Friday, May 08, 2015

You Have To Think The Planned Replacement Of the Centrelink Payment Systems Need A Careful Approach. Disaster Is A Real Risk!

This appeared last week:

Blowout fears for $1bn Centrelink IT system overhaul

Fran Foo

Centrelink’s new $1 billion-plus IT system could be doomed if ­politicians don’t heed lessons of the past, cave in to public pressure and rush to deliver undercooked projects, analysts warn.
An analysis by The Australian shows that taxpayers have been saddled with billions of dollars in additional costs for bungled IT projects over the years.
One of the biggest bungles in history — Queensland Health’s payroll debacle — will cost 900 per cent more, or an additional $1.1bn, until 2017 — from $98 million to a projected $1.2bn.
Others include Customs’ infamous cargo management fiasco in 2005 which ended up costing taxpayers $220m more than the original $30m budget, or 652 per cent more.
Defence’s e-health Jedhi was contracted for $23.3m but ended up at $133.3m, or 453 per cent extra ($110m).
Centrelink will spend an estimated seven years to replace its ageing Income Security Integrated System which manages $100bn of payments to 7.3 million people annually.
The platform, built in the 1980s, cannot cope with sweeping changes recommended by welfare reformer Patrick McClure.
Last month, The Australian ­revealed that simply changing a social security letter for payments took 100 public servants six months and cost $500,000.
Human Services Minister Marise Payne said the system was akin to “running a turbocharged Commodore 64 with air dams and a spoiler in the age of the iPhone”.
An overhaul is required to provide long-term flexibility to implement welfare changes and better detect and prevent fraud.
Ovum Australia public sector principal analyst Al Blake said IT implementations were “quite often forced for political reasons”.
Mr Blake said in many past ­examples, organisations were warned against early implementation but ­ignored the advice.
“Just because minister XYZ said a system would go live on July 1, it goes live regardless,” said Mr Blake, the federal Environment Department’s former chief information officer.
Lots more here:
What an awful collection of stuff ups and failures! This paragraph reminds me of something else as well!
“Ovum Australia public sector principal analyst Al Blake said IT implementations were “quite often forced for political reasons”.
Mr Blake said in many past ­examples, organisations were warned against early implementation but ­ignored the advice.
“Just because minister XYZ said a system would go live on July 1, it goes live regardless,” said Mr Blake, the federal Environment Department’s former chief information officer.”
Might that have been the failed PCEHR?
I really hope someone important remembers this lesson when the time comes!
David.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"Might that have been the failed PCEHR?"
It certainly was the situation with the PCEHR. It had not been tested properly, fell over several times, had incorrect data in it (from the Medicare system), then sat around sadly while no one used it because it had nothing of value in it. That was three years ago. So add loss of momentum and nil action on the recommendations of reviews and reports, and you have a useless, yet still expensive PCEHR system.