Originally Posted by SlipperySlappery
Blue Peter Badge
Ah, the 'we don't like it either so it isn't our fault' line. Well, it is an ocean-going disaster and it would be interesting to know which branch the RAF personnel involved in this project were drawn from. Couldn't possibly suggest that it was the admin branch because that might imply that they didn't do their job properly.
Don't use 'we've f***ed up our own people's pay as well' as an excuse to try and make it seem all right - you've f***ed up everyone's.
SS
SS
Although I'm as angry about the implementation of JPA as everyone else, I really do think that you should take a long (perhaps alcohol free) look at your post and think again.
I understand that local PSF/HR people have been working all hours over the last few weeks to try and sort out the mess that they have been dropped into through no fault of their own. Moreover, suspect that if it wasn't for them, none of us would have been paid at all this month!
Consider for a second how it must feel to see your job about to be replaced by a new system, and then to have to work all hours to bail out that system in order for it to have any chance of success. I'm sure they all saw the lack of attention apparently paid to any detail of the transition process by the IPT and EDS. Unfortunately, that's a recurrent theme throughout all of our procurement projects at the moment - and it has to stop!!!
Personally, I'd like to congratulate the local PSF/HR people for trying so hard on our behalf - it must be very tempting for them to just walk away from the problem.
On the other hand, I do hope that when the National Audit Office hold their investigation into this mess - and I'm sure that that will have to happen - they demand to see the JPA transition plan and risk assessments and ask the Senior Reporting Officer why he thought that JPA was ready for implementation on 1 Apr 06. Was it because JPA had been fully tested and found to be mature, secure and robust? Or was it because, from that date,
- SAMA and other existing contracts had not been renewed,
- staff cuts in local PSF/HR offices had to be made in order for the RAF to meet its promised manpower reductions
- new regulations for allowances/expenses had to be implemented in order to make savings?