Mark Woodward
No. I mean it didn’t in this business or any business. I mean you see competitors come and go and you will see certain quarters where they seem to be strong and then they can just completely fade away. I mean there’s really no — in the second half of this year there’s no change in competitive landscape from the first half of the year. I mean we are not dealing with anything new, any new competitors. In fact the wins we have, the couple I talked about, we competed very well against even installed competitors who beat them. So I don’t, I haven’t felt any real difference in the competitive dynamic at all.
Bavan Suri
Okay, I will jump back in queue. Thanks for taking my questions.
Mark Woodward
Yes.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Scott Childs with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please proceed with your question.
Scott Childs – Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Hi. I had a question; I wanted to drill down into the new upsell bookings revision. The scrubbing, you mentioned there was a scrubbing on the pipeline. I am wondering what was the exact change in the methodology that drove the discrepancy. It seems to be a fairly large change that drove to the kind of the $20 million change in the bookings all of a sudden.
Mark Woodward
Well we have done a couple of things. One we have implemented some new technology that allows us to have I think better view on exactly where we are in a sales cycle based on lot of things — just relationships and milestones in the sales process. I think it’s given us a little — a better way to judge close dates. Because that’s really it’s all about forecasting when a deal is going to close, because these are big complex enterprise deals. And I would also say that in the past we had a methodology where it was more about getting to a number and then building the pipeline of the deals to meet that number as opposed to now forecasting based on when specific transactions are going to close. And I mean it’s just — it’s a different mindset that I think gives us better accuracy. The other methodology worked well for us in the past but it seems that over the last couple of quarters that we haven’t been as good at calling the timing of when deals were going to close. And I think this helps us get better at forecasting the timing of when deals are going to close.
Scott Childs
Okay, got it. So it’s more the pyramid forecasting change rather than sort of any change in the interest on the customer side?
Mark Woodward
Absolutely. It’s not a pipeline issue, it’s a timing issue.
Scott Childs
Okay, got it. And then the second question I had was around the professional services. It seems that it stabilized a bit sequentially. Can we expect Pro Serve to stabilize at this point. Will there be a similar volatility going forward that we saw earlier, late last year?
Peter Baloney
We do expect it to be more stable and we think we’ve turned the corner and a couple of things and the productivity of the team. The one thing I would remind you though is this is the last quarter where you have the non-GAAP effect of the RIM contract amendment. So typically we’ve been adding back about $400,000 a quarter associated with that to get to a non-GAAP number for professional services. That will go away in Q4. So excluding that add-back the business should be pretty consistent.
Scott Childs
Okay, got it. Thanks.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Brendan Barnacle with Pacific Crest Securities. Please proceed with your question.
Brendan Barnacle, Pacific Crest Securities
Thanks guys. Mark in your comments you were saying that the McCormick deal that that was highly competitive. And I was wondering who it was that you were competing against in that situation?
