<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_26_2046216</id>
	<title>BSkyB Wins &pound;709m Lawsuit Against HP-EDS</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264502280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>E5Rebel writes <i>"In a massive legal case in the UK, HP-EDS has been found <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/it-business/supplier-relations/news/index.cfm?newsid=18517">guilty of 'fraudulent misrepresentation' by their sales team</a> when winning a major CRM project. Settlement could cost &pound;200M out of an initial claim for &pound;700M. HP's only relief was that parts of the claim were dismissed, but the core claim was upheld. HP is likely to appeal. Outsourcing will never be the same again. HP workers have been on strike against pay cuts last week; no doubt management will try and screw them further to pay for this debacle."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>E5Rebel writes " In a massive legal case in the UK , HP-EDS has been found guilty of 'fraudulent misrepresentation ' by their sales team when winning a major CRM project .
Settlement could cost   200M out of an initial claim for   700M .
HP 's only relief was that parts of the claim were dismissed , but the core claim was upheld .
HP is likely to appeal .
Outsourcing will never be the same again .
HP workers have been on strike against pay cuts last week ; no doubt management will try and screw them further to pay for this debacle .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>E5Rebel writes "In a massive legal case in the UK, HP-EDS has been found guilty of 'fraudulent misrepresentation' by their sales team when winning a major CRM project.
Settlement could cost £200M out of an initial claim for £700M.
HP's only relief was that parts of the claim were dismissed, but the core claim was upheld.
HP is likely to appeal.
Outsourcing will never be the same again.
HP workers have been on strike against pay cuts last week; no doubt management will try and screw them further to pay for this debacle.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911946</id>
	<title>Re:SAP</title>
	<author>masher\_oz</author>
	<datestamp>1264511220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. SAP was instigated by our previous CEO. Our current CEO was responsible for removing SAP from the last company they were CEO at, so we may have some hope.

An example of the crappiness: In order to reconcile our credit card accounts, we are required to "go on a trip". Yes, the writers of this software think that the only time we spend money on our credit card is when we go away. I know that I use my credit card to get around the awful ordering process we are supposed to use - it's a lot easier to go on a "trip" than it is to actually order something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
SAP was instigated by our previous CEO .
Our current CEO was responsible for removing SAP from the last company they were CEO at , so we may have some hope .
An example of the crappiness : In order to reconcile our credit card accounts , we are required to " go on a trip " .
Yes , the writers of this software think that the only time we spend money on our credit card is when we go away .
I know that I use my credit card to get around the awful ordering process we are supposed to use - it 's a lot easier to go on a " trip " than it is to actually order something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
SAP was instigated by our previous CEO.
Our current CEO was responsible for removing SAP from the last company they were CEO at, so we may have some hope.
An example of the crappiness: In order to reconcile our credit card accounts, we are required to "go on a trip".
Yes, the writers of this software think that the only time we spend money on our credit card is when we go away.
I know that I use my credit card to get around the awful ordering process we are supposed to use - it's a lot easier to go on a "trip" than it is to actually order something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911374</id>
	<title>Re:Scope creep?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264507560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be a moran<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. This is not between HP and EDS... They are one company<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....BSkyB was the company looking for CRM<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be a moran .. This is not between HP and EDS... They are one company ....BSkyB was the company looking for CRM .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be a moran .. This is not between HP and EDS... They are one company ....BSkyB was the company looking for CRM ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911758</id>
	<title>Re:Scope creep?</title>
	<author>Horza66</author>
	<datestamp>1264509900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked as an independent consultant at GM (run by EDS) and at Sky, cleaning up the mess they left behind.</p><p>Firstly, on behalf of all the independent consultants and contractors at both sites let me say thank you to EDS. Thank you for our fees. Without your stunning incompetence all down the line none of this would have been possible.</p><p>The reality at Sky:</p><p>
&nbsp; I joined a couple of years after EDS was slung out. Sky had a creaking legacy (green screen) customer installs system. They needed a comprehensive, fully architected CRM system capable of handling their millions of customers. EDS came in, did a brilliant sales demo, then sent in the drones. This is their standard operating procedure. They have smart people to call on - for sales calls. When it looked like they were about to get slung out of GM suddenly the kind of guys who wrote RFCs were all over the place. Once the attention was off they disappeared back to sales calls. This is how all outsourcing operations run.</p><p>Sky discovered pretty quick that they were being handed a pos that could never scale to a multi-million customer operation. Pretty quick being after a couple of years of pointless development. After they ditched EDS things didn't really improve: every department (customer services, billing, actuarial, etc etc) chose a "best of breed" app (more like "best of sales demos" app) then spent years customising it to fit. Then a bunch of said indy contractors tried to integrate it all together. We did the best we could.</p><p>Counting the bodies in the development halls, and allowing for what Sky had to pay to get people to work in Livingston (Detroit was comparable, if rather bigger) I'd estimate their costs at &pound;50+ Million a year over rather more than five years. This settlement would put a big dent in that, but it certainly won't cover the cost of EDS's truly monumental incompetence.</p><p>Coda:</p><p>Between the GM and Sky gigs I had a drink with Compaq's top salesman in Toronto. I related the disasters at GM for amusement value, only for him to express his undying affection and admiration for EDS. What goes, I asked, for there was a twinkle in his eye. He explained thusly.</p><p>EDS would come to him for a quote for 10,000 PCs in their upgrade cycle for a major client. Said salesman would provide a quote for top of the line PCs at below cost price. A massive loss for Compaq. He would put this deal on paper, fully specced, and pass it across the desk for signatures.</p><p>*Three years later* EDS would come back with the sign-off and a purchase order. Compaq would give them 10,000 of the dregs of the warehouse. They would all surpass the three-year-old spec in the contract. Massive profit for Compaq.</p><p>I imagine the salesman made a pretty decent bonus too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked as an independent consultant at GM ( run by EDS ) and at Sky , cleaning up the mess they left behind.Firstly , on behalf of all the independent consultants and contractors at both sites let me say thank you to EDS .
Thank you for our fees .
Without your stunning incompetence all down the line none of this would have been possible.The reality at Sky :   I joined a couple of years after EDS was slung out .
Sky had a creaking legacy ( green screen ) customer installs system .
They needed a comprehensive , fully architected CRM system capable of handling their millions of customers .
EDS came in , did a brilliant sales demo , then sent in the drones .
This is their standard operating procedure .
They have smart people to call on - for sales calls .
When it looked like they were about to get slung out of GM suddenly the kind of guys who wrote RFCs were all over the place .
Once the attention was off they disappeared back to sales calls .
This is how all outsourcing operations run.Sky discovered pretty quick that they were being handed a pos that could never scale to a multi-million customer operation .
Pretty quick being after a couple of years of pointless development .
After they ditched EDS things did n't really improve : every department ( customer services , billing , actuarial , etc etc ) chose a " best of breed " app ( more like " best of sales demos " app ) then spent years customising it to fit .
Then a bunch of said indy contractors tried to integrate it all together .
We did the best we could.Counting the bodies in the development halls , and allowing for what Sky had to pay to get people to work in Livingston ( Detroit was comparable , if rather bigger ) I 'd estimate their costs at   50 + Million a year over rather more than five years .
This settlement would put a big dent in that , but it certainly wo n't cover the cost of EDS 's truly monumental incompetence.Coda : Between the GM and Sky gigs I had a drink with Compaq 's top salesman in Toronto .
I related the disasters at GM for amusement value , only for him to express his undying affection and admiration for EDS .
What goes , I asked , for there was a twinkle in his eye .
He explained thusly.EDS would come to him for a quote for 10,000 PCs in their upgrade cycle for a major client .
Said salesman would provide a quote for top of the line PCs at below cost price .
A massive loss for Compaq .
He would put this deal on paper , fully specced , and pass it across the desk for signatures .
* Three years later * EDS would come back with the sign-off and a purchase order .
Compaq would give them 10,000 of the dregs of the warehouse .
They would all surpass the three-year-old spec in the contract .
Massive profit for Compaq.I imagine the salesman made a pretty decent bonus too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked as an independent consultant at GM (run by EDS) and at Sky, cleaning up the mess they left behind.Firstly, on behalf of all the independent consultants and contractors at both sites let me say thank you to EDS.
Thank you for our fees.
Without your stunning incompetence all down the line none of this would have been possible.The reality at Sky:
  I joined a couple of years after EDS was slung out.
Sky had a creaking legacy (green screen) customer installs system.
They needed a comprehensive, fully architected CRM system capable of handling their millions of customers.
EDS came in, did a brilliant sales demo, then sent in the drones.
This is their standard operating procedure.
They have smart people to call on - for sales calls.
When it looked like they were about to get slung out of GM suddenly the kind of guys who wrote RFCs were all over the place.
Once the attention was off they disappeared back to sales calls.
This is how all outsourcing operations run.Sky discovered pretty quick that they were being handed a pos that could never scale to a multi-million customer operation.
Pretty quick being after a couple of years of pointless development.
After they ditched EDS things didn't really improve: every department (customer services, billing, actuarial, etc etc) chose a "best of breed" app (more like "best of sales demos" app) then spent years customising it to fit.
Then a bunch of said indy contractors tried to integrate it all together.
We did the best we could.Counting the bodies in the development halls, and allowing for what Sky had to pay to get people to work in Livingston (Detroit was comparable, if rather bigger) I'd estimate their costs at £50+ Million a year over rather more than five years.
This settlement would put a big dent in that, but it certainly won't cover the cost of EDS's truly monumental incompetence.Coda:Between the GM and Sky gigs I had a drink with Compaq's top salesman in Toronto.
I related the disasters at GM for amusement value, only for him to express his undying affection and admiration for EDS.
What goes, I asked, for there was a twinkle in his eye.
He explained thusly.EDS would come to him for a quote for 10,000 PCs in their upgrade cycle for a major client.
Said salesman would provide a quote for top of the line PCs at below cost price.
A massive loss for Compaq.
He would put this deal on paper, fully specced, and pass it across the desk for signatures.
*Three years later* EDS would come back with the sign-off and a purchase order.
Compaq would give them 10,000 of the dregs of the warehouse.
They would all surpass the three-year-old spec in the contract.
Massive profit for Compaq.I imagine the salesman made a pretty decent bonus too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911558</id>
	<title>HP is run by greedy idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264508700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being an HP/EDS employee myself, I can guarantee you that I will get screwed.<br>They already cut my pay once by 5\%(plus 15\% for one month).  After doing this, they also cut several employee's salaries in a "job code alignment", which was just a pay cut in disguise.<br>This is before and after laying off hundreds of employees, replacing them with morons from India and Malaysia because they are "equally efficient but cheaper".<br>On the bright side, our CEO make record income thanks to his salary/compensations and his tremendous bonus.  Apparently flushing your company down the shitter puts you at the top of the bonus queue.<br>HP/EDS is run by greedy morons, who outsource all the work to poor morons.<br>I'm happy to have a job and I hope this whole event doesn't affect me(although I'm sure it will), but HP/EDS can suck it for all I care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being an HP/EDS employee myself , I can guarantee you that I will get screwed.They already cut my pay once by 5 \ % ( plus 15 \ % for one month ) .
After doing this , they also cut several employee 's salaries in a " job code alignment " , which was just a pay cut in disguise.This is before and after laying off hundreds of employees , replacing them with morons from India and Malaysia because they are " equally efficient but cheaper " .On the bright side , our CEO make record income thanks to his salary/compensations and his tremendous bonus .
Apparently flushing your company down the shitter puts you at the top of the bonus queue.HP/EDS is run by greedy morons , who outsource all the work to poor morons.I 'm happy to have a job and I hope this whole event does n't affect me ( although I 'm sure it will ) , but HP/EDS can suck it for all I care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being an HP/EDS employee myself, I can guarantee you that I will get screwed.They already cut my pay once by 5\%(plus 15\% for one month).
After doing this, they also cut several employee's salaries in a "job code alignment", which was just a pay cut in disguise.This is before and after laying off hundreds of employees, replacing them with morons from India and Malaysia because they are "equally efficient but cheaper".On the bright side, our CEO make record income thanks to his salary/compensations and his tremendous bonus.
Apparently flushing your company down the shitter puts you at the top of the bonus queue.HP/EDS is run by greedy morons, who outsource all the work to poor morons.I'm happy to have a job and I hope this whole event doesn't affect me(although I'm sure it will), but HP/EDS can suck it for all I care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915348</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264595760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forigve me but you have no idea what your talking about, don't tar the entire company with one brush - I've worked on planty of succesful projects with EDS and some that werent succesful, thats about par for any form of project undertaking, some go well some dont. And the sales process has changed radically in my experience since this event - lessons were learned by most.<br>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forigve me but you have no idea what your talking about , do n't tar the entire company with one brush - I 've worked on planty of succesful projects with EDS and some that werent succesful , thats about par for any form of project undertaking , some go well some dont .
And the sales process has changed radically in my experience since this event - lessons were learned by most. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forigve me but you have no idea what your talking about, don't tar the entire company with one brush - I've worked on planty of succesful projects with EDS and some that werent succesful, thats about par for any form of project undertaking, some go well some dont.
And the sales process has changed radically in my experience since this event - lessons were learned by most..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911364</id>
	<title>Re:Scope creep?</title>
	<author>curmudgeous</author>
	<datestamp>1264507560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BSkyB was the client in this case, EDS was the company contracted to provide services.  EDS has since been bought by HP and so HP is now on the hook for the EDS fubar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BSkyB was the client in this case , EDS was the company contracted to provide services .
EDS has since been bought by HP and so HP is now on the hook for the EDS fubar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BSkyB was the client in this case, EDS was the company contracted to provide services.
EDS has since been bought by HP and so HP is now on the hook for the EDS fubar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915184</id>
	<title>Re:It's the relationship, stupid!</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1264593480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's always either scope creep, budget creep, or time creep that kills them.</p></div></blockquote><p>But the root cause is usually a management creep.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always either scope creep , budget creep , or time creep that kills them.But the root cause is usually a management creep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always either scope creep, budget creep, or time creep that kills them.But the root cause is usually a management creep.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911168</id>
	<title>Who's getting screwed?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264506240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...no doubt management will try and screw them further to pay for this debacle."</p></div><p>Yeah. Printer ink will now start costing $7,000 a gallon instead of the paltry $6,400 it does now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...no doubt management will try and screw them further to pay for this debacle. " Yeah .
Printer ink will now start costing $ 7,000 a gallon instead of the paltry $ 6,400 it does now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...no doubt management will try and screw them further to pay for this debacle."Yeah.
Printer ink will now start costing $7,000 a gallon instead of the paltry $6,400 it does now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911702</id>
	<title>Re:SAP</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1264509540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure there where some that went well and many that went bad. Now most of them<br>I am sure are a horrible burden to the bottom line. Installing and running something<br>like SAP is all well and good when the company is making money and can afford it. When<br>the bottom drops out the expense and maintenance I am sure only quickens the pace<br>of demise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure there where some that went well and many that went bad .
Now most of themI am sure are a horrible burden to the bottom line .
Installing and running somethinglike SAP is all well and good when the company is making money and can afford it .
Whenthe bottom drops out the expense and maintenance I am sure only quickens the paceof demise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure there where some that went well and many that went bad.
Now most of themI am sure are a horrible burden to the bottom line.
Installing and running somethinglike SAP is all well and good when the company is making money and can afford it.
Whenthe bottom drops out the expense and maintenance I am sure only quickens the paceof demise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30916630</id>
	<title>Re:Overstated.</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1264604700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL but I have been an implementation consultant for some years now, and usually we work on time and material contracts that are not entirely unlike what you describe. All I can say is that most of the time it works out well in that we work and rework until the client is satisfied with the solution, but asking how much it'll cost is like asking how long a rubber band is. We have clients that have been very organized and very clear, and we've had clients that have very unclear requirements and very difficult to take a decision. The usual method of securing progress is to have fixed pots of money. This is how much money is in this phase, and if they're happy with how far we got for that money they'll sign on with another phase if not they'll halt the project or whatever. Getting money back can only happen in under really special circumstances.</p><p>If our customers want fixed deliveries to fixed prices then we can't have loose requirements, we can't have customers rejecting solutions for arbitrary reasons, whether it's because they suddenly found new requirements or don't like how it turned out in practice or whatever. Then we really do need a checklist of things we can check off and say "This solution is according to specifications" whether they like it or not. If they don't like it, write a change request and we'll quote you a change order price, but in all honestly they're rarely better off with that than with time and material.</p><p>That is the problem with your #1, it's not enough to have just success/failure criteria. In fact, many of the project charters I've read to have such criteria which can even be measurable but they require substantial cooperation from the customer. For example, just to take a classic: Together we take a decision but the customer come back later "You didn't tell us all the consequences of this decision and we won't accept this, correct it". Are they right? Sometimes, but very often also not. So we have a failed implementation but that doesn't automatically assign blame anywhere. And that'll be a long fight once it turns ugly, one way or the other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL but I have been an implementation consultant for some years now , and usually we work on time and material contracts that are not entirely unlike what you describe .
All I can say is that most of the time it works out well in that we work and rework until the client is satisfied with the solution , but asking how much it 'll cost is like asking how long a rubber band is .
We have clients that have been very organized and very clear , and we 've had clients that have very unclear requirements and very difficult to take a decision .
The usual method of securing progress is to have fixed pots of money .
This is how much money is in this phase , and if they 're happy with how far we got for that money they 'll sign on with another phase if not they 'll halt the project or whatever .
Getting money back can only happen in under really special circumstances.If our customers want fixed deliveries to fixed prices then we ca n't have loose requirements , we ca n't have customers rejecting solutions for arbitrary reasons , whether it 's because they suddenly found new requirements or do n't like how it turned out in practice or whatever .
Then we really do need a checklist of things we can check off and say " This solution is according to specifications " whether they like it or not .
If they do n't like it , write a change request and we 'll quote you a change order price , but in all honestly they 're rarely better off with that than with time and material.That is the problem with your # 1 , it 's not enough to have just success/failure criteria .
In fact , many of the project charters I 've read to have such criteria which can even be measurable but they require substantial cooperation from the customer .
For example , just to take a classic : Together we take a decision but the customer come back later " You did n't tell us all the consequences of this decision and we wo n't accept this , correct it " .
Are they right ?
Sometimes , but very often also not .
So we have a failed implementation but that does n't automatically assign blame anywhere .
And that 'll be a long fight once it turns ugly , one way or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL but I have been an implementation consultant for some years now, and usually we work on time and material contracts that are not entirely unlike what you describe.
All I can say is that most of the time it works out well in that we work and rework until the client is satisfied with the solution, but asking how much it'll cost is like asking how long a rubber band is.
We have clients that have been very organized and very clear, and we've had clients that have very unclear requirements and very difficult to take a decision.
The usual method of securing progress is to have fixed pots of money.
This is how much money is in this phase, and if they're happy with how far we got for that money they'll sign on with another phase if not they'll halt the project or whatever.
Getting money back can only happen in under really special circumstances.If our customers want fixed deliveries to fixed prices then we can't have loose requirements, we can't have customers rejecting solutions for arbitrary reasons, whether it's because they suddenly found new requirements or don't like how it turned out in practice or whatever.
Then we really do need a checklist of things we can check off and say "This solution is according to specifications" whether they like it or not.
If they don't like it, write a change request and we'll quote you a change order price, but in all honestly they're rarely better off with that than with time and material.That is the problem with your #1, it's not enough to have just success/failure criteria.
In fact, many of the project charters I've read to have such criteria which can even be measurable but they require substantial cooperation from the customer.
For example, just to take a classic: Together we take a decision but the customer come back later "You didn't tell us all the consequences of this decision and we won't accept this, correct it".
Are they right?
Sometimes, but very often also not.
So we have a failed implementation but that doesn't automatically assign blame anywhere.
And that'll be a long fight once it turns ugly, one way or the other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911882</id>
	<title>Re:Outsourcing suxors, but ...</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1264510800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People don't get to be in important positions by taking the blame for problems. They get to be in those positions by deflecting the blame to someone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't get to be in important positions by taking the blame for problems .
They get to be in those positions by deflecting the blame to someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't get to be in important positions by taking the blame for problems.
They get to be in those positions by deflecting the blame to someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914858</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264588740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has anybody ever heard of (or better yet been involved with) an EDS project that went well.</p></div><p>I have worked for EDS now HP for many years in Europe and have never worked on a project that has failed. This includes some big projects lasting many years. We did have many experts.  I can believe that there are problems, what company does not have problems ? The whole outsourcing to offshore sites with cheaper and cheaper labour has caused a loss of expertise, which takes time to rebuild in the offshore locations. As usual shareholder value is king - the cost of support for a system is the important bit, not the people on the project or the quality of the work.</p><p>Just like the bankers, sales people get big fat bonuses based on the value of what they sell, with no responsibility for success.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anybody ever heard of ( or better yet been involved with ) an EDS project that went well.I have worked for EDS now HP for many years in Europe and have never worked on a project that has failed .
This includes some big projects lasting many years .
We did have many experts .
I can believe that there are problems , what company does not have problems ?
The whole outsourcing to offshore sites with cheaper and cheaper labour has caused a loss of expertise , which takes time to rebuild in the offshore locations .
As usual shareholder value is king - the cost of support for a system is the important bit , not the people on the project or the quality of the work.Just like the bankers , sales people get big fat bonuses based on the value of what they sell , with no responsibility for success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anybody ever heard of (or better yet been involved with) an EDS project that went well.I have worked for EDS now HP for many years in Europe and have never worked on a project that has failed.
This includes some big projects lasting many years.
We did have many experts.
I can believe that there are problems, what company does not have problems ?
The whole outsourcing to offshore sites with cheaper and cheaper labour has caused a loss of expertise, which takes time to rebuild in the offshore locations.
As usual shareholder value is king - the cost of support for a system is the important bit, not the people on the project or the quality of the work.Just like the bankers, sales people get big fat bonuses based on the value of what they sell, with no responsibility for success.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912396</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting implications</title>
	<author>chiguy</author>
	<datestamp>1264514640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Each sales meeting could be a contract negotiation with legal implications as well as a demo or whatever.</p></div><p>This would be awesome for the techs who have to deliver the goods.</p><p>The sales guys can't just make false promises any more.  They'd be on the hook too.</p><p>Management would be scared of over-promising in presentations and reign in the sales team.</p><p>Now that would change company dynamics.</p><p>Ahhhh, if only.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each sales meeting could be a contract negotiation with legal implications as well as a demo or whatever.This would be awesome for the techs who have to deliver the goods.The sales guys ca n't just make false promises any more .
They 'd be on the hook too.Management would be scared of over-promising in presentations and reign in the sales team.Now that would change company dynamics.Ahhhh , if only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each sales meeting could be a contract negotiation with legal implications as well as a demo or whatever.This would be awesome for the techs who have to deliver the goods.The sales guys can't just make false promises any more.
They'd be on the hook too.Management would be scared of over-promising in presentations and reign in the sales team.Now that would change company dynamics.Ahhhh, if only.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911392</id>
	<title>Re:SAP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264507680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was in the U.S. Navy I was lucky to be at a command that was a test platform for an SAP implementation for the Navy(ERP was the Navy name for it).  When I was there, if you were a "power user", even if not a computer junkie, it was very easy to get a grip on the program and use it very effectively.  Of course, we had alot of complaining by alot of older people that didn't like change (every group will have these people).  The actual rolling out of the platform was painful, but once it was in and operating it was great.</p><p>Our only issue was that we needed to be able to store classified "Confidential" information.  This was information that was simply above public release, but below "Secret".  Our procedures required certain safegards that were not easily implemented into SAP at the time.  We had a plan to get it to work, but at a pretty significant cost.</p><p>Googling I just found www.erp.navy.mil, so it looks like the Navy has started using it more broadly.  As much money as the gov't dumps into crazy stuff, I would be the first to say SAP/ERP was money well spent!  Just don't mention NMCI(Navy and Marine Corp Intranet).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was in the U.S. Navy I was lucky to be at a command that was a test platform for an SAP implementation for the Navy ( ERP was the Navy name for it ) .
When I was there , if you were a " power user " , even if not a computer junkie , it was very easy to get a grip on the program and use it very effectively .
Of course , we had alot of complaining by alot of older people that did n't like change ( every group will have these people ) .
The actual rolling out of the platform was painful , but once it was in and operating it was great.Our only issue was that we needed to be able to store classified " Confidential " information .
This was information that was simply above public release , but below " Secret " .
Our procedures required certain safegards that were not easily implemented into SAP at the time .
We had a plan to get it to work , but at a pretty significant cost.Googling I just found www.erp.navy.mil , so it looks like the Navy has started using it more broadly .
As much money as the gov't dumps into crazy stuff , I would be the first to say SAP/ERP was money well spent !
Just do n't mention NMCI ( Navy and Marine Corp Intranet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was in the U.S. Navy I was lucky to be at a command that was a test platform for an SAP implementation for the Navy(ERP was the Navy name for it).
When I was there, if you were a "power user", even if not a computer junkie, it was very easy to get a grip on the program and use it very effectively.
Of course, we had alot of complaining by alot of older people that didn't like change (every group will have these people).
The actual rolling out of the platform was painful, but once it was in and operating it was great.Our only issue was that we needed to be able to store classified "Confidential" information.
This was information that was simply above public release, but below "Secret".
Our procedures required certain safegards that were not easily implemented into SAP at the time.
We had a plan to get it to work, but at a pretty significant cost.Googling I just found www.erp.navy.mil, so it looks like the Navy has started using it more broadly.
As much money as the gov't dumps into crazy stuff, I would be the first to say SAP/ERP was money well spent!
Just don't mention NMCI(Navy and Marine Corp Intranet).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914826</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264588080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't know how EDS stays in business.</i></p><p>They haven't.</p><p>They just got taken over by HP, which is going as fas as it can to dismantle the EDS brand and move the corporate culture to HP (the contractual changes in this are a major factor in the wave of strikes that they're suffering at the moment).</p><p>I have some friends who work at EDS. Their jobs are safe (for the time being), but a lot of people they know are not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how EDS stays in business.They have n't.They just got taken over by HP , which is going as fas as it can to dismantle the EDS brand and move the corporate culture to HP ( the contractual changes in this are a major factor in the wave of strikes that they 're suffering at the moment ) .I have some friends who work at EDS .
Their jobs are safe ( for the time being ) , but a lot of people they know are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how EDS stays in business.They haven't.They just got taken over by HP, which is going as fas as it can to dismantle the EDS brand and move the corporate culture to HP (the contractual changes in this are a major factor in the wave of strikes that they're suffering at the moment).I have some friends who work at EDS.
Their jobs are safe (for the time being), but a lot of people they know are not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914352</id>
	<title>Re:Outsourcing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GlobalLogic. Client list <a href="http://www.globallogic.com/clients/clients.shtml" title="globallogic.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [globallogic.com]. The site's a bit buzzword bingo though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GlobalLogic .
Client list here [ globallogic.com ] .
The site 's a bit buzzword bingo though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GlobalLogic.
Client list here [globallogic.com].
The site's a bit buzzword bingo though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911314</id>
	<title>Outsourcing suxors, but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264507140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AC disclosure: I work for BSKYB, but not in CRM<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... thank f**k.</p><p>Yes, the CRM system has problems, and from a tech perspective I'd agree that it's not worth &pound;48M (OMFG!). However, I think it's amazing that things got this far. If we're in a capitalist society then I also want this to be a meritocracy and I want someone in Sky to publicly take the blame for this 3rd party POS. Regardless of the internal or external software teams, it should never be allowed to degenerate to this level of incompetence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AC disclosure : I work for BSKYB , but not in CRM ... thank f * * k.Yes , the CRM system has problems , and from a tech perspective I 'd agree that it 's not worth   48M ( OMFG ! ) .
However , I think it 's amazing that things got this far .
If we 're in a capitalist society then I also want this to be a meritocracy and I want someone in Sky to publicly take the blame for this 3rd party POS .
Regardless of the internal or external software teams , it should never be allowed to degenerate to this level of incompetence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AC disclosure: I work for BSKYB, but not in CRM ... thank f**k.Yes, the CRM system has problems, and from a tech perspective I'd agree that it's not worth £48M (OMFG!).
However, I think it's amazing that things got this far.
If we're in a capitalist society then I also want this to be a meritocracy and I want someone in Sky to publicly take the blame for this 3rd party POS.
Regardless of the internal or external software teams, it should never be allowed to degenerate to this level of incompetence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30924094</id>
	<title>Bonus Driven Behaviours</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264585380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A big EDS problem was/is the bonus culture.  Much as the top will tell you that the system delivers profit, it actually only delivered stellar revenue today without regard to long-term profitability.  You have to recognise that EDS was formed by IQ100 computer operators offering to provide &lsquo;your mess for less&rsquo; and never really did anything to advance the services delivered to users.</p><p>EDS had a really good commercial risk assessment system that forecast likely profitability, run by the numbers men, but you could lie!  The bonuses were paid on contract signature, not just to the salesman and the management, but also to a swathe of the bid team.  The share of the bonus was at the discretion of the &lsquo;leadership&rsquo; &ndash; surprisingly, those that supported the &lsquo;sales&rsquo; story made good; the sceptics got nought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A big EDS problem was/is the bonus culture .
Much as the top will tell you that the system delivers profit , it actually only delivered stellar revenue today without regard to long-term profitability .
You have to recognise that EDS was formed by IQ100 computer operators offering to provide    your mess for less    and never really did anything to advance the services delivered to users.EDS had a really good commercial risk assessment system that forecast likely profitability , run by the numbers men , but you could lie !
The bonuses were paid on contract signature , not just to the salesman and the management , but also to a swathe of the bid team .
The share of the bonus was at the discretion of the    leadership       surprisingly , those that supported the    sales    story made good ; the sceptics got nought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big EDS problem was/is the bonus culture.
Much as the top will tell you that the system delivers profit, it actually only delivered stellar revenue today without regard to long-term profitability.
You have to recognise that EDS was formed by IQ100 computer operators offering to provide ‘your mess for less’ and never really did anything to advance the services delivered to users.EDS had a really good commercial risk assessment system that forecast likely profitability, run by the numbers men, but you could lie!
The bonuses were paid on contract signature, not just to the salesman and the management, but also to a swathe of the bid team.
The share of the bonus was at the discretion of the ‘leadership’ – surprisingly, those that supported the ‘sales’ story made good; the sceptics got nought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912208</id>
	<title>Remedy: Don't buy anything from HP.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264513380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remedy: Don't buy anything from HP. It's a lagging company with only a few good departments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remedy : Do n't buy anything from HP .
It 's a lagging company with only a few good departments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remedy: Don't buy anything from HP.
It's a lagging company with only a few good departments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30979520</id>
	<title>Re:Overstated.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You were doing great until you got to eulas. Do you really think that we should spend $1-3k for every website we visit, and for every $40 game?</p><p>But everything else you said was spot on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You were doing great until you got to eulas .
Do you really think that we should spend $ 1-3k for every website we visit , and for every $ 40 game ? But everything else you said was spot on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You were doing great until you got to eulas.
Do you really think that we should spend $1-3k for every website we visit, and for every $40 game?But everything else you said was spot on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914666</id>
	<title>Birmingham (UK) City Council</title>
	<author>BancBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264585620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least they got the picture right for the website! <br> When they had leaflets made, they had the Birmingham Alabama skyline!!!<br>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/england/west\_midlands/7560392.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/england/west\_midlands/7560392.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least they got the picture right for the website !
When they had leaflets made , they had the Birmingham Alabama skyline ! ! !
http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk \ _news/england/west \ _midlands/7560392.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least they got the picture right for the website!
When they had leaflets made, they had the Birmingham Alabama skyline!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/england/west\_midlands/7560392.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30917388</id>
	<title>Re:HP is run by greedy idiots</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1264608120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Leave now.
</p><p>
I worked for HP for a couple of years, and when I found out in 2008 that nobody was going to get a raise, I started looking for another job.  Then in 2009 they cut salaries by 5\% and I decided to make it known to my manager that I wanted to relocate within the company to the other side of the country (US).  What I didn't tell him was that I was receiving calls from recruiters.
</p><p>
Then in May, I was told that "my position was being eliminated as part of a workforce reduction plan."  I'm so glad the VP who told me this let me go home early.  I doubt I could have lasted another 5 minutes without dancing.  The severance package was worth 2 months of pay, at the rate I was getting before the 5\% cut.  A few months later, I had another job.  It pays over 25\% more than what I was making at HP, and in general, I love what I do here!
</p><p>
Get out now.  Nobody should "just be happy to have a job."  Yes, you should be grateful to God that you have a job, but don't JUST be happy with that.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave now .
I worked for HP for a couple of years , and when I found out in 2008 that nobody was going to get a raise , I started looking for another job .
Then in 2009 they cut salaries by 5 \ % and I decided to make it known to my manager that I wanted to relocate within the company to the other side of the country ( US ) .
What I did n't tell him was that I was receiving calls from recruiters .
Then in May , I was told that " my position was being eliminated as part of a workforce reduction plan .
" I 'm so glad the VP who told me this let me go home early .
I doubt I could have lasted another 5 minutes without dancing .
The severance package was worth 2 months of pay , at the rate I was getting before the 5 \ % cut .
A few months later , I had another job .
It pays over 25 \ % more than what I was making at HP , and in general , I love what I do here !
Get out now .
Nobody should " just be happy to have a job .
" Yes , you should be grateful to God that you have a job , but do n't JUST be happy with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Leave now.
I worked for HP for a couple of years, and when I found out in 2008 that nobody was going to get a raise, I started looking for another job.
Then in 2009 they cut salaries by 5\% and I decided to make it known to my manager that I wanted to relocate within the company to the other side of the country (US).
What I didn't tell him was that I was receiving calls from recruiters.
Then in May, I was told that "my position was being eliminated as part of a workforce reduction plan.
"  I'm so glad the VP who told me this let me go home early.
I doubt I could have lasted another 5 minutes without dancing.
The severance package was worth 2 months of pay, at the rate I was getting before the 5\% cut.
A few months later, I had another job.
It pays over 25\% more than what I was making at HP, and in general, I love what I do here!
Get out now.
Nobody should "just be happy to have a job.
"  Yes, you should be grateful to God that you have a job, but don't JUST be happy with that.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911616</id>
	<title>Re:It's the relationship, stupid!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1264509060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the relationship, it's the specification. I've never seen a project that had a complete, unambiguous specification, but this one sounds much worse than usual. Sounds like BSkyB went forward on this with this on just a wink and a handshake and figured they'd iron out the details later. Uh, no... the specification needs to be agreed on up front. Sounds like stupid people on both sides of the table to me -- BSkyB stupid for not specifying in the contract exactly what was being delivered and what the acceptance criteria was, and EDS/HP salesmen stupid for responding to all there questions with a "sure, it'll do that!" without having a clue what it would take to actually implement those features.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the relationship , it 's the specification .
I 've never seen a project that had a complete , unambiguous specification , but this one sounds much worse than usual .
Sounds like BSkyB went forward on this with this on just a wink and a handshake and figured they 'd iron out the details later .
Uh , no... the specification needs to be agreed on up front .
Sounds like stupid people on both sides of the table to me -- BSkyB stupid for not specifying in the contract exactly what was being delivered and what the acceptance criteria was , and EDS/HP salesmen stupid for responding to all there questions with a " sure , it 'll do that !
" without having a clue what it would take to actually implement those features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the relationship, it's the specification.
I've never seen a project that had a complete, unambiguous specification, but this one sounds much worse than usual.
Sounds like BSkyB went forward on this with this on just a wink and a handshake and figured they'd iron out the details later.
Uh, no... the specification needs to be agreed on up front.
Sounds like stupid people on both sides of the table to me -- BSkyB stupid for not specifying in the contract exactly what was being delivered and what the acceptance criteria was, and EDS/HP salesmen stupid for responding to all there questions with a "sure, it'll do that!
" without having a clue what it would take to actually implement those features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915074</id>
	<title>It doesn't have to be this way</title>
	<author>GordianusTheFinder</author>
	<datestamp>1264591980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Outsourcing companies and system integrators use a number of tricks to ensure the project is profitable whilst being the lowest bidder. These include:
<ul>
<li>Removing highly qualified engineers from the team early and replacing them with new graduates</li>

<li>Ensuring that changes to the specification are expensive</li>

<li>Over-promising during the sales process</li>
</ul><p>
None of these is healthy and when it goes wrong, the only winners are the lawyers. I worked with a Major European Telco which outsourced the development of a large software system. It went wrong quite quickly and no useful code was delivered for two years while they sorted out the mess - expensive.
<br> <br>
It doesn't have to be this way. The construction industry has similar issues with large projects, due to the same root causes. The collaborative contract for the construction of Heathrow Terminal 5 was very successful and resulted in the project being delivered on time and on budget, with very few disputes:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.iaccm.com/contractingexcellence.php?storyid=368" title="iaccm.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.iaccm.com/contractingexcellence.php?storyid=368</a> [iaccm.com]
<br> <br>
I wonder if the IT industry will attempt to learn from this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
<br> <br>
Gord.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outsourcing companies and system integrators use a number of tricks to ensure the project is profitable whilst being the lowest bidder .
These include : Removing highly qualified engineers from the team early and replacing them with new graduates Ensuring that changes to the specification are expensive Over-promising during the sales process None of these is healthy and when it goes wrong , the only winners are the lawyers .
I worked with a Major European Telco which outsourced the development of a large software system .
It went wrong quite quickly and no useful code was delivered for two years while they sorted out the mess - expensive .
It does n't have to be this way .
The construction industry has similar issues with large projects , due to the same root causes .
The collaborative contract for the construction of Heathrow Terminal 5 was very successful and resulted in the project being delivered on time and on budget , with very few disputes : http : //www.iaccm.com/contractingexcellence.php ? storyid = 368 [ iaccm.com ] I wonder if the IT industry will attempt to learn from this .. . Gord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outsourcing companies and system integrators use a number of tricks to ensure the project is profitable whilst being the lowest bidder.
These include:

Removing highly qualified engineers from the team early and replacing them with new graduates

Ensuring that changes to the specification are expensive

Over-promising during the sales process

None of these is healthy and when it goes wrong, the only winners are the lawyers.
I worked with a Major European Telco which outsourced the development of a large software system.
It went wrong quite quickly and no useful code was delivered for two years while they sorted out the mess - expensive.
It doesn't have to be this way.
The construction industry has similar issues with large projects, due to the same root causes.
The collaborative contract for the construction of Heathrow Terminal 5 was very successful and resulted in the project being delivered on time and on budget, with very few disputes:
 
http://www.iaccm.com/contractingexcellence.php?storyid=368 [iaccm.com]
 
I wonder if the IT industry will attempt to learn from this ...
 
Gord.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914628</id>
	<title>Change Incentive Structure</title>
	<author>wein0</author>
	<datestamp>1264584840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having worked at EDS and a number of other technology organizations I believe that the incentive schemes shape behavior.  Those EDS sales teams at BSkyB and other accounts mentioned would have received their commission cheques when the deal was signed.  Deal Signed = $$$$$

Should their incentives and commission be paid in line with the delivery of major milestones and/or the delivery of the solution to the cost model and specification then there would be a little more focus on the technical components rather than just the commercial ones.

For this to happen it would take an industry wide shift as EDS/HP,  IBM,  Accenture all pay the same way.

If I were a client negotiating with any of these organizations I would demand that the sales team not get commissioned until my major milestones are met..

Money makes the world go round...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having worked at EDS and a number of other technology organizations I believe that the incentive schemes shape behavior .
Those EDS sales teams at BSkyB and other accounts mentioned would have received their commission cheques when the deal was signed .
Deal Signed = $ $ $ $ $ Should their incentives and commission be paid in line with the delivery of major milestones and/or the delivery of the solution to the cost model and specification then there would be a little more focus on the technical components rather than just the commercial ones .
For this to happen it would take an industry wide shift as EDS/HP , IBM , Accenture all pay the same way .
If I were a client negotiating with any of these organizations I would demand that the sales team not get commissioned until my major milestones are met. . Money makes the world go round.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having worked at EDS and a number of other technology organizations I believe that the incentive schemes shape behavior.
Those EDS sales teams at BSkyB and other accounts mentioned would have received their commission cheques when the deal was signed.
Deal Signed = $$$$$

Should their incentives and commission be paid in line with the delivery of major milestones and/or the delivery of the solution to the cost model and specification then there would be a little more focus on the technical components rather than just the commercial ones.
For this to happen it would take an industry wide shift as EDS/HP,  IBM,  Accenture all pay the same way.
If I were a client negotiating with any of these organizations I would demand that the sales team not get commissioned until my major milestones are met..

Money makes the world go round...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912020</id>
	<title>Douche bag editoral summary</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264511880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Outsourcing will never be the same again. HP workers have been on strike against pay cuts last week; no doubt management will try and screw them further to pay for this debacle.</p></div></blockquote><p>Let me give you a little fucking hint, when the company you work for, losses a 200M lawsuit, because you were a fuck up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a pay cut should be the least of your worries.</p><p>Where the fuck did this ridiculous sense of entitlement come from?  What the hell is wrong with people now days?  You don't exactly get raises when you screw up, ESPECIALLY when you end up costing millions to the company.  The only time you get pay increases in this situation is when you're a US CEO of a massive company and cost millions of people pain and suffering, THEN you get a bonus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Outsourcing will never be the same again .
HP workers have been on strike against pay cuts last week ; no doubt management will try and screw them further to pay for this debacle.Let me give you a little fucking hint , when the company you work for , losses a 200M lawsuit , because you were a fuck up ... a pay cut should be the least of your worries.Where the fuck did this ridiculous sense of entitlement come from ?
What the hell is wrong with people now days ?
You do n't exactly get raises when you screw up , ESPECIALLY when you end up costing millions to the company .
The only time you get pay increases in this situation is when you 're a US CEO of a massive company and cost millions of people pain and suffering , THEN you get a bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outsourcing will never be the same again.
HP workers have been on strike against pay cuts last week; no doubt management will try and screw them further to pay for this debacle.Let me give you a little fucking hint, when the company you work for, losses a 200M lawsuit, because you were a fuck up ... a pay cut should be the least of your worries.Where the fuck did this ridiculous sense of entitlement come from?
What the hell is wrong with people now days?
You don't exactly get raises when you screw up, ESPECIALLY when you end up costing millions to the company.
The only time you get pay increases in this situation is when you're a US CEO of a massive company and cost millions of people pain and suffering, THEN you get a bonus.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30974244</id>
	<title>HP/EDS CRM expert lied about degree?</title>
	<author>littlekorea</author>
	<datestamp>1264935180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As if this story wasn't interesting enough, the <a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/165888,key-eds-witness-bought-internet-degree.aspx" title="itnews.com.au" rel="nofollow">exec responsible for the CRM system lied about his internet degree</a> [itnews.com.au], and got it from the same institution as the prosecutor's dog, Lulu, who achieved a better score.
Too funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As if this story was n't interesting enough , the exec responsible for the CRM system lied about his internet degree [ itnews.com.au ] , and got it from the same institution as the prosecutor 's dog , Lulu , who achieved a better score .
Too funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if this story wasn't interesting enough, the exec responsible for the CRM system lied about his internet degree [itnews.com.au], and got it from the same institution as the prosecutor's dog, Lulu, who achieved a better score.
Too funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912288</id>
	<title>Re:Outsourcing suxors, but ...</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1264513980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hard to allocate blame in these cases. The internal staff typically work excessively hard to make the original contract work.</p><p>Someone senior usually gets booted out halfway through that leaving someone new to pick up the pieces, but the person booted out tends to have been constrained by various factors and acting with the best intentions, but caught out by a mix of supplier incompetence (don't assume malice), internal incompetence, overcommitment, inappropriate priorities and sometimes just being in over their head.</p><p>The people left trying to rectify the situation can bump into all of the same issues, with the added pressure that they know it's going wrong, and the understanding that they'll never get properly rewarded for putting it right.</p><p>Big projects go wrong for a number of reasons, including politics, finances, skills, promises, misunderstandings and frankly because these things are bloody difficult.</p><p>Publicly taking the blame? Probably inappropriate, unconstructive, unfair and unnecessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to allocate blame in these cases .
The internal staff typically work excessively hard to make the original contract work.Someone senior usually gets booted out halfway through that leaving someone new to pick up the pieces , but the person booted out tends to have been constrained by various factors and acting with the best intentions , but caught out by a mix of supplier incompetence ( do n't assume malice ) , internal incompetence , overcommitment , inappropriate priorities and sometimes just being in over their head.The people left trying to rectify the situation can bump into all of the same issues , with the added pressure that they know it 's going wrong , and the understanding that they 'll never get properly rewarded for putting it right.Big projects go wrong for a number of reasons , including politics , finances , skills , promises , misunderstandings and frankly because these things are bloody difficult.Publicly taking the blame ?
Probably inappropriate , unconstructive , unfair and unnecessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to allocate blame in these cases.
The internal staff typically work excessively hard to make the original contract work.Someone senior usually gets booted out halfway through that leaving someone new to pick up the pieces, but the person booted out tends to have been constrained by various factors and acting with the best intentions, but caught out by a mix of supplier incompetence (don't assume malice), internal incompetence, overcommitment, inappropriate priorities and sometimes just being in over their head.The people left trying to rectify the situation can bump into all of the same issues, with the added pressure that they know it's going wrong, and the understanding that they'll never get properly rewarded for putting it right.Big projects go wrong for a number of reasons, including politics, finances, skills, promises, misunderstandings and frankly because these things are bloody difficult.Publicly taking the blame?
Probably inappropriate, unconstructive, unfair and unnecessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912482</id>
	<title>Re:Who's getting screwed?</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1264515180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them.</p></div><p>If I remember correctly, Lexmark fell flat on their face when they tried that argument on a competitor. It's not as easy as "software + copyright + DRM = DMCA". DMCA prevents unauthorised access to protected copyrighted software. Lexmark's printer cartridges contained \_unprotected\_ software that was so primitive that it was found to be not deserving of copyright, so copying it was found to be neither copyright violation nor DMCA violation. Lexmark tried to prevent users of their printers from accessing competitors' ink cartridges without authorisation by Lexmark. But DMCA only controls access to software, not to ink cartridges. And even if it controlled access to ink cartridges, it would only be relevant for unauthorised use of Lexmark cartridges, not for unauthorised use of a competitors' cartridge. <br> <br>
So Lexmark's arguments were based on a complete lack of understanding or wilful misinterpretation of the DMCA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them.If I remember correctly , Lexmark fell flat on their face when they tried that argument on a competitor .
It 's not as easy as " software + copyright + DRM = DMCA " .
DMCA prevents unauthorised access to protected copyrighted software .
Lexmark 's printer cartridges contained \ _unprotected \ _ software that was so primitive that it was found to be not deserving of copyright , so copying it was found to be neither copyright violation nor DMCA violation .
Lexmark tried to prevent users of their printers from accessing competitors ' ink cartridges without authorisation by Lexmark .
But DMCA only controls access to software , not to ink cartridges .
And even if it controlled access to ink cartridges , it would only be relevant for unauthorised use of Lexmark cartridges , not for unauthorised use of a competitors ' cartridge .
So Lexmark 's arguments were based on a complete lack of understanding or wilful misinterpretation of the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them.If I remember correctly, Lexmark fell flat on their face when they tried that argument on a competitor.
It's not as easy as "software + copyright + DRM = DMCA".
DMCA prevents unauthorised access to protected copyrighted software.
Lexmark's printer cartridges contained \_unprotected\_ software that was so primitive that it was found to be not deserving of copyright, so copying it was found to be neither copyright violation nor DMCA violation.
Lexmark tried to prevent users of their printers from accessing competitors' ink cartridges without authorisation by Lexmark.
But DMCA only controls access to software, not to ink cartridges.
And even if it controlled access to ink cartridges, it would only be relevant for unauthorised use of Lexmark cartridges, not for unauthorised use of a competitors' cartridge.
So Lexmark's arguments were based on a complete lack of understanding or wilful misinterpretation of the DMCA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30927416</id>
	<title>Re:Who's getting screwed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264596180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them.</p></div><p>Case in point re DRM'd ink;
I always purchase  a real, high dollar spare set of cartridges in case I have to print something critical when the ink runs dry.</p><p>

However, with the terrible, rotten, failure prone Canon Pixma printer I bought, I've discovered that having a spare cartridge for each color is not enough to insure one can print when the ink runs out.
I've had new, factory Canon Pixma cartridges fail its DRM and the printer will not print, even in B/W.
For a DRM'd printer, one needs to purchase a least <b>two spares</b> of each color to have on hand to increase the odds that one of them will  work.  I won't purchase another DRM'd printer, ever. </p><p>
That's right; CANON PIXMA PRINTERS SUCK ASS due to their DRM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them.Case in point re DRM 'd ink ; I always purchase a real , high dollar spare set of cartridges in case I have to print something critical when the ink runs dry .
However , with the terrible , rotten , failure prone Canon Pixma printer I bought , I 've discovered that having a spare cartridge for each color is not enough to insure one can print when the ink runs out .
I 've had new , factory Canon Pixma cartridges fail its DRM and the printer will not print , even in B/W .
For a DRM 'd printer , one needs to purchase a least two spares of each color to have on hand to increase the odds that one of them will work .
I wo n't purchase another DRM 'd printer , ever .
That 's right ; CANON PIXMA PRINTERS SUCK ASS due to their DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them.Case in point re DRM'd ink;
I always purchase  a real, high dollar spare set of cartridges in case I have to print something critical when the ink runs dry.
However, with the terrible, rotten, failure prone Canon Pixma printer I bought, I've discovered that having a spare cartridge for each color is not enough to insure one can print when the ink runs out.
I've had new, factory Canon Pixma cartridges fail its DRM and the printer will not print, even in B/W.
For a DRM'd printer, one needs to purchase a least two spares of each color to have on hand to increase the odds that one of them will  work.
I won't purchase another DRM'd printer, ever.
That's right; CANON PIXMA PRINTERS SUCK ASS due to their DRM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912660</id>
	<title>Re:It's the relationship, stupid!</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1264516500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all spot on. I do contracting work for clients, and my A1 priority is that the client is happy with the job, even if it means I don't make much on it. Reason? Because I want the client to come back to me. Unless they were a gigantic pain in the ass, in which case, I don't.</p><p>I saw a company go to the wall because they would try to do anything to charge their clients for code changes. If a spec was vague, they'd argue like crazy every time that the client should pay. A few times, I spent more time creating a defence of their vague spec than what I would have spent just changing the damn code as a goodwill gesture. The end result for the company is that they lost a lot of clients who got pissed off at the beligerence they were facing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all spot on .
I do contracting work for clients , and my A1 priority is that the client is happy with the job , even if it means I do n't make much on it .
Reason ? Because I want the client to come back to me .
Unless they were a gigantic pain in the ass , in which case , I do n't.I saw a company go to the wall because they would try to do anything to charge their clients for code changes .
If a spec was vague , they 'd argue like crazy every time that the client should pay .
A few times , I spent more time creating a defence of their vague spec than what I would have spent just changing the damn code as a goodwill gesture .
The end result for the company is that they lost a lot of clients who got pissed off at the beligerence they were facing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all spot on.
I do contracting work for clients, and my A1 priority is that the client is happy with the job, even if it means I don't make much on it.
Reason? Because I want the client to come back to me.
Unless they were a gigantic pain in the ass, in which case, I don't.I saw a company go to the wall because they would try to do anything to charge their clients for code changes.
If a spec was vague, they'd argue like crazy every time that the client should pay.
A few times, I spent more time creating a defence of their vague spec than what I would have spent just changing the damn code as a goodwill gesture.
The end result for the company is that they lost a lot of clients who got pissed off at the beligerence they were facing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911546</id>
	<title>No surprise.</title>
	<author>Yaos</author>
	<datestamp>1264508640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you go HP you deserve what you get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go HP you deserve what you get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go HP you deserve what you get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30917184</id>
	<title>Re:HP is run by greedy idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264607280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how their "Jobe code alignment" was one way.</p><p>Right before they annouced the pay cut I moved to a different job code, so I got a 5\% pay cut too(when everyone else on my team got 2.5\%) and lost the ability to make over-time.</p><p>I was hoping the jobe code alignment would bring me up to what they should be paying me, but no...will probably have to go another year with no kind of pay increase. And that bonus they gave us at the end of the year is bullshit....Only a greedy asshole would cut your pay by 5\%, then give it back to you and call it a bonus, talk about a fucked up kind of loan that the government taxes the shit out of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how their " Jobe code alignment " was one way.Right before they annouced the pay cut I moved to a different job code , so I got a 5 \ % pay cut too ( when everyone else on my team got 2.5 \ % ) and lost the ability to make over-time.I was hoping the jobe code alignment would bring me up to what they should be paying me , but no...will probably have to go another year with no kind of pay increase .
And that bonus they gave us at the end of the year is bullshit....Only a greedy asshole would cut your pay by 5 \ % , then give it back to you and call it a bonus , talk about a fucked up kind of loan that the government taxes the shit out of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how their "Jobe code alignment" was one way.Right before they annouced the pay cut I moved to a different job code, so I got a 5\% pay cut too(when everyone else on my team got 2.5\%) and lost the ability to make over-time.I was hoping the jobe code alignment would bring me up to what they should be paying me, but no...will probably have to go another year with no kind of pay increase.
And that bonus they gave us at the end of the year is bullshit....Only a greedy asshole would cut your pay by 5\%, then give it back to you and call it a bonus, talk about a fucked up kind of loan that the government taxes the shit out of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911582</id>
	<title>Greed is good!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264508880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are a labour union.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a labour union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a labour union.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911264</id>
	<title>Re:Overstated.</title>
	<author>clsours</author>
	<datestamp>1264506840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently the bulk of the 'problem' came not because of actual contract violations, but the in the course of creating and implementing software product requirements, which is notoriously sticky and difficult; much of which was done on an informal basis. This is a watershed moment akin to Sarbanes-Oxley for outsourcing companies. Look for a whole new series of 'best practices' videos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the bulk of the 'problem ' came not because of actual contract violations , but the in the course of creating and implementing software product requirements , which is notoriously sticky and difficult ; much of which was done on an informal basis .
This is a watershed moment akin to Sarbanes-Oxley for outsourcing companies .
Look for a whole new series of 'best practices ' videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the bulk of the 'problem' came not because of actual contract violations, but the in the course of creating and implementing software product requirements, which is notoriously sticky and difficult; much of which was done on an informal basis.
This is a watershed moment akin to Sarbanes-Oxley for outsourcing companies.
Look for a whole new series of 'best practices' videos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912462</id>
	<title>Re:Douche bag editoral summary</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1264515000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm confused. You work 80 hour weeks trying to implement the impossible solution your fuckwit sales team promised to the client, fail because it really genuinely is impossible, and then get fucked over by the new owner of your company.</p><p>How exactly are you responsible for the &pound;200m lawsuit? Other than increasing its costs by not refusing to work on the bloody thing in the first place (i.e. quitting or getting sacked).</p><p>EDS had a terrible reputation and I pretty much hated the company, but that doesn't mean its staff were all screwing up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused .
You work 80 hour weeks trying to implement the impossible solution your fuckwit sales team promised to the client , fail because it really genuinely is impossible , and then get fucked over by the new owner of your company.How exactly are you responsible for the   200m lawsuit ?
Other than increasing its costs by not refusing to work on the bloody thing in the first place ( i.e .
quitting or getting sacked ) .EDS had a terrible reputation and I pretty much hated the company , but that does n't mean its staff were all screwing up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused.
You work 80 hour weeks trying to implement the impossible solution your fuckwit sales team promised to the client, fail because it really genuinely is impossible, and then get fucked over by the new owner of your company.How exactly are you responsible for the £200m lawsuit?
Other than increasing its costs by not refusing to work on the bloody thing in the first place (i.e.
quitting or getting sacked).EDS had a terrible reputation and I pretty much hated the company, but that doesn't mean its staff were all screwing up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912184</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1264513200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>lots of promises, no delivery, never saw the experts present during negotiations again, lots of low GPA recent college grads doing 'work' they are not qualified for.</p> </div><p>This hardly differentiates EDS from their competitors.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lots of promises , no delivery , never saw the experts present during negotiations again , lots of low GPA recent college grads doing 'work ' they are not qualified for .
This hardly differentiates EDS from their competitors .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lots of promises, no delivery, never saw the experts present during negotiations again, lots of low GPA recent college grads doing 'work' they are not qualified for.
This hardly differentiates EDS from their competitors.
:(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30983132</id>
	<title>Re:SAP</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1265047680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every single SAP solution I've ever used/seen in companies I've been at was a huge hack (doubly so for the poor sods who had to use it). Procedures involving copying one field from one tab, and pasting it into another tab to get your job done - stuff like that.</p><p>Also - if your in the call center business SAP will literally add minutes to AHT because the SAP client is slow, unresponsive and unreliable (has a tendency to drop calls when the app crashes - note I said when, not if) - which was funny because the in house solution we used prior to that (which had an emacs front end - I'm not even kidding) I never saw crash.</p><p>Any app that requires an entire floor of technical staff to keep running should be avoided or at least scrutinized heavily - that's SAP - it was always been worked on and it never seemed finished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every single SAP solution I 've ever used/seen in companies I 've been at was a huge hack ( doubly so for the poor sods who had to use it ) .
Procedures involving copying one field from one tab , and pasting it into another tab to get your job done - stuff like that.Also - if your in the call center business SAP will literally add minutes to AHT because the SAP client is slow , unresponsive and unreliable ( has a tendency to drop calls when the app crashes - note I said when , not if ) - which was funny because the in house solution we used prior to that ( which had an emacs front end - I 'm not even kidding ) I never saw crash.Any app that requires an entire floor of technical staff to keep running should be avoided or at least scrutinized heavily - that 's SAP - it was always been worked on and it never seemed finished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every single SAP solution I've ever used/seen in companies I've been at was a huge hack (doubly so for the poor sods who had to use it).
Procedures involving copying one field from one tab, and pasting it into another tab to get your job done - stuff like that.Also - if your in the call center business SAP will literally add minutes to AHT because the SAP client is slow, unresponsive and unreliable (has a tendency to drop calls when the app crashes - note I said when, not if) - which was funny because the in house solution we used prior to that (which had an emacs front end - I'm not even kidding) I never saw crash.Any app that requires an entire floor of technical staff to keep running should be avoided or at least scrutinized heavily - that's SAP - it was always been worked on and it never seemed finished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912098</id>
	<title>plus ca change</title>
	<author>HarryatRock</author>
	<datestamp>1264512420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem isn't new, nor is the result. Look for "Project Trawlerman" for a prequel. When sales people who don't know what they are selling meet custards who don't know what their company needs, it's the developers and "implementation team" who have to deal with the reality. If you aren't a lawyer, the next best job is a freelance designer/coder/engineer who gets in late and signs up for a fixed term (not fixed deliverables) at top rates. Everybody else gets shafted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't new , nor is the result .
Look for " Project Trawlerman " for a prequel .
When sales people who do n't know what they are selling meet custards who do n't know what their company needs , it 's the developers and " implementation team " who have to deal with the reality .
If you are n't a lawyer , the next best job is a freelance designer/coder/engineer who gets in late and signs up for a fixed term ( not fixed deliverables ) at top rates .
Everybody else gets shafted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't new, nor is the result.
Look for "Project Trawlerman" for a prequel.
When sales people who don't know what they are selling meet custards who don't know what their company needs, it's the developers and "implementation team" who have to deal with the reality.
If you aren't a lawyer, the next best job is a freelance designer/coder/engineer who gets in late and signs up for a fixed term (not fixed deliverables) at top rates.
Everybody else gets shafted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914800</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. There have a succession of botched public projects that EDS has been involved in.  Usually for public sector customers.  However, EDS's competitors seem manage to screw them up frequently as well.</p><p>A few years ago I was attending a Software Project Management training course at Learning Tree.  As always at public courses, there is a diverse range of attendees, with at least a few of them coming from an IT outsourcing company such as EDS, Crapita or another of their ilk.</p><p>On this occasion two attendees were from EDS, and it was just about the time that the Inland Revenue's ASPIRE project (which EDS was the supplier of) had been cancelled by the UK government due to severe screw-ups that resulted in tax credits for millions of tax-payers being calculated incorrectly. [1][2]</p><p>Fast forward to day two of the course and a long discussion of how and why software projects fail...  needless to say the EDS employees kept very quiet.</p><p>[1] They still a mess several years later, with overpayments amount to &pound;1billions ever year.<br>[2] I believe EDS got sued in this case too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
There have a succession of botched public projects that EDS has been involved in .
Usually for public sector customers .
However , EDS 's competitors seem manage to screw them up frequently as well.A few years ago I was attending a Software Project Management training course at Learning Tree .
As always at public courses , there is a diverse range of attendees , with at least a few of them coming from an IT outsourcing company such as EDS , Crapita or another of their ilk.On this occasion two attendees were from EDS , and it was just about the time that the Inland Revenue 's ASPIRE project ( which EDS was the supplier of ) had been cancelled by the UK government due to severe screw-ups that resulted in tax credits for millions of tax-payers being calculated incorrectly .
[ 1 ] [ 2 ] Fast forward to day two of the course and a long discussion of how and why software projects fail... needless to say the EDS employees kept very quiet .
[ 1 ] They still a mess several years later , with overpayments amount to   1billions ever year .
[ 2 ] I believe EDS got sued in this case too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
There have a succession of botched public projects that EDS has been involved in.
Usually for public sector customers.
However, EDS's competitors seem manage to screw them up frequently as well.A few years ago I was attending a Software Project Management training course at Learning Tree.
As always at public courses, there is a diverse range of attendees, with at least a few of them coming from an IT outsourcing company such as EDS, Crapita or another of their ilk.On this occasion two attendees were from EDS, and it was just about the time that the Inland Revenue's ASPIRE project (which EDS was the supplier of) had been cancelled by the UK government due to severe screw-ups that resulted in tax credits for millions of tax-payers being calculated incorrectly.
[1][2]Fast forward to day two of the course and a long discussion of how and why software projects fail...  needless to say the EDS employees kept very quiet.
[1] They still a mess several years later, with overpayments amount to £1billions ever year.
[2] I believe EDS got sued in this case too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911660</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous Cowpat</author>
	<datestamp>1264509360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the computer thingies in job centres work fairly well. The underlying database that they provide access to is badly designed, and badly filled in, but the terminals themselves largely work (and have EDS logos on them).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the computer thingies in job centres work fairly well .
The underlying database that they provide access to is badly designed , and badly filled in , but the terminals themselves largely work ( and have EDS logos on them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the computer thingies in job centres work fairly well.
The underlying database that they provide access to is badly designed, and badly filled in, but the terminals themselves largely work (and have EDS logos on them).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912066</id>
	<title>Re:Overstated.</title>
	<author>reebmmm</author>
	<datestamp>1264512180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IAAL. I work with technology contracts. I think that the only reason a lawyer will be scratching his head is because of the genuine unlikelihood that the customer could actually prove a fraud case against a vendor. That's not to say it's impossible, just so unlikely. What's clear is that this was not a contract case. If it was merely a contract case, it would have looked to the four corners of the agreement. The plaintiffs (the customer) had to work extra hard (i.e., $40M in legal fees hard) to prove the fraud.</p><p>Customer-clients regularly come to me with contracts that have:<br>1. no objective criteria to measure success/failure<br>2. all of the liability for delays, failure to perform, etc. allocated to the Customer<br>3. do not have sufficient input from the technical people that will actually be working on the project.<br>4. no contractual remedies for failure.<br>5. no change management process.</p><p>Point #1 is the most important. In this case, if there were objective criteria to measure success, then the breach of contract case is simple to prove. It is like engaging in the design/plan phase of development before you even sign the contract. If a customer can't figure out what objective criteria it needs, it's probably not a good time to enter a $40M contract. Take for example, the objective criteria that the EDS software will meet the minimum process per second with 150 active users.  Easy, does it do?  If not, see points 2 and 4.</p><p>Point #2 is often overlooked. Customers regularly sign contracts that permit a vendor to deliver something non-conforming on the delivery date and not be in breach. The contracts are also usually written so that the additional time spent correcting the non-conforming deliverables are paid by the Customer. These are usually sneakily inserted under the "right to cure" a breach provision. At some point, the vendor (not the customer) should be paying.</p><p>Point #3 is necessary in order to establish point #1 and point #2. Management has this idea: oh we need \_\_\_ system. Let's find a vendor of \_\_\_ system. However, it is the technical people that need to set the objective criteria and then be able to test that it was met.</p><p>Point #4 is the stick with which you beat the Vendor into meeting those requirements. Every customer should be asking, "what happens if they don't deliver?"  I say, "show me the money."  Of course, you can customize however you see fit. Customers however don't usually ask.</p><p>Finally, point #5 is so painful its hard to write about.  A lot of time and money is lost because the customer does not have a good internal change management process. In addition, the customer does not put that change management process in writing with the vendor.  Any change management process should be coordinated through a project manager. The process should require 1. estimates of cost and 2. affect on time line.  These should require signature of someone higher up the chain than the project manager if there is a big impact on price or time--what constitutes a "big impact" should be spelled out (e.g., more than $10,000 or more than a 1 week).</p><p>As a last tidbit: technology people need to STOP SIGNING AGREEMENTS WITHOUT A REAL LEGAL REVIEW. This includes the stupid little EULAs that you click ok to. That includes the purchase of off the shelf software. That includes signing up a third party for professional services.  Those words mean things. Spending $1-3K now saves a boat load on the backend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IAAL .
I work with technology contracts .
I think that the only reason a lawyer will be scratching his head is because of the genuine unlikelihood that the customer could actually prove a fraud case against a vendor .
That 's not to say it 's impossible , just so unlikely .
What 's clear is that this was not a contract case .
If it was merely a contract case , it would have looked to the four corners of the agreement .
The plaintiffs ( the customer ) had to work extra hard ( i.e. , $ 40M in legal fees hard ) to prove the fraud.Customer-clients regularly come to me with contracts that have : 1. no objective criteria to measure success/failure2 .
all of the liability for delays , failure to perform , etc .
allocated to the Customer3 .
do not have sufficient input from the technical people that will actually be working on the project.4 .
no contractual remedies for failure.5 .
no change management process.Point # 1 is the most important .
In this case , if there were objective criteria to measure success , then the breach of contract case is simple to prove .
It is like engaging in the design/plan phase of development before you even sign the contract .
If a customer ca n't figure out what objective criteria it needs , it 's probably not a good time to enter a $ 40M contract .
Take for example , the objective criteria that the EDS software will meet the minimum process per second with 150 active users .
Easy , does it do ?
If not , see points 2 and 4.Point # 2 is often overlooked .
Customers regularly sign contracts that permit a vendor to deliver something non-conforming on the delivery date and not be in breach .
The contracts are also usually written so that the additional time spent correcting the non-conforming deliverables are paid by the Customer .
These are usually sneakily inserted under the " right to cure " a breach provision .
At some point , the vendor ( not the customer ) should be paying.Point # 3 is necessary in order to establish point # 1 and point # 2 .
Management has this idea : oh we need \ _ \ _ \ _ system .
Let 's find a vendor of \ _ \ _ \ _ system .
However , it is the technical people that need to set the objective criteria and then be able to test that it was met.Point # 4 is the stick with which you beat the Vendor into meeting those requirements .
Every customer should be asking , " what happens if they do n't deliver ?
" I say , " show me the money .
" Of course , you can customize however you see fit .
Customers however do n't usually ask.Finally , point # 5 is so painful its hard to write about .
A lot of time and money is lost because the customer does not have a good internal change management process .
In addition , the customer does not put that change management process in writing with the vendor .
Any change management process should be coordinated through a project manager .
The process should require 1. estimates of cost and 2. affect on time line .
These should require signature of someone higher up the chain than the project manager if there is a big impact on price or time--what constitutes a " big impact " should be spelled out ( e.g. , more than $ 10,000 or more than a 1 week ) .As a last tidbit : technology people need to STOP SIGNING AGREEMENTS WITHOUT A REAL LEGAL REVIEW .
This includes the stupid little EULAs that you click ok to .
That includes the purchase of off the shelf software .
That includes signing up a third party for professional services .
Those words mean things .
Spending $ 1-3K now saves a boat load on the backend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IAAL.
I work with technology contracts.
I think that the only reason a lawyer will be scratching his head is because of the genuine unlikelihood that the customer could actually prove a fraud case against a vendor.
That's not to say it's impossible, just so unlikely.
What's clear is that this was not a contract case.
If it was merely a contract case, it would have looked to the four corners of the agreement.
The plaintiffs (the customer) had to work extra hard (i.e., $40M in legal fees hard) to prove the fraud.Customer-clients regularly come to me with contracts that have:1. no objective criteria to measure success/failure2.
all of the liability for delays, failure to perform, etc.
allocated to the Customer3.
do not have sufficient input from the technical people that will actually be working on the project.4.
no contractual remedies for failure.5.
no change management process.Point #1 is the most important.
In this case, if there were objective criteria to measure success, then the breach of contract case is simple to prove.
It is like engaging in the design/plan phase of development before you even sign the contract.
If a customer can't figure out what objective criteria it needs, it's probably not a good time to enter a $40M contract.
Take for example, the objective criteria that the EDS software will meet the minimum process per second with 150 active users.
Easy, does it do?
If not, see points 2 and 4.Point #2 is often overlooked.
Customers regularly sign contracts that permit a vendor to deliver something non-conforming on the delivery date and not be in breach.
The contracts are also usually written so that the additional time spent correcting the non-conforming deliverables are paid by the Customer.
These are usually sneakily inserted under the "right to cure" a breach provision.
At some point, the vendor (not the customer) should be paying.Point #3 is necessary in order to establish point #1 and point #2.
Management has this idea: oh we need \_\_\_ system.
Let's find a vendor of \_\_\_ system.
However, it is the technical people that need to set the objective criteria and then be able to test that it was met.Point #4 is the stick with which you beat the Vendor into meeting those requirements.
Every customer should be asking, "what happens if they don't deliver?
"  I say, "show me the money.
"  Of course, you can customize however you see fit.
Customers however don't usually ask.Finally, point #5 is so painful its hard to write about.
A lot of time and money is lost because the customer does not have a good internal change management process.
In addition, the customer does not put that change management process in writing with the vendor.
Any change management process should be coordinated through a project manager.
The process should require 1. estimates of cost and 2. affect on time line.
These should require signature of someone higher up the chain than the project manager if there is a big impact on price or time--what constitutes a "big impact" should be spelled out (e.g., more than $10,000 or more than a 1 week).As a last tidbit: technology people need to STOP SIGNING AGREEMENTS WITHOUT A REAL LEGAL REVIEW.
This includes the stupid little EULAs that you click ok to.
That includes the purchase of off the shelf software.
That includes signing up a third party for professional services.
Those words mean things.
Spending $1-3K now saves a boat load on the backend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911526</id>
	<title>Re:Who's getting screwed?</title>
	<author>mmcxii</author>
	<datestamp>1264508520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you bought an inkjet you got screwed before you ever had to buy ink for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you bought an inkjet you got screwed before you ever had to buy ink for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you bought an inkjet you got screwed before you ever had to buy ink for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160</id>
	<title>Overstated.</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1264506120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary: "Outsourcing will never be the same again."<br> <br>

TFA: "Nigel Roxburgh, research director at the National Outsourcing Association, previously told Computerworld UK that if the case is upheld in favour of BSkyB, "it could lead to a real scratching of heads, particularly among lawyers."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary : " Outsourcing will never be the same again .
" TFA : " Nigel Roxburgh , research director at the National Outsourcing Association , previously told Computerworld UK that if the case is upheld in favour of BSkyB , " it could lead to a real scratching of heads , particularly among lawyers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary: "Outsourcing will never be the same again.
" 

TFA: "Nigel Roxburgh, research director at the National Outsourcing Association, previously told Computerworld UK that if the case is upheld in favour of BSkyB, "it could lead to a real scratching of heads, particularly among lawyers.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296</id>
	<title>Scope creep?</title>
	<author>SimonInOz</author>
	<datestamp>1264507020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article, 'HP today defended its position. It added: "While we accept that the contract was problematic, HP strongly maintains EDS did nothing to deceive BSkyB." '</p><p>Sounds like scope creep to me.<br>So what really happened was this:</p><p>EDS wanted some sort of CRM. They had no idea what.<br>They hired some random consultant to write a spec.<br>HP read the spec and thought "we can do that - in fact our system already does pretty much that"<br>The sales duly sold it as "our s/w does that now, and we can deliver it tomorrow"<br>EDS management, after some heavy golf sessions, and possibly the odd new BMW, decided it was a good deal<br>The HP s/w folks said "you sold what?!" to the sales guys, and started trying to make it do what the spec said<br>EDS started to get bits of the s/w, probably very late, then - finally - noticed they really ought to figure out what they actually wanted<br>So they change the spec totally<br>HP s/w folk get annoyed, but try to deliver to the new, completely different spec<br>It goes badly</p><p>Everyone sues everyone.</p><p>The lawyers win big time.</p><p>Hmm - sound familiar?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , 'HP today defended its position .
It added : " While we accept that the contract was problematic , HP strongly maintains EDS did nothing to deceive BSkyB .
" 'Sounds like scope creep to me.So what really happened was this : EDS wanted some sort of CRM .
They had no idea what.They hired some random consultant to write a spec.HP read the spec and thought " we can do that - in fact our system already does pretty much that " The sales duly sold it as " our s/w does that now , and we can deliver it tomorrow " EDS management , after some heavy golf sessions , and possibly the odd new BMW , decided it was a good dealThe HP s/w folks said " you sold what ? !
" to the sales guys , and started trying to make it do what the spec saidEDS started to get bits of the s/w , probably very late , then - finally - noticed they really ought to figure out what they actually wantedSo they change the spec totallyHP s/w folk get annoyed , but try to deliver to the new , completely different specIt goes badlyEveryone sues everyone.The lawyers win big time.Hmm - sound familiar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, 'HP today defended its position.
It added: "While we accept that the contract was problematic, HP strongly maintains EDS did nothing to deceive BSkyB.
" 'Sounds like scope creep to me.So what really happened was this:EDS wanted some sort of CRM.
They had no idea what.They hired some random consultant to write a spec.HP read the spec and thought "we can do that - in fact our system already does pretty much that"The sales duly sold it as "our s/w does that now, and we can deliver it tomorrow"EDS management, after some heavy golf sessions, and possibly the odd new BMW, decided it was a good dealThe HP s/w folks said "you sold what?!
" to the sales guys, and started trying to make it do what the spec saidEDS started to get bits of the s/w, probably very late, then - finally - noticed they really ought to figure out what they actually wantedSo they change the spec totallyHP s/w folk get annoyed, but try to deliver to the new, completely different specIt goes badlyEveryone sues everyone.The lawyers win big time.Hmm - sound familiar?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30916688</id>
	<title>Re:HP is run by greedy idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264605000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the trick.  When they cut your pay because of someone else's performance, now all of a sudden everything everyone else does is your business.  Speak up when something isn't going right, ask tough questions, make management acknowledge where things have gone wrong.  No more "new direction" without explaining what was wrong with the old direction.  You cut my pay, your decisions are going to affect my pay and bonus, you answer to me now.</p><p>Worst case, you get to tell a company HP fired you for trying to improve the bottom line, and if you get any better than that (and I have), you're not the only one better off.  With a well presented case, they probably won't contest unemployment, so you get paid to look for another job.</p><p>Play the game, in other words.  Just don't let it play you.  Posted AC for the same reasons you did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the trick .
When they cut your pay because of someone else 's performance , now all of a sudden everything everyone else does is your business .
Speak up when something is n't going right , ask tough questions , make management acknowledge where things have gone wrong .
No more " new direction " without explaining what was wrong with the old direction .
You cut my pay , your decisions are going to affect my pay and bonus , you answer to me now.Worst case , you get to tell a company HP fired you for trying to improve the bottom line , and if you get any better than that ( and I have ) , you 're not the only one better off .
With a well presented case , they probably wo n't contest unemployment , so you get paid to look for another job.Play the game , in other words .
Just do n't let it play you .
Posted AC for the same reasons you did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the trick.
When they cut your pay because of someone else's performance, now all of a sudden everything everyone else does is your business.
Speak up when something isn't going right, ask tough questions, make management acknowledge where things have gone wrong.
No more "new direction" without explaining what was wrong with the old direction.
You cut my pay, your decisions are going to affect my pay and bonus, you answer to me now.Worst case, you get to tell a company HP fired you for trying to improve the bottom line, and if you get any better than that (and I have), you're not the only one better off.
With a well presented case, they probably won't contest unemployment, so you get paid to look for another job.Play the game, in other words.
Just don't let it play you.
Posted AC for the same reasons you did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911218</id>
	<title>Re:Who's getting screwed?</title>
	<author>clsours</author>
	<datestamp>1264506600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not printer ink, this is about outsourcing. Printer ink costs a lot because of the pretty packaging.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not printer ink , this is about outsourcing .
Printer ink costs a lot because of the pretty packaging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not printer ink, this is about outsourcing.
Printer ink costs a lot because of the pretty packaging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911580</id>
	<title>Outsourcing</title>
	<author>SimonTheSoundMan</author>
	<datestamp>1264508820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone know of any large outsourcing company that deliver what they promised, to a decent quality?</p><p><a href="http://www.capita.co.uk/" title="capita.co.uk">Capita</a> [capita.co.uk] are another company that comes to mind. They have ripped off most public services in the UK with their poor products. <a href="http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2009/09/08/critics-attack-new-birmingham-city-council-website-65233-24638189/" title="birminghampost.net">Capita did a good job</a> [birminghampost.net] at ripping <a href="http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/" title="birmingham.gov.uk">Birmingham City Council</a> [birmingham.gov.uk] off with their new web site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know of any large outsourcing company that deliver what they promised , to a decent quality ? Capita [ capita.co.uk ] are another company that comes to mind .
They have ripped off most public services in the UK with their poor products .
Capita did a good job [ birminghampost.net ] at ripping Birmingham City Council [ birmingham.gov.uk ] off with their new web site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know of any large outsourcing company that deliver what they promised, to a decent quality?Capita [capita.co.uk] are another company that comes to mind.
They have ripped off most public services in the UK with their poor products.
Capita did a good job [birminghampost.net] at ripping Birmingham City Council [birmingham.gov.uk] off with their new web site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911834</id>
	<title>Re:Scope creep?</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264510440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure you read the article.  HP completed purchase of EDS after the trial ended, so the only thing HP has to do with this lawsuit is it owns the losing party, which it didn't during the contract.  <i>The judgement took 17 months to reach from the end of the trial in July 2008</i>.  So the trial ended, and the judge sat around meditating for 17 months, and HP bought EDS.</p><p>EDS did not want some sort of CRM, BSkyB did.  EDS is an outsourcing company (was, now it's part of HP) and would provide CRM, not purchase it.  <i>EDS, now owned by HP, had fraudulently misrepresented itself in a sales pitch in 2000 for the system</i></p><p>It's more likely that EDS promised some sort of a system, and BSkyB led EDS around through as you said scope creep.  EDS thinks it upheld its end of the bargain, BSkyB thinks its requests were within reason.  Of course, I don't know the details of the contract, nor any more specifics than what's in the article, but your version is completely wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure you read the article .
HP completed purchase of EDS after the trial ended , so the only thing HP has to do with this lawsuit is it owns the losing party , which it did n't during the contract .
The judgement took 17 months to reach from the end of the trial in July 2008 .
So the trial ended , and the judge sat around meditating for 17 months , and HP bought EDS.EDS did not want some sort of CRM , BSkyB did .
EDS is an outsourcing company ( was , now it 's part of HP ) and would provide CRM , not purchase it .
EDS , now owned by HP , had fraudulently misrepresented itself in a sales pitch in 2000 for the systemIt 's more likely that EDS promised some sort of a system , and BSkyB led EDS around through as you said scope creep .
EDS thinks it upheld its end of the bargain , BSkyB thinks its requests were within reason .
Of course , I do n't know the details of the contract , nor any more specifics than what 's in the article , but your version is completely wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure you read the article.
HP completed purchase of EDS after the trial ended, so the only thing HP has to do with this lawsuit is it owns the losing party, which it didn't during the contract.
The judgement took 17 months to reach from the end of the trial in July 2008.
So the trial ended, and the judge sat around meditating for 17 months, and HP bought EDS.EDS did not want some sort of CRM, BSkyB did.
EDS is an outsourcing company (was, now it's part of HP) and would provide CRM, not purchase it.
EDS, now owned by HP, had fraudulently misrepresented itself in a sales pitch in 2000 for the systemIt's more likely that EDS promised some sort of a system, and BSkyB led EDS around through as you said scope creep.
EDS thinks it upheld its end of the bargain, BSkyB thinks its requests were within reason.
Of course, I don't know the details of the contract, nor any more specifics than what's in the article, but your version is completely wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912976</id>
	<title>Observer bias</title>
	<author>sshore</author>
	<datestamp>1264520160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has anybody ever heard of [..] an EDS project that went well.</p></div><p>No, and that's not surprising in their field. As a company that provides infrastructure, EDS projects are expected to go well. It's not notable when they succeed.</p><p>There's just not a lot of articles in the news about "Multi-billion dollar project went as expected". It's not that they never do, rather it's not newsworthy when they do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anybody ever heard of [ .. ] an EDS project that went well.No , and that 's not surprising in their field .
As a company that provides infrastructure , EDS projects are expected to go well .
It 's not notable when they succeed.There 's just not a lot of articles in the news about " Multi-billion dollar project went as expected " .
It 's not that they never do , rather it 's not newsworthy when they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anybody ever heard of [..] an EDS project that went well.No, and that's not surprising in their field.
As a company that provides infrastructure, EDS projects are expected to go well.
It's not notable when they succeed.There's just not a lot of articles in the news about "Multi-billion dollar project went as expected".
It's not that they never do, rather it's not newsworthy when they do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911276</id>
	<title>TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264506900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The lawsuit alleged that EDS, now owned by HP, had fraudulently misrepresented itself in a sales pitch in 2000 for the system, leaving Sky to pick up the pieces and take on heavy costs as it implemented the system itself. EDS, on the other hand, said Sky did not know what it wanted, and kept introducing new requirements, making it difficult to deliver.</p></div> </blockquote><p> and</p><blockquote><div><p>&ldquo;If other representations become more important than contracts themselves, it could indicate that contracts effectively have no value,&rdquo; he said. It also potentially risks Entire Agreement Clauses, which exist in most supplier contracts and insist that only terms in the contract are legally binding, rather than any other representations.</p></div> </blockquote><p>  It almost sounds like Sky was suing EDS for not finishing work that their sales claimed they could do but wasn't actually in the contract.  EDS/HP claim in response that they couldn't actually fulfil the claim anyway as Sky kept changing what was asked of HP/EDS throughout the ordeal.  Further, there's concern that the decision weakens the strength of cotnracts compared to marketing/sales' claims...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lawsuit alleged that EDS , now owned by HP , had fraudulently misrepresented itself in a sales pitch in 2000 for the system , leaving Sky to pick up the pieces and take on heavy costs as it implemented the system itself .
EDS , on the other hand , said Sky did not know what it wanted , and kept introducing new requirements , making it difficult to deliver .
and    If other representations become more important than contracts themselves , it could indicate that contracts effectively have no value ,    he said .
It also potentially risks Entire Agreement Clauses , which exist in most supplier contracts and insist that only terms in the contract are legally binding , rather than any other representations .
It almost sounds like Sky was suing EDS for not finishing work that their sales claimed they could do but was n't actually in the contract .
EDS/HP claim in response that they could n't actually fulfil the claim anyway as Sky kept changing what was asked of HP/EDS throughout the ordeal .
Further , there 's concern that the decision weakens the strength of cotnracts compared to marketing/sales ' claims.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lawsuit alleged that EDS, now owned by HP, had fraudulently misrepresented itself in a sales pitch in 2000 for the system, leaving Sky to pick up the pieces and take on heavy costs as it implemented the system itself.
EDS, on the other hand, said Sky did not know what it wanted, and kept introducing new requirements, making it difficult to deliver.
and“If other representations become more important than contracts themselves, it could indicate that contracts effectively have no value,” he said.
It also potentially risks Entire Agreement Clauses, which exist in most supplier contracts and insist that only terms in the contract are legally binding, rather than any other representations.
It almost sounds like Sky was suing EDS for not finishing work that their sales claimed they could do but wasn't actually in the contract.
EDS/HP claim in response that they couldn't actually fulfil the claim anyway as Sky kept changing what was asked of HP/EDS throughout the ordeal.
Further, there's concern that the decision weakens the strength of cotnracts compared to marketing/sales' claims...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911646</id>
	<title>Re:TFA</title>
	<author>WarlockD</author>
	<datestamp>1264509240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This took 18 months TFA.  We don't have the reams of documents they possibly went though.</p><p>I can see the manager of Sky emailing a manager at HP/EDS on why its taking so long and the manager blatantly lies.  I can also see Sky, after a few months into the projects getting some off hand information decides the change the spec in mid stream.</p><p>All this compounded by the fact that neither side seriously looked at either sides contract.  I am sure both's in house lawyers did, but upper management don't look at that stuff.  The only people who KNOW the timeframe are the line workers.   However, at that low level in the food chain they have to lie so they arn't swept up in another EDS/HP employee purge.  Being some of the people I have talked to in Plano, there isn't alot of love lost at EDS anymore.</p><p>I think Sky just went to the Judge and showed them what they originally were promised and what they got.  I also bet one look at the contract shows its to have no substance (i.e. EDS/HP are not liable for anything, even if the software causes a million people to die).  I very much doubt there would be an 18 month court case if the contract was rock solid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This took 18 months TFA .
We do n't have the reams of documents they possibly went though.I can see the manager of Sky emailing a manager at HP/EDS on why its taking so long and the manager blatantly lies .
I can also see Sky , after a few months into the projects getting some off hand information decides the change the spec in mid stream.All this compounded by the fact that neither side seriously looked at either sides contract .
I am sure both 's in house lawyers did , but upper management do n't look at that stuff .
The only people who KNOW the timeframe are the line workers .
However , at that low level in the food chain they have to lie so they ar n't swept up in another EDS/HP employee purge .
Being some of the people I have talked to in Plano , there is n't alot of love lost at EDS anymore.I think Sky just went to the Judge and showed them what they originally were promised and what they got .
I also bet one look at the contract shows its to have no substance ( i.e .
EDS/HP are not liable for anything , even if the software causes a million people to die ) .
I very much doubt there would be an 18 month court case if the contract was rock solid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This took 18 months TFA.
We don't have the reams of documents they possibly went though.I can see the manager of Sky emailing a manager at HP/EDS on why its taking so long and the manager blatantly lies.
I can also see Sky, after a few months into the projects getting some off hand information decides the change the spec in mid stream.All this compounded by the fact that neither side seriously looked at either sides contract.
I am sure both's in house lawyers did, but upper management don't look at that stuff.
The only people who KNOW the timeframe are the line workers.
However, at that low level in the food chain they have to lie so they arn't swept up in another EDS/HP employee purge.
Being some of the people I have talked to in Plano, there isn't alot of love lost at EDS anymore.I think Sky just went to the Judge and showed them what they originally were promised and what they got.
I also bet one look at the contract shows its to have no substance (i.e.
EDS/HP are not liable for anything, even if the software causes a million people to die).
I very much doubt there would be an 18 month court case if the contract was rock solid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911492</id>
	<title>Interesting implications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264508340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA it sounds like the salesmen lied and the contract didn't include the lies.  The court found EDS liable for what the salesmen said (and prolifically emailed) rather than the signed contract.  If that holds it's not outsourcing that will become difficult but selling many complex and high priced products.  Each sales meeting could be a contract negotiation with legal implications as well as a demo or whatever.  You sales guys might need to drag the lawyer to all your customer meetings going forward.  Sales support would become a major pain as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA it sounds like the salesmen lied and the contract did n't include the lies .
The court found EDS liable for what the salesmen said ( and prolifically emailed ) rather than the signed contract .
If that holds it 's not outsourcing that will become difficult but selling many complex and high priced products .
Each sales meeting could be a contract negotiation with legal implications as well as a demo or whatever .
You sales guys might need to drag the lawyer to all your customer meetings going forward .
Sales support would become a major pain as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA it sounds like the salesmen lied and the contract didn't include the lies.
The court found EDS liable for what the salesmen said (and prolifically emailed) rather than the signed contract.
If that holds it's not outsourcing that will become difficult but selling many complex and high priced products.
Each sales meeting could be a contract negotiation with legal implications as well as a demo or whatever.
You sales guys might need to drag the lawyer to all your customer meetings going forward.
Sales support would become a major pain as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912368</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264514460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently you are not familiar with the Navy NMCI Contract with EDS.  I haven't been following it lately (as in the last few years) but it had VERY overpriced systems on the contract and mostly hired people who didn't have much experience because they were cheap.  That contract would keep even the worst managed company in gravy for quite a while.  I don't know what most of the military guys thought about it but just ask any civilian employee for the Navy what they thought of NMCI and listen to the expletives fly.</p><p>I'm not sure how any company can sell computer software or services without lying, even unintentionally.  Anything worth bidding on by EDS is going to be complicated enough to keep them from knowing what they really have for a month at least.</p><p>The worst part is if you're going to expect technology salesmen to tell the truth then you're going to eliminate at lot of material for the Dilbert comic strip, among others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently you are not familiar with the Navy NMCI Contract with EDS .
I have n't been following it lately ( as in the last few years ) but it had VERY overpriced systems on the contract and mostly hired people who did n't have much experience because they were cheap .
That contract would keep even the worst managed company in gravy for quite a while .
I do n't know what most of the military guys thought about it but just ask any civilian employee for the Navy what they thought of NMCI and listen to the expletives fly.I 'm not sure how any company can sell computer software or services without lying , even unintentionally .
Anything worth bidding on by EDS is going to be complicated enough to keep them from knowing what they really have for a month at least.The worst part is if you 're going to expect technology salesmen to tell the truth then you 're going to eliminate at lot of material for the Dilbert comic strip , among others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently you are not familiar with the Navy NMCI Contract with EDS.
I haven't been following it lately (as in the last few years) but it had VERY overpriced systems on the contract and mostly hired people who didn't have much experience because they were cheap.
That contract would keep even the worst managed company in gravy for quite a while.
I don't know what most of the military guys thought about it but just ask any civilian employee for the Navy what they thought of NMCI and listen to the expletives fly.I'm not sure how any company can sell computer software or services without lying, even unintentionally.
Anything worth bidding on by EDS is going to be complicated enough to keep them from knowing what they really have for a month at least.The worst part is if you're going to expect technology salesmen to tell the truth then you're going to eliminate at lot of material for the Dilbert comic strip, among others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911524</id>
	<title>Re:TFA</title>
	<author>Creepy</author>
	<datestamp>1264508520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I get a certain amount of schadenfreude when I see EDS get bad publicity because they basically wily-nily bought companies, destroyed their benefits, sucked any cash surplus out and fired half the workforce before cutting them loose so their stock didn't go junk.  Yes, I am speaking from personal experience, and yes, I'm a bit resentful (how do you spin off a company the EDS way?  Fire everyone and let the new company rehire - HR LOVED that one, btw).  HP, I don't have any qualm against you aside from your crapware filled laptops and one year limited warranty.</p><p>That vented, I think every company has had at least one loosely defined specs created by marketing people who then promise an impossible date to meet even the loosest envisioning of those promises.  I know I've seen them - too bad its usually way too late to change anything, but at least I can ask for clarifications before code is complete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I get a certain amount of schadenfreude when I see EDS get bad publicity because they basically wily-nily bought companies , destroyed their benefits , sucked any cash surplus out and fired half the workforce before cutting them loose so their stock did n't go junk .
Yes , I am speaking from personal experience , and yes , I 'm a bit resentful ( how do you spin off a company the EDS way ?
Fire everyone and let the new company rehire - HR LOVED that one , btw ) .
HP , I do n't have any qualm against you aside from your crapware filled laptops and one year limited warranty.That vented , I think every company has had at least one loosely defined specs created by marketing people who then promise an impossible date to meet even the loosest envisioning of those promises .
I know I 've seen them - too bad its usually way too late to change anything , but at least I can ask for clarifications before code is complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I get a certain amount of schadenfreude when I see EDS get bad publicity because they basically wily-nily bought companies, destroyed their benefits, sucked any cash surplus out and fired half the workforce before cutting them loose so their stock didn't go junk.
Yes, I am speaking from personal experience, and yes, I'm a bit resentful (how do you spin off a company the EDS way?
Fire everyone and let the new company rehire - HR LOVED that one, btw).
HP, I don't have any qualm against you aside from your crapware filled laptops and one year limited warranty.That vented, I think every company has had at least one loosely defined specs created by marketing people who then promise an impossible date to meet even the loosest envisioning of those promises.
I know I've seen them - too bad its usually way too late to change anything, but at least I can ask for clarifications before code is complete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911324</id>
	<title>Re:Overstated.</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1264507200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it could lead to a real scratching of heads, particularly among lawyers."</p></div><p>At least they've been practicing scratching the other end.</p><p>Sorry, I mean practising.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it could lead to a real scratching of heads , particularly among lawyers .
" At least they 've been practicing scratching the other end.Sorry , I mean practising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it could lead to a real scratching of heads, particularly among lawyers.
"At least they've been practicing scratching the other end.Sorry, I mean practising.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911482</id>
	<title>HERE IT IS, FOLKS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264508280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me paraphrase your "comment", such that it is...<p><div class="quote"><p>I know absolutely nothing about this subject, but let me tell you what's important...</p></div><p>
Yeah, alrighty...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me paraphrase your " comment " , such that it is...I know absolutely nothing about this subject , but let me tell you what 's important.. . Yeah , alrighty.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me paraphrase your "comment", such that it is...I know absolutely nothing about this subject, but let me tell you what's important...
Yeah, alrighty...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912344</id>
	<title>Re:Outsourcing suxors, but ...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264514280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If we're in a capitalist society then I also want this to be a meritocracy</p></div> </blockquote><p>That's kind of like saying "If floorplan of this room is a triangle, I also want it to have interior angles that total 360 degrees."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're in a capitalist society then I also want this to be a meritocracy That 's kind of like saying " If floorplan of this room is a triangle , I also want it to have interior angles that total 360 degrees .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're in a capitalist society then I also want this to be a meritocracy That's kind of like saying "If floorplan of this room is a triangle, I also want it to have interior angles that total 360 degrees.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913510</id>
	<title>Re:It's the relationship, stupid!</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1264526400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two types of contractors:</p><p>1. Those who get work.<br>2. Those who don't.</p><p>One way to not get work; fail to develop good relationships with your clients.<br>Another way to not get work; Fail to do the work.</p><p>One way to get more work; keep your client happy.<br>Another way to get more work; do very good work.</p><p>You sound like you want to get paid.  Those who have every excuse may not.</p><p>I was lucky to work for a small company, so the boss was always available to me.  In a setting like EDS, I would not be interested.  Too big, too impossible to steer anything.  Scope creep<br>is both sides fault.</p><p>I did see some of EDS' work on the NMCI.  Started out good, then they realized the true scope.  Didn't take long to see the scope shrink, because as a DOD job there were no good overruns for this project.  Not like a weapons job where you just hide it off-book.  The NMCI was in plain view.  EDS underbid expecting to be able to make it up in overruns and scope creep (actually underestimating the scope and then point to the obvious, making the case they were blindsided - ha...) and addons.  It took them 4 years to crank in another 30\% or so, which is in fact a pretty big failure for EDS.  They should have been able to jack it up 50\% at least. Some they made up in skrimping on delivery.  I never did hear how the Submarine Service actually did with the NMCI, but there were complaints about shoddy equipment and poor support from Naval offices.  I can imagine how that would go over on board a sub.</p><p>Now, I'm watching a software outfit play my senior VPs like violins.  Kinda sad, they make promises, deliver inferior product, and come out with a new contract to deliver the original product for more money, later than before.  But they have a <i>relationship</i> with the VP.  So they will be fine.  Me?  I'll help our users muddle through.  We'll make it work.  The original product still looks better than the second try in 4 years by these guys.  But they have a <i>relationship</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two types of contractors : 1 .
Those who get work.2 .
Those who do n't.One way to not get work ; fail to develop good relationships with your clients.Another way to not get work ; Fail to do the work.One way to get more work ; keep your client happy.Another way to get more work ; do very good work.You sound like you want to get paid .
Those who have every excuse may not.I was lucky to work for a small company , so the boss was always available to me .
In a setting like EDS , I would not be interested .
Too big , too impossible to steer anything .
Scope creepis both sides fault.I did see some of EDS ' work on the NMCI .
Started out good , then they realized the true scope .
Did n't take long to see the scope shrink , because as a DOD job there were no good overruns for this project .
Not like a weapons job where you just hide it off-book .
The NMCI was in plain view .
EDS underbid expecting to be able to make it up in overruns and scope creep ( actually underestimating the scope and then point to the obvious , making the case they were blindsided - ha... ) and addons .
It took them 4 years to crank in another 30 \ % or so , which is in fact a pretty big failure for EDS .
They should have been able to jack it up 50 \ % at least .
Some they made up in skrimping on delivery .
I never did hear how the Submarine Service actually did with the NMCI , but there were complaints about shoddy equipment and poor support from Naval offices .
I can imagine how that would go over on board a sub.Now , I 'm watching a software outfit play my senior VPs like violins .
Kinda sad , they make promises , deliver inferior product , and come out with a new contract to deliver the original product for more money , later than before .
But they have a relationship with the VP .
So they will be fine .
Me ? I 'll help our users muddle through .
We 'll make it work .
The original product still looks better than the second try in 4 years by these guys .
But they have a relationship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two types of contractors:1.
Those who get work.2.
Those who don't.One way to not get work; fail to develop good relationships with your clients.Another way to not get work; Fail to do the work.One way to get more work; keep your client happy.Another way to get more work; do very good work.You sound like you want to get paid.
Those who have every excuse may not.I was lucky to work for a small company, so the boss was always available to me.
In a setting like EDS, I would not be interested.
Too big, too impossible to steer anything.
Scope creepis both sides fault.I did see some of EDS' work on the NMCI.
Started out good, then they realized the true scope.
Didn't take long to see the scope shrink, because as a DOD job there were no good overruns for this project.
Not like a weapons job where you just hide it off-book.
The NMCI was in plain view.
EDS underbid expecting to be able to make it up in overruns and scope creep (actually underestimating the scope and then point to the obvious, making the case they were blindsided - ha...) and addons.
It took them 4 years to crank in another 30\% or so, which is in fact a pretty big failure for EDS.
They should have been able to jack it up 50\% at least.
Some they made up in skrimping on delivery.
I never did hear how the Submarine Service actually did with the NMCI, but there were complaints about shoddy equipment and poor support from Naval offices.
I can imagine how that would go over on board a sub.Now, I'm watching a software outfit play my senior VPs like violins.
Kinda sad, they make promises, deliver inferior product, and come out with a new contract to deliver the original product for more money, later than before.
But they have a relationship with the VP.
So they will be fine.
Me?  I'll help our users muddle through.
We'll make it work.
The original product still looks better than the second try in 4 years by these guys.
But they have a relationship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911182</id>
	<title>Stupid Ads in TFA</title>
	<author>Amasuriel</author>
	<datestamp>1264506360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:
<br> <br>
<i>
Amanda Bucklow at mediation firm In Place Of Strife said that even &ldquo;a long and extraordinary mediation process would have taken only a few days and cost a lot less&rdquo; than the legal fees spent by both parties.
</i>
<br> <br>
And now breaking news! Random person trying to sell you some services thinks you should buy their services!</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Amanda Bucklow at mediation firm In Place Of Strife said that even    a long and extraordinary mediation process would have taken only a few days and cost a lot less    than the legal fees spent by both parties .
And now breaking news !
Random person trying to sell you some services thinks you should buy their services !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:
 

Amanda Bucklow at mediation firm In Place Of Strife said that even “a long and extraordinary mediation process would have taken only a few days and cost a lot less” than the legal fees spent by both parties.
And now breaking news!
Random person trying to sell you some services thinks you should buy their services!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912120</id>
	<title>Not in this dimension</title>
	<author>Lead Butthead</author>
	<datestamp>1264512540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Someone on the engineering side of HP-EDS needed to tell the sales side 'we can't do all this'.</p></div></blockquote><p>And since when has THAT ever worked?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone on the engineering side of HP-EDS needed to tell the sales side 'we ca n't do all this'.And since when has THAT ever worked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone on the engineering side of HP-EDS needed to tell the sales side 'we can't do all this'.And since when has THAT ever worked?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436</id>
	<title>It's the relationship, stupid!</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1264507860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've done a lot of contract work, but nothing on the scale of a CRM install.  Despite that, there are somem things that are the same, no matter the size of the job;</p><p>- The relationship is key.  If you don't forge a good relationship with your client, you will always suffer.  Always.</p><p>- If the relationship is good you can overcome any obstacle. Even total failure.  Yes, even if your solution turns out to not work at all, you can work out the relationship.</p><p>- Relationships are give-and-take.  If you succeed wildly, you will get more and better.  If you do fairly well, you get what is due.  If you mostly fail, you work it out.  Sometimes it doesn't work out, true.  If you fail totally, well, you get what you deserve.</p><p>- Importantly, don't get into a relationship you don't intend to actually work on, and don't have any real expectation of success. Someone on the engineering side of HP-EDS needed to tell the sales side 'we can't do all this'.</p><p>- Most important, don't go into a relationship with a crazy partner.  Sky may have violated this one.  Money makes contractors crazy.  Trust me on this.  The more money, the crazier.  Those of you who have real-life relationships with real-life people will find corollaries to this, and they are indeed true.  You do not need to waste your 401K to learn this, ok?  The tabloids will offer proof enough.  Same thing in business.  Almost the same process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've done a lot of contract work , but nothing on the scale of a CRM install .
Despite that , there are somem things that are the same , no matter the size of the job ; - The relationship is key .
If you do n't forge a good relationship with your client , you will always suffer .
Always.- If the relationship is good you can overcome any obstacle .
Even total failure .
Yes , even if your solution turns out to not work at all , you can work out the relationship.- Relationships are give-and-take .
If you succeed wildly , you will get more and better .
If you do fairly well , you get what is due .
If you mostly fail , you work it out .
Sometimes it does n't work out , true .
If you fail totally , well , you get what you deserve.- Importantly , do n't get into a relationship you do n't intend to actually work on , and do n't have any real expectation of success .
Someone on the engineering side of HP-EDS needed to tell the sales side 'we ca n't do all this'.- Most important , do n't go into a relationship with a crazy partner .
Sky may have violated this one .
Money makes contractors crazy .
Trust me on this .
The more money , the crazier .
Those of you who have real-life relationships with real-life people will find corollaries to this , and they are indeed true .
You do not need to waste your 401K to learn this , ok ?
The tabloids will offer proof enough .
Same thing in business .
Almost the same process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've done a lot of contract work, but nothing on the scale of a CRM install.
Despite that, there are somem things that are the same, no matter the size of the job;- The relationship is key.
If you don't forge a good relationship with your client, you will always suffer.
Always.- If the relationship is good you can overcome any obstacle.
Even total failure.
Yes, even if your solution turns out to not work at all, you can work out the relationship.- Relationships are give-and-take.
If you succeed wildly, you will get more and better.
If you do fairly well, you get what is due.
If you mostly fail, you work it out.
Sometimes it doesn't work out, true.
If you fail totally, well, you get what you deserve.- Importantly, don't get into a relationship you don't intend to actually work on, and don't have any real expectation of success.
Someone on the engineering side of HP-EDS needed to tell the sales side 'we can't do all this'.- Most important, don't go into a relationship with a crazy partner.
Sky may have violated this one.
Money makes contractors crazy.
Trust me on this.
The more money, the crazier.
Those of you who have real-life relationships with real-life people will find corollaries to this, and they are indeed true.
You do not need to waste your 401K to learn this, ok?
The tabloids will offer proof enough.
Same thing in business.
Almost the same process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911472</id>
	<title>I'm confused</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1264508220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't BSkyB just get back whatever they paid EDS/HP for the project, e.g. &pound;48 million? What's the rest of the &pound;200 million/&pound;700 million claim for?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't BSkyB just get back whatever they paid EDS/HP for the project , e.g .
  48 million ?
What 's the rest of the   200 million/   700 million claim for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't BSkyB just get back whatever they paid EDS/HP for the project, e.g.
£48 million?
What's the rest of the £200 million/£700 million claim for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911752</id>
	<title>Re:Scope creep?</title>
	<author>crath</author>
	<datestamp>1264509900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is safe to assume that the judge isn't a total moron; so, scope creen won't be at the root of the trouble.</p><p>I have managed several large IT outsourcing arrangements, and the supplier's consistently over-promise and under-deliver.</p><p>A big problem on these deals is that the sales team often doesn't have to stay behind after the customer signs; so, they don't have to live with the mess they talked the client into signing.  As a result, the sales team doesn't learn from their mistakes.</p><p>I hope the ruling takes some of the snake oil out of the sales process!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is safe to assume that the judge is n't a total moron ; so , scope creen wo n't be at the root of the trouble.I have managed several large IT outsourcing arrangements , and the supplier 's consistently over-promise and under-deliver.A big problem on these deals is that the sales team often does n't have to stay behind after the customer signs ; so , they do n't have to live with the mess they talked the client into signing .
As a result , the sales team does n't learn from their mistakes.I hope the ruling takes some of the snake oil out of the sales process !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is safe to assume that the judge isn't a total moron; so, scope creen won't be at the root of the trouble.I have managed several large IT outsourcing arrangements, and the supplier's consistently over-promise and under-deliver.A big problem on these deals is that the sales team often doesn't have to stay behind after the customer signs; so, they don't have to live with the mess they talked the client into signing.
As a result, the sales team doesn't learn from their mistakes.I hope the ruling takes some of the snake oil out of the sales process!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915464</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>JohnBailey</author>
	<datestamp>1264597260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know how EDS stays in business. Kickbacks to purchasing officers with no stake in the projects is my guess.</p></div><p>Don't they take on quite a few government white elephant projects? The ones that never actually work, but the minister vaguely associated with it in an unofficial non blame accepting manner always says is going incredibly well until it gets cancelled?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how EDS stays in business .
Kickbacks to purchasing officers with no stake in the projects is my guess.Do n't they take on quite a few government white elephant projects ?
The ones that never actually work , but the minister vaguely associated with it in an unofficial non blame accepting manner always says is going incredibly well until it gets cancelled ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how EDS stays in business.
Kickbacks to purchasing officers with no stake in the projects is my guess.Don't they take on quite a few government white elephant projects?
The ones that never actually work, but the minister vaguely associated with it in an unofficial non blame accepting manner always says is going incredibly well until it gets cancelled?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911294</id>
	<title>Re:Overstated.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264507020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a name like Nigel you know he's a stuffy white limey bloke motherfucker with a small penis and probably talks with an effeminate overtone.
<br> <br>
Silly Slashdotter, Macs are for fags!</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a name like Nigel you know he 's a stuffy white limey bloke motherfucker with a small penis and probably talks with an effeminate overtone .
Silly Slashdotter , Macs are for fags !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a name like Nigel you know he's a stuffy white limey bloke motherfucker with a small penis and probably talks with an effeminate overtone.
Silly Slashdotter, Macs are for fags!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912424</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting implications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264514820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll hurt clients too; I usually ask salespeople for indicative costs, stating (honestly) that I'm not going to treat them as a promise, a commitment or something I can hold them to.</p><p>I just need an order of magnitude understanding of how much of my company's money I'm going to have to spend to implement their product. If I have a business need then there's a massive difference between mobilising a whole procurement process for a product because it meets the need superbly, and initiating internal development because we can't afford it.</p><p>Hell, senior management want to know about risk, timescales, and (oddly enough) cost. I can assess the risk, but I need the vendors to help me understand timescales and costs to even get the funding for a procurement process.</p><p>Obviously that procurement process includes a significant amount of further discussion, discussion of commercial terms, contacting reference implementations, all the necessary due diligence and a bevy of experience negotiators and lawyers. But that expense is why I need to know up front whether there's even a viable solution.</p><p>Great software with a &pound;5m licence fee and a 2 year implementation timescale is never going to be easily implemented quicker or cheaper, even going elsewhere, but at least I can let the business decide whether they're willing to spend that sort of money (i.e. you're hitting 9 digits by the time you've included hardware, business change costs, training, procurement, let alone the implementation, integration and testing) to meet their needs before they commit any real resources (me, I'm cheap).</p><p>Getting lawyers involved up front? I concur, that could start getting very nasty, very painful, and break the whole engagement model for the whole industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll hurt clients too ; I usually ask salespeople for indicative costs , stating ( honestly ) that I 'm not going to treat them as a promise , a commitment or something I can hold them to.I just need an order of magnitude understanding of how much of my company 's money I 'm going to have to spend to implement their product .
If I have a business need then there 's a massive difference between mobilising a whole procurement process for a product because it meets the need superbly , and initiating internal development because we ca n't afford it.Hell , senior management want to know about risk , timescales , and ( oddly enough ) cost .
I can assess the risk , but I need the vendors to help me understand timescales and costs to even get the funding for a procurement process.Obviously that procurement process includes a significant amount of further discussion , discussion of commercial terms , contacting reference implementations , all the necessary due diligence and a bevy of experience negotiators and lawyers .
But that expense is why I need to know up front whether there 's even a viable solution.Great software with a   5m licence fee and a 2 year implementation timescale is never going to be easily implemented quicker or cheaper , even going elsewhere , but at least I can let the business decide whether they 're willing to spend that sort of money ( i.e .
you 're hitting 9 digits by the time you 've included hardware , business change costs , training , procurement , let alone the implementation , integration and testing ) to meet their needs before they commit any real resources ( me , I 'm cheap ) .Getting lawyers involved up front ?
I concur , that could start getting very nasty , very painful , and break the whole engagement model for the whole industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll hurt clients too; I usually ask salespeople for indicative costs, stating (honestly) that I'm not going to treat them as a promise, a commitment or something I can hold them to.I just need an order of magnitude understanding of how much of my company's money I'm going to have to spend to implement their product.
If I have a business need then there's a massive difference between mobilising a whole procurement process for a product because it meets the need superbly, and initiating internal development because we can't afford it.Hell, senior management want to know about risk, timescales, and (oddly enough) cost.
I can assess the risk, but I need the vendors to help me understand timescales and costs to even get the funding for a procurement process.Obviously that procurement process includes a significant amount of further discussion, discussion of commercial terms, contacting reference implementations, all the necessary due diligence and a bevy of experience negotiators and lawyers.
But that expense is why I need to know up front whether there's even a viable solution.Great software with a £5m licence fee and a 2 year implementation timescale is never going to be easily implemented quicker or cheaper, even going elsewhere, but at least I can let the business decide whether they're willing to spend that sort of money (i.e.
you're hitting 9 digits by the time you've included hardware, business change costs, training, procurement, let alone the implementation, integration and testing) to meet their needs before they commit any real resources (me, I'm cheap).Getting lawyers involved up front?
I concur, that could start getting very nasty, very painful, and break the whole engagement model for the whole industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248</id>
	<title>SAP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264506780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somewhat off topic, but perhaps related to the topic:</p><p>Has anyone ever worked in a company where they had a SAP implementation where overall the users and management (and I don't mean snr management who are above it) are actually happy with the outcome?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhat off topic , but perhaps related to the topic : Has anyone ever worked in a company where they had a SAP implementation where overall the users and management ( and I do n't mean snr management who are above it ) are actually happy with the outcome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhat off topic, but perhaps related to the topic:Has anyone ever worked in a company where they had a SAP implementation where overall the users and management (and I don't mean snr management who are above it) are actually happy with the outcome?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912528</id>
	<title>Re:I'm confused</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1264515480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shouldn't BSkyB just get back whatever they paid EDS/HP for the project, e.g. &pound;48 million? What's the rest of the &pound;200 million/&pound;700 million claim for?</p></div><ul>
<li>Money spent: &pound;48m</li><li> + legal fees</li><li> + other costs incurred during the project (project management and other staff time for planning/training/whatever within BSkyB)</li><li> + money expected to be needed to implement a replacement or fix</li><li> + money to cover the time and process of finding a new partner for said replacement/fix</li><li> + losses considered to be due to the failed project, including difficult/impossible to financially assess issues such as reputation (it was a customer relations system that failed, after all)</li><li> + anything else the contract seems to state they might be able claim for if they can prove the circumstances are right for them to do so</li><li>and so on.</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't BSkyB just get back whatever they paid EDS/HP for the project , e.g .
  48 million ?
What 's the rest of the   200 million/   700 million claim for ?
Money spent :   48m + legal fees + other costs incurred during the project ( project management and other staff time for planning/training/whatever within BSkyB ) + money expected to be needed to implement a replacement or fix + money to cover the time and process of finding a new partner for said replacement/fix + losses considered to be due to the failed project , including difficult/impossible to financially assess issues such as reputation ( it was a customer relations system that failed , after all ) + anything else the contract seems to state they might be able claim for if they can prove the circumstances are right for them to do soand so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't BSkyB just get back whatever they paid EDS/HP for the project, e.g.
£48 million?
What's the rest of the £200 million/£700 million claim for?
Money spent: £48m + legal fees + other costs incurred during the project (project management and other staff time for planning/training/whatever within BSkyB) + money expected to be needed to implement a replacement or fix + money to cover the time and process of finding a new partner for said replacement/fix + losses considered to be due to the failed project, including difficult/impossible to financially assess issues such as reputation (it was a customer relations system that failed, after all) + anything else the contract seems to state they might be able claim for if they can prove the circumstances are right for them to do soand so on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30979562</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting implications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What will the world come to if people can't lie to their customers all the time?</p><p>Won't someone think of the children!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What will the world come to if people ca n't lie to their customers all the time ? Wo n't someone think of the children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will the world come to if people can't lie to their customers all the time?Won't someone think of the children!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911912</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264510980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, not really.<br>I used to work for them, and quit in disgust after some six months when I'd had seen from the inside what they were actually like. Fortunately, this was back in the day when finding a job was easy, so I have to admit that "quitting in disgust" was much less of a risk than it is now. Still, I'm somewhat proud of it - less so for the fact that I didn't realize from the start what I was getting into...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not really.I used to work for them , and quit in disgust after some six months when I 'd had seen from the inside what they were actually like .
Fortunately , this was back in the day when finding a job was easy , so I have to admit that " quitting in disgust " was much less of a risk than it is now .
Still , I 'm somewhat proud of it - less so for the fact that I did n't realize from the start what I was getting into.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not really.I used to work for them, and quit in disgust after some six months when I'd had seen from the inside what they were actually like.
Fortunately, this was back in the day when finding a job was easy, so I have to admit that "quitting in disgust" was much less of a risk than it is now.
Still, I'm somewhat proud of it - less so for the fact that I didn't realize from the start what I was getting into...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912950</id>
	<title>Good call /.</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1264519920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bottom of page quote for this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if you can deceive people about a product through misleading statements, sooner or later the product will speak for itself. - Hajime Karatsu</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottom of page quote for this : Even if you can deceive people about a product through misleading statements , sooner or later the product will speak for itself .
- Hajime Karatsu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottom of page quote for this:Even if you can deceive people about a product through misleading statements, sooner or later the product will speak for itself.
- Hajime Karatsu
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</id>
	<title>If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264507560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Has anybody ever heard of (or better yet been involved with) an EDS project that went well.
</p><p>
Anyone?
</p><p>
EDS is characterized by: lots of promises, no delivery, never saw the experts present during negotiations again, lots of low GPA recent college grads doing 'work' they are not qualified for.
</p><p>
I don't know how EDS stays in business. Kickbacks to purchasing officers with no stake in the projects is my guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anybody ever heard of ( or better yet been involved with ) an EDS project that went well .
Anyone ? EDS is characterized by : lots of promises , no delivery , never saw the experts present during negotiations again , lots of low GPA recent college grads doing 'work ' they are not qualified for .
I do n't know how EDS stays in business .
Kickbacks to purchasing officers with no stake in the projects is my guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Has anybody ever heard of (or better yet been involved with) an EDS project that went well.
Anyone?

EDS is characterized by: lots of promises, no delivery, never saw the experts present during negotiations again, lots of low GPA recent college grads doing 'work' they are not qualified for.
I don't know how EDS stays in business.
Kickbacks to purchasing officers with no stake in the projects is my guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913108</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264521600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I have seen a couple contracts that went well for EDS. But I also know they are great at bidding such that the client ends up adding more and more into the contract. They would give the store away to suck the client into the position of bleeding out extras.</p><p>And having seen two contracts, I don't see how this could be the first time. Both contracts read like some moron wrote them. No meaningful performance standards were written. (Only time to acknowledge a problem was written in.) When it came to a list of services and who was responsible for what, nothing concrete was written. Instead they had phrases that referred to providing the same services as before when those had been in debate for years.</p><p>I was in a company purchased by EDS and spent a long time working for them. The best thing that happened to me was when I was laid off by HP. EDS had a legion of morons in their legal department and based their business on selling a lie. They would promise the impossible and then find a way to make it look like the client's needs had changed to milk more money for not delivering. I am glad that I was laid off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I have seen a couple contracts that went well for EDS .
But I also know they are great at bidding such that the client ends up adding more and more into the contract .
They would give the store away to suck the client into the position of bleeding out extras.And having seen two contracts , I do n't see how this could be the first time .
Both contracts read like some moron wrote them .
No meaningful performance standards were written .
( Only time to acknowledge a problem was written in .
) When it came to a list of services and who was responsible for what , nothing concrete was written .
Instead they had phrases that referred to providing the same services as before when those had been in debate for years.I was in a company purchased by EDS and spent a long time working for them .
The best thing that happened to me was when I was laid off by HP .
EDS had a legion of morons in their legal department and based their business on selling a lie .
They would promise the impossible and then find a way to make it look like the client 's needs had changed to milk more money for not delivering .
I am glad that I was laid off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I have seen a couple contracts that went well for EDS.
But I also know they are great at bidding such that the client ends up adding more and more into the contract.
They would give the store away to suck the client into the position of bleeding out extras.And having seen two contracts, I don't see how this could be the first time.
Both contracts read like some moron wrote them.
No meaningful performance standards were written.
(Only time to acknowledge a problem was written in.
) When it came to a list of services and who was responsible for what, nothing concrete was written.
Instead they had phrases that referred to providing the same services as before when those had been in debate for years.I was in a company purchased by EDS and spent a long time working for them.
The best thing that happened to me was when I was laid off by HP.
EDS had a legion of morons in their legal department and based their business on selling a lie.
They would promise the impossible and then find a way to make it look like the client's needs had changed to milk more money for not delivering.
I am glad that I was laid off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912718</id>
	<title>Re:Outsourcing</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1264517160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone know of any large outsourcing company that deliver what they promised, to a decent quality?</p></div><p>No. And I'd never in my life hire one.</p><p>If you're a big company with a reasonably bespoke requirement for software which isn't going to die after a few months, then you should treat it as part of your company. I'm amazed when companies think they can treat their complex data like something as simple as business stationery or the car fleet.</p><p>The one time it's worth going 3rd party is for highly specialised expertise or non-bespoke software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know of any large outsourcing company that deliver what they promised , to a decent quality ? No .
And I 'd never in my life hire one.If you 're a big company with a reasonably bespoke requirement for software which is n't going to die after a few months , then you should treat it as part of your company .
I 'm amazed when companies think they can treat their complex data like something as simple as business stationery or the car fleet.The one time it 's worth going 3rd party is for highly specialised expertise or non-bespoke software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know of any large outsourcing company that deliver what they promised, to a decent quality?No.
And I'd never in my life hire one.If you're a big company with a reasonably bespoke requirement for software which isn't going to die after a few months, then you should treat it as part of your company.
I'm amazed when companies think they can treat their complex data like something as simple as business stationery or the car fleet.The one time it's worth going 3rd party is for highly specialised expertise or non-bespoke software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30916054</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1264601700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The old saw that seems applicable here: The difference between a software salesman and a used car salesman is that the used car salesman knows he's lying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The old saw that seems applicable here : The difference between a software salesman and a used car salesman is that the used car salesman knows he 's lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old saw that seems applicable here: The difference between a software salesman and a used car salesman is that the used car salesman knows he's lying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915150</id>
	<title>Re:Difference between what we can &amp; what is pa</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1264593060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What happens a lot is that the sales people tell we can do A, B and C for you. Then pricing happens, and client is only willing to pay for A.<br>Contract is limited to A and closed. Then client figures out that in the end they need B and C.<br>Is that the sales peoples fault?</p></div></blockquote><p>It is if the salesman promised them they'd be getting B and C after the contract is drawn up.  And don't tell me that doesn't happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens a lot is that the sales people tell we can do A , B and C for you .
Then pricing happens , and client is only willing to pay for A.Contract is limited to A and closed .
Then client figures out that in the end they need B and C.Is that the sales peoples fault ? It is if the salesman promised them they 'd be getting B and C after the contract is drawn up .
And do n't tell me that does n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens a lot is that the sales people tell we can do A, B and C for you.
Then pricing happens, and client is only willing to pay for A.Contract is limited to A and closed.
Then client figures out that in the end they need B and C.Is that the sales peoples fault?It is if the salesman promised them they'd be getting B and C after the contract is drawn up.
And don't tell me that doesn't happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911158</id>
	<title>No comment...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264506120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...still thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...still thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...still thinking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911420</id>
	<title>Re:Scope creep?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1264507800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*snip*<br>It goes badly</p><p>Everyone sues everyone.</p><p>The lawyers win big time.</p><p>Hmm - sound familiar?</p></div><p>Yep, far to often its how things go. But not always on this scale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* snip * It goes badlyEveryone sues everyone.The lawyers win big time.Hmm - sound familiar ? Yep , far to often its how things go .
But not always on this scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*snip*It goes badlyEveryone sues everyone.The lawyers win big time.Hmm - sound familiar?Yep, far to often its how things go.
But not always on this scale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911434</id>
	<title>Interesting question</title>
	<author>VampireByte</author>
	<datestamp>1264507860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always figured it was a good thing I hadn't invested in learning SAP and jump on the gravy train some of my software consulting neighbors have been riding... just seemed like a matter of time before word got out and the hours dried up for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always figured it was a good thing I had n't invested in learning SAP and jump on the gravy train some of my software consulting neighbors have been riding... just seemed like a matter of time before word got out and the hours dried up for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always figured it was a good thing I hadn't invested in learning SAP and jump on the gravy train some of my software consulting neighbors have been riding... just seemed like a matter of time before word got out and the hours dried up for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913634</id>
	<title>An insider perspective from a different case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264527660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I was called into the middle of a $110 million dollar contract between a very well known multibillion dollar company and HP. I was a subcontractor for HP that was assigned to make things work on the front lines. The vendor promised a migration of tens of thousands of computers without <em>any</em> need for desktop engineers other than simple boxing and unboxing. Over 800 packaged apps were on the line and over 50 desktop platforms had to be made to move to a single standard image.
</p><p>
The client at the time had an almost exclusively 10Mb hubbed network. They also had a contract with AT&amp;T that stipulated everytime a port on a hub, switch or router was touched AT&amp;T made $400. Found out an entire 24 port switch was set to half duplex? That will be $9600 to switch the single switch to full duplex. We had dozens of such switches and over 200 sites. The contract with the client demanded that the network upgrade to a fully switched 100Mbps network would be completed before the migration of the tens of thousands of computers.
</p><p>
Turned out the vendor promised the client their software would be so good that the client could reduce internal IT headcount by 25\%. This was discovered by the clients IT department, and along with a contractual guarantee that no field engineer would be needed resulted in a perfect storm of non-cooperation with the clients IT department. It also turned out that the client postponed the network upgrade until after the migration to avoid those $400 a port switch costs as the contract with AT&amp;T was due to expire in eight months.
</p><p>
I got involved as I was one of only three people assigned to migrate tens of thousands of desktops with no client cooperation on a network that was primarily 10 Mbps hubs. The vendor promptly assigned package creation to India which resulted in fewer than 100 of 800 packages being available at migration start due to their incompetence.
</p><p>
It was a perfect storm of incompetence and I was in the middle. I started keeping track of progress and wrote a daily report of what was successfully migrated, what wasn't and the reason for failure. For months the project dragged on, getting farther and farther behind as time went on. Unknown to me the client and the vendor started using my reports as a basis for daily fines that were in the six figures <em>per day</em>. Over the course of several months I unwittingly dictated how literally tens of millions of dollars were spent on fines between the two companies.
</p><p>
At the end the client was suing the vendor for fraud (which was true) and the vendor was suing the client for contractual non-compliance (which was also true). I had two well known multibillion dollar companies getting ready to sue each other, with each having decided ahead of time that I was their preferred witness on why things went bad. I had law firms from both companies tell me to prepare for dispositions the following week as I was advised that I could be in court for several months while the court case progressed. In America when you are an witness you are not allowed to be paid for your time in court as that would be considered a bribe. (Expert witnesses can be paid as they are not material to the case and are outside it).
</p><p>
I explained to both teams of lawyers that I of course cooperate with court and tell the truth. I also let them know that neither side would care for what I had to say. The case was settled the next day. I lost my job along with everyone else as part of the settlement. However I was able to get another job right away and was able to avoid personal financial disaster with being a witness in the middle of battling multibillion dollar behemoths.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was called into the middle of a $ 110 million dollar contract between a very well known multibillion dollar company and HP .
I was a subcontractor for HP that was assigned to make things work on the front lines .
The vendor promised a migration of tens of thousands of computers without any need for desktop engineers other than simple boxing and unboxing .
Over 800 packaged apps were on the line and over 50 desktop platforms had to be made to move to a single standard image .
The client at the time had an almost exclusively 10Mb hubbed network .
They also had a contract with AT&amp;T that stipulated everytime a port on a hub , switch or router was touched AT&amp;T made $ 400 .
Found out an entire 24 port switch was set to half duplex ?
That will be $ 9600 to switch the single switch to full duplex .
We had dozens of such switches and over 200 sites .
The contract with the client demanded that the network upgrade to a fully switched 100Mbps network would be completed before the migration of the tens of thousands of computers .
Turned out the vendor promised the client their software would be so good that the client could reduce internal IT headcount by 25 \ % .
This was discovered by the clients IT department , and along with a contractual guarantee that no field engineer would be needed resulted in a perfect storm of non-cooperation with the clients IT department .
It also turned out that the client postponed the network upgrade until after the migration to avoid those $ 400 a port switch costs as the contract with AT&amp;T was due to expire in eight months .
I got involved as I was one of only three people assigned to migrate tens of thousands of desktops with no client cooperation on a network that was primarily 10 Mbps hubs .
The vendor promptly assigned package creation to India which resulted in fewer than 100 of 800 packages being available at migration start due to their incompetence .
It was a perfect storm of incompetence and I was in the middle .
I started keeping track of progress and wrote a daily report of what was successfully migrated , what was n't and the reason for failure .
For months the project dragged on , getting farther and farther behind as time went on .
Unknown to me the client and the vendor started using my reports as a basis for daily fines that were in the six figures per day .
Over the course of several months I unwittingly dictated how literally tens of millions of dollars were spent on fines between the two companies .
At the end the client was suing the vendor for fraud ( which was true ) and the vendor was suing the client for contractual non-compliance ( which was also true ) .
I had two well known multibillion dollar companies getting ready to sue each other , with each having decided ahead of time that I was their preferred witness on why things went bad .
I had law firms from both companies tell me to prepare for dispositions the following week as I was advised that I could be in court for several months while the court case progressed .
In America when you are an witness you are not allowed to be paid for your time in court as that would be considered a bribe .
( Expert witnesses can be paid as they are not material to the case and are outside it ) .
I explained to both teams of lawyers that I of course cooperate with court and tell the truth .
I also let them know that neither side would care for what I had to say .
The case was settled the next day .
I lost my job along with everyone else as part of the settlement .
However I was able to get another job right away and was able to avoid personal financial disaster with being a witness in the middle of battling multibillion dollar behemoths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I was called into the middle of a $110 million dollar contract between a very well known multibillion dollar company and HP.
I was a subcontractor for HP that was assigned to make things work on the front lines.
The vendor promised a migration of tens of thousands of computers without any need for desktop engineers other than simple boxing and unboxing.
Over 800 packaged apps were on the line and over 50 desktop platforms had to be made to move to a single standard image.
The client at the time had an almost exclusively 10Mb hubbed network.
They also had a contract with AT&amp;T that stipulated everytime a port on a hub, switch or router was touched AT&amp;T made $400.
Found out an entire 24 port switch was set to half duplex?
That will be $9600 to switch the single switch to full duplex.
We had dozens of such switches and over 200 sites.
The contract with the client demanded that the network upgrade to a fully switched 100Mbps network would be completed before the migration of the tens of thousands of computers.
Turned out the vendor promised the client their software would be so good that the client could reduce internal IT headcount by 25\%.
This was discovered by the clients IT department, and along with a contractual guarantee that no field engineer would be needed resulted in a perfect storm of non-cooperation with the clients IT department.
It also turned out that the client postponed the network upgrade until after the migration to avoid those $400 a port switch costs as the contract with AT&amp;T was due to expire in eight months.
I got involved as I was one of only three people assigned to migrate tens of thousands of desktops with no client cooperation on a network that was primarily 10 Mbps hubs.
The vendor promptly assigned package creation to India which resulted in fewer than 100 of 800 packages being available at migration start due to their incompetence.
It was a perfect storm of incompetence and I was in the middle.
I started keeping track of progress and wrote a daily report of what was successfully migrated, what wasn't and the reason for failure.
For months the project dragged on, getting farther and farther behind as time went on.
Unknown to me the client and the vendor started using my reports as a basis for daily fines that were in the six figures per day.
Over the course of several months I unwittingly dictated how literally tens of millions of dollars were spent on fines between the two companies.
At the end the client was suing the vendor for fraud (which was true) and the vendor was suing the client for contractual non-compliance (which was also true).
I had two well known multibillion dollar companies getting ready to sue each other, with each having decided ahead of time that I was their preferred witness on why things went bad.
I had law firms from both companies tell me to prepare for dispositions the following week as I was advised that I could be in court for several months while the court case progressed.
In America when you are an witness you are not allowed to be paid for your time in court as that would be considered a bribe.
(Expert witnesses can be paid as they are not material to the case and are outside it).
I explained to both teams of lawyers that I of course cooperate with court and tell the truth.
I also let them know that neither side would care for what I had to say.
The case was settled the next day.
I lost my job along with everyone else as part of the settlement.
However I was able to get another job right away and was able to avoid personal financial disaster with being a witness in the middle of battling multibillion dollar behemoths.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911808</id>
	<title>F |\_| C K      EDS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264510260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish the execs at EDS would be raped by wild packs of jackals, you know, similar to what they do to their employees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish the execs at EDS would be raped by wild packs of jackals , you know , similar to what they do to their employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish the execs at EDS would be raped by wild packs of jackals, you know, similar to what they do to their employees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911876</id>
	<title>Re:Scope creep?</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1264510740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah sure, despite your obvious confusion, you are still wrong. You are only looking at one side.</p><p>The other side is that HP/EDS (the same company), over promised on what they could deliver to Sky.</p><p>Both are common problems in outsourcing, both are equally likely to be true. In this case, according to the judgement and HP, it seems to be that EDS overpromised more than scope creep occured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah sure , despite your obvious confusion , you are still wrong .
You are only looking at one side.The other side is that HP/EDS ( the same company ) , over promised on what they could deliver to Sky.Both are common problems in outsourcing , both are equally likely to be true .
In this case , according to the judgement and HP , it seems to be that EDS overpromised more than scope creep occured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah sure, despite your obvious confusion, you are still wrong.
You are only looking at one side.The other side is that HP/EDS (the same company), over promised on what they could deliver to Sky.Both are common problems in outsourcing, both are equally likely to be true.
In this case, according to the judgement and HP, it seems to be that EDS overpromised more than scope creep occured.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911354</id>
	<title>Re:Who's getting screwed?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1264507440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911236</id>
	<title>Re:No comment...</title>
	<author>Cryacin</author>
	<datestamp>1264506660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, well, what a surprise. Outsourcing company great at sending out invoices, not so good at delivering a product.<br>
<br>
World famous EDS quote. "Never get sales confused with delivery."</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , well , what a surprise .
Outsourcing company great at sending out invoices , not so good at delivering a product .
World famous EDS quote .
" Never get sales confused with delivery .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, well, what a surprise.
Outsourcing company great at sending out invoices, not so good at delivering a product.
World famous EDS quote.
"Never get sales confused with delivery.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912210</id>
	<title>Re:F |\_| C K   EDS</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264513440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that we're adults and that you're retarded use of ascii isn't required since no one cares if you say 'fuck' right?</p><p>As for their employees, it sounds like they fucked up enough on their own and are too stupid to get a job anywhere else.</p><p>Its funny that you talk about 'screwing over the employees' when<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, they just lost the company 200m</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that we 're adults and that you 're retarded use of ascii is n't required since no one cares if you say 'fuck ' right ? As for their employees , it sounds like they fucked up enough on their own and are too stupid to get a job anywhere else.Its funny that you talk about 'screwing over the employees ' when ... well , they just lost the company 200m</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that we're adults and that you're retarded use of ascii isn't required since no one cares if you say 'fuck' right?As for their employees, it sounds like they fucked up enough on their own and are too stupid to get a job anywhere else.Its funny that you talk about 'screwing over the employees' when ... well, they just lost the company 200m</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911606</id>
	<title>Re:I'm confused</title>
	<author>ebcdic</author>
	<datestamp>1264509060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably they incurred costs as a result of EDS not providing what they were supposed to.</p><p>Sky and EDS - it couldn't happen to two nicer companies.  With luck no-one will win except the lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably they incurred costs as a result of EDS not providing what they were supposed to.Sky and EDS - it could n't happen to two nicer companies .
With luck no-one will win except the lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably they incurred costs as a result of EDS not providing what they were supposed to.Sky and EDS - it couldn't happen to two nicer companies.
With luck no-one will win except the lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913818</id>
	<title>Re:Scope creep?</title>
	<author>twiddlingbits</author>
	<datestamp>1264529520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The judgement couldn't happen to a nicer firm. HP screwed a lot of EDSers when they took over, and cut benefits and salaries to BELOW the level the "real" HP people were making. And they raided the pension fund for billions (HP has no pension plan)/ And they were going to keep the EDS brand...and they did for less than a year. Bad Karma comes back at you in many ways. That said there are a lot of good people at HP-EDS who may be hurt by all this crap even if they had nothing to do with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The judgement could n't happen to a nicer firm .
HP screwed a lot of EDSers when they took over , and cut benefits and salaries to BELOW the level the " real " HP people were making .
And they raided the pension fund for billions ( HP has no pension plan ) / And they were going to keep the EDS brand...and they did for less than a year .
Bad Karma comes back at you in many ways .
That said there are a lot of good people at HP-EDS who may be hurt by all this crap even if they had nothing to do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judgement couldn't happen to a nicer firm.
HP screwed a lot of EDSers when they took over, and cut benefits and salaries to BELOW the level the "real" HP people were making.
And they raided the pension fund for billions (HP has no pension plan)/ And they were going to keep the EDS brand...and they did for less than a year.
Bad Karma comes back at you in many ways.
That said there are a lot of good people at HP-EDS who may be hurt by all this crap even if they had nothing to do with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.31003564</id>
	<title>Re:Douche bag editoral summary</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1265118120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where the fuck did this ridiculous sense of entitlement come from?  What the hell is wrong with people now days?  You don't exactly get raises when you screw up, ESPECIALLY when you end up costing millions to the company.  The only time you get pay increases in this situation is when you're a US CEO of a massive company and cost millions of people pain and suffering, THEN you get a bonus.</p></div><p>Maybe people looked at the banking industry and decided that was a nice model to use. It wasn't just CEOs that got retention bonuses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where the fuck did this ridiculous sense of entitlement come from ?
What the hell is wrong with people now days ?
You do n't exactly get raises when you screw up , ESPECIALLY when you end up costing millions to the company .
The only time you get pay increases in this situation is when you 're a US CEO of a massive company and cost millions of people pain and suffering , THEN you get a bonus.Maybe people looked at the banking industry and decided that was a nice model to use .
It was n't just CEOs that got retention bonuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where the fuck did this ridiculous sense of entitlement come from?
What the hell is wrong with people now days?
You don't exactly get raises when you screw up, ESPECIALLY when you end up costing millions to the company.
The only time you get pay increases in this situation is when you're a US CEO of a massive company and cost millions of people pain and suffering, THEN you get a bonus.Maybe people looked at the banking industry and decided that was a nice model to use.
It wasn't just CEOs that got retention bonuses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913554</id>
	<title>Oh my God</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1264526820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sales people lied...I'm Shocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sales people lied...I 'm Shocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sales people lied...I'm Shocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30948868</id>
	<title>Re:HP is run by greedy idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264778100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being an HP/EDS employee myself, I can guarantee you that I will get screwed.<br>They already cut my pay once by 5\%(plus 15\% for one month).  After doing this, they also cut several employee's salaries in a "job code alignment", which was just a pay cut in disguise.<br>This is before and after laying off hundreds of employees, replacing them with morons from India and Malaysia because they are "equally efficient but cheaper".<br>On the bright side, our CEO make record income thanks to his salary/compensations and his tremendous bonus.  Apparently flushing your company down the shitter puts you at the top of the bonus queue.<br>HP/EDS is run by greedy morons, who outsource all the work to poor morons.<br>I'm happy to have a job and I hope this whole event doesn't affect me(although I'm sure it will), but HP/EDS can suck it for all I care.</p></div><p>If HP can suck it as you put it.. Put your name up.. Or are you still happy that you get a paycheck... You could be one of the folks who sit in the UNEMPLOYMENT line right? Oh by the way... you could always go find another job and quit your complaining... Cause you are going to be SO  much happier then right... NO you will be a person who complains no matter what.. Sorry for the reality check...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being an HP/EDS employee myself , I can guarantee you that I will get screwed.They already cut my pay once by 5 \ % ( plus 15 \ % for one month ) .
After doing this , they also cut several employee 's salaries in a " job code alignment " , which was just a pay cut in disguise.This is before and after laying off hundreds of employees , replacing them with morons from India and Malaysia because they are " equally efficient but cheaper " .On the bright side , our CEO make record income thanks to his salary/compensations and his tremendous bonus .
Apparently flushing your company down the shitter puts you at the top of the bonus queue.HP/EDS is run by greedy morons , who outsource all the work to poor morons.I 'm happy to have a job and I hope this whole event does n't affect me ( although I 'm sure it will ) , but HP/EDS can suck it for all I care.If HP can suck it as you put it.. Put your name up.. Or are you still happy that you get a paycheck... You could be one of the folks who sit in the UNEMPLOYMENT line right ?
Oh by the way... you could always go find another job and quit your complaining... Cause you are going to be SO much happier then right... NO you will be a person who complains no matter what.. Sorry for the reality check.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being an HP/EDS employee myself, I can guarantee you that I will get screwed.They already cut my pay once by 5\%(plus 15\% for one month).
After doing this, they also cut several employee's salaries in a "job code alignment", which was just a pay cut in disguise.This is before and after laying off hundreds of employees, replacing them with morons from India and Malaysia because they are "equally efficient but cheaper".On the bright side, our CEO make record income thanks to his salary/compensations and his tremendous bonus.
Apparently flushing your company down the shitter puts you at the top of the bonus queue.HP/EDS is run by greedy morons, who outsource all the work to poor morons.I'm happy to have a job and I hope this whole event doesn't affect me(although I'm sure it will), but HP/EDS can suck it for all I care.If HP can suck it as you put it.. Put your name up.. Or are you still happy that you get a paycheck... You could be one of the folks who sit in the UNEMPLOYMENT line right?
Oh by the way... you could always go find another job and quit your complaining... Cause you are going to be SO  much happier then right... NO you will be a person who complains no matter what.. Sorry for the reality check...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30979494</id>
	<title>Re:Overstated.</title>
	<author>KitsuneSoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1265029920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is a 'change management process'? I may have heard of it under a different name, but those three words in that order make no sense to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is a 'change management process ' ?
I may have heard of it under a different name , but those three words in that order make no sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is a 'change management process'?
I may have heard of it under a different name, but those three words in that order make no sense to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912650</id>
	<title>Re:It's the relationship, stupid!</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1264516380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all boils down to poor project management, and it's always one (or more) of three reasons.  The difficulty in coordinating the non-technical management's expectations and what the sales team thinks is possible with what is actually possible at a given price is the reason something like 80\% of all IT projects fail.  It's always either scope creep, budget creep, or time creep that kills them.</p><p>This sounds like a case of scope creep to me, and I'm actually surprised UK law is screwed up enough to award a 700 pound judgement for something that isn't even a breach of contract.  Frankly, at least half of the blame lies with BlueSky for constantly changing the scope, and the other half to EDS for constantly agreeing to it.  Dumbasses.  Of course it is going to fail if you're trying to hit a moving target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all boils down to poor project management , and it 's always one ( or more ) of three reasons .
The difficulty in coordinating the non-technical management 's expectations and what the sales team thinks is possible with what is actually possible at a given price is the reason something like 80 \ % of all IT projects fail .
It 's always either scope creep , budget creep , or time creep that kills them.This sounds like a case of scope creep to me , and I 'm actually surprised UK law is screwed up enough to award a 700 pound judgement for something that is n't even a breach of contract .
Frankly , at least half of the blame lies with BlueSky for constantly changing the scope , and the other half to EDS for constantly agreeing to it .
Dumbasses. Of course it is going to fail if you 're trying to hit a moving target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all boils down to poor project management, and it's always one (or more) of three reasons.
The difficulty in coordinating the non-technical management's expectations and what the sales team thinks is possible with what is actually possible at a given price is the reason something like 80\% of all IT projects fail.
It's always either scope creep, budget creep, or time creep that kills them.This sounds like a case of scope creep to me, and I'm actually surprised UK law is screwed up enough to award a 700 pound judgement for something that isn't even a breach of contract.
Frankly, at least half of the blame lies with BlueSky for constantly changing the scope, and the other half to EDS for constantly agreeing to it.
Dumbasses.  Of course it is going to fail if you're trying to hit a moving target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912452</id>
	<title>NMCI...</title>
	<author>gmfeier</author>
	<datestamp>1264514940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...there, I said it! Complete disaster. Of course I retired three years ago and maybe they've fixed it since. And maybe pigs are flying now, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...there , I said it !
Complete disaster .
Of course I retired three years ago and maybe they 've fixed it since .
And maybe pigs are flying now , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...there, I said it!
Complete disaster.
Of course I retired three years ago and maybe they've fixed it since.
And maybe pigs are flying now, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911726</id>
	<title>Re:Who's getting screwed?</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1264509660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's about HP deriving most of its profits from printer ink.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's about HP deriving most of its profits from printer ink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's about HP deriving most of its profits from printer ink.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912420</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1264514820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know how EDS stays in business. Kickbacks to purchasing officers with no stake in the projects is my guess.</p></div><p>Government contracts for one thing. Hardly anyone (or no one) else of notable size bids for them most of the time as they simply don't want to deal with the red tape and other hassle (taking part in a procurement process can be very expensive in terms of time and effort, especially for large projects, especially for governments), so EDS get some fairly lucrative contracts due to being the only real contender in the procurement process.</p><p>I've worked alongside EDS (they managed the IT and other infrastructure for a company we did a pile of work for over the course of a few years) and I can tell you there <i>are</i> some very good people in there. A lot of chaff too, but that is the way of things (in a large organisation chaff that know they are chaff can hide behind others, and once found can be difficult to legally sack), and they often move at the speed of a snail with severe alcohol poisoning (again, this I saw as mainly a function of the size of the beast). I've never dealt with the sales or management teams though, so things could be very different up those parts. There did seem to be notable communication disconnects between some levels of management and the people doing the work (I can't comment on sales - I never had reason to deal with them at all).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how EDS stays in business .
Kickbacks to purchasing officers with no stake in the projects is my guess.Government contracts for one thing .
Hardly anyone ( or no one ) else of notable size bids for them most of the time as they simply do n't want to deal with the red tape and other hassle ( taking part in a procurement process can be very expensive in terms of time and effort , especially for large projects , especially for governments ) , so EDS get some fairly lucrative contracts due to being the only real contender in the procurement process.I 've worked alongside EDS ( they managed the IT and other infrastructure for a company we did a pile of work for over the course of a few years ) and I can tell you there are some very good people in there .
A lot of chaff too , but that is the way of things ( in a large organisation chaff that know they are chaff can hide behind others , and once found can be difficult to legally sack ) , and they often move at the speed of a snail with severe alcohol poisoning ( again , this I saw as mainly a function of the size of the beast ) .
I 've never dealt with the sales or management teams though , so things could be very different up those parts .
There did seem to be notable communication disconnects between some levels of management and the people doing the work ( I ca n't comment on sales - I never had reason to deal with them at all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how EDS stays in business.
Kickbacks to purchasing officers with no stake in the projects is my guess.Government contracts for one thing.
Hardly anyone (or no one) else of notable size bids for them most of the time as they simply don't want to deal with the red tape and other hassle (taking part in a procurement process can be very expensive in terms of time and effort, especially for large projects, especially for governments), so EDS get some fairly lucrative contracts due to being the only real contender in the procurement process.I've worked alongside EDS (they managed the IT and other infrastructure for a company we did a pile of work for over the course of a few years) and I can tell you there are some very good people in there.
A lot of chaff too, but that is the way of things (in a large organisation chaff that know they are chaff can hide behind others, and once found can be difficult to legally sack), and they often move at the speed of a snail with severe alcohol poisoning (again, this I saw as mainly a function of the size of the beast).
I've never dealt with the sales or management teams though, so things could be very different up those parts.
There did seem to be notable communication disconnects between some levels of management and the people doing the work (I can't comment on sales - I never had reason to deal with them at all).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911394</id>
	<title>Re:SAP</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1264507680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, actually.  My wife's company recently did a company-wide SAP implementation, migrating from several smaller apps at smaller divisions to a centralized system.  It's been a resounding success.  Her division migrated from a heavily-customized Solomon though, which lowers the success bar quite a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , actually .
My wife 's company recently did a company-wide SAP implementation , migrating from several smaller apps at smaller divisions to a centralized system .
It 's been a resounding success .
Her division migrated from a heavily-customized Solomon though , which lowers the success bar quite a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, actually.
My wife's company recently did a company-wide SAP implementation, migrating from several smaller apps at smaller divisions to a centralized system.
It's been a resounding success.
Her division migrated from a heavily-customized Solomon though, which lowers the success bar quite a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911370</id>
	<title>Re:Scope creep?</title>
	<author>Sunshinerat</author>
	<datestamp>1264507560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are almost right.<br>HP does not play a part in your conversation until 2008.<br>EDS told BskyB that they would deliver a CRM system with golden monkeys, BskyB changed their idea for the system to blue unicorns.<br>The whole delivery tanks, HP buys EDS in 2008 and gets the bill for another 900m pounds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are almost right.HP does not play a part in your conversation until 2008.EDS told BskyB that they would deliver a CRM system with golden monkeys , BskyB changed their idea for the system to blue unicorns.The whole delivery tanks , HP buys EDS in 2008 and gets the bill for another 900m pounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are almost right.HP does not play a part in your conversation until 2008.EDS told BskyB that they would deliver a CRM system with golden monkeys, BskyB changed their idea for the system to blue unicorns.The whole delivery tanks, HP buys EDS in 2008 and gets the bill for another 900m pounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911628</id>
	<title>Difference between what we can &amp; what is paid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264509120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens a lot is that the sales people tell we can do A, B and C for you. Then pricing happens, and client is only willing to pay for A.<br>
Contract is limited to A and closed. Then client figures out that in the end they need B and C.<br>
Is that the sales peoples fault?
</p><p>I still think this is a difficult case and am not aware of all details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens a lot is that the sales people tell we can do A , B and C for you .
Then pricing happens , and client is only willing to pay for A . Contract is limited to A and closed .
Then client figures out that in the end they need B and C . Is that the sales peoples fault ?
I still think this is a difficult case and am not aware of all details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens a lot is that the sales people tell we can do A, B and C for you.
Then pricing happens, and client is only willing to pay for A.
Contract is limited to A and closed.
Then client figures out that in the end they need B and C.
Is that the sales peoples fault?
I still think this is a difficult case and am not aware of all details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30918542</id>
	<title>Re:Outsourcing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did Capita have to do with it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did Capita have to do with it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did Capita have to do with it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913740</id>
	<title>Re:If EDS has to tell the truth it is dead.</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1264528740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Finland there is company called Tieto (formerly TietoEnator). The sole reason why it stays in business is size. It is almost the only big player in the field.<br>No small company can compete with their claims.</p><p>TietoEnator has horrible track record. Just to point two (of many):<br>1. Parliament voting system. Took several years as the first(?) system was overloaded by the votes - maximum of 200. Yes two hundred votes (given within few seconds) overloaded the system, the tests showed pretty much random output. BTW, there are as many as three possible votes (yes, no, abstain).<br>2. Car registry. Finland has 5.2 million inhabitants and less cars. Their system could not cope with the amount of updates to the database.</p><p>The biggest problem is that the buyer, usually government, will happily extend the price to several times the original to get something working<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so it makes sense for the TietoEnator to put the least capable into the work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Finland there is company called Tieto ( formerly TietoEnator ) .
The sole reason why it stays in business is size .
It is almost the only big player in the field.No small company can compete with their claims.TietoEnator has horrible track record .
Just to point two ( of many ) : 1 .
Parliament voting system .
Took several years as the first ( ?
) system was overloaded by the votes - maximum of 200 .
Yes two hundred votes ( given within few seconds ) overloaded the system , the tests showed pretty much random output .
BTW , there are as many as three possible votes ( yes , no , abstain ) .2 .
Car registry .
Finland has 5.2 million inhabitants and less cars .
Their system could not cope with the amount of updates to the database.The biggest problem is that the buyer , usually government , will happily extend the price to several times the original to get something working ... so it makes sense for the TietoEnator to put the least capable into the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Finland there is company called Tieto (formerly TietoEnator).
The sole reason why it stays in business is size.
It is almost the only big player in the field.No small company can compete with their claims.TietoEnator has horrible track record.
Just to point two (of many):1.
Parliament voting system.
Took several years as the first(?
) system was overloaded by the votes - maximum of 200.
Yes two hundred votes (given within few seconds) overloaded the system, the tests showed pretty much random output.
BTW, there are as many as three possible votes (yes, no, abstain).2.
Car registry.
Finland has 5.2 million inhabitants and less cars.
Their system could not cope with the amount of updates to the database.The biggest problem is that the buyer, usually government, will happily extend the price to several times the original to get something working ... so it makes sense for the TietoEnator to put the least capable into the work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911384</id>
	<title>Re:Scope creep?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264507620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF are you on about? This is only HP's problem because they bought EDS and EDS blagged their way into a $$$ deal with Sky. It's not a problem between HP and EDS.</p><p>Despite your ignorance and by pure luck, you're probably right about the golf and the BMW affecting some manager's decision making process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF are you on about ?
This is only HP 's problem because they bought EDS and EDS blagged their way into a $ $ $ deal with Sky .
It 's not a problem between HP and EDS.Despite your ignorance and by pure luck , you 're probably right about the golf and the BMW affecting some manager 's decision making process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF are you on about?
This is only HP's problem because they bought EDS and EDS blagged their way into a $$$ deal with Sky.
It's not a problem between HP and EDS.Despite your ignorance and by pure luck, you're probably right about the golf and the BMW affecting some manager's decision making process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30927416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30979520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30916054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30924094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30917184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30948868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30979494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30979562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30983132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30918542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30917388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30916688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30916630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2046216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.31003564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30983132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30918542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30917388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30916688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30917184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30948868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.31003564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912368
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30916054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30913108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30914858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30924094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30916630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30979494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30979520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911354
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912482
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30927416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30979562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30915150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30912424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2046216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2046216.30911182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
