yup
Gainwell (HMS) is move IT to GEIndia, Call center to Philippines
17 replies (most recent on top)
CSC were as sh-t as HP, HPeS and all the other service companies, offering excellent service and delivering sh-t. All those poor souls TUPE'd from their employers to serve these frankenstein IT companies.
Race to the bottom, management and the companies they managed
So we're all lucky because CSC didn't acquire EDS...
@3kzi+1ttGlxRc thanks, I belive every thing you've said. The reason I've been studying DXC mainframes is because of a few very large migrations. The example that comes to mind is Sabre in North America they migrated to Google cloud and shifted work away from something 10 data centre's 3 of which where wholly owned by DXC and one had been in continuous operation since the 1970s. Posters here have told me that it's one of the largest declining account in North America (who knows) but broadly speaking this is what I was thinking of when I made the ancient mainframe comment.
Sorry, I meant UK Insurance (aka London Markets) not UK and Ireland.
And as for mainframe, there are some still around across DXC but not many. Other than being unfashionable, Mainframe is still quite important to quite a lot of big businesses. You'd be surprised...
Its obviously less than it used to be but in no way are the customers with it getting off of it any time soon - their choice rather than DXC insisting too...
Just be careful when reading about corporate IT, the buzzwords are literally in a lot of cases just words. Sure brand new stuff might use AI or whatever this week's word is but by and large big scale users are very very very slow to desire to want to move into the next thing - simply because of business risk and cost.
@2lhf+1ttGlxRc You make a very interesting point. uki is shrinking at 4.5% vs USA which is shrinking at 9.5%. so that would suggest that North America is primarily composed of the ancient mainframe stuff while Europe and UK is insurance, auto, apps etc.
Gbs is more than uki and luxoft though.... And it's the rest dragging those two down. Those two are definitely the value in Gbs and probably all of dxc.
(and before you ask, I'm not from either)
@2kbw+1ttGlxRc Based on the muted revenue growth of GBS it appears to me that Luxoft is not preforming nearly all that well. They've lost both the former CEO & COO though the culture seems ok and LXFT + DXC insurance are basically carrying the whole company so you have a point there. On HP/EDS, they may have been able to do the basic's of integration but they really destroyed EDS as evidence by the fact that they barely got back what they paid for it despite owning EDS for what? 10 years? and selling it to CSC with HP's services division. A lot of value destroyed there.
Can’t really count Luxoft as CSC succces.
M1 was about to cut all talent and move it to India and then M2 came in. Then COVID and tension with Russia actually helped DXC here. DXC got distracted and left Luxoft alone which was d-mb luck.
Oh and in counter to your comment about CSC never getting an acquisition right... I'd suggest you look at Luxoft. The CSC "leave it alone and let it do its thing" method worked perfectly there and it's still working even now on a largely autonomous basis... Unlike the rest. (might have been ever better if it hadn't proved politically difficult to keep their leader)
HP knew how to merge?
It didn't manage it with EDS...
And here we are.
Very few big companies know how to handle acquisitions. Nearly always they destroy whatever value their acquisitions ever had to start with.
Often the only reason for doing it is to cr@p on a competitor who's thinking of doing the same deal.
See HP and Autonomy (to snub Oracle) or CSC and HPES (to snub IBM)... But the list is much longer than just that.
Yes, HP made some bad picks (e.g. Autonomy), but their HR and internal systems teams knew how to merge the employees into a company. CSC never budgeted any money to integrate employees or systems. As a result, it made a huge internal mess of itself. It couldn't tell if any business was making money or not, mostly not. The employee HR system was a spreadsheet, mostly inaccurate. No standard job architecture or pay scale. It was always "legacy this company", or "legacy that company". Further resulted in terrible, or no company culture. Just a miserable place to work with some pockets of excellence that the CEO didn't know about - because if he did, he'd find a way to mess it up.
HP knew how to acquire..lmfao....autonomy springs to mind.
L-HP is one long series of failed acquisitions. The L-csc and L-hp are not and will never be compatible or complementary
Whilst lawrie had done permanent fatal damage to CSC the only reason he existed in the first place was because of the idiocy of the previous ceo.
Catastrophic damage from trying to do the NHS project and false accounting basically was the root cause.
Without that... Who knows. The industry has changed so much since then and no player has done well out of it.
muhahahaha
that is a good one
ROTFLMAO. That is hilarious. Mike 1 had already gutted CSC. CSC was losing customers at an alarming rate and even after the HPES acquisition most of the accounts lost in first few years of DXC were Legacy CSC. I was personal witness to Mikey very upset at the decline of CSC accounts which was why he kept firing more qualified legacy HPES. There was such arrogance. CSC would have been out of business in a few years without the $14B business they bought from HPES. CSC was already a mess of many companies, none integrated, and run with useless spreadsheets. Almost all of the CSC acquisitions lost money. It was just crazy watching them buy a company for tens of millions only to learn the company was losing millions. Such a mess. Keep believing CSC was so great. It may have been a good company decades ago but not under its last CEO. Another great company suffered a similar fate but at least HP actually knew how to acquire and merge a company. They were a well oiled machine at acquisition, but it was impossible to marry cultures of HW, SW, services, PC’s vs Printers, etc. different strategies required.