news The Queensland State Government has revealed plans to engage in a comprehensive IT outsourcing exercise involving its statewide health department, in the newest plank in its strategy to overhaul Queensland Health’s extremely troubled IT support systems and processes.
Queensland Health is one of Australia’s largest organisations, with some 80,000 staff and operations right across the state, including 182 public hospitals and a wide range of other facilities. Its IT needs are currently largely met by Queensland’s Health Services Information Agency (HSIA) — a specialised department dedicated to keeping Queensland Health’s IT operations running.
And those IT operations are substantial. According to documentation issued by Queensland Health this morning, HSIA currently managed over 81,000 email accounts, 1,100 BlackBerry and other smartphone devices, over 59,000 computing devices such as PCs and laptops, over 1,500 networked servers, over 369 telephone systems including over 90,000 handsets, about 12,000 mobile handsets and 5,860 short range pagers. It also maintains 100 enterprise applications and about 900 local applications.
However, the department has recently been rocked by a series of problems with respect to its technology operations. Although vendors such as IBM and other divisions within the Queensland Government shared some of the blame, audit reports have made clear that Queensland Health did not apply sufficient project governance to its botched payroll systems upgrade, which is slated to cost the State Government some $1.2 billion. In addition, a number of other systems within Queensland Health are out of date and need replacing, a phenomenon which the state government is seeing across its operations.
For example, the State Government’s first comprehensive ICT Audit of its operations, published in June, found at the time that ninety percent of the Queensland Government’s ICT systems are outdated and will require replacement within five years at a total cost of $7.4 billion. Because of these issues, the state has moved towards comprehensive IT outsourcing programs and adoption of cloud computing technologies across government, in an effort to modernise its systems and improve basic IT service delivery.
Queensland Health this morning issued two early market engagement briefing documents outlining a wide range of IT services which it would shortly seek to outsource to external providers. It notes HSIA is to become more of a broker of services to Queensland Health, rather than retaining its role as an independent service provider: “The HSIA ICT Reform Program was established to implement the government’s program of transitioning HSIA from an ICT service provider to a managing agent providing a range of ICT from internal and external providers.”
The first tranche of services the department is seeking to outsource relates to telecommunications services, with Queensland Health seeking to contract the provision and support of telephony, paging and messaging systems out to the private sector, and to purchase these capabilities “as a service”.
In this contract, the department is seeking to consolidate various providers into “one strategic supplier of voice, paging and messaging solution[s]”, as well as transitioning its current environment to a Unified Communications platform. In scope for the contract are virtually all telecommunications systems, ranging from normal PBX telephone systems, IP telephony systems, smartphones, other mobile services and paging and messaging services.
The second contract, dubbed the ‘Health Workspace Project’, is largely focused on end user computing devices, such as PCs and laptops, although a range of other services and devices are also in scope; ranging from printer support, mobile device management, virtual desktop infrastructure, email (Microsoft Exchange), collaboration tools (SharePoint), document and records management (HP TRIM), cloud file storage and Microsoft Office support.
In this area, Queensland Health want to improve the satisfaction of its staff in using their workplace tools, while also increasing its mobile capability, provide a modern integrated office suite and electronic record and document management platform, drive efficiency in how it supports its end user platforms, and reduce the time it takes to offer new and existing desktop and collaborative tools and services; reducing “technology obsolescence” and simplifying technology refreshes.
The two early engagement briefings are just the first in a wide tranche of IT services Queensland Health plans to outsource, according to the department’s tender documents.
However, at least one major vendor will be prohibited from competing for the new IT outsourcing contracts. In early August, the Queensland Government explicitly banned its departments and agencies from entering into any new contracts with diversified IT products and services company IBM until the company demonstrated that it had improved its governance and contracting practices, in an extraordinary move taking place in the wake of the Queensland Health payroll disaster which IBM held a key role in.
opinion/analysis
I have to say, the tender documents which Queensland Health published this week are highly unusual, in my experience.
Firstly, despite the fact that HSIA is a very sophisticated organisation, supporting many, many large IT systems and basic IT and telecommunications infrastructure, the documents it issued to the market this week lack virtually any detail and are very brief. They are literally designed to get the right vendors into the room for early briefings so that early discussions can be held before more formal tender processes. This doesn’t usually happen quite like this: Normally large departments such as Queensland Health start from a more sophisticated basis.
What this indicates is that Queensland’s political masters have thrust this IT outsourcing issue on HSIA and Queensland Health quite quickly. It’s a similar case with the NSW Government’s cloud computing trials — the politicians obviously want to get this ball moving fast.
Perhaps because of this, the way the contracts have been set up doesn’t necessarily make much sense. In each case, it seems unlikely that these IT outsourcing needs would be best served by a singular supplier. In the telecommunications case, it would really only be Telstra or Optus that would be able to meet all of the department’s telecommunications needs. In the ‘Health Workspace’ area, again it seems unlikely that the contract would be best served by a single supplier. If I was running the contract, I would be much more likely to hive bits such as the email support off to separate suppliers, and probably the same for things such as printer support.
When you have really good project governance, as with large Federal Government departments such as Tax or Defence, it is sometimes easier to sign larger contracts with vendors to do more.
However, when it comes to Queensland Health, whose project governance skills are demonstrably terrible, if it was me organising these contracts, I would try and parcel them off in small, discrete bits to individual vendors. That way, if one vendor screws up mobile device management, for example, the rest of the services being provided aren’t also going to get screwed up. Firewalling off discrete parcels of services this way, in my opinion, would be the best way Queensland Health could try to avoid project governance issues in its IT outsourcing.
There are parallels here from the Federal Government’s own IT outsourcing initiatives. In many cases, back a decade ago, many departments signed huge, centralised IT outsourcing initiatives because they were ‘first-generation’ outsourcers. Now, those deals tend to be broken up into packets — such as end user computing, telecommunications, centralised datacentre processing, corporate apps and so on — as the IT outsourcing market has matured. Queensland Health is obviously doing this too, but given its ongoing problems, I would probably recommend breaking up things a little further as well.
For example, you could get Telstra to set up Queensland Health’s unified telecommunications environment as well as providing carriage services. But a dedicated integrator like Dimension Data is probably going to do a better job of that specific task. You could get the same company to do MDM, desktop and printer support, for example, but given the scale of Queensland Health, would you really want to? Probably not.
In any case, it will be interesting to see how Queensland Health’s IT outsourcing effort progresses. These will be some of the largest and most complex IT outsourcing deals signed in Australia over the next several years. Let’s hope HSIA and the department don’t screw them up.
“if it was me organising these contracts, I would try and parcel them off in small, discrete bits to individual vendors. ”
Agreed. Using primary contractors tends to end up with a mess and their advice may be compromised to support a preferred solution (the “mates” deal). Dealing with the real proviider vendors is the go but this communication needs to be managed internally. IHIS or the department itself have to have experts internally to oversea the projects. It seems, to date, whenever they do anything they defer to another organisation to make the decisions. Crazy stuff.
Yeah, go some local (as possible) IT firms. Rather than it end up with some all Indian all stars firm like TCS
WOW – crazy. They have kept the same crowd of CIO, advisors and senior staff – it was the lower ranks that took the hit with the Newman cutts – do they really think this will not end up as before… !!!!!!
+1.
They even bought back the top government CIO just before the last election – he was around during the entire period of the Payroll decision and initial rollout (non- Health). Perhaps he was there to try to cover up things that might embarrass?
If the author is going to use criticism to base their argument on, then they should at least get their facts and basis of argument straight.
In regards to the primary criticism in the article of how terrible Queensland Health’s IT project governance is and it’s handling of the botched payroll upgrade. I assume the author is aware that it was not Queensland Health IT but rather the Queensland Governments Shared Services driving the Queensland Health payroll replacement. I mean it was in all the papers. I’m sure the author would have read at least one of them.
I also assume the author knows that Unified Communications is more than just unified telecommunications. It was mentioned earlier in this article. So the premise that only Telstra or Optus can provide this is flawed. It will most likely be a consortium of companies, although agree that Telstra or Optus may possibly play the lead role, but there are a number of other companies in the market place quite capable of providing the range of services identified.
hey there,
yes, I am aware that Qld Health IT was not responsible for the payroll mess, per se. However, there are also other projects within Queensland Health that *are* suffering problems, and there are also general IT infrastructure issues. I haven’t seen any real evidence that there is a strong culture of IT project management/governance at Qld Health, or, in fact, anywhere within the Qld Government.
I am aware that Qld Health has successfully delivered some IT projects, as is detailed in this other recent article:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/09/disaster-waiting-happen-qld-health-replace-22-year-old-admin-system/
However, this IT outsourcing exercise is a substantial one, and I think it will be really tough to keep it on the rails.
I understand what Unified Communications is ;) My concern here, as I mentioned in the article, is that no one supplier will be able to meet all of Qld Health’s needs as outlined in its tender document. Telstra, for example, really does not specialise in UC integration. It is possible that we could see a lead vendor situation leading a consortium. But that approach was not mentioned in the documents, that I could see.
Way to sensationalise! You pick a project that HSIA had nothing to do with and label us as “demonstrably terrible” at managing projects. If you want your article to have any credibility get your facts sorted.
“ninety percent of the Queensland Government’s ICT systems are outdated and will require replacement within five years”. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t 5 years in the ICT world a long time? Wouldn’t you normally expect to have to replace systems, or at least upgrade them in that time frame? I wonder how often the author leaves before upgrading their own personal system?
That 90% was from an audit that was done.
Yeah it was from the ICT audit, but because the IT refresh cycle is usually less than 5 years anyway it smells of political spin rather than much of a real issue.
It’s a bit sad it keeps popping up on this website.
“it smells of political spin rather than much of a real issue.”
With respect, dude … I’ve been reporting on IT in Australia now for a decade, and I’ve never seen a report as damning as the Qld Govt’s ICT Audit. I recommend you read it for yourself and decide whether it’s a real issue or not. I assure you, it’s a catastrophic issue.
And information gathered from an audit can never be manipulated or garnished? Give it a break! Qld Heallth replace computers and laptops every 4 years, do you think that will continue when a private company is running the show? Systems are upgraded regularly, so much so the end users get fed up with them.
Just stop and think about it. Do you really think a snippet can’t be extracted from an audit and used to a someone’s advantage? Like a journalist looking for an angle?
As I mention above:
“yes, I am aware that Qld Health IT was not responsible for the payroll mess, per se. However, there are also other projects within Queensland Health that *are* suffering problems, and there are also general IT infrastructure issues. I haven’t seen any real evidence that there is a strong culture of IT project management/governance at Qld Health, or, in fact, anywhere within the Qld Government.
I am aware that Qld Health has successfully delivered some IT projects, as is detailed in this other recent article:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/09/disaster-waiting-happen-qld-health-replace-22-year-old-admin-system/
However, this IT outsourcing exercise is a substantial one, and I think it will be really tough to keep it on the rails.”
In terms of the Qld ICT audit, have you read it? If so, I believe you will find that the whole state government has massive problems with ICT right now.
Can I just say, if you are going to pretend to know what you are talking about, please have the decency to use the correct acronym. It is HSIA.
Here is a idea…… How about instead of outsourcing we start putting people with the correct skill sets in ICT roles.
Cheers, fixed re HSIA. I apologise for that.
In terms of outsourcing, analysis has consistently shown that Governments find it hard to attract the right resources in this area. They can’t pay very well, they have higher levels of bureaucracy than the private sector … in my opinion, outsourcing is really the only option.
Just a thought, if you are going to pretend you know what you are talking about, at least get the acronym correct. It is HSIA.
Here’s another though, how about we get people with the correct skill sets in ICT positions. Oh by the way, the payroll project was not driven by HSIA.
Re the payroll project, as I mentioned above:
“yes, I am aware that Qld Health IT was not responsible for the payroll mess, per se. However, there are also other projects within Queensland Health that *are* suffering problems, and there are also general IT infrastructure issues. I haven’t seen any real evidence that there is a strong culture of IT project management/governance at Qld Health, or, in fact, anywhere within the Qld Government.
I am aware that Qld Health has successfully delivered some IT projects, as is detailed in this other recent article:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/09/disaster-waiting-happen-qld-health-replace-22-year-old-admin-system/
However, this IT outsourcing exercise is a substantial one, and I think it will be really tough to keep it on the rails.”
There’s a lot of assumptions in this story. I expected a bit better from Renee, but can understand he is up against a Government in order to find the real truth.
I feel for the public of QLD and the people who will lose their jobs for not much more reason than someone wants to profit at Taxpayer’s expense by repeating an experiment that was done over 15 years ago.
I wonder how long it takes for Insurance Companies to buy into the successful bidders and have access to the medical records. Not legal? Oh pullease! Do you think that multinational corporations care about that sort of thing. Look at taxation! Avoiding it is against the law, but they do it without any real problems.
Why am I noticing a horrible similarity of Mussolini’s Italy in what is happening in the USA, UK & Australia these days. Oh! Silly me! Fascism = Corporatism was what Benito himself said. We know where that all lead to.
Beware, as the road to Hell is paved with good intentions dressed up by your best friend.
What I find interesting about this discussion thread is that it mirrors the very thing that de-devils the implementation of such projects. Arguements over who/what…and which silo of the ediface of government is responsible – when it takes two to tango. IE IT department to deliver and the executive or business side to take ownership and accountability and to own the govenance (IE success or failure).
The major problem with IT governance in Queensland Government has been that the IT department has owned both delivery and the governance. These repeated failures have more to do with the executive management side of the organisation handing over both governance and delivery to the IT department. Thus not holding the IT department to account .
Untill Queensland Health executives take ownership of the outcomes and make the IT department accountable we will continue to have such failures.
Queenland Health and the Queensland Government don’t have a problem with IT. They have a problem with their management culture which is more focused on managing perceptions than producing outcomes, or as we may term them, deliverables. Queensland Health has a many other problems than just IT. We’re talking about a Department that rated damage to reputation as more impactful than deaths of patients. There are many more examples.
One of the lessons from Queensland Health is that the Government should be re-building its internal capabilities to be able to deliver projects so they aren’t at the mercy of vendors. As Renai infers they struggle to tell the vendors what they want to outsource and they certainly can’t do it from the point of view of providing detailed business requirements.
They key question is will the CEO’s of Health or other departments be held to be personally accountable for IT outcomes? If they are the whole ball game will change.
The most fascinating aspect of this is that they are going down exactly the same path as the payroll project. A non-existent scope statement, informal meetings, trying to get the vendors to compe up with business requirements. Same old, same old.
Comments are closed.