Amy, RE: I don't think you would want to advocate what management at General Motors or Chrysler did back in the early '80's. The auto industry didn't get what Barrett gets. The riskiest thing a company like Intel could do is to hide in its existing businesses and not venture into something new. It's got to take the risk to find new opportunities for the future. Avoiding risk is the biggest risk to any large company. Stagnation kills. While conscious risk can be scary, it is certainly the better option.
Actually, when I think of GM and the 80's, I remember two large acquisitions, Hughes and EDS. Those two companies were big risks, but GM decided that their core auto business would not help growth any more. But while those acquired businesses did well, GM lost focus on their core business, autos, which still contributed the lion's share of revenues. It didn't contribute the lion's share of profits any more, though because the business was such a mess.
Chrysler, of course, didn't make any forays outside autos. One of the main reasons was because they were practically broke. But what brought them out of near bankruptcy was a focus on their core business. In fact, they retrenched so much that they really didn't venture outside of the US. And that concentration was to Chrysler's benefit.
Taking risk outside your basic business is fine, but Intel shouldn't lose sight at what feeds the bulldog, microprocessors. |
