Review
of the
Operational Activities and Structure
of the
Australian Government Information
Management Office
(AGIMO)
Helen Williams AO
January 2012
2
1
INTRODUCTION
5
1.1
TERMS OF REFERENCE
5
1.2
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE
6
1.3
STRUCTURE OF REPORT
6
1.4
METHODOLOGY
7
2
KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
7
2.1
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
7
2.2
THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
8
2.3
RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT ICT
10
2.4
THE STRATEGIC VISION
11
2.5
GOVERNANCE AND THE ROLE OF SIGB
11
2.6
THE ROLE OF AGIMO
13
2.7
MAINTAINING A PROFILE
16
3
3.1
STRATEGIC POLICY CAPABILITY
A NEED TO REFOCUS
17
17
3.2
LEADERSHIP IN STRATEGIC AND INNOVATIVE POLICY AND ANALYSIS OF
EMERGING TRENDS
19
3.3
OPPORTUNITIES FOR WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT APPROACHES
19
3.4
A COORDINATED VIEW OF AVAILABLE CAPABILITIES AND FACILITIES
21
3.5
PROVIDING FRAMEWORKS FOR COLLABORATION AND BUSINESS ANALYSIS
22
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
3
3.6
AN EVIDENCE BASE OF HIGH QUALITY DATA
23
3.7
PRIORITIES FOR A REFOCUSED POLICY BRANCH
24
4
INVESTMENT IN ICT-ENABLED PROJECTS
25
4.1
BRANCH RESPONSIBILITIES
25
4.2
ASSURANCE ON MAJOR GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS
26
4.3
THE ASSESSMENT OF INVESTMENT IN ICT-ENABLED PROJECTS
28
4.4
BENCHMARKING
31
4.5
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT UNIT
32
ICT SKILLS AND CYBER SECURITY
33
5.1
BRANCH RESPONSIBILITIES
33
5.2
ICT SKILLS PROGRAMS
34
5.3
CYBER SECURITY
37
5.4
REVIEWING THE CYBER SECURITY WORK PLAN
40
5
6
ONLINE SERVICES
41
6.1
BRANCH RESPONSIBILITIES
41
6.2
GOVERNMENT SERVICES ENVIRONMENT (GSE)
42
6.3
GOVERNMENT 2.0 STRATEGY
45
6.4
WEB ACCESSIBILITY
45
6.5
ONLINE PRESENTATION
46
7
COORDINATED PROCUREMENT
47
7.1
COORDINATED ICT PROCUREMENT
48
7.2
STRATEGIC SOURCING BRANCH
48
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
4
7.3
CENTRAL FACILITIES BRANCH
51
7.4
ISSUES ACROSS COORDINATED PROCUREMENT SKILLS
53
8
NETWORK SERVICES
57
8.1
BRANCH RESPONSIBILITIES
57
8.2
THE INTER-GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (ICON)
58
8.3
MINISTERIAL COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK AND TELEPRESENCE
60
8.4
BRANCH RESTRUCTURE
61
9
ORGANISATION AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS
62
9.1
FUNCTIONS AND STRUCTURE
62
9.2
CROSS-BRANCH COORDINATION
63
9.3
CORPORATE FUNCTIONS
65
9.4
SKILLS
66
9.5
COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
67
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
5
1
INTRODUCTION
Over the three years since the Review of the Australian Government’s Use of Information
and Communication Technology (the Gershon Review), the Australian Government
Information Management Office (AGIMO) has been heavily involved in discharging the
significant mandate for ICT Reform given to it by the Government. It has achieved
creditable results in the areas of ICT savings and in implementing some major
recommendations of the Gershon Review including, in particular, the introduction of
coordinated procurement arrangements, finalising the Data Centre Strategy and
developing the Entry Level skills initiatives. At the same time it has worked to develop
the ICT policy agenda, for example in the area of cloud computing, and has exploited
technology to provide new and improved ways of working for government.
In view of the likely directions of its future work, however, it was considered timely to
review whether the skills and operational arrangements that AGIMO has developed in
delivering this mandate are the most appropriate for the role that it will play in the
future.
1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO was initiated by the
Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) to examine AGIMO’s current
operational activities, structure, capabilities, work priorities and skills to determine
whether there are opportunities for improvement.
The Terms of Reference for the Review (copy at Attachment B) ask that, in reporting to
the Finance Secretary, the Review consider:
-
the organisational structure of AGIMO to support its current and future work as
reflected in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Strategic
Vision;
the current processes and procedures to support the functioning ofAGIMO in
meeting its policy and operational obligations;
the capabilities of AGIMO’s personnel, skills and resourcing to meet its work
program;
identification of areas with scope for improvement in areas where AGIMO
provides whole-of-government ICT services and assessment of their suitability for
AGIMO’s future functions; and
other matters considered relevant to the Review.
The Terms of Reference draw attention to the context in which the Review is being
undertaken, including the likely directions of the Strategic Vision for the Australian
Government’s use of Information and Communication Technology (the Vision) which is in
draft form, the progress of the Secretaries’ Committee on
Service Delivery, and the Independent Review of the Implementation of the ICT Reform
Program by Dr Ian Reinecke (the Reinecke Report).
The Review is specifically directed towards the internal operation of AGIMO and its
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
6
operational and policy work, currently and for the future, as informed by the draft
Vision and work program.
In addition, and since the Terms of Reference were written, the Government has further
increased its focus on the need to maintain fiscal discipline in the face of deteriorating
global conditions and a weaker near-term outlook for the Australian economy. The
Review has therefore taken into account the tightened resource pressures across
Finance and the need to prioritise, rather than supplement, resources.
1.2 THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE
AGIMO is a Business Group within Finance and is included under Outcome 2 of the
Department:
“Improved Government administration and operations through systems and policy
advice on…….. the application of information and communications technology.”
AGIMO is headed by a Deputy Secretary of the Department who is also the Australian
Government Chief Information Officer. It is composed of two divisions, the Policy and
Planning Division and the Agency Services Division, that are broadly split along
policy/operation lines.
The Policy and Planning Division aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
the ICT activities. It achieves its aim through analysis of significant proposals, practical
guidance to agencies, programs to support ICT skills, support for governance bodies,
and responding to emerging technologies and issues. It has three branches:
-
the Governance and Policy Branch;
the Investment Management Branch; and
the Cyber Security and Skills Branch.
The Agency Services Division coordinates, acquires and supports common, whole-ofgovernment ICT products and services. It has four branches:
-
the Online Services Branch;
the Central Facilities Branch;
the Strategic Sourcing Branch; and
the Government Network Services Branch.
AGIMO currently has 229 staff on the ground of whom approximately 45% are either
cost recovered or subject to user charging, or Budget funded for a specified purpose and
time frame. The Agency Services Division contains two thirds of the staff employed but
also includes the majority of the cost recovered or specifically funded programs.
1.3 STRUCTURE OF REPORT
The Report focuses first on the role and responsibilities of AGIMO and its place in crossgovernment responsibilities for ICT more broadly, to provide a background for
discussion on how that role is best fulfilled. It also considers the operational
relationship between AGIMO and the Secretaries ICT Governance Board (SIGB) as its
governance body.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
7
The Report then considers each of the AGIMO branches in turn, noting the relationship
of their work to the draft Vision, commenting on the work program and how it is carried
out, noting particular skills requirements for the work of each branch, and suggesting
areas for possible improvement. Finally, the Report draws together some cross-AGIMO
issues concerning its structure and operation.
1.4 METHODOLOGY
As the Review’s Terms of Reference focus specifically on the internal administration of
AGIMO, with the exception of discussions with some of the members of SIGB, work on
the Review has concentrated on material provided by, and discussions with, members
of AGIMO. The help and support of AGIMO staff in providing this assistance, as well as in
commenting on drafts including their factual accuracy, is gratefully acknowledged.
2
KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Successive Governments have recognized the increasing importance of ICT in delivering
government policies, information, programs and services, in achieving efficiencies and
in driving productivity in the digital economy. In response, they have set up structures
to develop and coordinate government action in this area. The issue that has been less
clear, as is shown by the changing government responses over time, is the most
effective focus and function of such a structure, and the best way to achieve the desired
outcome.
2.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
National Office of the Information Economy
In September 1997, the then Prime Minister announced the establishment of the
National Office of the Information Economy (NOIE) as an office within the
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (CITA) Portfolio. Its focus was
on policy advice, particularly in the areas of establishing the environment for online
activities, facilitating electronic commerce and applying new technology to government
administration.
NOIE’s role and functions were expanded in October 2000 when it was established as a
separate executive agency within the CITA Portfolio to give it status as an independent
cross-portfolio advocate on information economy issues. It also absorbed the Office of
Government Online in recognition of the potential for online services to drive consumer
take-up.
Australian Government Information Management Office
In April 2004, NOIE was renamed the Australian Government Information Management
Office. AGIMO remained an executive agency within the CITA Portfolio and took over
NOIE’s functions relating to the provision, leadership and coordination of the
Government’s policies on the use of ICT to deliver policies, information and programs.
The Head of AGIMO was given the title of Australian Government Chief Information
Officer. NOIE’s former functions relating to policy, research and programs on the
broader information economy were transferred to the CITA Department.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
8
In October 2004, AGIMO was incorporated into the then Department of Finance and
Administration, ceasing to be a separate executive agency and becoming a business
group within the Department. The title of Australian Government Chief Information
Officer was retained by the Department’s Deputy Secretary.
Implementing recommendations of the Gershon Review
The focus of AGIMO’s work altered significantly for the years immediately following the
Gershon Review in 2008, when it was given the task of coordinating the implementation
of the Review’s recommendations.
These recommendations were broad in scope, covering strengthened governance of ICT
expenditure, tighter management of ICT business-as-usual funding, enhanced focus on
ICT skills and improvements to market efficiency. However the task of achieving the
significant savings to the Budget recommended by the Review meant that the efficiency
agenda clearly overshadowed other aspects of AGIMO’s work, as well as reducing the
time available for it to focus on other aspects, with a consequent impact on the way it
was viewed by agencies.
As was noted in the Reinecke Report (p. iv), AGIMO has “efficiently undertaken the task
the Government set for it” but, in doing so, it has “delivered budget savings that have, at
times, made it the focus of considerable resentment.” The majority of the Review’s
recommendations are now in place and this resentment is becoming less apparent over
time. It is something that must be borne in mind, however, when considering the
strategic role, operation and working arrangements of AGIMO into the future.
2.2 THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
In parallel with this Review, Dr Ian Reinecke surveyed ICT work and structures in
overseas jurisdictions that are similar to Australia, including the United States, the
United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada.
United States
The focus of the US Government has been on improving the efficiency of ICT as a path to
improved productivity. The White House appointed Chief Information Officer has given
priority to extracting greater efficiency from public sector investment by establishing a
transparent approach to spending on technology and the performance of major projects
through the publicly available online Federal IT Dashboard.
Agencies are required to seek savings by examining how a better return on ICT
investments could be achieved. As a result, a number of projects have been
reconsidered or terminated, and the delivery times of others have been reduced. An
Implementation Plan directed towards increasing the operational efficiency of ICT
program management has focused, particularly, on the priorities of data centre
rationalization, the delivery of services using cloud technology to achieve savings
(obliging agencies to explore cloud computing options in all new projects) and generally
streamlining the operation of government.
United Kingdom
Similarly, the UK Government has stressed the need to increase the efficiency of its ICT
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
9
investment, including enhancing system interoperability, and reuse and adaptation
across agencies. It has also focused on the opportunity that delivery of better services
for less cost presents to release savings for strategic re- investment.
The UK ICT Strategy includes measures, inter alia, to:
-
increase central control to ensure greater integration across agencies;
give central agencies mandatory powers to remove excess capacity, especially in
data centres;
provide greater equity in the acquisition and use of open source software;
streamline procurement processes; and
introduce a general presumption against ICT projects with a lifetime capacity of
more that $100 million.
The UK Government has established a Major Projects Authority that can initiate
intervention in projects at risk and can require publication of project information in the
interests of transparency. In addition, lead departments have delivery responsibility for
strategic ICT projects assigned to them that are aligned to their core responsibilities.
Canada
Canada sees individual agency-centric approaches to ICT infrastructure and systems as
a barrier to greater efficiency and is seeking to develop a portfolio approach to ICT
investment.
It has introduced arrangements for greater central guidance to departments, a project
management framework including independent project reviews, and increased
oversight of major ICT projects. It is introducing a government-wide assessment of risk
and is taking action to reduce more than 200 data centres across government to 15.
New Zealand
The NZ approach is to adopt a more directive approach to reforming government ICT,
and chief executives have been assigned specific accountability for implementing
government ICT in their agencies, a role reinforced by an obligation on Ministers to
ensure that this occurs.
Lead agencies are to be appointed for each major cross-agency project with their chief
executives being held directly accountable for delivery, and funding models are to be
developed to provide incentives for collaboration across government.
International experience
In summary, Dr Reinecke perceives two key themes flowing from international
experience. International peer countries have:
-
much greater scrutiny of large ICT projects; and
more powerful governance arrangements to drive accountability.
The scrutiny of major ICT-enabled projects undertaken by the Australian Government,
including the size and scope of projects and measures to scrutinize project risk, is
discussed in Chapter 4 of this Report. Chapter 4 also mentions the work that is
underway to review the current suite of controls as part of the Efficiency Agenda.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
10
The second theme noted by Dr Reinecke is the comparative absence of strong directive
powers in the Australian system to ensure greater consistency, coordination and
resource sharing across agencies.
In particular, he is concerned that the comparative absence of strong directive powers
will limit the implementation of the draft Vision. He argues that, in the absence of direct
accountability for achieving its program of reform, implementation of the Vision is
likely to fall to AGIMO and that AGIMO’s status and resourcing would limit its capacity
to fulfil that role. Governance of the implementation of the Vision is discussed further
below.
2.3 RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT ICT
While Finance is given responsibility under the Administrative Arrangements Orders
(AAOs) for Government On-line Delivery and Information Technology, and
Communications Management, it is by no means the only agency with formal
responsibilities in this area.
The AAOs also give specific responsibility to:
-
the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE)
for National Policies relating to the Digital Economy;
the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
(DIISRTE) for Information and Communications Technology Industry
Development and for Business Entry Point Management;
the Department of Resources Energy and Tourism (DRET) for Spatial Data
Coordination; and
the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) for Cyber Policy and
Management.
In addition, there is a range of areas where agencies have particular interests in ICT,
including the Department of Health and Aging (DoHA) for the National E- Health
Transition Authority, the Department of Human Services (DHS) in its role as Custodian
of Best Practice in Benefits Realisation, the Australian Public Service Commission
(APSC) for its joint role in preparing the Strategic ICT Workforce Plan, the Treasury for
the Standard Business Reporting Program and the Attorney General’s Department
(AGD) for Policy on Identity Management.
Finally, an increasing number of agencies have taken on the lead agency role in
particular areas, for example, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and DIISRTE as joint
lead agencies for Authentication Services for business to government, and DHS for
Authentication Services for individuals to government.
ICT is increasingly, therefore, being accepted as the responsibility of all areas of
government, and this cross-agency involvement and interest represents an encouraging
response.
The balance between devolved and whole-of-government approaches should
increasingly involve departments other than Finance taking on the role as lead agencies
across government, an approach being adopted increasingly in other countries,
particularly the UK and NZ.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
11
2.4 THE STRATEGIC VISION
The draft Vision refocuses the Government’s ICT agenda by giving priority to improving
productivity, recognizing the increasing importance of a whole-of- government
approach, and emphasizing the ongoing need to streamline processes and
communications to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The Vision itself is that, by
2020:
“ICT increases public sector and national productivity by enabling the delivery of better
government services for the Australian people, communities and business, improving
the efficiency of government operations and supporting open engagement to better
inform decisions.”
The draft Vision has three priorities, each with two strategic actions:
-
Deliver Better Services (building capability and improving services);
Improve the Efficiency of Government Operations (investing optimally and
encouraging innovation); and
Engage Openly (creating knowledge and collaborating effectively).
The Vision is accompanied by an Implementation Roadmap which sets out specific
projects, responsible agencies and implementation timelines. When finalized, the
Roadmap will do much to interpret AGIMO’s role in the context of whole-of-government
ICT by indicating its particular areas of interest, although there is a clear need to
prioritise its agenda, as is discussed below.
2.5 GOVERNANCE AND THE ROLE OF SIGB
In his August speech on Government ICT - driving the next stage of reform, the Special
Minister of State, the Hon Gary Gray AO MP, emphasized the essential role played by
“robust governance of ICT at a whole-of-government level in order to see the benefits
that can be gained across government in ICT investment.”
The Gershon Review recommended that the Government create a Secretaries’ ICT
Governance Board with a strong mandate from the Government, and SIGB was
established in November 2008.
It has scheduled four formal meetings in 2011-12 as well as considering information
and less significant papers out of session to encourage greater in- depth discussion
during the face-to-face meetings. It approves an annual work plan and releases a
communiqué after each meeting noting items discussed.
The formal role of SIGB is to:
-
oversee the implementation of the Government’s response to the Gershon Review
and provide regular reports on progress to the Expenditure Review Committee
(ERC);
develop whole-of-government strategies to implement the policies and strategic
vision determined by ERC;
be responsible for determining priority areas of standardization, consolidation
and common approaches based on demonstrated business value to the
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
12
-
Government;
develop and agree the criteria to be used to assess agency requests for opt out
from agreed common approaches and provide advice to the ERC – on request from
agencies - for opt out from agreed common approaches;
be responsible for the strategic portfolio management of ICT investments across
FMA Act agencies;
review on an annual basis key trends in the Government’s ICT expenditure and
alert the ERC to any significant changes;
be responsible for determining the Government’s response to emerging ICT trends
and issues; and
consider and review AGIMO’s annual work plan.
The draft Vision (p. 23) places emphasis on SIGB’s responsibility for the whole- ofgovernment use of ICT, and notes that SIGB has responsibility for overseeing the Vision
and the Government’s ICT work program, including undertaking an annual review of
the Vision’s Implementation Roadmap.
Interaction with the Secretaries’ Board
As SIGB and its decisions have gradually increased in impact, its status and
responsibility have increased and a number of other agency heads have shown strong
interest in membership.
In particular, Secretaries increasingly wish to be involved in decisions on whole- ofgovernment arrangements, especially those where mandated arrangements are
proposed, subject to opt out. While SIGB would naturally approach the Minister and the
Government for a decision on proposals for significant change to whole-of-government
arrangements, some Secretaries have expressed concern that mandated approaches
could be decided without sufficient input from across the Secretaries group.
One option that has been considered is for SIGB to become a sub-committee of the
Secretaries Board. A possible problem with this arrangement, however, is that it could
suggest that SIGB’s decisions were subject to ratification by the Secretaries Board, and
Secretaries against a particular course of action could rely on opposing it at the last
hurdle, thus leading to confused accountabilities and a lessening of SIGB’s authority as
agreed by the Government.
Input from across the Secretaries’ group, however, in addition to discussion in other
contexts such as the Chief Information Officers’ Committee (CIOC) and the Chief
Information Officer Forum (CIOF) for smaller agencies, would be a valuable input to
decisions on whole-of-government approaches.
An alternative option for consideration would be for the SIGB Chair, in consultation
with the Secretary of PM&C, to schedule a discussion on significant proposals at a
meeting of the Secretaries Board (supplemented for that item by other SIGB members)
prior to a final decision being taken. The discussion at Secretaries Board would then be
taken into account by SIGB in reaching a final decision.
Input from outside of government
A further issue that has been raised both by the Gershon Review and the Reinecke
Report is the valuable input that could be made to SIGB’s deliberations by senior people
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
13
outside of government.
The workshop that was held with representatives from industry and academia on the
draft Vision was generally agreed to be highly successful and showed the value of
bringing outside perspectives to bear.
In view of the wide range of stakeholders (from the banking system, business more
generally, industry associations and academia) that may be relevant to the different
topics discussed by SIGB, and the depth of discussion that could be necessary on some
of the topics chosen, an option for consideration would be to hold such workshops on
selected topics following every second meeting of SIGB. Invitees for each workshop
could then be selected according to the particular issue under discussion. An early topic
for such a workshop, for example, could be the issue of ICT skill development.
2.6 THE ROLE OF AGIMO
The Gershon Review
The proposed role for AGIMO set out in Attachment J to the Gershon Review included, in
summary:
-
identifying the need for common approaches and preparing the associated
business cases for SIGB;
if agreed by the SIGB, developing and implementing common approaches, which
could include a leadership role, the provision of some resources and participation
in governance arrangements;
the strategic management of ICT suppliers;
functional leadership of the APS ICT professional community;
data collection through annual benchmarking;
identifying emerging issues and trends;
constructing the whole-of-government ICT workforce plan;
scrutiny of new policy proposals and requests for opt out;
facilitating the spread of good practice; and
maintaining an authoritative ‘source of truth’ on ICT policies.
Most of these roles suggest a focus on analysis and policy, rather than on
implementation. In addition, the Review emphasizes (p. 65) that the:
“principal role of the central unit (AGIMO) is to act as a catalyst for change.”
In fact, however, AGIMO has been given major implementation responsibilities in the
context of the Gershon recommendations, including the implementation of the wholeof-government coordinated ICT procurement panels, the Data Centre Strategy and the
Entry Level ICT skills programs, all of which remain priorities for government.
Indeed, in considering the roles that the Gershon Review put forward for AGIMO, it is
the first two of the proposed roles, notably the ones that Sir Peter placed at the head of
the list, that have so far so far received the least attention. AGIMO has been heavily
involved in implementing common approaches. However its focus on identifying and
developing common approaches is one that requires more attention.
In this context, efficiency remains, and will remain, an important aspect of the reform
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
14
agenda. However, despite the Government’s emphasis on whole-of- government
solutions and interoperability, and despite examples of agencies being willing to adopt
whole-of-government models, many agencies still tend to operate as independent
entities, to set their own agendas and to adopt unique solutions.
As the Gershon Review notes in its Executive Summary:
“the current model of very high levels of agency autonomy…..leads to suboptimal
outcomes in the context of prevailing external trends, financial returns, and the aims
and objectives of the current government.”
Indeed there is a sense that the trend towards greater central control that was part of
the Gershon era may have stalled. The ICT benchmarking analysis of the proportion of
ICT expenditure by service tower for 2008-09 and 2009-10 shows that, not only was the
expenditure on applications development by far the largest proportion of the total ICT
spend, but it actually rose slightly across the two years. This represents an obvious
inefficiency for government, including placing extra pressure on ICT workforce skills.
The task for AGIMO, therefore, is to give more priority to these first two tasks suggested
by the Gershon Review and to identify, and advise SIGB on, areas where a common
approach could be advantageous.
There would also be value in giving consideration to models for delivering such services
that could have wider application across agencies. (This issue is touched on in Chapter
3.)
Prioritising the Agenda
The draft Vision proposes a broad and inclusive agenda for AGIMO, including that it will:
-
play a lead role in driving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Government’s use
of ICT;
implement specific reforms, building on its position of lead agency;
continue to take a leading role with other agencies to improve government service
delivery;
advocate policies to the SIGB and the Government for endorsement;
work closely with stakeholders, within and external to government, to implement
the Strategic Vision;
continue to work on strategic approaches that cross jurisdictional boundaries; and
maintain close relationships with international organizations.
This list, particularly when linked to the examples in the draft Vision and the projects in
its Implementation Roadmap illustrating the span of these responsibilities, represents a
wide and inclusive agenda. While the content of the draft Vision is not within the
purview of this Review, its Terms of Reference do include consideration of the
capabilities of AGIMO to meet its work program. Without additional resources that are
unlikely to be forthcoming in the current financial climate, the capacity of AGIMO to
deliver effectively on this broad agenda must be questionable.
AGIMO will be hampered in playing “a critical role in working with agencies to ensure
that the vision is delivered” (draft Vision, p. 24) or in acting “as a catalyst for change” as
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
15
noted above, unless priorities are more tightly drawn. Achieving a clear strategic focus
for AGIMO is therefore essential if expectations that it will play a central role in leading
and coordinating the implementation of the draft Vision are to be met.
Similarly, AGIMO’s Key Roles and Responsibilities, as set out in the AGIMO Blog,
encompass a long list of programs and projects under the headings of Leadership,
Operations, Procurement, Policy, Service Delivery, Service Policy and Advice. While the
listing is intended, at least partially, to provide a path to specific programs for people
accessing the Blog, it also demonstrates the sheer diversity of type and focus of the
responsibilities that AGIMO has taken on.
For a business group the size of AGIMO, it is difficult to achieve, in combination, the
development of a robust policy capability, the application of high-level technological
skills to driving innovation, and the efficient management of a range of projects and
programs.
In discussing the focus of AGIMO’s future role in whole-of-government ICT, one of three
paths could be considered. It could:
-
continue to retain its broad focus across the policy and delivery agenda;
increasingly divest its involvement in project delivery and concentrate on policy
as its primary focus; or
increase its policy capability while taking on selected projects where it has the
available capability and resources.
As discussed in Chapter 3, a strengthened policy capacity to advise SIGB, together with
more strategic knowledge collection, a stronger analytical capacity, and a more
innovative focus, would seem essential if AGIMO is to succeed. On the other hand, the
part it has played in the delivery of some recent projects - the Whole- of-government
Parliamentary Workflow and Internet Gateway Reductions being frequently quoted as
successes in this context - would suggest that AGIMO could take on selected projects in
areas where it had the capability and where, importantly, resources were available.
(Work on the Parliamentary Workflow Solution, for example, has proved heavily
resource intensive.)
In this context, SIGB has the responsibility for selecting lead agencies for whole- ofgovernment work and for monitoring their progress. As noted above, the pervasive
nature of ICT means that this lead agency role must increasingly involve agencies other
than Finance, building on their particular interests and capabilities, not only to share
the load but to cement ownership of, and buy-in to, the ICT reform agenda. It is
important for the success of these projects that the leadership role does not fall back on
Finance, including AGIMO, by default.
It is also important for AGIMO to grasp the nettle and decide the point at which a
successful program has matured sufficiently to be transitioned to a business-as- usual
basis, with agencies across government becoming responsible for delivery.
Consultations across AGIMO for this review found a consistent theme that AGIMO found
it difficult to let a successful program go.
In discussing AGIMO’s role, the Gershon Review noted (p. 65) that it was essential that
AGIMO’s work plan be approved and reviewed annually by SIGB. Setting priorities
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
16
across the AGIMO work plan, considering where AGIMO had both the expertise and the
resource availability to take on a lead agency role, and agreeing where a program was
sufficiently mature for transition to business-as- usual for agencies across the APS, is an
important role that SIGB could play in helping to focus AGIMO’s resources to best effect.
In this context, and in parallel with consideration of the recommendations of this
Review, there would be benefit in AGIMO reviewing the Implementation Roadmap
attached to the draft Vision to refine its priorities and strategic direction for SIGB’s
consideration.
2.7 MAINTAINING A PROFILE
As noted above, AGIMO has suffered from its identification with the Gershon savings
agenda. It could be argued that its current position in Finance confirms that perception.
There are significant advantages for AGIMO in being part of a strong central agency and
in being able to depend on it for support. There are also occasions, however, when there
would be advantage in its particular role in government having a profile that
distinguishes it from Finance’s cost-efficiency focus. While effective ICT increases
efficiency and productivity, the role of AGIMO is to achieve effective and efficient ICT
rather than to focus primarily on the aspect of cost.
Historically, there have been many cases across government where a part of an agency
with a particular function has been designated as an Office for the purposes of external
communication, so that its specific role can be recognized and given prominence. There
would therefore be benefit in AGIMO being known by its title for external purposes,
even though it was recognized as part of the larger agency, to distinguish its function
from that of the rest of Finance.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Noting that AGIMO’s future role in whole-of-government ICT should give greater
emphasis to strategic policy in advising SIGB on the implementation of the
Government’s Strategic Vision for ICT, it is recommended that:
(i) AGIMO work to identify, for the consideration of SIGB, lead agencies that have the
interest and capability to undertake the lead agency role, so that this function does not
fall back on Finance as the default position;
(ii) the chair of SIGB, in consultation with the Secretary of PM&C, schedule discussions
with the Secretaries Board on significant proposals for whole-of-government
approaches, prior to final consideration by SIGB;
(iii) workshops be arranged with selected external stakeholders on topics of
importance, following each alternative meeting of SIGB;
(iv) AGIMO give greater priority to the identification of areas that would benefit from a
common approach and to the preparation of the associated business case for SIGB
consideration;
(v) AGIMO work with SIGB to set priorities across its work program, including
divesting functions that could become part of business-as-usual for agencies, and limit
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
17
acceptance of additional functions to cases where AGIMO has the necessary capability
and resources;
(vi) AGIMO review the Implementation Roadmap attached to the draft Vision to refine
its priorities and strategic direction for SIGB’s consideration; and
(vii) while remaining an integral part of Finance, AGIMO is known by its title in cases
where communications external to Finance are involved, to distinguish its role in
strategic ICT from that of the rest of Finance.
3
STRATEGIC POLICY CAPABILITY
3.1 A NEED TO REFOCUS
The future role of the Governance and Policy Branch must be a major focus for attention
if AGIMO’s role in providing strategic whole-of-government policy advice to SIGB is to
be enhanced.
The Reinecke Report argued (p. 32) that:
“successful reform of the current governance structure to make it fit for purpose for the
post-Gershon era is ultimately dependent on SIGB taking responsibility for driving
change.”
The Reinecke Report also proposed that SIGB be supported by a policy unit of perhaps
25 staff, reporting to the Chair.
Since that recommendation was made, however, resource pressures across government
have increased considerably. In this climate, the most effective response to the need
identified in the Report would be to reconstitute the current Governance and Policy
Branch to provide a more innovative cross-government policy capacity and a more
focused support for SIGB in achieving its responsibility for implementing the Vision.
The broad agenda set out for AGIMO in the draft Vision, as noted in Chapter 2, is an
inclusive one and impacts on all of its work areas. All areas of AGIMO, for example,
should strive to collect good data, should identify emerging issues and trends, and
should facilitate the spread of good practice.
A refocused Policy Branch could add value to this by working with agencies to provide
leadership, and support for SIGB, in the areas of:
-
consideration of strategic and innovative policy;
analysis of emerging trends;
identification and investigation of opportunities for cross-government
approaches; and
building a coordinated view of capabilities and facilities across Australian
Government agencies.
The strategic policy role of AGIMO has links to all three of the priority areas of the draft
Vision. For example, the potential role that ICT could play in analysis and innovative
approaches is reflected in both Deliver Better Services and Improve the Efficiency of
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
18
Government Operations; building high quality data and knowledge is reflected in both
Engage Openly and Improve the Efficiency of Government Operations; and encouraging
cross-government discussion and collaboration is reflected in both Engage Openly and
Improve the Efficiency of Government Operations.
The Branch currently has 26 staff and is divided into four sections:
e-Government Policy and Better Practice
The e-Governance Policy and Better Practice team undertakes and coordinates eGovernment Policy initiatives and research, promotes better ICT practice across
agencies and delivers the annual survey Interacting with Government. It also delivers the
annual CeBIT e-Government Conference, runs the annual e- Government awards,
coordinates AGIMO’s input to international meetings and has responsibility for the draft
Vision.
Collaborative Services
The Collaborative Services team supports cross-agency and cross-jurisdiction
collaboration through the provision of whole-of-government frameworks, tools and
standards. The team is in charge of the business case for the Parliamentary Workflow
Solution, the National Standards Framework and the National Collaboration
Framework.
Architecture and Emerging Technologies
The Architecture and Emerging Technologies team works to identify and implement
business process and technology policy to align Australian Government agencies, and
develops reference material and tools to support cross-agency collaboration, including
on cloud computing, the Australian Government Architecture and Open Source
Software. It manages the Customisation and Bespoke Development policy and the
Government Solutions Register.
Governance
The Governance team provides secretariat services to AGIMO, SIGB and CIOC, and
coordinates ad hoc briefing requests.
Branch Skill Requirements
The major skill requirements for the Branch concern its capability in strategic policy,
and here the Branch currently lacks the necessary depth. In particular, if its focus in this
area is to be enhanced, such policy people need to have technological and business
analysis skills, which is rare. For example, the Branch has had to engage a business
analyst on contract where such knowledge and experience are required, such as for the
Parliamentary Workflow Solution. In addition, secondees from line agencies with
specific business and subject matter expertise have been engaged, which has proved
very effective.
It has also proved difficult to source good architecture skills and several members of the
Branch have undertaken specific architecture training courses during the year. Finally,
communication skills, which need to be strengthened across AGIMO, are of particular
importance to the Branch both in encouraging discussion across the Service and in
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
19
providing clear and focused advice for SIGB.
3.2 LEADERSHIP IN STRATEGIC AND INNOVATIVE POLICY AND ANALYSIS OF
EMERGING TRENDS
The Branch has been involved in some creditable policy initiatives. For example, work
in the area of cloud computing, which involved the development of the Cloud Computing
Strategic Direction Paper, followed by the release for comment, in November 2011, of
three draft Better Practice Guides (Privacy and Cloud Computing, Legal Issues in Cloud
Computing, and Financial Considerations for Cloud Computing), was generally well
received despite some criticism for being risk averse.
Similarly, the development of the draft Strategic Vision, despite criticism from industry
that it was insufficiently ambitious in considering how ICT might transform the way
government business was transacted, was a worthwhile document that formed the
basis for discussion and comment across the stakeholder groups. The revised draft of
the Vision that took account of this consultation process was endorsed by SIGB.
Such criticisms do not invalidate the work done, as policy development often needs to
be iterative. They could be lessened, however, if the Branch, with the support of the
AGIMO executive, moved to be more proactive in identifying and researching an issue,
and in actively involving all stakeholders from both inside and outside government. This
would enhance its contribution to SIGB’s strategic and policy considerations.
In this context, understanding the environment in which the policy is being developed is
an important factor. A recent Gartner publication researching the Critical Success
Factors for Promoting Innovation in Government found, inter alia, that:
“Understanding the language, risk profile, time horizon, personal agendas and general
outlook of shareholders impacts the success or failure of innovation efforts.”
However the prime importance is obviously the quality of the policy work released. If
AGIMO is to build its reputation as the desired source of advice and knowledge on ICT in
the APS, and to maintain that role in a fast changing environment, it will need either to
bring in, or develop, further policy and analytical capability. As noted above, these skills
are not easy to find and may have be sourced partly through secondment from other
APS agencies.
3.3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT APPROACHES
As discussed in Chapter 2, in proposing functions for AGIMO, the Gershon Review
placed at the top of the list:
“Identifying the need for common approaches (in areas such as standards, platforms,
applications, infrastructure, business process and aggregated ICT procurement) and
preparing the associated business cases for SIGB.”
The enhanced role envisaged for Governance and Policy Branch would make it an
obvious candidate to take prime responsibility for supporting SIGB in identifying and
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
20
investigating opportunities for whole-of-government approaches to administrative and
service delivery solutions.
Opportunities for whole-of-government collaboration will often be found by chance (the
fact that Slipstream, for example, was nearing the end of its working life both prompted
and accelerated work on the whole-of-government Parliamentary Workflow Solution).
In addition, initiatives that may lend themselves to such an approach may flow from
work in other areas of AGIMO or in agencies across the APS. The role of the Branch
should be to work actively to search these out (both by looking for shortcomings in, or
limitations of, existing technical solutions and by identifying where there are gaps in
existing business needs) to suggest and research options where needs are identified,
and to be alert to systems already in place that could provide the base for wider
application. It will require continued engagement with stakeholders to inform thinking
and to identify candidates.
A number of lead agency arrangements for coordinated cross-government work have
now been agreed and it is likely that this will be a growing area of attention for SIGB. At
this point, however, the process by which they have been selected and approved, the
roles of the different parties, and the nature and scope of the agreement, have been
developed by the relevant areas of AGIMO and the concerned agencies on a case by case
basis, and have not followed a common process or framework.
The experience of the Branch in managing arrangements for the whole-of government
Parliamentary Workflow Solution is interesting in this context, as work to develop the
proposal and the Memorandum of Understanding, which was not funded, absorbed the
resources of almost an entire section, as well as impacting heavily on the workload of
the Branch Head.
Some months ago, SIGB approved a schema summarizing a proposed model for cases
where a lead agency is required to progress a feasibility study with support from
stakeholder agencies. The model gives the lead agency responsibility for project and
resource management, for initiating and chairing a cross-agency reference group, for
promulgating information to stakeholder agencies and for reporting to the relevant
governance committees. AGIMO has been given responsibility for preparing the
governance committee papers, ensuring that appropriate terms of reference are
prepared for each reference group and providing support for the reference groups.
A Head Agreement for whole-of-government work, however, will often need to be quite
detailed, covering issues ranging from roles and services, financial arrangements,
performance reporting, dispute resolution, IT security, a statement of work, service
levels, charging and payments, reporting, client sites, client transition plans, governance
committees and many more. In addition, the governance model may need to be adapted
where there is more than one service provider.
In order to reduce the effort required in preparing each new agreement in this area, and
to agree a common structure that would ease examination of the agreements, including
by SIGB, there would be advantage in reviewing experience to date in setting up the
agreements to see whether a common template can be agreed that will form the base
for the fit-for-purpose provisions needed in each case.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
21
3.4 A COORDINATED VIEW OF AVAILABLE CAPABILITIES AND FACILITIES
The development of greater knowledge about the ICT skills and capabilities that exist
across Australian Government agencies is essential if high quality advice is to be given
to SIGB about how these skills and capabilities are to be employed most efficiently and
which agencies should be considered to lead a particular cross-government initiative.
In addition, more complete information on the range of ICT initiatives that have been
developed that could be reused by others, as well as awareness of best practice in a
particular area, would be an important aid to agencies in deciding how best to meet
their own needs. Some agencies have also developed testing capabilities, such as the
ATO Simulation Centre in Brisbane or the Concept Laboratory developed by Centrelink,
that could be employed more widely in developing or testing new approaches.
There is a clear need to build, and maintain over time, a better picture of the skills and
capabilities that exist across government and the initiatives that have been undertaken,
and to make this available for general use.
Some current initiatives have been developed with this aim in mind.
Govshare
Govshare is managed by AGIMO to help agencies to share and reuse ICT artifacts across
agency boundaries. It aims to support collaboration by making it easier for agencies to
harmonise information, standards and processes within defined business communities
such as Emergency Management, Ideas Management Systems, Spatial Data, Information
Exchange Standards and Service Delivery Reform. In addition, the Branch is considering
the feasibility of valuing Govshare under the National Standards Framework (see
below) to help increase confidence in the use of its holdings.
AGIMO encourages the use of Govshare and works with agencies to consider what
should be placed on it, but there is a need to build further understanding of where
services exist that could be shared or reused.
Government Solutions Register
The Government Solutions Register is a repository of about 40,000 Commercial off the
shelf and Government off the shelf applications that are in use across government, with
associated technical information. The repository is updated annually and its holdings
have been mapped against the AGA Service Reference Model to enable analysis of
opportunities for rationalization and standardisation. Consideration is also being given
to whether bespoke developed systems can be included on the register.
In addition, the AGA will be used progressively to classify the existing government ICT
environment to create a repository that will facilitate comparison between, and analysis
of, opportunities for investment.
However these products, while useful, provide only a partial picture. In particular, they
do not provide a good view of bespoke systems or internally funded products where
AGIMO is not authorised to gather such information.
A cross-government product and service catalogue
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
22
In line with the proposal in the draft Vision to increase the visibility of Agency ICT
activities, there would be real value in a more systematic catalogue of the products and
services that are in use across government, and their business applications, to increase
understanding of what is available and to inform investment decisions.
Initially, such information could be collected by a survey of agencies to form the basis of
a catalogue for general use, and AGIMO would have to give careful consideration to the
scope and focus of the information to be sought in preparing advice for SIGB on the
most efficient and effective way to achieve this end.
More understanding of the capacity and availability of the products and services could
be achieved, however, through follow up discussions between AGIMO and the
responding agencies. Here again, SIGB endorsement of the process would be important
to give impetus to agency participation.
3.5 PROVIDING FRAMEWORKS FOR COLLABORATION AND BUSINESS ANALYSIS
The Branch also manages a suite of frameworks, tools and strategies that support areas
of cross-agency collaboration.
National Standards Framework
The National Standards Framework, developed in 2009, is a framework for initiating,
endorsing and managing the development of ICT standards to support integration of
cross-agency business processes. While it deals with the need to agree standards for
cross-agency interaction, rather than the formal standards setting process that is
conducted by Standards Australia, it delivers transparency and a degree of certainty for
agencies involved in collaborative projects.
National Collaboration Framework
The National Collaboration Framework is an off the shelf legal agreement to manage
cross-agency arrangements for all tiers of government. Built around a collaborative
approach to managing risk identified in cross-agency agreements, it defines a process
whereby the parties agree on collaboration principles and then provides a suite of
reusable documents and tools, including a collaborative Head Agreement, that aim to
provide enhanced service delivery arrangements across government departments and
agencies.
The Australian National Audit Office Report No. 41 of 2009-10 on Effective Cross- Agency
Agreements noted that, while the National Collaboration Framework, in particular the
Head Agreement, provided useful guidance on cross-agency agreements, only 12 of the
21 agencies surveyed had reported using the Framework and three had never heard of
it.
As a consequence, AGIMO worked last year to raise knowledge of the National
Collaboration Framework with groups from Commonwealth, and most State and
Territory, agencies. However more obviously needs to be done in this area.
Australian Government Architecture
The Australian Government Architecture (AGA) was developed to assist the delivery of
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
23
a more consistent approach to service delivery by providing a framework that supports
a common language for the delivery of cross-agency services, the basis for an objective
analysis of ICT investment, and the identification of duplicate, reusable and sharable
services.
With the release of Version 3 of the AGA in November 2011, AGIMO has essentially
completed all the key reference models of the Architecture and, while not trying to
mandate a solution, the Branch is working to explain and encourage its use. The AGA is
useful as a base architecture for those small to medium agencies that lack the capacity
to construct their own reference models.
The Branch has also been working with Investment Management Branch to use the AGA
to build its analytical capacity and to identify areas where agencies can leverage what
already exists. Several agencies, including Defence, Customs and DHS, have used the
architecture as a basis for creating their own reference model suites and these have
proved valuable as a vehicle for creating common understanding across diverse
stakeholder groups.
Increased awareness of the AGA would facilitate its use in guiding agency decision
making, especially in relation to capability development and ICT investment, and in
areas that include the strategic alignment of plans and operations, improved
interoperability and integration of business systems, and improved collaboration across
agencies.
In summary, the frameworks, tools and strategies to support cross-agency collaboration
exist, but more effort is needed to ensure that agencies are aware of the value they offer.
3.6 AN EVIDENCE BASE OF HIGH QUALITY DATA
In addition to an understanding of the products and services actually available, the
development of good policy options needs a high quality evidence base. Data collection,
however, should not be an end in itself. Data collected must not only be of good quality
but must be well targeted to provide the base for analysis that will be of value in the
development or assessment of policy options.
AGIMO is currently collecting data through two annual surveys, the first of which is
managed by the Governance and Policy Branch.
Data on interacting with government
For about five years, the Branch has been running Interacting with Government:
Australians’ use of and satisfaction with e-government services to investigate the use of,
and satisfaction with, services provided and preferences for future service delivery. This
series of surveys was undertaken as a consequence of the 2006 e-Government Strategy
which, as a five year strategy, effectively expired in 2011. In addition, responses to the
survey indicate that use of e-Government has now stabilized, and a different approach is
clearly necessary.
The survey will not be run this financial year and the Branch will take the opportunity
to consider alternative options to assess the best and most cost effective method of
tracking citizen satisfaction with online services.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
24
ICT Benchmarking
As discussed in Chapter 4, AGIMO’s Investment Management Branch has been running a
significant ICT benchmarking analysis, as recommended by the Gershon Review, to
inform ongoing improvements in efficiency and effectiveness of ICT investment. Again,
work is underway to review the data collection process.
Data Collection across AGIMO
More generally, there would be advantage in stepping back to assess whether the
current data collection in AGIMO is useful, cost-effective and fully co-ordinated. In this
context, it is proposed that a cross-AGIMO group be formed to review the data
produced, its ongoing priority and areas of future need.
3.7 PRIORITIES FOR A REFOCUSED POLICY BRANCH
The role that is being proposed for a refocused Policy Branch will require significantly
greater attention to the analysis of emerging trends and their potential impact in
government and more broadly, to building a picture of the available ICT capabilities and
facilities and understanding their opportunities for wider use, and to the development
of strategic policy advice in collaboration with stakeholders.
It will also be responsible for playing a leadership role in providing co-ordinated high
quality advice to support SIGB in driving change.
While the suite of collaborative frameworks, tools, standards and registers managed by
the Branch is highly relevant to its work, the question must be asked whether the actual
management and upkeep of many of these frameworks and tools could be passed to
another area of AGIMO. Similarly, now that agreement on the Parliamentary Workflow
Solution is close to finalisation, ongoing monitoring could perhaps be undertaken by
another Branch.
A review of the current responsibilities of the Governance and Policy Branch would
therefore be of value in facilitating its ability to focus on providing strategic policy
advice.
RECOMMENDATION 2
Noting the need to provide an enhanced strategic policy capacity to support SIGB in its
responsibility for developing whole-of-government approaches to drive
implementation of the Government’s Vision for ICT, it is recommended that:
(i)
of:
the Governance and Policy Branch be refocused to provide leadership in the areas
-
consideration of strategic and innovative policy;
analysis of emerging trends;
identification and investigation of whole-of-government opportunities; and
building a coordinated view of agency capabilities and facilities to support advice
and information on the potential for adaptation or reuse;
(ii) AGIMO give attention to building the strategic policy capability of the refocused
branch in support of this enhanced role;
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
25
(iii) AGIMO review the current responsibilities of the Governance and Policy Branch to
assess which of its functions could be passed to other areas of AGIMO to enable greater
attention to be paid to building the policy advice function;
(iv) in order to reduce the resources involved in supporting the preparation of lead
agency agreements, AGIMO review experience to date in preparing Head Agreements to
see whether a common template could be developed to provide a base for fit-to-purpose
provisions;
(v) AGIMO give consideration to the scope and focus of a more systematic catalogue of
the products and services that are in use across government and their business
applications, and to refining the information received through discussion with
responding agencies, to increase understanding of what is available and opportunities
for broader use;
(vi) AGIMO continue work to develop, and increase awareness of, frameworks, tools
and reference material that support whole of government alignment; and
(vii) a cross-AGIMO group be formed to review data produced, its ongoing priority and
areas of future need.
4
INVESTMENT IN ICT-ENABLED PROJECTS
4.1 BRANCH RESPONSIBILITIES
The increased scrutiny of ICT investments by governments overseas (Chapter 2) is of
particular relevance to the work of the Investment Management Branch of AGIMO,
which works in concert with Finance’s Budget Group and Financial Management Group
(FMG) to provide advice on Australian Government ICT- enabled investments.
In carrying out this role, the Branch manages the ICT Two-Pass Review process,
develops guidance on ICT business cases and benefits realization, and manages the
assessment of organizational capability to manage ICT investments.
Its work contributes to two priorities set out in the draft Strategic Vision - Deliver Better
Services and Improve the Efficiency of Government Operations. The draft Implementation
Roadmap accompanying the Vision notes the ongoing importance of building
government program capability, reviewing the ICT investment framework and
developing a whole-of-government approach to strategic ICT investment.
The Branch currently has 22 staff and is divided into four sections, one of which (with
four FTEs) is the AGIMO Program Management Unit that is placed in the Branch for
oversight purposes and is not integral to its work. This Unit is discussed further below.
The Branch is wholly funded from AGIMO appropriations and its programs are not
subject to cost recovery or user charging.
A brief summary of the responsibilities of the three sections of Investment Management
Branch is set out below.
ICT Budget Analysis:
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
26
The role of the Budget Analysis team is to support the Budget process by analysing ICTenabled investment proposals to ensure that potential investments are aligned with
agency business needs and government priorities, and deliver value for money. It also
manages the ICT Two-Pass Review process.
Agency Capability:
The Agency Capability team helps to realize the benefits of ICT investment by
strengthening the capability of agencies through managing the Agency Capability
Initiative, helping to develop agency Capability Improvement Plans, and sponsoring the
Custodian of Best Practice in Benefits Realisation (DHS has taken on this role which
involves sponsoring knowledge exchange that improves capability to realize benefits).
The team also advises on agency capability aspects of the ICT Two-Pass Review process.
ICT Investment Framework:
The ICT Investment team supports, develops and maintains policies directed towards
improving ICT investment outcomes, including developing options for an ICT Chart of
Accounts as recommended by the Gershon Review. It also oversees the annual
Benchmarking Survey, manages cross-jurisdictional benchmarking and analyses overall
investment trends.
As the Agency Capability Initiative becomes increasingly established, and noting the
synergies between the Agency Capability and ICT Investment Framework teams, there
would be advantage in considering the option of integrating the two teams to bring
more focus and coordination to this important area of work.
Branch Skill Requirements
The Investment Management Branch recently undertook a skills assessment initiative,
developing matrices for the key skills (ICT Investment Analyst and ICT Policy Adviser)
required by the Branch. Staff completed a self-assessment against a skills matrix to
identify skills gaps.
Overall, the skills coverage for the ICT Policy Analyst role was quite good with strengths
in risk analysis, ICT business case development and understanding of the Budget
process. Skills gaps included the understanding of government accounting processes,
ICT architecture and standards, and the commercial aspects of the skills market. For the
ICT Policy Adviser role, although individuals showed strong expertise in particular
subject areas, skill gaps included understanding of whole-of-government and agency
ICT systems, economics and statistics. Branch members are now incorporating the
results into the learning and development sections of their performance agreements.
In view of the importance of increasing skills across AGIMO, there would be advantage
in extending this initiative progressively to other Branches to increase the effectiveness
of workforce planning, provide the basis for targeted learning and development, and
assist in recruitment to meet skill gaps. This issue is taken up in Chapter 9.
4.2 ASSURANCE ON MAJOR GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS
The work of the Branch is integral to the framework of whole-of-government assurance
mechanisms managed by FMG to assess agency proposals for major investments and to
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
27
ensure their successful delivery. These mechanisms, which have been developed over
the last five years, include:
-
Gateway Reviews;
ICT Two Pass Reviews;
the Agency Capability Initiative;
the Risk Assessment Potential Tool; and
Implementation Readiness Assessments.
Gateway Reviews are conducted to strengthen agency oversight and governance of
major projects and programs throughout the project implementation life cycle. They
provide independent assurance and advice to an agency, through intensive reviews of
progress against specified objectives at critical points.
Gateway reviews are undertaken for projects with an estimated total cost of at least $30
million, including an ICT component of at least $10 million. Gate 0 reviews (to assess the
scope, purpose and business need of the project) and Gate 1 reviews (to assess the
robustness of the business case) are undertaken prior to a decision by the Government
on whether the project should proceed. The remaining four Gates concern project
implementation. If the project is assessed as High Risk using the Risk Potential
Assessment Tool, the Government may require additional Gateway reviews at
appropriate stages.
The independent Gateway Review Team provides a confidential report to the Senior
Responsible Official (SRO) in the sponsoring agency, summarising the status of the
project and recommending action to improve implementation. It provides a copy of the
report to the Assurance Reviews Branch in FMG. While AGIMO may be consulted by the
Gateway Review Team as part of its assessment, that decision is one for the Team itself
and does not happen in all cases. In addition, AGIMO does not see the Gateway report or
know of its content unless its advice is sought by the SRO.
[four paragraphs redacted]
The ICT Two Pass Review process supports the iterative development of a business
case for major investments in ICT-enabled projects up to the point that the decision is
taken by Cabinet on whether to proceed. It provides an analysis of the benefits, costs,
risks and agency delivery capability of a proposed project to assist Cabinet’s decision.
The ICT Two Pass Review process applies to proposals, including internally funded
proposals, that are ICT-enabled, have a total cost of at least $30 million (including ICT
costs of at least $10 million) and have been assessed as being of high risk (for example
in terms of cost, technical complexity, workforce capacity or schedule). SIGB may refer
proposals for assessment that have a total cost of less than $30 million if it considers
that they would benefit from such a review. SIGB also examines ICT Two Pass proposals
on an exception basis, providing additional assurance for high risk projects.
Agencies wishing to bring forward a proposal of this magnitude develop a First Pass
business case that is provided to AGIMO for review and feedback. The proposal then
goes forward to Cabinet which decides whether it merits the development of a more
detailed Second Pass business case. AGIMO reviews and provides feedback on the
Second Pass business case, which must include detailed cost assessments and risk
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
28
mitigation strategies, prior to it going forward again to Cabinet for consideration and
decision. Agencies are asked to use the ICT Business Case Guide, templates and costing
spreadsheet for ICT Two Pass business cases.
The ICT Two Pass process is complete once the decision is taken that a project can move
to its implementation phase.
The Agency Capability Initiative was introduced in 2009 to strengthen the governance
of ICT investments. Agencies subject to the FMA Act are implementing the Portfolio,
Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) as a common
methodology to assess their ICT investment capability and to develop a Capability
Improvement Plan (CIP).
Agencies with an annual ICT spend of over $2 million are required to incorporate the
results of their P3M3 assessments in their ICT Two Pass Review business cases and
agencies will report twice a year to SIGB on progress against their CIPs from 2012.
AGIMO manages the Agency Capability Initiative, supports agencies’ implementation of
their CIPs and their biannual P3M3 assessments, and facilitates knowledge sharing
between agencies on better practice.
The majority of large and medium agencies have now completed their P3M3
assessments, have developed their CIPs and are now implementing their CIPs.
Two further processes were introduced in 2011 to assist Cabinet in judging project
readiness. The Risk Potential Assessment Tool is a standard set of criteria for
identifying potential risks and assessing the consequences of those risks for
government. It must be completed by agencies for each New Policy Proposal prior to its
consideration by Cabinet. In addition, Implementation Readiness Assessments are
undertaken for a limited number of very high risk proposals to determine the capability
and preparedness of an agency for implementation.
Complementing this suite of controls is a program of Capability Reviews managed by
the APSC in line with the recommendations of Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for the
Reform of Australian Government Administration. The independent Capability Reviews
assess agencies against a common framework focusing on leadership, strategy and
delivery capabilities. In preparing its report, the Capability Review team may decide to
seek comments from AGIMO where issues arise that are relevant to its responsibilities.
4.3 THE ASSESSMENT OF INVESTMENT IN ICT-ENABLED PROJECTS
Taken together, these controls and review processes were developed to cover the
critical areas necessary to provide government with robust advice on which to base a
decision on the funding of major investment projects. Where investment projects are
highly dependent on ICT system underpinning, however, the ICT Two Pass Review
assessment is clearly of crucial importance.
A review of the operation of the ICT Two Pass Review process in the second half of 2010
focused particularly on the need for greater communication and understanding of the
clarity of roles, processes and links between the ICT Two Pass and the Gateway Review
assessments.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
29
As part of its efficiency agenda, FMG is currently working with other areas of Finance,
including AGIMO, to review the suite of investment assurance processes for major
projects. Its aim is to ensure that the measures are well integrated, that agency
compliance is achieved, that there are no gaps in the assessment framework and that
information collection is efficient and avoids unnecessary duplication.
At the time the review of the ICT Two Pass process was undertaken, only five proposals
had successfully completed the process and had received funding. A year later, however,
18 proposals have successfully completed the process and 34 have been considered at
the First Pass stage.
There would therefore be advantage in reviewing lessons learned in the
implementation of the process, in concert with the work led by FMG as part of the
efficiency agenda, to see whether refinements can be identified that would further
improve its effectiveness.
Areas for consideration could include reconsideration of the current guide and
template, and developing a greater capacity to analyse and compare project proposals
against a common schema, for example through categorising applications into subcategories (such as authentication and entitlement advice) to aid analysis and
comparative evaluation of performance.
One option for consideration could involve using Version 3.0 of the Australian
Government Architecture to provide a view of the future system against the service
reference model for those agencies with mature architectural capabilities, with AGIMO
developing architectural views for comparative purposes for those without those
capabilities.
Identification of Systemic Weaknesses
Recent consideration by AGIMO of the areas of strength and weakness in ICT- enabled
projects identified a number of systemic weaknesses that are consistent with those
featured in a range of external or academic studies. Broadly they involve:
-
the underestimation of risks, costs, resources of schedules, or the
overestimation of savings or benefits;
difficulties associated with project size or complexity, particularly flowing from
new technology or the need to integrate multiple systems;
change in business requirements or scope over the course of the project, or
reinterpretation where these had been insufficiently defined or agreed;
deficiencies in the quality of project or program management;
communication failure with internal or external stakeholders; and
breakdown in program or project governance resulting in insufficient
accountability and control.
The current suite of Finance assurance mechanisms is primarily directed towards
ensuring that, by the stage a project goes forward to government for approval,
sponsoring agencies and Finance (including AGIMO) have worked to prepare a robust
business case and governance mechanisms that guard against the weaknesses identified
above. However factors such as adjustments in business needs or requirements,
underestimation of costs or risks, or technological developments, can still occur during
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
30
the project implementation phase and can impact heavily on a project’s success.
Project Implementation Phase
As is shown in Attachment D, although the ICT Two Pass Process is complete once the
process has received approval, the Gateway Review process continues throughout the
project’s life-cycle.
As noted above, however, the Gateway Review process is primarily directed towards
providing assistance (through a confidential report) to the SRO of the agency
sponsoring the project and, apart from a copy being provided to the Assurance Reviews
Branch in FMG, it is not more widely available. [one sentence redacted] (The UK
Government has promised greater transparency in this area although its commitment in
October 2010 to require publication of Gateway reviews by the end of 2010 was
deferred for a year at that time.)
The implementation phase would normally last for several years and AGIMO has no
visibility or oversight of major ICT-enabled projects during this period unless its advice
is sought by the sponsoring agency SRO or unless it has membership of the project
steering committee, which is not frequent.
In these circumstances, consideration should be given both to a requirement that
Gateway Review teams consult AGIMO on all projects that have ICT underpinning, [one
phrase redacted].
Consideration should also be given to whether the Gateway Reviews of projects that are
dependent on ICT should be made available to Investment Management Branch in
AGIMO for consideration and advice.
In addition, the FMG-led examination of the suite of assurance mechanisms for major
investment projects, mentioned above, should consider the identification of a process
for greater scrutiny and possible intervention during the project implementation phase
in those cases where ICT capabilities and systems are pivotal to achieving success.
Options for consideration could include stronger scrutiny where the actual or revised
forecast of expenditure is outside reasonable tolerance limits, where stage goals are
missed as defined by the Benefits Realization Schedule agreed at second pass or final
funding approval, or where projects receive a Red or Amber rating at Gate 4 (Readiness
for Service) or Gate 5 (Benefits Realisation).
In view of some recent examples of projects showing that agencies have been less
successful than was hoped at realizing the benefits of project expenditure,
consideration should also be given to a strengthened system of reporting benefits as
they are realized, with reference to the Benefits Realization Schedule to increase the
focus on this aspect.
Finally, in view of the second weakness identified above, more attention should be given
to the early identification of options for a modular approach to major ICT projects,
particularly where the project is complex, has a higher level of identified risk or is
breaking new ground. The division of a large and complex project into staged
components that are run sequentially rather than in parallel could provide greater
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
31
facility for cost control, as well as allowing greater flexibility in those cases where it
becomes apparent that adjustment is required. Advice on options for a modular
approach to ICT enabled projects should be incorporated into the Finance advice to
Cabinet when the project is being considered for funding.
A Whole-of-Government Approach to Strategic ICT Investment
It has long been recognized that there would be significant advantage in taking a wholeof-government portfolio approach to managing ICT investments, both from the
viewpoint of resource allocation and of strategic project alignment. However it has also
proved difficult to achieve a clear view of the range of projects that are planned or are
underway, what they will cost and what benefits will be realized, to provide a basis for
decision-making.
The Implementation Roadmap accompanying the draft Vision assigns to AGIMO the task
of working with agencies to develop a whole-of-government approach to strategic ICT
investment, with identified outcome milestones that:
-
within 24 months, whole-of-government investment decisions reduce ICT asset
duplication, increase re-use and build whole-of-government capability where
there are gaps; and
within 48 months, government decisions to invest in ICT are informed by greater
visibility of agency investment activity and intentions.
Achieving these tasks will require priority attention if they are to accomplish their
purpose of optimizing investment. An initial focus on reporting to SIGB on the progress
of the top, say, 10 ICT-enabled projects, selected on the basis of budget impact, policy or
program risk, or cross-government implications, would be worth consideration.
4.4 BENCHMARKING
To improve the rigor of monitoring ICT investments, the Gershon Review recommended
an annual benchmarking analysis based on common efficiency and effectiveness metrics
with an aggregate report being provided to SIGB and a detailed report being provided to
each agency to inform ongoing improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. The initial
data collection exercise was conducted in 2007-08.
Assessing the implementation of the reform, the Reinecke Report noted that Agency
Heads acknowledged the benefits of benchmarking as a useful discipline but drew
attention to difficulties in information collection and the burden caused by the volume
of data collected. The report recommended that AGIMO examine the means of
simplifying, automating and reducing the load of data collection. Further independent
consideration in mid 2011 confirmed the value of the exercise but recommended that
AGIMO should facilitate automated collection of data, reduce the number of metrics
collected and raise the expenditure thresholds for determining agency groupings.
Significant work was undertaken in the context of the 2008-09 benchmarking round to
reduce the number of data points. Despite attempts at further reduction, however,
arguments to retain items of data collection used for policy development or program
monitoring purposes have meant that the number of data points has started to creep up.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
32
The breakdown of data points since 2007-08 is set out below:
Large agencies
Medium agencies
Small agencies
2007
2008
2009
2010
2,034
2,034
1,060
515
37
1,060
617
103
1,052
559
177
The number of data points collected from agencies is scaled according to their size as
measured by their expenditure on ICT. Total ICT expenditure of less than $2 million
denotes a small agency, expenditure between $2 million and $20 million denotes a
medium sized agency, and expenditure of greater than $20 million denotes a large
agency.
Raising these expenditure thresholds would be a simple way to reduce the burden of
data collection overall.
Reviewing the number of data points and changing the expenditure thresholds would
have to be done in concert to balance the aim of reducing the collection load on agencies
with that of collecting important data for analysis, including over time. However a
reduction in data points to something more manageable by agencies would help to
decrease delays in response and would increase the integrity of the data that is
collected. It would also assist AGIMO to give more attention to the timely analysis of the
data collected.
In addition, work is in progress to increase the automation of data collection. AGIMO
has been working with the Central Budget Management System (CBMS) Redevelopment
Project Team to consider options for collecting ICT benchmarking information through
the new CBMS and to develop a common ICT Chart of Accounts. In addition, the
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(FaHCSIA) is currently using a module in SAP to capture data up front which can be fed
directly into the benchmarking survey and which allows FaHCSIA to monitor, manage
and control its ICT costs.
4.5 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT UNIT
The role of the Program Management Unit is to assist AGIMO to adopt fit for purpose,
consistent and effective program and project management processes. It manages crossAGIMO business planning and reporting, provides secretariat services for meetings of
AGIMO’s executive, SES, and Business Management committee meetings, develops and
maintains AGIMO’s business plans and reporting processes, and supports knowledge
sharing and reporting. It provides 10-15 reports regularly.
The skills assessment initiative mentioned above showed that the Program
Management Unit had sound skills coverage, demonstrating a good level of skills and
expertise in providing secretariat services and support to project teams.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
33
While the unit is part of the Investment Management Branch for oversight purposes, it
would seem to be more usefully placed alongside the Deputy Secretary’s administration
unit where there would be greater mutual interest and support. An alternative option
would be to bring it together with the Governance team in the Governance and Policy
Branch, allowing the two areas to provide reciprocal support at times when resources
are stretched.
RECOMMENDATION 3
Noting the critical importance of ensuring the operational efficiency and effectiveness of
ICT-enabled major projects, it is recommended that:
(i) lessons learned from the implementation of ICT Two Pass should be reviewed to
see whether refinements can be identified that would further improve its effectiveness
in managing major ICT-enabled projects;
(ii)
[one paragraph redacted];
(iii) the review of the suite of assurance measures led by FMG consider options for
greater scrutiny through the implementation phase of projects where ICT capabilities
and systems are pivotal to the project’s success;
(iv) greater priority be given, at the First and Second Pass stages of the ICT Two Pass
process, to the early identification of options for a modular approach to major ICT
projects where the project is complex, has a higher level of identified risk or is breaking
new ground, with advice on options for a modular approach being included in the
Finance advice to Cabinet when the project is being considered for approval;
(v) noting that the Implementation Roadmap accompanying the draft Vision includes
the task of working to develop a whole-of-government approach to strategic ICT
investment, consideration be given to reporting to SIGB on the progress of the top, say,
10 ICT-enabled projects selected on the basis of budget impact, policy or program risk,
or cross-government implications;
(vi) priority be given to further reviewing the number of data points in the
Benchmarking Survey and to raising the expenditure thresholds, to reduce the burden
of data collection, improve data integrity and allow more focus on the timely analysis of
data collected; and
(vii) alternative options for placement of the Program Management Unit be considered,
including alongside the Deputy Secretary’s administration unit or the Governance team
in the Governance and Policy Branch, in order to provide it with greater opportunities
for mutual support.
5
ICT SKILLS AND CYBER SECURITY
5.1 BRANCH RESPONSIBILITIES
The Cyber Security and Skills Branch is the branch within AGIMO that has the least
internal coherence, the skills function being transferred relatively recently to the
Branch to balance overall workload. In the area of cyber security, its work is also
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
34
influenced significantly by issues under consideration outside of AGIMO and of Finance
itself.
The Skills area is given prominence in the draft Vision under the priority area Deliver
Better Services, where the accompanying Implementation Roadmap includes Developing
ICT Workforce Skills as one of the strategic actions under that priority. Cyber Security is
also related to the Deliver Better Services priority area, particularly through
authentication for people and business, and through security and privacy constraints
for online communication.
The Branch has 20 staff and is divided into four sections - Cyber Security Projects, Cyber
Security Investment, Authentication and ICT Skills.
It is funded from AGIMO base appropriations apart from the ICT Skills Entry Level
Program initiative, that is delivered on the basis of cost recovery from participating
agencies, and some project funding, including for the Internet Gateway Reduction
program and the final year of funding received from the Reinvestment Fund to work
with the APSC on skills tasks flowing from the Gershon Review.
Branch Skill Requirements
The work of the Branch requires a base level of technical understanding and it has no
difficulty in filling that requirement. Its greater need is to source good policy and
analytical skills and to build on those by developing subject matter expertise on the job.
It is an ongoing challenge, however, to maintain that expertise, particularly in the broad
area of cyber security. For example, there is currently only one member of the Branch
who has deep experience in the area of authentication. Seeking opportunities for term
secondments from agencies that have cyber security skills is an option that is being
considered.
5.2 ICT SKILLS PROGRAMS
Increasing ICT skills is critical to the Government and to its productivity agenda as set
out in the draft Vision, and AGIMO clearly has an important role in this area as does the
APSC. However while AGIMO and the Commission can provide program development
and support, advice and encouragement, they are dependent on agency participation for
an effective response.
Partly in response to the recommendations of the Gershon Review, but also as a result
of ongoing concerns about the difficulty of recruiting ICT staff and the potential for
significant adverse impact on the delivery of government programs, a range of
initiatives has already been put in place to help address this issue. Others have been
under consideration, including some originally proposed in the Gershon Review such as
a renewed focus on reducing Canberra-centricity of ICT facilities and the establishment
of a whole-of-government tele-working policy for ICT staff.
Additional options have included the development of new and expanded programs for
graduate training, the creation of a specialist APS stream for ICT professionals, a wholeof-APS ICT career structure, greater focus on the particular skill needs to deliver ICTenabled projects, and facilitating the mobility of ICT professionals across agencies and
across jurisdictions.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
35
The importance of increasing ICT skills in the APS in a situation where agency
participation is sometimes crucial for an effective whole-of-government response,
suggests that this may be an area where mandating agency participation should be
considered for high priority programs.
ICT Entry Level Programs
Since 2009, ICT Entry Level programs for APS agencies have been managed by AGIMO
on the basis of full cost recovery from participating agencies. AGIMO liaises with
agencies about their needs, coordinates the recruitment and marketing for the
programs, undertakes the pastoral care of trainees, and runs additional learning and
development sessions.
The Entry Level programs involve ICT apprenticeships and cadetships for tertiary
students and, by September 2011, 108 apprentices and 20 cadets had successfully
completed the programs and joined the APS. While these entry level programs have
been successful, a number of agencies, particularly some large agencies, were moving to
run their own programs in parallel. This is a trend that could have compromised
economies of scale and increased costs for the participating (and mainly smaller)
agencies.
As SIGB has noted, the advantages that accompany a whole-of-government response in
this area are considerable. AGIMO has given, and continues to give, priority to
consultation with agencies, including through the CIOC on technical and workforce
specific issues and through the APSC on human resource management issues, to assess
whether any adjustments to the Entry Level programs would assist agency participation
and whether there were any barriers to moving to a common approach.
These consultations would then feed into consideration of the option of mandating,
subject to opt out, a single entry level program for ICT apprentices and cadetships
across the APS.
At the same time, it would also be worth considering whether the Entry Level programs
should now be passed across to the APSC where they would be more closely connected
to HR Strategy, governance and expertise, or perhaps to another lead agency. AGIMO, in
conjunction with the APSC, could review the most appropriate place to undertake the
Entry Level programs under the guidance of SIGB.
Workforce Planning and Data Analysis
The Whole-of-government ICT Strategic Workforce Plan 2010-13, developed by AGIMO
and the Commission and released in April 2010, identified a replacement requirement
of 2344 ICT staff by June 2012 due to separations and increases in capacity
requirements.
In a recent speech Evaluating the Current State of the Public Sector and its Future
Demands to Up Skill its Workforce, the Public Service Commissioner, Mr Stephen
Sedgwick, drew attention to role that the ICT Workforce Plan had played in assisting
agencies to understand their ICT skills needs. He went on to note that “approximately
97% of the ICT workforce is now covered by an agency ICT workforce plan” and that the
“ICT community now have clearer understanding of the capacity and capability of the
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
36
current ICT workforce, and the Commission has been able to look across all agency
workforce plans in order to identify APS-wide critical skill areas and shared planning
challenges”.
Having timely and well analysed information is a priority for achieving a strategic
response to the ICT skills shortage, and the fact that these ICT workforce plans have
been prepared should facilitate the collection of up-to-date information on key areas of
ICT skill need, although the different levels of maturity of agency personnel systems
means that the provision of these data remains more difficult for some agencies and
there have been consequent delays in providing it.
While the collection of current information is obviously important, the key focus needs
to be on identifying those areas where data are really required and the frequency of
collection really needed to maintain sufficient currency, to avoid a situation where the
collection pressures placed on both agencies and on AGIMO, in an environment of
scarce resources, endangers careful and timely analysis.
The timing of data collection and analysis also needs to be aligned with the approach to
the market, whether in the form of a coordinated entry level recruitment around in
Australia or an approach to markets overseas to source particular areas of ICT skill
deficiency. In this context, data collection separate from the annual Benchmarking
Survey appears to be the best option. Cross- agency consultation with concerned
agencies, in particular the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations (DEEWR) and the APSC, will be important in deciding the details of a
coordinated approach.
Recruiting Skills from Overseas
As countries in Europe face economic downturn, there has been increasing focus on the
option of recruiting ICT skills from overseas, particularly for capabilities that cannot be
sourced in Australia. The issues to be faced in this case include coordinating a crossgovernment marketing campaign, and processes for the speedier approval of noncitizens to work in the APS.
An approach to the market overseas would, as for the management of ICT Entry Level
programs, have to be managed on a full cost recovery basis and there are clear
advantages to a coordinated cross-agency campaign.
A lead agency with prior experience could take on this initiative in consultation with
AGIMO, recognising that this is not an area where AGIMO has particular expertise.
Policy Responses to Increasing Shortages
While the unmet demand for ICT skills across the country will eventually have an
impact on individual training decisions, there is a strong argument to move now to
increase the speed and focus of the response. Reports over the last year that the ICT
labour market has worsened have given extra stimulus to the need to do more to
increase ICT capability in the APS, and both SIGB and the CIOC have had this matter
under consideration.
The important challenge for AGIMO and for SIGB, however, is to identify the areas in
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
37
which AGIMO’s expertise makes it the most appropriate agency to take the lead, and
then to establish priorities among these areas to refocus its resources on the activities
of greatest potential benefit. Apart from the cost recovered positions that are dedicated
to delivering the ICT Entry Level programs, the Branch has only 3 FTEs available for
work in this area.
In the absence of refocus and reprioritisation, these resources will be spread too thinly
and less will be achieved overall. There would therefore be advantage in AGIMO
reviewing its work projects in this area and giving SIGB a revised list of its top priority
projects, together with an estimate of resources and timelines in each case.
In addition, and in view of feedback from industry that it also is facing a shortage of ICT
skills, consultation with industry stakeholders should be undertaken on the range of
options at both government and industry levels that could make up an overall response.
This could be considered as an area for discussion at a workshop involving SIGB
members and invitees from industry and academia, as recommended in Chapter 2.
5.3 CYBER SECURITY
Cyber security has been defined in variety of ways. If defined widely, it can include
information security, authentication, cyber bullying, cyber scamming, cyber crime,
cyber espionage and cyber warfare.
A number of agencies have roles in cyber security. Under the AAOs, prime responsibility
for cyber security belongs to:
-
PM&C which has responsibility for Cyber Policy Coordination;
AGD which has an interest in Cyber Security as a result of its responsibility for
National Security and Counter Terrorism; and
the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) which includes the Cyber Security
Operations Centre.
As can be seen, most of these agencies have a strong focus on national security and
AGIMO’s interest can be differentiated by its additional attention to the service delivery
aspect of cyber security, most particularly to online security. In particular, AGIMO and
its predecessors have been involved with identity security solutions for authentication
over ten years, and authentication remains important for service delivery reform and
the wider digital economy.
The maintenance of the security of, and public trust in, government online services is
obviously highly important. However the range of projects that could be undertaken in
this area is considerable and not all of them would be accorded the same priority. In
addition, a number of the projects that have been underway in the section are now
complete or are close to finalisation.
The Branch has nine staff available to work on cyber security, although some of them
are funded for specific projects. To demonstrate the variations in priority of the
projects, as well as in the stage reached, a brief summary of the main projects on the
2011-12 work plan is set out below.
Cyber White Paper
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
38
The Government announced in June 2011 that it would develop a Cyber White Paper
that would cover a wide spectrum of cyber issues including consumer protection, cyber
security, cyber safety, cyber crime and cyber defence. PM&C released a discussion paper
in September 2011 that was open for discussion until mid November 2011.
AGIMO is represented on the governance committees for the White Paper and it has
convened a roundtable of service delivery agencies to gain feedback on their views to
report to PM&C. The White Paper is expected to be finalised by mid 2012.
Government Internet Gateway Reduction Program
The Government Internet Gateway Reduction Program was endorsed by the
Government in May 2010 and involves reducing the number of gateways from about
124 to eight by the end of 2015. The Gateway Reduction Program is closely aligned with
DSD’s internet monitoring strategy.
The Government decided on a model involving eight selected lead agencies that would
deliver gateway services on behalf of clusters of agencies and would recover
apportioned costs for improved security and service delivery from agencies using their
services. It decided that the process would be mandatory for FMA Act agency Australiabased connections, subject to opt-out on the presentation of a business case for
government consideration.
AGIMO is responsible for the coordination of the program and for its day-to-day
management, monitoring and reporting. SIGB sets and monitors policies, and ensures
service standards are met, and AGIMO reports annually to SIGB on the operation of, and
agency compliance with, the new arrangements.
AGIMO has received Budget supplementation for its role in managing the program until
the end of 2012-13.
[two paragraphs redacted]
Gatekeeper Accreditation
The Gatekeeper Strategy provides the Government’s policy on Public Key Infrastructure
(PKI) and involves a system of cryptographic technologies, standards and controls
governing the use of digital certificates. It governs the use of PKI for the authentication
of clients external to government.
The Deputy Secretary of AGIMO is the Gatekeeper Competent Authority, and AGIMO
works with government and commercial agencies to accredit them as Certification
Authorities or Validation Authorities under the policy.
Gatekeeper accreditation is funded out of base AGIMO appropriations.
Cyber Security in Investment
The 2008 e-Security Review recommended that AGIMO prepare options for the
incorporation of Cyber security as a performance measure for new ICT projects. An
assessment approach and template was developed, and AGIMO undertook its first
annual review of Budget measures and proposals in the 2010-11 Budget, [one phrase
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
39
redacted]. The process is now integrated into the Budget cycle.
The project received funding in the 2009-10 Budget, although it is currently funded only
until 2012-13. The part it plays, and the associated continuation of funding, will need to
be reassessed during that financial year.
Lead Agency Approach to Authentication
Authentication ensures that people and organisations dealing with each other online
are who they claim to be, and is key to providing a trusted and secure electronic
environment. The policy is directed to minimising duplication of investment in
authentication services by requiring agencies to use existing investments when they
require new authentication services.
The Government agreed to establish a lead agency model for the provision of
authentication services to Australian Government agencies and to set up an
Authentication Governance Committee (AGC) which is chaired by AGIMO and reports to
SIGB. The role of the AGC is to establish the authentication policies and standards
applicable to the operation of lead agencies, to monitor implementation and to set
performance standards. The lead agencies appointed by the Finance Minister are DHS in
the area of citizen to government authentication and the ATO and DIISRTE in the area of
business to government authentication. Each lead agency is required to develop a
service catalogue, and agencies are required to comply with the lead agency model with
the exception of Defence, DoHA and the Intelligence Community.
The initiative is clearly an important one but at this stage the workload is not high as
there has been a limited demand for new authentication services. However, a further
initiative in the area [three words redacted] may be considered in the near future.
Advice to Agencies Transacting with the Public Online
The 2008 e-Security review recommended that AGIMO, in consultation with DSD and
AGD, issue guidance to agencies on security issues to consider when transacting online
with the public to minimise exposing clients to risk.
The project was completed following [one word redacted] endorsement of the Guidance
in August 2011 and the guideline has now been added to the Protective Security Policy
Framework library. It will be reviewed by AGD in mid 2012.
Cyber Security Education Program
The 2008 e-Security Review recommended that AGIMO take the lead in exploring
options for increasing the APS skills base in Cyber Security and [one word redacted]
endorsed its final report in August 2010, agreeing that AGIMO should examine, in
consultation with DSD, the training curriculum for existing practitioners.
During 2011, AGIMO has held discussions with AGD, DSD and the APSC about these
issues but the discussions are now on hold pending the outcome of the Cyber Security
White Paper Process.
CJCIOC Use of Name Project
In mid 2009, the Cross Jurisdictional Chief Information Officers’ Committee (CJCIOC)
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
40
added Identity Management for Citizens to its work plan for 2010. Following a scoping
paper submitted by Western Australia, AGIMO tabled a report in September 2010 and a
roadmap in June 2011. However no funding is available for the work and attention has
been diverted to the Commonwealth’s work in this area as part of Service Delivery
Reform.
[one paragraph redacted]
5.4 REVIEWING THE CYBER SECURITY WORK PLAN
As can be seen from the above, the Branch has over time taken on a large number of
projects in the broad area of cyber security. While a number of the current projects are
important and should continue to have priority, others are coming to an end or are less
critical.
In these circumstances, and in the context of the overall pressure on resources, AGIMO’s
Cyber Security work plan should be reviewed to decide the projects that merit
continued priority for funding, and to free resources for consideration of higher
priorities. In setting priorities, attention should be paid to the need to protect the
security of individuals interacting online, particularly in the context of service delivery
reform.
RECOMMENDATION 4
It is recommended that:
(i) noting the advantages of a whole-of-government approach in the area of ICT Entry
Level skills programs, AGIMO continue to give priority to consultations with agencies,
including through the APSC and the CIOC, to assess whether program adjustments could
increase agency participation in the programs, and to assist consideration by SIGB of
the option of a mandatory approach in this area subject to opt out;
(ii) AGIMO and the APSC consider the most appropriate agency to undertake the ICT
Entry Level programs in the future under the guidance of SIGB;
(iii) in increasing its focus on the collection of data on areas of ICT skill need, AGIMO
give priority to identifying those data areas, and the frequency of collection, that are
really needed in order to facilitate the thorough and timely analysis of data as a basis for
strategic decisions; and that it align the timing of data collection with the approach to
the market in consultation with relevant agencies;
(iv) consideration be given to an appropriate lead agency to coordinate the overseas
recruitment of ICT skills, noting that this is not an area where AGIMO has particular
expertise;
(v) in view of the limited resources available to consider the area of ICT skills and the
need to focus them on the areas of greatest potential benefit, AGIMO review its list of
work projects, giving SIGB its proposed list of higher priority projects together with
estimates of timelines and resource needs in each case; and
(vi) AGIMO’s work plan in the Cyber Security area be reviewed to decide which
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
41
projects merit continued priority for funding to free resources for higher priorities,
taking account of the need to protect the security of individuals interacting online. For
example, the priority of the cyber security education program, the CJCIOC Use of Name
Project and [four words redacted] should be reassessed.
6
ONLINE SERVICES
Online transactions are a fundamental enabler of the productivity agenda and crucial to
increasing collaboration across government as well as providing better services to
business and to citizens. The question for AGIMO, for SIGB and ultimately for the
Government, is the extent to which these services should be provided by AGIMO itself
rather than being primarily managed by a lead agency, and the stage at which online
initiatives transition to being the ‘business-as- usual’ responsibility of agencies as online
transactions become increasingly integral to ongoing agency operations.
Online Services figure prominently in the list of AGIMO’s responsibilities in the draft
Vision and its accompanying Implementation Roadmap, particularly under the priority
areas Deliver Better Services and Engage Openly. However, the draft Vision also notes the
primary role to be played by other agencies in this area, including for rolling out
authentication (DHS for individuals, DIISRTE and the ATO for business) and for
Electronic Health Records (DoHA).
6.1 BRANCH RESPONSIBILITIES
The Online Services Branch operates the Australian Government’s primary online entry
point australia.gov.au and provides a range of whole-of-government online services
through the Government Services Environment (GSE). Services included under the GSE
heading include the australia.gov.au user account, govspace.gov.au the Australian
Government’s blogging/hosting platform, govdex.gov.au supporting secure cross-agency
collaboration, the data.gov.au dataset repository and the Australian Government Online
Directory directory.gov.au. The Branch also supports and promotes the Government 2.0
agenda, and manages the adherence of the Government’s online presence to recognised
accessibility standards. It also has charge of the style guide.
The Branch currently has a total of 42 staff members and is almost wholly funded
through base AGIMO appropriations. It is organised into five sections including a small
business management unit of three staff that deals with procurement and the contract
management of the outsourced provider. The work of this unit could be considered for
transfer to the Corporate area of Finance, but such a transfer would require careful
consideration as the contract management is detailed and does not easily lend itself to a
generic service environment.
The other four sections are:
-
Strategy and Planning: which develops concept briefs, requirement
specifications and process modelling including for Online Transaction capability
and Shared Services;
Service Development: which develops projects such as the change of contact
details prototype for Service Delivery Reform and the enhancement of the
australia.gov.au account to include registration functions to support the work of
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
42
-
DHS;
Service Management: which manages the operation of whole-of- government
websites including australia.gov.au, govdex, govspace, the online directory, the
AGIMO Blog and domainname.gov.au; and
Web Policy and Advice: which manages Gov 2.0, open government, spatial data,
accessibility, social media and the style manual.
AGIMO’s responsibility to encourage online services, including providing platforms to
promote online use, while at the same time working to develop innovative online
responses, means that decisions on the priority use of scarce resources are not easy. In
particular, it is often difficult to decide the point at which a service should be
transitioned onto a business-as-usual footing and devolved to agencies. In this context,
the possibility for cost recovery from user agencies in cases where service use would
not be discouraged is also important to consider. Possibilities for cost recovery are
discussed further below.
Branch Skill Requirements
While the Online Services Branch has less need for the high end technical skills required
by some other areas of AGIMO, like other branches it has found it difficult to source
project management skills and has had to use contractors to supplement its need for
business analysis.
Again, like other areas, it has found that its best course may be to recruit graduates who
have studied financial methodologies as part of their IT degree, and who can be trained
further on-the-job in the skills required by the Branch.
6.2 GOVERNMENT SERVICES ENVIRONMENT (GSE)
The GSE is an umbrella term used by AGIMO to bring together a range of online facilities
directed towards facilitating cross-agency services and knowledge sharing, aligning IT
capabilities with user needs, and helping achieve value for money by leveraging existing
infrastructure and services.
australia.gov.au MyAccount Services
The primary objective of australia.gov.au is to provide individuals with a single online
entry point to government information and services. As the aim is to encourage
individuals to use the account, there is no charge for use of the normal functionality.
In this context, however, AGIMO is currently working with DHS to encourage its online
account holders to move across to australia.gov.au. As a result, the number of accounts
has risen significantly from 69,000 in January 2011 to 354,000 by October 2011 and, as
DHS is hoping to move all of its customers across by December 2012, the further
increase is likely to be very considerable. Work is also underway with DoHA to use
australia.gov.au to provide access to individual electronic health records, which will
result in a further significant increase in the number of accounts.
In addition, AGIMO is working with DHS to increase its functionality in order to provide
a usable and secure system that enables online account holders to supply registration
information to participating agencies selected by each individual in a single transaction.
In this case, DHS provides AGIMO with a technical service in maintaining the
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
43
Authentication Hub component of the account which is deemed to be equal to the cost
of DHS using the account service. DoHA may also require some increase in functionality
to provide access to electronic health records that it would pay for, although its final
requirements have yet to be determined.
AGIMO received an allocation from the Budget for the online entry point and has set up
the platform using a contracted provider. However the forecast growth in usage from
the customers of some agencies is so significant that it could place real pressures on
AGIMO resourcing, particularly as the nature of the new customer base and the context
of the service delivery reform agenda will increase the importance of disaster recovery.
The provision of the online entry point was originally covered by an MOU with DHS (as
the only departmental client) that has now expired, and a revised MOU for capacity
usage has not yet been developed. The Branch is working to produce a new MOU by
March 2012, although the need to take account of the requirements of DoHA and the
interests of the Department of Veterans Affairs in use of the account may cause a delay
in finalisation.
In anticipation of the forecast increases in capacity, and noting at this point that
increases in functionality have been funded by the agencies that have requested them,
there would be advantage in giving priority to discussions with large user agencies to
consider options for a contribution towards additional costs above the budget provision
where considerable increases in customer numbers have occurred.
Potentially, a larger problem accompanies the funding of major platform changes. For
example, statistics show that the public is accessing the web from mobile devices more
than from desktops. Yet most government services cannot be accessed from mobile
devices because most agencies’ services, including the online entry point, do not
support mobile devices. This is an area that is frequently raised by service delivery
agencies, and the possibilities presented by mobile devices are an important theme that
runs through the draft Vision.
govspace.gov.au
Govspace is an online engagement platform that hosts public blogs and interactive
websites on behalf of agencies of the Australian Government, and of State and Territory
governments. AGIMO manages the infrastructure for the service and ensures that the
system is maintained in accordance with Australian Government privacy principles and
requirements.
Govspace is becoming increasingly popular. By the end of November 2011 it hosted a
total of 47 live sites, with a further 13 under development, supporting some 31
participating agencies. The release of the Queensland Police News site in mid November
resulted in a 55% increase in daily visits.
While this growth in usage is currently within AGIMO’s capacity to manage, increasing
numbers of agencies are showing interest in the platform and, in the absence of cost
recovery, resources are becoming stretched. Usage is not currently covered by a formal
MOU. Agreement for agencies to host a site on Govspace is achieved by an exchange of
letters setting out the roles and responsibilities of AGIMO and the relevant agency in
supporting the site. The letters do not include agreement to a start or end date.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
44
In view of the increasing cost to AGIMO if the popularity of the service continues to rise,
there would be advantage in developing a transparent basis for cost recovery that
would reflect business continuity and include provision for disaster recovery and a
customer service desk.
govdex.gov.au
Govdex is an online communications platform that supports secure (up to INCONFIDENCE level) cross-agency and cross-jurisdictional document and information
sharing, and collaborative authoring.
AGIMO provides the hosting, infrastructure, software applications, information storage,
disaster recovery, face-to-face training, online documentation and training materials,
and a community help desk. Any stakeholder may participate but the community owner
must be an Australian Government agency, and that agency is responsible for managing
the community content and community users.
The nature and level of Govdex use is not sufficient to justify cost recovery at this stage,
but there would be value in keeping the site under review to monitor usage and the case
for continued priority.
data.gov.au
Data.gov.au plays a central role in achieving the Australian Government’s commitment
to open government. It provides a facility to find, access and reuse public datasets from
the Australian, State and Territory governments by supporting the hosting of datasets in
a cloud based solution. Agencies that wish to continue to store datasets on their own
site can provide a direct link through data.gov.au, allowing very significant numbers of
datasets to be available through one site.
The service has been set up successfully and at minimal cost using a commercial cloud
service, and resource use is not sufficient to justify consideration of cost recovery.
directory.gov.au
The Australian Government online directory is a guide to the structure, organisations
and key people in the Australian Government and in Australian Government
departments and agencies. Its placement in AGIMO is largely historical and it has little
relevance to its current responsibilities.
AGIMO is currently working to upgrade the directory to include more usable features in
line with Web 2.0 principles. Once that refreshment is complete, there would be
advantage in discussing with the Public Service Commissioner its possible transfer to
the APSC.
Style Manual
AGIMO also manages the Australian Style Manual, previously published by the
Australian Government Publishing Service. The Style Manual provides guidance for the
publication of material in both written and electronic format, and was last significantly
updated in 2002 at a cost of approximately $0.8 million.
The Style Manual is a commercial publication that is not available electronically and,
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
45
again, it has little relevance to AGIMO’s responsibilities. The Online Services Branch is
currently considering options for the future including possible outsourcing as a
commercial proposition. This consideration should also include the option of
discontinuing production of the Manual.
6.3 GOVERNMENT 2.0 STRATEGY
The Online Services Branch has responsibility for implementing those
recommendations from the Government’s response to the Government 2.0 Taskforce
Report of December 2009 Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0, where AGIMO has
been identified as the lead agency. It also supports the cross- departmental Steering
Group (chaired by the Australian Government Chief Information Officer) that was set up
to coordinate the Government’s response. The Steering Group reports regularly to SIGB
and, through SIGB, annually to the Government. It was set up in July 2010 and was to be
subject to review after two years.
The November 2011 report on the work plan shows that, apart from work that is now
being undertaken in a business-as-usual mode, the items that were the responsibility of
AGIMO are complete, with the few items yet to be finalised being led by agencies other
than Finance. AGIMO’s ongoing role in this area relates generally to the task of
encouraging use of online fora, maintaining online collaborative sites, continuing to
raise awareness of the Government 2.0 agenda and the assistance that is available, and
managing the Government 2.0 Excellence Awards.
In addition, as the Government 2.0 agenda becomes increasingly a priority for the
normal business of agencies, the frequency of Steering Group meetings has been
reduced from monthly to quarterly and attendance has fallen to the extent that one
meeting had to be cancelled. Nevertheless the organisation of, and preparation of
agenda items for, Steering Group meetings (noting that less than a quarter of the agenda
items over the life of the Group have been put forward by agencies other than Finance)
absorbs AGIMO resources that could now be directed to areas that are of equal
importance to Government but that require more immediate attention.
At its most recent meeting, the Steering Group agreed to develop a report to the
Government detailing the high level of completion of the Gov 2.0 Work Plan, but also
noting the linkages between its work and the APS Reform Blueprint, and indicating the
Group’s belief that it should continue to operate in some form.
There would be advantage in the report being prepared promptly, including
consideration of alternative fora that could be used to monitor these issues, thus
allowing AGIMO resources to be reassigned to areas of higher priority.
There would also be advantage in considering whether the 2.0 Excellence Awards
continue to provide sufficient encouragement of excellence in this area to justify the
expenditure of scarce resources.
6.4 WEB ACCESSIBILITY
The Australian Government Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy (NTS) is a
four year plan to upgrade government websites to make information and services more
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
46
accessible, particularly for those with disabilities. The Government endorsed the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 in February 2010 as a mandatory
requirement for all government websites of FMA Act agencies, and CAC Act agencies are
also encouraged to use the Guidelines. SIGB was the project sponsor and agencies must
report progress regularly to SIGB through AGIMO.
The Strategy requires websites to conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A (minimum level) by the
end of 2012 and to WCAG Level AA (intermediate level) by the end of 2014. Under the
draft Vision, implementation of the NTS is one for agencies, although implementation is
resource intensive and agencies generally are not on track to achieve the specified
deadlines.
AGIMO is working with vendors and accessibility experts to support agency efforts in
this area, including through delivering accessibility education sessions. In addition, a
WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise is now hosted on the AGIMO Blog.
6.5 ONLINE PRESENTATION
As would be expected, AGIMO makes considerable use of online capacity to provide
information about its policy and programs, including through the AGIMO Blog. However
it may have become a victim of its own proficiency and it now has so much on the web
that it is difficult to gain a clear picture of the policies, programs and services that are in
AGIMO’s charge.
As one example, AGIMO‘s whole-of-government services to individuals and agencies are
listed on a web page titled the Government Services Environment. But despite the
currency of this listing (it was last updated in December 2011), those who were not
aware of this heading would find the material hard to locate as a link is included neither
on the AGIMO home page nor on the Blog page About AGIMO which lists AGIMO’s roles,
policies, operations and programs.
As AGIMO should be an exemplar of web presentation, there would be advantage in a
cross-AGIMO review of its online information and guidance to ensure that it is clearly
presented, up to date and easy to navigate.
RECOMMENDATION 5
It is recommended that:
(i) noting the significant capacity increases forecast for australia.gov.au,
consideration be given, in consultation with the agencies concerned, to options for a
contribution towards additional costs above those provided for in the Budget;
(ii) work proceed to develop a transparent basis for cost recovery for hosting on the
Govspace platform;
(iii) the extent of usage of the Govdex platform be kept under review to assess its
continued priority for funding;
(iv) once the Australian Government Online Directory site has been refreshed in line
with the Web 2.0 philosophy, discussions be held with the APSC concerning transfer of
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
47
responsibility for the Directory to that organisation;
(v) noting its limited relevance to AGIMO’s responsibilities, the consideration of
options for the future of the Style Manual include its discontinuation;
(vi) noting the decision by the Government 2.0 Steering Group to prepare a report for
Government concerning the high level of completion of items on the work plan, and the
need for agencies themselves to take over accountability for implementing the Gov 2.0
agenda, the report be prepared promptly and include consideration of alternative fora
for any ongoing central monitoring of the agenda, enabling AGIMO resources to be
redirected to higher priority government tasks;
(vii) AGIMO review whether the encouragement provided by the 2.0 Excellence
Awards initiative is sufficient to justify the continued expenditure of scarce resources;
and
(viii) AGIMO undertake a cross-divisional review of its online content to ensure that it is
clearly presented, up-to-date and easy to navigate.
7
COORDINATED PROCUREMENT
Finance has the lead role in implementing the Government’s coordinated procurement
policy.
Within Finance, the Procurement Division of the Department’s Financial Management
Group has responsibility for the Government’s procurement policy framework and for
implementing government non-ICT coordinated procurement, and AGIMO has
responsibility for implementing government ICT coordinated procurement. ICT
coordinated procurement figures prominently in the draft Strategic Vision as part of the
priority to Improve the Efficiency of Government Operations. The Implementation
Roadmap accompanying the draft Vision mentions specifically the identification of new
areas for coordinated procurement, the continued implementation of the Data Centre
Strategy and the development and implementation of cloud solutions where
appropriate.
Coordination is through a Reference and Advisory Group for Coordinated Procurement,
co-chaired by the heads of Finance’s Financial Management Group and AGIMO. The
Group has been tasked with providing strategic direction for the coordinated
procurement initiative, including playing a leadership role across the APS to clarify and
inform stakeholders, and engagement with the Industry on areas subject to scoping
studies.
One obvious issue is whether there would be advantage in amalgamating these two
procurement areas of Finance, and it could be argued that efficiencies could be gained
from bringing the two together.
On balance, however, the importance of ICT knowledge, technical expertise, links with
stakeholders and governance under the SIGB framework to the success of both the Data
Centre Strategy and the whole-of-government ICT procurement initiatives, would
support the ICT procurement functions remaining in AGIMO at this stage. In particular,
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
48
experience with the management of the telecommunications and desktop panels would
be of relevance to the review of the current panel processes and coverage, which is
recommended below.
7.1 COORDINATED ICT PROCUREMENT
The Gershon Review found that the ICT marketplace was neither efficient nor effective.
It recommended that whole-of-government panels be established for commodity
purchasing where benefits were to be gained from economies of scale.
In October 2009, the then Minister for Finance and Deregulation announced that
coordinated procurement arrangements would be established for desktop computing
equipment and for telecommunications products and services.
The Gershon Review also noted that the Government was facing significant issues with
respect to agency data centre arrangements, and that agencies were acting
independently and without consideration of potential economies of scale. He
recommended that AGIMO lead the development of a whole-of-government approach
for data centre requirements over the next 10-15 years.
The Australian Government Data Centre Strategy 2010-2025, released in March 2010,
included the decision that data centre requirements would be planned, procured and
managed on a whole-of-government basis.
Within AGIMO, the coordinated ICT procurement panels and Data Centre Strategy
arrangements are the responsibility of the Strategic Sourcing Branch and the Central
Facilities Branch respectively. Many of the issues faced by the two branches are similar
and it is unfortunate that current property arrangements mean that the branches are
not co-located, with the Strategic Sourcing Branch being located in Barton and the
Central Facilities Branch at Dairy Road in Fyshwick. There would be obvious advantages
in bringing these areas together as soon as circumstances permit.
The ICT procurement panels are funded almost entirely through cost recovery from, or
user charging of, participating agencies. In the case of the Data Centre Strategy,
establishment funding for the first three years has been provided through a Budget
appropriation from the Business as Usual Reinvestment Fund, transitioning to a user
charging basis from 2013-14.
Under government policy, coordinated procurement arrangements are generally
mandatory for all agencies subject to the FMA Act, with the exception of the
Telecommunications Invoice Reconciliation Panel. The arrangements are optional for
agencies subject to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act)
and, in most cases, for the States and Territories.
The Government decided that agencies would be able to opt out from whole-ofgovernment ICT arrangements, based on the presentation of a business case via SIGB to
the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet. At this stage, no agency has taken up the
opt-out provision.
7.2 STRATEGIC SOURCING BRANCH
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
49
The Gershon Review pointed to high transaction costs as a result of overly onerous
procurement processes, slow decision-making, failure to make use of government
collective buying power for commodity products and failure to engage sufficiently with
industry before the start of the transaction process. It recommended optimizing the
number of cross-government ICT arrangements and improving both procurement
arrangements for ICT commodity products and services, and volume sourcing
arrangements for key items of software.
The Strategic Sourcing Branch currently has 33 positions, all of which are subject to cost
recovery apart from the Branch Head and EA positions, and the six FTE positions
managed by the Division Head (this group is discussed further below).
The Branch has a heavy workload, setting up and managing six whole-of- government
ICT coordinated procurement contracting arrangements. The Branch had been divided
into six small groups, but current moves to bring together the sections dealing with the
Internet Based Network Connections (IBNC) Panel and the Telecommunications
Management Panel under a business manager, and co-locating and cross-skilling the
sections dealing with Desktop Procurement and the Volume Sourcing Arrangement,
should assist in providing broader skill development as well as more flexible support
for areas under pressure.
The Branch also has a small Agency Engagement Team that manages communication
activities in relation to the Branch’s procurement initiatives.
The six whole-of-government panels, together with their dates of establishment, are set
out below.
-
-
-
Under the Microsoft Volume Sourcing Agreement (VSA), established in January
2009, AGIMO manages an aggregated purchase of desktop licences across roughly
80 agencies, at an agency spend of about $100 million per annum. In addition to
the aggregated purchase of core desktop licence products, it administers the VSA
Head Agreement and maintains a VSA User Community through the GovDex
website. It invoices agencies annually to recover the cost of administration
(approximately $2-$3 per agency user per annum).
The Telecommunications Invoice Reconciliation Services Panel, established in
September 2010, assists agencies to acquire services directed at insuring that
agency accounts are appropriately constructed. AGIMO administers the panel,
promotes its use and maintains the GovDex web space, and agencies purchase
directly from the panelists. Cost recovery is through annual invoices administered
by the IBNC team.*
Under the Desktop Hardware Panel, established in October 2010, AGIMO manages
the aggregated purchase of desktop and laptop hardware, reviews technical
specifications every six months, manages and updates a quarterly product
catalogue of tested products, seeks quarterly purchasing intentions from FMA Act
agencies and aggregates whole-of- government demand. Agencies are responsible
for their own purchasing. CAC Act agencies, State and Territory agencies and Local
Government Authorities may also use the panel arrangements. Administration
over the term of the agreement must be budget neutral and an administration fee
(currently 6% of unit cost) is levied on all purchases. This is monitored on a
monthly basis to ensure that AGIMO achieves a budget neutral position.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
50
-
-
-
The Telecommunications, Commodities, Carriage and Associated Services Panel,
established in January 2011, covers the purchase of mobile telecommunications
commodities and carriage, and AGIMO administers a product catalogue divided
into four categories based on the capability of each device, including analysing and
negotiating panellists’ contract change proposals. Agencies purchase directly from
the panel and cost recovery is administered by the IBNC team.*
The Telecommunications Management Panel, established in June 2011, does
not administer a formal product catalogue but assigns services into capability
groups listed on GovDex, and it is the agency’s responsibility to evaluate quotes
and select a preferred contractor. AGIMO ensures that agencies have information
on panellist profiles and deeds of standing offer that contain performance
guarantees, volume discounts and pass-through margins, and is available to assist
them with Statements of Requirement and Head Agreement provisions. The aim is
to provide agencies with improved pricing transparency through the unbundling
of managed services. Cost recovery is administered by the IBNC team.*
The IBNC Panel, established in July 2011, provides a method for agencies to
acquire their internet and data carriage requirements. Unlike other
telecommunications arrangements, AGIMO is the Commonwealth’s contracting
entity, purchasing wide area network and internet connections through the panel,
with savings being returned to consolidated revenue. Agencies are responsible for
funding the contracts that AGIMO administers and are required to prepay
amounts that are entered into on their behalf. The IBNC team itself is funded
through a central administration fee that also covers all of the whole-ofgovernment telecommunications panel arrangements.*
Under the Telecommunications Funding Model, AGIMO invoices agencies annually for
an administration fee to fund seven telecommunication initiatives, including the four
panels asterisked above. The fee is based on pre-determined amounts that were
communicated to agencies in January 2010. Savings are harvested by government from
the IBNC panel only; agencies retain savings from other telecommunications panel
arrangements.
In addition to the panel initiatives, Strategic Sourcing Branch is tasked to:
-
update the Australian Government Telecommunications Agreement (AGTA) under
which providers of telecommunications carriage services must sign an AGTA Head
Agreement before they can offer services to Australian government agencies;
coordinate agency reporting and analyse telecommunications market information;
coordinate a single agency to manage telecommunications procurement in
international geographic regions to minimize duplication where capability exists;
and
review all telecommunications contracts to determine whether they include
provisions that are less advantageous than those being offered to other agencies.
Setting up the whole-of-government ICT panel arrangements in response to the
recommendations of the Gershon Review represented a significant undertaking for
AGIMO, and savings achieved to date from these arrangements have been significant
and beyond those anticipated. For example, AGIMO estimates that the Desktop Panel
has already saved agencies some $10 million and initial projections for the IBNC Panel
suggest savings of the order of 30%.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
51
However experience gained through the practical implementation of initiatives that
involve breaking new ground inevitably raises questions about the scope and detail of
the approaches chosen and generates ideas for improvement.
Refreshment of the panels, which commenced with the Microsoft Large Account
Reseller tender that is currently under evaluation, is being carefully staged by AGIMO to
avoid having multiple panels expiring simultaneously. To consolidate consideration of
lessons learned in order to inform future directions, however, there is a priority need to
employ a dedicated Executive Level resource to work in consultation with stakeholders
to review the panel structures and develop options for consideration.
Areas for review could include the coverage of the coordinated procurement panels, the
current relationships between the panels, whether the telecommunications panels
could be restructured to provide an end-to-end solution and whether, noting continuing
technological convergence, there should be one consolidated panel for ICT commodity
products.
As noted above, resourcing for six FTEs in the Strategic Sourcing Branch is managed
directly by the Division Head. In the main, these resources have been employed on
projects recommended by the Gershon Review to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the ICT marketplace, a number of which are now complete. Some of
these resources could therefore be reassigned to lessen the workload pressures on the
Strategic Sourcing Branch.
7.3 CENTRAL FACILITIES BRANCH
Developing a whole-of-government approach for future data centre requirements was a
key recommendation of the Gershon Review. Noting that Commonwealth Government
agencies operating under the FMA Act spent around $850 million a year on data centres,
the Review estimated that costs of $1 billion could be avoided over the next 15 years
through the development of a whole-of- government approach.
Data centres can become ineffective as the floor size required becomes less with
ongoing improvements in technology, while the requirement for cooling and power
increases relative to the size of the footprint.
Areas of cost avoidance listed in the Data Centre Strategy that are the focus of whole-ofgovernment purchasing include:
-
increased efficiency of electricity usage;
reduced data centre floor space and associated costs;
increased efficiency of data centre ICT assets;
improved matching of data centre ICT facilities to business need; and
standardization of ICT infrastructure architectures and earlier use of new
technologies.
FMA Act agencies must not lease, build or upgrade data centre facilities other than
through the panel. Unless they wish to do so earlier, agencies participate in the Strategy
when they reach defined trigger points such as lease expiry, outsourcing contract
expiry, major asset replacement, building move, data centre end of life or significant
need for increased capacity. It is estimated that it will take seven years before all FMA
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
52
Act agencies have reached such trigger points, although it is probable that the majority
will have transitioned to the new arrangements within five years.
The Data Centre Strategy is funded through an appropriation from the Business as
Usual Reinvestment Fund of approximately $12 million over the three years 2010-11 to
2012-13. This appropriation covers the cost of the Central Facilities Branch (which
currently has 17 staff) apart from the Branch Head and EA positions. From 2013-14, the
program will transition to a self-funded model with the basis for the levy on agencies
yet to be determined.
Panels for Data Centre Facilities and for Data Centre Migration Service Providers were
announced by the Special Minister of State in March and May 2011 respectively, and are
now in operation. The Greenfield category of the Data Centre Facilities Panel became
operational in July 2011 and ten Greenfield sites have been added to the panel with the
final two sites under negotiation. All panels are for five years, to be refreshed in the fifth
year.
The Data Centre Strategy program also includes, through the Data Centre as a Service
Project, an examination of the feasibility of coordinated procurement for public cloud
services. Issues to be considered include an assessment of the qualities of various
industry offerings, including managed ICT services and cloud computing services,
compared to the demand for these services forecast by APS agencies. While the Data
Centre as a Service project is targeted at the smaller 50 per cent of FMA Act agencies,
any panel that was established would be accessible by the larger agencies. Industry
consultations were conducted in November and December 2011 and the plan is for a
draft statement of requirements to be released for feedback in the first quarter of 2012
with an approach to market by 30 June 2012.
AGIMO recently commissioned an independent Internal Assurance Review of progress
towards implementation of the Data Centre Strategy. The Review found that AGIMO’s
achievements to that point had been commendable, that it had delivered credible and
robust outcomes to the projects that form part of the Data Centre Panels Program and
that the Head Agreements set up appeared robust.
However the Review recommended action, inter alia, to move from a project to a
program management focus, strengthen governance, improve stakeholder engagement,
increase transparency consistent with probity and business considerations, establish
business rules, formulate the basis for cost recovery and establish a cost baseline.
In response, AGIMO has agreed to:
-
establish a Data Centre Program Office to focus on program outcomes and the
ongoing assessment of issues arising and risk management;
establish an Agency Reference Committee consisting of AGIMO, Finance and
representatives of large and small agencies that will provide regular program
impetus;
formalise a program stakeholder engagement model as a guide to ensure the
engagement of appropriate industry, agency, and other stakeholders;
engage agencies through a GovDex community to share information on data centre
panels;
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
53
-
develop a funding model for 2013-14 and the out years in consultation with
agencies; and
establish and implement the data centre cost baseline and ongoing benefits
tracking.
A GovDex community has now been established and implementation of the other
agreed measures is underway. However the timeframe for implementation of the
establishment of the Data Centre Program Office, the Agency Reference Committee, and
the data centre cost baseline and benefits tracking has slipped as a result of work
pressures.
The Internal Assurance Review also questioned whether the Branch had sufficient
levels of resourcing for the next stage of delivery, noting in particular that, to date,
relatively low levels of resourcing seemed to have been applied to agency engagement.
These issues are commented on further below.
The Branch has also developed a Data Centre Optimisation Targets Policy that
establishes performance targets for FMA Act agencies. The performance targets address
power usage in the data centre, and server and storage utilization. It is also finalising a
Data Centre as a Service project targeted mainly at smaller agencies and, in response
to feedback, focused particularly at disaster recovery.
While the data centre panels have been established relatively recently, experience has
already drawn attention to a range of issues that would benefit from further thought
within AGIMO and discussion with the Industry. These include the optimal number of
companies on each panel, the most efficient management of the bidding process,
encouraging shared infrastructure rather than bespoke solutions, the treatment of other
services such as help desks, and the important issue of pricing from 2013-14.
Central Facilities Branch has also identified three additional sources of delay in
procuring data centre facility space. These are the learning curve required for
companies doing business with the Commonwealth for the first time (including the legal
requirements associated with issues such as termination for convenience, indemnity
and bank guarantees), the logistical complication of multinational negotiation
(including a requirement for overseas sign-off on contracts and attempts by the
overseas parent company to apply legal or contractual conditions with which they are
familiar) and the existence of multi- level leases (through diverse ownership
structures).
AGIMO has given consideration to whether the bidding process could be more
efficiently managed through a phased approach, for example, through an Expression of
Interest followed by a limited Request for Tender, and this matter should be included in
the review of lessons learned.
7.4 ISSUES ACROSS COORDINATED PROCUREMENT Skills
Both branches have found difficulties in sourcing the scarce specialist skills needed for
ICT procurement and, in particular, have depended on short term assistance from staff
from other agencies to assist with tender scoping and evaluation. Both branches have
also sought to second staff with relevant skills on a longer term basis, but such
opportunities can only be used sparingly as the staff are needed in their home agencies.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
54
As a result, the two Branches have moved to employ staff with a core expertise in
technology, procurement or project management and to train them in the particular
skills required, including by providing on-the-job experience. For example, the Strategic
Sourcing Branch requires its staff to gain a Certificate 4 qualification in government
procurement and it runs training sessions in house. It also provides in house courses on
influencing and negotiating skills.
Central Facilities Branch has focused on the minimum project management
qualifications mandated by the AGIMO Management Committee. Staff also nominate for
job-related training such as procurement, influencing and negotiating, and professional
writing.
In addition, the Strategic Sourcing Branch is investing in its Executive level (EL 1 and EL
2) staff by providing support to complete an internationally recognized competency for
professional procurement. The Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPSA)
has developed a structured but flexible pathway to enable organizations to build
procurement capability.
There would seem to be real opportunities for coordinated staff development and
training across the two branches.
Workload Pressures
The coordinated ICT procurement branches of AGIMO have been working under
significant pressure to implement government policy flowing from the Gershon Review
and AGIMO has faced considerable criticism about perceived delays before the panels
became operational. The Reinecke Report noted in June 2010 that a common complaint
was that the process of going to market was taking too long, a factor that some
attributed to the AGIMO procurement function being overloaded. Criticism of response
times, while more muted, remains evident.
In this context, AGIMO notes that major reasons for the longer than envisaged
implementation period for many of the coordinated procurement arrangements
included the lack of data and the complexity of the tender and transition processes,
including mixed suppliers, different equipment life cycles and service arrangements
that needed to be unbundled. In addition, the ongoing need to take account of new
products and services in line with technical change has meant that the management
load remains high, as does the need to constantly reinforce agencies’ understanding of
the Government’s decision.
Experience has shown in particular that the approved fee for the telecommunications
panels took insufficient account of the degree to which resources would be required to
deal with change management and agency queries, with the result that pressures on
staff have been considerable. Early results from projects sourced from the IBNC panel,
however, have been significantly better than estimated, and if those results continue the
revenue for government from this panel arrangement could prove to have been
considerably underestimated. If, by the second quarter of 2012, that early trend proves
correct, consideration could be given to seeking a small portion of the increase for
additional staff cover in the Strategic Sourcing Branch.
Agreed funding for the first three years of the Data Centre Strategy pending a move to
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
55
cost recovery was set out in the Government’s decision. Additional FTEs included in the
funding profile for 2012-13 should help to ease the pressure in that area although, as
noted above, the Internal Assurance Review also questioned whether resource levels
were sufficient, and this is an area that should be kept under review.
Cross-Branch Coordination
Despite the clear synergies between the two branches dealing with ICT procurement,
and the importance of ensuring coordination and preventing overlap between the range
of data centre services and services provided by the coordinated procurement panels,
there is currently limited exchange of information or experience between the two.
In addition, there are many areas where the two branches face similar issues and deal
with many of the same stakeholders. While both branches deal with stakeholders on
matters concerning their particular panels on a day to day basis and have set up a
regular schedule of meetings with panel members on operational matters, there would
be benefits in broader stakeholder and agency engagement being done in concert, or
with cross-branch representation.
The identification of such cross-branch opportunities should be reflected in the
Communications and Stakeholder Management Plans that are currently being finalised
in the Central Facilities Branch in response to the Internal Assurance Review of the Data
Centre Strategy. They should be integrated into the communications plan being
developed by the Agency Engagement Team that deals with similar issues in the
Strategic Services Branch.
In addition, as noted above, the two branches are in different locations and there would
be obvious advantages in co-locating them as soon as circumstances permit.
Forecasting Future Demand
Panel members and potential panel members have from time to time expressed concern
that AGIMO is not sufficiently transparent in its dealings with Industry, including that it
provides insufficient information on forecasts of future demand.
In response, AGIMO has pointed to the requirement for agencies to lodge procurement
plans on AusTender by 1 July each year, noting that the national market is relatively
small and that telecommunications companies in particular are well across its
requirements. It also points to the availability of commercial products that use
AusTender data to analyse the telecommunications market in some detail. On desktop
hardware, AGIMO notes that demand is aggregated each quarter and emailed to
panelists to provide a basis for their decisions on their best and final offers.
With reference to Data Centre demand, panel members recall that, in 2009, AGIMO
collected information on future demand for data centre facilities in the context of
developing the Data Centre Strategy. They note that updated demand information for
both data centre facilities and cloud services would be welcome.
While the provision of such forecasts in relation to ICT procurement would necessarily
be both aggregated and de-identified, there would be value in AGIMO focusing on
possible means to meet Industry requests for information on future demand.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
56
Cost Transparency
In any area of user charging, and in particular of cost recovery, pricing transparency is
an important aid to building stakeholder confidence. The variation in the arrangements
for user charging and cost recovery across the panels is significant, however, and the
ease with which transparency may be achieved in a form that is useful for stakeholders
will likewise vary.
The Microsoft VSA, for example, is reflected in a one line item in the Budget and carries
a clear requirement that it be acquitted to agencies. In this case, a full year costing,
including the disaggregation into administrative cost lines, will be finalised in the first
half of 2012. On the other hand, transparency of the cost of the telecommunications
panels, where a set fee was determined in 2010 on the basis of apportioning the total
administrative fee across reported annual telecommunications expenditure, as reported
to the Gershon Review, may be less informative.
In the case of the Data Centre Strategy, as noted above, the Internal Assurance Review
recommended that AGIMO move quickly to establish business rules with a particular
focus on cost recovery. AGIMO has agreed that expenditure data will be analysed and
that a transparent funding model will be developed in consultation with agencies, and it
is important to ensure that work begins promptly to provide time for full stakeholder
engagement.
Once completed, the charging basis of the various procurement arrangements should be
made widely available through Industry briefings and perhaps through inclusion on the
AGIMO Blog.
RECOMMENDATION 6
It is recommended that:
(i) on balance, and noting the importance of ICT knowledge, technical expertise and
links with stakeholders, the ICT procurement functions remain in the AGIMO group in
Finance at this stage;
(ii) noting that refreshment of the first ICT coordinated procurement panel is already
underway, priority be given to reviewing lessons learned from the arrangements, in
consultation with stakeholders, in order to develop options for change;
(iii) workload pressures in the ICT procurement branches be kept under notice and
opportunities be taken to ease pressures identified, including if the revenue from the
IBNC panel proves to be significantly greater than forecast;
(iv) an action plan be developed for increased coordination, strategic discussion,
information sharing and staff development across the two ICT procurement branches,
including for greater cross-branch stakeholder and agency engagement;
(v) noting the synergies between the two branches, the areas within AGIMO dealing
with ICT coordinated procurement be co-located as soon as circumstances permit;
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
57
(vi) opportunities be kept in mind for greater provision of information to Industry,
including the possible provision of forecasts of future demand; and
(vii) work be undertaken to increase the transparency to stakeholders of user charging
and cost recovery arrangements.
8
NETWORK SERVICES
8.1 BRANCH RESPONSIBILITIES
Although the activities of the Government Network Services Branch are not specifically
mentioned in the draft Vision, the provision of infrastructure for government
information flow and collaboration is clearly relevant to the priority area of Improving
the Efficiency of Government Operations.
The Branch transferred to AGIMO from another Finance group about 18 months ago
and, while it could be attached to several functional areas, it has strong working links
with many of the current priorities of AGIMO, including the whole- of-government Data
Centre Strategy, the Gateway Reduction Program and the IBNC coordinated
procurement panel. It would therefore seem sensible that it remain with AGIMO at this
stage.
To a considerable extent, the Branch is internally self sufficient, undertaking a number
of its own support functions (discussed further below) and undertaking much of its own
construction and maintenance, in particular where security is a factor as security
cleared contractors are more expensive and difficult to source.
The functions of the Branch are largely funded through cost recovery or user charging
(for example, the Inter-government Communications Network (ICON)), or through
administered appropriations (for example, the Ministerial Communications Network
(MCN)). Only nine of its 59 FTEs are funded from base AGIMO departmental
appropriations, two of which represent the Branch Head and his executive assistant and
the others cover the management, procurement, contracting and associated financial
transactions associated with the Branch networks, and the links associated with the
Finance Wide Area Network connecting Finance to the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Offices in the State and Territory capitals.
Branch Skill Requirements
Technical skills are clearly a necessity for much of the work of the Branch, particularly
in the area of optic fibre connection and cabling. The growth in the work of the Branch,
however, has meant that it has had to bring in increased contractors to supplement its
workforce.
For some of the construction and maintenance work, security clearances are a
requirement, [one phrase redacted]. The Branch is working to develop its own APS
capability by taking in two apprentices a year but this remains an area requiring careful
attention, particularly if the growth in demand continues.
Recruiting the skills required for the Branch Head position has required some thought
with the imminent retirement of the current Branch Head as, optimally, it requires both
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
58
a communications engineer with hands-on experience in running fibre networks and a
senior executive officer to manage and administer a large IT Branch and the associated
infrastructure projects. However, as discussed in the section on Branch Restructure
below, the restructure that is currently underway has allowed additional support to be
provided in this area.
8.2 THE INTER-GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (ICON)
ICON is a fibre optic communications network providing dedicated point-to-point links
for Commonwealth Government agencies across the ACT. It connects over 400
locations, including the data centres of 20 large Commonwealth agencies, [one phrase
redacted].
Although ICON is an ISO Layer 1, point-to-point network, and does not enable combined
network services and switching capacity, it provides a fast, secure, high quality and low
cost service, and usage has grown significantly over recent years. As it is a Layer 1
service, however, each agency’s ICON connection is effectively operating separately
from all others with the result that large amounts of fibre optic cable are now in the
ground in the ACT, leading to areas of significant pit congestion. In addition, attention is
focused increasingly on the greater functionality that could accompany a switched
network capacity.
Agencies have added capability to the ICON link by supplying their own terminal
equipment. A few have combined to operate a Layer 3 network using the ICON
backbone.
Thus, while there is considerable agency support for ICON, and there remains
continuing demand for Layer 1 connectivity, there is increasing interest in the potential
for establishing a cross-Canberra ISO Layer 3 capability, providing an active or switched
service network that could be used to provide additional functionality including email,
internet, and financial management and human resource management systems.
This option has been under consideration by both the Shared Communication Services
Governance Committee (the cross-agency ICON steering committee) and the Branch
itself. Work done to date, however, has shown that the construction of a Layer 3
network would require substantial up front capital funding that is unlikely to be
available given current financial pressures. Further study of this issue is underway,
however, and should be subject to ongoing attention in preparation for any
opportunities that might occur.
The ICON Team is currently made up of three sections that provide point-to- point dark
fibre optic connection for 84 Commonwealth agencies:
-
-
the Strategy and Project Management Section is focused on capacity planning
and the response to agency work order requests for ‘simple’ tasks where fibre
optic cable is in place and construction work is not required. It undertakes
stakeholder analysis and liaison, reporting for ICON capital projects, and the
management of large projects, including the consideration of the potential for an
active (Layer 3) network to enhance existing ICON infrastructure;
the Operations Section responds to agency work order requests that require
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
59
-
construction of new infrastructure and could include large projects affecting
multiple agencies. The section also manages the distribution of Parliamentary
Television to 40 agencies located in over 90 buildings;
the Quality and Administration Section is responsible for the quality control
and assurance of ICON infrastructure, physical security and integrity, and the
ongoing maintenance of ICON infrastructure. It also contains the area which is
responsible for ensuring that ICON finances remain revenue neutral within each
year, and it is involved in the review of the current pricing infrastructure and
revenue stream (this task is discussed further below).
Demand for Cable Connectivity
Demand for ICON connectivity is considerable, with approximately 400 work order
requests being received annually. Whereas faults are generally rectified within 48 hours
and high priority work is completed in less than four weeks, an area that has been
subject to considerable frustration for agencies is the length of time required to
establish a new service where capital works are required and where the work does not
receive priority classification. Tasks requiring splicing only are completed in an average
of 10 weeks whereas those requiring civil works involve a waiting time of around 20
weeks due to the work required for the agency to arrange internal procurement
approvals and the ICON project management activities. There is an ongoing backlog that
currently amounts to approximately 120 tasks.
Recent work within the Branch to identify the reason for the delays, however, has
shown that part of that waiting period can be attributed to the amount of time required
by the agency itself to attain the necessary internal approvals once the costing for the
task has been supplied by the ICON Team. For tasks requiring new capital works, for
example, it was found that consideration of the quotes within the relevant agency took
an average of 12 weeks.
It has now been decided, therefore, to develop a revised process whereby an initial cost
estimate for simple point-to-point work on existing infrastructure would be provided to
agencies, free of charge, to form a basis for preliminary approvals, followed by a final
quote if the agency wished to proceed to a formal agreement. Once implemented, this
will provide greater transparency of the actual performance of the ICON operations
teams, and should provide a better basis for assessing potential increases in efficiency.
ICON Charging
ICON activities have historically been funded by a combination of revenue generated
through member contributions (separately for ongoing services and capital projects)
and fee for service work flowing from requests for additional connections and new
infrastructure.
[three paragraphs redacted]
Finding the optimal funding arrangement for ICON has proved elusive. Unlike the
member contributions received annually for operating costs which have been covered
by a departmental transfer under Section 31 of the FMA Act, ICON capital (including
funds for project managers working on capital projects) has been dealt with as an
administered item, with member contributions flowing into consolidated revenue and a
New Policy Proposal being required to draw down these funds. Achieving within-year
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
60
cost recovery while providing funding to meet costs as they occur has therefore
required constant monitoring, including on occasion taking on additional fee-for-service
work over the course of the year.
A recent Finance decision to provide ICON with a dedicated project code subject to
Section 31 of the FMA Act for both capital and service contributions will ease the
management of ICON funding considerably in this context.
The important issue, however, is to achieve a proper and sustainable basis for
recovering the ongoing and capital cost of the core ICON function and to establish a
more transparent system of user contributions.
An independent review of the fees and charges to apply from the 2012-13 financial year
confirmed that the current membership levy fell well short of covering the operational
and capital costs of the ICON network. A detailed pricing review on this basis has
recently concluded and AGIMO plans to move to a three level subscription model based
on usage. While, as noted above, there is no fool- proof system for measuring usage,
AGIMO plans to provide each agency with a list of its work orders and to work with it to
ensure that the list is accurate. As fibre requires both a start and end point, it has a fair
degree of confidence that the list will correctly record coverage.
Moving to full cost recovery will necessarily require a significant increase in the overall
level of contribution. Informal feedback, however, is that those agencies that have done
preliminary calculations have concluded that ICON will remain a comparatively low cost
service. [one sentence redacted]
[one phrase redacted], the new regime should encourage agencies to hand back unused
cores for reassignment. There would be advantage, therefore, in reviewing the new cost
recovery regime for ICON after two years of operation to assess its success, [one phrase
redacted].
8.3 MINISTERIAL COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK AND TELEPRESENCE
Ministerial Communications Network
The Network Services Branch provides and manages the Ministerial Communications
Network (MCN), a secure voice and document transfer capability for Ministers,
Parliamentary Secretaries and agencies at [two words redacted] around Australia. [two
sentences redacted].
[one paragraph redacted].
The MCN is also responsible for the data distribution to Ministers and Parliamentary
Secretaries throughout Parliament House in Canberra. Finally, it is used to provide data
carriage for major Commonwealth events including the Commonwealth Heads of
Government Meeting. It is supported by a customer service desk during business hours
and on-call technicians after hours.
Telepresence
The MCN is also the carrier for Telepresence, a secure high definition video
conferencing facility with sites in Parliament House, in each State and Territory capital
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
61
(including for the State and Territory governments, providing a connectivity available
for meetings of the Council of Australian Governments), and in a number of
departmental locations. Telepresence was initially set up to connect 22 locations but
has grown to 36 rooms with another six in the planning stage.
[one sentence redacted]
Branch responsibilities for the MCN, Telepresence and the smaller networks include
implementation and management of the core network infrastructure, customer service
to end users and technical support, implementing and managing a number of
applications tools, and managing the cryptographic communications equipment used to
provide secure voice, video, fax and data [six words redacted].
Funding
Funding for the MCN is provided by government through an administered budget
appropriation. F-WAN funds one link per site, the equipment used for routing the data
and two administrative staff. Funding was initially provided by an internal transfer
from the Chief Information Officer’s Division but is now included in AGIMO’s normal
appropriation. A request by a client for additional services needs to be accompanied by
a budget transfer of funding. If an agency requires additional MCN services above those
in the guidelines, that agency is responsible for the capital cost. There is currently no
ongoing fee for MCN services.
Funding for the original 22 Telepresence sites, including ongoing costs, has been
provided by government. Agencies seeking additional Telepresence services are
charged ongoing fees through a Section 31 arrangement but install their own
equipment. States and Territories are charged ongoing line and maintenance fees.
[one sentence redacted].
8.4 BRANCH RESTRUCTURE
As noted above, the Network Services Branch is to a large extent self sufficient,
undertaking much of its own administrative and financial support. The complexities of
ICON’s operations have also led to that network being managed independently from the
rest of the Branch.
In parallel with the work of this Review, however, it has been decided to move, over the
next three to four months, to bring together the corporate functions of the Branch under
a business manager, and to integrate ICON and the MCN, including coordinating the field
functions of ICON, [three words redacted] and the Wide Area Network. This move may
also involve a consolidation from five to three or four Directorates with the addition of a
director as senior technical officer reporting directly to the Branch Head. In turn, this
would do something to ease the breadth of skills and experience required for the
Branch Head (see section on Branch Skill Requirements above).
It would be sensible for this integration to be accompanied by a review of whether
management of some of the corporate functions of the Branch should now be passed to
the Corporate Division of Finance.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
62
The move to full cost recovery of ICON and the coordination of financial operations
across the Branch would suggest that the financial function remain part of the Branch
for, say, the next two years as these changes are bedded down. At that stage, however,
the placement of the financial function should be subject to review.
While management of the purpose built data centre facility at Hume is integral to
Branch operations, the Dairy Road site could be managed centrally, as could some of the
other contracts currently managed by the Branch.
RECOMMENDATION 7
It is recommended that:
(i) on balance, and noting the working links between the Network Services function
and other areas of AGIMO that are priorities for government, the function remain
attached to AGIMO at this stage;
(ii) the business case for the establishment of a Layer 3 ICON network remain under
attention in preparation for any opportunities that may occur;
(iii) the Branch build on the work undertaken to analyse the delays in the provision of
new ICON services and the implementation of a more transparent charging process, to
assess the potential for further increases in efficiency;
(iv) the new cost recovery regime for ICON to be introduced from 2012-13 be made
fully transparent for agencies and be reviewed after two years of operation to assess its
success, [one phrase redacted];
(v) the Branch continue to be responsible for its own financial services for, say, the
next two years while the cost recovery regime and the integration of the financial
functions are put in place, after which the placement of the finance function should be
subject to review; and
(vi) with the exception of the Hume data centre site which is integral to the operations
of the Branch, discussions be held between AGIMO and the Corporate Division of
Finance to agree which of the corporate services currently provided by the Branch
should be managed centrally.
9
ORGANISATION AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS
9.1 FUNCTIONS AND STRUCTURE
Finding the correct organizational structure for AGIMO has been complicated by the
relative size of some of the program areas. In addition, these programs are hard to
divide and should logically remain as integrated functions.
The two branches involved in coordinated ICT procurement, for example, deal with
similar issues, have many of the same stakeholders and, as mentioned in Chapter 7,
should work closely together. Some adjustment in workload between the two could be
considered, however, particularly as workload changes over time.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
63
The Network Services Branch is tightly integrated and, although it has linkages with a
number of the other AGIMO areas, its particular placement within AGIMO is not dictated
by these links.
Similarly, the work of the Investment Management Branch has a large measure of
internal coherence and the focus on ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of ICTenabled investment projects will only increase. The Branch is likely to play an
increasing role in working with the Policy area in building a picture of the systems and
capabilities in use across government, and in developing proposals for whole-ofgovernment solutions, but it also works with several other branches on the assessment
of Budget investment proposals.
It would also seem inefficient to separate out the management of the web accounts and
platforms of the Online Services Branch.
In a situation where so many of the branches are focused on a particular function,
therefore, consideration of the organisation of AGIMO tends to focus mainly on the
divisional structure. The decision that was made to base the organization of the two
divisions on a broad operation/policy distinction would seem on the face of it to have
logic. Unfortunately, however, it has led to a significant imbalance between the two
divisions and may also have contributed to a difference in culture that has had adverse
consequences for AGIMO overall.
In this context, the four branches in the Agency Services Division (Network Services,
Strategic Sourcing, Central Facilities and Online Services) contain about 151 staff of the
overall total of 229 staff in AGIMO.
By comparison, the three branches in the Policy and Planning Division (Governance and
Policy, Investment Management, and Cyber Security and Skills) total about 68 staff.
More important than a staffing imbalance, which is not unusual in an operation/policy
divide, is the development of two distinct divisional cultures with members of both
groups being clearly partisan in their support of their own division. This cultural
difference was raised by the great majority of people spoken to in the course of the
Review.
In these circumstances, and because the policy/operation split is not as clear or
straightforward as first appears, there is an argument for considering a more pragmatic
approach involving a redistribution of branches between the two divisions to achieve a
more even balance.
In addition, a program of staff rotations across the branches should help to lessen the
cultural differences and perceptions over time, as well as building corporate knowledge
and expertise.
9.2 CROSS-BRANCH COORDINATION
The specific program focus of the majority of the AGIMO branches in no way lessens the
links across their subject matter, which are considerable. Indeed the work of all of the
AGIMO subject matter areas has implications for others and the more there is a full and
free information flow across the branches, as well as ongoing discussion to share
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
64
expertise and different perspectives on issues as they occur, the greater will be AGIMO’s
effectiveness overall.
At least partly as a result of work pressures, however, a tendency has developed for
branches to act as single units, limiting both open discussion and information flow.
Clear exceptions do exist, for example the Investment Management Branch runs an
Investment Analysis Forum that meets weekly and to which other relevant staff
(including those from the Cyber Security, Data Centre, Coordinated Procurement and
Network Services areas) are invited. In general, however, the individual branches focus
on their own particular work areas.
The comment was made a number of times during the course of the Review that, while a
number of bilateral relationships had been built between AGIMO staff that could lead to
bilateral discussion, the structures were not there to supply more general lines of
communication or to support broader discussion.
The important linkages between the work undertaken by the various branches,
however, are widely recognized at the working level. Comments were frequently made
during the Review that a staff member would have loved to be involved in a particular
piece of work as he or she had experience that would have been valuable.
More generally, the comment was made that it would be useful to have cross- branch
discussions at the development stage of a policy or project, so that all views could be
put on the table and argued through to guard against decisions being made in isolation.
This identified need exists despite a schedule of weekly Executive meetings to assist
coordination at the senior levels and information flow.
Every Monday, the Deputy Secretary gives a half hour update to the AGIMO SES and
Directors, followed by:
-
-
Week One: a Business Management Meeting (BMM) in which the Deputy Secretary
and two Division Heads meet with the Public Affairs and Finance managers to
receive an update on budget, resourcing and communications;
Week Two: a meeting of the AGIMO Management Committee (AMC) in which the
Deputy Secretary and the two FASs discuss project issues and (quarterly) the risk
register;
Week Three: a meeting of the SES at which they are briefed on what is happening
across AGIMO and Finance more generally, and brought up to date on the budget,
resourcing and communications. At this meeting also, two of the Directors brief
the meeting on their work.
Week Four: a meeting of AMC; and
Week Five: a BMM.
There is also a bi-monthly all AGIMO Staff Session.
In the circumstances described above, there would be advantage in holding two
meetings of the SES each month rather than one, which would both facilitate the
provision of current information and enable the directors to provide a more frequent
update on the progress of their work. It may also be possible to re-run these directors’
briefings at lunch time for other staff who are interested.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
65
To build on and supplement the greater flow of information, the two Division Heads
should also intervene actively to ensure that meetings are set up in subject matter areas
for the discussion of projects or programs at their developmental stage, and that these
include representation from all relevant branches across AGIMO. While this may seem,
at first, to place an additional load on staff that are already time poor, the greater
information flow between branches will produce efficiency dividends, and bringing the
wider perspectives to bear at an early stage should increase program effectiveness
overall.
Building a Knowledge Base
At a more detailed level, AGIMO branches gather a considerable amount of information
through their interactions with other agencies and stakeholders over a diverse range of
issues.
Data flowing from these interactions is currently recorded in a variety of ways including
formal files, Sharepoint, Excel spreadsheets, blogs and email. As noted above, much of
this information is not shared more widely in AGIMO and, particularly as staff leave the
organization, there is a danger that it will be lost. In addition, manipulation of this data
to inform future decision making, and to provide an evidence base for policy
development, must currently be done manually which is highly resource intensive.
Once financial pressures ease, AGIMO should give consideration to implementing a
Customer Relationship Management Tool. Such a tool would significantly increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of interactions and knowledge transfer across AGIMO. It
would also help build a holistic view of ICT across government and provide a more
comprehensive information base for decision making and policy development in the
future. A number of off-the-shelf workgroup information sharing software tools could
help in this regard, and should be investigated as resources permit.
However the fundamental challenge for the AGIMO executive is the cultural one.
Inclusiveness and the sharing of information and experience need to be driven by the
executive group.
9.3 CORPORATE FUNCTIONS
Like other business units of Finance, AGIMO may depend on the Chief Operating Officer
(COO) Group for the provision of financial, human resource, legal, property and
communications functions. This central provision was set up both to increase efficiency
through coordination of these services and to counteract any tendency to separate
approaches that could act against building a cohesive organizational culture.
However the particular nature of some of AGIMO’s businesses has led, in a few areas, to
a separate approach being maintained, often with the support of the central corporate
function. This is an area that should be kept under review as program elements are
bedded down or processes and capabilities change.
The Network Services Team, for example, has maintained responsibility for its finance
functions, particularly because of the high complexity of the funding of the ICON service.
The recent agreement to a Section 31 transfer under the FMA Act, combined with a
move to a transparent system of full cost recovery and the integration of the financial
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
66
management of the Branch, should ease these complexities over time. This Report
recommends that, once the new cost recovery provisions have been fully implemented,
the placement of the financial function of the Network Services Branch should be
subject to review (Recommendation 7 (v)).
Again, the Network services Branch has retained charge of its property management
and the management of some corporate functions. The data centre facility at Hume, for
example, is integral to the management of Branch operations and should continue to be
run by the Branch as part of the network. However the site at Dairy Road, as well as
other corporate services currently managed by the Branch, should be considered for
central management (Recommendation 7 (vi)).
AGIMO also has its own Public Affairs Manager, and feedback from the AGIMO executive
is that it has been highly valuable to have her on site, particularly as AGIMO is
geographically separate from most of Finance. While the role is wider than dealing with
media queries received, the volume of queries handled by AGIMO has been significantly
reduced following the use of the AGIMO Blog to release information. Journalists often
quote material directly from the Blog, and the number of direct media queries (not
taking account of queries handled via Twitter or the Blog), has recently averaged nine a
month. While many of these queries were from the specialist ICT press and were likely
to be detailed, the placement of the Public affairs Manager could be one for discussion
between the AGIMO and COO business groups.
AGIMO does not have its own legal area but uses the Finance panel for its contracts
rather than in-house legal services provided by the Legal Services Branch in the COO
Group. It does so on the grounds that these contracts, particularly those relating to
coordinated procurement, are large and complex and often require particular skills, for
example, the data centre contracts need specialist skills in property law which are not
currently available internally.
Finance has recently undertaken an internal review of the provision of legal services
that, once fully implemented, will set the way for the future. Once the implementation of
any changes is fully bedded down, therefore, greater use of in- house legal services
should be further considered.
9.4 SKILLS
The range of skill needs across the AGIMO branches, and particular skills that have
proved difficult to source, are mentioned in discussing the work of the various branches
in Chapters 3 - 8. In addition, in a subject matter area where immersion in technology
can complicate the argument, a need for improved writing and general communication
skills was mentioned by almost every area spoken to.
The work of Investment Management Branch (Chapter 4) in undertaking a skills
assessment initiative across the Branch to map the skills available against those
required, and to use the results as a basis for targeted recruitment, learning and
development, should progressively be undertaken in other AGIMO branches.
In addition, further training in writing and communication skills should be made
available for all relevant staff.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
67
9.5 COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
Both online and direct feedback on the draft ICT Strategic Vision called for a
strengthened dialogue with stakeholders, including on supply and demand, ICT
management and ICT-enabled partnering capability. Such calls for increased
consultation from stakeholders outside government focus particularly, of course, on the
coordinated procurement programs, but also represent a more general search for
increased dialogue in this highly important area.
The AGIMO Blog was launched in mid 2010 to assist people to engage with government
in this area, and a number of major policy documents and discussion papers have been
released on the Blog seeking comment. As noted above, this has proved a useful source
of public information, including for the specialist ICT press. However, for the more
significant stakeholders, the Blog has value in information provision rather than
dialogue.
As noted in Chapter 7, stakeholder engagement plans tend to be branch specific, and
more coordination across AGIMO in the briefing of, and discussion with, stakeholders
on matters of general interest would be valuable. To this end, stakeholder engagement
plans, together with a forward schedule of the more important stakeholder briefings
and meetings, should be made available to other areas of AGIMO to facilitate
coordination.
RECOMMENDATION 8
It is recommended that:
(i) consideration be given to a redistribution of branches between the two AGIMO
divisions to achieve a more even balance in numbers and workload;
(ii) consideration be given to a program of staff rotations across the branches with the
aim of lessening the cultural differences and perceptions between the two areas, as well
as building corporate knowledge and expertise;
(iii) to facilitate the provision of more current information and knowledge of the work
underway across AGIMO, consideration be given to holding two meetings of the SES
rather than one, and to re-running director briefings at lunch time for other interested
staff;
(iv) the Division Heads intervene actively to ensure that cross-AGIMO meetings are set
up in relevant subject matter areas for the discussion of projects or programs at the
developmental stage;
(v) when resources permit, consideration be given to the development of a Customer
Relationship Management Tool with the aim of significantly increasing the efficiency
and effectiveness of interactions and knowledge transfer across AGIMO;
(vi) consideration be given, in discussion between the AGIMO and COO
business groups, to the optimal placement of the Public Affairs Manager;
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
68
(vii) once the reorganisation of Finance’s Legal Services area has been fully bedded
down, consideration be given to the greater use of in-house legal services;
(viii) consideration be given to the progressive implementation of skills assessments
across AGIMO to map the skills available against those required in order to facilitate
better targeting of recruitment, learning and
development, and that further training in writing and communication skills be made
available to all relevant staff; and
(ix) consideration be given to making branch stakeholder engagement plans, together
with a forward schedule of the more important stakeholder briefings and meetings,
available to other areas of AGIMO to facilitate greater coordination of stakeholder
contact.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
69
Attachment A
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
Noting that AGIMO’s future role in whole-of-government ICT should give greater
emphasis to strategic policy in advising SIGB on the implementation of the
Government’s Strategic Vision for ICT, it is recommended that:
(i) AGIMO work to identify, for the consideration of SIGB, lead agencies that have the
interest and capability to undertake the lead agency role, so that this function does not
fall back on Finance as the default position;
(ii) the chair of SIGB, in consultation with the Secretary of PM&C, schedule discussions
with the Secretaries Board on significant proposals for whole-of-government
approaches, prior to final consideration by SIGB;
(iii) workshops be arranged with selected external stakeholders on topics of
importance, following each alternative meeting of SIGB;
(iv) AGIMO give greater priority to the identification of areas that would benefit from a
common approach and to the preparation of the associated business case for SIGB
consideration;
(v) AGIMO work with SIGB to set priorities across its work program, including
divesting functions that could become part of business-as-usual for agencies, and limit
acceptance of additional functions to cases where AGIMO has the necessary capability
and resources;
(vi) AGIMO review the Implementation Roadmap attached to the draft Vision to refine
its priorities and strategic direction for SIGB’s consideration; and
(vii) while remaining an integral part of Finance, AGIMO is known by its title in cases
where communications external to Finance are involved, to distinguish its role in
strategic ICT from that of the rest of Finance.
2.
Noting the need to provide an enhanced strategic policy capacity to support SIGB
in its responsibility for developing whole-of-government approaches to drive
implementation of the Government’s Vision for ICT, it is recommended that:
(i)
of:
the Governance and Policy Branch be refocused to provide leadership in the areas
-
consideration of strategic and innovative policy;
analysis of emerging trends;
identification and investigation of whole-of-government opportunities; and
building a coordinated view of agency capabilities and facilities to support advice
and information on the potential for adaptation or reuse;
(ii) AGIMO give attention to building the strategic policy capability of the refocused
branch in support of this enhanced role;
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
70
(iii) AGIMO review the current responsibilities of the Governance and Policy Branch to
assess which of its functions could be passed to other areas of AGIMO to enable greater
attention to be paid to building the policy advice function;
(iv) in order to reduce the resources involved in supporting the preparation of lead
agency agreements, AGIMO review experience to date in preparing Head Agreements to
see whether a common template could be developed to provide a base for fit-to-purpose
provisions;
(v) AGIMO give consideration to the scope and focus of a more systematic catalogue of
the products and services that are in use across government and their business
applications, and to refining the information received through discussion with
responding agencies, to increase understanding of what is available and opportunities
for broader use;
(vi) AGIMO continue work to develop, and increase awareness of, frameworks, tools
and reference material that support whole of government alignment; and
(vii) a cross-AGIMO group be formed to review data produced, its ongoing priority and
areas of future need.
3.
Noting the critical importance of ensuring the operational efficiency and
effectiveness of ICT-enabled major projects, it is recommended that:
(i) lessons learned from the implementation of ICT Two Pass should be reviewed to
see whether refinements can be identified that would further improve its effectiveness
in managing major ICT-enabled projects;
(ii)
[one paragraph redacted];
(iii) the review of the suite of assurance measures led by FMG consider options for
greater scrutiny through the implementation phase of projects where ICT capabilities
and systems are pivotal to the project’s success;
(iv) greater priority be given, at the First and Second Pass stages of the ICT Two Pass
process, to the early identification of options for a modular approach to major ICT
projects where the project is complex, has a higher level of identified risk or is breaking
new ground, with advice on options for a modular approach being included in the
Finance advice to Cabinet when the project is being considered for approval;
(v) noting that the Implementation Roadmap accompanying the draft Vision includes
the task of working to develop a whole-of-government approach to strategic ICT
investment, consideration be given to reporting to SIGB on the progress of the top, say,
10 ICT-enabled projects selected on the basis of budget impact, policy or program risk,
or cross-government implications;
(vi) priority be given to further reviewing the number of data points in the
Benchmarking Survey and to raising the expenditure thresholds, to reduce the burden
of data collection, improve data integrity and allow more focus on the timely analysis of
data collected; and
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
71
(vii) alternative options for placement of the Program Management Unit be considered,
including alongside the Deputy Secretary’s administration unit or the Governance team
in the Governance and Policy Branch, in order to provide it with greater opportunities
for mutual support.
4.
It is recommended that:
(i) noting the advantages of a whole-of-government approach in the area of ICT Entry
Level skills programs, AGIMO continue to give priority to consultations with agencies,
including through the APSC and the CIOC, to assess whether program adjustments could
increase agency participation in the programs, and to assist consideration by SIGB of
the option of a mandatory approach in this area subject to opt out;
(ii) AGIMO and the APSC consider the most appropriate agency to undertake the ICT
Entry Level programs in the future under the guidance of SIGB;
(iii) in increasing its focus on the collection of data on areas of ICT skill need, AGIMO
give priority to identifying those data areas, and the frequency of collection, that are
really needed in order to facilitate the thorough and timely analysis of data as a basis for
strategic decisions; and that it align the timing of data collection with the approach to
the market in consultation with relevant agencies;
(iv) consideration be given to an appropriate lead agency to coordinate the overseas
recruitment of ICT skills, noting that this is not an area where AGIMO has particular
expertise;
(v) in view of the limited resources available to consider the area of ICT skills and the
need to focus them on the areas of greatest potential benefit, AGIMO review its list of
work projects, giving SIGB its proposed list of higher priority projects together with
estimates of timelines and resource needs in each case; and
(vi) AGIMO’s work plan in the Cyber Security area be reviewed to decide which
projects merit continued priority for funding to free resources for higher priorities,
taking account of the need to protect the security of individuals interacting online. For
example, the priority of the cyber security education program, the CJIOC Use of Name
Project and [four words redacted] should be reassessed.
5.
It is recommended that:
(i) noting the significant capacity increases forecast for australia.gov.au,
consideration be given, in consultation with the agencies concerned, to options for a
contribution towards additional costs above those provided for in the Budget;
(ii) work proceed to develop a transparent basis for cost recovery for hosting on the
Govspace platform;
(iii) the extent of usage of the Govdex platform be kept under review to assess its
continued priority for funding;
(iv) once the Australian Government Online Directory site has been refreshed in line
with the Web 2.0 philosophy, discussions be held with the APSC concerning transfer of
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
72
responsibility for the Directory to that organisation;
(v) noting its limited relevance to AGIMO’s responsibilities, the consideration of
options for the future of the Style Manual include its discontinuation;
(vi) noting the decision by the Government 2.0 Steering Group to prepare a report for
Government concerning the high level of completion of items on the work plan, and the
need for agencies themselves to take over accountability for implementing the Gov 2.0
agenda, the report be prepared promptly and include consideration of alternative fora
for any ongoing central monitoring of the agenda, enabling AGIMO resources to be
redirected to higher priority government tasks;
(vii) AGIMO review whether the encouragement provided by the 2.0
Excellence Awards initiative is sufficient to justify the continued expenditure of scarce
resources; and
(viii) AGIMO undertake a cross-divisional review of its online content to ensure that it is
clearly presented, up-to-date and easy to navigate.
6.
It is recommended that:
(i) on balance, and noting the importance of ICT knowledge, technical expertise and
links with stakeholders, the ICT procurement functions remain in the AGIMO group in
Finance at this stage;
(ii) noting that refreshment of the first ICT coordinated procurement panel is already
underway, priority be given to reviewing lessons learned from the arrangements, in
consultation with stakeholders, in order to develop options for change;
(iii) workload pressures in the ICT procurement branches be kept under notice and
opportunities be taken to ease pressures identified, including if the revenue from the
IBNC panel proves to be significantly greater than forecast;
(iv) an action plan be developed for increased coordination, strategic discussion,
information sharing and staff development across the two ICT procurement branches,
including for greater cross-branch stakeholder and agency engagement;
(v) noting the synergies between the two branches, the areas within AGIMO dealing
with ICT coordinated procurement be co-located as soon as circumstances permit;
(vi) opportunities be kept in mind for greater provision of information to Industry,
including the possible provision of forecasts of future demand; and
(vii) work be undertaken to increase the transparency to stakeholders of user charging
and cost recovery arrangements.
7.
It is recommended that:
(i) on balance, and noting the working links between the Network Services function
and other areas of AGIMO that are priorities for government, the function remain
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
73
attached to AGIMO at this stage;
(ii) the business case for the establishment of a Layer 3 ICON network remain under
attention in preparation for any opportunities that may occur;
(iii) the Branch build on the work undertaken to analyse the delays in the provision of
new ICON services and the implementation of a more transparent charging process, to
assess the potential for further increases in efficiency;
(iv) the new cost recovery regime for ICON to be introduced from 2012-13 be made
fully transparent for agencies and be reviewed after two years of operation to assess its
success, [one phrase redacted];
(v) the Branch continue to be responsible for its own financial services for, say, the
next two years while the cost recovery regime and the integration of the financial
functions are put in place, after which the placement of the finance function should be
subject to review; and
(vi) with the exception of the Hume data centre site which is integral to the operations
of the Branch, discussions be held between AGIMO and the Corporate Division of
Finance to agree which of the corporate services currently provided by the Branch
should be managed centrally.
8.
It is recommended that:
(i) consideration be given to a redistribution of branches between the two AGIMO
divisions to achieve a more even balance in numbers and workload;
(ii) consideration be given to a program of staff rotations across the branches with the
aim of lessening the cultural differences and perceptions between the two areas, as well
as building corporate knowledge and expertise;
(iii) to facilitate the provision of more current information and knowledge of the work
underway across AGIMO, consideration be given to holding two meetings of the SES
rather than one, and to re-running director briefings at lunch time for other interested
staff;
(iv) the Division Heads intervene actively to ensure that cross-AGIMO meetings are set
up in relevant subject matter areas for the discussion of projects or programs at the
developmental stage;
(v) when resources permit, consideration be given to the development of a Customer
Relationship Management Tool with the aim of significantly increasing the efficiency
and effectiveness of interactions and knowledge transfer across AGIMO;
(vi) consideration be given, in discussion between the AGIMO and COO
business groups, to the optimal placement of the Public Affairs Manager;
(vii) once the reorganisation of Finance’s Legal Services area has been fully bedded
down, consideration be given to the greater use of in-house legal services;
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
74
(viii) consideration be given to the progressive implementation of skills assessments
across AGIMO to map the skills available against those required in order to facilitate
better targeting of recruitment, learning and development, and that further training in
writing and communication skills be made available to all relevant staff; and
(ix) consideration be given to making branch stakeholder engagement plans, together
with a forward schedule of the more important stakeholder briefings and meetings,
available to other areas of AGIMO to facilitate greater coordination of stakeholder
contact.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
75
Attachment B
REVIEW OF AGIMO OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND STRUCTURE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND DEREGULATION
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Independent Review of the Implementation of the ICT Reform Program identified
possible changes to AGIMO's future operations and structure.
In taking account of these, and the likely directions arising from the implementation of
the ICT strategic vision, and the outcomes of the Secretaries Committee examining
improved service delivery across government, it is timely to review AGIMO's internal
operations and to consider whether there may be better ways of undertaking this work.
The Department has sought the assistance of an independent person with senior level
experience in the Australian Public Service to examine AGIMO's current operational
activities, its structure, capabilities, work priorities and skills to determine whether
opportunities for improvements exist. The focus will be on AGIMO's interactions within
government.
The independent person will produce a report for the Secretary of the Department of
Finance and Deregulation on:
The organisational structure of AGIMO to support its current and future work as
reflected in the ICT Strategic Vision
1.
2.
The current processes and procedures to support the functioning of AGIMO in
meeting its policy and operational obligations
3.
The capabilities of AGIMO, personnel, skills and resourcing to meet its work
program
4.
Identification of areas with scope for improvement in areas where AGIMO
provides whole of government ICT services and assessment of their suitability for
AGIMO's future functions
5.
Other matters considered relevant to the review.
As the Government has not yet taken a decision on the recommendations of the
Independent Review of the Implementation of the ICT Reform Program conducted by Dr
Reinecke, this review will limit its consideration to the internal administration of
AGIMO and its operational and policy work, currently and for the future, as informed by
the draft Strategic Vision and work program. It will not be concerned with a reexamination of the independent review.
The report of the review should be presented to the Secretary of Finance.
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
76
Attachment C
Glossary
AAOs Administrative Arrangements Orders AGA Australian Government Architecture
AGD Attorney General’s Department
AGIMO
Australian Government Information Management Office
AGC Authentication Governance Committee
AGTA
Australian Government Telecommunications Agreement
AMC AGIMO Management Committee
APSC Australian Public Service Commission
ATO Australian Taxation Office
BMM Business Management Meeting
CAC Act Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997
CIOC Chief Information Officers’ Committee
CIOF Chief Information Officer Forum
CIP Capability Improvement Plan
CIPSA
Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply
CITA Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
CJCIOC
Cross Jurisdictional Chief Information Officers’ Committee
COO Chief Operating Officer
CPOs Commonwealth Parliament Offices
[one definition redacted]
DBCDE
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy
DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations
DHS Department of Human Services
DIISRTE Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and
Tertiary Education
DoHA
Department of Health and Aging
DRET
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
DSD Defence Signals Directorate
ERC Expenditure Review Committee
F-WAN
Finance Wide Area Network
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FMA Act Financial Management And Accountability Act 1997
Finance Department of Finance and Deregulation
FMG Financial Management Group
Gershon Review
Review of the Australian Government’s Use of Information
And Communication Technology by Sir Peter Gershon
GSE Government Services Environment
HR Human Resources
ICON Inter-Government Communications Network
ICT Information and Communications Technology
[one definition redacted]
IBNC Internet Based Network Connections
MCN Ministerial Communications Network
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
77
NOIE National Office of the Information Economy
NTS Australian Government Web Accessibility National
Transition Strategy
[one definition redacted]
PKI Public Key Infrastructure
PM&C
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
P3M3
Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity
Model
Reinecke Report
Independent Review of The Implementation of the ICT Reform
Program by Dr Ian Reinecke
SIGB Secretaries ICT Governance Board
SRO Senior Responsible Official
VSA Volume Sourcing Agreement
WCAG
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO
78
ICT TWO PASS PROCESS ALIGNMENT
Review of the Operational Activities and Structure of AGIMO