[LINK] Centrelink/DFCS computer boondoggle story

Fri Apr 15 14:48:39 EST 2005

> Who should be held accountable for this?

Everyone - work continued without the MOU being settled.  67m$ and no
governance instrument?  Not good.

The Offending Discussion thusly:
--Q--
56. The funding and savings for the project were to be defined in an MOU
between the two agencies. The MOU was never agreed, and the relative
responsibilities for the cost of the project were in dispute. Progress in a
project where the owners are in dispute over costs is difficult. There was
also a difference of views between FaCS and Centrelink as to what
constituted work on Edge, as opposed to work that was needed for Edge, but
which was also more generally applicable across a number of Centrelink
projects.
--/Q--

The report is interesting, not because of what it says about expert systems
(which I know nothing about), but because of the inherent criticism of the
purchaser-provider split here and the way the Department and Agency
interoperated.

Under the PP split, the generation of new rules by FACS and their
implication under CL would be a complex business transaction in its own
right.  In a normal commerical environment (which the PP split is support to
emulate, and therefore harness all that rich, creamy efficiency, with the
tasty nougout of responsiveness at its heart) this would/should end up in
court - and clearly an MOU is a problematic instrument, an more flexible,
but specific contracting process would have been useful here (e.g.
cost-plus-incentive-fee; this would also allow FACS to brief the Minister
about the cost of rule changes in a simple and linear model).  Here's the
rub, simplifying the "transaction" would require fewer rule changes (to
provide a more stable environment), but requires FACS to ask legislators to
stop/slow legislative change.  A more static area of administration might
have been a better test case here, maybe in VA.

Any link gurus got comments on the use of ES in this area?  Is 8000 rules a
lot or litting is ES land?

Peter

_ _____________ _
Peter Chen
 +61 3 9440 6266 [home/office]
 0431994205 [mobile]
 pjchen at optusnet.com.au 
 MSN and Skype.com ("peterjohnchen")
 members.optusnet.com.au/pjchen

There is something insane about a lack of doubt. Doubt, to me anyway, is
what makes you human, and without doubt even the righteous lose their grip
not only on reality but also on their humanity. 
— Tilda Swinton

-----Original Message-----
From: link-bounces at anumail0.anu.edu.au
[mailto:link-bounces at anumail0.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Marghanita da Cruz
Sent: Friday, 15 April 2005 1:49 PM
To: Jan Whitaker
Cc: link at anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: [LINK] Centrelink/DFCS computer boondoggle story

The full report is available at
http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/09678CB7AE1F3751CA256FE10082
495F

My reading of the report would indicate that policy decisions and changes to
policy were made with out sufficient consideration as to whether they could
be realised.

> Changing business requirements
> 
> 62. When the Family Tax Benefit application was selected for development
as an expert system it was reasonably stable. Legislation in 1999, including
formation of the Family Assistance Office, meant that legislative and other
changes were frequent, requiring changes to Edge. In addition, while the
1999 Edge Business Case recognised the requirement for annual reconciliation
of Family Tax Benefits, the agencies did not fully appreciate the
implications of fewer client interviews and more posted forms and call
centre work, for which Edge was not originally designed. The introduction of
the More Choice for Families initiative in 2002 resulted in a requirement
for the ability to continuously adjust the Edge rulebase. This was not
envisaged in the original design and would require some redesign. These
issues led the 2003 Business Case Review team to conclude that the system no
longer met the requirements of the business. 

Who should be held accountable for this?

Marghanita

Jan Whitaker wrote:
>  From the Age, 15 April 2005
> http://theage.com.au/news/National/The-64m-question-how-was-it-wasted/
> 2005/04/14/1113251737955.html
> 
> 
> The $64m question: how was it wasted?
> By Brendan Nicholson
> April 15, 2005
> 
> The Federal Government has wasted $64.4 million on a failed attempt to 
> set up a computer system to process and co-ordinate welfare payments.
> 
> A damning report from the Australian National Audit Office on the 
> "Edge Project", which began in 1997 and collapsed in 2003, has 
> described it as "over time, over budget and terminated before 
> completion". "Direct financial savings from the project were not 
> realised and the project was unsuccessful when assessed against its aims,"
said the report.
> 
> The project was launched by the Department of Family and Community 
> Services and Centrelink in 1997 to administer claims for 
> family-related payments.
> 
> The Audit Office said there were tensions between the two departments 
> at all levels during the project. "It would be surprising if there 
> were not, as the two agencies had somewhat differing needs from the
project,"
> the Audit Office said.
> 
> The report said "effective high-level governance of the project was 
> not evident", that senior departmental officers were unable to agree 
> on funding and that the joint steering committee did not meet in the 
> last two years of the project.
> 
> When the project was cancelled, Centrelink said the department owed it
> $2.79 million, but the department refused to pay.
> 
> The Audit Office said changes in policy meant that by 2003 the system 
> no longer met requirements, and concluded that the decision to end the 
> project was appropriate.
> 
> It said, however, that Centrelink and the department did gain some 
> benefits because a significant part of the software developed was 
> available for use later.
> 
> Centrelink said it now had a core group of staff familiar with the 
> software and techniques needed to deliver its services via the internet.
> 
> It said it appeared that pressures to implement the project - the Edge 
> system was launched before it was fully functional- might well have 
> contributed to its eventual termination, because departmental case 
> officers were disillusioned with it.
> 
> Officers instead opted to use their departments' existing systems 
> because they knew they worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JLWhitaker Associates
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jwhit at melbpc.org.au  --  
> http://member.melbpc.org.au/~jwhit/whitentr.htm
> _ __________________ _
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> 

--
Marghanita da Cruz
Director, Ramin Communications Pty Ltd
http://www.ramin.com.au
ABN 28-089-713-084

Chair ACS Governance of ICT Committee
http://www.acs.org.au/governance

Telephone: 0414-869202
mailto:marghanita at ramin.com.au

_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005

-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005