The SAP anti competition argument

undercover_peon

I thought it might be useful to approach this using a thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that you are one of six friends. Two of your friends have recently bought expensive new cars. Their old cars weren't broken down but they were old and not really up to current requirements.

One spent 20,000 one spent 50,000 for the same brand of car. They both blew up. You also need to buy a new car, what is the likelihood you would buy anything from that same company? I'm guessing close to zero.

Yet this is exactly what is happening in the utility world. EDF have a SAP system and it brought the business to its knees, they have gone from getting decent star ratings to getting the LOWEST star rating. I believe british gas paid around half a billion pounds for a SAP system and are now suing the makers for the damage it has done to thier business.

So why has NPower bought the same kind of system? (for two hundred odd million!!!) This makes no sense in the context of a competitive marketplace where you would want an advantage over your rivals and would seek to benefit from such monumental blunders. Instead we find a company engaged in exactly the same behavior and expecting different results.

Having worked with this new super dooper system for a short while I can confirm it does what it wants, when it wants, if it wants. Either the selling SAP are the greatest sales staff in the known universe or there is some other explaination?

Is there some industry requirement that demands similar systems akin to body banks use regarding payments? Or is this just another example that the much touted competition in this area is simply an illusion?

Any thoughts welcome.

BTW the views here are my own based on experience and are not the views of any energy supplier.

backfoot

An excellent post and it is mindboggling that learning points have not been made.

I would add that the system specifications also seem to be very wide of the mark.

The Business requirements either have not been properly defined or the inflexibility of the system can't cope. Either way, the areas of customer interface. e.g billing,Direct Debits have been a shambles.

The Consultancy cost must be enormous.:o

chanz4

undercover_peon wrote: »

I thought it might be useful to approach this using a thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that you are one of six friends. Two of your friends have recently bought expensive new cars. Their old cars weren't broken down but they were old and not really up to current requirements.

One spent 20,000 one spent 50,000 for the same brand of car. They both blew up. You also need to buy a new car, what is the likelihood you would buy anything from that same company? I'm guessing close to zero.

Yet this is exactly what is happening in the utility world. EDF have a SAP system and it brought the business to its knees, they have gone from getting decent star ratings to getting the LOWEST star rating. I believe british gas paid around half a billion pounds for a SAP system and are now suing the makers for the damage it has done to thier business.

So why has NPower bought the same kind of system? (for two hundred odd million!!!) This makes no sense in the context of a competitive marketplace where you would want an advantage over your rivals and would seek to benefit from such monumental blunders. Instead we find a company engaged in exactly the same behavior and expecting different results.

Having worked with this new super dooper system for a short while I can confirm it does what it wants, when it wants, if it wants. Either the selling SAP are the greatest sales staff in the known universe or there is some other explaination?

Is there some industry requirement that demands similar systems akin to body banks use regarding payments? Or is this just another example that the much touted competition in this area is simply an illusion?

Any thoughts welcome.

BTW the views here are my own based on experience and are not the views of any energy supplier.

Suppliers follow like sheep, I believe sap was written for the stock control and financial market, far too complex and cant do half that is needed

retiredin2011

so what is SAP?

Silly Aromatic Praying?

Not everyone is in the business and understands meaningless initials.

backfoot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAP_AG

German software company who are involved in many of the customer service applications for Energy suppliers.

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

Here is the end of Post #36 of
Warning: npower accept new customers without sending them a Contract
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4273611
Please start at Post #1 for the full context.

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig wrote: »

... Remember, in my case I've repeatedly asked for my Contract.
IMHO a 'compliant Supplier' should be able to supply, by Post (or Courier etc), a Customer with a copy of their Contract within 2 weeks.

We know 'npower's new system' has failed to 'get me my Contract' (or a copy of my Contract).
I am not convinced that there is a written Contract, for MY Telephone Sale.
I speculate that the 'new system at npower' has not generated it.
If npower had an electronic or paper version of MY Contract, I would expect that npower would have sent me a COPY of it by now!

I am arguing that npower's 'new system' is not fit for purpose.
It is 'making npower breach SLCs'.
By using it, npower have breached SLC 25.6 (for me and other Customers).
By using it, npower have breached SLC 22.8 (in my case - I don't have evidence of other Customers).
If they continue to use it they will continue to breach these SLCs.

How can that be acceptable in a Regulated Energy Supply market?

So, undercover_peon, and all readers my comments are:

npower, or any Supplier, are free to purchase any software.
However, IMHO, they should not implement it / make it 'go live' without being able to
'revert to the old system' particularly if the 'new system' makes them breach the SLCs.

I have said, quite a few times in the last few weeks, that Ofgem should investigate and if necessary enforce the Regulations.

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

Grumpygit

We use SAP at work (financial services) and whilst it's ok, it can't cope with our transactions, it keeps crashing and the support we have is not good.

I can't comment on it for energy suppliers though.

backfoot

Grumpygit wrote: »

We use SAP at work (financial services) and whilst it's ok, it can't cope with our transactions, it keeps crashing and the support we have is not good.

I can't comment on it for energy suppliers though.

So what is the ok bit?

WestonDave

backfoot wrote: »

So what is the ok bit?

They get a lot of coffee breaks while the engineers and techies are fixing it!:D

chanz4

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig wrote: »

Here is the end of Post #36 of
Warning: npower accept new customers without sending them a Contract
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4273611
Please start at Post #1 for the full context.



So, undercover_peon, and all readers my comments are:

npower, or any Supplier, are free to purchase any software.
However, IMHO, they should not implement it / make it 'go live' without being able to
'revert to the old system' particularly if the 'new system' makes them breach the SLCs.

I have said, quite a few times in the last few weeks, that Ofgem should investigate and if necessary enforce the Regulations.

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

do you ever change the record, it wont be sap that sends out the contracts

grahamc2003

The situation described is symptomatic of how the industry was split up for privatisation. What became suppliers was really a non-function - what they traditionally did simply got canned anyhow, so there was no expertise in anything really - just lots of new business functions alien to anybody there. So consultants were brought in en masse, overseen by consultant-ignorant management. Unfortunately, they brought in a raft of second and third rate consultancies, and avoided the big 6 due to their extremely high fees. The consultancies really had no idea, except how to get lots of bums on seats - those (2nd and 3rd rated) consultancies themselves hired quickly with little selection - it really was madness. One 'consultant' walked in from her previous job as a housing officer, deciding who got a council house. Another was the week before a legal secretary. Yet another had been on a 3 week induction program after graduating. And that was at a supplier who survived, presumably those at Independent Energy (which quickly went bust, as we at NGC, who hired industry knowledgeable consultants from the big 6) knew it would) were even more amateur.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that the situation the op describes is due to the upper management with little or no idea of what's happening rubber stamping what some second rate consultancy has advised based on criteria benefiting the consultancy, not the supplier. That's if the advice is based on anything at all.