This Is Strange>
View from the Top QC Execs
by: gospel_truth
20091 of 20109
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:32:46 -0800
To: subscriber.all, subscriber.engineering
From: Paul Jacobs <pjacobs.reply>
Subject: Response to a mail I received entitled "Wrong thing to say"
Last Friday, Greg, Rob and I gave a presentation to the SPSW team on the state of the division. The presentation included my presentation from
the last QC board of directors meeting.
Yesterday, I received the mail below. I wrote a response to the person who sent me the mail, but then I thought it was important enough to send to
all of QCP, since concern about the future of QCP is still in many people's minds. I have to say that it is frustrating, since our division is doing the
best it has ever done, but I understand the concern given the recent sale of the infrastructure division. I also believe that I personally haven't done
enough to let everyone know how well we are doing. I will work to increase communication of our successes (and failures and challenges) to the
division, and this mail is one small part of that.
BTW, I can't comment on the reference to Rich's statement below, as I didn't attend this meeting. I don't support the statements made below and,
frankly, only included them because I'm sure that more than one person has said such a thing. It is important that you trust the decisions made at
the higher levels of the company. This has been a hard time for all of us. We need to work to maintain a high level of trust.
Thanks,
Paul
At 12:40 PM -0700 5/11/99, (an infrastructure employee) wrote:
An SPSW engineer sent me:
>Paul Jacobs said on Friday that the division was not for
>sale, so it makes one wonder what'll happen in 6 weeks.
This is, of course, a reference to:
"This division is not for sale."
-- Richard Sulpizio
at all-hands meeting of the Infrastructure division
February 3, 1999
Haven't you people at The Top figured out yet that nobody believes you anymore?
Of course, the more trusting of us in Infrastructure give Rich the benefit of the doubt and assume he was not lying -- because the division had
already been sold.
MY RESPONSE:
I appreciate the feedback. I don't particularly like anyone thinking that I may be lying, but I understand that, when you feel this way, it is easy to
distrust all of "management."
And I obviously can't answer an accusation such as that in any way except by asking you to put yourself in a position where you were making such
a decision. So, hypothetically, let's suppose that my word is not dependable.
What would be the rationale to sell the division?
It is in a significantly different position than infrastructure. We generate roughly half the sales of the company, and while we aren't yet as profitable
as some other divisions, like QCT and licensing, we are profitable and working to become even more so. Furthermore, we dominate the market
for CDMA handsets in the US; we may end the year as the #2 domestic supplier of digital handsets behind only Nokia. We are well poised with
our new products to enhance our strong position, given the slips and performance problems our competition is facing.
Obviously, we can't rest on our laurels. We need to continue to perform, to meet or exceed our budgets, to defend and increase our market share,
to build our manufacturing capacity, to get our products out on time and make them the most reliable in the industry. We've been doing a good job
of that for the past few quarters, and this quarter looks good too.
So, you tell me, why would the division be for sale?
Paul
|
