Strategic ICT Feedback

Transcription

1 Strategic ICT Feedback Feedback on SA Connected, the SA Government s ICT Position Paper Prepared by: The Office of the Chief Information Officer Version: v1.0 Final Date: 3 June 2013 Approver s name: Title: Andrew Mills Chief Information Officer Government of South Australia Signature: Date approved: Public Page 1 of 75

2 Document Control Classification/DLM Public Issued June 2013 Authority Chief Information Officer Master document location Records management File Folder: 2012/24331/01 Document number: Managed & maintained by Office of the Chief Information Officer Author Leigh Tuckwell Reviewer Compliance Mandatory Review date Confidentiality Classification Table Need to Know Confidentiality Description Circulation Limit HIGHLY PROTECTED PROTECTED SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PUBLIC Unauthorised release could reasonably be expected to cause serious harm to an organisation or individual, or give unfair advantage to any entity or violate somebody s right to privacy. Unauthorised release could reasonably be expected to cause harm to an organisation or individual, or give unfair advantage to any entity or violate somebody s right to privacy. Unauthorised release might possibly cause harm to an organisation or individual, or give unfair advantage to any entity or violate somebody s right to privacy. No special classification is assigned. No harm could be caused to an organisation or individual, and no unfair advantage could be given to any entity and no violation would occur to somebody s right to privacy. Secure and highly restricted access. Confidential and limited access within the Department and to authorised SA Government employees only Restricted access within SA Government and to authorised industry partners only No special restrictions other than legislative or administrative requirements. Unrestricted access. Need-to-know - A person must have a legitimate need to access the security classified resources to carry out their official duties. Other justifications, such as position of authority, or the desire to enter controlled areas or access information for the sake of convenience, are not valid. Public Page 2 of 75

3 Table of Contents BACKGROUND... 4 Objective... 4 Provenance... 4 Exclusions FEEDBACK CONTRIBUTORS... 5 OVERVIEW OF FEEDBACK... 6 Word Cloud... 6 Top 20 Words... 7 Sentiment... 8 Feedback Themes... 9 APPENDIX A WORD TREES OF FEEDBACK THEMES APPENDIX B FEEDBACK FROM THE ICT STRATEGY SUMMIT APPENDIX C FEEDBACK RECEIVED VIA APPENDIX D FEEDBACK RECEIVED VIA ONLINE FORUMS APPENDIX E FEEDBACK RECEIVED VIA OPINION NEWS ARTICLES Public Page 3 of 75

4 BACKGROUND Objective Public This report summarises the consultation feedback collected on the SA Government s Information Communications Technology [ICT] strategy position paper, South Australia Connected Ready for the Future [SA Connected]. The report provides a high-level overview of the feedback themes. The written feedback is provided in its entirety in the appendices. Provenance In January 2012, the Office of the Chief Information Officer [CIO] began the development process for a new across-government ICT strategy by providing the Senior Management Council [SMC] with a paper outlining key strategic issues for their consideration. Following further strategic dialogue sessions in June and July, the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet [DPC] directed the Office of the CIO to facilitate the development of the new strategy for the South Australian Government. Office of the CIO worked with stakeholders across government and the Australian Information Industry Association [AIIA], first in conducting an information gathering exercise to produce a high-level assessment of the current state of ICT in the SA Government, and then in the development of SA Connected to outline what the new strategy was expected to look like. On 22 March 2013, the Premier gave approval to post SA Connected on the Your SAy website ( inviting feedback from the public. In addition to this, IdeaScale, an online tool was utilised to allow the public to post feedback online, as well as comment and vote on feedback that is posted ( Internal government feedback was also provided via SAGE, the government s internal collaboration platform ( On 27 March 2013, the Premier of South Australia launched SA Connected at an ICT Strategy Summit, hosted by the AIIA with support from the SA Government. The ICT Strategy Summit provided an open forum for leaders from industry and the public sector to debate on the positions put forth by SA Connected. Over 400 people attended. Following speeches from the Premier, the Chief Executive of DPC, and the Chair of the AIIA s SA Government Taskforce, facilitated discussions at each table gave attendees the opportunity to raise the issues that mattered to them. This feedback was collected and, together with the other feedback received throughout the consultation period, has been used to create this report. The consultation period ran until the end of April Exclusions The following exclusions apply to this document: The majority of feedback received was from notes taken at the ICT Strategy Summit. The scope of this report did not extend to validating feedback with attendees. It is acknowledged that the notes received may not accurately cover all discussions held, and that they would only capture the opinions expressed, not the opinions of every attendee. This report is simply a reflection of the feedback received. It does not detail how the new strategy will be influenced by the feedback. Public Page 4 of 75

5 FEEDBACK CONTRIBUTORS Public The following individuals and organisations provided feedback to the SA Government during the consultation period: ICT Strategy Summit Over 400 attendees provided feedback to the following table captains: o Mike Allen o Peter Auhl o Jo Battersby o Rachel Capetanakis o Louisa Cussen o Adrian de Brenni o Ashley Dohse o Rod Dowling o Karen Ewins o Gail Fairlamb o Richard Ferme o Aron Hausler o Philip Hogg o Nikhil Ichalkaranje o Martin Jackson o Daryl Keen o Bill Le Blanc o Troy Linke o Peter Malcolm o Peter Marshall o Sarah Mason o Phil McMahon o Andrew Mills o Charles Moore o Ray Moore o Andrew Muecke o Joanne Murray o Megha Padhye o Andrew Piper o Rick Seaman o Lesley Sharp o Brian Smith o Kim Tolotta o Leigh Tuckwell o Fran Turner o Paul Vial o Alison Ward o Peter Williams o Brad Wilton o Stephen Woolford o John Woodward Tony Bezuidenhout Sandra Bradley Anthony Charles Jason Eacott Andrew Green Geoff Hendrick Hewlett Packard ICT Vendor Management Council (subset of members) Dijana Jevremov Andrew Kirkpatrick Zac McCrindle Microsoft Nadia Moffatt Maxine Moran Peter Newman Janet Reid State Records SA Technology Strategy and Standards Steering Committee University of South Australia s School of Information Technology and Mathematical Sciences Advisory Board Jessica Wilson SAGE Sean Abel Christian Bertram Ashleigh Coombs Richard Ferme Daryl Keen Grace Smith Leigh Tuckwell Ideascale (user names) aaron Adam Laskowski adam.wheeler ahausler Allan Pilgrim Alysha Thomas Amir Shaikh Amy Teitzel Andrew Kirkpatrick Ashleigh Coombs barbkemp bob.sibson bramlamb brian.smith CE chris.oerman chris.reddin christian.bertram daniel.climent darius.coveney dknight elio_rillo Fiona.Whiteley fran.turner freeman.peter grace.smith grantmitchell greg.lehmann h.lacey heather.shepherd heatherlsmith88 hegan Ian Willis ian.jenkins indika.wijenayake ingerson jabriggs james james.gardiner jason.caley Jason_Dreimanis jaspn.redman jennifer.fleming2 John Woodward john.trembath karen.butler3 katehwalker katelyn.costello langridge.mark Lee Hopkins margaret.howard Mark Henderson mark.staggard Marlene Manto martin mathew.rochford matt matthew.hill2 maxine.moran megha.padhye Melissa Cadzow michael.hemphill mike.allen milan.djuricic mspearman mudge Name nic.lock Nikhil Ichalkaranje paul.cumberworth peter Peter Murchland peter.workman plehane rachel.capetanakis ralph.leonard Ray Moore richard.ferme rita.mcphail rob.royal robert.debelle rohan.bishop ross RubyRose s.delbridge sales samcampo sarah.mason sarah.masons sharp.lesley Shayne Harris Simo Xu snattrass Steve Rowe Stewart.harvey stuart.manson Susan Andrews tahnya tony.brumfield trent.mcgee vito.rinaldi wei.li Zoe Bogner Public Page 5 of 75

6 OVERVIEW OF FEEDBACK Word Cloud Over 400 leaders from industry and the public sector attended the ICT Strategy Summit. Each table at the summit had one or more table captains who took written notes of the strategic discussions at their table. These notes were provided as feedback. The following word cloud gives a visual representation of the words used in the table captain feedback 1. The larger a word is, the more often it was used in the feedback. 1 Word cloud created by Wordle.net. Some commonly used words have been removed such as the, it, and needs. Government (and its derivatives) has also been removed. Some of the text was altered to change two similar words (such as service and services ) into one word (such as service/s ). Public Page 6 of 75

7 Top 20 Words Public The flowing chart indicates the top twenty most-used words in the feedback provided by the table captains at the ICT Strategy Summit, and how often each word was used 2. Number of times the word was used project/s strategy/strategies/strategic agency/agencies industry innovate/innovation/s/innovative service/s process/es rule/s Word used ICT data procure/procurement/s 90 day/s share/d/sharing business/es support/s/ed/ing/ive risk/s people/people's SA engage/ment/s system/s Some commonly used words have been removed such as the, it, and needs. Government (and its derivatives) has also been removed. Some of the text was altered to change two similar words (such as service and services ) into one word (such as service/s ). More words were changed in this way than in the word cloud above, which causes a variance in results. Public Page 7 of 75

8 Sentiment Each sentence or phrase of the table captain notes was analysed for sentiment to indicate whether it was positive, negative or neutral. This analysis was subjective and is not intended to be conclusively accurate. It only provides a general indication of sentiment. Positive 15% Negative 21% Neutral 64% In addition to a manual (human) assessment of each phrase, an online (computer) tool was used to analyse the sentiment of all the text from the table captain notes 3. This process produced different results. Positive 39% Negative 26% Neutral 35% 3 Python NLTK Sentiment Analysis, As the tool is limited to analysis of a maximum characters, text was analysed half at a time, and results were combined. Public Page 8 of 75

9 Feedback Themes Public The following are key themes that were provided in the table captain feedback. They represent a sample of some of the common areas that were regularly expressed. Word trees for each of these themes are provided in Appendix A. They show all the comments that used these themes. Procurement Just over half of the tables reported a desire to change government ICT procurement processes. This included comments that procurement processes need to be simplified, take too long, and are a disincentive for industry. Recommend fundamentally reconfiguring the ICT sourcing / procurement model so that it focusses on business capability and services and not just driving down costs and contract administration effort for government Difficulties with procurement processes and associated duplication of procurement process for the same product got a lot of discussion. Hosting panels are built around old procurement models, so often are not geared to procurement of services (still a utility model.) Government contracts and procurement processes are a disincentive to collaboration and partnering. ICT Projects The notion of limiting government ICT-enabled projects to no longer than 90 days in length was a significant point of discussion. The vast majority of tables discussed the issue, but the feedback was split as to whether this was a good idea or not. Some thought it was a great idea, others thought that it was unrealistic and was a disincentive to industry. Some tables said that the concept was good, but the details needed to be adapted, or at least thought through further. While it is recognised that the 90 day limit is intended as a treatment for poor project management, it doesn t teach good project/program management. No support for 90 day projects but agreed that projects should be chunked into manageable chunks with project no/go decision points with each chunk. Like the 90 day rule, it s measurable and easy to exit. 90 days Is this achievable? The private sector is doing it. Gateways of smaller risk. Innovation There were varied discussions about innovation. Much of the feedback about it indicated that government processes and culture is not conducive to innovation. Some reported that government needs a process for capturing and implementing innovation, others said that there are more important priorities above innovation. Innovation is good, there needs to be a framework for innovation. Vendors expressed sympathy for agencies disincentive to innovate to save costs if central government hoovers up all the savings and doesn t share the benefits with agencies. They (suppliers) have seen a reluctance to engage on these types of innovations because the agencies don t benefit from it at all. Get service delivery right before worrying about innovation. Innovation priority caused concerns - government shouldn't innovate for innovation sake, don't waste time and resources reinventing the wheel, government is no good at it. Public Page 9 of 75

10 Risk Many tables reported that government is very risk averse. They suggested that risks needed to be managed rather than avoided. Not supportive of government s love-affair with risk-based management for the majority of its decision-making, which results in systemic risk aversion that paralyses agencies and impacts on their and the ICT industry s ability to innovate together. ok to say there are risks, there is a way to manage. I don t really want my government to be a risk taker with my money Industry should take risk not government Public private partnerships present opportunity to share risk. The shift to a risk managed (rather than risk averse) approach will need some clear guidance to make it happen. Open Data The concept of opening up government-held data and releasing it to the community was discussed at many tables. While some said that releasing data will allow innovation and improve service delivery, others expressed that releasing data comes with challenges. Open Data provides the potential to open up innovation possibilities that have otherwise not existed or been available. Government should embrace open data. When government makes data available it should not be in PDF format Industry should be able to manipulate the data from the format in which the data is provided. Open data needs to be protected, relevant and up to date; this requires money, time and resources, where do these come from? Make government data available, providing data access to companies and the community to improve government data quality. Communication Many tables expressed a need for government to share information between agencies, and with industry, local government and the community. This included sharing customer information between agencies, and between governments. Many also thought that government needs to improve the sharing of project challenges and successes so that people can work together and learn from each other. Introduce a trading portal within government of licences and other easily transferable software or hardware assets. Across government common problems need to be identified, across-government CIO forum needs to be put in place to share ideas, share solutions, share problem identification. Citizen focused. Cyber security Big/shared issue for public and private sector - recognition that responsibility of government to resolve, but as private sector dealing with the same issues, they should be consulted/ included in the same conversation. Share data/info across agencies so that citizens/businesses don t have to provide same info many times. Implementation Some tables wanted more details on how the strategy would be implemented, including what role industry would play, and whether government had the funding and skills required. What s the next steps, how do we make this happen, how do we get there, how do we bring it to life, what role does industry play? On implementation of strategy, are the skills there to back it up? Vendors questioned whether there was anything actually implementable within the document. How can we afford this? Losing budget and staff, is the strategy budget neutral? Public Page 10 of 75

11 Rules One common point of discussion was the idea that the new strategy would be a rules-based strategy that defines principles and rules to guide decision-making in respect of ICT. Feedback suggested that agencies would like boundaries and guidance, but they do not want to feel restricted by rules. Like the concept of the rules/framework/parameters but don t like the use of the word rules.sounds too restrictive. The concept of rules based is good, but the word rules sounds restrictive. Government is trained to operate within very prescriptive frameworks and rules. A broad set of rules may well confuse. Not a good idea to call them rules, instead use guidance, vision, guidelines. You want tips for people about how to help and make decisions. Public Page 11 of 75