IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

patrick murphy — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:04:20 GMT

I had a letter not posted in Veterinary Times, even after talking to the editor.

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

J G Wray — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:03:37 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]This silence from those who were so keen to engage at election time is unacceptable.[/quote]

There is a rump, the "Molyneux" rump, who are dedicated to selective communication with the profession, particularly the noisy ones in the profession. They believe and in Molyneux's case articulate not communicating as being perfectly acceptable. Weird. Who proposed her and did she have anything to do with the VN training stuff?

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]The levels of ineptitude and mismanagement by RCVS appears almost universal VN training is a mess, the IT project is a mess, the basement property development is a mess, the council meeting minutes are but the loosest guide to what the College actually does, "budgeting" is, at best, unreliable, and going back further, the College's engagement with the EFRACOM cttee was disgracefully inept.[/quote]

RCVS are their own worst enemy. If we lose self-regulation it will be because of them not the wider profession.

JGW

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Bob Russell — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:54:28 GMT

Bl**dy Hell! They are listening. Rupert Murdoch eat your heart out. For the first time they are doing something sensible. Let's hope they don't have to overspend to pay for the review!

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:51:29 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

The person chairing the group looking into this issue is Professor Bill McKelvey MRCVS.

With regards to your other question, I am afraid I am not in a position to give you this information..."

Now I've no idea who Prof McKelvey is. He's a vet but non-Practising apparently and probably known to Edinburgh graduates.

[/quote]

Just posted a news story about this, with a link to further info about Prof McKelvey.

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Bob Russell — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:40:21 GMT

Sorry did not realise Malcolm had used the 'silence is deafening' bit in his post! It sums up the situation perfectly.

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Bob Russell — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:37:35 GMT

With 7000+ members (and rising!) I find it amazing that there is so little interaction from council members. The silence is deafening!!

Clearly they are frightened by this (and presumably other sites) and prefer to keep quiet. It will all come out in the end so they might as well start informing us (vets+nurses) better. Some should be planning their retirement and checking their contracts!

I don't think a VetSurgeon candidate is a particularly good idea but it would make sense for a prospective candidate to start 'wooing' members in advance if they genuinely wish to be voted on to the council. The piffle spouted by a number of the candidates in advance of the last election did not help them.

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:52:49 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] I'm a bit disappointed that they haven't been more active on the site since their election. But just because they haven't, doesn't mean they aren't willing to be approached or support openness. [/quote]

The silence here (and elsehere) from our elected members is deafening.

We have today had to sit down with one of our student nurses and conclude that the sitting of her practical exam will have to be delayed. A long story but it comes directly from the fact that the most recent change to the VN training scheme was so shambolically implemented that there were inevitable delays. Sadly, said student has already changed the date of her wedding in response to some mis-information from RCVS about exam dates.

The levels of ineptitude and mismanagement by RCVS appears almost universal VN training is a mess, the IT project is a mess, the basement property development is a mess, the council meeting minutes are but the loosest guide to what the College actually does, "budgeting" is, at best, unreliable, and going back further, the College's engagement with the EFRACOM cttee was disgracefully inept. If Belgravia House staffers are at fault then they should be identified and managed out of their jobs, if lack of adequate oversight by the councillors is the problem then could I respectfully suggest that they resign their post and scuttle back to the shires where they might find a role more suited to their abilities, perhaps running the church flower rota or helping with a youth club.

This silence from those who were so keen to engage at election time is unacceptable. Come on guys, this is all happening on your watch and it is your responsibility. You should be able explain why RCVS can't budget, why RCVS can't project manage, why RCVS can't administer vet nursing, why there is asuch a mis-match between actions and minutes of meetings, etc etc. Additionally, there is a need explain who is orchestrating this apparent veil of secrecy and why - the suggestion that this secrecy is because things might go to law is unconvincing, even patronising. Legal cases of this kind are decided on suportable, documented facts and will not be jeapordised by those facts being shared with the (other) members of this College. If you councillors can't explain all these things then you are quite simply not doing an adequate job.

Malcolm N

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:01:51 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be articulating an aspiration for an elected RCVS Councillor to be more open and accountable. [/quote]

Yes (though only in principle. RCVS Councillors don't regulate me, so I don't think it's my place to call for them to be more open).

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Aren't the Councillors who have solicited votes with their manifestoes/statments through this forum already doing this?

I haven't heard much from

1. Mr Gray

2. Mr Tuffnell

3. Brigadier Smith

All of them touted their willingness to be approached and supported openness. At least they said they did.

[/quote]

I'm a bit disappointed that they haven't been more active on the site since their election. But just because they haven't, doesn't mean they aren't willing to be approached or support openness.

More to the point, they weren't elected on the back of a promise to come and engage specifically with the members of VS after the elections. That's what I see as the big difference between current councillors and one you might elect as a VS councillor in the future.

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]However, I believe Arlo has integrity[/quote]

Thank you! I like to think so.

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]even if he hasn't, if he starts blocking postings for no sensible reason the forum will fall into disrepute and lose its purpose.[/quote]

This is absolutely the point. Even if you think I'm as bent as a nine bob note, the absolute transparency of this site makes it impossible for me to abuse my position. If I delete something, or edit it, someone will know. Probably quite a few people will know. I have to explain myself to you.

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Anthony Todd — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:01:29 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]]An elected RCVS councillor being 'run' by a privately controlled internet site? Is that really what we need?[/quote]

Well "controlled" in that Arlo can moderate, which means censor any posting or comment, true.

Have you ever had a letter not published in the Vet. Record or the Times?

Have you ever heard of submissions or papers being refused for publication in scientific journals?

Have you ever seen papers published which turned out to be baloney or "sponsored"?

Have you ever been to a meeting where your hand-up has been repeatedly ignored such that your view could not be heard?

I have, which could have been because of poor grammar or the use of the Oxford apostrophe of which they disapprove, or it could be because they disagreed with me, my views, or what I said.

However, I believe Arlo has integrity and. even if he hasn't, if he starts blocking postings for no sensible reason the forum will fall into disrepute and lose its purpose.

This forum is, in effect, a public meeting on line as opposed to going to a cold hall after work where the "chairman" controls the rebels and hecklers in the same way and probably or possibly in accordance with his or her personal agenda!

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

J G Wray — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:33:17 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Still, I do think that if a VS candidate is elected on the basis of being more accountable; on the basis that they will come and explain their actions and those of the RCVS to the members of VetSurgeon (which is, of course, open to every veterinary surgeon), then surely that can only be a good thing?[/quote]

Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be articulating an aspiration for an elected RCVS Councillor to be more open and accountable.

Aren't the Councillors who have solicited votes with their manifestoes/statments through this forum already doing this?

I haven't heard much from

1. Mr Gray

2. Mr Tuffnell

3. Brigadier Smith

All of them touted their willingness to be approached and supported openness. At least they said they did.

JGW

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:04:45 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]An elected RCVS councillor being 'run' by a privately controlled internet site? Is that really what we need?[/quote]

Funnily enough, I was just thinking the other day that it would be wrong if I, the publisher of a media outlet, had some kind of influence over the electoral process. I am not Rupert Murdoch by any stretch of the imagination. Still, I was just imagining the situation where, in a few years time, the powers-that-be in the veterinary profession are fighting for tickets to the VetSurgeon.org summer party!

But, and this is a big BUT, that fails to recognise the fundamental diffence between a publication like this (where content is 95% published by you, the members), and an old-style media outlet like the News of The World (where editorial content / decisions are 100% decided by the editor / proprietor).

The point is, Rob, that if you, the members of this site, decide to pick a candidate and vote for them, then if anyone 'runs' the candidate, it's you, not me, the controller of this site.

What's more, this is a completely neutral community. i.e. it's not controlled by the RCVS, BVA, BSAVA, or any one individual or group of individuals. Lets face it, even I don't really control things (I can't really control what you write, and if I do something that the members don't agree with, someone is usually pretty quick to tell me to get back in my box).

So on balance, I think it is not undemocratic for VetSurgeon members to field a candidate. I DO think there is a limit to the degree to which a VS candidate might actually be able to change things (because as someone else pointed out, the RCVS exists primarily to regulate on behalf of the public, not the veterinary profession).

Still, I do think that if a VS candidate is elected on the basis of being more accountable; on the basis that they will come and explain their actions and those of the RCVS to the members of VetSurgeon (which is, of course, open to every veterinary surgeon), then surely that can only be a good thing?

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Rob Loxley — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:21:25 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]But the point is we need a VSorg candidate don't we??[/quote]

An elected RCVS councillor being 'run' by a privately controlled internet site? Is that really what we need?

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

David Mills — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:33:01 GMT

Anyone with access to BVA Community forums should check the RCVS's response to BVA's request for information, specifically:

- the utter fudge. A total lack of professional respect that is, well, probably to be expected.

- LGF refurb wasn't put out to tender but instead given straight to contractors used over the years who had 'knowledge of the building'. Even more surprising, then, at the overspend, hardly a transparent process, somewhat jobs for the boys. Who took this decision I wonder? Should the RCVS be autocratic with our money?

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Anthony Todd — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:13:41 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]I must confess to a profound ignorance of "PRINCE2",[/quote]

Me too, but it looks like the sort of program one would need to build the channel tunnel or plan and run the Olympics!

They were setting up a simple membership database, for heaven's sake, not building the channel tunnel!!

So they got the leading software designer for NGOs and charities, subscribed to PRINCE2, which isn't cheap, and it still doesn't work and is at least £245,000 over "budget" whatever "budget" means.

Come on, it's like central government.

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Anthony Todd — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:59:23 GMT

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]This figure may be harder to achieve than you might think. After all only about 350 or so "signed" Bob Russell's laudable petition to amend the absurd Cascade Regulations which have had an enormous impact on the profession.[/quote]

Oh sure, apathy is hard to motivate, but it shouldn't stop our trying.

I don't think the VSorg candidate should be single-minded ie the IT disaster only but I am pretty sure that there are a series of core statements that will form the basis of a manifesto.

Gotta start somewhere with someone or are we happy just to pay, be disappointed and moan on forever?

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:30:09 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] So, would you rather try and field a candidate, or grill the ones that put themselves forward for election? [/quote]

The grill please!

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:26:23 GMT

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"] [quote user="Anthony Todd"]And we only need around 1500 votes to elect him or her.[/quote]This figure may be harder to achieve than you might think. After all only about 350 or so "signed" Bob Russell's laudable petition to amend the absurd Cascade Regulations which have had an enormous impact on the profession.[/quote]

I'd tend to agree if one was entirely relying on members of www.vetsurgeon.org to deliver 1500 votes. However, presumably a prospective VS candidate will secure votes from elsewhere too. Just being on the ballot papers will get some votes!

Can't remember whether I've said it before, but if there were to be a VS candidate, I don't think the site could again host an independent forum in which the other candidates could come and answer your questions, as we have done in previous years. So, would you rather try and field a candidate, or grill the ones that put themselves forward for election?

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Eamon McAllister — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:07:34 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

And we only need around 1500 votes to elect him or her.

[/quote]

This figure may be harder to achieve than you might think. After all only about 350 or so "signed" Bob Russell's laudable petition to amend the absurd Cascade Regulations which have had an enormous impact on the profession.

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

J G Wray — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:45:47 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]As long as the committee members accept that with the ease of modern communication they will be more closely scrutinised and held more accountable for their actions than in the past[/quote]

I've had further communication from RCVS

"..

The person chairing the group looking into this issue is Professor Bill McKelvey MRCVS.

With regards to your other question, I am afraid I am not in a position to give you this information..."

Now I've no idea who Prof McKelvey is. He's a vet but non-Practising apparently and probably known to Edinburgh graduates.

Perhaps someone could explain his provenance and peculiar expertise which makes him suited to this task.

I intend to invite him to understand the bigger picture by reading the various threads on this and other forums so he can get a non-RCVS point of view.

The second part of the response form RCVS is slightly awkward. In effect, one of the "owners" of the IT project is saying that the Officers, the non Senior Management Team at RCVS and "Co-owners" of the project have told them not to answer the questions:

1. Who is the project manager

2. Who has the documentation for the IT project

Funny old world

JGW

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Bob Russell — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:23:34 GMT

I have to admit I can see advantages in staying on the outside. They say 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer still'. As long as the committee members accept that with the ease of modern communication they will be more closely scrutinised and held more accountable for their actions than in the past it is probably better not to enter the fold where your actions may be 'controlled'.

Progressive and realistic Councillors will potentially be made stronger by this pressure from the outside.

I have to say the stars system seems to be a problem at the moment. Perhaps giving a red star should ask for an explanation. It is a sort of feedback tool!

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

J G Wray — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:44:41 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Er, who gave me a red star for that post, and why?[/quote]

Join the club mate - who cares? I've never rated any post and don't use smilies, since the "irony" mark turned out to be visited with a trojan

![quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] I mean, all I did was ask why JGW doesn't want to stand. Isn't that a reasonable question?[/quote]

I do not wish to stand for the reasons previously stated and re articulated by Chris Barker

A single issue candidate will not be permitted to only work for the single issue.

A single group candidate cannot function exclusively in the interests of that group because the RCVS acts on behalf of the public, thereby emasculating any representation. Even appointed COuncillors have to consider the public interest first. If the single group candidate had a manifesto supported by practitioners who are clearly those who are most in touch with the public and it did not have rank self-interest at its heart, they might attract support once in RCVS, because votes in Council count, not in election - unless the Reg decides otherwise.....

There are Councillors who are progressive and realistic who, despite rough handling by the Officers at times, can also see the point of making the RCVS more open and less amateurish.

JGW

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:05:54 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"][quote user="Anthony Todd"] Still waiting for a reply and so, I am sure, are many other VSorgers.

I'll settle for a intention to stand at this stage.[/quote]

I think JGW has already said he won't stand. Why not, JGW? Genuinely curious to know. Surely not for lack of time (you put a lot of time into holding the RCVS to account as it is)? Is it because you think you can do more from the outside? (I sort of wonder whether, once on the inside, it becomes harder to hold others on the inside to account). Some other reason? [/quote]

Er, who gave me a red star for that post, and why?! I mean, all I did was ask why JGW doesn't want to stand. Isn't that a reasonable question?

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Malcolm Ness — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:44:03 GMT

I must confess to a profound ignorance of "PRINCE2", so I have done a little research.Below is an exerpt from the web-site of what appears to be the owners/license-holders of PRINCE2

The method PRINCE2 is in the public domain, offering non-proprietorial best practice guidance on project management. PRINCE2 is a registered trademark of OGC.

The key features of PRINCE2 are:

Its focus on business justification
A defined organisation structure for the project management team
Its product-based planning approach
Its emphasis on dividing the project into manageable and controllable stages
Its flexibility to be applied at a level appropriate to the project.

Training and qualification is available at two levels - "Foundation" and "Practitioner". It would be interesting to know which of these project owning people have been suitably trained and to what level.

I am struck by the mis-match between one of the stated key features of PRINCE2, specifically "Its emphasis on dividing the project into manageable and controllable stages" and the apparent lack of information coming from RCVS about these stages, how they were controlled and exeactly how, when and why the control was lost. Similarly, I am well aware of the difficulty of organising and managing large numbers of senior people and I am struck by the difference in emphasis between the stated key feature of PRINCE2, "A defined organisation structure for the project management team". and the bland list provided to JGW which shows neither definition nor structure.

I am always very very nervous about corporate secrecy. Who is deciding what should be secret and why? Who will decide what is eventually investigated and what is left alone? Who will frame the terms of the investigation? We already know that there is a reluctance in this organisation to embrace, enthusiastically, active good governance. At the very least the members should be told who is making the decisions and we should have described to us the mechanisms that are in place to ensure that no individual, or group is able to "ass-cover" even if they wanted to.

Malcolm N

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Anthony Todd — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:48:52 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] a intention to stand at this stage[/quote]

Er, sorry, shurely, "an" intention to stand"..... pedants note please.

But the point is we need a VSorg candidate don't we??

And we only need around 1500 votes to elect him or her.

Let's try and compose a manifesto first then hopefully someone will decide to stand.

[ needs a separate thread??]

Re: IT implementation and Comms at RCVS

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:58:01 GMT

Because right now he's not bound by any possible non disclosure rules, I wager…