Top 5 eUP lies
Five (5) is an arbitrary number to start with, when it comes to the lies perpetuated by the proponents of the eUP project. We've lost count actually. But from memory, these 5 lies stand out.
eUP Lie #5: An ERP cannot be done on time.
PAEP reports in the UP Forum: "I have yet to see a company that has implemented an ERP within the original time frame." Bulls**t! And why again did he keep on reassuring his constituency and the Board of Regents (see p22 of this UP Gazette, for example) about the eUP rollout schedule, knowing that the project wasn't going be finished on time? Has he really seen ANY legit ERP implementation, before even embarking on a mega-ERP project like eUP?
eUP Lie #4: eUP promotes efficiency.
The eUP Project promotes anything but efficiency. The fact that the major eUP systems (SAIS, HRIS, FMIS, etc.) are way, way delayed and over the budget, screams inefficiency.
A typical eUP pitch begins with a presentation on how "great" its modules and functionalities are. Then it proceeds to wonder, for instance, "won't it be great that when all campuses become integrated, you can cross-enroll easily in another campus?" Nice, but at what cost? Is the marginal convenience of online cross enrollment of a few students worth all the expense? Is eUP, as currently rolled out, the best, the most efficient approach to achieve the project's otherwise lofty goals?
Now, on eUP FMIS (Financial Management Information System), some administrators can "sign" vouchers online. Big deal? That hardly completes one whole business process, far from what was promised by the Project in the beginning. Is that feature, together with other incomplete functionalities in various eUP systems, even worth the tens of millions of pesos just for annual eUP server hosting by ePLDT?
eUP Lie #3: Oracle is a necessity.
The choice of Oracle is supposed to have been a result of a "benchmarking exercise" that involves eUP and PAEP admin officials visiting world-class universities. Tadah!, magical conclusion: for UP to be world-class, it needs Oracle. But where is the report of such tourism? Has a study been conducted (and published at least locally) for such important, life-changing choice for the University?
The use of Oracle has brought about unnecessary financial and technical burdens to the University. For Oracle maintenance alone, the University has to pay tens of millions of pesos every year, in addition to the money (hundreds of millions) eUP already has paid the company and related suppliers.
The truth, however, is that Oracle is not the only game in town. Do some quick googling and you can easily find alternative university-oriented, non-Oracle, open-source ERPs (world-class example here). Many governments abroad don't even want to be tied with Oracle (UK example here).
eUP Lie #2: The eUP Project is transparent.
Nothing can be farther from the truth. The eUP Project has been around for years already, but the PAEP administration has yet to produce a properly audited expense report reflecting how all the various sources of eUP funds have been utilized. PAEP and his eUP cabal have been hoodwinking the BOR that everything is fine with eUP. According to PAEP, it is "progressing well," when, in reality, personnel turnovers, contingent and unplanned spendings, technical difficulties, vendor problems beset the project.
More transparency concerns on real cost of eUP and Oracle.
eUP Lie #1: eUP solves the red tape at the University.
eUP promoters have been capitalizing on people's understandable frustration over slow processes at the University. While we can easily admit that the University can be a bureaucratic nightmare, eUP may well just be "computerizing" many processes, mechanisms, procedures mandated by Philippines laws that are hardly streamlined or efficient in the first place. Hello, procurement law (RA 9184) and more laws)! As big as it is, eUP, unfortunately, is not sufficient to address most of the bureaucratic entanglements in running a government body like UP. Something must be done, of course. But given the output of the Project so far, perhaps even eUP is not sure what really needs to be done.
The eUP Project has only raised people's expectations but fell short of delivering working solutions. It couldn't even get much basic stuff right.
This eUP graphic captures a bunch of promises at the begining of the Project:
Wow! "Integration" right from the get-go!
eUP overpromises, hardly delivers, and--when push comes to shove--gives excuses after excuses.
So cutting the red tape with eUP? Hmm... we'll see. Ironically, the same eUP people seek to expand their own bureaucracy. They are proposing a top-heavy IT Services bureaucracy, with more managers, administrators, assistants than actual IT workers, and with an Executive Director whose salary will even be higher than that of a UP Chancellor.
As an offered cure, eUP is worse than the disease.
For more eUP lies, read the eUP website.