The Big Four consultancies might be on the nose in Canberra for their ability to milk the public purse while providing strategic technology advice for projects that went awry or blew up on the runway before they went live.
But KPMG is not about to be led quietly to its procurement potter’s ground.
As the Albanese government continues to try to insource as much consulting work as it can to wean the “coalition of the billing” off the lucrative hourly payroll washed through AusTender, KPMG has declared itself largely outside the reach of the giant IT project probe’s terms of reference.
“Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit’s (the committee) Inquiry into the failed visa privatisation process and the implementation of other public sector IT procurements and projects (the Inquiry),” KPMG global digital government lead partner & national leader of technology partner infrastructure, government and healthcare Dean Grandy wrote in the consultancy’s submission to the probe.
“KPMG notes the inquiry’s expanded scope to look at public sector IT projects more broadly compared to the previously announced Inquiry into the procurement of the Permissions Capability. KPMG’s involvement in the specific IT projects referenced in the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference is limited and/or out of scope.
“Any work conducted by KPMG in relation to the permissions capability project commenced by the Department of Home Affairs is subject to strict and ongoing confidentiality obligations,” Grandy said.
The official position indicates the multinational consultant is not prepared to dish the dirt on its clients or the often opaque process of creating solutions to public policy problems, or public policy problems to fit solutions that are often sold across multiple geographies.
It also indicates a reticence to spill the beans on partnerships with key IT vendors and bureaucrats sometimes used to plant the seed to grow a reform agenda reliant on external expertise and assistance.
There’s also a strong hint the consultancy could give as good as it gets in terms of providing evidence on where projects go wrong with the potential to illuminate the shortcomings of policymakers and the public sector.
The internecine churn-and-burn culture of politics where projects are frequently opposed because they are proposed by those opposite is firmly in the crosshairs.
“Over the past decade, we have observed programs abandoned, descoped or redirected with changes in governments, ministers and policy agendas. As such, securing political sponsorship before program commencement, and being proactive in re-engaging in the face of environmental challenges, is essential for the successful delivery and completion of large ICT programs,” KPMG said.
In other words, many multi-year reform projects get necked simply because they were not commissioned by the government of the day.
“In our experience, the authorising environment in which a program sits is the most important factor for success. Not only do programs rely heavily on political goodwill for initial funding and initiation, but also for maintaining momentum, urgency and buy-in over the program’s lifetime,” KPMG said.
There is real evidence of this.
Digital identity and federal government customer credentials have been a political football for 25 years, with industry loathe to invest because of the volatility.
Other major reform projects have oscillated between the poles of costly outsourcing and privatisation government operations and defaulting to strictly in-house operational provision where innovation and automation are bitterly resisted.
The struggle of the federal government to provide a user experience comparable to banks or utilities has also been a major bugbear for around 15 years.
KPMG doesn’t publicly flame the Australian National Audit Office, but it does pour petrol all over the procurement processes and rules the national beancounter makes its assessments against.
“In our view, current procurement processes can limit the ability of the Australian Government to engage with suppliers, sometimes impacting the ability to maximise value for money,” KPMG said.
“Procurement practices could be enhanced to facilitate closer, more confident engagement and fast iteration between government and delivery partners, without undermining the capacity of those practices to deliver fairness and probity.”
There is also a very polite observation that the current probity process is broken in terms of securing results over process.
“Over the past decade, we have observed a tendency by governments to separate program functions, roles and responsibilities, assigning each to multiple, separate suppliers. While KPMG appreciates that this has probity advantages, it also introduces significant delivery complexity for the Australian Government, which must procure, manage and integrate these separate functions,” the consultancy said.
“Often, the integration role is also outsourced, further diluting governmental authority and reducing long-term government capacity. In our view, a balance must be struck between probity practices and the ability to retain strong integration and coordination capability for the Australian Government.
“This balance needs to be right for each individual program but should be considered with the successful outcomes of the program in mind.”
Or, to put it in the language of antique shop owners, you break it, you pay for it.
READ MORE:
Services Australia prepares to sack politically manipulative tech vendors
