| Motoring Discussion > Computer says NO! | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Old Navy | Replies: 24 |
|
New Thu 20 Aug 15 08:03
Computer says NO! - Old Navy
|
|
The government must still be using rubbish computer geeks. It seems that manual MOT certificates are in the same league as paper insurance certificates. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3203845/MOT-meltdown-Thousands-motorists-face-forced-road-new-government-failed-leaving-garages-unable-issue-certificates.html |
|
New Thu 20 Aug 15 22:49
Computer says NO! - Mike Hannon
|
|
You read it here first, folks, in my thread about tyre pricing a couple of days ago. Or maybe I'm just a moaner... |
|
New Thu 20 Aug 15 23:19
Computer says NO! - Zero
|
| What's this got to do with kwikfit? |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 01:25
Computer says NO! - No FM2R
|
|
>>The government must still be using rubbish computer geeks To be fair their geeks are ok, its their project management that causes me to rock back and forth humming to myself. It is the world of a bunch of administrators *knowing* that they are good project managers, because they've been on a two week course and got a certificate. *ALL* Government projects a pile of kak, but in that pile of kak, their IT Projects still smell. Having said that, what a pile of old crap from the Daily Mail. *BOTH* systems continue to run and be valid. Either can be used. Those who were going to be the first users of the computerised system can go back to the manual version. Every single one of the early users can still carry out tests and has controlled stocks of paper documents to use as they have been doing for years. And the problems with that? Jeez, goodness knows the Governments IT Projects are appalling, but this b******* from the Mail just hides the real issues behind a bunch of tabloid nonsense. "garage owners pointed out that sceptical police were unlikely to accept a flimsy piece of paper" Really, they've been accepting that "flimsy piece of paper" for years, and in fact it is that "flimsy piece of paper" that many parts of the industry wished to stay with. " Enterprising Mr James also tried to ring the software company Kainos in London which is contracted to the Government provide the new system: ‘The switchboard told me it employed 700 people- but no-one in any department was free to take my call,’ he said" Personally, I would have told "Enterprising Mr James" to FRO. And if any supplier of mine that chose to make public statements on one of my projects they would be picking court papers out of their back teeth, so I would say that Kainos made the right decision. "‘I'm basically sat here waiting for the computer to work. It's cost us a fortune already " How's that then? Expensive sitting? "Gary Stapleton, owner of RGS Motors in Langley Mill said: "It's been off and on all day. I've got ten cars in and I can't do any of them. They've been testing this system for two years and I can't comprehend the incompetence.’" 1) Liar 2) Yes you can 3) I can't comprehend your incompetence either. Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 21 Aug 15 at 01:26
|
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 06:28
Computer says NO! - Mike Hannon
|
|
I mentioned three days ago now that the manager of a Halfords branch told me they had major problems the day the system was introduced. Do keep up. |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 07:03
Computer says NO! - Pat
|
|
I think Gary Stapleton is correct. Once given a changeover date to the new system they have to stop using the old system at 6pm the night before and start the new one at 8am the following day. www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-modernisation-the-switchover-process Pat |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 07:07
Computer says NO! - Duncan
|
|
.
Last edited by: Duncan on Fri 21 Aug 15 at 07:08
|
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 07:16
Computer says NO! - Pat
|
|
Second thought Duncan? :) Pat |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 08:44
Computer says NO! - Duncan
|
|
>> Second thought Duncan? :) >> >> Pat >> Exactly! |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 09:36
Computer says NO! - RichardW
|
|
Paperwork says yes if computer says no... www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-testing-service-contingency-testing |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 09:52
Computer says NO! - Bromptonaut
|
|
Part of the trouble here, IME, is the way people react to IT outages. Staff do the same thing over and over again getting the same error each time rather than actually (a) try to rationally diagnose what's wrong and/or (b) move seamlessly to whatever backup process is available. In the meantime the queue of punters get's longer and more disgruntled by the minute. If Mr Stapleton had simply resorted to the paper based process provided for these circumstances he'd not have had people sitting around. Instead he wastes time phoning umpteen people, including making a fuss with one of his suppliers' contractors. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 21 Aug 15 at 09:56
|
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 10:16
Computer says NO! - Manatee
|
|
>> Part of the trouble here, IME, is the way people react to IT outages. Staff >> do the same thing over and over again getting the same error each time Of course they do - because they hope that the glitch is temporary. Have you never done that? >>rather >> than actually (a) try to rationally diagnose what's wrong They are mechanics. They are users. The system is designed (a) to support them, and (b) to allow of no departure from the designed process. >>and/or (b) move seamlessly to whatever >> backup process is available. That is not going to happen unless the system fails frequently enough for the users to treat the 'outage' (I prefer 'breakage') as normal. Otherwise, expect it to take a couple of days at minimum, subject to good support, to start functioning at half-speed. >> In the meantime the queue of punters gets longer and more >> disgruntled by the minute. Indeed, but don't blame the users. >> >> If Mr Stapleton had simply resorted to the paper based process provided for these circumstances >> he'd not have had people sitting around. Instead he wastes time phoning umpteen people, including >> making a fuss with one of his suppliers' contractors. There's no 'simply' about it, and the venting might not be logical or productive but it is a very human response. The people responsible here are those whose jobs are to ensure compliance with the SLA. That does not mean per se that they should be sacked, but they are the ones on the hook while the system is down. If you were to say that a feature of modern life is that the slightest inconvenience is always referred to as a "nightmare", then I would agree with you; clearly garage owners are just like nearly everybody else. But it's fatuous to expect normal throughput with a manual system to which nobody is habituated. Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 21 Aug 15 at 10:19
|
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 09:56
Computer says NO! - Pat
|
|
>>*BOTH* systems continue to run and be valid. Either can be used. Those who were going to be the first users of the computerised system can go back to the manual version. Every single one of the early users can still carry out tests and has controlled stocks of paper documents to use as they have been doing for years. << Not quite as simple as the above made it sound though! Pat |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 10:04
Computer says NO! - Manatee
|
|
My sympathy is with the complainants. There may be a contingency system but manual systems used only in contingency are rarely worth having; nobody knows how to use them, and the results will be error-strewn. Given the volumes, it will have knock on effects for months and some of the records will probably never be right. When you create a "do everything system" that takes away any need for thought or possibility of error, you can't expect people to cope when it isn't there. What might have been a familiar process several years ago cannot be used as the basis of a contingency system when none of the users is schooled and used to it. Of course they are losing money. They charge people for tests. If they can't do them or they take twice as long because they have to work around the system, they will lose out. Not to mention the fact that if an owner wants to tax his car, the database needs to be up to date, which it won't be - or are we going to send car owners on training courses as well? System failures are a fact of life, but let's not pretend it isn't a problem - if that were the case, we wouldn't need the system. |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 10:25
Computer says NO! - ....
|
|
If the system is so critical to the operation of your business then you have a business continuity plan and have regular disaster recovery exercises. Run your business like a hobby and not a business you will get hurt. |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 10:31
Computer says NO! - Manatee
|
|
>> If the system is so critical to the operation of your business then you have >> a business continuity plan and have regular disaster recovery exercises. >> Run your business like a hobby and not a business you will get hurt. I assume that is satire. |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 10:40
Computer says NO! - ....
|
|
Why? Apparently everyone had been made aware of the workaround. If you choose to ignore it or do not wish to familiarise yourself and your business with it because it is no longer current then you take the rough with the smooth. |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 10:47
Computer says NO! - Bromptonaut
|
| I agree with gmac. If you have mission critical IT staff should be familiar with the back up routine. If that routine is at all complex they should practice it from time to time. |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 11:13
Computer says NO! - Manatee
|
|
>> I agree with gmac. If you have mission critical IT staff should be familiar with >> the back up routine. If that routine is at all complex they should practice it >> from time to time. In principle. Go and discuss with your local garage. Actually there will be people who coped well with this - there always are. And it would be great if that could be bottled and passed on the the others, but in practice it is next to impossible. A small business owner employing himself and couple of muckyanics probably has to be MD, FD, CTO, co. sec., risk director, receptionist, foreman, marketing manager, compliance manager, tax collector, stationery manager, you name it, and do the day job himself. Business as usual is an achievement. Set up as a consultant and show them how it should be done:) |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 12:00
Computer says NO! - ....
|
|
SQ 4 LB >> Set up as a consultant and show them how it should be done:) >> Why bother ? You wouldn't make any money as a consultant because that market is not interested in doing the job properly. You don't need an army, you need to get organised. There are many very good spannermen and women but they cannot run a business. How many small garages have you been in where the billing area is presentable and paperwork is filled or details are held on a computer system which is properly managed and backed up. Compare that business with the guy who can't find his invoice pad as it's buried under 3 months invoices, tax demands and other paperwork. If you know the back office is not your thing and you are serious about your business then you buy in support. If you cannot afford it, you know it's not your strength or have no inclination to tackle the problem then you face the innevitable. The MOT is an inspection of the vehicle, nothing stopped those going ahead. The recording of the inspection was the issue. You either deal with that or sit on you hands moaning, incurring costs as you go. Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 21 Aug 15 at 16:52
|
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 12:16
Computer says NO! - Manatee
|
|
>> >> Set up as a consultant and show them how it should be done:) >> >> >> Why bother ? You wouldn't make any money as a consultant because that market is >> not interested in doing the job properly. Note the feeble smiley. No, I don't suppose they are interested in paying someone a few hundred quid a day when they are coming out with less themselves. >> >> There are many very good spannermen and women but they cannot run a business. You seem to be agreeing with me. They are self employed mechanics in many cases, as opposed to being business administrators. The admin is a burden, not a job, and not their skill. In the case of the MoT, they have no choice in the system they use, it is prescribed for them and they reasonably expect it to work and for the regime that imposes it to have suitable plans to keep it working. There may be a contingency plan but for many the cure will be worse than the disease. |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 12:27
Computer says NO! - No FM2R
|
|
>>There may be a contingency plan but for many the cure will be worse than the disease. Let us remember that the contingency plan is "go back to the old way". |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 12:36
Computer says NO! - No FM2R
|
|
>> >> Set up as a consultant and show them how it should be done:) >> Why bother ? You wouldn't make any money as a consultant because that market is >> not interested in doing the job properly. > No, I don't suppose they are interested in paying someone a few hundred quid a day when they are coming out with less themselves. Welcome to my world. There are people who have a business that can be significantly improved. 1) When you tell them how much you want a day, they are not interested. Its not a question of overall value, its simply that they will not pay someone a higher daily rate than they could earn themselves. 2) When you say; "Fine, I'll do it for free but I want 10% of your increased profit for the first year" they will immediately say no. Why should they give anybody profit from their business, ignoring the fact that its profit that they do not actually have. 3) Many people got into their business because they don't want to be told what to do, they want to do it their way. It is more important to them than doing it better. It wouldn't be my way, but I understand the emotion. Many of my friends have small businesses, some of them listen to me and benefit from it. Some of them ignore me, do it their way and seem to suffer no ill. And a small amount try to convince me that I am wrong and ultimately just continue losing profit. |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 11:01
Computer says NO! - Manatee
|
|
Contingency planning works little better in big business than small in my experience, where the operation is distributed (as in retail) and real-time customer facing. Outages are usually mercifully short or localised, and in many cases you would be better to "close the till" than to create a pile of (usually) incomplete, inaccurate manually created paperwork to be input later, even assuming the users know where the contingency packs and instructions are and have looked at them at some point. It would be interesting to know how many small garages see H&S audits, risk assessments, DRPs etc as a useful business process rather than a "compliance burden" when imposed on them. There is a real world out there and businesses that just aren't big or profitable enough in the first place to have the resources to do this stuff. In areas where compliance is enforced of course, they are prey to the army of useless "consultants" mentioned elsewhere. |
|
New Fri 21 Aug 15 19:46
Computer says NO! - Zero
|
|
>> Contingency planning works little better in big business than small in my experience, where the >> operation is distributed (as in retail) and real-time customer facing. Outages are usually mercifully short >> or localised, and in many cases you would be better to "close the till" than >> to create a pile of (usually) incomplete, inaccurate manually created paperwork to be input later, Closing the till IS a contingency plan. There are cases (specially local) where contingency, continuity or recovery are simply not more cost effective than an outage. >> It would be interesting to know how many small garages see H&S audits, risk assessments, >> DRPs etc as a useful business process rather than a "compliance burden" when imposed on >> them. A health and safety audit is ALWAYS a useful business process, you can end up broke, in jail or both for a failure to have one to hand. If you are a one man band - Everything else is common sense, back of the fag packet "is it worth it" calculation. In the case of the MOT thing, its a case of moaning for the sake of it, because the fall back is easy however for the sake of a good press, ignored. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
