...and "resource actioning", "restructuring", "sacking anyone who is not Ginny" in 3...2...1.
IBM kills Global Technology and Global Business Services: It's all ‘IBM Services’ now
IBM has plans to help its ailing services business with a re-branding exercise that will see its Global Technology Services (GTS) and Global Business Services (GBS) operations emerge as a single entity named “IBM Services.” Internal communications about the change seen by The Register said it was made because “in the era of …
COMMENTS
-
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 00:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
That is what I was thinking. A reorg which will result in shedding people.
What IBM should do is try to become the cloud broker. You have AWS, GCP and Azure for IaaS and PaaS. Then there is also SFDC, Oracle, and 400 other SaaS companies (although many of them now run on AWS or GCP behind the scenes). IBM should create a Spinnaker style overlay for all of that IaaS, broker the resources as well as the integration piece (which was one of IBM's primary capabilities). They could even resell Aurora, Google Spanner, etc. Of course in order to play that role IBM would likely have to ditch their own cloud, which is probably going to happen at some point anyway, to be truly neutral. The other issue is that they wouldn't be able to make as much cash as the businesses they are replacing, but those businesses are going away slowly anyway... and they could have an infrastructure outsourcing business and a somewhat competing cloud broker business at the same time, just like they had Unix and mainframe for years. They could own that market and then the IaaS becomes a commodity behind the scenes. Let Google and Amazon take on the capital intensive work of building data centers, laying fiber everywhere, etc while IBM plays the software provider... similar to HP, Dell, Cisco, etc and VMware. Actually VMware would be in prime position to do the same, but that would mean they were ok with the KVM or even (I know) Hyper V hyper-visors under their management layer. Innovator's dilemma for both of those companies. The new thing is eating the old thing. The old thing was either larger or more profitable than the new thing... still better to have a stake in the future instead of being relegated to a profitable legacy bin... and you can have both, milk the on prem stuff for as long as you can while moving to the next thing.
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 04:39 GMT CujoDeSoque
It's all about head count at this point. Maybe they ran out of technical people they could off shore and they're finally going after the middle managers and what they can below that level.
The problem is that IBM cannot run low margin services due to their overhead and can't deliver on the vanishing high margin ones.
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 07:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
“The problem is that IBM cannot run low margin services due to their overhead and can't deliver on the vanishing high margin ones.”
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. The whole model seems to be a cheap offshore based delivery (be it India, eastern europe etc). But they pay lower offshore than many of their competitors, and struggle to deliver a cheap service. At the same time the aggressiveness of the annual onshore cullings has left only a sprinkling of people both willing and able to keep the lights on for existing customers.
Its difficult to see where the IBM board of directors expect any future business to come from. Maybe they’re relying on Watson to become sentient in a couple of years time and tell them the answer ?
-
Wednesday 17th January 2018 00:12 GMT Yes Me
"Its difficult to see where the IBM board of directors expect any future business to come from."
They're not there for that. They're there to ensure that Ginni and her best friends continue to buy back enough stock that their holdings and options keep them in the excessive luxury to which they are entitled. I believe it's known as "shareholder value".
Of course, eventually somebody will turn off the money tap at the mains.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 23:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I, for one...
You wrote:
I, for one...
I, for one, welcome our new exponentially intelligent overlords! Especially if they are pervasively fueled.
And when you read the article, you can see this quote:
“More than ever,” the message to remaining IBM services staff read, “clients need a trusted partner who can provide strategy, business and technology consulting and innovation as well as matchless execution.”
And I agree with what was said. However, I seriously doubt that clients who need a trusted partner will find that in IBM....
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 09:15 GMT HmmmYes
Re: IBM “has the most skilled, [..] IT and business consulting professionals in the world.”
Nope.
In the 80s/90s, the last time anyone really paid much attention to IBM, they had the most IT people. A lot of times, they had the *only* IT people.
IBM were expensive, clumping, process bound but they did have people and they did deliver products.
Its not the PC that killed IBM; its the competition.
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 12:25 GMT Teiwaz
Re: IBM “has the most skilled, [..] IT and business consulting professionals in the world.”
Sure, right up to the moment they lay them off, or disgust them enough that they leave on their own.
Of course, hence the reason for the buttering up.
IBM nonetheless told its people that “the most telling manifestation of IBM Services is how each of us show up, every day, bringing our professional expertise to clients.”
See, they've told they staff they are world class, just for not succumbing to the despair and not bothering to turn up in the morning.
Well, either that, or they are encouraging their employees to camp out on customers lawns in protest until they buy something....
-
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 01:39 GMT FozzyBear
"how well they capitalize on exponential intelligence fueled by pervasive technologies"
Ok, I think we have a winner already, for the best meaningless marketing bullshit for 2018.
It's early in the year I know, but I'm calling it.
"If you can't dazzle them with the detail, baffle them with bullshit" - Me.
-
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 05:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
> Who writes this crap?
The point is not merely to benchmark best-of-class adjacencies. The point is to prioritize our tailor-made operating models while securing a resourceful core capacity. As a Tier 1 technology company, we will disintermediate best-of-breed speedups while convergent markets reconceptualize their organizational baseline.
See? I can do this too.
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 08:24 GMT GruntyMcPugh
bullshit!
.. sad isn't it,.... back in the noughties I worked for an ISP that had a 'Mission Statement' that could easily have been created by the 'Dilbert Mission Statement Generator' (that used to be a thing), but still, nearly twenty years later, PR types are still producing this nonsense.
A colleague of mine knocked up a .vbs app for iPaqs so we could play 'Bullshit Bingo' in meetings. : -)
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 08:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
"The point is not merely to benchmark best-of-class adjacencies. The point is to prioritize our tailor-made operating models while securing a resourceful core capacity. As a Tier 1 technology company, we will disintermediate best-of-breed speedups while convergent markets reconceptualize their organizational baseline."
I keep thinking this must mean something - it's disturbing...
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 12:29 GMT Teiwaz
I keep thinking this must mean something - it's disturbing...
blah blah, best-of-breed, blah blah, disintermediate?
My first thought was 'is this something to do with Crufts?' And disintermediate? Is that that medieval punishment where they remove your organs in small pieces in front of a large audience.
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 12:51 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
is this something to do with Crufts?'
Sadly, Crufts has also ceased to mean "the best of breed". It's more about "closest adherance to breed standards" even if that breed standard results in dogs that can't breathe or breed unaided.
(CF: Pugs or bulldogs for the former and miniture dachsunds for the latter)
-
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 14:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
My God there are a lot
of 'z's in that statement.
My translation after 13 years within IBM;
We won't actually decide what things both organisations are good at, we will insist on doing out own thing while keeping the few people who can avoid being fired. We're big so we will push a few profitable services while firing half of everyone else.
-
-
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 04:39 GMT CujoDeSoque
What does this amount to? Let's start a list!
1. It will stop the customer from being able to blame one or the other, now they get to blame one group that will promptly devolve into internecine fighting that allows them to bill the customer more.
WIN-WIN, bay-beeeee!
IBM Marketing: Anything to obfuscate what we can't deliver.
-
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 15:46 GMT PassingStrange
Re: Just remember this and never forget it!
I afraid that's been pretty much the case for decades. In my perception, it's been a long time since the folk at the top were less interested in vesting their extensive stock options and milking the company for what they could get out of it, than they were in keeping up its long term health. IBM is moribund, and has been for years; it's just taking a long time to die. And probably still will.
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 06:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
Trusted to sack project staff half-way through the project.
" capitalize on exponential intelligence fueled by pervasive technologies.”
Except then they sell you on their custom system or support software.
"“More than ever,” the message to remaining IBM services staff reads, “clients need a trusted partner who can provide strategy, business and technology consulting and innovation as well as matchless execution.”
Trusted to sack project staff half-way through the project.
Big Blue reckons that the change will “increase awareness of the powerful talent that GBS and GTS bring to our engagements.”
The only powerful talent at IBM is in the sale & marketing. Everyone else is just an interchangeable commodity. Everything else is just overhead.
The letter later says that IBM “has the most skilled, innovative, results-driven IT and business consulting professionals in the world.”
Did before 18 years of 'exponential' layoffs.
IBM nonetheless told its people that “the most telling manifestation of IBM Services is how each of us show up, every day, bringing our professional expertise to clients.”
Until that fine day when IBM tells you how much it values you and your loyalty by laying you off.
"Those plans appear to have been hatched by Bain & Company"
What is this, a Batman movie? Oh, well at least IBM now realizes it doesn't know how to run a services company and is seeking help. But is this the blind leading the blind?
Do what Bain & Company should have done. Display your exponential intelligence by staying well clear.
-
Tuesday 16th January 2018 12:54 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
Re: Trusted to sack project staff half-way through the project.
Do what Bain & Company should have done. Display your exponential intelligence by staying well clear.
Well - I suspect that they made several tanker-loads of cash out of providing (essentially) meaningless soundbytes so they are going to be laughing all the way to the bank. Followed by a swift renaming so that the pervase stench of failure doesn't follow them. Either that or blame it all on a rogue intern..
-