ICM

This is just a piece of the ineptitude of government IT where the privitization ideology overrides rational decisionmaking. In IT one can roughly divide the options among open source products, products using open standards, and fully proprietory products. The latter can be the most profitable for the provider company in the long run as they control the software and force you to lock in to achieve inter-operability. They usually promise to support seamless interoperability and often fail to deliver.

More generic open source and open standards programs cede less control to the provider, and can be much less expensive, but require you to provide your own expertise. Hiring more competent people seems anathema to this government.

ICM

This is just a piece of the ineptitude of government IT where the privitization ideology overrides rational decisionmaking. In IT one can roughly divide the options among open source products, products using open standards, and fully proprietory products. The latter can be the most profitable for the provider company in the long run as they control the software and force you to lock in to achieve inter-operability. They usually promise to support seamless interoperability and often fail to deliver.

More generic open source and open standards programs cede less control to the provider, and can be much less expensive, but require you to provide your own expertise. Hiring more competent people seems anathema to this government.

that picture....

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31100000/Umbridge-dolores-umbridge-31119302-500-315.png

Facts

1) The government paid to develop a new system that hadn't been used before anywhere else in the world, and doesn't work here. That's bad decision making and planning. 2) The government dumped the system on caseworkers (especially at delegated Aboriginal child protection agencies) without sufficient training - which was mostly "provided" online instead of hands-on - or in many cases even notice. Again, bad decision making and planning. 3) The government is hiring people to try and fix the problem after the fact - though apparently only for the Ministry side, not at the Aboriginal agencies who do the same work with less funding. That is not just bad decision making but simply, flat-out bad.

Slithey

Are you bummed you ineptly posted your 'ineptitude' post twice? Don't be! your post was bang on - open source. And the post-posting display on this otherwise great website is ambiguous when refreshing.

Full disclosure: I'm a victim of BCeSiS, a public math/science/computer high school teacher. Like ICM, the bcesickness inducing sub-par cobbled together 'program' gets in the way of doing the job. This video analysis of the software http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PA4Vrpd5qA was viral among BC teachers. At one point it finally occurred to the Ministry to ask input from teachers. In my submission I pointed out an obvious and troubling incongruity in the password protocol. No feedback on that yet.

BCeSiS often runs slow because it's continually sending info 'home' to the Ministry with insufficient infrastructure support. My block-by-block attendance data could be batch filed on a building server and transmitted overnight, but no, the Ministry needs to know in real time at what time I entered my 4th block attendance. The data has enabled the Ministry to provide me with constructive feedback that has improved my practice (sarcasm).

so much

blether from the Minister about the computer system...so little actual, real, and positive progress to protect the kids... the reason the government is running around like wet hens hiring social workers is because, for years, they've understaffed the Ministry and so over-loaded the workers that too many of them have quit because of burn-out.

They should be ashamed of themselves.
But, of course, they won't be.

after all, you can't make an omelet without cracking eggs.

ICM!!!

The minister needs to get that it is not a matter of training SW's to use the sysem better. The system is cumbersome and dangerous. And hiring new SW's means that line staff have to wait a minimum of 6 months for that extra support - the time it takes to train a new SW and have them delegated to deal with chid protection work! What we really need is not this system - maybe not the old one either but ICM does not work and cannot be made to work for child protection!

why not admit the mess and fix it?

Having worked as a social worker in the past and knowing people in MCFD, I can confirm that the old computer system was a mess and needed replacement. What infuriates workers in the Ministry and is confirmed in this article is that this government continues to infer that the problem lies with current social workers who can't understand the new system. The government seems to be incapable of simply admitting that whoever was in charge of putting this system screwed up and that they need to tender a new contract to develop a new system. Instead, they hire more senior workers to "enlighten" the current workers. Wasteful, and stupid!

:) I can see now how they think they can get re-elected:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/09/elections-bc-online-voting_n_1761506.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada

ICM

More Benny Hill than Yes Minister.But not so funny for front line MCFD staff who are mostly ignored by out of touch executive as evidenced by this debacle.

Is the contracted out private sector any better?

No it's not. The privatized social service agencies are disgustingly deficient in IT and IT security. It's a nightmare waiting to happen. Are the Liberals going to fix them too?

Not holding my breath.

D

digital road building

Where does one start? Building great software won't solve any problems unless we upgrade the whole freakin digital infrastructure. Jeez we have 50+ year old micro wave towers, private and public moving data across the island and the province. From what I understand and see its a patchwork of private and government corps.
In our small village on the west coast BC tel is here on a weekly basis probably upgrading or patching up some gear to our tower(s). I cant begin to understand what they are doing but its costing somebody something, likely the taxpayer. The issue of screwy software encompasses other larger issues. Maybe some brave reporter with technical saavy can put all the pieces together. Its like trying to understand a 70 year old sewage treatment plant, almost impossible.

How old the system is, is irrelevent

I very much doubt this system is running on 30-year old consumer-grade hardware.

But badly designed software, and badly written software, and proprietary software that uses proprietary formats and protocols are a major problem -- a problem that "keeps on giving", as one of the major consequences is "lock-in" to technologies and providers who are a poor match and/or have interests not actually aligned with those of the supposed customer.

Even in the private sphere, large IT projects suffer notoriously high failure rates. Common major factors in such failures are poor planning, failure to consult with those who must use the finished software about actual needs and conditions that the software should conform to, and interference from management higher up the chain who (often influenced by marketing or political considerations) impose uninformed or misinformed decisions and requirements, etc. An excellent recent example was the creation of a computerised trading system for the London Stock Exchange, inappropriately built upon Windows-based technologies and heavily promoted by Microsoft, which failed so badly it was replaced in its entirety by a competing Linux-based solution, after having utterly collapsed under the load of the Fannie-Mae stock market debacle.

It would be interesting to see a proper, and informed analysis as to the actual nature of this projects on-going failures, to what degree they are caused by bad technologies, and to what degree by bad design, and to what degree by politically-driven decisions against informed policy recommendations and competent technological advice.