The Government’s chief information officer was aware, well over a year before the issue was raised at Cabinet, that the Arts Council’s botched information technology (IT) project may need to restart.
The senior civil servant, who is based in the Department of Public Expenditure, ordered an external review of the IT grants system in early 2024 after learning it could take three more years to finish.
That review found that the IT system was not viable, that the project could overrun and that the final system may not even be used by the council. Despite this, the review formed the basis of a “rescue” plan, in which the council asked the Department of Culture for “significant investment” to save the project.
[ Three firms that shared €4.8m from Arts Council for abandoned IT project namedOpens in new window ]
In response, the council’s parent department sanctioned the council to hire two more senior IT roles in an attempt to save the doomed project. By this point, the project was geared towards overhauling the grants management system for the arts sector and had already cost almost €6 million.
READ MORE
Government chief information officer Barry Lowry was involved in advising the council throughout the project in his capacity as the main adviser on public service information and communication technology.
[ Government to appoint chief information officerOpens in new window ]
Mr Lowry was approached by the council in December 2023, as the State agency became increasingly concerned about the then almost four-year-long project that had not produced a functioning IT system. Correspondence between Mr Lowry and the council in December 2023, released under Freedom of Information legislation, shows he was aware the project may need to begin again.
“What you certainly need at this stage is an accurate cost/time to fix or an honest assessment that you would be better starting again,” noted Mr Lowry. He added that “if, and I hope this is not the case, you are in the start again space”, his office had “grant management solutions” used for the Department of Public Expenditure that should be shown to the council. Mr Lowry was also aware that the state of the project could result in the council taking legal action against at least one contractor.
In a meeting with the council in January 2024, Mr Lowry asked to discuss the suggestion that the IT project “could be delayed by a further three years”. By February, he had ordered Storm, a technology consultancy firm, to conduct a two-week review of the architecture of the council IT project.
The Office of the Chief Government Information Officer paid for the review, which was scheduled to cost no more than €50,000. A document prepared by the council said any architectural review should consider if the project was compliant with “design principles” and value for money.
Following the Storm review, the council wrote to the Department of Culture explaining the report showed “we are at an extremely critical juncture with the project, one which requires making significant investment in ... the short term ... in order to rescue the overall project”. These emails, which were released by the council to the Dáil’s Public Accounts Committee, show the arts agency succeeded in getting sanction to hire two new directors of IT.
A spokesman for the Department of Public Expenditure said it “has been very clear on numerous occasions that the focus of the OGCIO [Office of the Chief Government Information Officer] was solely on the technical issues with the project and not on the budgetary implications, which was a matter for the Arts Council and its parent department”.
The spokesman said the Storm review ordered by Mr Lowry “did not examine the project costs or business case, which remained the responsibility of the parent department”.
A Department of Public Expenditure spokesman said that the review ordered by Mr Lowry found that the system “was not irretrievable but would have an associated cost in relation to necessary actions to ensure its capability. At no stage did this review examine the cost of the project, as it focused on technical fitness for purpose.”
“Ultimately, the Arts Council and its board decided to take an alternate approach and in line with DGOU [Digital Government Oversight Unit] processes, it remained proper and correct that the Arts Council took the matter forward through its parent department.”
