Independent GovERP Reuse Assessment

The shifts in GovERP’s scope, changes in ownership, and limited stakeholder consistency (as evidenced by multiple changes to the entities identified for initial onboarding) have culminated in a program that has not delivered as originally intended. The volatility, and ambiguity in ownership and accountability, has resulted in an under-delivering project. The need for well-functioning ERP capabilities across government has not abated.

Recommendation

a) As core underpinning capability of all government entities, ERP uplifts need clear ownership and accountability mechanisms established at both the COO Committee and Secretaries Data and Digital Committee (SDDC) levels, to ensure considered uplift sequencing and to promote common approaches with limited customisations.

b) To ensure equitable access to market resources across entities, overarching SDDC governance is needed to support successful ERP uplifts and implementation across government.

Report reference

Section 2.3 GovERP project history

GovERP has not achieved the aim of a standardised common transactional corporate service across the APS. 30 functional GovERP capabilities have been developed to date with 18 of these having completed functional testing, but none have progressed beyond functional testing into system integration testing, user acceptance testing or production. 

The ERP solution in its current form is not suitable to meet whole-of-government or Services Australia’s operational requirements. The objective of a standardised, common transactional corporate service will not be achieved by GovERP, even if the remaining work to complete the MVP1.1 is progressed.

Recommendation

Given the objective of a standardised, common transactional corporate service will not be achieved by GovERP, further direct investment in GovERP for whole-of-government use is not recommended.

Report reference

Section 3.3 Remaining work to complete GovERP

Considering the current state of ERP capabilities, Tier 1 reuse opportunities (use of what has already been built) are limited. 

Building on existing GovERP capabilities with a separate ERP instance (a Tier 2 reuse opportunity) may be desirable for larger entities with complex ERP requirements and substantial in-house functional and technical digital skills. In such a case, GovERP could serve as a potential accelerator as it can help minimise the effort and financial investment required to develop capabilities based on the current build and test status.

Recommendation

Any entity intending to progress ERP upgrades must have a robust business case for investment. The government needs to enforce, via policy, a strong incentive to ensure entities actively consider reuse of existing capabilities, as well as leveraging current arrangements with commercial vendors for licences and hosting costs where applicable.

Report reference

Section 4.1 Reusability by tier

There is strong demand for GovERP’s business process maps, designs, patterns and related documentation to be made available for reuse by other government entities (a Tier 3 reuse opportunity). While the Digital Transformation Agency’s Australian Government Architecture (AGA) provides a centralised site to make reusable designs available, there may be merit in a secure sharing facility to disseminate sensitive materials that are not suitable for publication on the AGA website.

Recommendation

The Digital Transformation Agency to provide a centralised site to make confirmed reusable designs available, including secure sharing facility to disseminate sensitive materials that are not suitable for publication on the AGA website.

Report reference

Section 4.1 Reusability by tier

GovERP was envisaged as a single, whole-of-government technology hub. Componentisation of each capability for potential reuse is possible but has limited commercial effectiveness. Grouping of like entities may help to achieve economies of scale without the complexity of pursuing a whole-of-government, one-size-fits-all approach. Further, focussing on smaller-scale projects over shorter time limits may help minimise ERP uplift delivery risks. 

The new ERP Category under the Software Marketplace Panel, coupled with the Department of Finance’s work to support a small-entity solution, may help to identify next steps for a collective or group-based approach.

Recommendation

Where possible, future ERP uplifts should group entities of similar complexity and scale (not necessarily aligned to portfolio, organisation, or other corporate service provision arrangements), to help achieve economies of scale and re-use without the challenge of pursuing a whole-of-government approach.

Report reference

Section 5 Alternate designs or delivery pathways