Advertisement
*
Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact reprints@wistechnology.com.

Assembly Speaker's IT Task Force calls for state CIO

Madison, Wis. - It's amazing what expensive state information technology failures can do to turn the political thought process on its head.

Having wrapped its investigation of state information technology failures, the Assembly Speaker's Task Force on those failures has put Republicans in the position of supporting the creation of a bureaucratic post - state chief information officer - and some Democrats pouring cold water on the idea.

The 16-member Task Force, comprised of state lawmakers and private sector technology executives, is recommending legislation to create a top IT official with the authority to closely monitor information technology projects, according to a report in the Wisconsin State Journal.

The Task Force was formed after a state IT audit identified 184 information technology projects that state agencies have begun or completed between 2004 and 2006 - many of them plagued by delays and cost overruns - that are expected to cost a total of $291.7 million.

Although the state has a top technology official, Oskar Anderson of the Department of Administration's Division of Enterprise Technology, who took over earlier this year after the resignation of the controversial Matt Miszewski, task force members cited a lack of accountability for IT.
Advertisement
The Task Force, assembled by Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, R-West Salem, has recommended a state CIO that reports to the governor and has the authority and resources to provide effective oversight.

Different accountability

Matt Canter, a spokesman for Gov. Jim Doyle , agreed that more accountability is needed, but he said that comes into play more in holding contractor's accountable and finding the expertise to negotiating computer contracts that better protect taxpayer interests. Canter also said the state would benefit from establishing uniform procedures across state agencies.

Canter said the Task Force's proposal was tried and failed under former Gov. Scott McCallum, noting that some of the troubled IT projects - including the ENABLED and SUITES projects in the Department of Workforce Development - actually began when an IT director's position existed.

"The governor is cool to the idea because it proved to be a costly and ineffective way to manage state IT," Canter said.

Canter said improving the management of information technology projects is a continual challenge, and "anyone in the private sector would tell you that as well."

Firing line

State Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Green Bay, is one of eight state lawmakers on the Task Force. Montgomery said he would support the creation of a state CIO only if the position carried the necessary authority to do the job effectively and if the person holding the position could be fired if he or she isn't getting the desired results. Montgomery noted the irony of Repulicans advancing a bureaucratic solution, but he said the state would never fully outsource all of its IT needs.

"There is a huge IT bureaucracy in place at the state, and right now it is performing in such a way that is detrimental to the taxpayers," he said.

Montgomery acknowledged that the Legislature was not happy with the previous CIO position but said the state should look at what went wrong and what it could do differently. "The one thing we can't do is keep the status quo," he said, noting that no one person has been held accountable for IT failures.

Audit recommendations

In its April report, the Legislative Audit Bureau recommended reactivating the Joint Committee on Information Policy and Technology and the IT Management Board.

State Sen. Pat Kreitlow, D-Chippewa Falls, said the state should first reconstitute the Joint Committtee on Information Policy and Technology before considering other solutions such as creating a state technology czar. Kreitlow, chairman of the Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues, and Information Technology, said the state's IT problems stem from the decision of previous legislatures to neglect oversight.

"We're not doing our jobs if we're not providing legislative oversight for certain functions," Kreitlow said.

The Legislative Audit Bureau's report noted that the Department of Administration has the authority to monitor and control the IT projects of executive branch agencies, including the establishment of performance measures for evaluating progress. However, not all state agencies are under the governor's authority.

In addition, the audit bureau's report recommended agencies to report by Oct. 1, 2007 to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on seven of the large, high-risk projects reviewed by the Audit Bureau, and it recommended that DOA report on progress toward establishing planning standards for large, high-risk projects and for enhanced project monitoring.

Meanwhile, Anderson has been directed to report to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on his plan to correct the problems. The report is due in October.

Related stories

GOP, Dems split over funding of state technology projects

Speaker announces business members of IT Task Force

State technology chief endorses IT audit recommendations

Technology audit rips poor planning and oversight

Is the worst over for state technology failures?

State of Wisconsin dumps another tech project

Miszewski to depart as state IT audit wraps up

Comments

Heads Need to Roll? responded 2 years ago: #1

Listening to the 3rd meeting of the Speakers Taskforce on IT Failures (available at Wisconsin Eye), I couldn't shake the feeling that I was at a witch hunt. Many, many references was made to the fact that when an IT project fails, heads must roll. That in today's environment it was difficult to determine whose head, but one of the main objectives is to be able to put someone's head on the chopping block. Political posturing? Would the type of person willing to work in that type of environment prove to be the "boss from hell"? As an IT Pro, in my mind, a point of even greater significance was entirely missed: it's not the people who are on the project (who you want to find a scapegoat for?), it's who's missing. Requirements definition is the most critical path component. Once you are missing important requirements, it is because you are missing someone on your project with that information: from business area managers not having the time to attend meetings, substituting the wrong staff for projects, etc. Rather then looking for someone to blame, legislators should look in the mirror at the politically charged environment state IT projects must work in, find ways to better collaborate, create productive work environments for IT staff, focus on the positive, etc.

A. State Employee responded 2 years ago: #2

Please stop referring to SUITES as a "failed IT project." User acceptance testing is going well, the app is well accepted by the customer, and SUITES Releases 2 & 3 will go into production by this next spring. SUITES was a troubled project, but over the last two years DWD has made made very good progress.

Herbert responded 2 years ago: #3

Another opportunity to improve IT project management for the WI taxpayer has failed. The legislative/private sector IT Task Force & the Governor fail to understand that state IT projects also are successful and that there have been many more successful projects than have failed. The expensive failed IT projects are where 3rd parties do and/or lead the IT projects? The state is their cash cow. Does no one get that? Would it not show more fiduciary responsibility to create additional state IT professional positions for agencies to successfully perform their IT work, instead of one CIO cabinet position, or several legal eagle positions to negotiate 3rd party IT contracts just so people can be fired when IT projects continue to fail? And do not forget the large amount of politics involved in every project in government, including IT - sometimes cost or success is not the driving factor. That didn't come out in the report either.

A Contractor responded 2 years ago: #4

Putting the blame on contractors is a good way of avoiding responsibility. Many of the failed projects came about when state officials neglected the warnings of competent IT professionals. Witness the 'Pilot Project' using an unproven technology to provide electronic mail services. No one wanted the thing precisely because the technology was too new. State officials made the decision to go anyway. Did the contractor (Oracle) sell the state a bill of goods? Yes, but only to the extent the state officials wanted the system. Contractors and state employees both worked long hard hours to make the thing work.

Oh, by the way, one of the state officials championing the system now works for Oracle. Curious.

Retired IT Guy responded 2 years ago: #5

I’ve reviewed the audit and the task force recommendations in detail. In my opinion the private sector folks had good insight and recommendations. For example, Kirk Strong’s recommendation concluded with the following point: “Finally, I don’t believe there is a “smoking gun” when it comes to accountability for failure of these projects. Given the current and past state of prioritizing politics over practicality, I’m not surprised as these types of failures happen. I think efforts to dissect and nitpick these projects to assign blame would be as useful as correcting the syntax and spelling errors of Mein Kampf. The overall system, not the individuals working within the system, was to "blame.” Others, such as Steve Lipton, provided insightful recommendations regarding procurement alignment and the need for business process review and changes.

Our representatives generally want more legislative oversight and/or a state IT czar/CIO. I submit that we’ve had different flavors of a centralized coordinating IT organization and legislative oversight committees at the DOA levels and the legislative level for at least the past 15 years, and I’m convinced this has resulted in more costs than savings. One reason is that projects proposed by the state central IT organizations rarely include costs for agency business process changes and agency staff costs to implement. “Heads need to roll’s” comments are right on! If the representatives need a target, why not use the oversight committee(s)? Good luck finding members.

Frustrated responded 2 years ago: #6

How can our legislators want more oversight on IT projects because of missed deadlines and cost overruns? They have a deadline every two years called the State Budget and they are $10 billion apart and two months overdue. I can't recall the last time they delivered a budget on time but evidently they can ensure that IT projects will be. Duh!

state IT worker responded 2 years ago: #7

I've worked In state IT long enough to know that the main problem is cronyism. Until that changes, it'll be one failure after another. I've already been saying that for years, and I'm seeing the problem getting worse, not better.

Heart of the issue responded 2 years ago: #8

Large state IT projects, like all IT projects, will fail unless all interested and involved parties agree to simplify and standardize their processes, maintain a firm and reasonable scope, subscribe to good project & budget management disciplines, and have full commitment and accountability of all internal and external parties.

-Add Your Comment

Name:
E-mail:

Comment Policy: WTN News accepts comments that are on-topic and do not contain advertisements, profanity or personal attacks. Comments represent the views of the individuals who post them and do not necessarily represent the views of WTN Media or our partners, advertisers, or sources. Comments are moderated and not immediately posted. Your email address will not be posted.

WTN Media cannot accept liability for the content of comments posted here or verify their accuracy. If you believe this comment section is being abused, contact edit@wistechnology.com.

Advertisement
Advertisement
WTN Media Presents