3 ms·

I’m not saying how the world should work - I’m just saying how it does work. Why would they admit fault? The entire point is to take the hit and preserve reput

I’m not saying how the world should work - I’m just saying how it does work. Why would they admit fault? The entire point is to take the hit and preserve reputation - you being able to find a link would defeat the entire point.

throwaway_kufu 6y ago
I agree it’s the way Deloitte works and not how the world should work. > Why would they admit fault? That’s just it they never would. But reading your comment: > If the system didn’t work as agreed in the statement of work and that was clear, Deloitte would be footing the bill. You certainly make it sound Deloitte is a fair company that would admit when a system doesn’t work as agreed and then foot the bill, but that’s not the case. Whether they admit fault For delivering a failed system or not, do you have an actual example where Deloitte was magnanimous and returned $100M to a client after delivering a system?
- sdoering 6y ago
  you state a lot in a very aggressive tone of voice. maybe that is because non verbal context is missing. I am not the OP, but working for an agency shop (way way smaller than Deloitte) I know we footed some bills. But we don't publicly talk about that. wouldn't be good for business. it's a double edged sword. I know of projects that were sub par. I have seen systems build by others (Deloitte included) that were nothing but a shit show. and I have seen systems from the same brands that were doing way more than originally expected. sometimes it is the client, sometimes it is the project management sometimes it is the consultants. and sometimes it is the circumstances. I wouldn't expect a system designed for normal load to hold in times of covid-19 and work flawlessly. some examples like the call center being overwhelmed is to be expected when designed for normal loads. I strongly believe, that there are real faulty systems to be found. and that for some of these the contractor is to be blamed. but without knowing the specifics I wouldn't feel qualified to judge from the sidelines. disclaimer: I work for an agency that got bought by a Deloitte competitor some years back. all opinions are my own.
  - throwaway_kufu 6y ago
    > you state a lot in a very aggressive tone of voice. Help me out with that. I’m really just asking for some support of the original statement that Deloitte will foot a $100M bill for a client when they fail to deliver a working system. I mean Deloitte isn’t singled out in the article, the article really goes after IBM also. That said I wouldn’t even say the article has an aggressive tone, but it speaks for itself. Deloitte has delivered systems that don’t work on multiple government contracts, all of which have run significantly over budget, and Deloitte has requested new contracts to fix the systems (Instead if footing the bill) and when sued for breach of contract by the states Deloitte has engaged in protracted litigation rather than “footing the bill”. I think it’s fair, not aggressive to ask for some validation of Deloitte footing bills where their systems failed in light of Deloitte's practices detailed in the article. The article is all about state unemployment systems, I mean really they aren’t complex and they either work or don’t. Even Deloitte‘s argument amounts to be well if the $xxM unemployment system Doesn’t work it’s because the state requested a non functioning system, of course it’s all backed by Deloitte Representative quotes denying the systems don’t work and championing how great the systems they delivered are, and otherwise blaming the client if these great systems failed.
    - aplummer 6y ago
      > I’m really just asking for some support of the original statement that Deloitte will foot a $100M bill for a client when they fail to deliver a working system. I didn’t say that, they would foot the bill for the changes required to make it work as expected in the contract. It’s unlikely you would deliver 0 value with 100m, so it would be a fraction. This would lower the overall margin on the project, be considered business development or some other activity. There’s also discounting future work as a lever to resolve it. They aren’t stupid, biting the government hand that feeds them isn’t a good way to keep winning new work.
      - throwaway_kufu 6y ago
        > They aren’t stupid, biting the government hand that feeds them isn’t a good way to keep winning new work. Have you read the article? The article details multiple failures to deliver on government contracts nearing $100M. The article details a practice of refusing to amicably resolve matters in good faith, instead Deloitte prefers protracted litigation, which when involving government is just additional costs to the tax payers above and beyond the initial costs tax payers footed for the original contract to Deloitte resulting in a non working system. There are a few read between the lines also, Deloitte knows their litigation budget is significantly larger than the state governments and they know their attorneys can overwhelm the states ability to litigating just through costs alone. The other point about biting the hand that feeds them...sure if you were small time and failed to deliver and forced the states to litigate a breach of contract case, you may be cutting your nose off despite your face. But entities like Deloitte can do this, and they will continue to get new government contracts while the prior contracts are still being litigated. You got your Deloitte’s, McKenzie’s, Goldman Sach’s, haliburton’s, Boeing’s, etc...they could set the world on fire and then lobby and get the contracts to put out the fires they started. Those firms are the reason for the term “revolving door politics.”

throwaway_kufu 6y ago

I agree it’s the way Deloitte works and not how the world should work. > Why would they admit fault? That’s just it they never would. But reading your comment: > If the system didn’t work as agreed in the statement of work and that was clear, Deloitte would be footing the bill. You certainly make it sound Deloitte is a fair company that would admit when a system doesn’t work as agreed and then foot the bill, but that’s not the case. Whether they admit fault For delivering a failed system or not, do you have an actual example where Deloitte was magnanimous and returned $100M to a client after delivering a system?

sdoering 6y ago
you state a lot in a very aggressive tone of voice. maybe that is because non verbal context is missing. I am not the OP, but working for an agency shop (way way smaller than Deloitte) I know we footed some bills. But we don't publicly talk about that. wouldn't be good for business. it's a double edged sword. I know of projects that were sub par. I have seen systems build by others (Deloitte included) that were nothing but a shit show. and I have seen systems from the same brands that were doing way more than originally expected. sometimes it is the client, sometimes it is the project management sometimes it is the consultants. and sometimes it is the circumstances. I wouldn't expect a system designed for normal load to hold in times of covid-19 and work flawlessly. some examples like the call center being overwhelmed is to be expected when designed for normal loads. I strongly believe, that there are real faulty systems to be found. and that for some of these the contractor is to be blamed. but without knowing the specifics I wouldn't feel qualified to judge from the sidelines. disclaimer: I work for an agency that got bought by a Deloitte competitor some years back. all opinions are my own.
- throwaway_kufu 6y ago
  > you state a lot in a very aggressive tone of voice. Help me out with that. I’m really just asking for some support of the original statement that Deloitte will foot a $100M bill for a client when they fail to deliver a working system. I mean Deloitte isn’t singled out in the article, the article really goes after IBM also. That said I wouldn’t even say the article has an aggressive tone, but it speaks for itself. Deloitte has delivered systems that don’t work on multiple government contracts, all of which have run significantly over budget, and Deloitte has requested new contracts to fix the systems (Instead if footing the bill) and when sued for breach of contract by the states Deloitte has engaged in protracted litigation rather than “footing the bill”. I think it’s fair, not aggressive to ask for some validation of Deloitte footing bills where their systems failed in light of Deloitte's practices detailed in the article. The article is all about state unemployment systems, I mean really they aren’t complex and they either work or don’t. Even Deloitte‘s argument amounts to be well if the $xxM unemployment system Doesn’t work it’s because the state requested a non functioning system, of course it’s all backed by Deloitte Representative quotes denying the systems don’t work and championing how great the systems they delivered are, and otherwise blaming the client if these great systems failed.
  - aplummer 6y ago
    > I’m really just asking for some support of the original statement that Deloitte will foot a $100M bill for a client when they fail to deliver a working system. I didn’t say that, they would foot the bill for the changes required to make it work as expected in the contract. It’s unlikely you would deliver 0 value with 100m, so it would be a fraction. This would lower the overall margin on the project, be considered business development or some other activity. There’s also discounting future work as a lever to resolve it. They aren’t stupid, biting the government hand that feeds them isn’t a good way to keep winning new work.
    - throwaway_kufu 6y ago
      > They aren’t stupid, biting the government hand that feeds them isn’t a good way to keep winning new work. Have you read the article? The article details multiple failures to deliver on government contracts nearing $100M. The article details a practice of refusing to amicably resolve matters in good faith, instead Deloitte prefers protracted litigation, which when involving government is just additional costs to the tax payers above and beyond the initial costs tax payers footed for the original contract to Deloitte resulting in a non working system. There are a few read between the lines also, Deloitte knows their litigation budget is significantly larger than the state governments and they know their attorneys can overwhelm the states ability to litigating just through costs alone. The other point about biting the hand that feeds them...sure if you were small time and failed to deliver and forced the states to litigate a breach of contract case, you may be cutting your nose off despite your face. But entities like Deloitte can do this, and they will continue to get new government contracts while the prior contracts are still being litigated. You got your Deloitte’s, McKenzie’s, Goldman Sach’s, haliburton’s, Boeing’s, etc...they could set the world on fire and then lobby and get the contracts to put out the fires they started. Those firms are the reason for the term “revolving door politics.”