Gershon slams Government ICT management as weak
- 16 October, 2008 18:16
- Comments 1
The Gershon review has slammed the Australian Government’s use and management of ICT as weak while recommending budget cuts of up to 15 per cent.
In the report, author Sir Peter Gershon, who also undertook a similar review of the UK Government’s procurement strategy, claimed the Federal Government ICT marketplace was “neither efficient nor effective”.
“The current model of very high levels of agency autonomy, including the ability to self-approve opt-ins to whole-of-government approaches in the ICT domain, leads to sub-optimal outcomes in the context of prevailing external trends, financial returns, and the aims and objectives of the current Government,” he wrote.
The long-awaited review into government ICT, initially requested by Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, in April this year, was released October 16 and contains seven key findings and several recommendations.
The report highlighted weak governance mechanisms as contributing to the failure of agencies to realise benefits from ICT-enabled projects. It also identified a lack of scrutiny on funding, and “a disconnect between the stated importance of ICT and actions in relation to ICT skills”.
Gershon also criticised the existing sustainability program and added the absence of a whole-of-government strategic plan for datacentres could cost taxpayers up to $1 billion over 15 years if a more coordinated approach wasn’t implemented.
Recommendations included the establishment of a Ministerial Committee on ICT, a 50 per cent reduction in the number contractors in use by agencies over a two-year period and an increase in the number of government ICT staff.
Significantly, Gershon recommended slashing the budgets of the largest 28 agencies (Defence excluded) spending over $20 million on ICT annually by 15 per cent, and those with a spend between $2-20 million by 7.5 per cent.
He recommended the savings, which were estimated at $140 million in the first year and in excess of $400 million in the second and subsequent years, be put back into central fund for re-investment.
"Sir Peter has recommended that we should improve our ICT governance to improve the effectiveness of its use, tighten our management of business-as-usual ICT operation to improve its efficiency, manage our skills base better, plan for the Government's overall datacentre requirements, interact with the industry more effectively, and ensure that the Government's own ICT operations are sustainable," Tanner said in a release.
"Without pre-empting Cabinet's consideration, the report forms an excellent basis for implementing a series of changes for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of government ICT."
Come socialise with us! Facebook | LinkedIn
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- Red Light In the Control Centre Saves Hours of Chaos
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Continues to Be a Major Player
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Delivers Significant TCO Advantage over Disk
- Premier Media Group Fast Study
- Aberdeen Group: Building Business Resilience Through Active Archive
-
World’s eyes on Aussie NBN: Conroy
-
It's not all Doom at new media conference
-
iiNet ‘Easter egg’ ad banned
-
Download the Cloud Applications Deep Dive report
-
Conroy to receive secret filter forum report
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
Anonymous
You have got to be kidding...
How the hell are government departments going to recruit good IT people for PERMANENT roles in the public service, on the current salary bands available presently. One reason contractors exist is that they are smart enough to know if their skills are in demand, and offer them to someone for "expected value" amount. (To coin a term!)
If a person can earn $55 - 65K a year in the public service on systems admin/engineering, and earn $65 - 95K a year in the private sector for the same, yet earn on a 40 hr week at $65.00 p/h over $120K p/y...
Which do you think someone will take?
I am skirting the other issues here of course, which bring contract costs down (insurances, etc...) but the end of the day, the return to a contractor is higher, and allows them to bounce around a bit building up skills and abilities. How is permanent PS roles going to offer that? I have worked in all 3 capacities, and I think Sir John is dreaming that this will be possible.
Nonetheless to contradict myself 'slightly' it may well be possible by the government, by simply putting in IT people who are at the bottom of the scale, and don't cost much... thus sacrificing quality, experience, etc... for a $$$ saving. But do they really save $$$ then?
Lastly, I practically snorted my coffee on this, since there is (still) a lack of IT skills in the market presently, and it is set to get WAY WORSE, (speaking now as an IT Company owner, who is trying to hire!)
Even Private Sector is publicly worried about this shortage. No one is studying IT much anymore... So are we going to ask all contractors to just 'give up' contracting, settle down on a PS wage and be good industrious workers under our erstwhile Labor (union) Government??? Ha!!!
This will BE INTERESTING times ahead I foresee...
Post new comment