Stop bitching about firearms fees - we need computerisation

[Polchraine]

E.g. why do I (not only a vetted shooter, but with a string of other HMG vettings) have to have FOUR separate certificates to go about my shooting activities? (SGC, FAC, RFD, RFD alternative place of business, etc).

At least with the new combined single FAC & SGC application can be made. Although it still does produce two certificates. They did it with the form, so why not a single certificate with two sections one of which can be completed struck through in the printing process if not required.

[Gaz]

I doubt that there is any political or Police (if there is a difference...) will to make firearms licensing easier or more efficient - this is simply about budget gap and the difficulty of increasing fees for a service that is so bad that even the media notice.

I'm not so sure. I'm willing to give Andy Marsh the benefit of the doubt on this one (and you know what my view on police trustworthiness is!) - certainly he makes the right noises about improving efficiency for "the licensed firearms community" (a phrase of his which I'm shamelessly stealing because it sums up shooters exceptionally well) and reducing overhead costs. He even admitted on (iirc) Radio 5 Live that the £200 figure was quite a long way from the truth, and that revised FAC grant costs would stay firmly in the double figures. I hesitate to say the exact figure I think he said in case that gets taken as fact, but it wasn't much higher than the present £50.

I do think the majority of police are more interested in squeezing us cash cows harder - which, interestingly, Marsh denied after I floated that idea. With the Lib Dem Minister for UFOs recently put in charge of firearms licensing, politicians are only interested in "punishing the bloodthirsty toffs", as Labour and the Lib Dems' deluded class warriors see us, but I don't think the cards are stacked as heavily against us as we might believe.

[bigfathairybiker]

Hmmm... if the police get a computerised system it would probably cost several million quid which would probably be added to the firearms fees.

Mark

[Fedaykin]

I know there is reticence about introducing computerised systems especially with some of the spectacular c0ck ups in the public sector over the years implementing them. But we are now in a Chicken and an egg scenario where the benefits of a computerised system as proven by the DVLA outweigh the negatives of implementation.

So what do people think of my card and paper counterpart suggestion?

I was at Norman Clarkes a week or so ago and whilst chatting with one of their bods he said it would be fantastic if people buying ammo just had a simple driving licence style card. It would make their life so much easier then it currently is.

On a side note Norman Clarke has some really interesting ammo in at the moment. .223 62gr HPBT Remington Premier Match for example. Unfortunately I was only able to buy a couple of boxes as I had already nearly maxed out my allocation.

[majordisorder]

[quote="Fedaykin"]I know there is reticence about introducing computerised systems especially with some of the spectacular c0ck ups in the public sector over the years implementing them. But we are now in a Chicken and an egg scenario where the benefits of a computerised system as proven by the DVLA outweigh the negatives of implementation.
quote]

Public sector computerisation project fail for two reasons.

1) They're specified and developed by the massive SI's like Accenture, Capita, Cap etc
2) In my experience the public sector staff "responsible" for these project are scared of making any meaningful decisions and going beyond the absolute minimum effort required to stay employed.

If you want it doing give it to a small/mid size consultancy, save about £20m and deliver it in a third of the time.

[Polchraine]

If you want it doing give it to a small/mid size consultancy, save about £20m and deliver it in a third of the time.

Cannot argue with that!

We had to have a billing system developed ... and going to a medium size company resulted in a system that was way cheaper, arrived early and WORKED!

[SevenSixTwo]

Are we sure the majority of of British shooters could cope with 'computerisation'? I'm not convinced. Willing to bet 50% don't even have an email address.

[SevenSixTwo]

If you want it doing give it to a small/mid size consultancy, save about £20m and deliver it in a third of the time.

G4S already do it in some counties. I wonder if the public know?

[GazMorris]

1) They're specified and developed by the massive SI's like Accenture, Capita, Cap etc
2) In my experience the public sector staff "responsible" for these project are scared of making any meaningful decisions and going beyond the absolute minimum effort required to stay employed.

Agree wholeheartedly with #2 having worked on at least one public sector project which made me go I thought that I was brought it to review a certain flagship project's purpose, progress and management. Actually no, as far as I ever worked out why I was brought in it was to write a glowing report so that the programme's SRO (the person ultimately accountable for the project) could get promoted into the senior civil service. Nothing like knowing that your taxes are well spent.

Pretty much completely disagree with #1 (disclaimer, I used to work for one of the SIs mentioned) as I've seen big consultancies do a great job and middle-sized ones do a crap job, as well as the reverse. The reason you hear more about big SIs screwing up is self-selection: they tend to only work on big projects which therefore make the news when they go tits up, and the public sector tend to use them for big IT implementation & BPO (outsourcing) gigs which have a bad reputation for going wrong owing to their sheer size and complexity, because government procurement guidelines discriminate heavily against companies that would go bust if you sued the crap out of them. Not, of course, that the government ever do sue the crap out of them because the depths of incompetence involved would then be revealed to all and sundry.

In one recent example, I was brought in to review a merchandising & supply chain system implementation which went horribly wrong when the medium-sized firm involved decided that change control and (amongst other things) could go out of the window. It wasn't clever and it wasn't pretty, but the look on the IT director's face will stay with me forever when told that pretty much the entire project would have to be binned and he'd wasted about £5m.

Bottom line: Projects are risky. The bigger the project, the riskier it is. Beware when getting any kind of consultant in to work for you, as all firms are structured in such a way that selling is better rewarded than delivery (NB - They may not start out like this, but they pretty much all end up like this.)

T'other Gaz

[Demonic69]

The Mid-sized companies are invited to tender just as the larger ones are. How they can lose out on price biddings but offer a cheaper solution in a shorter time frame is beyond me.
The problem with doing anything for the government or any large organisation is the constantly shifting goal posts. I am currently, and have previously worked on large public and private outsourced systems and the nightmare comes when we're in the middle of implementation and extra bits are bolted on, removed or changed entirely from the original spec. Sadly, the gents at the top with the very nice cars and a wonderful bonus scheme are too busy saying "Yes" and nodding like morons to realise this will end up costing us in the long run. Luckily for them any major screw ups result in a golden handshake and a move to another company doing the exact same, appalling, job.
The clients play just as much of a role in this though. If they just decided what they wanted, accepted the quote and then stopped meddling their projects would stand a much better chance of completion.

If they decide to computerise the firearms process they need to think long and hard about how it will work, then stick to the plan and tweak afterwards if necessary. Ideally they'd get someone au fait with the current system and the home office guidance, instead of some ponce in an expensive suit with no clue and an unhealthy love of buzz-words.