WESTLONDONCHAT.COM
https://westlondonchat.com/

BBC failed IT project in perspective
https://westlondonchat.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1399		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Westonman [ Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:  BBC failed IT project in perspective
This Daily Mail report claims the failed BBC IT project wasted £100,000,000:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... iasco.html
Quote:
When it was finally scrapped this year, bosses were forced to admit they had wasted a total of £98.4million trying to make it work.
With the licence tax being £145.50, that £98,400,000 required 676,289 licence payers to fund this waste.

To help get this wasted sum of money in perspective, I have tried to relate the sum of money to populations.

Ealing population 2011 census:
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Ealing
The total recorded population of Ealing in 2011 was 339,300

Hillingdon population 2011 census:
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bo ... Hillingdon
The total recorded population of Hillingdon in 2011 was 273,936

The total combined populations (men, women and children) of Ealing and Hillingdon in the 2011 census was 339,300 + 273,936 = 613,236. So if every man, woman, and child living in the London Boroughs of Ealing and Hillingdon paid £145.50 to the BBC to fund this IT failure the BBC would still have required another 63,053 people to pay £145.50 to fund the IT failure.

If every man, woman and child living in the London Boroughs of Ealing and Hillingdon went outside in one single day and each set fire to bank notes amounting to £145.50, the money sent up in smoke would still not cover the cost of the BBC's wasted IT project.

The gross mismanagement of public money is mind boggling. This IT failure does not include the vast sums of money paid out by the BBC, and backed up by licence tax payers in golden good-bye payments for other failures and many other money wasting exercises.
Author:  Kremmen [ Tue Dec 24, 2013 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: BBC failed IT project in perspective
We lose a lot of Gov IT contracts because we tell the truth at ITT time. Some other companies, and I won't list them, tell far from the truth to get the business at ridiculously low tenders then find they can't deliver.

When we won the HMRC business we told it how it was, got the business, and still running it today and very successfully reducing costs annually as improvements are implemented.
Author:  SOT [ Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: BBC failed IT project in perspective
I have quite a few dealings with Govt IT contractors in any given year, and see many of them earning a fortune (£600 to £1200 a day is not unusual) whilst delivering less for the tax payer than a part time cleaner.

Often the project managers (PMs) on IT projects are also contractors (not staff) and there has been evidence in various submissions to Parliamentary sub committees where those PMs in turn mislead their civil services bosses as to the status of the project and told porkies about successful outcomes from tests that never even took place.

The overpayment is huge and deceit rife. It all makes the MP's duck house size expenditure look like petty cash. So I am not surprised about this latest cock up

The problem is that the Civil Service will not pay the going rate (salary) for staffed IT projects and managers - indeed, some I work with many who haven't had a pay rise in years. When they do pay a better wage (to attract and retain the best staff), and rehash their auditing systems, perhaps me and u will start seeing something approaching VFM from Govt IT systems
Author:  Kremmen [ Wed Dec 25, 2013 7:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: BBC failed IT project in perspective
£600 to £1200 a day is not unusual for out of scope additional work as those are the daily rates depending on grade. The normal day to day work should not cost anywhere near that though.

This is another ploy of the unscrupulous ones who try and claim that all requests are outside of the original contract.
Author:  SOT [ Wed Dec 25, 2013 10:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: BBC failed IT project in perspective
Kremmen

I should have mentioned that some of these IT consultants are pretty much on permanent contracts - the longest I have known has been 17 years, where a husband and wife team on £1500 - £1800 a day each 'commuted' to London from the Mediterranean (nice & warm plus tax friendly) to service a specialist bit of kit. Their contract did not involve training others how to do their job, and the software was their intellectual property (they wrote it and the upgrades) so nobody could touch it. They rarely did more than a 3 day week!!!

Another tax friendly idea the IT chaps have at work is to create a company with one employee - You. Then take say, a £150 a week wage taxed at standard rate. Then you pay yourself the remainder as a monthly dividend from the company profits. This attracts 20% or less tax, rather than the 40%+ tax it would have if it were 'pay'. Then you switch jobs between addresses (say London, Cardiff, Newcastle etc) every 2 years - 3 years maximum - This allows you to claim attractive tax breaks to pay for your temporary accommodation and fares. So so live scott free while renting your own home out and paying that fee into the company to avoid tax.

Don't forget, these are Government contractors being paid a bloody fortune (circa £300,000) and then - with their customers knowledge and in some cases, collusion - avoiding tax the rest of us have to pay

Dont forget that we are all in it together, but its clear that some will be having a merrier Xmas than others (thanks to you & me)!!!
Author:  Kremmen [ Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: BBC failed IT project in perspective
Oh yes the gov 'contractors'. IT contractors have been well known for being some of the best paid people around, they often write their own pay packets. We have largely done away with them as they are far too expensive.

The big problem the gov have now is that a large amount of staff are still on final salary contracts. When a gov IT project goes out to tender it more than likely involves TUPE staff. These days IT companies cannot afford to take on people under TUPE with final salary pensions built in.

I know my company walks away from these if final salary TUPE is involved with large enough people.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/