Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Yahoo! Eating Peanut Butter, Finds its Structure Messy & Strategies Fuzzy


Straight from horse's mouth, allegdly from Senior V.P of Yahoo, Brad Garlinghouse, an internal memo was forwarded all over the place late Friday, and made head lines in WSJ Saturday morning.

Experts are guessing this was written with full knowledge that it would be forwarded outside the company, but it still has some strong statements about Yahoo's fuzzy strategy, its duplicate properties, and its messy structure. Among other things, it calls for 15-20% cut in headcount, which should get traders busy on Monday.

Here is the complete long Transcript obtained from WSJ.

Three and half years ago, I enthusiastically joined Yahoo! The magnitude of the opportunity was only matched by the magnitude of the assets. And an amazing team has been responsible for rebuilding Yahoo!
It has been a profound experience. I am fortunate to have been a part of dramatic change for the Company. And our successes speak for themselves. More users than ever, more engaging than ever and more profitable than ever!
I proudly bleed purple and yellow everyday! And like so many people here, I love this company.
But all is not well. Last Thursday's NY Times article was a blessing in the disguise of a painful public flogging. While it lacked accurate details, its conclusions rang true, and thus was a much needed wake up call. But also a call to action. A clear statement with which I, and far too many Yahoo's, agreed. And thankfully a reminder. A reminder that the measure of any person is not in how many times he or she falls down - but rather the spirit and resolve used to get back up. The same is now true of our Company.
It's time for us to get back up.
I believe we must embrace our problems and challenges and that we must take decisive action. We have the opportunity - in fact the invitation - to send a strong, clear and powerful message to our shareholders and Wall Street, to our advertisers and our partners, to our employees (both current and future), and to our users. They are all begging for a signal that we recognize and understand our problems, and that we are charting a course for fundamental change, Our current course and speed simply will not get us there. Short-term band-aids will not get us there.
It's time for us to get back up and seize this invitation.
I imagine there's much discussion amongst the Company's senior most leadership around the challenges we face. At the risk of being redundant, I wanted to share my take on our current situation and offer a recommended path forward, an attempt to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.Recognizing Our Problems
We lack a focused, cohesive vision for our company. We want to do everything and be everything -- to everyone. We've known this for years, talk about it incessantly, but do nothing to fundamentally address it. We are scared to be left out. We are reactive instead of charting an unwavering course. We are separated into silos that far too frequently don't talk to each other. And when we do talk, it isn't to collaborate on a clearly focused strategy, but rather to argue and fight about ownership, strategies and tactics.
Our inclination and proclivity to repeatedly hire leaders from outside the company results in disparate visions of what winning looks like -- rather than a leadership team rallying around a single cohesive strategy.
I've heard our strategy described as spreading peanut butter across the myriad opportunities that continue to evolve in the online world. The result: a thin layer of investment spread across everything we do and thus we focus on nothing in particular.
I hate peanut butter. We all should.
We lack clarity of ownership and accountability. The most painful manifestation of this is the massive redundancy that exists throughout the organization. We now operate in an organizational structure -- admittedly created with the best of intentions -- that has become overly bureaucratic. For far too many employees, there is another person with dramatically similar and overlapping responsibilities. This slows us down and burdens the company with unnecessary costs.
Equally problematic, at what point in the organization does someone really OWN the success of their product or service or feature? Product, marketing, engineering, corporate strategy, financial operations... there are so many people in charge (or believe that they are in charge) that it's not clear if anyone is in charge. This forces decisions to be pushed up - rather than down. It forces decisions by committee or consensus and discourages the innovators from breaking the mold... thinking outside the box.
There's a reason why a centerfielder and a left fielder have clear areas of ownership. Pursuing die same ball repeatedly results in either collisions or dropped balls. Knowing that someone else is pursuing the ball and hoping to avoid that collision - we have become timid in our pursuit. Again, the ball drops.
We lack decisiveness. Combine a lack of focus with unclear ownership, and the result is that decisions are either not made or are made when it is already too late. Without a clear and focused vision, and without complete clarity of ownership, we lack a macro perspective to guide our decisions and visibility into who should make those decisions. We are repeatedly stymied by challenging and hairy decisions. We are held hostage by our analysis paralysis.
We end up with competing (or redundant) initiatives and synergistic opportunities living in the different silos of our company.
• YME vs. Musicmatch
• Flickr vs. Photos
• YMG video vs. Search video
• Deli.cio.us vs. myweb
• Messenger and plug-ins vs. Sidebar and widgets
• Social media vs. 360 and Groups
• Front page vs. YMG
• Global strategy from BU'vs. Global strategy from Int'l

We have lost our passion to win. Far too many employees are "phoning" it in, lacking the passion and commitment to be a part of the solution. We sit idly by while -- at all levels -- employees are enabled to "hang around". Where is the accountability? Moreover, our compensation systems don't align to our overall success. Weak performers that have been around for years are rewarded. And many of our top performers aren't adequately recognized for their efforts.
As a result, the employees that we really need to stay (leaders, risk-takers, innovators, passionate) become discouraged and leave. Unfortunately many who opt to stay are not the ones who will lead us through the dramatic change that is needed.Solving our Problems
We have awesome assets. Nearly every media and communications company is painfully jealous of our position. We have the largest audience, they are highly engaged and our brand is synonymous with the Internet.
If we get back up, embrace dramatic change, we will win.
I don't pretend there is only one path forward available to us. However, at a minimum, I want to be pad of the solution and thus have outlined a plan here that I believe can work. It is my strong belief that we need to act very quickly or risk going further down a slippery slope, The plan here is not perfect; it is, however, FAR better than no action at all.
There are three pillars to my plan:
1. Focus the vision.
2. Restore accountability and clarity of ownership.
3. Execute a radical reorganization.

1. Focus the vision
a) We need to boldly and definitively declare what we are and what we are not.
b) We need to exit (sell?) non core businesses and eliminate duplicative projects and businesses.
My belief is that the smoothly spread peanut butter needs to turn into a deliberately sculpted strategy -- that is narrowly focused.
We can't simply ask each BU to figure out what they should stop doing. The result will continue to be a non-cohesive strategy. The direction needs to come decisively from the top. We need to place our bets and not second guess. If we believe Media will maximize our ROI -- then let's not be bashful about reducing our investment in other areas. We need to make the tough decisions, articulate them and stick with them -- acknowledging that some people (users / partners / employees) will not like it. Change is hard.
2. Restore accountability and clarity of ownership
a) Existing business owners must be held accountable for where we find ourselves today -- heads must roll,
b) We must thoughtfully create senior roles that have holistic accountability for a particular line of business (a variant of a GM structure that will work with Yahoo!'s new focus)
c) We must redesign our performance and incentive systems.
I believe there are too many BU leaders who have gotten away with unacceptable results and worse -- unacceptable leadership. Too often they (we!) are the worst offenders of the problems outlined here. We must signal to both the employees and to our shareholders that we will hold these leaders (ourselves) accountable and implement change.
By building around a strong and unequivocal GM structure, we will not only empower those leaders, we will eliminate significant overhead throughout our multi-headed matrix. It must be very clear to everyone in the organization who is empowered to make a decision and ownership must be transparent. With that empowerment comes increased accountability -- leaders make decisions, the rest of the company supports those decisions, and the leaders ultimately live/die by the results of those decisions.
My view is that far too often our compensation and rewards are just spreading more peanut butter. We need to be much more aggressive about performance based compensation. This will only help accelerate our ability to weed out our lowest performers and better reward our hungry, motivated and productive employees.
3. Execute a radical reorganization
a) The current business unit structure must go away.
b) We must dramatically decentralize and eliminate as much of the matrix as possible.
c) We must reduce our headcount by 15-20%.
I emphatically believe we simply must eliminate the redundancies we have created and the first step in doing this is by restructuring our organization. We can be more efficient with fewer people and we can get more done, more quickly. We need to return more decision making to a new set of business units and their leadership. But we can't achieve this with baby step changes, We need to fundamentally rethink how we organize to win.
Independent of specific proposals of what this reorganization should look like, two key principles must be represented:
Blow up the matrix. Empower a new generation and model of General Managers to be true general managers. Product, marketing, user experience & design, engineering, business development & operations all report into a small number of focused General Managers. Leave no doubt as to where accountability lies.
Kill the redundancies. Align a set of new BU's so that they are not competing against each other. Search focuses on search. Social media aligns with community and communications. No competing owners for Video, Photos, etc. And Front Page becomes Switzerland. This will be a delicate exercise -- decentralization can create inefficiencies, but I believe we can find the right balance.
I love Yahoo! I'm proud to admit that I bleed purple and yellow. I'm proud to admit that I shaved a Y in the back of my head.
My motivation for this memo is the adamant belief that, as before, we have a tremendous opportunity ahead. I don't pretend that I have the only available answers, but we need to get the discussion going; change is needed and it is needed soon. We can be a stronger and faster company - a company with a clearer vision and clearer ownership and clearer accountability.
We may have fallen down, but the race is a marathon and not a sprint. I don't pretend that this will be easy. It will take courage, conviction, insight and tremendous commitment. I very much look forward to the challenge.
So let's get back up.
Catch the balls.
And stop eating peanut butter.

Monday, November 20, 2006

HP's Q Results Awesome;Surpasses IBM and Dell.






HP's Q4 earnings grew to $1.69b, or $0.60/share, from $416m, or $0.14/share last year, on sales of $24.6 billion, vs. $22.9b last year. To be fair, HP had $1.1b in restructuring costs last fiscal Q4. Excluding restructuring charges this Q4, HP earned $0.68, vs. analyst estimates of $0.64. Sales came in ahead of analysts polled by Thomson, expecting $24.1b.
CEO Mark Hurd is credited with controlling costs as the company expanded its share in key markets. Still, Hurd commented, "We certainly aren't taking any victory lap here." According to Gartner research, HP overtook Dell as the world's largest PC maker. And its FY2006 revenue of $91.7b surpassed IBM to become the world's largest IT company.
But there was a dark cloud over financial news as HP disclosed in a regulatory filing that the Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a formal order of investigation into the tactics used in the company's boardroom spying probe.
The Federal Communications Commission has also requested documents related to HP's effort to unmask the source of boardroom leaks to the media, and HP faces five shareholder lawsuits related to the investigation, according to the filing.
HP had previously disclosed that it was the subject of inquiries by the SEC, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, a congressional panel and California's attorney general.

HP's shares closed 0.85% higher at $40.13, after hitting a 52-week high of $40.85 on Wed.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Background of the Indo-US nuke deal

On November 17, 2006 the US Senate passed the bill to implement civilian nuclear energy cooperation with India, with a majority of 85:12. A total of 18 amendments were proposed during the debate and all .Killer. amendments were rejected. The amendments that would have either wrecked the deal, forced re-negotiation or made the implementation stage quite difficult, were part of the rejected "Killer" changes.
Circa July 2005: India and the USA reached an agreement on the separation of civil and military nuclear plants and technology transfer for civil nuclear plants. The USA would help develop the civil nuclear power programme in India in return for New Delhi placing its civil nuclear facilities under safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Circa March 2006: India and the USA crossed a major milestone in civil nuclear cooperation after the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, and the visiting US President, Mr George Bush, reached an understanding on the implementation of the July 2005 agreement on this issue. India had agreed that 14 of its civilian nuclear reactors would be open to international safeguards.
Since the meeting in March this year there has been much debate on both sides about the logic, benefit and timing of the deal. The placing of the fast-breeder programme, the bedrock of India's strategic weapons programme, under IAEA was the bone of contention for India. There were also internal differences on the possible impact of the deal on our nuclear programme. For the USA, there was a furore about making exceptions about declassifying nuclear secrets to a nation that was not a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The USA also needed approval of both the houses to waive some provisions of the Atomic Energy Act to ratify the treaty. Finally given the trust placed on India due to its relatively clean past in terms of non proliferation and the geo-economical importance of India to the USA, the deal was passed.
So what's next?
Now that the Senate has approved the bill, it will have to reconcile the differences with the House of Representatives. version of the bill, and then both the chambers would have to vote again on a final bill in December 2006. Once this is done the Nuclear Supplier Group will be approached to adjust its guideline for India and the IAEA will be persuaded to fashion an appropriate India-specific safeguards agreement.

Indo-US nuke deal.benefits for India
The Indo-US nuke deal brings three key advantages for India.
1) A reliable source of commercial nuclear technology will open
up for India that could possibly go a long way in quenching
India.s current and projected thirst for power.
2) US interests in India will be tied down for a long time to come.
3) India will be at the receiving end of huge foreign direct investment (FDI) into the country. Needless to say that the companies providing products and services for nuclear power plants would be the primary beneficiaries.
Current power generation in India.around 15% short of consumption.
India.s power generation today is approximately 15% below the actual consumption. This results in perpetual power shortages and outages. This gap will grow in the next 10 years, as India moves up the ladder towards the developed world. The projected economic growth of 7-8% over the next 20 years will quadruple India.s energy needs as per TERI.
About 65% of the power in India is generated by coal fired thermal power stations. Gas, hydropower, wind and nuclear power plants generate the remaining 35% of the power. Hydroelectric power provides 15% of India.s power needs with gas providing an additional 10%. A mere 3% of the power is generated by nuclear energy. A cluster of local captive power plants built to meet local needs provide the remaining power needs. The above situation is unlikely to change in the near future unless an un-interrupted very cheap supply of gas comes to India or nuclear power plants are built in quick succession.
..nuclear energy.inevitable for bridging shortage gap
Coal, the main source of India.s energy needs today, has peaked its exploitation. The gas supply from Iran via a pipeline is unlikely to materialise due to the US opposition
and the unpredictable behaviour of Pakistan, the middleman in the gas supply scenario. As a result a host of supply sources like nuclear energy have to be explored. Hence if India.s power generation has to keep pace with the burgeoning economy, nuclear power has to provide a significant component of the deficit. A very plausible scenario to look at is the building of nuclear power plants with US aid.
So what does the deal bring in for Indian Inc???
A nuclear power project requires many conventional items apart from the nuclear reactor components. However, the projects are also required to meet more stringent quality requirements and subjected to elaborate inspection and testing. In a typical nuclear power plant, the design and supply of the nuclear reactor is the onus of the technology provider. However its erection and other engineering and installation works is the area of expertise of an EPC contractor. In India, Larsen & Toubro and BHEL are the foremost EPC contractors that have the expertise and experience of erecting a nuclear power plant. In the following exhibit we have indicated the key products and services that are required for the erection of a nuclear power plant. Also we have given an indicative list of the companies that are capable of supplying these products and services. While preparing the indicative list we have considered the past supply experience of these companies as far as nuclear power plants are concerned.
In a nutshell
The Indo-US nuclear deal is a golden opportunity to tie down US interests in India. The economic development will receive a much-needed shot in the arm. The US businesses will consider India as a better place to do business and divert FDI funds from China to India. In addition the nuclear power plants will go a long way to quench India's growing thirst for power. Needless to say that the companies like BHEL, L&T, KSB Pumps and Honeywell Automation that provide products and services for nuclear power plants would be the primary beneficiaries in this scenario.
Products and services Companies who provide them Project handling (EPC contractor) L&T, BHEL Civil construction works L&T, HCC, Gammon Nuclear reactor L&T Boiler BHEL Boiler feed pumps KSB, Kirloskar Brothers, Mather & Platt, Jyoti Ltd, Bharat Pumps and Compressors Steam turbine BHEL Valves BHEL, L&T, KSB Cooling water condenser BHEL, L&T Heat exchanger Alpha Laval, GEI Hammon Pipes Maharashtra Seamless, Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Control panels Honeywell Automation
Consulting and engineering service Rolta India (technological tie-up with Stone & Webster) .