Government IT - dear God
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7784868.stm
Dear God. My 3 year old could have done a better job.
And as usual noone held to account.
On R4 today it was claimed the system sometimes relapsed into German. Hmmm...
Dear God. My 3 year old could have done a better job.
And as usual noone held to account.
On R4 today it was claimed the system sometimes relapsed into German. Hmmm...
Edited by Yugguy on Tuesday 16th December 08:35
t, it's like the 5th now and I'm getting used to it 
Oh dear... could this be an SAP implementation perchance.
Difficult enough to do when you've got people who know what they're doing, virtually impossible with anyone from gubbermunt running it.
Oh well, just yet another example of wasted tax payers money blown on a public IT contract.
Nothing new here.
I do so look forward to what the final bill will be for ID cards, if they ever manage to actually get it working.
Difficult enough to do when you've got people who know what they're doing, virtually impossible with anyone from gubbermunt running it.
Oh well, just yet another example of wasted tax payers money blown on a public IT contract.
Nothing new here.
I do so look forward to what the final bill will be for ID cards, if they ever manage to actually get it working.
andy-xr said:
The problem with a lot of these projects is Finance trying to understand technical architecture. They just dont get it
They shouldnt have to. The job of the consultants is to understand how the finance system works and meld their product so it will perform the role required. andy-xr said:
The problem with a lot of these projects is Finance trying to understand technical architecture. They just dont get it
Not really.The problem - as with all big IT projects that fail - is IT delivers what *they* want and not what the customer actually needs.
To any code monkeys out there: its about the business need and never 'the technology'
It isn't just public sector, every single business I have worked for over the past 10 years has ended up bringing in computer systems to either replace paper based systems or antiquated disjointed systems.
WITHOUT EXCEPTION the new systems while being much prettier and obviously appealing to the idiots in charge have resulted in zero benefit to anyone, they usually take longer to input information and you usually have 6 months + of "development" required before it is reliable.
When will people learn.........If systems have been in place for years and still work leave them alone.
WITHOUT EXCEPTION the new systems while being much prettier and obviously appealing to the idiots in charge have resulted in zero benefit to anyone, they usually take longer to input information and you usually have 6 months + of "development" required before it is reliable.
When will people learn.........If systems have been in place for years and still work leave them alone.
SAP Software, that works very well in organisations that spend the time, money and employ staff committed to the project with the buyin of the key business leads, with an integrated project team and a well defined migration strategy thrown in with a well defined requirement.
It is not the fault of the software if the project goes tits up. The software is very good at what it does. It's the people. It always is. Every time.
It is not the fault of the software if the project goes tits up. The software is very good at what it does. It's the people. It always is. Every time.
drivin_me_nuts said:
SAP Software, that works very well in organisations that spend the time, money and employ staff committed to the project with the buyin of the key business leads, with an integrated project team and a well defined migration strategy thrown in with a well defined requirement.
It is not the fault of the software if the project goes tits up. The software is very good at what it does. It's the people. It always is. Every time.
Ahh PistonHeads. Broad sweeping generalisation matters It is not the fault of the software if the project goes tits up. The software is very good at what it does. It's the people. It always is. Every time.
My 20 years of experience tells me different...
plasticpig said:
andy-xr said:
The problem with a lot of these projects is Finance trying to understand technical architecture. They just dont get it
They shouldnt have to. The job of the consultants is to understand how the finance system works and meld their product so it will perform the role required. If the project management are not capable of writing a clear and concise contract, the consultancy firms will rip them apart and make millions with changes to scope.
The problem with ALL these contracts is the woolie contracts that are created by people who do not understand how to specifiy an IT contract. The company does not go out and employ people who know how to do this, they are persuaded by the consultancy firms that everything will be fine. A super low bid is put in to help with the business justification for the system, then, once the contract is signed the consultancy starts to make hay.
I've seen it happen on virtually every project I've worked on over the last 10 years and I cannot believe that companies or public sector still gets caught by this operating method time and time again.
Shocking really!!!
drivin_me_nuts said:
SAP Software, that works very well in organisations that spend the time, money and employ staff committed to the project with the buyin of the key business leads, with an integrated project team and a well defined migration strategy thrown in with a well defined requirement.
It is not the fault of the software if the project goes tits up. The software is very good at what it does. It's the people. It always is. Every time.
Generally agree with this, the projects I've worked on that have gone well have been those where the business has put the effort in to make sure they get what they want despite what the consultancy firm says or provides.It is not the fault of the software if the project goes tits up. The software is very good at what it does. It's the people. It always is. Every time.
A lot of Government departments don't have their own in-house IT departments.
They have 'IT Partners' like Capgemini/EDS/Fujitsu who are IT 'experts' and advise according based on their knowledge in that particular field. They are responsible for the supply and up keep of the hardware and for the development of the software after they have been given the business requirement.
Then it all goes tits up.........
They have 'IT Partners' like Capgemini/EDS/Fujitsu who are IT 'experts' and advise according based on their knowledge in that particular field. They are responsible for the supply and up keep of the hardware and for the development of the software after they have been given the business requirement.
Then it all goes tits up.........
Edited by SimonV8ster on Tuesday 16th December 09:50
Blues said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
SAP Software, that works very well in organisations that spend the time, money and employ staff committed to the project with the buyin of the key business leads, with an integrated project team and a well defined migration strategy thrown in with a well defined requirement.
It is not the fault of the software if the project goes tits up. The software is very good at what it does. It's the people. It always is. Every time.
Ahh PistonHeads. Broad sweeping generalisation matters It is not the fault of the software if the project goes tits up. The software is very good at what it does. It's the people. It always is. Every time.
My 20 years of experience tells me different...
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff