Remember when IBM was known for going out of its way to hire the best and smartest people and then simply let them innovate and create? What happened to that company? How did we get from there to mediocrity becoming the norm and innovation becoming all but extinct?
15 replies (most recent on top)
It's hard to see when you're dozing off and sheltered in the cubicles of IBM.
Meanwhile:
- Brain-dead MBAs have taken over the asylum
- China has showered billions on those MBA executives to hand them the keys of the kingdom
- The Fed has pumped gigantic sums of fake money into the system to grease #1 and #2
Any questions ?
Don't forget roadmap 2015 looked very good on paper too.
After roadmap 2010's bad effects on R&D budgets and morale, many of us saw R2015 for the disaster that it was and predicted it would ultimately cause IBM's demise. Personally, I believe Rometty's biggest mistake was not abandoning R2015 immediately.
Looks like a good plan. One unknown is the company has no technology advantage over the competitors. Why would pay ibm big bucks to modernize while armies of smaller companies are willing to do the same (if not better) technical work for pennies on the dollar? mainframes are lucrative business, but slowly declining. The bigger issue is that the company has decided to further retreat to niche (enterprise) market, while the competitors may corner the market through the backdoor. Who could have imagined an online bookstore selling hosting services would eventually doom the big mighly ibm?
Don't forget roadmap 2015 looked very good on paper too. Even Warren Buffett was convinced it's bullet proof.
Good luck with that.
2fcz You are viewing the equation thru old legacy eyes. GTS is a done deal. It will get spun off, because it’s outlived it’s business strategy. GTS was born under Gerstner when outsourcing (your mess for less) was profitable. The portability and commoditization of labor has obsoleted that go to market strategy, so IBM has hit the eject button. IBM will keep GTS close, because they will still be able to get a slight premium for their “GTS Body shop” offerings (think approx 15%). Otherwise it’s gone. Now moving on, what is happening and why
IBM bought Redhat to fully adopt their strategy. You are not watching a breakup of IBM, but rather an embrace of Redhat. IBM decided in 2019 to buy a new strategy and you are watching that play out. Redhat likes modernizing “legacy code”, thus the downsizing of legacy maintenance within cognitive division, and the embrace of modernization. NOTE if you do legacy maintenance, you are in the bullseye zone. IBM bought Redhat with the full intention of embracing Redhat into their Enterprise engagements (think mainframe) WHY??? Because it’s a monopoly, and IBM can play both sides of the house Milk the legacy code if you are willing to pay, or modernize the legacy code if you want to get off. Either way IBM wins. GBS plays strongly into that equation as they can advise you on which way to go, or recommend partners who can help if the engagement is outside of the “legacy” scope. Yes that means GBS will hire more consultants, BUT shed more worker bees. Lastly HW is a cost of doing business. IBM already realizes Power and Storage have little to no future as far as the Redhat plans go (yes they will take any Power modernization they can get, BUT most only if it’s in an Enterprise) Mainframe is a monopoly and IBM can exploit that via selling HW and their OS’s, or Renting HW and their OS’s. That’s where the new IBM is heading. Yes they will get smaller, but they will exploit their monopoly power to engage customers who are locked in. The result will no be a breakup of IBM, but rather a refocusing of IBM around Redhat. Instead of being called big blue, IBM’s new name should be called Big Red
If GBS gets spunoff it will set IBM on an inevitable path to being broken up and sold off. Sorry, Systems + C&CS is not a viable standalone business, this isn't 1989.
If IBM spins off GBS, there will be nowhere to hide the fact that C&CS is a complete failure. Maybe that needs to happen though.
That below is why we need to spin-off
GBS also. Useless
GBS here. All people I know at IBM fall into 1 of 3 groups: 1. have been here since graduating college, 2. here from the PWC acquisition, 3. got laid off from another consulting firm and landed here. Group 1 have few skills and are difficult to work with. Group 2 already made their money and don’t care about work anymore. Group 3 are a mixed bag of good people who were desperate for a job, and truly awful people that IBM did not properly screen. I fall into Group 3, victim of a layoff at another company. I know of nobody who actually chose to come here.
Roadmap 2015 told us it was all about the stock. No investment in the company.
When the ethos of a company centres on "shareholder value", the rot starts. Witnessed this at both Americal Express and IBM and it started in the 90s. The prime focus fundamentally shifts from delighting clients with brilliant products to "let's make sure the shareholders are happy at all costs", and the company starts a slow declinde as R&D investment and workforce motivation is gradually displaced by financial engineering and an obsession with cost-cutting (which becomes an increasing necessity as revenue declines). If only companies realised that financial wealth is a natural outcome of brilliant products and services, not something that can be fabricated from nefarious behaviours and malpractice.
Respect for the Individual was thrown away in the 80's. Execs at that point decided it was more profitable to save all the money they were spending on keeping employees happy. That was the first of many s–c-dal missteps and now we're seeing the result: no one wants to work at IBM except as a last resort, so we only get people who can't find a better job. Everyone who remembers the old IBM is nauseated at the new one.
Can confirm bruh! Dat b all the english is kno
That's simple - Greedy management. I've worked the gamut of the IT industry over the years. When I started out, the best and brightest were selected - and retained with additional technical training and advancement.
Then the world went global. "Oh boy" said corporate management. " (Somewhat) English speaking CHEAP foreign IT labor. Ok -maybe they are subpar compared to their US counterparts; maybe they're a little hard to understand. But - Wow! - the bottom line, blah, blah, blah."
So - quite simply - the gold and platinum standards of yesteryear were replaced with "What's good enough".
And there you are.
IBM never paid enough to attract the best and brightest.
It’s what happens when you transition from making things to offering services. Innovation tends to live in products