Purchasing a product from any company shows a level of trust by the consumer, but how are we supposed to trust a company like RIM.
[ad#Google Adsense 300×250 in story]I had a look at RIM’s executive team over the weekend and was surprised to find the company has three Chief Operating Officers. Of course, we all know they already have two Chief Executive Officers, which adds up to a corporate structural mess.
Seriously, how is the buying public supposed to trust a company that can’t even decide who the hell is running the place? It’s like the hierarchy of the company is a straight horizontal line.
Take a look at Apple’s hierarchy. You have Steve Jobs (CEO), then Tim Cook (COO), and then the senior vice presidents. That’s something everyone can understand.
When everyone on your executive team is on the same level, it makes it a bit difficult to get things done. I guess there is no greater example of that than the upcoming PlayBook tablet release.
I almost felt bad for RIM before. The bumbling of their PlayBook tablet and how obvious it is that they don’t know what they’re doing. Now I see that it’s their own fault.
Has there ever been a successful company of RIM’s size that actually functioned well with such a structure?
Some companies have traditional hierarchical structures (Apple/Microsoft), some have matrix structures (IBM/HP). Some rely heavily on the CEO, some have the CEO as a figurehead while the board make the important decisions. Many are partnerships and some of these, especially in professional services, are Swiss Verein’s, having a different, autonomous ‘Chief’ for each country.
And, yes, some have 2 CEOs. Motorola, RIM and SAP being great examples.
Do you honestly think that people will not buy a consumer device because of this? Do you think the majority of these people know the difference in the roles of CEO and COO? And do you think people buy or reject products because of their trust of that company’s leadership?
Going back to your question in a previous post: what if Apple did this? Would we expect the same kind of post in The Loop or would we see a post detailing the revolutionary structure that will change the corporate world?
And what about a company that has a CEO and an acting CEO? How can we trust a company that doesn’t trust it’s acting CEO to launch it’s latest product?
It’s probably about time you removed that ‘well-balanced’ BS from your About page. Try replacing it with ‘if it ain’t Apple, it ain’t right!’
¬Andy
http://www.andycairns.com
Motorola and SAP are two good examples.
Jim…
Did someone who works at RIM kick sand at you on a beach sometime in the past? 🙂
Honestly, my big concern about RIM is that they’ve absorbed so many of the corrupt management
who ruined Nortel… I’m just waiting for the succession of name changes.
If they sequentially increase the number of people in each successive layer of management down 10 more levels, their corporate structure could be sung as a Christmas Carol.
Sad thing is I’ve worked for companies with this same setup… It never ends well for the organization – when the Playbook fails to meet their expectation we’ll all hear shortly after of a corporate restructuring. RIM stock will take yet another hit and the company will fall into the same sink whole Palm ended up in, only there may be no one out there to buy them.
He asked for companies that benefitted from such an arrangement. Motorola has been a spectacular failure in many ways. They could have been so much better.
Motorola was failing long before this arrangement. If you look at the stock graph, it actually started to stabilise about a month after the co-CEO arrangement was announced.
this may have everything to do with rim’s struggles. or nothing. probably somewhere in between. frankly, it’s an oversimplification that points to what i think is a cultural obsession with having “someone in charge”. it’s important to have good and clear leadership, but it’s a big leap to attribute all rim’s problems to this structure. there are so many other factors that come into play. also, let’s look at other companies in the same industry for comparison. we can find plenty of examples where there is no confusion about where the buck stops, and yet they are not executing any better than rim.
also, to suggest that this comes down to the level of consumer trust is a bit silly. we all buy things every day from brands we trust to varying degrees with little to no idea who sits in the big chair at corporate headquarters. rim’s issues are simply about not developing and launching compelling products given the new reality of mobile computing. the market has taken a dramatic turn right under their feet, and they’re not reacting well. that’s true of lots of companies these days, and not all of them have three coo’s.
One of them isn’t named Clarice I hope. Sounds like that “STO” crap all over again.
Seriously. Can’t you guys find something else to complain about. The corporate structure worked fine when they were top dog but now that Apple has dominance it has to do with the corporate structure???
The Playbook is a game changer. Ignore the negatives from the pundits and look at the size, software, pricing and technology. This fills the gap. Wait and see what happens to RIMM stock approximately 1 month after the release.
It’s unlikely that the playbook is a game changer. In fact, if anything, the playbook will serve as an example of exactly what’s wrong with RIM’s management. Everytime Basille speaks, I think RIMM loses value.
If the Playbook actually debuted in October as a mature product when it was announced, it might of turned some heads. Certainly, QNX is a step in the right direction. The prospect of dual cores, etc. in a tablet sounded good… last year. Then, there’s the issue of mail being tied to having a Blackberry. I can’t think of a more obfuscated message RIM is sending to developers. Web apps? Native SDKs? Flash/Air? Android?? Seriously, Basille seems to think having an Android 2.2 emulator (apps for phones) address the concerns of people that want apps to run on their tablet. What a joke.
In all fairness, you’re right, we should wait until after the Playbook comes out before commenting further. Suffice it to say, I’m not nearly as optimistic as you are regarding RIM’s success here. In my opinion, Android Honeycomb based tablets have a greater chance of success and they’re not exactly burning up the sales chart the last I checked.
I don’t know about game changer. I think it would be nice to see some decent tablet competition in the market but until we actually see the Playbook and associated ecosystem, we’re not going to know if it’s up to the job.
I do agree with your first paragraph, though. I’m interested to know what could have triggered this seemingly baseless attack.
¬Andy
http://www.andycairns.com
Hope you’ll be around to give us our lumps six months from now when the Playbook has finally had a chance to change the game.
But this basically implies that the sole CEO to that point was incompetent on the one hand, but on the other hand he had enough power over the supervisory board so he didn’t get sacked —which he of course shouldn’t have.
Still a failure in my book.
I don’t envy the employees, especially in the three levels below C-level. Miscommunication and conflicts of jurisdiction are common with arrangements like this.
This looks like a half-assed attempt at matrix organisation and while the concept is great, real life implementations often result in chaos, frustration and decreased efficiency.
Actually this discussion should’ve taken place at RIM right after Apple’s first quarterly report outlining millions in profits from the iPad.
The playBook might be a game changer — hell I want it to be — but somethings is terribly wrong at RIM and the CEOs are a huge part of the problem.
I personally do not trust RIM and I am not a BlackBerry loyal anymore.
I personally do not trust RIM and I am not a BlackBerry loyal anymore.
deleted
One problem. You can’t get down to the “One partridge in a pear tree” level.
Unless you have “One confused lowly customer” as the end.
Given how the Playbook is going to work, the last line will always be ‘…And a tethered BlaaaackBerry.”
It’s not like anyone has to look for something to complain about. We all have our windmills.
However, Jim’s point, I believe, is that right or wrong, RIM’s corporate structure can be perceived as detrimental to RIM maintaining it’s position as the go to business phone.
I think it’s safe to say that Blackberry has the best table on the market. They definitely need to get the apps out and solve the native contacts/calendar/email issue but if you’ve used it then you understand the differences.
Even with the aforementioned flaws, it’s still outsold every other tablet other than the iPad. Once android apps get moved onto it and the other issues I’ve mentioned are addressed, I think we’ll see sales increase.
Outsold every tablet apart from the iPad?
Show us sales numbers.