I heard a story the other day about an assistant manager who had recently been transferred into a major garage run by a national operator. The deal was that this fellow had been working in a facility that had the same revenue control equipment as did his new garage. It was a perfect match.
His new manager asked him how he liked the equipment and was told that it was really never used at the old garage. Seems that the cashiers would simply turn in their reports each day and they would use those reports to transfer data to their managers up the line. The fancy-dancy revenue system, that had cost the owner hundreds of thousands, went unused, or used as a "gate popper" and nothing more.
This chap didn’t have a clue — the entire purpose of the RC equipment is to ensure that the cashiers have not dipped into the till. You can’t do that if you don’t use the system and simply trust the cashiers to report what they want. The excuse that "well, the numbers are always off on the system report" simply doesn’t cut it. If they are really off, then the system should be junked or fixed. However often they are off because the cashier makes them off.
There are many cases where auditors find reams of reports that obviously have been run but never read. Stacks of paper in the corner gathering dust. This is, of course, the fault of everyone in the management ladder. No one is looking at the source documents. Plus, if for some reason, the reports from the system doesn’t readily provide the information needed by management (and I can’t believe that this is the case) then some ‘tweaking’ needs to be done to get the data.
To simply ignore the information or not use the features of a complex system, is malfeasance.
I’m not really surprised, however, as one company did a study and found that upwards of 90% of a system’s features go unused. Yes, ninety percent. All those reports, features, and "must haves" required by the operator, are simply not used. Could this be the problem in San Francisco commented on below?