Hmmmmm. If patterns hold true: March 2nd, July 2nd - next is November 2nd - and just so happens to be a Friday, their favorite day for pink slips. Cash was diminished even more this quarter, though I don't think they discussed it. Revenue per FTE was near $100k (just off the top of my head). Needs to be higher to sustain. I would look for office closures vs. across the board headcount. Need to focus on markets that still provide a pipeline. Oddly enough, Cambridge is not probably one of them - though corporate HQ must survive.
"But I have to say - the characterization of Sapient forcing the client to pay up was, in my experience, completely untrue. The projects where Sapient screwed it up totally (in particular, the one for Compuserve), the company ate a couple of years of a team. "
I do not believe that it was company policy/startegy to screw up and then hit the client up for surcharges.
That's a pretty hard way to build successful case studies and cleint references.
I think Sapient has plenty of talent and capabilities. They have many satisfied clients. they are deep and braod in many industries.
Come up with a business objective and a white board, and Sapeint will design an effective software solution, quickly, at a fixed price and on a fixed tiemtable.
They will commit to get it to work right and get it to work well. They will commit to a targetd ROI deliverable...all within a space/sector that they know well.
They might have had some rif raf and some coolaid, but the core capaility is very strong.
So, let me get you straight. You say �nothing was said that I haven't seen� and therefore what was said is �crap�? Does it mean that all you�ve seen was crap? You live a crappy life, man�
I have a problem for you to solve: if certain hypothetical companies had experienced common development problems, is it true or not true that Sapient is better than, as you put it, �everybody�. Bonus question: if it is inconclusive whether �Sape is any worse or better than the other 10,000 consultancies�, at what premium the Sapient should be traded in relation to the industry average?
Keep working on you resume, perhaps one day you�ll find a worthy employer.
I have found several of the x-employees to be not the least bitter but, very horny. This morning an attractive x employee female and under 30, sucked me off while I wrote my last post. Lots of these girls are competing for positions in high paying porn jobs now and have moved on with their careers. If anyone is bitter they are idiots. I made money on Sapients rise and shorted the hell out of it starting last fall. It was obvious what was going to happen. Anyone who held on is an idiot. This is not a stock to be in any longer. Continued Shrinking revenues and losses does not make for a good upside stock. I think we will see 1 of 2 scenarios. 1 the stock will continue to fall and be delisted after hanging below 1 9 to 12 mos. off. (This will occur if the economy doesn't pick up and they can not recreate themselves and enter areas of good margins and growing industries. 2. They will recreate and the stock will remain flat or go up no higher than50%. This is a good return but when you look at the high level of risk and downside, I think it is safer to play Russian roullette. If you want discomfort and pain continue to invest in this train wreck or stick a live snake up your ass, you will get the same results. The management team is good and they did an excellent job of working the market. But, the world is different now. Budgets and priorities have change. E-commerce initiatives and what they do is out of vogue it is like the CB radio. CB's were hot in the 70's and then died and were quickly forgotten about. Some of the smarter women of this company who lost everything are moving on and trying to rebuild their savings in the easiest way possible, laying on their backs. The rest of you idiots, will end up working at fast food restaurants.
As for the positions in Porn,
Some of you have replied and are interested in directing jobs and sex with animal scenes. To both the answer is no. We do not have directing jobs. Though, as a bottom for a gay sex scene you can direct a cock up your ass. And no we are not interested in animal sex scenes. I suggest you see a mental health professional.
When I said crap, it was because nothing was said that I haven't seen in every organization I've ever come into contact with or worked for. Every place has software development woes. Nobody is great at gathering detailed requirements. Everybody runs into productionization issues with complex software. In the end, Sape always did do the right thing for the client, even with communications hiccups. The hiccups happened because of optimism in that nobody wanted to *believe* their project could have problems. This was the only real effect of inexperience - not knowing that no matter what you do, you WILL have problems and you must deal with them. So my statement about all that being crap was based on all that being not so unusual and not a factor in determining if Sape is any worse or better than the other 10,000 consultancies.
actually, i said "signoff or pay"... emphasizing the pressure on the client to go live and sign off that all is well...
sure, sape ate many failed project costs. also, not good indications that sape excels in engineering as you originally suggested.
where they really made the client pay was in the unexpected time and effort associated with testing. clients don't expect to be doing unit testing for programmers.
i don't know how many times i heard ...client, you must reduce scope, signoff on the tars (bugs), and go live because you aren't testing fast enough and your people are not as smart as sape's so you are holding us back in our fixed price assumptions model...
Stabilization was, in fact, the biggest problem Sapient had. No question about it.
Even on projects where things went well, stabilization was, in general, a pain in the butt.
But I have to say - the characterization of Sapient forcing the client to pay up was, in my experience, completely untrue. The projects where Sapient screwed it up totally (in particular, the one for Compuserve), the company ate a couple of years of a team.
you stopped the "Real Story" before getting to the "stabilization" phase...the testing phase before implementation where sape threw poorly designed untested code at the client to test and then blamed the client for holding up implementation then requiring the client to sign off or pay because the fixed priced time was up...
you are so right on with the "Real Story" ...sape programmers were drinking strong kool-aid...
i worked there 3 years and fortunately left before the slaughter and the onset of mediocrity...