More on AT&T Wireless's Bungled System Upgrade 285
An anonymous reader writes "CIO.com has posted a very in-depth article on the recent failings of AT&T Wireless that resulted in the state of the company today. What's fascinating about this article is the sheer amount of accurate information gleaned from former and current employees on the company's bungled attempts to follow FCC mandates on local number portability last November, the inside story on outsourcing efforts, and terrible executive management decisions that ultimately led to its demise. Ironically, the scathing and sometimes highly sarcastic commentary at the end of the article from former employees makes this read even better."
Best quote ever (Score:5, Insightful)
[huge grin] wonder how he got *that* nickname
Seriously, someone who has new/wonderful management process *can* help a company tread a dangerous path, but you *need* the domain expertise to be well-represented in a solution to a technical problem. Imho, at least. From the reports, it seems the process wasn't that wonderful, either
You can expect a certain level of bitterness in ex-employees, especially after a disaster, but there ain't no smoke without fire, and when there's lots of smoke, start looking for the towering inferno...
Simon.
The End of AT&T (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm convinced that some companies just have a dysfunctional corporate culture that's immune to real reform. Their only hope is that things get so bad that all the top idiots lose their jobs -- and they're very, very lucky in choosing their new management. (That's basically what saved IBM.) But AT&T's so far gone, not even a total shakeout can save them.
ATT is a river (Score:5, Interesting)
thank god the baby bells got freed from that mess. all the folks vying to lead ATT in the 90s -- joe nacchio, mike annunziata, leo hindery, c. michael armstrong -- turned out to be a shitspread at their respective next stop in employment at the top of the tower. "little mikey" in particular broke up and sold his company down the river in several stages, then left it to hide out at comcast and count his money. "joey nachos" almost killed qwest, a fiber startup, and USWest together after he merged them to bleed the treasury at USWest. annunziata and hindery rode Global Crossing into the toilet, and hindery got into another telco startup and crashed with it.
moral: if you want to invest, check for former ATT execs on the board of a company. if you find any, flee in terror.
Denial... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The End of AT&T (Score:4, Interesting)
Bellcore-later-Telcordia was even worse. Because of legacy contracts with the Baby Bells, they were able to hold on to their biggest cash cows longer than AT&T was. Think about it: Which came first, intense competition in the long-distance market, or intense competition in local service billing software? They were as dead as AT&T, but it took them several more years to fall over. And I won't even get into the cultural train wreck that occurred when SAIC bought Telcordia.
And people wonder why I took a job with a Big Evil Defense Contractor.
Re:The End of AT&T (Score:3, Interesting)
Political Cliche time (Score:5, Insightful)
"Big government" is one of the political cliches I get really tired of. Anything you dislike about what the government does you can conveniently label as "big government". If the government won't let you burn your leaves, and you think that's dumb, it's "big government". But if you care about air pollution, it's government doing it's job. Your necessary program is my "big government".
You're entitled to criticize what the government does (indeed, it's more or less your obligation as a citizen!). But if you hope to actually accomplish anything, try to make your criticisms based on specifics, not vague, subjective terms that mean whatever you chose them to mean.
I'm using AT&T Wireless (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm using AT&T Wireless (Score:3, Informative)
I was on my phone and yahoo messenger was working earlier this evening. Whatever att
AWE did it to themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a first hand experience of working on the LNP issues and no way its as easy as it was said in plain english. Agreed that you might think it as changing some sort of dns information - but the way its implemented and the patchy design as you go approach for the whole thing is really insane.
The whole thing would have been better designed if the war lords at Verizon and other had not banked on getting the mandatory deadline extended. None of the carriers actually believed that the nov dead line would be final - hence none of them actually cared to the design and implementation. Resourceful and gutsy teams at big companies like Verizon and Cingular pulled it through and companies like AWE and sprint paid heavily with customer dissatisfaction.
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:5, Informative)
The carriers can't just program in the ID of your phone for a different network, because that phone doesn't connect to their network.
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:3, Informative)
Another way to handle it is, if user A at telco T switches to telco Q, set A's number in T to forward the call to some new (but unrevealed to the world at large) number in Q's domain, which broadcasts to A's phone. It's not like the phone number is actually stored in the phone.
Okay, you chew through phone numbers faster that way, but that's a known quantit
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a reason that the 456 was called the exchange, the older term for a phone switch. 456 referred to a particular set of hardware. Routing was sequential. You could route the connection as the number was dialed. The number sequence was mapped to routing sequence.
With the new LNP, you can't
RTFA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RTFA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the quote you posted? The planning had begun, and people saw the signs... while they were up against an immovable deadline on number portability. No doubt D&T can share the blame generously, but frankly, when you're counting on your employees to complete a very difficult job is not the time to be plotting to fire them all and replace them with cheap knock-offs.
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Former employees say morale wasn't helped by Corrado's first presentation to the IT group, in which they say he proclaimed, "Come in every day and expect to be fired." Intended to inspire the troops to greater effort, the talk backfired, says another former employee.
Although the quote is probably out of context, telling people they should expect to be fired at any time is probably a motivational technique learned in today's MBA environment. Force and fear doesn't even work well with prisoners. So why do MBAs and other assorted managerial parasites think they work for tech?
Newsflash for Managers {tm}: People expecting to be fired, will make their own plans for their futures instead of working 100% at your projects. Like, duh, eh?
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
That was pretty much my response. It's one thing to let people know that if they don't meet your (clearly defined and within the realm of the possible) standards, they won't be kept around for sentimental reasons. But generally, if you want loyalty you have to give it.
I think maybe these people are operating under the false belief that, if their employees think they might be replaced, they'll work harder to try to prove themselves more valuable. But they don't realize that people are much more pessimistic these days than they were during the dot-com boom. If outsourcing is being considered, it comes across as an inevitable death-knell, not a spur to do better.
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:4, Interesting)
The head-honcho-manager-person at my location told everyone that they were going to be doing some layoffs in the next couple of months. She then proceeded to talk down to everyone and tried to make us all feel like it was a GOOD thing!?!?
This all came ONE WEEK (I kid you not) after we were all forced to attend a mandatory meeting with an efficiency consultant, whose job was basically to make everyone believe that customer service was top priority. We were not to adhere to the contract, but rather to do what the customer requested, no matter how ridiculous it was. This included us doing things that would directly harm the customer (if they asked us to, of course).
The layoff meeting was preceeded by another meeting, a day before, telling everyone to basically not do "everything the customer says" and to stick to the contract as it's written.
I'm glad I'm doing honest tech work again.
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:4, Funny)
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:3, Informative)
As another poster mentioned, where was mention of D&T in the article? I can only wonder if the arrogance didn't start there and just kind of honey-coat AT&T's top management, some sort of golf course power orgy no doubt with the D&T suits out spinning tales of the far east, cheap
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:5, Interesting)
AT&T has had really bad executives and really bad leadership. When Ma Bell was broken up the current CEOs showed great ineptitude by capitulating to MCI and Bill McGowan. Whereas IBM and Microsoft have shown that you can fight Antitrust cases and settle them on your own terms Ma Bell capitulated and decided to split up on bad terms. This was the first example of bad leadership.
AT&T bought a stake in Sun Microsystems. After which Sun mysteriously changed religions from BSD to System or SunOS to beastly Solaris.
Robert Allen is bad executive number two. In 1991 AT&T under Robert Allen decided to buy NCR for $7.5 billion NCR and renamed it as AT&T GIS. AT&T also sold of Unix System Labs to Novell.
NCR was later spun off at a loss of billions due to the inability to manage it. It came down to management.
Michael Armstrong is another bad CEO. Under Armstrong TCI was purchased and so was Media one.
Armstrong spent 100 billion buying different companies. One mistake was getting into a bidding war over Media One. Another gaffe was Excit@Home whereas Timewarner had roadrunner Excite@Home was allowed to fail under AT&Ts watch.
After merging the company decided to demerge and spin off AT&T wireless and AT&T broadband. A stake was sold to NTT Docomo in AT&T wireless. The paradox is why would you spend billions of dollars to buy companies and then decide your corporate strategy is wrong and spin off the companies?
AT&T wireless was a big mess. NTT Docomo purchased a stake in AT&T with strings attached. AT&T Wireless was pushed to used Docomos version of GSM e-mode. They also erred in switching wireless protocols from TDMA to GSM instead of CDMA. CDMA is better and more established in the US. Sprint activelly promotes their version of CDMA as better than AT&Ts GSM. The migration to GSM was very complex and had lots of glitches. However, when they brought in NTT Docomo as a stockholder it went with GSM. It isn't just GSM it's a variant of NTT's. NTT Docomo wouldn't even bid for AT&T wireless afterward.
AT&T also erred in spinning off AT&T wireless as a tracking stock (A mistake Sprint has soon learned) and hiring Michael Armstrong as CEO. The company basically gave away 40 billion dollars in value including the Cable and Wireless divisions (speaking of which is another misnomer for a badly managed company). Jack Welch the CEO of GE felt that spinoffs were bad and spinoffs just spinoff cash and assets to shareholders with vary little return for the parent. It proves the old adage that your only as good as the leader. A very bad leader can destroy a company as can be seen at MCI err MCI-Worldcom.
Re:AWE did it to themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
Under Armstrong, AT&T had the only large-scale telecom strategy that I thought would work: a comprehensive menu of business and high-value consumer services, all under one roof. Two problems: they never got the divisions to work together. And they way overpaid for the cable assets.
sPh
Cant motivate people who cant count on their jobs (Score:3, Informative)
It is an absolutly horrible environment to work in, to the point where you feel physically sick when you wake up in the morning to get ready to go to work. That being said i've seen some people in this situation fight to the last breath to try and prop the company back up. The difference in the AT&T wireless situation is that these employees kn
Ok, look here (Score:2, Interesting)
There is only room for one mobile phone technology in this world, and it's not CDMA. I know the US government is behind it, but they cannot force us all to use it.
Re:Ok, look here (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ok, look here (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ok, look here (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, it is. 3G is based on CDMA. GSM is evolving through EDGE into WCDMA and current CDMA systems are evolving into CDMA2000. It has absolutely nothing to do with the US, the major players in mobile phone standards are all outside the US.
Re:Ok, look here (Score:2)
If I'm wrong, let me know...
Re:Ok, look here (Score:3, Informative)
W-CDMA has basically been accepted as the 3g standard in Europe and Japan. W-CDMA is not owned by Qualcomm, it's the main competitor. Qualcomm has a vested interest in seeing CDMA2000 suceed, and they're struggling
Re:Ok, look here (Score:5, Informative)
Sprint PCS and Verizon use CDMA2000, hereby referred to as "CDMA".
Right. CDMA must be worse because it handles more users per cell, right? Or is it because it doesn't have hard cell-size limits? Or... how about the fact that it copes with noise better. Or the fact that it uses less power to go the same distance. Or is it that the voice quality is better?
Look, GSM has some advantages (worldwide standard, SIM, cool phones), but CDMA is fundamentally the better technology. That's why the new GSM (UMTS) system uses CDMA technology.
Verizon Wireless is doing great. So is Sprint. Verizon is 2nd to ATT/Cingular. And most of ATT/Cingular's customers are still using IS-136 (D-AMPS). Sprint has captured a stunning market share with there relatively new network.
"There is only room for one mobile phone technology in this world, and it's not CDMA. I know the US government is behind it, but they cannot force us all to use it."
Right. Just like there is only room for one operating system. Just like there is only room for one political opinion.
The US government *is* behind the usage of CDMA in the US. But it's not because they mandated CDMA. Far from it. In Europe, GSM *was* mandated. Mandating GSM had some advantages - Europe had a fully-digital system with good coverage far before the US did (part of that has to do with population density).
But not mandating GSM also had advantages in the US. We had competition between formats. CDMA was developed and implemented because carriers had the ability to choose the best standard.
GSM is, realistically, not the right standard for the US. GSM cells are too small for rural areas - much smaller than AMPS cells. The carriers who have deployed GSM in the US have learned the hard way that covering Wyoming or Kansas with GSM cells is extremely difficult.
Re:Ok, look here (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no room in this world for a single system that cannot be used by the millions of
We Geeks Are Humans Too! (Score:5, Insightful)
- a young blogger [afriguru.com]
Re:We Geeks Are Humans Too! (Score:2)
Re:We Geeks Are Humans Too! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, what can a manager do when a project or organization starts to underperform? Too frequently, managers will attempt to improve performance by "shaking things up". They think "Okay, after one more reorganization, then things will be right." or "Well, if we put this process into place, it will be perfect."
The problem is really that management is as much an art as writing code or designing systems. There are a lot of people out there who can do it when the problems are normal, when the future is well understood. Unfortunately, most of them respond in counterproductive ways when confronted with crisis and uncertainty.
In short (too late!), it isn't that managers look for ways to stop people from being "happy, content, secure" out of spite. It's just that they're trying to do something, anything to make things better. They flail, and things get worse.
Re:We Geeks Are Humans Too! (Score:2, Insightful)
in my experience, the majority of managers (at least those i have worked with) are ok. it's just that the jerks who give you the impression that you work under them can destroy any working relationship with a company
The best of managers will recognize that the largest part of their job is to be a drama sponge ... absorb the drama radiating down, dampen the drama radiating up, and shield their team to let them get work done.
you'll see that mostly with the
Siebel strikes again... (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at Telus Communications.. When they implemented a Siebel based system customer complains skyrocketed.. The system was unstable and basically useless.. You couldent get any information to people on what was happening..
Papers had a field day on how much customer service sucked.
God have mercy on anyone who has to implement Siebel 7 in a large enterprise enviroment.
Re:Siebel strikes again... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Siebel strikes again... (Score:2, Informative)
You dont have happy customer service representivs when you cant do anything for the customer because the "system is down"
Ofcourse I belive alot of these problems are fixed now and TELUS had a bad time that year with the BC fires and such.
Ohh and phones have 2 modes.. "Hold" which plays music and you cant hear anything.. which I would think would be used for 20 min.. or Mute.. which is for small pauses. But ya.. i agree with you.. alot of the CSR's i
Does Siebel Ever Deliver? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are ther any good Siebel stories? I'm curious!
Re:Does Siebel Ever Deliver? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Does Siebel Ever Deliver? (Score:3, Informative)
Big 5 consultants (Score:5, Interesting)
The Big 5 (or however many there are now - I mean Arthur Andersen, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse, Deloitte & Touche, etc) charge hundreds of dollars an hour for "experts" that aren't experts at all. They're usually just one page ahead of the client. They even charge over $100/hr for wet-behind-the-ears college grads.
We've all dealt with them before, they are usually intelligent people but have no expertise or experience in the task they are being paid to complete.
Yet again and again, despite all their failings, they are being hired by big corporations for major projects.
I'd like to know why.
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:2)
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SILOS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:2)
They live on their names alone for the most part. An upper manager will get pats on the back and fat bonuses because he brought in such a well respected consultantn.
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent some time at a Final Four consulting division and the incompetence was astounding. People lacking experience were billed out well over the $100 you quote. Some went as high as $250 and the implementations never really ended or accomplished the goals. But it was OK, because the companies never gave them business-critical work, anyways.
Never finishing and continuing to bill is the whole point though.
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:3, Informative)
No kidding! I worked for a large consulting company for a short period. In my first and only review, my programming efficiency was listed as a bad point. Oral explanation: we make money based on the number of hours we bill not based on the number of projects we finish.
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.despair.com/consulting.html [despair.com]
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:5, Insightful)
I can think of two reasons.
First, I think there are sufficiently talented and experienced people to implement perhaps 5% of technology projects being built today. There is simply such a high demand and such a low supply of IT professionals that the market is completely off kilter. That's why salaries are so high and the average skill level is so low. The worst part about the high salaries is that they attracted terribly unskilled people who don't care about IT but only care about the money.
Second, the IT field is so freaking complex it defies imagination. There is simply too much to know. So you have these specialists who know only their narrow field, but inevitably those fields go out of fashion and the former specialist joins another field they have no experience in. It's a vicious cycle caused by (I think) the fact that IT isn't truly a mature industry. It's a research field that has been adopted too early by other industries. So there's lots of change which leads to regular retraining and inexperienced workers.
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that estimate is a little low. The problem is exacerbated, however, by skill misidentification. People with tons of experience and skill in designing, maintaining, or supporting systems might also be good at implementation, but it's far from given. Implementation requires a whole lot more understanding of human nature and the learning process than most people ha
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:5, Insightful)
Then begins the months of meetings that turn into screaming matches once the emasculated junior management at the company have a scapegoat (the consultants) upon whom to lay the blame for their own impotence. Eventually the consultants figure out who's got the most signing authority for their checks and they start telling those people what they want to hear.
So you can only really half blame the consultants. Every few years they come up with a new little portfolio of tricks to flash around (outsourcing, for example), but your corporate execs still have to sign off on all this stuff. When a company goes down the tubes, you really can't blame anybody but its own senior management.
Yeah, the corporate world sucks, don't it?
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You are just arrogant (Score:5, Interesting)
Spoken like someone who has either (1) never hired or dealt with a Big 5 consulting firm, or (2) someone who works for one.
The partners in these firms will sell anything. They will claim expertise in any thing they must in order to start billing. They send out green college recruits and charge over $100/hr for them.
As for "in-the-house training", the only experience most of them have is a series of failed PeopleSoft deployments (or Ariba, insert your own "enterprise" software here). Many of them have degrees in something completely unrelated to the project. Yes, the English major from Duke is very intelligent, but she doesn't know anything about the project at hand.
-they pay hard on their mistakes. Cash. When you buy outside your organization your excpectations are higher
Well, they may pay for their mistakes, but they certainly don't pay cash. These guys will absolutely bleed a company through continued billing regardless of how successful the project is.
Re:You are just arrogant (Score:2)
Why should you hire consultants to do what you can but for more? Most consulting companies care more about their own billing. Deloitte refused to comment on the AWE problems....wonder why?
Re:Big 5 consultants (Score:2, Insightful)
While some managers may cover their asses with a consulting firm or the refusal of another department to pay for the firm when a project fails, most will take credit for the failure because it was *their* project. If a consulting firm isn't going to help, they won't recommend it. The reasons that consulting firms
No credit whatsoever (Score:4, Informative)
In the Boston area, they reset the time for their towers by setting the clocks forward one hour at Daylight Savings Time (as opposed to properly setting the "Daylight Savings Time flag). Now whenever you use Cingular's network, you get the proper settings, but as soon as you go bact to AT&T, it puts you an hour ahead on wintertime hours.
Re:No credit whatsoever (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No credit whatsoever (Score:2)
How long to make back the 100 Mil? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How long to make back the 100 Mil? (Score:3, Insightful)
I see your point, but I'd like to remind you that $100M is not as much as you think it is. Another proponent of outsourcing - Carly Fiorina of HP - nearly got a $115M bonus deal [com.com] (to have been shared with Michael Cappelas of Compaq) for the HP-Compaq merger.
My point is that if some companies are prepared to throw money like this at their CEOs, they probably don't really care about losing some customers.
The
Re:How long to make back the 100 Mil? (Score:2, Insightful)
By the time this hurts HP she will be gone and someone else will have to clean up her mess.
Re:How long to make back the 100 Mil? (Score:2)
--I wouldn't balk at buying an HP computer these days (altho I'd replace the powersupply 1st thing with at least a 300W) because they've made strides with Linux compatibility... But I really truly despise Carly F.
Re:How long to make back the 100 Mil? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it weren't for the printer ink racket they're running, they'd have gone under long ago. What a sad end to what used to be a great American company.
good read, right on the money... (Score:4, Funny)
Posted ac for my job...
Re:good read, right on the money... (Score:5, Funny)
The important question is have you taught the Indian fellow who will replace you how to post anonymously to Slashdot?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problems go back at least 5 years. (Score:2)
Re:The problems go back at least 5 years. (Score:3, Interesting)
The service with Suncom was quite good. There was good coverage over the entire area and the voicemail and missed call alerts worked perfectly with almost no lag between the call and the notification.
AT&T wireless took over and service deteriorated rapidly. Coverage became spotty in the area and varied widely from day to day and the voicemail and call notification system
Re:The problems go back at least 5 years. (Score:2, Interesting)
As for Veri
Re:The problems go back at least 5 years. (Score:2)
Back when Ricochet still looked viable, and the skies were sunny over the economy, we would've loved to have had Ricochet du
ATT Wireless New Cust Freeze Last Fall (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone here changed to Verizon (Score:3, Interesting)
The Continuing Saga of the Death of Ma Bell (Score:5, Informative)
She started out by developing the industry standards, and then learned all to quickly to play Government Fat Cat. When we look back at the contributions to science that came out of Bell Labs, both in communications and computer science; it is easy to see that this was once truly an industry giant.
But like all giants, when you get used to playing 800 pound gorilla, you stop thinking and just keep throwing your weight around.
Even after it became public knowledge that Ma Bell was holding back technological advancement for their own purposes and profit, as long as the lobby on the hill kept a few important palms crossed, the tyranny continued. Finally, after a couple rounds of public humilliations and rebukes, the government was forced to order the split-up.
But very deeply imbedded in each and every part of the baby Bells was the crippling notion that they were the best and only company and that the thought of changing their behavior neven even had the slightest possibility of beginning to cross their tiny little corporate brains.
To make a long story short, their corporate egos never evolved back to being lean mean compedetive machines. If there ever was a company that should get back to it's roots of research and innovation this would have been it; but the chance is gone.
My local baby Bell, for example, relies on their internet customers to have their error checking turned off, when they visit the customer service website. As a developer I keep mine turned on and get about a half-dozen errors when each page loads, and a few more with each and every control encountered. Why is it that they still behave like the customer doesn't matter? Because in each division there is at least 1 fat cat who is more concerned with their own well being than anything else; and someone who profits by their actions does their level headed best to keep them there.
Whatever happened to quality of service?
Re:The Continuing Saga of the Death of Ma Bell (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup... (Score:4, Interesting)
After going through 5 SonyEricsson T68i's in 3.5 mo, only to have each successive one start refusing to make outgoing calls, and juggling many hours and dropped calls with AT&T customer service only willing to send me another T68i, I just decided to ditch AT&T and go to T-Mobile. I found a Nokia 3650 on Amazon for $250 w/ 2-$150 rebates - one from T-Mobile and the other from Amazon.
The new phone, and T-Mobile service have been perfect here in Pittsburgh, and I'm enjoying the nationwide unlimited GPRS with bluetooth from my iBook, but AT&T screwups still continue. Three weeks after I switched I receive a spankin' new T226 in the mail. Phone works much better than the T68i, but no bluetooth, and a crappy screen. But hey, free phone I'll never use.
Unfortunately I still had 5 mo on my contract. Canceling stiffs me with a $180 charge, so I called AT&T 6 weeks ago to switch to the $20 plan. (a $100 loss, cheaper than $180). Well, yesterday I get my bill and find out that they never processed my request. Call customer service and finally get a rep who tries to be helpful, but can't figure out why the logged plan switch wasn't carried out. Supposedly I'll be reimbursed, but I'm not holding my breath. The rep didn't seem surprised when I explained I'd switched because of all the previous cockups.
I could go on and on with AT&T screwup stories, but you get the idea. I think the biggest pain is that those still in contracts have few or no options other than biting the bullet and switching.
(Rant Mode Off)
ATTWS - Tell me about it. (Score:2)
I don't think this is fully off-topic.
I've been looking into switching from Cingular just to get a better phone. Mine's a piece of crap, and I don't want to pay. No, I don't really need all the fancy functions of these newer phones, but if they come with it I won't refuse them. I want something small and with a non-tiny screen.
AT&T seems to be the most generous in terms of phones, of providers I've looked at so far... but all the customers I know absolutely hate the coverage they get - I live in Bos
better wait (Score:2)
Don't go there. All that glitters is not gold.
AT&T Wireless didn't just execute poorly... (Score:5, Interesting)
While this is a sad story--especially about the poor guys with Indian "consultants" following them around asking a zillion questions about how to do their jobs--it's worthwhile to remember where the article appears: CIO magazine. CIO is focused on the needs/wants/interests of the guys in ties in a corporate IT environment--and in general a lot of CIOs think that outsourcing/offshoring is a hell of a good idea. The general tone of this article is "look at how these yobbos bungled the implementation of Siebel CRM." What they didn't mention at all is, "look at how these geniuses totally misunderstood their business, and pissed away roughly $40 billion in stock capitalization in just three years. And therefore died the death that they so richly deserved."
It's the technology, stupid...
There are companies, even in the 21st century, that can ignore cutting-edge technology. You don't need to be e-commerce enabled to be a plumber. But if you're in the wireless telephony business, in the midst of a headlong rush into a blizzard of new technologies, the core focus of your business isn't marketing or sales or re-carpeting the executive suite. Your core focus MUST be on the technology--and as soon as you lose sight of that focus, your competitors will consume you.
And these geniuses decided to offshore 3,000 jobs. And were doubtless shocked--shocked, I tell you!--to hear that employee morale about the developers was down.
I'm no techno-protectionist
I remember discussing the inevitable introduction of competition from overseas back in the late 1980s, and debating the possibility endlessly while working in Japan in the mid-90s. There will be companies that decide that, in their businesses, in their business models, IT work is a cost, not an investment. They will decide that they want to minimize that cost. They will focus on maintaining existing systems (with marginal, incremental improvements) and eschew major new developments. They will find that that approach may make it feasible to hire developers in the Third World. But those businesses that do so are making a conscious, deliberate decision: we're not going to focus the company on technology. We're going to try to minimize the company's dependence on technology. IT is a cost--it does not contribute to revenue.
For a wireless telephone company to take this position is simply insane: they are in the technology business. They are smack in the middle of a global technology race--one of the few technology races with competitors from practically every part of the northern hemisphere. They need to be faster to market with new products; the new products must be faster, better, more efficient, and more effective; and they have to have a world-beating customer service experience. Instead of fleeing from technology, they should be driven by it. They should be absolutely focused on it. They should be actively recruiting talent to build their strengths....
Because that's what every other company that's focused on technology is doing. Subcontracting out your technology--in a technology business--is sort of like farming, but buying all your crops at the supermarket.
I am not a lawyer...
But I am an engineering team leader at a U.S. electronics company [lutron.com] that leads the world in our industry: lighting controls. We export electrical and electronic equipment to countries around the world--including Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, and every country in Europe--because we focus on five core principles [lutron.com]. And Principle #4 is "Innovate with high-quality products." In other words, we're in the technology business, so we focus--relentlessly--on the technology.
Once upon a time, AT&T did too...
AT&T Wireless was spun off from AT&T--but the corporate heritage is obviously there. And AT&T, once upon a time, ruled the world--literally chan
Re:AT&T Wireless didn't just execute poorly... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:AT&T Wireless didn't just execute poorly... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AT&T Wireless didn't just execute poorly... (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, oh. I'm working as a consultant on a project at a major mobile telecom company in Europe, helping them to update their intranet.
The intranet contents is instrumental to the call centers, which I believe are profit centers, which in turn means that the intranet must be "always" available to the call center agents, while the intranet budget is quite limited (i.e. have to re-use old hardware).
Here's the bummer: they have a couple of call centers strewn all over the place, and they want the contents replicated as static HTML files to each call center location, because they can't keep up the network connections between the remote offices and headquarters. At the same time, all call center calls are obviously routed through their own network, as well. So why can they keep voice going, but not data over the same fiber links they're running?
Essentially, because internal IT is a cost center.
Re:AT&T Wireless didn't just execute poorly... (Score:3, Interesting)
Essentially, because internal IT is a cost center.
But you said it yourself - internal IT is fundamental to their business. Internal IT is what makes them money. Why? Because internal IT is what lets the things that make them money (the call centers) make money. And before you say that that means its not important - that's exactly the same function that marketing and management both serve.
Internal IT for these people isn't a cost center. Its a piece of critical infrastructure, one that has to be carefu
Re:AT&T Wireless didn't just execute poorly... (Score:3, Informative)
Of course that's obvious to us, but have you ever tried explaining it to someone who only believes what he sees on a spreadsheet?
I maintain cellular telephone switches (not for ATTWS, or even in the USA) and sit in front of 3 486s and a 386 most days. The top 2 layers of our corperate structure are populated by people who rose through the ranks
Ahh Axys, NeXTSTEP and Openstep (Score:2)
I remember contracting at Wireless and watching all the drones. Just recently relocating from Cupertino (in hindsight a big mistake) had me soon discovering that most people got payed way too much money to develop beastly systems and countless levels of B.S. along the way.
Hell if it weren't for The Omnigroup, Platinum Systems/PLATINUM Technologies Inc., architecting the original system I doubt McCaw would have ever been able to make the billions he did selling it to AT&T back in the mid 1990s.
I'
CIO deserves to be fired (Score:5, Interesting)
I spend about 30% of my time in front of the IT departments of the largest companies in the world, all of which are household names. They almost all tell me two things about our software:
1. It is heavily modified (they all have source)
2. They wish it was not
The fact is that these large customization projects, particularly ones which involve the Big 5, are over budget and late by factors that would boggle the minds of most mortals. It is not uncommon for these companies to spend >$100M for a software upgrade ON A SINGLE SITE. These companies have hundreds of sites.
As a contrast, another $9B electronics company I met with a few weeks ago can install a complete factory, including financials, manufacturing, logistics, scheduling, human resources, and reporting, all in less than 6 weeks. They have done it over 100 times. How do they do it? They have the entire cookie-cutter system burned on a DVD. Literally no customization is allowed at the plant level.
The only way to be successful at these kind of projects is to use an axe, not a scalpel. AT&T Wireless tried to use a scalpel. They should have thrown out all that junk and started over.
I would also point out that if you read the CIO's biography [attwireless.com], he is an advisor to HP. Notice that they also chose HP as their outsourcing partner!
Can you say "conflict of interest"?
Re:CIO deserves to be fired (Score:2)
That's your opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. This is not good news for me, as I'm a long time AT&T Wireless Services customer. I chose them because they offered the best service, and now they're being bought out by the company I was trying to get away from.
Re:That's your opinion. Yes, we have no signal (Score:2, Interesting)
In any case, the quality of signal is abominable. I think that's because it's GSM. I can use the phone OK in Ohio, or Wisconsin, or Georgia, but I get unbelievably bad reception in MY OWN
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I worked there once... (Score:2)
--I mean really, what would they *do* if you simply refused to attend?? (Hmm, shades of "Office Space"...)
Re:I worked there once... (Score:3, Funny)
AT&T Coverage map foolery (Score:5, Informative)
Check it out on your own at http://www.mlife.com
1 more month! (Score:2)
Development what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Any technology company needs to adopt and follow some sort of SDLC, and this is an obvious case where this has never been done. Criticising them for bungling this is all well and good, but I feel this article would've been better off talking about the real meat of "why" it failed.
The CIO That Can Say No (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem is, I think, the New Success Story psychology. CEOs are so brainwashed into thinking that accomplishing the impossible is what defines you as a successful CEO, that they push their people to do absurdly difficult things in the most miniscume timespans. It's not doing the impossible that's a hallmark of a good CEO, it's doing the possible well and doing the impossible when you HAVE to -- not because it'll win you bragging rights.
(Of course, the whole question of what constitutes a "have to" in this case is probably open-ended.)
Re:I should not laugh w/ gleee (Score:2)
Re:"Odyssey"? (Score:2)