We can learn from IBM's successful history that you don't have to have the best product to become number one. You don't even have to have a good product.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
IBM has a very solid business image.
What has always made IBM a fascinating and compelling place for me is the passion of the company, and its people, to apply technology and scientific thinking to major societal issues.
Every time we've moved ahead in IBM, it was because someone was willing to take a chance, put his head on the block, and try something new.
If being the biggest company was a guarantee of success, we'd all be using IBM computers and driving GM cars.
The next thing is: we can make IBM even better. We brought IBM back but we're gunning for leadership.
IBM has research and development; so do Microsoft and Nike and even Jose Andres. But there hasn't been enough R&D on feeding people in the Third World. This has to be part of the process; if not, we'll keep throwing money at the problem instead of investing in true solutions.
The amazing thing about IBM is that it's a company where I have had 10 different careers - local jobs, global jobs, technology jobs, industry jobs, financial services, insurance, start-ups, big scale. The network of talent around you is phenomenal.
IBM isn't investing billions of dollars every year into research and development - and winning more patents than our top 10 competitors combined for more than a decade - as an academic exercise. But research is now being driven much more by what people need rather than just by what is possible.
Most businesses think that product is the most important thing, but without great leadership, mission and a team that deliver results at a high level, even the best product won't make a company successful.
You cannot have companies where many of the largest ones lose money indefinitely without someone finally waving the white flag, and IBM is the most recent example of that.