Talk:Accenture/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Outstanding issues

As per Stalwart111's request at COI/N, I'm providing a summary (mostly copied and pasted from above) of the remaining requests for this article here, so that it's clear what has been implemented, and what is still being discussed.

• In Leadership — I'm thinking we should swap out "Martin I. (Marty) Cole - Group Chief Executive-Technology" for the firm's COO, Jo Deblaere. As you can see from this page, there are actually a number of group chief executives, so I don't think it makes much sense to only have one in there, but no info about the COO, a higher position within the company.
  • One other thing about leadership, while we're talking about that section—now that it's been trimmed down, it seems so short. I've rethought my previous suggestion, and wonder if it wouldn't be better to include the list of board members now, especially since it's already been prepped and ready to go (I've included it again below). What do you think?

Suggested addition

Board of directors:

• Pierre Nanterme, Chairman & CEO (director since 2010)
• Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Lead Director (director since 2001)
• Dina Dublon (since 2001)
• Charles Giancarlo (since 2008)
• Nobuyuki Idei (since 2006)
• William L. Kimsey (since 2003)
• Robert I. Lipp (since 2001)
• Marjorie Magner (since 2006)
• Blythe J. McGarvie (since 2001)
• Gilles C. Pélisson (since 2012)
• Wulf von Schimmelmann (since 2001)

References

Markup

Board of directors: * Pierre Nanterme, Chairman & CEO (director since 2010)<ref name=BoardofDirs>{{cite web |url=http://www.accenture.com/us-en/company/governance/board-directors/Pages/index.aspx |title=Board of Directors |work=accenture.com |publisher=Accenture |accessdate=26 June 2013}}</ref><ref name=Monks>{{cite news |title=New Financial Group Chief at Accenture |author=Matthew Monks |url=http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/175_226/new-fin-group-chief-at-accenture-1029053-1.html |work=[[American Banker]] |date=24 November 2010 |accessdate=30 June 2013}}</ref> * Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Lead Director (director since 2001)<ref name=Telegraph01>{{cite news |title=The Serco board can bank on DeAnne Julius Movers and Shakers |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=44BC-BDV0-010F-T12T&csi=8109&oc=00240&perma=true |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=1 November 2001 |accessdate=26 June 2013}}</ref><ref name=BoardofDirs/> * Dina Dublon (since 2001)<ref name=Telegraph01 /><ref name=BoardofDirs /> * Charles Giancarlo (since 2008)<ref name=BoardofDirs /> * Nobuyuki Idei (since 2006)<ref name=BoardofDirs /> * William L. Kimsey (since 2003)<ref name=BoardofDirs /> * Robert I. Lipp (since 2001)<ref name=Telegraph01 /><ref name=BoardofDirs /> * Marjorie Magner (since 2006)<ref name=PEAsia07>{{cite news |title=Magner general partner |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=53Y1-DWT1-JDRR-J4K6&csi=342939&oc=00240&perma=true |work=[[Private Equity Asian]] |date=22 February, 2007 |accessdate=26 June 2013}}</ref><ref name=BoardofDirs /> * Blythe J. McGarvie (since 2001)<ref name=Telegraph01 /><ref name=BoardofDirs /> * Gilles C. Pélisson (since 2012)<ref name=BoardofDirs /> *Wulf von Schimmelmann (since 2001)<ref name=Telegraph01 /><ref name=BoardofDirs />

• In "Formation and early years" under History, User:FeralOink removed a couple of sentences: "Joe Glickauf was Arthur Andersen's project leader responsible for the payroll processing automation project. Now considered to be the father of computer consulting, Glickauf headed Arthur Andersen's Administrative Services division for 10 years." Although this was unsourced, Glickauf was an extremely important part of Accenture during its early years, and this information does belong in the article. It looks like the previous language was actually copied and pasted from an Accenture blog, though, so good call on removing the specific wording. I've prepped new language based on an independent source, and I'd like to suggest adding it in the same location in the article as the previous sentences were removed from:

Proposed sentence

Joe Glickauf, an early pioneer of computer consulting, held a position as head of Arthur Andersen's administrative services division for 12 years.

References

Markup

Joe Glickauf, an early pioneer of computer consulting, held a position as head of Arthur Andersen's administrative services division for 12 years.<ref name=Brachear05>{{cite news |title=Joseph Glickauf Jr.; 1912-2005 |author=Manya A. Brachear |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4GRG-CMM0-TW8K-D2YC&csi=8119&oc=00240&perma=true |work=[[Chicago Tribune]] |date=28 July 2005 |accessdate=16 August 2013}}</ref>

That's what remains from my previous requests. I do have a few other changes I'd like to see that I haven't posted yet, as I'd like to wrap all of this up before posting anything new. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, ChrisPond!

We have a problem with Mr. Glickauf. The Chicago Tribune article about him, presumably his obituary, is from Nexis, which is thoroughly walled-off. They didn't even offer a one-sentence precis. He was remarkably long-lived, 93 years of age! You also have an inconsistency, as one source says he was with Accenture for 10 years, another for 12 years. That is an idle aside. More relevant is the fact that you need a valid source. Saying that he was the "father of computer consulting" is going to raise flags, as it needs some sort of substantiation e.g. I can imagine that there are plenty of people that IBM or maybe UNISYS would say was the "real father of computer consulting", and we don't need to debate that! Please find a publicly accessible reference to cite.

Regarding Board of Directors, there are two problems. First, I am not sure how a multi-national corporation (company?) that is so nation-less even documents the Board of Directors. I had trouble finding it on their own website. Keeping the information current will be challenging, as it isn't easy to verify e.g. at least one in the list is only sourced from walled website Nexis. More important, they don't all need to be in the article. That's an awful lot of people. If the organization were, say, the Federal Reserve or RBI (they are getting a new governor, so I just happened to be tidying the article), it would be a different matter. Accenture is not a central bank, and none of these people have an article in Wikipedia, which would be the only thing that would get me comfortable with them being otherwise not being notable. I mean, it is very impressive to be on the Board of Directors of Accenture, I wish I were or could achieve what any of them have. As an online encyclopedia, this shouldn't read like a company press release or PR firm work. CEO, CFO and one of CIO, CTO or COO, depending on the company, is considered adequate based on Bloomberg Company listings as a standard. And Chairman of the Board, who is the same as the CEO for Accenture. I could go on, by mentioning the inconsistencies between "Lead Director" and regular Director, but I think this is detailed enough.

I'm trying to remember if there were any other unresolved issues? I'll double check after saving this, and add any further thoughts. --FeralOink (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi FeralOink, Thanks for your reply. First, one thing I think you missed: "I'm thinking we should swap out "Martin I. (Marty) Cole - Group Chief Executive-Technology" for the firm's COO, Jo Deblaere. As you can see from this page, there are actually a number of group chief executives, so I don't think it makes much sense to only have one in there, but no info about the COO, a higher position within the company." You've clearly indicated that you think COO is something valid to be included for a company like Accenture, so could we agree that this change needs to be made?

I'm hoping to get another opinion about the inclusion of the board of directors, perhaps from User:Stalwart111—although I see your perspective here, FeralOink, I tend to disagree. Accenture seems to me to be a large enough company that including their board members is reasonable. I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus is, whether include or exclude, but I'd like another opinion. If we don't hear from Stalwart111, I'll plan to reach out to 3O.

Regarding the Nexis source—I felt it was ok to use, since Wikipedia guidelines say that sources behind paywalls are not a problem. However, I've found that the obit is also available on the Chicago Tribune website, if you'd like to refer the full text of it (and I'm happy to have you swap this out as the URL in the citation). You'll note that the obit does contain the claim I've included: "...Mr. Glickauf became one of the early pioneers of computer consulting." Given this, what do you think about including the sentence? Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

ChrisPond Thank you, that is much better! You found the full source text from Mr. Glickauf's obituary in the Chicago Tribune. It supports your text, perfectly. He sounded like a wonderful person. He was an amateur radio operator! (I am too ;o) His silly daughter didn't even realize that Morse code was part of the requirement for his amateur radio license! He wasn't addled (she was just ignorant... tsk). I will include that right now. Since it is identical content to what is referred to in Nexis, I don't want to include both references. Regarding the board of directors, if User:Stalwart111 wants to include them, I won't object. But they must be accurate, regarding who is a "Lead Director" versus who is not. That's fine if he wants to list Jo Deblaere as the COO instead of Martin Cole.

I wanted to point this out to you as well, Accenture launches new cloud platform, yesterday. I will add something about that if I can find another NPOV source.--FeralOink (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• On the face of it, I don't see any particular problem with the inclusion of the board members. It's not something I'd normally include unless we were likely to one day have blue-linked articles (maybe I'm just wary of BLP concerns if something ever happens with the company) but I don't see any great harm in including them if it adds something. I supposed I'd prefer there to be some background included under Leadership rather than just a list of names without much context. Like - "The company was established with an initial board of x directors which was expanded in 199y with the purchase of z. Current board members include..." - or whatever. We would obviously also need a commitment to have the list updated as regularly as possible (again to avoid BLP concerns if they no longer hold a particular position).

I have no particular concern with the pay-walled source, though you can always reinforce that with a non-subscription source. Nothing to say you can't have two sources for the same claim. Stalwart111 00:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Stalwart111 and FeralOink! Thanks, both, for your replies on this. Can one of you go ahead and fix the COO issue, and add in the sentence about Glickauf? In the meantime, I'll have a look at providing a sentence or two to frame the list of board members and be back in touch next week. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks, I did some looking about the history of Accenture's board, to see about adding some historical information. However, I think there have been too many changes over the years to really provide a complete overview in a section we're trying to keep short. If we do want a sentence of framing, I'd suggest something pretty generic, maybe, "As of September 2013, the board of directors for Accenture consisted of the following members:" and then tuck in the list. Otherwise, maybe just the list?

I also wanted to follow up about the COO—could we add this detail in, and remove Marty Cole? It seems that there's consensus that that's the right way to proceed. Thanks again for your help here! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Howdy folks. Thanks for the note Chris - I hadn't seen your note here on my Watchlist, sorry. I've made the change regarding the COO. That seemed fairly straightforward. With regard to the board, if there really have been "too many changes over the years to really provide a complete overview" then I question the wisdom of including a list of redlinked executives (who will likely never become blue links) that editors will have to maintain. I can't help but question whether it is worth the trouble. But if there is a great desire to have them there, I will make the amendment. I'm happy to add the Glickauf line but I'm now having trouble with the CT link. Can someone give me the raw mark-up so I can cut-paste? Otherwise I might botch the citation (though I'll check later to see if it is working for me again). Cheers, Stalwart111 01:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey again Stalwart111, thanks so much for correcting the COO information! The sentence about Glickauf was actually added back in by FeralOink, so that's taken care of.

Regarding the board, I'm just worried that if we start to provide the whole history of changes over the years, the section will get rather ungainly instead of being what is currently intended—a summary of the current leadership of the company.

Although I understand your concerns about red-linking and maintaining the list, I still feel that the information is relevant enough to warrant inclusion, and I don't think maintaining the list will be too terribly difficult. Although summarizing 30 years of board changes is a bit too much, it's not as if the board changes on a daily basis or anything like that.

So, if you're comfortable including the list of board members, I'd appreciate it if you could add it to the article. Cheers, and thanks again! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We're getting very indented here, so I broke out, so to speak.

• As ChrisPond noted, I took care of adding the content about Mr. Glickauf and the correctly referenced, with template, source citation last week.

• As for the board of directors, I think Stalwart expressed what I was trying to communicate earlier. There is no point in including a bunch of names that are all red-lined and not kept up to date. It will be close to impossible to keep them up to date, unless Accenture intends to do so on a on-going basis, which is not a commitment that can be requested or accepted. It is very difficult to even determine who the directors of Accenture are at any given time, due to the company's global nature and vast size. Regarding the board of directors, Chris, you are going to need to ask a third party if you feel strongly about adding them, as I am not going to change my mind. I would only ask that my commentary here regarding the reasons why I don't want to include a list of Accenture board of directors remain.

• Finally, I don't believe that it is appropriate to keep Accenture as a Chicago company in the categories, as Accenture itself assigns no particular significance to its Chicago office, and has been domiciled in Ireland proceeded by Bermuda (or was it Cayman Islands?) for many years now. Accenture is not an "American company" by any stretch of the imagination, nor does its website claim that it is. I am going to remove that category.

Chris, it has been most agreeable working with you AND Stalwart on this article. I wanted you to know that! --FeralOink (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let me have a think over the weekend about the board members situation; I'll be back in touch on Monday. Hope you both have a great weekend! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, folks. After thinking about it this weekend, let's just drop the board members issue and leave them out; I think what's there now, with correct info, works well enough. I do have a couple of other improvements I think could be made to this article, which I'll be posting momentarily; if you have time to take a look, I'd sure appreciate it! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Number of Indian employees - truth or verifiability?

Please see this comment, which presents a problem here in the Accenture article. We're accepting an Accenture IP's edit to say that there are 87,000 Accenture employees in India, when the reliable source says 80,000. Is it better to have a (presumably) more-accurate figure, or better to have a properly-referenced figure? - 2001:558:1400:10:3461:A128:3088:D6A7 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, I replied in detail over at Jimbo's Talk page, as an editor who has previously worked on behalf of Accenture, but speaking to this edit specifically: if this change is not properly supported by the source, it seems to me you should change the number back to the verifiable figure. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence back to 80,000, since that's what the source says. More critically, however, the sentence was directly lifted from the article. I changed the wording, but it probably should be rewritten entirely. I am searching around now for the editor who added the sentence originally to determine if other similar problems have occurred. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have been added here as a standalone edit. No further action is probably needed on the copyright/plagiarism issue. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposing a few corrections and updates

Hello again. I worked with volunteer editors last fall to make several changes and corrections to this article. I am back with a new set of requests. There are some updates, but many are simply a matter of the previous edits being reverted, so I hope someone can take a look and make these changes.

For anyone new to the page, I'd like to point out that I am here on behalf of Accenture. I avoid making direct edits myself due to this financial COI.

Infobox

Just a bit ago, an IP editor made a number of edits to the infobox here, some of which broken the box itself. To correct this, it looks like a "]" is missing after Pierre Nanterme's name, and "Public Limited company" should be "Public limited company" so that the wikilink works.

In addition to getting the infobox working again, I'd like to request four changes here, three of which have been made previously.

• Predecessor should be listed as "Andersen Consulting" rather than "Arthur Andersen". As noted in the article, Arthur Andersen and Andersen Consulting separated in 1989 and Andersen Consulting was renamed Accenture in 2001.
• Secondly, "Chicago, Illinois" should be removed as the company's headquarters. This has already been discussed here. I also found this Wall Street Journal article that states "Accenture was never incorporated in the U.S., has no corporate headquarters"
• Business consulting is again listed under services, but it should be management consulting. See discussion of this change being made previously here.
• Finally, Accenture more commonly uses their net revenue rather than total revenue. I'd like to suggest this figure be included again. See here for when this change was made previously and here for the initial request. The net revenue is US$ 28.6 billion. Please see the citation below.

Markup

US$ 28.6 billion<ref name=MoneyControl14>{{cite news |title=Accenture named lead contractor for Obamacare website |url=http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/accenture-named-lead-contractor-for-obamacare-website_1023271.html |newspaper=[[Moneycontrol.com]] |date=12 Janaury 2014 |accessdate=5 February 2014}}</ref>

•  Done - I restored a previous version prior to some of the sillier vandalism (only some of which had been reverted) and made the changes suggested above. All seemed reasonable and sourced and nobody has raised any objections in the two weeks since these changes were first proposed. Stalwart111 05:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Some of the changes here mirror changes I'm requesting be made in the infobox.

• Again, Chicago Illinois should be removed as the operations headquarters.
• As well, "revenues of $30.39 billion" should be replaced with "net revenues of $28.6 billion."
• The 2012 projection of employees in India should be removed. It is out of date, and too much detail to include in the introductory paragraph. I'd like to propose that this sentence end after "country."
• The number of Fortune Global 100 companies Accenture works with should be updated to "91" as per this article.

Hello Chris. That is so exasperating, the misinformation inserted about Chicago, the broken link etc.! You've shown great forbearance saying "IP editor", rather than vandal! I'll take a look. I don't have time to do more than this, though.--FeralOink (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather use this article than the one via Money Control.--FeralOink (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Also  Done, though I would be comfortable with the use of an alternate source. I've made the changes on the basis of the source provided (which is sufficient) but I won't object if someone wants to swap it out for something better. Stalwart111 05:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Splitting from Arthur Andersen

• The year is incorrect for when Andersen Consulting broke all contractual ties with AWSC. It should be August 2000, not 2001. The article cited is actually dated 2000 and supports this, but the link in the reference is behind a paywall, so I found another version of the same article on the The New York Times website here. If editors agree, updating the date, as well as the link in the citation to the accessible version of the article, might be useful to others.

I'll be back with a few more updates later, but it'd be great if someone could take a look at these first requests and move them over to the article if they look okay. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Stalwart111—thanks so much for making these updates! I really appreciate it. I was just looking through, and realized that the URL I had above, linking to The New York Times, didn't work. I've corrected it now. If you have a sec, could you take a look and see about correcting the date in the article? Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 20:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference and date. Are there any other issues or did Stalwart get them already? Silverseren^C 07:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Silver—thanks so much! There's only one issue remaining, which is actually a recurrent issue. As per the previous discussion here, Accenture would like to list net revenue in the infobox, rather than just revenue. Both FeralOink and Stalwart111 agreed that this was reasonable, and Stalwart made this change recently, but another editor, User:Kkm010 has twice undone the edit, replacing the net revenue figure with total revenue. Stalwart reached out to Kkm010 on his Talk page, but as yet, he hasn't replied there, and hasn't participated in the discussion here at all, despite an invitation to do so from Stalwart. Given that there is consensus for the net revenue figure to be what's represented in the infobox, if you wanted to switch it back, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't going to edit-war with someone who couldn't even be bothered reading a short discussion. I got "thanked" for my edit by the same editor who then reverted that very edit. I understand the company would prefer one to the other and I'm all for making the change but I didn't see any value in feeding the trolls. Stalwart111 22:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it back to net revenue again. If they're going to edit war and not discuss anything on the talk page, then i'll just end up reporting them. Silverseren^C 05:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, good call. For the record, it's been changed and changed back four times. Yours is the fifth. It might not have been within 24 hours but you know what I mean. Stalwart111 05:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, both of you! I have a couple other small requests from Accenture that I'll be back to propose later in the week, if either of you are inclined to take a look. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just send me a reminder about them after you post them. Since the end of this week/next week is spring break, I should be completely available. Silverseren^C 18:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do—thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Updates for Growth Platforms

Hello, I'm back with the additional updates I mentioned. They're very straightforward additions to the Growth Platforms section. Accenture's two new growth platforms (Digital and Strategy) were added to the article after their launch in December, but I'd like to propose including details about each to match the descriptions of the Technology and Business platforms already present in the section. Here is suggested language and citation markup.

Suggested additions

Strategy was launched in December 2013 to provide services for clients related to business strategy, technology strategy and operations strategy.

Digital was launched in December 2013 to provide clients with digital marketing, analytics and mobility services.

References

Markup

Strategy was launched in December 2013 to provide services for clients related to business strategy, technology strategy and operations strategy.<ref name=Pro14>{{cite news |title=Analyst Commentary: Accenture's digital push will boost consulting prospects |url=http://www.professionaloutsourcingmagazine.net/newsitems/analyst-commentary-accentures-digital-push-will-boost-consulting-prospects |newspaper=[[Professional Outsourcing Resources]] |date=January 3, 2014 |accessdate=30 January 2014}}</ref> Digital was launched in December 2013 to provide clients with [[digital marketing]], [[analytics]] and [[mobile computing|mobility]] services.<ref name=Pandey13>{{cite news |title=Accenture launches digital marketing capabilities. Should agencies worry? |author=Rayana Pandey |url=http://www.marketing-interactive.com/accenture-launches-digital-marketing-capabilities-agencies-worry/ |newspaper=[[Marketing (magazine)|Marketing]] |date=December 5, 2013 |accessdate=30 January 2014}}</ref>

Let me know if there are any questions or additional thoughts from editors about these changes. I'd appreciate it if someone could move them over to the article if they seem ok. Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, though I reworded the beginnings slightly just to make it clear that we're talking about an actual platform here. Them having such generic names can get a bit confusing. Silverseren^C 23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Silver, thanks so much for doing this! I just heard back from Accenture, and they feel that just "platform" is a bit vague and nonspecific, as they're technically "growth platforms". How would you feel about starting these off with just "Accenture Strategy" and "Accenture Digital"? Would that work for you?

There was also a recent addition to the introduction that seems a bit problematic to me—the addition of "BPO", presumably business process outsourcing. Not only are we leading with an undefined acronym, but since BPO is a sub-type of outsourcing, it also makes the sentence redundant, as it already mentions outsourcing. What do you think about rolling it back to how it was? Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it took so very long, but done. Silverseren^C 03:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all—thanks so much! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)