Intel has pretty much been running the tables for the past
year on the desktop, notebooks and server fronts. During the past year, the
company has stretched its legs with its 65nm Core 2 micro
architecture, introduced DDR3
memory platforms for the desktop and is on the verge of releasing new 45nm processors.
At this year Intel Developer Forum, the company showed off
its technologies for the future including 32nm test wafers, 45nm Nehalem processors and its 45nm Menlow platform for Ultra Mobile PCs
(UMPCs) and Mobile Internet Devices (MIDs). Despite this wealth of good news on
the performance and power efficiency front, Intel is still looking for more
ways to stay competitive.
In an effort to further streamline its operations, the
company has announced that it will cut its worldwide IT staff by up to 10
percent. "We're in a very competitive environment and need to stay agile
and stay efficient," remarked Intel spokesperson Chuck Mulloy.
Mulloy made the comment after being questioned about the Intel Perspective
Blog. The author of the blog, Intel IT Guy, went through all the nasty
details of Intel's latest force reduction.
"We're in a very competitive environment and need to
stay agile and stay efficient," said Intel IT Guy.
According to Intel IT Guy, the company is the process of
assessing the skills of its employees and scoring their performance. Employees
that don't make the cut will be "redeployed" within the company.
Redeployment means that employees will have two months to find another position
within the company according to Mulloy. For those that choose not to stick
around for two months or don't find a new position within two months, a
severance package based on years of service with Intel will be offered.
"This is primarily 'skills based'
redeployment, which means we are going through a skills assessment process for
each employee, scoring them, comparing scores, and then determining which
skills we can most afford to lose from our individual groups. It's unpleasant,
painful work, and just not going well - at least not for my team," said
Intel IT Guy. "The skills assessment process is [in my opinion] meant to ensure that
we're legally defensible and identifying people objectively."
Over the last three years, the company has trimmed its numbers by more than 11,000. Ten thousand workers were fired in September of 2006; an additional 1,000 were let go just months before that.
quote: An anonymous blog posting by an Intel employee blogger known as “Intel Guy” described in great detail the process that Intel is using to prepare to eliminate IT employees.The posting forced Intel to agree that it will be laying off some IT employees worldwide in a cost cutting endeavor. Rumors are circulating that the job cut could be as high at 10% of Intel’s IT workforce.The blog was posted last week and claims that the layoffs are based on a skills assessment process for each employee according to which employees the company can best afford to lose. The blogger also reported that the painstaking skills assessment is meant to provide more objective results that will give Intel a strong legal defense against the workers selected for elimination.The blogger claimed that within his group most of the technical female employees would be let go, thus eliminating some of the workforce diversity that Intel has boasted that it has.Intel’s CEO announced in May that its workforce headcount would continue to drop over 2008. Intel already announced that it will lay off about 1,000 employees in one of its New Mexico memory chip plants, and newspapers in Ireland are reporting that Intel plans to eliminate at least 200 workers at one of its flash memory plants in Ireland.Intel had 92,000 workers at the end of June, which is 12,200 fewer employees than were employed at the same time one year earlier.
quote: to the person who is writing the microcode for processors, to the person who is writing their chipset drivers.
quote: Was that supposed to be taken literally?
quote: I mean just think about it, trying to get the guy at Best Buy to explain to someone that X3 is better than X2, but not better than X4.