From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Capgemini as a group has (at least) two entities: Capgemini and Sogeti. It's incorrect to list 'Sogeti' as part of the Capgemini consulting organization. In reality, Sogeti should get it's own page, since for example partnerships for Sogeti are of higher level (strategic) and different from the Capgemini side. To redirect from 'Sogeti' to 'Capgemini' is misleading. If anything, there should be three pages: Capgemini group, Capgemini and Sogeti. Any comments, or can I go ahead and make this change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend against it. The two subordinate pages would almost certainly be deleted for failure to independently meet the generally accepted inclusion criteria described at WP:CORP. You would do much better to expand this page and see if the changes stick. And if you are a current or former employee, you should carefully read the Wikipedia policy on Conflict of interest before editing. Rossami (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


ASPIRE is CG (along with Fujitsu and many other companies') contract with the former Inland Revenue (now the HRMC) to provide IT services for the UK government.

This is Capgemini's largest project, amounting to 14% of it's total revenues.

Is this worth a mention in the article?

--Danny252 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It's just a project. It's large today but something else will be larger tomorrow. Rossami (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Although it might be worth noting a range of historic large contracts the company has been involved in (ones notable enough to be newsworthy at the time I guess), otherwise the article is just a (doubled) list of the company acquisitions and nothing else, it would seem a sensible expansion to at least give a flavour of the sort of things the company has been involved with. -- (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable links[edit]

The edit on 18 December removed several links. I think these links should be reinstated as they are usful in finding information about the company. I will reinstate them soon unless there is an adequate reason for their removal. -- (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

History and Acquisitions[edit]

These lists serve almost identical purposes. I'm not an expert on Company Portal style (which is why I didn't go ahead and make the edit), but it seems that acquisitions should be deleted from the History list OR the Acquisitions list should be deleted outright. Frank MacCrory (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The aquisitions of Cap Gemini only demonstrates the company's ability to spend money to gain market share. The history should also encompass the success of the aquistions and whether the penetration achieved was worth the investment. (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Laura Leed