Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A billion reasons never to buy IBM services

foliovision.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 200 posts

Re: A billion reasons never to buy IBM services

#131

Post by Zigurd »

beachy wrote: post #125
Spooky23 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Payroll projects are always disasters. Any vendor will do exactly what is asked, no matter what. IBM, Dell, Accenture, Deloitte, McKinsey, etc. There is no reason why a customer should allow a contractor like this to run roughshod over them -- thats incompetence and bad governance. I've run big projects with vendors like this. You write good RFPs and hold feet to the fire and they will deliver.

> You write good RFPs and hold feet to the fire and they will deliver. That's the key bit though. Its not easy to write good RFPs. Unless done to an excruciating level of precision (which they very seldom are), you leave wiggle room which the vendor will naturally take advantage of when things get tough.

I've written RFP responses in the telecom industry. "Excruciating" is about right. Thing is, if you are not highly detailed you'll fall between the stools of waterfall and agile. It sounds like this project went astray that way. Not sufficiently spec'ed, everybody gets everything they want, and not agile. You cannot make a sensible kanban board out of change orders.

Re: A billion reasons never to buy IBM services

#132

Post by guidedlight »

RachelF wrote: post #56

There are very similar stories from Australia, with IBM being sued for being late on major (billion dollar) government projects and releasing products that just don't work. IBM produced a $1.2 billion payroll project for Queensland heath that just never worked.

This is mentioned in the article.

NZ also had a disastrous police database project fail that was managed by IBM.

Re: A billion reasons never to buy IBM services

#133

Post by beachy »

[deleted] wrote: post #119
blakesterz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They bought SoftLayer a few years ago and haven't ruined it. Not sure if that really counts or not, but I was really worried. I've been there for quite a few years, and nothing went downhill after they got bought.

[deleted]

Not the person you are replying to but I'd say no.

As the supplier you should back yourself as to whether its likely that your changes will cause an issue or not. If so, issue a warning, otherwise don't.

The reason I say this is not for your customer's benefit but for yours. I've seen people get all knotted up with process because someone had the bright idea that the customer should be notified when absolutely anything changes behind the scenes - just in case. This abundance of caution will make your life a misery, and stops any rapid movement. It also desensitizes the customer, who gets used to your notifications and eventually decides they can ignore them.

Re: A billion reasons never to buy IBM services

#135

Post by lazyasciiart »

Mizza wrote: post #129
insom wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to see someone already posted this. I don't know how anyone writes something like "this is what Slovaks are like" and doesn't stop to think about their biases. I originally thought maybe he was from Slovakia (I have occasionally made jokes or generalisations about Irish people, as I am one) -- but then the footnotes make it clear it's not self deprecation. It's just prejudice.

He is obviously from Slovakia. It says on their about page that their homebase is in Bratislava.

Are you assuming that nobody would be based in Bratislava who is not Slovakian?

Re: A billion reasons never to buy IBM services

#136

Post by danso »

Mizza wrote: post #126
danso wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Europeans are more exposed than Americans to folks of different nationalities, wouldn't they be less inclined to broadly generalize them? No one would accuse the author of meaning to judge "every single individual Slovakian person". It's ironic that you state your dislike of "weaselly or bland language", and then go on to describe the author as having a "perception of the traits of their culture as a whole" . Most…

> If Europeans are more exposed than Americans to folks of different nationalities, wouldn't they be less inclined to broadly generalize them? Why would it? It's just more data to pattern-match on, and that can mean confirming bias and prejudice as well. It might also shock you to find out that people who work in retail or food service also develop prejudices as well. It's not a good thing but it happens. I'm not say…

OK I won't get into an argument of whether stereotypes or prejudices are good/bad and I'm sorry if I implied that. I can't speak for the GP (u/alexk), but I interpreted his assertion of "People should try harder to decouple their biases from facts especially in their public writing" as saying that using stereotypes as factual evidence leads to weak writing.

For example, this graf:

> Yet if these people or their friends were the only ones who had contact with your data, no issues at all. Slovaks, particularly in the service industry, are astonishingly honesty.

> [the next section is about how technical work is outsourced from Slovakia]

The author apparently thinks IBM's off-shoring would be fine (indeed, "no issues at all") if the work outsourced to Slovakia stayed in Slovakia (rather than be outsourced to India), and his supporting argument is that "Slovaks are astonishingly honest". Take away the stereotype, and we see how flimsy the author's assertion is. It's not the stereotype that's wrong, necessarily, it's how the author uses it as evidence.

Yes, I suppose I agree with you that people being explicit about their biases makes it easier to identify weak essays. But it's also worth arguing that no matter your biases, your writing is stronger when you rely on empirical evidence, rather than using generalizations/stereotypes that you assume the audience will agree are true.

Re: A billion reasons never to buy IBM services

#137

Post by lazyasciiart »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #135
Mizza wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is obviously from Slovakia. It says on their about page that their homebase is in Bratislava.

Are you assuming that nobody would be based in Bratislava who is not Slovakian?

Spoiler: you're wrong, the author is Canadian.

Re: A billion reasons never to buy IBM services

#138

Post by hinkley »

rgbrenner wrote: post #100
mgkimsal wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're both right, but you're a bit more right. IBM should have been pointing out that losing the institutional knowledge may cause problems. they possibly assumed some of their milestones and deliverables would be while working with existing staff. if the existing staff is let go, many of the assumptions in the original estimate are just wrong at that point.

The managers needed IBM to tell them about the concept of institutional knowledge? They need to be told that people with experience have learned their jobs? That new employees need training? This is like Management 101. Just how incompetent are these managers?

So incompetent they hired someone else to write software only they could possibly know how to write.

There is a degree of management bankruptcy implicit in a large proportion of outsourcing projects. Hiring a vendor to handle billing for your public records dept makes sense, because you can’t afford to maintain a stable of experts on billing.

But a lot of the skill brought in by good contracing firms is in extracting and negotiating requirements. Because your management team has no idea how the work actually gets done.

Think about that. It is cheaper to have some other company come in and learn your problem domain than it is for your company to write down clearly what it is they do and figure out a set of steps to attract employees to do the work for them.

Personally, I think that has Management 101 written all over it in large block letters.

Re: A billion reasons never to buy IBM services

#139

Post by forgotmypw »

tptacek wrote: post #76

Historically Slovakia gets lumped with Eastern Europe in popular perception - Slovakia is nothing like Romania, the Ukraine, Albania or even Poland in turning out petty criminals or promiscuous online fraudsters. Not to forget Western Europe, France has a far more unhealthy work culture and fraud at work and as a way of living is far more acceptable than in Slovakia. Germany and Austria tend to value probity far more…

>the Ukraine

Referring to Ukraine as "the Ukraine" has been inappropriate since the end of 1991. Just this detail paints the author as being out of touch.

Re: A billion reasons never to buy IBM services

#140

Post by throwaway7312 »

lainga wrote: post #96
tptacek wrote: post #76

Historically Slovakia gets lumped with Eastern Europe in popular perception - Slovakia is nothing like Romania, the Ukraine, Albania or even Poland in turning out petty criminals or promiscuous online fraudsters. Not to forget Western Europe, France has a far more unhealthy work culture and fraud at work and as a way of living is far more acceptable than in Slovakia. Germany and Austria tend to value probity far more…

The whole article smacks of a people-are-their-nations attitude I'd expect from a copy of National Geographic circa 1890.

As an expatriate who has traveled through dozens of countries and lived long-term in a handful, let me assure you: different national personal characteristics are very real. Put an Englishman, a Norwegian, and an Italian in a room together and it is more than their accents that tells you who's whom. Or a Chinese, a Japanese, and a Korean for that matter.

Pick up your suitcase and get outside North America for a bit. The world's a lot more diverse and interesting than the education system might have you believe.

Post reply on HN