Allegedly Rigged Product Demo In SAP Suit Goes Missing

narramissic writes "Waste Management sued SAP in March 2008 over a failed ERP project. Now, well into the pre-trial discovery process, a presale product demonstration software package that Waste Management says was a key element of the 'false representations' SAP made to 'induce Waste Management into entering a software licensing and implementation agreement' has gone missing. Naturally, both sides say the other has it. And SAP, for its part, says it has 'searched extensively' for the system and wants it 'as much or more' as Waste Management, since it 'will help SAP disprove WM's fraud claim.'"

Comments

like every other sales demo

[SoupGuru]

So this is pretty much like any other sales demo?

Re:like every other sales demo

[hairyfeet]

I have to agree, that while it sounds like both sides didn't bring the brightest bulbs to the table, SAP screwed the bigger pooch by signing the agreement without knowing what they were getting into. It is like when I build a new PC. Folks often just want me to quote them some price but I refuse. I ask them to at least give me an IDEA of what they want, to which I usually get something like "Really really fast with a crapload of memory(which you have to watch out for, because half the time they say memory when they mean HDD space) and super duper graphics and..". It reminds me of that old line from Robocop-"I want a car that is really really fast and gets really shitty gas mileage! I want a fully loaded 6000 SUX!

So then I quote them a crazy price and after they are done choking I say "Now why don't you just sit down and tell what you want to DO with it, and I can help you design an affordable machine that will do what you want and be reliable." and every time their description ends up getting them a dual core with 4Gb of RAM, a 250-500Gb HDD, Onboard Graphics(which are actually pretty good now) and XP Home. And they leave with a smile on their face and are gushing to their friends about how great I am.

The problem is when the client asked for the moon for $1 SAP said "sure, we'll throw in Mars while we are at it!" instead of simply refusing to sign anything until they sat down with somebody with a brain that could tell them what they actually needed the thing to DO, instead of what they WANTED. Because I have found those two things are almost never even slightly related. IMHO it is always better to give the customer what they need and not what they want. If you meet their needs they are usually happy campers. If you try to give them their desires not only will it be expensive as hell, it will often not actually do what they need. And nothing pisses off a customer more than spending big bucks and finding out after all is said and done they are still stuck with the same problems they had before they paid you.

I for one...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Would definitely trust SAP on this. Who wouldn't trust an ERP vendor that either managed to lose a vital file or managed to "lose" a vital file?

Getting to choose between serious incompetence and outright malice is always fun.

Re:I for one...

[sys.stdout.write]

Apparently you've never used SAP.

SAP is how Lucifer interacts with our world.

Any product demo showing SAP working in a satisfactory manner is clearly fraud.

Re:I for one...

[superdave80]

While working for a factory that was switching over to SAP, I noticed that anyone outside of the SAP world (users) pronounces it 'Sap' (like from a tree). While everyone in the SAP world (consultants, etc) is very careful to pronounce it S-A-P (sounding out each letter). And they are quick to tell people that pronounce it 'Sap' that it should be pronounced S-A-P.

The software sucked so badly, and I hated it so much, that whenever I was around our SAP consultants, I made a conscience effort to say 'Sap' instead of S-A-P every chance I got. :-)

Re:I for one...

[_Sprocket_]

And how much does it cost those big companies in lost productivity when an unpaid supplier deciedes they have had enough and stops shipments?

That's the beauty of it. You go with a supplier that's large enough to have their own SAP implementation. That way, the supplier is pretty much in the dark as well and it takes them a while to realize they should have cut you off years ago.

Re:I for one...

[b4dc0d3r]

This is not funny. I work at a fortune 11x company and I know several things are true.

1) We use SAP because they made a pitch and hooked a sucker in a suit.
2) You buy SAP, then a plan to "customize" it.
3) Customize means "finish the code"
4) It also means you pay high-ranking aka high-earning business types piles of money to give requirements to SAP when a junior coder could just do the obvious and have something that works
5) The requirements you give to SAP are exactly the same as what the sales pitch said it already did

I'm sure I could go on. This is not a funny comment, it is how SAP works. Mod me scary or obvious if you want, but not funny.

Re:Hahahaha

[TheRealMindChild]

And truly, that is probably what it was. They were being sold something and couldn't filter out the buzzwords. They thought they were getting X and they got Y. When it came time to show the cards, someone competent looks it over and says "Uh, dude, you just had no idea what you agreed to buy". It happens WAY too much.

Re:Isn't Waste Management known as sleezy

[LaRoach]

Waste Management was caught cooking the books ala Enron, Worldcom, etc: http://www.sec.gov/news/headlines/wastemgmt6.htm