Readers' Comments

Reader Comments on Aardvark Daily 6 November 2002
Note: the comments below are the unabridged submissions of readers and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher.
From: Grant
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: INCIS and other government projects

It takes two to tango - and INCIS was not an inhouse
police/govt project but was designed/implemented by a
private firm - IBM. To retain there (IMHO very good)
reputation, IBM should have used the 'no' option more often
(or not signed upto to a project that allowed unlimited
variation clauses). One interesting late change in the
project was the switch from OS2 desktops to Windows NT. I
remember seeing one prediction at the time that WinNT
(3.5?) was not ready and this would kill the project ;-(

I actually think that governments are no better or worse
than companies at software development, other than they are
more likely to do larger scale projects with higher risk.
The differences is that if the govt writes of a NZ$80
million project then we all get to hear about it and learn
from it. On the other hand a company like MS can screw up a
billion dollar dev projects and move on without anyone
giving a damm (other than burnt partners/customers).


Aardvark Responds
There is one other very significant difference between a failed
private-industry IT project and a failed government-commissioned one...

When private industry goofs up, private industry pays.

When a government project goes off the rails, every single
citizen and taxpayer is left footing the bill.

It doesn't worry me if Microsoft screws up one of their own IT projects
because if it means their prices are higher as a result, I can simply
choose to buy an alternative product.  However, when a government project
turns to custard, we're all paying the price whether we want
to or not.





From: Peter
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Government IT Projects

This is not merely confined to Governments.  There are
almost certainly just as many bomb-outs in the private
sector area.  Even something as simple as billing a
customer for power etc has the poyential for trouble.  RMG
(debt management co) has blamed its poor performance on IT
problems.

Apart from blaming the client, I would also apportion blame
to:
1.  IT suppliers for over-promising and under performing.
They seem to know they can get away with it as they know
they will have the customer by the 'short and curlys' at
critical project stages (eg demand 'extras' at a key time
for 'unforeseen' problems).

2.  The state of the art of implementation is not up to
developing and delivering a 'big bang' system.  It seems
better for organisations to take a more incremental
approach to IT development, for example developing smaller
scale systems then integrating them as experience is
gained.  For example to accept that timesheet data may need
to be entered separately into the Payroll (where timliness
is vital) and Costings (where accuracy is important)
systems.

For a laugh - An electric power utility used a locally
produced HR system.  The supplier had financial problems
and was disconnected for arrears.  Supplier went belly up
and that was end of support for the HR system.  Utility had
to get another HR system.
Hit Reload For Latest Comments
Now Have Your Say