Connecting Government: Whole of government responses to Australia's priority challenges

Appendix 2 Case studies: iconsult

Objective

iconsult was to have been a secure electronic information exchange system to enable Australian government departments to share information about community consultations.

Committees, groups and associations in the community frequently engage with the government about a whole range of issues and projects. Consultations can span a range of Australian government departments, as well as different levels of government.

iconsult was a whole of government project to develop a new information and communication technology (ICT) tool to respond to community concerns about over-consultation. iconsult had the potential to inform participating agencies of previous Australian government activity in specific locations and the outcome of those consultations.

The system was developed as a prototype by the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) in 2001 and ran as a pilot for eight months.

The iconsult case study covers the iconsult pilot project and includes information about its progress, implementation-and eventual lack of success. Participation across government was required in the pilot stage to ensure it was properly developed and used. However, full commitment to its use was not obtained and users were not obliged to take it up, test it, or further its application. Its potential to benefit communities was therefore not realised. iconsult was developed under the More Accessible Government (MAG) initiative which was announced in June 2000 to improve community access to Australian government funding programs, information and services, and to streamline grants administration. MAG was a whole of government initiative and involved 15 Australian government agencies. All agencies had the option of participating in the pilot of iconsult.

The MAG initiative was supported by the MAG Working Group and two interdepartmental committees (IDCs). These structures carried out the work of the initiative. DOTARS provided and funded a team of five as secretariat support. Membership of the IDCs was not always consistent, and time was wasted through duplication of subject discussion and obtaining commitment to the project.

The iconsult system was simple to use. Users needed only to log on and enter information into a calendar about forthcoming consultation. Once the consultation had taken place, users could update iconsult with a summary, which could be filed on paper or electronically. There was no expectation that users would undertake any extra work. However, this was cited often as a reason for not using iconsult. Revision of work processes may have been required, but this aspect was not addressed in the implementation.

A great deal of support and enthusiasm was generated for iconsult by agency representatives. However, despite the simplicity and benefits offered by iconsult, its full potential was not realised. The iconsult site has now been decommissioned.

The greatest contributing factor to the lack of success of iconsult was its lack of use. Reasons for not using iconsult included 'not enough time' and 'lack of guidance on what information is allowed to be shared between agencies'.

Initial funding for the development, implementation and maintenance of iconsult was provided by DOTARS. Without an ongoing funding base, and without contributions from participating departments, the MAG secretariat found it difficult to obtain appropriate funding for the project.

Key players

Agencies represented on the MAG Working Group were:

Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Department of Finance and Administration
Department of Family and Community Services
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Attorney-General's Department
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
Department of Treasury
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
Department of Health and Ageing
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources
Department of Veterans' Affairs
Department of Education, Science and Training
Department of Environment and Heritage
Department of Transport and Regional Services
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

All departments had the opportunity to contribute to the iconsult project; however, interest tended to be from departments more likely to participate in community consultations. Departments which signed up to trial iconsult were:

Transport and Regional Services
Health and Ageing
Attorney-General's
Environment and Heritage
Family and Community Services
Education, Science and Training
Veterans' Affairs

Both the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations expressed an interest in joining the trial but this did not eventuate.

Overview of learnings

The objectives of whole of government activities need to be clearly understood and agreed by all participants, including a sense of the big picture. Lack of understanding of a big picture objective of whole of government work can result in a lack of commitment to the project.

It is important that agencies taking part in whole of government activities understand and agree to the level of commitment expected. Commitment should be reflected through the work of representatives on interdepartmental committees and relevant stakeholders taking part in the activity.

If necessary, participants need to be given explicit permission to work on whole of government activities within a culture that accepts whole of government as a legitimate way of working rather than an 'add-on' outside core business.

It is important that whole of government projects be properly scoped, supported if necessary by a business plan, and have sufficient dedicated funding to allow different stages to be implemented appropriately.

The development of new technology in itself does not guarantee success. Attention needs to be paid to associated cultural issues that may block take-up of new technology. These issues can be addressed through the development of communication and change management strategies. A high-level mandate to use new technology can also add to the likelihood of success.

Agreement about what can be shared across government needs to be formalised.

Senior champions across agencies can assist in driving success.

There needs to be clear communication flows at all levels-while broad project management of iconsult was considered to be friendly and efficient, the structure of other groups working with the project at times appeared to hinder the flow of information.

Involvement at a senior level from the start of a project such as this can result in greater overall participation downstream.

A pilot phase can help evaluate the value and likelihood of new technology as an ongoing product.

Key findings of the areas of investigation

1. Structures and processes

	Issues	Response	Key learnings
1	Representation on the IDC responsible for the development of iconsult was not always consistent or reliable.	Inconsistency in representation meant subject matter discussion was often duplicated and time was wasted. Members of IDCs were encouraged to attend and times of meetings were managed to increase participation.	Agencies need to understand and agree formally to the level of commitment required. This commitment should also be understood by representatives and participants in IDCs.
2	Participation (and leadership) was often only with 3-4 agencies and thus not all departments were represented effectively. Representatives often attended based on personal interest rather than departmental interest.	Without full representation, commitment was not ensured and information did not filter through to potential users-for example, after four months iconsult was unknown to employees in some state/territory/ regional offices. As a result focused demonstrations were held in Queensland and Northern Territory in December 2002. This did not result in an increase in take-up.	If the activity's objective is to affect all of government then whole of government representation is important. It is important to include key stakeholders/players throughout a project-this can make or break ownership and success.
3	The IDC responsible for iconsult did not meet with the MAG Working Group, which had responsibility for decision making and sign-off of the different phases of the project and finances.	Without communication between the two relevant IDCs information was provided separately to the MAG Working Group, resulting in duplication and wasted time. This did not help to progress timely completion of phases of the project.	Where there is more than one IDC responsible for a whole of government activity it is important to keep appropriate communications channels open to avoid duplication and wasted time.
4	Selection of representatives for the IDCs was made at national level. Potential users were at state/territory/regional level and they were not represented on the IDCs.	With representation at national level only, the state/territory/regional offices, potentially the biggest users of iconsult, had little input into the development and implementation of iconsult.	Careful selection of representatives for IDCs should be made to ensure appropriate areas are represented.
5	There was a clear need for representatives on IDCs to advertise and encourage the use of iconsult within their agencies. Each representative chose an individual strategy. This was not successful.	IDC representatives tried to encourage use; however, most were not users of iconsult and possibly were unable to market it effectively. Responses to their strategies indicated that: prospective users had not been canvassed properly there was no unified strategy by agencies to incorporate it in their work processes iconsult was presented as optional rather than a required activity of program management.	If full participation is required for the success of a whole of government activity and realisation of the full benefits, then a clear mandate needs to be given. 'Optional' participation is not an option. A single agreed communication strategy developed in consultation with all participants can drive success.
6	The communication strategy developed for the implementation of iconsult did not have full agreement by all departmental representatives.	Departments did not have ownership of the communication strategy and thus did not support it; the result was that certain implementation aspects of iconsult were not fully addressed by the agencies involved.	Whole of government IDCs should ensure that representatives have full ownership of communication strategies for whole of government activities.
7	The key risk of the project-that iconsult would not be used-was not fully addressed during the implementation phase.	The representatives were made fully aware of the desired outcomes and potential of the system. The launch was attended by 59 senior employees from 17 Australian government agencies. Implementation issues were not addressed due to: limited resources for training and implementation focus on national office little information and training given to state and regional offices lack of change management in incorporating a new ICT system.	Ensure the whole of government activity has full participation by the right people-people who can fully represent work areas that are affected by the whole of government activity. Involvement should be from initiation through to implementation to ensure full ownership, understanding and support for the activity. Ensure appropriate resources are assigned to all phases of the activity.

2. Culture and capability

	Issues	Response	Key learnings
1	Tension relating to commitment and ability of some agency representatives to respond to project requirements-this included a reluctance to work outside core business and issues around funding.	Participants working on the iconsult project were not able to contribute a great deal (outside committee meetings), which meant: DOTARS carried the workload DOTARS had carriage of decision making, development and implementation options without full participation from other agencies smaller agencies were unable to participate level of commitment was aligned with the level of influence that representatives had in their agencies.	Development of a collaborative culture with commitment to agreed roles can help drive success. Employees need permission to contribute to whole of government activities outside their core business.
2	Representatives did not have sufficient influence in their agencies to mandate use or the full trialling of the iconsult system.	Use of iconsult was deemed optional, meaning it could not be properly assessed for full implementation.	Full commitment should be gained from participating agencies from the outset.
3	All potential users of iconsult were not consulted during its development and little was done to address potential blockers to its take-up.	By not addressing the blockers or issues during the project, work practice or information-sharing tensions were not evident early on. This meant enthusiasm and rate of registration to use the system was not matched with actual use. It became obvious after four months into the pilot that there were tensions about using the system.	Strategies to address cultural issues should be developed-for example, a change management strategy and/or communication plan.
4	Difficulty in getting full support and cooperation for product implementation.	The MAG Working Group, developed mechanisms to encourage take up: a letter to deputy secretaries consortium representatives to contact program areas to encourage usage MAG secretariat to provide focused training for Queensland and Northern Territory prize for the person who entered the most information in iconsult in a given month. However, these responses were not successful. People cited the following reasons for not using iconsult: not enough time too busy too much of an overhead unsure of what can be shared information too confidential to share.	Rewards and incentives would encourage employees to respond to whole of government projects. Address any leadership, culture and informationsharing issues as soon as they arise before they inhibit full commitment to the activity.

3. Information management and infrastructure

	Issues	Response	Key learnings
1	Although iconsult appeared easy to use with little training required and no compatibility issues- employees needed internet access and registration to gain access-it became impossible to assess its value because of low rates of participation and use.	Agencies and employees shown iconsult agreed that it was an easy to use and potentially useful system; however, in responding to its lack of use the IDCs and MAG secretariat were unable to convince employees to use it enough to assess its capability and future use.	A new technology tool in itself is not enough to guarantee success. Other issues need to be fully addressed-for example, cultural blockers to using a new tool.
2	Confidentiality, privacy and security were cited as issues with iconsult-there was concern about what could be shared across agencies.	Various solutions were proposed to address these concerns-i.e. users were advised that privacy was not a concern as no personal information was to be kept in iconsult and if they had concerns they could note this.	There is a need to have clear definitions and instructions about what can be shared.
3	New technology meant there was a need for new processes and possible change in work design.	Options were given to assist with changing to new processes.	Agreed standards for information sharing should be developed across government with concepts that are easy to understand. Scoping and planning for the implementation of a new whole of government system are necessary. Ideas need to be practical and pragmatic.

4. Budget and accountability framework

	Issues	Response	Key learnings
1	As lead agency, DOTARS funded the development and ongoing maintenance of iconsult. There was no dedicated funding for either the MAG initiative or any of the products and services delivered under the initiative.	With no dedicated funding it was difficult to quarantine funds for the project. There were no financial contributions from participating agencies; nor was any future funding secured to extend the life of iconsult.	Dedicated funding would support a whole of government approach.
2	Lack of formal framework/processes for allocation of funds resulted in uncertainty about ongoing resourcing and commitment to the project.	DOTARS used internal processes to gain IT funding and staffing resources.	There is a need for clear guidelines on the flexibility of the financial framework to enable whole of government initiatives to be taken up and implemented.
3	Cost of implementing iconsult was not fully addressed as funds were not adequate to cover all facets of the project.	Funds were used mostly for development not consultation and implementation.	Dedicated funding should be allocated for each stage of projects to ensure all requirements are addressed.
4	Insufficient planning and scoping of the project led to gaps in implementation issues (including differing expectations and working arrangements within each department).	Potential users were not given the attention and training required (there was no funding for travel or training). This resulted in low or nil take-up by those agencies who had signed up to take part in the pilot.	Scoping of whole of government projects should include: implementation issues and associated costs addressing alignment of current business/work processes to whole of government activity a business case (and cost-benefit analysis) to justify anticipated improvement ownership at coal face involvement of appropriate people.

5. Making connections outside the APS.

	Issues	Response	Key learnings
1	iconsult was developed in response to a message from communities that they were being over-consulted. The project did not involve engagement with clients or the community-it concerned developing an ICT tool for Australian government employees. However, in the long term the community would have benefited from iconsult.	The benefits to the community were well understood by participating and non-participating agencies (at least at the national level). IDCs were enthusiastic and endeavoured to market the benefits of iconsult; however, the messages did not filter through to all the potential users of the system.	The objectives of whole of government activities need to be clearly understood by participants, including a sense of the big picture. Participants need to be able to clearly see and understand what's in it for them, as well as for external stakeholders.

Sources

Interviews

Barbara Middleton, Department of Family and Community Services
Renina Boyd, Department of Family and Community Services
Richard Eccles, Department of Health and Ageing
Anni Chilton, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
Renée Crossley, Department of Transport and Regional Services
Bruce Dymock, Department of Family and Community Services
Lois Sparkes, Department of Education, Science and Training.