SAP reality check

I know very little about the States new system except that it doesn’t seem to be working terribly well at the moment.

 
Despite all of the positive statements issued by those who should know better, the cracks can no longer be papered over. SAP just isn’t working as it was supposed to be.

 
Let me now make a number of assumptions.

 
The system itself has been widely and successfully sold so it must have some considerable merit.

 
It is a bespoke system and must therefore be tweakable to fit the circumstances.

 
It must on the whole be suitable for the job in hand otherwise we wouldn’t have bought it.

 
So, if the system is basically sound, why isn’t it working?

 
All change is difficult to implement, especially big change. As a generalisation we do not like change unless it’s clearly hugely beneficial and involves us in the minimum of effort. Unfortunately neither of these apply to this new system.

 
There are long term benefits but mostly they happen somewhere else. For the majority of people, the change is difficult and involves more work so it was bound to be a tricky implementation.

 
It is said that some time ago, Jersey was contemplating a fundamental transport change to come more in line with their continental neighbours. Obviously changing the side of the road people drive on would be too big a move to make in a single step so they decided on a gradual implementation. Month one would see all of the lorries and buses make the change with everyone else following once the big boys had got comfortable with the new system. Fortunately, someone mentioned the idea to a Guernseyman and it never got off of the ground.

Some changes must be all or nothing but is this the case with SAP?

 
The structure of any new system project is broadly similar. Buy/Build, test, tweak, retest, train, pilot, re tweak and retrain, repilot until mostly correct and finally implement.

 
Most of this is relatively easy because you are dealing with trained and specialised professionals. However it’s only when you take the system out into the real world that you really begin to test it properly. You see, the users don’t have the familiarly with the system that you’ve built up and they assume nothing. Some might not have even used a computer before whilst others have cheerfully been using other computer systems for years but which are unlike this new system and in their eyes obviously superior.

 
Training is everything and I suspect this is an area which has turned out to be poorly implemented and rushed. But it wasn’t meant that way. I’m sure the system was piloted in one or two areas and carefully nurtured into being, thus proving it’s success.

 
However, pilot studies are usually carried out in areas where there is a good chance of success as it’s just too embarrassing for a pilot to fall flat on its face. Pilots are also sometimes overstaffed and underworked for the same reason. It’s a fair trial of a new system but it’s not a stress test.

 
A stress test is where you throw the kitchen sink at it and see what happens. Choose your worst scenario then double it and see if the system copes. That way you’ll see where the cracks appear.

 
Fortunately Guernsey has done just that. Unfortunately it’s done it in a real life situation and throughout the entire States system and it hadn’t worked.

 
I know I keep repeating this phrase but it doesn’t seem to getting through to some people; that or they’re in denial.

 
SAP doesn’t work as envisaged and it needs to be stopped.

 
Yes, it’s a huge loss of face but the time has come to face the music.

This system has been poorly implemented.

 
We need to either go back to our previous methodology or, if we’ve burned our bridges, devise a temporary bypass to get rid of the log jam created by this failure.

 
Most importantly, we then need to learn from the mistakes.

 
The system is, I assume, basically sound and will work. It might need a major retweaking for some areas and it may not ever work in others for reasons which are only now apparent. This we have learned from the failure so we have gained a little.
 
Basically you now need at least two teams. A well staffed team of firefighters to clear the backlog and a smaller specialist team to work out everything that went wrong. No sugar coating and no protecting reputations; tell it like it is and learn from the mistakes.

 
Then start again.

 
Start with the department most badly affected by this change and flood them with support staff until they are able to use the new system without training wheels. Leave a small dedicated support team in place to pick up residual problems and move the bulk onto the next department.

 
Keep learning from the mistakes and failures which will keep popping up and keep changing the overall implementation policy to take these into account. Some problems will be department or section specific but others will resonate around other areas as well.

 
All of this will be much harder now, as you’ll be faced with a mindset which knows the new system is rubbish and that it will never work because they’ve seen the proof. That is one of the prices of failure and we now need to prove them wrong. 

 
Show the benefits and show them how using the system will make their lives a little easier.

 
And here is where we hit what I suspect might be the biggest problem because the system doesn’t make everyone’s lives easier.
 
In fact it makes things a lot more difficult for some people so that some small savings might be made elsewhere. In some cases it ends up costing people a lot more time and stress (neither of which appear in a spreadsheet) to show potential bottom line savings at departmental level (where it obviously counts to those who matter).

 
If this is the case, then it needs changing. Moving work loads elsewhere does not save money. Getting all individuals responsible for inputting their own data on a daily/weekly/ monthly basis does not save money. It is spending their time away from their primary duties, which might be totally incompatible to sitting in front of a screen, to save someone else doing the input.

 
But think of all of the time and money saved. No pieces of paper or scribbled time sheets, no input clerks, much more streamlined efficiency. Ok, there may be some teething troubles while people get used to the system but nothing insurmountable.

 
Wrong, all wrong.

 
People will still need to keep their own records of time spent and others will still need to check them. Your data clerks are now your specialist workers who aren’t doing their primary work because they’re spending twice as long either in front of a screen or trying to sort out the problems created. It really isn’t streamlined and it definitely isn’t more efficient.

 
Maybe it’s time for a reappraisal.

 
Maybe it’s time to face up to the reality of all of those unpaid bills, potential court appearances, frustrated suppliers and staff.

 
Maybe it’s time to face up to the fact that SAP just isn’t working.

Accountability and Capability

Having failed to get anywhere with the A word, we now seem to have drifted back to the C word with a number of recent events highlighting potential shortfalls.
 
Someone somewhere, possibly vaguely connected to the Harbour, have appointed someone else they feel was the best candidate available to be the new commercial director of our harbours; someone with no previous experience of harbours or anything else directly concerned with transportation.
 
Perhaps modern skills are so portable that you no longer need any actual relevant experience, just some experience somewhere, preferably with financial somewhere in the job title.
 
They clearly have no doubt that they’ve chosen the right person for the task which obviously doesn’t need the clutter of specialist knowledge of harbours. No doubt all will become clearer in time.
 
Then we have the case of the senior civil servant who honourably resigned during the fraud fiasco only to be now snapped up by Education as a consultant. No direct experience in education but that doesn’t matter as his skill set is deemed more than sufficient for the task and he’s a wonderful catch. So wonderful that Education felt it could save the cost of advertising the role and interviewing potential candidates in favour of just going ahead and appointing the chap they wanted in the first place.
 
Again, I have no doubt that he is more than adequate for the role they have in mind which clearly needs minimal knowledge of how our education system works on a day to day, or even year to year basis.
 
I would mention the questioned capacity of some of our A&E cover but of course we’re not allowed to know the true facts or even be given a comprehensive understanding of whether we’re getting value for money from the profit making private company which supplies part of our health service.
 
At least I can trust a doctor to know when they lack capability and call for back up. I just hope the back up is available in what might be a time critical period.
 
But the best example of all is left for last.
 
If you haven’t yet done so, take a read of the independent report into the fraud mentioned above. It is the latest of 12 years worth of reports highlighting the lack of capability of the State’s risk management system.
 
This report also highlights why so little has been achieve over those 12 years. Our system of government is broken.
 
I know that this is somewhat less than breaking news given the way we have of moving from shambles to shambles by way of confidentiality, secrecy, and incompetence but it’s still a little horrifying to see it written down in black and white.
 
It is my understanding that basically we have a Chief Minister with no effective power, a political centre which is run by a committee of 40 odd people, some with minimal experience of anything similar, and a permanent and professional civil service which seems accountable to nobody but themselves. On top of that we have an administration divided into self centred and self seeking departments who have no self interest in promoting anything which will diminish their empire or budget.
 
It’s a wonder anything gets done at all apart from the occasional vanity project.
 
I am sure that there is a huge degree of capability within government but fear that most of it is centred at the sharp end of things, where you do need actual and relevant experience to do your job. Once you move away up into the realms of management, the skill sets apparently become so much more portable allowing all sorts of opportunities for advancement.
 
I mean, how can you see the big picture if your mind is cluttered up with details such as specialist knowledge?
 
We need generalists. People who can be generals.
 
If we haven’t already done so, we’ll eventually end up with more generals than tanks but that will be fine because we don’t need tanks or anyone who understands tanks, or roads and road systems apparently, but that’s another story.

Accountability

Some time ago the States got conned out of a rather large sum of money; you may have heard a little something about it at the time before the usual smoke and mirrors were deployed in an effort to obscure the dreaded "A" word.

Now that smoke has been blown away somewhat by a rather damning report which tells us that a lot of work still needs to be done to tighten up anti fraud and risk management procedures.

What?

A lot of work still needs to be done?

Let’s step back a bit here.

It is the job of senior management to set the parameters and control systems for their department or maybe for several in the case of something so fundamental as anti fraud procedures.

On this basis and regarding the particular fraud in question, either someone more junior failed to follow the set procedures or the control systems were inadequate.

This report suggests the latter.

So you may be forgiven for assuming that someone very senior in the organisation failed to do their job.

Not, oops, I've made a mistake, but an apparent systemic failure to ensure that basic and adequate control systems were in place.

Not only that, but following a catastrophic failure which resulted in a substantial loss, the remedial measures then put in place (aka shutting the stable door) have yet to be proved fully effective to the degree that “more work is needed”.

I agree.

The work needed is that some people need to be sacked.

Someone got paid a lot of money because they were in a position of responsibility. Part of that responsibility should have been to ensure that adequate control systems were in place or to initiate such systems to prevent fraud of any type or nature.

If this wasn't in their remit, then perhaps their boss needs sacking for an apparent failure to not only bolt the stable door but for the more serious failing of not building a door in the first place.

You cannot use the excuse that nobody could foresee such a thing happening. It is basic business sense to guard against fraud in its many facets. It’s called risk management and it’s not a new concept just basic business sense.

Something which apparently was not only missing but which is still not yet up to speed these many months later.

Someone needs sacking.

Not for losing two point whatever million pounds but for the failure to put proper safeguards in place.

An apparent repeated failure to put proper and adequate safeguards in place.

Mistakes happen but this was not a mistake.

This suggests a failure of duty.

It is all too easy to fall into a blame culture mindset especially when the fires are stoked by the media but in this case there does need to be accountability.

Otherwise, what are we paying the big bucks for?

People are getting paid a lot of money to take responsibility.

Well, now it’s time for those same people to be held to account.

Not the little people responsible for following the rules, but the big people who were supposed to set the rules and who seem to have failed to do so.

But at the moment nobody seems willing to clean the stable or at least be seen to be doing so.

Perhaps some senior Ministers would care to nail their colours to the mast or maybe someone high up in the Civil Service if others don't want to earn their keep.

The people of Guernsey, who are the ones paying for all of this, need to know that someone somewhere is earning those big bucks and ensuring adequate accountability is being enforced at all levels.

Not a slap on the wrist or even a written reprimand.

According to this recent report there has been a fundamental failure which has still to be fully corrected.

If that isn't a sackable offence, what is?

Correction

I wrote the above before reading the full report to which I referred and it appears that I am wrong.

Nobody needs to be sacked because nobody was actually responsible.

For over a decade the States have been commissioning and receiving reports about it’s risk management structure and each report has been, shall we say, less than complimentary.

One report placed the States of Guernsey within the bottom 10% of similar UK organisations with regard to risk management.

Each report must have spawned some remedial action at the time but each subsequent report kept coming to the same conclusion.

Not good enough.

Not good enough because nobody was willing or able to take hold of the reins and drive through what was necessary.

Nobody had the responsibility.

Even as of the date of this most recent report there are many inadequacies across the board, some without any remedial action even on the horizon.

A lot of work has been done since the fraud which kick started this latest report but the end result is still a system which is well below that expected of an organisation the size and complexity of the States of Guernsey.

But nobody is responsible.

Still.

Will this report end up on the shelf with the many others produced over the last decade only to be referred to by the next report commissioned following the next failure?

This report needs a hero.

Somebody to take control.

Somebody who has the power to push through the many recommendations of this report before the next catastrophe.

Any takers?

BS 3

 What is the problem with Beau Sejour and why is it taking so long to sort out?
 
I believe there are a number of fundamental issues involved here starting with an understanding of what the centre is for.
 
Is it a profit making entity or is it a community asset?
 
Even if it is the latter, why can’t it generate a small profit? After all, we have several successful private gym and leisure facilities running on the Island so it must be possible to make money in this sector.
 
Another hint of potential profitability is the fact that at least three firms are interested in running Beau Sejour and so must believe that they can make a good profit for themselves out of the deal. If they can do it, why can’t it’s present owners?
 
I think it maybe a mindset problem. A mindset which thinks the centre is a service provider rather than a business and doesn’t need to make money; a mindset which needs changing if the centre is to remain in the public sector.
 
Then there is the possible mindset of the States themselves which seem to be heading towards privatisation of whatever they can get away with. Maybe this has something to do with Tribal Helm, the company brought in a while back to advise the States on how to run things.
 
Tribal Helm has since been taken over by the Capita Group which co-incidentally happens to make a substantial part of it’s own healthy profits from providing a wide range of services to the public sector. When you own a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
 
If the Island’s current set up isn’t fit for the purpose of running a business such as Beau Sejour then perhaps the set up needs changing rather than privatising which will only see any profits going into private pockets rather than back into the community coffers.
 
Another mindset seems to be showing itself over the creche closure in that the redundant staff are being helped to relocate within C&L or elsewhere in the States sector. An excellent idea if there are unfilled vacancies where these skills are needed but do such jobs exist or is it showing that the States rarely if ever reduce their numbers?
 
If Beau Sejour is overstaffed then perhaps we need to consider redundancies; a concept the private sector manages to achieve with ease.
 
A job in the public sector should not be for life; another idea which perhaps has yet to filter through from the private sector.
 
I can see why redundancies are so hard to contemplate. It’s the thin end of the wedge and only a short step to then consider the A word.
 
Accountability.
 
Something which thrives in the private sector. Do a good job and get rewarded. Do a bad job and get fired. Do a job which isn’t needed any more then get made redundant.
 
Why is it so hard to bring these practises to bear in the public sector?
 
Is it beyond the wit of those people who pull down the larger salaries to do just that and manage their relevant sectors?
 
Here’s a plan to sort out Beau Sejour.
 
Close it.
 
Close it and reopen it as a stand alone States assisted business which is precisely what it is at present.
 
Mandate it’s managers to run it for profit and allow them free rein to do just that and within two years. Hire and fire as necessary to bring this business back from the grave it seems to be in.
 
I say seems to be because on the face of it, Beau Sejour is a thriving and successful enterprise with over 600,000 footfalls through its doors a year. That means that on average 11,500 people go through those doors each week and that’s a lot of people.
 
Now either the costs of using the centre are too low or the overheads too high. Even I can work that out.
 
What I can’t understand is why the centre’s managers aren’t allowed to get on with their job and do whatever is necessary to return a small profit.
 
What is holding them back?
 
That is the question which needs to be asked and which needs answering in the public domain; not behind some closed door in a private meeting with stakeholders. The taxpayer is a stakeholder here and should be made aware of the issues.
 
Perhaps it’s time that our elected representatives did get involved with operational issues rather than being fobbed off with the “outside of your remit” excuse.
 
Not at the day to day nuts and bolts level but a good understanding of the effectiveness of managerial control might not be a bad thing especially if tied to some real power over hiring and firing of those who don’t seem to be able to control their departments.
 
Radical ideas perhaps but not as radical as throwing away a profitable business just because we can’t allow someone to run it effectively.

So, what was 2012 like for you?

Now that we’re safely into 2013 I thought I’d look back and see what progress Guernsey PLC has made over the past twelve months.
 
Let's start up north and work our way down.
 
Lots of wind and water to Chout but we’ve only just sort of got around to maybe looking at the viability of considering the possibility of perhaps using alternative energy sources at some unspecified time in the future.
 
Speaking as one who usually decries the use of consultants I do think this is an area where the island lacks the necessary expertise and where we should commission a specific report detailing what, where, how much, and to what benefit over what period. The trouble is, someone might then have to do something about it.
 
A bit further on, we have Mont Cuet still filling up at an alarming rate. More talk about island wide recycling but the latest proposals have as many holes as the recycling car parks themselves. Most of us want to do it, but those that be want someone else to pay for it, and someone else to sort out the fine details. So we carry on as usual.
 
Down to the Bridge where Leales Yard still hangs in the air, threatening the future of the existing shops as is already seen by the ghosts of businesses past which now rattle their chains as charity shops.
 
At least we can drive down the road and find a decent and well run supermarket at last. It might be another nail in the coffin of the small grocers (if such things ever made it into the 21st century) but at least it is a proper coffin nail and not the pretenders we’ve had to put up with in the past.
 
Still no cinema to Les Banques but maybe the promise of one if a whole new shedload of offices can be built. Well, perhaps promise is too strong a word. Maybe just something to be considered as viable until the plans are approved and then maybe quietly dropped, again.
 
By now we should be to Town but of course the traffic as usual is slowing us up a bit. Still, as we’re to the bus sheds, let’s reflect on what a good job the new contractors have done with the bus service. Well, that didn’t take long did it?
 
More complaints, late and missing services, and the ongoing threat of strike action. And all of this from a company which was going to be almost like a co-operative with the Island in its sunny future. I wonder just how much money that deal saved us?
 
Back to the roads, the traffic jams, and the closures. It’s amazing how so many roads can be closed all at the same time and how we can have so many cars and vans generated by a population of 65,000 or so.
 
That “or so” by the way could be 10,000+; nobody knows, as we felt it prudent to duck out of the last census. Might have been too revealing. After all, being part of the EU (?) we’ve got to let in all and sundry, and, provided they live in open market “accommodation”, we don’t seem to care too much.
 
Not only can’t we keep undesirables out, we can’t even get rid of them when they prove to be exactly that. Thank goodness we now have our own little tank to sort them out if they get really shirty.
 
Before we get into Town, let’s divert to what should be the crown in C&L’s portfolio of responsibilities; Beau Sejour. This potential hub of the community is so valued that they are still considering farming it out to private enterprise to save money. Somehow they can’t figure out that if a private company can run it cheaper and still make a profit then so can C&L. Perhaps with the skatepark is on its way, the minister can now focus fully on the day job and we’ll see a popular result for the people.
 
Talking of community, I see that the Arts Commission is on its third or fourth Community officer in as many years. Must be a tough job to go through people at such a rate.
 
Anyway, let’s move into Town and count the number of still empty shops; now to be joined by one or two more, given recent announcements. Retail has been changed forever by the internet but that shouldn’t stop us from developing a town which actually attracts people.
 
Once upon a time Guernsey’s market shone leagues above anything Jersey could provide. What a good redevelopment that turned out to be. A dead market, a library now marooned in a pedestrian area far from the nearest car park, and a beautiful performance space seldom used.
 
At least the business world continues to thrive and has plenty of space to expand into, thanks to our forward looking developers who are able to cater for those sectors of our society with sufficient wealth to buy their fabulous creations.
 
The property market generally continues to bloom, unless of course you’re young, and/or less than wealthy; someone who doesn’t count that is.
 
Talking of counting, things have gone rather quiet on the Education front again. After all of that unnecessary fuss, a few faces have changed, some quietly shuffled off to other duties, and the post Mulkerrin report update seems to have wandered off into the long grass.
 
Perhaps everyone is too busy trying to achieve all of these savings FTP is supposed to produce. Not very likely given that the post of Chief Minister seems to be becoming ceremonial. Kings used to be able to lock people in the Tower; now their descendants open things or hold garden parties.
 
Nobody likes being told what to do but we desperately need someone to pick up the reins of government and crack the whip over more than a few heads. We need real savings and real efficiencies. In a time of austerity, we need to fund the basics and lose the “nice to haves”.
 
Our business community, and especially our internationals, seem to have little problem in cutting their cloth; why do we?
 
Transparency and accountability are held by all to be good things, at least in political manifesto puffs. Once the seat hits the bench, they become something which everybody else should aspire towards at some future date.
 
Take that £2.5m lost to a simple fraud. Did the civil servant concerned get sacked for cutting corners? Or weren’t the corners there in the first place; in which case, why are those who should have put suitable checking procedures in place still warming their chairs. More to the point, why isn’t our investigating press following up the story. Oh, I forgot, we don’t appear have one.
 
Putting aside the extra money it’s now costing us through that fraud, the airport project seems to be going rather well with minimal disruption. The massive amount of materials seem to be flowing well, and the tractor drivers appear to be more professional that the bus drivers if public opinion is to be believed. But let’s wait for the end result before passing judgement. Let’s see just what we get for our money and how much more air traffic we receive from better, up to date aircraft and budget airlines.
 
Moving into the country, the farmers appear to be holding their own, at least in supplying the local market for dairy products. Shame we’ve never really got the idea of marketing and export sorted out but why bother when now neither the demand or the supply is there.
 
Down to the coast, where the sea keeps reminding us who’s really in charge. After the hole in the wall incident was repeated a couple of times, the States actually commissioned a report on our sea defences. Unfortunately, that report suggested spending something like £50m over a long period of time to try and keep the sea in check.
 
Now, which politician is going to start spending that amount of money when they can put it off until post election? They did say a long period of time didn’t they? Surely that means it can wait a while then?
 
Ah, King Canute, where are you when we need you?
 
One would think that defending the island would be right up there on the To Do list for all politicians and civil servants but it doesn’t seem to be the case. Maybe they all live in the higher parishes?
 
So, another year of missed opportunities and botch ups. Another States, just as forward thinking as the last one.
 
Maybe this year will be different. Maybe this year will be the one when a true political leader will emerge to lead us out of the wilderness years.
 
Maybe.

Do we really need consultants?

Consultants do not know what they are doing.

They are given a remit from the organisation they are to work for and they have to go in and find out what is happening.
 

How do they do this?
 

They talk to people. Lots of people, at every level in the organisation.
 

They ask questions, and make you question your own processes.
 

They want to learn what your problems are and they want to know what ideas you have to solve these problems.
 

Because they don’t know the trees, they are able to see the wood. 

They bring an independent mind and a viewpoint formed by what they learn.
 

What comes out of this process is a report and usually a number of recommendations. 

What also comes along is a large bill.
 

Now most of the information and advice in this report has come from within your own organisation. You could have had it for free. But you wouldn’t have valued it.
 

Instead, you have an expensive report from professional consultants who obviously know their stuff because they’ve come up with some really good recommendations. This, you value and hopefully will put into practise.
 

What consultants seldom tell you is the systems to put in place so that you never need call on them again.
 

Systems which allow all of your staff to bring their ideas to the table without wading through seventeen layers of bureaucracy.
 

Systems which will really listen to new ideas.
 

Systems which teach your managers how to manage efficiently, which isn’t always dictated by the bottom line.
 

Systems which reward innovation regardless of pay grade.

The best organisations do this already. They do not need consultants. Every single member of their organisation is already a valued consultant. 

Now that’s a system worth building!