The SAP anti competition argument

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

chanz4 wrote:

... it wont be sap that sends out the contracts

I don't know what system npower are using.
By "system" I mean the I mean the people,
processes and procedures together with npower's computers.

I do know that I've not been sent a Contract.

I phoned npower (on 17 August 2012). Many people phone npower: some don't have access to the Internet. I expected to be sent a Contract. After waiting a month I phoned them again. To start with both npower and I thought that a likely explanation was that the Contract was 'lost in the post'.

In the 8 most recent phone conversations I have had npower have
confirmed three things, on every call:

A. I should have been sent a Contract.
B. npower's staff want to send me a Contract.
C. They are unable to send either my original Contract or a copy of my Contract.

I believe them.

There is much more detail in the other thread.
npower have not refuted any of the factual points in that thread
nor have they commented on the number of Telephone Customers who npower have switched without sending them a Contract.

Some more experienced and more knowledgeable Posters here are beginning to think their 'new system' might be 'broken': I've alleged it is "not fit for purpose".
Part of the 'IT side' of the 'new system' might have have some SAP software.

The OP, in this thread, is hinting that purchasing SAP as part of
npower's 'new system' was not a good use of money.

In the FAQ section of npower's site there is this:

What happens when I switch to npower?
http://customerservices.npower.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/292

"When you've switched to npower, these are the next steps:

Within 7-10 days

· We'll send you a copy of your contract containing the details you have provided, along with our Terms and Conditions."

So, npower's 'new system' can't follow npower's own procedures. The FAQ is in line with the SLCs.

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

davehsug

Friends I know at know at npower are horrified! Hard to believe I know but they were gradually improving their customer service & the staff were quite proud of their achievements.
I've been told experienced staff with many years service have been brought virtually to tears by SAP. They can't work it, don't understand it & foresee absolute disaster.

backfoot

chanz4 wrote: »

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

Which system is it ?

Terrylw1

Some facts I know of:

- SAP has some restrictions in that a lot of it is not IPR owned by suppliers, so each is inheriting the same issues.
- SAP was largely based on Australian & Indian markets which are not the same.
- there are a lot of SAP consultants drifted from one implementation to another hence taking their problems to each one. Many of them have no real experience of the sector.
- which takes me nicely onto...staff are being pulled in from the actual supply business to seconded posts...again, based on interviews, not the fact they have the suitable knowledge of the industry to be involved.
- which means SAP consultants are largely acting in a process creation or change management role.
- I've noticed that these people are quite happy to sacrifice objections from the business in order to hit a deadline, thus releasing a turkey!
- the business people (the ones who do the real work, not the highly political senior management) are completely frustrated with these system implementations.
- SAP has a lot of instability issues.
- certain SAP products such as the externally IPR owned DTS have ridiculous upper limits on data flows which are completely useless in this sector.
- due to all the issues, the implementations are taking far longer than expected. Npower as far as I know are a year beyond their plan even if they don't slip any further. Can you imagine the cost of all that as its a major task. It certainly isn't the £200k+ that they quoted since that was based on the target date.
- due to the inexperience of those involved, many builds are worse than the previous system.
- a large proportion of business improvements that occurred after this design started, has been lost as its too late. Not all may even make it into later releases.
- its a step backward because it is so heavily organised into roles & permissions that its taken away a lot of the processes that existing staff can already do. Its removed end-to-end working hence destroyed process ownership and undone many of the process & culture improvements made over the years. Staff now do a part of a process they would have completed, pass it to someone else to do another part, then it comes back to them to finish it. Its crazy and inefficient. You hit a process backlog to be partially actioned and passes to another process backlog, etc.

So, its chaos.

I really see it as a massive gravy train for consultants and promotion chasers.

Bgas can blame themselves in many ways because their complaint was that they had too many rejections which cause them to backlog badly. Well, perhaps they should have checked what they were buying and managed it all properly...they might be consultants but you are paying them to do a job so you should be checking they are fulfilling your requirements!

I really think this should be handled by Ofgem because the impact of such large implementations can be large to service & costs...and that's all passed onto the consumer...

Terrylw1

grahamc2003 wrote: »

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.

That differs to my experience of deregulation.

The supply staff knew how to use the billing system fine but they lost access to other systems they depended on such as MOP booking systems.

Its very true that we had loads of alien processes but these were alien to all parties, not just suppliers as no one used data flows prior to this.

Sure, engineers were still engineers, but the rest changed completely with all the new processes under the MRA & BSC. Many were reinventions of previous processes but it seemed more complicated.

I would say that even now, the industry had got to a standard where it could say the impact of 1998 isn't felt. Continual changes & new practices have just prolonged getting things in order.

SAP though, I do agree, as its certainly as you describe from my experience. The consultants ate earning a packet and many of them have no clue...the business have to watch what they are up to otherwise they are becoming more inefficient!

brewerdave

I used SAP s/ware briefly about 8 years ago in a Production environment -TOTALLY unsuitable, but we were forced to use it because some t**/8r on the Board had bought into it to provide an "integrated MRP solution" involving Finance/Sales/Production & Distribution. What actually happened, on a very regular basis, was that some high level reports would create an apparent black hole in the Company finances - Mayhem would result,we would investigate and identify yet another glitch in the production system as applied -which invariably resulted in a !!!!!!!ised fix on a one off basis.After a year or so, NO-ONE understood what the hell was happening and the production reports were completely valueless to anyone!!When the production side was sold off we instituted controls based on Excel spreadsheets -worked much better!!!

chanz4

Terrylw1 wrote: »

That differs to my experience of deregulation.

The supply staff knew how to use the billing system fine but they lost access to other systems they depended on such as MOP booking systems.

Its very true that we had loads of alien processes but these were alien to all parties, not just suppliers as no one used data flows prior to this.

Sure, engineers were still engineers, but the rest changed completely with all the new processes under the MRA & BSC. Many were reinventions of previous processes but it seemed more complicated.

I would say that even now, the industry had got to a standard where it could say the impact of 1998 isn't felt. Continual changes & new practices have just prolonged getting things in order.

SAP though, I do agree, as its certainly as you describe from my experience. The consultants ate earning a packet and many of them have no clue...the business have to watch what they are up to otherwise they are becoming more inefficient!

It does not work with formfill either, someone was saying to me the other day that all has togo through dts to book a job

steve-L

1) Drive to cut costs
2) Lets make people redundant
3) We need a more efficient system
4) What is everyone else using....

5) They discover SAP, probably pay a consultant to tell them that....
6) Noone asks if it actually working.....
7) Consultant who has implemented failed system then recommends same failures in new system
8) Noone has defined the actual business processes that SAP is going to automate... because 'everyone knows'
9) SAP say how the have a P2P (or whatever) process and they have a module that covers this...
10) Noone asks if it actually does.... because it never does and company will need other software as well.
11) system gets put in .. costs lots and doesn't work as it should nor actually make anyones life easier - several million potentially down the drain BUT....
12) SAP consultants say if they spend a few more million they can fit it.
13) In order to recoup costs for a failed system they try and increase ROI by applying to other parts of the business...logic is we have SAP but it will give a better ROI if we use it for Financial Management and HR and ......
14) Several more million and now the companies internal finance and HR are also crippled.
15) Ooops.....

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

It does not work with formfill either, someone was saying to me the other day that all has togo through dts to book a job

Formfill can still work as usual but they are incorporating its functionality into SAP.

DTS just does the flow routing & file management really. You still need transactions in the billing/account management systems so the user can raise jobs to link to DTS to send the data flows.

So, they are trying to ditch the Formfill licences to save on costs. I'm not convinced given the SAP builds have been so bad.

DTS is pretty easy to use but its nothing special and its daily file levels are ridiculously low. Once you exceed the limit, you've lost the data!

backfoot

chanz4 wrote: »

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

You didn't answer the previous question.

Which system is it that sends out the contracts?