Back in 1975, G.E.C. (the English General Electric Company, not to be confused with the separate American business, General Electric or G.E.) was an industrial giant. You name it, G.E.C. made it - what we now call a clongomerate, but I don't remember the term being used then. Under the not altogether benign rule of Arnold Weinstock, the business had accumulated cash reserves of over 800 million pounds, then a huge sum (and not to be sniffed at now!).
They'd set their sights on the contract to electrify the main line railway in Taiwan which runs the length of the island from Keelung in the North, through the capital Tai Pei to Kaosiung in the South and after agressive international bidding, they won the contract. The telecommunications part of the contract was farmed out to the Overseas Projects Department at G.E.C. Telecommunications in Coventry. They had world-wide experience in cables, transmission equipment and general telephony. But the project required quite a lot of special-purpose systems for train despatching and maintenance which were outside their normal scope.
So my firm secured a sub-contract to design and supply the special-purpose systems. The requirements in Taiwan were novel, so we had a lot of design work to carry out. But we could adopt some parts of our existing designs and our previous railway experience was invaluable. We were so proud to obtain work from such a prestigious company as G.E.C! We entered a steep learning curve as we discovered just how demanding working for G.E.C. could be but we were also fortunate that the head of Overseas Projects was Eric Hancock. He represented what I regarded as the best of G.E.C. - experienced, competent, thorough, incisive, scrupulous and completely fair. He could also be demanding and infuriating.
I represented my firm at the regular progress and interface meetings chaired by Eric Hancock. Around the table would be representatives from each of the sub-contractors, all much larger firms than mine. Eric would demand brief, cogent answers to a series of well-formulated questions which would quickly test the weak points of any sub-contractor's position. I learnt a lot about business meetings from watching Eric, the expert ringmaster. He detested obfuscation and empty rhetoric and he could be scathing in interrogating the people around the table. I was amazed at how badly-prepared a lot of the attendees were and how they attempted to conceal their ignorance with "waffle". I learned to be prepared with facts, tell the truth briefly and admit it when I didn't have answers. To my surprise and relief, this seemed the magic formula and I seemed to get off very lightly compared with others at the meetings.
Eric would press to obtain undertakings about what would be achieved by what date and it was wise to ensure that what was promised was done. Woe betide those who failed in this respect, because Eric would have carefully recorded each undertaking in the minutes which were circulated. He would push for his "pound of flesh" and would examine each commercial agreement to ensure that what had been agreed was provided. But he was not unreasonable and if you could show that some work he required was not within your scope, he would discuss an extra payment to be made.
Although I had great respect for the man, his intransigence could be infuriating. I remember one occasion when he refused point-blank to pay a very considerable sum owing to us until I credited VAT amounting to, I think eighteen pence. I explained that the discrepancy had accumulated over a long series of invoices from individual 'rounding errors' in calculating the VAT. The methods used were in accordance with the VAT regulations. He would have none of it. His method of calculation gave different 'rounding errors' and that was it. He got his credit note, we got our cheque.
I learned a lot from Eric over that, and subsequent contracts for G.E.C. When he passed away, some years later, I was surprised to find myself devastated. All disagreements forgotten, I remember him only with fondness.
