eJustice and Public Tendering - What Exactly Is Going Wrong?
The apparent failure to implement the digitization of the judicial service (eJustice) inevitably fills every right-minded citizen with disappointment. In recent years, we've grown accustomed to low-quality IT projects, which typically feature poor user interfaces (UI) and almost always offer terrible user experiences (UX). However, in this case, the situation is far worse. The project is stuck, and as of the time of writing, it seems that the contract with the implementing company is heading towards termination. This is similar to the much-discussed government ERP system and many other projects that will never become widely known.
I will attempt to simplify the problem, despite its complexity and difficulty, by highlighting issues and proposing solutions.
The Tools Chosen
One aspect of the problem lies in the tools selected to implement these large systems. These are usually enterprise-level solutions designed to solve the problems of large organizations. Such solutions rarely focus on user experience or UI friendliness. They are almost always focused on simply getting the job done, no matter the cost. However, this approach requires years of training and familiarity with the system from its users. Now imagine implementing such systems for ordinary citizens, the end users of these projects. Young people will find them slow, cumbersome, and poorly designed, while older people will find them confusing, complicated, and bureaucratic.
Poorly Written RFPs
Let's start with the basics. The requests for proposals (RFPs) are poorly written. From their structure, the fonts used, the way certain features are presented, to the content itself, everything is problematic. These proposals are based on outdated Word templates that are terrible, leaving it to the discretion of the person writing them to modify as they see fit. In some cases, irrelevant sections of the proposal contain placeholder text like "XXX" and other oddities.
However, the most important issue is not the format, but the actual content of these proposals. Beyond the procedural aspects of a tender, there is the actual substance of the contract, including user requirements and the problem the project is meant to solve. There are proposals where this crucial part is either minimal or non-existent. User needs, the nature of the work, and the specific requirements of each sector are not explained in sufficient depth. The eJustice project is one such case.
Criteria That "Tailor" Outcomes
In the procedural part of the proposals, there are criteria outlined for companies' eligibility to participate. Most of these criteria are economic in nature (e.g., average turnover over the past three years, number of employees, etc.). These criteria are intended to ensure that, depending on the importance of the project, the state receives bids from suppliers of appropriate size and reputation. The problem is that bigger companies are not always better, and smaller companies are not necessarily incapable of handling large contracts. A somewhat relaxed example is Instagram, which employed just 13 people when it was acquired by Facebook for $1 billion. I’m not suggesting that this is a parallel to public contracts, but I am saying that financial criteria often exclude companies and favour others, rather than benefiting the state by selecting the best.
Poor Proposal Evaluation Criteria
This brings us to perhaps the most important point where public contracts for IT projects falter: the selection of the best provider. This is where things often go wrong.
In public IT contracts, two criteria are used to evaluate proposals: technical quality and price. It’s important to note that these two are not always weighted equally. For example, in one project, price might account for 90% of the decision, and quality only 10%. It's clear that in such cases, the choice will be made based on the cheapest supplier, even if the other proposals are of much higher quality. This would have been ideal for the government, if we were selling consumables. Unfortunately, this method is applied to highly important public IT projects. I claim that this selection process is a guaranteed recipe for disaster. This isn’t just my claim—it has already been proven.
It’s evident that this approach is often used by the government to save money, putting bidders into a race to offer the lowest price, rather than the most appropriate and comprehensive solution. This is a terrible method, leading to undesirable outcomes like quality reduction at the project's expense. The government should set a budget where the upper and lower bounds aren’t too far apart, and the price difference between bids should hardly matter. The goal should be to serve citizens and businesses, not to save resources through such a process. There is also the major issue of poor technical proposal evaluation, but this deserves an article of its own.
Is There a Way Out?
Of course, there is a way out, and it lies in improving the proposal processes, especially in the IT sector. We live in a rapidly evolving world, and if we truly want the much-desired and highly-promoted digital transformation of the state, we must evolve the processes for selecting large IT projects. These projects directly affect the quality of daily life for citizens.