Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 06

26 / Canadian Government Executive // December 2018/January 2019 DIGITAL GOVERNMENT ects if CDS were created. However, if the example projects were successful without CDS, then why is the cost and overhead of a new organization warranted? CDS is an answer to other countries’ problems. At its inception, CDS’s stated mission was: • Facilitate the reuse of existing solutions within the Government to minimize the waste of redundant solutions and asso- ciated costs, and • Accelerate development of innovative solutions. However, one of the earliest examples of CDS’s efforts seems inappropriate. Learn- ing of a ministerial trip abroad, CDS quickly developed an iPad solution for ministers to carry their documents digi- tally instead of hard copy. Most TBS docu- mentation is classified SECRET. CDS un- fortunately looked past existing solutions for classified electronic binders and sent a ministerial delegation with classified info outside of Canada on a redundant new system without proper security review. Another example is the request-a-new- citizenship-appointment service. The basic question is why would one make the significant investment to develop a service when this type of commodity ap- plication can be bought stand-alone or as a service with a credit card, probably better, faster and cheaper? Where was the business justification? CDS, as created, is: • Not held to the same standard for project management, standardization and secu- rity as SSC and other departments, and • Taking on significant risk for the Gov- ernment by pursuing developmental projects and not anticipating the risk, resources and processes necessary to compete with industry as a mature soft- ware development organization (i.e., how would CDS expect to compete with CA, CGI, IBM, Microsoft, or Oracle in developing software and systems?). This redundant organization is not need- ed as currently constituted. Mitigations and Recommendations Change in Governance: SSC Board of Directors The current governance structure of SSC has demonstrated to be insufficient for SSC to achieve its objectives supporting the Government. While SSC has an advi- sory board composed of customers in the form of the Deputy Minister Committee on Enterprise Plans and Priorities (DM- CEPP), SSC needs to be governed by a competent Board of Directors composed of very senior managed service-provider industry veterans who would report to the Minister Responsible for SSC. The SSC Board would ensure SSC oper- ates more in line with industry norms to be more effective and efficient. The SSC Board would have the typical committees to fulfill its fiduciary duties and provide transparency to the Board’s and SSC’s op- erations. The Board would ensure: • SSC is fully audited using the same guidelines and processes as a public company (which are often stricter than many government departments). • Proper benchmarking, transparency and oversight of its finances, operations and security by qualified internal and third party auditors. • Appropriate succession planning and hiring for key leadership roles based on competitive compensation. • SSC achieves the vision and objectives of the Shared Services Act. Change in the Constitution of SSC: Department, Agency, Crown Corporation? Since its inception, there has been some de- bate about how SSC is constituted: should it be an agency or even a crown corporation? Maybe the answer is something else. SSC needs the same organization, ca- pabilities and controls as the world class organizations to which it is compared while maintaining the intimate relation- ships with colleagues across the Govern- ment, through the Deputy Minister level. One should consider successful models such as Defense Construction Canada or Nav Canada while maintaining the DM- level relationships of a typical depart- ment. An answer may be to have two or- ganizations with the DM, Associate DM The consolidation of services among PSPC, SSC and TBS (incl. CDS) is a “low hanging fruit” opportunity. Each department has its own hierarchy with different mandates, agendas, cultures and resources. The excessive delay and extra cost cannot be overestimated based on this current model.