This is of course one side of the story so who knows.<p>>“Hertz raised this issue directly with Accenture. In response, Accenture’s project
leader replied that ‘we felt that creating a generic base and extending Hertz from that would have been less useful and less productive,’” the lawsuit states.<p>If true it seems like there maybe should have been some communication as far as what was going on before later on you tell the customer "oh by the way we thought your was a bad idea so we did something other than what you're paying us for".<p>>The firm even convinced Hertz to buy a license for RAPID, a program it said would help streamline the development of a new content management system. However, once Hertz bought the license, the firm admitted it did not know how to use RAPID.<p>That's another one where you have to wonder where communication went terribly wrong.<p>Anyway if you're a big company like Hertz, this is why you have an in house team and staff so you can keep this stuff under control and not blow 32 mil and go to court with squat. Once you farm it out, you ultimately do not know what is going on.<p>Even just a small-ish in house staff with visibility should be able to see "hey they're not using this RAPID thing at all" or "this won't work for other sites" long before you blow through deadlines and walk away with squat and -32 million.
I'd wager Accenture is at fault but what a dinosaur Hertz is, outsourcing this and failing. They should outsource the CEO & board too, clearly they are too incompetent to manage a modern company and brand.