Analyst: Feds got data centre policy wrong

 

No metrics to hold large agencies accountable.

[NB - This story has been the subject of some contention between Mr Sargeant and the journalist who recorded this interview. Please see the editor's note below.]

The Federal Government has got the details of its data centre policy wrong, according to an author of one of the reports used by the government to develop its plan.

On Monday, Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner announced the government's long term data centre strategy, which is designed to consolidate disparate data centres and centralise purchasing in order to save $1 billion over the next 15 years.

The government commissioned various research reports into the subject before making its decision. Phil Sargeant, managing vice president of datacentre systems at Gartner, contributed one of these reports, titled Data Centre: Technology Trends and Impacts. Sargeant today said the government had failed to take into account a key recommendation - that it should impose efficiency metrics on larger agencies, such as Centrelink and the Australian Tax Office.

Smaller agencies and departments have certain 'triggers' placed on their progress before they are forced to move to a shared data centre. However, the government has chosen to take a lassiez-faire approach to larger departments, which are eligible to opt-out of the scheme.

Gartner's Sargeant [pictured] said he thinks the government's approach to the larger agencies is "wrong" and although they have the skills to run their own data centre infrastructure, they should have been bound by some metrics.

"There are efficiencies to be had in those larger departments. I think they need to be put in place by the hierarchy. I think the larger [departments], while they can do what they want from an infrastructure perspective and skills perspective, there should be some metrics around showing certain efficiencies and that seems to be missing," he said.

When asked if the government's goal of saving $1 billion over 15 years was realistic, Sargeant said it would be likely in the long term - if the various departments could get over political squabbles and infighting.

"I think it is possible [to realise the savings], they very much have to go to a shared services and shared infrastructure model and that is going to be a little bit of a cultural change - there is going to be a lot of politics when they put that in place.

"I think the internal politics is going to be the biggest hurdle. The technology is there to do it as long as they can get past their own politics," he said.

[Editor's note: This story has been the subject of some contention between Mr Sargeant and the journalist who recorded this interview. On the tape of the interview, Mr Sargeant clearly says "I think that is wrong" when making reference to the lack of metrics applied to large agencies under the Federal Government's data centre plan, and whether they could opt out of the otherwise mandatory arrangement.

The headline, however, infers that Mr Sargeant believed the Government's entire data centre strategy was flawed. Mr Sargeant has since made it explicitly clear to iTnews that he believes the strategy is sound at a macro level, and that he only has reservations pertaining to smaller details - the lack of metrics being principal among them.]


Analyst: Feds got data centre policy wrong
"Hello Mun. I am extremely disappointed that you seem to have taken comments I made about the Government data centre policy out of context. At no stage did I say that the Government got this data ..."
By PhilSargeant
 
 
 
Comments: 5
John Sheridan
Mar 23, 2010 9:50 PM
I am the division manager in Finance responsible for the implementation of the Data Centre Strategy.

Contrary to the comments here, while any agency can apply to opt out, the criteria (http://www.finance.gov.au/e-government/strategy-and-governance/docs/Process_for_administration_of_opt.pdf) are strict. Opt-out applications are only entertained in the following circumstances:
a) The policy cannot be implemented legally;
b) The policy has a measurable adverse impact on identified Government policies;
c) The application of the policy would create a tangible threat to national security;
d) The ability to respond to external ICT related issues and trends is improved;
e) The ability to manage and leverage the Government’s information assets, having due regard to privacy concerns where appropriate, is enhanced;
f) Compliance costs and regulatory burden on citizens and business is reduced.

In accordance with Sir Peter Gershon's recommendations, opt-outs are likely to be the exception rather than the rule.

Secondly, all FMA agencies, large and small, are required to meet the standards referred to in the first phase of implementation (http://www.finance.gov.au/e-government/infrastructure/docs/AGDC_Strategy.pdf) as they adopt the strategy, based on reaching one of the trigger points.

Finally, I understand that Mr Sargeant believes he has been misquoted.
mkotadia
Mar 24, 2010 10:28 AM
Hi John, thanks for your comment.

Firstly, the six criteria stipulated for agencies to opt out of the federal policy are rather vague.

As for Phil Sargeant's comments, he made them during a Gartner lunch yesterday and I have a recording of the whole conversation - I would be happy to publish this recording if you feel that is required.

Mun
Susan Moore
Mar 24, 2010 12:25 PM
The Gartner analyst quoted in this story is currently presenting at a conference in Sydney, but will respond directly to you once he is able.
Mordd
Mar 24, 2010 7:52 PM
Thanks for clarifying john, so in other words any agency can opt out for pretty much any reason at all, and they simply have to 'tick' one of the 6 reasons you listed, seems fairly simple to me.

To call those reason vague is an understatement, theres so much wriggle room in that wording you could drive an aircraft carrier through the middle and still have room to spare.
PhilSargeant
Mar 24, 2010 9:09 PM
Hello Mun.
I am extremely disappointed that you seem to have taken comments I made about the Government data centre policy out of context.

At no stage did I say that the Government got this data centre strategy wrong. I do acknowledge that I said that there should have been more discussion about efficiency metrics, an issue that has since been clarified for me by the government. I also acknowledge that I said that a lot of issues about change relate to politics (both in the private and public sectors) and not technology.

I am disappointed that there was no mention of the positive comments I made about the strategy.

You are most welcome to print word for word our discussion. I do not believe you will find that at any stage I said “Feds got Data Centre policy wrong”. In fact I think that your recording will indicate that I said it was a good strategy with a couple of provisos.

Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Revealed: 2012 e-government award winners
Government highlights projects, professionals of the year.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 480

Vote