# Government to go to common IT systems across all departments



## kratz

Shared from CBC.ca



> Federal agency to slash IT costs
> By Laura Payton, CBC News
> Posted: Aug 4, 2011 11:06 AM ET
> Last Updated: Aug 4, 2011 11:43 AM ET
> 
> The federal government is setting up a new agency to streamline IT systems in government, Treasury Board President Tony Clement will announce Thursday.
> 
> It's part of the government's effort to cut costs and balance the budget by 2014.
> 
> Government departments tend to run their own IT programs, so not all of them use the same software.
> 
> The agency aims to move to one email system, among other changes, and reduce the government's data network.
> 
> Clement and Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose will make the announcement Thursday afternoon in Ottawa.
> 
> Clement spoke Thursday morning to a business audience in Halifax, where his prepared remarks referred to using technology to modernize how the government works.
> 
> Lower costs, more efficiency
> 
> In a speech to top-level public servants in June, he said it was clear more needs to be done to standardize and consolidate across government.
> 
> "This brings to mind recent innovations such as shared services arrangements between departments," Clement said in his prepared remarks.
> 
> "These arrangements are not only a phenomenal way to pool expertise. They also contribute to lowering costs and making the government even more effective and efficient."
> 
> "We'll be taking a look at the operational spending that occurs across government, and asking the hard questions. Should we still be doing this — and doing it in this way? Does this have to be delivered by this organization? Why does it cost as much as it does? Can we find savings? Is it achieving the expected results efficiently? Is this a government priority, and is it affordable during a period of fiscal restraint? Are we achieving value for money?"
> 
> All government departments are reviewing their programs to find at least five per cent in cuts as part of the budget-balancing exercise.



It was wounderful changing to the common signature. This change will be another interesting experience.   :


----------



## luke_l

Doesn't specifically mention DND... maybe it won't affect us?


----------



## Occam

luke_l said:
			
		

> Doesn't specifically mention DND... maybe it won't affect us?



We're the largest federal government department, both in terms of personnel and budget.

Logically, that means that everyone else should be marching to our beat....Windows Server 2003/Windows XP and all.  

No, I'm not serious....I think.


----------



## McG

Occam said:
			
		

> Logically, that means that everyone else should be marching to our beat....


We are not even marching to our own beat where various L1s are pumping their own resources into different IT systems which may not be compatible or supported by the centre.  When this rolls out, there will be some shocks.  

... but, maybe it will allow us to reinvest some manpower that has been tied-up in ADM(IM) as a central government agency takes over the work.


----------



## PuckChaser

I can't imagine what this is going to do to the timelines for helpdesk service....


----------



## REDinstaller

The helpless desk you mean. I think the black hole of trouble tickets just got wider.


----------



## Occam

Tango18A said:
			
		

> The helpless desk you mean. I think the black hole of trouble tickets just got wider.



What do you mean?  There are only a couple hundred CSNI accounts queued up to be created/reactivated in the NCR.  If you submit your request now, you might get an account in....oh, about three weeks.  

Assuming your DWAN account is up-to-date and we don't have to wait for it to be updated, that is.


----------



## cupper

Well, it will make hacking attacks more efficient. :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor

If they go to the Windows solution, we are in big trouble from hackers, and will still have large administrative overhead costs.

If they go to a UUNIX based system like SUN Microsystems Solaris, the network is much more robust, but it will take a fortune to redo all the platforms and train/retrain the cadre of UNIX administrators to run the thing, not to mention the costs of new hardware  (although on the + side the number of helpdesk incidents wil fall).

If they go to LINUX, the costs will be lower (LINUX can be ported across most existing hardware) but the time factor will increase as users/administrators need to be trained.

New office software and databases can be run on all these platforms (OpenOffice is free and the output can be saved in MS Office format if you need to export it to non deparment users, for example). Most of the costs of running a network come down to license fees for the software and the cost of IT admin staff. Retraining users is not too hard; indeed most products can be configured to look and behave like what users are familier with (Windows 7 runs a lot like my MacBook with OSX Leopard  ) so there should be little difficulty on that end.

In the end, this is going to be an expensive and time consuming process regardless of which direction they go.


----------



## PuckChaser

The cost for DND to do anything other than upgrade to the next Windows Server version would be enormous. Not to mention the network downtime. 10s of thousands of accounts would have to be manually ported from Active Directory to Linux/UNIX account control.

It still blows my mind how long it takes to have accounts created. Active Directory makes it so easy to copy a profile over and change a few settings so you get your own email. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy by any means, but its what we have and its pretty easy to use. 3 weeks is just insane with the amount of IT pers that the public service has hired.


----------



## Occam

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The cost for DND to do anything other than upgrade to the next Windows Server version would be enormous. Not to mention the network downtime. 10s of thousands of accounts would have to be manually ported from Active Directory to Linux/UNIX account control.



Agreed.  Changing at this point just isn't an option.



> It still blows my mind how long it takes to have accounts created. Active Directory makes it so easy to copy a profile over and change a few settings so you get your own email. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy by any means, but its what we have and its pretty easy to use. 3 weeks is just insane with the amount of IT pers that the public service has hired.



Ummm....Public Service (CS-01, CS-02) doing accounts?   :rofl:

They've loaned us a hand occasionally, but since they're not familiar with the procedures, they make mistakes all over the place, and we spend nearly as much time checking/correcting their work as we do doing our own work.  There are now three military pers doing that job.  One had no IT background whatsoever when he got here two years ago, one is a new Pte who joined us a couple weeks ago but at least knows AD and we've been showing him the ropes, and me.  There are two contractors helping out when they're not doing their own jobs, but again, they don't know the job and need lots of quality checking on their work.  We used to have two full-time contractors in the section, but one got hired as a CS-01 (without a replacement), and the other got a better contract with another section (without replacement).  I've brought up manning problems for the last two years (and have the sent e-mails to prove it), but nobody seems to be listening.

Up until two weeks ago, we couldn't copy user accounts because of the way rights were managed in the OUs.

Add to that the following shenanigans:

- Implementing a new OU structure (with accompanying problems because of "unanticipated" permissions issues for administrators), at the height of the APS.

- Implementing a new policy whereby accounts are to be suspended if they haven't been logged onto for 90 days - and then doing the first run on the script that executes the policy at the height of the APS.  Guess how many thousands of accounts got caught in that one.  We've had dozens of tickets to reactivate accounts caught by the script at the busiest time of year.

- Unit ISSOs who have no idea how their unit's data folder structure is arranged, or how permissions are granted within it.  Half wouldn't know what a security group is if it bit them on the butt.

- if the first line service desk (and you know who they are) doesn't know where to send a particular trouble ticket, they send them to our desk.  I've stopped keeping track of the number of tickets I've bounced back to them because they've screwed something up.  They have a history of hiring people they know, not of hiring people who can actually do the job well.

/rant off

Did I mention I'm retiring in mid to late September?  Without replacement?   ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

DND's IT support system is in total shambles, and I think you've hit all the major issues, Occam. When my unit transferred to LFCA, my LCIS techs lost power user/account creation permissions. 250 pers moved into an already overburdened "Consolidated Helpdesk". The reasoning? Never got one. Helpdesk in Kingston is manned almost completely by civvies, and they're grossly undermanned to support the infrastructure here, without having to take on responsibility for my unit.

Units with LCIS techs/SigOps/ACISS do-everything-ops should be able to take the load off of the ASGs for simple account creation/email fixes. Let them handle the major work of administering the servers and the infrastructure to support them.


----------



## aesop081

Occam said:
			
		

> - Implementing a new policy whereby accounts are to be suspended if they haven't been logged onto for 90 days - and then doing the first run on the script that executes the policy at the height of the APS.  Guess how many thousands of accounts got caught in that one.  We've had dozens of tickets to reactivate accounts caught by the script at the busiest time of year.



Guess that explains what happened to my CSNI account


----------



## Navalsnpr

I would imagine that treasury board will direct all departments what will be used just as they did with PKI/Entrust, our bilingual signature blocks etc etc.


----------



## Occam

It's very frustrating hearing the users complain about all the various problems that we on the service desk side of the house deal with on a daily basis, but nobody higher up wants to take any action on it.  I've had my rights pared back gradually over the last year (due to roles taken over by second line).  I still have my E- account for creating EP accounts in an emergency, but second line has re-assumed that role too and I don't expect I would've retained it for long even if I weren't pulling the pin.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Guess that explains what happened to my CSNI account



You, and about 5500 others.  Wasn't my idea.    ???



			
				Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> I would imagine that treasury board will direct all departments what will be used just as they did with PKI/Entrust, our bilingual signature blocks etc etc.



Were I a betting man (and I'm a betting man), I would bet that DND will not play a part in this new Shared Services Canada organization.  If we do, it would be DWAN only....but I'm betting we won't be joining in at all.  Any takers?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> DND's IT support system is in total shambles, and I think you've hit all the major issues, Occam. When my unit transferred to LFCA, my LCIS techs lost power user/account creation permissions. 250 pers moved into an already overburdened "Consolidated Helpdesk". The reasoning? Never got one. Helpdesk in Kingston is manned almost completely by civvies, and they're grossly undermanned to support the infrastructure here, without having to take on responsibility for my unit.
> 
> Units with LCIS techs/SigOps/ACISS do-everything-ops should be able to take the load off of the ASGs for simple account creation/email fixes. Let them handle the major work of administering the servers and the infrastructure to support them.



My colleagues and I ended up calling this FIP syndrome. (Fingers In Pie) Syndrome that is.

 As a local administrator for my unit, I was able to solve roughly 60% of everyday problems with the permissions brought forward to me (hardware issues, account modification, permission issues, etc). 

When Area decided everything would be sent to a Consolidated Help Desk and local administrator rights would be taken away, my standard response became "I will send an email to the ACSD and contact you once the ticket is closed."

We lost the ability to monitor quality of service for unit pers (we don't know if the job was done right until they came back saying it didn't work), we lost brevity and punctuality (5 seconds on AD versus 6 days in Queue), and we lost our tracking ability for historical problems, mostly due to users calling the ACSD directly (if the same computer is screwing up all the time or the user's account is not working properly there's a bigger problem at hand). 

A huge backlog all because someone thought there were too many fingers in the pie and removed some of the smaller ones so someone else could shove their fist in. This effect will be amplified even more if we consolidate with other government departments.

He're hoping DND tried to figure out it's own IT network issues before we're thrown into everyone elses.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Maybe they will be going to this  

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/cloud.html

Top ten advantages of Google's cloud Compared to on-premises, hosted and "software plus services" technologies, Google's multi-tenant, Internet-scale infrastructure offers faster access to innovation, superior reliability and security, and maximum economies of scale. 

1. Cloud computing is in Google's DNA 
2.Faster access to innovation drives higher productivity 
3. Users adopt new functionality with less disruption 
4. Employees can be productive from anywhere 
5. Google's cloud enables faster collaboration 
6. Google's immense security investments help protect customers 
7. Less data is stored on vulnerable devices 
8. Customers get higher reliability and uptime 
9. Google Apps offers extensive flexibility and control 
10. Customers spend less through Google's economies of scale

+ You can all move to Android instead of BlackBerry, and the gunners can save money by practising on Angry Birds!


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> My colleagues and I ended up calling this FIP syndrome. (Fingers In Pie) Syndrome that is.



Fingers In Pie Syndrome! Well said, may I use that?

FIPS for short eh? :nod:


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Fingers In Pie Syndrome! Well said, may I use that?
> 
> FIPS for short eh? :nod:



Give'r  :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We have been moving to an ottawa based helpdesk, which has been more or less useless for most stuff. Citrix is the bane of our existance. There is about 4700 employees in my department, if Citrix issues cause a 15 minute delay in one day (which is not uncommon) then that works out to roughly $47,000 in lost time. When I brought this up at a all staff they looked at me blankly. The concept that these delays have a cost associated with them is lost on our senior managers. Then there is Itravel and RDMINS........

I will take great delight in advising someone who wants an approval for their mutli-million dollar project, that I am unable to finish it as I am number 230 in the helpdesk lineup and my system is on the fritz again and here is the number of the IT manager in Ottawa..... 8)


----------



## Greymatters

'New agencies' in governments almost never lead to decreased costs or increased efficiency...


----------



## Occam

From John Turner, ADM(IM):



> On 4 August 2011, the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and the Honourable Tony Clement, President of the Treasury Board, made an important announcement regarding the implementation of Shared Services Canada (SCC).
> 
> SCC was established to lead the streamlining and reengineering of email, data centre and network services. SSC has its own deputy minister and reports to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC).
> 
> At this time, only employees from PWGSC are being transferred to SCC. Within the next two months, SSC will consolidate the existing resources and personnel from 43 departments and agencies.
> 
> Details of this implementation as it pertains to the IM Group are still being worked through. As a result, the scope and extent of the impacts are still being determined. Your leadership is fully engaged in working through those details. As information on implementation details becomes available, organizations will be advised.


----------



## McG

Greymatters said:
			
		

> 'New agencies' in governments almost never lead to decreased costs or increased efficiency...


... especially if the new agency adds another layer of bureaucracy as opposed to reducing layers.


----------



## OldSolduer

Occam said:
			
		

> From John Turner, ADM(IM):


My former OC and CO in the 90s. hMmmmmmm


----------



## Greymatters

MCG said:
			
		

> ... especially if the new agency adds another layer of bureaucracy as opposed to reducing layers.



I cant think of a single example where a new agency in Canada reduced the layers...or simplified communication, or improved coordination.


----------



## Radop

Maybe we will get a faster search engine on the DWAN....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

or everything goes into a RDMIN's with non searchable titles and numbers.


----------



## Remius

Well Shared Services came in to do some sort of migration and RDIMS was down for week.  Yeah, this will work...


----------



## dapaterson

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well Shared Services came in to do some sort of migration and RDIMS was down for week.  Yeah, this will work...



While it's convenient to point fingers at SSC, who built the infra so fragile that this could happen?  And who are the people at SSC who did the migration?  Mostly the former DND/CF folks who, had SSC not been created, would have been doing it anyways.


----------



## Remius

dapaterson said:
			
		

> While it's convenient to point fingers at SSC, who built the infra so fragile that this could happen?  And who are the people at SSC who did the migration?  Mostly the former DND/CF folks who, had SSC not been created, would have been doing it anyways.



I don't care.  I just need to blame someone.  SSC, Range control or Fantasians.


----------



## dapaterson

I blame Bill Gates.  Everything is the fault of Bill Gates.


For example, all those smug Apple fanbois?  If not for Bill Gates, they'd have no one to sneer at.  Therefore, Apple is the fault of Bill Gates.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I blame Bill Gates.  Everything is the fault of Bill Gates.
> 
> 
> For example, all those smug Apple fanbois?  If not for Bill Gates, they'd have no one to sneer at.  Therefore, Apple is the fault of Bill Gates.



Gates only gave us the terminals, Fancy typewriters, if you will.

If Al Gore hadn't created the internet we wouldn't have these problems. He's really the one at fault, but dodges the issue now by being a climate change SME.

So many things to fuck up and so little time. ;D


----------



## cupper

recceguy said:
			
		

> Gates only gave us the terminals, Fancy typewriters, if you will.



But Gates also supposedly said we'd never need a computer with more than 1 MB of memory. And then proceeds to develop an operating system that sucks more memory than the programs that run under it.

I like to lay the blame at the feet of the dumb asses who feel that we need to advance technology just for the sake of advancement. For example, I rented a 2013 Ford Escape for a business trip last week, and it had the full electronic cockpit (less nav system) with the console touch screen. Nice, but all it does is create information overload and a distraction for the driver.

All the technology advances have done for me is that I am now finding myself yelling at my microwave to hurry up, because I can't wait the minute it takes to reheat my lunch. :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer

cupper said:
			
		

> I like to lay the blame at the feet of the dumb asses who feel that we need to advance technology just for the sake of advancement. For example, I rented a 2013 Ford Escape for a business trip last week, and it had the full electronic cockpit (less nav system) with the console touch screen. Nice, but all it does is create information overload and a distraction for the driver.



That'll learn ya.  You should have rented a Dodge Ram or a Dodge Challenger. Ford.....I sneer at Fords.....except for the Mustang.


----------



## cupper

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> That'll learn ya.  You should have rented a Dodge Ram or a Dodge Challenger. Ford.....I sneer at Fords.....except for the Mustang.



You don't get much of a choice.

Ironically, I just picked up the exact same vehicle for my trip next week.  :nod:


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> While it's convenient to point fingers at SSC, who built the infra so fragile that this could happen?  And who are the people at SSC who did the migration?  Mostly the former DND/CF folks who, had SSC not been created, would have been doing it anyways.



I left before this boondoggle initiative came about. I had serious doubts then about what ADM(IM)  could do to clean up the problems within DND's IT infrastructure and for the life of me I can't see what a pan government agency can do. IMHO the problem stemmed from an inability to create a single integrated system rather than the existing system of disparate systems. In large part I saw a dysfunctional personnel system that created very high turnover through job jumping amongst the most skilled workers which made adequate support and project implementation difficult at best.

For those still there: how are things going now?

 :gottree:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Gee it seems Shared Service forgot to pay our phone bill. Hopefully they will cut the phones and the internet at the same time so we can go party.


----------



## PanaEng

Colin P said:
			
		

> Gee it seems Shared Service forgot to pay our phone bill. Hopefully they will cut the phones and the internet at the same time so we can go party.


Growing pains; but seriously, it's mostly the same ppl that did it before - maybe is more about whose cost centre it comes out of.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not in our case, they hoovered up PY's from the regions and departments and dumped them into Ottawa or where ever they lurk.


----------



## c_canuk

they are requiring justification and a secondary approval stream for a free blackberry upgrade if we ask for one with a car charger and a belt clip. To question the inclusion of  $19.95 in accessories they are creating red tape parade that ads 3 days to the process.

The justifications I put in are "The purpose of the BB is to provide comms while away from desk. Needs car charger to charge BB. Belt case protects device when away from desk saving on costly repairs" I mean isn't that common sense... if you don't need a car charger for your BB, you probably don't need a BB. If you don't have a case to put it in, it will be scratched and useless in weeks.

Never had a single justification come back denied.

They told us a while back that we couldn't bring cell phones or BBs out of country. My reply was that while SCC took it upon themselves to pay the bills, they don't give us our mandate or outrank the MND or PMO. 

If a CO wanted to pay out of discretionary funding to make sure there was a comm link with far flung pers that's his prerogative and SCC taking payment away from us doesn't change that. If they don't want to pay for it, bill the f'ing fin code we provided. 

They tried to get us to bill the BGen personally for 80 bucks in roaming/long distance charges while he was sent on course to the states.

It used to be the local IT rep watched the bills and the local unit fin code holder made you pay for frivolous calls. Now one dept wants to screen every bill over 50 bucks and then get the local IT rep to look at the bill and the local fin code holder collect for frivolous calls on their behalf.

All the SCC staff working here were already working here.

I'm not seeing any efficiency or savings here.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Growing pains; but seriously, *it's mostly the same ppl that did it before* - maybe is more about whose cost centre it comes out of.


Not so much that, but the process to engage said people can change.  In one situation, there are (very good) IT folks in a regional fed business centre, but everyone in said biz centre is required to call the call centre/Services Desk for help first, and if they can't solve it remotely from the Services Desk, the keen IT folk have to await an official request from the centre to go across the hall (or the adjoining cubicle) to fix something.


----------



## chopchop

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If they go to the Windows solution, we are in big trouble from hackers,...



It depends.

If you have a good team of network administrators and a good security team you will have decent security on your network regardless of the platform your servers are running on ...


----------



## cupper

chopchop said:
			
		

> It depends.
> 
> If you have a good team of network administrators and a good security team you will have decent security on your network regardless of the platform your servers are running on ...



Please tell that to the Chinese. :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:
			
		

> IMHO the problem stemmed from an inability to create a single integrated system rather than the existing system of disparate systems. In large part I saw a dysfunctional personnel system that created very high turnover through job jumping amongst the most skilled workers which made adequate support and project implementation difficult at best.



The real problem was lack of Command ownership, particularly in the early 90s.  Arguably, Commanders abrogated their responsibilities to direct how IM/IT was to implemented to functionally enable the Forces, and left it to the Siggies to execute pretty much as they thought/judged/wanted, in essentially a command vacuum.  

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## chopchop

cupper said:
			
		

> Please tell that to the Chinese. :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The real problem was lack of Command ownership, particularly in the early 90s.  Arguably, Commanders abrogated their responsibilities to direct how IM/IT was to implemented to functionally enable the Forces, and left it to the Siggies to execute pretty much as they thought/judged/wanted, in essentially a command vacuum.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I agree. There was no coherent plan devised and money was thrown at the issue. This is why some units had IBM computers and some had Wangs.....seriously.


----------



## charlesm

In the BC Provincal Government we started down the Road of Shared Services 8 years ago.

On the IT side we have outsourced PC Support Server Support and are just about to outsource network support. Each one to a different vendor.

The government does not want to be in the IT Business.

I can bet in 5 years a large chuck of shared services canada will be outsourced.


----------

