26
FMI
*
IGF JOURNAL
VOLUME 24, NO. 1
departmental or outside systems which
operate on a platform which is not com-
patible with the common system. In such
cases, it may not be practical, at least in the
short run, for these departments to adopt
the common system.
Therefore, in my opinion, migration to a
common solution is possible and realistic.
If a “one system fits all” solution cannot be
had a “one system fits most” solution is not
only possible but very likely.
Jim Westover:
From a government financial and overall
management point of view, the concept
of common administrative systems has
substantial appeal especially at the central
agency and common service provider level.
From a departmental point of view there
is always the fear that its requirements
will somehow be watered down in order
to serve the overall needs of the majority
of the community and priority for changes
become an endless waiting game. The in-
dividual departmental needs, which are
essential to support its operational mana
gers who in turn execute the departmen-
tal mandate, could easily get lost in the
shuffle. This has been characteristic of the
developmental process for large common
systems in the past.
It is possible to define, and I believe this
has already been done, a business model
of government financial and administra-
tive functions, and a policy structure un-
der which both departmental financial and
administrative systems can operate. This
effort is an extremely worthwhile activ-
ity as it potentially encourages standard-
ized routines and interoperability between
department technology infrastructures.
The co-ordination of development ac-
tivities in the common information areas
of finance, personnel and material from
the centre can have tremendous advan-
tages: reducing reluctant data capture,
reducing table conversions, simplifying
reconciliation and strengthening func-
tional and technical expertise across gov-
ernment. The development by the Office
of the Comptroller General of a Common
Information policy and the work undertak-
en by Treasury Board in the area of Human
Resource Management Systems of devel-
oping a business model for that function
are indeed progressive steps.
The drawback to a co-ordinated effort
is that there could be delays in implemen-
tation of systems within the departmental
setting.
Arthur Silverman:
Yes. Departments all operate within the
The Council for Administrative Renewal
(CAR) is providing strategic support and
direction from senior management across
all departments. CAR is recognition of the
need for inter-departmental cooperation
in streamlining administrative systems and
developing new government and private
sector relationships.
As attractive as it seems at first glance,
imposing a single “magic bullet” solution
goes against the grain of the way business
is evolving in the 90s. Some of today’s
biggest challenges in renewing existing
administrative practices come from the
magic bullets of the past which are no
longer compatible with new systems and
the requirements of users. Using a single
system to meet all your needs often car-
ries a heavy penalty when the system must
be changed. There is clearly a need to re-
duce the proliferation of administrative
systems, but the means of achieving this
is through cooperation, consensus and the
development of standards and an infra-
structure which is platform and software
independent. That kind of work starts at
the level of data elements and transactions.
The common service agencies, and the
Department of Supply and Services (DSS)
in particular, are pursuing the Common
Information Management (CIM) strat-
egy to take advantage of the commonal-
ity of information and opportunities for
standardization present in managing real
property, materiel, human resources and
finances in the federal government.
Bernie Gorman:
When one considers the fact that all de-
partments operate under essentially the
same administrative framework, the logi-
cal conclusion is that one common system
should be able to meet the core require-
ments of every department. Of course, this
is only true where the common system is
flexible enough and robust enough to be
adapted to a wide array of users varying
in size, complexity, organization, etc. The
adaptation may take the form of customi-
zation or interconnection with commercial
software in order to meet the specific needs
of departments.
It is worth pointing out that any move to
a single system would require a transition
period where departments would migrate
towards the common system. This migra-
tion, which would likely take place over a
number of years, is necessitated by the fact
that many departments have made signifi-
cant investment in their current systems
which have not reached the end of their
life cycles. As well, departments may have
requirements to interconnect with other
compatibility or convergence among these
types of systems in the federal government.
In addition to corporate requirements,
administrative systems such as these should
be designed to support the management
and delivery of federal government pro-
grams and services. Today, these systems
number close to 1,200. Although there are
certainly many common administrative data
elements and common central reporting re-
quirements, there are also tremendous vari-
ations in size, scope, complexity and focus
of these programs and services. This de-
mands some tailoring and variation in their
supporting functions if their differing needs
are to be appropriately addressed.
The turbulent decade of the 1980s has
taught us that adaptability and flexibil-
ity are necessary characteristics and criti-
cal factors for an organization’s survival
and success. To date, this drive for greater
adaptability has generally led to increased
competition in the private sector, innova-
tive solutions to problems, lower costs, less
risk, higher satisfaction, improved service
and progress. Few believe the future will
be any less traumatic, and these traits will
therefore continue to be vital.
In this regard, the apparent simplicity
of a single common system for all depart-
ments is initially appealing. However, it
is clear upon reflection that such a sys-
tem would be infinitely less flexible and
adaptable than a broader variety of sys-
tems chosen specifically to best match the
government’s diverse program and service
delivery needs.
Steve Rollwage:
If this were strictly a technical or systems
issue, it would certainly be possible. To be
able to eliminate all parallel systems, de-
velop huge economies of scale and operate
with unified administrative systems is an
appealing idea. There is, however, tremen-
dous variety in the operational functions,
responsibilities and size of departments.
Although administrative systems of depart-
ments have many common elements, they
do not operate in isolation from the nature
of the departments they serve. Depart-
ments have chosen systems which comple-
ment their operational and information
requirements. These systems are often
tightly integrated with line functions, so it
will require great care to develop common
systems without causing significant disrup-
tion in many departments.
Rapid change is an important dynamic
now facing both governments and the
private sector. The government is ad-
dressing the need to renew its administra-
tive practices and re-engineer its systems.
