[comlonq]

I used to work for Accenture as a technical consultant.

Having read both complaints, I'm on Oracles side more than the Oregons.

On so many big IT projects I would see the client constantly change requirements, be very vague, change stakeholders who then completely move the goal posts and effectively hold the project back for large periods of time.

It's not surprise that large projects fail when you see the state of most large clients.

This highlights a much larger problem. Our processes for delivering large IT projects need a radical change in order to stop toxic stakeholders tanking whole projects.

However, Some of Oracle's products are shit and do fuck all out of the box despite what the sales people say.

[einrealist]

I dont know, what you read. But I read, that Oracle shut the door until three months before the scheduled release. Oracle is the specialist on software development and not their client. So if Oracle says not otherwise, they have to deliver. If those allegations are true, Oracle is to blame for the majority.

Or do you want to lead your local bakery in how your breads are made? The baker has to know, when and how to include the client, because he/she is the specialist.

[comlonq]

I read the Oracle complaint in full (unlike you). Some of the staff at Oregon were modifying software config on production servers which totally circumvented Oracle release procedures... Oregon would not lock down solid requirements... Stakeholders and requirements would change frequently and existing work would be rendered obsolete.

I've worked with those kind of badly managed clients before. They likely ignored Oracle's advice, came up with nonsense strategies and requirements then kept being vague about the details.

Go and keep turning you bakers over off or requesting crazy ingredients that should never go into mixture (against the bakers advice) and see what kind of bread you get.