RE: When It Couldn't Get Any Better

> From: theharlequin36@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: When It Couldn't Get Any Better> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:02:05 +0000> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > "Art S. Kagel (Oninit)" <art@oninit.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.590.1204502809.20610.informix-list@iiug.org...> > > It took IBM a long time to realize this, but, now that they have, they've > > gotten the idea "why work hard to try to convert Orable and MS SQL Server > > users to DB2 when IDS converts them without trying".> > "A pint of what Mr Kagel's drinking, please!"> > No harm in wishing it, Art, but I hardly think we're there yet. > What I'm about to say should be forwarded to Mills et al. I have to agree. Having worked with S&D (Sales and Distribution) I can tell you that things have to change and that they are not yet happening. 1) For the product(s) to stick, you need to include consulting. This is true of both DB2 and IDS. If a customer doesn't know anything about IDS and doesn't have any skills in house, you need a plan that includes both services and training. You also need to have IT Specialists who are also certified on the products. (And last head count, there are not enough certified IT specialists to cover the products. Consulting? Hmmm. That's another interesting story... ;-) 2) You need to make IDS a "low hanging fruit". Meaning that its easy to sell and that the S&D rep captures as much revenue credit as possible. You want to know why S&D tried to convert companies running IDS to DB2? Simple. S&D lost revenue recognition on license renewal. So if the client stayed on IDS, they didn't make any money towards their quota. But if they converted them to DB2, they got license revenue quota. (So if you're a "farmer", its how you made your targets.) 2b) You also had to make the sale easier. Selling product and no services maximized the reps revenue. If there was a problem, they just called the lab services team and expected us to rescue the accounts at our expense. (Oh and the stories I could tell... ;-) So you need to compensate the SSRs on lab services. They captured the revenue from services so it got built in. 3) You need to enforce that if a deal is cross brand, that the other lab services teams went cross brand. (This is a "green" vs "blue" dollar issue. Something that unless you were in my former role or lab services management you won't understand.) There was a cross brand sales team but that's another story.... ;-) 4) You need to consider packages. How did the DB2 BCE model work? The only drawback it was limited to IBM hardware You wanted to swap things out like your SAN, then you were no longer a BCE. (Again there's another story there...) 5) S&D will sell what they know. How many reps today are heritage Informix? Not enough. So you sell DB2 cause that's what you're used to. Now I've said way too much. Of course I'm outside of my quiet period on these issues. ;-) But yes, I know a lot of the issues. I was forced to live through these issues. Have things changed? Not enough for us to celebrate. The current management of the IM pillar are getting their ticket punched. (Thats a military term) They support IDS because they're making money on the product. They don't understand the database market, nor do they have the credibility to undo some of the damage that Janet did. But hey! What do I know? I mean I don't work for the lab like Serge and a couple of other posters. (Although I did. ;-) Unlike Mark who ran around the world giving high level presentations, I dealt with the customers and their crit sits and all of the deals for a given set of products for a given territory as well as the S&D team covering those accounts. I've also dealt with BCS/IGS on a daily basis. I told a couple of execs what they needed to do, and I guess they didn't pay attention. Sure Informix market is growing. But not as fast as it could. And you don't need to thank S&D. You need to thank the channels and partners team. Nope. I'm just Gumby. ;-) Later. _________________________________________________________________ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your "fix". http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx

Gumby, You have confirmed my worst fears, that, IBM is basically a company full of incompetents situated in key positions. I was thinking this might be the case, but now your comments basically outline how it works. I'm suspecting that over time the incompetency will actually increase, and with pure luck Informix will succeed in spite of its parents basically keeping it in the basement and throwing it a banana now and then to keep it alive. Between the incompetence and sheer stupidity Informix might make it. Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > From: theharlequin36@hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: When It Couldn't Get Any Better > > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:02:05 +0000 > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > "Art S. Kagel (Oninit)" <art@oninit.com> wrote in message > > news:mailman.590.1204502809.20610.informix-list@iiug.org... > > > > > It took IBM a long time to realize this, but, now that they have, > they've > > > gotten the idea "why work hard to try to convert Orable and MS SQL > Server > > > users to DB2 when IDS converts them without trying". > > > > "A pint of what Mr Kagel's drinking, please!" > > > > No harm in wishing it, Art, but I hardly think we're there yet. > > > > What I'm about to say should be forwarded to Mills et al. > I have to agree. Having worked with S&D (Sales and Distribution) I can > tell you that things have to change and that they are not yet happening. > > 1) For the product(s) to stick, you need to include consulting. This is > true of both DB2 and IDS. If a customer doesn't know anything about IDS > and doesn't have any skills in house, you need a plan that includes both > services and training. You also need to have IT Specialists who are also > certified on the products. (And last head count, there are not enough > certified IT specialists to cover the products. Consulting? Hmmm. That's > another interesting story... ;-) > > 2) You need to make IDS a "low hanging fruit". Meaning that its easy to > sell and that the S&D rep captures as much revenue credit as possible. > You want to know why S&D tried to convert companies running IDS to DB2? > Simple. S&D lost revenue recognition on license renewal. So if the > client stayed on IDS, they didn't make any money towards their quota. > But if they converted them to DB2, they got license revenue quota. (So > if you're a "farmer", its how you made your targets.) > > 2b) You also had to make the sale easier. Selling product and no > services maximized the reps revenue. If there was a problem, they just > called the lab services team and expected us to rescue the accounts at > our expense. (Oh and the stories I could tell... ;-) So you need to > compensate the SSRs on lab services. They captured the revenue from > services so it got built in. > > 3) You need to enforce that if a deal is cross brand, that the other lab > services teams went cross brand. (This is a "green" vs "blue" dollar > issue. Something that unless you were in my former role or lab services > management you won't understand.) There was a cross brand sales team but > that's another story.... ;-) > > 4) You need to consider packages. How did the DB2 BCE model work? The > only drawback it was limited to IBM hardware You wanted to swap things > out like your SAN, then you were no longer a BCE. (Again there's another > story there...) > > 5) S&D will sell what they know. How many reps today are heritage > Informix? Not enough. So you sell DB2 cause that's what you're used to. > > Now I've said way too much. Of course I'm outside of my quiet period on > these issues. ;-) > > But yes, I know a lot of the issues. I was forced to live through these > issues. > > Have things changed? Not enough for us to celebrate. The current > management of the IM pillar are getting their ticket punched. (Thats a > military term) They support IDS because they're making money on the > product. They don't understand the database market, nor do they have the > credibility to undo some of the damage that Janet did. > > But hey! What do I know? > I mean I don't work for the lab like Serge and a couple of other > posters. (Although I did. ;-) > Unlike Mark who ran around the world giving high level presentations, I > dealt with the customers and their crit sits and all of the deals for a > given set of products for a given territory as well as the S&D team > covering those accounts. I've also dealt with BCS/IGS on a daily basis. > > I told a couple of execs what they needed to do, and I guess they didn't > pay attention. Sure Informix market is growing. But not as fast as it > could. And you don't need to thank S&D. You need to thank the channels > and partners team. > > Nope. > > I'm just Gumby. ;-) > > Later. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail'-get > your "fix". Check it out. <http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx>;

Indeep, IBM has 340,000 or so employees. So not everyone there is incompetent. Using Steve Mills as an example, he's not incompetent, however he's making some poor decisions based on looking at the short term bottom line than the longer term of what would be best for IBM. One thing that IBM does is shift potential senior management around to different jobs so that when they move up the food chain, they can have a better perspective of what is IBM. Remember that within Software Group, you have 5 pillars and now literaly hundred or so products that they sell. The negative is that when a senior exec gets his/her ticket punched, they tend to clean house of the management team just below them. In some respects this is a good idea because it makes room for your team that you trust. In other ways, it causes certain knowledge lost and some disjoint decisions. (BTW, "ticket punching" means that you rotate through a series of jobs so that you can be promoted to a higher rank. You're not doing the job longer than it takes you to get the necessary experience.) Where the problem lies is that your middle management for the most part are people who were hired in the mid to late 80's (Not IBM's highpoint) and are "political survivors". That is to say that they won't make the optimal decisions but ones that will either build bridges in their personal network, or will help them make their short term goals. This is *your* worst nightmare. There are a lot of problems within IBM. Some exist because well, IBM is IBM and its huge. If you don't mind being pigeon holed, you could last a long time at IBM without getting noticed for being incompetent. IBM also has to make broad sweeping decisions because, well, people are people and will either abuse or take advantage of policies. This is why its easier to get a $200 a person meal from your IBM rep, vs a sleeve of golf balls and a golf shirt with the IBM logo. (I kid you not.) One of things you have to remember is that IBM used to train all of their sales reps for atleast a year before letting them step foot in front of a client. This was back in the 60's and 70's. (If not earlier.) IBM nor any other company is going to make that investment in today's "disposable" workforce. Anderson/Accenture used to do their 10-12 week wonder courses in St. Charles. Today, that's a huge investment. (I don't know if they still do that, because they've started to offshore a lot of the technical work or onshore it.) Having said all of that, I do believe that it is possible to turn this trend around. IBM could do things and think outside of the box. Purchase SAP as an example. (Sorry Serge, you're not paid to see the bigger picture of SWG.) This would make them more competitive against the likes of Oracle. And for those who haven't caught on... IBM sells the components like middleware to build solutions. In today's market, who's producing the competing products? HINT: ITS CALLED OPENSOURCE. LAMP for example means building a solution on Linux, Apache, MySQL and Php. All component software that is all opensource. Sure you can replace MySQL with a *real* database. Postgress anyone? The point and key to this is that if you're in the "middleware" industry and don't sell end to end solutions, you're pretty much fucked long term. And yes, "fucked" is a technical engineering term. Another problem. A & A are not DB guys. (Lotus, no?) They're in their position getting their ticket punched. What happens when they leave? Oh there's plenty of rumors. ;-) Not all of them good. But hey! What do I know? When I was in the lab, I was cross matrixed to S&D. I've seen a lot of shit up front and personal. -G PS. IBM funds the IIUG because its giving them the most bang for their buck. I won't say how much, but trust me. They pay more for a 30 second national tv commerical that doesn't reach the same type of audience that the IIUG does all year long. ;-) > From: indeep@indeep.com> Subject: Re: When It Couldn't Get Any Better> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:44:59 -0800> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > Gumby,> > You have confirmed my worst fears, that, IBM is basically a company> full of incompetents situated in key positions. I was thinking this> might be the case, but now your comments basically outline how it> works. I'm suspecting that over time the incompetency will actually> increase, and with pure luck Informix will succeed in spite of its> parents basically keeping it in the basement and throwing it a banana> now and then to keep it alive. Between the incompetence and sheer> stupidity Informix might make it.> > > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote:> > > > > > > From: theharlequin36@hotmail.com> > > Subject: Re: When It Couldn't Get Any Better> > > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:02:05 +0000> > > To: informix-list@iiug.org> > >> > > "Art S. Kagel (Oninit)" <art@oninit.com> wrote in message> > > news:mailman.590.1204502809.20610.informix-list@iiug.org...> > >> > > > It took IBM a long time to realize this, but, now that they have, > > they've> > > > gotten the idea "why work hard to try to convert Orable and MS SQL > > Server> > > > users to DB2 when IDS converts them without trying".> > >> > > "A pint of what Mr Kagel's drinking, please!"> > >> > > No harm in wishing it, Art, but I hardly think we're there yet.> > >> > > > What I'm about to say should be forwarded to Mills et al.> > I have to agree. Having worked with S&D (Sales and Distribution) I can > > tell you that things have to change and that they are not yet happening.> > > > 1) For the product(s) to stick, you need to include consulting. This is > > true of both DB2 and IDS. If a customer doesn't know anything about IDS > > and doesn't have any skills in house, you need a plan that includes both > > services and training. You also need to have IT Specialists who are also > > certified on the products. (And last head count, there are not enough > > certified IT specialists to cover the products. Consulting? Hmmm. That's > > another interesting story... ;-)> > > > 2) You need to make IDS a "low hanging fruit". Meaning that its easy to > > sell and that the S&D rep captures as much revenue credit as possible. > > You want to know why S&D tried to convert companies running IDS to DB2? > > Simple. S&D lost revenue recognition on license renewal. So if the > > client stayed on IDS, they didn't make any money towards their quota. > > But if they converted them to DB2, they got license revenue quota. (So > > if you're a "farmer", its how you made your targets.)> > > > 2b) You also had to make the sale easier. Selling product and no > > services maximized the reps revenue. If there was a problem, they just > > called the lab services team and expected us to rescue the accounts at > > our expense. (Oh and the stories I could tell... ;-) So you need to > > compensate the SSRs on lab services. They captured the revenue from > > services so it got built in.> > > > 3) You need to enforce that if a deal is cross brand, that the other lab > > services teams went cross brand. (This is a "green" vs "blue" dollar > > issue. Something that unless you were in my former role or lab services > > management you won't understand.) There was a cross brand sales team but > > that's another story.... ;-)> > > > 4) You need to consider packages. How did the DB2 BCE model work? The > > only drawback it was limited to IBM hardware You wanted to swap things > > out like your SAN, then you were no longer a BCE. (Again there's another > > story there...)> > > > 5) S&D will sell what they know. How many reps today are heritage > > Informix? Not enough. So you sell DB2 cause that's what you're used to.>