Telegraph:"JPA not fit for purpose - fraud and errors"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by soleil, Jul 21, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. One SSA with whom we communicate puts the follwowing on his memos, E-mails etc:

    "JPA- the living dream"
    together with a picture of a demented person.

    Sums up JPA quite nicely.
     
  2. Interesting concept, on the one hand the system is open to abuse yet in another area the audit and control system is overly complex and liable to error...

    So which is more of a problem?

    One wonders how much it would cost to increase the audit controls in JPA, and at what point it costs more than it saves.
     
  3. The only consistency is that every system in place within Britain has at least some degree of error, either during operation or in the original design.

    I beleive that for every 100% completed software, up to 20% of the coding is either unaccounted for or faulty (this ver batim from a senior developer in BAE). This doesn't mean the system won't work, merely that it is not 100% accurate. Can think of it like this: I have purposely spelled 'believe' wrongly in the first sentence of this paragraph. Yet, the function of this paragraph is clear despite the relatively small error.

    I agree that JPA really should get themselves sorted out quickly and cost-efficiently as possible. I'm not surprised we're eventually digressing into areas other than parliament/banks for the next fraud/expenses scandal. In fact, there were articles on the BBC bosses' expenses very recently if I recall correctly.
     
  4. Prior to introduction JPA were adamant that the processes would rule out fraud! Even at that stage everyone (possibly a sweeping statement but everyone I knew) that was involved in public accounting knew it was open to abuse and would never have the effectiveness of the managed and "first line" audited SPA. It did remove lots of line number though, didn't it!!

    IMD
     
  5. Not in any meeting on the subject I was at. There was a figure in the business case that identified an acceptable loss through fraud, essentially balanced against the cost of audit. By saving x on manpower we accepted that we'd (as in, the MOD) leave ourselves vulnerable to y loss through fraud.

    My involvement was only peripheral but I remember vividly a discussion amongst a slack handful of 1*s about the figure and the savings.

    Not as many as it was originally supposed to in the business case. as a result of the above conversation a significant number weren't deleted. In principle the RN was supposed to then find compensating savings elsewhere, but that turned into an exercise in all too difficult and didn't happen.
     
  6. JPA- what a joke. Months of no pay for anyone who wants to traner units, or services for that matter. (300 something numbers are now tri service).
     
  7. witsend

    witsend War Hero Book Reviewer

    Personally I've never had any problems with JPA, but some of my oppo's are not big fans. Don't worry it will be fixed by next year! :roll:
     
  8. I am one of those who loathe it. I have great misgivings about using the 'official workarounds' that we are told to follow to claim for legitimate expenditure - such as claiming for taxis under GYH(S) - Rail Fares because GYH(S) - Taxis does not exist, or claiming incidentals whilst alongside under Other Duty Travel, when quite clearly it is not. Having to do this because JPA is not fit for the purpose for which it is being used and claiming at a later date "I checked with the UPO, and they said it was alright." has the same ring to it as the MPs who said "I checked with the Claims Office, and they said it was alright to switch my main residence three times in three years, charge the cleaning of my swimming pool to the taxpayer, and claim for a mortgage that I didn't have."
     
  9. OK rule out fraud is a little strong and the meetings and briefings I had were at SO1/2 level but FLEET were confident that the self audit, spot checks, then audit would prevent any increase in the then current level of fraud. Of course they also thought that Mne/AB Oneandonlyclaimever would keep his receipts safe for several years. Yes tri-service allowances, aligned pay, etc, etc but I would need to see in black and white; countersigned by the Arch Angel Gabriel; any document that claims that a major consideration of the introduction of JPA was not the saving of personnel capitation costs. Were other jobs, outwith the uniformed RN, lost as a result of the system? (Not that I cared for the way Centurion, etc ran or catered for the needs of the operational RN.)
    PAS and SPA; neither perfect but workable systems nonetheless; were the basis (allegedly) of the software so why does it have so many issues not apparent in the "parents"?

    IMD
     
  10. Probably for the same reason that most MOD projects fail - they take a perfectly good, over-the-counter civvy system and wreck it by inserting extras because the military is special! Special needs, more like!
     
  11. I can't understand why we accepted it.

    EDS was contracted to provide software.
    The software doesn't do what it was meant to do, and still isn't right despite God-knows how many fixes.

    Why was EDS paid? The product does not do what is was supposed to do. Connectivity problems are rife, the system is painfully slow, and those of us not lucky enough to sit behind a DII terminal all day have major issues claiming things, never mind do appraisals.

    In private industry, EDS would have been told to go back to the drawing board and sort it out well before money changed hands. Why did this not happen?
     
  12. A few of the meetings that I had the misfortune to attend left me stunned by the naivety about the impact of the audit thresholds and the business change involved in introduction. I was very glad I had little to do with the project and was only really involved in working out what we did about it in practice. There were lots of issues not thought about, although the main one for me was the complete absence of any thinking about people not sitting in offices in the UK, even then performance initially was dreadful.

    Headcount reduction was a fairly significant part of the business case, although as ever that was smoke and mirrors since we didn't reduce headcount we just moved it to a different budget.

    Yes, all three services lost people directly involved and there were CS reductions as well, but the same principle applies, in practice they moved elsewhere or there was a small level of natural wastage, which I think abated over about 5 years.

    JPA is based on Oracle HR, I've no idea what those were based on.
     

Share This Page