Question. Was this an a-hole move?

[mrspeedmaster]

So we lost a medium size client to another firm. The other firm wanted to migrate all their data and asset to a similar app server we are running. They gave us a portable raid drive to copy the data over. Well, I formatted it in a XFS (SGI Unix) filesystem/partition map. Rsync all the data over. Well, this "other firm" claimed to be running the same type of UNIX servers we are running. Our File server is running on a XFS file system. So I copied the data into a XFS file system and handed it over to them. However, I knew they were bluffing. They're mostly a Windows NT shop that dabbles with a little bit of Linux. They expected me to copy it to a NTFS or Mac HFS+ drive. Yeah. Sure. Guess what, they claimed they got a corrupted drive. Reformatted it somehow because they couldn't mount the data. I said, that wasn't my problem. My comment, "It was an exact copy of what we had we stored the files for the client. It was on a Unix filesystem so they can rsynch it back to their servers to maintain meta-data and file permissions. I'm sorry if your new firm can't tell the difference between a UNIX file system that they're suppose to be running the same type of servers we are running" Ooops. That was a $15,000 mistake on their part. They should have tried to mount it on their server or a UNIX workstation. Now they want another copy. Well, for me to pull it our of tape archive is gonna cost another $4,000.

 

[TheyCallMeBT]

While I don't work in IT per se, I do pretty much understand everything you said. And I'd say no, not an @$$hole move at all. They said that they used the same type of file system as you, and you gave them exactly what they asked for. And they even admitted in writing that they overwrote the disk by formatting it, right?

Was it in your contract with the client that you would have to provide the data if they started using someone else?

More importantly, did the company poach your client, or was it an honest move initiated by the client themself?

 

[mrspeedmaster]

Not in contract regarding who owns the data. It was a courtesy move for the client. It is their data. They didn't poach the client. The client changes firms every few years. Yes, the other firm admitted in an email they had to reformat the drive to send-back to us.

 

[TheyCallMeBT]

Well it sounds like a major part of whatever kind of business this is involves maintaining data. So if they can't know about standards in their own line of work and either correctly tell you what they need, or be able to work around what they are given-- then that's their fault. Maybe they will learn something from it, but if you have to do the same thing again, then yeah, they should have to pay something for your company's time. If $4k is an appropriate amount for that work, then I'd have no qualms about it.

I've had somewhat similar situations working with PR firms. I'll work directly with a client, who is having a video production coordinated by the PR firm sometimes. In one situation, I had finished the videos, and gotten them approved, and was ready to give the PR firm the final product. So I asked what specs they needed (file container, codec, resolution, bit rate, etc). The lady answered just one of the questions and said it needed to be flash.. which really got me no where. So I told her again the exact settings that I needed to be told, and asked her to ask whoever at her company is in charge of placing the videos on the website they were directly making for the client. It ended up taking like two months before they came up with a solid answer, and even then the specs didn't make sense in regards to resolution (which must be even numbers) and aspect ratio. So I gave them the closest I could to what they asked for and told them why and that that's what they were going to get from me.

I was working for and being paid directly by the client, so I didn't charge anything extra. And I wouldn't have anyway, but it really didn't take any extra time up. And they paid me upon approval, without waiting until I gave the firm the final product, so they did right by me.

 

[9to5cynic]

Nope. Not an A-hole move at all. Especially if they claimed that they supported that feature. I'd sent it over, then when the former client complained, I'd say forward it to /dev/null