HP to fire 9,000 due to 'productivity gains, automation' Hewlett-Packard will axe 9,000 jobs at the ink and computer giant over the next three years. The company confirmed its plans today saying it hoped to improve its corporate services business, after it bought EDS in 2008 for $13.9bn. HP said it would swallow a $1bn charge between now and its 2013 financial year, half of which …
Profits down ... cut workforce;
Profits up ... compliment workforce, then cut them;
Decrease investment ... cut workforce to compensate;
Increase investment ... use increase to fund workforce cuts;
Take over competitor ... cut _their_ workforce;
Launch new products ... cut R&D since their job is obviously now done.
etc
Notice the common thread coming out here - just a shame that HP's management are a one-trick pony....
You can pretty much assume that the majority of cuts will be in Europe (because it's expensive) and the majority of those in the UK (because it's expensive).
A cynical person would wonder how the 'eck you're supposed to 'grow the business' when your management are busy firing the technical folks that are supposed to deliver this growth. A pragmatic one would just make sure that their c.v. is up to date.
"how the 'eck you're supposed to 'grow the business' when your management are busy firing the technical folks that are supposed to deliver this growth."
...except from management's point of view, techies are a cost. They don't "deliver growth" - the sales guys do that.
Techies are a cost, and that cost is lower if it's in a poor country...
"They don't 'deliver growth' - the sales guys do that."
Ah, so you aren't familar with the former EDS then? I left HP in November and I can assure you that the sales fail regularly until engineers rectify the situation. If I had only been there 3 months, I might agree with you. But I did my three years and can't believe I stayed past 3 months with the constant "deal saving" that goes on.
If sales knew what the feck they were doing, it wouldn't be an issue. But instead, they overpromise and underdeliver, which is the EDS (and now HP) SOP.
In most mega corpse, sales weasels will sell stuff they don't have to unclued CIOs of client corps.
Hence fewer techs, more weasels. Looks good to CEOs who are exsales weasels.
The unreported suggestion of fewer management layers, followed by news of more managers being appointed, hilarious !
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Cut staff, cut service. It's a pretty simple and proven rule. Time to shop around; although there isnt much competition left; not with IBM Global leading the crash dive race to the bottom.
Time to go back in-house people, it may not be cheaper but at least someone will answer the phone when you call.
"Time to go back in-house people, it may not be cheaper but at least someone will answer the phone when you call."
I'm not sure that the *savings* on big contracts were *ever* that clear cut. Presumably those who've been outsourcing for some time should have *much* better tools for monitoring costs *whoever* does the actual work (in house or outsourced).
IIRC one of Walmarts first jobs on buying Asda supermarkets in the UK was canceling their IBM outsourcing contract. Walmart would definitely be said to be in a cost conscious market and big enough for all the big boys to be interested in getting their account. I suspect they don't trust the con-tractors proposals (and the loss of flexibility and control). From earlier comments on "Deal saving" it seems they are right.
There is only one sustainable source of growth, and that is the workforce. If management has to cut the workforce, either the income has dropped (i.e., big recession, big lost contract, big company like EDS bought and economies of scale...) or management has FAILED to properly direct the available human resource to grow the business.
If the management associated with the chopped workers isn't also cut (all the way to the top) the truly failing component is still rotting the company. Why would anyone invest in such a failing business model? Why reward failing executives with fat bonuses? They are not saving money, they are snatching defeat from the jaws of success and declaring victory.... the simple act of making large numbers of personnel redundant usually demonstrates poor management and a probable "sell" rating for the stock.
Ah the wonders of a PLC. Shareholder's dividends come out of the same pot that is affected by salary costs - Profit and Loss. Dump some staff, the stock market thinks it will get better dividends and therefore is willing to pay more for HP's stock. Net result HP's Market Cap gets better and everyone can slap themselves on the back for a job well done until the wheels fall off the dogdy motor.
IIRC EDS big thing *was* their mainframe skills. Chomping through a whole nations social security files with 5 9s reliability.
So with that gone, aside from a *very* large "entertainment" budget for smoozing civil servants and the occasional minister what do they do that's "special"?
9000 is a very small number really to lose over 3 years from a workforce of 304,000 ... that will go through natural attrition! And just as any IT department in the land, HP is able to support more infrastructure with less people. It used to be that you needed administrators for everything whereas now one person can monitor, manage and maintain a hell of a lot more kit. Anyone who is trying to make out that this article is especially alarming is just being sensationalist.
News to me as next door to my work we have an Hewlett-Packard CDS server farm, and no one ever comes or goes, it just sits there with the shutters closed, silently waiting for a corporate website somewhere to go down so it can kick into operation.
I swear it is run by machines.....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
