Thoughts on the Hertz Debacle

$32M doesn't get you what you think when you hire large consulting firms.

Introduction

You’d think that $32 million would get you a functioning website in 2019.

And you’d be wrong.

Anyone who knows anything about tech ought to be incredulous at a debacle of this magnitude.

Call me jaded, but I was not.

No Shortage of Questions

Full disclosure: I don’t have any inside information on the Hertz-Accenture debacle. Still, I know a few things about IT project failures and website design. As such, the following queries come to mind:

  • Did Hertz executives or decision makers even know the difference between a static and responsive website? What about its importance in Google search results?
  • Ditto for the difference between Agile and Waterfall methods. How is it that this project broke bad to this extent?
  • Did Hertz do any real due diligence on Accenture? Or was this simply a matter of ensuring that Accenture was on Hertz’s preferred vendor list?
  • Did Accenture partners or project managers just throw the next available person at the project after staff turnover? I have seen this play out many times before in my consulting career—particularly with large consultancies.
  • Hundreds of thousands of dollars to change the documentation from PDFs to an editable file format? Sure, many times clients make unreasonable change requests. Still, are you freaking kidding me?
  • I’d bet my house that much of the issue is rooted in poor inter- and intra-organizational communication. I’d be astonished if either party regularly used a tool other than e-mail.
  • Speaking of tools, I’d also wager than both parties relied upon massive Gantt charts and not far-less-confusing Kanban boards.
  • If a Hertz bigwig listed an unreasonable business requirement during the vendor-evaluation phase, did anyone from Accenture’s sales side have the minerals to say so? Or did that salesperson figure that that was a problem for Accenture’s delivery folks?
  • Was anyone from either party entirely accountable for the project? Or did this devolve into a bunch of steering committees with other responsibilities?
  • Did anyone making the decisions at either firm possess even a modicum of web-design experience?

Shame on both parties.

Make no mistake: The adage “Nobody Gets Fired for Buying IBM” is still alive and well. Shame on the Hertz folks for thinking that they needed to spend even half this much for a website today. I can think of dozens of firms—including this one—that could have successfully performed the work at a fraction of the cost.

Simon Says

Shame on both parties for letting it get to this point. As is often the case, a little outside expertise would have paid massive dividends. At a minimum for Hertz, an independent and experienced voice in the room would have avoided what has become a public brouhaha and egg on the face for Hertz CTO Rob Moore and new CIO Opal Perry.

Feedback

What say you?

philanimated

Navigation

BACKRANDOMNEXT

Filed Under



Enjoy this post? Click here to subscribe to this RSS feed or here to sign up for my bi-monthly newsletter.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *