The larger the computer system, the greater the opportunity for errors and failures. And a system should work for its users, not the other way around. Governments should keep these concepts firmly in mind when they set out to develop systems designed to carry out a wide array of functions.
The sa国际传媒 government鈥檚 Integrated Case Management system is, in many ways, a textbook example 鈥� of what not to do.
The government began in 2008 to develop one system to handle all of its social-services programs and replace56 obsolete systems. It began the phased roll-out of the $182-million system early in 2012.
It was plagued by problems almost from the beginning, and front-line staff found it difficult to work with. Months after it was launched, it was still unable to print court documents for child-welfare cases.
Critical safety alerts were buried under so many onscreen tabs they were missed by social workers. The system needlessly duplicated hundreds of files because of small differences in names, causing confusion on what was up-to-date.
The NDP and the union representing government workers sought to have the system scrapped. But the government figured it was too far in to back out and promised to fix the problems.
The government announced last November that the system had been delivered 鈥渙n track, on time and on budget.鈥� The project was even nominated for a Premier鈥檚 Award for Innovation and Achievement on the grounds that: 鈥淒edicated change teams, responsiveness, communication and staff engagement made the significant transition from old to new a success.鈥�
Auditor general Carol Bellringer sees it differently.
鈥淚CM cost $182 million to date and has not fulfilled its key objectives of replacing numerous legacy systems and improving appropriate information-sharing,鈥� she said. 鈥淭his undercuts the original vision for a single integrated system across the social-services sector.鈥�
She said her audit found personal information in the system was not fully protected. The system was not monitored for inappropriate activity, and access to client information was not always on a need-to-know basis.
She said client information was not always accurate, and the system reduced the time staff could spend with clients.
The new system replaced only a third of the obsolete systems it was supposed to replace, she said, and now operates alongside dozens of antiquated systems.
Let鈥檚 not be too quick to blame the politicians. It鈥檚 complex technology, and they are at the mercy of the bureaucrats, who are in turn at the mercy of expert consultants. Hindsight says those consultants and the bureaucrats made the wrong choice, given the problems the system has experienced and how much it cost.
Several other provinces looked at the system sa国际传媒 chose and rejected it as unsuitable, choosing instead a system designed by social workers specifically for government human-services work.
And that鈥檚 where the designing should start 鈥� at the front lines.
The system should seek first to serve clients and to make the tasks of social workers easier so they can focus on clients鈥� needs.
Technology should be tailored to how the work is done, but too often, new systems force workers to change how they do things, and not always for the better.
Perhaps we rely too much on technology. Because computers can do so much, we expect them to do everything. But they do only what they are told to do, and when something goes wrong, it鈥檚 usually because the instructions are muddled.
The ICM system has made some improvements, but has fallen short of what has promised. That is not a failure of technology, but of the humans who designed it.
