Crisis of confidence in J. Paul Morgan Report

The recently concluded investigation into the billing practices of the Jamaica Public Service Company Limited (JPS) has not realised its true potential. Indeed, the findings are symptomatic of missed opportunities. The potential to enrich positive correlations between the JPS and its customers in the national interest has evaporated. The robust, yet unusually peaceful calls to influence government intervention into the JPS's questionable billing practices by its customers saw an uncharacteristically immediate response by the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR). Fantastic!

And somehow, the OUR's immediate response nudged customers into believing that sector interests' sensitivities had taken a dramatic downward turn; but sorry, much to the contrary. The findings of the report had not stilled the overwhelmingly pressing concerns of the JPS's monopoly power. Indeed, the report reinforced a strange and worrying correlation between the bureaucracy and a monopoly, hence, a crisis of confidence in the findings of the J. Paul Morgan Report.

Weaknesses

A detailed analysis of the report revealed fundamental weaknesses in the conceptualisation, methodology, and operationalisation of the research. And, quite predictably, the findings are skewed to the variables of interests of the JPS. Importantly, this analysis is in no way intended to cast shadows of doubt over the operational capabilities and integrity of either the OUR or the JPS; however, it bears significance on either the researcher's motive, competence issues, or mistakes. Importantly, from the perspectives of the public policy decision-making process, this analysis validates a plethora of compelling impulses, which are indicating that certain aspects of the administrative systems and subsystems continue to present existential challenges, hence denying the society and businesses alike basic rights and opportunities.

The first and most fundamental weakness of the report lies in the conceptualisation of the topic, which is 'Investigation of the JPS billing and metering system for electricity consumption'. In the absence of a hypothesis, the research has shown clear evidence of a misspecification of the problem area or planning error. As such, the issues identified by the researcher are inconsistent with the impulses that drove recent independent, customer-led islandwide demonstrations. In other words, as evidenced, the researcher's topic was never derived from the reality of the melting pot of customers' concerns, the JPS's managerial problems, the society's concerns with respect to the cost of energy, and the regulator's concerns. Instead, the chosen topic created the pathway for a descriptive report on the verification of JPS's newly installed billing and metering system.

Mutually exclusive relationship

The report's method of problem identification violates the principles of deductive logic. It is without controversy that in applied research, deductive theory building guides the process of formulating research objectives around a derived research question, hypothesis, or topic. Anecdotal evidence had shown crucial customer concerns as well as public policy decision-makers' level of expectation increasing demand and cost of energy. Undoubtedly, these could have been the result(s) of a mutually exclusive decision taken by the JPS and its customers.

Given that the JPS and its customers are two sides of the same coin, the genesis of the problems probably could have been: (a) some customers have found the cost of electricity prohibitively high and, given the priorities they have placed on what they spend each month, they have decided to steal electricity; and (b) the management of JPS had identified continuous leakages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity, which continue to impact cost-output ratios, it has decided to correct these anomalies.

Within the context of research methodology, the establishment of this mutually exclusive relationship is not about right or wrong. It is about the researcher's analytic world juxtaposing conditions precedent, and conditions consequent, in order to specify a problem area which will form the basis for an exploratory or explanatory research. This methodology signals trust in the research process, which will inspire confidence in the level of responsiveness of the sample, especially to the instruments of primary data collection, thereby enriching reliability and validity - the results from which the country needed, but never had, perhaps, because of the researcher's motive, competence issues, or mistakes.

Make no mistake, though, when the irresistible force of irate customers meet the immovable obstacle of the JPS, on a field of flawed electricity billing, refereed by the OUR, it has all the trappings of a potentially explosive game, and what a time in our history for this to be played out.

Deceptive underpinnings

Let us now establish a causal relationship between the JPS (independent variable) and its customers (dependent variable). For the purposes, JPS established "large-scale change to electronic digital meters as part of its loss-reduction strategy with a decision to change out all meters that were installed prior to 1995" (pp. 1). Interestingly, among the goals of the research, the report states quite clearly that "the investigation had its genesis in consumer concerns and reaction to the introduction of the electronic digital meters to replace the electromechanical meters that had been in use for decades" (pp. 4). Quite contradictorily, crucial deceptive underpinnings were masked in these focal points.

The "large-scale change to electronic digital meters as part of its loss-reduction strategy" is a presupposition of crucial anecdotal evidence. The researcher made the assumption that a significant percentage of JPS customers was stealing electricity, and as such, the relevance and appropriateness of his choice of objectives 1 (pp. 9); 2 (pp. 10); 3 (pp. 11); and 4 (pp. 13). These objectives are consistent with the "scope" of the investigation found on pages 5, 6, and 100, which is exactly what was prescribed by the sponsors of the research, rather than what the scientific community allows: "the nature and scope" of the research.

The "nature", which is the researcher's prerogative, would capture the conditions precedent juxtaposed with the conditions consequent, in other words, the historical antecedent and current realities triangulating around JPS managerial problems, customers concerns, and the nation's energy transformation agenda. This enlightened approach would have facilitated a process whereby the researcher would have followed derived empirical data and information to its logical conclusion.

It is important to note that the population of interest included: "(i) 60,163 accounts for which new digital meters were changed since 2008; (ii) 5,994 billing complaints since 2008; (iii) 20,534 records of high billings ( 30%); and (iv) 22,084 records of complaints that have been the subject of back-billing adjustments since January 2010" (pp. 39), and from which yielded an appropriate sample size (pp. 69). But, there are fundamental errors in the research process.

Planning errors have already been established, and as such, despite what appears to be technical soundness in the report, the researcher is describing and analysing exactly secondary data that had been presented to him. Once planning errors have been established, a continuation of the research process will lead to the collection of inappropriate and irrelevant primary and secondary data. This will cause the researcher to analyse irrelevant and inappropriate findings and observations, which will ultimately lead to a report that is based on flawed interpretation.

Report must be rejected

The analyses and recommendations of the J. Paul Morgan Report must be rejected. Proper research procedures were ignored. Quite incorrectly, secondary data were prescribed by the JPS, and as of yet, the report has not told us if these data sets were randomly or non-randomly selected by the JPS. We know that the researcher randomly selected the sample, from the data sets given by the JPS, but again, this is based on what was given to the researcher. In other words, in a laboratory condition, one is compelled to work with the given data set, for instance, a researcher may be given six boxes containing six different shades of blue marbles! But, this research that was carried out is by no means a laboratory experiment.

A major disappointment in the sampling process is the fact that of approximately 600,000 JPS customers islandwide, the researcher and his team interviewed only one customer: "one residential customer, however, attended and provided very valuable input and insight" (pp. 39). This is a poor representation of qualitative techniques, as also the usefulness of the instruments of primary data collection. Had the research been properly conceptualised, contextualised, and operationalised, there is the likely probability that the findings could have pointed public-policy decision-makers into recommending new ways in which the JPS could lead the process of energy transformation in Jamaica.

broader research scope was necessary

And given our dependence of imported energy, and especially at a time when the demand and cost of energy are increasing, the researcher should have taken the opportunity to broaden 'the nature and scope' of the research, with a view to adding solutions to our national energy transformation agenda. Surely, the multiplier effect would undoubtedly assist in increased output, productivity, and savings while reducing electricity theft.

The report must be rejected as it was conceptualised on a false premise. It described everything about the rights of the JPS without identifying its responsibilities. The analyses of the objectives and subsequent recommendations presented in the report are unreliable and invalid. There is no evidence presented in the report that they were derived from measurements of the relationships between the dependent and independent variables. They are purely anecdotal and present evidence of the researcher's emotional attachment.

Indeed, if left unchallenged and unchanged, the report has the unfortunate distinction of galvanising the dependence of the bureaucracy on a monopoly, whereby the OUR has been gifted to the JPS. This is not good for democracy. The symbolism of an uncharacteristically immediate response by the OUR to intervene in the disputed relationships between the JPS and its customers was great, but it was never distilled down into an acceptable start. Sadly, researcher's motives, competence issues, or mistakes have galvanised a crisis of confidence in the J. Paul Morgan Report - October 2011.

Anthony Woodburn is a lecturer in business research at Mona School of Business, the University of the West Indies, and the University College of the Caribbean. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and anthony.woodburn@gmail.com.