The recent computer failures within the Quebec government are often attributed to technical problems. However, after over a decade working as an IT consultant in various government ministries and major insurance organizations, another reality is becoming clear: the main issue is organizational.
At the beginning of my career in the private sector in Montreal, I handled the entire development cycle from analysis to deployment. This continuity allowed for a deep understanding of systems and better anticipation of pitfalls, despite often overly optimistic estimations.
In government and quasi-public structures, this cycle is fragmented. Analysis, development, and testing are assigned to separate teams. While theoretically tailored to project complexity, this specialization in practice creates silos that hinder solution coherence and increase the risk of errors and delays.
The role of analysts exemplifies this issue. Often, they have not programmed since school and do not understand the technologies being used. Designing a solution without considering technical constraints unnecessarily complicates systems, raises integration risks, and extends work timelines.
Multiple times, I have acted as an intermediary between functional and technological architects, whose diverging visions were due to a lack of common language. This lack of alignment slows decisions and weakens projects.
Additionally, there is a noticeable gap between decision-makers and development teams. In project management, only two of the following parameters can be optimized: deadlines, costs, and quality. However, in many public projects, deadlines are fixed in advance. The consequences are predictable: costs increase, and quality suffers.
On the ground, professionals such as analysts, developers, architects, and project managers are often discouraged from reporting risks. This culture, which prioritizes meeting preset deadlines over transparency, directly contributes to project overruns.
It also has significant human repercussions. Developers, driven by a strong sense of responsibility, often feel pressured to compensate for unrealistic deadlines with numerous overtime hours. This intensification of work increases error risks, deteriorates quality of life, and fosters professional burnout.
To avoid the repetition of situations like SAAQclic, addressing structural causes is crucial. Promoting integrated teams, bridging technical and decision-making roles, and emphasizing risk communication are indispensable approaches.
The state’s IT challenges do not stem from a lack of skills, but from an organizational structure that hinders these skills from fully expressing themselves.
