Whatever happens in the election, government departments at both state and federal levels are facing major changes to how they build and manage their IT infrastructure. Is the answer shared services, an increased focus on SOA, enhanced Web delivery -- or just telling everyone in your department to get a clue?
Although how government sets up its IT infrastructure hasn't attracted anywhere as many headlines as broadband policy, it potentially could have an even greater impact on Australia's economic development.
"Governments around Australia spend northwards of AU$10 billion on ICT," Ovum public sector research director Steve Hodgkinson pointed out at the recent Government Technology World conference in Canberra.
"ICT is now an indivisible part of the fabric of the operations and policy of government. Everywhere you look the projects are getting more complex and more intertwined in business processes."
As presenters at the conference made clear, however, attempts to ensure that IT projects are matched to business needs often fall short, even if there's supposed to be a well-defined process for making sure projects are relevant.
Indeed, a slavish addiction to process can in itself become problematic. "Are we making better investment decisions than 40 years ago?" asked Terry Wright, principal analyst in the commercial division of the Department of Treasury and Finance in Victoria.
The answer, Wright suggested, was no: "You can get away with anything today if you follow the process."
Want to know more?
-
For all the latest news, analysis and opinion on CIO issues, click here
Reporting and tracking processes needed to be more sophisticated and recognise changing circumstances, he said. "The problem with status reporting is we report if it's on time or on budget, but what the investor wants to know is 'is it still worth doing'?"
Planning problems
Improved collaboration between IT managers and other department or agency workers is the ultimate goal for many projects, but getting such collaboration can be difficult if management itself has unclear goals.
"A lot of the senior people in my organisation don't know what they want when it comes to technology," said Richard Host, director of business systems and information technology for NSW Fire Brigades.
Panic-mode planning is still a major issue. "The process which tends to have been around more or less for a long time with IT is that you've got to wait until there's a crisis and then you come up with some big huge proposal to fix it," said John Wadeson, deputy chief executive officer information technology at Centrelink. "I would love to have a system that was more progressive."
The attitude that IT needs to be driven by government rather than the other way around remains prevalent.
"It is a business function and it needs to be governed and led by the business, not by ICT staff," said Andrew Mills, director of the Future ICT Service for the South Australian state government.
"From an industry perspective, the biggest danger is government is complex, it's not single focus as most companies are."
However, some departments see IT taking a more central role.
"ICT is mission critical -- it is not a 'nice to have' area," said Jim Varghese, director-general of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries in Queensland. "I always said to my senior executives, make it your business to get to know your CIO."
Communication let me down
A common failing is not communicating the reasoning behind changes in IT infrastructure to staff who are affected.
"People are constantly surprised when they find the usage of an application is not widely accepted or there's downright resistance," said Amy Ng, director HR management and advisory services for Businesslink, which provides shared services to NSW government departments.
"People's understanding of why ...
1%
2%
