Charity Sector

[oscarose]

To all at CUK,

I’ve contracted in both the public and private sectors and thought a contract in the charity sector would be welcome change from the dead wood in public and de-humanisation of private but alas the worm has turned.

To cut a long story short I’ve been contracting with this charity for 7 months (with 2 extensions) and 2 months left and somehow I’m public enemy no.1 despite doing the best for the client. Apparently, the last IT team were a shambles and were culled and a new team put in place, lead by a 3rd party consultancy…

So basically, the head of IT is a supplier. This is a something I’ve never come across before and seemed a strange set-up. The head of IT comes in once a week and seems to grease up the new IT manager (a novice) appointed by the 3rd party supplier head.

This came to a head around 2-3 weeks ago as the 3rd party is trying to sell in replacement system for a highly bespoke application ops are reliant on with a off the shelf solution. I strongly objected as no shrink wrapped solution could ever replace such a complex application but was muted during a meeting and then frozen out of the project.

I have very good relationships with all other teams within the organisation and delivered time saving apps. I voiced my opinions to others in the business as I refuse to be muted as always do my best for the client. This has been 'leaked' to the new IT manager and the 3rd party IT head and since I’ve been ’sent to Coventry’ (by the way this is water of a duck’s back to me personally).

On one hand the naivety of the new IT manager is quite funny but not so funny the 3rd party is seemingly lining their pockets at the expense of a charity.

Any ideas on how to proceed?

[craig1]

First up, that's what suppliers do: get every bean possible out of the client.

Second, for smaller organisations, COTS software is usually preferable as it's far cheaper to support. The more customised it is, the more expensive it is to maintain and support. What are their ongoing support costs for the existing app?

Third, have you seen the business case behind this? Surely the pros and cons have been sold to the client. If the client cares that little about IT that it has outsourced its management then they're not going to care about highly customised bits of kit, generic will do, just like their IT.

Finally, you're a contractor. I can understand you getting highly defensive about something if you're an insider but as a contractor you're there to do a specific job. If part of that job is as strategic or tactical advisor on their IT systems then you get a say, if you're there as almost anything else then it's often not your place. The only credible way you can do it is formally by setting out pros and cons of the new solution, getting emotional in defence will always isolate you as a contractor.

[oscarose]

First up, that's what suppliers do: get every bean possible out of the client.

Second, for smaller organisations, COTS software is usually preferable as it's far cheaper to support. The more customised it is, the more expensive it is to maintain and support. What are their ongoing support costs for the existing app?

Third, have you seen the business case behind this? Surely the pros and cons have been sold to the client. If the client cares that little about IT that it has outsourced its management then they're not going to care about highly customised bits of kit, generic will do, just like their IT.

Finally, you're a contractor. I can understand you getting highly defensive about something if you're an insider but as a contractor you're there to do a specific job. If part of that job is as strategic or tactical advisor on their IT systems then you get a say, if you're there as almost anything else then it's often not your place. The only credible way you can do it is formally by setting out pros and cons of the new solution, getting emotional in defence will always isolate you as a contractor.

1. Agreed.
2. I know the pros and cons of 'off the shelf' vs. 'bespoke' development.
3. Yes, I've seen the business case and the 3rd party supplier is blagging the client. The application is extremely complex and in my estimation 5-10% functionality maybe could be bought off the shelf.
4. I'm not emotionally involved. I'm a supplier to the client just as the other 3rd party.

Looks like I'll be moving on in 2 months time despite getting good results within the business for the client.

[oscarose]

If the client cares that little about IT that it has outsourced its management then they're not going to care about highly customised bits of kit, generic will do, just like their IT.

The point is the highly customised bit of kit is the main application used by operations without which they couldn't function. But I do take on board your opinion Craig, I'm a contractor and not my problem and I've done the work I was contracted for. Time to shut up, see out the remaining 2 months and get the CV updated. Shame as was a good contract otherwise.

[TheFaQQer]

If the client cannot see that the off the shelf application cannot do what they need it to do, then either they are oblivious to their needs, or they are being misled.

All you can really do is to recommend to the client / operations team that they need to make a list of everything that they need the software to do, and then make sure that they evaluate the software properly. Once you have done that, there's not much more that you can do, apart from count down to departure.

[oscarose]

If the client cannot see that the off the shelf application cannot do what they need it to do, then either they are oblivious to their needs, or they are being misled.

All you can really do is to recommend to the client / operations team that they need to make a list of everything that they need the software to do, and then make sure that they evaluate the software properly. Once you have done that, there's not much more that you can do, apart from count down to departure.

I have already written formally to the IT manager raising my concerns objectively but fallen on deaf ears as just a puppet to the 3rd party head.

I have spoken to the operations team, in confidence, to advise them to list all their requirements and not to be blagged when it comes to product evaluations and demonstrations and they are in agreement with my standpoint (unfortunately this was leaked). The general feeling within operations is the 3rd party know that an off the shelf solution is not possible and the 3rd party supplier are indeed attempting to write it themselves but they do not understand the business complexity to be able to achieve this and are billing the charity a fortune for the pleasure.

So, will probably end in war between operations and IT, with the end result being the new solution will not be fit for purpose and they will carry on with the old system.

Countdown started...

[Freamon]

It's sad really, but the big suppliers will always do this, even with charities. One very well known charity that shows concern towards old people went bust recently thanks to a catastrophic project run by a very well known three letter big IT systems integrator. The relationship broke down, the SI had a better legal team, and the legal fees spent by the charity pretty much put them out of business.

[oscarose]

It's sad really, but the big suppliers will always do this, even with charities. One very well known charity that shows concern towards old people went bust recently thanks to a catastrophic project run by a very well known three letter big IT systems integrator. The relationship broke down, the SI had a better legal team, and the legal fees spent by the charity pretty much put them out of business.

Agreed, that's why I'm split. One half says I'm a contractor and move on, the other says take out the other 3rd party.

[wim121]

Charities get all they deserve. Why lose any sleep over it? Let them screw things up.

One less charity in the world makes it a better place.

[oscarose]

One less charity in the world makes it a better place.

How is the world a better place?

If people with a cash surplus want to help others put food on their plates, what's the problem?

Please explain your reasoning.

Thanks, Oscar.