Page 24 - Service Delivery Review_Volume 14_Number 3_2022

CGITCPF Case Study

Duplication of structures and process
Departments were required to establish three types of
committee (at strategic, tactical and operational levels) as
the main deliverables under Phase 1 of the 2012 CGICTPF.
The self-assessments, through the MPAT tool and the re-
porting requirements of the AG, suggested that most de-
partments had these committees in place. However, what
was emerging as a concern at the time is that while these
committees were supposedly distinct from each other,
there were chaotic levels of duplication between them.
The main cause of the duplication of responsibilities and
processes was that the same people were members of
the three committees as there were not enough people to
spare for the different committee tasks. The departmental
ICT Governance Champions suffered from similar disabili-
ties as the committees. They were not providing value as
envisaged by the CGICTPF.
High-level collaboration
The DPSA is the policy owner of the 2012 CGICTPF. How- Recommendations
ever, securing the DPME and the AG to help with monitoring
and evaluating the implementation of the framework was ■ One of the proposals that emerged as far as
certainly a high impact result area. The work of the three Phase 1 on the implementation of the CGICTPF
government institutions enriched each other in the imple- was the need to rationalise the requirements for
mentation of the 2012 CGICTPF. the establishment of the three departmental
committees (Strategic, Tactical and Operational)
Full-cycle policy implementation into a single governance structure, particularly for
It is generally observed that government departments are small or under-resourced departments.
good at generating all manner of policies but rarely follow
these through with monitoring and evaluation and, finally, ■ The appointment of Governance “Champions”,
reviews. The CGICTPF ran between 2013 and 2018 when it ideally, senior managers, as delegated by the
was formally being reviewed, which falls under the five years Head of Department to advocate and support the
in which policies ought to be reviewed from the time of in- efficient and effective use of ICT resources, was
ception. found to be more burdensome than useful and
mostly without influence. An emerging
100% coverage of the Public Service recommendation was that the role of Heads of
Due to their nation-wide footprint, the inclusion of the DPME Department or Accounting Officers needed to be
and the AG helped in ensuring the participation of all na- re-emphasised given the fact that they are
tional and provincial departments. Their use of the policy ultimately responsible for how resources are
framework and the DPME’s MPAT in terms of their respec- managed in an organisation. ICT should not be an
tive portfolios ensured that there was access to data and exception.
emerging lessons learned from across all national and pro-
vincial departments, which inform the policy review process.

Lessons Learned

The MPAT self-assessment tool and the AG reports on the
risks assessment of ICT across government departments
generated useful data and pointed towards important les-
sons learned through implementation of the CGICTPF. In
the main, these lessons confirmed data and insights arising
from the post-implementation review of the 2012 framework
and consultations on a revised version of the CGICTPF.

24 Volume 14 No.3 of 2022 | SERVICE DELIVERY REVIEW