Photo: RNZ/ Nick Monro
The Department of Conservation has botched its management of a $25 million IT finance project.
It said it has still delivered it within budget, but had to set up a new programme of work to fix the core problems.
DOC embarked on big changes to its financial management information system in late 2020.
It went live last year without proper testing or staff training, sparking multiple internal reviews and one external one.
"There were many management failings in the delivery of this project," the external review, released to RNZ under the OIA, said.
Project oversight and quality control were particularly lacking.
DOC was exposed to undue risks, the review showed.
"There are ... anecdotes that code has been released into production at 'go live' that has never been reviewed or tested and that this situation still exists."
Some staff told the assessors the project team "refused to listen" to the business end of DOC, but others by contrast said the team was "not permitted" to engage this way.
"This should be investigated by the current governance group and the situation addressed if a disconnect between the current project work and the business is identified."
The project schedule was not clear and staff did not get proper training, the review found.
But this was all masked by rosy communications.
"There was a perceived reluctance for the project to communicate honestly on where things are at, preferring to focus only on positive messages."
Communications reverted to technical jargon, confusing users.
"Leaders felt unable to pass on messages as they were ill-equipped to explain if questions were asked by their staff."
Almost 90 percent of the project's budget - set at $21.5m but then raised to $25.7m - went on external contractors and consultants.
A spokesperson said $21.5m of the approved budget was spent up to the system going live, and the extra $4.2m since then.
The failings have landed unexpected costs on DOC.
It had set up a "new programme of work to remedy the core issues", stood up a governance structure and "hired a dedicated programme delivery team", it told RNZ this week.
The department faces a 20 percent cut in its overall budget by 2026, down from about $900m to $700m, a ministerial briefing earlier this year said.
For the finance project, three out of the nine management approaches were not good enough, and two were worse still - "not fit for purpose".
Governance at the top for steering the project was particularly weak, changing three times as things went on.
It swung from being overseen by "a large ineffective group" to having "no formal governance group" at all for six months, then underwent another big change just three weeks before going live.
"Reasons .... for the poor governance performance included excessive leader workload, leader inexperience ... personal agendas diverting the priorities of the governance group, and other activities at DOC distracting leaders ... (e.g., an organisation restructure)."
A record of key decisions was missing, and a usually vital project management plan did not exist.
"A detailed schedule was never shared with the team members."
Attempts to train DOC staff to use the new system by using online modules did not work well, and in-person training came in "too late". People who were not IT-literate struggled.
No user testing was done before pushing go - "a significant departure from industry standard practice for a project of this nature".
Through it all, the problems were masked by rosy communications, when plain-speaking would have been better, it said.
Four out of the nine forms of management went well: Of finances, benefits, risks, and staff resources - though Covid-19 pressures and the long project timeframe "saw some members working excessive hours".
