High court: Tony Collins reveals some of the fiery e-mail evidence
in the United Assurance/Unisys action
In a High Court action, United Assurance is claiming a £14m refund
over the cancellation of the project involving Unisys' flagship
insurance product Unisure.
The case has highlighted many fiery internal e-mails, leading the
judge in the case to comment, "One thing one learns from this case
is the trap which e-mails can lead you into." Reproduced here are
some examples of the e-mails and other comments.
The case continues at the Technology Court.
Internal e-mail from Sandy Davison, now vice-president and general
manager of the worldwide insurance programme for Unisys, to senior
management, referring to the need for a solution to Unisure's
scalability problems: "The danger if we don't act quickly is that
this issue becomes public knowledge."
Internal e-mail from Ian Leavey, principal in the insurance
practice division of Unisys, to Davison, then director of the
division. It is headed "Frustration" and says: "We should not have
been manoeuvred into working with the USA - we were overcommitted
in UK and Europe."
In a reference to salespeople chasing contracts that come to
nothing, it says: "Old Unisys prevails - prima donnas make demands,
commitments etc without consultation and therefore we cannot follow
through (deliver) the present situation at United can be traced
back to the pressure on both Ross [Ross Morrell, business
development manager at Unisys] and me to chase new opportunities at
a crucial time - Ross should have been selling into the board and
senior management [at United and internally in Unisys] and I should
have been focused on project management When will people stop and
listen to the experience my team has built up over the past three
to five years - it could be lost at a stroke."
He added, "We must get Unisure right," and efforts must be made to
"try and avert the loss of IS Europe's jewel in the crown
[Unisure]".
E-mail from Morrell (business development manager at Unisys to
Davison, then director of Unisys Insurance Practice): "I know you
are aware of the brewing issue at United Friendly re scalability.
Let me add a penny worth - it is a serious credibility black hole
which as yet only Helen Potts [project manager at United] knows
about in detail; but she feels obliged to escalate it as soon as
she has the facts.
"She is talking next week and at the moment all the facts say
'we've been conned' to her."
E-mail from Stuart Allan, project manager at Unisys, to Daryl
Smith, architecture manager at Unisys, relating to the steps taken
at Unisys to ensure the scalability of Unisure: "I feel like the
recipient of a particularly dodgy car sold by an even dodgier
second-hand dealer. When I get it home I find it cannot go at the
speeds I was promised, cannot carry any passengers and when I want
it fixed I am told that the dealer would love to help but the
mechanics have their heads stuck under other bonnets for some time
to come.
"Where do you think my budget and time is going to come from to do
this work [relating to scalability and archiving]?"
Verbal evidence
In evidence to the High Court about the
relationship between Unisys and United Allan said, "I think United
were under a lot of pressure in their business areas and within
IT... when we asked for resources to do testing, it was like
pulling teeth getting people out of the business areas because they
were very severely stretched.
"They had more work than they could probably handle".
Leavey said in evidence to the High Court, "I think through working
with United I learned that for one thing the level of competence of
their staff was low. United managed in an environment of fear and
blame culture..."
Davison said in evidence, "Really as far as I can remember United
was one long negotiation, one long conversation.
"We never really got to discussing the nub of their business
problems, which I felt we did with other customers."
He added later, "The whole exercise from beginning to end was one
of almost negotiation, and always requests for getting fixed price
and fixed dates.
"That was what they were always after, and me really saying: 'We
are not prepared to offer those'."
Unisys argued in court that some of the e-mails used deliberately
strong language in a bid to get response from management. In some
cases, employees made claims that they might not have had they had
more information.
Davison said that he did not agree with the contents of some of the
e-mails, which were presented as evidence.
Tony Collins
tony.collins@rbi.co.uk