There are several new data points this week in the ongoing cratering of IBM as an IT vendor. The state of Pennsylvania cancelled an unemployment compensation system contract that was 42 months behind and $60 million over budget. Big Blue has been banned from the Australian state of Queensland after botching a $6.9 million SAP project that will now reportedly cost the people of Queensland $A1.2 billion to fix. That’s some botch. Credit Suisse analyst Kulbinder Garcha says IBM has a cash flow problem and downgraded the stock. At IBM’s Systems & Technology Group, management announced to employees a one week mandatory furlough at the end of August or beginning of September. And finally, I’m told that there is now a filter on the IBM corporate e-mail system that flags any messages that contain the word Cringely.
I’m flattered.
These are acts of desperation and I can only conclude that IBM can no longer make the decisions necessary to save itself. It is so fixated on its goals and so sure its process is the only right way of doing things, it cannot see alternatives.
The Australian IT project debacle is a classic example of IBM’s unique way of managing projects. The core of project management is “documented deniability.” They will do exactly what you tell them. They will document it. They will work against the documented requirements. When done, you have to pay them because they did exactly what you told them. The key problem to this approach is “does it work?”
The ultimate goal of every project is to build something that produces value or income. A factory makes products. A bridge assists transportation. In IBM’s project management IBM does not care about the ultimate goal. That is their customers concern, not IBM’s. This is very important for IBM’s customers to understand. It is the reason so many big IBM projects are failing.
This is the way IBM historically does its business, even in better times. Remember the mantra has always been to fulfill customer requirements. But somewhere along the line the whole idea went horribly, horribly wrong.
IBM will sell you hardware, software, programming, and support services. What you do with it is your responsibility.
When a highway department wants to build a bridge, there are both stated and unstated requirements. The project manager and engineers start with the stated requirements and find and analyze all the unstated requirements. A highway department will have a general idea where the bridge should be built. In the analysis the bridge building firm may discover important reasons to build the bridge in a different location. The firm will look at traffic patterns and recommend and optimal design to meet the highway departments ultimate requirement — to make long term improvements in transportation.
If IBM built that bridge, they’d build it exactly where the highway department suggested and how they suggested. If the foundation was weak the the bridge started to tilt, it’s not IBM’s fault. You told them where to build the bridge. They did what you told them. They also never analyzed every aspect of your requirements. They did no testing. They did no prototyping. They just do what you tell them to.
They fulfilled customer requirements.
Fixated solely on its 2015 earnings target, IBM is making decisions based solely on their balance sheet. They are ignoring and damaging the overall operation of their business. They have the time and the money to save the company. Yet they are doing more and more things that are ultimately destructive to the very survival of IBM.
So far this year IBM has:
1) Frozen employee 401k contributions until the end of the year — those still employed will get their contributions Dec 15th.
2) Pushed back any sort of pay rise from the typical Jul period until the end of the year — no pay rise for even their top performers as rated on the 2012 year.
3) Forced their STG employees on a 33% salary 1 week vacation (apparently contractors get 0% pay for 2 weeks mandatory leave).
Typically their rounds of Resource Actions (or whatever positively spun phrase they have coined for layoffs) hit the low end staff, those that consistently fall to the bottom of the pile at PBC time etc.
Interestingly with the above 3 measurements the employee’s being hurt the most are the one’s IBM should be desperately trying to retain. Of all the former co-workers I’ve talked to this week those either impartial or modestly happy with the furloughs are the one’s that fall middle to bottom of the stack. The top performers however are increasingly frustrated and even those I never thought would talk about leaving are doing just that.
Considering a huge number of STG employees impacted are in the Research Triangle area of NC where there is a heavy tech presence I wouldn’t be surprised to see only those employees IBM really doesn’t want to lose jumping ship, leaving an already dwindling and suffering US workforce to contend without the people that could always be counted on to do the work.
I don’t doubt IBM will make it to 2015 as a company, but I wonder what the caliber of their US workforce will be.
Oh well, at least there’ll be plenty of new hires from the “emerging markets” to do the work. Because that’s been working out so well…
Hi,
Regarding your comment on emerging markets, I am a high performer (1 rater as they call it in IBM) for the last 3 years in IBM India.
Some points that I have noticed over the last 8 years of my career at IBM India :
1) No smart engineer in India wants to work for IBM. It has a reputation of workplace with lazy, flexible work
environment that is often abused by employees.. WFH is not Work from home .. it is famously called “work for home” here.
We have such a hard time hiring anybody who can THINK. That is the reason why US folks struggle to work with us.
2) No tea/coffee.. No two-wheeler fuel reimbursement.. broadband re-imbursement amount keeps reducing every year. This year, pay hikes have been pushed out by a quarter..
3) This company has a culture of hiring and retaining managers with very low or zero technical understanding of work. In fact, I know of cases of low skilled technical employees who were offered managerial positions.
To the best of my knowledge, IBM is the only place where this happens.
4) No company has transferred jobs to emerging markets without proper knowledge transfer at the pace at which IBM is doing it. I dont think other companies are stupid to have not thought of it.
4) Lastly, everybody here realises that we cannot survive without the US folks (I have only worked with US folks so far, but these comments can be extended to other countries as well). We do not have the skill or understanding to make things work.. This is related to the 1st point that I mentioned above…
It is matter of time when even we will be let go, simply because we cannot make great products without smart folks like you. The remaining average to high-skilled people here are already making their exit plans to escape the humiliation of inevitable lay-offs (including me)
My sincere regrets to people who have been RA’ed and hope that they find better jobs outside.
3 – Hiring/promoting managers with zero technical knowledge.
Trust me mate – it happens in other companies too and across all industries.
4 – No company has transferred jobs to emerging markets without proper knowledge transfer at the pace at which IBM is doing it. I dont think other companies are stupid to have not thought of it.
Ever heard of RBS . . . ?
IBM to Move 110K Retirees Onto Health Exchanges
http://investorplace.com/investorpolitics/ibm-to-move-110k-retirees-onto-health-exchanges/
I agree with your statement on emerging markets, just change India with China, and here you go. One thing different is that they are hiring language graduates (English, Japanese, etc.) then train them on the job, because there just simply far too few compter sicence graduates who can speak a second language other than Manderin. I can’t even imagine when US and Indian (yes, they support us as well) supports got RA’ed in the end…
The entire India STG team feels hurt with the last RAs impacting US workforce. I can assure you that there is no feeling of “getting more work” here, and in contrast people would like to show solidarity with their US counterparts. There is no doubt that the US team that heavily contributed to the growth of IBM brand so far is very essential for the survival of the company.
Cutting US workforce is like shutting engines of an aircraft midair to save operating costs. It sure helps in the short term.. but you are a gliding aircraft and it is only a matter of time before a disaster strikes you.
I hope IBM execs realize the gravity of the situation an act selflessly. You can not run the company with new hires from emerging markets. If it was as easy why would not the exec and cxo positions be moved to emerging markets 😉
I can sense the morale of US workforce dropping, and I can sense the engineers in the emerging markets also on the look for a job in a more sensible company.
It is funny that a tech company 2015 roadmap is eps of $20. It seems we do everything it takes to get us there even if it means killing the smart workforce, which is being looked as an expense.
Very well said, I fully agree with the above comments. The clueless stg managers are walking through the corridors chanting “ALL IS WELL” and showing a ppt that has a 5+ years product roadmap … while the smarter employees are making an exit. I wonder what would happen to the non-performers who grew so far by being loyal to managers. I do not even want to think about what would happen to the managers, who are technically challenged (not all, but most of them) and not fit in the outside industry.
It is this very set of people who encouraged a low performance work culture here in India. The low performers who were loyal to the managers were rewarded and the high performers who come with some attitude were penalized. They were cutting the branch in which they were relaxing. Now the fun begins.
VERY INSIGHTFUL!!!!!
Well thought out!!
Your IBM stories are quite interesting and should give pause to anyone considering investing in IBM or seeking a job there. It reminds me of how EDS seemed to work 20 years ago (per my wife’s experience) and look where they are now (sucked into the bowels of the new HP that also seems to be in a slow death spiral).
I was recruited into Andersen Consulting about 20 years ago as an experienced hire as a systems analyst and designer for building manufacturing systems.
The day I walked into the place a strange ripple ran up my spine. I soon learned how they, and other big consulting firms worked:
1) A high profile, power type senior partner sells the project
2) Once the contract is signed, the partner gets on a plane to sell to another company, mean while a school bus pulls up and a lot of young, bright, attractive, but inexperienced kids pile off.
3) For the first half of the project nothing gets done because nobody knows anything, while acting like they know everything and so they fight to determine who’s going to be the chiefs and who is going to be the Indians.
4) A last minute scramble takes place on the last half, to last third of the project, to get something of a ‘deliverable’ completed.
5) Their real “core competencies” was to some how make the failed project turn out to be unavoidable, yet still no one’s fault. Client management often buys into this because they are on the hook for making the crappy decision to hire the consultants.
The industry suffers from a lack of cohesion, which might have produced acceptable standards, like the construction industry appears to have – but perhaps part of the reason has to do with the rapid pace of change in technology. But every decade new has a new set of terms and spins on methodologies. But they I don’t think that they’ve actually changed in substance. You still have to do requirements gathering, model your existing environment, then model the future target environment, then design in detail around that target, then develop, test and roll out.
Another thing: good project managers are like good salesman – its an innate skill that has to do with knowing how to manage people, especially technical people. But too often it’s seen as a vertical rank, and so you get ambitious people who not only don’t know how to manage people, but quite often hate people, to say nothing about trying to provide some constructive usefulness to clients and the economy overall. Sadly, this is what has happened to IBM as an organization.
And the cause for the problems at both IBM and Andersen Consulting were exactly the same – focus on short-term profits at the expense of building a productive business.
IBM wants to make the bankers on Wall Street happy with their 2015 profit goals, and to hell with the business.
The partners at [Accenture / Andersen / the Big 4 / name your own consulting firm] want to pick up the largest amount of cash at the partner payout party, and forget the idea of actually cooperating with the customer to build something productive and useful.
In both cases, simple things like good project management are sacrificed to increase the profits of a few guys who wear white shoes.
Points 1) and 2) above can be summed up as “Bait and Switch”. See the 2nd cartoon in the link below.
http://search.dilbert.com/comic/Bait%20And%20Switch
I also remember a comedian summing up Accenture (or Andersen’s and the were then) as “They get the foot in the door, and then they brick up the door” 🙂
I made quite a living back in the day cleaning up the mess Ass Enter nee Anderson Consulting left in its wake. Fast forward to the present and substitute Infosys and Satyam for Andersen. Plus ca change and all that.
It should be a wake-up call to the Govt deciding IBM’s objection to Amazon winning the CIA cloud contract. It shows CIA and GAO review were correct in assessing IBM’s technical abilities and unanticipated costs.
It is almost painful to read some of IBM’s claims the other day about their cloud experience “Years” – fact, IBM’s commercial offering is only 4 years to Amazons. IBM’s largest customer is itself as part of internal cost cutting. IBM has been playing catch up to Amazon (AWS) for years.
IBM’s claim “40 years experience with virtualized environments”, how does main frame MVS/VM operating systems count the same as VMware? That’s stretching the truth.
IBM sales adage “I never tell a lie, but, I never tell the truth”?
These very things (in all the C reports on IBM) are being mirrored in the Federal Aviation Administration. In the past 6 years or so the IT abilities have been gutted and key positions in Tech have been relocated to HQ to be filled by less technically knowledgeable people. Cronyism? I can’t say.
What I can confirm is that, during this same time, every hair brained new project used IBM as primary case studies of why it should be done.
I was happy to have the time in to retire before the top levels collapsed because of the hollow foundation.
https://www.brw.com.au/p/tech-gadgets/each_must_take_some_rejects_payroll_Xqmi9myRmeZbSJ5sJhX96O
Each way bet: IBM rejects payroll inquiry conclusions but concedes it must take ‘some responsibility’
And… IBM survival is very important isn’t it ? For whom by the way ? Oh, I see, yes, the customers. And who else ? You ? Of course, you’re banned. Ah, also, for as long as it is news. Is IBM news ? Since when ?
Bob,
Congratulations on your admission into the IBM “email rogues gallery”. You join a long list of people over the years, starting with Jerry Churchhouse.
A very inciteful comment on the unique aspects of customer solution engineering and project management in IBM. The old saying from Bob Howe (as endorsed by the CEO) was “if it’s not in the contract in writing it;s charity to be charged to you” if you even think of doing something extra for the customer/client!. As an engineering, architect, manager and executive, I found this unsettling for one who wanted to get things done right (even ethically) but how you describe it has been the case as long as the finance people run the asylum. As long as finance and legal run the circus!
The elephant has gotten hit with a bullet hole between the eyes years ago and is dead, but it just keeps moving primarily on the inertia of the brand blinded customers impressed by the ghosts of IBMers who really cared to get the job done right at any cost decades ago, now long gone and fired. It’s just going to take a few more years for all of us and the leaches riding it to realize it’s dead.
Yes, here in Queensland I’ve been following the Queensland Health payroll mess with interest. IBMs latest excuse is that requirements were not properly articulated and a fixed scope was not committed to. I’m sure the blame can be spread to all parties. Whistle Blowers on the radio have been heavily critical of the tender process that gave IBM this work.
This fits with what you say about IBM following requirements to the letter without regard for the customer and the end product.
Legislators are starting to demand answers
———————————————————————
Assemblyman Kieran Michael Lalor
For Immediate Release
August 7, 2013
Contact: Chris Covucci – (845) 309-2654
Lalor: IBM Owes the Hudson Valley Answers
Statement on IBM Furlough Announcement from Assemblyman Kieran Michael Lalor (R,C,I – Fishkill)
“Coming so soon after IBM’s June layoffs, the furlough announcement is frightening news for many Dutchess County families. In this battered economy, families can’t afford another hit. IBM, owes the Hudson Valley answers about it’s long-term commitment to the region. IBM has been a critical part of our local economy for decades. In return, Dutchess County and New York State have provided IBM with valuable, sometimes controversial, tax benefits. We deserve answers.”
“IBM also needs to explain whether they have tried to issue furloughs at their overseas facilities before they began furloughs at domestic plants. IBM has received hundreds of millions in tax benefits from New York. Those benefits should come with more transparency from the company. We need facts and figures on the jobs those subsidies supposedly create or retain. We need to know their long-term plans.”
“The Hudson Valley is vulnerable because of it’s long reliance on IBM. We need to get serious about changing the way we treat businesses in New York. While states like Texas are booming, New York leads the nation in layoffs so far this year. We’ve lost 59,200 jobs, more than twice any other state. Clearly, Albany has made a mess of our economy. So far, Governor Cuomo has no answers as we continue to bleed jobs. His START-UP NY program will cost the state $100 million a year and bring in few, if any new jobs. He has raised energy taxes that drive manufacturers like IBM out of the state. We need a new direction. Lower taxes and smart regulatory reform will go a long way to getting New York back on track. This latest grim announcement from IBM should be a wake-up call.”
People in Duchess County just need to look up Route 17 to Endicott to see how much IBM cares about the communities they operate in.
No need to go that far. Drive through Kingston
https://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/06/02/news/doc51aaaca35cab1817278186.txt
In 1955, IBM opened the doors of its town of Ulster plant, built on what previously was the Boice Farm.
In 1985, the computer giant occupied 2.5 million square feet in Ulster and employed 7,100 people there.
But just 10 years later, it shut its doors “with devastating consequences for Kingston’s and Ulster County’s economies, as well as the lives of thousands of white- and blue-collar workers,” according to a synopsis provided by Ward Mintz, one of the organizers of an upcoming exhibit about IBM sponsored by the group Friends of Historic Kingston.
Look at the legacy IBM left behind. https://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/fsibmkin.htm
What happened to IBM’s “Basic Beliefs”?
1. Employees
2. Community
3. Shareholders
Now it is.
1. Executive Compensation
2. Executive Compensation
3. Executive Compensation
Accomplished by “OUTSOURCING” jobs to China and India.
Yes, and I remember how blind politicians were in the 1980s thinking what a great asset it was to have IBM in the Mid Hudson Valley. Of course my favorite quote from the 1980s was from Dutchess County executive Lucille Pattison who said “We may be a one horse town, but our horse is a Thoroughbred.” Back in the days of “full employment” everyone was fat, dumb and happy. We don’t need to attract other companies to the area because we have IBM.
Lack of diversification hurt the Valley in the 1990s up to today. Engineers left the area or ended up commuted 50+ miles downstate to White Plains or NYC because there weren’t any good paying jobs locally outside IBM. What about Linuo, the big Chinese company that bought the West Campus of IBM East Fishkill? They’ve done nothing to develop the property and just pay rent. So much for job creation.
Correction – I meant Linuo paying taxes, not rent. Either way, the deal to bring jobs to the Valley was a dud.
https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20130423/OPINION/304230036/Editorial-Linuo-needs-realistic-plan-site?nclick_check=1
At least the Endicott-Binghamton, NY area has a diversified economy with several defense contractors (Lockheed Martin, Link Flight Simulation, BEA, etc.). The Mid Hudson Valley is still mostly (but less so after the layoffs spanning the last 20 years) an IBM community or a bedroom community for Metro North commuters into Manhattan.
Dutchess County and the State of New York can’t even get the employee headcount numbers from IBM since the numbers are supposedly “competitive” and “sensitive”. It is this only in IBM’s jaundiced eyes.
Good Luck, Kieran. Ask Greg Ball what the IBM employment number is. IBM didn’t tell him. Better yet ask Governor Andrew Cuomo to see if he has a clue about how many employed by IBM in NY State where PILOT and generous property tax breaks are given to appease IBM. Supposedly IBM has to ensure a number of employment (i.e. jobs) to qualify for these State programs.
IBM sounds like an aircraft trying to fly.
Increasing profits is just the same as flying higher.
As the speed slows, that is less business for IBM, you need to pull up to keep that altitude; more to increase profits. Working the air harder.
But there comes a point where you’re going too slow for the wings to give you lift.
IBM is going to stall.
continuing with that analogy… once into that stall we’re gonna go rapidly past incipient spin into a full spin… most of the qualified folks who could recover us from that spin have either escaped to better jobs or have been fired. Within a sickeningly short period of time we’ll be nothing more than a big smoking hole in the ground. And as with any such accident the seeds were sown a long time ago – literally years ago – the rot has been growing for a long time now.
>>And finally, I’m told that there is now a filter on the IBM corporate e-mail system
>>that flags any messages that contain the word Cringely.
Bob – my congratulations. I can share that your e-mails are still getting through the corporate e-mail system (at least in my part of the world) – so they’re not blocked as such, but then again you used the word ‘flags’. That concerns me (nah, not really – I’m past caring) that the corporate thought police will be on to me and like minded IBMers – how dare we follow you, how dare we want to know what the hell is happening to our once great company – we should be happy being kept in the dark and fed BS. After all that is the IBM way. What with the furloughs, Credit Suisse analysis around free cash flow, sinking stock price and regular news of yet more failed IBM projects (and don’t forget the RA’s which have happened already this year and the more yet to come over the coming months) I’d suggest IBM is rapidly approaching a critical point in its once proud history. At current course and speed things will implode soon – either that or we’ll have a regime change – though I’m not sure the board has the guts to get rid of Rometty. Keep the articles coming – it’s good that between your posts and the Alliance website us IBMers have at least some voice and mechanism to share our thoughts with the wider community.
Speaking of Flags, it’s been several years since I worked at Big Blow and whenever I got a new notebook, I ran msconfig to see what they were loading up and always found 2 or 3 services with NO names or path – so of course being a good IBM citizen, I eliminated them since I do NOT want anything like a virus running on my machine. Of course none of the tech support people knew anything about them, always wondered if they truly are that paranoid that they would log stuff on employees machines in such a transparent manner.
Pot, kettle, black. 🙂
You have to be careful laying the blame at the feet of IBM. If the government entity did not issue the correct type of contract for the work (fixed price vs cost plus, term vs completion, performance based vs traditional SOW) and manage the contract properly, then you have the true root cause of the problem. IBM behaved like any vendor would: do what the contract required and follow the technical instructions given. If they did not, they risked incurring costs that would not be reimbursed or been accused of doing things to force change orders and drive the price up.
No, I am not saying IBM is blameless. I am saying you have to look at the whole ecosystem surrounding the projects.
government… or any big operation which has more VPs than is needed for a golf foursome… is not going to get specifications right at all, whatsoever, on the first go-around. this is the origin of “scope creep.” all sorts of semi-associated effects are going to be discovered accidentally as the project, any project, begins to chase the fabled buy-in. everybody wants their pretty dingus hung on the side of the box in a bag.
if project planning is not able to work with the implementers to sort through the growing demands, and get them in before the serious work gets underway and the project is locked down, it’s doomed.
so what we have here in The New IBM is a billing machine, pure and simple.
it’s not limited to IBM. in a previous life, broadcasting, the outfit I was with had Control Data building a new traffic system to replace logbooks, Flip-A-Files with little cardboard strips holding the broadcast and ad schedule, and manual correlation of the as-aired logbooks to billing and make-goods. in the end, a district judge ordered CD to take back the hardware and pay back almost a half million dollars. for a little ten-bucks-a-holler station, that’s a lot of scratch.
also got into it with RCA for three TV transmitters that had the wrong tube sockets in them, which burned up $100,000 tubes in as little as 30 hours in the air, with a 9-month ordering lead time. RCA got out of the broadcast equipment business a year later for a $15 million tax writeoff, abandoning hundreds and hundreds of customers.
so I know the syndrome, besides missing a few feature parameters myself.
research your partners. many are not worth hiring to stripe the parking lot.
Have to agree here – its not just IBM – any large integrator/consultancy typically does the same thing: what’s in the Statement of Work. Any other work is “outside the terms of the contract” and either charity (at the expense of profit, penalizing the service provider), or simply not provided. The right thing, potentially contract changes done for the right reasons, where the risk and benefit is shared is sadly often the last thing anyone considers
Folks like Amazon, Google, Yahoo, and others quickly grew their business and systems well past the traditional computing model. They had to develop a new infrastructure and application design. To these firms the “cloud” is a highly capable service that is super reliable and inexpensive to operate. IBM is still stuck in the traditional computing model and doesn’t understand the full nature of cloud computing. This becomes obvious when you look at their cloud offerings.
…
Folks like Amazon, Google, and other became wildly successful because they were open to new ideas and were willing to challenge the validity of traditional forms of computing. IBM has a stunningly poor corporate culture — new ideas are rejected, communication is guarded, management doesn’t listen.
Great comment John, especially the last sentence. I spent over two decades at Big Blue and witnessed the corporate culture take a rather steep nose dive, particularly as the senior leadership became infiltrated with 70’s and 80’s business school MBA graduate types brain-washed in ‘shareholder value’ theory. They were not, nor never have been, technical in nature and therefore grasping the wide-scale technical requirements of a large project such as the examples you mention simply wasn’t in their one-dimensional capability.
Worse, the condescending way they viewed and interacted with the technical ‘help’ was beyond indignant. The culture began to resemble a quasi ‘caste’ system for lack of a better analogy. The execs were the landlords, the techs the low-level serfs. If a tech sent an email to an exec, nary a response would, or should, be expected.
The most glaring example I witnessed was when a senior project manager once said to me ‘the success of a project must be viewed as 5% technical and 95% customer perception.’ I quickly reminded this non-technical PM that if the technical aspects of the solution do not function properly, no amount of perception will make up for a failed computing implementation. But this PM was adamant about the stated premise. I knew then, more than ever, how leadership viewed these projects and being a long-time (and rather talented, I might add) I/T technician, this flew in the face of what I had witnessed and learned over the course of 40 years pressing the keys. My gut feel was ‘these people do not have a clue.’
I knew then, particularly with the ramping up of offshoring and endless layoffs of talent in the name of EPS, It would only get worse going forward. Therefore I left and found an opportunity where they appreciate solid technical talent. From what I hear from former co-workers, the talented are jumping the big blue sinking ship in droves especially as the economy has improved. Even more so, as companies are drifting back to the insourced model, opportunities for those who can are sprouting every day.
Never before has it been more true – buyer beware!
There is the old saying “the operation was a success but the patient died.” Shareholder value, EPS, are not the only measures of a successful business. There are many other measures and there needs to be a balance in what is expected. If you focus too much on a couple measures, you will miss other important data points and make poor decisions. IBM is so fixated on the 2015 plan and the quarter to quarter earnings statement, it is failing to notice its vital signs are weakening, organs are shutting down, the company is in distress.
My observations are similar. When IT got moved into Finance and the MBAs took over, the actual effectiveness of IT was compromised and IT as a “business partner” became a thing of the past. IT was given less respect than the plumber.
Many years ago IBM decided it was more profitable to do a less thorough job, run the risk of failure, and pay the penalties for those failures. They figured they were spending more on quality than they would if they just let things break. This decision, this mindset has spread through the whole company. If you can get by not doing something, don’t do it.
…
Since then customer satisfaction has suffered, business retention is poor, every contact is challenging. IBM is so desperate for new business they will do anything to get it, then do their best to lose it.
…
Philip Crosby made the point in his book “Quality is Free.” When you have imperfect quality you spend a lot to fix it, deal with it, manage it. You should see how many people IBM has today “managing” the mountains of problems on its accounts. You should see how many hours their DPE’s and SDM’s work and the stress they’re under. IBM is now paying dearly for their poor quality. IBM’s quality problems have now become a cancer to the organization and its long term viability. This is not something they can continue to “manage through.” Until you fix the source of the problem, the massive problems will continue.
These have have floated around for years.
“IBM, You can always buy better, but you will never pay more.”
“IGS, Quality is job none.”
First, I am not amazed that IBM management is not wanting employees to read sites like Cringely, they want to spoon feed the employees the corporate “line” and have them accept it as gospel. Fact is the days of trusting the corporate masters and believing what they say, as truth, has now passed, IBM hasn’t gotten the message yet. Now, the point I want to pass on, and have great knowledge of in conjunction with Bob’s treatise is the following. IBM has always had a robust business partner channel. Business Partners contribute a significant revenue stream to IBM allowing IBM to focus on enterprise accounts. Benefits to partners included discounts on HW and SW via their “mall”, technical support, sales leads, and a strong annual conference. Most of,these benefits have eroded over the last few years where now partners have to “earn” these benefits. IBM expects them to optimize on the latest technologies without much in terms of support. Many partners are questioning the value of the IBM partnership. In fact, IBM now expects them to produce revenue period. This channel is getting upset. Developer Relations, who run a lot of these programs have cut back resources and manpower significantly.
Email is not blocked. However, the website is on some people due to browser or the “type” of user you are. A manager friend of mine told me he could not get to the link yet one of his employees can.
Honestly, quality went out the door probably about 13 years ago when IBM decided to pull in the product cycle to about 18 months. We all said this is a big mistake since there is no time to do proper testing and regression testing. However, more importantly the 18 month cycle forces customers to make purchases that they are not ready for and don’t want yet the pressure is on sales and everyone in IBM to sell sell sell. New machine goes to customer with quality problems and the rest is history. Of course there is more to the story but this is the hardware picture and there is not one piece of hardware that IBM sells that does not have quality problems today.
Back in the ’90s I was very pleased to get a consultant job with Information Builders Inc. I shortly ran into the same problem discussed in the post, where management slavishly bowed to any Customer request or idea, regardless of its wisdom. Looking back I was at the peak of my technical abilities, and decided to do what I thought best for the project. When I was reprimanded by my IBI supervisor, I had no regrets, especially when my techniques and code were chosen over the ‘old’ ways. But, I felt I had to then leave the company that I had held in such high esteem, and was now so disappointed in. I never did surpass the technical level of that period of my career, something had died inside. That was the worst loss.
IBI is still around, but they could have been a lot larger and influential, except for those stupid management attitudes.
Excellent post. As in the case of QLD, predatory contractors go in for the kill when they sense bad governance. That is how a $6.19M project becomes a $101M project.
Good point. IBM’s internal governance is equally bad. The quality of the “global” support is poor and out of control. Backup’s could stop, security patching could stop, and no one will speak up. Even the most basic work has to be checked and documented to insure it is being done. Very few things just work automatically inside IBM these days. Everything has to be managed and tracked.
…
What AT&T is doing to IBM and IBM’s customers is unbelievable. Any other company in the world would have called AT&T on the carpet and read them the riot act years ago. There is probably no oversight by IBM. IBM seems to be unwilling to acknowledge things are not working well and something has to be done. IBM certainly will not, or can not take any action. If a partner was damaging your business would you stand idly by? IBM would.
So is IBM blocking the e-mails, or merely flagging them to have an idea of which employees are not the right ones? If it’s the latter case, I suggest we start sending e-mails to certain people on the sales side and executive MBAs with subjects like ‘you were right.’
Let the thought police arrest themselves.
Quote: “In IBM’s project management IBM does not care about the ultimate goal. That is their customers concern, not IBM’s.”
Bob: Loved the article. But there’s a tiny problem highlighted by this quote. In almost all projects I’ve ever seen or worked on (whether external with IBM, or internal within a business), once the project has “delivered”, the project team disbands, and the user gets to use the delivered product, and the maintenance team get to keep the delivered product going. Project Managers would behave VERY differently if they were responsible for the first year’s support and maintenance!!!! And this doesn’t just apply to IBM.
The problem with IBM project managers is that none of them are technical. They are all prided and rewarded on being PMP, senior PMP, senior specialized executive certified PMP or whatever it is they like to add to their email signatures. What do project managers who have no technical knowledge and don’t understand what the implications of a technical project are, do ? Well, they manage scope and change. Any evaluation of a technical requirement which almost always results in something else for the better, especially in the software world is considered scope change by these morons and for which you have to go through some ridiculous change management process to implement and to which they object because they just don’t get it.
Bob, that is a very good observation. Thanks. If you look at most construction, highway, or manufacturing projects you will find the PM has many years experience in the field and has some technical skills. If IBM were to bid on a bridge project they would not get past the first round on bidding. Quite bluntly the sales person and the project manager would be unable to answer the questions asked. Perhaps that is a key to the problem.
…
For years IBM has been notorious for going to and selling to the execs of a company. They bypass the technical folks, middle managers, and schmooze their bosses. Senior managers in most companies are not “technical.” That is not a criticism, they have special talents for what they do, it just does not involve designing computer applications. Yet IBM targets them and finds ways to keep ‘those in the know’ out of the meetings.
…
Somehow when IBM fails they are always forgiven. That is another of IBM’s interesting talents. If I was selling parts to a factory, didn’t deliver, and disrupted their production — it would be a very cold day in you-know-where before that factory would consider doing business with me. In most lines of work you never, ever mess up your customers business. But IBM is doing that every day — and getting away with it.
…
If people familiar with application development, or system management, or …. were involved in the decision making process, IBM would get a lot less business. When IBM would make a sale the expectations would be clearly defined, the results would be monitored, and there would very little wiggle room. Like everyone else IBM would be expected to deliver what it promised.
…
IBM’s use of generalist project managers is yet another indication of how IBM views its business and its customers.
…
IBM does have some very good project managers. However, this too is a skill IBM believes it can ship offshore and do remotely. When you are building that bridge, there is no substitute to watching the crew pour the concrete. It is easy to see if the concrete supplier brought you good product. It is easy to see if the crew knows what they are doing. Doing things remotely over a phone using a second language is a very poor way to manage a project. But as we can conclude from these columns, IBM does not care. Their selling to our exec’s not us.
@Reply to bob, you are absolutely right – I was on a call a few week ago for a GBS project and the project manager had no idea what she was talking about to the customer. It was an embarrassment to hear someone who was talking about anything but technical facts. When the customer asked a few technical questions, she was struck dumb, and then deferred to the technical folks like myself on the team. Yes, IBM has some very good PMs, but the majority of these certified PMs are non-technical people who got an IBM certificate, stating they are IBM Certified PMs and IBM Certified Executive PMs and act as though they have the ability to walk on water and better. These certificates have ZERO value in my opinion, if said PM does not know what he/she are talking about ! I would never hire an IBM Certified PM without a rigorous grilling, because it would be a total waste of money to do otherwise.
Tale of two projects.
An Indian PM got a hold of an old internal, for discussion and planning purposes only time line. He then presented it to the customer as a deliverable commitment! He then turned around sending out notices for status meetings, demanding action plans leaving folks to go WTF? No one had any idea that the project was approved let alone resources committed. The customer was displeased to say the least.
Another PM found a virtualized product schedule slipping so altered the gantt chart to make it appear that things were OK and on schedule. Just before the delivery date someone noticed that there was no testing! Snapshots of the gantt chart were found showing original dates and that a test section did exist earlier.
Minimal testing was squeezed in and to the horror of the PM one client could see and access the data of another.
Hard to believe that the IBM CIO’s Security team knows what they are doing, as regards their filtering of email since they are mostly filled with obnoxious executive program managers, VPs and contractors, the knowledgeable and productive people have been canned mercilessly. Nothing productive comes out of that place except hot air…….
I’m just disappointed that I spent nearly 3 decades honing my denial of what the people at the helm were really about. I bought into the “corporate values” and the rest of the rah rah (e.g. “six sigma quality”, “transformation”), all the while bucking inner suspicions that nothing of lasting quality could come of the endless stream of clueless personnel and technical decisions, or of career promotion being proportional to obedience, while inversely proportional to hard work and innovating first in one’s approach and methods, and then in the products themselves. My 3 rating in January was a stunning display of what I want to call business mental illness.
Please enjoy some Beatles songs spoofs inspired by too many hours of scratching my head over the ongoing insanity that I experienced while attempting to develop software in that psychotic environment. Some of the lyrics were inside jokes for coworkers at the time, but many will ring true to anyone who had what they imagined to be a career there.
http://jethrick.com/gdbeatles/
That said, I thought their separation package was generous. But even so, I kind of miss my identity being heavily defined by my deluded sense of working for the best company, a company that I believed respected individuals, and was with me in being committed to every client’s success….
Those songs are sooo frikking funny!
Sent them internal…. hehe…. wonder if they will be blocked.
This is awesome …lyrics and singing…how about one for the execs.
How about a take on the old IBM song “Ever Onward”? https://www.digibarn.com/collections/songs/ibm-songs/
Here you go:
(music) http://jethrick.com/gdbeatles/tragical-rometty-tour.mp3
(lyrics) http://jethrick.com/gdbeatles/tragical-rometty-tour.html
I’m here late, granted, but just happened upon your songs. As an IBMer looking to jump for, well, all the reasons Cringely posts, I had to stop in and say these are awesome! Thanks!
This is how IBM works and makes money. IBM gets contact A and the client requires 30 people. IBM charges 100k per so they make 3 mill. They do the same for contract B. After 6 months it goes into steady state and start billing, they replace the good people with outsourced people. IBM loses money in the quarter so they look at both contracts and say, “hey the sla’s look good lets drop 10 people from each account” and take 5 from each account to cover the other call double dipping. The client then doesn’t know they are paying for 30 people but only 20 are working it and 5 are working on another accounts. I can’t believe clients haven’t caught on to this. Those being asked to take time off or pay cuts working for clients who have already paid for your service should let the client know.
What is so wrong about this? The fact that a customer doesn’t notice that only 20 people are working for him instead of 30 means that IBM is still meeting its SLAs. And, as long as IBM continues to meet its SLAs, what does it matter how many people it employs for that customer? Couldn’t it be the case that IBM improved its productivity through automation, improved processes and better workers such that it could do more with less? Of course, the savings that IBM achieves through these measures could either be passed onto the customer or pocketed by the executives. It is probably doing more of the latter but that is a different discussion.
The point is that the customer is paying for 30. Assuming that, as you say SLAs are being met, he is paying for 10 more people than the work requires. If the SLAs are not being met that is appalling as the customer is paying for 10 more people than are actually working on the project and if he had the full 30 that he is paying for it is far more likely that the SLAs would be met.
If my car was being repaired and I was charged for more hours than was actually worked wouldn’t that be fraud?
No, not fraud. Most major car repair shop jobs are based on a ‘book’ price that is itself based on the experience of thousands of repair shops doing the same job. That’s why they can tell you a price up front for a repair. That price is regardless of whether the actual job takes half the time the book quotes it will take, or three times as long. You still pay the same price.
Why would a client require x number of people anyway, surely it’s about getting the job done. I’m having some building work done. I paid a set price. I don’t really care how many people come in to do the job at any given time, just that they are competent and the overall job gets done in a reasonable time frame. People come and go as the job changes over time. I don’t expect them all to be here all the time.
Sounds to me like some customers need to think through their requirements process a bit more. On the other hand if the SLA is not being met then it’s up to the customer to raise a stink about it.
Whether or not fraud is involved depends on how the contract is written. This applies to IBM and car repairs equally. If the contract specifies both SLAs and man-hours then that is what the customer should receive. If it only specifies a service, with no mention of labor hours, then they are meeting the requirements even with no people involved. (That’s why in my personal life I usually choose to pay for labor hours instead of a project, so I can see and contribute to the effort being made. Everyone is more likely to be happy that way. Admittedly, it’s unusual to be given that choice since most contractors prefer the more lucrative fixed-price route.)
Well I’m no fan of, nor carry an brief for, IBM. I had a chance to work for them on graduation, but I declined it.
But . . . you seem to have it in for them bob.
I don’t think they are any more evil than any other large company out to make a profit.
Bob answer this question here in the comments in this post (https://www.cringely.com/2013/07/25/the-new-ibm-vampires-in-our-midst/), in summary…
“It’s just a train wreck to me and I can’t look away.”
always a bad sign when companies “force” employees to take leave, next step is to asks everyone to take a temporary pay cut (for the good of the company) or try and merge with a big company and use the confusion as an opportunity to delay the inevitable.
Saw the same thing at HP when Carly was in charge 10 or so years ago all three were tried and HP hovers on the edge of irrelevance.
On another note, ran into some HP consultants lately who want to wrap a whole layer of technical complexity on a project (all these dependencies and cost laid on my door-step) because it made it easier for them. Needless to say my response was a emphatic NO, come back with a better solution.
Ironically, I wrote a paper published in the IBM Journal of Research and Development, Volume 56, Issue 5, September/October 2012, that said, et al, the value of a solution comes from the problem it solves and that requirements are usually suspect.
If anyone’s interested it’s called Beyond the Zachman Framework: Problem-oriented System Architecture and can be found here:https://www.problemsfirst.com/docs/Problem-orientedSystemArchitecture.pdf
B Robertson-Dunn: interesting paper, however, I’d be interested in understanding more abt how some of the concepts from control theory (e.g. feedback loops) could be practically implemented in the domain of architecture and development.
As a unemployed resident of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania one wonders how much of that 60 million could help its residents pay for their basic needs as this country climbs out of the Greater Depression. Not to be confused with the Great Depression of the 1930s.
On a cheerier note logging onto the UC website to file a biweekly claim is like taking a trip back into time. It does not look like a website patched together for the last twenty five years. Bazinga.
The reported project issues in QLD, PA etc. are only tips of the iceberg. there are plenty of similar, to be eruptions of projects in Europe, with red ink project control status. Red ink financially and off schedule.
IBM TSS (the maintenance guys) controllers and execs now even take aggregated risks on down sizing spare part stocks for committed recovery services contracts to beef up profits. Literally speaking: “lets take the risk of paying the penalty first, and then we will see …”. RAs on TSS staff add to the worse here…
Hi Bob,
Something called “super post utility” in your WordPress is making all your links small and boxed. Might want to think about turning it off.
You can erase this post.
https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20130809/BUSINESS/130809007/IBM-shifts-some-Poughkeepsie-jobs-contractor
IBM shifts some Poughkeepsie jobs to contractor
Some of the assembly work at IBM Corp.’s Poughkeepsie plant has been given over
to a contract company, Jabil Circuit, Inc.
An IBM spokesman confirmed that Jabil, which has long been resident at the local
plant, has been given another segment involved in assembling mainframe computer
boards.
He said “a number” of IBM employees working in this unit had been offered jobs
doing this work as Jabil employees.
The spokesman did not say how many people were affected. But the function that
was transferred is a small part of the overall operations of the plant.
The shift comes as 697 IBMers at the Poughkeepsie and East Fishkill plant face
the end of their jobs in September as part of a large “resource action” the
company rolled out in June.
Jabil operates in more than 60 plants owned by various companies in 33 countries
and employs about 165,000 people and had $17.2 billion in revenue in 2012.
Jabil stock seems to be a better investment than the laggard IBM stock since it is also a global business and seems to have a handle on it’s operations ; I’m doing a simple comparison of how business is going on here versus at IBM. IBM “might” be a good buy when it drops to $100 or less, it might go back to where it started when Akkers was running the company into the ground (the same as the IBM Global Management Team are doing now). Of course, this implies there will be good CEO found by then to save the company from itself. Certainly, the present incumbent nor anyone on the IBM board should not be considered worthy of that position.
I sold some IBM stock. If things don’t improve next year, I’ll probably sell my remaining shares.
I hear the next layoff is coming in September or October – it’s certainly overdue in the Services biz, where they’ve been hemorrhaging money like there’s no tomorrow. Now they’ve started asking employees to work on the fulfilling requirements for their current job level or their next band promotion, but if you ask moi, I think it’s all a grand diversion………they are out of $$$ and looking for any excuse to pin a target on the remaining employees, good and bad performers. The bad performers are mostly gone, except for Big Blue management……….
Bob,
I appreciate your indictment of IBM’s Project focus (focusing on requirements instead of objectives), but I have to (based on the research I’m currently doing) say that this is not only IBM’s sin.
On the contrary, most of the subject organizations in my research do it also. Suppliers say it’s safer to focus on requirements, and they are ill equipped to get to the bottom of things. Some buyers proclaim they want their suppliers to care for the buyers objectives, but may still not be inclined to divulge “business secrets”. Further, in most EU states there’s a mandatory process for public procurement, which forces parties to focus purely on stated requirements.
I could go on, but in stead I’ll send you a copy of my findings once I’ve written them down 🙂
The board could step up to the plate and do unto Ginni what they did to John Akers.
That won’t happen………..you have an inept and corrupt management running IBM and they appoint the members of the board. Given that the board members are fellow CEOs and cronies, what are the chances of replacing the current CEO ?? Slim to nil. Hint : Think Hewlett Packard board and Carly Fiorina !
I recall a number of years ago at IBM Rochester we had a not terribly bright manager of one of the ‘farm’ projects for Fiber Optics (long since sold off and ultimately ended up in Singapore) who was bragging that the card vendor promised the price for the product was locked in 2 years with no price increases, as long as there were no changes. I ended up laughing so hard the manager got mad at me..
We were developing a cutting edge product at the time and EC’s (engineering changes) to the product were constant! Yes, we had a plan, but as the product progressed, many changes and adjustments were required. The idea that the customer can hand you an all-inclusive spec at the start of a multi million dollar multi year project and you can deliver a useful working end product without changing anything from the original spec is absolutely absurd.
You have to run the project well, but change is inevitable. Much is learned as the project unfolds that requires changes and adjustments.
My father was a chemical engineer. They used the idea of a pilot project. Every new process was built in small scale as a proof of concept before they went live. Why is it that doesn’t seem to ever be the case with software engineering? I have never been on a multi million project I have to admit, but I was called in on a large project at about the one year mark. I was excited to get a chance to work on this project because I felt it was going to be a game changer for our organization. Anyway I asked to see what had been done, they showed me a data base that was a total charley foxtrot. They they showed me a main web page with these really cool pull down menus. I said nice so click on one lets see what the screens are like, well turned out no screens, yet. Next we had a meeting there must of been over a dozen people there. Four programmer / db developers and manager and a bunch of domain experts. Well they started talking about coding up this and coding up that. I sat patiently for I bet fifteen minutes or better, finally I couldn’t take it any longer and said look when you say coding I think coding lines of code in a program. Do you mean under condition A I code a page then under B I code a page entirely different. No no I was reassured that is our vernacular to what we need to save… I said then I don’t care what you want to save just tell me how much and how to display it and I will do it!
I said well look you have been having meetings for a year and have no screens, no real data, a db that is just screwy and a design I have never seen before, and zero code to do the CRUD? I could see it in the eyes of the manager he had, had his programmer in meetings for a year and he was not actually doing any work, period.
Excellent point Mick. Bob take a look at this post. I worked in the Chemical Industry. Yes, we did pilot tests too. We had at least 2 sometimes 3 phases. The first was in the laboratory. The rest were larger and larger operations.
…
Now the totally stupid aspect of this situation. Chemical pilot plants were expensive, yet we would not risk millions of dollars by not testing the process first. Compute resources are cheap, dirt cheap. It is cheap and easy to build a pilot version of an application.
…
When you build a pilot test you can validate requirements. You can benchmark the capacity and throughput of the application. You can get valuable feedback from the customer. You can spot performance problems and remove bottlenecks.
…
Engineering is an incremental design process. The development of computer applications should be an incremental process too. For some strange reason IBM today is trying to create massive applications in a single project, and without prototyping, without pilot tests, ….
…
Of course their projects are failing. They have forgotten how to write applications and manage application projects.
The main difference and challenge that comes with “piloting” software for a project is the digital nature of the problem domain; if software works, it works exactly the same 100% of the time, and will generally scale until the hardware it is being hosted on is overwhelmed. It also takes essentially 100% of the same effort to make it work for both small and large scales. (More or less .. coding for high volume sites is different than low volume sites, but you’d need to write the high-volume code anyway to prove it works and to be able to test it properly)
About the only way to achieve something similar to the classic “pilot plant” is using agile methodologies (a common software development process these days) to build small parts of the proposed design independently and test them individually. Ultimately those small pieces still need to be combined into a final assembly, the software application, and then tested as a fully functional unit. Integration problems are common; it’s almost impossible to keep the boundaries between sub-assemblies 100% efficient with different teams working on each piece.
So basically because of the digital nature of the problem, you need to perform 100% of the work to prove the successful functioning of even one randomly selected test case. This “100% of the work” constraint also passes through to requirements gathering; without fully defined constraints, there is no way to create useful test cases or create an effective application design. Even small errors in the requirements and design phases can easily vector into large, complicated and expensive to fix problems once you start committing the design into code. Even simple errors can have effects that cascade across the design of several software sub-components.
Actually, that’s exactly what happens these days.
A POC project is developed and then moved to production!
It doesn’t scale very well on Day 1..
I was proud to be a member of a team that replaced IBM on a project back in 1997… we embarrassed the IBM frat team. I’ve never had much respect for IBM since.. and am not surprised at where they are at now.
According to the IBM, Microsoft, and GE CEOs “USA has a shortage of technical and sciences graduates and experienced engineers and programmers”. But all these cry babies are laying off their experienced senior technical staffs and replacing them with the temps from overseas on H1 visa.
This is exactly what US manufacturers did. On the name of “increase US exports” they closed US factories and opened new factories in China. After 20 years US export in $$ went down and imports raised while 50% US manufacturing workers were forced to move on low wage jobs. Under the new US capitalism the gap between the “have” and “have not” widen and US politicians and political process become more corrupt.
From yet another article on QLD health
“It’s hard not to conclude that winning lucrative government projects, regardless of how or if they are delivered, is what is ultimately rewarded.”
https://www.itnews.com.au/News/353040,the-architects-of-qld-healths-payroll-disaster.aspx
And as I said to Mr Cringely in 2006
Here’s how one IBM employee put it recently as he resigned: “Unfortunately, I see IBM as a place run by salespeople and project managers with a sell and install mentality, even in services. There is no technical leadership, innovation or proper understanding of our customer’s needs and requirements. The architecture profession is dysfunctional and cannot remediate itself. These factors may change, but not in the short term and when it does it is likely to be brutal, and I’m not patient enough to wait around until it does.”
https://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20060518_000897.html
The word is “hubris”
Thanks for the link to the old column. It’s interesting that you and Bob thought that IBM was in a death spiral over 7 years ago. I guess one can’t be wrong predicting the inevitability of death.
I can tell you IBM is worse now than 7 years ago on just about every front. But unless there is something catastrophic (i.e., Enron) companies like IBM don’t go overnight. And IBM is not an attractive takeover target. In these days of fast food and immediate gratification, patience is truly a virtue. There is not the leadership to pull IBM out of the death spiral. It’s like cancer vs. a heart attack. Just wait.
“They fulfilled customer requirements.” Bob’s analogy to the bridge is not perfect. When it comes to physical construction projects, there are building codes (laws) all of which can be summed up with the phrases “nobody dies” and “did they show up”. If the bridge is built on contract so it doesn’t fall down, it meets those requirements and no one will complain. If IBM’s project resulted in someone’s death, or nothing was done at all, we could then say they were in breach of contract. When it comes to choosing the best contractor for the job, we rely on the contractor’s reputation which appears to be getting worse in IBM’s case. The point is all contractors limit the work they do according to the value of the contract, in order to assure a profit. If more work is required either to do a better job for the customer or to keep the profits flowing in to the contractor, they will attempt to increase the value of the contract with “new” items. It’s ultimately up to the customer to decide whether they are getting sufficient value and effort for their money.
I remember a similar criticism about IBM from Cringely’s old “Triumph of the Nerds” series on PBS 15+ years ago (I still have the VHS tapes) when describing how slowly IBM makes decisions through the chain of command that goes all the way up to IBM’s intergalactic HQ in Armonk, NY.
Looks as if Wall Street is reading Bob’s column…
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/ibm-attracts-short-sellers-revenue-growth-slips-173036160.html
I was at IBM in the 1960’s to 1990′ and part of the 2000’s…..it went downhill immediately after Watson died then after the transition to the new mgt theory respect for the individual went out the window and door like a bottle rocket… The only ones who got raises were mgt… Then they got their hands on our retirement medical the company shouldbe investigated from the top
Bob, It looks like a lot of posts are disappearing. Here is a record of the last 10 columns’ comment count yesterday and (now):
074(81but86=12new) 045(41) 019(17) 071(70) 085(84) 054(51) 098 073(72) 030(29) 298(92)
The now number is lower in nearly all cases except today where it is higher but not high enough to account for the 12 new posts since yesterday afternoon. When looking for an appropriate place to put this comment I decided to search for a comment I read yesterday which described a detailed account of how the feed redirects were behaving. That comment may have been one of the ones removed.
If you want to know how IBM took advantage of an incompetent government to swindle them out of $400m on a $10m project, read the first few pages of this
https://www.healthpayrollinquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/207203/Queensland-Health-Payroll-System-Commission-of-Inquiry-Report-31-July-2013.pdf
Its a long read, but you only need to read first few pages. The project cost blowout wast $400m. The 8 years to fix it, will cost another $800m. Queensland govt are clearly dumber than a box of shovels. IBM took the govt for a ride, but the govt did no oversight til it was too late. Perfect storm of incompetence…. IBM is a dirty word in govt sector right now, because of a handful of idiots compared to the rest of the Australian operation. Most are good ppl.
What IBM is doing, contract wise is no different than what other contracting “houses” have done for years!
20 years ago my team I herniated another IT team. The main goal of that team, aside from supporting their users, was to manage a contract for Systems Development of what they hoped was a groundbreaking system… It was contracted out to a walk own outfit, to the tune of a Million Dollars.
It was laid out in Level 1 – “Need to Have”, Level 2 – “Want to Have” and Level 3 – “Nice to Have”
After a year or two, most of the money is gone and extensions are being requested as the contractors were “almost” there… It was at that point that I inherited the mess…
Six months later, they were asking for more money and another extension… And I managed to convince the powers that be to say NO – they had to finish it this year ON TIME!
The contractors then went back to the team and asked which of the Level 1’s were absolutely important and had them work out the Level 0 requirements, half of which they said they couldn’t do in the time left.
By the way I should add that my team wasn’t allowed to go anywhere near this project until it was finished… So the finished product was finally given to us, with much Fanfare… This had been a Major project!
We quickly discovered that the software had followed – literally – the contract requirements and nothing else. So in the contract, there wasn’t any wording for user accounts, so it was designed to only work as the root/super user! It also consumed all the processing power of one of the high end servers of the day… There was no logging (wasn’t asked for) and constantly locked up – their solution? Bring us in on contract to fix it!
A year later my team had installed a readily available package, that did everything the users wanted AND so much more, for a LOT less. We stuck the Million dollar tapes in storage where they probably still rest today…
IBM used to be different, you could trust them to do a really good, honest job. They were one of the few who did… It’s a crime that they too have now gone over to the dark side…
Actually, here in Washington, the state DOT decided to insource bridge design on the 520 floating bridge, and when the design was flawed and cracked, the contractor who executed the flawed design *wasn’t* responsible.
The best term I’ve head for vendors who don’t own the design, but execute it for you is “coin op.” Make a design change, insert money…
It’s been my, admittedly limited, experience that most contracts are jointly “owned”. The contractor simply walks off the job when it’s no longer profitable saying that he met the contract requirements and further work is “extra”. Of course you can sue, but the courts typically side with the poor hard working contractor as long as he can demonstrate that he showed up, and against the deep-pocketed purchaser of the project.
What do you expect from a company that rewards its employees for doing a good job by piling-up more work on them? I’m now with IBM since 10+ years and initially, when Sam’s ‘cost cutting’ started to eat into the substance of the company, we tried to not let this have a negative effect on what we delivered to the customer. Customers were happy with what we did and we could be proud of our work. But the message this delivered internally was that we were overstaffed (which we were not). Since then we entered into a spiral where good work was rewarded with ‘additional responsibilities’ while some of us were made ‘redundant’. So, the simple message is, do not perform to well. Don’t try to shield the customer from internal resource issues. Actually, to most of us it wouldn’t be to sad if IBM really did have to go out of business. This would give a lot of oportunities to companies that really care about customers and employees, not only about EPS and unrealistic long-term promisses to Wallstreet. IBM is using its wight more to stall development anyhow rather than to provide real innovation. That is why mostly everybody hates to work for this company day after day until you find a better job or get numbed into a state of frustration.
IBM should hire more Indians Bob!
After all, they are all super-geniuses who are smarter than Americans and IBM is already 71% Indians. With a 71% Indian workforce surely IBM can keep going right Bob?
All we’ve been hearing is how all these Indians are super-geniuses Bob.
Why isn’t IBM performing with 71% Magick Indians Bob?
I certainly concur and those charming IBM Program mangers know it that the Indians are better than anyone with their fabulous technical skills and technical Magick, but getting them onto US projects is always a problem, especially when many US projects specifically want US based resources. Which is contrary to IBM Services policy – IBM prefers to hire overseas resources for “competitive” reasons (although why they don’t consider hiring a CEO from overseas as well replacing all her lackadaiscal executive staff who make millions of dollars doing nothing – for purely “competitive” reasons – is well beyond me, especially since the stock price and IBM revenue is in the doldrums). But I digress – why else would you have to have 60+ IBM Java Programmers with English names located in Florida swampland with NO telephone numbers and bogus Notes IDs ?? Answers please, you clever IBM HR reps in Services !
IBM is a big company and it will take awhile for it to melt down. Think General Motors. An analyst from Bank Suisse I know was saying 15 years ago that IBM was on a long term death trajectory from how they treated their people. Time will tell.
I would agree with you, except flashes of ENRON come to mind and I believe that the IBM company will implode in less than 5 years from now; at ENRON (a big company) too, everyone thought the company would carry on indefinitely, regardless of what happened when the fraud was discovered. Well, we all know what happened there ! You have a similar situation at IBM where executives and managers pump up the company stock price, work on huge buybacks and inflate the stock value to Wall Street; but internally the company is in a death spiral and nothing but the husk of it’s former self. In a panic, they rush out any buy any companies (not sure if the executives carry out due diligence here) that seem potential winners, as long as they can claim to the world that they have a full portfolio of products and services. But ALL the past and present IBM executives in the world – Rometty, Mills, Rhodin, McDonald, Van Kralingen, Sanford, Horan, Clementi, Miller, Daniels, Moffat, Palmisano can’t pull it out of the tail spin that the company is currently in. They wish they could but it’s too little too late……the company certainly isn’t going to celebrate it’s 200th birthday. Sad but true ! I’m sure the Harvard Business Reviewers write an “unbiased” book on the IBM story if they chose to, but that won’t happen since IBM gives them big donations. I’m sure it would make for good reading 20 years from now. Kudos to Cringley for keeping up the pressure on IBM management and keeping everyone in the know !
IBM is ahead of the game in one way – it delivers a cr*p job for maximum wonga. A recent project I was saddened to be on with Wipro shows they have learnt this lesson well, piling up the contractors but ignoring all the code review comments from the IBM ‘experts’. Performance wasn’t one of the deliverables apparently.
The difference is that Wipro don’t pretend to anything other than what they are told. IBM claims it puts in experts to advise and help; turns out half the time these experts haven’t seen any upgrade training for years.
Now IBM has turned on Think40 to provide a bit of education for the people left, but that is being diluted to being encouraged to think of what you learn in Community Action as part of Think40, do some mandatory Business Conduct Guidelines training – that’s another hour. So when you hear the “IBM insists every employee has at least 40 hours technical training a year”, bear in mind that it’s bullsh*t!
So why am I still with IBM? I’ve reached that age when I know if I jump I’ll find it hard to find another job; yet I still put myself forward at the last round of “lets take some more chairs away”. Got rejected as there is still some mileage to be squeezed from the products we work on before IBM has killed them thoroughly by failing to invest in real development (but heh! lets move on to Smarter Planet, Cloud, Analytics… or the next meaningless buzz words from a management of salesmen).
The really sad thing is that the salesmen who run the company believe what they tell us. They aren’t actually lying, they are deluded.
@Haxby:
Yes, think40 is for sales folks, and some sessions are reuse anyway.
Yes, the sales people on top are deluded, but it won’t help anyone.
Now th 1-3-9 cr@p adds to this dis-ilution.
Our customers cant bear it any more! It seems we cant run larger projects any more to success.
High profile PM staff has left, or are leaving….
IBM has faults, all big companies do. That’s why they start transformation processes to change, improve, serve the customer better. What’s the alternative to IBM? Apple is a one-trick consumer based pony that will start the road downhill soon. Buy everything from India or China? At least IBM is still based in the US, speakes English and can provide a complete service – do big customers want to go back to sourcing from 100 different suppliers and finding nothing links up with each other.
@Haxby and @LostinEurope : Think40 is a great opportunity to obtain some real, important training; this had got forgotten for a while but it’s back and that shows IBM’s committment to technical excellence.
It isn’t IBM’s fault it is hostage to a market that insists on higher profits every year, even big companies are reliant on the big investors.
A collegue pointed me to this site and I’m horified at the degree of nay-saying, whining. Come back to the real world, IBM has to change to survive and that’s what its doing. As for not wantin employees to see criticism, IBM allows critics internally to run Blogs, go on Jams. It isn’t the monolythic monster you paint. Some projects always go wrong, what about listing all the successes?
IBM has many faults, not the least of which is the Roadmap (Roadkill) 2015 where the IBM Management have well defined plans to take out 40,000+ US employees by hook or by crook before 2015. Why, as I type this, they have been furloughing STG employees and contractors until the last week in September 2013 ! You would have to be blind and deaf not to see and / or hear all these things happening inside IBM. Administrative assistants to all executives except the biggest crooks (oops, I mean VPs and senior VPs) in the US have been told that their jobs will be outsourced to remote administrative assistants in Malaysia by 2015. That’s a lot of good US employees whose jobs have been unnecessarily outsourced, because they have the misfortune to be working in the wrong place (IBM) at the wrong time. At the same time, no senior executive positions have been outsourced or cut – they are merely transferred to new positions around the world and get to keep their high executive salaries and then return back to Armonk after their “tour of duty”. Senior executive positions ought to be outsourced too, particularly those in bands 9, 10 and higher who make US 150K or more every year. Think of the cost savings if you get rid of 10 of these executives – more than a million dollars in clear SAVINGS ! And consider that you will be cutting down a huge unproductive bureaucracy too; this is particularly noticeable in the CIO’s office where you have so many layers of managers reporting to more mangers that you have to wonder how they get any “real” work done. And these are senior people at band 9 and higher who rarely come face to face with ANY IBM customers ! Something is wrong with this picture but it’s unlikely to change anytime soon. And consider that you have productive support staff in Atlanta whose jobs have been transferred to support staff in India and China who are not only incoherent, but not able to communicate clearly in writing. Is this the way that IBM serves the customer better ? or worse ?
Think40 is another of those Ginni PR scams – just promises of education available to all IBM employees at the beginning of 2013, but guess what ? There is no money in any groups budget to take “real” classes ANYWHERE. Just ask any manager is SWG, GBS, GTS, STG, Research or elsewhere in IBM – truth or fiction ?? Technical excellence ?? You must be joking ! It is nothing but sell, sell, sell even if it is ice to the reluctant Eskimos.
It is the IBM Management’s fault to give the US stock market incorrect numbers and false expectations if the reality is different. That comes down to communicating the truth, even if it is unpalatable. If a bunch of cowards run a company on a pack of lies about how competent they are, then bad things happen when they do not deliver results as expected. I notice with interest that there is no mention of the Business Conduct Guidelines particularly where IBM executives and senior management are concerned. Yet there have been lots of mentions of violations by IBM executives and management all over the globe in the press; these days, the IBM name is more often associated with dishonesty and a disregard for the work undertaken and quality of the products sold to customers. But it wasn’t always this way – at least it wasn’t 25 years ago !
IBM successes are getting smaller and smaller…..IBM no longer gets the lion’s share of Federal project work but has to share projects with other vendors like Wipro, Accenture, Tata etc. That is the reality of how the mighty have fallen.
As a former great executive at IBM, Bob Moffat, once said “if you want loyalty, get a dog”. I am not aware of any open internal blogs or wikis inside IBM which tolerate any critics – they have been silenced if they are critical of any executive decisions. The Jams are a joke too ! The results have been decided very much in advance by the IBM executives, on what agendas they would like to see advanced for their benefit.
So, please consider these observations and take the actions you deem appropriate.
@TonyTheTiger – you are obviously an IBM HR or management stooge. If you were a real IBMer you wouldn’t be spouting BS like this.
“Think40 is a great opportunity to obtain some real, important training; this had got forgotten for a while but it’s back and that shows IBM’s committment to technical excellence.”
Bwhaahaha sorry but as one who was part of the recent RA Think40 is/was a joke. any education taken counted against your utilitization. so if you did 5 hours training in a week you better do an additional 5 hours of billing. seriously as someone who was on the road every other week this program is/was a joke considering how much mandatory governance training one has to take and how little time was left to take the training. and don’t get me started how some online training modules worked only with IE while FF is the IBM standard now. virtual labs that wouldn’t work, unable to download training material for later review, instead one has to take screenshots.
if they were interested in technical excellence they would bring back in-person classroom training rather than virtual classrooms
What’s the alternative to IBM? Any subcontracting firm. You’ll probably find the same level of expertise – and you won’t be going thru IBM as the middle man to get the same subcontract resources on your project.
Think40 is not just for sales. It is for every employee and is mandatory. Education is key! Except this year when travel was approved for annual education in Poughkeepsie for their premiere product line in 1Q and then the ostriches said oops! not this year! no travel for you! You will do the best you can with what you got. Yet, execs travel, come and go as they please all in the interest of keeping customers happy on the golf course and at the steak house. From what I have seen the travel is to put out fires not so much to thank customers for their recent purchases. Oh that’s right…. WHAT PURCHASES! We have zero revenue but incredible profit year to year. Just how does that work anyway? and Wall Street is snowed too (with other phony stories from other phony profits with the fortune 500 crowd). Ginny is desperately trying to turn around the morale which is in the toilet. Jams, Think40, internal blogs, all of which no one has time for. Its as though she would love to see IBM as “fun” place to work (think Google). Well…. it ain’t fun anymore.
Ginny Rometti announced Think40 earlier this year, and the video was accessible to every ibm’er on the intranet. She said explicitely “no financial restriction”. 6 months later, first line managers still could not get written answers on the implications. Asked, hr and finance partners would never clarify whether employees could register to a conference (5 days 8 hours = 40) under this program or not. They would only say internet podcasts qualify. In practice, it further degraded management’s credibility as it simply turned into a cheap accounting trick – record in a database when you decide to follow a free khan academy class… Think40 is one illustration of how PR works in this company.
Internal blogs and Jams. Ha ha. No one in their right mind says what they really think because you may as well just shoot any career you might have in the foot as do that. A few (very few) folks skirt around the issues from time to time, try to point out the flaws without being suicidal but in general most people just keep their heads down. Discretion being the greater part of valor and all that.
As for Think 40. It started out as Ginni ‘encouraging’ everyone to improve their skills through various training opportunities. She even said No restrictions to location or cost, but then of course added it was subject to budget limits (and since no one has any budget for anything let alone training we all know were that went). Then the ‘optional/encouraged’ think 40 training became a requirement with tracking even so now we are expected to all do our 40 hours and log it as well. Me? I do more that that every year just learning new stuff on my own. I have always done that, it’s the only way to stay relevant (dare a I say ‘essential’) in the technology field today. If you want stability, go drive a trash truck. It just galls me that this so called training is little more than a joke with managers suggesting that if you attend tech calls, the sort of thing you just do ‘as part of your job’ to log that as your think 40 training time and call it done. Hardly in the spirit of the thing is it. So I’ll do my normal thing, I’ll continue to learn new stuff in my own time and I’ll log some of it just to keep the idiots in management happy and avoid another black mark on the ol PBC but is it a real initiative? Is it heck.
As for the negative feelings, I suspect that most people are pissed simply by the total lack of respect (in spite of the so called ‘values’) that the company’s senior management shows to those that actually earn the money they pay themselves as bonuses. I’m not saying IBM is unique, but a little honesty would go a long way. Instead we get feigned concern and underhand tactics used to keep everyone (including local governments) in the dark. I’m not denying that IBM has to change to survive but there are ‘ways’ to do that that do not alienate half the workforce and in that respect, IBM has missed the boat. The point is that IBM’s customers are not blind either to what is going on. On the plus side, the competition is not a lot different either so what is a hapless customer to do!
The Company has been going down hill ever since Ginni brought in the PWC virus (who were basically thrown a huge life raft as they themselves were swirling the bowl before IBM bought them). The values and culture of the company began to change dramatically when that happened. Customer project success no longer mattered, just the sale and stock price. A virus that spread and is slowly killing the company. Well over 50% of the company has less than 5 years – hard to maintain a culture on “acquire and fire”.
Just another log to the fire, another nail in the coffin! Recently spoke to some colleagues at a major Australian bank who told me that IBM wont be considered for future work due to the fact that a: when the recent cuts took place, around 50 IBM-ers were here today and gone tomorrow with no plan to replace them or their functions and b: their delivery of hardware is often late, wrong or just plain badly done. And all this at premium “you cant get fired for hiring IBM” rates.
I always cringe at posters describing themselves as “high performers”, 1’s, or whatever. If an employee is doing what is necessary for the long term viability of a product or the company itself, it will often be in the sacrifices and work that is not measured. It’s the frazzled 2’s and 3’s that are typically most concerned with making sure what they do is coherent and useful, not just personally promoting. Case in point, all of The US’s 1’s, those Ivy League grads, were in charge of the 2008 crash – Smart kids who know how to get good grades, but not how to built anything durable. Sad.
I am also skeptical of salesmen types, until they demonstrate they know something useful. But the 2008 crash can’t be blamed on any specific group. We Americans elected a government that put “affordable” housing ahead of everything else. The government basically insisted that banks make loans regardless of risk and that risk can be spread among many other investors and taxpayers, if necessary.
I’m sort of torn here. Yes, Andersen, IBM, As*encture are scum, but they are very well known and described scum. There is no mystery to their technique and their failures, they are very well documented and have been for decades. Outsourcing development does not save cost or time, it just shifts the characteristic of the risk. That is also well known and documented. So Queensland thought they were special and didn’t need to have clearly defined requirements and controls? You can niggle about the morality or lack on the IBM side, but I think you need to factor in stupidity on the customer side. I lived this experience, even told my C levels their contract with As*encture would fail the day they announced the award. Didn’t matter… Good news is the mess did destroy the careers of a couple of the politicos.
Delivery is a joke at IBM. The focus is on billable hours. Do everything you can to maximize billable hours. Fulfilling the terms of a contract barely even registers as a goal. There are no measurable incentives for employees around delivery – only around contributing to organizational revenue targets (even for the technical folks – e.g. what have you helped sell lately?). The customer is seen as disposable. I’m not sure where IBM thinks its next contracts are coming from but they must not be relying on their existing unhappy customers. It’s all about billing. Oh, we are a services and software company? Whatever.
[…] Robert X Cringely commented on IBM’s role in the Queensland Health IT failure https://www.cringely.com/2013/08/07/fulfilling-customer-requirements-is-a-weapon-at-ibm/ […]
Looking forward to your E-Book, but it needs to be a work in progress, as each day IBM seems to pull another fast one to screw their employees. Now they are cutting band 8’s in the US – even if they have an approved SOW contract – and not even letting the manager they are contracted to know it ahead of time. Strictly by salary, and nothing else. The higher paid are “surplussed”. And, we have been told to expect a press release soon that IBM has “realized their US workforce is aging, and will be retiring soon, so they are upping their college hiring”. Of course, missing in that is the fact that the retirment is forced. They simply want to replace more expensive (and experienced/knowledgable) with entry-level wage employees. Also, in the fine print, IBM can withhold your severance if you refuse a job elsewhere in the company within 10% of your current salary, or cut it in half if you are deemed a non-desirable employee………
When is Cringely finally going to release his promised beginning volume of “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Rometty Empire,” featuring a Gordian Plot of intrigue and incompetence that makes Gravity’s Rainbow look like Dr. Seuss by comparison?
Blue Harmony the much touted SAP implementation to replace IBM internal systems has been put on hold indefinitely. Wondering when / how is IBM going to announce this piece of news to the outside world.
Mrs. G needs to go home and bake cookies, her most recent announcement that EPS was up simply demonstrates that she is, in the same fashion as Sam. destroying the company from the inside out. Right now the pipeline is dry.. why? because no one is left to sell..
Every thing is true. Except of course about Tony The Tiger’s comments. You may have read IBM is spending 100 million to build up a one stop shop company for design services to take on agencies.
https://www.fastcodesign.com/3028271/ibm-invests-100-million-to-expand-design-business
This is supposed to put the end customer first.
No no no.
It is one big sales ploy to go after the marketing dollar. IBM has realized they can’t keep selling to CIOs forever. They need to diversify who they sell (con, rip off and bleed dry) to.
Sales targets are more aggressive than ever. Everyone is now calling themselves a customer experience expert. All they have done is add CX or UX in front of their previous job titles. Sure they hired a few experienced and well known people. But don’t be fooled by that. They are vampires after all.
They are just after their names to add credibility to themselves. Plus while they are here they are not working for the competition. The actual work will be done by under skilled resources usually grads. The same requirements gathering cluster fxxxx. The client will get a process driven sausage factory style approach that places the emphasis on spitting out deliverables that are not worth the paper they are printed on. The PMs have been explicitly told not to use senior bands to reduce cost. So they can’t use the experts even if they wanted to. They have to go with the cheapest resource first.
To naive clients all will look good as they will be doing what they asked for. Clients will assume there are peer reviews and experts behind the scene ensuring quality and standards. They would be wrong. It is a competitive atmosphere and no one shares only steals.
The culture is like Enron back in the glory days. It’s all you tube videos, press announces and talks with slick oily shysters. The management of this new service are clueless consultants. It’s like Gordon Gecko making a Bambi eyed Budd thinking he was going to be the CEO of an airline if he helped him acquire it.
The salesmen are the worst I have ever seen – bloated oily showmen. The company shouts be FEARLESS with the same gusto that caused the 2008 crisis.
Our. version of Budd is 10 times dumber and more interested in producing YouTube video and tweeting pictures of himself on stage spouting such gems as ‘customers want magic moments’ ”experience is everything’ . Off stage he is “where are the sales? What’s our pipeline looking like? Have you seen the share price?”.
Not one comment from anyone in senior management of quality or the work we are doing.
We have a Bambi eyed (power & money hungry) managing director with zero knowledge running what is supposed to be the ‘world’s biggest interactive agency’. The Wolf of Wall Street would be impressed. You look at the org chart of The Interactive Experience and it’s sales driven. No one on the management team has any actual experience in this.
They are nothing more than delusional patsies.
These labs (from the 100 million investment) are fronts to drive more sales without offering any real value. The bigger ones will be offshore where cheap resources can spit out customer journeys by template and prototypes quickly. It’s a smoke and mirrors illusion.
All the sales team will now be ‘Design Thinkers’ expanding their vocabulary to the latest buzzwords – augmented reality, digital front office, cloud, marketing suite, big data, Analytics, internet of things, web 4.0….
The training is beyond a joke. No one gets real training just the Think 40 BS and some design thinking for executives on how to stick post it notes on a wall so it looks like you know what you are doing. Because that’s what they do at Oglivy and Sapient.
The agencies are cueing up to partner with them thinking it will be good business. No IBM is just stealing your processes and using whatever they get sight of as templates. It’s given to unskilled consultants to ‘ape’ what real designers, architects and customer experience people do. There is no thinking in it, no analysis, no expertise.
The requirements are still a weapon! Even usability and accessibility are not included. No one asks “how will this be successful or measured after delivery?”
The real experts who know this stuff are getting zero work as the work by passes them to unskilled and inexperienced grads for bigger profits. For the experienced hires it’s a revolving door that sees bigger names coming in to be sucked dry. It’s a war between the two.
I joined expecting to work with experts (who knew what they were doing) and be mentored. Instead I ended up on a factory line producing crap in a career cul de sac. The Pitt Boss is only interested about utilisation and wants me to stretch out the simplest task as long as possible to keep billings high. This should result in higher quality but we don’t even have the right tools or equipment to start with. But never mind that we have ‘templates and processes’ for everything so thinking and colouring outside the lines is not an option.
The experienced hires hate us because we compete with them and steal anything we can copy. Our job is starve them out while the real vampires milk them of their industry contacts and to get them to boost their credentials. Once they done that they cast them aside to be managed out when their utilisation targets fail. No one lasts more than 2 years – usually takes less than a year.
Most of the resources will be offshore and the front office will just be sales people and a few grads. Pipeline, pipeline, pipeline…..
Must sell more and drive more shareholder value. As this article says IBM is now a pyramid scheme where the people at the top must get rich. Managers now also want a huge slice of people’s ideas for patents.
The culture is toxic, hostile and combative. Everyone is out for themselves and too busy managing upwards to care what anyone around them thinks. No one speaks up. As the good people leave and the snakes stay it only gets worse.
This is worse than Accenture… Wolf in sheep’s clothing. There is no long term viability. It is all about making as much money as quickly as possible before they get found out.
The naive managers will be the ones holding the bag when this white elephant shuffles off.
thank you for share!
good articles
nice articles