why is our software so lousy, suboptimal, dreadful and wack?
as well as having hours of fun with the thesaurus... i've been having a read of Shape the market and buy better stuff | Catherine Howe and the discussion in the LocalGovDigital group about why we are still #fixingtheplumbing with no end in sight 😕
grumpy bit
literally nobody seems to be happy with the current local gov software market yet it still persists. since nobody asked, here are some assorted thoughts on the subject:
digital is treated as a functional thing we need to have in existence, not an asset that benefits from active development and investment. like how we have to have carpet and windows in the office. as long as the thing is there, the work is complete.
if anyone says yeah but we look at our strategy and how important ✨digital transformation✨ is and this and that... look at our projects, how we actually define them, and measure done and success. success is when the miserable piece of software is finally up and running. like when the sad grey carpet has been fitted. job done and on to the next thing.
when did you last see a major software project where the project goal / definition of done was focussed on people? instead of being about something being installed, implemented, switched on, going live. “The Project” ends up being about implementing a change not having change.
active development and investment =/= maintenance, upgrades and configuration. even if you have the same people do all those things they are not the same. its another level.
also - why do we have the same people doing all these things in digital teams? do you expect your building maintenance teams to also manage development?
the value of a system is what you do with it and make of it, not what you pay for it. conversely, a high price tag does not make something good.
✨digital✨ =/= back office systems. i feel like 99% of our mental capacity for digital is spent grappling with legacy software. each one in its separate box. we are in maintenance and survival mode. we replace things just as they get desupported or sometimes even just after. our workplans are organised around what is the biggest security risk.
digital to me is the whole experience. you have the customer facing experience, and the internal staff experience. made up of a patchwork of software systems, websites, programs, whatever.
but if we only have 1% of our capacity to actually think about this stuff (literal figure no exaggeration lol) then is it any wonder we don't get past the AARAGH stage
that ticking clock means a major factor becomes "what will be fast to implement?" or "what will take the minimum resource from our side?". which is often at odds with "what is the best thing" or "what gives us scope to develop?".
we don't need to worry about scope to develop if we don't employ enough technical staff to do the development work 🙃
when I talk about resources I also mean subject matter experts / system admins / improvement and technical minded peeps in the service areas, not just ICT
when we procure new things we are constrained by contract end dates, desupport dates, existing knowledge, staff capacity, the 10 tab procurement spreadsheet, the gnarly things it has to integrate with, the wretched thing it has to replace. it's a jigsaw puzzle hole in the shape of a turd 💩
the local govt procurement process is a lot like the local govt recruitment process. in that once you know how it works its easy to play the game. making everything fit into the boxes on a spreadsheet, to be measurable with the intention of being "fair" just makes it easy to game for the big suppliers that know how to tick the right boxes.
if coming up with a business case for something is a huge effort you don't have a business case. the core of a business case is putting into words what is already known - that there is a need for something. too many projects follow the pattern of Have Idea > Think Of Justification > Start. which is in part because its so difficult to trial things
technical people are often only involved at the later stages - after the thing has been chosen, only there to comment on how it gets installed and set up.
- technical people - get out there and lead this stuff. share your ideas. you aren't just there to suck teeth at how much work the integrations will take and how X isn't compatible with Y.
i do have some more positive ideas as well as pure grumble but that's gonna have to be part 2 😁
part 2: so how do we get software that is praiseworthy, excellent, desirable and super?