# All is not well in tech



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I keep hearing analysts talk about how the "tech economy" is so incredibly hot. Maybe... but the jobs are not looking that great.

I have a bunch of friends (all from my old research lab at university) who currently work at Intel. They are hardware engineers and are all now at risk of losing their jobs, since Intel is abandoning domestic chip production and outsourcing to Taiwan. These same folks previously left RIM when that company was falling apart.

And I just received another email from an old industrial connection, a top expert in his field (also hardware engineering). A multinational giant acquired his company, and dissolved his whole team. Everyone let go. So he's asking if I know anyone who is hiring.

Yikes.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

I wonder if some the Intel jobs would go to Apple, because they will be making their own chips going forward. They probably need a bigger team to design and update them.

Tech has lots of ups and downs, but I think over time, there will be more and more people working in tech. Everybody else is being replaced by automation and AI, it seems.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

AMD, NVIDIA, QCOM seem to be doing ok. I took QCOM off the table at $100 after it doubled in a year and it's jumped to $110 since

INTC seems to be in a slow decline lately. AAPL plans to ditch their chips and they abandoned their mobile chips that competed with QCOM. Maybe they are refocusing but they are slowing losing mobiles/tablets/consumer laptops etc. AMD is putting out better chips at lower prices lately and AAPL plans to build their own

China has been strategically taking control of semiconductors in Asia for some time. If US bans Chinese controlled semiconductors like Huawei this could be huge for AMD


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I have no doubt that the corporations are doing well. I'm just wondering about the job situation.



Topo said:


> I wonder if some the Intel jobs would go to Apple, because they will be making their own chips going forward. They probably need a bigger team to design and update them.


That's a good point. Some of the jobs could go there.

I've been experiencing these employment swings in this industry ever since I started in the early 2000s. Basically it seems that every 5 years, _everyone_ I know is laid off. For myself as well, it's been a constant boom-bust roller coaster ride. I was still in school at the time, but it started with Nortel in 2000. One moment everyone was happily employed, making tons of income. Before you know it, everyone was laid off. And I've seen it repeat a few times now. For example, RIM (everyone lost their jobs).

There's no question that the "average income" in tech / electrical / computer engineering is pretty good, over the years. I'm sure the situation is the same for oil & gas engineers. The average income is great. The problem is the wild ride along the way!

I compare this to some friends of mine who work in finance and banking. One of my best friends has worked for an insurance giant and has been continuously employed for about 15 years! I've never heard of such a thing in my own industry. It must be nice to have that kind of job stability.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> INTC seems to be in a slow decline lately. AAPL plans to ditch their chips and they abandoned their mobile chips that competed with QCOM. Maybe they are refocusing but they are slowing losing mobiles/tablets/consumer laptops etc. AMD is putting out better chips at lower prices lately and AAPL plans to build their own


Slow decline?
Revenue increases of >10% is a decline?
sure it's lumpy, but there is definate growth there.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I remember having a few friends, during the tech boom and bust of the late 90s and early 00s, who were very well paid tech engineers. They observed in the last 5 years or so that they had made almost as much money from severance packages and vested options, as they did from regular pay, since they were being laid off and then re-hired elsewhere, so often.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Slow decline?
> Revenue increases of >10% is a decline?
> sure it's lumpy, but there is definate growth there.


Might be a good example where past performance is no guarantee of future results. Results can lag known changes. AAPL is still selling their chips and the average consumer isn't tracking that AMD is clearly surpassing them in CPUs. Look at AMD stock by comparison


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

Tech positions appear to be susceptible to ageism too. I have heard a few anecdotes from software engineers about this. Basically after age 50, there is less interest in their operational capabilities, although some management position may become available.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Might be a good example where past performance is no guarantee of future results. Results can lag known changes. AAPL is still selling their chips and the average consumer isn't tracking that AMD is clearly surpassing them in CPUs. Look at AMD stock by comparison


The quarter ending June 30 2020 isn't really that old.

I agree past performance isn't guarantee of future results, but to argue a decline, while sales keep increasing seems odd.

AMD is a consumer product darling, and they have great product, I'm looking at a Ryzen 4000 series laptop. But things can change.
Finally consumer products are boring, even Intel 4th gen Desktops are enough for most users, and with the rise of Chromebooks, end users are really not caring about CPU at all.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Tech has been changing since I first entered the business in 1980. Downsizing, outsourcing (off shore and near shore) for most of the late 80's through to today. That was so great about the industry. Constant change, dealing with so many different business challenges from process control through to SAP, etc. Quantum computing will be next. One thing that amuses is the new names that the industry comes up for certain functions. Through it's ups and downs in my 30 plus years tech was very good to me from a career, a job satisfaction, and most especially from financial perspective. I met, associated with, and worked with a great number of very smart people. It was where I really learned that working smart was as, and sometimes, more important than working hard.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Tech has always been in cycles. I started in tech and moved through the business side. My spouse has always been in high tech in consulting. Over the years, we have been able to gage how hot the market was based on the number of head hunters and firms that would call my spouse. In the 2000's, he would get calls daily for potential contracts or offers, then in the 2008, when there were the recession, he was hardly getting any calls in the month, and actually had to knock on doors for the first time in years. It picked up again a few years ago where he was getting calls monthly, then weekly up until last year. There was nothing during the early months of COVID, but he is starting to get a few calls again. However, they are very targeted to his skill set.

Tech is such a vast industry it really depends on what you specialize in and how relevant your skills are. Firmware is often the first to go as it requires more infrastructure and investment. Software usually has work because there is almost always something to be upgraded or fixed. In terms of stability, we have always known that the pay can be decent but you have to be prepared for a rainy day and keep relevant. 

I wouldn't say all isn't well in tech. it's just really changing.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Plugging Along said:


> Tech has always been in cycles. I started in tech and moved through the business side. My spouse has always been in high tech in consulting. Over the years, we have been able to gage how hot the market was based on the number of head hunters and firms that would call my spouse. In the 2000's, he would get calls daily for potential contracts or offers, then in the 2008, when there were the recession, he was hardly getting any calls in the month, and actually had to knock on doors for the first time in years. It picked up again a few years ago where he was getting calls monthly, then weekly up until last year. There was nothing during the early months of COVID, but he is starting to get a few calls again. However, they are very targeted to his skill set.
> 
> Tech is such a vast industry it really depends on what you specialize in and how relevant your skills are. Firmware is often the first to go as it requires more infrastructure and investment. Software usually has work because there is almost always something to be upgraded or fixed. In terms of stability, we have always known that the pay can be decent but you have to be prepared for a rainy day and keep relevant.
> 
> I wouldn't say all isn't well in tech. it's just really changing.


Absolutely agree.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Finally consumer products are boring, even Intel 4th gen Desktops are enough for most users, and with the rise of Chromebooks, end users are really not caring about CPU at all.


Consumer desktops are boring but consumers are buying a lot of mobiles and tablets even more now with distant learning and quarantines. INTC just bowed out to QCOM in that space and AAPL intends to ditch them both entirely


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Not sure why everyone is focused on jobs...had these guys bought stock in some of these companies, (Okay, not thr scams like nortel) they’d probably never have to work at a job. Instead they go back to school for retraining so they can continue on the hamster wheel or jump to The next company which will do the same thing to churn out money for....investors, not employees. Reality check here. 

though, some people have to complain to be happy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Consumer desktops are boring but consumers are buying a lot of mobiles and tablets even more now with distant learning and quarantines. INTC just bowed out to QCOM in that space and AAPL intends to ditch them both entirely


Consumer devices are low margin and quickly becoming commodities.

When people are happy with cellphone processors on their tablet/laptop (Look at the Lenovo Duet reviews).
Heck most web traffic is mobile anyway.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> Not sure why everyone is focused on jobs...*had these guys bought stock in some of these companies*, (Okay, not thr scams like nortel) they’d probably never have to work at a job.


Investing heavily in the equity of your employer is a recipe for disaster. Ask the RIM employees who loaded up on RIM stock (-96% drawdown) or just about anybody who worked in the tech sector during the tech bubble & crash.

Or AMD (-96% drawdown) like all those employees in Toronto / Markham
Or NVDA (-86% drawdown) like all those in Toronto (might have changed over the years)
Or BBD.B (-98% drawdown and counting) for the employees spread across Canada
Or NT of course (-100% drawdown)

Should I keep going? Even when these stocks rebound, employees and ex employees hardly ever benefit. People are terminated during the down cycles, at the same time the stocks crash. Nobody can withstand those kinds of drawdowns. Typically, everyone sells when a certain pain threshold is hit.

I know people who have worked at all of these places.

Maxim Semiconductor (-86% drawdown)
Motorola (-97% drawdown)
Plus *countless* companies which have failed and delisted (-100%)

Plus the whole dang energy sector, virtually every company in that sector is a poster child of this phenomenon. Because it's boom/bust, just like high tech.

Hindsight knowledge of today is... hindsight. But in the real world, people worked at Nortel, RIM, Bombardier, etc because those were the top employers. The companies looked great at the time. The energy sector looked great at the time. This is why you shouldn't invest in your employer.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Consumer devices are low margin and quickly becoming commodities.


Most consumer devices are sold on low margin because they intend to harvest your personal data a la google. This includes TVs now

I don't think AAPL would decide to produce its own chips if it considered INTC and QCOM chips as good deals


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

James, idiots who blindly hold on forever in a falling market Will lose their shirts. This comes from a buy and hold investor. As a guy who works with tech, not in tech, I could easily predict the fall of nortel, rim and many other tech sham companies.i avoided the dot bomb meltdown easily by not buying into sock puppets and the like.

As a tech insider, working for the company, I’d expect they’d have more insight to the companies than I would as an outsider and thus be more successful than someone like me.

besides, you totally missed the point That being an investor, and getting a passive income, there are many ways to do this, is way better than jumping from job to job or Job to school to job. I haven’t changed jobs in decades gotten a lot of unasked for pay raises too.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I worked in technology for most of my career. I willingly participated in employee stock purchase plans. I did very well. Paid down our mortgage. I was conservative. I was also the fortunate recipient of stock optons and RSUs. The RSU's were never worth much and were fully taxed. The stock options allowed me to retire early and comfortably because I practiced common sense when deciding when to exercise them. I know of colleagues who did the same. There were others who followed their options to the top, and back down to he bottom-often so the strike price or lower.. There was seemingly no set rule other than human nature.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I find many people are impatient, they only want home runs. when they don’t get that they sit around and complain while demanding handouts from those who are successful. It’s rather pathetic. Anyone in tech should understand that they are working in a field designed to replace employees...it’s not a long term employment industry like in the 50’s. Uber today announ it was laying off people because they are considered employees in California...is anyone truly surprised the company wants to go to autonomos vehicles...this means they will be successful without workers...better jump a getting a job there.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Just because someone works for a technology company does not mean that they have the inside track to how the company is actually doing from a financial perspective. . They may have local insights and hear rumours. That is about it. Especially true for those firms (many of them) whose revenues outside of NA account for 40/50/60 percent of their total revenue and profit. As a tech firm employee I had to re-invent myself several times, acquire new skills, and/or take on new challenges in order to remain with my employer and move forward. I saw many left behind in the industry because the did not want to change or adapt as the industry matured.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I remember sitting at lunch with a buddy discussing Nortel. We knew they’d sell you equipment and finance it for you while declaring both at profits. Neither of us worked for the company but we knew they were doing this. If insiders didn’t know they were closing their eyes or blinded by the stock price. If you want to lie to yourself, you deserve to lose the money.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My experience is that some tech firm employees start to believe all the statements from their leadership teams with respect to the stock price and market share. They can easily misread the tea leaves when it comes to looking at their employer from the eyes of the investor or the stock market in general.

You need to keep your eyes and ears open. Drinking your employer's kool-aid all the time can be injurious to your investment strategy and to your employment prospects.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Investing heavily in the equity of your employer is a recipe for disaster. Ask the RIM employees who loaded up on RIM stock (-96% drawdown) or just about anybody who worked in the tech sector during the tech bubble & crash ....


YMMV ... in the late '90's, one retired RIM employee couple were donating $2 million to charity in the hope of spurring more of those similar to them to spread the wealth.

Sticking only to one's employer's stock while never selling and/or diversifying is bad ... but then again, so is being proud of one's non-employer stock sitting at a $1 milllion gain but never selling or diversifying while it tanks.


IAC, unless the "tech is doing well" commentary was specific to hardware - projecting that the jobs in general aren't great because one sub-sector's jobs are going through a rough patch is suspect at best. Kind of like how one person complained to me how Microsoft support job wages sucked the same week as my friend complained he couldn't hire enough people with skills in different software to keep up with the signed contracts. He said the salary ranges for the recent hires were starting at $120K through $200K.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> James, idiots who blindly hold on forever in a falling market Will lose their shirts. This comes from a buy and hold investor. As a guy who works with tech, not in tech, I could easily predict the fall of nortel, rim and many other tech sham companies.i avoided the dot bomb meltdown easily by not buying into sock puppets and the like ...


 +1 ... and there were lots of articles questioning Nortel's numbers and business projections for a long time before the slide started.




Just a Guy said:


> ... As a tech insider, working for the company, I’d expect they’d have more insight to the companies than I would as an outsider and thus be more successful than someone like me.


I thought you stayed away from tech.

IAC, where one is putting in long hours as an employee, it's easy to ignore what's happening to the company stock. Particularly if they are focused on their work so that they are putting in insane hours on a regular basis.

That's one amoung many reasons why my friends who had stock options sold a percentage as soon as they could and diversified. 


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

ian said:


> ... The stock options allowed me to retire early and comfortably because I practiced common sense when deciding when to exercise them. I know of colleagues who did the same. There were others who followed their options to the top, and back down to he bottom-often so the strike price or lower ...


Never had options ... but one discount employer stock purchase plan worked out for the small amount I put into it.




ian said:


> ... There was seemingly no set rule other than human nature.


Actually ... I think there is. Those who are curious, educated themselves to the risk and benefits made sure to have a plan so that there were less crash/burn results. Those who bought into "it always goes uip, you don't need to monitor/manage" had a lot more crash/burn results.

Nothing scientific, just what I have noticed.

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> ... Anyone in tech should understand that they are working in a field designed to replace employees...it’s not a long term employment industry like in the 50’s ...


YMMV ... I was prepared to train in something else that became the new hot item but being able to sell why someone with my depth of knowledge is rare as well as sampling the market on a regular basis has meant about twenty four years of employment instead of the five to ten years that was expected.

I'm learning the new stuff but don't need more than a couple more years before taking early retirement.


Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

IT is as fast changing industry. The people that I saw who survived (for decades) and moved forward were the ones who were adaptable, the ones who continued to learn and acquire new skills, the ones who kept their ears to the ground and their eyes open for new opportunities-career or learning opportunities. And more often the ones who did not follow the pack and who thought outside the box or were simply forward thinkers. Those who were not afraid to move out of their respective comfort zones to take on a new challenge(s). They worked hard but they also worked smart. I don't suppose that IT is different than any other industry that has moved from an emerging knowledge industry toward a mature industry in such a relatively short span of time.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

ian said:


> IT is as fast changing industry. The people that I saw who survived (for decades) and moved forward were the ones who were adaptable, the ones who continued to learn and acquire new skills, the ones who kept their ears to the ground and their eyes open for new opportunities-career or learning opportunities. And more often the ones who did not follow the pack and who thought outside the box or were simply forward thinkers. Those who were not afraid to move out of their respective comfort zones to take on a new challenge(s). They worked hard but they also worked smart. I don't suppose that IT is different than any other industry that has moved from an emerging knowledge industry toward a mature industry in such a relatively short span of time.


^ This exactly. I try to explain this to the next generation as they learn specific language or go to boot camps for the 'hot' programming flavor of the year. When they learn a specific language, but don't have the foundations, they are only as relevant as the language they learned. Hence why these boot camps get you in the door, but don't keep you in the building. 

My spouse has been in tech for decades. He did a masters in computer science and considered going further with a Phd. He has the foundations in development and computer science so he can adapt quiet quickly when something new comes out. This is no different than other industries.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

Plugging Along said:


> ^ This exactly. I try to explain this to the next generation as they learn specific language or go to boot camps for the 'hot' programming flavor of the year. When they learn a specific language, but don't have the foundations, they are only as relevant as the language they learned. Hence why these boot camps get you in the door, but don't keep you in the building.
> 
> My spouse has been in tech for decades. He did a masters in computer science and considered going further with a Phd. He has the foundations in development and computer science so he can adapt quiet quickly when something new comes out. This is no different than other industries.


This is an interesting perspective. From you point of view, does learning those foundations involve starting with a specific language (say Python or C) or is it more learning the structures of languages in general before learning any specific language? What would the best approach a beginner (eg teenager) be?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I was of the generation that learned to program, then picked a language to use, when I needed a new languag, I pulled a book on the syntax and learned the differences. A loop statement is a loop statement. My code is short and efficien, today more code is better. Breaking down a problem into steps is programming. Today they teach code monkeys not programming.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> I find many people are impatient, they only want home runs. when they don’t get that they sit around and complain while demanding handouts from those who are successful. It’s rather pathetic. Anyone in tech should understand that they are working in a field designed to replace employees...it’s not a long term employment industry like in the 50’s. Uber today announ it was laying off people because they are considered employees in California...is anyone truly surprised the company wants to go to autonomos vehicles...this means they will be successful without workers...better jump a getting a job there.


Your first sentence says all that there is to say. People want everything instantly. The average attention span for anything is just getting shorter and shorter.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

There are lots of career opportunities in the IT sector. . They are certainly not limited to 'writing code'. I was in the industry for 30 plus years......fortunately for my employers I never wrote a line of code.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> There are lots of career opportunities in the IT sector. . They are certainly not limited to 'writing code'. I was in the industry for 30 plus years......fortunately for my employers I never wrote a line of code.


For part of my career, I sold tech based products. In one instance, I sold a product that did not yet exist. The customer wanted a particular function as part of their specification for the product. It was a function that no competitor including ourselves could provide. The normal response to that would be to simply take 'exception' to the requirement in putting in your bid for the contract. I asked the customer WHEN would they need that function to be available (I'm trying to simplify here) and the answer was 'in a year from now' (they would need to first accumulate that amount of historic data before being able to use the function). So I put in the ONLY bid that included the function with the caveat that it was to be delivered in a year. We got the contract and our IT department simply got told, 'make it happen in a year.'


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We often proposed, forward priced, and presold products for multi year delivery that were not yet available. Typically to military, aerospace, air traffic control systems, process control, etc. This is par for the course when bidding large, multi year delivery systems. In many instances they were custom-base technology adapted to the customer environment, security issues, and integrated with third party hardware and/or software components as required.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yeah, sales would often promise features just to close a sale and get their commissions. No idea if their promises were even possible to deliver, not understanding the complexities involved, just looking at their paycheques.

ive heard that story many, many times from my tech customers and friends Who worked in the industry.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Yeah, sales would often promise features just to close a sale and get their commissions. No idea if their promises were even possible to deliver, not understanding the complexities involved, just looking at their paycheques.
> 
> ive heard that story many, many times from my tech customers and friends Who worked in the industry.


No so in my experience. We responded to RFP's, tenders, etc, that were followed up with binding contracts. Often in the tens of millions. The notion of 'no idea that promises were even possible to deliver' was certainly NOT in the realm of my experience with several of the world's largest IT vendors. The bid. risk, and contract reviews that I participated in were extensive. In some cases country approval was not sufficient because of size or scope. We required US parent HQ approval.

I have seen in multiple occasions, often outsourcing, a difference between what the client purchased and what they told or implied to their staff that they purchased especially as it pertained to service level agreements. On the technology side benchmarks we often contracted. In many sales situations the product(s) had to be tested and then formally 'accepted' by the customer prior to billing.

In my experience those who promised things that could not be deliver were soon weeded out by their employers and shunned by customers.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Doesn’t that sound like the original complaint about the lack of job secu in the industry? Interesting that you start by saying it doesn’t happen in your experience, then you talk about people who do getting fired for it in your experience, make up your mind. Seem it does, and has happened in your experience.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Doesn’t that sound like the original complaint about the lack of job secu in the industry? Interesting that you start by saying it doesn’t happen in your experience, then you talk about people who do getting fired for it in your experience, make up your mind. Seem it does, and has happened in your experience.


No...what I said is that in my experience reputable IT firms weed out poor performers. That includes those who purposely misrepresent the product, the service, the undertaking, etc.

Those who create undue risk and liabilities for their employers through their negligence, carelessness, and personal dishonesty. No different that any other business. Absolutely nothing to do with job security in the specific industry.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So getting weeded out has nothing to do with job security? Interesting perspective, of course you’ve never seen it personally so I guess I understand...


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

No...getting weeded out for poor performance or unacceptable performance, etc is something that all businesses do. If you were an employer would you keep an unacceptable employee on the payroll? I have let people go for unprofessional conduct...theft, lying, sloppy/unprofessional work, etc. You name it.

Poor or unacceptable performance does not mean job security in an IT or a professional environment. At least not the ones that I was part of. Our customers/clients judged us by our teams day to day performance.

Downsizing is very different. And yes, I have seen it. We may have downsized every two quarters or so but we certainly let people go between those actions if it was required.

Those that got downsized on staff reductions we typically very good employees. It was business, not performance. And most of them secured better or more lucrative employment.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Never said it wasn’t something businesses do, I said it doesn’t lead to job security for those hired then weeded out. You hired them, thenyou let them go...not job security by any means or definition. It may be their fault, but that doesn’t change the fact that they don’t have job security.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We not only let them go....we typically either got new hires from outside the company or transferred people into those positions who were slated for lay offs/downsizing.

I really do not understand your point. Do you think that an employee who steals or an employee who perhaps makes sexually inappropriate suggestions to other employees or to your client's staff members should be entitled to job security? Really?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

ian said:


> I really do not understand your point. Do you think that an employee who steals or an employee who perhaps makes sexually inappropriate suggestions to other employees or to your client's staff members should be entitled to job security? Really?


Those are not the kind of layoffs I've seen.

Companies like Intel routinely over-hire (they deliberately hire about 25% more than they need), make them compete under fear of losing their jobs, and then fire the bottom 25%. So they don't fire them because it's necessary to let people go for business conditions; they fire them mainly to reinforce the competition, and to keep people afraid.

It's considered normal routine in many high tech companies. Has nothing to do with negligence or bad employee behaviour. It's just a way to make the rats work as hard as humanly possible... the Intel guy who came up with this great management technique wrote a book on this.

I worked for a company that used that Intel play book. I could only handle it for 2 years and it gave me high blood pressure. A condition which immediately went away when I quit, and has never come back since.

Also, "tech" is not just IT like you are talking about @ian . There's software development, video game development, engineering services, hardware engineering, computer engineering... many different fields. IT is just one area of tech. I am not very familiar with the IT sector but in many of these other fields, routine layoffs are quite common. Even for properly behaving and productive employees.

In fact I think one of the biggest mistakes a tech worker can make is assuming they have a "secure job" because they are hard working and productive. Being a good worker only gets you so far in tech (esp high-tech) and you should *always *be prepared for layoffs and job loss, IMO.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

To address the OP, if tech is changing is it some fundamental transitional shift, or another in the many waves of contraction and growth that occur regularly? The current economic malaise must be having a large impact on IT development projects. I would not be surprised to see more of what J4B has described, but I think it's just a phase. There may be a lot of big-bath-accounting in Q4 as companies write things off and clean up balance sheets.

A book called Shifting Gears: Thriving in the New Economy was written by an economist named Nuala Beck in the early '90s. The author wrote that growth in the economy was changing from older industries like manufacturing, mining, construction to new generation industries like computers, IT and telecommunications. She hypothesized that traditional industries would suffer as the economy was coming to the end of secular post-war growth, especially in the western developed world. Those industries and jobs would continue to exist, but their employment and earnings potential would diminish, while jobs in IT, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, instrumentation would show sustained growth. That does not mean there would be great job security in growth industries, in fact quite the opposite, where new companies and technologies would come and go, and workers would experience job insecurity and turmoil, but there would be many new companies with good growth and employment opportunities. Contrast that to manufacturing or resource industries, where if you work at the one plant in town and it closes, your job opportunities are really limited and you may have to move or accept a lesser position. Think how many GM employees in Oshawa will be lucky to find a job paying half as much when that plant closes. Tech <> job security, but it can be career security. Many Nortel and RIM employees got laid off, but there are a lot of companies that want those skills and experience, so career opportunities are often good and lucrative. I said can be, because technologies march on, and you need to keep your skills and technical abilities up to date. A good friend of mine was a DEC VAX programmer making good money, but in the late 2000s most VAX equipment was replaced by newer platforms. His career ended because the good times blinded him to industry changes. Lots of people become independent contractors opening up huge opportunities for interesting, clean, lucrative careers with plenty of opportunities to take time off.

The book resonates with me because the first 1/3 of my career was in sales and marketing to heavy industries like iron & steel, machine tools, power generation, mining. By the late 80s I could see that growth potential was diminishing for a number of reasons including more efficient processes, slower infrastructure growth in developed countries and growth shifting to an endless series of other countries including Japan, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, China.

So I decided to change careers and set telecommunications as one of my target industries because it had cool technologies, was deregulating drawing many new opportunities and growth, and had great potential to improve peoples lives through technological change. Opportunities abounded, although lots of boom-bust, and it was usually very lucrative relative to many industries. It was fascinating because we had a real sense of developing things that would improve productivity, drive enhanced capabilities and make peoples lives better. Imagine life without online banking, mobile phones, wi-fi, Bluetooth, medical imaging, bar codes, car safety systems and so many more.

Tech is fascinating but stressful. It has bad job security, but good career security. It can be very lucrative but you have to be able to ride out the bad times. You need to learn and evolve or see your career disappear out from under you. It makes an incredible amount of money for a few investors and extracts a lot of money from many naïve investors. It is fascinating to work in because it has potential to enhance productivity and improve many peoples' standard of living and lifestyle. It's not a career choice for the masses.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We were never, ever allowed to over hire. Quite the opposite. Hiring reqs were sometimes as scarce as hen's teeth. Not certain where the 25 percent over hire ever came from. It meant that we had to be very careful when we hired. The tech that I worked in was downsizing, rightsizing whatever on a very regular basis.

What did I work on and have responsibility for at one time or another? Large technology hardware sales, software consulting, custom technology solutions, customer application development,/ turnkey projects, project/contract management, remedial services, outsourcing, help desks, general management w/ p&l responsibility. Always on the pointy side, ie interfacing with customers, clients etc. Zero experience on the hardware product development side, firmware, etc. Almost no PC exposure other than on bulk sales w/ desktop services and integration. I was very, very familiar with the VAX product line.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We went through 20 years of constant change, layoffs, etc. Terminations for cause were minor compared to layoffs.

No one likes layoffs. But think again. This was an industry in transition from emerging to mature. The dumb clunk of a boat anchor monochrome terminal that sold for $3200 in 1980 has now been replaced by a $200 27” flat screen colour monitor with a $20 keyboard.

i worked on the railway in the 70’s-in an automated hump yard. Railways in Canada have laid off thousands since then and changed how they operate. Perhaps even In the same proportion as IT. Same with steel mills, auto plants, and others in the manufacturing sector. These are mature industries and have been for many more years than IT. Change happens. Jobs are not secure. Employees have to accept that, plan and adapt to change..and move forward.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Topo said:


> This is an interesting perspective. From you point of view, does learning those foundations involve starting with a specific language (say Python or C) or is it more learning the structures of languages in general before learning any specific language? What would the best approach a beginner (eg teenager) be?


i am not an expert as this, as my spouse is the expert. My spouse started the kids really young in learning the foundations and problem solving. Breaking things down into steps, then he taught them some programming language. I think my kids did python, they were really good at it, but don’t enjoy it. They understand the principles, so can do it. I don’t see it in their future career pathtjough


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> Yeah, sales would often promise features just to close a sale and get their commissions. No idea if their promises were even possible to deliver, not understanding the complexities involved, just looking at their paycheques.
> 
> ive heard that story many, many times from my tech customers and friends Who worked in the industry.


As I wrote, I was simplifying Just a Guy. The type of product I was referring to were large computer based process control systems. That involves multiple competitive bidders who provide a written bid based on a customer supplied specification document. It is as described by ian in his response #35. The 'non-existent' product I sold was in fact a custom software package 'add-on' that was specific to the customer's needs.

Before quoting for that need, I obviously had to discuss it with our company IT department as to the feasibility of providing it and had to get approval from all the relevant departments before including it in my bid. Do you think I just pulled a number for it out of the air, to 'get my commission'?

You don't have enough information or knowledge to make any kind of judgement on what I was referring to. A customer supplied specification could run to a couple of hundred pages and a bid could be equally as long and detailed. Just to write the bid could take me several weeks of 8 hour days. I'm talking about a sales process that could span a couple of years from the time a customer first started thinking about it till the time a contract was finally signed. I might have met with dozens of people in the customer's organization, dozens of times over that time before they reached the bid and contract stage. That contract would be in the millions of dollars.

Don't attempt to suggest that I would promise something that I was not sure we could deliver. I may have been flippant in writing, 'the IT department simply got told, 'make it happen in a year' but they got told that ONLY after they agreed beforehand that if told to do so, they COULD make it happen in a year.

I was simply responding to ian's comment about, "_There are lots of career opportunities in the IT sector. . They are certainly not limited to 'writing code'."_

I was giving an example of a different career opportunity other than writing code or as in the OP of this thread, talking about the instability of hardware design as a career. In fact, the company I was referring to had a requirement that all salespeople had to be Engineers. I was the first non-Engineer they ever hired in their sales force. When they brought that point up in an interview before I joined them, I asked them if they wanted me to engineer products or SELL products. All their business cards for sales people read, 'Sales Engineer' and they had to come up with a new title since I was not an Engineer. What I was, was consistently the highest producing salesperson in the company within 2 years and ended my 6 years with them as the National Sales Manager.

While IT people often write that it is well paid as has been written in this thread, that's fine but there are other jobs in the industry that pay as well or better in sales. So going back to the uncertainty of hardware design in the OP, I'm saying looking at moving to sales may be an alternative that is more stable. If you have what it takes to make a good salesperson, the same company that is laying off droves of IT department people is nowhere near as likely to be laying off salespeople.

An IT person may not be as able to convince a company s/he could move to sales as I was able to convince them to hire a non-engineer but an IT person probably is an Engineer and would have a decent chance of landing such a job in many companies that actually look for that P. Eng. title to being with.

Do you know what the highest paying sales jobs are?


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/23/glassdoor-the-7-highest-paying-sales-jobs-in-the-us.html


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Turnaround is fair play, you notice that I never mentioned you specificall, it’s pretty arrogant of you to assume I did, I was referring, as I stated, To other companies I do know. I’ve seen it happen many times. As you stated yourself, you have no idea to make any kind of judgement on my statement. Just because you didn’t do it, doesn’t mean Other people don’t.


Also, I wouldn’t confuse a salesman with an IT person. There is a big difference in skill sets, you’d have to be pretty insecure and arrogant not to know the difference. One group creates a product, the other sells it.

as someone who’s Designed and built robotic arms, I do understand that it is more than programming as well, but thank you for trying to educate me on my own background.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Sales is a necessary role, but it is one that often seems to attract the wrong kind of person (people who will do almost anything for money), and is also disproportionately compensated.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I worked with some very experienced and some very professional sales people in my IT career. Highly skilled in business issues, ROI's etc. Most were at least engineering grads or commerce grads, numerous post graduate degrees. I was hired into IT sales because of my accounting background. 

You may well envisage some slick used car salesman type trying to sell you a computer however this is not profile of a sales exec selling enterprise systems to VP and 'C' level customers. Many IT sales execs that I worked with started on the technical side an moved over. Often as solutions architects. They had computing degrees or engineering/computer degrees. They had an understanding of data processing and business.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Sales is a necessary role, but it is one that often seems to attract the wrong kind of person (people who will do almost anything for money), and is also disproportionately compensated.


Like many people it seems you cannot get beyond the unscrupulous used car salesman image. I spent all my working career in sales and never met ONE 'wrong kind of person' in my profession.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> I worked with some very experienced and some very professional sales people in my IT career. Highly skilled in business issues, ROI's etc. Most were at least engineering grads or commerce grads, numerous post graduate degrees. I was hired into IT sales because of my accounting background.
> 
> You may well envisage some slick used car salesman type trying to sell you a computer however this is not profile of a sales exec selling enterprise systems to VP and 'C' level customers. Many IT sales execs that I worked with started on the technical side an moved over. Often as solutions architects. They had computing degrees or engineering/computer degrees. They had an understanding of data processing and business.


I think perhaps some here think a salesperson selling tech is someone in Staples trying to sell them a laptop or Ipad ian. But then I also suppose none of them are in the position of having to make a decision on awarding a 10 million dollar contract for something and the kind of salesperson they would deal with when doing that.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

When we procure $$$$ tech contracts it's supposed to be objective and unbiased on paper. Of course nothing is that black and white

The reps are paid to undermine the process. They are overly helpful and friendly to those writing the recommendations and are experts at exploiting emotions like pride. It seems to work on the typical human and they manage without crossing a certain line. I've had to physically block them from paying for meals but if they sneak in is it implied or subconscious to feel obligated to return some kind of favour. All I need are the facts and the engineers are happy to provide them without sales muddying the reality.

I think it's going to change a lot for the next generation. Information is readily available and they know how to access it for themselves. They have more subtle influencers because the old fashion boomer sales tactics are viewed as absurd and insincere. A lot of professions like real estate agents and sales will need to radically adapt. Companies can sell direct so cars etc can too. It seems like some industries like sports broadcasts and real estate have set up barriers to change while others have already embraced it.

Marketing won't go away but companies that sell direct with less sales smoke in between will do a lot better with the internet generation.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Or, maybe lie I said, some of us have Encountered them at every level Because we’ve delbt with more than a small handful of companies over the years. not all salesmen are bad, but that doesn’t mean all are good either.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I've worked in tech my whole life and honestly don't know what "IT" means. Maybe someone can explain to me what they mean by IT.

I suspect it refers to 'enterprise solutions' involving IT reps and sales people. Places like IBM, Oracle, Cisco with "IT solutions" perhaps?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My experiences were in the enterprise and process control space.. Direct with manufacturers and with manufacturers in a contract or subk relationship. Plus some large OEM’s thatbundled hardware with software industry solutions. The likes of NCR,DEC, Compaq,HP, IBM, GE,Cisco,Agilent, etc.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Those are not the kind of layoffs I've seen ...


Odd that you've never seen people laid off (or should I say fired?).
Or seen good employees shown the door because of a change in the business environment or the bean counters said it was needed.




james4beach said:


> ... Companies like Intel routinely over-hire (they deliberately hire about 25% more than they need), make them compete under fear of losing their jobs, and then fire the bottom 25%. So they don't fire them because it's necessary to let people go for business conditions; they fire them mainly to reinforce the competition, and to keep people afraid
> 
> It's considered normal routine in many high tech companies ...


And in other places, it isn't done this way ... particularly where the product is the people. I'm in software where I avoided the company that would give two programmers the project then fired the one who finished last.




james4beach said:


> ... Also, "tech" is not just IT like you are talking about ...


Yet you seem to be taking the sub-part that you have feedback for and generalising it to 'tech jobs". In fact, it seems the bulk of the evidence is from a single company. 

If this was investing, would you be comfortable talking about how all stocks are bad because of your friends working at a pipeline company?




james4beach said:


> ... In fact I think one of the biggest mistakes a tech worker can make is assuming they have a "secure job" because they are hard working and productive. Being a good worker only gets you so far in tech (esp high-tech) and you should *always *be prepared for layoffs and job loss, IMO.


And I've seen hard working people get fired, sometimes for the most silly political reasons. Basically anyone thinking being a good worker means job security is putting themselves at risk.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Sales is a necessary role, but it is one that often seems to attract the wrong kind of person (people who will do almost anything for money), and is also disproportionately compensated.


It can also be a business strategy.

When working as an IT management consultant, the contracts always walked the line to get as much as possible from the client who had no experience what the software could do. This regularly meant the initial contract over promised. As the client worked with the consultants, they'd learn want was really required, typically be impressed with the quality and then somehow come up with the money to pay for what would complete the system to their needs.

When bought by a hardware company, it all went down the tubes as the hardware company didn't understand that the consultants selling the client on the revised contracts was what made the business thrive.





Longtimeago said:


> I think perhaps some here think a salesperson selling tech is someone in Staples trying to sell them a laptop or Ipad ian. But then I also suppose none of them are in the position of having to make a decision on awarding a 10 million dollar contract for something and the kind of salesperson they would deal with when doing that.


Sure ... but then again, it's a big world out there. Some are like you describe and some are useless, with lots in between.

Same as consultants, BTW. 


IIRC, the $35 million dollar contract I was part of had such a crappy couple of leaders that I was surprised our team wasn't kicked out and I was shocked that despite the issues, the buyer signed with us. Fortunately, those staffing the team more than made up for the leadership/sales types.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

m3s said:


> When we procure $$$$ tech contracts it's supposed to be objective and unbiased on paper. Of course nothing is that black and white
> 
> The reps are paid to undermine the process. ...


While I have seen that, in the contracts I worked on, there was no need. Once in the door for a loss leader or smaller part, our tech staff was hired to write the RFP that was used to hire our company!! 

When you are already familiar with what your competitors strength/weaknesses are as well as your own, it's not difficult to get the requirements to pick a clear winner.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I've worked in tech my whole life and honestly don't know what "IT" means. Maybe someone can explain to me what they mean by IT.
> 
> I suspect it refers to 'enterprise solutions' involving IT reps and sales people. Places like IBM, Oracle, Cisco with "IT solutions" perhaps?


That's a narrow definition.





__





IT (Information Technology) Definition


The definition of IT defined and explained in simple language.




techterms.com












What Is IT? Information Technology Explained


Information technology, or IT for short, refers to computer systems and networking hardware and software for communication over the Internet and other networks.



www.cisco.com












What Is Information Technology? A Beginner’s Guide to the World of IT


If you’re looking to get a better handle on what information technology is and the many facets of this field, then you’ve come to the right place. We did the digging for you and spoke with IT industry pros to create this helpful beginner’s guide to the field.



www.rasmussen.edu
 





'Course with so many companies moving away from in-house servers/applications out into the cloud, one of the hot areas is security specialists. According to one study, IT job growth was 30% in the same time that demand for security specialists went up 300%.








Finding skilled pros remains a challenge, cloud and security in high demand - Help Net Security


67% of hiring managers plan to expand their IT teams; 89% say it's challenging to find skilled professionals, according to Robert Half Technology.




www.helpnetsecurity.com












The demand for cybersecurity professionals is outstripping the supply of skilled workers - IBM Training and Skills Blog


By David Leaser A new Burning Glass study should serve as a wakeup call for technical training organizations: The demand for cybersecurity professionals is outstripping the supply of skilled workers. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) shows the number of new cybersecurity...




www.ibm.com






Cheers


*PS*
Low supply with high demand plus the ability to market oneself is typically a good combination.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> While I have seen that, in the contracts I worked on, there was no need. Once in the door for a loss leader or smaller part, our tech staff was hired to write the RFP that was used to hire our company!!


We're getting away from contracts it's gotten so bad. Cheaper in the long run to just build internally when they play salesmen games like loss leaders

One of the larger multi-million contract awarded in 2011 was supposed to deliver in 2013. They pulled the 'ol "underbid/over-promise now to win and make-it-happen later" and in 2015, 2 years long overdue, they still couldn't deliver and that contract was mutually cancelled at great expense to both parties.

5 years later we are still burning money maintaining something that should have been replaced 10 years ago with what was available and proven at the time


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Many bids are won a low margins. Not just in the IT environment. It is change orders that move a contract from low/no margin to high margin. In my career customers were notorious for providing understated data/throughput requirements. Same for signing software contracts and subsequently changing the scope. Happens all the time in software, help desk outsourcing, and physical networking contracts.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

m3s said:


> When we procure $$$$ tech contracts it's supposed to be objective and unbiased on paper. Of course nothing is that black and white
> 
> The reps are paid to undermine the process. They are overly helpful and friendly to those writing the recommendations and are experts at exploiting emotions like pride. It seems to work on the typical human and they manage without crossing a certain line. I've had to physically block them from paying for meals but if they sneak in is it implied or subconscious to feel obligated to return some kind of favour. All I need are the facts and the engineers are happy to provide them without sales muddying the reality.
> 
> ...



M3s, you are talking about something you obviously know nothing about. Purchases are made by PEOPLE and no matter how much you want to believe that having access to information is enough, you can't take people out of the equation unless you are prepared to let a computer make a decision for you.

So, you punch in some 'must haves' along with some 'nice to haves' and the computer spits out the car you will buy, who from and at what price. Happy with that? 

I once closed a $1.8 million dollar contract while standing at the next urinal beside the CEO of a major pulp and paper company.

He had just watched (along with half a dozen of his tech people) our 4 hour (broken up by lunch) presentation as the last of 3 bidders for a contract they had put out for tender. When we wrapped up, both he and I headed for the washroom at the same time.

As we were standing there taking care of our biological imperative, he said to me, 'you know, all the presentations we have seen have looked good, I don't know how we are going to make our decision.' I *understood* what he was saying to me. At the end of the day, all 3 systems they were considering would DO THE JOB. One might be better at one aspect and another better at a different aspect but all would do what they wanted the product to do, control a paper mill process.

So I answered the question that he did NOT ask me but was in fact asking. I said, 'Our system will do the job and so will our competitor's systems. The question I would ask myself if I were in your shoes is not which system is best. The question I would ask is who do I want to work with which is really just another way of asking, who do I trust. 

That's all I said and yes we got the contract. NOT because our product was better but because I answered a PERSON'S question that had nothing to do with the product itself. That's how decisions get made m3s, by people not computers. At the end of the day, you can have all the information in the world but unless there is only ONE viable solution, you still have to choose one somehow. That choice is never about the product itself if you have already determined there is more than one possible solution. How then do you think you make your choice?

You are wrong when you say, 'all I need are the facts' and naive if you think you don't make decisions based on other factors like emotions. A good salesperson understands that decisions are made based on two kinds of needs, those that apply to the product and those that do not.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I have had exactly the same experience. I closed on very large piece of business of the same size on the loading dock as the VP and I were walking out of the building to our vehicles. My competitors could do the job. It was not about that. Or price. In this case it was about trust, reputation, and confidence that the number was the number and that my team would exceed expectations.

More than once I have seen a large software contract move from zero or even from a loss position to a very profitable position simply because of change orders. The deal may be taken at six points but come in at 35-60 percent. Change orders invariable come it at at least 50 points, often significantly more. Customers who write sloppy contracts are whose business analysts do a poor job of outlining system requirements pay dearly for their ineptitude.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I believe the world would be a better place if more decisions were weighed on logic over emotion

Some people are more logic minded but the vast majority are clearly heavily emotion minded. Probably has some evolutionary advantage somewhere in ancient history. How attractive, well dressed or charismatic salesmen are at urinals should have no bearing on a decision.

There's many examples were judging by surface perceptions give completely wrong impressions compared to taking the time to do your own research. In the past information was much harder to obtain but nowadays it's much easier to get information from an unbiased point of view

There's many stories where a good salesmen sells something they know nothing about. It just doesn't work on me


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I've worked in tech my whole life and honestly don't know what "IT" means. Maybe someone can explain to me what they mean by IT.
> I suspect it refers to 'enterprise solutions' involving IT reps and sales people. Places like IBM, Oracle, Cisco with "IT solutions" perhaps?


Initially, I responded based on a job seeker's POV of broad definition.

I suspect the analysts referenced in the OP were more investment types. Taking a look at the iShares TSX Tech ETF XIT - 85% seems to be software where Constellation Software and Shopify make up 48%. CGI might be consulting but I haven't checked.

Looking at the US tech ETF IYW, Apple and Microsoft are the two biggest at a combined 39%. For the companies named, Intel currently holds the #8 spot with 2.66%, Cisco holds #9 with 2.29% then Oracle #14 for 1.44% and IBM #15 for 1.42%


These low percentages seems to line up with the idea that hardware is a small part of the what is being talked about.


Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I have walked away from a number of opportunities where I knew that the customer expectations and price points could never, ever be satisfied even though we met the 'specs' and the 'requirements'. Thanked the customer for their consideration, walked away and wished them the best. Best decision ever. 

On one early public tender I was not the only one who walked. Three other vendors walked because we knew that the 'fix' was in. It was early in my career and I was a little too forthright when the organization's Purchasing Director called me in to ask why the no bid. It was my bad luck that another vendor had said exactly the same to him in a meeting one hour previous. Some organizations like to have the appearance of a tender or competition when one does not exist. In some cases we have to play along because we had other business in the organization to protect.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

m3s said:


> I believe the world would be a better place if more decisions were weighed on logic over emotion ....
> There's many stories where a good salesmen sells something they know nothing about. It just doesn't work on me


Where the RFP is co-written with the client and consulting company, logic is rigged. With the client typically knowing nothing or next to nothing about what they have already bought - sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes it's so-so and sometimes it's bad.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

ian said:


> ... Some organizations like to have the appearance of a tender or competition when one does not exist. In some cases we have to play along because we had other business in the organization to protect.


There's that.

And there's also where because there was so much hardware from one vendor, the vendor sales reps didn't read the RFP. The VP got a call wondering why they didn't get past the first round when the RFP set a price that the vendor's bid was triple plus all the hardware was multiple times too large. The VP didn't go for the "we have a relationship, we should get a second bite at the apple".


Cheers


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

m3s said:


> I believe the world would be a better place if more decisions were weighed on logic over emotion
> 
> Some people are more logic minded but the vast majority are clearly heavily emotion minded. Probably has some evolutionary advantage somewhere in ancient history. How attractive, well dressed or charismatic salesmen are at urinals should have no bearing on a decision.
> 
> ...


What you would prefer or choose to believe m3s is irrelevant. People make decisions based on more than just logic and cold hard facts. 

I'll ask you again, would you be happy to input some parameters to a computer and let it buy your car? You just sign the sales contract, pay for it and drive away. No muss, no fuss, very logical.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> I have walked away from a number of opportunities where I knew that the customer expectations and price points could never, ever be satisfied even though we met the 'specs' and the 'requirements'. Thanked the customer for their consideration, walked away and wished them the best. Best decision ever.
> 
> On one early public tender I was not the only one who walked. Three other vendors walked because we knew that the 'fix' was in. It was early in my career and I was a little too forthright when the organization's Purchasing Director called me in to ask why the no bid. It was my bad luck that another vendor had said exactly the same to him in a meeting one hour previous. Some organizations like to have the appearance of a tender or competition when one does not exist. In some cases we have to play along because we had other business in the organization to protect.


I can recall two times when I walked away from large potential contracts. One was when a spec arrived that was very clearly written to favour a particular competitor and would result in a bid that would have to take exception to just about everything as well as waste a week of my time writing it. As per your example, another vendor walked away as well leaving the Engineer who wrote the bid spec to explain to his boss why he could only get 1 bid when it was supposed to be a 3 competitive bid decision.

The other was when a tender was put out by a company where the Manager of the engineering department's son was a salesperson for one of our competitors. I called the Engineering Manager and asked him if he would be recusing himself from the decision. His reply was that he would not, he would be impartial. I passed on bidding and of course the contract went to the company his son worked for. What a surprise. 

It's like that Kenny Rogers song.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> These low percentages seems to line up with the idea that hardware is a small part of the what is being talked about.


I've also spent many years working in scientific and data research services, but this also does not seem to be what people mean by "IT".

I think of scientific/data technologies more like a part of the Engineering sector.

My whole career, people have told me that I work in IT (because everything computers = IT), but every time I hear of an IT job it sounds nothing like what I do. If IT is such a great industry, maybe it's time for me to get in on that.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> You are wrong when you say, 'all I need are the facts' and naive if you think you don't make decisions based on other factors like emotions. A good salesperson understands that decisions are made based on two kinds of needs, those that apply to the product and those that do not.


You've been away from the sales game for to long LTA, times have changed since your last job, especially in the tech field.

Many tech companies are using "fact based" purchases now that are basically all worked out on spreadsheets and a few meetings to make sure the all the bases are covered. This also serves to protect the "higher ups" from being accused of pushing their own agenda.

Yes, there still are some dinosaurs leading tech related companies today where nice chat, a good relationship and a handshake still mean something to them but they are fewer everyday. For the sales people in higher tech areas many don't even know what they are selling, they're just there as liaisons with no impact on the outcome.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

You can use 'fact based buys' for hardware, comm gear. Specs are no issue. 

But hardware is usually not the issue. Except for highly intensive CPU requirements. It comes down to the application of that hardware. Fault tolerant configurations, networks, consultants, application software, customer software, security expertise. These involve the human factor...expertise. For these a spec is not always the solution and these are the most critical. Hardware is a no brainer.

The business has changed because the huge margins in hardware are a thing of the past. It used to be where there is mystery there is margin. During this time many services were provided gratis with the hardware. Today, most commercial hardware buys are nothing more than commodity buys. No margin to provide free anything. All services are priced out or bundled in a larger contract.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I've also spent many years working in scientific and data research services, but this also does not seem to be what people mean by "IT".


As I say ... my first response with several definitions is from the job seeker's POV.
But then I recalled that you wrote about hearing "analysts talk about how the "tech economy"".

You'll have to decide which one or whether some other criteria is what you want to talk about.




james4beach said:


> ... My whole career, people have told me that I work in IT (because everything computers = IT), but every time I hear of an IT job it sounds nothing like what I do. If IT is such a great industry, maybe it's time for me to get in on that.


YMMV ... some in IT jobs are making crap wages, some are so-so and those with what's in short supply, know how to market themselves and are versatile do well.

For example the project manager originally trained as an accountant. He could talk to both the business types and the tech resources, increasing the demand. Throw in that he was willing to travel when many others didn't so that he did well. Others who did only project management or only accounting or refused to travel weren't in demand and didn't do as well.


Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

All of the failures that I saw, or the projects that were on the road to failure were because of people issues. Anything from the original spec down to poor or non existent project management, QA, education, poor operations such as not backing up properly or backing up but not testing the veracity of the backup etc. Human error. Hardware seldom fails and when it does the fix is typically a board swap or a vendor provided upgrade throughput is an issue. DB's are another issue of course


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

ian said:


> All of the failures that I saw, or the projects that were on the road to failure were because of people issues. Anything from the original spec down to poor or non existent project management, QA, education, poor operations such as not backing up properly or backing up but not testing the veracity of the backup etc. Human error. Hardware seldom fails and when it does the fix is typically a board swap or a vendor provided upgrade throughput is an issue. DB's are another issue of course


If you use a broad definition of people issues, then you could say that. When I think about Phoenix, it was one of those things that was not an easy solution. The requirements were poorly written, and the scope was not well thought out. It was one of those things where IBM took existing software and modified it so that it could work for specific scenario(s). Mainly someone working 9-5 desk work. It failed horribly for people working shift work, working on weekends, working in acting positions, etc. The fact that people will fall into one of those categories at some point in time means that everyone was going to have a pay issue. Add to that, the complexity of multiple pay tables and different collective agreements, e.g. for some people a work week was 40 hrs, others it was 37.5 hrs, and you are going to get a mess trying to consolidate all of that into a single program. Of course, when they tested it, they should have had these other test cases, but it doesn't look like that was the case. IBM does have the out of promising and not delivering what was desired, because poor requirement definition and scope led to that conclusion.

Also, it's very rare that a company will outright reject a contract because it isn't possible, or overly complicated. There are exceptions. I know a story where decades ago, the government wanted to modernize their immigration / border control system. It had some pretty demanding requirements, i.e. had to have seamless operation 24/7 for transition, and real-time updates. One contractor just closed their books and left saying that wasn't possible. IBM said they could do it. Yup, it was a disaster as well. Not as publicized as Phoenix, but the system didn't deliver.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

m3s said:


> We're getting away from contracts it's gotten so bad. Cheaper in the long run to just build internally when they play salesmen games like loss leaders ...


We're into contracts and are moving everything out into the cloud. Part of what's scheduled to move is still on premises for at least a couple of years as the business loved the app was that wasn't cloud ready yet.




m3s said:


> ... One of the larger multi-million contract awarded in 2011 was supposed to deliver in 2013. They pulled the 'ol "underbid/over-promise now to win and make-it-happen later" and in 2015, 2 years long overdue, they still couldn't deliver and that contract was mutually cancelled at great expense to both parties.
> 
> 5 years later we are still burning money maintaining something that should have been replaced 10 years ago with what was available and proven at the time


When I was consulting, except for one client who insisted on no more dollars - the time was longer than the original contracts but nothing like you are describing. The client who balked got a surprise. They went to several conferences expecting sympathy from other companies for how they had been duped. Instead the more common response was "how many were setup in that short a time with how few problems?" then "Wish we'd accomplished that much in our project!".

Perhaps the biggest one I've heard of is Sobey's. They announced that due to problems keeping their shelves stocked, they were pulling the plug on an $80 million ERP implementation in 2001 that had started in 1996. Yet as of 2018, they are listed as a success story. I suspect the vendor didn't like the bad press and threw lots of money at them but haven't dug into the details.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ Maybe the success was their second kick at the can for SAP, which eventually went in. Don't forget Target Canada, which was another SAP catastrophe. They seem to have a distressingly low success rate for implementations. It is not a system one implements lightly. The whole org has to be 100% committed and it can't be rushed.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

The Sobey's annual report when cancelling it makes a second kick at the can unlikely. I suspect SAP poured a ton of money, bribes and effort into wooing them into another try as they didn't like the bad press. Similar to the balking client didn't get the usual level of resistance as it was one of the few places in the world implementing six lines of business. That made it a great reference for winning other business, even if that particular contract was a loss.

IAC, Sobey's seems to be me to be more of a project planning or contingency planning snafu. If the new system can't keep stock on the shelves - there should have been a way to fall back to what works then figure out was the problems with the new, improved SAP system. 'Course I've seen executive bonus deadlines turn an otherwise rationale executive irrational. In one case, there were reports of sixty thousand errors, two people working to fix the errors with five errors fixed in a week, a schedule that says all errors will be fixed in six weeks but the decision was no need for extra staff and steady as she goes. The executive tried to cancel the tech team's long weekend on the Friday of after weeks of "no need to do anything, next week will be better".

From what I've read, Target Canada as well as Phoenix had executive bonus problems as well.


I had a co-worker who went into SAP for awhile. She said that knowing German was useful as no matter what language the system was using, the database table names were in German. Another co-worker said that at his wife's work, the SAP solution for turning the clock back was to shutdown before it took effect then restart afterwards to avoid double entries confusing the system. Something competitors had fixed years before.


Cheers


----------

