Mr Galloway Is Discredited

Lets have a look at that judgement

To back up our synopsis in the main article, The following paragraphs are quoted verbatim from the court judgement:- 

[You can return to the main article here and the full judgment is here]

175. It is necessary for me to set out in more detail the way in which the evidence relating to the Concordia MBA developed. 

176. When he first gave evidence, he was asked a series of questions on Day 37. He was shown a website for Concordia College and University which he said he did not recognise. He said that he was in St John in the US Virgin Islands and attended Concordia College for approximately a year which involved attendance at classes. He said that he had a diploma or degree certificate and transcripts of his marks which were, in the end, produced to the Court. He was taken to the website for Concordia College which stated as follows: 

“You may have done past courses and other learning which equals an Associate, Bachelor or Master degree but you accumulated that learning in a variety of contexts with no resulting degree outcome. Meeting your needs, Concordia College's online prior learning assessment process may conclude with an accredited degree in 24 hours, in the subject of your prior studies. Your transcripts then credibly document all of your learning.”

177. One of the pages of the website referred to some of the successful Concordia College graduates and by clicking on a tab it showed Joe Galloway as one of those graduates. He maintained that he had not seen the website before. 

178. In fact, Concordia College is a website which provides on-line degrees for anyone who makes an application and pays the required fee. This was effectively and amusingly demonstrated by an application which was made on the website for an MBA degree for a dog “Lulu” belonging to Mark Howard QC. Without any difficulty the dog was able to obtain a degree certificate and transcripts which were in identical form to those later produced by Joe Galloway but with marks which, in fact, were better than those given to him. In addition, a recommendation letter was provided to Mr Galloway and the dog by a person who purported to be President and Vice-Chancellor of Concordia College and University in the following terms:

“As Head of Department at Concordia College & University, I am writing this academic letter of recommendation to you in respect of our alumnus Joseph Michael Galloway. Mr. Galloway is conferred the degree, rank and academic status Master of Business Administration with a major in International Business effective 19 May 1996 upon as a consequence of our widely reputed degree programme, and of our guided academic research into then subjects.

During his connection with Concordia College & University, we experienced Mr. Galloway as a conscientious and orderly element who proved the habit of timely and correct study and research to be intrinsic to his person. He successfully completed all requirements of our Board of Examiners within the mutually agreed time limitations. Mr. Galloway demonstrated that he is prepared and fully equipped to add valuable apprenticeship to our institution’s activities by means of talented and profoundly investigated subject treatment.

Hence it is our privilege to recommend the academic experience, methodical working and educational assiduity of Joseph Michael Galloway to you since we bear the true conviction that Mr. Galloway shall not cease to expose his capacities as a meaningful acquisition to fitting your purpose.” 

179. Whilst the underlying lie was that Joe Galloway had quite evidently obtained a fake degree from the Concordia Collage website, he then gave evidence both on Day 37 and when he returned on Days 45 to 46 which was palpably dishonest both in answer to questions in cross-examination and also in answer to questions from the Court. 

180. In that evidence he maintained that he had not purchased his MBA degree online. Rather he said that he had in fact attended classes at a building used by Concordia College at St John over the period 1994 or 1995 to 1996, studying to obtain the degree. He said that he attended Concordia College whilst he was employed by BSG/Alliance IT working on a project on St John for Coca Cola, which required him to be based for the majority of his time on St John. He said that he travelled to and from St John by plane, flying into and out of the island. 

He explained that when he attended Concordia College “there were a number of buildings that I went to. I can remember three distinct buildings that we went to. Block, office block buildings in and around the locations of the commercial area that I was working in for Coca Cola.” 

181. He said he attended between 5 and 10 classes, which were “across multiple days. Multiple weeks, multiple months”. He said that they were “once a week for three hours” across a term. Later he said in answer to a question from the Court: “an average programme would be one three-hour class per night per course. So if, for example, in one semester block, I would have three courses, I would have three nights each with one three-hour class per week. So for example, Monday, I might go for three hours, Wednesday I might go for three hours and Thursday, I might go for three hours.” He said that there were “exams at the end of each class” and that some class sizes “were five people, some class sizes were eight to ten” but he did not ask anybody their name. 

182. He explained that he was working on St John on a project for Coca Cola and said “it was a long project. We were there a total of 15 months, but I would be there for a time and then go away and then come back. Sometimes the gap would be a week, and sometimes the gap would be up to about three weeks, especially in the holiday period.” He said that he was living in “a hotel environment.” He said that he “was working with a number of independent Coca Cola Distributors that were in the area” and that whilst there was no Coca Cola bottling plant or anything of the nature there but there was a Coca Cola office which was clearly described as a Coca Cola facility with “Coca Cola marketing, advertising materials around.” 

183. In relation to travelling to St John he said: “As I recall, there was a small commuter flight that went back and forth to St Johns.” and which went “From St Thomas which is the largest island to St John.” He said that it was a “Four - six seater kind of airplane”. After he had been told there was no airport on St John and that St Thomas was two kilometres away he was later asked whether he maintained that he flew on to St John and he replied “As I said before, I don't recall specifically.” 

184. He said that he could provide “the graduate materials that I worked on, the work books, the books, that sort of thing. I am happy to pass those along to you.” He said that would be “somewhere between five and ten textbooks”, which were “books that are associated with the class”. When he did provide a book EDS’ solicitors said that Joe Galloway “recalls having this for some time but cannot recall whether he used this as part of any of his studies”. That book was “The Customer Connection” by John Guaspari and bore a barcode, stickers and pencil markings which linked it with the library of the St Charles, Missouri campus of Sanford-Brown College near his current home in St Louis, Missouri and evidently was a recent acquisition. 

185. In fact, as I have said, Sky produced two witness statements from David Phillips, a solicitor from Herbert Smith LLP who visited the US Virgin Islands during the trial and a witness statement from Senator Liston Davis, a US Virgin Islands senator, a former Superintendent of Schools, Commissioner of Education and member of the Board of Education in the US Virgin Islands and the current Chairman of the US Virgin Islands Legislative Committee on Education, Culture and Youth. 

186. This evidence, which was not challenged, showed that there was not and never had been a Concordia College & University on St John; there was not, nor ever had been a Coca Cola office or facility on St John; there was not, nor ever had been an airport on St John and it was not possible to fly onto the island. The closest island, St Thomas, is about two kilometres away. 

187. Sky submit that, as a result, Joe Galloway revealed himself in his evidence to be a person with a wholesale disregard for the truth, entirely willing to lie and to make things up in order to suit his needs. They say that he revealed himself as a man who could lie without any palpable change in his disposition or any outward signs of unease and that he repeatedly perjured himself, deliberately and knowingly seeking to mislead the Court. Sky submit that, overall, the Court cannot but come to the conclusion that Joe Galloway’s evidence as a whole is a complete lie. 

[You can return to the main article here]

Spitting in the Soup - Why BSS implementations fail - Part 1

"Spitting in the soup", or as it is more commonly encountered in French, "cracher dans la soupe", is an expression that is largely confined to the world of professional cycling to describe the behaviour of a cyclist who has revealed the secrets of the peloton, normally in relation to performance enhancing drug-taking. The implication being that by spitting in the ‘soup’, the individual spoils things for everyone else. 

This series of blog posts about the BSS industry will not be revealing secret drug-taking, although you would be forgiven for thinking that the "strategic roadmaps" touted around by some major BSS vendors could only have been created whilst their authors were heavily drugged. The intention of this series is to draw back the veil from what has become over the last 10 years a broken and highly dysfunctional industry, by taking a look at some of the strategies (con tricks to you and me) employed on both sides of the BSS industry.

A rare but illuminating glimpse of what goes on in the industry was provided in the UK courts a few years ago when the BSkyB successfully sued BSS vendor, EDS, for significant damages (£300m+) in relation to a failed BSS replacement project. Such cases are extremely rare in the industry due to the huge corporate embarrassment on both sides of the fence, not to mention the enormous legal costs involved in fighting a protracted dispute in the high court. Normally such scenarios are settled behind closed doors, well away from any courtroom and subject to stern gagging conditions, to prevent the gory details of what has gone wrong being exposed to public (and industry) scrutiny.

The court's full written judgement is freely available here, and although it is a lengthy document (450 pages), it should be compulsory reading for anyone involved in the buying or selling of large scale IT solutions. As well as containing a multitude of fundamental lessons for the various parties to such transactions, the judgment also delivers some highly entertaining passages relating to the Sky counsel's hilarious courtroom demolition of the EDS bid mastermind, Joe Galloway's credibility. 

Highlights of the Case

I have a trimmed the following down to some of the key highlights regarding Mr Galloway - but you can read a verbatim segment of the court judgement regarding Joe Galloway here.

Mr Galloway claims that he attended a College on the Virgin isle of St John.

• Straight away, Mr Galloway was discredited because the College was a 'buy a degree' online sham - the prosecuting QC bought the same degree as Mr Galloway's, from the same college, for his dog Lulu, who even got higher marks!

He proceeded to maintain the lie however stating that;

He would regularly travel to the college by getting a connecting flight to St. Thomas, which is the largest island and then fly to St. John.

• Turns out that whilst there is a runway on St. Thomas, there is no airport/runway on St.John (which is only two kilometers away), nor has there ever been - when pressed he replied "As I said before, I don't recall specifically"

Part of his time and study there was spent working on a project for Coca Cola at Coca Cola facilities

• Evidence provided by a solicitor that travelled to the Island and a US Virgin Isles senator - which was not challenged - showed that, just like the airport/runway, there has never been nor is there a Coca Cola office or facility on the island. No, infact, was/had there ever been a college of the name stated by Mr. Galloway.

He would provide the council with evidence of his time at the college by producing some of the books he used. 

• He did indeed provide the court with a book that he said was from his time spent at the college - it bore the barcode, stickers and pencil markings which linked it with a library on a Missouri college campus and had been recently acquired.

So what does this case tell us?

For those of you who wisely invest the time to read through the entire judgement, a number of striking features of the case will emerge:-

• The breath-taking willingness of the vendor to say and do virtually anything in order to win the business, an approach that can be summed up as "he who lies most, wins". 

• The reliance of the vendor on obscure contractual wording to avoid liability for any such pre-contract (mis)representations.

• The failure of virtually everyone involved in the delivery of the project to follow "normal IT industry" planning, analysis, design, development and testing procedures.

• The overwhelming conclusion that having won the business, the vendor's delivery plan consisted of little more than "winging it".  

Clearly the old maxim caveat emptor was never more appropriate than in the case of the purchase of a BSS solution.

Industry insiders will chuckle to themselves at the constant references in both the Sky ITT document and EDS response document to "world class" this and "world class" that, as though the repeated use of that phrase would somehow on its own guarantee, a well "world class" outcome.  

Now you may be thinking that what happened between Sky and EDS in this case was very much a one-off. Sadly, I have to inform you that the only unique element of the scenario is that it eventually ended up in court. The whole sorry catalogue of vendor misrepresentation, unrealistic operator expectations, inadequate requirement specifications, finger in the air pricing, non-existent resource allocation, unproven solution deployment, inadequate testing etc. etc. is pretty much the norm in the BSS industry for this type of project. I say all credit to Sky for having the balls (and deep pockets) to refuse to accept such woeful service execution from their vendor. 

In my next article - "On The Hook" - I will address the seemingly hopeless plight of most telecoms operators with respect to their existing BSS platform. 

You can read part two of John's article here

John Phillips is the Managing Director for CoralTree Systems.

John’s Code to Success: “I've never been afraid to venture beyond my existing technical skill-set, viewing any such scenarios as fantastic learning opportunities, rather than risks to be avoided. With today’s modern technologies, if a business requirement can be described in words, then it can almost always be developed and delivered.”