G.E., the 124-Year-Old Software Start-Up(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
G.E., the 124-Year-Old Software Start-Up
http://nytimes.com/2016/08/28/technology/ge-the-124-year-old-software-start-up.html?referer=
133 comments
I think the experience that you describe is quite typical for lots of the enterprises that have started with pure mechanical or electrical products and at some point of time needed to incorporate software. For lots of them software engineering is a third class citizen that is not understood, trivialized and outsourced.
I know lots of examples from the automotive industry that sound exactly like that, and I'm sure it's not that different in other industries.
However most of these companies are slowly getting to the point where they understand that software is crucial for the future and that it's a major (and not a very minor) component. But it might still take some time until they can offer a good working atmosphere for software engineers.
I know lots of examples from the automotive industry that sound exactly like that, and I'm sure it's not that different in other industries.
However most of these companies are slowly getting to the point where they understand that software is crucial for the future and that it's a major (and not a very minor) component. But it might still take some time until they can offer a good working atmosphere for software engineers.
you also see excessive standardization and commoditization of software in these industries... institutionalize incrementalist thinking that slows progress and eventually makes all the participants vulnerable to outside disruption.
I don't know if it was your division or not but if you were working on ifix software for hmis I can see why this approach didn't work well. Absolute trash software. Not that rockwell's offerings are any better.
"GE soon began hiring US software engineers at a number of designated centers where they were segregated from the rest of the company."
That still seems to be the plan: "The San Ramon complex, home to GE Digital, now employs 1,400 people. The buildings are designed to suit the free-range working ways of software developers: open-plan floors, bench seating, whiteboards, couches for impromptu meetings, balconies overlooking the grounds and kitchen areas with snacks." There are pictures on the GE Digital site. What you don't see are workbenches with electrical products hooked up to computers. They're not doing embedded software.
This has an impact on product design. The GE Digital site says: "One million terabytes per day … that’s how much data Predix will process by 2020." They're thinking "big data", where all this stuff is shipped to the "cloud" for later analysis. The alternative would be digesting it near the source and only sending in the interesting stuff. They're going to collect gigabytes of "Bearing 22 temp 18 C", which is only important if the value is out of normal range or shows a trend.
The alternative would be some smartphone-sized device which listens to the data from your turbine or jet engine and finds the good stuff. But that wouldn't justify expensive cloud services, fees, meetings, etc. Even if it did exactly the same thing, GE couldn't collect huge fees for a smartphone-sized analysis device.
That still seems to be the plan: "The San Ramon complex, home to GE Digital, now employs 1,400 people. The buildings are designed to suit the free-range working ways of software developers: open-plan floors, bench seating, whiteboards, couches for impromptu meetings, balconies overlooking the grounds and kitchen areas with snacks." There are pictures on the GE Digital site. What you don't see are workbenches with electrical products hooked up to computers. They're not doing embedded software.
This has an impact on product design. The GE Digital site says: "One million terabytes per day … that’s how much data Predix will process by 2020." They're thinking "big data", where all this stuff is shipped to the "cloud" for later analysis. The alternative would be digesting it near the source and only sending in the interesting stuff. They're going to collect gigabytes of "Bearing 22 temp 18 C", which is only important if the value is out of normal range or shows a trend.
The alternative would be some smartphone-sized device which listens to the data from your turbine or jet engine and finds the good stuff. But that wouldn't justify expensive cloud services, fees, meetings, etc. Even if it did exactly the same thing, GE couldn't collect huge fees for a smartphone-sized analysis device.
Right, but how do you see the trend in context without storing all the data centrally?
I could see something like this powering Bret Victor's "seeing space" idea, which could be quite cool. (http://worrydream.com/SeeingSpaces/)
I could see something like this powering Bret Victor's "seeing space" idea, which could be quite cool. (http://worrydream.com/SeeingSpaces/)
GDC = Global Development Centre
> Taxes are still the main driver here
Should always keep that in mind when formulating tax policy.
Should always keep that in mind when formulating tax policy.
This explains the awkward "I just got a cool software engineering job at GE" commercials that have been airing on TV. I was wondering who they were targeting with these ads. It sounds like they might be targeting their own employees.
Travelled to China from Ireland to work with a Chinese software company. Dragged in to work for GE, ended up across a lot of their divisions from 2005 for a few years. Worked out of Atlanta for some time
They did not have a software culture at the time, everything was outsourced. Project managers did not have any clue of how to manage a software project professionally, they struck me as more financial / admin types. India and China were like wolves and GE threw projects to them expecting the lowest cost to emerge as the winner.
Office was always dead on Friday, there was a culture to often work from home but not actually work.
From my understanding at the time they used to cut 10% of the worst performing staff every year, I believe they were one of the worlds largest employers at the time. My biggest peeve was their culture of having meetings just to have meetings....I think this issue can be found in most large enterprises.
My cousin now works for GE in Australia and says 'they are trying to become a startup'. I'm not convinced, it's pretty cool to be called a startup but true startups will only thrive in GE if they are left alone by management and allowed to utilise large resources. It can work, small teams can make great inroads for these types of organisations.
They did not have a software culture at the time, everything was outsourced. Project managers did not have any clue of how to manage a software project professionally, they struck me as more financial / admin types. India and China were like wolves and GE threw projects to them expecting the lowest cost to emerge as the winner.
Office was always dead on Friday, there was a culture to often work from home but not actually work.
From my understanding at the time they used to cut 10% of the worst performing staff every year, I believe they were one of the worlds largest employers at the time. My biggest peeve was their culture of having meetings just to have meetings....I think this issue can be found in most large enterprises.
My cousin now works for GE in Australia and says 'they are trying to become a startup'. I'm not convinced, it's pretty cool to be called a startup but true startups will only thrive in GE if they are left alone by management and allowed to utilise large resources. It can work, small teams can make great inroads for these types of organisations.
> Tech giants, including Amazon, Cisco, Google, IBM and Microsoft also have their eye on the industrial internet market, as do a bevy of start-ups.
This explains a lot of recent interest in IoT. Big companies like GE saw what happened to companies like Kodak and want to defend their profits. They could be entirely wrong, computing may not turn out add much value in these industries. But GE probably don't want to leave that to chance.
This explains a lot of recent interest in IoT. Big companies like GE saw what happened to companies like Kodak and want to defend their profits. They could be entirely wrong, computing may not turn out add much value in these industries. But GE probably don't want to leave that to chance.
Industrial is a pretty staid, slow moving market. I'm out of it as soon as the movers get here. It's fantastic, thrilling work but you can't get the people in power to grok what you're doing.
It's sad and hard to do, but I've told a colleague who's trying to go into this market ( we were both laid off this year ) "no", because the overall culture isn't ready for it.
It's sad and hard to do, but I've told a colleague who's trying to go into this market ( we were both laid off this year ) "no", because the overall culture isn't ready for it.
You know you're in a bubble when a company manufacturing jet engines and locomotives tries to rebrand itself as a big data web startup.
Using sensors inside industrial equipment to optimize maintenance schedules and reduce downtime seems among the less-bubbly business ideas to me.
You'd think, wouldn't you? I'm exiting that market post-haste.
Ha! When you out it that way, it is very funny, but makes me a bit nervous.
They tried setting some some similar innovative type of tech offices during the .com boom. The offices were closed down and GE went back to their corporate roots. My guess is that history will repeat itself.
> Tech giants, including Amazon, Cisco, Google, IBM and Microsoft also have their eye on the industrial internet market, as do a bevy of start-ups.
The article doesn't mention any startups. Any ideas what startups could be potential disruptors?
The article doesn't mention any startups. Any ideas what startups could be potential disruptors?
PR piece, bleh.
The fact that they air commercials to try to hire developers continually amazes me. I don't think I've seen that before.
i find those commercials really weird. "Digital and Industrial" i think speaks more to EEs (of which they have plenty) than to software developers, ML experts, and/or data scientists.
to my ear, D&I refers more to PLC guys, who are probably closer to being industrial engineers than either EEs or software guys. I've talked to PLC vendors before; they aren't familiar with what it would take to actually do ... more ambitious industrial control. Basic stuff like filters and modest machine learning is a bit beyond what they offer. It's ladder logic and cabling.
PLC inventories are measured in decades, not years.
It's honorable work, but it's not to be confused with software development.
PLC inventories are measured in decades, not years.
It's honorable work, but it's not to be confused with software development.
Those commercials have been weird from the start. They make the parents / relatives / friends seem dumb to the point of parody and the "developer" very condescending.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You would think it would be cheaper to pay more or give better benefits.
These commercials are made to lure tech talent by letting them know they're more than the industrial mechanical company they used to be and need people with modern tech skill sets as opposed to knowing how to sling a hammer.
At a smaller scale, certainly. If you're talking thousands of developers, marketing yourself as a good place to work becomes cheaper than paying well (i.e., actually being a good place to work).
>paying well (i.e., actually being a good place to work).
I don't think good pay and good place to work are synonymous in any way. They happen to be correlated because both are methods to attract talent, but one does not cause the other.
I don't think good pay and good place to work are synonymous in any way. They happen to be correlated because both are methods to attract talent, but one does not cause the other.
You can bet they paid zillions to McKinsey or someone, to absolutely minimize their costs for doing it.
Those adds seemed weird to me. I program in the oil/gas space I couldn't imagine thinking working to built some app would be better that actually contributing to real world production. My den at my place is full of aerial shots of all the facilities I programmed. Every time I look at them I am filled with tons of pride.
Those commercials seem pretty tone deaf to me. I mean the one where his friends don't think he'll still be a programmer because he's working for GE, or the one where his dad doesn't think he can lift a sledgehammer. I get that they're trying to be funny and poke fun at themselves, but there's an undercurrent of condescension and patting this kid on the head that is very off-putting to me as a software engineer. After reading bradrydzewski's comment about the culture at GE it's making a lot more sense. GE just doesn't get software engineers.
I thought the ads were quite effective.
They were saying, yes "apps" for your phone are topical. The point of their commercial was "we work on big crazy complex shit and you can be part of solving a huge challenge".
The photos in this article of their manufacture engineering plants amaze me. Now couple those projects with sensors that are starting to giving off TBs of information in an hour and you can start to realize the scale of problems you could be working on at GE.
In another 5-10 years, many of the folks grinding it out in silicon valley, or other startupy things will realize they have a desire to have a family and will want to apply their talents towards more meaningful projects than "apps" that do not require being part of silicon valley.
Their commercials and this article painted the perfect picture of what's possible at GE and outside of silicon valley in my mind.
They were saying, yes "apps" for your phone are topical. The point of their commercial was "we work on big crazy complex shit and you can be part of solving a huge challenge".
The photos in this article of their manufacture engineering plants amaze me. Now couple those projects with sensors that are starting to giving off TBs of information in an hour and you can start to realize the scale of problems you could be working on at GE.
In another 5-10 years, many of the folks grinding it out in silicon valley, or other startupy things will realize they have a desire to have a family and will want to apply their talents towards more meaningful projects than "apps" that do not require being part of silicon valley.
Their commercials and this article painted the perfect picture of what's possible at GE and outside of silicon valley in my mind.
They are trying to fake it till they make it. It's a strategy in itself.
The purpose of those ads is not to attract developers. The purpose of those ads is to invest in GE's brand by creating the impression that young smart developers want to work there.
If the ads do attract some developers, that's great too, but that is not enough return to justify the (huge, enormous) cost.
These ads seek to do for GE what the "Think Different" ads did for Apple in the 90s.
If the ads do attract some developers, that's great too, but that is not enough return to justify the (huge, enormous) cost.
These ads seek to do for GE what the "Think Different" ads did for Apple in the 90s.
> The San Ramon complex, home to GE Digital, now employs 1,400 people. The buildings are designed to suit the free-range working ways of software developers: open-plan floors, bench seating, whiteboards, couches for impromptu meetings, balconies overlooking the grounds and kitchen areas with snacks.
It's official now, we're just chickens to the world.
So the meme finally sticks and now we're screwed for the next decade? Who do we blame for the idea that "impromptu meetings" and those baloney is the way of working for programmers?
It's official now, we're just chickens to the world.
So the meme finally sticks and now we're screwed for the next decade? Who do we blame for the idea that "impromptu meetings" and those baloney is the way of working for programmers?
> the free-range working ways of software developers: open-plan floors
This couldn't be farther from the truth. See The Joel Test.
This couldn't be farther from the truth. See The Joel Test.
I've been there. They tried to make it look like all those startups in warehouses in SF, and for the most part succeeded. You see agile boards around, decent kitchens, people hanging out on couches talking work, and some people heads down coding.
The main difference is that they seem to be dressed in a bit more "business casual" than your typical SF startup in a warehouse.
The main difference is that they seem to be dressed in a bit more "business casual" than your typical SF startup in a warehouse.
GE went for a puff piece in the Times, and then tilted their hand and undermined their whole campaign. Just another hamfisted attempt to copy the visible trappings of successful software companies, which unfortunately are those companies own hamfisted attempts at trying to force re-create the startup success that they had in the past, before the early innovators departed.
Do you happen to have a link to the article?
Better to be a free range chicken than a caged chicken.
Actually, cubicles are a good thing.
Agreed, there is nothing as distracting to me as an open floor plan. I take every opportunity to work at home that I can get, because my productivity is so much higher when I am out of the office.
depends who you work with. I've been working with really immature loud new grads at my current company and the open floor plan is awful. I just want to work and they yell across the room to talk.
I really only have one coworker like this. It's more that I get easily distracted myself, so if I have nowhere to hide from distractions I will be affected by them. I don't usually do well listening to music and working at the same time, so headphones don't help either
better than open floor plan sure. I'd still prefer something that doesn't have my back out facing the open. I think there are multiple studies that show that sitting with your back facing away from people causes significant anxiety.
I'm torn. Cubicles lead to higher productivity, but lower quality of work-life (in my opinion). I really like my coworkers.
Cubicles for 4 people, with high partitions.
Sounds perfect (for me).
Well, small glass offices instead of cubicles, with million dollar views of course.
Well, small glass offices instead of cubicles, with million dollar views of course.
This is true.
I'd be interested whether they've adopted pair programming or not.
I've worked open plan solo and paired.
Solo: I have ADHD. It's a nightmare.
Paired: I have ADHD. I barely notice the background.
I've worked open plan solo and paired.
Solo: I have ADHD. It's a nightmare.
Paired: I have ADHD. I barely notice the background.
I wonder how strongly pair programming is correlated with open office plans. Depressing if true, but if pair programming offsets the distraction of open plans, there may be cases where it's more viable for a company to simply hire twice as many developers and save money on office space, just to get out of having to give people offices.
On the other hand, it seems like people doing pair programming in open plans would contribute to the overall noise and distraction- a warehouse full of pairs of people talking all the time would also be a bad scene. :(
On the other hand, it seems like people doing pair programming in open plans would contribute to the overall noise and distraction- a warehouse full of pairs of people talking all the time would also be a bad scene. :(
Noise is definitely a problem if the space has poor acoustics. Some Pivotal offices have spent a lot of money on sound absorbing surfaces.
I can't speak for other companies. We don't do open plan for money, it's just that it's easier to work this way for the way that we work.
That said: for colocated teams of solo developers, or distributed teams, open plan is poison.
I can't speak for other companies. We don't do open plan for money, it's just that it's easier to work this way for the way that we work.
That said: for colocated teams of solo developers, or distributed teams, open plan is poison.
Office space isn't that expensive.
While cost IS a factor, the idea seems to be going round that open plan is genuinely superior. (Although rarely so superior that the executives partake...)
While cost IS a factor, the idea seems to be going round that open plan is genuinely superior. (Although rarely so superior that the executives partake...)
Right, startup companies do open-plan because it is cheap, not because any actual developers are more productive or happier that way. It's supposed to be something you put up with until the company can afford offices... Only that point got lost somewhere along the way.
Hell why doesn't GE just remodel their offices to look like garages, because obviously that's the reason that Apple was successful...
Hell why doesn't GE just remodel their offices to look like garages, because obviously that's the reason that Apple was successful...
I think they've taken the Pivotal Labs (they even call them Predix Labs!) approach and do a LARGE amount of pairing.
You guys have had quite an influence :)
You guys have had quite an influence :)
That's great!
For Labs, our best outcome is to put ourselves out of a job because the clients are teaching themselves.
For Labs, our best outcome is to put ourselves out of a job because the clients are teaching themselves.
They will do a corporate rollout of pair programming once they Six Sigma Black Belts are done doing their lean workouts ;).
Yep they pair or threesome. Theres actually alot of pressure to group up. We would pair all day most days when I worked there.
I take you disliked it? A lot of people do.
I prefer flow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
I don't think they're mutually exclusive.
Have you never had an interesting conversation and then looked up, realising that 4 hours had passed?
In my experience, I find it easier to focus with someone next to me than by myself. To the point that I take half as much Ritalin on pairing days than when I work alone.
Have you never had an interesting conversation and then looked up, realising that 4 hours had passed?
In my experience, I find it easier to focus with someone next to me than by myself. To the point that I take half as much Ritalin on pairing days than when I work alone.
Maybe you're right? It has to be the right person/people. Also, combine pairing with an open office and now you have two people with double the chances of being interrupted. So it's circumstantial.
There are a lot of positive things about GE but let's not call it a startup. It's just not wired that way.
> “We had to be more capable in software,” Mr. Immelt said he decided.
I hate to be snarky, but I suspect this is not how GE Digital actually came about.
I hate to be snarky, but I suspect this is not how GE Digital actually came about.
Actually I hate to be snarky but big CEO's like Immelt that is kind of they way they operate. By gathering and processing big thoughts and issuing directives. It's probably one of a thousand things that he said to people, the other 999 the troops found out and told him didn't have any merit.
It's hard for me to think of General Electric without also thinking of Jack Welch and those massive, massive layoffs.
Plus the legacy of purposeful pollution, stuff like stack ranking and other scumbaggery.
They were a customer of mine, they used to incorporate pencils into leases of capital equipment to reduce tax exposure.
They were a customer of mine, they used to incorporate pencils into leases of capital equipment to reduce tax exposure.
They should hire as CEO someone who helped build a software startup into a large company to show the appropriate leadership. Otherwise there will be too much corporate inertia and the old way of doing things.
Like Google, they should open up a large tech office in NYC, where many top level software people want to live.
Like Google, they should open up a large tech office in NYC, where many top level software people want to live.
They are moving their corporate HQ to Boston where many top level software people DO live.
I lived in Boston (Inman Sq, Cambridge, later Back Bay, Boston) for 5 years after my undergraduate education. NYC is far, far more interesting and exciting than Boston. As an indirect indicator, NYC draws far more VC than Boston.
Given that GE is its own VC for the context, they really don't need to be in NYC.
More importantly, industrial Internet of Shit developers, smart grid companies, and related activities are going on at the Seaport District, right where GE is setting up shop.
More importantly, industrial Internet of Shit developers, smart grid companies, and related activities are going on at the Seaport District, right where GE is setting up shop.
What area of NYC is the equivalent of Kendall Square
Depending on the data that you look at, NYC and Boston are pretty close. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/global...
More importantly, Boston is much heavier into manufacturing technology, hardware, B2B software, etc whereas NYC is more focused on consumer, retail, fashion, etc. Boston is pretty clearly a better choice for GE.
In reality GE's HQ in Boston will represent a tiny fraction of their global employees, though, so it doesn't really matter. https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/03/11/huge-but-its...
More importantly, Boston is much heavier into manufacturing technology, hardware, B2B software, etc whereas NYC is more focused on consumer, retail, fashion, etc. Boston is pretty clearly a better choice for GE.
In reality GE's HQ in Boston will represent a tiny fraction of their global employees, though, so it doesn't really matter. https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/03/11/huge-but-its...
In Boston, they get interns from Harvard, MIT, Tufts, Northeastern and Wentworth. They get software people who don't want to live in NYC.
And they don't compete with every startup in NYC for those brains.
And they don't compete with every startup in NYC for those brains.
"As an indirect indicator, NYC draws far more VC than Boston"
Far more, he says
Anyway not true
NYC has alot more capital floating around but the subset of it that is VC isn't more than Boston
Far more, he says
Anyway not true
NYC has alot more capital floating around but the subset of it that is VC isn't more than Boston
Predix is built on top of Cloud Foundry. GE are a Foundation member and one of the major investors in Pivotal, which in turn is the majority donor of engineering on Cloud Foundry. By way of disclosure, I work for Pivotal. None of this should be seen as official comment.
So the key thing is: from where I'm sitting, GE are actually serious about this. Really serious. They are not alone.
There's this cliché that big companies are all sitting around, waiting to be disrupted, blissfully unaware that someone in the Valley is going to kill them.
It's getting to be a less and less plausible strawman. Those business leaders are reading the same books, hearing the same ideas and -- crucially -- many of them are consciously seeking out people who can teach them (including, I guess this is a disclosure, Pivotal Labs, our consulting/coaching wing).
Enterprises now want to disrupt themselves, because it 1) hurts their existing competitors and 2) creates moats against startups.
The strawman that giant enterprises are ignorant and ripe for disruption because of their arrogance -- the classical model of hubris -- isn't true.
Hubris cuts both ways. It's the Valley that's becoming lazy and complacent, assuming that they have a monopoly on interesting problems, on big revenues, on agile and lean development.
The barbarians used to be at the gates of Rome. Now the Romans are at the gates of the barbarians, and they're much more heavily armed.
So the key thing is: from where I'm sitting, GE are actually serious about this. Really serious. They are not alone.
There's this cliché that big companies are all sitting around, waiting to be disrupted, blissfully unaware that someone in the Valley is going to kill them.
It's getting to be a less and less plausible strawman. Those business leaders are reading the same books, hearing the same ideas and -- crucially -- many of them are consciously seeking out people who can teach them (including, I guess this is a disclosure, Pivotal Labs, our consulting/coaching wing).
Enterprises now want to disrupt themselves, because it 1) hurts their existing competitors and 2) creates moats against startups.
The strawman that giant enterprises are ignorant and ripe for disruption because of their arrogance -- the classical model of hubris -- isn't true.
Hubris cuts both ways. It's the Valley that's becoming lazy and complacent, assuming that they have a monopoly on interesting problems, on big revenues, on agile and lean development.
The barbarians used to be at the gates of Rome. Now the Romans are at the gates of the barbarians, and they're much more heavily armed.
> The strawman that giant enterprises are ignorant and ripe for disruption because of their arrogance -- the classical model of hubris -- isn't true.
I'll buy that.
I still think they are ripe for disruption because they are giant enterprises.
I can't think of any examples of big bureaucratic organizations with a settled culture transforming into something different and better. Normally they get replaced.
I'll buy that.
I still think they are ripe for disruption because they are giant enterprises.
I can't think of any examples of big bureaucratic organizations with a settled culture transforming into something different and better. Normally they get replaced.
One example: GE in the 1980s.
From what reads like a bit of a puff piece about Jack Welch [1], who became Chairman and CEO of GE in 1981:
"Under Welch, GE exited many of the traditional markets it had competed in for years, like consumer appliances and air conditioning, and entered completely new areas like medical technology, finance, television and services."
During the restructurings, Welch laid off 100,000 or so people (depending on how you count), earning him the nickname "Neutron Jack". He also instituted the policy of firing the bottom-performing 10% of managers each year [2].
[1] http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/neutron-jack-welc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch
From what reads like a bit of a puff piece about Jack Welch [1], who became Chairman and CEO of GE in 1981:
"Under Welch, GE exited many of the traditional markets it had competed in for years, like consumer appliances and air conditioning, and entered completely new areas like medical technology, finance, television and services."
During the restructurings, Welch laid off 100,000 or so people (depending on how you count), earning him the nickname "Neutron Jack". He also instituted the policy of firing the bottom-performing 10% of managers each year [2].
[1] http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/neutron-jack-welc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch
The longevity of these kinds of organisations is a hint that they've survived other disruptions before.
We're engaging with more enterprises at Pivotal than we used to.
They're all different.
Some "get it" really quickly and pow, off they go. Most of our repeated Labs engagements with such customers are because they're trying to transform as quickly as possible by seeding teams all across the org.
Others enterprises need, uh, repeated examples.
Some will presumably never get it. And yeah, they'll find one day that the party is over.
But, to repeat, they're all different. Applying a single rule (enterprise slow, startup fast) to heterogenous situations is a going to pay rich returns ... but not to the venture funds.
We're engaging with more enterprises at Pivotal than we used to.
They're all different.
Some "get it" really quickly and pow, off they go. Most of our repeated Labs engagements with such customers are because they're trying to transform as quickly as possible by seeding teams all across the org.
Others enterprises need, uh, repeated examples.
Some will presumably never get it. And yeah, they'll find one day that the party is over.
But, to repeat, they're all different. Applying a single rule (enterprise slow, startup fast) to heterogenous situations is a going to pay rich returns ... but not to the venture funds.
My personal business model since around 2002 or so has been to try to join disruptive teams within established firms.
Before that I was working in early-to-middle-stage startups ( but not startups in California ).
What I've seen is that you can actually bring something to "market", and the rest of the company will do everything it can to scuttle it. "The rest of the company" is busy keeping the old fires burning. So you don't get buy-in.
I've seen people leave relatively no-risk millions on the table to scuttle these things. But the main body of the organization is able to overemphasize risk in a way that leads to scuttling.
You'd have to have somebody fighting for the thing full time. Even then, it's not enough. I also won't say it's not that the others simply do not understand what was done. and to be fair, the engineering staff weren't really up to it anyway. When you've adapted to just duct tape fixes, it's hard to embrace a real fix. This, and the people at the coal face of these "products" proved less than capable of deployment.
Bluntly, people like having a buggy product or process to charge hours to. it's less work to jigger or abandon any measurement of defect rates and appeal to nostalgia. Management likes having "engineers" actually just doing clerical work because there's then no deployment cost. And frankly, we probably got it all done too cheaply.
I'm in the process of abandoning that model and going to work directly for the customer ( not a customer of any of the firms I worked for, of course ). This is a "firm" that's going from having contractors do maintenance to taking it "organic".
To quote Walt Kelly - "We has net the enemy, and it is us."
Before that I was working in early-to-middle-stage startups ( but not startups in California ).
What I've seen is that you can actually bring something to "market", and the rest of the company will do everything it can to scuttle it. "The rest of the company" is busy keeping the old fires burning. So you don't get buy-in.
I've seen people leave relatively no-risk millions on the table to scuttle these things. But the main body of the organization is able to overemphasize risk in a way that leads to scuttling.
You'd have to have somebody fighting for the thing full time. Even then, it's not enough. I also won't say it's not that the others simply do not understand what was done. and to be fair, the engineering staff weren't really up to it anyway. When you've adapted to just duct tape fixes, it's hard to embrace a real fix. This, and the people at the coal face of these "products" proved less than capable of deployment.
Bluntly, people like having a buggy product or process to charge hours to. it's less work to jigger or abandon any measurement of defect rates and appeal to nostalgia. Management likes having "engineers" actually just doing clerical work because there's then no deployment cost. And frankly, we probably got it all done too cheaply.
I'm in the process of abandoning that model and going to work directly for the customer ( not a customer of any of the firms I worked for, of course ). This is a "firm" that's going from having contractors do maintenance to taking it "organic".
To quote Walt Kelly - "We has net the enemy, and it is us."
Yes, this -- don't think that just because a big company throws words and money around that they are going to change. There can be many in middle management who either don't want change;or are too set in their ways and unwilling to learn what it takes to change ;or are simply too incompetent to change. Look at Yahoo.
I agree with you, actually. I've seen before that upper management can be shown the advantages quickly, and folks at the coal face can be shown the advantages quickly.
People in the middle, whose reckoning includes career prospects and health insurance and worrying about mortgages and where their kids will go to school, tend to lean towards the "never take a risk ever" school of thought.
And a lot of corporate cultures are built on punishment and reward, distributed veto powers and a fondness for finding a neck whenever something goes wrong.
But, again, they are not all the same.
People in the middle, whose reckoning includes career prospects and health insurance and worrying about mortgages and where their kids will go to school, tend to lean towards the "never take a risk ever" school of thought.
And a lot of corporate cultures are built on punishment and reward, distributed veto powers and a fondness for finding a neck whenever something goes wrong.
But, again, they are not all the same.
[deleted]
To be most competitive in today's environment, GE should be broken up into separate companies listed separately on the stock exchange so that management can focus on improving a single (if large) product line.
For example: 1. Jet Engines and electric turbines 2. Railroad locomotives 3. Appliances 4. Medical devices and imaging and all other things medical 5. Lighting.
The market values to shareholders would be higher.
The firms could focus on their one product line and would have to work harder against competition since there will not be cross subsidizes.
The smaller firms could also be more responsive to markets and respond more quickly because there would be less bureaucratic inertia.
For example: 1. Jet Engines and electric turbines 2. Railroad locomotives 3. Appliances 4. Medical devices and imaging and all other things medical 5. Lighting.
The market values to shareholders would be higher.
The firms could focus on their one product line and would have to work harder against competition since there will not be cross subsidizes.
The smaller firms could also be more responsive to markets and respond more quickly because there would be less bureaucratic inertia.
I don't feel qualified to opine on GE's capital allocation record.
Kind of like the Google-Alphabet approach?
>> giant enterprises are ignorant and ripe for disruption because of their arrogance -- the classical model of hubris
Was this the main reason for disruption ? as i understand it, most often it came from knowing that disruption most likely will greatly reduce revenues/profits and hurt the stock , at least at the short term, coupled with a short term focus that's just embedded in our economy.
The hubris was mostly just talk.
Also a question since you come from the field: how does predix compare with the thingworx OS(which seem to be extremely capable, but expensive) ?
Was this the main reason for disruption ? as i understand it, most often it came from knowing that disruption most likely will greatly reduce revenues/profits and hurt the stock , at least at the short term, coupled with a short term focus that's just embedded in our economy.
The hubris was mostly just talk.
Also a question since you come from the field: how does predix compare with the thingworx OS(which seem to be extremely capable, but expensive) ?
I'm in a different part of the technical world, so I couldn't fairly compare those things.
I work on Cloud Foundry as an opensource contributor for Pivotal, not directly on Predix for GE (or BlueMix for IBM, or Helion for HP etc).
I work on Cloud Foundry as an opensource contributor for Pivotal, not directly on Predix for GE (or BlueMix for IBM, or Helion for HP etc).
> Enterprises now want to disrupt themselves, because it 1) hurts their existing competitors and 2) creates moats against startups.
Do they really want that? Or just say that want it? As comparison, everybody says that they want to get in better shape. But how many put in the work?
I think there's an enormous amount of money to be made (and probably, being made right now) in going to existing large companies and selling them "innovation" consulting that gives them the feeling of change without doing anything actually hard. It's the equivalent of buying low-fat cookies and calling it a day.
In practice I expect very, very few of these companies to actually do anything meaningfully different. As an example of that, look at how "agile" has changed over the years. 90% of shops I talk to where people are "doing Agile" are actually doing mini-waterfall. It's the same old bullshit with new labels and a slightly faster release cadence.
That's not to say that startups will do any better on average. So many people chased unicorn status without any thought of building actual businesses. But I still expect the startups with a clue to do a fine job going after large companies in the low-fat cookies camp.
Do they really want that? Or just say that want it? As comparison, everybody says that they want to get in better shape. But how many put in the work?
I think there's an enormous amount of money to be made (and probably, being made right now) in going to existing large companies and selling them "innovation" consulting that gives them the feeling of change without doing anything actually hard. It's the equivalent of buying low-fat cookies and calling it a day.
In practice I expect very, very few of these companies to actually do anything meaningfully different. As an example of that, look at how "agile" has changed over the years. 90% of shops I talk to where people are "doing Agile" are actually doing mini-waterfall. It's the same old bullshit with new labels and a slightly faster release cadence.
That's not to say that startups will do any better on average. So many people chased unicorn status without any thought of building actual businesses. But I still expect the startups with a clue to do a fine job going after large companies in the low-fat cookies camp.
There seems to be a trend among Fortune 100 management that belief = reality. This attitude makes sense perhaps if you're a personal trainer to help motivate people but management doesn't seem to understand that they need to shape up and convince a fairly low engagement workforce that they're all in it together and that they know what they did in the past isn't how they're going to run things in the future. This can be accomplished by hiring well-known rather than well-connected leadership, firing old managers, and rewarding employees in ways not seen before.
> There seems to be a trend among Fortune 100 management that belief = reality.
That makes total sense to me. The larger a top-down organization is, the more the people on top exist in a reality that is socially mediated. That's especially true given that the theory of the MBA is that it's a universal management degree, meaning that knowledge of the domain is at best secondary. In a social context, confidence is very appealing. Strong belief becomes executives' reality.
That makes total sense to me. The larger a top-down organization is, the more the people on top exist in a reality that is socially mediated. That's especially true given that the theory of the MBA is that it's a universal management degree, meaning that knowledge of the domain is at best secondary. In a social context, confidence is very appealing. Strong belief becomes executives' reality.
> Do they really want that? Or just say that want it?
Some. Some not.
My argument was against the stereotype of complacency, which itself inspires a different kind of complacency.
I've got skin in this game, having been one of the handsomely-billed consultants (for Pivotal Labs) until transferring into Cloud R&D.
So I'll tell this joke before someone else tells it. It's adapted, of course, from a joke about therapists.
Q: How many agile consultants does it to change a lightbulb?
A: One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
Some. Some not.
My argument was against the stereotype of complacency, which itself inspires a different kind of complacency.
I've got skin in this game, having been one of the handsomely-billed consultants (for Pivotal Labs) until transferring into Cloud R&D.
So I'll tell this joke before someone else tells it. It's adapted, of course, from a joke about therapists.
Q: How many agile consultants does it to change a lightbulb?
A: One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
You've hit the nail on the head.
> Today one of San Ramon’s most important projects is to build a computer operating system, but on an industrial scale ... The project is central to G.E.’s drive to become what Mr. Immelt says will be a “top 10 software company” by 2020.
Does anyone know of such a list that's a genuine reflection of reality?
Does anyone know of such a list that's a genuine reflection of reality?
The "top" idea is really murky because there's so many ways to define leading. I'll make a large bet that GE Digital will not be top at the following for developers due to so much inertia in IT and software in the company being cost-centric rather than innovation-centric:
- Pay / comp - Perks - Perceived difficult technical problems
They may win on number employeed (they just announced a big software development office in India) or perhaps when comparing these figures to competitors like Honeywell, Caterpillar, Phillips rather than the big, high value brand software companies.
This isn't to say that this means failure. Perhaps they can win on cultural perception (say, work-life balance) or career growth and capitalize upon a backlash against Silicon Valley engineer lifestyles. But everything I've seen about Predix from a customer and engineer perspective, which is what they're betting an awful lot on, is hardly compelling to me.
- Pay / comp - Perks - Perceived difficult technical problems
They may win on number employeed (they just announced a big software development office in India) or perhaps when comparing these figures to competitors like Honeywell, Caterpillar, Phillips rather than the big, high value brand software companies.
This isn't to say that this means failure. Perhaps they can win on cultural perception (say, work-life balance) or career growth and capitalize upon a backlash against Silicon Valley engineer lifestyles. But everything I've seen about Predix from a customer and engineer perspective, which is what they're betting an awful lot on, is hardly compelling to me.
This reminds me of my company. The IT department is also calling itself "Digital" now and they are pushing themselves more and more into all company divisions. But they are managed by people who don't have passion for or understanding of technology. Sometimes it feels like the leadership is afraid of technology.
They just know that "Digital" and "Big Data" are big now and they have to get into it. It reminds me of the internet bubble times when lots of companies did "internet" without knowing what it really means.
They just know that "Digital" and "Big Data" are big now and they have to get into it. It reminds me of the internet bubble times when lots of companies did "internet" without knowing what it really means.
They've been saying this for years. Also, I've seen some companies get on the list that were far from the best to work at by gaming the system.
Didn't GE used to do stack ranking review and fire the bottom 10% annually?
Does anyone know if they fired the bottom 10% of the C suite?
Yes, but you had a few chances to get out of the bottom.
You had to be a "C-player" for something like three consecutive review periods before you were let go.
(source: my father was a manager at GE for decades)
You had to be a "C-player" for something like three consecutive review periods before you were let go.
(source: my father was a manager at GE for decades)
Do they still use stack ranking?
GE under Jack Welch essentially invented stack ranking and its attendant hardline firings.
Throwaway, as I work for a company that competes with GE in this space.
This is GE's business model. When they want to enter a space, they throw money ($B) at it until they have a business. They tend to prefer organic builout, but they will buy companies or partner if they think they can't win organically. If you're willing to do that, you almost always get some traction, just because you have unimaginable resources and are willing to adjust your tactics if the initial gambit fails. They tend to do a lot of advertising for key businesses - this is why you see GE Aviation billboards in airports, and GE Oil & Gas ads in Houston.
The model has worked pretty well in the past - a good example is GE's entry into commercial jet engines in the early 70s. A good example where it failed was GE's computer business in the 60s.
I can't prove it (just a feeling), but I think Predix doesn't really have what it takes yet. We've spent a lot of time studying it, and it doesn't seem to offer real value to customers yet. That doesn't mean it won't get there eventually.
However, if Predix doesn't do well, we expect them to go on an acquisition spree to buy a few of the winners. Bently Nevada is a good example of that play - GE controls something like 70% of the machinery protection market. They didn't build it, they just went and bought Bently.
GE is clearly signaling that they badly want to be in this market, and I think it's pretty likely they'll eventually get there.
This is GE's business model. When they want to enter a space, they throw money ($B) at it until they have a business. They tend to prefer organic builout, but they will buy companies or partner if they think they can't win organically. If you're willing to do that, you almost always get some traction, just because you have unimaginable resources and are willing to adjust your tactics if the initial gambit fails. They tend to do a lot of advertising for key businesses - this is why you see GE Aviation billboards in airports, and GE Oil & Gas ads in Houston.
The model has worked pretty well in the past - a good example is GE's entry into commercial jet engines in the early 70s. A good example where it failed was GE's computer business in the 60s.
I can't prove it (just a feeling), but I think Predix doesn't really have what it takes yet. We've spent a lot of time studying it, and it doesn't seem to offer real value to customers yet. That doesn't mean it won't get there eventually.
However, if Predix doesn't do well, we expect them to go on an acquisition spree to buy a few of the winners. Bently Nevada is a good example of that play - GE controls something like 70% of the machinery protection market. They didn't build it, they just went and bought Bently.
GE is clearly signaling that they badly want to be in this market, and I think it's pretty likely they'll eventually get there.
I'm also on a throw-away. I work for the Predix team and its a giant cluster fuck.
I think one month we had a 90% uptime. Our services crash all the time.
Our new boss has said he has around a 500-600 million budget for buying interesting companies.
I think one month we had a 90% uptime. Our services crash all the time.
Our new boss has said he has around a 500-600 million budget for buying interesting companies.
Worked on a software project built on top of Predix. It was like building software on quicksand how often predix and cloudfoundry would fail.
Does Predix track cf-release, to your knowledge?
We track it on PWS, meaning we're upgrading the whole platform live every week or two. So I'm surprised it's unstable for you.
We track it on PWS, meaning we're upgrading the whole platform live every week or two. So I'm surprised it's unstable for you.
It might have been how shittilly our app was built and everyone I talked to was just shifting blame to the the Predix/CF team.
But, correct me if I'm wrong,...isn't predix and cloudfoundry all hosted on top of AWS instances at the moment?
All of our URLs were AWS urls. It was funny.
We were hosting on top of our competition.
But, correct me if I'm wrong,...isn't predix and cloudfoundry all hosted on top of AWS instances at the moment?
All of our URLs were AWS urls. It was funny.
We were hosting on top of our competition.
Predix POCs were on AWS but have migrated primarily to internal datacenters after customers expressed little interest in running applications using Predix on AWS. Not sure if this is poor foresight by the Predix team or an unexpected change in customer sentiment.
I'd be surprised if anyone outside Silicon Valley in GE's LOBs wanted to consider AWS for production considering how many have likely invested greatly into their own datacenters as well as the general trends of non-technology companies to fear an external cloud first instinctively regardless of how poorly managed their internal IT is. This puts GE in a poor position potentially in that even if they create a great platform that their customers that are perhaps even more technology phobic will need to invest money as well into areas they historically have failed to generate much ROI from. But perhaps GE's dominance / position can help them here and these concerns are long addressed.
I'd be surprised if anyone outside Silicon Valley in GE's LOBs wanted to consider AWS for production considering how many have likely invested greatly into their own datacenters as well as the general trends of non-technology companies to fear an external cloud first instinctively regardless of how poorly managed their internal IT is. This puts GE in a poor position potentially in that even if they create a great platform that their customers that are perhaps even more technology phobic will need to invest money as well into areas they historically have failed to generate much ROI from. But perhaps GE's dominance / position can help them here and these concerns are long addressed.
I can't speak for where Predix is hosted.
PWS is on AWS. But Cloud Foundry itself can be mounted on AWS, OpenStack, Azure, GPC is coming and others I've forgotten.
PWS is on AWS. But Cloud Foundry itself can be mounted on AWS, OpenStack, Azure, GPC is coming and others I've forgotten.
There are two.. AWS and hosted in virgina.. AWS is FAR better then hosted.. the hosted predix is 90% of the issues
What was the failure mode for Cloud Foundry? Going down completely, rejecting commands, etc?
It was my experience it was just "Bye Felicia"
BUT it might have been how our app was coded we weren't taking advantage of some sort of built in failure hooks or something.
BUT it might have been how our app was coded we weren't taking advantage of some sort of built in failure hooks or something.
80% of the issues are caused by our shit infrastructure running on VMware.
CF is a pile of shit anyway. Its overly bloated and its hard to support and deal with
CF is a pile of shit anyway. Its overly bloated and its hard to support and deal with
the running joke in the San Ramon office is if GE moved the building 20 minutes away.. 80% of the company would quit because their commute was too long
I'm formerly with a large non-offshore contractor for GE recently and you may even be familiar with me given I was in the middle of a number of outages related to AWS that impacted San Ramon and the rest of GE. There were other reasons for Predix outages than just network and compute infrastructure but I felt unable to prevent most of these outages with the limitations given to me structurally and architecturally.
The problem I see with an acquisition growth approach IMO is that I would only expect GE to retain maybe 20% of the engineers after 3 years due to the lack of adequate supporting infrastructure and cultural foundation to help long term engagement. None of the talks I watched from management at GE Digital sounded focused at all either - the vision is all over the place and sounded like children wishing for ponies and candy without explaining how to get there and what to prioritize. That lack of management focus is what start-up folks recognize as a recipe for failure regardless of funding level.
The problem I see with an acquisition growth approach IMO is that I would only expect GE to retain maybe 20% of the engineers after 3 years due to the lack of adequate supporting infrastructure and cultural foundation to help long term engagement. None of the talks I watched from management at GE Digital sounded focused at all either - the vision is all over the place and sounded like children wishing for ponies and candy without explaining how to get there and what to prioritize. That lack of management focus is what start-up folks recognize as a recipe for failure regardless of funding level.
I agree 100%. Like all large companies there are some really sharp people at GE Digital. Here is my insider issues with GE
1) Sales/Execs push product. Predix is so beyond fucked its not funny. I don't think anyone can come in and fix all the tech debt. Sales will push new customers and force engineers to meet their deadlines. Execs won't allow engineers time to fix anything. Its just keep pushing out awful hacks and 70% working products.
2) Anything you say your manager might listen but it nothing will happen. In order to get anything done you have 10 meetings about it during the week.
1) Sales/Execs push product. Predix is so beyond fucked its not funny. I don't think anyone can come in and fix all the tech debt. Sales will push new customers and force engineers to meet their deadlines. Execs won't allow engineers time to fix anything. Its just keep pushing out awful hacks and 70% working products.
2) Anything you say your manager might listen but it nothing will happen. In order to get anything done you have 10 meetings about it during the week.
This gets at the crux of the problem that I have with the GE recruiting commercials more than anything else - it's not as engineering-focused of a culture as it would lead you to believe. It's certainly a lot more hands-on "get things done" than many big companies I've seen (perhaps too much!), but it's still a big, boring company whose primary advantages are fundamentally "it's large" rather than based upon engineering innovations, and sales people have more power fundamentally than engineers. A great deal of people work really hard and people tend to be polite, but working smarter is far, far more important in technology than just effort, and appointing all your fresh, brightest college grads into management tracks as priority is furthering the brain drain problem.
pretty much describes GE.
The San Ramon office is like a h1b1 warehouse. I think they know they have these people almost locked in and take advantage of it. I've been here over a year and have yet to see a single person fired.
You could honestly fire 40% of the people in GE Digital and it'll function the same if not better then it did before
The San Ramon office is like a h1b1 warehouse. I think they know they have these people almost locked in and take advantage of it. I've been here over a year and have yet to see a single person fired.
You could honestly fire 40% of the people in GE Digital and it'll function the same if not better then it did before
Do you mind telling who you work for. I work in the oil/gas industrial automation. from the article I really couldn't see what they could offer. I have thought for a while that a company should offered an azure like service that the small firms like mine could build custom services on top of.
Or finance? They just finished unwinding GE Capital after failing at it for 15 years.
GE Capital was quite successful. GE powered it down because it put them above the threshold for Fed regulation under Dodd-Frank, and they did not want to deal with that.
Some years (pre-crash) GE Capital made more than the rest of the company combined. Not sure that's failing.
GE had a commercial blitz during the recent Olympics touting that they are a digital company:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbfudoXjBM&list=PLxRhTjvLly...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbfudoXjBM&list=PLxRhTjvLly...
"Matt Krause, the plant manager, said that last winter, when a snowstorm shut the factory for a day, the sensor network detected that the plant had consumed 1,000 pounds of argon, an inert gas used in coatings for parts. The leak was fixed, saving $350,000 a year."
By my (suspect) arithmetic, that is about 200 cubic metres of Argon at STP in one day. Do they have the stuff on mains around the factory?
By my (suspect) arithmetic, that is about 200 cubic metres of Argon at STP in one day. Do they have the stuff on mains around the factory?
Not a materials scientist but argon-oxygen is a common first step in plasma cleaning surfaces (critical especially for allowing whatever you want to CVD to adhere properly to certain metals) before applying primer. (It's also used in nitride hardening aluminium.)
Considering how large GE is, I wouldn't be surprised if they had it 'on tap' in a PLT automation network and they take bulk delivery from a supplier every month or two. and some bad process engineer forgot to add a sensor check in loop (or his manager just told him to "screw it, argons cheap, no need to add a flow meter to this process" as a cost cutting factor).
Considering how large GE is, I wouldn't be surprised if they had it 'on tap' in a PLT automation network and they take bulk delivery from a supplier every month or two. and some bad process engineer forgot to add a sensor check in loop (or his manager just told him to "screw it, argons cheap, no need to add a flow meter to this process" as a cost cutting factor).
I worked on one of the projects that C3 was involved in as a GE employee and agree completely with Seibel's assessment.
Some things I observed:
#1 I watched a top software development company that was doing a great job get fired because they told GE that a desired deadline was impossible. One of the reasons the non-technical manager who fired them gave for the termination was that he didn't feel like they wrote enough lines of code.
#2 A very corporate culture. Developers could not wear jeans in the office. You needed come to work in business casual or dressier attire. And this was one of the innovation centers.
#3 A "corporate" rollout of TDD where a bunch of enterprise developers who hated TDD were given TDD training and then had no requirement to use it for 6 months....plus none of the other practices that go with it. In the end most devs never adopted the practice. (I am a TDD advocate and trust me I tired to get them to use a different approach but it was like talking to a wall)
#4 Crazy bureaucracy to get anything done. Servers need to be in a private double secure cloud (for non production non sensitive components) and developers worked for over a year with out any actual servers to run code on, and were not allowed to stand up servers under you desk as a stop gap due to corporate security. It would even take weeks to even get basics like office supplies that had to go through a special workflow.
#5 During this period of no servers, I was in charge of getting the CI infrastructure set up. One time I had a six sigma black belt ask me the status of the project. When I told him it was on hold due to lack of infrastructure he said "Lack of servers is no reason for not being able to roll out CI in our organization"
#6 Lots of training for things not needed for your job. Six Sigma (the only useful thing was lean which could have been taught in a quarter of the time). There was a good 20-40 hours of mandatory training per year (at least) for things relating to corporate compliance, safety etc., but not things relating to your job.
#7 For one project the use of Javascript was prohibited in favor of using a server side technology that generates it because the enterprise architect thought it would not be realistic to expect Java developers to learn or be able to also know Javascript.
#8 It was like pulling teeth to get time off to attend a conference even if you paid for it with your own money.
#9 Lots of C-player engineers were promoted because they could play the politics while the good ones who actually could get things done/code left.
All of this was over a 2 year period just a few years ago, after Immelt declared they were a software company at one of their newly established "Innovation/Centers of Excellence". Needless to say I have moved on to more interesting work.
Though this is a little better than what was described during their outsourcing binge I just don't see GE ever really being able to take on software effectively. Their corporate culture is just not set up for it. They would be much better either having completely separate divisions that they own a stake in but do not manage in any way/shape/form or partnering with companies that do software well.
I would love to be wrong, but my guess is that a few decent engineers will join based on the slick ads, and maybe a updated office, things will fall apart and they will move on.
Some things I observed:
#1 I watched a top software development company that was doing a great job get fired because they told GE that a desired deadline was impossible. One of the reasons the non-technical manager who fired them gave for the termination was that he didn't feel like they wrote enough lines of code.
#2 A very corporate culture. Developers could not wear jeans in the office. You needed come to work in business casual or dressier attire. And this was one of the innovation centers.
#3 A "corporate" rollout of TDD where a bunch of enterprise developers who hated TDD were given TDD training and then had no requirement to use it for 6 months....plus none of the other practices that go with it. In the end most devs never adopted the practice. (I am a TDD advocate and trust me I tired to get them to use a different approach but it was like talking to a wall)
#4 Crazy bureaucracy to get anything done. Servers need to be in a private double secure cloud (for non production non sensitive components) and developers worked for over a year with out any actual servers to run code on, and were not allowed to stand up servers under you desk as a stop gap due to corporate security. It would even take weeks to even get basics like office supplies that had to go through a special workflow.
#5 During this period of no servers, I was in charge of getting the CI infrastructure set up. One time I had a six sigma black belt ask me the status of the project. When I told him it was on hold due to lack of infrastructure he said "Lack of servers is no reason for not being able to roll out CI in our organization"
#6 Lots of training for things not needed for your job. Six Sigma (the only useful thing was lean which could have been taught in a quarter of the time). There was a good 20-40 hours of mandatory training per year (at least) for things relating to corporate compliance, safety etc., but not things relating to your job.
#7 For one project the use of Javascript was prohibited in favor of using a server side technology that generates it because the enterprise architect thought it would not be realistic to expect Java developers to learn or be able to also know Javascript.
#8 It was like pulling teeth to get time off to attend a conference even if you paid for it with your own money.
#9 Lots of C-player engineers were promoted because they could play the politics while the good ones who actually could get things done/code left.
All of this was over a 2 year period just a few years ago, after Immelt declared they were a software company at one of their newly established "Innovation/Centers of Excellence". Needless to say I have moved on to more interesting work.
Though this is a little better than what was described during their outsourcing binge I just don't see GE ever really being able to take on software effectively. Their corporate culture is just not set up for it. They would be much better either having completely separate divisions that they own a stake in but do not manage in any way/shape/form or partnering with companies that do software well.
I would love to be wrong, but my guess is that a few decent engineers will join based on the slick ads, and maybe a updated office, things will fall apart and they will move on.
> he didn't feel like they wrote enough lines of code.
Say what you want about Steve Balmer but he had the right attitude towards that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHI7RTKhlz0&feature=youtu.be
As to the rest, I get the feeling that a lot of players in the market that now need software have the exact same tales being told about them. It is going to be a wonderment to me if I will be about to get through a day in 10 years without a IoT failure.
Say what you want about Steve Balmer but he had the right attitude towards that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHI7RTKhlz0&feature=youtu.be
As to the rest, I get the feeling that a lot of players in the market that now need software have the exact same tales being told about them. It is going to be a wonderment to me if I will be about to get through a day in 10 years without a IoT failure.
Given what I saw I'm amazed that any of their software actually works. Perhaps Predix will buck that trend, but I still posit that this would be the exception not the rule for them. What I can say is that I worked for a number of other large companies and the only other company that came close to having this level of inefficiency was a defense contractor. While some of these other large corporations had a some WTF moments for me GE had a much larger number, but it is a large organization so other's experiences may be different etc..
GE outsourced the majority of its technical jobs to offshore firms. I remember hearing a statistic that for every 1 GE employee in the technology department there were 4 offshore consultants. The role of GE employees in the technology department shifted from a technical skill-set to a managerial skill-set. Many of my co-workers had degrees in finance and marketing, and had never written a line of code in their life. The lack of technical expertise within the organization created what I would call a culture of fear, where people feared the software they managed because they didn't understand it.
The official term for offshore software engineers was GDC. I have no clue what the acronym stood for, but over time it certainly become a derogatory term. I remember being mocked by my co-workers for writing code and being nicknamed a GDC (as in, why would you do the work we pay people pennies to do). It was almost like a caste system within the company, where these GDC employees were low paid and looked down upon by many.
The offshore model certainly was ineffective and the result of employee discontent, however, the practice was continued and mandated at the executive level. Then the economy crashed. GE decided it was finally time to bring jobs back to the US and hire software engineers. Why? Because they were able to take hundreds of millions in federal tax subsidies from US tax payers. (As an aside, someone mentioned GE moving its HQ to Boston to be closer to engineering talent. Taxes are still the main driver here)
GE soon began hiring US software engineers at a number of designated centers where they were segregated from the rest of the company. The interesting thing is that culturally these employees were largely treated like their GDC predecessors. The perception of software engineers being low-wage assembly line employees was, in my opinion, just too engrained into the company culture.
So when GE describes this transformation to a software company, I believe the most important aspect of this transformation will be changing the company culture and employee attitudes toward software engineers. They will need to undo a decade long effort to turn engineering into an assembly line.