'Put blame on outside forces, not ineptitude'

'Sabotage' The job of the State Information Technology Agency is to drive down the state's IT bills, but vested interests are crippling its efforts, says the man at the helm

THERE are forces within the private and public sectors which do not want to see the dysfunctional State Information Technology Agency succeed, says its CEO, Freeman Nomvalo.

Nomvalo, 49, is the latest of 17 chief executives the agency has had since it was started 15 years ago to centralise the management of the state's information, communication and technology resources.

From inception it has been a disaster, but he says the reasons go much deeper than incompetence. The agency's job is to bring down the cost of IT for state departments. But this threatens the margins of private sector companies and vested interests in the public sector.

"The issue is not that we don't have the capacity," he says. "It is that forces not serving the interests of this organisation have had the upper hand."

This might sound as if he is preparing his excuses in advance, but Nomvalo was accountant general in the National Treasury for nine years, interrogating internal audits and governance issues across all of government.

He knows a thing or two about corruption in both the public and private sectors, which is why he has been asked to address a corporate governance conference tomorrow on the "intimidation" and "victimisation" of those trying to uphold good governance.

This applies to internal auditors whose work often threatens the vested interests of people - executives, managers, directors - in influential corporate positions. Which brings us to the agency.

Nomvalo was asked to produce a turnaround strategy after leaving the Treasury last year. There have been so many turnaround strategies that he prefers not to use the term. It's "bad psychology".

It didn't take him long to realise that quick-fix solutions on their own would be a waste of time.

"Technical solutions will not address the interests, loyalties, attitudes, culture and belief systems that are driving the challenges the agency faces.

"We need to address technical things, sort out processes and so on. But the real issues go much deeper."

Governance structures need to be tackled, and the relationships between the agency and other stakeholders examined.

"This includes interests in the private sector. The more successful the agency is, the lower its margins will become. When it works efficiently, it is going to squeeze the margins of private sector companies."

This, rather than a lack of capacity, is the root cause of the agency's failures. "The agency has not been able to live up to its mandate primarily because vested interests have frustrated its ability to succeed."

Tackling these vested interests is a difficult and dangerous task, he says. "If you address issues that will make the agency work well; if I find a project that will reduce prices tomorrow, somebody is going to be screaming because what they were receiving yesterday they are not going to be receiving tomorrow.

"But this is what we've got to do. We've got to drive down the cost of ICT. And when we do that, whoever has been benefiting from these high prices is going to be screaming. They're not going to be celebrating."

He is under no illusion about how hard it is going to be.

"The things we have to do are likely to put us on a collision course with people who were benefiting from the state of the institution."

He says one of his passions is understanding what happens when people try to do the right thing. Society demands that they do the right thing, but in his experience when they do and take flak, "we let them fry".

"Often when you try and push a change in a company that will be good for the company but threatens the interests of some, then you will find yourself on the way out."

People who have leverage but who feel their interests are threatened, will abuse that leverage.

Is he saying that this, rather than simple incompetence, is the cause of the high turnover of CEOs at the agency?

"Three of the 17 CEOs had seven-and-a-half years combined. The other 14 had the other seven-and-a-half years. That's an average of six months."

He says research shows that it takes at least 90 days for any executive to even begin to make a meaningful contribution.

"Were they given a fair chance of success?"

He says it is "unthinkable" that all 14 of those CEOs left because of performance-related issues.

"The period they had was just too short for anybody to be assessed objectively.

"Are we supposed to believe all 14 left because they were performing poorly?

"That would not be a logical or rational conclusion."

So what is he saying?

"You can draw your own conclusion.

"Decisions to get rid of executives are influenced by all manner of forces, both inside and outside the organisation."

But the factors and influences at work around the agency are "way beyond this or that executive being fired".

"If we're going to sort out the problems this organisation is facing we need to be aware of those factors."

Given the scale of the challenge and the inability of anybody to address it so far, should we be asking if it is worth it? Does the country really need the agency, given that several government departments have long bypassed it.

"The policy makers may well arrive at that conclusion, but I think the agency is important for the country," he says.

If the agency achieves its intended outcomes it will save the government a lot of money and make it more efficient and productive.

Meanwhile, his contract expires at the end of December. If he is even half right about the powerful forces aligned against the agency's success, it is unlikely to be extended.

Does he feel vulnerable? "I can say it's a challenging job."