Options for Proceeding

Options for Proceeding

89 There are two clear options for proceeding from this point:

• maintain the status quo

• accept the concept of shared workspace in principle; agree to implement the model across government; and select one of three options for implementation:

i incremental rollout by piloting with selected groups

ii general release

iii modular build and rollout.

90 The latter option means that a further phase of work will need to follow this report to:

• identify and specify further user needs and technical requirements

• develop and implement a process to secure a supplier (RFI/ RFP/ tender evaluation/ contract)

• design and build the application

• systems and user testing

• develop an implementation plan for roll out (including timeframes, staff training requirements, and technical support requirements).

(1) Status Quo

91 The value proposition for electronic shared workspace has been demonstrated in this paper, but there is no doubt that a shared IT resource will also pose a range of difficulties that need careful management (refer 'Ownership'). It may be desirable to take advantage of emerging technologies, but it is not essential to the business of the Public Service. If the electronic workspace is not implemented, its potential benefits cannot be realised. There will also be the risk that agencies will develop their own limited, and non-integrated workspaces. The cost effectiveness of this approach to the Crown over the longer term is a concern. Pros and cons of this approach are summarised as follows:

Potential Advantages

• No set up costs

• No change management or training required

• No impact on Chief Executive autonomy

• No risk of failure 

• If status quo is only a postponement, we could learn more from individual agency attempts to use similar spaces and wait for virtual team software to further mature. 

Potential Disadvantages

• No improved accessibility of information, research and dialogue

• Inefficient means of policy development will continue to be done by email and meetings resulting in current wasted effort, version control problems, and knowledge management problems around archiving and OIAs

• Agencies, or projects, will create their own less functional shared workspaces. Analysts involved in more than one such project will have to learn multiple systems, and use multiple passwords

• Agencies waiting for an all of government shared workspace and will have lost some time in building their own. 

• Missed opportunity to take the 'lead' with e-tachnology enabled working methods.

• Failure to build upon opportunities presented through S.E.E.

• Not seen as 'employer of choice' for future recruits.

(2) Implementing the shared workspace application across government

92 Implementing an IT application across government is a complex and potentially fraught endeavour that will need to be thought through and managed carefully. A potential approach is to roll the application out incrementally with selected groups. Initial uptake would be voluntary. Once the application is proven as a valuable and useful tool to complement the work of policy analysts, it could be implemented more broadly on a demand basis. Alternatively, the application can be developed and thoroughly tested with a pilot group, and then made available across government to all agencies. Both approaches will require thorough application testing in an operational environment, and incentives to support uptake. The model could also be built on a modular basis.

a Incremental roll out of limited functionality using either selected projects, or selected groups

93 A prototype electronic project space would be established either for a cross-sector policy project (e.g. Oceans strategy, Public Works Act review, sentencing reform), or a policy sector group (e.g. social policy agencies) on a trial basis. This would require the project manager to establish the workspace, and determine the project team and stakeholder user and access rights. However, the functionality will be limited just to operation within the workspace. It would not have the add-value of wider government access, or an information portal. Pros and cons of this approach are summarised as follows:

Potential Advantages

• Tests the electronic shared workspace concept on a specific, but limited, audience 

• Enables a specific group, i.e. project team and stakeholders, to be trained in the use of the workspace 

• Provides a 'control' group to monitor both effectiveness and methods of working 

• Enables changes to be made to the prototype before it is released generally.

Potential Disadvantages

• Restricts the electronic shared workspace to one cross sector project 

• Limits the capacity for introducing changes to policy development across the sector at one time 

• Could lead to frustration by policy analysts wishing to use more electronic means who would have to wait the outcome of the trial

• Would slow down wider implementation of electronic shared workspace

• Limited range of functionality that would not fully test an electronic working space 

• A limited trial may not be cost effective for the Crown without a longer-term plan.

b General release

94 In this option, the application will be developed and tested on a voluntary user group. Again, one of the cross-sector project groups may be appropriate for this. The trial would be for a limited period to test the use of the functionality in a live situation before general release. Once testing was completed, the application would be available for release across the Public Service. Full cross-government training for users and technical support staff would be required prior to general release. Pros and cons of this approach are summarised as follows:

Potential Advantages

• Enables all policy staff across government to move into the shared workspace at the same time 

• Enables all policy staff to receive training in the application use 

• Live testing will enable changes to be made to the prototype before it is released generally

• Demonstrates a clear commitment by chief executives to the Government vision for e-government

• Full functionality will be available across government. 

Potential Disadvantages

• Logistical management will be complex and needs to be right first time to avoid major difficulties

• Changes to policy development process only have to be done once 

• There is a risk that the testing may not show all the problems that may be associated with the application when it is widely deployed 

• Risk if there is problems with the application deployment that e-government will be seen as not successful

• It may be difficult to build all of the model at the same time, within reasonable cost parameters

• Not best practice in terms of government practice for IT developments.

c Modular build and release

95 Another alternative is to examine the shared workspace model and make a judgement about those pieces that can most effectively be implemented, with the greatest value to government policy staff, and organise a programme of incremental implementation of the component parts. For example, Focus Group participants indicated that shared databases alone would provide considerable value to the policy development process. It would be possible therefore to commit resources to the development of the government information portal as a first step.

96 Some parts of the portal (e.g. legislation) are already in the process of development. Providing additional support to these individual initiatives to ensure cross-government connectivity and an aggressive timetable for completion could minimise risk, and yield high value. This would also have the advantage of ensuring that individual departments continue to bear development costs, supported by e-government co-ordination. A clear direction from chief executives to a co-ordinated development programme would be necessary to ensure cross-government benefits and completion within an agreed timeframe.

97 Further components of the shared workspace could be developed over time. This could have the advantage of allowing a programme of awareness of technology advances to be carried out across the Public Service, and develop a stronger body of support for shared workspace functionality. Pros and cons of this approach are summarised as follows:

Potential Advantages

• Implementation will be in smaller, manageable components

• Ensures value added services are provided without major disruption to the Public Service

• Costs will be incremental and more devolved

• Demonstrates commitment to Government's e-government vision, with conservative management

• Not reliant on a large number of people to support the application

• Ensures a staged, managed approach. 

Potential Disadvantages

• Shared workspace functionality will not be available in the initial stages. Real risk that users impatient for the shared functionality will build their own systems in an unmanaged, and uncoordinated, manner resulting in higher costs for the Crown over time

• Limits the capacity for introducing changes to policy development across the sector at one time 

• Coordination of devolved projects will be complicated. Interoperability may be a problem

• Potential efficiencies from shared functionality will not be realised.

The Project Team is of the view that the modular build and release option is the one that is most feasible, and recommends that this approach be followed. Further work needs to be done to establish the most constructive plan to progress this option.

Technical Implementation Process

98 Once an agreement has been made to invest in a shared workspace, it will be necessary to:

• find or build a system that meets the needs of government

• develop an information management policy

• develop protocols on how the system should be used

• deploy the system.

99 Whether the new system will be bought, or built, a formal user requirement specification and tendering methodology should be followed. The conceptual model indicates that the shared workspace is a suite of systems that could be implemented separately, or various components could be purchased from different vendors.

100 Many of functions required for the shared workspace appear to be available in commercial virtual team products. Others like the automation of CAB100s for example, almost certainly will have to be custom built. Some aspects of information management, policy, and protocols on system use will need to feed into the user requirements specification of the system. For the most part however, these can be run as separate projects independent of the shared workspace system development.

101 During implementation, the project will need to be steered by a committee empowered to make decisions on how the system should work for all government agencies. The project manager will need a multi-agency team to develop the user requirements specification and evaluate options. The involvement of multiple agencies will introduce special risks to the project. This could include delays for consultation and negotiation among agencies, especially when making tradeoffs and prioritising. There is a risk that the need to find agreement among agencies will lead to over-specification of the system, rather than a concentration on essentials.

102 There will be a need to make decisions on what levels of service are required for support, performance, system availability, disaster recovery, and security. Some areas like security will require agreement by all agencies. Others, like support could potentially be subject to different service level agreements depending on the level of service required and the price each agency is prepared to pay.

103 Deployment will be difficult and require coordination across all participating agencies. The solution may have some impact on agency computer systems, and deployment will require education of internal helpdesks, information management personnel, as well as end-users. If multiple vendors are involved in the project, central problem tracking and resolution may need to be managed by an independent body.

104 Inter-project links will need to be managed throughout the project (refer Appendix 2). These dependencies will be especially important during the user requirements specification.

Process for Proceeding

105 The Project Team recommends that the following processes are carried out over the next two months, to ensure the shared workspace project is progressed:

1. Presentation to E-Government Advisory Board, April meeting. This will include a proposal that the Chief Executives on the Advisory Board be invited to advise their colleagues at the next Chief Executive forum of progress and next steps (with an offer of support by the E-Government Unit)

2. A set of broader discussions are held across the Public Service with EGU presenting on the concept to sector groups (preferably at Senior Management level) (April/May)

3. User requirements project (based on those described in this paper) for each of the implementation options is started (mid April/May) and business case developed and published on completion

4. Decisions taken; governance and funding arrangement agreed; project plan developed

5. Possible rollout of first stage of implementation by December 2001.

[ Previous | Next ]