Lucent: Down But Not Out

Frisky070802 writes "Forbes has an article about the "new" Lucent. It discusses how Lucent is trying to follow in the path of IBM by transforming itself from an equipment provider to a provider of services, even to companies using equipment from competitors. Patricia Russo, the CEO, claims that Lucent has turned the corner and proven it can survive. The article quotes a few statistics on just what has survived: for instance, revenues down from $28.9B in FY2000 to an expected $8.9B in FY2004, and headcount dropping from 157K to 32.5K over that time." Lucent has fascinated me, simply because they were so well setup, but then floundered for *years*, but have a great amount of interesting technology at their core.

Comments

Blame "The Angel Of Death"

[pandrijeczko]

Go take a look at HP's share prices recently and then you'll understand who's responsible.

I worked for Lucent during the Fiorina years and I saw it decline from a great company to one that was brought down to its knees - sure, the dotcom bust was part of the reason but Fiorina's "dubious" business practices didn't help. Whatever anyone says, she was kicked off the Lucent board and how she ever got to HP is beyond my comprehension - well, one idea springs to mind but it involves a casting couch.

I hope Lucent pick themselves up again - the heavy investment in 3G technology did not help their recovery - as they have the Bell Labs heritage (along with Avaya) and a more rounded workforce than IBM, albeit much smaller.

IBM is very good with server technologies and web integration stuff but Lucent has the better telecoms and networks skills and is probably well placed to offer services in those areas.

As for HP the sooner they kick out Fiorina, the better - I wouldn't trust that woman to run a hotdog stall, let alone a global company.

Re:Blame "The Angel Of Death"

[arivanov]

It is not just Fionna. It is a flock of executives. We had a head of engineering transplanted from there in one of my previous jobs. The creature f**ked up the department in less then 3 months and was one of the very few which were ever ejected from the company in those days (top of the boom). He was "retired to spend more time with his family".

From day the transplanted lucent abomination started going around with an "outsourcing checklist" without even trying to understand the fact that we have just about enough staff to either define the requirements or write bespoke stuff to plug holes without defininig requirements (basically write as we go along). He never actually understood this. He never had any other ideas on how to do things either. Classic example of a person without any clue in software development. Believe it or not he was the head of Lucent reqional R&D before being transplanted.

He provided me with an insight of what happened to lucent. Lucent was the first company to outsource massively its software development arond 1997. It did this as a "cost saving measure" without retaining people to define the requirements and design what the outsourcers have to do. As a result from 1st company in VOIP it promptly went off the radar screen. Same thing happened in many other areas. Basically Lucents's woes are selfinflicted and they are a classic example on how not to outsource.

Economic cycles

[talaphid]

So... a company did really well during a boom, didn't expect the - let's go with at least a century of data - inevitable bust, and ended up in the fiscal doghouse. The bust is showing faint signs of turning into a boom, and a company lasted long enough to see the dawn. I hope I'm not abstracting a little too much for everyone's taste, but I'm just amazed at how this sort of 'news' borders on anything more than a madlib.

OTOH, it is Lucent. I am confused by the matching corporate-think cycle regarding slimming to 'core business' and 'diversification', which has had profitable units dropped because they weren't the "core business". I realize this comes with a nice immediate fiscal gain, but... so would selling the whole company, or firing all the employees.

Lucent, if I understood properly, was a victim of both this 'core business' nonsense along the need for capital by its parent business unit. I think of Lucent as an innovator, and it seemed set up for failure. So... yippee! Pat yourselves on the back, Lucent. I do find it mildly amusing that their future will be neither a 'core business' nor 'diversification', but rather, (minding) other people's business.

Now if you'd like to credit me the value of shares at the price I originally paid for them...