I have perhaps a unique perspective on this, as I was part of IBM in Asia and left in November 2013. I witnessed the 2013 layoff action and witnessed many good people in Australia and Singapore laid off in the name of cost-cutting. It is mentioned in the article that for this 2014 round, people with even PBC 1 and 2 were fired, which would have been the top performing people on their teams. I worked as a project manager doing datacenter/infrastructure work for IBM and was based in China. On my most recent PBC before I left, my manager gave me a 1, and I was managing a program for innovation projects in the Asia Pacific, as well as in charge of quality control work as part of IBM's global quality program called Global Delivery Framework (GDF). Project team members under me came from Australia, China, India, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan.
Firstly, it is not surprising that this is happening. The technology in the IT industry has changed, and IBM was late to the cloud party. We were still manually building servers for projects as of the end of 2013. I myself was put in charge of a large project to virtualize hundreds of internal IBM application servers. Let's say that again: as of 2013, there were still hundreds of mission-critical IBM internal applications running on physical hardware until I was given the project to transition them to virtual servers. They now have the ability to run stuff virtually thanks to some new hardware they've installed, but processes are still very manual. As I was leaving, I told all of my teammates to be careful and get out while they could, because as soon as IBM went full-steam into cloud, all of their jobs would get automated. It takes anyone a few minutes to get a server with applications running on a cloud service. At IBM, it took me a month because everything had to be installed and configured manually, and the teams were always so busy that you had to wait until someone was available to do their part, whether it was installing AIX, installing DB2, configuring monitoring agents, configuring backup agents, doing BAU handover checks, whatever. If you were IBM's execs, which would you choose? The writing was on the wall for a long time. And while elephants can take a while to get moving, it is true that they can eventually dance, though they can cause a lot of damage when they finally do get going (and need to dance more frenetically to make up for lost time).
Secondly and more importantly, it's sad that India was hit first in such a massive way, but it's not unexpected. I have nothing against Indian people and I think the situation is unfortunately more to do with IBM than it does with India. IBM was truly scraping the bottom of the barrel for their hiring, and in India, they went below the barrel in order to cut costs. It wasn't enough, as they went too far and hired too many people who were not capable of actually doing their jobs. I have plenty of examples, but we had sysadmins with senior in their titles that rather deserved to be labeled junior. My colleague beside me, a program manager of another program, turned to me exasperated when one of the Indian project managers in her program couldn't figure out how to fill out a project change request template. So the project manager wanted my colleague the program manager to fill out the form instead. Templates are there to make it clear what you're supposed to write. This level of incompetence was a trend, but I want to make it clear again, this is not the fault of the Indian people. This is the fault of IBM deciding to not have high standards. When the entire Domino team in Australia was let go (Domino is IBM's mail server) and replaced with a new, inexperienced, and untrained team in China, yet another colleague was again exasperated. Maintenance work that required only 6-hour change windows in her project became such that they needed 2 entire days because the new Domino team didn't know what they were doing. Again, it's not that the Chinese people were the problem. It's that IBM wasn't willing to pay to hire high-quality people, nor invest into training the people they did hire. As for why I think the issue of high/low standards is a bigger issue than technological change, I point you to an anonymous posting I made on Quora once. Being anonymous doesn't seem so important now. http://www.quora.com/IBM/What-are-the-weaknesses-of-IBM
I tried copy-pasting the Quora post here, but then HN told me that my comment was too long. :D
"Let's say that again: as of 2013, there were still hundreds of mission-critical IBM internal applications running on physical hardware until I was given the project to transition them to virtual servers."
Is this so shocking or even wrong? I would expect a company with the history and size of IBM to have tons of "old" hardware/processes. In fact it's that history, perceived wisdom and entrenchment that I would assume many in the enterprise world would would see as an asset for IBM. Am I the only one who doesn't think a business should jump on a new tech bandwagon at the expense of a solid and working business model? I'm not saying virtualization or cloud computing is a fad by any measure, but how does a company rationalize rebuilding old tech with the risk that it may be the wrong path/choice or jeopardize a working model?
I know little of IBM and cant say I'm part of the corporate/enterprise market but that fact that IBM has "old iron" in their portfolio seems to be less concerning for their customers and more of a perception issue among the media.
The reason why it wasn't nice was because of the complexity and inefficiency of maintenance. The senior managers who gave me this project wanted to move in that direction in 2010, but couldn't because again, they couldn't get the proper hardware in place in a timely fashion; just delay after delay. Then the Fukushima earthquake happened, which caused an emergency migration of applications from their Tokyo datacenter to their Baulkham Hills datacenter in Australia, which in turn used up all the capacity they were hoping to use for virtualizing everything.
It's not a bad thing if IBM wanted to stay on pure hardware for technical reasons (hey, virtualization can have performance hits, depending on the application). But even IBM didn't want to stay on pure hardware, and that's why it can be considered a sad thing that it took so long.
Cloud is not the silver bullet. But at the same time, there is not much merit in choosing to be a luddite and not use the capabilities of cloud where there's a genuine need. I feel IBM, to an extent is guilty of not pursuing things on the cloud front and is now paying for it.
You can say that again. And it depends on where you are. In South Florida the cloud - well - sucks. Due to the carriers not being able to keep their networks up. I know companies who moved their PBX into the cloud (I'm going to name carriers) with Earthlink, Windstream, Comcast and ATT - misdirected, noisy (like talking in a wind tunnel), dropped calls; all classic signs of over extended networks. Latency. And you feel helpless cause all you can do is call your carrier and wait on hold for 45 mins.
I know another company, a local gym, which (the owner is a SOB so he deserved everything he got) got talked into moving his cash register into the cloud. I warned him against it. But he accused be of not being "up-scale". His way of telling me I didn't know what I was talking about. Of course, a couple of weeks later his Comcast goes down. He calls me, begging for help. I was like, "Nothing I can do. You have to call Comcast".
In South Florida, the only reliable service is fiber. Even T1's are fragile. And fiber isn't cheap.
You're using a very, very basic definition of cloud- one that really shouldn't exist anymore.
You're talking about moving a physical service into a hosted service; IAAS/SAAS. We're talking about actually developing and coding the IAAS/SAAS solutions to be cloud ready and performant. This infers automation, utilizing version control systems, scaling, stateless servers etc.
What those companies did was move their servers onto the web. It's like me telling you that I'm moving my wordpress blog from my desktop to linode. Just because I'm using linode does not mean I'm utilizing the infrastructure in any sort of "cloud" manner. If the server goes down and I've not designed my stack to be resilient I'm not "cloud." We expected IBM to be designing underlying cloud infrastructure years ago. Instead they bought Softlayer. I'm not sure if they've even done anything remotely interesting since that.
Next year they'll probably start trying to massively hire Openstack developers just like Cisco/etc are doing now (also late to the party).
"You're using a very, very basic definition of cloud- one that really shouldn't exist anymore."
Really? This is exactly what the "cloud" service are selling. Ok there's a middle-guy in there. The actual service provider. But from a customer point of view - this is the cloud.
IBM, Microsoft, Google sales guys are all over the place "selling" the cloud. "Move your infrastructure to our cloud - cheaper and access everywhere on everything. No need to maintain a server, or even a PC. Run your business from your iPad".
Sounds great. And would be great, if we had the communication infrastructure in place to support it. Look, it doesn't matter what's running the cloud if no one buys the "cloud".
Back to your topic.. I agree. But we've seen this story before from IBM (and Cisco and MS). They are late to every party these days.
As for the whole discussion about IBM's involvement with "cloud" - I guess it depends a bit on how you define it. AIX first started virtualization on a large scale years ago, didn't they? And since AIX 5, wasn't every AIX instance an LPAR? PowerVM / VMControl had the essential features of the cloud - virtualization, metering, billing, partition mobility, etc. It was just never marketed in the high volume, low margin way that the public cloud providers are marketing. But, I guess, even then, due to internal politics and protecting their teams, PowerVM and VMControl became like beasts. Software that was produced (E.g. SmartCloud), by edict, had to use it, and those additional layers became a nightmare.
So, I think it's wrong to say that IBM didn't pursue things on the cloud front. There was some work on it. But the execs - not the worker bees - certainly screwed that pooch. And it'll be the execs getting the bonuses for courageously reorganizing their departments too.
Yes, for many customers it's the right solution. In early 2011 we were setting up some IBM technologies on Amazon Web Services for a Houston power company and IBM had just released some EC2 AMIs for Websphere, Portal, etc. If they didn't want to build their own cloud the way HP is trying to, it seems they could've just struck a deal with Amazon to have their own corner of AWS.
Sadly, I completely agree with you, and more specifically on the part about IBM going so low on the hiring process as to hire people that can not do their jobs. I would add that to add insult to injury, their level of english is terrible, to the point where many times you can not even understand what they are trying to say. This for both, India and China workers. Again, like you say, it is probably not the India and China people's fault, but IBM's own fault, either because they hired the wrong people, or they did not train the people they hired. By the way, IBM Domino is so much more than a mail server ;)
You are right, IBM Domino is much more than a mail server. It along with Notes is the single biggest cause of loss of productivity for offices infected by it.
I'm pretty sure that level of nitpicking is outside the scope of what the the (non-native English speaking) poster meant when they said 'their english is terrible'.
Appreciating that you're undoubtedly communicating better in English than I would in your native language, the fact is that if you're a (principally) English-speaking company, with (principally) English-speaking customers, hiring (principally) non-English-speaking support or contract services, there will be communications issues, and those lead directly to business issues.
I've encountered this in dealings with companies, as well as within companies (one, otherwise brilliant, co-worker had the specifically annoying verbal tic of pronouncing the letter 'R' as 'A', which given local acronym naming schemes was very frequently encountered.
I've also, of course, met (and worked with) foreigners of all stripes with flawless (and often charmingly accented) English.
And that is my point. You can not hire people who do not have a minimum level of english. It is not the person's fault, but IBM's fault for hiring them.
"When the entire Domino team in Australia was let go (Domino is IBM's mail server) and replaced with a new, inexperienced, and untrained team in China, yet another colleague was again exasperated. Maintenance work that required only 6-hour change windows in her project became such that they needed 2 entire days because the new Domino team didn't know what they were doing. Again, it's not that the Chinese people were the problem. It's that IBM wasn't willing to pay to hire high-quality people, nor invest into training the people they did hire."
And that IBM decided to fire the people they had trained and knew what they were doing.
Firstly, it is not surprising that this is happening. The technology in the IT industry has changed, and IBM was late to the cloud party. We were still manually building servers for projects as of the end of 2013. I myself was put in charge of a large project to virtualize hundreds of internal IBM application servers. Let's say that again: as of 2013, there were still hundreds of mission-critical IBM internal applications running on physical hardware until I was given the project to transition them to virtual servers. They now have the ability to run stuff virtually thanks to some new hardware they've installed, but processes are still very manual. As I was leaving, I told all of my teammates to be careful and get out while they could, because as soon as IBM went full-steam into cloud, all of their jobs would get automated. It takes anyone a few minutes to get a server with applications running on a cloud service. At IBM, it took me a month because everything had to be installed and configured manually, and the teams were always so busy that you had to wait until someone was available to do their part, whether it was installing AIX, installing DB2, configuring monitoring agents, configuring backup agents, doing BAU handover checks, whatever. If you were IBM's execs, which would you choose? The writing was on the wall for a long time. And while elephants can take a while to get moving, it is true that they can eventually dance, though they can cause a lot of damage when they finally do get going (and need to dance more frenetically to make up for lost time).
Secondly and more importantly, it's sad that India was hit first in such a massive way, but it's not unexpected. I have nothing against Indian people and I think the situation is unfortunately more to do with IBM than it does with India. IBM was truly scraping the bottom of the barrel for their hiring, and in India, they went below the barrel in order to cut costs. It wasn't enough, as they went too far and hired too many people who were not capable of actually doing their jobs. I have plenty of examples, but we had sysadmins with senior in their titles that rather deserved to be labeled junior. My colleague beside me, a program manager of another program, turned to me exasperated when one of the Indian project managers in her program couldn't figure out how to fill out a project change request template. So the project manager wanted my colleague the program manager to fill out the form instead. Templates are there to make it clear what you're supposed to write. This level of incompetence was a trend, but I want to make it clear again, this is not the fault of the Indian people. This is the fault of IBM deciding to not have high standards. When the entire Domino team in Australia was let go (Domino is IBM's mail server) and replaced with a new, inexperienced, and untrained team in China, yet another colleague was again exasperated. Maintenance work that required only 6-hour change windows in her project became such that they needed 2 entire days because the new Domino team didn't know what they were doing. Again, it's not that the Chinese people were the problem. It's that IBM wasn't willing to pay to hire high-quality people, nor invest into training the people they did hire. As for why I think the issue of high/low standards is a bigger issue than technological change, I point you to an anonymous posting I made on Quora once. Being anonymous doesn't seem so important now. http://www.quora.com/IBM/What-are-the-weaknesses-of-IBM
I tried copy-pasting the Quora post here, but then HN told me that my comment was too long. :D
edit: clarification