Sometimes politics gets in the way of IT management

David Bicknell

about 1 month ago 0 Comments

One of the challenges of working an an IT manager around the globe is that tight budgets have a knock on effect to the way systems are both commissioned and upgraded. And that applies both in the puboic and private sectors.

Recently it came to light that a $92m overhaul of a Department of Revenue system in the US state of Oregon had been postponed to save money. (I appeciate that $92m could be seen to be a lot of money for 'an overhaul'!) Now, having made the decision, local politicians say the postponement is a bad idea that will hamper legislators’ ability to make well-informed decisions.  

Vicki Berger, co-chair of the committee that oversees state taxing and revenue policy, said, according to the local Statesman Journal, “I think it is penny wise and pound foolish, if I could use an old saw. We have to bite the bullet. We have to get a better system. We have to know better, more viable information on what impacts our revenue stream.”

But Richard Devlin, co-chair of the legislature’s Joint Legislative Audits, Information Management and Technology Committee, characterised the announcement as a “nine-month delay” rather than a cancellation of the project.

“I don’t see that as an end to the project, because the need is very real. They need to upgrade their systems, and they will continue to work to that end,” said Devlin. “I can understand the counter-argument, that you do have antiquated systems in the Department of Revenue, but I think citizens in Oregon would want when we invest in this fully that we do it right,” he continued. “I would not want to spend $92 million and then have a project that doesn’t really work.”

There is case for arguing that what's really needed here is a full business case with an option appraisal and risk analysis, as well as a transparent specification. I suspect that somewhere in the middle of this public debate is an IT manager who's had to put his plans and resources on hold and now pick up the pieces. 

I think the moral here is that the current financial climate is likely to see cost/benefits questions for IT projects become an issue for many organisations, both in the public and private sectors. That doesn’t necessarily mean that IT projects are at risk, merely that those charged with having to make decisions on new systems/upgrades need hard evidence of the real change benefits to justify any decision they make to proceed. But whatever they decide, as in this case, there is always someone, somewhere who probably won't like the decision.

What are your thoughts? And where do your sympathies lie in this case?

Comments