Re: It's the Software Assurance ... isn't it? ( was A possible non-fowardlooking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap)
- From: DerekUK <google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 May 2007 18:11:02 -0700
On May 2, 12:06 am, Steve Tyrakowski <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1178058043.572806.253...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
DerekUK wrote:
I find the comment about SA not causing any revenue recognition
issues a little Mystifing. Why I say that is when there were/are some
delays in D2007 Win32 fulfillment to SA customers one of the reasons
given was new/strange accounting requirements .
My impression was that because of the new accounting rules that went
into effect, that in order to get them recorded properly, there was a
manual procedure needed to be implemented to get the accounting side of
things mechanically entered correctly.
I recall Codegear saying they are working to automate the process. Give
the accounting folks a break. It's enough of a mountain of work to get
the new systems organized to deal with accounting for Codegear as its
own entity. Add to that implementing Electronic Delivery for the first
time. Then you add new accounting rules that you have to deal with
outside experts to understand, and there's gonna be a lot of pain trying
to optimize your procedures and systems.
For as bad as some folks want to make it look, I'm very impressed with
how much they've accomplished in such a short time. I don't know how
many of you have been closely involved in implementing a major
accounting system conversion, but it's not pretty. Things can't just
stop to do the conversion, there's usually lots and lots of double work
involved. And I'm not just talking about parallel testing. You've often
got one foot in the new world and one foot that feels like it's stuck in
quicksand in the old world.
Steve Tyrakowski
I have worked In a previous Job on a Financial Systems Change over
where customer numbers were in the Millions and we had a Plethora of
UK Government regulations to contend with. So I wasn't been critical
per se of how it was handled, I know how fraught it can be and I
wasn't been critical of the accounts staff trying to resolve the
issues.
I was just pointing out the reasoning that SA doesn't cause any
revenue recognition issues doesn't seem to be the case at the moment
at least and thus hence I was a little mystified.
In fact how can it have less revenue recognition issues compared with
New Licenses & Upgrades as it stands now ? If there is no forward
looking information and some one buys the item within the Quarter
concerned it should be able to be apportioned in full for that
quarter. In the Case of SA its surely going to have to be apportioned
across the term of the Agreement in some form ( monthly/quarterly
etc ).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: A possible non-foward looking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap
- From: Rich Davis
- Re: A possible non-foward looking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap
- From: Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
- It's the Software Assurance ... isn't it? ( was A possible non-foward looking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap)
- From: Michael Anonymous
- Re: It's the Software Assurance ... isn't it? ( was A possible non-fowardlooking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap)
- From: Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
- Re: It's the Software Assurance ... isn't it? ( was A possible non-fowardlooking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap)
- From: DerekUK
- Re: It's the Software Assurance ... isn't it? ( was A possible non-fowardlooking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap)
- From: Steve Tyrakowski
- Re: A possible non-foward looking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap
- Prev by Date: Re: It's the Software Assurance ... isn't it? ( was A possible non-fowardlooking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap)
- Next by Date: Re: The new website is awesome!
- Previous by thread: Re: It's the Software Assurance ... isn't it? ( was A possible non-fowardlooking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap)
- Next by thread: Re: It's the Software Assurance ... isn't it? ( was A possible non-fowardlooking statement that could take the placeof a roadmap)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|