It is not surprising that the recent release of the UK Government ICT Strategy provides an ideal opportunity to compare strategic trends in IT between Australia and the UK. The former Chief Executive of the UK Office of Government Commerce, Sir Peter Gershon, was responsible for kicking off one of Australia's most significant government change agendas with his 2008 report into federal government ICT.
The UK plan is consistent with the Australian government's IT direction
It is worthwhile noting that Australia and the UK have ended up in very similar positions, even though their starting points were significantly different.
Unlike the UK, the Australian federal government is early in its adoption of whole-of-government IT. Indeed, it was only shortly after the last federal election that Finance Minister Tanner remarked that federal government agencies continued to function more like a number of independent operating companies. Much has changed since that time as the federal government heads quickly down a consolidation path.
The recently released UK plan has a number of similarities with the Australian federal government's post-Gershon directions.
These include:
cuts to contractor numbers (note: the UK target is 50% during the next ten years)
datacenter rationalization
commodity sourcing (including desktops)
common IT standards
clear whole-of-government governance
renewed focus on green IT
improved IT project management.
Many of these changes have been hotly debated in the Australian context. Indeed, the contractor debate is still continuing in Australia in both federal and state governments. Amidst this background of debate and ongoing discussion, it is important to note that Australia is not alone in deciding to implement such changes.
The UK plan also contains some noteworthy differences to Australian federal government directions.
The UK government goes much further in outlining its policy on applications standardization. The UK plan will deliver a Government Applications Store, where business applications and software licenses can be shared and traded. At an Australian federal level, this approach would still present some change management challenges, particularly for business policy areas that are much more accustomed to demanding bespoke solutions to meet their needs. However, at a state level, there is evidence of similar developments. The recent Queensland government ICT strategy outlines a "share, before you buy, before you build" policy, together with other policy and support mechanisms.
The UK government plan sets out a clear strategy for a government G-Cloud, as well as a whole-of-government Public Sector Network. Combined, these initiatives set out to provide a secure entry point for the flexible provision of government IT services. It is interesting to note that the UK plan indicates the establishment of a government cloud will involve "a major change to the way ICT is procured and supplied." In Australia, cloud computing is attracting strong vendor interest, but specific government directions are yet to be outlined.
Whole-of-government leadership: its time has come!
The French poet Victor Hugo once said, "there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come." The time has certainly arrived for central leadership of Australian federal government agencies.
Australia's Gershon Review was a pivotal report in turning the tide toward ways of central leadership. In less than 18 months since the report's acceptance, a great deal has been already achieved, particularly in areas such as cost savings, governance, IT standards, and volume sourcing agreements. But there is still much to be done, and there are still doubters to be convinced.
Australia is now in an election year, and this will probably be the government's biggest test yet on whole-of-government IT coordination. Election years are a time for political action, not contemplation. The spotlight will be directed squarely on government ministers and their agencies to be highly responsive and to demonstrate their credentials at delivering real outcomes against earlier election commitments. If the push for whole-of-government IT is to continue with the same vigor, it must demonstrate practical value, or at least stay out of the way of service/program delivery, during this period of heightened sensitivity.
