this all seems backwards to me, doing training and internal backend work at the kent DCs and billing it to the customer
this wouldnt fly at capita or atos
10 replies (most recent on top)
Those DCs are basically the customers anyway by the way and DXC manage them on behalf of the client. So any work done on them is really for the customer.
There are specific Time and Material booking and codes vs pot AMS codes. Unless training is being billed to a specific Time and Material account code your not really being billed to the client. Let’s say one account has x amount for running an application, they don’t really care how DXC uses this money, it’s a five year contract for general services. When ever I did T and M work this was always specific, estimated and controlled. Most people think a WBS code means their actually being billed to a client. This is not the case and I’m amazed people still assume this
We are busy billing the client, to sit waiting for the them to make a decision, test something or give us access. Even this does not create any urgency from them. They make so much money it's irrelevant. Just wait quietly until you're told you either are, or are not needed - that's how it seems to be. In the meantime enjoy the sunshine whilst it lasts.
There are massive ams pots.
Just because something was billed to a customer account doesn’t mean that account was billed for the work.
How it worked was only T&M work was specifically customer invoiced for very specific accounts. Unless the work is specifically T and M it’s not being billed to the client it’s internal DXC fudging.
I know of hundreds of hours of training across one particular account that was billed back to the customer on chargeable codes. I don’t think the client would have been too happy with it - but in the land of utilization targets that is what we were told to do as staff. Shocking
@a4 You would think that wouldn't you but we have been told for years to book any mandatory internal training to customer chargeable wbs codes rather than to internal codes.
@OP you might want to check the definition of a ponzi scheme.
Is it questionable ethics? Yep. But a ponzi scheme? 😂
Yeah, never been able to get a training code when I've asked.
Oh that's normal practice. They had a whole team of us doing that for years and still do. Anything that wasn't billable, became billable. Straight to the customer. Management didn't care, nobody seemed to have a clue where the WBS codes came from.
That sounds remarkably like fraud.
Training that the customer requires, sure, standard DXC training or indeed other DXC orientated tasks should be nowhere near a customer WBS code.