[Info-vax] HPE Trims Back To The Core Enterprise Essentials

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Thursday, 15 September 2016 21:00:04 UTC+1, Kerry Main  wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf
> > Of IanD via Info-vax
> > Sent: 15-Sep-16 2:29 PM
> > To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> > Cc: IanD <iloveopenvms at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Info-vax] HPE Trims Back To The Core Enterprise
> > Essentials
> > 
> 
> [snip...]
> 
> > 
> > That's the main difference I noticed with HP. They insisted on
> the
> > customer paying for every tiny item imaginable which in the end
> > only drove up costs for our customer and they started doing
> > more work for themselves - talk about embracing a negative
> > feedback mechanism lol
> >
> 
> The outsourcing model (same thing as public cloud btw) is based
> on low balling the original estimates with heavily standardized
> processes and flows. Then make your money over the long term (5-7
> years) selling change requests or responding / supporting
> non-standard technologies. It's usually calculated that Y1-Y3 are
> small margin years (or money losing), but then the outsourcer
> makes up the expected profits in Y3-Y7 with all of the new
> projects, green fielding and ESPECIALLY change requests. 
> 
> Keep in mind that the change request processes, while necessary,
> if not done in a lean, mean way, can smother a customer so much
> that they just want to scream. Don't have a form completely
> filled out properly?  Or not all of the 12 impacted stakeholders
> have approved (even if risk minimal)? Too bad, the CR is declined
> and you have to resubmit at next week's CAB (once a week
> meeting). There goes a week delay in your project.
> 
> No outsourcing company would win any bid if they initially
> proposed what it actually will cost to put in place a stable,
> well managed environment.
> 
> When Customers state at the beginning how much they plan to save
> over the 5-7 years, they never take into account how much they
> will pay with new projects and/or change requests.
> 
> Been this way for decades and yet C level folks still seem to not
> understand this. I suspect part of this is that the move will
> allow them to make their bonuses, and they likely plan not to be
> there in 7 years anyway (avg CIO life is 3-4 years).
> 
> One company that finally woke up is GM:
> http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2015/06/12/dun-bradstreet-appoints-gm-ci
> o-randy-mott-to-its-board/
> " Since joining GM in February 2012, Mr. Mott has reduced the
> automaker's reliance on third-party vendors by bringing most of
> its IT work in house. "Because we brought the [information
> technology] work back in-house, we can take the lid off of what
> is possible," Mr. Mott told the Journal.
> 
> He also built a private cloud, modeled after technologies and
> processes pioneered by Google Inc. and Facbook, to run hundreds
> of thousands computer simulations on cars and trucks before they
> are built. Last month, GM announced that it would spend $1
> billion to on a makeover of its engineering hub in suburban
> Detroit. "To transform the company, you really need IT, which
> touches all parts of the business," he said."
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kerry Main
> Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com

The Randy Mott that's been CIO of GM since 2012, is he
related to the Randy Mott that joined Hurd's HP (from
Dell) in 2005?
Apparently one and the same:
https://www.gm.com/company/leadership/corporate-officers/randall-d--mott.html

Further reading from a decade ago:
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2273584/data-center/randy-mott-leads-overhaul-of-hp-s-legacy-systems.html

Small world.