Workarounds using Emergency Processes (EP)

The EP workaround can be referred to as an essential workaround practice and has been recognised and built into the processes; however, it is outside the artefact. It involves completing an emergency task through manual processes bypassing the system entirely. Much like the CR workaround, the LGO identified this and incorporated it as a formal workaround practice.

4.4.6.1 Efficiency

Emergency processes conducted manually outside the ERP are a necessary workaround in terms of environmental constraints that the LGO experiences. As a public municipality, it is essential that, if a process needs to be completed immediately, such as repair work, the job is performed and the information loaded on the ERP at a later stage. There is an “emergency clause”, as it is referred to, that enables uses to conduct the EP workaround and therefore formalises it in the BP. This form of enactment points directly towards the efficacy of the system. It enables output to be produced in the minimal amount of time required. As Professional Officer (a) states:

“Speak to the director. He can sign a form that allows it to go through when it is needed immediately.”

93

The EP workaround therefore has a positive relationship with BPI. Its enactment is a safeguard to the BP; without its formalised nature, it would hinder the LGO from completing operations that meet requirements in the policy.

4.4.6.2 Effectiveness

The EP workaround is performed as a direct result of the need to uphold the efficiency dimension. The LGO views this as a necessary means to complete a process that cannot be conducted in the system due to time constraints imposed. The formalised workaround results in documentation being sent and processed according to the intended BP the following morning. The documentation being processed in the ERP the following day leads to the effectiveness of the BP being maintained. In some instances, however, the vendor forgets to send the documentation for the work completed. This has a major influence on the integrity of the BP, specifically in relation to the efficiency dimension. Buyer (b) states:

“Sometimes the guy will forget about it and only remember he had a repair done when the vendor's invoice comes through to him. Then he'll put in the requisition - the job was done - even though it’s in the past.”

This is a major hindrance to the integrity of the BP and relates to other dimensions such as policy adherence and traceability.

Buyer (a) recognises the same hindrance to effectiveness of the BP, but states that:

“If the person does not provide the documentation he won't get another chance form the buyer and he knows it. We are not all friendly.”

The user recognises the effect the workaround can have on the overall effectiveness of the process. He therefore develops a level of trust with the vendor in terms of the EP workaround. If the vendor does not provide the information, the possibility of conducting work under the emergency clause will not be made available. Due to the embedded and formalised nature of the workaround, the user constructed an identity with the client to ensure that the relevant documentation is provided.

The EP workaround has a positive influence on the effectiveness of the BP. However, in certain circumstances and under certain conditions this is a major hindrance to the integrity dimension.

94 4.4.6.3 Flexibility

The dimension of flexibility is the key dynamic of the EP workaround. The formalised nature allows for the BP to be completed under certain environmental constraints according to system- defined processes. The flexibility of the “emergency clause” is a key dimension to the integrity of the BP when faced with environmental constraints of this nature. The LGO as a government organisation is able to adapt to changing contexts and has the ability to deal with such problems. The agility of the BP because of the EP workaround is a key driver of success in this type of BP. The flexibility dimension in an EP is therefore a safeguard to the integrity of the BPI. It allows for efficient and effective output and is defined in policy.

4.4.6.4 Policy Adherence

As expressed above, the EP workaround is built into the structures of the LGO and is defined in terms of policy. The formalised practice enables a BP to be completed in accordance with the requirements of legislation and therefore meets the requirements of laws and regulations enforced. In principle the enactment is defined by policy.

The emergency process identifies certain instances that have a major effect on the policy adherence dimension. Buyer (b) states that the process is conducted according to the emergency clause and is signed off by the director. However, problems do arise further down the procurement line that have an adverse affect on policy. He states:

“Sometimes the guy will forget about it and only remember he had a repair done when the vendor's invoice comes through to him. Then he'll put in the requisition - the job was done - even though it’s in the past. The guys can steal money this way if they want to, I means [the ERP] won't know, I won't know. I'm not saying it happens, but it can happen. If it’s a low amount, like R2000 or R3000, I'll just put it through and change the dates.”

This poses a major risk to the integrity of the policy dimension. The explanation points directly to issues of fraud and corrupt behaviour in the system as a result of the EP workaround. This has direct implications for irregular expenditure and unfair practice.

In terms of the process followed by the EP workaround, integrity is maintained in the BP. This is largely due to the formalised nature of the workaround and its integration into policy. The environmental constraint is unavoidable; however, as identified, major risks can be incurred with this form of enactment in terms of policy adherence and BPI.

95 4.4.6.5 Traceability

The EP workaround is performed according to the defined structures of the system. It meets the requirements of policy during its enactment and is a necessity according to the environmental constraints experienced. As identified with the problem above, the issue of fraud and corruption is raised in terms of the results of the enactment further down the procurement line. This hinders the traceability of the information in the system and affects Information Integrity. If individuals forget to submit the required documentation for processing the following morning to the system, it can cause a risk to the integrity of the BP through lack of traceability.

With any workaround external to the system, the dimension of traceability will always be undermined. In the majority of cases encountered, users obtained the correct information and the traceability dimension was upheld in terms of BPI. However, as identified, this can pose a serious threat to the integrity of the BP if the information is not obtained and processed after the completion of the workaround.