From an outsider’s perspective, ISS is just a commodity for IBM. The acquisition equated to yet another checkbox in IBM’s offering to remain at the forefront of business. I’m really surprised IBM didn’t “rip the bandaid off” when the acquisition was complete.

For what it’s worth Joe, I think you made a great difference at ISS when I was there. Those days were full of fantastic opportunities and hard lessons for me. I still have the RealSecure gargoyle sitting on my desk at home as a reminder of that experience.

I know you’ll do great things at NCR. I wish you all the best.

Ultimately, I think your point of being brash to a fault was all too true. We were getting killed by smarter competitors, but that brash attitude allowed us to act like we were above it in some way. It was like our protective shield against the harsh reality we were loosing, and we hid behind it. What I saw was just a total inability to innovate, and a paralysis on choosing what ISS needed to focus on to grow. Good ideas just couldn’t make it out of the incubator before getting squashed by poor choices. There was a segment of our culture that nurtured these bad habits. If you ask me the culture was the best thing and worst thing about ISS.

I think ISS was a zombie even before IBM purchased them. It was a surprise to find out how little thought IBM put into this purchase. Stagnant growth, horrible numbers, nothing really new, inability to produce new products, or reach new markets. And, like someone said earlier just complete inability to change processes internally when they weren’t working. Those were all things that were apart of that culture.

You know John Imlay and Sig Mosley are closing up shop. John said he did do great things for Atlanta’s hi-tech sector, but he regrets that he never created a brand like Coke for hi-tech. I know what he means. Coke is a huge economic engine for Atlanta, and has been for well over a century. The inability to make the jump to a seriously competitive hi-tech city could have lasting effects on Atlanta’s prosperity down the road (Atlanta has too many eggs in the real-estate, and construction basket). I think ISS could have been that brand, but they fumbled the ball just before the goal line. I can now say I was there when the mighty Casey struck out.

Guess what? I’m NOT giving up my job and getting in the unemployment line and looking at the possibility of losing my house if I can’t find a job for long enough, etc. just cause I miss the old days and you say I should leave.

Am I undeserving of a job here because I miss the old days?

How about this. I miss the old days. But I’d rather have this job now, than no job at all. Is that OK? Or is this the place only for those ignorant or uncaring about the “old days?”

I don’t understand this mutually exclusive approach.

And by the way, if the rule is adapt to our new way or leave, that leaves no room for dissent, no room for opinion, no room for TRYING to make improvements, no room for ambition, no room for creativity, no room for anything. What corporate culture in a company such as this was based on “Shut up and do what you’re told or you’re fired” and succeeded wildly? You know, other than Stalin and Soviet Russia (oh wait, the USSR collapsed too)? Even IBM has more flexibility than that.

Whoever believes that that is the formula for success should probably pick up a copy of The Soul of a New Machine.

And BTW, one thing I disliked about the “To survive you must adapt” ethos is that it is not one of a market leader, but of a follower. A Market leader can, in a sense, form the market and shape it (like we did with IDS/IPS). A follower must adapt to the groundwork laid by the leader. A market leader thrives, a market follower “survives.” Instead of “To survive you must adapt” it should have been “To lead we must innovate”