Consultants Fees

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.

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?

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.

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.