30
FMI
*
IGF JOURNAL
VOLUME 24, NO. 1
delivery of service. Office technology pro-
vides the capability for line managers to
merge program data from their custom-
ized system with administrative data from
the administrative systems at the work-
station level, while retaining control over
their program. In short, alternate delivery
mechanisms are only practical for the more
common administrative oriented automa-
tion needs. In time, these systems will be
completely resident and executable within
the user workstation or LAN and the need
for alternate sources will not be an issue.
Rear Admiral Peter Martin:
A common centrally-developed system
must, by its very nature, be able to function
in a number of environments if it is to be
available to all departments and agencies.
Hardware delivery options include service
bureaus, data centres, mainframes or per-
sonal computers.
Common systems can be used “as is” or
be customized in-house (the Department
of National Defence bought AMS and
modified it). No general recommendation
can be made as to development and deliv-
ery options since each department has dif-
ferent needs. The larger the department,
the less likely a common system will be
used “as is”.
Such systems must also be developed
in a more modular and incremental fash-
ion, so that the opportunities for inter-
governmental transfer increase. It is to be
noted that more and more departments
and agencies are meeting to share soft-
ware and hardware or to take advantage of
economies of scale. Common solutions to
problems are sought.
Question 3:
What can the government of Canada
be doing differently that could in turn
be beneficial to both the vendor com-
munity and departments (e.g. dia-
logue, procurement, etc.)?
David Holmes:
There is much that can and should be done
to enhance and improve the delivery of ad-
ministrative services, and many interesting
suggestions and ideas are presented in
En-
hancing Services through the innovative use of
information and technology: a strategic Direc-
tion for the 90’s
, recently published by the
Treasury Board Secretariat.
For example, all routine administrative
transactions should be in electronic form.
In addition to saving money from the
elimination of duplicate data entry, greater
private sector organization. At the end of
the term, the performance of the contrac-
tor would dictate whether or not the agree-
ment was extended.
A second alternate delivery mechanism
could be utilized for implementation of the
common system in departments. Private
sector firms could be certified as imple-
menters of the common system and then
departments could choose from the list of
certified firms when contracting for imple-
mentation assistance.
Sharing services or having one depart-
ment act as a service provider for several is
another possible alternate delivery method.
Supply and Services Canada has indicat-
ed that it will be exploring the first of these
two options in relation to the Common
Departmental Financial System (CDFS) to
determine if efficiencies can be gained. In
addition, a program is being developed to
certify CDFS implementers.
The options I have discussed here are
but three among many, but they serve to
illustrate the point that alternative delivery
mechanisms are available to departments.
The important point is that options should
be considered when determining the de-
livery method for a product and the most
efficient chosen.
Peter Janega:
There has been a trend toward “over in-
tegration” of administrative systems with
program and other automation support
needs. This blending of administrative and
program components into highly custom-
ized systems, has created a very inflexible
systems environment. This systems inte-
gration has created a need for Program
Managers to own and operate their sys-
tems to ensure they retain control of their
program obligations. Alternate delivery or
development mechanism in this kind of
highly customized environment tends to
be impractical adding cost without com-
mensurate value.
As outlined in the answer to Question 1,
the government now needs a framework
for systems which clearly distinguishes ad-
ministrative functions such as payroll, trav-
el, etc., from program functions like tax,
income security, environment, etc. Pro-
gram support systems are by their nature
customized and it is unlikely that more
than one source of a Family Allowance or
Canada Pension system would be available,
hence as expressed above, alternate sources
won’t apply.
On the other hand, by separating admin-
istrative systems, it is possible to have alter-
nate commercial sources for administrative
support software, including service bureau
the necessity to capture data twice. It also
reduces inconsistency between programs.
Consequently, as we evolve this system and
others like it, to support line manager, we
do not want to be constrained while others
catch up.
Program output must be combined with
finance, administration and personnel data
so that performance standards can provide
efficiency and effectiveness indicators for
managers to know how well they are de-
livering their services to the public. The
assumption that administrative activity is
in support of program delivery leads to the
conclusion that automation of program de-
livery is inseparable from the automation
of supporting administrative activity. As a
matter of fact, even before the advent of PS
2000 which called for a transfer of govern-
ment resources from internal overhead to
client service, our department had made
great strides to provide managers with the
information they need to effectively carry
out their mandate. This will continue to be
the case as we strengthen the integration of
program, financial and administrative sys-
tems at the operational level.
My personal belief is that economies of
scale can be realized if government organi-
zations cooperate more fully on administra-
tive systems. However, sharing of systems
assets and the development of common
systems is by no means a straight forward
task. The initiatives taken by the Office of
the Comptroller General, Treasury Board
Secretariat, Supply and Services, and the
departments under a cooperative umbrella
are indeed encouraging and exciting. From
my perspective of over 20 years in govern-
ment, this has a better chance of success
than the initiatives that were tried in the
past. Now at least we have an environment
which fosters a cooperative outlook.
As departments move toward Open Sys-
tems interconnect, many of the initiatives
undertaken by the central agencies will
have a beneficial impact. The reality how-
ever is that, at present, we still have prob-
lems in dealing with routine electronic data
interchange between departments.
Arthur Silverman:
As Chairman of the Re-Engineering and
Alternative Delivery (READ) Working
Group, I am committed to exploring alter-
natives for developing and delivering com-
mon administrative systems. One such op-
tion is the outsourcing of all or portions of
the maintenance and continuous improve-
ment of common systems. For example,
fixed term agreements could be entered
into whereby the maintenance of a com-
mon system would be contracted out to a
