Like measles the strategists are back. This time the infection is in RND at the VP level. They make real employees spend days in worthless solution strategy meetings. Their lackies present vision powerpoints while they go play golf with other strategists. Please Dr G ask them how much time they are spending on strategy.
19 replies (most recent on top)
It's not that JMP is deadweight. It's just that it's irrelevant in terms of size and revenue and ties to SAS software. And definitely irrelevant in terms of having any effect on the future of SAS and whether it survives or not.
It is so laughable that people here think JMP is deadweight to be jettisoned. It’s one of the few attractions these days with SAS. And it’s already well on its way to severing itself from SAS. And they will probably add staff in the process, not cut them. Be careful what you wish for!
SAS Australia strategy is to release a new ppt every few months full of excuses why the mediocre team cannot sell and who to blame.
I remember the “strategist” comment and the wave of title reshuffling that followed. After spending decades at SAS, I eventually moved on to greener pastures—and once outside the velvet handcuffs, I was struck by how bloated the organization had become compared to other companies. The number of internal politicians and family connections was staggering. So many posers, endless meetings, and far too little focus on actual client business.
I remember that edict from JG. In my group the solution was easy. We instantly went from being Product Strategists to Product Managers. We weren’t the strategists he was targeting, but it didn’t make sense to test that assumption. As we all know, management directives at SAS aren’t always executed with logic at the forefront.
This thread proves why we need to fire strategists. These thought leaders believe that we are not smart enough to understand their brilliant 3-bullet vision for saving SAS. 1 Fire everyone except the best workers. 2 Only work on the products that make a profit. 3 Spinoff JMP. When you ask them for specifics they say 1200 workers. Genius. They don't understand why no one else gets it. They su-k up all of the oxygen and everyone's time. After their meeting we laugh about how angry they looked when art department guy started talking. We stopped laughing when we overheard them yelling at the direct report about how he had ruined the meeting by inviting too many people. Fire the strategists. If you agree, like this post and repeat it. FIRE THE STRATEGISTS.
@sz
Great idea! Spinning JMP off asap a separate sale is paramount to JMP being minimally eviscerated. That would be the compassionate action for JMP's founder if he wants JMP to remain close to the present form.
Bundling JMP with SAS telegraphs that he does not care what happens to JMP once he leaves the helm.
Another option is for JS to sever JMP from SAS and stay at the helm with 100% control of JMP's destiny. In other words JMP becomes no longer for sale. That is the best action for preservation of JMP.
Was not thinking about JMP. It’s really a separate deal that needs to stand on its own. Do necessary JMP employee downsizing and spin it off as a separate entity.
Great idea, 1200 employees for a $3B revenue stream. Does that include the 500 JMP employees?
"It’s exactly the kind of restructuring that would make SAS attractive for an IPO"
What you proposed should have been done long ago as a major component of the "IPO readiness" plan. But, better late than never.
Actually remember that well. How did their tribe once again rise? Do tell!
You don't know SAS. You don't remember when JG instantly eliminated every job with the word "strategist" in the title on a conference call. "They don't write code. They don't have a sales target. All they do is have lunch with other strategists." More than 100 "strategists" had 30 days to get a real job at SAS or leave. They had a job fair. Most left anyway and no one missed them.
Here’s a simple strategy for anyone who’s listening:
1) Figure out an **objective methodology that will identify your 1000 top employees worldwide best suited to maintain the current legacy revenue stream that mostly comes from SAS9 and products built atop it.
**sadly this cannot be done wholesale by the current management structure because they are a big part of the problem, or at least historically have been. They were capable of this SAS would not be in the trouble they are currently in.
2) Identify any current fledgling modern/new product areas that have a probability of future growth and revenue generation. Using a methodology similar to 1), Identify the best current core employees to make this happen.
In total, 1) and 2) likely represent around 1200 people. That should be the size of SAS Until appropriate severances are paid out and the recover costs will finance investment in new products — products mostly designed by brand new teams of world-class product visionaries with deep business acumen, seasoned system architects and heavily AI enabled software engineers. Might even want to do this under a new brand/company spinoff name. Some employees not retained could be eligible for future rehiring on new projects or attrition to maintain the legacy products.
Yes this is brutal, it’s mercenary, and it’s not the way SAS has operated historically. However, It’s exactly the kind of restructuring that would make SAS attractive for an IPO, to a new buyer or as a legacy and future revenue generator assuming a significant successful company ongoing.
Strategies that significantly depart from this will likely mean the continued decline of the company. It’s just that serious folks.
@c3 The Art Department and Viya are to SAS what the Titanic was to an iceberg..
Happy now?
Waiting for the dig on the art department… in three.. two.. one…
well one cannot deny that the current utter lack of strategy isn't working out so hot.
@ba I there s a current strategy??? Everything seems adrift and uncertain.
“We need to keep renaming our annual conference every other year to confuse… I mean keep customers guessing… no I mean to alienate… scratch that, to sound more like Microsoft… correction, to have broader appeal”.
Whoops… wrong division. Where’s building C?
I guess one could argue though that the current strategy isn't working, so trying to come up with a different strategy at least makes sense.