Business scenario question - What appears to be going on?

[turbostang]

This is generally aimed at the members who work in 'corporate america', it might be tough to follow what I'm asking...idk.

I'm leaving names and details out on purpose.

In the past years a 'major' company acquired a 'smaller', very successful company. This acquisition lasted 10 years. There were decisions made at that 10 year marker to sell the smaller company. An independant investor came in and purchased the company. Once this happened, there was a huge divestature project and a LOT of technology work to be done. The project took a LOT longer than expected, and a LOT more money was spent than anticipated. Several small parts of the technology migration didn't work out well, and got way behind. A 3rd party vendor was brought in to evaluate the technology department as a whole, allegedly 'just the processes and not the staff'. Eventually the CIO was terminated, which was REALLY unexpected, as he was a couple years from retirement - but maybe not the most 'tech savvy' CIO. In any event, looking back, there were as many as 10 tech-staff people terminated, or let go for various 'reasons'.

....all the while the speculation rises on what's happening.


Thoughts?

[Ruffdaddy]

The people probably made more than they contributed. Just again the dead leaves off the tree

[jluv]

They be perpolatin' the flogoteens!

[turbostang]

There seems to be two different ideas on the subject. Once was similar to what you've posted, and the other which idicates that there's a desire (by the investors?) to outsource/3rd party manage all of the technology related pieces.
It just seems ripe for the picking on the 2nd part

[slow06]

This is generally aimed at the members who work in 'corporate america', it might be tough to follow what I'm asking...idk.

I'm leaving names and details out on purpose.

In the past years a 'major' company acquired a 'smaller', very successful company. This acquisition lasted 10 years. There were decisions made at that 10 year marker to sell the smaller company. An independant investor came in and purchased the company. Once this happened, there was a huge divestature project and a LOT of technology work to be done. The project took a LOT longer than expected, and a LOT more money was spent than anticipated. Several small parts of the technology migration didn't work out well, and got way behind. A 3rd party vendor was brought in to evaluate the technology department as a whole, allegedly 'just the processes and not the staff'. Eventually the CIO was terminated, which was REALLY unexpected, as he was a couple years from retirement - but maybe not the most 'tech savvy' CIO. In any event, looking back, there were as many as 10 tech-staff people terminated, or let go for various 'reasons'.

....all the while the speculation rises on what's happening.


Thoughts?

I would be curious how the core business is doing. Sounds like they may be hurting and trying to help the bottom line by bringing in more money and cutting expenses.

Sounds very familiar to a situation that happened where I work. We bought a small company/product and tried to use it to support and grow our core business. It never blossomed, so they sold it off after about 5 years of under-performance. The difference seems to be that overall our company is doing well so we don't have any "consultants" milling around asking how many hours a day we spend looking at TPS reports.

Edit: It doesn't seem like an outsourcing effort to me, but I have never seen that first hand.

[turbostang]

So is this section (bold) is about the larger company after they dumped the small company? Do you know how the larger company is doing financially? Sounds like they may be hurting and trying to help the bottom line by bringing in more money and cutting expenses. Do you have any reason to think the core business is hurting?

Sounds very familiar to a situation that happened where I work. We bought a small company/product and tried to use it to support and grow our core business. It never blossomed, so they sold it off after about 5 years of under-performance. The difference seems to be that overall our company is doing well so we don't have any "consultants" milling around asking how many hours a day we spend looking at TPS reports.

Man, if I could spill the details, it would all make more sense. Both companies, are doing well, and the smaller spin-off is growing every quarter. I just can't imagine why they'd split unless the returns aren't what were expected/projected/promised?

I'm sure there's some underlying rift happening, but not sure what the M.O. is, or where it will end up.

[347Mike]

Could be Outsourced but it is hard to say with what you provided.

I am a Project Manager for Outsourcing and I can tell you right now when I perform an analysis on processes 9/10 I will look at the resources too.

Unless you are one of the big companies (Dell, IBM, etc) your IT is most likely outsourced. Very few companies manage their own IT anymore.

How many employees does this small company have?

[turbostang]

Could be Outsourced but it is hard to say with what you provided.

I am a Project Manager for Outsourcing and I can tell you right now when I perform an analysis on processes 9/10 I will look at the resources too.

Unless you are one of the big companies (Dell, IBM, etc) your IT is most likely outsourced. Very few companies manage their own IT anymore.

How many employees does this small company have?

There's just under 400 people onsite and ALL of the technology is now managed in-house. They've recently (with some of the failed projects and late deadlines) started using an external consultant for a '2nd opinion'. Shortly after that, the CIO was gone.

[Ratt]

There's just under 400 people onsite and ALL of the technology is now managed in-house. They've recently (with some of the failed projects and late deadlines) started using an external consultant for a '2nd opinion'. Shortly after that, the CIO was gone.

That sounds pretty typical in a situation where deadlines are not being met, especially in an IT situation.

[347Mike]

Hiring a second opinion is not unheard of and to be honest without really know the circumstances that could mean anything. It could also mean anything for the direction of your IT, maybe it could be outsourced maybe it just needs some fine tuning, who knows.

Also have to agree with Ratt, CIO's come and go. I have Outsourced close to 10 accounts in the past 2-3 years and atleast 50% of them have either changed their CIO before the project is initiated, during or shortly after.

[Ratt]

[DON SVO]

dammit you beat me to it.

Pretty much yeah... the 3rd party came through to evaluate the current processes in place. I would ASSuME that their eval came back with a specific outline for placement of staff. Though they didn't single out or make any recommendations regarding the work force, they most likely outlined what positions were liquid or in need of serious upgrades.

[Chili]

This is generally aimed at the members who work in 'corporate america', it might be tough to follow what I'm asking...idk.

I'm leaving names and details out on purpose.

In the past years a 'major' company acquired a 'smaller', very successful company. This acquisition lasted 10 years. There were decisions made at that 10 year marker to sell the smaller company. An independant investor came in and purchased the company. Once this happened, there was a huge divestature project and a LOT of technology work to be done. The project took a LOT longer than expected, and a LOT more money was spent than anticipated. Several small parts of the technology migration didn't work out well, and got way behind. A 3rd party vendor was brought in to evaluate the technology department as a whole, allegedly 'just the processes and not the staff'. Eventually the CIO was terminated, which was REALLY unexpected, as he was a couple years from retirement - but maybe not the most 'tech savvy' CIO. In any event, looking back, there were as many as 10 tech-staff people terminated, or let go for various 'reasons'.

....all the while the speculation rises on what's happening.


Thoughts?

The people who bought it are probably venture capitalists and are fixing issues and prepping the company to be sold again. Old CIO wasn't doing the job so they canned him. Pretty basic scenario if you ask me.

Original purchasor sold it off because it did not fit into their core business strategy going forward, or was not producing sufficiently.

I have been on both ends of these scenarios several times.

[turbostang]

The people who bought it are probably venture capitalists and are fixing issues and prepping the company to be sold again. Old CIO wasn't doing the job so they canned him. Pretty basic scenario if you ask me.

Original purchasor sold it off because it did not fit into their core business strategy going forward, or was not producing sufficiently.

I have been on both ends of these scenarios several times.

This is kinda what I was thinking. It seemed pretty straight forward to me - I'm just trying to not end up as part of the statistics.

[347Mike]

The people who bought it are probably venture capitalists and are fixing issues and prepping the company to be sold again. Old CIO wasn't doing the job so they canned him. Pretty basic scenario if you ask me.

Original purchasor sold it off because it did not fit into their core business strategy going forward, or was not producing sufficiently.

I have been on both ends of these scenarios several times.

This was my next thought but you are 110% correct.