perfect (what system is?). Neither are the users. There are failures every day on both sides. This isn’t particular to ITIL, or any other service management framework. However, frameworks do provide a documented mechanism to deal with even those items that can fall outside it.

“It didn’t work where it was invented so why should it work here?”

Oh come on. That’s a lazy argument. You can’t speak generically about Britain and ITIL. Just because it’s invented there, and some implementations haven’t succeeded doesn’t mean that the system can’t work.

“I also forgot the other major flaw in gov IT – management building reporting structures specifically designed to remove any responsibility for failure of their own decions being attributed to them.”

That’s not a problem with ITIL though. ITIL has roles and responsibilities inherent. If someone doesn’t sign off on something, then something doesn’t get done. The problem you’re explaining has nothing to do with the framework, and more to do with getting signatures in the first place from those in authority, and happens regardless of whether it’s government and private enterprise.

“It’s always the people implementing the impossible plans who are left to carry the can”

Sadly, that turns out true more often than not. Case in point, the IDES project.

Keep in mind that people behaviour changes once they know you mean business, then I change my approach to match. That is to say, no point smashing people if they’re doing good work and performing.. quite the opposite. Others see it, and you find people respect you for it to. It’s a “consequences” approach to management. Act like a spoilt brat, and you get treated like one. I should also point out that when coercing people into doing their job, I also indicate that I’ll back off once people start reaching agreed goals. So it’s not like I’m in the bow of the ship beating them mercilessly while they row faster… And when I meet a truly hopeless individual I get them out of my project. Some people are just cabbages. Not a great situation, but you can’t make a donkey into a race horse.