Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1585–1605 | Cite as

Birth, life and death of the Victorian Education Ultranet

  • Arthur TatnallEmail author
  • Bill Davey


This article examines the development and ultimate demise of the Ultranet, a major ICT infrastructure project in the education system of the Australian State of Victoria. The case is interesting as it was a very large project, intended for 1500 schools and funded to $180 m (Au). The study traces the design and implementation of the project as a socio-technical innovation in education. Although there are examples of how this project worked very well, its uptake was less than anticipated. The study found that potential benefits from a very large project like this can be nullified by a number of factors including: change in sponsorship of the project, an over emphasis on security concerns, failure to enrol crucial stakeholders and a naive assumption by technologists that technology with potential benefits will always be accepted. The study also found that technology projects must be delivered where a need exists and one that, most importantly, is recognised by the stakeholders. This will also be the case in other education systems around the world. If resources are not to be wasted the problem must be clearly identified and its need accepted before a solution is proposed. The Victorian Government finally abandoned the Ultranet in June 2013.


Socio-technical studies Information technology People Education Schools eGovernment Project management Adoption Actor-network theory Innovation translation Ultranet Extranet Intranet Online learning Reporting to parents Sharing curriculum materials Benefits Problems 


  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010). "Statistics Victoria, Mar 2010" Retrieved November 2010, from
  2. Australian Education Union - Victoria (2012). "EBA 2012: Branch Executive EBA resolution." Retrieved 6 December 2012, from
  3. Australian PolicyOnline (2016). "Auditor-General’s Office" Retrieved December 2016, from
  4. Baker, R., & McKenzie, N. (2014a). Threat to subpoena Victorian education chiefs over Ultranet deal. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, R., & McKenzie, N. (2014b). Ultranet official accused of fraud. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, R., & McKenzie, N. (2015). Lunches, mates and the schools scandal. Sunday Age. Melbourne: Fairfax: 1,3.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, R., McKenzie, N., & Preiss, B. (2014a). Cosy deals and costly lessons. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, R., McKenzie, N., & Preiss, B. (2014b). Ultranet's costly failure an education in politics and procurement. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax.Google Scholar
  9. Bhattacherjee, A., & Hikmet, N. (2007). Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: A theoretical model and empirical test. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(6), 725–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callon, M. (1986a). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology (pp. 19–34). London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callon, M. (1986b). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action & belief. A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–229). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  12. Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory - the market test. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 181–195). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Cook, H. (2016). Phone taps reveal former minister's secret liaison plan. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax: 3.Google Scholar
  14. DEECD (2005). [Technical] Ultranet. Retrieved 30 January 2013, from
  15. DEECD. (2009a). So you are a lead user ... Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.Google Scholar
  16. DEECD. (2009b). Ultranet coaches 2009 handbook. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.Google Scholar
  17. DEECD. (2010a). Information for parents: Introducing the Ultranet to students. Melbourne: DEECD.Google Scholar
  18. DEECD (2010b). Summary Statistics for Victorian Schools. Retrieved November 2010, from
  19. DEECD (2011). Ultranet – Login to the Future. Retrieved January 2012, from
  20. DEECD (2012). For Parents. Retrieved 18 December 2012, from
  21. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2010a). Ultranet - Students@Centre Trial. Retrieved December 2012, from
  22. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2010b). Ultranet Student Free Day in August. Retrieved 30 January 2013, from
  23. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2011). Ultranet. Retrieved January 2012, from
  24. Doncaster Secondary College (2008). Glen Waverley Secondary College – Thursday, May 29. ELearning at Doncaster S.C. 2015.
  25. Dwivedi, Y. K., Wastell, D., Laumer, S., Henriksen, H. Z., Myers, M. D., Bunker, D., et al. (2015). Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. EduWeb (2006). The Ultranet - Research & Development Initiative. 2016, from
  27. Eveleens, J. L., & Verhoef, C. (2010). The rise and fall of the chaos report figures. IEEE Software, 27(1), 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fraudster (2010). Ultraflop. The Fraudulent Teacher
  29. Goldfinch, S. (2007). Pessimism, computer failure, and information systems development in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 917–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Griffin, P., & Woods, K. (2006). Evaluation of the pilot implementation of the Student@Centre Ultranet in Victorian schools. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  31. Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work - technology, work and organisation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hirschheim, R., & Newman, M. (1988). Information systems and user resistance: Theory and practice. The Computer Journal, 31(5), 398–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holden, S. (2010). Ultranet crashes. Teacher, (214):5–8.Google Scholar
  34. Howell, M. C., & Prevenier, W. (2001). From reliable sources, an introduction to historical methods. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  35. IBAC (2016a). Independent broad-based anti-corruption commission. Retrieved April 2016, from
  36. Jacks, T. (2016). Ultranet contract 'closest thing to corrupt' in 20 years of government. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax: 8.Google Scholar
  37. Latour, B. (1988). The prince for machines as well as for machinations. In B. Elliott (Ed.), Technology and social process (pp. 20–43). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvester University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Laumer, S., & Eckhardt, A. (2012). Why do people reject technologies: A review of user resistance theories. In E. Dwivedi et al. (Eds.), Information systems theory (pp. 63–86). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levy, M. (2010). 'Massive fail': Technical glitches upset Ultranet training day. The Age. Melbourne: The Age.Google Scholar
  43. Maguire, C., Kazlauskas, E. J., & Weir, A. D. (1994). Information services for innovative organizations. Sandiego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McMaster, T., Vidgen, R. T., & Wastell, D. G. (1997). Towards an understanding of technology in transition. Two conflicting theories. Information systems research in Scandinavia, IRIS20 Conference, Hanko, Norway, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  46. Peck, D. (2010). Ultranet Update. Melbourne: Ultranet General Manager.Google Scholar
  47. Preiss, B. (2014). Don't forget the education cost. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax: 11.Google Scholar
  48. ReflectiveTeacher (2012). Unlimited Potential ... Unfortunate Ultranet.
  49. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Savolainen, P., Ahonen, J. J., & Richardson, I. (2012). Software development project success and failure from the supplier's perspective: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sharp, S. (2013). Ultranet future. DEECD mail. DEECD. Melbourne: DEECD.Google Scholar
  52. Singleton, V., & Michael, M. (1993). Actor-networks and ambivalence: General practitioners in the UK cervical screening programme. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 227–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Srivastava, S. C. (2011). Is e-government providing the promised returns?: A value framework for assessing e-government impact. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(2), 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Standish Group. (1995). The Standish group report - chaos. Boston: Massachusetts Standish Group.Google Scholar
  55. Standish Group. (2016). CHAOS Report 2016: Outline. Boston: Massachusetts Standish Group.Google Scholar
  56. Stoica, R., & Brouse, P. (2013). IT project failure: A proposed four-phased adaptive multi-method approach. Procedia Computer Science, 16, 728–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tatnall, A. (2000). Innovation and change in the information systems curriculum of an Australian university: A socio-technical perspective. Doctor of Philosophy, Central Queensland University.Google Scholar
  58. Tatnall, A. (2009). Information systems, technology adoption and innovation translation. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 1(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tatnall, A. (2011). Information systems research, technological innovation and actor-network theory. Melbourne: Heidelberg Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tatnall, A., & Dakich, E. (2011). Informing parents with the Victorian education Ultranet. Informing science and IT education. Novi Sad: Informing Science.Google Scholar
  61. Tatnall, A., & Gilding, A. (1999). Actor-network theory and information systems research. 10th Australasian conference on information systems (ACIS). Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  62. Tatnall, A., Dakich, E., & Davey, W. (2011). The Ultranet as a future social network: An actor-network analysis. In N. Wickramasinghe, U. Lechner, A. Pucihar, J. Gricar, & M. Mamnik (Eds.), 24th Bled eConference (pp. 348–360). Bled, Slovenia: University of Maribor.Google Scholar
  63. Tatnall, A., Davey, W., Dakich, E., & Wickramasinghe, N. (2013). The Ultranet: An eGovernment project management failure? 26th Bled eConference, eInnovations: Challenges and impacts for individuals, organizations and society. In Lux Wigand, D., Carlsson, C., Clarke, R., Pucihar, A. and Kljajić Borštnar, M (eds). Bled, Slovenia. pp. 32–47.Google Scholar
  64. Toomey, R., EkinSmyth, C., Warner, C., & Fraser, D. (2000). Case study of ICT and school improvement at Glen Waverley secondary college, Victoria, Australia. OECD/CERI ICT Program ICT and the Quality of Learning. Melbourne: Glen Waverley Secondary College.Google Scholar
  65. Topsfield, J. (2010). Rollout of Ultranet postponed. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax: 5.Google Scholar
  66. Topsfield, J. (2012a). Clunky, outdated Ultranet faces an uncertain future. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax: 5.Google Scholar
  67. Topsfield, J. (2012b). Desperate bid to salvage schools Ultranet. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax: 5.Google Scholar
  68. Topsfield, J. (2012c). Country parents keen on fortnightly reporting tool. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax: 5.Google Scholar
  69. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Victorian Auditor-General's Office. (2012). Learning Technologies in Government Schools. Melbourne: Victorian Auditor-General's Office.Google Scholar
  71. Victorian Auditor-General's Office. (2015). Digital dashboard: Status review of ICT projects and initiatives (p. 5). Victorian Auditor-General's Office: Melbourne.Google Scholar
  72. Victorian Ombudsman's Office. (2011). Own motion investigation into ICT-enabled projects. Melbourne: Victorian Ombudsman.Google Scholar
  73. Victorian Ombudsman's Office. (2016). Victorian Ombudsman. Retrieved December 2016, from
  74. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research, design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Victoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations