Ann (and Frank),
About Craig Barrett as CEO of Intel, and whether or not he should be held accountable for all the recent setbacks, I want to put in my 2›.
Intel's current direction was probably set three years ago, and modified two years ago, last year, last quarter, etc. High tech companies do long range planning, which I know that Andy and Craig have been signing off on for many years. They don't decide what to do by the week, or month, or quarter. So, Merced's delay and the sub $1,000 PC affecting margins are just as much Andy's "fault", if you can lay blame, as Craig's. Craig just happened to get to the CEO helm at this time. There is no way he could have put Intel into deep sh*t by himself, in this short of a time (BTW, we aren't in deep sh*t). Two changes in strategy that Grove and Barrett have done in the last few months to try to correct the lack of growth have been 1. Put a lot of emphasis on low end (Celeron) and 2. Push to accelerate the 0.25 micron process bringup. The latter has been a screaming success. Intel is way ahead of schedule in getting to all 0.25. Barrett, whose strongest suit is manufacturing, probably deserves the lion's share of credit for 0.25. This will get more, faster chips, including new ones like Katmai, to market faster.
Having said that, the question of whether Barrett was the right man for the job came up at the lunch after the stockholders' meeting. Someone, I think Gordon Moore's son Ken, asked Paul E. that question. Paul said 'sure, he's the right man. Do you have someone else in mind?' The answer was no. Paul said he'd worked directly for Barrett for three years, some years back. He said he is a great guy, and a great leader. All the other impressions I got from current and past Intel people is that he is the man.
Let's give the guy a break. A rule of thumb is you give a new guy a year, maybe two. It's only been two weeks, for heaven's sake.
Tony |
