Story

I predict that in the 4th year Accenture will declare that the project is 'too large' with 'great problems' that the 'scope was not well defined' with an outcome in the 5th year of a system being delivered that is worse than the old system that does not implement everything the old system had runs at a greater cost and required Accenture to stick around for two decades fixing and maintaining it. Did we learn nothing from the Medicare BI project where Accenture did not deliver? Did we learn nothing from the tax office where Accenture is in permanent residence?

History will repeat itself. From the linked article, here is what happened last time Accenture engaged in a project to moved a COBOL system to SAP...

The California State Controller's Office (SCO) is currently running on an old COBOL-based payroll system that dates back to the 1970s. The SCO began an initiative in 2006 to update this system, with initial estimates targeting full implementation by 2009. State Controller John Chiang said that the systems needed to carry out Schwarzenegger's minimum wage plan would not be available for six months. That was last summer.

Just this January, the SCO announced that it was cancelling its contract with the consulting company in charge of the project and had not estimated when it would hire another firm to carry on. That was $25 million into an estimated $69 million project.

Earlier this month, SAP co-CEO Leo Apotheker angrily denied there were problems with SAP's software, and blamed consulting firms like IBM (IBM) and Accenture (ACN) for sending people who knew nothing about the software to clients as experts on SAP. Leo also has said SAP's new cloud-like package, SAP Business Suite 7, should be easier to implement.

Plenty of blame to go around, we think. At least in the California bomb, the consulting firm involved was BearingPoint, which yesterday filed for bankruptcy. Accenture has already moved to acquire part of BearingPoint's operations.

The question here is: If the Australian government is in such dire straits that it can not afford a pay rise for its public servants then why is it risking $100m with a company well known for failing this type of project?