Irish Water

n97 mini

I was of the belief that IW would be taking over the running of the various water systems from the local authorities, but from reading this, it appears they are just a billing company.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-water-to-take-on-400-billing-staff-3257202.html

Which, if true, means there will be no efficiencies from economies of scale as the running of the various water systems will still be done adhoc by each LA?

Lumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

I was of the belief that IW would be taking over the running of the various water systems from the local authorities, but from reading this, it appears they are just a billing company.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-water-to-take-on-400-billing-staff-3257202.html

Which, if true, means there will be no efficiencies from economies of scale as the running of the various water systems will still be done adhoc by each LA?

It's not true. /thread.

Voodoo_rasher

Will IW be owned by Bord Gais?
And are BG one of the state assets which will be sold off?

Theboinkmaster

Voodoo_rasher wrote: »

Will IW be owned by Bord Gais?
And are BG one of the state assets which will be sold off?

Yes IW owned by Bord Gais and parts of Bord Gais to be sold off, not all of it.

hyperborean

Voodoo_rasher wrote: »

Will IW be owned by Bord Gais?
And are BG one of the state assets which will be sold off?

Very interesting point, now Im wondering at water privatisation in other countries........

From Wiki
Criticism

Water privatisation in England and Wales remains controversial. A 2001 study by the Public Services International Research Unit stated that

• tariffs increased by 46% in real terms during the first nine years,
• operating profits have more than doubled (+142%) in eight years,
• investments were reduced and
• public health was jeopardised through cut-offs for non-payment, however, this was made illegal in 1998 along with prepayment meters and 'trickle valves'.[2]

At privatisation the industry's £4.95 billion debt was written off. Privatization critics argued in 1997 that infrastructure—particularly sewers—was not adequately maintained and that OFWAT implicitly "gave (its) approval to running down the underground network". Furthermore, OFWAT was accused of not comparing company performance with targets, not relating performance standards with past or projected levels of investment, failing to "publish information in a consistent form" and not requesting that levels of service indicators become mandatory. Instead company licenses were renegotiated to address performance issues. The critics concluded that in the "conflict between making profits and providing a certain level of services" the legislation "resolves it in favor of profit".[3]
It was alleged that the consequences of the 1988 Camelford water pollution incident were covered up partly because prosecution would "render the whole of the water industry unattractive to the City".

Support

A World Bank paper argues that until 1995 the reforms

• increased investment (in the six years after privatisation the companies invested $17bn, compared to £9.3bn in the six years before privatisation),
• brought about compliance with stringent drinking water standards and
• led to a higher quality of river water.[4]

According to data from OFWAT, service quality and efficiency has improved from the early 1990s until 2010 in the following ways:

• Drinking water quality, as measured by the compliance with iron levels and coliform bacteria in service reservoirs, has improved substantially from 1996 to 2010.[5]
• Network pressure has improved substantially: The share or "properties at risk of low pressure" declined from 1.33% in 1990-95 0.01% in 2009-10.[6]
• Supply interruptions have declined: The share of properties subject to unplanned supply interruptions of 12 hours or more declined from 0.33% to 0.06% during the same period.[6]
• The number of written complaints not responded to within ten working days has declined from 21% to less than 1%.[6]
• leakage has been reduced from 5,112 megaliters per day in 1994-95 to less than 3,281 megaliters per day in 2009-10 (the measuring method of two companies has changed over the period, so the actual reduction is even higher)[7]

Not getting the world bank support though, short term gain long term pain, the tatcher way

donalg1

Does anyone know if IW will be setting the rates or will they be operating in Government set rates? I would not like the idea of a somewhat private company setting my rates anyway, could see them going up and up once they realise the profit to be had.

krd

n97 mini wrote: »

Which, if true, means there will be no efficiencies from economies of scale as the running of the various water systems will still be done adhoc by each LA?

The point behind water privatisation is not deliver efficiencies and economies of scale.

You didn't really believe that, did you?

If Bord Gais will be "running" the call centre - it won't be Bord Gais. It will be a company call Fexco. Dick Spring sits on the board.

We may end up with a few different water companies in "competition" - ie, a bunch of bolloxes with nothing more than a call centre and billing system, because how can you have ten different companies supplying water to your house?

Typically, in water privatisation. The public infrastructure is handed over to a group of bolloxes at a fire sale price - they then proceed to gouge the public. Without any investment or any benefit to the public.

Sleepy

I'd say one of the biggest concerns here is the fact Bord Gais are involved: they've been rather notoriously loose with their financial control (spending thousands's on chairs, splurging a fortune on naming rights for the Grand Canal Theatre etc.). Surely we want whoever's to be running this body to be more prudent with the taxpayers / their customers money?

antoobrien

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd say one of the biggest concerns here is the fact Bord Gais are involved: they've been rather notoriously loose with their financial control (spending thousands's on chairs, splurging a fortune on naming rights for the Grand Canal Theatre etc.). Surely we want whoever's to be running this body to be more prudent with the taxpayers / their customers money?

I think you need to re-assess the "cost" of the grand canal theatre deal vs the benefits of it. The deal has ensured that the Grand Canal Theatre & the O2 are electricity customers for BG. They're getting the brand mentioned in association with every event on the tickets radio, tv, print media & internet advertising.

If the press is to be believed (indo, i.t.) they paid €4.5m for 6.5 years of effort free advertising and marketing. Considering the sponsorship and marketing budgets between them run to €7.5m annually that's good value.

GSF

krd wrote: »

Typically, in water privatisation. The public infrastructure is handed over to a group of bolloxes at a fire sale price - they then proceed to gouge the public. Without any investment or any benefit to the public.

Have you any numbers to prove that investment in infrastucture is higher under public ownership than private ownership for water utilities?

Sleepy

antoobrien wrote: »

I think you need to re-assess the "cost" of the grand canal theatre deal vs the benefits of it. The deal has ensured that the Grand Canal Theatre & the O2 are electricity customers for BG. They're getting the brand mentioned in association with every event on the tickets radio, tv, print media & internet advertising.

If the press is to be believed (indo, i.t.) they paid €4.5m for 6.5 years of effort free advertising and marketing. Considering the sponsorship and marketing budgets between them run to €7.5m annually that's good value.

Only if you believe that Bord Gais need to advertise... They're a state owned virtual monopoly that are in artificial competition against other former state-owned monopolies at selling each others products.

I'm all for competition but state companies competing against each other is farcical.

Even competing against each other, the market they're in is determined by one thing only: price. Branding is utterly unimportant in this marketplace and 4.5 million spent on it, is 4.5 million wasted.

The merits of that one deal aside, however, would you agree with the generally held view that Bord Gais are poor at cost control?

antoobrien

Sleepy wrote: »

Only if you believe that Bord Gais need to advertise... They're a state owned virtual monopoly that are in artificial competition against other former state-owned monopolies at selling each others products.

I'm all for competition but state companies competing against each other is farcical.

Even competing against each other, the market they're in is determined by one thing only: price. Branding is utterly unimportant in this marketplace and 4.5 million spent on it, is 4.5 million wasted.

Oh dear god what drivel. Leaving aside Airtricity (for residential) and all the business providers, do you realise that people are afraid to move to bord gais, despite them being cheaper due to customer service fears? A lot of people have told me that they will not move due to the problems that their neighbours, who have switched, have reported when trying to get something done by ESB networks.

So until the the links between ESB networks & EI are fully broken to the satisfaction of the general public true competition can not happen. The best and cheapest way of changing that dynamic

SO yeah, I do believe that the advertising spend is justified because it raises awareness of the fact that you don't have to stay with EI.

Sleepy wrote: »

The merits of that one deal aside, however, would you agree with the generally held view that Bord Gais are poor at cost control?

In my experience they're no worse than many other bodies - state owned/run or private doesn't particularly matter they all have expenditures that look outlandish at first glance.

The thing about the chairs looks like a typical bottom feeding news story that's short on realism. The price quoted was calculated using no. chairs @ list price - no large organisation pays list price for anything. It's also neglecting the fact that they are being used in a new office.

Personally what I'd be more worried about is if BG have to pay the compensation to the staff that are being moved 2km for "additional" travel requested by the unions.

Sleepy

antoobrien wrote: »

Oh dear god what drivel. Leaving aside Airtricity (for residential) and all the business providers, do you realise that people are afraid to move to bord gais, despite them being cheaper due to customer service fears? A lot of people have told me that they will not move due to the problems that their neighbours, who have switched, have reported when trying to get something done by ESB networks.

So until the the links between ESB networks & EI are fully broken to the satisfaction of the general public true competition can not happen. The best and cheapest way of changing that dynamic

SO yeah, I do believe that the advertising spend is justified because it raises awareness of the fact that you don't have to stay with EI.

The only way we can 100% break links between ESB networks and EI or equally Bord Gais Networks and Bord Gais Energy) is to privatise EI and BGN or, more accurately given the mess the unions would create in such a scenario, liquidate them and sell their licenses to the private sector.

"Raise awareness?" :rolleyes, are you working in advertising, PR or morkeshing by any chance? Brand visibility advertising might matter when you're dealing with fast-moving consumer goods (though the benefits of such advertising have never actually been proven for established brands).

Everyone and their children know that Bord Gais and the ESB now sell each other's products: it was all over the news when they started doing it and we've all been pestered about switching in loiter-outside-the-supermarket or door-to-door sign-up campaigns.

To compete for customers, it will have to be on the basis of service and price. Bord Gais Energy advertising the fact they're a cheaper provider might encourage some Electric Ireland customers to switch (or vice versa), advertising the ease with which they can switch them over might encourage others and whilst obviously they need to be able to follow through on these promises, slapping their name on the side of Harry Crosbie's folly won't convince anyone to purchase their energy services from Bord Gais Energy.

At best, it might make them think "aren't BGE great supporting the arts". Others will look at it and think: "hang on, isn't that what the government runs the Arts Council to do? Isn't the role of a Publicly owned company to provide it's services to the public as cheaply as possible? Does this mean I'm paying more for my gas and electricity than I should be?".

Sponsorship from private companies is fine imo. If someone wants to buy a little goodwill with their own money and that can benefit the arts / sport / society at large, great. It might even make me think of using them over an equally priced competitor.

When a oligopoly of state-owned organisations engage in this, however, they're wasting taxpayers money. The management of these companies are not acting in the best interests of their shareholders spending money in an attempt to "compete" with each other as the shareholders of these two organisations are the same people: the Irish tax-payer. To best represent those shareholders interests, these organisations should be competing on the basis of price and service.

I'm not saying it's not a desirable thing for the state to support the arts, it is imo. Ask yourself though: who's better qualified to provide that support: The Arts Council or a senior manager in Bord Gais Energy?

antoobrien wrote: »

Personally what I'd be more worried about is if BG have to pay the compensation to the staff that are being moved 2km for "additional" travel requested by the unions.

I'd agree that this is another major worry of allowing such a heavily unionised body be involved in this. While re-using the billing platforms etc. should reduce costs of the new organisation, you'd have to wonder if those savings will be outweighed by allowing PS Unions anywhere near the new company. Might we have been better off tendering for the operation of such a company?

(leave out the bolded bit, will ya? It does nothing but make me thing you're incapable of discussion).

krd

antoobrien wrote: »

Oh dear god what drivel. Leaving aside Airtricity (for residential) and all the business providers, do you realise that people are afraid to move to bord gais, despite them being cheaper due to customer service fears?

Customer service fears?..........They're worried there will be a difference between one paddy whack call centre over another.

A lot of people have told me that they will not move due to the problems that their neighbours, who have switched, have reported when trying to get something done by ESB networks.

This is typical paranoia and persecutory magical thinking. There is no connection between ESB networks and retail ESB electricity.

IT IS FANTASY.

People have no understanding of "customer service". It's just tossers with phone headsets and a billing system. They don't care about you, or their own company.

So until the the links between ESB networks & EI are fully broken to the satisfaction of the general public true competition can not happen. The best and cheapest way of changing that dynamic

The 'satisfaction of the general public'. Fat arsed thick paranoid paddies.


When you switch from ESB to Bord Gais for electricity. All that happens is you are switched from one billing system to another. The ESB do not then set a revenge plot in train - to get you back by messing up your ESB network services. That's mad thinking. Insanity. But it shows you the way the thick paddy whacks think. Be careful doing business with people like that. Upset them and they'll come for revenge.

antoobrien

krd wrote: »

This is typical paranoia and persecutory magical thinking. There is no connection between ESB networks and retail ESB electricity.

IT IS FANTASY.

Anecdotally not it's not. I've been told of several incidents where people have had to move back to EI because they were getting shafted on repairs. When they moved back, problems solved poste haste. Make of that what you will, but the one thing it is not is fantasy.

Sleepy

krd, to be fair, I've had problems switching in the past where EI continued to attempt to bill me despite switching one of their accounts to Airtricity and were quite aggressive in their insistence that their bills be paid (even though they were no longer my service provider).

Heroditas

Sleepy wrote: »

krd, to be fair, I've had problems switching in the past where EI continued to attempt to bill me despite switching one of their accounts to Airtricity and were quite aggressive in their insistence that their bills be paid (even though they were no longer my service provider).

Hold on, you moved from EI to Airtricity and you still owed money to EI?

Sleepy

No, they *thought* I owed them money. I paid the "closing of account" bill and then continued to be billed by them (or rather my landlord did at an address he rarely occupied and hence didn't notice the mail building up) for another 6/7 months.

antoobrien

Sleepy wrote: »

The only way we can 100% break links between ESB networks and EI or equally Bord Gais Networks and Bord Gais Energy) is to privatise EI and BGN or, more accurately given the mess the unions would create in such a scenario, liquidate them and sell their licenses to the private sector.

Good luck with that, in the meantime can we try a more realistic approach?

Sleepy wrote: »

"Raise awareness?" :rolleyes, are you working in advertising, PR or morkeshing by any chance?

No, but I have been spending far too much time with out marketing dept lately, so it's starting to rub off :mad:

Sleepy wrote: »

Brand visibility advertising might matter when you're dealing with fast-moving consumer goods (though the benefits of such advertising have never actually been proven for established brands).

I wonder why coca cola spend so much money marketing marketing an unchanged product.

Sleepy wrote: »

Everyone and their children know that Bord Gais and the ESB now sell each other's products: it was all over the news when they started doing it and

Many people I know assume that it is the same situation as switching from Eircom that the line came with them. They don't seem to realise that the generation & supply businesses for both have been split out (leading in part to the fears described earlier)

Sleepy wrote: »

we've all been pestered about switching in loiter-outside-the-supermarket or door-to-door sign-up campaigns.

I agree that this is unseemly, my answer to door to doors is, "if I'm on that list it's not because I don't know about your product, it's because I don't want to be your customer."

Sleepy wrote: »

To compete for customers, it will have to be on the basis of service and price. Bord Gais Energy advertising the fact they're a cheaper provider might encourage some Electric Ireland customers to switch (or vice versa), advertising the ease with which they can switch them over might encourage others and whilst obviously they need to be able to follow through on these promises, slapping their name on the side of Harry Crosbie's folly won't convince anyone to purchase their energy services from Bord Gais Energy.

At best, it might make them think "aren't BGE great supporting the arts". Others will look at it and think: "hang on, isn't that what the government runs the Arts Council to do? Isn't the role of a Publicly owned company to provide it's services to the public as cheaply as possible? Does this mean I'm paying more for my gas and electricity than I should be?".

You might think that, but I recently moved house with a friend of mine. I said I'd arrange the light and heat and check the prices only to get asked "How many f**king companies sell electricity and gas, why don't you just contact Bord Gais and the ESB."

There are many people out there that are genuniely clueless about their options.

Sleepy wrote: »

Sponsorship from private companies is fine imo. If someone wants to buy a little goodwill with their own money and that can benefit the arts / sport / society at large, great. It might even make me think of using them over an equally priced competitor.

When a oligopoly of state-owned organisations engage in this, however, they're wasting taxpayers money. The management of these companies are not acting in the best interests of their shareholders spending money in an attempt to "compete" with each other as the shareholders of these two organisations are the same people: the Irish tax-payer. To best represent those shareholders interests, these organisations should be competing on the basis of price and service.

Isn't the aim of competition to provide the best service at a reasonable price? I can't see what is not in the best interests of the tax payer in advertising, if it results in true competition.

Maybe you should be directing your ire at the energy regulator for letting them raise their prices, rather than forcing them to cut their costs.

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not saying it's not a desirable thing for the state to support the arts, it is imo. Ask yourself though: who's better qualified to provide that support: The Arts Council or a senior manager in Bord Gais Energy?

Personally I think state support for the arts (or sports) should be limited to helping provide facilities, nothing more. However this is not state support, this is commercial support because BG do not receive a subvention (they actually pay the government a dividend). If it was CIE or any of the other bodies that receive subventions or are directly funded by the government and not commercial activities, then I'd agree with you, it'd be totally out of line.

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd agree that this is another major worry of allowing such a heavily unionised body be involved in this. While re-using the billing platforms etc. should reduce costs of the new organisation, you'd have to wonder if those savings will be outweighed by allowing PS Unions anywhere near the new company. Might we have been better off tendering for the operation of such a company?

Didn't BG already win that tender? It's illegal to discriminate based on union membership (which is how I read that).

Sleepy wrote: »

(leave out the bolded bit, will ya? It does nothing but make me thing you're incapable of discussion).

BG are not doing anything that any other company funded by their customers do. Your arguments are solely down to (and imo undermined by) the fact that BG is state owned, so they look like more of the same rhetroic/drivel that's being bandied about when anything to do with the government comes up.

So in the interests of debate compare it to Aviva & Lansdowne Rd - is there any difference between what they did and what BG did?

Heroditas

Sounds like a bit of a mess alright that was compounded by the landlord not noticing the post building up.

Sleepy

antoobrien wrote: »

Personally I think state support for the arts (or sports) should be limited to helping provide facilities, nothing more. However this is not state support, this is commercial support because BG do not receive a subvention (they actually pay the government a dividend). If it was CIE or any of the other bodies that receive subventions or are directly funded by the government and not commercial activities, then I'd agree with you, it'd be totally out of line.

BG are not doing anything that any other company funded by their customers do. Your arguments are solely down to (and imo undermined by) the fact that BG is state owned, so they look like more of the same rhetroic/drivel that's being bandied about when anything to do with the government comes up.

So in the interests of debate compare it to Aviva & Lansdowne Rd - is there any difference between what they did and what BG did?

I suppose the key difference is that I can't see Bord Gais as a commercial organisation: they're a state body that only returns a dividend because they're allowed to charge high prices (by both the regulator and the high barriers of entry to the market).

Aviva wasted their investors money buying the rights to Lansdowne Road. The fact their name is on the stadium is not in any way going to affect a consumer's decision when it comes to purchasing insurance: we go with the best value quote we can get. Since their investors are private individuals, however, it's not my concern if they operate inefficiently (unless we were to allow them to become the only insurance company in Ireland, or allowed them to engage in price-fixing i.e. Monopoly or Cartel).

When a state body operates inefficiently, however, it's all of our business. If the prices they're charging for power were "right", that would mean the dividend they return to the government is lower than it should be. However, based on how many ordinary people struggle with their power and heating bills and that high energy costs been repeatedly cited as a problem by the business community (both by SME and those we wish to attract as FDE), I think it's fair to say they're operating inefficiently: they're spending more money than they should be and need to charge too much to cover those costs.

krd

Sleepy wrote: »

krd, to be fair, I've had problems switching in the past where EI continued to attempt to bill me despite switching one of their accounts to Airtricity and were quite aggressive in their insistence that their bills be paid (even though they were no longer my service provider).

To tell you the truth, from someone who knows what goes on behind the scenes.

Half the time it's just sheer incompetence. The reality of 'customer care' is they don't.

Then of course there is just complete and utter f'ing around. The typical customer service agent and line manager wouldn't be aware of this. There's crapness with all the providers. One provider I know, they occasionally double bill vast swathes of their customers (this happens with a little too much regularity to be mistake). In most cases the customers are not even aware - the money is just drawn from their accounts. Similarly, a lot of the providers play the gag of continuing to bill and drawn down cash from direct debits after customers have canceled their accounts.

And what they also do, is just fail to cancel accounts and continue to bill for services they have not provided. This adds up in their accounts, and when the money isn't paid it gets written off against tax as a loss - cost of business, even though there has been no cost of business.

kodoherty93

BG im sure will do a shocking job at managing it

Im sure we will be paying the unskilled unionised workers ridiculous wages just so called evil private sector wont run it. Even if the make everyone pays their bills and provide a far superior service

godwin

n97 mini wrote: »

Which, if true, means there will be no efficiencies from economies of scale as the running of the various water systems will still be done adhoc by each LA?

My father is the caretaker of the water treatment plant , and IWs ideas of efficiencies among the caretakers is to have them sign a new contract with IW , this new contract cuts their wages by 25% . on top of that in my father's case , they also want him to be caretaker of 3 more plants in the locality , cut his fuel rate by 68% , and stop over time for weekends.

juan.kerr

n97 mini wrote: »

efficiencies

You expect efficiencies? From the public sector?

:eek:

godwin

juan.kerr wrote: »

From the public sector?

:eek:

Who do you include in the public sector , management or people on the ground?

Here's a typical way your tax money gets wasted - A pump dies at the water treatment plant my father works at ,my father can fix it but the council won't do anything until they get an engineers report , 2 days later 3 engineers turn up , the 3 engineers come to the conclusion that the pump need to be replaced at a cost of €10,000 , my father insists that the pump just needs to be rewound at a cost of €800 , my father goes over the heads of the engineers to the area manager and gets the pump rewound , the Engineers file a complaint against my father.

Pete_Cavan

n97 mini wrote: »

I was of the belief that IW would be taking over the running of the various water systems from the local authorities, but from reading this, it appears they are just a billing company.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-water-to-take-on-400-billing-staff-3257202.html

Which, if true, means there will be no efficiencies from economies of scale as the running of the various water systems will still be done adhoc by each LA?

Having look at the etenders notice in question, I see no mention of billing at all so we can assume the indo article is total BS (as with most articles in that particular paper). IW was set up as a subsidary of BG because BG already had a national billing system.

Under IW, water services will be managed by operational regions based on river basin districts, not local authorities.

unit 1

godwin wrote: »

My father is the caretaker of the water treatment plant , and IWs ideas of efficiencies among the caretakers is to have them sign a new contract with IW , this new contract cuts their wages by 25% . on top of that in my father's case , they also want him to be caretaker of 3 more plants in the locality , cut his fuel rate by 68% , and stop over time for weekends.

Where is all this coming from.
As a coco craftworker I can assure you that nobody knows exactly whats going on with iw at the moment. (who asked him to sign a new contract, who exactly determined this new payrate, and who exactly determined his new work schedules). If you have any concrete knowledge of your assertions I'm sure there are many observers of this site who would love to know them.

At the moment iws only interest, and the governments is to capture as much revenue as they can from the existing customers of cocos. For this reason their main focus for probably the next 2 years will be the rolling out of water meters. On radio recently bgs irish water guy (cant remember his name) said that because of underfunding of the infrastructure they will be subsidised for some years to come.

So heres how I see it panning out.

2 years to install meters.

Cocos to hand over assets and liabilities mid 2013 and appointed as agents for iw, with most water related staff transferring to iw over the next 5 years with similar t&cs, to keep the peace. (croke park 2016?)

Now heres where it gets interesting. If iw is going to be subsidised by the gov for say 5 years then they will not be masters of their own destiny, and the gov in trying to reduce the public service payroll will try to strongarm them into taking most of the coco staff off their hands. They will probably get their way leaving iw to deal with the problem when they eventually have to collect the full economic cost of the service from water charges, somewhere around 2020.

Privatisation probably 10 years down the road if at all.

Lu Tze

unit 1 wrote: »

Privatisation probably 10 years down the road if at all.

The idea of this seems to send people scurrying or out in arms. There are already privatised plants around the country - i've certainly seem my fair few DBO plants pass through etenders over the last 5 years and more.

There was a talk given by the commission for energy regulation last thursday in the RDS (about irish water), might have been informative to some of ye. Very few specifics nailed down from their side, domestic metering is only starting in (late) 2013 so most will have a flat charge as opposed to metered when charging starts.

golfwallah

One of the advantages put forward for making Irish Water part of Bord Gais, was that BG already had a national billing system.

Just over a year later, after spending €50m on consultants,

Irish Water disclosed that the spending included expert advice from the likes of IBM, Ernst & Young, Accenture and Oracle on information technology, billing and customer service as well as financial and asset management systems.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/colossal-consultancy-spend-on-irish-water-nothing-new-1.1651396

I can understand how some spending on consultancy would be needed - but surely some idea of how much would be required would have been known at the start up stage over a year ago..... or is that level of planning too much to expect of our semi-state bodies?

It seems that lurching from crisis to crisis is the preferred option for our public services! Or maybe that's how some politicians prefer to paint it.

maninasia

You'd think you'd get a billing system for 50 million Euro instead of advice about a billing system?

WTF?

Phoebas

maninasia wrote: »

You'd think you'd get a billing system for 50 million Euro instead of advice about a billing system?

WTF?

The €50m included advise, but also included both hardware and software.

The bulk of the money was spent on hardware and software systems for customer services, IT, billing and asset management.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hogan-in-firing-line-on-50m-water-bill-29908537.html

Sheldons Brain

The bulk of the money was spent on hardware and software systems for customer services, IT, billing and asset management.

This is the point. The impression has been given, even in that article, that the money was spent on a report. RTE are talking about it now and saying that the money was paid to "consultants", implying that only advice was provided, when their own detailed report makes clear that software was provided. If IBM or Oracle have supplied software and hardware then this is a clear requirement for the operation of Irish Water. Also the emphasis has been on customer facing systems, billing and the like. The asset management end of things is more important as it is in the organisation of the network and repair of leaks that the savings will occur. This would include GIS to map pipes and the like and work here will pay for itself in operational savings.

There is a profound immaturity about the whole thing. The tenders have been out there and nobody commented on them. Then the total figure emerged and everyone is jumping up and down without the least idea what the money was spent on and whether it was good value or not.

listermint

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is the point. The impression has been given, even in that article, that the money was spent on a report. RTE are talking about it now and saying that the money was paid to "consultants", implying that only advice was provided, when their own detailed report makes clear that software was provided. If IBM or Oracle have supplied software and hardware then this is a clear requirement for the operation of Irish Water. Also the emphasis has been on customer facing systems, billing and the like. The asset management end of things is more important as it is in the organisation of the network and repair of leaks that the savings will occur. This would include GIS to map pipes and the like and work here will pay for itself in operational savings.

There is a profound immaturity about the whole thing. The tenders have been out there and nobody commented on them. Then the total figure emerged and everyone is jumping up and down without the least idea what the money was spent on and whether it was good value or not.

Frankly i think people are entitled to comment on how their money is spent and the secrecy this whole setup is shrouded in. Its exclusion from FOI requests is another critically dubious aspect as this organisation is under the remit and setup of me the tax payer.


I dont understand apologists for closed door qwangos. More of the same dressed up as the industry norm. Handy jobs for early retired council managers who left with large pensions and larger severence packages.


Excuse me if i feel a bad taste in my mouth considering previous form throughout the political sphere in these lands we call home.

ardmacha

Of course people are entitled to comment on Irish Water, but it has to be based on actual knowledge of the facts. It seems to me that the most substantial criticism at present is a lack of clarity.

Heroditas

golfwallah wrote: »

One of the advantages put forward for making Irish Water part of Bord Gais, was that BG already had a national billing system.

Just over a year later, after spending €50m on consultants, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/colossal-consultancy-spend-on-irish-water-nothing-new-1.1651396

Bord Gais Energy has a billing system but Bord Gais Networks (the parent of Irish Water) has no billing capability so I don't know why they ever claimed that this particular advantage existed.
Also, now that Bord Gais Energy is being sold to Centrica, it was inevitable that a new billing system would be needed anyway.

Manach

The last academic text I read on Government semi-state bodies I came away with that there is a lack of clarity on how they are defined, what they do and how accountable they are. By adding this water tax responsibility to a sector that is already so murky as to nearly defy definition is an example of a poor quality of government, from parties whose election platform was reform.

listermint

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course people are entitled to comment on Irish Water, but it has to be based on actual knowledge of the facts. It seems to me that the most substantial criticism at present is a lack of clarity.

The lack of openness and facts appears to be the problem. All people have to work on is leaks of information.

Is this the type of openess in the year of 2014 that you are paying for?

antoobrien

golfwallah wrote: »

One of the advantages put forward for making Irish Water part of Bord Gais, was that BG already had a national billing system.

They might have a national billing system, but this new company will be doubling (if not tripling) the number of accounts being held. We're talking about creating a company with upwards of 1.6m individual accounts - which would be roughly equivalent to (possibly greater than) the number of active current accounts - so this isn't a small job and it's highly unlikely that BG's existing systems could support the extra accounts without some serious upgrades.

It should also be pointed out that many of BG's existing systems are not exactly new, so it's doubtful that they have Multi Entity capabilities. If the systems don't have this capability then it will require a system that is at least as powerful as their existing ones, (and probably more so) or a completely new one. By the sounds of the amounts of money being bandied about they could be priming for a long term systems replacement project.

golfwallah

antoobrien wrote: »

They might have a national billing system, but this new company will be doubling (if not tripling) the number of accounts being held. We're talking about creating a company with upwards of 1.6m individual accounts - which would be roughly equivalent to (possibly greater than) the number of active current accounts - so this isn't a small job and it's highly unlikely that BG's existing systems could support the extra accounts without some serious upgrades.

It should also be pointed out that many of BG's existing systems are not exactly new, so it's doubtful that they have Multi Entity capabilities. If the systems don't have this capability then it will require a system that is at least as powerful as their existing ones, (and probably more so) or a completely new one. By the sounds of the amounts of money being bandied about they could be priming for a long term systems replacement project.

Agreed, which is why I believe political leaders should be a bit more circumspect and realistic when making announcements at the beginning of a project, especially when they know that creating false / unrealistic expectations will cost them later.

Unfortunately, many politicians are in a great hurry to announce "good news" and don't seem to put enough work into researching their subject and preparing properly before rushing to press conferences.

antoobrien

golfwallah wrote: »

Agreed, which is why I believe political leaders should be a bit more circumspect and realistic when making announcements at the beginning of a project, especially when they know that creating false / unrealistic expectations will cost them later.

Very true. I'd love to know what part of "rely on existing expertise" means that new systems can't be used.

ardmacha

One would hope that BG would know enough about systems to ask the correct questions of the IBMs of this world to get an appropriate system for Irish Water. Yet those who know nothing about systems have no problem criticising BG's judgement in this matter before the detail of their decision is even known.

Nody

ardmacha wrote: »

One would hope that BG would know enough about systems to ask the correct questions of the IBMs of this world to get an appropriate system for Irish Water. Yet those who know nothing about systems have no problem criticising BG's judgement in this matter before the detail of their decision is even known.

The problem is those guys are seldom the once to make a decision in ANY organization.

I work for a major international company who operates in over 100 countries. The US IT Director decided to buy a global licence for several million USD a year for a piece of transport software based on a business case were the other regions (who were not consulted) would pick up their "share" of the cost based on his assumptions on our number of transports. The problem? Beyond the fact no other region wanted the software it also was not customized to handle things such as European VAT legislation, billing functionality already in place etc.

The result? They are still pitching how it's going to be the best system for us to use and I expect in the years to come we'll be forced to switch to an inferior system (patched to cover essentials only if that) because of this guy's decision "because we're paying for it anyway so why do we need two systems?".

jmayo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is the point. The impression has been given, even in that article, that the money was spent on a report. RTE are talking about it now and saying that the money was paid to "consultants", implying that only advice was provided, when their own detailed report makes clear that software was provided. If IBM or Oracle have supplied software and hardware then this is a clear requirement for the operation of Irish Water. Also the emphasis has been on customer facing systems, billing and the like. The asset management end of things is more important as it is in the organisation of the network and repair of leaks that the savings will occur. This would include GIS to map pipes and the like and work here will pay for itself in operational savings.

There is a profound immaturity about the whole thing. The tenders have been out there and nobody commented on them. Then the total figure emerged and everyone is jumping up and down without the least idea what the money was spent on and whether it was good value or not.

Well maybe more than a few people remember another taxpayer funded information technology venture which involved some consultants which degenerated into a cushy gravy train for said same consultants and a black hole for taxpayers money.

And perhaps one of the reasons that Irish Water can't be investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General (or Publi Accountants Committee) is that some people did not like how that C&AG showed up the complete wastage, and more importantly where and who benefitted, when asked to investigate PPARS.

In that case at one point C&AG pointed out the following:

The report says the total cost incurred on the project at August 31 of this year was around 131 million euros. Out of this, 57 million euros went to consultants and contractors, 20 million to project infrastructure, 17 million to national administration and 37 million euros on local agency costs.

Please note how much actually of the total went on the infrastructure and how much was administration and consultancy fees.

Or perhaps you and a few others would rather us forget about PPARS.

Why oh why do I think if this was a private company, not a taxpayer slush fund, that the 50 million bill would be less.

EDIT: Also something that would cause concern is the fact that some of the same people who benfitted more than handsomely from the Poolbeg incinerator fiasco happen to be some of the major hires of this new taxpayer funded entity. :rolleyes:
Irish Water hasn't really started operations and it already has a stench of a cesspit about it.
Not exactly an auspicious‎ start especially considering we are to be paying them for suposedly clean water.

listermint

Well questions are starting to be asked, I and I hope other councils are looking for similar answers.

This whole thing smells and it smells badly.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rebel-council-to-fold-today-over-irish-water-29911408.html

But today councillors warned they will let Donegal County Council fold, unless the transfer of €350 Million worth of assets from the council to Irish Water is stopped.

“I believe the whole country is finally wakening up to what is going on and people are disgusted that €50 million has already been spent on consultants,” said Cllr Ciaran Brogan, the leader of Fianna Fail in Donegal told independent.ie

GetWithIt

listermint wrote: »

Donegal County Council

Say no more.

I read the article as "Incompetent Council finally runs out of money. Blames convenient fall guy". If the story around Irish Water hadn't blown up they would have blamed each other, or the weather, or the English.

listermint

GetWithIt wrote: »

Say no more.

I read the article as "Incompetent Council finally runs out of money. Blames convenient fall guy". If the story around Irish Water hadn't blown up they would have blamed each other, or the weather, or the English.

Blame the incompetent Council so, we can play the blame game all day long.

Doesnt make the roll out of this Irish Water any less cloak and dagger does it?

Gumbo

GetWithIt wrote: »

Say no more.

I read the article as "Incompetent Council finally runs out of money. Blames convenient fall guy". If the story around Irish Water hadn't blown up they would have blamed each other, or the weather, or the English.

In fairness to the councils, they have been banging on about this for the last few months. Dublin City Council has to hand over 2Bn worth of assets and DCC Councillors are very unhappy about it.

golfwallah

kceire wrote: »

In fairness to the councils, they have been banging on about this for the last few months. Dublin City Council has to hand over 2Bn worth of assets and DCC Councillors are very unhappy about it.

The reality is that county councillors have little or no power anyway. The only real power in co. councils, aside from planning permission which is still in the hands of the elected councillors, resides with the county manager. And we all know the mess our elected representatives made of their powers in the planning permission arena.

Aside from Planning Permission and photo ops,, the only thing county councillors can do is ask questions at council meetings. So instead of having transparent accountability as a matter of routine that any voter can review, we have to rely on councillor questions and long waits for answers to get any detailed meaningful information.

Unfortunately, there is very little transparency when it comes to the accountability of county councils. Just try reading their budgets or annual accounts - all so highly aggregated that the public can make very little sense of them (e.g. you can't find out what is spent on individual sports activities - it's all aggregated into a figure for "Amenities"). This suits the councils, who can keep all detail under wraps, so as to avoid informed debate or having to answer awkward questions, leaving the council officials to do as they see fit.

And guess who decides the format of the published accounts for county councils - why, the county managers and the Minister, of course! No point in letting Joe Public really know what is going on, is there?

If we're not careful with Irish Water, we'll end up replacing lack of transparency by co. councils with similar lack of transparency by I.W.

There is a real need for proper transparent systems / processes to get meaningful accountability for all public spending, be they Co. Councils, Irish Water or whatever.

ardmacha

Nody wrote:

I work for a major international company who operates in over 100 countries. The US IT Director decided to buy a global licence for several million USD a year for a piece of transport software based on a business case were the other regions (who were not consulted) would pick up their "share" of the cost based on his assumptions on our number of transports. The problem? Beyond the fact no other region wanted the software it also was not customized to handle things such as European VAT legislation, billing functionality already in place etc.

This isn't quite a good example. This is an example of someone suiting themselves in America and not taking into account the differences internationally. A bit like using gas billing software for water.

jmayo wrote:

And perhaps one of the reasons that Irish Water can't be investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General (or Publi Accountants Committee) is that some people did not like how that C&AG showed up the complete wastage, and more importantly where and who benefitted, when asked to investigate PPARS.

PPARS shows exactly what not to do. PPARS represented a situation where it was proposed to automate a chaotic and undocumented system where what was happening was not what was supposed to happen. This is exactly a case of not asking the right question of consultants, saying "please automate our system"(when nobody knows what it is) rather than "how should our system be designed to be automated".

golfwallah wrote:

Unfortunately, there is very little transparency when it comes to the accountability of county councils. Just try reading their budgets or annual accounts - all so highly aggregated that the public can make very little sense of them (e.g. you can't find out what is spent on individual sports activities - it's all aggregated into a figure for "Amenities"). This suits the councils, who can keep all detail under wraps, so as to avoid informed debate or having to answer awkward questions, leaving the council officials to do as they see fit.

I agree that information is key. In the US local bodies often have quite informative information portals, where you have some idea where your tax dollar goes. But councillors, media etc here do not really want details as this would inhibit rants. Even in the present crisis no real demand for information has arisen, facts are less important than opinion.

jmayo

ardmacha wrote: »

PPARS shows exactly what not to do. PPARS represented a situation where it was proposed to automate a chaotic and undocumented system where what was happening was not what was supposed to happen. This is exactly a case of not asking the right question of consultants, saying "please automate our system"(when nobody knows what it is) rather than "how should our system be designed to be automated".

Yes we know they are differences in the projects, but get this salient not so little fact, PPARS involved rather large consultancy company(ies) who in no way refused the gravy train as it passed them by and the gravy train was ultimately coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

Irish water involves some very large consultancy firms and again it is Irish taxpayers that pays the piper.

And what makes the Irish water situation concerning is that there is no real external financial oversight and C&AG or PAC are not allowed investigate we could be facing even more wastage of public funds.

BTW do you mind me asking if you work for a major consultancy firm ?

ardmacha wrote: »

I agree that information is key. In the US local bodies often have quite informative information portals, where you have some idea where your tax dollar goes. But councillors, media etc here do not really want details as this would inhibit rants. Even in the present crisis no real demand for information has arisen, facts are less important than opinion.

So you are blaming the media and public for the fact these bodies do not publish the information ?
And shure if anyone speaks up they are ranting, right ?

You do know that newspapers and politicans have requested information and it has not been forthcoming ?

I also notice how you are coming down very much on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to a pretty large non transparent quangoe and some very large computer and consultancy firms.

BTW anytime someone mentions Accenture I always remember that esteemed organisation of which they were and ofspring.
Lucky for them they changed their name. :rolleyes:

And shure isn't Ernst & Young named as another of the consultants.
BTW did they ever explain how they audited the Anglo accounts ?

Feck sake they should have included Deloite for the expertise they gardnered with PPARS.