RM CC4 & Compensation

[mburland]

Hi all, this is one for others, like me, who have had problems with CC4 since the summer.

 

I know a number of you have had near identical stories to ours: A CC3 to CC4 upgrade over the summer that went completely pear shaped. I've seen mentioned here and there the issue of compensation. We are currently having this discussion with RM at the moment, what I would like to know is what others in our position have been offered or have negotiated with RM.

 

If you don't wish to discuss this publicly feel free to PM me or email me at [email protected]

 

Many thanks!

 

Mark

[Theblacksheep]

Congrats.

 

I wouldnt take CC4 if they paid us now.

[dgsmith]

To be honest, I don't think RM would want any specific figures discussed amongst any schools. We for one (as many have and will be) have previously negotiated what we feel was a satisfactory compensation figure for what we spent on CC4 and taking in to account our troubles up to that point (and then some).

 

RM are a business and I am sure they have been hit very hard with alot of compensation claims (through complete fault of their own), so I guess they would want to offer you the lowest sum they feel they may get away with. It's worth having to hand how much you have spent and how much disruption the upgrade has caused (for us, it was detrimental, and very much still is in areas).

[Tallwood_6]

I think it best for the SLG and yourselves to sit down and decide as a school what would be most fitting by the way of compensation, prehaps targeting curriculum areas which have been hit the hardest. There first port of call though will be to get all your current support calls closed to the best of there ability.

[mburland]

As part of that discussion it was suggested that we enquire from other schools to see how far they pressed compensation. This is perfectly valid, as there is no direct precedent that we can look to.

[dgsmith]

As part of that discussion it was suggested that we enquire from other schools to see how far they pressed compensation. This is perfectly valid, as there is no direct precedent that we can look to.

 

Each school will value themselves and their network differently to others, equally as much as each school has had a unique experience of issues related to CC4 (even though some of those issues have affected everyone). We didn't enquire from other schools, simply because our difficulties are OUR difficulties and our bad experiences, and that we may have paid a completely different sum than others initially. I'm don't think it would frowned upon as much to reveal a rough % figure claimed back from the total cost of buying the product, however you may want to aim for at least double the starting figure (during negotiation) if your investment in CC4 was rather substantial.

 

As Tallwood_6 said, you may want to get some proper information and feedback from departments as to their views (it's obvious what they'll say, but no harm in using whatever you can to put a good case across). I'm sure RM will have heard it many times already so it wont be anything new to them.

[Michael]

Do you mind me asking (either answer publicly or privately) what exactly is the problem with CC4? I look after one CC3 network and ok, occasionally there are problems here and there but not to the point where things are completely unusable.

 

I would of thought a company the size of RM (with the resources they have) that they would of fixed these issues and avoid longevity of outstanding problems to the point establishments are demanding compensation!

[mburland]

Do you mind me asking (either answer publicly or privately) what exactly is the problem with CC4? I look after one CC3 network and ok, occasionally there are problems here and there but not to the point where things are completely unusable.

 

 

I don't mind you asking, the problem is..."where do I start?"

 

A two day CC3 to CC4 upgrade became two weeks, which became the entire summer holiday, which ended up being the entire first half term, which ended up dragging on until the end of the year (but things rapidly improved when letters were sent via MPs and such). Our problem has not been with support - they have been very good - but rather with management in allowing a product they knew was not ready to be released into live school environments.

 

I would of thought a company the size of RM (with the resources they have) that they would of fixed these issues and avoid longevity of outstanding problems to the point establishments are demanding compensation!

 

Indeed!

[Michael]

It definitely sounds the product isn't upto scratch. I remember reading that CC4 supports XP and Vista. Did you deploy Vista too? What are RM deploying to schools which are enrolled on BSF?

[webman]

Why are you asking for compensation?

 

If you had a vanilla network, and an upgrade went bad, would you seek compensation from Microsoft?

 

I would have thought the best method of upgrading is to test it yourself first, work with any problems you have, and only once you are completely satisfied - carry out the upgrade.

[Butuz]

Why are you asking for compensation?

 

If you had a vanilla network, and an upgrade went bad, would you seek compensation from Microsoft?

 

No - because Microsoft didn't charge you £1000 per server licence, £90 per Workstation Licence, £5k for commisioning, and £3k a year for support.......for a network that apparently doesn't do as advertised?

 

Butuz

[Theblacksheep]

I would have thought the best method of upgrading is to test it yourself first, work with any problems you have, and only once you are completely satisfied - carry out the upgrade.

 

RM made alot of promises to schools on CC4.... easy CC3 upgrades, only a few days, CC3 package imports, exchange integration, CC4 package installer from CC3, a working MMC.

 

Not everyone also has a choice and not everyone had a proper chance to try it out and got burnt by RM.

[Michael]

I would have thought the best method of upgrading is to test it yourself first, work with any problems you have, and only once you are completely satisfied - carry out the upgrade.

 

I think that's a bad comparative Webman. Surely the whole point of RM is to provide an "all-in-one, ready to use" solution with various custom RM tools/applications. RM pride themselves on providing an already tested solution and service which is typically supposed to make it easier for non technical people to manage a school network. If you buy an RM solution, they install/set it up for you as part of the deal.

 

I can't see why anyone would go to the trouble of testing RM tools/applications and then pay someone to set it up, it doesn't make any sense. If you or your establishment had paid thousands for a solution which was unreliable I'm pretty sure you'd be cheesed off too.

[mburland]

Why are you asking for compensation?

 

If you had a vanilla network, and an upgrade went bad, would you seek compensation from Microsoft?

 

I would have thought the best method of upgrading is to test it yourself first, work with any problems you have, and only once you are completely satisfied - carry out the upgrade.

 

If I had a vanilla network and upgraded to a new Microsoft product which subsequently proved to be broken and I later found out that it had been released pre-completion with management consent...well...yes I probably would seek compensation. Wouldn't you?

[CHR1S]

As part of that discussion it was suggested that we enquire from other schools to see how far they pressed compensation. This is perfectly valid, as there is no direct precedent that we can look to.

 

We put a value to the amount of time lost or teaching and learning. Then an amount for the knock on and then added some more for good measure.

 

So for us that was 6 months lost T&L another 1 to 2 for knock on, my time, SLT time, stress, unpaid over time and what ever else relevent we could think of.

 

Just back up you claim with evidence as best you can and they cant refuse anything thats justified.

[webman]

That's fair enough then. I'm not privvy to the promises made by RM. But even if I was - a few days to upgrade a whole network to CC4 seems a bit on the unlikely side.

 

We decided last year to upgrade to CC4.

 

But because it was new, we decided it was best not to simply upgrade our existing servers with the new software as there isn't really much going back. Instead we planned to buy new servers, install CC4 from scratch (using RM remote install - a lot less than £1,000 commissioning fee), test, configure, and then migrate once we were happy it was ready.

 

@Michael: Yes, you have a point.

[PiqueABoo]

What are RM deploying to schools which are enrolled on BSF?

 

One of the key points. I don't know the precise answer, but RM said somewhere that CC4 is dual-use technology i.e. was designed for a standalone school and as part of their managed school system. If that is not the case now then it is massively over-designed.

[NeoPlosive]

CC4 has now dragged on for our Junior School for nearing on a year now.

 

The overtime hours mount up to approximately 500.

 

The stress/politics has been undesirable. It's no longer a job - it's a nightmare.

 

RM have been on site for a considerable number of hours because of this.

 

Networks built with IB28 fresh are considerably better off than IB27 and less.

 

We're finally at that stage where technical issues are not so much... now it's just packaging crates of software that needs to be done

 

OFSTED were in last year and said that ICT should be part of the schools development and wanted to see such before they come again (expected this year). It was a major deciding factor in getting CC4, it's let us and many other schools down BUT the level of compensation really does depend on the impact at your school.

 

RM realise the issues with CC4 and they're open to admitting the flaws. Push for what cost you feel is right but you also need to understand from their point of view (negotiate) - remember you'll need them for the future of your network.

Edited January 30, 2009 by NeoPlosive
typo

[Trurl]

I'm not sure if there's any point in posting on a dead thread but here goes.

 

I say squeeze them until they bleed. Management knew full well the state of the project from the developers working on it. They should suffer the consequences for treating their customers like a bunch of idiots (no offense) making the workplace unbearable.

[CHR1S]

CC4 has now dragged on for our Junior School for nearing on a year now.

 

The overtime hours mount up to approximately 500.

 

The stress/politics has been undesirable. It's no longer a job - it's a nightmare.

 

RM have been on site for a considerable number of hours because of this.

 

Networks built with IB28 fresh are considerably better off than IB27 and less.

 

We're finally at that stage where technical issues are not so much... now it's just packaging crates of software that needs to be done

 

OFSTED were in last year and said that ICT should be part of the schools development and wanted to see such before they come again (expected this year). It was a major deciding factor in getting CC4, it's let us and many other schools down BUT the level of compensation really does depend on the impact at your school.

 

RM realise the issues with CC4 and they're open to admitting the flaws. Push for what cost you feel is right but you also need to understand from their point of view (negotiate) - remember you'll need them for the future of your network.

 

Thats pretty much where we are at, except for a few major bugs that mess up ICT lessons.... servicehost/gina/lockups on the desktop.

 

We were offered roughly what we would have paid for everything in total (gives you a rough idea?) but I still feel this is not enough because of the back log of work from the past 8 months I have to catch up with!

[Sylv3r]

CC4 - "I'd definitely recommend it!"

 

This seems to be the only school i've seen to say anything good about the product. It reminds me of the BSF video we seen.....

[sparkeh]

What are RM deploying to schools which are enrolled on BSF?

 

Depends on what the terms of the tender and bids are. Any BSF supplier will supply what ever their winning bid and subsequent contract specified. If RM bid and won a contract on supplying CC4 they will supply CC4, if vanilla, then they will supply vanilla.

[barryryan]

Thats pretty much where we are at, except for a few major bugs that mess up ICT lessons.... servicehost/gina/lockups on the desktop.

 

We were offered roughly what we would have paid for everything in total (gives you a rough idea?) but I still feel this is not enough because of the back log of work from the past 8 months I have to catch up with!

Hi Chris, have reached the stage where I can now think about putting a compensation claim together and would appreciate any guidance you could offer. your post says "what we would have paid" can I assume you therefore claimed the total cost?

Barry

[jsnetman]

remember you'll need them for the future of your network

 

Hogwash, the school should employ an experienced network manager and then ditch RM. After claiming the compenstation that is.

[Oops_my_bad]

CC4 - "I'd definitely recommend it!"

 

This seems to be the only school i've seen to say anything good about the product. It reminds me of the BSF video we seen.....

 

Also check out the RM Chamber of ICT Horrors - suprising CC4 isn't in there