In 1983, I was part of a team planning the IT strategy for a financial services company in Toronto. One of the major objectives was to minimize communication costs, since there were about 50 regional offices scattered from Halifax to Vancouver.
We wanted to do our data processing in-house using equipment from a single vendor – IBM. But after six months of trying to develop an acceptable plan, we decided to look for other alternatives.
IBM is a great company, and I have always admired their engineering. But, in 1983, they lacked any sort of strategic vision. Their product lines were as follows:
- mechanical office equipment (eg Selectric typewriter)
- single-user computers for accounting
- single-user word processors
- small computer systems (System 34/36)
- medium computer systems (System 38)
- mainframes running VM/CMS
- mainframes running DOS/VSE
- mainframes running MVS/XA
- IBM PC/XT
Senior management wanted a plan that allowed for expansion but which required the minimal amount of retraining for personnel and the minimal amount of equipment replacement. IBM, on the other hand, wanted us to purchase a completely different system every time that a certain threshold was passed.
At one of our final meetings with the IBM salesmen, I made the remark that AT&T was entering the market with UNIX-based machines that ranged from single-user to hundreds of users. Their reaction was that UNIX “wasn’t suitable for business” – they also thought that the PC-XT “might replace some word processing functions” over the next several years.
Well, things happened differently.
Within a decade, PC’s wiped out typewriters, dedicated word processors, small accounting computers and (when attached to LAN’s) the small office computer systems. UNIX replaced most medium-scale computer systems and all but the largest mainframes.
And IBM went through a major crisis, losing (IIRC) about 200,000 employees between 1988 and 1992.
Microsoft today reminds me of IBM in 1983. There are major changes happening in the way that people use computers. There are new possibilities and new expectations – and Microsoft is failing to deliver.
The .Net initiative was announced in 2000. Seven years later, they still have not presented a coherent policy on how to implement this vision across their own products (IE6, XP, Win2000, Win98) or competing products (Firefox, Macintosh, Linux).
If Microsoft cannot present a compelling vision of the future, then the future will belong to somone else…