LINZ and the development of Landonline

[Ian Gillespie]

An interesting case summary of the process of implementing Landonline 2004-2008

"This case was developed by the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) and funded by the E-Government Unit of the New Zealand State Services Commission. It has been written by Margot Schwass under the supervision of Professor Michael Vitale, ANZSOG. It has been prepared as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The assistance of Russ Ballard, Brendan Boyle, Robert Gray, Katrina Jacobsen, Jeff Needham, Duncan Terris and Paul de Wijze is gratefully acknowledged."
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution

The Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) is a organisation providing training to the public sector (Quango?)

legacy.anzsog.edu.au/documents/156-linz-and-the-development-of-landonline-a-2006-48-1/file

Alternate document link

[Brent George]

Thanks for finding - and sharing - this document Ian.

As a surveyor that was involved at the operational level over this time (1995-2006) - as a user/stakeholder of Landonline with my cadastral surveyor hat on; and also as a contractor to LINZ that was in the Terralink Team joint venture with EDS to "build" Landonline up until 2001 - I found this Case Program Report most interesting.

Compiled in 2006, the events of the previous 5 years or so would have been fresh in the contributor's minds.  And now - in 2024 - when Landonline is nearing the completion of a significant refresh, the key points within this ANZSOG review are worth remembering - and noting.  The key comment takeaways for me being:

- "Fix it. Create Uptake" = brief to Customer Manager Katrina Jacobson in 2004 to encourage Landonline User buy-in.
- Development of Landonline initiated in 1997 was one of NZ' "most heavily-funded public sector IT ventures"
-  The "original budget expanded dramatically"
- Legal and Survey documents were "vital in allowing the property market to function, commercial decisions to ne made and banks to extend loans"
- "Having a good, effective system for maintaining certainty around property rights is a fundamental part of any well-functioning economy"
- Survey and Title records are a "valuable historical resource"
- Benefits: "reduced costs for LINZ through fewer staff and facilities, and faster turnaround times for document processing"
- Benefits: Lawyers and Surveyors would make "savings which could be passed on to their clients"; and their "compliance costs would reduce"
- Savings in the survey sector estimated to be $8.33M after six years
- 1997 estimated cost of Landonline = $95M over 5 years, recovered through user fees over 15 years
- No other country had attempted the automation of a fully integrated survey and titles system
- 1999 initial work over budget by $10M; and data conversion would cost 50% more
- Treasury attitude = "what is the least cost this can be done for?" (a 'set up to fail' attitude)
- There was a gap between LINZ's estimate and the market's assessment of the job
- 1999 extra funding sought was between $144.4M and $154.4M
- State Services Commission was highly supportive as it recognized the fundamental need to protect an essential asset
- EDS (Main contractor for the conversion project) - the government sector was an important customer for EDS globally, and at the time provided 50% of EDS NZ's total business
- Delays with the conversion project triggered payments of liquidated damages by EDS to LINZ - estimated at $4.4M
- Jan 2001 - The Collapse of Terralink:  EDS was heavily reliant on Terralink's expertise and resources
- No bail out for Terralink [as expected by EDS? as expected by Terralink Shareholders?]
- Terralink's demise used as a lesson to others that SOEs could fail, and Government would not save them
- 2002 - Project cost now $140M
- Major challenge revolved around the quality of the paper based records
- LINZ's initial conviction was that "the cost benefits from faster turnaround would provide sufficient incentive for users to switch" to Landonline
- Lawyers initial view = "the system would primarily benefit Government"
- Surveyors initial view = "the system is primarily for the public good, that was being built and maintained with private sector money (through user-pays)
- LINZ had under-estimated the changes required for external customers - "we simply didn't understand our customers that well"
- Some surveyors disliked the end product produced by Landonline.  The traditional paper plan - often rich in ancillary data and artistic merit - had been replaced with a standardised computer generated plan
- LINZ needed to stand in their customers shoes in order to effectively engage with stakeholders to understand their needs and issues so that an effective uptake strategy could be developed

So, comparing this historical summary to the current (2024) situation:
- A Survey and Titles Working Group is a key part of the Landonline refresh - providing direct engagement with stakeholder representatives - an essential and invaluable component to get it right (IMHO).
- User-pays cost recovery is still the focus - (rightly or wrongly)
- Reluctance (from government) to really acknowledge the value to the economy of this digital property rights system
- 1997-2001 imaged paper records still have quality issues - no drive to improve these other than "as requested"
- benefits and savings are moot points - promises of faster turnaround times prove hard to deliver by LINZ; costs for new system adoption, training, and tech updates etc are not insignificant; LINZ fees are only going up