Interesting. By @Joe_Mayes (h/t @JohnHol32019188)
A couple of questions on this. First one - why is the Gov always the last to find out that these plans are unrealistic?
/1
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
A couple of questions on this. First one - why is the Gov always the last to find out that these plans are unrealistic?
/1
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Who looks at plans that include up to 10 new IT systems, most of which don't yet exist, and thinks - yeah 9/6/3 months sounds about right?
Especially with given the whole CDS debacle
/2
Especially with given the whole CDS debacle
/2
Regarding duplication. That was something I've been wondering about since the BOM was published. If we don't have time to finish GVMS to be ready for 1 Jan - why are we planning to design a new app as a fallback measure?
/3
/3
Surely that's a duplication of systems and work.
Also since the French had their SI system ready a year ago, what stopped us from working on a traffic management (GVMS) system of our own earlier - we were always going to need one anyway - deal or no deal
/4
Also since the French had their SI system ready a year ago, what stopped us from working on a traffic management (GVMS) system of our own earlier - we were always going to need one anyway - deal or no deal
/4
Good point from @ColdChainShane - the post-Brexit trade flows should be designed with a fallback method that could work tomorrow and not be dependent on non-existing IT system.
/5
/5
At this point, the freight industry should by Gov's best friend - fall back procedures should be designed in close cooperation with the industry. Or rather it should be guided by the industry.
/end
/end
