ICT governance is the responsibility of the board of directors and executive management. It is an integral part of enterprise governance and consists of the leadership and organisational structures and processes that ensure that the organisation’s ICT sustains and extends the organisation’s strategies and objectives.
Governance Definition:
The act of affecting government and monitoring (through policy) the long-term strategy and direction of an organization. In general, governance comprises the traditions, institutions and processes that determine how power is exercised.
Governance Assumptions:
The Project will be led by the lead agency if a multi-agency project/program;
The lead agency will own the project’s system assets and would manage their depreciation, ongoing maintenance, and replacement;
Cost attribution and service level reporting will be agreed by the management board comprised of agency senior managers;
Management overheads will be minimised wherever possible and meeting management objectives and statutory reporting requirements of all participating agencies;
Governance Principles:
The governing entity of the project operating entity will be a management board;
The membership of the management board will be a representative of each of the participating agencies and others as appropriate to ensure that no single agency gains ascendency over another;
The management board will have strategic linkages with the Government;
Overall responsibility for the Project will rest with the CEO of the lead agency;
The CEO of the lead agency will act only on the advice of the Program Management Board;
Participating agencies will each execute separate IAs to establish agreed terms, conditions and levels of service;
The core measures of service performance would include at a minimum network accessibility, reliability, security, and resilience (availability & backup);
The management board will meet monthly and other times as appropriate to discuss service performance and proposals from agencies that significantly change the scope, reach, and levels of service they required or elected to leave the program;
Variable costs would be attributed to each agency based on their consumption;
Cross subsidisation by one agency to another will not occur;
Network management will use a combination of business rules and workflow automation to achieve minimum levels of intervention to keep costs as low as possible;
Have any of you been involved with similar multi-government agency projects that you can share with me and other readers?
Friday, April 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)



2 comments:
I was in the UK system when we started to use agencies and separate policy from implementation. I have worked in NATO where we have run multi-government projects like rehabilitating Bosnia and Kosovo.
Your ideas are wonderful in theory but as I was told many years ago, "sadly plans are implemented by people'. I think the key point I would make is that your structure is at odds with the delivery of serious performance for the simple reason that the sort of people who revel in and drift towards the structure you espouse are by their very nature not decision makers and risk takers, they are at the other end of the character spectrum. So failure and overspending are sure to occur because there will simply be no delivery ability, common sense or management overview within the structure. People who have this would not work in a structure like this, they would rather die. I know this from bitter experience. If you want something to work, choose a good leader and let him get on with it - please no management boards and that nonsense. If he fails sack him and get someone else. Glen
Thanks Glen
You appear to have suffered from some some bad experiences. Yes, I agree "sadly plans are implemented by people", but if you provide people with the right tools, effective outcomes will occur.
I must also disagree about your comments on "no management boards and that nonsense". Again, I believe the effective performance of management boards depend on the terms of reference and performance measures that they are given.
I do agree that a good leader is necessary but however effective that person is, without management board support and all key staff within the overall transformation, any project will have a high risk of failure.
Post a Comment
I welcome all positive feedback.