New Digital Services Minister Megan Woods has called a time-out on chief technology officer recruitment while she reassesses options. Photo / George Nov.
The full extent of the train-wreck process to recruit a Government chief technology officer was revealed this week (see timeline below).
So where to from here?
The Herald asked several tech industry figures for their advice for Megan Woods, who has taken over the Digital Services portfolio and called a time-out on the CTO hunt while she reassesses the options.
Tech investor and writer Ben Kepes says the Government needs to decide if it wants a cheerleader or a nerd.
"The Government seems confused about what a CTO actually does," he says.
"On one end of the spectrum, you have an evangelist and futurist who articulates a technology-enabled future and tries to take the country on that journey."
"On the other, you have a technologist who is able to help the nation move from the current status, incrementally, into a new one."
The (aborted) appointment of Derek Handley indicated the Government was "on the arm-waving end" of that spectrum, Kepes says.
"Marketing skills were chosen over an actual understanding of the technology industry and landscape," he says - an approach he believes would have delivered "sub-optimal results".
Kepes is dubious that the Government could find a candidate with both real-world technology nous and the evangelical touch. While it's an unorthodox approach, he says a group of people could be a better fit.
Tech commentator Paul Brislen would split the role in two.
One person would be "an inward-facing, top-down CIO [chief information officer] who needs to be a hands-on technical person who can wrangle CIOs from the various Government departments and needs a clear mandate from the Government to align spending and deliverables across all of Government. That has to happen rapidly because we've got DHBs talking about spending hundreds of millions and IRD well down the road of spending $1.5 billion of public money," he says.
"The other role is the futurist. They don't need to code or know how to plug computers together. They do need the communication skills to explain why the Next Big Thing is or isn't snake oil, often to a group of politicians who have no idea about the technology."
Brislen adds that technology is so broad these days that no one person could have the required expertise across hardware, software, mobile and internet trends. A group of advisers would have to fill the role, he says.
"Politically, it would probably be easier to just give up," says Paul Matthews, chief executive of the Institute of IT Professionals. "But there's still a really big opportunity and need for the originally-conceived 'chief technology adviser' concept," says Matthews, recalling the role first proposed by entrepreneur Rod Drury.
"But it really does need to be re-shaped and, for example, made a little more independent from direct Government control," he adds.
"One option worth serious consideration is creating the role within the office of the chief science adviser, to ensure the focus is where it was originally intended. If this option was pursued it would be really important to ensure it was still a specific role, rather than just the concept rolled into that office, where it would likely be lost."
Matthews says that while being able to talk credibly about future tech trends is important, "it's the less sexy things that will actually make the most difference – dealing with skills, education, tech industry growth, procurement and impacts of immigration, for example."
"So it can't just be a traditional 'CTO' and can't be a self-proclaimed 'futurist'," he says.
"It should be reframed as 'chief technology adviser' and they should have a broad understanding of the factors that impact the sector, and impact New Zealand."
NZTech chief executive Graeme Muller takes a similar tack.
"We still believe that a role that provides independent, forward-looking technology advice to the government is critical," he says.
"Maybe in light of what's happened, it might make more sense not to pursue the same strategy of appointing one all-knowing CTO but rather something more akin to the Chief Science Adviser. Having Adviser in the title makes more sense than Officer. It's not a corporation."
A couple of field notes are useful at this point. The Government already has a chief digital officer, or CDO, who is charged with co-ordinating IT strategy between Government departments. Colin MacDonald was CDO until he retired in June. He fulfilled the role on top of being chief executive of Internal Affairs. His successor Paul James (currently the head of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage), who will take over as CDO on October 1, will also serve as the head of Internal Affairs.
The idea is that a CTO would be independent of any Government department, with scope for being more of a visionary.
And there is already a digital advisory panel. In April, then-Communications and Digital Services Minister Clare Curran created a 15-person group charged with advising the Government on building the digital economy and reducing the "digital divide".
Cloud computing consultant and tech blogger Ian Apperley says Woods should scrap the CTO search.
After ploughing through the initial job description, he says the position was too restrictive in what the successful applicant could do or say.
In any case, he adds, there is already no shortage of free advice for the Government, with no fewer than 22 tech industry lobby groups.
Apperley also maintains there is already a broad public-private consensus about technology direction, with no need for a $500,000-a-year mouthpiece to confirm it.
He says Government departments are already too restricted by various buying guidelines.
The last word goes to Punakaiki Fund manager Lance Wiggs.
In essence, the tech industry veteran says the Government needs to step up and do its job.
"The person [doing the CTO job] needs to be technical enough to be credible to the tech community yet also have demonstrated ability to influence policymakers, Government agencies and industry through their business and economic acumen, empathy with a wide range of communities," says the former NZTE adviser.
"I'd like to see someone who is authoritative, reflective and diligent, and who gradually builds trust through selected interventions and programmes," he says.
"And yes, that person is very hard to find, and may not even exist," he adds.
"The best approach is to have someone who has the political clout, and will, and to make sure that they are very well informed. That person is Megan Woods herself."
CTO search timeline
• December 19, 2017: The Government first advertises the $500,000-a-year chief technology officer role.
• February 12, 2018: Then-Digital Services Minister Clare Curran shocks the tech industry when she announces that none of the 60 applicants was successful.
• February 22: Curran meets with entrepreneur and Sky TV director Derek Handley. The pair discuss the CTO role. The meeting is not disclosed.
• May 13: The CTO role is readvertised internationally, following consultation with Curran's digital advisory panel, formed in April. A key change is that it is now a 12-month contract, with a possible extension.
• June 3: Handley submits an application. Around 80 people apply in all.
• August 8: Handley informed he is the successful applicant.
• August 24: The February 22 meeting with Handley comes to light. Curran is sacked from Cabinet and loses her Digital Services portfolio, but keeps ACC and Broadcasting as a Minister outside Cabinet.
• September 7: Curran resigns her remaining portfolios following the revelation she used a personal Gmail account for Government business.
• September 12: Handley learns the CTO position is being "rethought" and he no longer has the role. He is given $107,000 compensation, which he donates to the Spark Foundation.
• September 14: Woods goes public, saying the Government has stopped the CTO recruitment process while it "reconsiders" the role.
• September 25: Handley reveals to the Herald that no one in the government told him why he was dropped from the role.
