Datacom tips out Gen-i for Fulton Hogan contract
Subscribe now for $100 (23 issues) and save more than 37% off the cover price!
Get the latest news from Computerworld delivered via email.
Sign up now
Datacom has begun rolling out a unified IT infrastructure service solution across Australia and New Zealand for construction giant Fulton Hogan, following the signing of a three-year contract.
Fulton Hogan has revenues of more than $2 billion, 2000 staff in Australia and 3800 staff in New Zealand. Datacom will provide managed infrastructure services spanning distributed computing, server support, network support, security support service management, service desk, procurement (hardware and software) and project services.
Computerworld understands the contract is worth in the vicinity of $20 million over three years.
Datacom is replacing the incumbent Gen-i.
Datacom Group CEO Jonathan Ladd says the Fulton Hogan contract is an important milestone for Datacom’s trans-Tasman focus. Datacom now provides coordinated services based on a single-service contract spanning all of a customer’s operations across Australia and New Zealand.
“A major point of difference for Datacom is our ability to offer true regional reach for our customers, across the full range of IT services,” Ladd says. “Fulton Hogan is an important showcase for our ability to deliver a coordinated trans-Tasman strategy with a common approach to processes, procedures and governance.”
Datacom’s Fulton Hogan delivery teams are located in Auckland, Melbourne and Christchurch. Relationship management, service delivery management and technical architecture are provided from both New Zealand and Victoria, aligned to the customer’s primary touch points. Procurement and project functions are also delivered from both geographies.
Fulton Hogan’s chief information officer Brian Northern says the choice of Datacom follows a rigorous Request for Information and Request for Proposal process carried out over the past year and a half. The RFI drew responses from seven different organisations with a presence in both Australia and New Zealand.
“Datacom was selected based on our assessment that their proposal most closely fitted our requirements,” Northern says.
“We had a number of key criteria in making our decision. First of all we needed to see value, both in terms of cost savings and the opportunity to improve our services to our customers. We wanted clearly defined roles and responsibilities with defined and agreed service levels and appropriate governance structures.
“We also wanted to agree a contract which was mutually beneficial in that it represented good business for both parties,” says Northern.
Fulton Hogan has been contracting in Australia for more than 10 years.
New Zealand has two "onshore" providers. Datacom and Gen-I.
Gen-I is having a bad run ATM, but will be back, Datacom is surely reaching capacity.
Who are the alternatives?
Posted by Harry Finch at 18:57:07 on August 2, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 16:19:23 on August 7, 2012
Is Gen-I sales Commission only?
This post is also talking about pretty big figures, for Base + Comm
"Gen-i failed when, in 2008, they changed the commission structure of its sales force to become Telecom sales people. Telecom products and services were commissioned at 30%. IT products and services ranged from below 5 to 15%. "
Posted by Anonymous at 17:46:23 on August 2, 2012
I Too am confused by the numbers 5 to 15% those would be rather healthy.
Posted by Ex Datacom at 17:35:55 on August 3, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 17:17:04 on August 2, 2012
Posted by Another ex-gen-i at 19:22:15 on August 1, 2012
As part of their plan they "acquired" two leading IT companies, with a view to gaining access to their collective IT smarts and more importantly, the high end delivery capability and cultures that drove both management and staff. Gen-i, and Computerland staff and management collectively, pre-Telecom ownership, would never have contemplated berating each other or their clients as we are now seeing in some posts. Staff turnover in both those companies was very low. The culture was to fix issues not walk away from them. Client loyalty was also strong with relationships spanning many contract terms.
Working for gen-i/telecom but lacking the freedom within the Telecom framework to manage the ICT business and staff in a way necessary to maintain that prized culture, the key players soon departed. Those that were left were ground down and assimilated by the Telco beast. So now we have an organisation whose culture has reverted to type. That culture was established in Telecom when years of service alone dictated advancement within the company, irrespective of performance and service delivery standards and attitudes to clients were consistent with the monopoly status they held. A company where staff just had to stick it out to advance and customers had to take what they were given as there was nowhere else they could go.
Now that there is somewhere else to go, it's no wonder Telecom (gen-i) have lost contracts with FH. The same with ACC who's attitude is as arrogant as most government departments, as are their demands. i.e. "You will give me what I want, when I want it, how I want it. If it's not in the contract, then it should have been. You are the ICT specialists not us. End of story".
For Datacom or any service delivery organisation to succeed, they have to look after all their stake holders. This includes share holders, clients and staff, all with equal measure, both today and tomorrow.
How often have you heard from one group or another regarding their particular view of one of the stake holder groups?
#*"It's all about our clients, we have to delight them and increase service levels"
#*"We must protect our investors, increase margins, cash flow and ROI and get the share price up"
#*"We must engage, grow and retain our staff as they are our greatest asset"?
All laudable statements but looking to achieve any one of these at the expense of the others is not sustainable and dooms those that attempt it, or just allow it to happen, to failure.
In any business, it is the managements duty, to understand, specify and agree what each stake holder is entitled to from their investment in that business and then to maintain the balance over time.
If one consistently gets more at the expense of another, it will fail. It's that simple and it's that hard.
Posted by TEA BEE EYE at 12:46:19 on August 1, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 13:15:14 on July 31, 2012
And you're right, no we won't.
Posted by Larry at 8:52:58 on August 1, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 13:19:50 on August 2, 2012