Well now I know that the Reg's southern bureau is losing the plot. To have Richard report that an Australian government IT project was poorly planned, poorly implemented, is going over budget and doesn't do what it's supposed to, well, I just can't believe that . . .
Does anyone involved in these projects have the first idea how to run them? Budget overruns happen - not just to government projects - and that's something you should, well, budget for. Or at least be prepared for. What's not really acceptable is ending up with a system that doesn't address the real requirements and needs because accurately identifying what a system must do is fundamental to designing it in the first place.
It's a roll-a-six-to-start.
I am reminded of a review document dissecting what went wrong with an asset management system the NT government deployed. In it, people admitted that they simply hadn't made any real attempt to understand the the processes and procedures currently in place and how the new system would need to be designed to address that or, on the other side, how the procedures and processes might need to change to fit the new system.
Further, there was core functionality that didn't exist because no one had taken the time to learn and understand what the current system did.
That's the part that baffles me because I don't understand how a project can even get off the ground without those involved first forming an accurate understanding of what the project needs to achieve.