I'm sorry for the late response ... I had some work to do for the meetings tomorrow ... I figured i would try and get some late postings in before bed.
I'll also try and cut out some of the text to make this post shorter (sorry Joe ... I admitted that I have a reputation for being long winded), but I will try to address some of the issues you raise. I won't claim the ability to answer all of the questions ... I'm not that good ... yet!
{stuff deleted}
> A. Market share - If you are maintaining market share, the fact is
> nobody is reporting it because the word is not getting out.
I believe that many things have happened over the last several years that have allowed NetWare to lose the feature lead that it had over the competition. Much focus and emphasis has been placed on innovative leading edge technologies (such as NDS), but direction was lost with aquisitions that were hard to swallow. The core NetWare OS, although it once led the industry in supporting dominant protocols, failed to adopt Internet protocols. Where are we today? NDS is continuing to move forward ahead of the competition. The annoying (my opinion) aquisitions have been spun off. And NetWare, because of it's architecture, is quickly adopting, embracing *and* enhancing Internet protocols and technologies. I know you can't see it yet, but IntraNetWare was only a start. There is a revived spirit in the heart of Novell ... in the employees and management. Maybe this has not been externalized to you via executive management, but there's again a fire in the culture.
> B. Slowness in response, late with product after others have come
> out with their products, such as electronic commerce.
I will not argue with you here. Part of my decision to return to Novell was my frustration that NetWare had not moved quickly to the Internet ... even though it's core architecture positions it to do so. I will say that I wish you picked a different example than e-commerce because I again agree. E-commerce is not a simple technology to productize, however with some tought and planning there are ways that NetWare could provide some e-commerce infrastructure. This could lead into a long technical discussion (which should happen elsewhere), but I feel there are other examples that are more important right now. E-commerce will come to NetWare after other key components are in place ... I hope. I don't control this!
> C. Sales of Word Perfect, etc. at distressed prices. How many
> responsible for these purchases and their marketing execution, up to
> and including the BOD, 'have assume personal and financial ability'?
I again agree that, as a shareholder, I'm not sure that I think the aquisition of WordPerfect was carefully planned. But one thing that is not voiced loud enough, and is often overlooked, is that the aquisition brought us GroupWise. There is a very good, hard working group of employees that have created a powerful tool for business. It seems that we forget that when we sold off WordPerfect we kept many very strong technologies and many very talented employees. I can not explain actions of the BOD except to say that I believe they acted on their best knowledge and experience at the time. I'm also going to guess that if you and I see error in their judgement, they also have learned from this.
> D. Novell and the press and investors. Joe Marengi recent response
> 'of stories like these are hurting Novell' have a
> shooting-the-messenger mentality about it. The correct response is
> to shoot the message! Where are the corporate press releases
> equivalent to 'ROCK THE NET'? Most sound apologetic for having
> resisted Microsoft's on-slaught.
I know that I can say that this recent outburst of publicity, although it is publicity, makes my job harder. It makes my coworkers jobs harder. I understand the frustration, and I even see that the intentions are good, however when I do executive briefings for customers I don't really enjoy the additional pressures brought by this kind of publicity. Remember, please, that although my questions and statements might cause you to seriously think about the implications of your actions, I am working every day and sometimes weekends to sell Novell products. To sell trust in Novell technologies. To sell an image of confidence and future direction. The fact that I now have to deal with issues of "shareholder unrest" just makes this a little harder. I can still do it ... it's just a little harder.
{stuff deleted}
> E. Inconsistencies and a vacuum of information.
> Fire the president of the company, tell everyone you
> need 4 to 6 months to search for one. 'We're on target' but no
> status reports like 'our list was 10 but now
> we are currently talking to the 5 finalists'. Now maybe missing the
> target date. 'Rock the Net' for one day and then have the ad
> campaign fall into oblivion.
I guess that I might agree with you, but I'm not sure that I can say I fully understand the process and relations in searching for a new CEO. I'm going to guess that at this level of search and interviews there has to be a lot of confidential activity. I would think that you don't want to reveal who you're talking to, I don't know that you want candidates to know that you're talking with four other people. I can't answer this question because I've never participated in such a search. Can anyone else here provide factual information about such a process?
> Finally, to not see problems is a problem. Even at Intel, Andy Grove
> says 'Only the paranoid survive' and the paranoid see problems
> everywhere. Then the trick is to be prepared for them in a sane
> manner!
I think executive management sees many problems. My question was intended to get a list, out in public, short and concise (ok ... long and concise if necessary) that could be used as a basis for your petition for change. Some have become clear ... others are still somewhat loosely defined to me.
> 2. How will changing the board fix things?
>
> A. The BOD should be ensuring that the top management is
> on-the-ball, that a company policies and environment is set up that
> can react quick to changes in the business world. It can't afford in
> the software business to allow complacency. To me, the BOD is a
> means to an end, namely, to ensure that upper management is doing
> their job. Do you really see Novell's BOD pressuring upper
> management (and themselves) to ensure timely responses and
> initiatives, to be the first to market and making the product
> known? Give some examples?
Your definitions of what the BOD should be doing sounds good to me. I'm sure that it also includes heavy involvement in other financial matters, etc. But I like the direction you are taking this.
As for if I see the BOD pressure on upper management ... well not directly. I'm not included in meetings etc. where this might happen, but I have definitely seen a major effort to address the issues of timely responses and first to market. I'm not sure that I feel comfortable giving examples because now I am treading on the fine line between expressing feelings or beliefs ... and disclosing information. I'm willing to say that I have seen evidence of major restructuring, and change of mindset, that has occurred in the planning of product release schedules. I have also seen a lot of attention on internal innovation and rapid productization. Come to BrainShare ... it's going to be fun to see the reaction to Novell's technologies and directions. It will be a test.
{stuff deleted}
> A. To answer both, back in the early 80's, Lee Iaccoca took over a
> dying Chrysler for $1 a year. Publicity stunt? You bet, but look
> what he did with Chrysler and how much he made with stock options
> in the end.
I'm afraid that there are not too many people like Lee Iaccoca in America. There are even less in the high-tech sector. (If there's someone out there, please volunteer!) I wish we could find one!
{stuff deleted}
> Joe M. sounded this way to begin with, but it died.
I'm not sure what I think about this ... I know that I have heard this before. Why does this appear to be the case? I could speculate in many directions, but it would be just that ... speculation. If a new CEO is in the wings, do I want him to have to compete with the current "temporary" CEO? Maybe Joe M. has decided that laying low will provide an easier entry for the new CEO? I really liked what I saw in Joe when he first took over ... I hope that he is around for a while.
> 7. Why Cisco?
>
> A. Why not Cisco? It obviously doesn't have to be Cisco. But why not
> some company that can bring instant credibility back to Novell?
I guess my fear here would again be the immediate disorganization created by a merger. The continued wait for the dust to settle (once again) and the short-lived media fan-fair. I'm not sure that a person can gain back credibility by marrying a credible person. It has to be something that is earned back.
{stuff deleted}
> Death is also a condition. That is why CPR was invented. However,
> after a while, even with CPR, it becomes a problem.
> What companies will want to team with Novell if at any time, if no
> one is in charge, permenantly (or as permenant as they come
> nowadays). Isn't doubt planted in a customer's mind if the top
> management of the company is only temporary? The symtoms (or
> condition) can cause problems.
Well ... actually death is a change in condition (from being alive to being dead) ... so being dead is a condition. ;-) I do understand what you are saying, and frankly I have not been asked about our "temporary" CEO ... so maybe the doubt is planted, but customers have not asked about this (at least to me) I do think that this must be brought to closure and i think it will be. I hope that the extra time was to make sure that a good choice was made.
{stuff deleted}
> Going back to your analogy of the U.S. President, there are usually
> daily press conferences and occasional meeting with ordinary 'U.S.
> investors' (so to speak). Most of the questions asked here could
> easily be summarized and then responsed to via the press or an open
> E-mail to whatever board (like SI, hint, hint ) was deem
> appropriate. From there, as you know, it would get picked up by the
> other boards and distributed.
Oh my gosh ... you mean that you actually BELIEVE the garbage spewed from the mouths of our government in these touchy, feely meetings? I'd rather not hear it! ;-) (ok ... just kidding ... I'm sure that I understand you were using this as an example, but that you really didn't want to be lied to!) I saw another very good posting today from someone suggesting a Web Page to provide an Investor FAQ. I can make suggestions, however I would have to say that I don't have control over this. I agree it's a good idea.
{stuff deleted}
> But losing can last forever. I do think that Novell actually has
> more time (I mean look how long Apple is dragging on.) But, why
> wait. Change people's minds now. Answer back. Management back on
> the corporate level (and you on the SI level ).
I think we need to do more than talk the talk ... we *are* hard at work creating products to try and change peoples minds ... we have some good technology on our Early Access CDs and that is rapidly moving to product. I know it takes time ... we're trying ...
{stuff deleted}
> This will be a key test of the trust. I would have been willing to
> try Joe Marengi a permenant if the BOD stated that after a trial
> period of say 6 months and whatever conditions were met to their
> satisfaction. But, now, after searching for 6+ months (unless
> announced very soon), if Joe is become the permanent president, the
> search will been seen as a sham and trust will definitely be
> shot.
I don't have a answer for you here, but I would agree that if the answer was Joe all along then the time indicates indecision or a failed attempt to get someone else. If this is the case, I would still be ok working in a company run by Joe.
> I would even say that getting someone who is just 'one of the
> boys', who won't make waves and is not a proven winner, will also
> have the same results.
I agree completely!
If there were other areas that I deleted, that you wanted addressed, please let me know ... I'll keep trying!
(P.S. I know ... another long one ... sorry Joe!)
Scott C. Lemon |
