The truth will never be known.
The only substantive fact is that it was a bloody silly idea in the first place.
Myers and Pooter got their K's on the back of it: they should be stripped of them.
"Westminster Council’s long-term mismanagement of back-office systems for Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster were at the root of the break-up of tri-borough arrangements.
Councillors in Hammersmith & Fulham had little alternative but to look for other arrangements following grotesque failings in some of the back office tri-borough workings, for which Westminster was the lead borough. From the start of tri-borough, Westminster took charge of an attempt to run all three councils' routine billing and staff hours, pay and pensions administration through one contract.
Westminster Council gave the contract to BT in January 2013 telling everyone that it would save £30m and other councils would be asking to join in. At that point Westminster expected the contract to commence across the three boroughs in November 2013 (for HR) and March 2014 (for finance) and go live soon after.
It didn't. The contract actually went live in April 2015. The reason for the delay, and what happened after the contract did go live, are unfortunately covered by strict rules about commercial confidentiality. It is however in the public domain that Westminster Council's Audit and Performance committee held eight extraordinary meetings over this one contract (all in private sessions)."
This, unfortunately, is a frequent outcome when armchair strategists are given the power to implement integration proposals that are justified by "cost savings". We never seem to learn - the lessons are out there and are freely available. All that is required is men and women of vision with the humility to look. The opposite, of course, is the poison of hubris.
ReplyDeleteIt IS possible to implement these cross organisation IT programmes. But it is best to do so with eyes wide open. Experience shows that 200% to 300% budget over runs are common and 2 to 3 year delays is not uncommon. With very big programmes (eg NHS) it is also common to be forced to give up altogether.
DeleteThe case for pursuing a common IT system is compelling, but the risks are great. Therefore the wise approach is to run the old systems in parallel with the new system and avoid a changeover until well after the new system is demonstrated to be working. This is a very expensive approach and gobbles scarce and skilled manpower. But it can avoid organisation disaster.
There seems to be no evidence to show that the three Boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Westminster, had the first clue about the challenges that they were taking on. Blind men walked into a hurricane of their own making.
The Tri Borough adventure was a cynical exploitation of public service employment by Cockell and Myers in pursuit of their Knighthoods. They were both financially secure thanks to huge, inflation proofed, public service pensions. But they also wanted the icing on the cake.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately they were permitted to do all of this wickedness without the checks and balances from their Cabinet colleagues. They just took an expensive ride on the backs of hard pressed Council Tax payers.
Pass the sick bag.
Pointless to play the blame game. There is only one outcome. It did not work!
ReplyDeleteLet us learn the lessons and move on.
Another Cockle cock up.
ReplyDelete