There is often a lack of political leadership behind the authorities’ failed IT projects. This is shown by an example in the correctional system in the canton of Zurich.
Too hesitant political action has meant that the electronic patient record has not been operational for years.
Christian Beutler / Keystone
Computer science is a complex matter, especially when it concerns the state. The list of failed or botched IT projects at the federal and cantonal levels is long. The company Abraxas recently completed a project for the penal system in the canton of Zurich and sold the entire product division. What’s explosive is that Abraxas is not an ordinary IT provider, but is owned by municipalities and cantons. Zurich even has two administrative boards.
The case is an example of what the state’s IT projects all too often suffer from: excessive demands and a lack of leadership. The authorities are overloading their projects, the project management is at the limit, and no one is really responsible in the confusing organizational chart of the administration. Politics is often completely absent.
Large IT projects fail everywhere, even in private companies. Most of the time the public simply doesn’t find out about it. But there is a crucial difference between the state and companies: the state has a responsibility towards its citizens. He must use tax money efficiently in order to be able to offer modern, secure and user-friendly services.
The state therefore cannot avoid acquiring the necessary know-how to successfully implement IT projects. He owes it to his citizens.
Debacle with Insieme cost the federal government millions
The Insieme project is still considered a prime example of a state IT debacle. In 2012, the then Finance Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf stopped the Federal Tax Administration’s major project after twelve years of operation. At Insieme there were violations of procurement law and corruption. The federal government had to write off 116 million francs.
An expert in the matter later identified overwhelmed project managers, unsuitable project organization and unclear responsibilities as the reasons for the spectacular failure. These mistakes also happen in the private sector.
But there is an additional problem with government projects: the lack of political leadership. IT projects are not purely technical matters. They operate within a legal framework, are embedded in organizational processes and depend on political acceptance. These factors are often crucial for success. But they are often ignored by the political leadership. The holistic view is missing.
An example of this limited view is e-voting. For a long time, the federal administration treated electronic voting as a purely cryptological challenge, until the fundamental question of trust in referendums – one of the foundations of Swiss democracy – suddenly arose. When it came to electronic patient records, the federal government for a long time turned a blind eye to the fact that there needed to be a legal obligation for doctors to actually use the service.
The state must manage its private IT service providers
Another sticking point is the division of tasks between the state and private IT companies. When it comes to electronic identity (E-ID), the federal government wanted to rely entirely on a private solution out of convenience – and thus failed miserably in the referendum. The verdict clearly showed that voters are concerned about security and privacy.
This does not mean that the state should develop all IT solutions itself, i.e. “in-house”. He can’t do that at all. But the authorities need enough IT knowledge to design the projects sensibly and manage them competently. This also includes political will to shape things.
In the case of Abraxas, this was particularly noticeably missing. The canton of Zurich holds a strategic stake in the IT company, but does not exercise its influence. Now he is left with a shambles – and his participation has proven to be useless. This is what a lack of political leadership looks like.