IT geeks unite - is this an option?

[davebullet]

Collecting levies on vehicle licensing seems to be generally poo pooed.

People seem to be leaning toward a combo job of petrol levy and driver license levy as a better solution than a per vehicle amount.

I am assuming the government will avoid the above because implementing the IT system is costly (or they can milk the revenue they think they need through existing means - so why change it).

Should the KB geeks get together and cost a solution to collect revenue via the above alternative means? I'm sure we could make it viable and not bloat the IT cost like the usual big consulting firms do. Viable? Anything in it for the government? (otherwise they won't do it).

[FJRider]

Perhaps "Personal" levy's ... the more accidents you have ... the more time you spend on ACC "benefit" ...the more you pay in levy's.

[paddy]

Collecting levies on vehicle licensing seems to be generally poo pooed.

People seem to be leaning toward a combo job of petrol levy and driver license levy as a better solution than a per vehicle amount.

I am assuming the government will avoid the above because implementing the IT system is costly (or they can milk the revenue they think they need through existing means - so why change it).

Should the KB geeks get together and cost a solution to collect revenue via the above alternative means? I'm sure we could make it viable and not bloat the IT cost like the usual big consulting firms do. Viable? Anything in it for the government? (otherwise they won't do it).

I would tend to suggest that anyone who labels him or her self a "geek" would typically not be capable of the degree of formality required for such a proposal. I also tend to think that their are many reasons that the government may or may not choose a given option. The cost of implementing a particular IT system is only part of the picture

Even staying with the IT theme, there is still a lot more to it than first meets the eye. You need to consider the cost of hardware, software, user training, BAU support, BCP/DR, integration... Before you get anywhere near that you would need to perform a Current State Assessment, a Future State Assessment, and a Gap Analysis. This alone would require considerable access to the appropriate staff within a variety of government agencies. Even if you could get it to that state, it would probably still need to go through an RFP process - you might not even win the work.

Just my thoughts though. I'm not trying to discourage you, just the idea is probably a little big especially for the approach you are considering.

[Mom]

Perhaps "Personal" levy's ... the more accidents you have ... the more time you spend on ACC "benefit" ...the more you pay in levy's.

The dishonourable Nick Smith told us plainly on Monday night that ACC is an insurance scheme. I want to know where my no claims bonus is if that is the case.

The change to insurance if indeed it has happened (though I note that JJ has stopped using Acc Insurance in his signature) was done without a mandate. ACC is not an Insurance scheme, it is a no fault Accident Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme.

We all contribute equally. For us that means one levy for all contributors to the scheme no matter what mode of transport we use.

[dpex]

We all contribute equally. For us that means one levy for all contributors to the scheme no matter what mode of transport we use.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Mom, you are utterly wrong. We do not all contribute equally, and that is what is so wrong about the ACC levy system.

[sedge]

Before you get anywhere near that you would need to perform a Current State Assessment, a Future State Assessment, and a Gap Analysis.

Spot the vendor. Probably project manager or technical BA.

Sedge :)

[yachtie10]

as an unemployed IT Geek I would love to tackle the issue.
But as you probably know this is a potential INCIS in the making
only the big vendors would normally be able to take this on with any credibility

[mikeey01]

Collecting levies on vehicle licensing seems to be generally poo pooed.

People seem to be leaning toward a combo job of petrol levy and driver license levy as a better solution than a per vehicle amount.

I am assuming the government will avoid the above because implementing the IT system is costly (or they can milk the revenue they think they need through existing means - so why change it).

Should the KB geeks get together and cost a solution to collect revenue via the above alternative means? I'm sure we could make it viable and not bloat the IT cost like the usual big consulting firms do. Viable? Anything in it for the government? (otherwise they won't do it).

Come up with an idea to help collect revenue?
Hello :blank: your joking, right?

[James Deuce]

We all contribute equally. For us that means one levy for all contributors to the scheme no matter what mode of transport we use.


Sorry Mom, you are utterly wrong. We do not all contribute equally, and that is what is so wrong about the ACC levy system.

Read it again.

[paddy]

Spot the vendor. Probably project manager or technical BA.

Sedge :)

Close-ish but not quite. :-)

[davebullet]

Sure - you can bloat anything if you want. Add enough paper and process (which governments like to do for one of two reasons 1. butt covering or 2. lining your mate's pockets). At the end of the day, all that paper doesn't help produce working software and end users don't actually use the paper, they use the system.

PS: Re hardware - just throw it all in the cloud (rent per month, tax deductible etc.. etc...)

[Mully]

My understanding is that Gummint's position on changes to the tax laws being considered is that they must be revenue neutral.

I would suggest this would be the same - and must therefore collect more to offset the administration required (if we're talking about licence renewal annually with a levy payable)

The trouble is, we'd have to pull an admin figure out of our collective arses in order to "price" the potential up - and Gummint's admin costs have a habit of spiralling out of control.

[James Deuce]

I'm not really understanding the approach. NZ Government Ministries are required to tender for services in response to a fairly clear plan that has been approved by the Minister, especially for for large projects that affect Government revenue.

One does not cold-call the Government with a good idea.

[James Deuce]

PS: Re hardware - just throw it all in the cloud (rent per month, tax deductible etc.. etc...)
GCSB have a lot to say about cloud computing in regard to Government usage and not much of it is good. The biggest stumbling block is that Doris' work is one password away.

[paddy]

Sure - you can bloat anything if you want. Add enough paper and process (which governments like to do for one of two reasons 1. butt covering or 2. lining your mate's pockets). At the end of the day, all that paper doesn't help produce working software and end users don't actually use the paper, they use the system.

3. Because they are very large organisations and there are typically many different parties to coordinate.



PS: Re hardware - just throw it all in the cloud (rent per month, tax deductible etc.. etc...)

What's the SLA? When you pay $10 a month, you can only expect $10 per month worth of service. Sure you often might get better than that, especially with a large provider, but when push comes to shove, you get no more clout with your supplier than I do when I sent an email to Amazon because something is wrong with my S3 bucket.

[Tank]

What's the SLA? When you pay $10 a month, you can only expect $10 per month worth of service. Sure you often might get better than that, especially with a large provider, but when push comes to shove, you get no more clout with your supplier than I do when I sent an email to Amazon because something is wrong with my S3 bucket.

15 post in and already people are disagreeing on something as hardware platforms.

Im a thunking there isnt a chance EDS or the like are going to be worrying about the united Kiwibiker geeks just yet.

[paddy]

Im a thunking there isnt a chance EDS or the like are going to be worrying about the united Kiwibiker geeks just yet.

You mean HP.... :-)

[Tank]

You mean HP.... :-)

Yep - Hard to go with the name change after working with them so long.

I used to consult for HP to Merchant banks in the UK for a while.

I can sell billable hours like you wouldn't believe!

[paddy]

Yep - Hard to go with the name change after working with them so long.

It's the procedures and policy changes that are a real pain in the neck. New datacentre inductions, new contacts, new escalation procedures, new hardware installation procedures, new...

[jeffs]

Providing, Hardware, software and services will not change the mindset. Given the scale, there are only 3 players in NZ who can do the IT stuff.

IT costs are a very small part of the ACC budget, and they don't actually run it, they outsource it.
Nice thought though :)

[paddy]

IT costs are a very small part of the ACC budget, and they don't actually run it, they outsource it.
Nice thought though

Yes, the rest of their budget gets blown on financing motorcycle accidents. So I've heard anyway.

[jeffs]

Cynic :) :)

[Squiggles]

Integrate it with renewing licenses and testing as per the 2010-2020 Safer Journeys stuff and its a good way for the gubbiment to move towards safer roads as well

[Ixion]

In fact , a change to either a fuel based or a licence based system (or combination of) would require almost no IT resource.

ACC already collect part of their income as a fuel levy. Changing to collect all their income from fuel would require no system changes at all. It would just be a bigger number .

Licence would require some very small changes , but certainly not a big project. NZTA already collect a licence fee every 10 years, it would only be necessary to change that to every year, and then an accounting transaction to account for the ACC component and remit the funds to ACC.

Need some bigger printers (more reminder letters); and a dunning process for those who didn't pay , though if not paying invalidated the licence then the existing legal process could handle that.

If they wanted to charge different rates for different licence classes that might need some reprogramming. (or more likely reconfiguration). But not a biggy.

Few months duration for a small team

Business process, not IT.

[maxf]

Hmmm - wasn't it already reported in the InfoWorld (last couple of weeks) that ACC are already going out to RFI for new systems - see here :

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/3042835/ACC-billing-software-upgrade

Quote:

ACC is gearing up for a major software purchase that will let it assess the risk of customers and award them discounted levies.

The software system will let ACC manage services such as insurance products, customer relationships and levy payments.

Business management head Diane Bradley says the system will replace its eight-year-old levy collection and billing system and be integrated with its $131 million claims management software to allow ACC to better analyse its data and tailor products to customers.

"Integrating with the claims system will give us a really good understanding of levy payers and their claims. We'll be able to have a look at an organisation's history of claims and make a decision on what levy rate they should pay."

The system will help ACC assess the risk of customers, a process done manually today.

ACC has issued a request for a proposal from vendors and will present a business case to its board in May. It expects the system to be in place within three years of awarding the contract.

ACC will not know the cost of the project until the business case has been approved, Ms Bradley says. "But given the timeframe, it's likely to be a reasonably lengthy one.

"When you've got any sort of system with the range of functionality we're seeking, it is a pretty big project." ACC will hold a vendor briefing for interested firms tomorrow.

A bill that will let ACC offer discounted levies is before Parliament.

Meanwhile, the Government has signalled plans to introduce competition in ACC's work account, which provides cover for businesses and the self-employed, and has said it could also open up other areas such as ACC's motor-vehicle account to competition.

So they're already setting themselves up as a profit-making exercise... what's your product **today**? Also guess some of this cost is going to be EDI costs so there can be some central registry - accessible by Police, I'd guess - that states your premium coverage status... No cover = fine and/or off-road, I'd hazard. I guess it will be central so that when the competitors come in and undercut ACC (if it's not already gutted by then) there is "transparency" and "commercially competitive equality" from day 1?

I'm sorry, this really is getting farcical if NZ allows control of a legislated charge on every single citizen be determined by some foreign, private concern - when is our Boston Tea Party going to be held?

-----------------------
PC disclaimer: My views are personal and do not reflect that of my employer.