When AT&T decided to split up, they did a capabilities survey of their employees. The top rated third would stay with AT&T, the middle rated third would go to Lucent, and the bottom rated third would go to NCR.
However, this was not told to those making the survey. Politics being what it was at AT&T, the politicians and powerful managers got the highest rating and stayed with AT&T, the technicians went to Lucent, and NCR got the leftovers. (There is an interesting sociology thesis somewhere in there on how sucessful the companies were afterwards.)
What remains of Lucent is suffering from the lack of depth of good management talent. Their warehouses, for example, are legendary for their disorganization. I know one contractor that turned down a lucrative contract (during the worst of the recession!) to modernize them because he thought it was hopeless.
However, Lucent still has tons of good technology squirreled away. The problem is, they can't productize any of it, because that would require focused management, a difficult task in the best of times, and an impossible one while in free fall.
Lucent has stabilized for the moment. What Lucent needs to do is hire a few managers to do what, say, General "Hap" Arnold did with Boeing. Pick a promising potential product and do whatever it takes to get a professional quality product out the door, with the full, unconditional backing of management. I can think of several from when I was there, any one of which whose sales could sustain the company on it's own.
This would work even for Lucent's services orientation. For example, Lucent could combine their telecom and IT expertise to specialize in creating fully virtual software development centers and multimedia contact centers. This would provide much the same cost savings as foreign outsourcing, with far less disruption. It would probably be popular with both US companies and the US government.
Lucent's future is far from hopeless. It's downfall, if it occurs, will be the failure of imagination and will.
No, the CEO's aren't traitors, but it is a failure of will and imagination on the part of our leaders, including the "so called" traitor CEO's thats causing the problem.
So China and India are putting up a good fight. So What? Good for them.
America has faced challenges before, and won. We can again. But we have to fight for our place in the world, and all that I hear is whining that it isn't fair.
Well, it isn't fair, and since when has that ever mattered to the outcome of any struggle?
What matters is that there is plenty we can do about it, without using protectionism. We can develop new products, new technologies, new areas of expertise, new production methods. I have posted the details of a few of these solutions over at the forums of http://www.windley.com and I am working on even more ones.
All we need now is for our leaders to stop their bickering and start organizing an effort to create projects to make America's IT workforce competitive again.
But there is nothing but that ineffectual J.O.B.S. porkbarrel from our governmental leaders. The incredible thing is it requires no funding (all needed funding is already in place), no legislation (we have been ready for this for years) or any other action than to hold the Department of Labor's feet over the fire to do everything that needs to be done.
So it is up to the private sector to handle the problem. And that's where those traitor CEO's earned the appelation. All that is heard from them is "I haven't a clue" (something I have suspected for some time).
Take a few bucks from your pocket and BUY a clue. If you don't have an idea, there are plenty of us who do. WHY HAVEN"T YOU ASKED??!!!
I thought the talent of CEO's was to lead. If they are not willing to use some fraction of those talents and resources to make an effort to help the workets, country and the industry that made them powerful, well, it is pretty hard to think of a more appropriate term than coward and traitor.
What do you call somebody who has the ability to fight and win but instead runs and hides? Are you asking me to believe that the cream of the worlds business talent has no stomach to put up a fight for something worthwhile?
And make no mistake about it, the American Market is something worth fighting for, and the first CEO that takes up the torch is going to win big, if only by default.
It is not required that they abandon outsourcing or foreign markets, just that they not abandon American markets. It is amazing that they cannot realize that.
Here is some more things that can be done. === Create Business Introductory Services. Price isn't the main concern in purchasing software services, Results are.
One issue for American vendors is that indidually, they are too small and with too little reputation to compete with the big offshore firms. The government could add value with coordinating vendor alliances between firms and financial backing (again a DOL issue) so that this concenr is not an issue in competition. === For those who study national hegomonies and the competitiveness of nations, the issue is one of generating "clusters of excellence", areas where an unusual level of expertise is available. THe government could easily seed a few of these, there are many possibilities. For example, Enterprise Level PHP based on PHP 5) is just starting to gain traction. It has the possibility of making a dent in J2EE. The government could easily seed a few centers to develop this as a specialty. === Every one agrees IT workers increase productivity. Our national infrastructure is in poor shape. Put the two together and start funding IT infrastruture projects, similar to TVA or WPA. We got America's energy infrastructure that created the industrail boom of the 1950 and 1960's that way. === The 911 commission regales us with tales of poor Signal Intelligence and Human Intelligence ( traditional data gathering. The other meaning is a given) Traditionally, human intelligence is the property of news reporting. The BBC is considering blogs for news reporting, and the blogosphere is in every neighborhood worldwide. Why not retrain all those IT workers as Investigative reporters for a blog based news equivalent of Reuters? They know computer assisted reporting very well, and can get into any databases. For that matter of fact, you don't really believe all those thousands of IT people laid off from Wall Street didn't know every scandal that was going on before it was public? They could generate tons of articles just based on the gossip they have heard.
SInce they all have printers, they could even do a physical news service for those in their neighborhood who do not have Internet access.
If nothing else, the propect of generating a nillion new investigative reporters, all of whom are upset with senators that favor outsourcing, should galvanize Washington into that fastest passage in history of a legislative relief bill for IT Workers that involves those workers NOT doing investigative reporting. === THere is lots that can be done, there just isn't anyone in government (especially the Department of Labor, the USTR, and the Senate Finance Committee) who cares enough to do it.
We have been discussing this over at http://www.windley.com in the forum.
Look, we aren't going to stop outsourcing, so lets try some practical suggestions
Here are some things that can be done:
The US Government can get the US Trade Representative to make a deal with say, the Chinese. They have industries (agriculture, soft drinks, etc) that are suffering from US competition as bad as the IT industries are suffering here. (Both countries are getting totaled in the manufacturing industry) The WTO has no rules on this, the Chinese could raise prices for IT work, and we could raise our agricultural prices (for example) so that both industries in both countries could develop. There are good arguments why this is in both countries best interests.
The government can help create semi private companies that could employ most US IT workers without violating the WTO. Doesn't require legislation, doesn't require funding, just some Congessional legislative comittee to hold DOL's feet to the fire to get them to act.
The J.O.B.S. bill contains funding provisions and the US Department of Labor has identified plenty of already funded but unused programs for this same purpose according to Mr. Samples of DOL at an AEI conference on CSPAN.
What sort of companies should the DOL incubate? Here is a one example:
The Veterans Adminstration spent 20 years and tens of millions of dollars developing VISTA, a free OSS hospital admin suite used around the world in thousands of hospitals. DOL could create a base infrastructure company (a la Eclipse) that would provide the toolkit for adding new health tools. We could minimize out healthcare costs (a major national priority) and
prepare for the aging baby boomers at the same time. Maybe even help solve the Medicare crisis.
I have a number of other ideas about possible companies, contact me if you want to hear about them.
Here is another suggestion:
The major difference in labor costs is the relative costs of living. Laws that promote alternative COL mechanisms like LETS exist. Military workers, for example, get access to PX's and other facilities that reduce their cost of living. Why not allow companies to become reserve "Army Corp Of Engineer" units so those facilities are available to them? IT workers could be competitive with less actual pay if their costs went down commensurably.
There are too many other things the US could do than I could list here. That isn't the problem.
First and foremost, our leaders have to decide that they are willing to fight for U.S. IT workers. Right now, they don't have the will. When they finally do, all that is necessary is for them to instruct the DOL to make it happen, or else. They might want to look at,say, General Arnold of WWII and Boeing for an real world example of how to make it happen.
The US is suffering from a failure of imagination and will, not macroeconomic forces.
That's the problem that really needs to be addressed.
Slashdot Mirror
When AT&T decided to split up, they did a capabilities survey of their employees. The top rated third would stay with AT&T, the middle rated third would go to Lucent, and the bottom rated third would go to NCR.
However, this was not told to those making the survey. Politics being what it was at AT&T, the politicians and powerful managers got the highest rating and stayed with AT&T, the technicians went to Lucent, and NCR got the leftovers. (There is an interesting sociology thesis somewhere in there on how sucessful the companies were afterwards.)
What remains of Lucent is suffering from the lack of depth of good management talent. Their warehouses, for example, are legendary for their disorganization. I know one contractor that turned down a lucrative contract (during the worst of the recession!) to modernize them because he thought it was hopeless.
However, Lucent still has tons of good technology squirreled away. The problem is, they can't productize any of it, because that would require focused management, a difficult task in the best of times, and an impossible one while in free fall.
Lucent has stabilized for the moment. What Lucent needs to do is hire a few managers to do what, say, General "Hap" Arnold did with Boeing. Pick a promising potential product and do whatever it takes to get a professional quality product out the door, with the full, unconditional backing of management. I can think of several from when I was there, any one of which whose sales could sustain the company on it's own.
This would work even for Lucent's services orientation. For example, Lucent could combine their telecom and IT expertise to specialize in creating fully virtual software development centers and multimedia contact centers. This would provide much the same cost savings as foreign outsourcing, with far less disruption. It would probably be popular with both US companies and the US government.
Lucent's future is far from hopeless. It's downfall, if it occurs, will be the failure of imagination and will.
No, the CEO's aren't traitors, but it is a failure of will and imagination on the part of our leaders, including the "so called" traitor CEO's thats causing the problem.
So China and India are putting up a good fight. So What? Good for them.
America has faced challenges before, and won. We can again. But we have to fight for our place in the world, and all that I hear is whining that it isn't fair.
Well, it isn't fair, and since when has that ever mattered to the outcome of any struggle?
What matters is that there is plenty we can do about it, without using protectionism. We can develop new products, new technologies, new areas of expertise, new production methods. I have posted the details of a few of these solutions over at the forums of http://www.windley.com and I am working on even more ones.
All we need now is for our leaders to stop their bickering and start organizing an effort to create projects to make America's IT workforce competitive again.
But there is nothing but that ineffectual J.O.B.S. porkbarrel from our governmental leaders. The incredible thing is it requires no funding (all needed funding is already in place), no legislation (we have been ready for this for years) or any other action than to hold the Department of Labor's feet over the fire to do everything that needs to be done.
So it is up to the private sector to handle the problem. And that's where those traitor CEO's earned the appelation. All that is heard from them is "I haven't a clue" (something I have suspected for some time).
Take a few bucks from your pocket and BUY a clue. If you don't have an idea, there are plenty of us who do. WHY HAVEN"T YOU ASKED??!!!
I thought the talent of CEO's was to lead. If they are not willing to use some fraction of those talents and resources to make an effort to help the workets, country and the industry that made them powerful, well, it is pretty hard to think of a more appropriate term than coward and traitor.
What do you call somebody who has the ability to fight and win but instead runs and hides? Are you asking me to believe that the cream of the worlds business talent has no stomach to put up a fight for something worthwhile?
And make no mistake about it, the American Market is something worth fighting for, and the first CEO that takes up the torch is going to win big, if only by default.
It is not required that they abandon outsourcing or foreign markets, just that they not abandon American markets. It is amazing that they cannot realize that.
It's a failure of imagination and will, part 2.
Here is some more things that can be done.
===
Create Business Introductory Services. Price isn't the main concern in purchasing software services, Results are.
One issue for American vendors is that indidually, they are too small and with too little reputation to compete with the big offshore firms. The government could add value with coordinating vendor alliances between firms and financial backing (again a DOL issue) so that this concenr is not an issue in competition.
===
For those who study national hegomonies and the competitiveness of nations, the issue is one of generating "clusters of excellence", areas where an unusual level of expertise is available. THe government could easily seed a few of these, there are many possibilities. For example, Enterprise Level PHP based on PHP 5) is just starting to gain traction. It has the possibility of making a dent in J2EE. The government could easily seed a few centers to develop this as a specialty.
===
Every one agrees IT workers increase productivity. Our national infrastructure is in poor shape. Put the two together and start funding IT infrastruture projects, similar to TVA or WPA. We got America's energy infrastructure that created the industrail boom of the 1950 and 1960's that way.
===
The 911 commission regales us with tales of poor Signal Intelligence and Human Intelligence ( traditional data gathering. The other meaning is a given) Traditionally, human intelligence is the property of news reporting. The BBC is considering blogs for news reporting, and the blogosphere is in every neighborhood worldwide. Why not retrain all those IT workers as Investigative reporters for a blog based news equivalent of Reuters? They know computer assisted reporting very well, and can get into any databases. For that matter of fact, you don't really believe all those thousands of IT people laid off from Wall Street didn't know every scandal that was going on before it was public? They could generate tons of articles just based on the gossip they have heard.
SInce they all have printers, they could even do a physical news service for those in their neighborhood who do not have Internet access.
If nothing else, the propect of generating a nillion new investigative reporters, all of whom are upset with senators that favor outsourcing, should galvanize Washington into that fastest passage in history of a legislative relief bill for IT Workers that involves those workers NOT doing investigative reporting.
===
THere is lots that can be done, there just isn't anyone in government (especially the Department of Labor, the USTR, and the Senate Finance Committee) who cares enough to do it.
We have been discussing this over at http://www.windley.com in the forum. Look, we aren't going to stop outsourcing, so lets try some practical suggestions Here are some things that can be done: The US Government can get the US Trade Representative to make a deal with say, the Chinese. They have industries (agriculture, soft drinks, etc) that are suffering from US competition as bad as the IT industries are suffering here. (Both countries are getting totaled in the manufacturing industry) The WTO has no rules on this, the Chinese could raise prices for IT work, and we could raise our agricultural prices (for example) so that both industries in both countries could develop. There are good arguments why this is in both countries best interests. The government can help create semi private companies that could employ most US IT workers without violating the WTO. Doesn't require legislation, doesn't require funding, just some Congessional legislative comittee to hold DOL's feet to the fire to get them to act. The J.O.B.S. bill contains funding provisions and the US Department of Labor has identified plenty of already funded but unused programs for this same purpose according to Mr. Samples of DOL at an AEI conference on CSPAN. What sort of companies should the DOL incubate? Here is a one example: The Veterans Adminstration spent 20 years and tens of millions of dollars developing VISTA, a free OSS hospital admin suite used around the world in thousands of hospitals. DOL could create a base infrastructure company (a la Eclipse) that would provide the toolkit for adding new health tools. We could minimize out healthcare costs (a major national priority) and prepare for the aging baby boomers at the same time. Maybe even help solve the Medicare crisis. I have a number of other ideas about possible companies, contact me if you want to hear about them. Here is another suggestion: The major difference in labor costs is the relative costs of living. Laws that promote alternative COL mechanisms like LETS exist. Military workers, for example, get access to PX's and other facilities that reduce their cost of living. Why not allow companies to become reserve "Army Corp Of Engineer" units so those facilities are available to them? IT workers could be competitive with less actual pay if their costs went down commensurably. There are too many other things the US could do than I could list here. That isn't the problem. First and foremost, our leaders have to decide that they are willing to fight for U.S. IT workers. Right now, they don't have the will. When they finally do, all that is necessary is for them to instruct the DOL to make it happen, or else. They might want to look at,say, General Arnold of WWII and Boeing for an real world example of how to make it happen. The US is suffering from a failure of imagination and will, not macroeconomic forces. That's the problem that really needs to be addressed.