Tag Archives: Accenture

October 3, 2025 · 02:02

See Tea or else

Yes, I promised you a story full of intrigue, filled with bad Jedi and happy Sith only 20 hours ago. And here it comes (I’m watching Star Wars episode 2 at the moment). You see, there is a setting where we can watch the unfolding of what some laughingly call ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (it would be if it was designed by the CIA, but the American Administration is now in shutdown). To get there there are three parts.

In part 1 we look at the ‘disinformation’ and here we see the parts that do not match. You see, Dab Mashed potatoes with unions were discontinued in both Coles and Woolworths. The IGA still has it as I was able to verify in person (I had to travel to Summer Hill for that). So this is part 1.

Now we get to the slightly better stuff. You see, some might think that combining DML with Predictive Analytics (some think it is AI) is a solution. You merely set this in a massive database and voila (a theatrical of ‘here it is’) and that was that. This is merely my version of what I think it is happening.

You merely set the model on all the articles you have and you take settings of ‘minimum order size’ ‘estimated margin per item’ and a few other things and there you have a matrix showing the items that just don’t make the cut for your ‘predicted margin of profit’ model and they are ‘discontinued’. And it goes on for nearly all retail models, and it might be a consideration that this is a speculated idea of why PM Albanese invited Lulu into the mix against Coles, Woolworths, IGA and Aldi. I have no data on this, but I reckon it might be a reason that it stops the DML/Predictive Analytics madness. You see, there is a setting that it is folly to get any customer 100% happy (it really is), so these giants are heading for a mere 90% and they throw out the least margin articles out of their consideration, but there is a flaw, thrown out 10 articles is a start, but that leaves one less at 90% and 9 less at 1%, as such you have a base of 81%, so now we are off to the races. And as there is no substitute for added pressures, Lulu gets invited to Australia (in case the others went the way of the dodo, I meant Coles and Woolworths). There is no supporting evidence, so this is (highly) speculative. But there is another setting. You see, this solution requires programming skills and that is where ‘Accenture plans to boot staff it can’t train to use AI, 12,000 already culled’ comes in. This solution will require hundreds, if not thousands of people being reskilled and places like Accenture cannot do that, unless they trim the staff they have in several places. And 12,000 were ‘culled’ because it hinders their bottom line. To support this I give the following thoughts ‘What time was taken to assess a person whether he/she could be re-skilled?’ Who had the knowledge to assess this and what time frame was developed here? If this goes through it will mean a lot of engineers will be required in a short term setting.

And I merely used the Deb potato mash as an example, but what happens when it this pattern is released on pharmacy or other items? So whilst we might think that Accenture is dabbling in greed, the plain setting is that this is the direction that commerce is driving itself into.

And this setting is about to be set on unverified data. Consider that Gemini AI had it wrong on Coles and Woolworths (see image), so what else did they get wrong and when that data is unverified how will the Predictive Analytics work with any level of accuracy? Mere simple questions at the top of my mind. And that was the setting of that ‘so called’ AI.

Now, the setting is that parts of this are speculation, but does this make it wrong? It might be unverified, but the setting of the 12,000 culled into joblessness is recorded all over the media, and it is for the reason of ‘reskilling’ but what makes it impossible to reskill a person? As I see it, it is merely time and that is as I see it, time Accenture seemingly doesn’t have. And the setting of DML and Predictive Analytics? I see that as a limit towards viable data and that is the setting that plenty are ignoring. Some will ‘embrace’ the customer telling them that their data is awesome, but that is the second folly in this. Most of them are merely at the tally stage and their systems tend to come from legacy data, implying it is filled with holes and holes of non-data.

So think of this what you want, but the larger setting is about limiting YOUR ability to choose because it affects THEIR profit margins. Come to think of it, when was the last time you saw Sarsaparilla on the shelves of your supermarket? I remember a few years back there was Black knight licorice, where did that go? So think of all the things you liked and it is no longer there, why is that? Some are unviable as they cater to hundred of thousands of customers and they need to ‘adjust’ their stock accordingly. But what was denied to you? And the setting of adding predictive analytics to their profit mix is only making that worse for you. So what about part 3? Well that is where you the consumer comes in, it is what defines you, not what ‘their’ unverified data says you are.

So have a think about what you are about to lose and have a great day and enjoy your next coffee, if only to force you to their brand of Nescafe.

Too big a workforce?

Yes, there is a speculative setting where this happens. The BBC revealed yesterday (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65305165) the clear message ‘EY cuts 3,000 jobs in US blaming ‘overcapacity’’, and I wonder what really the issue is. You see when you have to shed 10-20 jobs there are all kinds of explanations. But when you shed 3000 jobs something else is going on. I wonder what it is. And there is plenty to question. You see on their website they claim “Apply now. We recommend applying early as we will be recruiting on an ongoing basis, and positions will close once filled. View the current opportunities below. There are a small number of programs which have closing dates. Once we open for those programs, their closing dates will be listed underneath the program.” My issue is that when you shed THAT many jobs, you need to adjust your career page as well. I personally think that this is a job for HR, but that remains debatable. When you shed 3000 jobs and your career pages imply that it is business as usual another setting comes to mind. To be honest I am not sure what it is, but something is there. In the 90’s and ten years ago it was in IT and several other places about shedding the expensive staff members and getting cheap labour (graduates). Now there are a few issues. The first is that Ernst and Young has over 360,000 people. This means that only 1% is affected and that happens. Yet this only affects US staff and the number I gave you is global. There are issues in banking and that could be a setting, but whatever I give you is speculative and might not apply. But in the US we see that there is slowing but they are surpassing the numbers, as such these numbers do not add up. But the BBC gives us a handle. We are given “The move comes as corporate America is bracing for an economic downturn”, OK I can get along with that, it merely implies that EY was ahead of the curve which is never a bad thing. And they are not alone, we are also given “Accenture is slashing 19,000 jobs or roughly 2.5% of staff globally, while McKinsey is reportedly cutting about 1,400 roles or 3% of its employees” and there is more bad news, but not for EY. You see, in an age of aging losing that much staff might become counterproductive later on. We see the events that call for an economic downturn and that is fine, this happens. But in other news we see Europe going on (slightly less god than now) and the Middle East and Asia is making waves, larger positive waves. I would think that retrenching staff in the latter two areas might give a raise to better times down the track and optionally sooner. OK, I am pretty much alone in this. Most BI people say I am bonkers and they might be right. But the idea of losing qualified staff in a world where relocating them might offer more seems weird. You see, only two days ago the Financial Times gave us ‘Dubai court orders KPMG to pay $231mn for Abraaj fund audit failure’ according to the courts KPMG dropped the ball, which in sales terms means that their customers are looking around. That could be good news for EY and we do get that these grounds are not the same, but to get parties shifting into these areas implies that other areas need filling up and losing 3000 staff is not a healthy way to fill places and relocate people to fertile accountancy lands. Even as we see that most are shed from the consulting division, the truth is that most consultants are versatile, there are grounds of not losing that much staff, but that is purely a personal view on the matter. Consider the cowboy stage of cyber divisions, the need for consultants are more and more pressing, not merely on the Cyber part, but on the price-tag setting. That part could need addressing quite soon and that is where we find that EY cannot vie for such clients as they just told 3000 people to vacate the building. That I how I see it, but I could be massively wrong here and I am not an accountant. And when you see that Accenture is ridding itself of 19,000 jobs implies a larger failing all over the field. In 2003 Telia shed thousands of jobs, as far as I can tell they never rose to the old Telia, but that was merely me seeing it as I personally saw it. Is it the wrong thing to do for EY? I cannot say, but to shed 3000 jobs in the US implies more than just Economic downturn, it implies that they are already losing customers and long term projects, or they aren’t gaining long term projects, which implies that there is another issue at EY, not merely overcapacity. Yet, this is a personal view on the matter and I have no idea on how they could solve it, but as I see things around me I wonder what consultants are doing not merely to get the job done, but how to get new clients and that is the stage for the next article, because the story I wrote on February 24th 2022 ‘Red Flags’ gets a new lease on life. About that more in the next article, lets see if people actually learn from their mistakes.

Have fun (I will)

A bit in the stream

Something alerted me towards events this morning in LinkedIn of all places. There was a reference towards an article titled ‘New Accenture boss Bob Easton throws down gauntlet to big four on digital’ (at http://www.afr.com/business/accounting/new-accenture-boss-bob-easton-lays-down-gauntlet-to-big-four-on-digital-20160829-gr3huj ).

The initial quote is “The trouble is there is a lot of people running around talking about digital“, which is true. Bob Easton is right that there is a lot of talk about digital. Yet, when we look at the definitions, I wonder how many have a true grasp of digital. Even I myself wonder when the use ‘digital’ is warranted. You see, when it is media, my photography is digital, so is my filming. Advertisement is digital as it goes through AdWords and not trough the newspapers. Here is the issue. When is something digital? Bob Easton states in the article “they are confusing the market by misunderstanding digital strategy and lacking the global capabilities of his firm“, the fact that IBM took a massive hit is not a surprise because they are confused on the best of times. They still present the 14 managers and 2 technicians approach. I cannot speak for either PricewaterhouseCoopers in this instance, or for EY, but my last encounter with Deloitte gave a much better view on them and they seem to know it (to some extent). So where does this leave Accenture?

The term “moving to aggressively compete for work in the consulting, digital and business transformation space” is only a concern if they do not meet customers’ expectations. So where should they be?

So where should you be? You see Dave Aron from Gartner (at that time) gives me: “A digital strategy is a form of strategic management and a business answer or response to a digital question, often best addressed as part of an overall business strategy“, what I liked was “Every business and public sector agency needs both an IT Strategy and a Digital Business Strategy. They must be highly aligned with each other, but they are not the same thing“, which gives part of the goods, yet when we consider his claim “All aspects of the business strategy should be informed by digital considerations“, we tend to get confused here, because different elements have the same word (read: digital), but in that the setting is not the same.

We can see it as advancements in digital technologies such as computers, data, telecommunications and Internet, which is still true, but how to go about it?

A digital media manager looks at how to get the solutions towards their ROI, which in many turns means to get it all electronically solved, whilst keeping costs to a minimum. Here we see the first failing from IBM as they are about revenue and about getting the business onto their solutions. Even in a step by step solution it is about getting one foot into the door and upsell from there. That is not a solution for the client, it is merely a solution for the sales person’s target.

And in some cases there is no digital path, but to a lot of people that does not exist so they will feign a solution. As an example I have my old dentist, he had a card system so perfect that no IT solution could bring the goods. I saw yuppies in all sizes try to sell him a solution between 1983 and 1995, one failure after another. The mere realisation that not all solutions fit and that some solutions will drive down the ROI in unacceptable ways is why several of these players will never succeed. Because what the client truly needs is never addressed. If we take the approach from Macala Wright (at http://mashable.com/2012/09/05/how-to-digital-strategy/#oc3qMBqfF8qC)

We see a decently clear path. I can quote all the steps again, but the article has them down to a nice clean size, so reading it is a recommendation.

I am downgrading it to these four steps for comfort (read: mine).

Identifying the opportunities and challenges in a business where online assets can provide a solution or a difference.
Identifying the unmet needs and goals of the external stakeholders that most closely align with those key business opportunities and challenges, and especially if there are threats there.
Developing a vision around how the online assets will fulfil those business and external stakeholder needs, goals, opportunities, challenges and threats.
Prioritizing a set of online initiatives which can deliver on this vision.

These steps also include the views Cisco had in step 3, yet it is a watered down list. I am emphasising this as the entire ‘going digital’ is larger and more complex than most realise. When I look at what can be done and what can be achieved we need to realise that this all needs the decision makers to be aligned and in that both IT and business needs must be addressed. Most people going digital seem that it is a cheaper solution towards a better ROI. Yes, it is a path towards a better ROI, which will not make it cheaper. It requires serious investments and not tinkering around with half a dozen people working from home, sending in some finished element. Whilst the Australian Financial Review gives us a chart with Revenue versus margin and adds a little hype by adding AirBnB and Uber in the new business models, we see a forgotten element. You see, these new business models come with a little hook, one was highlighted by Bell Partners, where we see “Some critics argue that Uber drivers are not subject to the same premiums for compulsory third-party (CTP) insurance as taxis, as it is harder to identify an Uber car in an accident“. Is that so? So how does this impact the passenger? Until you are in an accident you might not care, but when the hospital bills come and the Uber player does not have the coverage, you will soon learn that hospitals are very expensive.

There is a lot of truth in the article and it is well worth reading, yet the lack of threats discussed is equally unsettling. The fact that Expenses in the digital world are up and very much so with Accenture is an element, and also a threat. You see, we all understand that there are a lot more expenses coming over (nearly all tax deductable), the matter of a shifting ROI remains and until the model is used to fuel growth the benefit will not be easily seen. For this path requires a globalising mindset. If you want to remain the big cheese in Darlinghurst and that is all you want, you need to consider what sides need the digital approach and what you want to grow. This for the mere reason that costs will come in the early days and if you are ready it is not an issue, if not, your ROI went straight into the basement, good luck enjoying that view!

Depending on your market, it will be about your customers and their experience, if that is not upgraded, then why byte into the digital apple? I truly worry about the bit you do not end up with, as you would limit your position and enable your competitor overnight. This is the part that is not addressed in many places, because everyone is in a sales hat thinking bonus and saying, we can get you onto the digital path! You see, the presentation in the AFR, regarding the digital disruption framework is aptly drawn as a spear point and it points towards you! The better the comprehension and implementation, the more it becomes a weapon of offense instead of a solution to suicide. In that regard, towards the offense we see that the spear could be the stepping stone that upgrades the customer experience and as such truly grow your business, which is exactly what it is, but it is not a cheap solution or an overnight solution, it is merely a new solution to grow towards places you never grew before, so you grow the options in getting a grown customer base, which is what many want.

The only question is how correctly the path has been drawn out and here we see the elements that Bob Easton sells on. Accenture seems to know this path through and through. We have seen how IBM scuttled their knowledge and for the most, the other players (read: self-proclaimed players) are not up to scrap, but their level of failure is not clearly shown, Bob Easton points at it, but there is clear doubt if that is a given, especially in the case of Deloitte.

Finally we see the mention of government contracts, which is of course fun to read. Especially as 20 years have shown me that the bulk of government is relatively clueless on any digital path, with Defence on a whole being close to the sole exception.

In all this I find one part slightly debatable, even as the chart makes perfect sense. The quote “Digitising the experience for your customers, digitising your internal operations and the creation of the capabilities to recognise and exploit new business models” is true, yet recognising new business models is always a non-given, because that requires the altered mindset of a board of directors, which tends to focus on the golf game and less on the balls they slice, which gives weight to the debate, not the issue with the model as shown. In that for Taxi’s the model makes perfect sense, because Uber is now forcing a different mindset on the taxi corporations. Yet consider the year before Uber started, how many Taxi companies were actively looking into new business models? That list is hugely close to zero!

I say that competitors and threats, the second more than the first is driving that element, which is why even in the digital move, a SWOT analyses tends to have more decisive impact on the decisions. When we know the elements strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, we can start to look at the options we have, and they do include the two Bob Easton axis scales namely Revenue and Margin. As stated, his view is not incorrect, I personally find it a little incomplete in this instance.

And to finalise this, the problem he states is on many levels, I am not even sure if America is the largest waster of options and resources here, yet when we see politicians go with (read: Donald Trump on CBS today) “you know cyber is becoming so big today. It’s becoming something that a number of years ago, short number of years ago, wasn’t even a word. And now the cyber is so big“, in this case Donald Trump for his elections. The fact that Cyber threats have been on the FBI agenda even before October 6^th 1999, stating that the damage from those threats had surpassed 7 billion in Q1 and Q2 of 1999 gives us worry that Cyber and Digital are more than words and those who are aiming to be in a seat of power have not grasped it. The entire educational system is not ready for these changes, which is not their fault. The market that Bob Easton described has grown nearly exponentially and the next generation is not aware of what is what, that whilst the current generation is not up to scrap as to what the definitions are, how they should be seen and how they apply in a real time environment and the people in charge are not getting educated either, most they get is from trade shows dying for you to buy their solution, which is not much of an education and finally the previous generation that is hoping to make it to retirement before they have to learn it all.

That is the issue as it evolves. So we are all bits in the stream, bits of what? I am not sure if anyone can tell at present, but good luck trying to figure out where you are placed and where you stand, because resolving that will place you in a much stronger position than you were in this morning.

Tag Archives: Accenture

See Tea or else

Too big a workforce?

A bit in the stream

Recent Posts

Archives