• Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites

  • Enterprise IT, News - Written by on Wednesday, August 7, 2013 16:38 - 11 Comments

    ‘It’s not our fault':
    IBM blames Govt for payroll disaster


    news Diversified technology products and services giant IBM has rejected a number of the findings included in the Commission of Audit’s inquiry into Queensland Health’s botched payroll systems upgrade, blaming the majority of responsibility for the catastrophic consequences of the botched initiatives on the State Government.

    Queensland Health’s payroll systems upgrade project was first kicked off in late 2007, when the department determined there was a need to look at a new payroll platform to replace the previous platform, based on Lattice and ESP software, which had been progressively implemented from 1996. Partially as a result of the fact that the state had decided to standardise on SAP’s ECC5 and Infor’s Workbrain software across its whole of government operations, those same platforms were picked for the Queensland Health implementation.

    However, the project, implemented by prime contractor IBM, Queensland Health itself and government shared services provider Corptech — quickly went off the rails as poor governance and the complexity of Queensland Health’s award system kicked in, with the result that many of Queensland Health’s 85,000 workers went without pay for a period, or were overpaid, at various periods from early 2010, when the system went live. The LNP administration in Queensland recently announced additional funding of the project of $384 million, taking total project costs to an estimated $1.25 billion.

    A series of audits and inquiries into the project, the latest being a Commission of Inquiry Investigation conducted by a former Supreme Court Justice and published yesterday, has found that the the project’s difficulties were caused by woeful project scope definition at the project’s commencements, as well as poor governance throughout, with all three key parties involved — Queensland Health, Corptech and IBM — significantly underestimating the scope of the work required.

    The Commission of Inquiry report delivered new findings specifically dealing with IBM’s role in the debacle. Specifically, it found that IBM received favourable information during the contract procurement process that helped it win the initial contract unfairly, that the company may have low-balled its bid based on that information, that the company’s executives breached its own ethics policy in the bid, and that the Government should never have settled the case in a legal sense with IBM. IBM was paid just $25.7 million for its role.

    However, in a statement issued this afternoon, IBM pushed back on the findings. “IBM cooperated fully with the Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Health Payroll, and while we will not discuss specifics of the report we do not accept many of these findings as they are contrary to the weight of evidence presented,” a spokesperson for Big Blue said.

    “As the prime contractor on a complex project IBM must accept some responsibility for the issues experienced when the system went live in 2010. However, as acknowledged by the Commission’s report, the successful delivery of the project was rendered near impossible by the State failing
    to properly articulate its requirements or commit to a fixed scope. IBM operated in a complex governance structure to deliver a technically sound system. When the system went live it was hindered primarily through business process and data migration issues outside of IBM’s contractual, and practical, control.”

    “Reports that suggest that IBM is accountable for the $1.2 billion costs to remedy the Queensland Health payroll system are completely incorrect. IBM’s fees of $25.7 million accounted for less than 2 percent of the total amount. The balance of costs is made up of work streams which were never
    part of IBM’s scope.”

    IBM has previously claimed it “successfully delivered” on its obligations to the payroll project. In a letter to LNP Health Minister Lawrence Springborg, quoted by Springborg in Parliament on 5 September last year, the company said:

    “As you may be aware, IBM successfully delivered against milestones agreed with the Queensland and concluded the implementation of the project on agreed terms. IBM consistently delivered beyond the scope of the contract to assist Queensland Health to identify and address concerns with its payroll process. We delivered within the governance structure established by Queensland Health and CorpTech and outlined in the Auditor-General’s report.”

    submit to reddit


    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

    1. Goresh
      Posted 07/08/2013 at 8:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “When the system went live it was hindered primarily through business process and data migration issues outside of IBM’s contractual, and practical, control.””

      If the body charged with building a system does not understand the system, how can it build it?
      That’s why IT companies employ Systems Analysts.

      If the body building the new system isn’t responsible for porting the data over to it from the old one, who is?

      • Northern Blue
        Posted 08/08/2013 at 10:04 am | Permalink | Reply

        You can give someone a car, an drivers manual, and even personal lessons. But that still doesn’t stop that new owner from making their own decisions and then backing the car off a cliff.

        There are a lot of minions operating in the QLD Health a combined services that had their own agendas underway.

        From what I can understand, IBMs fault with regards to the proposed solution was that the subcontracted products didn’t fit with their contracts approach and the operating environment were definitely under powered at all levels – with no redundancy.

        But then again, in regards to the software provided, it might have matched the requirements at the time of tender. Those internal minions would then have cut in and “meeting’d” their way to a whole new level of “utopia” with the project’s implementation.

        • Cynic
          Posted 08/08/2013 at 11:40 am | Permalink | Reply

          Read the report it is quite clear as to the issues with IBM. QH is certainly at fault but so is IBM which was acting like a dodgy car dealer to follow the car analogy, with unethical procurement practices (in the report) and poor quality control (in the report). In this scenario it takes two to party and party they did with a $1B hangover.

          • Northern Blue
            Posted 08/08/2013 at 12:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

            Fair point but I was critiquing the product offered rather than the tender process itself.

            • Cynic
              Posted 08/08/2013 at 1:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

              No problem, the Workbrain product pushed

              • Cynic
                Posted 08/08/2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

                Argh fat fingers better attempted posted below ;-)

    2. Dan
      Posted 07/08/2013 at 9:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

      As far as I am aware, almost all of the massive errors were actually operator errors (like entering someone’s birthday as their start date for a fortnight pay run, causing a payment of 36 years) and most of the trivial errors were process related. The fact that the system had no checks and balances (e.g. “error: maximum hours pre fortnight are 160″ which would have prevented the most major mistakes) is a pretty major cock up though, from a programming perspective. The biggest problem was that when they discovered there was this major meltdown occurring in the payroll system, the Qld Health payroll bank account was nearly empty

      And as far as the story goes, the findings basically say that IBM didn’t play entirely by the rules (naughty boys) but didn’t actually find that the delivered system was faulty.

      I’ll have to side with IBM on this one; not everyone always crosses every T and dots every I, but in the total scheme of things the actual work done by them on the system was only a fraction of what the Government IT department did in total, and as far as it seems, there bit did what it was designed to do – it was just fed dud data.

    3. Ben Zemm
      Posted 07/08/2013 at 9:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      My first real-world project after uni was helping to build a system for the Queensland Government. Without going into too much detail, I remember spending hours in meeting going over the smallest trivial detail, but little time allocated to discussing important things, at least from my perspective. And then all those things changed anyway!

      At least my system wasn’t business critical like a payroll system.

    4. Woolfe
      Posted 08/08/2013 at 11:08 am | Permalink | Reply

      IBM does have a responsibility here.

      I have no doubt the government goal posts kept moving and the project was mismanaged. But really all that does to me is suggest that IBM should have been watching every move and documenting every damn change in scope/lack of clarification to the Nth degree.

      You cover your arse in this situation. You make sure you ask every question preferably repeatedly, until you get a sold answer, or you can prove that you made a clear effort to identify and resolve potential issues.

      Process problems and operator errors are a copout. Yes they would have added to the issues, but the system should have been robust enough to handle mistakes, or clear enough that the mistakes are avoided in the first place. A good UI assists operators in avoiding mistakes. Process can break things, but the system can reduce that potential.

      • Ausgnome
        Posted 08/08/2013 at 3:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

        As per normal my Guess is the PCB decided the way the business operated needed to change rather than to accept early on that the software package proposed was not fit for purpose. This is normally how these things start to go off the rails. for reference see camel

    5. Cynic
      Posted 08/08/2013 at 1:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Fair call, the report does go into some detail on the Workbrain product suitability but there is a lot of context about an award engine. Not sure about redundancy as the solution was dual sited with fail over, that would not have helped given the application software defects that were the issue. Business continuity is a different matter.

    Leave a Comment


  • Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:

    Follow us on social media

    Use your RSS reader to subscribe to our articles feed or to our comments feed.

  • Most Popular Content

  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT

    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications

    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry

    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights