The A-Team errrr B-Team!?

Outsourcing engagements need to be managed carefully and properly from the cradle to the grave. When selecting a vendor during an RFP process, you will more than likely be presented with the A-Team that will be working your account. More often than not, you will be given the companies B-Team or even C-Team. What this means is they will present you with top quality talent and resumes of the resources that "will" be working your account.

In one case an organization was presented with top tier CCIE talent to be working on the account. When the deal was signed however, they were being billed for CCIE talent but given junior level network administrators to work the account. In the end the vendor was kicked out of the company after there was numerous fraudulent activities found in addition to the bait and switch of the network engineers.

Another case, had an organization years into a contract start replacing good desktop techs with family members who needed jobs but had no technical skills. The customers suffered through declining service levels while techs were working their issues with no technical skills. The client never bothered to care or inspect the skill sets of the newly hired techs working the account. As a matter of fact, one of the criteria for any techs was that they have A+ certification, none of the family members were A+ certified.

The above two examples, are based on outsourcing agreements where there is some language in the contract on what resources will be on the account. However, Not all agreements talk about the specific resources. A large amount merely speak about the work that is to be completed and agreements on the quality and/or timeliness of this work. With these agreements you need to be extra careful to manage the outsource vendor.

In an example of an agreement which only speaks of the work to be done by the vendor for the client, the vendor disengaged a top flight systems engineer to replace him with a cheaper very junior quite incompetent administrator. The admin did not know how to configure or check on tape backups, did not know how to logon to a Barracuda firewall, did not know how to configure email on an iPad and did not know Microsoft Exchange. The organization suffered from the lowered service levels, but since no SLAs nor specifications on the qualifications of resources was included in the contract, the client got what they agreed to and paid for. The client also was a non-profit that qualified for donated software including Office 365 for free, but instead had to suffer for too long on a poorly set up Exchange 2003 without SSL security.

The above is to illustrate that when outsourcing a business function, close attention needs to be given to the actual resources (people) that will complete the work. Whenever possible, make sure the contract is written in a way that protects you from less than expected resources ruining your customers experiences.

Attack of the Governance Monster!!

Governance is the act of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance. It consists of either a separate process or part of decision-making or leadership processes.

A Project Management Office, abbreviated to PMO, is a group or department within a business, agency or  enterprise that defines and maintains standards for project management within the organization. The PMO strives to standardize and introduce economies of repetition in the execution of projects. The PMO is the source of documentation, guidance and metrics on the practice of project management and execution. 

Governance has its place in Project Management Offices, however when the governance person or group within the PMO becomes a monster, governance impedes successful delivery of projects which is what Project Management is truly all about.

An organization I did some work for had a governance organization within the larger PMO whose job was to do as described in the two definitions above for Governance and PMO. However, the larger message was missed which is successful project delivery/execution.

Too many projects would suffer from QA of documentation with Project Managers not getting help to complete the documentation which would not provide any value to the delivery of the project. Let that sink in. 

Documentation for the sake of documentation to justify weak project managers existence as they provide governance and tell you how YOU should manage the project, while they sit at their desk creating documentation and processes without any input from the actual Project Managers and Program Managers doing the execution of these projects.

One individual in particular in this governance organization of the PMO, in the spirit of October and Halloween lets call him Ichabod Craine although in this story instead of being Headless he’s actually Brainless, would present challenges to projects that would inundate PMs and provide absolutely NO VALUE. He would recommend that projects be done Agile when they had nothing in scope that would warrant or take advantage of being done Agile. He would perform QA spot checks and ask for documentation to be created that had no reason being created for that individual project just because it is listed in the processes the PMO created. The same processes they created and claim are one size fits all projects when in actuality they don’t. 

Governance and a PMO should provide value to projects. That is they should help the projects to deliver successfully and the use of resources on the project achieve the results originally intended. When the evil Governance Monster rears its head and provides no value to the project and in fact impedes successful delivery of projects, this is when you have failed and need to blow the PMO up.

Or at the very least eliminate the useless individuals within the governance organization that are not providing value, not soliciting the input from the actual Project Managers doing the work and basically sitting around collecting checks at the expense of the successful delivery of the project portfolio. 

Governance serves its purpose, but when it provides no value to the PMO or IT organization as a whole its time to destroy and rebuild. After all who is policing the police?

Tales of a Glass Explorer: 2 Weeks with Glass

http://www.techxaminer.com/2013/07/tales-of-google-glass-explorer-two.html

Check out my blog post at TechXaminer on 2 weeks with Google Glass!

Google Glass Pick up

http://www.techxaminer.com/2013/06/tales-of-glass-explorer-pickup.html

Check out my experience over at the TechXaminer site!
Will

Shame on you Google/LG- Put your warranty where your mouth is!- RESOLVED!

Quick Outline:

1. Purchase Google Nexus 4

2. 6 Weeks later hairline fracture presents itself in upper right front glass right by front camera. Without any abuse to phone (Drops or smash). Phone is used normally and even less since its not my main phone nor is it provisioned for voice.

3. Camera and touch screen are unresponsive

4. Calls Google Play and told it is LGE who will provide out of warranty service.

5. Calls LGE and told it is out of warranty service and to send it in first i will find out costs later.

6. Calls back Google play and told glass is not covered by the Nexus 4's Limited Warranty.

7. I send email picking apart warranty and Google/LGEs possible violations of Consumer Warranty Act.
8. Filed in Small Claims Court against LG.
9. Court date scheduled for 07/19
10. Case Settled.

Full Story:

I should be getting my Google Glass purchase invite any day now and being a gadget junkie I purchased a Nexus 4 from Google Play store for $300 to experience the full Glass as my daily phone is an iPhone5 on Verizon. I have been both an IT executive and Tech Hobbyist for over 15 years. I own tons of devices and have never experienced a phantom crack in glass. Sure Ive dropped devices before, some have taken the hit and some may have cracked. Hey I have 4 kids, Ive had ipod touches, LeapPads, laptops and DS' take abuse and get cracked screens. I usually have either purchased replacements or performed the repairs myself.

In the case of my Nexus 4, Heres the story. I am in the middle of activating a prepaid sim on a great Tmobile pre paid plan to swap out my AT&T sim. I take off the Ringke case and notice a hairline crack in the upper right hand corner of the Front Screen right by the front camera. I proceed to check the camera and it doesn't work, I stay on the phone with Tmobile to activate my plan and figure I will call Google right after for warranty service. 

After activating the SIM card I try some testing of the Tmobile plan including sending some test text messages. (AT&T sims plan was data only, Tmobile is data/text and voice). I cant send the text messages as the touch screen is unresponsive at the exact screen part to send the text. At this point this is very weird and i perform further testing. So my phone and the hairline crack apparently affects the touchscreen at a certain touch point (middle right of screen) where it doesn't register touch. I proceed to call Google for warranty service.

I explain my story to the Google Play rep who while very very nice, tells me I have to contact LGE and gives me their number. 

I contact LGE and as soon as I speak about the front glass she dives into a long process that I need to follow. I try to get some questions in but she rambles on. Finally I ask her are there any other options besides the one she mentions, which was: that i would have to send the Nexus 4 in, they would assess the repair costs and contact me at which point I can approve or decline the repair. I told her that this was not my fault but a defect with the material workmanship. She reiterates that that if purchased through the Google Play store that was my only option.

I try calling back Google Play and explain to the rep the first two calls and the fact that I am not trying to get over and at this point its not an issue with cost, as I could easily purchase another Nexus for $300. I could also probably sell this phone on ebay/craigslist for ~$200 as is (im sure someone can fix the front glass pretty cheap). She proceeds to tell me the same story about screens not being covered under the "Limited Warranty". Google play recaps their stance in the email sent to me below:

Below is my final response to Google Play:

Google Play,

Let me correct a couple of items here and explain my situation. I do have a Ringke fusion case on my Nexus device http://www.rearthusa.com/google-nexus-4-hybrid-fusion-case  because of hearing all of the horror stories with the rear glass breaking very easily on this device.

I had already contacted Google once and was told to contact LG who in turn treated me like the issue was automatically my fault. 

My issue is that I received a hairline fracture on my device through no fault of my own and that the material workmanship on the phone is defective. 

In searching the Google Play site I found this link about the nexus 4 warranty https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2851637?hl=en which says to contact google play support if the nexus was purchased from google play. In fact I have contacted them twice, both times told that glass damage is not covered by the limited warranty. I have read through the Nexus 4 warranty which can be found on LGs site here: http://www.lg.com/us/support/products/documents/Nexus4_SafetyAndWarranty_USG_Print_V1%200_121008-1.pdf and don't see that listed. If someone can maybe reference that in the actual warranty it would be helpful.

In looking through the warranty I would like to make some points relevant to my issue. Section 1: What this Warranty covers

Subsection 1: The warranty is 12 months in length beginning on the purchase date, which I am well within those 12 Months as my purchase was made on 04/18/13 and my incident is on 06/07/13.

Subsection 2: I am the original purchaser as can be seen in my order number - TAKEN OUT FOR BLOG POST

Subsection 3: I am the original purchaser and a resident of NJ and the incident and warranty claim occurred in NJ.

Subsection 4: My Warranty claim is not about the external housing nor cosmetic parts

Subsection 5: I can and have provided my information to accurately prove the purchase date.

Section 2: What This Warranty does not cover

Subsection 1: I have only used the Nexus phone in the intended manner.

Subsection 2: I have not done any of these items to lead to the hairline crack in the upper right corner of the front glass by the front camera at which I am attempting a warranty claim based on a defect in workmanship.

Subsection 3: My claim has nothing to do with the antenna

Subsection 4: I did notify customer service at LG and they told me to send the phone for out of warranty service with a fee merely because i mentioned it was the front glass.

Subsection 5: serial number is intact and was not removed

Subsection 6: understood

Subsection 7: I did not damage the phone with any accessories nor is this Warranty claim based on anything with accessories. Its based of a defect in the workmanship for my particular Nexus 4 Phone.

Subsection 8: Nothing on the phone was damaged or scratched due to normal use. The damage was caused by a defect in the workmanship of my particular Nexus 4 phone.

Subsection 9:  Product was not operated outside of published ratings.

Subsection 10: Product was not used in a rental program

Subsection 11: Claim is not about any consumables.

Section 3: State law rights

Section 4: How to get warranty service -

http://us.lgservice.com is currently down with the following error: GCSC is impossible to access the external network.

GSFS system or SCS system use.

Section 5: LG Service Site-

Which again is currently down with the above error

On page 46 Section 7.11- The following laws govern warranties that arise in retail sales of customer goods:

The federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Federal Trade

Commission Improvement Act [15 USC §§2301 et seq; 16 CFR

Parts 701– 703]. A typical Magnuson-Moss Act warranty is a

written promise that the product is free of defects or a written

promise to refund, repair, or replace defective goods. [See 15

USC §2301(6).] Remedies include damages for failing to honor

a written warranty or service contract or for violating disclosure

provisions. [See 15 USC §2310(d).] Except for some labeling

and disclosure requirements, the federal Act does not preempt

state law. [See 15 USC §2311.]

The Consumer Warranty Act does not affect the rights and

obligations of parties under the state Uniform Commercial Code,

except the provisions of the Act prevail over provisions of the

Commercial Code when they confl ict. [CC §1790.3.]

For purposes of small claims actions, this course will focus on

rights and duties under the state laws.

In Closing as can be seen and has been outlined. I see no where that it makes mention that glass is not covered under the warranty. As a matter of fact the Magnuson- Moss act makes mention that the warranty is a written promise that the product, in this case the Nexus 4 phone purchased at Google Play manafactured by LGE, is free of defects or a written promise to refund, repair or replace defective goods. Of which remedies include damages for failing to honor a written warranty or service contract or for violating disclosure provisions.

As a remedy to my warranty claim of a defect due to poor workmanship which led to a crack in the front glass of my nexus 4 phone, i am requesting a replacement phone be sent to me at no charge from Google Play as I purchased the product from you on 04/18/13. 

Thank you in advance.

Wilfredo Lassalle

973-968-4804

Update 06/08/13 Received a reply from Google as below:

So Google passes the buck off to LG. I will reach out to LG on Monday again to see what is said.

In the meantime I think I will just go ahead and purchase another unlocked android device outside of the Google Play Store and Not LG. 

Very disappointed in Google this week... More to come. 

Update 06/09/13:

I speak to LG and more of the same that it is not covered by the limited warranty. Again i reiterate this is not about trying to get a free replacement but about the fact that this is an obvious defect in the material workmanship of this particular device. I have tried a last ditch attempt to get LG to honor their warranty by reaching out to LG on twitter. If not I will just take it to small claims court on principal and purchase an unlocked android phone from a different manufacturer this week in anticipation of getting my Google Glass purchase invite anyday now.

Update 06/12/13:

In a last ditch attempt to get this taken care of I reached out and spoke to @LGUS on twitter via DM. Pretty much the same message/stance that physical damage is not covered under the warranty. I have all the paper work done to submit the small claims court. Now I am on a crusade to prove LG/Google wrong, that there is a defect in the build process on these Nexus 4's, which lead to "Gorilla Glass 2" to cracks/shatters under "NORMAL" use not ABUSE. I will keep you all updated.

Update 06/14/13:  Officially filed in Small Claims Court against the Manufacturer for not honoring a written contract (The Warranty). I will keep updating this post on how things turn out!

Update 07/05/13: Just received post card in mail for Small Claims Court date against LG for 07/19/13. LG has been notified as well.

Update 07/19/13: Situation Resolved to my satisfaction.