-
Medium low
Benefits are acknowledged but insufficiently articulated or managed, or not measurable.
Off -
Low
No consideration of benefits, or multiyear project that is yet to demonstrate a credible path to realising claimed benefits.
Off -
-
Benefits align to strategic direction, are measurable and evidence based, include financial and non-financial measures and, where appropriate, disbenefits. Business leaders are accountable. Benefits and disbenefits are integrated into the governance approach and are actively managed.
-
Benefits show consideration of strategic direction, are measurable, and integrated into governance
-
Benefits are identified, but not actively managed.
-
Benefits are acknowledged but insufficiently articulated or managed, or not measurable.
-
No consideration of benefits, or multiyear project that is yet to demonstrate a credible path to realising claimed benefits.
-
-
Governance and leadership
Executive support and governance effectiveness
Effective governance and leadership are essential to effective digital projects. This includes strong business leadership and senior executive support. Consultation with the relevant minister is beneficial before approval and throughout delivery.
It is important that senior executives, the SRO and steering committee have the adequate work capacity to govern the transformation, are aligned on the need for change, and have the general digital literacy and relevant experience to govern delivery.
- The senior executives should foster innovation, agility and adaptability to the inevitable change that comes with the uncertainty common in digital projects.
- The governance and leadership team need to foster effective and open communication, and have appropriate skills and emotional intelligence. Governance structures need to be appropriate to the size, pace and complexity of the transformation.
- The project should be business-led, not technology-led with feedback-loops that allow for continuous review of benefits, impacts and governance in the face of discovery and learning during delivery.
Governance processes should ensure project alignment to enterprise risk appetite and be supported by sufficiently detailed information to support governance decision-making.
Delivery confidence can be higher where progress is visible or evident, and lower where there is a lack of detailed up-front planning or measured only by project expenditure.
- Governance roles need to be clearly defined.
- The senior responsible officer (SRO) needs to have accountability for the business area impacted by the change, and have accountability for the project.
- The steering committee needs to be empowered to make decisions, with a clear separation between decision-making and stakeholder engagement forums.
A culture of transparency and learning should be evident, for example, that the leadership team support regular assurance activity, proactively respond to lessons learned, reports reflect good and bad news, and benefits and disbenefits are monitored.
-
Relevant policy
The Assurance Framework for Digital and ICT Investments supports agencies in planning and implementing fit for purpose assurance arrangements.
-
Senior executive support
-
High
Senior executives, the SRO and steering committee have the adequate capacity to govern the project and are highly experienced in the area. They proactively foster a culture that is open to learning and bad news
Off -
Medium high
Senior executives, the SRO and steering committee have the capacity to govern the project and are experienced in the area. There is evidence of a culture that is open to learning and bad news.
Off -
Medium
Senior executives, the SRO and steering committee have some capacity and relevant capability. The culture shows limited openness to learning and bad news.
Off -
Medium low
Senior executives, the SRO and steering committee are involved, but lack capacity and/or relevant capability. Events affecting project progress are not openly aired.
Off -
Your responsibilities
To successfully meet this criterion, agencies will need to:
- design for interoperability
- join up services.
When to apply
Apply Criterion 4 throughout Beta to ensure smooth integration with other government services and systems.
Adhere to this criterion across the Service design and delivery process whenever new functionality, integrations or upgrades are introduced.
Questions for consideration
- How will this service integrate with existing systems and data?
- What standardised protocols will be used to exchange data?
- How will we test for smooth interoperability with other platforms?
- How will the service accommodate future growth and change?
- What information does government already hold that the service could reuse?
- Which mechanisms will allow users to opt in or out of data sharing?
How to apply criterion 4
-
Low
No substantive senior executive involvement. Low SRO or steering committee engagement. Defensiveness or resistance to scrutiny
Off -
-
Senior executives, the SRO and steering committee have the adequate capacity to govern the project and are highly experienced in the area. They proactively foster a culture that is open to learning and bad news
-
Senior executives, the SRO and steering committee have the capacity to govern the project and are experienced in the area. There is evidence of a culture that is open to learning and bad news.
-
Senior executives, the SRO and steering committee have some capacity and relevant capability. The culture shows limited openness to learning and bad news.
-
Senior executives, the SRO and steering committee are involved, but lack capacity and/or relevant capability. Events affecting project progress are not openly aired.
-
No substantive senior executive involvement. Low SRO or steering committee engagement. Defensiveness or resistance to scrutiny
-
-
Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) tolerances
-
DCA tolerances
-
High
Steering committees are empowered to make decisions. Governance roles are clearly defined. Decisions are fast and informed. The SRO takes accountability for the project and impacted business areas. Clear ownership of business and delivery team issues.
Off -
Medium high
Steering committees are empowered to make decisions. Governance roles are defined. The SRO takes accountability for the project. Generally recognised ownership of business and delivery team issues.
Off -
Medium
Steering committee decision-making occurs but is not always timely. Governance roles are broadly defined. The SRO takes accountability for the project.
Off -
Medium low
Steering committee decision-making is ineffective or not timely. Governance roles are ill- defined.
Off -
Low
Substantive issues related to role clarity. Duplication, re-prosecuting or lack of timeliness in decision-making. Lack of accountability or finger-pointing.
Off -
-
Steering committees are empowered to make decisions. Governance roles are clearly defined. Decisions are fast and informed. The SRO takes accountability for the project and impacted business areas. Clear ownership of business and delivery team issues.
-
Steering committees are empowered to make decisions. Governance roles are defined. The SRO takes accountability for the project. Generally recognised ownership of business and delivery team issues.
-
Steering committee decision-making occurs but is not always timely. Governance roles are broadly defined. The SRO takes accountability for the project.
-
Steering committee decision-making is ineffective or not timely. Governance roles are ill- defined.
-
Substantive issues related to role clarity. Duplication, re-prosecuting or lack of timeliness in decision-making. Lack of accountability or finger-pointing.
-
-
Criterion 5. Build trust in design
-
Governance effectiveness
-
Assurance research series: 01
Connect with the digital community
Share, build or learn digital experience and skills with training and events, and collaborate with peers across government.