It seems to be a global CSC problem - I heard they had a major outage on their tier 1 datacentre in maidstone UK that caused major issues for BHP account in Aust - even downunder we had heard about the Montreal help desk being bad.
The sad part is that I think most of the staff are no better or worse than their competitors - its the executive management that is the problem plus the fact that there is too much control by finance who are not risk takers, lack innovation and intiative and stifle others who may have it - sometimes I feel sorry for the AEs and field service staff who have to work in such an environment - one could hope that an IBM or HP or Dell or Microsoft or dare I say it even EDS by make a play for it - oh! to be part of such a team and i know what I'd weed out first
I can't think of one compelling reason why a customer would buy from them - even price cause you only get what you pay for!!
I know that they did that when they acquired the Aon contract last August. We are already being told that there is no way that they can make the numbers this year. CSC was supposed to have migrated over 6000 PCs to the SOE by this time, and so far, all they have done is the pilot with about 10 PCs.
On top of all this, the help desk in Montreal continues to be a first class joke. Between the CSRs on the help desk not being able to offer any help other than "have you tried rebooting" they consistently do not enter the correct information into the ticket. 9 times out of 10, when the local (former Aon) techs get the ticket and contact the EU, the EU tells us that the info in the ticket is incorrect.
I have a question - Is incompetance a requirement for the Montreal help desk, or do they get constant training?
The scary part is that the long time CSC management continually tells us that the Aon conversion is one of the best that CSC ever had. Hard to imagine the worst.... Guess that was Sears....
Here is to hoping that the new CEO of Aon does what the guys at Sears had the guts to do. Pull the plug on this loser of a contract.
oz - CSC seems to lowball the price to get new contracts and then they have to RIF to lower the current staff on the acquired accounts in order to make a profit. CSC brings the 'promise' of new 'processes' that will assure 'efficiencies' but what that really does is assure additional overhead billing for that account. If the new account does NOT fit into this 'mold' then CSC either sells them off (Dyncorp) or the accounts gets 'insourced' back to the original company (Lockheed Martin). Look to this 'model' to continue!
Thanks moving-on-down-the-road (like that name)- mate! I can't see where the major contracts are going to come from - doesn't seem to be much potential new business out there in outsourcing and therfore all the players are going to be competing for rebids -the big play in UK was MOD def and EDS got that - and in US CSC just lost Sears (good or bad its still not good to be terminated early in a contract and I heard they were having problems with Maybank in Malayasia.
Fighting back asked about jobs migrating to India and next day head of Commonwealth Bank Ausssies biggest bank says more jobs will go to India - sadly looks like were catching up and there will those who say its globilisation and good competition and all that - but I'm not convinced. From what I've seen so far there are considerable language barriers, cultural issues and the service is no better and arguably worse. Only value seems to be dollars saved.
So from what i hear from the ex CSCers in US its exactly the same in CSC Aust only worse cause they can't win any business - oh! yeah more RIFs in past week at CSC A - this time even within F&A - can you believe that - thought they were the untouchables!!!
Lets not forget this all about investing in CSC stock - if it is not growing by not winning any new business and not acquiring significantly and is facing considerably competition where is the potential for growth - and it still has "free cash flow" concerns that Wall Street views as important.
My money would be EDS - oversold and on the way back - perhaps not significant but potential for a few bucks - HPQ will eventually get internal systems between Compaq and HP right and then efficiencies will come - IBM - looks solid and safe if not spectucular, Accenture seems to have potential for long term steady growth.
Which brings me to the question - is there room for more consolidation/mergers in the IT industry - could CSC and EDS be takeover targets and if so by whom - I could see the stocks rising should such a scenario eventuate
You bring up valid points. One wonders what will happen to CSC if they can't get any major contracts in the near future! This PoS has basically flatlined over the past year and would be heading downward if their new account acquisitions were discounted.
Hi fighting back
its the same here mate - we were probably a little behind the US - but over past 18 months jobs have been disappearing to India and China - started with call centres then IT jobs - it will only get worse although Unions are still strong here and will fight it all the way I think - but its started and i don't see it stopping - Oh! the goven policy - laiisez fair let then market decide!!!
Given your proximity to the Third World Hell-Hole [India] I would think any tech jobs Down Under would be even more threatened than they are here in the States. What's Australia's policy on imported foreign workers these days?
I've watched with interest the comments from many of the excsc people and the responses from others who see them as malcontents. The fact is that they issues they raise are also in evidence in CSC Australia. CSC is regarded as the number 3 player in IT in te world behind IBM and EDS on revenues but in Australia they are about number 6 - processes and systems are behind many of its competitors, business is not growing - used to be big in defence but now only a bit player and didn't win much during the glory days of IT outsourcing. Pay rises for the last 7 years have been 1 to 3% at best - management has changed so many times and even VPs and Directors have been given the boot. The consulting division is barely surviving although GIS is doing OK. Innovation is lacking but the plae is so heavily run by finance that is so risk averse that any innovation or intiative is quickly squeezed out of the staff. Town halls - oh! what an exercise in PR!!!! I've personally seen the EDS. IBM and other players internal systems and not only are they more advanced but also there are less approvals required.
I am no so critical of middle management as they are sometimes restricted by the executive.
Although CSC Aust represents only 4 or 5% of CSC total revenues it is a sad reflection on the good things I have heard about CSC Federal in US - politics is rife here and if you don't play the game you get the chop.
FB, moving on down the road, scotty etc are all saying things that existing staff raise as issues today - but change is slow.
If I were an investor in this stock I would be very cautious and do a lot of analysis - I can't see it as a growth stock and I can't see it taking market share of its competitors - in fact if HPQ gets its internal systems sorted out then they are a threat. EDS may have problems in US they have done well in Aust and they recently won Mod Def in UK so they are probably doing OK there as well. IBM have been acquiring recently and continuing to grow and Fujitsu and Accenture are active as is Aust biggest telco Telstra who have a managed service group - all this spells significant challenges for CSC A and as they have hardly won any new business of any note in past 5 years and are clearly not on an acquisition path the future is bleak for CSC A - a pity cause staff are as good as competitors in the main.
CSC pays lip service to "process improvements" but the reality is you pork the client by the [unwritten] book or you're gone. I met few people who wanted to bother learning anything; I can only conclude that there was no 'percentage' in it for them; ie. you'd just get slammed for deviating from the 'standard methodology' even if it resulted in a better product at less cost because MORE cost was the CSC objective, not quality.