DTA Digital Investment Plan vs ACT Technology Investment Framework: A Comparative Guide to Smarter Government Technology Spending

Why Digital Investment Frameworks are crucial for Government

Across Australia, government agencies are under increasing pressure to modernise technology, improve services, and use public funds responsibly. Achieving this requires more than just buying new systems — it demands structured, transparent, and forward-looking investment planning.

Two major approaches stand out: the Australian Digital Technology Agency’s Digital Investment Plan (DIP) and the ACT Government’s Technology Investment Framework (TIF). Both aim to guide agencies in making the right technology decisions, but they take different routes to get there.

This guide explains how each works, compares their strengths and weaknesses, and offers practical recommendations for agencies looking to improve their digital investment planning.

1. The Digital Technology Agency Digital Investment Plan (DIP)

The DIP is a structured, whole-of-government approach to mapping out an agency’s future technology investments. It’s updated annually and covers the short-, medium-, and long-term (3, 5, and 10 years).

Purpose of the DIP:

• Align technology spending with strategic priorities.

• Improve transparency for funding decisions.

• Identify risks from ageing or unsupported systems.

• Encourage reuse of systems and avoid duplication.

Key Components:

1. Agency Overview – mission, core functions, and how digital services support delivery.

2. Current State – list of critical systems, their lifecycle stage, and risks.

3. Digital Outlook – vision for the agency’s technology future, aligned to strategy.

4. Digital Roadmap – timelines, milestones, and dependencies for projects.

5. Enablers – workforce skills, governance, and vendor partnerships.

6. Risks – security, funding, and supplier risks, plus mitigation plans.

The DIP focuses on strategic alignment and is a key tool for national technology coordination.

2. The ACT Government Technology Investment Framework (TIF)

The TIF is a structured investment process for ACT Government ICT and digital projects. It is designed to ensure technology investments are well-targeted, cost-effective, and deliver clear benefits to the community.

Purpose of the TIF:

• Improve prioritisation of ICT investments.

• Support business case development.

• Reduce duplication and enhance system reuse.

• Strengthen investment governance.

Key Features:

• Two-Pass Process – first pass for concept approval, second pass for full business case.

• Readiness Assessments – early checks on whether a proposal is prepared for detailed design.

• Portfolio Management – ensures projects align with broader ACT Government priorities.

• Mandatory ICT Engagement – early engagement with ICT governance teams to ensure alignment.

Unlike the DIP, the TIF is tightly linked to the annual budget cycle and has a strong focus on detailed business case development.

3. Similarities Between the DIP and TIF

Both frameworks share core principles:

• Strategic Alignment – both link projects to agency and whole-of-government priorities.

• Risk Management – both require early identification of risks and plans to mitigate them.

• Lifecycle Focus – both assess systems over their lifecycle to ensure timely upgrades.

• Emphasis on Reuse – both encourage using existing systems where possible to save costs.

  
  

4. Key Differences Between the DIP and TIF

Feature	DTA Digital Investment Plan (DIP)	ACT Technology Investment Framework (TIF)
Scope	National, across all Australian Government agencies	Territory-level, specific to ACT Government
Focus	Strategic mapping of future investments	Detailed investment governance & approval
Process	Annual update with rolling 3, 5, and 10-year outlook	Two-pass approval process linked to budget
Business Cases	Not always required at the DIP stage	Central to TIF, required before funding
Governance	Overseen by DTA	Overseen by ACT ICT Governance bodies
Detail Level	Higher-level strategic planning	More prescriptive, detailed design focus
Timing	Long-term planning	Annual budget alignment

5. Strengths of Each Framework

Where the DIP excels:

• Long-term, strategic visioning.

• Cross-agency coordination at a national level.

• Helps manage national-level technology risks.

Where the TIF excels:

• Strong governance and oversight.

• Detailed readiness assessments before committing resources.

• Tight integration with funding decisions.

6. Lessons from Comparing the Two

• Blending Approaches – Combining the DIP’s strategic outlook with the TIF’s detailed governance could create a powerful hybrid model.

• Early Engagement Pays Off – TIF’s mandatory early ICT engagement reduces duplication — a lesson national agencies can adopt.

• Lifecycle Transparency – Both highlight the need for accurate lifecycle data, which is essential for avoiding sudden system failures.

7. Recommendations for Government Agencies

1. Use a Strategic Roadmap – even if your funding process is annual, plan at least 5–10 years ahead.

2. Adopt a Two-Stage Process – take the TIF’s concept and business case approach to de-risk investments.

3. Improve Collaboration – share plans across agencies to identify reuse opportunities.

4. Invest in Capability – ensure staff can develop robust business cases and roadmaps.

5. Review Regularly – update investment plans annually to reflect changes in technology and policy.

Building Better Technology Investment Planning

Both the Digital Investment Plan and the Technology Investment Framework show the value of structured investment planning in government. The DIP brings a national, strategic perspective, while the TIF offers detailed governance tied closely to budget processes.

By borrowing from both, agencies can make better technology decisions, deliver improved services, and make smarter use of public funds.

For more insights into digital transformation, strategy, and investment planning, subscribe to George James Consulting at www.Georgejamesconsulting.com.