I also have some hands-on experience of ICT management in the VPS. My view, however, is that this is a problem that needs to be addressed by the department secretaries and agency CEO’s directly … rather than delegating it to some poor hapless soul in a central agency to ‘fix’ via instruments of oversight and control. There have been many attempts at business case and major project oversight processes over the past decade … and DTF currently runs Investment Management and High Value High Risk oversight and reporting processes that are about all that one could do … and these (while actually quite good) have not cured the VPS of its ICT illnesses.

The history of failed projects, wasted activity and lack of support for CenITex is ample evidence that the problems are caused by the decision making behaviours of senior executives throughout the VPS. They need to be held accountable for their behaviour … and they need to change it.

The thing is that ICT is such an integral part of any policy or service program in government that a failure to successfully manage ICT-enabled business projects is actually a failure to effectively manage a department or agency … full stop. This has gone way beyond being anything to do with “ICT” really. It is now a crisis of confidence in the ability of VPS executives to do their jobs.

If secretaries and agency CEOs “don’t care”, “aren’t able” or “choose not to” manage ICT-enabled business projects well then there is actually nothing that a central agency can do to fix the problem quickly … if at all. Silence is the sound of one hand clapping …

Of course there is a need for a new and heroic Office of the CIO that provides good advice on ICT matters to the government, develops a vision for how ICT can add better public value, improves the transparency and coordination of department and agency ICT planning, sets some essential policy directions, aggregates procurement of commodity-like ICT stuff and promotes “good” ideas and practices while discouraging “bad” ideas and practices … oh and celebrates success by showcasing great ICT projects and achievements. This will be worth doing, but won’t solve the underlying problems unless department secretaries and agency CEOs enable and support it. The practices of “white anting” a centrally imposed and unwelcome strategy are well developed in the VPS.

The focus has to be on strong and effective LEADERSHIP … not to be confused with its somewhat dim witted and ineffective cousin ‘governance’. The test of the new ICT Strategy will be three fold. (1) Does it create a compelling vision for how ICT will be used and managed in departments and agencies to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of policy and service delivery? (2) Does it contain initiatives that actually address the key issues and risks facing ICT sustainability in the VPS [as enumerated rather explicitly by the SSA, Ombudsman and VAGO et al]? (3) Is it explicitly endorsed by each of the Inner Budget department secretaries and agencies CEOs as a strategy that they support and will be held accountable for delivering?

1 and 2 will achieve little without 3.

Now this would, perhaps, make a difference!

Our system of government is based on the managerial autonomy of Secretaries and agency CEOs. DTF sets output targets and allocates funding … then Ministers work with individual Secretaries and CEOs to develop and deliver policy initiatives and operational services. The best way to think of it is to describe the VPS as like a corporation with a board but no head office. The Premier is like a chairman and the Ministers like directors, but there is no WoVG ‘CEO’, no ‘COO’, no ‘CIO’, barely even a ‘CFO’ … and certainly no ‘head office’ with executive powers over Secretaries and agency CEOs. This is the governance reality in all matters … including ICT.

There are two problems with the idea of a ‘strong centre’ with regard to ICT. (1) There is no non-ICT foundation for it, so it ‘swims against the tide’ of the organisational dynamics of the way the VPS operates … and is hence hardwork and inherently unsustainable. You are welcome to try it if you like, but the autonomy of secretaries and agency CEO will always win in the end. (2) There is no practical way to attract and retain the talent that one would need to have in the central agency to actually to a credible job of managing ICT on a WoVG basis … it is complex and difficult to juggle … so you would need really smart and capable executives … but this is seldom the case, and never the case sustainably over time.

The solution, in my view, has to be found by empowering and enabling departments and agencies to be individually capable. This requires a focus on leadership behaviours from the central agencies rather than controlling behaviours … and a commitment to developing organisational ICT capability over time rather than “bull in a china shop” quick fix strategies that are neither sustainable nor affordable. We need stronger and more effective leadership at both WoVG and department/agency levels to fix this … oversight/transparency of performance is part of the solution … but only part.

+1

This is the same problem which bedevils AGIMO in the Federal Government.

“Ohhh Gee Wiz! You will transform our IT Dept from a shit box 1986 – DX486, to a new mini super computer, with multiple raid arrays and new worked to the moon and – Ooooo it’s all marvelous, and for only $50 million dollars too! – and in 6 months Even bigger WOW!”

9 months later….

“Ummmm due to cost over runs it’s now $100 million – so we want more money and it should be done within the year.”

1 year later…

“Ummmm due to feasability scaling studies, it’s now $150 million – so we want more money and it should be done within 15 months.”

1 year and 3 months later…..

And the fucking bullshit just goes on and on and on and on and on ……

As Jospeh Stalin used to say: “Comrade – you have failed us, I wish to avoid the paper work, here take this loaded hand gun and stick it in your mouth and shoot yourself – or we will shoot you and all of the members of your family in front of the firing squad.”

So much for fucking idiots and their fucking cost over runs.

It’ll be interesting to see how Victoria goes. Lets hope it is not another pile of money burnt off.