I said that "JBI was totally dishonest on some lev
Post# of 43066
Posted On: 08/24/2014 6:42:38 PM
I said that "JBI was totally dishonest on some level", and myself and Paperprophet disagree on the SAIC Summary. I respect PP's knowledge, but he is wrong on this one. I have worked for 3 or 4 EPCM firms, and have in fact worked with these documents as part of project teams. I have contributed to them. That pretty much makes me an expert in this area.
Remember, we are talking about a document (the SAIC Summary) that was released on the internet. It did not come from JBI or SAIC. They were dishonest in one or several of the following ways:
- they did not provide adequate training or a good work environment to the people who had access to the documents. These documents are confidential between SAIC and JBI and should not be released in the public domain. I have had the chance many times in the past to publish this kind of thing. There is a fairly small group of people that would have access to it, so it would be more damaging to me than any possible gain I could take from doing that.
- They created the Summary outright. Maybe SAIC did a 3-day audit.
- They embellished the actual report, adding in details about the profitability for example.
- Whether they created the Summary and leaked the document or someone else did, they obliquely referred to it in a press release, indirectly giving it authenticity. It would have been better for them to do nothing.
The simple fact is that if the claims were true, the company would be able to run the machines profitably. The work was done on Unit #2, but that does not change the fundamental properties when it comes to profitability.
The other truth is that SAIC, or any EPCM for that matter, would not simply churn out positive results based on input from the customer in order to make money. In this matter PP is wrong. Consulting firms make money based on Billing Ratios. There is more than enough work right now to keep them all busy. They do not need to take on something which will tarnish their reputation. In the long run though, these EPCM firms have professional reputations that would be damaged beyond repair if they published reports that are misleading.
So it is a simple matter of deductive reasoning. A Sherlock Holmes thing.
If the claims with respect to profitability were true, JBI would be profitable. They are not true.
If SAIC published that report and came up with those numbers, then they believe in them. They would either be grossly incompetent or stupid. They are neither. Therefore they did not come up with the profitability numbers.
Therefore I conclude that someone created that SAIC Summary based on some work that was actually done at JBI and leaked it on the Internet. I don't know the extent of JBI's involvement. JBI was at least dishonest then, in referring to it and calling attention to it. They should have just ignored it.
There are lots of things that don't make sense in that document. I have posted on this before.
I don't backpedal. All that comes from that is a lot of spin.
Remember, we are talking about a document (the SAIC Summary) that was released on the internet. It did not come from JBI or SAIC. They were dishonest in one or several of the following ways:
- they did not provide adequate training or a good work environment to the people who had access to the documents. These documents are confidential between SAIC and JBI and should not be released in the public domain. I have had the chance many times in the past to publish this kind of thing. There is a fairly small group of people that would have access to it, so it would be more damaging to me than any possible gain I could take from doing that.
- They created the Summary outright. Maybe SAIC did a 3-day audit.
- They embellished the actual report, adding in details about the profitability for example.
- Whether they created the Summary and leaked the document or someone else did, they obliquely referred to it in a press release, indirectly giving it authenticity. It would have been better for them to do nothing.
The simple fact is that if the claims were true, the company would be able to run the machines profitably. The work was done on Unit #2, but that does not change the fundamental properties when it comes to profitability.
The other truth is that SAIC, or any EPCM for that matter, would not simply churn out positive results based on input from the customer in order to make money. In this matter PP is wrong. Consulting firms make money based on Billing Ratios. There is more than enough work right now to keep them all busy. They do not need to take on something which will tarnish their reputation. In the long run though, these EPCM firms have professional reputations that would be damaged beyond repair if they published reports that are misleading.
So it is a simple matter of deductive reasoning. A Sherlock Holmes thing.
If the claims with respect to profitability were true, JBI would be profitable. They are not true.
If SAIC published that report and came up with those numbers, then they believe in them. They would either be grossly incompetent or stupid. They are neither. Therefore they did not come up with the profitability numbers.
Therefore I conclude that someone created that SAIC Summary based on some work that was actually done at JBI and leaked it on the Internet. I don't know the extent of JBI's involvement. JBI was at least dishonest then, in referring to it and calling attention to it. They should have just ignored it.
There are lots of things that don't make sense in that document. I have posted on this before.
I don't backpedal. All that comes from that is a lot of spin.
(0)
(0)