The cost of starting in the wrong place

Government organisations are rarely short of ideas for new technology.

Business areas have genuine problems to solve, and technology teams are understandably keen to help. But there’s often a gap between identifying a problem and deciding that a new technology project is the answer.

Too often, requests arrive with a proposed solution already attached. A new platform, a new system or a new piece of functionality becomes the focus before anyone has properly explored the problem.

By that stage, expectations have been set, stakeholders have invested time, and the organisation can find itself progressing an expensive solution to a problem it hasn’t fully understood.

In my role as Principal Product Manager in the NSW Department of Education’s Technology Enablement directorate, I’ve been working to change that.

Start with the problem, not the solution

I wanted to get involved much earlier in the process, working directly with business stakeholders to understand what they were trying to achieve.

This meant bringing advice and initial assessment, followed by more detailed problem definition, forward in the lifecycle of initiatives.

Across work including NELS, NAP, Distance Education Scholarships and Preschool Enrolment, I worked with business owners to explore:

• What problem are we actually trying to solve?
• Who experiences the problem, and how does it affect their work?
• Is technology really the answer?
• Are there existing systems or tools that could do the job?
• Does the proposal align with funded priorities and the department’s broader technology direction?
• What is a realistic way forward?

These conversations aren’t always easy. Sometimes the most useful advice is that an idea isn’t funded, isn’t viable or doesn’t need the level of technology investment originally proposed.

But having that conversation early is considerably better than discovering it after months of analysis and governance.

Bigger isn’t always better

One recurring challenge is the tendency to assume that complex business problems require complex enterprise platforms.

Large platforms can be valuable, but they also bring licensing costs, implementation effort, integration requirements and ongoing support obligations.

Sometimes a much simpler solution is available using technology the organisation already has.

For example, we’ve explored opportunities to use existing Microsoft 365 capabilities rather than introducing additional enterprise platforms.

This isn’t about avoiding investment in technology. It’s about making sure the investment is proportionate to the problem.

Every new platform creates a long-term commitment. We should be confident that the benefits justify the complexity.

Reducing the friction in government delivery

Getting a good idea through government technology governance can sometimes be as challenging as solving the original problem.

Formal processes such as the Technology Project Investment Framework (TPIF), scoring and Architecture Impact Assessment Framework (AIAF) have important purposes. They help manage risk, assess investment and ensure decisions are made responsibly.

But processes can also become unnecessarily complicated.

I’ve spent time working across business teams, Enterprise Architecture, Portfolio Services and technical delivery teams to identify where work gets stuck.

A particular focus has been improving the early definition of problems and clarifying delivery pathways before initiatives enter formal governance.

In areas such as Preschool Enrolment, this has involved some practical ‘sludge busting’: identifying unnecessary steps, clarifying what information is genuinely needed and helping teams navigate the process without creating additional work.

The aim isn’t to remove governance. It’s to make sure governance adds value rather than becoming an obstacle in its own right.

Better decisions, earlier

This approach has helped business teams develop a clearer understanding of their problems, explore more practical options and better understand which ideas can realistically progress.

It has also strengthened the relationship between business stakeholders and technology teams. Rather than simply receiving requests and estimating the effort required, we can work together to shape the right response.

There’s still more to do. Funding constraints, competing priorities and lengthy approval processes remain real challenges.

But I believe the biggest opportunity to improve technology delivery is often before a project formally begins.

Spend more time understanding the problem. Be prepared to challenge assumptions. Use what you already have where it makes sense. And make sure the organisation is solving the right problem before it commits to building the solution.

Sometimes the best technology decision is deciding not to build something at all.