Hi John, RE: "Recently there was an interview with Andy Grove where he talked about trying to export Intel values and the details of Intel's employee programs to the new companies, and Intel found very quickly that it didn't work. So they are letting the new companies function the way they have always have (I don't have a link to this interview)."
------------
Hi John,
I remember reading this interview quite well, and in fact, this is exactly the one I'm referring too. I was surprised Andy sounded quite comfortable that one of the companies he visited hid something which was part of their culture because he was coming. If I were in Andy's shoes, I would be extremely sensitive and intuitive to the acquired company's culture, to the point that I would have told them and the reporter (so investors like us know they are doing this right), "they need to have quite a bit of their own culture, and in fact, one of the companies I visited hid something which was part of their culture, and when I found out, I told them they don't have to do that because I really want to convey this message that they may have quite a bit of their own culture." The article gave me the impression that Intel may have a way to go before they fully understand the human dynamics of managing acquistions. The trick is in the really sensitive soft stuff. Maybe the reporter didn't capture all that he said, maybe he did convey this, but I can only judge by what I've read.
RE: "A several year old, top down decision to use Rambus memory never gets challenged by the troops, and top management is no longer reviewing or micro-managing the decision?"
I think there are too many products for Intel execs to be reviewing, which only means having a fully empowered collaborative culture is critical, where there is a value for soft skills like communication (and not 1-way bulldozer confrontation by the loudest speaker, but n-way team communication where a gifted program manager is in charge of pulling out smart thoughts from people and not allowing loud talkers to dominate).
When that estimated $400MM error was made a few weeks ago (btw, what was the actual figure?), I was a bit annoyed that a lot of money was wasted on a miscommunication rather than spending that money on project/program managers (to improve communications), market intelligence, and HR type of people (to change the culture and aid in acquisitions).
$400MM could have been 4000 new employees that could have spent their time planning, communicating, and avoiding this problem and others. A reactive culture is getting costly. That was my inital thought. Don't know if I'm right, but I am beginning to perceive a hole in communications and a problem with the culture.
Or, maybe this is the net result of a company in transition and we are expecting too much perfection out of it. I give Intel *a lot* of credit for shifting into new markets. Smart companies take gambles. When I think about what happened to the auto industry in the mid-80's, I really appreciate Intel's ability to change into new markets. I think they'll do good (as long as they listen and respond to their customers, since the network business is pickier than the mpu business). A PC may hang, but a network can never go down.
Regards,
Amy J |
