1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Atos wants out

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by spankingtexan, Feb 21, 2014.

  1. Resident

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 10, 2012

    Posts: 2,079

    Except the fact that they made the promise as part of the bid that it wouldn't be an issue, they had a plan.
     
  2. MrMoonX

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 31, 2007

    Posts: 10,038

    yeah its the stupid idealistic **** the sick, poor and disabled agenda thats to blame. Plus it helps if you donate to the party to get a contact it seems
     
  3. GAC

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 11, 2004

    Posts: 3,774

    and the plan had to change 6 months from the olympics when the gov wanted even more staff on top, something a lot of the media miss.

    dont get me wrong im not saying g4s didnt act like idiots but when this contract was handed out it should have been obvious it would be a farce. and should have been passed around to various companies so you had different companies working different sites. rather than one big mess of a contract.
     
  4. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,647

    To be fair my dealings with Atos the IT company were probably just as painful..

    However even if they do quit the contract another company, probably from abroad will just step right up, it's not going to stop the process, some of which is justified.
     
  5. Judgeneo

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2010

    Posts: 10,003

    Location: Out of Coventry

    Atos as a whole doesn't have a reputation for high quality work.
     
  6. pitchfork

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jan 21, 2007

    Posts: 8,715

    Disgusting way the country is run, on paper "Oh look this private sector firm can do it really cheap" in practise it costs 2-3x as much and prioritises the profit as opposed to the service.
     
  7. G|mp

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Mar 10, 2004

    Posts: 27,457

    My point was more that people blame Atos as a whole when it is the Healthcare sister company that attracts all the bad press.
     
  8. Darkwave

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 25, 2005

    Posts: 13,780

    Hilarious. I just hope we don't end up in a "better the devil you know" situation.
     
  9. Tunney

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 11, 2004

    Posts: 14,549

    Location: London

    All of these big government contractors are terrible. It's the same with the ones who do the IT work. Their business model centres around winning work rather than doing work. They all have very well-funded sales departments but then cut every corner possible when doing the work.

    It's amazing that anyone thinks that this is a more efficient model than doing the work in-house.
     
  10. airwave99

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 14, 2013

    Posts: 915

    Location: Glasgow

    The obvious solution would be to in-house the work. I'm sure they won't though.
     
  11. Gilly

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 95,503

    Location: I'm back baby!

    There are many benefits to having IT specialists carry out the work over taking it in-house.

    • Staff budgets (not having to pay staff costs as well as hardware/hosting/licensing)
    • Opportunity for managed services
    • Temporary uplift costs
    • Increased specialist knowledge
    • Greater capacity for additional numbers when the **** really hits the fan
    • Vastly superior infrastructure
    • Lessons learnt across multiple Governmental departments (and private sector too)

    Of course, these only really work when you're talking about the biggest and best. It doesn't work for smaller, cheaper, less able and less mobile companies.

    There is little secret around the fact that bids all have to be the cheapest. When work is put out for tender it is with very, very strict spending criteria. Many companies discount the big stuff, and the ones that don't end up having to tack onto it further down the line or not being able to provide a service. They need to look after themselves as well, after all.

    Ultimately taking support and infrastructure in-house isn't cost effective at all for a single department. Unless they rationalise across department (something that should have been done long ago before they were too heavily reliant on IT) a Government support network is unworkable. The only way to do it really is to give all the work to my company bit by bit and allow us to improve the services provided by others, and ratikonalise it as we progress :D
     
  12. Lagmeister

    Hitman

    Joined: Nov 17, 2005

    Posts: 931

    We try to do a lot of our work in-house as far as possible, we have a couple of large projects that we develop, but we are a small arms-length body so not exactly your typical government agency. We still don't have the developer capacity to do all the work, but we are considered incredible value for money whenever we are reviewed, still we are always attempting to be pushed under heel by the powers that be.
     
  13. RichDuffy

    Gangster

    Joined: Jun 8, 2004

    Posts: 386

    This. Every large IT company I've ever worked for seemed to have an incompetent sales team, who promised to deliver what was actually impossible in order to secure the work.

    99% of calls answered within 5 seconds? Yes, we can do that. *
    30-minute turnaround on user account creation? Yes, we can do that. *
    99% availability of your 15-year-old NT4 systems? Yes, we can do that. *
    Deliver a full service with 20 analysts sharing a single 'management server' with 2 concurrent connections? Yes, we can do that. *

    * No we ****** well can't.

    But the single biggest problem in my opinion is that the salesperson who secured the work gets an enormous commission based on the estimated value of the contract at time of signing. If salespeople's commissions were based on actual realised profit, maybe they'd stop selling things that won't make any money (or worse, will make a loss). Then ALL companies would have to start making realistic bids.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2014
  14. covenantuk

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Apr 23, 2012

    Posts: 2,010

    Location: Edinburgh

    They ran IT for the whole Olympics. you've got to be half decent to do that.
     
  15. memyselfandi

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 10, 2005

    Posts: 8,436

    Location: Nottingham

    They have been the IT integrator for the Olympics since Barcelona (IIRC, not necessarily under the Atos brand, it would have been Sema Group back then) and have had their contract extend for doing it until 2024. They're doing Sochi at the moment.
     
  16. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 22, 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    But yet not many IT services companies actually make a loss do they? Which would happen if the sales people were promising things that couldn't be delivered.
     
  17. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,647

    It certainly proves that sales staff are good at pushing contracts and getting companies to accept low levels of services without mashing the penalty clause button.
     
  18. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 18,902

    Location: Solihull-Florida

    Some good news for a change. Glad to see the back of them.
     
  19. Tunney

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 11, 2004

    Posts: 14,549

    Location: London

    I used to work for a very large company that did a lot of government IT work. Anyone with experience or specialist knowledge was restricted to working on bids. The people actually doing the work were either fresh graduates or people overseas. Nearly every project was a complete fiasco.

    If the government did this work in-house, those experienced workers could be moved back from sales work to doing something useful.
     
  20. Gilly

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 95,503

    Location: I'm back baby!

    A very large company, or a very large IT company?

    The doers are almost always more skilled in their specific tasks than anyone else - including bid teams, management and P&PM.