Consultants Fees

rawn

I just read THIS article and the sum of €50m spent on consultants alone by Irish Water boggles my mind. How does one become a consultant, and exactly what do they do to earn such huge wages? Besides "consult" that it. And yes I realize that €50m wasn't spent on one consultant alone but that's still a massive figure. To me "consult" just sounds like a company asking an experts advice, and then paying them millions for their answer? Is that really a job worthy of that amount of money?

uch

It's expensive to become an Expert you know.

wexie

You know what they say :

Consulting: if you're not part of the solution there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem

rawn

uch wrote: »

It's expensive to become an Expert you know.

It's expensive to become a lot of things that don't demand such huge fees.

ScumLord

rawn wrote: »

and exactly what do they do to earn such huge wages? Besides "consult" that it.

The majority of them do sweet FA. They're just a bridge between what you don't know who is able to achieve what you want. They introduce you to the skilled labour and then get in the way by repeating everything in the conversation to make themselves look important.

keeponhurling

Consultants are often used when people are needed, but only for certain times.
So it's cheaper to only pay for them when you need them, rather than be paying them every month regardless of workload.

It would be more expensive to perhaps have the relevant skills and people in-house.

If you don't need them any more, then say good-bye. Not so easy if they are employed directly by you.

(I've no idea about the €50million for Irish Water or what it's for, but maybe it is necessary stuff as the article says they are planning on hiring some of it in-house next year)

Michael D Not Higgins

I'm an engineering consultant in the UK. My company charge me at nearly £600 a day while the most senior people go for double that. Consultants are expensive but they allow you to temporarily buy in experience, knowledge and peace of mind (covering their ass).

On the other hand, doing the maths I see €50M would be equal to 139 of our most senior staff working all year. Crazy money.

wexie

What Michael D said, it makes sense in a lot of ways (I myself get sold for sometimes crazy money but 50 million is just astronomical.

lets say a decent consultant costs 2500 a day

that would be 20.000 days (roughly 55 years!!! :eek:) worth of consulting time.

at those rates I'm not altogether convinced it's being done because of a cost saving strategy.

rawn

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I'm an engineering consultant in the UK. My company charge me at nearly £600 a day while the most senior people go for double that. Consultants are expensive but they allow you to temporarily buy in experience, knowledge and peace of mind (covering their ass).

On the other hand, doing the maths I see €50M would be equal to 139 of our most senior staff working all year. Crazy money.

Wow. If a company needs THAT much consulting, then something is seriously wrong with the company.

wretcheddomain

I believe €50 million is very much a watered down figure, the true figure would have them truly drowning in cash.

biko

Consultant = fancy contractor.

I suppose part of it is for the lack of job security, sorting out taxes and possibly insurance? yourself, lack of pensions, etc.
But yeah, it's to get someone in on a temporary basis who definitely knows what they're doing

Michael D Not Higgins

Just think, the first thing they have to do is justify those fees by recouping that in water charges.

wexie

bluewolf wrote: »

I suppose part of it is for the lack of job security, sorting out taxes and possibly insurance? yourself, lack of pensions, etc.
But yeah, it's to get someone in on a temporary basis who definitely knows what they're doing

You must not have dealt with some of the same consultants I've dealt with.

I once turned down a job for a customer as we didn't have a sufficient level of knowledge on the subject in house. Customer went to an outside consultancy who took the job, and then contacted me through the back channels to ask could I help them out with the design!!!

Sikpupi

How in gawds name can you spend €50m....surely there must be someone signing the cheques thats asking questions?

Is it to 1 x Company????

I'm just disgusted that this was allowed to happen - I will be writing to my local TD looking for fffing answers on this. €55,000,000.00 - it looks worse written this way.. FFS.

wexie

wexie wrote: »

You must not have dealt with some of the same consultants I've dealt with.

I once turned down a job for a customer as we didn't have a sufficient level of knowledge on the subject in house. Customer went to an outside consultancy who took the job, and then contacted me through the back channels to ask could I help them out with the design!!!

No, I haven't!
I was speaking in theory

Michael D Not Higgins

wexie wrote: »

You must not have dealt with some of the same consultants I've dealt with.

I once turned down a job for a customer as we didn't have a sufficient level of knowledge on the subject in house. Customer went to an outside consultancy who took the job, and then contacted me through the back channels to ask could I help them out with the design!!!

Obviously each consultancy is different and is only as good as the people they employ.

rawn

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/44699435.jpg

twinytwo

rawn wrote: »

I just read THIS article and the sum of €50m spent on consultants alone by Irish Water boggles my mind. How does one become a consultant, and exactly what do they do to earn such huge wages? Besides "consult" that it. And yes I realize that €50m wasn't spent on one consultant alone but that's still a massive figure. To me "consult" just sounds like a company asking an experts advice, and then paying them millions for their answer? Is that really a job worthy of that amount of money?

See what people forget, is that most consultants work for a company... and while the company may charge 500-1000+ euro a day for their services, the actual consultant might only get paid 25-50 euro an hour.

The major consultancy companies use their "vast" experience to completely milk a situation.

That said, some of the IT projects etc that they are brought in on can be hugely complex, the likes of an erp for a large multi national....

keeponhurling

twinytwo wrote: »

See what people forget, is that most consultants work for a company... and while the company may charge 500-1000+ euro a day for their services, the actual consultant might only get paid 25-50 euro an hour.

The major consultancy companies use their "vast" experience to completely milk a situation.

That said, some of the IT projects etc that they are brought in on can be hugely complex, the likes of an erp for a large multi national....

Yes, but large comapnies often invest in Intellectual capital, which their consultants have access to, as well as give training etc.

Also, if there isn't much work from the client, the consultancy still has to pay the consultant at the end of the month.

steddyeddy

wexie wrote: »

You must not have dealt with some of the same consultants I've dealt with.

I once turned down a job for a customer as we didn't have a sufficient level of knowledge on the subject in house. Customer went to an outside consultancy who took the job, and then contacted me through the back channels to ask could I help them out with the design!!!

I'm quoting you Wexie because I thought you might appreciate this. A consultant last year told me biochemistry is not really clinically relevant in medicine.
In order to become a consultant physician politics is often required. You cannot assume that someone is knowledgeable just because they are in a certain position.

Cian92

I'd be under the impression that the consultants they are referring to are law firms and accounting firms. Sure some top accountants and solicitors charge out at €500 an hour. Could that explain it.

Wurzelbert

omfg, this keeps getting better and better...will just go get my torch and pitchfork and cu all outside their house...

steddyeddy

Cian92 wrote: »

I'd be under the impression that the consultants they are referring to are law firms and accounting firms. Sure some top accountants and solicitors charge out at €500 an hour. Could that explain it.

True but there is a culture of overestimating consultants across the board in Ireland.

Cian92

steddyeddy wrote: »

True but there is a culture of overestimating consultants across the board in Ireland.

I'm not sure I follow, could you please elaborate. Thanks.

rawn

What qualifications does one need in their area to become a consultant? Is there minimum requirements or a certain amount of years experience?

keith16

I think people are looking at this the wrong way around.

Overspend by public bodies on things like IT and consultants is rampant in Ireland.

Consultants don't hold a gun to their heads. Consultant fees are well known up front.
Consultants do what they are asked.

Overspending happens because some senior public servant decides he doesn't like the font, the shade of blue and the functional and technical requirements are often ignored in favour of this lunacy.

This means that things go on for much longer than they need to. Additionally, the life cycle of systems is much shorter and the senior civil servant is accountable to nobody, and can make a political issue out of any project failure / overspend.

So think about that before opening fire on consultants. It's almost like "but the banks gave us the money" type view of the world.

Sky King

I'd like to learn more about the tendering process (assuming one exists). Maybe there's some 'consulting' I could do as well.

humbert

I think in the government's case hiring consultants is just a way of spending money to dodge responsibility.

wexie

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm quoting you Wexie because I thought you might appreciate this. A consultant last year told me biochemistry is not really clinically relevant in medicine.
In order to become a consultant physician politics is often required. You cannot assume that someone is knowledgeable just because they are in a certain position.

ah to be fair....biochemistry hardly has much of an impact on the functioning of the human body no?....


:rolleyes:

wexie

keith16 wrote: »

I think people are looking at this the wrong way around.

Overspend by public bodies on things like IT and consultants is rampant in Ireland.

Consultants don't hold a gun to their heads. Consultant fees are well known up front.
Consultants do what they are asked.

Overspending happens because some senior public servant decides he doesn't like the font, the shade of blue and the functional and technical requirements are often ignored in favour of this lunacy.

This means that things go on for much longer than they need to. Additionally, the life cycle of systems is much shorter and the senior civil servant is accountable to nobody, and can make a political issue out of any project failure / overspend.

So think about that before opening fire on consultants. It's almost like "but the banks gave us the money" type view of the world.

which is an entirely fair point. At the end of the day (or close of play :rolleyes:) a consultancy firm isn't actually in the business of providing solutions, they're in the business of making money.

So if some eejit of a civil servant demands that a design or conclusion be redone because he doesn't like the font or the conclusions then you can't really blame the consultant for thinking : SCORE....two days/weeks/months worth of time for rehashing something I already have (for example).

Irish Steve

Looking at the mess that Irish Water is inheriting, I'm not at all surprised.

They are a semi state, and if previous scenarios are anything to go by, some of the people now working for Irish Water have been "moved over" under the provisions of Civil Service rules, as they were working for local authorities and the like.

You may be 110% sure that when they were transferred, they all came with glowing references from their line managers.

You may also be reasonably confident that those same line managers fought tooth and nail to hang on to their best people, and to get rid of the dead wood that was unproductive and under performing.

So now, you have a brand new organisation that has to start from Ground Zero, with a mixed bag of staff that may or may not know what it is doing, why its there, and how to achieve the result that has to be provided.

That means that they were faced with some very difficult decisions. Try to sort it out in house, and take the flak that would come their way if when they got it wrong, or go to an external source of information and resource that might be able to provide skills and information that would at least kick start the system.

Clearly, in order to protect their own corporate rumps, they went external, in that by going that way, if ANYTHING goes wrong, they have the perfect scapegoat, the external consultants who either "got it wrong", or "didn't understand the magnitude of the task" or didn't put enough resources into the project in a timely manner" or whatever, as long as the blame is not on the door of Irish Water.

Are we surprised? Not in the least, it's happened before with Semi States, and it will happen again. A long time ago, I spent a good few years working as an external contractor/consultant for a semi state, because I was one of a very small number of people in Europe that actually knew how to properly programme their computer system.

It was an eye opener, both in terms of the work ethic within a semi state, and in terms of the total lack of in depth understanding across the entire organisation of what was actually required to achieve the mandated result that they were there to deliver.

Given that they have to set up from scratch an IT infrastucture that will have to bill almost every residential and commercial premises in the country, monitor the performance of the entire water network of the country, including all the distribution systems, the treatment of that water, the management of the resources, water, personnel and material, just for starters, they're going to need an IT system that's probably every bit as large, complex and comprehensive as the IT system being used by the ESB group. You can rest assured that the data being provided by all the local authorities to Irish Water will not be compatible, it will be in all manner of different formats, from all manner of systems, and with all manner of degrees of accuracy. That's not a good starting point for the largest infrastructure project in the country for probably 30 years. Yes, it should have been done 20 years ago, when it became clear that Europe was going to insist on charges, and quality control, and pollution management, and all the other things that Irish Water are going to have to deal with, but sure, the Irish way to deal with these things is to leave it to the last possible moment, or slightly later, and then blame Europe for all the problems that happen as a result, that's how the NCT system came into being for example, because if we hadn't brought one in, Irish Vehicles would have been banned from the roads of Europe.

We don't know if the bill that's been reported is just for people, it could well be that there are costs for things like computer systems in there, along with the costs of developing the software that will be required to do the job that Irish Water has to do.

Watch this space, I'm sure there will be plenty of mileage in it for some time to come. Just wait till the blame game starts. then the fur will really fly.

rawn

Irish Steve wrote: »

Looking at the mess that Irish Water is inheriting, I'm not at all surprised.

They are a semi state, and if previous scenarios are anything to go by, some of the people now working for Irish Water have been "moved over" under the provisions of Civil Service rules, as they were working for local authorities and the like.

You may be 110% sure that when they were transferred, they all came with glowing references from their line managers.

You may also be reasonably confident that those same line managers fought tooth and nail to hang on to their best people, and to get rid of the dead wood that was unproductive and under performing.

So now, you have a brand new organisation that has to start from Ground Zero, with a mixed bag of staff that may or may not know what it is doing, why its there, and how to achieve the result that has to be provided.

That means that they were faced with some very difficult decisions. Try to sort it out in house, and take the flak that would come their way if when they got it wrong, or go to an external source of information and resource that might be able to provide skills and information that would at least kick start the system.

Clearly, in order to protect their own corporate rumps, they went external, in that by going that way, if ANYTHING goes wrong, they have the perfect scapegoat, the external consultants who either "got it wrong", or "didn't understand the magnitude of the task" or didn't put enough resources into the project in a timely manner" or whatever, as long as the blame is not on the door of Irish Water.

Are we surprised? Not in the least, it's happened before with Semi States, and it will happen again. A long time ago, I spent a good few years working as an external contractor/consultant for a semi state, because I was one of a very small number of people in Europe that actually knew how to properly programme their computer system.

It was an eye opener, both in terms of the work ethic within a semi state, and in terms of the total lack of in depth understanding across the entire organisation of what was actually required to achieve the mandated result that they were there to deliver.

Given that they have to set up from scratch an IT infrastucture that will have to bill almost every residential and commercial premises in the country, monitor the performance of the entire water network of the country, including all the distribution systems, the treatment of that water, the management of the resources, water, personnel and material, just for starters, they're going to need an IT system that's probably every bit as large, complex and comprehensive as the IT system being used by the ESB group. You can rest assured that the data being provided by all the local authorities to Irish Water will not be compatible, it will be in all manner of different formats, from all manner of systems, and with all manner of degrees of accuracy. That's not a good starting point for the largest infrastructure project in the country for probably 30 years. Yes, it should have been done 20 years ago, when it became clear that Europe was going to insist on charges, and quality control, and pollution management, and all the other things that Irish Water are going to have to deal with, but sure, the Irish way to deal with these things is to leave it to the last possible moment, or slightly later, and then blame Europe for all the problems that happen as a result, that's how the NCT system came into being for example, because if we hadn't brought one in, Irish Vehicles would have been banned from the roads of Europe.

We don't know if the bill that's been reported is just for people, it could well be that there are costs for things like computer systems in there, along with the costs of developing the software that will be required to do the job that Irish Water has to do.

Watch this space, I'm sure there will be plenty of mileage in it for some time to come. Just wait till the blame game starts. then the fur will really fly.

Great answer that does make a lot of sense. I still feel like €50m is a crazy price to pay for advice but of course, IW aren't the ones that set the consultants rates. I think I just expected any organisation to have enough knowledge and experience among their own staff to run things without the need for such extortionate outside help. Although I'm sure they'll recoup that€50m easily when the charges roll out nationwide.

Mickey H

biko wrote: »

Consultant = fancy contractor.

Consultant = fancy contractor that doesn't get their hands dirty.

There, FYP.

Roger Hassenforder

Irish Steve wrote: »

Looking at the mess that Irish Water is inheriting, I'm not at all surprised.

They are a semi state, and if previous scenarios are anything to go by, some of the people now working for Irish Water have been "moved over" under the provisions of Civil Service rules, as they were working for local authorities and the like.

You may be 110% sure that when they were transferred, they all came with glowing references from their line managers.

You may also be reasonably confident that those same line managers fought tooth and nail to hang on to their best people, and to get rid of the dead wood that was unproductive and under performing.

So now, you have a brand new organisation that has to start from Ground Zero, with a mixed bag of staff that may or may not know what it is doing, why its there, and how to achieve the result that has to be provided.

That means that they were faced with some very difficult decisions. Try to sort it out in house, and take the flak that would come their way if when they got it wrong, or go to an external source of information and resource that might be able to provide skills and information that would at least kick start the system.

Clearly, in order to protect their own corporate rumps, they went external, in that by going that way, if ANYTHING goes wrong, they have the perfect scapegoat, the external consultants who either "got it wrong", or "didn't understand the magnitude of the task" or didn't put enough resources into the project in a timely manner" or whatever, as long as the blame is not on the door of Irish Water.

Are we surprised? Not in the least, it's happened before with Semi States, and it will happen again. A long time ago, I spent a good few years working as an external contractor/consultant for a semi state, because I was one of a very small number of people in Europe that actually knew how to properly programme their computer system.

It was an eye opener, both in terms of the work ethic within a semi state, and in terms of the total lack of in depth understanding across the entire organisation of what was actually required to achieve the mandated result that they were there to deliver.

Given that they have to set up from scratch an IT infrastucture that will have to bill almost every residential and commercial premises in the country, monitor the performance of the entire water network of the country, including all the distribution systems, the treatment of that water, the management of the resources, water, personnel and material, just for starters, they're going to need an IT system that's probably every bit as large, complex and comprehensive as the IT system being used by the ESB group. You can rest assured that the data being provided by all the local authorities to Irish Water will not be compatible, it will be in all manner of different formats, from all manner of systems, and with all manner of degrees of accuracy. That's not a good starting point for the largest infrastructure project in the country for probably 30 years. Yes, it should have been done 20 years ago, when it became clear that Europe was going to insist on charges, and quality control, and pollution management, and all the other things that Irish Water are going to have to deal with, but sure, the Irish way to deal with these things is to leave it to the last possible moment, or slightly later, and then blame Europe for all the problems that happen as a result, that's how the NCT system came into being for example, because if we hadn't brought one in, Irish Vehicles would have been banned from the roads of Europe.

We don't know if the bill that's been reported is just for people, it could well be that there are costs for things like computer systems in there, along with the costs of developing the software that will be required to do the job that Irish Water has to do.

Watch this space, I'm sure there will be plenty of mileage in it for some time to come. Just wait till the blame game starts. then the fur will really fly.

as someone involved in the process, there is so much fail in this post, it hurts. Spectacular fail.
If the public knew the nonsense that is costing 180million to set up. Think the HSE/Dept Health is a bull**** bureaucracy, wait till you see this in "action".

humbert

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

as someone involved in the process, there is so much fail in this post, it hurts. Spectacular fail.
If the public knew the nonsense that is costing 180million to set up. Think the HSE/Dept Health is a bull**** bureaucracy, wait till you see this in "action".

If you're just going to give your opinion without specific reasons or details it conventional to append FACT to the end of the post so that people know you're the kind of guy that knows shit.

Aidric

Like everything else there are good and bad ones. The good ones are worth every cent of their fee. The bad ones, well..

We had a prick some years ago who came in as a troubleshooter for interpersonal relations within the company. His findings could be written on the back of a fag box by anyone with a shred of common sense. The fees he charged were off the chart.

Roger Hassenforder

humbert wrote: »

If you're just going to give your opinion without specific reasons or details it conventional to append FACT to the end of the post so that people know you're the kind of guy that knows shit.

fair enough post, but im on a fone, so I'll attend to the post later.

Kippure

Its just been said on Rte news that Irish water don't come under the freedom of information act.

There,s Transparency for you.

wexie

Kippure wrote: »

Its just been said on Rte news that Irish water don't come under the freedom of information act.

There,s Transparency for you.

why the hell not?

Did they give any justification?
I'd have thought as something quite so important to the population as providing clean water could do with some extra scrutiny?

Kippure

wexie wrote: »

why the hell not?

Did they give any justification?
I'd have thought as something quite so important to the population as providing clean water could do with some extra scrutiny?

No Justification.

It may come under the remit.......


http://www.thejournal.ie/freedom-of-information-bill-1036856-Aug2013/

Stheno

@ IrishSteve, an awful lot of the IT services Irish water need are being provided by Bord Gais on a shared services basis, and they have been ramping that up hugely over the past six months. Last year BG went to tender to establish a framework of IT consultants they could use as part of that initial roll out to support Irish Water, rather than hire in permanent staff.

@ between 500 and 800 euro a day min for the amount of contractors/consultants they wanted for IT alone, I can easily see them spending ten million in that area.

10 million/800 = 54 consultants/contractors in IT for a year and they have at least that many from multiple companies. Some of the more specialised contractors/consultants in there would charge more than 800 per day also

Cookie_Monster

I love how our government always have to spend huge amount on consulting about everything. Is there nobody in the entire government structure qualified to make/evaluate any proposals and make decisions?

theoneeyedman

That's almost 1 million per week...Every week....my mind is boggling here.

pickarooney

Kippure wrote: »

Its just been said on Rte news that Irish water don't come under the freedom of information act.

There,s Transparency for you.

Irish Water not transparent?

Ming was right.

Stheno

Kippure wrote: »

No Justification.

It may come under the remit.......


http://www.thejournal.ie/freedom-of-information-bill-1036856-Aug2013/

Are they classed as a commercial semi-state?
The commercial semi states are exempt from data protection responsibilities as data controllers, so possibly the same applies for FOI?

imitation

Consultants definitely get the blood up alright, especially if you have experience of a bad one who has come in with some vague advice. Thing is, good ones are a requirement to do anything.

The fees are astronomical, but the cost of keeping an employee is always higher than just there wage, and consulting companies probably won't be so fortunate to keep them on sites 100% of the time, so they have to increase the fee to keep the person paid all year (and a qualified person with rare experience isn't going to be working nothing).

Stheno

Ah it was specifically excluded from the obligations of the FOI bill which was passed last year but it still appears the commercial semi states are all exempt from FOI

Roger Hassenforder

Irish Steve wrote: »

Looking at the mess that Irish Water is inheriting, I'm not at all surprised.

They are a semi state, and if previous scenarios are anything to go by, some of the people now working for Irish Water have been "moved over" under the provisions of Civil Service rules, as they were working for local authorities and the like.

You may be 110% sure that when they were transferred, they all came with glowing references from their line managers.

You may also be reasonably confident that those same line managers fought tooth and nail to hang on to their best people, and to get rid of the dead wood that was unproductive and under performing.

So now, you have a brand new organisation that has to start from Ground Zero, with a mixed bag of staff that may or may not know what it is doing, why its there, and how to achieve the result that has to be provided.

That means that they were faced with some very difficult decisions. Try to sort it out in house, and take the flak that would come their way if when they got it wrong, or go to an external source of information and resource that might be able to provide skills and information that would at least kick start the system.

Clearly, in order to protect their own corporate rumps, they went external, in that by going that way, if ANYTHING goes wrong, they have the perfect scapegoat, the external consultants who either "got it wrong", or "didn't understand the magnitude of the task" or didn't put enough resources into the project in a timely manner" or whatever, as long as the blame is not on the door of Irish Water.

Are we surprised? Not in the least, it's happened before with Semi States, and it will happen again. A long time ago, I spent a good few years working as an external contractor/consultant for a semi state, because I was one of a very small number of people in Europe that actually knew how to properly programme their computer system.

It was an eye opener, both in terms of the work ethic within a semi state, and in terms of the total lack of in depth understanding across the entire organisation of what was actually required to achieve the mandated result that they were there to deliver.

Given that they have to set up from scratch an IT infrastucture that will have to bill almost every residential and commercial premises in the country, monitor the performance of the entire water network of the country, including all the distribution systems, the treatment of that water, the management of the resources, water, personnel and material, just for starters, they're going to need an IT system that's probably every bit as large, complex and comprehensive as the IT system being used by the ESB group. You can rest assured that the data being provided by all the local authorities to Irish Water will not be compatible, it will be in all manner of different formats, from all manner of systems, and with all manner of degrees of accuracy. That's not a good starting point for the largest infrastructure project in the country for probably 30 years. Yes, it should have been done 20 years ago, when it became clear that Europe was going to insist on charges, and quality control, and pollution management, and all the other things that Irish Water are going to have to deal with, but sure, the Irish way to deal with these things is to leave it to the last possible moment, or slightly later, and then blame Europe for all the problems that happen as a result, that's how the NCT system came into being for example, because if we hadn't brought one in, Irish Vehicles would have been banned from the roads of Europe.

We don't know if the bill that's been reported is just for people, it could well be that there are costs for things like computer systems in there, along with the costs of developing the software that will be required to do the job that Irish Water has to do.

Watch this space, I'm sure there will be plenty of mileage in it for some time to come. Just wait till the blame game starts. then the fur will really fly.

A few points to address the fail as I see it:

1. Not as much LA staff is transferring as you might think. A lot of staff worked in the "Irish Water Programme" with the consultants to set it up. When IW went live , a lot of these staff were returned to their LA. Some staff are actually being blocked from moving accross by their LA. Most staff that are currently transferring are being seconded until the pension arrangements are sorted. Senior staff, having worked over 30 years in public water supply have been deemed "unqualified" by the same consultants and recruitment agencies so cronies can get jobs. The anecdotes from interviews are hillarious. A colleague was actually told at one by IW board "its our problem if we dont understand what you are telling us, we'll pay someone to tell us what you're saying". ( it was a technical legislative role).
2. LAs will still provide you with water services, until 2026 when the first SLA expires. After that... When you turn on your tap that water probably came from a water treatment plant operated by local authority staff, in a plant owned by IW. If you arent being serviced by a DBO, your turds will be recieved by a wastewater plant operated by LA staff. Liability for water services are being assumed by IW. Pretty mush everything else is going to be as it is.
3. You will pay IW for your water services. At the moment its only nondomestic water charges, ut thats changing. non domesitc bills are being prepared by LA staff in a LA building, sent to IW to issue to non domestic customers, to recover the charges, who then pay the LA to provide that service.
4. i note you worked a "long time ago" in a semi state. You will find a different vista were you to enter a LA water services office these days. Yes there are still some deadweights, but these are in the minority. Services have been provided on shoe string budgets, to comply with a myriad of regulations. The fees being charged to those availing of them, nowhere near enough to cover costs. And typical to Ireland, the few are subsidising the many. Ask any non domestic water charges payer are they getting value for money? The answer will be of course not; because they are paying for Mary who leaves the tap running while she brushed his teeth, or half loads the washing machine, and Pat who couldnt be arshed fixing his dripping outside tap. sure why should he, he's not paying for it. Whoever came up with the concept water is a right and should be free water boarded.
5. You used to pay for domestic water, but it was abolished in '97. There's nothing new here. Every single paper (Indecon, OECD etc.) on Local Government reform since this, has argued that these charges should be restored, levies raised locally should be spent locally. We didnt need the Troika to implement them, nor apparently did they insist on a national body, only that the tax base should be broadened and water charges restored...
6. It cost €1.2B last year to run water services in Ireland. leakage rates are on average 41%. Main reason being capital schemes were funded only for the capital cost, and then only the domestic element. Priority in the Water Investment Programmes traditionally was given to compliance with Directives and avoiding fines, e.g. UWWD, rather than repairing leaks. This has changed since fewer capital projects are underway. Cash was flash, and plenty of it. Development contribution were flowing in. No need to fix the leaking pipes, we'll get the consultants to design and build a new WWTP.
7. IW has no democratic mandate. whatever your views on local democracy in Ireland, at least you had a public representative nearby you could call to about your 'tap in'. Whether he was worth a damn is beside the point. You didnt have to drive 50 miles to your nearest ""regional office" to talk to someone who probably will never have heard of your village. BUt who will then contact the LA to attend to your request. But your now allowed approach the LA directly, because you are an IW customer...
8. LA monitoring data has been reported in the one format to the EPA EDEN system for the past few years. From each LA, in the same format. LAs already have to deal with pollution control, QC, security of supply etc. Except now as well as reporting to the EPA, they must first report to IW, who will then forward these reports to the EPA.
9. Some examples of beaurocratic 'effeciencies': If you apply for planning permission to your LA, a copy of the file will go to IW for comment/conditions regarding water services' aspects (drainage etc.) IW will then forward it back to the LA for the LA to comment on, and include these in their own report. If you apply for a licence to discharge to a sewer, you will apply to IW. IW will send your application to the LA. The LA will assess and decide on the applicaiton and report back to IW with a recommended licence. IW will then reply to the applicant and issue the licence.
10. Fair enough point about the new IT system, IBM hoovering up massive fees to design and commission. I imagine a lot of the 180million set up costs are being absobed here.
11. The main reason for IW being set up is to get the costs of providing water services of the national balance sheet. Also, there's a perception being pedalled that the public will stomach paying a utility company for water rather than their local Council. Motivation will be profit, with no requirement to pass any savings back to customers until periodic reviews deem it appropriate. Its a Dublin centric operation which will faciliate in easing through the Shannon abstraction project, and and prepare the whole lot for privatizaition once the gig in in the black.

The notional objectives of effeciencies etc. could have been achieved without this new MacroQuango if someone had any backbone in either the DOE of Dail.



Anyone enjoying their current bin service in Dublin or Cork? Getting value for money or do you think you're being ripped off...Anyone experience SUSI or NDLS...

Irish Steve

WOW, Best thing I can say is that it's worse and better than I thought.

I don't as such have a problem with water charges. I don't like it, but I do recognise the necessity of changing the appalling cultural attitude that exists towards things like water and waste management, and the way that the "free" concept has distorted the use and management of both systems. That might have something to do with the fact that my father managed the waste water treatment services for a town of 100,000 people for over 30 years, so I have more than a passing knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes.

The description you present of IW is not far off what I expected, in some areas, the lunatics are running the asylum, and IW appear to be being stuck with the worst of all worlds, to service a pretty arcane political agenda that in the end will fool very few people.

Yes, Dublin has to start paying for it's water, as I think I mentioned, it should have done 20 years ago,

In the same vein, IW probably will be better able to deal with the related issues like leaks, and wastage and all the other issues, including the long term requirement for Shannon water to be transferred to the East Coast.

A good few of the other points you mention are insane, the structure of the thing is Machiavellian in the extreme, and could only have been structured by Civil Servants who were doing everything they could to protect their fiefdoms.

If the vista of semi states has changed, that can only be for the better, the one I was involved with was dire in the extreme, the scariest aspect of it being that the staff thought they were working hard

I hope IW can bring in their project on time and on budget, but previous semi state examples, like the HSE, and their Payroll disaster PPARS leads me to believe that IW's chances of success are crippled before they even get to the starting line.


I suspect that given the mountainous layers of bureaucracy that seems to be endemic to the project, it won't be too long before we are seeing the fault lines appearing all over the IW structure and systems. Should we have expected differently? Probably not, given our politicians innate ability to make a crisis out of a drama.

impr0v

Sky King wrote: »

I'd like to learn more about the tendering process (assuming one exists). Maybe there's some 'consulting' I could do as well.

Why don't you have an oul' look and see if there is.