Evidence of meeting #34 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gens.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Welcome to the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
Today we are looking at large IT projects. In the first hour, we will have witnesses from the Treasury Board: Madame Corinne Charette, the chief information officer; and Ms. Valerie Wutti, executive director.
I understand, Madam Charette, you have some opening remarks that you want to make.
3:30 p.m.
Corinne Charette Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
Good afternoon, Madam Chair.
Thank you for inviting us to appear before your committee to discuss the Treasury Board Secretariat’s role in providing guidance and oversight to institutions on the management of large IT projects.
Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Corinne Charette. I’m the Chief Information Officer of the Government of Canada. As you know, I am responsible for setting direction and policies and standards for Information Technology and Information Management as well as Security, Privacy and Access to Information in the government. I’ve been on the job since last May. I bring to the table over 30 years of experience in the private and public sectors.
My role includes supporting the government in its commitment to continue improving public service management and to ensure value for money for taxpayers.
With me today is Val Wutti, the executive director of the IT project review and oversight division at the Treasury Board Secretariat.
In November 2006, the Auditor General examined the management of large IT projects and issued her recommendations on the overall management of these projects. Since then, I'm pleased to say that we have acted on those recommendations. We have implemented a series of measures that strengthen our challenge and oversight functions to ensure that departments' IT projects succeed.
Before going into detail, let's discuss what constitutes an IT project. It's an important point. There are essentially two types. First, there is the kind that deals with basic infrastructure such as data centres or telecommunications networks that computer systems rely upon. Infrastructure projects usually involve the purchasing of the equipment, computers, software, other devices, and telecommunications facilities and services.
The second type of IT project is at least as complex as the first. In this type, IT is used to create a system that is going to be actively in use by any department or agency in support of their program. These projects typically change business processes or implement new legislative requirements in order to improve delivery of government programs. They support programs such as processing tax returns, issuing employment insurance cheques, protecting our borders, etc. These are application systems in support of government programs.
The Auditor General focused on this latter type of project in the 2006 report.
The Secretariat has similarly focussed on strengthening the management of these large IT projects. We are talking mainly about this type of project.
We have published a new Policy on the Management of Projects in 2007 and are progressively implementing it. We have also developed tools and guidance documents which the community is already using. These tools will help departments improve the management of their projects. The government is a very large organization with accountability for program delivery resting with deputy ministers.
The Treasury Board Policy on the Management of Projects reinforces deputy ministers’ responsibility for monitoring adherence to this policy within their organization and taking action when compliance issues arise. In the case of IT projects, each department has a delegated project authority and is only required to go to Treasury Board to seek approval for projects that are higher than that authority.
When the rollout of the new policy on the management of projects is complete in April 2011, we expect that Treasury Board ministers will see fewer projects requiring their approval. There are two reasons for this. Currently, most delegated project authorities are based on the dollar value of the project. We are moving to an approach that considers the department’s capacity to manage projects and the risk and complexity of a proposed project. Only projects that are riskier and more complex than the department’s capacity to manage them or projects that require amendments to what had previously been approved will require Treasury Board approval.
We are also challenging departments to reduce the size of their projects to help reduce the risk. Instead of having one large project that takes many years to complete, we are encouraging departments to break them up into fewer, smaller projects that deliver value for the investment faster. This will result in smaller, lower-risk projects that are more likely to be successful. This approach would also help departments make better informed decisions on the implementation of the overall project based on outcomes to date. They would also allow deputies to stop investing further if the outcomes are not satisfactory. Clearly, we are steering departments away from an all-or-nothing approach to IT projects.
Once a department has received Treasury Board approval, the secretariat expects that departments will apply the appropriate project management and oversight processes, as prescribed by the policy and related instruments. This is not to suggest that TBS takes a hands-off approach. In fact, the secretariat continues to monitor higher-risk, more complex IT projects. We have taken additional steps to guide organizations and to ensure, or contribute to, the success of their IT projects.
In particular, we have improved templates and guidance and expectations for preparing business cases and for preparing project charters and management plans. We have created an executive dashboard that highlights the five key performance indicators of a project: cost, schedule, risk, scope, and issues.
Last, we have established an independent review program to help project executives gain useful insights at key points or gates in their projects. This will allow them to make appropriate course corrections, including terminating projects if they no longer meet the expected outcomes.
The use of these products is not mandatory, but they guide deputy heads in managing the implementation and risks of their projects, within the spirit of Public Service renewal, by reducing the “web of rules”, by providing appropriate guidance and tools and by establishing clear accountabilities on management practices.
Deputy heads are accountable for ensuring that IT projects contribute to program outcomes and support the government’s objectives.
The Treasury Board continues to work closely with departments by providing the advice they need to make sound management decisions. Departments are aware of available IT project management guidance and tools. This is reinforced regularly through our meetings with the community of CIOs. Their adoption remains a departmental responsibility and decision. However, we are very pleased to see that even though the policy will be fully deployed in April 2011, many departments have anticipated it and have already taken up a lot of these practices.
In closing, in cases of higher-risk, more complex IT projects, the secretariat closely monitors progress and performance and continues to work with departments in optimizing ultimate project outcomes.
Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. I would be very pleased to answer any questions.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you, Mrs. Charette.
We'll start the first round of eight minutes with Ms. Foote.
October 20th, 2009 / 3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our witnesses here today. It's good to have you here with us to clarify some of the outstanding issues.
Certainly if we look at what has come from the Auditor General and the public accounts committee, there were some serious issues identified with respect to the large IT projects in the past. If you look at the Secure Channel project, it was by no stretch of the imagination a mess. If you look at something that was initially meant to cost $96 million and eventually--from what I'm reading--ended up costing in the vicinity of $1 billion, it just blows one's mind that something like that could happen.
I look at the recommendation from the public accounts committee and the Auditor General that Treasury Board Secretariat take more of an active role in ensuring that large IT projects follow all government guidelines. Then I go down and see again that Treasury Board was involved in the oversight, strategic direction, and decision-making for the secure channel project. I guess I have to ask what has changed. What would you do differently? How would you ensure that we don't find ourselves in this mess again. So many taxpayers' dollars went to an initiative that wasn't viable, and that was deemed a waste of taxpayers' money.
3:40 p.m.
Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There are two questions: what has changed, and what are we doing differently going forward?
First, in terms of what has changed, Secure Channel was originally conceived as a project going back to roughly 1999-2000. Nine years later, 2009, many things have indeed changed, both on the technology front and the experience front, in terms of understanding of the broad IM/IT community in Canada, and in fact worldwide, in terms of IM/IT, cyber security, and so on. Within government, certainly our policies, management frameworks, and oversight have also changed.
First of all, let me say from a policy perspective that in 2007 we came out with the enhanced project management framework policy, which I think is a key step in equipping the government going forward to be more effective and a better manager of large and complex IT projects--and IT projects across government are bound to be large.
I mentioned a couple of strategies in my opening remarks, but I would stress them again. Whereas Secure Channel was targeted as one large project, going forward in our new project management framework we are stressing the segmentation of large projects into what we call a program of discrete and independent projects that can be launched, followed, and monitored independently. They can individually contribute benefits that can be followed, if successful, by different projects that can continue to build on their initial success and continue to refine, expand, or roll out the solution further. So that's an important step forward.
Over the last 10 years, I think projects have become very large for many reasons, and this is true with my experience in the private sector as well in government. The demand for IM/IT is quite strong. Departments, in fact all organizations, rely on services, so there is always a requirement for more automated support. Nevertheless, it is the challenge of the IM/IT organizations across government, and Treasury Board is working actively with them to properly segment these programs into manageable projects. Each one will come up with a business case that will allow for the evaluation of success. Clear project charters on these individual projects will indicate roles, responsibilities, and the governance that the departments and their deputies are going to exercise. As well, project gating stages at regular intervals will report on status, success, or any issues that might arise and allow for corrective action, including such things as bringing in independent project reviewers to get a different heads-up and so on.
The project management framework has gone a long way to help, and I think will, over the next number of years, contribute significantly to improving project outcomes. That is the number one element that we are proposing to do differently.
In terms of general guidance to the community of CIOs that I have provided and will continue to provide going forward, we are being very careful not to be too ambitious with unproven approaches. We are pushing the community to work initially with smaller projects that can pilot outcomes. Once these approaches are tested, then we can build sound business cases that reflect better cost because a pilot has come back with some results, and we can better plan for future rollouts given that it's not as abstract a problem.
Certainly our guidance is to decompose programs into projects, pilot approaches, to conduct rigorous business cases, monitor a lot more closely and regularly, and in this way improve outcomes.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
You have one minute. You can ask a question for 30 seconds, and there will be 30 seconds for the response. I have to maintain the time.
Go ahead.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
I appreciate your response and how significant your reply was.
I would assume that when this initiative started we were getting the same type of response then. Nobody felt we would ever get ourselves into a situation where what started out to be a $96 million project would go to $1 billion. I guess I'm looking for some assurance that we're not going to find ourselves in the same situation again.
3:45 p.m.
Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
Certainly. We are working very hard to avoid, if not eliminate, being in such situations.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for accepting our invitation, ladies.
You said that Treasury Board Secretariat did not want to have large projects. Did I understand that correctly?
3:45 p.m.
Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
We don't want projects that are larger than necessary. For a number of reasons, some projects are large. The key is to know when a project can be broken up into phases that generate profit. There are sometimes more opportunities to do that in one program than in others.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
If I understood correctly, you say that you require that large projects be broken up into pilot projects. So these are test projects.
3:50 p.m.
Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
An initial project is the pilot project. If a new and unproved approach is being tested, before committing the government to a major investment, clearly, in some approaches, particularly for information technologies, the technology and the products change month by month, if not day by day.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Okay.
For Government Enterprise Network Services, we have in front of us a project that seems to generate a billion dollars. Are these accurate figures?
3:50 p.m.
Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
Since the project started, in 1999 or 2000, these are pretty up to date figures that reflect the cost of development, the prototype phase that took place right at the beginning, and the costs of using the service from 2004 to the end of 2009.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
To echo what my colleague said, the Auditor General of Canada criticized the famous Government Enterprise Network Services because no business case had been made, among other reasons. In your answer to my colleague, you said that, basically, a lot of things have changed and adjustments had to be made to reflect costs and demands and the changes that had been made.
Does that mean that at the outset, in 2000, no business plan or strategic planning was done to give us indicators for time, implementation and business cases, so we might stop beating about the bush and come right out and say that the deadlines and budgets assigned are being adhered to?
3:50 p.m.
Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
In the history of Secure Channel, the Voie de communication protégée, business cases have been prepared. In her comments, the Auditor General says that they were not exhaustive enough. The purpose of the new policy is to strengthen current and future analyses. Certainly the direction that is supported in all departments and agencies is to prepare business cases according to the most complete and most widely used standards.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Does that mean you have no final plan? You have no business case and final plan? You say you're working on it now. Does that mean that right now, you are working with thin air? Could you please clarify this?
3:50 p.m.
Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
No, excuse me, I expressed myself badly. We have a template, tools that now lay out the suggested, recommended way of preparing business cases. Yes, the new policy includes those tools, and they have been created and are available.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Regarding Government Enterprise Network Services, you have a business plan. I am not asking whether you ordinarily work or you have the tools to put a business plan on paper, which is completely different. What I am asking is whether you have a business plan for GENS.
Can you submit it here, today?
3:50 p.m.
Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
I don't think, I know that for the use of the existing service we have the costs of the existing services as they have been used since 2006, absolutely. We know how the money is allocated among the departments and agencies, and the support they are given.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
May I just interrupt?
I think you're talking at loggerheads. She's asking for a business plan, and you're from the Treasury Board, so you give guidelines. Perhaps you can show us or send us a template of what you sent to the departments, because they are supposed to prepare a business case and you're the oversight body in terms of policy. If you could do that, perhaps Madame Bourgeois will be satisfied as to what sorts of guidelines you provide to the departments. If we could have that commitment from you to supply that, maybe that will change the channel a little. Okay?
3:55 p.m.
Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
Madam Chair, that's an excellent suggestion. Yes, we have a template and we'd be more than happy to submit it. Absolutely.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Ms. Charette, you understand that when we talk about Treasury Board Secretariat, which has to apply to Treasury Board to release funds for Government Enterprise Network Services, if we are not sure that you know where you are going and we see a billion dollars going by under our noses, then as M.P.s we have to approve those expenditures. That is a lot of money, a billion dollars! It means that the people are working with virtually nothing in their hands.
That is what I wanted to say.