Thread regarding CA Technologies (CA Inc.) layoffs

why did CEO succeed and fail?

From a shareholder point of view, sure I get it returning a premium to the shareholders, that's what it is all about these days.

but putting that aside, the company basically had unlimited money and marketing machinery and an executive team brought in by the CEO, why weren't they able to grow the business over the multiple years they had? why didn't they cut deeper sooner and focus on growth products? It seems like about one or two years in they just decided they couldn't change the internal inertia and just to sell it off - but why couldn't they change it exactly?

by
| 1911 views | | 4 replies (last December 10, 2018) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+WwWzNK6

4 replies (most recent on top)

Oh, for Jesus' sake, it is so simple.

CA had 3rd rate software development talent

or decent talent that were thrown sprawling code bases without transition help and wasted years of effort

or Developers from acquisitions were driven off by a---hattery.

Root cause: Bad CEO, bad revolving door GM-level, couldn't attract top talent for 2nd rate products. "Cost savings" by shipping development overseas (aka UIM), teams there had no background in product, playing catchup, good luck. Identity Service (aka Tesla) - startup acquired, never could get enough functionality to compete, 3 years no customers. Rally- never made money, ever. Yikes. Agile purists with too much overhead, then many many good folks left because of CA idiocy. Whoo Hoo!

Credit to decently talented developers and 1st & 2nd line managers who tried. Too many id--ts above them.

Result: Products couldn't keep up with competition.

Look at Rally.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2mrw+WwWzNK6

He succeeded because he was brought to sell CA just like his last job. All execs in these companies have histories just look what they did before always repeat

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1rnx+WwWzNK6

Repeat this multiple times. CA was not a software company!!!

CA managed contracts and product renewAls of sticky mainframe products.... the only reason why they aquired companies, was to put those products into sales contracts to keep the revenue coming.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ovk+WwWzNK6

Likely because they didn't want to. It was a vicious circle: they should have cut deep in management, stopped for a while to revisit the products and give quality and really focus on organic growth. That would have meant maybe losing money for a few years, having to change relationships to customers and rebuilding the power base created over many years.

I work in Support and I remember the obvious things you were seeing on a day to day basis about how product quality should have been implemented, and the ridiculous multiple manager structure, or the senseless product name change. Or what was being done to acquired companies, which is more or less what Broadcom has done to CA (maybe less ruthless, this is true). But nobody moved an inch, because having done so would have meant you couldn't justify immediate results.

In short: nobody thought about the long term, and everybody was focussed on immediate growth. Since you could not grow with quality, better products and good decisions in terms of what customers really needed and what products really mattered, you opted for the simple solution: cutting jobs every year, year after year, without touching the structure. The result was indeed that the inertia made you get the same earnings with less people, but you were becoming more and more inefficient, which was leading to more layoffs.

And as a CEO, you would never acknowledge you were not doing a good job, because your focus on speed and on getting immediate results was preventing you from doing that. That is why so many people were coming and going from the ELT: if things were not quite immediately right, you changed that member in the team, in the hope that the change would magically propagate down without touching anything, really.

In short: the company was managed and finally sold out out of shortsightedness. And what we are now seeing makes the future look really bleak. In one month all but mainframe has been totally dismantled. The ESD hope to be able to focus on the top clients, but nobody is explaining how this will be done, and the sensation is of absolute chaos, at least so far. But Broadcom showed yesterday finantial results, and the growth was spectacular.

That is the perverse logic of the market. The minute we lost focus on what really mattered: customers and long term growth, and concentrated in th short term and in make up to make everybody believe in ethernal growth, we were doomed.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sll+WwWzNK6

Post a reply

: