« So we avoid the next public IT failure »
We are recently met by a pearl band of failed public IT projects. These projects are usually about introducing a massive standard system to meet a specific need, and they are almost always bordered by significant difficulties, delays, escalated costs and eventually collapse.
The list of projects is long, and the effects of failure are measured in billions and lost confidence from both operations and society at large. When we look at these failures, we see two recurring problems: partly a whisper game and partly an overly delegation of responsibility from government management.
The whisper game is drawn in progress by whispering a person in another’s ear. We are currently taking the current project « National Digital Samples » as an example: The Ministry of Education whispers an assignment in the Swedish National Agency for Education, which is then whispered to service persons, then to a supplier and on to teachers and pupils. Once it arrives at the end of this chain, the original sentence is distorted and the result is far from the original assignment.
The problem is equally clear in the case of the Västra Götaland region’s introduction of Millennium, where an original idea of a platform to enable open innovation and support for eternal and accelerating developing care was whispered to the introduction of a massive standard system. The system did not meet the needs of the business, but was instead seen as a direct attack on patient safety and the employees’ work environment – and is now balancing on the slope’s steep.
Instead of acting strategic change leaders, government managers tend to act as passive decision makers
The delegation takes place Because government management sees themselves responsible for making investment decisions, when in fact they should act as change leaders with a focus on ensuring that IT projects create value for the business and for citizens. Instead of acting as strategic change leaders, heads of government tend to act as passive decision makers, which means that lessons from previous projects are not integrated into future investments.
Earlier calls for, for example, an accident commission for failed IT projects have not been obeyed, and there are no indications that any form of central responsibility will come. At the same time, we are becoming more and more dependent on the digital in our everyday lives. Society’s resilience and preparedness are directly dependent on all these systems, and on our ability to change our operations through these. To then just close your eyes and drive on with a fool, which seems far from responsible.
In the public The debate we see signs of clear frustration and a willingness to claim responsibility from the parties involved in the failed and costly IT projects. At the same time as we are investigating the responsibility issue, another number of pearls are raised on the pearl band of failed projects.
But even if the responsibility issue is important, it risks obscuring the more central question: how we can systematically prevent the same problems from being repeated in future IT projects. We propose the following four efforts:
1. Give a group of scientists With experience in digitization and IT projects in the public sector, the task of identifying recurring patterns in a selection of previously failed projects. Set clear requirements for the work to be carried out in six months, and result in normative knowledge.
2. Integrate responsibility for value -creating digitization And for efficient control and follow-up of IT initiatives more clearly in the management assignment for government managers and their management groups, and ensure skills building through tailor-made educational efforts and learning between authorities and their management groups.
3. Create and provide a method support For individuals involved in the order and implementation of major public IT projects. Set clear requirements that this method support be tested and scientifically validated before spreading. Link this to compulsory education for individuals involved in large projects, which can be scaled nationally and are given within the framework of the university’s offering on lifelong learning.
4. Create an effort of researchers and experienced practices that can be quickly put in as direct support for future projects, to risk and change direction. Take inspiration from Denmark’s work with an IT council for public IT projects.
Through these four We can break the negative spiral of failed projects. A more thoughtful and strategic approach to digitization will not only reduce costs and increase efficiency, but also ensure that public operations can meet future challenges with greater adaptability and credibility.
