Canadian Government Executive - Volume 25 - Issue 02

the evolution of the industry. For exam- ple, coal tenders are no longer required in buildings – we moved on. Such is the case with IT. However, the evolution occurs at a much quicker pace. The objective of the unions should be for their memberships to have gainful employment, not assum- ing someone will perform the same job for 30 years. (I say this as someone raised in a union family.) In summary, I am not saying all work should be taken to industry. My view at SSC was and continues to be that all deci- sions should be based on valid business cases where the Government option is the baseline for comparison. There con- tinues to be cases in Government where decisions and investments are made without valid business cases (e.g., Next- Gen HR & Pay). However, the President of SSC and I were steadfast in this approach. Managing Managed Services It is vitally important to have a cadre of public servants highly adept at manag- ing services. This is particularly poignant given the vast majority of Government needs can be accommodated in the mar- ket, and in many cases are a commodity. Governments in general – and Canada is no exception – have a hard time be- ing good customers. It’s the nature of the environment. Even when Government is providing the majority of a given service, public servants need to work with indus- try well to be successful. It is also important to understand this is critical in the consolidated approach. There is less risk and a higher chance of consistent success to have an organiza- tion managing contracts as part of the enterprise services provider where the expertise can be sustained and institu- tionalized, and a part of the major lines of service at SSC, rather than to have contracts dissimilarly managed across the Government. Improved Contracting Performance-Based Contracting Tangential to better management of man- aged services, the Government has not progressed well regarding performance- based contracting, which is based on ser- vice objectives and a performance work statement rather than a traditional RFP process. The advantage to the Govern- ment is it reduces cycle time and shifts more of the risk to the vendor, who is of- ten better equipped to deal with the risk. The benefit then, in a properly managed contract, is that the vendor’s resources are used when something goes wrong (i.e., the vendor pays). The Government should borrow such practices from other governments (which are well proven and documented) and industry, and institu- tionalize them through laws, policies and directives as necessary with incentives for good performance and convenient ways of resolving or eliminating poor perform- ers. This is a very focused improvement that can be pursued immediately. Past Performance Evaluation Criteria Another easily implemented tool to im- prove contracting is to more heavily weigh contract evaluation and scoring towards past performance, especially on commodity services where there is a ro- bust market with track records. While we made some progress with this approach at SSC, more can be made at SSC and across the Government. For some rea- son, the Government has actually avoid- ed this practice, which simply does not make sense. Improved Cycle Time of Procurements There is substantial effort in reforming Government procurement activities. I will not attempt to take on the topic in its entirety here; I only advocate for contin- ued improvements. One approach may be to segregate procurement rules for IT, given the unique and dynamic nature of the IT industry. There are examples in other countries. Procuring Procurement as a Service While this concept may be a challenge to suggest, I would feel remiss for not propos- ing it. There are examples in other govern- ments where firms are contracted to pro- vide a variety of services on a performance basis, and they include procurement as one of the provided services. This becomes a very cost-effective option for any organiza- tion as one gains the buying power and effi- ciencies from the service provider. Some in Government will say the Government must always be the decision maker and procurer of products and services; however, this is false. For example, when the Government procures vehicle fleet services, it does not get involved in procuring the oil used in the maintenance of the fleet; it is included as part of the service as this is more economi- cal. This same approach can be taken with IT to a large degree. The demonstrated experience of IT globally is that governments in general do not have the capacity or experience to accomplish transformational programs on their own. Public servants can go their en- tire career and only be involved in one or two transformational events. Asking these people to participate in or lead some part of a Phoenix-type project is not realistic or fair – and this applies up through the most senior levels of the Government. Drag- ging out or cutting significant projects into small bits is a tactic used by people with- out the requisite experience that masks the problems and adds unnecessary delays to the required services to the Government and Canadians. Again, don’t confuse en- thusiasm for capability. If the Government and Public Service really want to make progress as a leader in digital government, then it needs to fully embrace and lever- age their partners in industry. John Glowacki has the distinction of having held key roles for delivering and procuring solutions within the Governments of Canada and the United States, most recently as COO of Shared Services Canada, as well as during his time in the private sector as the Chief Technology Officer of one of the larg- est IT firms in the world. https://www. linkedin.com/in/johnaglowackijr/ April/May 2019// Canadian Government Executive / 11 DIGITAL GOVERNMENT