[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Saint Lucia Business Awards have always been portrayed as an opportunity for large (and even “small”) businesses to be judged fairly on their contributions to excellence, innovation, sustainability and enterprise; staying true to the Chamber’s mission: “To drive national growth and development enabling a healthy business environment where members can flourish.”
It was therefore seen as a rite of passage and an excellent medium for our small business, HRM Solutions Inc. to present to Saint Lucia our very own locally-developed, fully-integrated Human Resource and Payroll Software — CUBE HRMS. CUBE would eliminate the need for manual processes, Microsoft Excel and other imported/non-compliant solutions that businesses are forced to use in order to manage employee information and process payroll.
After more than five years of relentless research, development and testing, we were ready to assert that our CUBE-HRMS software was the most affordable, state-of-the-art, fully-automated and customizable software system that complies with all local employment laws and statutory regulations. This means that local businesses who adopt the system would become more efficient as a result of spending less time on tedious and repetitive tasks, and experience improved communication and decision-making as well as reduced operating costs.
After completing the rigorous application process for the Prime Minister’s Award for Innovation, we were ecstatic to be invited to an interview with the judges. We were met by a team of four retired sexagenarian business professionals. A fifth judge joined the panel thirty minutes into our hour-long interview. The interview continued without a single opportunity for us to make a presentation of our product to the judges, as no audio-visual equipment was made available. Knowing that the judges had not taken the time to log into the system with the user account information provided as part of our submission, we came prepared with our own portable-projector to give a demonstration but that opportunity was never presented.
On three separate occasions we reminded the judges that, as part of our submission, we had created a unique CUBE account to allow them an opportunity to review the cloud-based system. Despite having computers laid out in front of them, these senior gentlemen seemed more interested in telling us about their impressive resume of past accomplishments rather than utilizing the opportunity to access CUBE. We left the room hoping that the judges would access CUBE or at least seek the guidance of a respected ICT professional to ensure that our claims were accurate.
A few weeks later we were informed of a gala launching event at the prime minister’s official residence where the shortlist of nominees would be announced. Throughout this time, we continued to wait for the judges to take a look at our work by logging into the system to properly assess our product’s integrity using the information with which they were provided.
On the evening of the gala, based on our conversations with the judges, coupled with the fact that neither they nor anyone else at the Chamber Secretariat had reviewed CUBE, we could not help but infer that another company had been awarded the Prime Minister’s Award for Innovation.
Despite being invited as a “Nominee” we were informed that we would be required to pay an admission fee of EC$250 per person to attend the award show.
On the night of the awards we were surprised and rather impressed with the creative use of technology with the likes of ICT guru Richmond Felix’s QR code ticket admission system. It was evident that the Chamber had greater interest in using technology to confirm admission payments than in assessing our innovative, technology-based submission. With the axiomatic role that technology is playing in the core business processes of local companies vying for the awards, does it not make sense to have persons like Mr. Felix or individuals with relevant expertise represented on the judging panel?
Upon entry, we were directed to obtain seating towards the back of the room, only to realize that we were not provided with a table upon which to lay our drinks because we had not been able to pay for the use of a corporate table where champagne and wine were being served to privileged guests. We were also denied the use of one of the many tables that remained vacant throughout the evening.
As we sat there with our drinks on the floor, we wondered how much research went into the adjudication process of this entire event, knowing that up until that moment not a single judge had taken the time to review our full submission. If the judges could not spare five minutes to review our submission in its entirety, did they verify the claims made by other nominees in this category? Did they drive to Soufriere to assess the hydroponics and honey production claims made by Anse Chastanet/Jade Mountain? These unanswered questions were very demoralizing and brought a sense of consternation and disgust considering the time and resources spent to be part of this award show.
We ask whether the awards event is a SHOW because it is expected that the Chamber of Commerce will review ALL submissions in their entirety, inclusive of supplementary material. This includes proper research which goes beyond a team of mostly retired judges deliberating in a room based solely on written words and eloquent speeches without confirming first-hand that the claims made in all submissions are accurate! After all, the Chamber states on its website: “The adjudication process is rigorous but not cumbersome and not dependent on the financial capacity or size of the firm.”
Is it always about who writes the better story, knowing that no due diligence would be done to ascertain the verity of claims articulated on paper? Don’t we want to think about who creates the most value for local businesses and who could have the greatest economic impact and which products have the greatest export potential? Having seen first-hand the lack of due diligence, wouldn’t you also be led to question the authenticity and objectivity of the process?
After expressing our concerns to one of the judges on the evening of the awards, his response was even more discouraging to the point that we have made the decision NOT to participate in future “shows” until the Chamber improves its judging standards and can show a genuine interest in the honest and hard work of small businesses on the island. Without this guarantee of due process, it takes away from the credibility of the awards and does a disservice to all participants, including the awardees.
Longville Not Impressed by Chamber’s Response
8 February: Dear Perry, I am now seeing your email which was sent late last night. I will forward to the President as you have addressed it to him. Thanks for the email. I note that you have shared the email and its contents with the media. Regards, Brian Louisy, Executive Director.
8 February: Hi Brian, Thank you for your acknowledgement. Perry
9 February: Dear Perry, The President is off island and so permit me to respond to your note on behalf of the Chamber. I have had the opportunity to read your note more closely and wish to offer the following: Firstly while it is certainly your prerogative not to do so, I am terribly disappointed that HRM Solutions did not discuss your concerns with me before going public. Yet, thanks for your note and comments which we will certainly use as we continue to strive to improve all aspects of our Awards process and Ceremony.
I do think that your disparaging comments about the “judges” are unfortunate. Let me assure you that while the Judges may not be very young, they are not as far removed from Human Resource Management and the use of technology as you imply. Finally, but not of least importance, is that we have worked hard to make and ensure that the Adjudication process is independent and rigorous. We have a Panel of judges with both experience and practical knowledge, in many cases with specific expertise in crucial areas which ensures the panel’s ability to assess a wide cross-section of applications.
Comments from participants are valuable to all of us in the pursuit of our common objective. I urge you not to be dissuaded in your endeavours, professional or otherwise and wish you well. Regards, Brian.
11 February: Hi Brian, Thank you for responding. It is unfortunate that the President could not respond because he is off island??? After having read our email more closely I am certain you would have noted that our concerns were expressed to one of your judges, as well as a key Chamber employee on the night of the awards. What is truly disappointing is that no one from your office saw fit to reach out to us in order to address these concerns directly. This is what led to the decision to share our experience with the media —almost two weeks later. Although you think it is unfortunate that we have zeroed in on the age and technological savvy of the judges to properly assess our software, we continue to stand by this view — as does a large majority of the public who have read and commented on our concerns. While I have no doubt that the pool of judges are capable individuals, whom we have the most respect for, the Chamber owes it to participants to utilize subject matter experts to improve the judging process and add value to the credibility of these awards.
Thank you for your encouraging words, however, it is evident by your response (using words like disappointed, disparaging and unfortunate) that the Chamber’s only focus is to defend its position, rather than address the fact that despite its claims of an “independent and rigorous” adjudication process, the judges/Chamber did not see the relevance of taking five minutes to review our locally developed CUBE HRMS software, which was a key part of our submission —t hat is what is disappointing, disparaging and unfortunate!
—Writer: Perry Longville
