Direct producer support: the road to hell
Recently I received such a newsletter from a reputable company. I read, sat down and burst into tears from how smoothly. Right on the gums kiss.
They may be so, but I have a little boiling over, I'm sorry. I tried to collect examples of the latest cases when something went wrong. Naturally, there will be no proofs, and all the further is nothing more than rumors.
')
To begin with, let's take an excellent bundle from a striped operator and company, where the quality of the supplied iron is indicated right in the title. Previously, the delivery was through Russian intermediary integrators, then they signed directly, eliminated the “extra link”. Next is the clearest example of cost savings. The manufacturer cannot agree on a ruble contract to the Russian customer. Currency contract, which means all currency risks, all costs on the operator. What happened to the dollar rate, you know.
As a result, neither the reduction of the contract price, nor the acceleration of supplies was achieved, and there was no flexibility either. It is also important for the manufacturer to ship when he needs it himself. They have their own quarters, their reporting periods. And the customer needs when the customer needs. And these events may not be the same. Usually the difference between these events is 6-9 months.
And that's not it.
If you start to hedge the ruble value, you will need another third company to avoid currency risks. Plus, logistics directly without a rebuilt scheme is also far from the strongest side of direct contracts. The continuation of the direct procurement policy - the same operator signed a contract with another company, let's call it Moststroy Francisco, and as a result, the service cost them such space money that the company was forced to abandon it. And everything was started just for the sake of this service.
One big bank, which is known in wide circles for its queues, also threw intermediaries out of the process. But this time it was already concluded with another company - the server manufacturer, conditionally, “In three letters”. We decided to remove the intermediate link, received instead an increase in the value of the contract by 18-20%. The problem was that this manufacturer is very strictly prescribed what he does under the contract, and what for the extra money. And how fast it works. In addition, the manufacturer does not meet in any trifles, because he does not have the ability to keep a warehouse, there is no possibility to do something faster than what is written in the contract. The risks are high.
The bank has lost the level of service and SLA that it wanted. A manufacturer's SLA is such that it is often impossible for a customer to implement it in practice. As a result, there are separate service contracts: I can lie, but, in my opinion, the bank now has either a separate service contract with an integrator (of course more expensive, outside the supply and guarantee contract), or a separate service contract with the manufacturer itself expensive). And yes, I know a case when another company, known for its database for banks, simply refused to help quickly, because it could not.
Another problem surfaced there as well - inefficient specification writing. Due to this, it would seem that the client benefits as a percentage of the discount. But in fact, he loses in money, because he overpays for unnecessary racks. Naturally, it is profitable for the iron manufacturer to sell more, and therefore they close any task with new servers. The business of large manufacturers is focused on the sale of technological solutions with a full range of related products. A manufacturer sells, rather than evaluates, a solution, its pros and cons. Therefore, if he offers, he offers only his own, sincerely believing that his own is the best. The client, however, cannot always understand why he buys it from this manufacturer, and what alternatives there were in general.
With such cooperation, the bank cannot go and begin any negotiations with other suppliers under the terms of the contract. Often the impossible task is to sign a direct contract with the manufacturer as with a foreign company. These are all the risks of US regulation that fall on a state bank or on a company with state participation. Having a direct relationship with Western JSC, the bank risks being without support, iron and pants under sanctions.
And, by the way, the last and most fun. With a direct contract, the manufacturer likes to come, to control how its equipment works. The American counterparty arrives, goes to the server and checks the combat database: it is possible to sign papers on the FZ-152 for a very, very long time.
Normal practice is to fix the price of delivery prior to the start of delivery in rubles. Only in this way none of the major manufacturers does). Another normal practice is clear SLA, when there are no ball throwings like “iron is in order, check the OS”. The service comes from the one who drove everything and mounted, all the responsibility is on one company, the prices are not as for the additional service of the premium client of the manufacturer. Complicated internal IT audits. Sanctions contracts. The impossibility of tying supplies to the deadlines (or is it incredibly expensive. And all this for about 18% savings. Great idea was.
One friend said that the manufacturer refused to support the Storwize V7000. The reason - when upgrading wrong licenses purchased. The funny thing is that all specifications were agreed and verified with the participation of the vendor. Then they figured it out, forced them to purchase (but they apologized and gave a discount), but until they found out, the work could get up.
Another friend from the support of one airport said that the manufacturer on purchases is the only option, and this is not very conducive to the right prices and specifications. When you try to bargain and put pressure on him, he falls in price, but then he begins to put a pig in support and demand the most stringent implementation of all regulations. And this also does not contribute to normal operation.
In short, I sit and look at this letter, which was sent to me by one of the customers, and asks, can, really, directly subscribe to the manufacturer? And here I am laughing, then grab my head.
They may be so, but I have a little boiling over, I'm sorry. I tried to collect examples of the latest cases when something went wrong. Naturally, there will be no proofs, and all the further is nothing more than rumors.
')
To begin with, let's take an excellent bundle from a striped operator and company, where the quality of the supplied iron is indicated right in the title. Previously, the delivery was through Russian intermediary integrators, then they signed directly, eliminated the “extra link”. Next is the clearest example of cost savings. The manufacturer cannot agree on a ruble contract to the Russian customer. Currency contract, which means all currency risks, all costs on the operator. What happened to the dollar rate, you know.
As a result, neither the reduction of the contract price, nor the acceleration of supplies was achieved, and there was no flexibility either. It is also important for the manufacturer to ship when he needs it himself. They have their own quarters, their reporting periods. And the customer needs when the customer needs. And these events may not be the same. Usually the difference between these events is 6-9 months.
And that's not it.
If you start to hedge the ruble value, you will need another third company to avoid currency risks. Plus, logistics directly without a rebuilt scheme is also far from the strongest side of direct contracts. The continuation of the direct procurement policy - the same operator signed a contract with another company, let's call it Moststroy Francisco, and as a result, the service cost them such space money that the company was forced to abandon it. And everything was started just for the sake of this service.
One big bank, which is known in wide circles for its queues, also threw intermediaries out of the process. But this time it was already concluded with another company - the server manufacturer, conditionally, “In three letters”. We decided to remove the intermediate link, received instead an increase in the value of the contract by 18-20%. The problem was that this manufacturer is very strictly prescribed what he does under the contract, and what for the extra money. And how fast it works. In addition, the manufacturer does not meet in any trifles, because he does not have the ability to keep a warehouse, there is no possibility to do something faster than what is written in the contract. The risks are high.
The bank has lost the level of service and SLA that it wanted. A manufacturer's SLA is such that it is often impossible for a customer to implement it in practice. As a result, there are separate service contracts: I can lie, but, in my opinion, the bank now has either a separate service contract with an integrator (of course more expensive, outside the supply and guarantee contract), or a separate service contract with the manufacturer itself expensive). And yes, I know a case when another company, known for its database for banks, simply refused to help quickly, because it could not.
Another problem surfaced there as well - inefficient specification writing. Due to this, it would seem that the client benefits as a percentage of the discount. But in fact, he loses in money, because he overpays for unnecessary racks. Naturally, it is profitable for the iron manufacturer to sell more, and therefore they close any task with new servers. The business of large manufacturers is focused on the sale of technological solutions with a full range of related products. A manufacturer sells, rather than evaluates, a solution, its pros and cons. Therefore, if he offers, he offers only his own, sincerely believing that his own is the best. The client, however, cannot always understand why he buys it from this manufacturer, and what alternatives there were in general.
With such cooperation, the bank cannot go and begin any negotiations with other suppliers under the terms of the contract. Often the impossible task is to sign a direct contract with the manufacturer as with a foreign company. These are all the risks of US regulation that fall on a state bank or on a company with state participation. Having a direct relationship with Western JSC, the bank risks being without support, iron and pants under sanctions.
And, by the way, the last and most fun. With a direct contract, the manufacturer likes to come, to control how its equipment works. The American counterparty arrives, goes to the server and checks the combat database: it is possible to sign papers on the FZ-152 for a very, very long time.
Normal practice is to fix the price of delivery prior to the start of delivery in rubles. Only in this way none of the major manufacturers does). Another normal practice is clear SLA, when there are no ball throwings like “iron is in order, check the OS”. The service comes from the one who drove everything and mounted, all the responsibility is on one company, the prices are not as for the additional service of the premium client of the manufacturer. Complicated internal IT audits. Sanctions contracts. The impossibility of tying supplies to the deadlines (or is it incredibly expensive. And all this for about 18% savings. Great idea was.
One friend said that the manufacturer refused to support the Storwize V7000. The reason - when upgrading wrong licenses purchased. The funny thing is that all specifications were agreed and verified with the participation of the vendor. Then they figured it out, forced them to purchase (but they apologized and gave a discount), but until they found out, the work could get up.
Another friend from the support of one airport said that the manufacturer on purchases is the only option, and this is not very conducive to the right prices and specifications. When you try to bargain and put pressure on him, he falls in price, but then he begins to put a pig in support and demand the most stringent implementation of all regulations. And this also does not contribute to normal operation.
In short, I sit and look at this letter, which was sent to me by one of the customers, and asks, can, really, directly subscribe to the manufacturer? And here I am laughing, then grab my head.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/304768/
All Articles