Challenging the new HMRC guidance on SDC

[tomtomagain]

From the link:


A major concern with the HMRC guidance is the last example of a house builder, in which the individual is subject to site rules, is told what jobs need doing that day, and is shown plans and specifications. According to HMRC this is sufficient for there to be SDC, in which case the construction industry has a huge problem.

Seems unworkable, but knowing HMRC...

qh

Well if that is the criteria then everybody is caught.

By that definition everyone working in an organisation is subject to some level of SDC. Because that is what an organisation is - a collection of people, working together, following a common culture, practices & procedures, to achieve a common aim.

Otherwise a company would just be a bunch of people who turned up at the same place each day.

[Ketto]

Challenging the new HMRC guidance on SDC

And did whatever work they felt like!

[GB9]

But the significant element is that HMRC is trying to change the definition of SDC. Following a plan is not SDC under current rulings.

Being told HOW to do that work would be.

Being told that today you are project x but tomorrow we are moving you to project y for a couple days would be.

But if you are signed up to a project that has a plan that says you deliver e.g. a Web interface by a week Friday, and you are left to get on with it yourself, then SDC as it currently stands is unlikely to apply.

[tomtomagain]

But if you are signed up to a project that has a plan that says you deliver e.g. a Web interface by a week Friday, and you are left to get on with it yourself, then SDC as it currently stands is unlikely to apply.

That's just it though. In real-life, unless it's a really small project then there is always SDC.

Back in the day I ran a development team of around 25 contractor developers.

There was "Supervision" - ensuring people turned up, did the work they were being paid to do. Making sure the work was up to standard.

There was "Direction" - use this technology, fit in with this design, take this approach.

The was "Control" - follow the company HSE policies, attend the planning sessions, reassigning priorities.


None of this was control-freakery or micromanagement - that's not my style - it's just the normal, everyday practices that you need to have in place to run a team doing complex things in a complex environment.


I guess we'll just have to see this tested in court over the coming years to get a clear idea of what it really means.

[GB9]

That's just it though. In real-life, unless it's a really small project then there is always SDC.

Back in the day I ran a development team of around 25 contractor developers.

There was "Supervision" - ensuring people turned up, did the work they were being paid to do. Making sure the work was up to standard.

There was "Direction" - use this technology, fit in with this design, take this approach.

The was "Control" - follow the company HSE policies, attend the planning sessions, reassigning priorities.


None of this was control-freakery or micromanagement - that's not my style - it's just the normal, everyday practices that you need to have in place to run a team doing complex things in a complex environment.


I guess we'll just have to see this tested in court over the coming years to get a clear idea of what it really means.

So that comes down to the make up of the team and how the organisation works.

I don't supervise people on the way you suggest. I don't check the time they come in or go home etc. I have a feel for how much they deliver and if they were taking the pee I would notice, but with a team of 45 I'm not wasting time monitoring each.

Direction. Most of what you state wouldn't currently be regarded as direction. The bit that would be is 'do it this way'. I tend to state the outcome I want and let people get on and do it how they want. As long as the outcome is acceptable what does it matter how it was done?

HSE and mandatory training isn't regarded as control. Even prioritisation is borderline. Moving people from one task to another on a daily basis would be.

The thing is, these are all current definitions that have been tested in legal cases. HMRC knows this and hence is just rewriting definitions. And throwing in that it only needs to be one of the 3, that it only needs to be the right to do so, and the assumption that it exists by default, prove otherwise.

[tomtomagain]

I tend to state the outcome I want and let people get on and do it how they want. As long as the outcome is acceptable what does it matter how it was done?

Does it matter how it was done? I'd say "Yes absolutely". You can achieve the "right result" but in the wrong way.

You can make the sale through bribery. You can get agreement through coercion.

Or a more mundane example you could ask a developer to build a site to do "X" and he could build it using a completely different technology stack to the one the rest of the organisation uses. That would be the right outcome, the wrong way.

[GB9]

Does it matter how it was done? I'd say "Yes absolutely". You can achieve the "right result" but in the wrong way.

You can make the sale through bribery. You can get agreement through coercion.

Or a more mundane example you could ask a developer to build a site to do "X" and he could build it using a completely different technology stack to the one the rest of the organisation uses. That would be the right outcome, the wrong way.

Every client I have ever worked with has managed to get resource in that uses the correct stack. Oracle organisations tend to look for Oracle developers etc.

Everyone has their own nuances. If the code passes test and the documentation is good then I don't care how they did it.

[tomtomagain]

Here's some stuff from HRMC.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...manual/esm2057

Anyone else think Scenario 1. Is completely unrealistic? A Company hires a 3rd party and agrees that he has complete control over what the "website" for that company will look like. Without any reviews or intervention allowed.

[tomtomagain]

Everyone has their own nuances. If the code passes test and the documentation is good then I don't care how they did it.

Seriously? You had a team of 45 and everyone was allowed to work without supervision, direction or control? No common practices, shared architectures, code reviews, centralised bug-tracking,time-tracking, UAT processes, project plans or budgets.

No trying to learn lessons from past successes or failures. My reading of sceanrio 2 in the HMRC link I provided is that trying to pass on some shared learning would count as "Direction".

All of the above seem to point to SDC.

Scenario 2 is more realistic. Jacqueline ( although they portray her as a micro-manager ) set's Paul a task and then checks it once he's completed it. If it's not right ( doesn't pass the tests ) she can ask him to do it again.

But the key thing for me is this: It's entirely up to the hiring company to decide whether someone is under SDC and I really cannot imagine that many companies hiring 3rd parties would say:

"We hire 3rd parties, we do not supervise them, we do not direct them and we do not control them". That's just not realistic.

Imagine this : The project goes tits-up and when the budget holder says "Why have you spent all my money Mr IT Director and not delivered what we needed?" the hapless IT director replies "Well, we had this independent guy in but we didn't bother to supervise him and we didn't give him direction and we thought it would be better if we didn't enforce any control".

[malvolio]

I think are missing an essential detail here. If everyone has to adhere to the same requirement - for example, which software stack to use or which quality standards to meet - then there is no control in the sense of "you, Mr Contractor, will do it my way". The SDC test is (or should be) applied to the individual contractor's engagement; if he's doing the same as everyone else he is not being controlled individually. It's no different to HSE policies in that regard.

As for Supervision and Direction they are so nebulous that you can argue they don't exist, until someone takes a case and defines what is reasonable. For example, checking someone has actually delivered work on time compared to checking what time they came through the door when they went out. Both require supervision...