By Nels Johnson, Marin Independent Journal -
Marin County officials are seeking a new computer software system to handle complex fiscal affairs without an overall project plan and must tighten management, the civil grand jury asserted Monday.
The jury saluted officials for learning several lessons from a $30 million debacle in which an elaborate, untested system was installed in 2006, performed at half its expected capability and cost too much to maintain. But the panel warned other lessons are being ignored; jurors found some of the same "deficiencies" in planning for a new system that plagued the last one.
Change is needed to "avoid repeating mistakes" that led to the fiasco, the jury advised.
Management of the new project is inadequate, county supervisors are not as involved as they should be and the county continues to rely on expensive consultants, the panel observed. "There are indications ... the decision-makers still do not fully understand the risks and complexities," the jury said.
The project must be reconfigured to conform to professional Project Management Institute standards, governance must be tightened and accountability assigned, and county supervisors must step up to the management plate, the panel opined.
"Possibly the most glaring deficiency ... is the lack of a comprehensive project plan to guide all the key players and to measure progress," the jury concluded. "And surprisingly, none of the key players expressed a concern over this deficiency."
The panel added: "The current grand jury has approximately 135 years of collective project management experience among its members. None of us, nor any project management expert we talked with, nor any project management text we found, recommended embarking on a project of this complexity and size without a comprehensive project plan."
Further, while employees are more engaged this time around, "there is no clear change management plan ... it is unclear whether all staff are prepared for the change or how effective the training is."
County Administrator Matthew Hymel said he welcomed the grand jury review.
"As we have said before, we are committed to learning from our mistakes and keeping our board informed and involved in the development of a new system," Hymel said. "Basically, their recommendations are refinements to our current approach. We already plan to do much of what they are suggesting and we will seriously consider all of their recommendations."
While jurors commended officials for making sure the county's high-tech staff plays a key role in planning for the new system this time, the panel thinks the top tech staffer should have more authority and responsibility, and that a half-time project manager should be assigned to the job full time.
A new governance structure proposed by the jury assigns overall responsibility to the county high-tech chief and county administrator, saying the county, and not consultants, should be in charge. Just like last time, "the outside consultants seem to be the driving and controlling force," with a $600,000 adviser, now aided by another $100,000 adviser, convincing county supervisors to spend another $400,000 on "best business practices" in the finance and personnel departments. "Adopting best business practices now is unnecessary since it is likely the software will have these practices built in," the jury said, noting that consultants tend to recommend plans that result in additional contracts.
"We do not believe there is a lack of best business practices expertise in-house," the jury said, urging a consultant crackdown including strict hiring guidelines. "The process of hiring outside consultants has become too convenient for the Board of Supervisors."
"Marin should select a vendor now and then train managers and staff in best business practices as supported by the new software. ... This could save money and shave perhaps six months" over a timeline that puts the new system in place by the end of 2015, the jury said.
At the same time, the jury recommended use of an "objective advisory resource" or independent adviser to "review the current dynamics" of the project, the risks of proceeding as planned and the recommendations of the jury. The panel contended the move "is not to be confused with hiring an outside consultant" but is akin to getting a "second opinion" from an independent expert who can "whisper 'remember the taxpayer.'"
The jury concluded that although the county board is more involved with the current project than it was with the last one, its role remains foggy and "not as clearly defined" nor as effective as it could be. Supervisors should have more oversight and get monthly briefings that focus on areas that need attention.
The jury, although indicating officials have failed to learn all the lessons that past experience provides, pointed to a number of positive developments, including involving high-tech staffers in decision-making, better staff training, more staff "user input" in development of the system, and goals of obtaining simpler software designed for government for installation in phases based on readiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment