Page 1 of 7

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

e-ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 02 Issue 5

May 2016

Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 73

Strategic Conceptualization & Planning Transformation

for e-Governance Implementation

Chandan Kumar Jha

Indian Institute of Management, Indore Senior Management Consultant, Ernst & Young

email-chandanpce@gmail.com

Abstract— ICT implementation in public sector is

undergoing a colossal transformation with the advent of

sophisticated & reliable technology solutions, ably

complimented by briskly maturing service delivery process

models. The e-Governance (& Digital India) roadmap

framed by respective State & Central Governments in the

last decade bears testimony to the fact that citizens can

expect a radical shift in Government functioning ;resulting in

noteworthy upliftment of Policy Framework mechanisms. A

robust implementation strategy encasing the best practices

and lessons learnt is therefore essential during the

Conceptualization & Planning phase of any e-Governance

initiative to ensure the efficacy and attainment of the overall

vision. The key benchmarks of such a strategy would

encompass a redefined procurement charter, customized

implementation model, reformed Financial/payment

framework & efficient Governance/monitoring mechanism.

In this paper, we would discuss these essential Planning

phase parameters and possible solution to the bottlenecks

& deadlock circumstances.

Index Terms—e-governance, Deadlock,

Digitization, Integration, Planning, Procurement,

Strategy, Subcontracting, Transition

1 INTRODUCTION

HE implementation of e-Governance project is an

extremely intricate process demanding provision- ing of hardware & software, networking, data dig- itization, process re-engineering, change management

and several other complex procedures in a very regu- lated Government environment (Dr. Bhatnagar, 2002).

Therefore the efficacy, dependability and consistency of

the Planning phase are important evaluating criterion

while monitoring the success of any e-Governance ini- tiative. “Strategic planning for project management is

the development of a standard methodology for project

management, a methodology that can be used over and

over again, and that will produce a high likelihood of

achieving the project’s objectives”(Kerzner 2001:16).

.

The learnings attained via implementation of 33 Mis- sion mode projects (Central & State level) under NEGP

(refer DeitY website, Ministry of Communications & IT,

GOI) in recent years need to be translated and incorpo- rated in upcoming deployment models. This would

ensure the readiness of the Government units to tackle

the risks and issues encountered in the past and avoid

any ‘deadlock’ situations during implementation. Ac- cording to Heeks (2003), nearly 50% of e-Governance

projects are partial failures and 35% total failure. While

the list of challenges and bottlenecks is immense and

might be of distinct nature due to the environmental

dependencies; still a structured analysis of the same

would elucidate four broad categories of pain areas

that beckon substantial diligence during the Planning

phase.

These four categories are- 1. Procurement -Infrastructure & Services

2. Implementation & Technical Solution De- ployment

3. Legal Financial/Payment Model

4. Governance & Monitoring

In this paper, a quantitative based approach elucidating

several e-Governance implementations (MMPs) across

Central & State level has been utilized to investigate the

potential threats and their possible solutions across

aforementioned categories during the Planning stage.

These broad categories are a function of several sub- components, each of which is an important activi- ty/factor during the deployment stage. A study of

these subcomponents highlights the underlying issues;

further leading to a diagnostic solution (facilitated by

best practices) to address these concerns (Rabaiah and

Vandijck, 2009). Thus directly ensuing better fund utili- zation, on time delivery and superior quality of solu- tion implementation. Guidelines have been drafted in

accordance with the roles and responsibilities of major

stakeholders in a typical e-Governance initiative viz.

State/Department, SI/vendors & Consulting partners.

In the subsequent sections, each of the above planning

phase modules have been explained in detail.

T

Page 2 of 7

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

e-ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 02 Issue 5

May 2016

Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 74

2 PROCUREMENT-INFRASTRUCTURE &

SERVICES

2.1 SubContracting

The geographical scope of e-Governance project de- mands deployment of resources-human and infrastruc- ture at remote locations; quite distant from the regional

offices/headquarters of Industrial stalwarts. Since most

of the IT organizations do not have the desired level of

regional penetration; hence they resort to subcontract- ing of project components viz. Data Digitization, Site

Preparation of Network & IT infrastructure, Training

etc. These subcontractors are local/regional vendors

who deploy compromised quality resources to maxim- ize their share that they leverage from large IT houses.

Many e-Governance projects have witnessed unwar- ranted delays due to performance issues of the sub- contractors (Song, 2004 and Reddick, 2010). In many

cases, these subcontractors delay the compensation to

their employees; thus resulting in the stoppage of ser- vices. In scenarios, where there is no such hindrance

the quality of the deliverable is always under scrutiny.

In extreme cases, these subcontractors further delegate

(subcontract) the services to some other vendor; creat- ing a chain or ‘multiple tier subcontracting architec- ture’. It is to be understood that with each delegated

level of subcontracting the value and quality of the ser- vices depreciates exponentially. Let us take an exam- ple-Consider a scenario where the primary System In- tegrator say ‘X Technologies’ is charging Rs. 100 to the

State for digitization of 1 government record. Now X

technologies have subcontracted this service to Y at Rs

50; thus X is still able to leverage Rs 50 from the trans- action. Further, Y has subcontracted to Z at

Rs.30.Assuming that there is no further

Figure compiled by Author

Subcontracting involved, we observe that a service

which was

Valued at Rs 100 by the State has been delivered in

equivalence to an Rs 30 service due to multiple levels of

subcontracting. Evidently the State experiences an infe- rior quality product delivered in spite of paying a pre- mium amount for the same.

The project champions need to envisage this scenar- io proactively in the Planning phase and draft reasona- ble guidelines/norms in the RFP/contract. In accord- ance with the scope of e-Governance implementation;

the State/Department need to perform due diligence as

to how many layers of subcontracting can be permitted.

Unless deemed necessary, the State can choose to avoid

any subcontracting at all depending upon the Geo- graphical scope, project anatomy, and environmental

characteristics. In cases where subcontracting cannot

be avoided; the Primary System Integrator should be

the Single Point of Contact for the State .Under no cir- cumstances; SIs should engage the State/Departments

to deal with the subcontractors. The State would hold

the primary SI responsible for any deviation committed

by the subcontractors and may penalize accordingly.

The SIs should be mandated to guarantee uninterrupt- ed and consistent service quality benchmarks and seek

approval from the Department in lieu of appointment

of any subcontracting agency. The State /Department

would not be dependent or liable to honor any financial

transactions committed by the primary SI to the sub-

Page 3 of 7

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

e-ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 02 Issue 5

May 2016

Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 75

contractors. All such commitments between the SI and

third party contractors would be deemed as their inter- nal affairs where State/Department has no con- cern/jurisdiction.

2.2 RFP/Contract- Interpretation & Adherence

A Request for Proposal (RFP) is an invitation for sup- pliers, often through a bidding process, to submit a pro- posal on a specific commodity or service. (Blake & Bly,

1993)

This document contains:

1) Project requirements including Service levels,

Implementation plan, Functional & Technical

and Hardware requirements

2) Terms and conditions

3) Legal terms governing the contract between

procurement entity and the selected vendor

It has become a standard industry practice by System

Integrators and Consulting firms to propose superior

resources (human & infrastructure) in the Technical bid

but deploy mediocre supplements during the imple- mentation stage for e-Governance projects. The RFP

/Contract are considered as a single source of truth but

it has been observed that SIs/Consulting

firms/vendors typically interpret the clauses in their

favour to realize unreasonable advantage (Ujaley,

2016). The final resources that are deployed are no way

close to the proposed list. Resources are replaced with- out taking necessary approval from the Department.

The client facing team can somehow be deemed ac- ceptable but these Services firm maximize their profits

by deploying below par less experienced resources in

the backend group. Due to scarcity of Domain consult- ants, the deliverables submitted by System Integrator

are of extremely low quality. When challenged by De- partment, SIs tends to suspend work and demand addi- tional compensation for augmentation of resources

(Khan & Srivastava, 2014). Further, physical infrastruc- ture at end locations viz network equipment, desktops,

printers etc. are also of an altered make and model vis- a-vis agreed in the Contract resulting in huge opex cost

during Operations & Maintenance stage.

It is there very important to ensure clarity of

RFP/Contract clauses to avoid future litigations. Mul- tiple checkpoints and monitoring unit should be acti- vated that spans from the Central to bottom of the pyr- amid i.e district level. These monitoring units operating

at ground level need to be educated and empowered

with basic project management skills so that issues are

reported & escalated in a timely frequency. The

State/Department also needs to be sensible during the

procurement stage by quoting requirements in line

with their business necessity; so that vendors/SIs is

also benefitted in the process. If the demands are un- reasonable then the SIs (in pursuit of winning the Bid)

might promise something that cannot be fulfilled; re- sulting in a ‘deadlock situation’ during later phases.

Hence the State/Department need to be extremely cau- tious during the technical and financial bid evaluation

stage in order to ensure that bidders are neither ‘under

quoting’ nor ‘over quoting’ for any service or product.

2.3 Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)

OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturer) have an

obligation to ensure uninterrupted supply of commit- ted physical infrastructure at project sites. Depending

upon the sanctity and assurance of this agreement be- tween the OEMs and SIs; contract is awarded to respec- tive party during the Bidding process. However OEMs

do not shy away from dishonouring this agreement in

cases where they are threatened by external environ- mental factors having a direct impact on their margins.

A very common example of the same is observed dur- ing the exchange rate fluctuation in global economic

scenario (Kandil and Mirzaie, 2003). During the Pro- curement stage, the hardware & software is priced in

accordance with the current/on-going currency (dollar)

valuation. Further at the time of delivery if Global mar- ket undergoes appreciation in currency values then the

OEMs try to pass on this loss to the SIs; who in turn

transfers the same to their respective Government cli- ents. It may be noted here that the SIs/OEMs will never

transfer the profits to their clients in case of currency

fluctuations in their favour; however they expect the

clients to bear the brunch in unfavourable situations. In

other cases, it is also observed that SIs request Depart- ments for a change in make and model of original OEM

product; because the products of make & model that

was agreed in the contract have reached ‘End of Life’

and an upgraded/substitute version is only available in

market. (Khan & Srivastava, 2014).

Rational observation of the above situations says that

global macro-economic situation is unpredictable and

most of the clients have a responsibility to support the

vendor partners/OEMs from excessive burden. At the

same time; Departments need to ensure that they are

seeking undertakings from the OEMs and SIs during

the award of contract to ensure these deviations are

minimal. In cases where the products need to be substi- tuted, a superior version should be offered with

null/negligible price difference. The guaran- ty/warranty clauses need to be appropriately reviewed

to avoid any litigation during the Operations and

Maintenance phase.