Please have a look at the file.
The Victoria Police Link Project The management of information and communication technology enabled (ICT-enabled) projects at the state, national and international level, in both the private and public sectors, has been the subject of considerable research and debate over recent years. The consensus is that these projects are often poorly managed and failures are common. ICT systems store and communicate information about government business and in many cases are used to administer front line services to the public. Despite this, many government ICT systems are dated and lack the required functionality. Crime statistics are one measure the community uses to judge our relative safety and security. They show the rate of recorded crime across local government areas or regions, and can highlight trends such as increases or decreases in types of crimes and how and where they are committed. The government uses crime statistics as an indicator of the effectiveness of criminal justice policies, and Victoria Police uses crime statistics to help determine its resourcing needs. Victoria Police collects, reviews and records information on crimes—and the victims and alleged offenders involved—in its Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP) database. It is essentially an online database fully relational that stores information about all crimes brought to the notice of police as well as family incidents and missing persons. It also includes details on locations and persons involved. LEAP is a dynamic case management and data storage database designed primarily for operational policing purposes. Victoria Police update existing records with new information as it becomes available, and revise records when investigation identifies additional information. The Central Data Entry Bureau of Victoria Police also amends records when quality control checks identify inaccurate or incomplete information. The only problem is that LEAP is an outdated and inefficient ‘green-screen’ system developed in 1992. Background of the project Over 350,000 data records were retrieved from LEAP every day by operational members. Since its conception, numerous interfaces have been developed to support the exchange of data between LEAP and other Victoria Police systems and other organisations such as Australian Federal Police, VicRoads and the Department of Justice, making this a very complex system to be replaced. However, LEAP operated on obsolete mainframe technology and was driven by a ‘green screen’ presentation requiring keyed entries rather than a graphic presentation. LEAP is out-dated in style, functionality and operability. Its data was ‘captured’ by electronic data recording (for some crimes) and the use of voluminous forms completed by police and faxed to a central data entry bureau (approximately 1200 per day) where full time data entry staff (75) work around the clock keying information into the LEAP system. The backlog was such that it may take days for important crime information to become visible to other police. The system was burdensome and inefficient. Maintenance of the LEAP system was also time consuming and costly. In 2005, after embarrassing leaks from LEAP created public concern as to the system’s efficacy, the Office of Police Integrity recommended the replacement of LEAP with a force wide computerbased information system. In an attempt to fully replace the LEAP database, the Link project was then initiated by the Victoria Police. In August 2005, the then Premier announced $60 million funding for the replacement of LEAP, to be rolled out over three years. At the time of the announcement of the funding for the LEAP replacement no business case had been prepared. It was appreciated by the then Chief Commissioner that $60 million was insufficient for the project but her view was that the funding should be viewed as “… a bird in the hand versus two in the bush”. The Executive Director, Infrastructure and Information Technology of the Victoria Police, Mr Michael Vanderheide observed on his arrival at Victoria Police that it was thought acceptable for an IT project to run over budget with no accountability. Later in 2005 the funding for the replacement of LEAP was increased to $70.5 million. The Business Case conundrum The Business Information and Technology and Services department (BITS) – later restructured to the Infrastructure and Information Technology (I&IT) department of Victoria Police – was established in 2005 to centralise major IT account management, business management and project implementation across Victoria Police. The Chief Information Officer (CIO), responsible for BITS for much of this time, held a position at equivalent level to a Deputy Commissioner and was one of the 26 direct reports to Chief Commissioner Nixon, which advised the Minister of Police. Victoria Police engaged consultants to prepare, in a very short time, a business case (BC) to completely replace the LEAP system. This BC was prepared and delivered in February 2006, which indicated the project would cost $80.4 million over four years, as opposed to the government’s commitment of $70.5 million. As part of the BC, the project objectives indicated that the replacement would: ▪ reduce crime and improve community trust; ▪ upgrade police skills in ethical management and data sensitivity; ▪ gather better information and data; ▪ streamline data entry; and ▪ improve security of police data and access. The business case was the subject of a meeting for ‘clarification’ between the consultants and representatives of Victoria Police on 4 September 2006. The notes of the meeting revealed that the business case was written to fit the budget and for the writing of suitable messages to confirm that support. It was noted at this meeting that the business case was not a like-for-like replacement, that the business case didn’t address key existing issues with LEAP and that the benefits as outlined in the business case were extremely broad, largely unachievable and unmeasurable. A major risk to the project that escaped proper scrutiny in the business case was the difficulty and cost of incorporating into the new system the many IT interfaces developed to work in conjunction with LEAP. On 30 May 2007, the steering committee accepted the February 2006 business case subject to a number of caveats including: ▪ that the adequacy of funding would not be ascertained until more information became available as to whether the replacement system would be custom built or commercial off the shelf. ▪ the scope of the LEAP replacement had not been specified in detail within the business case and the exact scope of the project could not be confirmed. The caveats demonstrated the inadequacy of the initial business case. Not even the scope of the replacement project was known. The business case was not updated at all during the project. The absence of a business case updated with key aspects of project change (i.e. budget, schedule, scope, risks and contingencies) meant the steering committee remained ignorant of the true net present value of the project for approximately four years. The business case also failed to identify measurable benefits to be achieved by the project. Victoria Police notes from a meeting with the consultant in September 2006 indicated ‘many of the benefits are not measurable but were written to confirm government support’. For example, the business case stated that the project would lead to a reduction in crime of five per cent. However, the consultant later stated this was a ‘big statement’, ‘pretty rough’ and ‘never measurable’. Procurement & Like-for-like1 implementation strategy After a procurement process, Victoria Police entered into a contract with Canadian vendor Cyber Technologies in February 2009 to provide a commercial off-the-shelf2 records management system, the Cyber Records Management System (CRMS) product, which had been successfully implemented by police in many other jurisdictions both in Australia and overseas. Victoria Police also purchased an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB), which would provide a mechanism for the new system and other applications that interface with LEAP (such as the VicRoads database) to exchange information. However, agencies appear reluctant to acquire and make the most of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) systems. This was no different for the Link project. A COTS system was purchased but over 100 changes were made to the base package, which was customised to make it look and feel like the existing LEAP system. By following this approach, Victoria Police would have its own version of the COTS system, which could create difficulties in maintaining the system through standard upgrades. The business case accepted in May 2007 did not contemplate a like-for-like replacement of LEAP as it stated that “replace LEAP on a like-for-like basis using modern technologies and architecture would ignore the major changes in police roles and practices that have occurred and are likely to occur in the future”. At some point, however, during the procurement process a decision was taken that required the replacement of LEAP “… in all its current functionality”. The effect of the decision was to seek a custom built like-for-like solution, which reproduced the functionality of LEAP. The decision was at odds with the original business case and was at no stage properly costed, despite the caveat to the business case mentioned in the steering committee minutes of 30 May 2007. The ‘like-for-like’ strategy resulted in the commercial off-the-shelf product being excessively customised, eroding the inherent benefits offered by the LEAP replacement product and increasing costs. More so, this type of system had not been implemented as a ‘like-for-like’ replacement before and the vendor indicated to Victoria Police that the volume and complexity of implementing a ‘like-for-like’ replacement would be the largest development effort it had undertaken. The then Executive Director, Information Technology, Victoria Police stated that the ‘like-for-like’ approach did not cause the project’s problems, but the approach ‘turned into a mistake’ and resulted in a ‘huge opportunity loss’. The executive sponsor and chair of the steering committee stated that one of the learnings from the project was that Victoria Police should have re-engineered its business processes to fit the new system, rather than trying to make the system fit Victoria Police’s processes. The reluctance to change business processes appears to be driven by a desire not to inconvenience users, even in the short term, by a change in approach or the look and feel of the product. The approach is also seen to reduce training and change management costs. Yet, the like-for-like approach can lead to increased project costs and failure to capitalise on the advancements in technology since the old system was developed. An over-emphasis on replication of existing processes can result in lost opportunities in terms of making changes to improve processes, making the most of what the system itself – particularly the benefits offered by COTS systems – has to offer and minimising immediate and optimising ongoing development costs. Of course, it is inevitable when developing and implementing new ICT-enabled systems that changes to proven products will be necessary to meet the requirements of the agency. Nevertheless, it is essential when considering and implementing these changes that the risks are clearly identified and articulated and strategies are put in place to mitigate or at least minimise those risks. Timeline Costs & Funding The Link business case was developed to fit within the funding already announced by the Government - $70.5 million. The steering committee observed this