So can we now look forward to
Dismissal of those responsible - this does not mean early retirement on enhanced terms followed by reemployment as a consultant the following day? No, thought not.
Southwark Council's claim for £2.5m in damages from IBM for supposedly faulty software has been dismissed. The court found that IBM had delivered the system as requested in 2007. It was bought through a framework agreement between the Treasury and IBM. The judge found that Southwark had chosen the software without even …
So everyone's council tax in Southwark goes up a squidge to cover management incompetence at the council - marvellous.
They didn't evaluate the software to ensure that it met their needs nor supply any specification as to what their needs were (if they had IBM _could_ have said, "erm, this ain't gonna do it")... it's like they've got "Andy" from Little Britain in charge just pointing at software and going "want that one".
If I had to guess, I'd say the procurement process went something like this:
Southwark: We need a system to manage our houses
SAP: Certainly, we have a very nice system - it'll cost you loadsamoney, but we're worth it
S: We can't afford that, we're crap at collecting council tax, and it's such a dump our rates are below the english average
SAP: Tough, that's the price
S: <surfs the web> Ooooh, lookee here's one that sounds nice and it's cheap. It doesn't say if it'll do what we need, though
S (boss): Cheap! - that's good enough, let's buy it.
IBM: So you want to buy our software? Has anyone explained to you what it does or how to use it?
S: Nope, but it's cheap. We want it.
IBM: Only if you're reeeeeeeelly sure.
S (massed skills of 6 negotiators): Oh, and can you knock off a bit, 'cos we're broke.
IBM: Would you settle for a tee-shirt?
S: A whole tee-shirt? it's a deal! When can you deliver (the tee-shirt, that is)?
IBM It's in the post, with the software CD
... time passes
S (boss) Times is tough. We'll have to let our negotiating team go (idle observation: if the negotiators were any good, couldn't they have persuaded the council to keep them on?)
S (massed skills of 6 negotiators): CRY! but a at least we got a tee-shirt.
... more time passes
Boss: I can't get this software to work. It can't possibly be my lack of skills, it must be faulty.
Boss's boss: So, it's your fault?
Boss: No, we must have been missold it, it must be unfit for purpose it can't possibly be my fault.
Boss's boss: Let's see if those negotiators can remember why they bought it.
6 negotiators: you sacked us, you're on your own buddy (or words to that effect)
Boss's boss: Oh dear (or words to that effect)
Boss: I know, let's sue someone. After all, we can always raise council tax to pay for the litigation (that's what we always do, for every cost we incur)
Boss's boss: Great idea
IBM's lawyer: Well, you didn't ask us if it would do what you need. But since we're nice guys we'll give you your money back, provided you return the tee-shirt.
Boss: Nope - we want to make a point (though we're not quite sure what the point is)
IBM: OK, see you in court.
El Beaky: Case dismissed. Southwark must pay all the costs for messing IBM about and not being reasonable about a settlement.
Southwark: Never mind, we'll just jack up the council tax .... oh, hang on, it's been frozen
Boss's boss: Well, I'm not losing my big fat salary, we'll just have to fire a few proles.
Boss: me neither. I still say it wasn't my fault. Let's sack the negotiators.
Boss's boss: we already did that - that's why we lost.
Boss: Oh ..... yeah.
"The council must now pay IBM's costs - the exact figure is still being debated by both sides, but Southwark has promised that any payment would not hit front line services."
So where is the money going to come from? Is it in the cashier's drawer for emergency petty cash?
Is the operation so slack that they can squeeze it from somewhere trivial?
Is someone from Southwarlk reading this and are they able to explain?
HTF can a council spunk £2+ million without a spec, get burned, and NOBODY gets fired ?
With stories like this around, why should I feel sorry for local coucils having money taken away from them ? They clearly can't be trusted with it.
I wonder if Southwark council tax payers can now sue the council for criminal incompetence ?
"I wonder if Southwark council tax payers can now sue the council for criminal incompetence ?"
Did anyone mention that you wanted your council to be competent when you voted for them? Or did you just stab at the ballot sheet with a bit of crayon and go "I want that one".
Come to think of it...
"Did anyone mention that you wanted your council to be competent when you voted for them? "
Your suggestion is a Technocracy, government by those best qualified to govern.
However it does lack democratic accountability, but as Winston Churchil put it "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
My version is that people get the government/council they deserve, when they couldn't be bothed to turn out and vote.
"I wonder if Southwark council tax payers can now sue the council for criminal incompetence ?"
Sorry last labour government got rid of surcharging, along with lots of other democratic accountability ideas. (Dame Shirley was your last chance to see this in action)
"HTF can a council spunk £2+ million without a spec, get burned, and NOBODY gets fired ?"
1) Councils have other methods of "replacing" under-performing members of staff, it would not necesisarily be "Cheif Exec sacked for failed procurement deal" in the local news, more like, "new head of procurement wanted following early retirement", just like in the police.
2)They probably got there by a head of service, who thought the local IT team "obstructive", because they kept asking for specs, req. defs, testing, training, that sort of time wasting stuff, and hence did an end-run around them with the procurement team (this is normal), followed by said manager jumping ship just before it hits the fan (where was Audit?)
"With stories like this around, why should I feel sorry for local coucils having money taken away from them ? They clearly can't be trusted with it."
Well most council staff try and do a good job with the limited resources available. I have personally seen large IT installs go in, and the bean counters cut the training budget out, "to save money" (yes, buy an HGV but don't train the car driver you put in it, and wonder why there are expensive accidents!)
You failed to ask the obvious question, how did the council solicitor let this non-starter of a case get to court, wasting lots more money. I would personally suggest they need a new head of legal.
The public sector doesn't all exist purely to perform its notional functions -- it also has a social function, of providing a more dignified form of unemployment, helping its employees to imagine that they're doing something useful. It also keeps the people who would wreck any company that employs them, out of the private sector; after all, there are people it is worth paying to stay out of the real workforce.
The problem here is that you only get the chance to vote for the people who manage the window dressing, not the people who actually make the day to day decisions.
At best, the council officers will have given the councillors a report containing a budget for 73 items totalling umpteen million and the councillors will use it to score political points against each other, perhaps get one or two items deleted but by and large will have very little choice but to rubber stamp what their officers have proposed. They don't have either the time or the knowledge to influence where they actually spend that budget.
Maybe its time that old phrase "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" was proved a reckless decision.
The councillors are suppose to set policy, and provide scrutiny.
For a large item, say an HR Payroll system, the councillors should be asking what the options are, and why are you going in that direction.
Bottom line is that whilst they are not going to be experts at all the 400 odd business functions in a council, they can ask tough questions, grill officers making decisions, and stop things until they are happy that the money is (a) needed, and (b) well managed.
Unfortunately the above is good theory, and I have only seen it in practice in one directorate of one large council, most others ranged along a scale of "my son could do this in access, why do we need this expensive oracle thing" (4m record database), through councilor oposing the project he proposed when he was in office, but now in opposition thinks he can get votes out of rubishing it, to cancelation of an IT security project to pay for new park benches, just before an election.
Anybody with ideas for a better system however, should write to one "Nick Clegg" c/o of Dave of Downing Street.
HTF could the council (this would seem to need the support of *elected* officials, not just senior unelected staff) *believe* they could win this one to the point they'd hire QC's at whatever an hour they charge these days and put it in play.
"We trusted the supplier" only works if you made an actual effort to find out if what they were selling was *fit* for purpose in the first place.
I feel for the council tax payers who, one way or another, will get the sh***y end of this particular pole in reduced services one way or the other.
How heart-warming to read that cllr. Richard Livingstone, the "cabinet member" for finance at Southwark council, was on the anti-cuts demo "with a 100 strong Southwark Labour contingent".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/blog/2011/mar/26/march-for-the-alternative-live-blog-updates
Having a hard time starting work this morning. For more amusement, see cllr. Livingstone's job description at http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgExecPostDetails.aspx?ID=310:
"To ensure sound business planning and financial probity within the corporate framework, including the medium term financial strategy and all financial management of revenue and capital, the capital programme and the management of capital receipts. To ensure the availability and prioritisation of resources to meet the cabinet’s priorities".
His particular responsibilities include "provision of ICT", and "Corporate procurement".
We do multiple large system purchases and to be sure, we do full analysys.
If we don't understand a point or see how the "system" is fit for purpose we get the supplier to prove it to us first.
In fact in any negotiations I am part of one of the things I insist on is that supplier give his opinion (with salt cellar attached) on if this is the right product, they will either then show their knowledge of the product or lack............
Thankfully we have been saved from getting burnt a few times... Or should that be due to due diligence we have purchased the right product from diligent analysis
But we do have other areas of the Business who take great delight in coming to us and saying they just bought XYZ now find a use for it.... They are shown the door quiet quickly and asked to book it down for the auditors to look at as to why they failed.
It has taken us years of consistant beligerance to get to the state where the business actually listens to us and follows the correct procedures, but we got there.
More and more of this is needed with in the Public Sector, but each dept see's themselves as they empire and nought shall move it from it's path of destiny