What is happening in SSC?
December 8th, 2008 at 8:03 pm by David FarrarNZPA reports:
State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie has ordered an independent review of the way the commission handled multimillion dollar contracts with a private consulting firm.
The company Voco has worked on the commission’s $28 million Government Shared Network (GSN), winning contracts reportedly worth $8 million.
That is a fairly high proportion of the cost of the network having gone on consultancy fees. But that is not what caught my interest.
The newspaper also said the SSC’s ICT finance manager David Eagles tried to end the relationship with the company four times but was blocked by the SSC.
It reported Mr Eagles was now on sick leave after an alleged assault at the commission.
But a spokesman for the SSC today told NZPA Mr Eagles was no longer employed there. He refused to say whether he had been sacked, or had quit.
He said the allegations of assault had been promptly investigated.
“The investigation did not establish a basis for any disciplinary action to be taken against an SSC employee as a result of the alleged assault.”
It sounds like there is a very interesting story to be told. I look forward to the independent inquiry and most of all its report.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Trev Mallard called round for a farewell bunfight?
Vote:December 8th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
DPF
Note this also, which DomPost article you may not have seen
http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/11057/
Vote:December 8th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Consultancy can mean just about anything from software development by contractors thru to actually giving advice. If it is the former (or architecture, design, and code development) then that wouldn’t be a big deal.
But, I’m sure an investigation would find plenty of worse examples in the state services. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of thinking around IT sourcing strategy, and so procurement of hardware, software, and services is all a bit slack. All IMHO, of course.
Vote:December 8th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
davidp
Agree absolutely
Vote:December 8th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Recent court case with the Otago DHB and it’s former CIO illustrates the danger of not *rigorously* separating the consultant/controller/decision-maker from the provider. It seems it is easier to bluff people if you can IT-speak and they can’t.
Vote:December 8th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Don’t start me on wgtn-based consultancy involvement in the public sector. One ministry division I know of engaged a consultancy with an open remit to resource the division in question with contractors (all back-to-back contracted via the consultancy at >$25/h margin) while the c-level client did, um, not much other than improve their golf handicap. The Terrace has been rort-central for years.
Vote:December 8th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Hopefully Dave Eagles gets left alone in all of this. hes a very nice, quite quiet and mellow guy, and has not been well for a while, from around the time the assault happened if i have my dates right. if they try and get him on TV i don’t know if he will cope with the attention.
i don;t know much of the details of what happened, other than the fact that he did get attacked. i doubt very much that he was sacked, i suspect he did ok out of his leaving.
Hopefully now with Labour gone, so too will the pattern of MPs throwing staff on the fire when its convenient to distract from their fuck ups.
AL
Vote:December 8th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
SSC have always set the standard for IT complete cock-ups in the public sector, so this isn’t surprising.
Vote:Anyone remember SSC’s glorious ‘e-procurement’ project?
December 8th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
GJacket>SSC have always set the standard for IT complete cock-ups in the public sector
GSN may or may not have been properly procured… I have no idea. But the product is far from a cockup. They’re trying to replace all or most departmental networks with a single integrated network. A lot of the legacy networks are of dubious quality. But GSN is well designed and modern. SSC have put effort in to a model for procuring remote site to POP links, with a panel of telcos bidding for each link on a competitive basis. The gateway is really quite cool, IMHO.
The big issue they’ve faced, AFAICS, is that departments haven’t been migrating to the new network. Presumably part of this is due to departments wanting to protect their own patch rather than cooperate with others. I think they need their arses kicked. And SSC should be looking at other opportunities to share IT infrastructure. Single government e-mail, user identity management, and applications such as payroll would be good candidates. IMO, SSC and its outsourced suppliers should provide the infrastructure and shared administrative applications, leaving departments to concentrate on department-specific applications.
Vote:December 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Great, a technical solution to a problem that no-one really cared about and didnt want to take the cost of.
Classic gummint dept quango thinking no doubt foisted on most by those due to profit the most. Who are the lead technology firm? Starts with I, had a hand in INCIS, remind me…
Vote:December 8th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
>Great, a technical solution to a problem that no-one really cared about and didnt want to take the cost of
What problem are you talking about? It is intended to supply services more efficiently and save money. If you accept that government, whether smaller or larger, is going to use IT in some form or another then those IT services should be implemented as efficiently and as cost effectively as possible. Consolidation is one way of doing that. Specialisation is another. Bulk buying is a third. GSN combines all three.
But I’m sort of confused as to why you think that public service IT managers should have the option of carrying on with business as usual if they don’t care about saving money. In the private sector, CEOs demand efficiency savings and there isn’t the option to say “no, i really can’t be bothered”. IMO, government should be the same. Are you some sort of anti-Rodney, committed to doing a line by line review of all spending but ignoring most of the lines because you just don’t care?
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:08 am
I think that this had the hallmarks of a project that hasnt been bottomed out wrt scope and requirements = ‘a technical solution to a problem that no-one really cared about and didnt want to take the cost of’
But correct me if I’m wrong here. We have a, supposedly, top notch technical solution that has cost somewhere in the region of 25- 50 million and it doesnt work.
Wicked good spend.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:40 am
>and it doesnt work
It does work. I don’t think anyone has suggested it doesn’t.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Yes, I’m sure as a technical solution its great, if expensive. Although, I have read that there have been numerous problems relating to network connectivity (specifically out to the interweb).
Notwithstanding the real application is in business usage, and as thats not happening the whole solution can be said to not be working. I’m sure IBM have other views though.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 6:51 am
davidp, you obviously work for the commission or are one of the consultants at the teat. SSC is a byword for stupid decisions. Its egovernment unit is a laughing stock in wellington. Why do you need 200 bureacrats solving problems that noone has identified yet. Want to explain why eprocurement was not a dog? Why does everyone wince when the SSC comes up with yet another “strategic project” (expensive, not needed, vapourware that won’t deliver) which just involves the Commission stickybeaking and trying to control other projects when its not competent to do its own job. Want to explain how a consultancy firm can take $8million from a $28million project? Want to explain why SSC staff would assault a whistleblower.
A very very sick organisation. It hasnt had a real job since the State Sector Act was passed in 1988, and hasnt achieved squat since, other than look for new ways to keep its building stocked with lazy second-rate bureacrats. Well overdue for abolition, with a small CEO appointment unit attached to DPMC.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Just like the IT issues in every UK Govt. Dept.
Just the numbers are smaller.
More solutions that Doctors never wanted. That CSA could never get to work. to MOD procurement Debacles, and the problems just roll on. The Consultants never being held to account.
Getting the Platforms to actually work was never an option. Less chance of bleeding fee income from stupid Heads of Department.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Nigel>davidp, you obviously work for the commission or are one of the consultants at the teat.
No. And no. But stated with all the class of the authors of The Standard who assume that DPF must be taking money from the National Party if he is defending them. I implemented one of Australia’s biggest networks a few years ago so I’ve had some exposure to large scale networking. I reviewed GSN’s architecture for a customer agency earlier in the year and was surprised to find it was a better thought out and implemented product than I expected.
I’m not sure why you expect me to defend eprocurement since I’ve never heard of it.
A consultancy firm’s percentage of a project depends on what products and services were being supplied… I would have thought that was obvious. I have no idea what products and services Voco have supplied to GSN and so can’t comment on whether they were worth $8mill or not. You’ve decided they were bad value for money, tho, so maybe you could tell us what parts of the project they were responsible for so we can see the analysis you used to come to your conclusion?
I don’t know anything more about an assault other than what was reported in the media: “an alleged assault at the commission”. You’re saying that he was assaulted by other SSC staff and implied it was because he was a whistleblower. That’s filling in some details for DPF’s “interesting story to be told”. What is the name of the person who committed the assault? Are they still with SSC? Was the assault committed on SSC premises or outside? You’re obviously privy to all the gory details, so how about letting the rest of us in on the gossip.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Strange that no commenters yet seem to find the fact these contracts were untendered to be worthy of note.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 7:52 am
davidp why not read some of the links and the comments
http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/11057/
the attack was reported in the dominion, the link takes you there. Do your own research before casting assertions.
I see you are a typical IT consultant. Well some free advice, don’t put your work for SSC on your CV.
No sane IT professional would let the SSC take control over the IT architecture of its business. Nothing the SSC touches works. Some of us have decades of experience with that organisation.
The SSC doesnt run a business, it runs an overhead.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 7:54 am
good point adolf. Imagine that the SSC would be in breach of its own contracting guidelines! Say it isnt so! I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
bwuhahaha!
This is what happens in so called central agencies. The rules are for the little people.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Hmmm interesting to see the comments here – obiviously they depend on your experiences with IT. PErsonally I find the bigger the IT system the greater the divergence of opinions. We have a medium sized IT system servicing a range of buisnesses including animation (huge sucker up of IT resource) and I have yet to spend money on something I dont understand. Its pretty simple at a management level, I regularly tell IT bods “explain it to me so I understand or I dont spend money” I have yet to find a “real” IT expert who cant do that. Then of course its about process and it would seem that if these contracts have been untendered then, there lies the real issue…… that is just a basic management cock up – which seems rife in the public service. Surprising really given the manuals and policy that they have.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Nigel>I see you are a typical IT consultant. Well some free advice, don’t put your work for SSC on your CV.
Wrong again. I’m not a consultant and not working for SSC. Which I already told you after your last post stated that I was “obviously work for the commission or are one of the consultants at the teat”. Some free advice: Put some time and effort in to your reading comprehension skills.
Oh, and your link doesn’t add any details to the assault case other than the bland statement already reported. It certainly doesn’t support the case you’ve made. Admt it… you’re guessing.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:02 am
actually that link takes you to commentary on the project. the reporting on the assault comes from NZPA and grendel in the comments above.
I note that for a techie writer – and therefore very alert to annoying his IT audience (ie., sources) – the article screams stuff-up.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:10 am
david
“I reviewed GSN’s architecture for a customer agency earlier…”
ok so “with” not “for” fair cop. But you did say you were engaged to review the IT projects, a leap from me to assume a consultancy role. However I apologise for impugning your reputation -I am doubly sorry for suggesting you might have worked for the Commission.
Anyway back to the topic.
1. “strategic” IT project – be afraid
2. Run by the SSC – automatic cock-up alert
3. Poorly specified contract, apparently not let according to guidelines- oops
4. Overruns – quelle surprise
5. Attempted whistleblow, followed by alleged assault by a senior SSC staffmember – no heat being felt there then
nope, nothing to see here. The review should be a doozy.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:13 am
davidp is allowed to state that the actual IT technical architecture of the network is good.
another govt IT debacle thats been led down the merry path by consultantcy companies like IB and Voco.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:15 am
agreed expat, david it was silly of me to have a go at you. The issue is the need for the solution, and the governance of the project. Your comments were about the technical details. I am not competent to comment on that – nor do I think it particularly matters.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Todays Dom.
A source said Mr Eagles’ head was pushed into a glass wall at the commission, triggering a pre-existing medical condition. He was fired after he refused to attend a meeting while recuperating in hospital, the source said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4786635a11.html
Sounds like there will be a big big big payout coming Eagles way. And many firings at the SSC.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I would have thought that an allegation of assault was a matter for the police, not an internal “employment” matter.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:31 am
and my fav part
“Mr Eagles, who was ICT finance manager, is understood to have opposed the Voco contracts. There is no suggestion the alleged assault was in relation to the Voco matter.”
But a dollar gets you 10 that it was related.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 9:47 am
GSN is a good idea cursed by the problems of all Govt IT projects (and most private sector ones) … too much focus on reports and arse-covering rather than “making the boat go faster”.
I know a fair bit about GSN and what I’ve seen leads me to think the situation is this … technically it’s a very good network, but the management & admin of it has got completely out of control and is both (i) costing way too much and (ii) not delivering. There’s been a ton of money spent on consultants (incl Voco and IBM) to “manage” the network. Unfortunately SSC has let them get away with defining “manage” as write reports, spend lots of money, and deliver nothing.
I believe a proper review of GSN would conclude that it’s a very good idea, that technically it works well, but that the management & administration has lost focus, become very bureaucratic, isn’t delivering results, and makes it very hard for Govt agencies to actually engage with GSN and get on board.
From what I understand there are at least 3 layers of management within GSN (SSC, then IBM under an umbrella contract, then companies actually providing the network). Straight off that seems at least 1 layer too many. Add to that SSC then engages third-party consultants (like Voco?) to monitor the IBM contract. End result is that the good intentions quickly become subsumed by lots of heads in the trough who see their job is to write a report about the other consultants, who in turn then write more reports about the first consultant …
The core problem is that the public sector’s culture has wandered away from actually delivering a service to “following a process”. They think that as long as they follow a nice process, and engage a big brand (like IBM) then all responsibility passes away from them. And none of them want to take responsibility. Never mind that the project goes off the rails. To SSC (in this case, but there are plenty of others) they did all that was asked of them.
Disclosure: I’m not an IT consultant, and I don’t work for SSC or any Govt agency that’s a client of GSN.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 9:53 am
greenjacket … I had some visibility into the SSC eProcurement project, back in 2001/2002.
As with GSN the core idea is sound. eProcurement had/has real potential to reduce costs, improve service and to help a lot of Kiwi companies get up the curve with online business.
But again SSC was more focused on process rather than outcomes. IMO they chose a really cheap-arse system that provided a very simple & low-feature set IT system, but didn’t allocate anywhere near enough money to supporting the Govt agencies or for supporting & enabling the suppliers. Sure, they ticked the box that said they’d put eProcurement in place. In reality any IT system is way more than just a piece of software on a server. No thought or money seems to have gone into integration, user support, supplier support etc etc. IMO that’s where the whole thing fell over.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Another gummint dept sold a bit of vapour ware by IBM.
Yeah, yeah, easy, no problem, corporate box for the bleddie cup in Syders, sure! Fishing trip etc etc
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am
And sure enough, as vm notesabove, they deliver the software but no-one has planned or budgeted for the hard part, making it work in the business.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Of course SSC is process focused. The project will have had multiple reviews and have been found to be OK, because nobody looked beyond process to what the hell they were trying to achieve.
Vote: