Re:Intel ousts its chief engineer, shakes up technical group...
by kilo_bravo_3 on Monday July 27, 2020 @10:24PM
(#23971698)
Successful reorgs are done in response to growth, changing markets, and new lines of business.
Just like the examples you gave.
This is either a desperation or punitive reorg.
There are also boredom and “make my mark” reorgs and this ain’t them.
Re:Intel ousts its chief engineer, shakes up technical group...
by TomVDB on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @12:56AM
(#23972407)
> Successful reorgs are done in response to growth, changing markets, and new lines of business.
> This is either a desperation or punitive reorg.
One could very well characterize the reorganization of IBM in the mid nineties as a desperation reorg and a punitive one (100K employees laid off.)
It was also a very successful one.
Re:Intel ousts its chief engineer, shakes up technical group...
by toohotatopic on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @01:45AM
(#23972671)
Was it? It could have been IBM who invented the smartphone or hardware as a service.
Re:Intel ousts its chief engineer, shakes up technical group...
by pm90 on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @02:23AM
(#23972870)
They survived.
Re:Intel ousts its chief engineer, shakes up technical group...
by toohotatopic on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @03:00AM
(#23973074)
Surviving cannot be the ambition of IBM.
I couldn't disagree more.
As companies grow/change, existing structures that used to work at some point, can start to break down and a reorg can (and often does) solve that.
A typical example are smaller companies that start with centralized services that support all BUs, but that break up these services as they grow, because per-BU needs might diverge too much or because the distance/sense of ownership of a central group doesn't always align.
It doesn't always work, but I've seen it done right multiple times.