If there’s no proven commercial technology available in the market to meet a specific government need, then an organization can either develop the system by itself, or can wait. Usually it’s best to sit tight. As the chance of a successful IT project is directly proportional to the length of the time a government is prepared to wait for a commercial solution to come along.
Okay, sure, government isn't business. The private sector has to make fast decisions, while the public sector must take the right decisions. Government is more accountable and more conscious of integrity, transparency and openness. There's another thing that distinguishes government from business: politics. Often it's a politician who makes the decision not to wait for some boring COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) product and instead go with an unproven yet highly innovative and totally whiz-bang solution that offers fantastic possibilities for business change without actually having to change the business.
The problem with government sector is that their budgets tend to encourage highly visible mega-projects. Small projects are ignored during budget negotiations because the big ones are more easily communicated as evidence of political action and response to a problem.
So, is it all hopeless? Are we mouse-trapped into an endless run of exceeding budgets, delayed and abandoned projects, and systems that don't work as intended? Not necessarily. Ministers are increasingly being held accountable for wasting taxpayer's money. And IT projects – particularly those under the e-government category – are increasingly seen as business-critical projects with top management and politicians held accountable for their success. With some luck, we might start seeing government departments producing better business cases to support IT spending, better project management skills, and better measurements of the benefits achieved by IT projects. And we might even see government get better at waiting.
Quelle: The Economic Times
