Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Iz.I.T.4.V.S.P. - follow-up

My last blog entry got a lot of attention and generated quite a few comments. While I won't address all the comments, I do appreciate the differing views and opinions.

I wanted to clarify a few things: Several people made the point that we need to shrink the size of IT. I don't disagree, but it doesn't really matter: if my job is to reduce the size of my team, then that's what I need to do whether or I agree or not. I expressed an opinion that it would be better for the people, and ultimately better for Intel, to offer VSP rather than going through a redeployment exercise. But it wasn't my decision, it was JJ's. He has access to information I do not, he may be trying achieve goals of which I'm not aware, or VSP may not have been an option for him. Or I could just be wrong. It's my opinion - nothing more.

A couple of people sent email asking what I think about JJ's handling of this situation. I think his communication to us internally was honest and came early. I think he told us what he could. He didn't seem any happier about laying off people than am I, or any of you are. It's unpleasant work, and he doesn't have the luxury of bitching about it on a blog. I don't really know JJ, but he seems to be a decent guy and I think he's a good CIO. He's handling the redeployment about as well as it can be handled, imo.

One commenter thinks I'm acting unethically:

Obviously you failed your BPX and Info Security training - this is stupid. You're the guy that ruins it for the rest of us managers (JJ & IT Staff is afraid to share anything with the rest of the organization because they fear seeing it end up on a web site or blog somewhere)

I haven't shared any information that is not public knowledge, with the exception of some personal observations and widely circulated rumors, neither of which are confidential. I didn't blog about this redeployment until Intel issued a press release with some specifics.

As far as IT staff sharing information, I don't see a real problem there. I get a lot of information from my management that I can't share, or choose not to share. Intel people were speaking to InformationWeek, ComputerWorld, the WSJ, the SJ Merc, the Oregonian, and other publications long before I started blogging. I can't imagine that JJ or other execs are having to be any more careful now.

39 comments:

Bill A said...

A per VSP, I have changed my mind over time. Originally, I believed that not offering VSP was the right thing to do. If you do offer VSP you tend to lose the top performers or true risk-takers who feel they will be fine elsewhere. And those who would never take VSP tend to be those who are too scared to leave, but are not necessarily motivated.

My current thinking is that morale is so low, it would be best to have an open VSP in groups to allow those who are so fed up and demotivated to simply leave.

It's honestly a tough call.

My understanding from talking with some folks in upper management (FWIW) is that VSP has been offered to those with bad reviews in the past, but this exposed Intel to some legal issues that they are trying to avoid. I have never had that official validated though. Just the usual hallway/CPR (CPR in Oregon) conversations.

Keep up the blog, I think it's a pretty healthy thing keep doing as a release of steam and frustration.

Anonymous said...

Don't know why u are defending JJ. He is the commander-in-chief for IT and under his tenure, this just went from bad to worse.
Whole SAP replatform is a big joke, a trainwreck and most of the work bees know it. JJ did nothing to bridge that gap betweeen people who actually do work and those who make decisions.
Its not all his blame. But, he did nothing to make it better even when he was in-charge.

Anonymous said...

I was in the process of leaving Intel when SAP was declared "necessary" for the success of the company.

I was also present when IT brought the original SAP, STAR, inhouse for the same reason.

Both were flawed decisions.

The fundamental reason STAR turned into such an IT mess and financial disaster was that it was the primary recipient of significant funds. Therefore, the customer departments heaped every request they had onto this single project and the software turned into a nightmare of development and support.

It didn't help that prior to STAR's arrival the business side of Intel IT had been Univac based and the operations staff had no flaming idea how to implement or support an IBM based system.

SAP was initially seen as a successor to STAR except those of us who had originally developed STAR knew better. SAP was a generalized IT solution and nowhere in Intel did user departments want to settle for "general". They refused, in large part, to alter their business practices and therefore required substantial modification of SAP to work. This, in addition to the normal number of interfaces required to support other existing IT systems.

SAP's failure, in terms of 'features' as well as cost of support was predetermined.

A lot of IT people knew this long ago. Some of us said so. All of us were ignored.

If you want a textbook case of how to demotivate skilled technicians take a thorough look at IT history.

Anonymous said...

I think the contributors that are saying suck it up or leave are missing the point. I sense you care enough to stick around and would like to see things get better. The folks who have completely given up are the ones who choose to leave. So maybe you still have some hope that things will get better and you still have some loyalty to the company. I know Intel employees in general demonstrate a level of loyalty I haven't seen in any other company, especially given the conditions.

As far as blogging about it, I think it's your personal choice to express yourself in this way. I think you have been fairly balanced and fair, sometimes maybe a bit too fair. There's no point in anyone leaving comments that you shouldn't be blogging. It's a bit hypocritical to be contributing to blog that you don't think should even exist. All the comments feed the blogfire.

Anonymous said...

You CAN get VSP (or something like it). Just get CAP'ed and you'll be offered a buy out.

Anonymous said...

I agree with previous post about JJ. I am not part of IT nor do I know JJ, but why are the IT higher-us/managers not the ones being cut? When a sports team performs poorly, the coach is held accountable and he and his coaching staff are usually fired.

Anonymous said...

I stand corrected on the thought - "if you dont like it leave". I agree about the loyalty of Intel employees. I myself an not terribly excited about the things are being handled at Intel. However I still love the company and its foundational processes. You are still sticking around like me, because you still care enough to see how you can support the company through the turbulent times and effect a positive change. Keep up the good work. We will come through this and rebuild a strong company. The current turbulence is created by poor leadership/vision that should be corrected. Opening the doors to let go of the rank and file while retaining the senior management will lead to other problems. The bloodletting should include senior and mid-level managers. The YES men should go.

Anonymous said...

that question has been asked every time there's a reorg or headcount is cut. The problem is, it's management who reorgs and/or decides to cut heads. As long as the action is only at the IT level and isn't initiated at a higher level, then it's up to IT management to do as they please with little or no accountability.

Intel has a history of extreme ADD - managers don't stick around on projects long enough for them to be called a complete success or to be accountable for their failure. People shift from position to position every few years and leave all their half finished problems for someone else to clean up. STAR was mentioned, SAP was mentioned, there are dozens of other examples as well. This constant abandonment of work mid-stride is one of the big causes of the current situation. When there's that much wasted time and money, someone starts to notice and belts get tightened.
JJ can say he's sorry and people believe him and he seems to mean it. He probably does mean it but he's not the cause of the problems, just the current focus of the frustration. It's always someone else's problem that management is cleaning up so they can appear sincere. But until the culture is changed and senior people are held accountable long term for the choices they've made this situation will repeat itself over and over.

One thing that I can't understand is that people have said JJ gave us all plenty of notice. I don't understand that at all. When JJ finally came out and said that there would be reductions, he also explained that IT was spending something like 50 million over budget and that there had been several cost reductions handed down on top of that. Setting aside the additonal reductions that JJ is trying to make, at a burden rate of 100k per employee 50 mil is 500 people. So we should have cut an additional 500 heads back in January instead of blindly telling everyone that things were fine and that we wouldn't cut any more heads. That, combined with the fact that nobody has any say into their "skills assessment" upon which the cuts are being made has demoralized the entire IT population.

Oh yeah, thanks for waiting close to the holidays to announce the cuts JJ. I'm sure all of our families really appreciate that.

Anonymous said...

In JJ's defense I would point out that he has never said that redeployment is over and we will be okay. The caveate has always been we don't know about the future.

On the other hand he is the most senior IT person in the company and is currently 100% accountable for the good the bad and ugly. Clearly cuts should have been more last year. Bureaucracy is worse than ever (seriously!). Motivation is at an all time low in the org.

He is also breaks in the number one mgmt communication rule in lay offs. Never say how hard this is for you (your are not the one being laid off).

Anonymous said...

We've come a long way from a true IT tech guy like Doug Busch to JJ of the sales & marketing world, which btw is where Paul came from. Ask yourself, are we better off?

Anonymous said...

I've been following this blog and have noticed a couple references to the SAP program being 'messed up'. I work on this program and quite frankly don't agree but that's not the point I want to make. My point....if the worker bees on SAP replatfor think it is a big joke, a trainwreck, then why don't they stand up and say something about it with some real examples that JJ and/or his management team can understand. To those of you who say you care about Intel and IT, it would be a lot more useful to stand up and make your point rather than use anonymous blog entries to whine about it. Quit being a victim. Stand up and do something about it. Whining anonymously in an external blog is just CS.

Anonymous said...

Over the years IT has suffered as a result of pandering to internal customers. This has resulted in a convoluted organization full of duplication. Systems that have been customized beyond recognition and multiple solutions to the same IT problems have been implemented, and continue to be supported. Now the businesses are asking why IT is so expensive and pushing for cuts. Poor IT leadership over 10+ years has resulted in this mess. Basic IT strategic guidelines have been ignored with predictable results. Maybe JJ is the guy to fix things but it will continue to be painful for customers and IT alike until IT is actually a world class org, versus just saying it is.

Anonymous said...

The Doug Busch comment brought to mind some memories.

As a mid-level manager in IT for over 20 years I saw half a dozen IT managers. Both Doug and Neal Franking were excellent technicians who could direct the technical aspects of the IT world. I doubt either had any measurable affect upon the business side of Intel however.

The remainder of IT's managers have been pretty much useless. They were pretty much ego-driven generic 'managers' who didn't seem to connect well with the IT rank-and-file and one in particular (of the feminine gender) seemed to go out of her way to foment instability.

Intel, during my career, had some pretty decent intermediate managers but most didn't seem to have a taste for the non-technical aspects of managing people. And there was altogether too much interference into the developing technology of IT by non-IT senior managers. Witness the debacle of STAR, DAISY and the current state of SAP for examples.

Admitedly, it is very difficult to find a senior department manager who is technically well versed and is also competent at people and budget management. Most IT managers haven't risen to this level.

In my estimation this is the major shortcoming of senior Intel management for their failure to recognize the appropriate skillsets and to embrace IT as a contributor to the bottom line instead of merely a cost center.

Anonymous said...

Quite honestly, bringing in an external consultancy to fix the woes of an organization is a straight admission that you either don't have the balls to be accountable for making the decisions yourself, or you have no clue what needs to be changed. Either way, senior management in a company the size of Intel should have the skills to understand and resolve the issues at hand without external help. We should be the case studies that consultants cite, instead of just another lucrative project for these parasites. Don't we pay senior management enough that they should be qualified to drive change without needing the help of expensive guides.

Anonymous said...

You'd need executives that are playing to win instead of playing not to lose.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your comments and hope you continue to blog. I'm a former IT gal who quit right after the latest redeployment announcement. At this point, having been at my new job for a couple months, all I can say is that I wish I had left Intel sooner. Sometimes...the grass IS greener on the other side. My managers genuinely care about me, not just how much I can produce. Intel is growing old and not evolving their culture. People I knew that had worked there several years longer than me have also quit, and the people I see staying are the ones that continuously tried to do as little as possible to get by. I'm interested as a bystander now to see how IT at Intel survives into the future.

Anonymous said...

Keep on blogging, Intel IT Guy! I found this blog a couple of weeks ago by fluke, but I’ve been so busy I haven’t been able to write until now. It’s good to know that there is an outlet where we can converse openly and honestly on topics on the minds of employees.

Whoever made the “BPX” comment is clueless, and perhaps they failed their BPX training! Communication in IT at Intel is inconsistent, at best, and to attack your blog as an excuse for not being open and honest with employees is ridiculous. Personally in my specific area, I think communication could be a lot better in IT.

It’s been interesting to go back through some of the older posts on this blog. I definitely like hearing the different perspectives.

I was really surprised by the amount people unhappy with the telecommute policy. The key for me has always been having flexible work arrangements, and that hasn’t changed. In fact, the announcement really wasn’t a surprise for me at all. The one telecommute day per week was already the standard arrangement where I work, but the manager had more discretion to make exceptions. Personally, I think there are intangible benefits that we gain by having folks interacting together at the office. And for those people that are alone at their site, I would encourage them to pursue getting the CIO exception justification, if they believe they have a good case. As far as I know, Intel still seems to be in the minority of companies when it comes to allowing people to work from home at all.

I also understand the arguments against allowing VSP, but this time around, I would also lean towards allowing a VSP. For those that want to go, let them go. I really want to stay at Intel. I personally have hated my job for the last couple of years, but now I’m finally seeing signs of opportunity for a more interesting job. I had been looking for jobs internally since 2005, but it’s been slim pickings’. I’ve even been exploring jobs below my current grade level, and even trying to get those jobs seems to be highly competitive. Yes, by allowing VSP, we will lose some good people, but I’ve already seen us lose good people through redeployment anyway, so why not give people a choice? I’m sure there are a good many of us that are excellent contributors that will be willing to fill any positions that need to be replaced.

By no means am I guaranteed to survive this round of redeployments, but I finally convinced myself to not worry about it anymore. That said, I don’t think I will be redeployed. But if I am, I will try to take it all in stride.

The fact that we are having a redeployment again so soon after the last one still bothers me, though. I really expect better leadership from the CIO and IT mgmt. JJ didn’t do a good job of explaining why these cuts are needed when it was announced initially, and the explanation that I heard in subsequent open forums that we have to cut costs because of the ‘competitive environment’ just doesn’t fly, especially in light of Intel raising Q3 guidance. If we still have fat to cut, then we should’ve cut more last year. The problem is when we cut IT projects, embedded IT seems to pick up the slack. My perception is that Otellini does not think much of IT—he is definitely focused on meeting the cost reduction goals he promised to Wall Street though. I heard IT managers also comment that our cuts will be small potatoes compared to some other business groups, but until today, I had not seen any announcements. In light of today’s announcement, it still doesn’t change my perception—the cut announced today was much smaller percentage-wise than the IT cut.

Oh, and by the way I expect to see the green badge population shrink significantly after this redeployment. In my area, they went a little crazy hiring green badges last year. And while we are at it, if we have a need to retain some green badges with “special skills”, then why aren’t we pursuing training enough internal IT folks to have these skills? I don’t mind when we hire externally for a skill that we don’t have a competency in for a short period of time, but part of the action plan should then be to train our internal folks to replace the green badge after a specified time.

Anonymous said...

Excellent Blog. Love reading it. On SAP Rep or should I call it SAP Rape, its pretty bad and despite what VG may say here, ignorance isn't always a bliss.

Anonymous said...

I'm a 13 year Intel IT veteran. I absolutely believe they should have offered VSP, early retirement, and anything else they could have come up with to let the people who want to leave go and give those who want to stay more of a chance to do that. This could have been done so much more imaginatively, and in a way that would have made us feel like we are all working together for the good of the company and each other. Like we matter.

I don't blame JJ for the situation we are in. I truly believe he was trying to do the best he could by us. He cut only as much as he had to last year hoping he wouldn't have to do more this year. He tried everything he could to not have to do this to us, I'm pretty sure about that.

I'm really pissed about the way this redeployment has been handled. Making us wait forever to find out our fate has been horrendous. Using sterile euphemisms like "People Movement Actions" and then having the audacity to turn it into a three letter acronym (PMA) is enough to make me want to throw rotten tomatoes at upper management. I had given Paul Otellini the benefit of the doubt up until this, but now he's right up there with George Bush in my estimiation. Hiring Bain to tell him what to do so he doesn't have to be responsible for giving us the shaft is obnoxious as hell. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this weird cone of silence treatment over an extended period was designed to make people want to quit. This makes me even more mad. Stacy Smith gives me the pip, too. We are all being treated like mushrooms (keep 'em in the dark and feed them shit). It makes me seriously wonder what is really going on. I have never seen anything like this during my tenure.

Anonymous said...

Check out the new "Flexibility Report" from Intel. There is so much in this report that is contradicted by the latest telecommuting policy it is a joke. The current policy is "one size fits all", no manager discretion and no recognition for individual circumstances. These reports might win prizes in magazine "best" lists but they don't reflect reality in Intel today. Where is the integrity here? This is completely disingenuous.

Anonymous said...

Intel's IT is not what most peeps think. In terms of world class efficiency and skillset. Yes there are some really good people, but there are a lot of folks who don't have the skills they need for their positions. Take a look around and realize that IT's product offering at Intel is actually falling behind in the industry in almost every way.

Also from TMG perspective, Once you see that IT is nothing more than a support org for a factory then you are starting to wake up. IT's glory daze of gaining blind credability from Finanace is pretty much over. Reductions are simply not going to stop in the near future and the folks who do not get cut this time are simply going to have to go through this over and over and likely reach the point where all operations and engineering are outsourced.

It really is painfully evident now that despite the "GPTW" bleed blue loyalty of Intel blue badges, the focus of this company has shifted away from awarding such loyalty with stability to more of a sweatshop style "live with it while you can" concept lathered with sound byte consolations. "It kills us to do this to you but we gotta!". I mean c'mon! Who can deny that this style of knowing the tornado is coming is not completely sadistic. We have people with families built under the illusion of the Intel stability. Simply brutal to put us through two high pressure drawn out layoffs two years in a row. Who is loyal now? Who is in denial? Who has now realized they are way over paid? (Oops!)

Ever since Andy Bryant let a TMG guy (Stacy) evaluate IT, the jig was up. At this point, everyone is expendable under Andy Bryant's departments... yes, even you Stacy! :)

Anonymous said...

what happened? no more new posts?

Anonymous said...

The last 2 or 3 posters "couldn't believe" what is going on in IT these days.

I really hate to inform you people, but that is just about how it has been for the past 20 years.

Different players. SOS!

Anonymous said...

How can they even pretend like they care about the supposed Intel Value "Great Place To Work"? That just sounds so hollow at the moment.

I had a job interview at a different company today. It was such an ego booster to be treated with such respect by a company that obviously would love to have me in their IT department.

If I don't end up getting redeployed it is going to be a really hard decision to make if I do get offered this job. The thought of working for a company that actually wants to retain you as an employee, as opposed to constantly being told to get lost, is really enticing. I'm not sure I can go through another complete reorg, the turf wars, the forming/norming/storming but never performing process again--especially if this is just going to keep happening. If things are going to level out I definitely want to stay. If they're not, I am so outta here!

Anonymous said...

I have only been at Intel for a few years but have been through a few layoffs at various silicon valley companies prior to joining Intel. Most of my colleagues have been at Intel 10+ years, have been quite spoiled and have this feeling of entitlement. Most companies do not provide VSPs nor generous severance packages when doing layoffs, but Intel folks affected directly or indirectly by recent cuts feel pissed-off and outraged as if Intel is some type of evil-empire sweatshop taking advantage of people. Don't people realize how good we have it and how it's actually a privilege to work for Intel?

Anonymous said...

Privilege? Entitled? Excuse me? I would dare you to walk up to a long term employee, like you said, one of 10+ more years and say that to their face. Wonder if you would get a lesson on what it is really like to work for Intel? Come on, reality check. Take those rose colored glasses off. It isn't all as it might seem behind the press releases.

Anonymous said...

"I have only been at Intel for a few years"

This pretty much says why you have the following opinions. Get a few more years under your belt before comparing Intel with other companies (both IT-related and non-IT). You will find the criticisms here are accurate and justified.

"... have been through a few layoffs at various silicon valley companies prior to joining Intel."

But, have you been at a company which makes layoffs (no matter what they call it) a continuing management process?

Has it occured to you that companies to do this type of management greatly impact the morale of their employees to the extent that productivity and ingenuity are reduced dramatically?

"Most companies do not provide VSPs nor generous severance packages when doing layoffs..."

Untrue. Intel is in the middle of the pack in this regard.

"... but Intel folks affected directly or indirectly by recent cuts feel pissed-off and outraged as if Intel is some type of evil-empire sweatshop taking advantage of people."

I no longer work at Intel and took advantage of a VSP (and retirement) six years ago so my input to this topic comes as a result of talking with current employees and what I've read in the blogs and elsewhere.

I can tell you from personal experience virtually everyone at Intel recognizes the need to tighten the belt when business conditions warrant. But, to have these reoccuring hiring/firing cycles do little to give employees a sense of stability or maximize their desire to contribute to the "team" since reductions are not team related but personal.

It also seems as if senior management makes the same hiring mistakes time after time and never suffers the pain of contraction. On my tour, the operations in the Philippines was greatly expanded in great haste. Two years later the business took a pratfall but it was not possible, due to legal restrictions, to fire Fillipinos or Europeans so we in the U.S. took the fall and work was then outsourced offshore. When that failed, as predicted, the U.S. ramped up again and began the cycle all over again.

You'd think senior management never attended business school as staffing is perhaps the most important fundamental aspect of running a business.

"Don't people realize how good we have it and how it's actually a privilege to work for Intel?"

Like I said earlier, get a few more years under your belt then repost. You will no doubt have a different opinion. However...

Most employees do have it good at Intel compared to other manufacturing/engineering jobs. Notice I said 'good' and not 'excellent'. As an earlier poster pointed out, Intel expects and requires excellent performance from its employees but its own HR will tell you they aim for middle-of-the-pack in benefits and salaries. They used to provide detailed charts of this at the various BUM's. You have to give some Intel manager credit though because this was ingenious. You give employees average salaries and benefits rewarding them primarily with stock options which are made valuable by outside investors. Didn't cost Intel a virtual penny.

They also promote 'teamwork' but then evaluate everyone on their personal contributions or shortcomings. In every respect this is fundamentally flawed and has problems much too lenghy to go into here.

I made, and lost, and remade a fortune at Intel but it was done as a result of stock investments (including INTC) as well as other companies. I probably couldn't have done that at any other company at that time, however, Intel itself didn't provide that benefit - outside stockholders did. Then everybody suffered when INTC went into the tech meltdown from which it still hasn't recovered.

As far as it being a 'privilege' to work at Intel - BS! Intel is no different than any other large company, better than some and worse than others. It has not ranked anywhere near the top in any catagory for a great many years and will probably never do so again without some sort of 'miracle' change in management or product.

If you are a relative youngster in the working world and feel you have major contributions to make I would honestly suggest you look for a company which truely encourages this type of work and provides the environment to allow it to flourish. With the virtual single exception of certain engineering functions, Intel does not.

Intel's first priority has always been Wall Street and until 2000 they were the darlings of the investment world. Since then they have been a disaster, one that was almost in lock step with the retirement of the original senior management. They will undoubtably continue to be a major force in a niche market but they will never again be one of the shining stars. And neither will their employees.

Anonymous said...

Working at Intel is neither a privilege nor a sweatshop experience. Believing that working for a company is a privilege is exactly the attitude that makes people stick around long after they should have moved on to greener pastures.

I have worked for several other companies. Some better some worse than Intel in terms of employee relations. I don't think many people disagree that companies need to make cuts as Intel is now. I think it is the manner and frequency of the cuts along with poor communications that have many people frustrated.

Anyone who thinks that working for Intel is a privilege and that Intel is one of the best places to work is sadly mistaken. It may not be at the bottom, but it's nowhere near the top.

Anonymous said...

Working at Intel is neither a privilege nor a sweatshop experience. Believing that working for a company is a privilege is exactly the attitude that makes people stick around long after they should have moved on to greener pastures.

I have worked for several other companies. Some better some worse than Intel in terms of employee relations. I don't think many people disagree that companies need to make cuts as Intel is now. I think it is the manner and frequency of the cuts along with poor communications that have many people frustrated.

Anyone who thinks that working for Intel is a privilege and that Intel is one of the best places to work is sadly mistaken. It may not be at the bottom, but it's nowhere near the top.

Anonymous said...

In 5 years microprocessors will be considered commodity parts. the market already knows this and prices intel stock appropriately. If something else comes along to fulfill the need that silicon based microproceesors fill, intel will be out of business in 1 year. I can say this with confidence based on a long history of repeated failures to compete in other markets. intel online services, viiv, intel toys, ...

management is not at fault for it's current actions, it is at fault for getting us to this point in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Fictitious interview with an Intel IT Executive...

Q : I read in a recent article that Intel was voted into the top 100 co’s for workng mothers. How are you implementing flexible arrangements in IT to help working mothers and father’s for that matter?
IT EXEC : Well we’ve implemented an annual plan where we identify 500-1000 of our employees each year for our ultimate work-life balance program.
Q : Tell me more…
IT EXEC : Yes, these employees are provided with the opportunity to spend 100% of their time with their families on an indefinite basis
Q : That’s an amazing program, and do these employees remain on the payroll?
IT EXEC : No.
Q : This sounds like it may have other benefits to Intel by way of reducing headcount and costs?
IT EXEC : We are in a highly competitive market. It’s important for the company and for IT to remain competitive.
Q : Didn’t Intel gain market share from their leading competitor in the past year? Was that a result of last years “ultimate flexibility program” ?
IT EXEC : Not exactly. The company has better products today and is gaining market share based on those products.
Q : I see. What other fringe benefits does the company get from this program?
IT EXEC : We’re under enormous cost pressures, and this reduces one of our biggest costs.
Q : How much do you expect to save with this ongoing program?
IT EXEC : I’m not exactly sure.
Q : How much do you need to save, say in the next 2 years?
IT EXEC : We’re still working on that data.
Q : This sounds a lot like a program of layoffs.
IT EXEC : Intel doesn’t do layoffs, instead we have a redeployment program that allows employees time to find another job within the company.
Q : But if you have widespread "redeployment" what’s the chance of an employee finding another position inside the company?
IT EXEC : The best employees with the right skills may find jobs inside the company.
Q : “best employees with the right skills”, why exactly would you want to lay those people off in the first place?
IT EXEC : It’s the process.
Q : Do you think this program will continue through next year?
IT EXEC : There are no promises. It depends on the business climate.
Q : What business climate would allow the program to continue, or conversely what would cause you to terminate it?
IT EXEC : I don’t think I understand the question. If the business climate is say a 5 we will continue, but if it’s a 7 I’m not so sure.
Q : What scale are you using there, 1-10 with 1 being a better climate?
IT EXEC : This is really hard for me you know.
Q : What do you mean exactly?
IT EXEC : I’m not sure which way the scale goes. Last year things were tough and we had the program. This year things are good and we have the program. It’s a very complex situation.
Q : Sounds very confusing.
IT EXEC : I am.

Deb said...

wow! another blog about Intel. Is the mood at intel really that bad. Read the posting at intellion.blogspot.com

I have a couple of friends at Intel. I will call them and maybe go for a girls night out to cheer them up.

Anonymous said...

Nobody outside of Intel IT really cares about the IT redeployment to be announced this week. What wallstreet and shareholders are more concerned about are canceled projects, executive changes, etc. If anything, the proposed cuts will actually be good for the stock price since the perception is that Intel will become leaner. So, I feel for you IT folks, as you are in a thankless position where there is no visibility with your contributions but much blame for the perceived "fat" within Intel.

Bill A said...

*** In 5 years microprocessors will be considered commodity parts. the market already knows this and prices intel stock appropriately ***

That's the silliest thing I have ever heard. There are only two people who can make processors: Intel and AMD. They are a pain to make, it gets harder year in an year out...and does not really get much cheaper either. Processors will only be a commodity when ANYONE can get into the business and start cranking them out for 10% margin (right now they make 40-60% margin).

Intel stock is accurately priced. It's not low. It's simply the price of the companies future earnings potential and assets. Given that Intel and AMD are fairly well priced.

If you were to go back 12 years and look at the stock price gains, you would see Intel is up nearly 400%.

Not bad for 12 years.

However, everyone's view is based on the prices during the equity bubble of 2000.

Anonymous said...

Good luck to all receiving info this week. If you end up leaving the company, hopefully it will be a positive move for you.

Anonymous said...

The comment above about no one caring about redeployment outside of IT is sad but true, although DEG also announced a 2% workforce reduction last week.

I just found out today that I would not be redeployed, which is somewhat of a relief from a financial perspective, but that there would be some impacts to my immediate team--don't know who yet.

We announced a great quarter today, but I don't feel as happy about it as I would've a few years ago. I'm anxious to find out which of my friends/co-workers will be impacted.

One co-worker friend of mine indicated that they were already planning the next round of redeployments in IT, ~March '08 timeframe. I'm naturally skeptical of comments like this, but at the same time, I thought we would be done for a while after last year.

My emotions are really mixed on the company right now. I see some signs we are on the right track with our products/strategy, but I am also concerned that we are cutting way too deep and this could hamper the company down the road.

I'm a couple of years away from another sabbatical, so I guess I'd like to stick around until then.

Mr. Anderson said...

Happy Wednesday to all.
I am a technical recruiter and I have helped many redeployed Intel employees find new jobs. In last year's cut I was able to place about 15 redeployed employees. I was referred to this blog and asked to put out my contact information if anyone is interested in contacting me for new employment.
The best way to reach me would be by sending an updated resume to janderson@apexsystemsinc.com. I will follow up with you and let you know what we have available at this time.
PS. If you are a Configuration Management Engineer I have a very good permanent opportunity.

Anonymous said...

Redeployment is a fancy way to sidestep increases in unemployment insurance premiums. Of the people in the US that have taken redeployment, how many were able to file an unemployment claim if they were unable to find a job?

Anonymous said...

"Intel is up nearly 400%" You're correct the avg stock price was around $7 adjusted in 1995. Problem is that if you were lucky enough to have those options they are long sold (or expired)

The average price in 1997 10 years ago was just over $20. Growth since then is a less heady 30% over 10 years. A terrible investment. If you look at any year after that through today Intel is one of the worst stocks in the Dow.

There are too many fat cats left at Intel who made their money and are still hanging around while anyone who joined the co in the past ten years got next to nothing from the promise of share options.