28
FMI
*
IGF JOURNAL
VOLUME 24, NO. 1
built-in flexibility to respond to a myriad
of needs, all of which are subject to change
quickly time and time again.
In addition, it is of crucial importance
that the departments’ administrative sys-
tems be integrated into other departmental
systems if we are to reap the benefits pos-
sible through state-of-the-art information
management. This is difficult to do now,
particularly in large departments with sev-
eral programs or activities. The adoption
of common administrative systems will
compound this problem.
Those involved in developing com-
mon systems must understand the chal-
lenge they face. The systems must be de-
veloped to meet the operational needs of
the customers. If the common systems do
not have the required output-driven flex-
ibility, then the finance, the personnel and
the asset management systems will become
stovepipe systems. Each department will
be forced to develop “work arounds” to
provide the degree of flexibility needed to
respond to the unique needs of its employ-
ees and senior management.
The systems being proposed under the
Council on Administrative Renewal (CAR)
umbrella may well possess the required
flexibility. The challenge is to translate the
concepts into reality.
Question 2:
What are some alternate development
and delivery mechanisms for each
department in the government of
Canada to operate their common
administrative systems? What are
your recommendations?
David Holmes:
Clearly, each department’s program and
service needs are not so unique as to require
customized development for all its support-
ing administrative functions. There are sev-
eral alternatives which can be considered.
Better use should be made of the private
sector. There are many products available
that serve the government’s administrative
needs. Many of these packages require only
a small initial outlay, and are fully support-
ed by specialized experts who provide train-
ing, maintenance and hot-line services.
One of the best ways to get the most out
of limited resources is to share what others
have already developed or are developing.
Restraint is leading decision-makers to ex-
amine proposals for new systems develop-
ment projects and to identify opportunities
to share existing information, technology,
applications and facilities. This then frees
for cultural change must be a central ele-
ment of the coordinated management of
common administrative systems initiatives.
Training, communication, and infrastruc-
ture development strategies will be nec-
essary to support this significant cultural
change. With respect to the technology
itself, developments in hardware, software,
and electronic communications are provid-
ing the opportunity to replace proprietary
systems with ‘open’ systems that adhere to
common national or international stand-
ards. As ‘open’ technology is introduced in
the government of Canada environment, it
will become easier to realize the benefits of
common administrative systems. However,
before we are faced with technology deci-
sions, we must be clear about who needs
what information and where that informa-
tion is available. Our first efforts should be
focused on the functions of data gathering
and sharing. These functions are more like-
ly candidates for shared applications than
those front line functions which analyze and
manipulate data to meet specific and imme-
diate client needs.
It is also important that we put in place
the appropriate management and coordi-
nation mechanisms, those which will facili-
tate consultation while producing decisions
and results. Typical of coordination issues
is the question of cost-sharing among par-
ticipating departments. There must also be
strong functional coordination by a depart-
ment mandated as functional expert. This
organization must provide leadership to
ensure that departments reach agreement
on the functions to be addressed in the ap-
plications, the common information needs,
and the standardization of data.
Rear Admiral Peter Martin:
It certainly is possible to have one com-
mon core administrative system for all of
the federal government. At first glance
it would also seem ideal in these times
of budgetary restriction because of the
potential savings in using such a system.
However, we must recognize that there
are significant pitfalls that must be avoid-
ed at all cost.
Today, each department is expected to be
customer driven. Its systems must provide
to both line workers and senior manage-
ment, on-line real time access to the infor-
mation contained in the systems to enable
them to quickly and accurately answer cus-
tomers’ questions and better carry on the
business of the department. Information
demands change daily and therefore our
automated systems must have the flexibil-
ity to respond instantaneously. This means
that any common system must possess the
question the need for being different, and
to encourage a desire to be common.
Robert Giroux:
Many factors have fuelled the current inter-
ests and initiatives in common administra-
tive systems across government. Two im-
portant ones are the government’s ongoing
effort to improve service and productivity
at reduced cost, and the increasing capabil-
ity of technology to support information
sharing across and among organizations.
Fast, accurate information is essential to
improving program and service delivery.
A key objective in developing common
administrative systems is to reduce incon-
sistencies and duplication in terminology,
procedures, and in the information being
produced. The challenge is to realize the
benefits of commonality while maintain-
ing the ability to meet specific and unique
information needs among departments and
our various clients.
At Public Works Canada (PWC), we of
course have a special interest in the real
property function. We anticipate direct
benefits to our clients through improved
shared access to real property information.
As for PWC’s software fitting into such a
common system environment, we are con-
fident that enterprising systems specialists,
both in government and in the private sec-
tor, will respond to the demand for com-
mon systems that will meet departmental
and government-wide requirements. As
for what is realistic and possible, let’s think
of the two ends of the spectrum as, on one
hand, totally common, standardized sys-
tems across all departments, and on the
other, different systems interconnected
and with some common elements for roll-
up reporting purposes. It is likely that the
workable solutions will be somewhere
between these two extremes.
To reach and implement these work-
able solutions, we do have some hurdles to
over-come: sharing costs and risks, recon-
ciling different properties, ensuring timely
decisions; and with full ‘open systems’
technology still several years away, we still
have the challenge of accommodating dif-
ferent technology architectures.
There is also the matter of organizational
culture. At PWC we have just completed a
department-wide initiative to totally rethink
our approach to managing our investment
in information technology (IT). One chal-
lenge we face in implementing our stra-
tegic plan is to adjust our organizational
culture from the traditional hierarchical or
‘stovepipe’ approach of doing business and
managing information to a more matrix,
cross-organizational approach. A strategy
