Have you noticed how we've taken a step back from relying on innovation these days? It's hard to wrap my mind around it, especially considering how instrumental innovation was in turning IBM into the company it is today.
The most frustrating part is that when you do try to bring in something new and innovative, you often find yourself hitting a wall of bureaucracy. It's like the system is now specifically designed to hold back fresh ideas and creativity.
It's mind-boggling.
16 replies (most recent on top)
IBMX and the end
After Watson-X fails then next is QuantumX, the greatest of them all out of Research leader to save AK...
...no longer hybrid cloud... now it is WatsonX... can someone guess what is next when WatsonX fails?
watson X 😂
Innovation went out with Sam Palmisano. That's why IBM is spending money on startups and establish companies cause they are so far behind
So in order to get more innovation, the pipeline must be rebuilt. You need a Research division that actually does look 10+ years into the future. The "next release" and feature work is the domain of the product groups...where are their architects and engineers? If they're gone, then hire some more, because you need those people. That leaves the "other" category (new innovation), which has always been the sore thumb of every company...does that new invention get its own business group, or does it get folded into the IBM mothership with all that implies? IBM's track record ain't so hot lately...too bad IBM isn't more like 3M, where innovation has led to a myriad of both "home-grown" products and business spinoffs. Maybe they could learn something.
Simple put our Executive Leadership does give a rat's a$$ about the future of IBM they are bleeding it dry in the present and will laugh all the way to the bank
IBM Research exists to generate Press Releases so that we look relevant in the market, not to lay the foundation for new product development.
Agreed for now, but that role reversal only started about 10 years ago .. for the better (and best) part of IBM's history, it was the opposite.
nothing left at ibm but decay.
IBM Research exists to generate Press Releases so that we look relevant in the market, not to lay the foundation for new product development.
Research was gutted and repurposed years ago during the GR era. The best former IBM Researchers are now happily working for Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. There is no Research the way it used to be (looking 10+ years out) only next-release-product-feature proof-of-concept work, which frankly, is better performed by good engineers/architects, assuming they haven't all left too.
The Research cupboards are bare, which is why there are no press releases. Even Quantum is being done better elsewhere.
The OP asks about innovation, so let's talk about that.
"Hybrid Cloud", "SW modernization" and "enterprise consulting" are no longer innovative (if they ever were). They are survival mechanisms to keep an old technology (mainframes and related software) relevant in the marketplace. Mainframes are IBM's bread and butter, and the company will die if they don't sell. So you need that stuff to succeed, which means you need a management structure, R&D, support and sales forces that can successfully handle that market. There are lots of tales of woe on this forum, but I don't know how those tales of woe extend to "the mainframe part" of the company. I hope it's doing well.
So that leaves the question..."What else does IBM have?" If Research has anything good cooking in the lab, then we (the public) haven't seen it lately...IBM isn't offering it for sale. Maybe they've got something, I dunno. So IBM's BOD goes out and buys various companies to blue-wash them. That particular strategy doesn't seem to be doing too well. I'm an old timer...Tivoli and Red Hat are the biggest names I can think of with lots of "innovative" stuff. How are those "divisions" contributing now to the bottom line? He-l if I know.
There's no magic to innovation in the corporate world. You either invent new stuff for sale or you buy it from elsewhere. IBM isn't doing the first one and it's track record on the second one doesn't seem all that great (right now anyway). They'll need to improve on at least one of them and preferably both in order to get more innovation. And for the company to survive at all, they'll need to keep their current business (mainframes) running.
Failure of Research and its top leadership. Pretty much useless, maybe it can be sold? They run as their own company within a company, their purpose is to survive, running useless projects and getting funding that does nothing for IBM, 9f course hyping big time.
But AL won't fire Research executives so IBM will keep buying companies paying 10s of billions of dollars for such imported innovation while Research is useless.
No innovation no IBM's future but this is clear already.
Arvind's message and vision is pretty clear, and it's up to senior leadership and upper middle management to execute on that vision, but there are too many layers, and the vision gets diluted because each management layer has their own agenda and spin they put on it.
Most of the time the middle layers want to take the easy risk free path, even if it results in a loss, because we have a blame culture. Or they do what makes them look good, and then leave, for someone else to come in and bring their own spin on the vision, causing teams to pivot.
Squish the layers, stop this vp / svp / gm / partner / senior partner merry-go-round, and quarterly reorg, and give some stability to the company. I have a coworker who joined a year and a half ago, and in that time their 1st through 4th line managers have all changed, and as a team we've redone our quarterly road map, and yearly roadmap a number of times, and usually don't settle on the new one until part of the way through the quarter because 'we have to wait and see how the dust settles'.
All this talk of productivity around remote work, and I don't see any effort into understanding the productivity loss from our middle management bloat ;)
Again it’s a failure of middle management execution. The CEO has called the play Hybrid cloud/SW modernization/enterprise consulting implementation. There is no turning back from the play as the board has embraced it (they spent 30 billion proving that) If AK wants to be successful, he has to show there are consequences for middle management failure. Start cracking the whip and make it known that approx 1/3 of middle management will be removed over the next 6 months and positive results will follow. Consequences sharpen the mind, and get results. Just ask your kids if consequences matter
The simple answer: This assessment reflects the quality of the senior technical leaders. Most of them are mediocre at best.
They excel in making colored charts and spewing noises=nse.