The vast majority of government IT systems are very ordinary things that are used all over the place.
Things like: payroll, issue tracking, asset tracking, emergency services management, waste disposal, vehicle registration, fines management and payment - the list goes on and on and on.
Yet time after time we find a government department insisting that their payroll system is unique because of x, y and z, and that their asset tracking system requires a custom solution.
This should be flipped on it's head and instead it should be : here are the top 3 whatever purpose systems available in the market. We will choose which one suits our needs the best, then we will change our work practices to best match the system.
Because changing the work practices will be easier and more successful than trying to build out (or customise) their own IT project.
But this requires people to think about practical solution, and to no have IT empire builders.
No government tries to re-invent railways, roads or sewage to their own needs- they look at what works elsewhere, and adapt to the technology available. Yet they go in the opposite direction when it comes to building computer systems. When you look at the graveyard of wasted billions on customised government computer systems - it's time for a new approach.
"Things like: payroll, issue tracking, asset tracking, emergency services management, waste disposal, vehicle registration, fines management and payment - the list goes on and on and on."
Most of those on the list are things that the gov already buys off the shell software for (I have worked as a network administrator at a large state university in the past). Our payroll system was off the shelf from Oracle, asset tracking was part of that erp system, our course management system was the off the shelf blackboard, security access system was from another vendor. It was rare that a project would be 100% built in house.
Using payroll as an example, for the size of these organization, the off the shelf components you will find are usually built with the expectation that it will be customized anyway. (Not all organization in government work the same way for very good reason. Laws) They are incomplete in a lot of cases and require integration with various system. The above poster was right, the problem is often integration. How to I plug my directory services into my erp system that connects to system for another agency somewhere. You will have a hard time getting a unified system across all agencies when you go by a biding system that is anywhere close to fair.
The companies that play in that space Oracle/SAP/HP/Novell whatever are all built on the assumption that you will buy something and need their help with it for years to come.
The problem is huge I feel you are underestimating it.
The vast majority of government IT systems are very ordinary things that are used all over the place.
Things like: payroll, issue tracking, asset tracking, emergency services management, waste disposal, vehicle registration, fines management and payment - the list goes on and on and on.
Yet time after time we find a government department insisting that their payroll system is unique because of x, y and z, and that their asset tracking system requires a custom solution.
This should be flipped on it's head and instead it should be : here are the top 3 whatever purpose systems available in the market. We will choose which one suits our needs the best, then we will change our work practices to best match the system.
Because changing the work practices will be easier and more successful than trying to build out (or customise) their own IT project.
But this requires people to think about practical solution, and to no have IT empire builders.
No government tries to re-invent railways, roads or sewage to their own needs- they look at what works elsewhere, and adapt to the technology available. Yet they go in the opposite direction when it comes to building computer systems. When you look at the graveyard of wasted billions on customised government computer systems - it's time for a new approach.