It would appear that the cracks in the dam wall are getting bigger at
Telstra Super and may be worse than reported by Crikey last Thursday.
For starters, you have the amusing situation of Telstra’s own
superannuation administation outfit, KAZ Group’s AAS division, not
having the gig at Telstra Super.
That would suggest Telstra
Super’s alternative provider, Financial Synergy, is doing a fabulous
job. Apparently not, as Financial Synergy is now in all sorts of strife
on the contract to supply a replacement superannuation administration
systems for Telstra Super.
There has been a steady outflow of
key project staff from both organisations in recent times. In the
latest round of departures, the three key developers from Financial
Synergy have defected to recently formed superannuation software
provider Bravura and will take up their new roles in mid April. This
was confirmed to staff yesterday and the three developers concerned are
Jeff Hall, Caroline Morgan and Jason Martin.
from the ‘ill-fated’ project have seen defections from Telstra Super to
another leading superannuation software provider as well. It would
appear that the retention bonus that Telstra Super put in place to
ensure that key staff remained on the project until the bitter end is
simply not worth the association with a failed project and they are
voting with their feet.
With $7 billion under management on
behalf of 70,000 current and former Telstra staff, it would be nice to
know what the trustees are doing to stop the bleeding that is going on
with members’ funds? Furthermore, is the regulator taking a look at the
situation to ensure the interests of members are adequately protected.
Meanwhile, a supporter of Financial Synergy has sent the following to our anonymous tips box:
I read your article regarding Telstra Super and think it is completely
unjust to blame the software supplier for Telstra Super’s late project.
The project delays have been caused by a number of factors that all
come back to Telstra Super, not Financial Synergy including:
1. Poor project management
2. Delays in decision making
3. Continually changing requirements
4. Poor testing practices
History shows that projects outcomes are in the hands of the customer not the suppler.