Quote:
Originally Posted by vicz
Yeah well strangely enough telling your senior management that they are behaving like a bunch of morons is generally not a great career move, whether it is true or not...  |
There are ways of phrasing statements about customers' perceptions without telling executives directly they are behaving like morons. All he would be doing is communicating the perception of customers that has been communicated to him and that is (so we are led to believe) something very important to VM.
Professionally I wouldn't call the CEO of an organisation a moron straight out. I would and have politely yet assertively challenged their views or behaviours on certain topics and got a very positive response having done so. It's all about the message and how you get it across.
VM's handling of the Phorm issue has been very disappointing in the way they have done very little to explain to their customers where things stand. How they have fallen for Phorm's moronica is equally as disappointing.
---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:33 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dephormation
As the technical architect I would expect him to have overall responsibility for the technical due diligence on Phorm... he is responsible for approving the shambolic technology that is Webwise.
For VM to publish statements announcing that they plan to deploy Phorm, you'd assume the technical (and commercial/legal due diligence) had been 'signed off'.
And further, Nov 2006 Alex explicitly denied that transparent proxying was operating on the BY network (I have his post for reference).
When I query their relationship with Phorm in 2008 Virgin Media tell me that the problems I reported were due to a transparent proxy which was removed in 2007 (conincident with the BT trials). But see above, that proxy didn't exist, or did it?
If it does turn out that VM were trialling Phorm, it will be very hard to reconcile the statements Alex has made.
|
Ah, yes.... that lovely phrase "due diligence".
Why is it that despite supposed "due diligence" being undertaken, completed and signed off, organisations fail to spot what are in my view quite obvious issues?
I have personal experiences (yes, more than one) of this and the question "Who was the eunuch who signed off the due diligence?" is one I have asked on numerous occasions (OK, this doesn't quite fit in with my previous point but as the poor sod who's had to implement fixes because someone didn't do their job properly vis a vis due diligence, and the server room being a confidential sanctuary, such exclamations are born of frustration and generally justified).
Therefore the questions should be who was responsible for the relevant due diligence works? Because someone somewhere missed a whole lot of stuff.
Again it's basic management but you don't announce something this major unless you are extremely confident in all areas of the intended deployment. Please don't tell me VM trusted Phorm's so called legal advice - which we still have not had published so we can verify its status - that would be so unbelievably poor words fail me.
If I went to the board of the company I work for and said "You know the deployment we announced and have been counting down to... well we've hit a rather large problem. It's almost certainly illegal..." this Captain would get his backside fired so hard you'd see him shooting towards the sky.