[Update] In the original I forgot one bullet point–software orientation. Bhattacharya’s direction was obviously to build the software and services part of the business–much to the chagrin of the process automation side. I received some feedback that speculated that the Invensys board initially thought that software and services were the best way to grow the company and then got “cold feet” and backed away. I think that is believable given observations of the history of that board’s actions. [End Update]
I know that people want to know my reporting and analysis of Invensys Operations Management. I know from personal contact and by page views of this blog. Seriously, I hope I don’t write any more of these—and I don’t think I will. Sorry this took some time, but I had to think.
I don’t think I had been at the Renaissance Sea World an hour before the first outlandish rumor popped up. By the end of the week, I had talked with at least a dozen people. These represent my thoughts as I assimilated all that I learned.
First, the conclusion. Bhattacharya had a thankless job, which I think he did well and with grace. There was probably no way he could have survived long term with the assignment he was given by the board of Invensys plc. Invensys Operations Management is now poised for growth as it enters its next stage. It has the team, products and channels in place to take off. Mike Caliel is energized and enthusiastic and wants to take InFusion Enterprise Control—something he was part of developing—to success.
Remember your history. Caliel was head of Invensys Process Systems and Mike Bradley head of Wonderware. They brought in Pankaj Mody to head technology for both groups and developed the technology that led to what they call ArchestrA and InFusion. Eventually both left the organization. Eberhard took over IPS and Bhattacharya Wonderware. Eberhand came close to destroying IPS. Invensys asked her to leave.
Invensys plc then announced that it was going to reorganize the divisions and combine IPS, Wonderware and Eurotherm into one group. Bhattacharya was then appointed to oversee building the new organization. Few people wanted that merger to happen. It shook up the culture of Foxboro (people of which were the most vociferous in denouncing the changes) and also of Wonderware. This was a really tough assignment.
By the time Bhattacharya left, there was a new organization and a new team. New CEOs often tweak the teams, but I think that for the most part there is a strong, collegial senior management team in place.
The last thing he did that I only learned last week was a further refinement of the organization into three business units—each with a President and a business plan. This was a great move because each unit has its own characteristics and needs. They have different financial models and different go-to-market strategies. These are Systems and Safety, Software and Advanced Products and Measurement and Instrumentation.
There are people who think that it is still too small to stand alone. I don’t know. Although ABB and Emerson are larger, IOM is of competitive size to Honeywell and Yokogawa. I think it has a very good chance of success.
Anyone who wants to disagree with me with facts—please comment. I think things through, but I’m not infallible.
While it could be virtuous to align organisations in different B.U.s, what remains to be seen is how well they stand straight next to each other. Biopolar or scratching each other's back. The challenge is more to align the people to processes. No matter how big is the resistance to the preachers but faith will have to be prevailed. The organisation moves in the future when it combines the B.U.s working something like collection of parts of the engine driving it forward by being a well oiled engine.