More Outsourcing to Asia

hmmm and still almost 40% in cost of sales. something must be amiss. sounds dumb. or just dumber execs??

from what I hear its a free for all on cutting, shipping out and consolidating this year.

Daphne – I think I can answer your question.

The top couple of layers of Nortel management are, for the most part, new to the company and even new to the principle businesses that Nortel plays in. The consequences of this fact are that these top layers cannot fully 'manage' what they own, they merely 'measure and track'. The lower layers – let's say Director and below – are still required because that's where the remaining knowledge resides. The lower layers feed information to the upper layers and if it looks good in powerpoint and excel it gets a passing grade.

There are notable exceptions to my cynical view and these are the remaining bright spots in Nortel.

Which layer is the six-sigma layer?

OK….well we have in Carrier Networks, the little man Richard Lowe who last used a computer…hhmmm…maybe windows95! C'mon, he's a gray hair who really has survived by who he has known….cause he knows jack about the CN product offering and within that CDMA (starved of cash) is the only one making $$$. Way to go Ricky, sucks you came from Canada, most of us still have BALLS….you spent too much time in Texas. Please deliver us from his stupidity…fire him or us. Me 1st cause he's just 1 of many executives in Nortel who continue to be compensated for their incompetence.
Under him is Doug (can't make a decision) Wolff (VP CDMA). Another smooth talking technocrat with little to offer. Last time he made a decision was….wait…I think she said they should get married.
Under him Harold E. (excrement) Graham …. also VP of CDMA….Nortel is all about being top heavy and rewarding those who do nothing….HEG is the leader when it comes to focusing on metrics of zero value and trying to tell customers he is delivering PREDICTABILITY! C'mon…he has a 3 year algonquin technologist degree from 25 years ago….equivalent to a high school degree today. This is the best Nortel can do….an ELT (Executive Leadership Team) crippled by RETARDS.
Then there's Larry (the rat) Murat another 5 foot something (nothing), chip on his shoulder…a who you know VP of WIMAX (failure!!!!!) and previous to that UMTS (FAILURE!!!!). Why is he still here. Why? Not cause he delivered anything……go water skiing you looser.
David Ayers….C'mon only losers come back to Nortel. He is now one of the CTO office's finest. The Nortel CTO office has been and will always be the laughing stock of Nortel. You in the CTO? You suck. Nobody respects you and you know why.
How about John Roese (pronounced Roth at Nortel). He's my hero…quickly assimilated within the Nortel ELT to deliver propaganda only Hitler would be proud of…..empty words and full pockets for Mike Z and his zombies…the living dead!
We shall overcome….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“We will bury you!” (“Мы вас похороним!”) Nikita Khrushchev

“I HOPE senior people in Nortel and on the Nortel board are paying attention.”

Senior people in Nortel are senior because they suck up, not down. They are not interested in what the people beneath them have to say, unless they too are sucking up. Then they are all ears. That's one huge reason Nortel is as screwed up as it is right now. Everyone in upper management is high on their own fumes.

And we already know the BoD have either been taken hostage or are too wussified to take corrective action. The ELT are a runaway train in that it appears they are heading somewhere full steam ahead when they are really out of control and heading for a huge train wreck.

How can it be that we are the only ones who see this?

Speaking truth to power at Nortel went away in the Dr. Frankenstern days

It was a tradition at BNR; you were paid to think and because that was cultural it was painfully obvious when someone was not thinking. The culture rewarded good employees, rather than trying to “catch” the bad ones. Once Nortel (Roth) “took over” the whole culture shifted.

A culture emerged where no one fought battles uphill anymore. If something went wrong, it flowed downhill, rather than up no matter where the problem was. As time went on, a lot of inappropriate competition and attitude emerged. Management became an hierarchical oligarchy, with a command or pace-setting methodology (remember vision 2K, internet time, and right-angle-turns?).

When the bottom fell out in 2001, I observed that the people who were let go first were the ones that were the most entrepreneurial. The company retreated to where it was comfortable, rather than moving forward.

From what I can determine; the GE-nuis culture has done little to improve things.

Observer

You are correct, where nortel is concerned the truth is bitter. BTW jobs are a commodity unless you work for yourself. Nortel management realized that a long time ago. When people working there finally realize it, companies like nortel will be in real trouble.

BTW Nortel only tells people it is a software company. It still makes far too much money selling that outsourced, but still propritary hardware. Just like cisco.

“it is the antithesis of the creative process.”
–
Okay I'll bite on this one and let's debate. I'll argue that people are commodities in age of global wage arbitrage and that many parts of Nortel and their competitors businesses are repeatable processes. Do they require ZERO creativity ? Of course not. But then maybe creativity is also becoming a commodity as we get further and further into globalization by the sheer number of people applying their creative talents regardless of where they work.

As for repeatedly debating the merits of any argument, I never saw that done better than anywhere else I have worked than at Nortel (otherwise known as the Nortel nod). In this situation, the creative process actually hampers time to market and this has an even worse effect when competitors are making decisions and acting faster.

It is telling that a company like Huawei, 20 years into its existence, can become a top 5 company in a 100+ year old industry.

Limeoid…Huawei hasn't done anything that Cisco, Microsoft and Intel and others haven't either. Don't make western style capitalism out to be that much more different than what goes on China because its not. The only thing Huawei is guilty of is not marketing themselves as well as their western counterparts. The truth of the matter there isn't much of a difference in what goes on most governments and businesses around the world.

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

Next thing we'll hear from observer is how great communism is and
that it is no different than democracy.

“Maybe creativity is also becoming a commodity as we get further and further into globalization by the sheer number of people applying their creative talents regardless of where they work.”

I don't think so. I think appropriately applied creativity will always be the prime differentiator and as such will not be marginalized due to globalization. That's not to say that product management teams won't attempt to diminish creative solutions, especially if they take time to implement. However, I think the market will always be looking for “more for less” and the only way to deliver on that will be smart creative solutions implemented in a timely manner. That being said, I also think the market will be able to differentiate marketing hype over a lackluster performer from the real deal. I see Nortel's path as leading more toward hype than not, and mostly because of product management's “performance” identified in your following paragraph (and echoed in the sentiment of your post that started this exchange).

“As for repeatedly debating the merits of any argument, I never saw that done better than anywhere else I have worked than at Nortel (otherwise known as the Nortel nod). In this situation, the creative process actually hampers time to market and this has an even worse effect when competitors are making decisions and acting faster.”

I don't think that engineering creativity has anything to do with overly extended product definition and delivery times. The lack of ability to remain on schedule has more to do with overly fantastic, or “creative”, schedules contrived by product management that have no basis in reality. Nor is this what I was talking about when I responded to your post that the attitude expressed in your response was “the antithesis of the creative process.”

My experience at Nortel has demonstrated to me an alarming lack of solicitation and inclusion of new ideas into the creative process by architects and senior members of the development staff. Attempts to participate are gently rebuffed. The prevailing attitude seems to be, don't call us with your ideas; we'll call you. Or, in other words, just do as you are told. That's why I said your response seemed to suggest some hostility toward the creative process.

“The reason there are a lot more competitors now is that knowledge and creativity are no longer the differentiators they once were.”

I will argue the exact opposite: the reason there are a lot more competitors is that they see opportunities that the incumbents in the industry either don't see or are too bloated with their bureaucracies to effectively implement in time. It's that vision, innovation, creativity, that's missing – no, strike that: not being nurtured – at Nortel. The new competitors have it. Nortel buys it, instead of permitting their developers the freedom to develop it (freedom as in lead time and providing opportunity).

“I think its on the developers to take steps instead of relying on the permission principle.”

Sure…but if the organization doesn't provide the lead time or opportunity, when exactly is this supposed to happen? You call it “permission”, but I don't think that's what we are actually talking about here. It's certainly not what I am talking about.

If a project that requires 12 months to complete is only given 6 months, when exactly is the developer supposed to design, implement and test the innovative solution? If the architect or senior design lead(s) say, “Do it this way” or “Just hack the existing SW” and the implementation engineer ignores it and does it a different way, uh…how does that work?

If the architect and senior design lead includes and involves the team in the architectural and design discussions, and the project management team grants the team time to implement and test the resulting solution, doesn't that provide a better environment for software development?

ex-nt – i believe Nortel has evolved better than their traditional telecom competitors and is well positioned for growth in new areas.

Did anyone happen to catch the management and strategy changes coming at Cisco ? Sounds like it will be Nortel/IBM/Microsoft versus Cisco versus HP.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/27754

The change in culture and direction at Cisco also facilitates a change in the way it views its ecosystem partnerships as well, Kerravala says. Cisco sees itself as the center of that universe with ecosystem partners surrounding and supporting it.

The company must now adopt a support role of its own and follow the lead of its IT ecosystem partners as it charts a new course beyond its traditional networking boundaries.

“Cisco has a history of growing up with an ecosystem around it to support it,” Kerravala says. “Traditional IT is ecosystem led. It integrates into what they do. It's a different mindset.”

Observer, the article makes a good point. However, before Cisco becomes an IT company, it will need some applications. Most of their application/feature software I have experiance with is pretty bad.

I don't count them out, but they are not up to a match with HP/EDS, IBM or MSFT unless they buy Oracle

ex-nt, you're telling it like it is. it's true that barriers are somewhat lower in many areas now that networks have a higher ratio of applications to hardware in them than they ever used to.
but startups were always able to outdevelop the big guys, even when they had to develop their own hardware.
it's is not just because startups are better at executing and the big guys are process heavy, although there is some of that.
survivorship bias is at work. we know and talk about startups that are successful, while there is a quiet cemetery full of dead ones.
only the good ones get acquired or get to partner with the big guys on selling their product. so after a while it may seem like startups are so much better at developing products that big guys shouldn't even try, they should just buy those startups. while this strategy can sometimes work, acquisitions are not without risks as well.

anyways, i appreciated your post because you were specific. you named startups and products. i wish everyone who is trying to make an argument did that.
because when i read something like “i believe NT is well positioned to take advantage of growth in new areas” i want to scream BS, BS! name those areas, how positions (what products, services, etc. is it going to provide and when), etc, etc.
so thanks for some concrete examples.

many, mnss, thanks for the comments. As an old guy, I still maintain that doing a startup in telecom infra used to be extremely hard (70's, 80's, 90's), but has become easier due to easy availability of technology like ATCA hardware, real time telecom Linux, chipsets, etc. I do concede that many startups fail, but some succeed, also some have product problems, but are still commercially successful. However, for startups to succeed in telecom infra is a big change in the market.

I got a good chuckle from this. I would've posted it to the PV Outsourcing article but it's closed to further comment.

From the June 19, 2006 issue of Information Week
http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/…

In 2003, Sprint tapped IBM Global Services to handle a number of key software development and IT management tasks, such as developing a Web services environment that would let Sprint rapidly provision new services to businesses and consumers. There were high hopes for the engagement, valued at $400 million over five years. Sprint CIO Michael Stout heralded it as the best way for the telecom company to “focus on areas of growth and innovation.” Sprint was counting on the deal as part of a plan to cut $2 billion in operating costs over two years.

Fast forward to 2006. Stout is no longer CIO, Sprint has merged with Nextel, and the company is accusing IBM in court of failing to achieve the promised productivity improvements and of concocting a scheme to “falsely bolster” its performance metrics.

Where did it go wrong? Sprint's internal accounting didn't properly value the work performed by the in-house IT staff, says a former Sprint IT worker who, along with about 1,000 of his colleagues, was “rebadged” to IBM as part of the deal. When those functions were turned over to a contractor, Sprint was hit with sticker shock and balked at the price for a number of projects meant to boost productivity and hit the goals in the contract. “No new projects were going through the pipeline,” says the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity and no longer works for either company. Two hundred or more top engineers also left, he estimates, amid the confusion and lack of projects.