Latest news about Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies. Your daily crypto news habit.
It was widely reported last week that Hertz filed a lawsuit against the multi-national consulting and outsourcing firm Accenture, charging it with failing to deliver on a contract to provide a new website for the car rental giant and its various sub-brands.
The total cost of all Accentureâs works cited in the suit? An eye-watering $32,000,000. No, thatâs not a typographical error, thatâs really how much Hertz claims to have spent on getting its website built so far.
Must be a pretty fancy site, right? Well, donât get carried away. Hertz claims it engaged Accenture to produce a device-agnostic, responsive website consisting of several components, none of whichâââit has to be saidâââseem especially novel. Hertz also alleges that it specified the build should utilise a common core of reusable libraries. The intention was to make it simple to support all of Hertzâs brands across all countries they operate in.
So far, so vanilla, but the suit asserts that Accenture simply ignored these (and a number of other) requirements and instead developed a website for just the North American business, with no thought given to reusable components and with code that was riddled with security and performance bugs.
Interestingly, Accenture (at the time of writing) seems willing to fight the lawsuit, so the situation may not be as clear-cut as Hertz has made out.
Stakeholder engagement is a two-way street
Either way, much of the reporting Iâve seen on this story has focused on the sheer cost of the works and made many excellent points suggesting that the business model of companies such as Accenture deliberately works to inflate fees once the client is already heavily committed. Beyond $7 million for the initial discovery work, the lawsuit doesnât say what the agreed contract fee was, but it does detail howâââonce tied inâââHertz was continually billed by Accenture for fixes or new technology of dubious value.
What stands out to me, however, is the other aspect of this situation. How did the amount spent by Hertz balloon up to $32 million before a stop was called to the work?
This highlights to me the fundamental issue many businesses seem to encounter when embarking on large projects that are not within their own core competencyââânamely their engagement with the day to day running of the project. After all, it wasnât until Hertz executive asked about progress on tablet views that the penny dropped that Accenture simply hadnât done many of the things Hertz has asked of it.
Iâve read anecdotal evidence that prior to embarking on this project with Accenture, Hertz, in fact, fired much of its internal digital and developmental talent, handing over full control to Accenture. This, in my opinion, is its first (if not biggest)Â mistake.
You canât outsource responsibility
Iâm not going to re-tread the age-old path of âdonât outsource, do it in houseâ because in a lot of cases outsourcing is appropriate. This is not a zero-sum game. If a company doesnât have the right culture, talent, or scale to manage a project, they will need outside help. The key, though, is that a major project like this needs to be a partnership with active day-to-day engagement from the client. Hertz should have had its own internal talent involved to both help guide the project and to provide pro-active oversight, and that should have been that person or teamâs primary job function at Hertz.
Including clients in an agile process in this way will give better outcomes on all sides. Not only can the client remain engaged and spot misunderstandings or other issues far, far earlier than would otherwise be possible, but the development team gain access to the domain knowledge that only the client possesses.
According to the lawsuit, in this case, this did not happen. So impressed was Hertz by the sales presentation that they decided to trust Accenture to also act as the Product Owner.
I strongly believe that client ownership is aâââif not theâââfundamental driver of successful digital projects. Whatâs more, the bigger the project the bigger the need for engagement. Weâve seen this time and again with big projects that are handed over to large consortiums where, I feel, lack of interaction with both client executives and end users is a large contributing factor in project failure and, more commonly, excessive cost overruns.
Digital infrastructure needs maintaining too
Another point worth raising is that if you are expecting to spend millions on a project, the chances are that the project will never end. I do not mean this in the sense that it will overrun on both time and cost, but that such a large project is likely important, and probably business criticalâââas it clearly is in this case.
As such it will need to be both supported and expanded over time to respond to the evolving needs of the business and the market, just like any traditional infrastructure, such as a factory, would. When the Hertz website was delivered, was Accenture planning to simply drop off the files and never be involved again? Unlikely. Somebody needs to maintain and continue to adapt and improve that system, so as a client, youâre hiring a long term partner on a continuing basis.
I donât intend to shift all the blame onto Hertz; it has clearly been wronged. However, in my opinion, the companyâs senior team were too trusting and didnât give the project the attention it deserved. Project owners need both their own internal expertise, as well as that brought in by a partner. Itâs only when these two pools of knowledge work together that you can plan an effective future roadmap, provide ongoing development services and constantly review your technical and strategic plans. This approach should be built into a relationship from day one.
Looked at from this perspective, it appears to me that the Hertz executives in charge simply didnât understand that the website project would inevitably continue beyond the initial build. If theyâd have recognized this, they would have understood that they required at least some talent on their side of the arrangement that was focused on the project full time. The company should never have let that talent go, as it allegedly did.
So, should Accenture shoulder all the blame here? In my humble opinion, no. Hertz put itself in an untenable position before anyone even typed a line of buggy code. I hope lessons have been learned, but I suspect weâll continue to see similar stories.
About Browser
We create enterprise web apps for a better, more productive workplace. Weâve helped clients such as Shell, British Airways and UK Gov improve efficiency and streamline their business. Visit us at Browser London.
Originally published at https://www.browserlondon.com on April 30, 2019.
Hertz, Accenture, and the Inevitable Blame Game was originally published in Hacker Noon on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Bitcoin Insider. Every investment and trading move involves risk - this is especially true for cryptocurrencies given their volatility. We strongly advise our readers to conduct their own research when making a decision.