Panel ousts Virginia’s technology chief

“The partnership was intended to avoid projected costs, not achieve savings. In addition, VITA’s implementation of IT rates may increase costs at some agencies.
State agencies have identified problems with IT services which may indicate the partnership is unable to provide adequate service. Concerns have also been expressed that the IT governance structure is not” JLARC BRief

Looks like no savings were ever expected and services by NG were inadequate as of DECEMBER 2008.  How much longer do we keep this substandard performance contract.

RicResident, I would have to disagree with many of your conclusions.  I worked, as a non-state employee, for a state agency for several years, working directly with the state IT people.  I went on to work and consult for Fortune 500 companies and multiple universities (in IT.)

The NG contract was not adopted b/c agencies were dissatisfied with their IT services.  It was adopted in hopes of saving money.  The comments I’ve heard, from people I trust who still work for agencies, is that satisfaction with IT services has gone down, not up.

The contract has not saved money.  Its benefit to date has been to avoid additional costs associated with infrastructure replacement, per the JLARC review this past year.  Similar cost avoidance can be seen with any hosting agreement, including new options such as cloud computing.  In fairness, being locked into a single source solution does limit the ability to innovate and have competitors drive down prices.

Agency operations ARE different – not arbitrarily so, but because what they do is different.  That is not a problem, much less “the” problem. 

It’s foolish to expect an agency that builds roads, and needs engineering and planning support, to have the same IT needs as an agency that enforces the law and needs special security and round the clock availability of specialized law enforcement applications.  Neither will have have the same needs as an agency that essentially works as a retail distribution outlet (ABC) and needs point of sale and inventory support.

They don’t have the same needs, and while all are working to help the taxpayer, their goals to do that are very different.  For many of their applications they will need software unique to their agency.

Thinking that they are different because they aren’t smart enough to standardize is getting into fantasy land.  One of the worst possible failings of IT people is when you start thinking the business customer is stupid.  They’re not.

Budget structures vary because funding mechanisms vary.  Some activities are funded by the state, some by private grants, some by federal grants, some in cooperation with localities, some a mix of sources.  Each grant has detailed reporting requirements that must be met in order to continue funding.  That is not “a problem” – that is how state government is funded.  It is the business reality that must be accommodated. 

IT is there to support the business – it is NOT the business’s job to shortchange their customers, and with them the public, so that agencies better fit into a standardized IT conceptual model. 

These agencies really are different and beyond the three I pointed out, there’s another 100 or so more.  Normal corporations do not have that range of needs, goals, and operations.  The state is more complex than a regular business – and I’ve worked for multinationals and top financial institutions.  This is a whole different beast and a whole extra level of complexity.

That complexity was known – and pointed out – at the start.  If people didn’t listen, it wasn’t for lack of effort by the agencies.

The agencies are not “gluttonous.”  Wanting enough support to do your job properly and give the taxpayer what they pay for is not gluttony. 

If an agency tasked with training believes a big TV, to deliver remote training, is the best use of their money, because it saves scarce travel dollars – they probably know what they’re talking about.  That is not an IT purchase, BTW.  If an agency that does processor-intensive engineering or epidemiology calculations out in the field believes a high-end laptop will allow it to do a better, more efficient job of designing roads or of stopping the spread of swine flu, they probably know what they’re talking about. 

You are looking solely at expense.  That’s not the right question.  The right question is return on investment – does the value to the taxpayer and the savings elsewhere justify the expense?  The agency is the one tasked to know. 

Our job as IT professionals is to listen to the needs of the business (in this case, providing services the taxpayers pay for) and provide the support they need to get the job done.

One last point.  Spending has not decreased under the partnership.  Further, in my years of working with state IT staff, I saw lean budgets and great care to stretch a dollar – not “unrestrained overspending.”

IT in the state of Virginia is nothing short of a train wreck. Reverse course now and bring it back in-house its never too late! It will just take a butt load of taxpayer money, which will be wasted either way.

Sorry folks - the NG contract actually predates Lem. It was well under way before he returned to VITA in its preparation. It was a Public Private Partnership, which in essence means there were no rules to insure fairness and equity in the competitive process. The Procurement folks are the source of the bad contract. The people procuring the contract came from private industry and had NO experience in government contracting, understanding the needs of Agencies, and operating as good stewards of the public trust. The management of the Procurement group should be fired for establishing such a poor contract and for managing NG so poorly. NG had the inside track with VITA long before the contract was written. Agencies are much aware of the horrible morale at VITA, and VITA’s brutal indecision in its dealing with NG. Folks in the various Agencies saw this coming years ago. Sorry Lem you got caught up in this mess.

Folks, you can play the blame game all day long and give the excuses to whoever you want but the bottom line is this.  The NG/VITA contract is NOT working and is increasing the budget of many agencies beyond the point that thye have to cut citizen service to pay VITA for the services. It has been in trouble since 6 months after Gov. Warner created the VITA agency. How much longer does this drain on the state systems continue until some independent group comes in and invetigates the entire program?  I know in my agency if this type of situation was going on there would be heads rolling and people fired. Yes there would. What will it take short of throwing more money at it to fix it?  The infrastructure of the state IT program is broke and limping along by bare bones.  VITA/NG can not be relied upon to provide a quality cost effective service.  Can I, as a day to day user of their services, prove this. Yes anytime any one who honestly wants to see the problem wants too I will show them some of the problems with the services. The trouble is no one cares enough to want to go to the ground level employee and say “Show me what problems you are having with IT services, what do you need to do your job and what are your suggestion to fixing it”. Instead VITA/NG is snooping in to other agency operations trying to find ways to expand their operations instead of trying to fix what thye have.  Yes I can prove this in less than a day.
So again I ask what must be done to fix a problem that every worker knows exist but the Administration is intent on covering up?