I might contrast it with some of the differences I've noted from doing this in a number of private sector organizations. A fundamental lack of prioritization is getting in the way of progress. The numbers are staggering when you think about 38% healthy. The unhealthy number is high, and we can't tackle those at once. In prioritization, there are winners and losers, and we don't seem to have a comfort with stopping programs, or delaying them, to allow us to do the work that needs to happen on the higher-risk programs.
The other piece I would point to is that we are challenged with standardization. That's not a phenomenon unique to government, but it is, I think, amplified in government. It is much easier to keep on a modern path if you have standard protocols for doing things, yet everything is special around government in areas where frankly it shouldn't be—pay and HR being one of them.
Finally I would note that the CIO of Canada has accountability but very few levers that would be consistent with what I would have been used to in the private sector. Certainly, I am in the planning, but there is no central control around funding, dispensing of funds and prioritization that is consistent with what I've experienced outside government.
Thank you.