Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#81

Post by mcguire »

coredog64 wrote: post #62
krona wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM isn't a tech company. It's a brand with an impressive marketing department that sells experiences, not products. The rest of it (the stuff you don't see unless you get close enough) is an accumulation of spaghetti acquired in an ad hoc and aimless fashion.

At my previous employer, we were evaluating solutions from IBM, TIBCO, and Oracle. The IBM solution was cheaper and met our needs. In the end, our VP nixed them with the statement of "I don't really want to support IBM software." The feeling was unanimous across the team.

"At my previous employer, we were evaluating solutions from IBM, TIBCO, and Oracle."

I pity your previous employer.

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#82

Post by hnbroseph »

S_A_P wrote: post #63

IBM is a failed services company. Ive been a subcontractor for 2 projects run by IBM. Both fiascos of mismanagement. The project management at IBM had an incredible churn rate. On the first project, they were kicked off for completely failing to deliver. The second project had them completely marginalized. The sad thing is that it was another "big 4" consulting company that took over, who was only slightly less incom…

the model is mostly around slick sales people scoring fat contracts from largely non-technical corporate bureaucrats.

the rest is just trying to deliver as little as possible, as cheaply as possible, without outright violating the contract.

real shame to apply the flimflam business consulting ethos to the it consulting arena, but it is the way of things.

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#83

Post by homakov »

S_A_P wrote: post #63

IBM is a failed services company. Ive been a subcontractor for 2 projects run by IBM. Both fiascos of mismanagement. The project management at IBM had an incredible churn rate. On the first project, they were kicked off for completely failing to deliver. The second project had them completely marginalized. The sad thing is that it was another "big 4" consulting company that took over, who was only slightly less incom…

What kind of consulting was that? Anything about development?

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#84

Post by pinaceae »

S_A_P wrote: post #63

IBM is a failed services company. Ive been a subcontractor for 2 projects run by IBM. Both fiascos of mismanagement. The project management at IBM had an incredible churn rate. On the first project, they were kicked off for completely failing to deliver. The second project had them completely marginalized. The sad thing is that it was another "big 4" consulting company that took over, who was only slightly less incom…

the Big 4 win contracts based on necessary certifications. once it is a 100mil+ project, all kinds of certs come into play, small shops simply can't produce the paperwork.

of course, there is no correlation between certs and actually being able to deliver anything, but that does not matter. no CIO will risk their career by not giving big stuff to a non-Big4 contract.

file under herd mentality, etc.

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#86

Post by paulddraper »

pinaceae wrote: post #84
S_A_P wrote: post #63

IBM is a failed services company. Ive been a subcontractor for 2 projects run by IBM. Both fiascos of mismanagement. The project management at IBM had an incredible churn rate. On the first project, they were kicked off for completely failing to deliver. The second project had them completely marginalized. The sad thing is that it was another "big 4" consulting company that took over, who was only slightly less incom…

the Big 4 win contracts based on necessary certifications. once it is a 100mil+ project, all kinds of certs come into play, small shops simply can't produce the paperwork. of course, there is no correlation between certs and actually being able to deliver anything, but that does not matter. no CIO will risk their career by not giving big stuff to a non-Big4 contract. file under herd mentality, etc.

What certs are we talking about? SSL certs? PE certs? Cisco certs?

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#87

Post by RobertoG »

S_A_P wrote: post #63

IBM is a failed services company. Ive been a subcontractor for 2 projects run by IBM. Both fiascos of mismanagement. The project management at IBM had an incredible churn rate. On the first project, they were kicked off for completely failing to deliver. The second project had them completely marginalized. The sad thing is that it was another "big 4" consulting company that took over, who was only slightly less incom…

"I really have trouble understanding the big 4 consulting model. It mainly seems to consist of the following"

I think that, as with enterprise software, is mostly about the management in the customer company trying to cover his/her ass. Big four and similar are the less risky options, not for the project but for the managers.

'Yes, the project was a disaster, but I hired IBM, so, no responsibility here.'

Of course, the management of the customer and the consulting companies are normally old friends. That helps too.

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#88

Post by jrs235 »

organsnyder wrote: post #69
markbnj wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article though? They are offering 90 days to make the decision, and a month's severance (miserly, imo, but they're offering it). As mentioned in the piece this wouldn't be a very manageable or predictable way to reduce headcount. It's much more likely the motives are exactly what the company said the motives are: they feel like they will be more effective working together. I would likely be one of th…

A month's severance is a lot cheaper than paying for unemployment benefits.

From my understanding, and this will vary from state to state since unemployment insurance is managed and dealt with by states, not the federal government, employees would still possibly be able to collect unemployment after that month of severance runs out if they are unable to get a new job (and are actively looking) and the unemployment claims will still ding IBM. That month of severance offsets their unemployment insurance rate increase(s). IBM is hoping folks can find a job in the next four months so they don't have to pay any out. Additionally, I would assume, part of accepting the severance might require the employee signing papers which state that the end of employment is voluntary and agreed upon possibly invalidating the employees claim to unemployment and thus hurting IBM's insurance rates. Whether that applies or works will depend on numerous factors, particularly the state the employment occurred in.

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#89

Post by mathattack »

It's easy to forget that IBM is in the share buyback business. They're not a growing technology power. They have Watson, which isn't enough to save them. They can't invest money wisely, so every year they cut headcount and return some money to shareholders. It's the orderly returning of money to shareholders from a company that doesn't need investment anymore.

So why should this company offer perks to compete with Google or a startup? They only need a shrinking subset of lifers to keep the lights on.

If you want to telecommute, find a place that specializes in it.

Re: IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department

#90

Post by randomguy23 »

cableshaft wrote: post #27
talawahdotnet wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could also be presidential quote. This timeline we are on is really weird.

Abed (from Community) rolled the dice wrong and we're on the second darkest timeline. I say second darkest because I believe there is a timeline where Trump would have started WW3 already.

The timeline where Hillary became President has already been ended. so yeah, maybe second.
Post reply on HN