Posted on 04/29/2012 8:00:09 AM PDT by Daffynition
Reducing employees by more than three quarters in three years is a bold and difficult task. What will it leave behind? Who, under this plan, will still be a US IBM employee in 2015? Top management will remain, the sales organization will endure, as will employees working on US government contracts that require workers to be US citizens. Everyone else will be gone. Everyone.
(Excerpt) Read more at betanews.com ...
I’m sorry, that was sloppy of me. Interesting though that this idea has been kicking around for quite a while.
For accuracy, perhaps you should post the “Lenovo” symbol as well.
You know.
The IBM PC company, the original, the IBM subsidiary that is now owned by the People Republic of China?
Only IBM, or an IBM certified Partner is authorized to provide service on IBM products.
That said, IBM has been actively expanding its business partner base to absorb the technical support because it is too cost intensive to IBM to retain. This has been going on since at least 1990.
It is not the IBM products that have become too expensive, it is their after purchase services.
Thier products are, compared to the market, far more expensive - but they come with guarantees that no other company offers. Example - IBM disks cost several hundred dollars - but if they fail, they are replaced free.
Support contracts ARE expensive - that is true - the competion is too, if they provide the same support.
... but were required to become sales people as well.
Very true. But also true in the market in general ...
A tech with an impeccable customer satisfaction record would be dinged on performance because of a lack of sales.
Also very true, and, unfortunately a fact of life nowadays ....
I hope you husband is doing well with the new employer - tell him a Hardware Tech in Switzerland (ex IBM Business Partner) feels his pain and recomends a bit of sales training - regardless of his present employer - it can only help ...
They've gone Galt!
Their jobs have left America, and are now paying for salaries, food, lodging and the raising of families - of Communist Chinese.
________________
Does this mean uh...the popularity of the company is waning?
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.
Appreciate your comments.
My husband didn’t need sales training, had been in it before he went to IBM and in fact looked to go into sales when he was hired on - but they wanted field techs and had no interest in his sales background.
Oh well. It took 3 years, but he is back as a field tech and enjoying it, and enjoying interacting with so many he dealt with while he was with IBM.
Having had the misfortune to observe firsthand a company reducing itself to a shell of its former self, I’ll just say that the talented and the good got out on their own as soon as the decline became evident.
The unmotivated, the entrenched, the lifers nearing retirement and the scheming political deadwood will cling to the bitter end. Speaking of scheming political deadwood, I suspect there’s not been a single dismissal in HR despite such a massive reduction in headcount. They always find their way into HR, because that’s where the hiring and firing decisions are ultimately decided and enacted. Nothing quite like being a decider to save one’s own sorry hide in such situations.
I also suspect expensive diversity consultants, training and seminars are going just as strongly as ever, since they’re becoming increasingly more diverse, being averse to letting go anyone with potential standing to sue for racial or gender bias.
They might as well become an arm of the Federal Government, once they get through, because the people and the attitude will be identical.
“IBM rewarded automotons; clueless bureaucrats who understood process (the author of this piece nailed that part) and could talk the talk. If you stuck your neck out, your head got chopped off.”
Could read:
“Boeing/Lockheed Martin rewarded automotons; clueless bureaucrats who understood process. . .and could talk the talk. If you stuck your neck out, your head got chopped off.”
Boeing has been going through “downsizing” for quite a while now. As has LM.
Automatons and bureaucrats seem to survive.
While LM has the JSF, for now, don’t see much in the future for them.
Boeing military has the air re-fueling tanker, for now.
When the F-18 line finishes and the Saudi F-15 sale is done. . .there are no programs to keep St Louis alive.
Regardless, I expect the president’s and VP’s of Boeing’s military programs to continue to get bonuses for a job well done.
I probably know you.
i turned down a job offer from them in 1998. the had a contract with eckerds. something didnt feel right. a year or so later they lost the contract.
OK, that's a legitimate question. The folks best equipped to answer it are the Wall Street analysts who study IBM (and other commonly held stocks) very carefully, because that's just what they do in their profession. Turns out, from everything I've seen, that the consensus of these analysts is that IBM will have double digit growth of the bottom line for at least the next three years. Put into Wall Street jargon, they are very bullish on IBM. (Of course, these analyst opinions are always subject to change as events warrant.)
Owned a company that provided support to IBM installs during the 80’s and 90’s.
Was a VAR too.
Always amazed me how much Big Blue’s customer’s in all the mid and large shops in the area HATED IBM. Hated their manipulative ways, hated their service contract games, hated their fees, hated the lies and half truths told by their sales people.
We made money by being the access to IBM product with out having to deal with IBM.
IBM successfully reinvented itself in response to the threat of technological change, while Kodak was too slow to adapt and therefore is in Chapter 11.
IBM just exceeded forecasts on income, missed on revenue. This is a tough environment and flat market for continued growth, but the company is a market leader for good reason.
We’ll see how they adapt and whether the profits they’ve been generating, in part by not sharing cost efficiencies with customers under long-term contracts, affect their growth in the next couple of years.
Yes, the revenue miss was by a hair, and some nitwits decided to go into an unwarranted selling frenzy, diminishing the stock price by 5% (about 10 points). Try as I may, I found no other logical reason for it. Now that the dust from that has cleared, the market price has recovered to about 207, which I would consider as a tad shy of appropriate value for the stock.
Or "OS/2 obliterates your hard drive!"
Stock price is what you pay, value is what you get. Your argument would have worked just as well for Enron until early 2001.
As someone who has experience both inside and outside IBM, I have to agree with the author that the path IBM management is going down is unsustainable. I saw how poorly structured and problematic many of IBMs outsourcing forays were. IGS charges a lot for their services, but we found that the service was declining in quality as more and more was outsourced and strong, experienced people were layed off. A few years back the company I worked for discontinued the IGS contracts and recruited a bunch of the IBM people who supported and maintained our systems. It was a win-win for us and the support team- we saved a lot of money, started getting better service and they got more secure jobs with less paperwork.
Outsourcing in treason.
Yes, that’s melodramatic, and perhaps a bit over the top.
Yet. What is treason?
Profiting, from harming American interests.
Melodrama? Or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.