In particular, one thing you mentioned was metrics. That was a big issue between IBM and MS when working on OS2. IBM would point to lines of code to show how much more they were doing then the developers at MS. MS would point to what was actually being accomplished.

I've never liked metrics in our world. I've never seen one that actually aids in the quality of work done. A buddy was telling me how at his company they wanted to reward developers. So they gave awards for the number of bugs fixed each quarter. Until someone opened their eyes and realized that you worked on bugs you created. So much for that metric.

A personal observation would be that companies that have been the most successful in the IT world have a major customer focus. If that's lost, you leave a big opportunity open for your competitor.

It's possible the only reason you faced the battle over customer focus is how low on the totem pole VFP rates at MS. I've seen comments to that effect from others, not in the VFP group. If the lack of focus starts to permeate throughout the organization, they are in for a big hurt.

>Hi, Perry, LTNS!
>
>To be absolutely fair, MS is nothing like IBM was in the 80's. I worked with (not for) IBM during that period and the regimentation they imposed on their employees was extreme.
>
>Basically, MS employees now work under more or less the same conditions as employees in any other large firm. Gone are the stock options, the highly weighted stock purchase plan, and the 6 month bonus.
>
>Employees still receive annual bonuses, but they haven't been that much the last few years and you need to score fairly high in the ratings to get one representing a fair percentage of your salary.
>
>Instead of stock options, employees now receive grants of stock that vest over a 5 year period. Generally speaking, the value of these grants is roughly $1000-2000 per annum for the vesting period if one sold the stock the minute it was vested.
>
>MS offers one of the best employee insurance plans I have ever seen. They have yet to penny-pinch in that area.
>
>In summary, MS is still a great place to work if under the right management in comparison to other large companies. But it's no longer a great place to work in comparison to other high-tech companies; in fact, it's falling behind.
>
>>It's interesting to read a story like yours and put everything in perspective. I read a book several years ago about the history of IBM. When they were describing the period where MS and IBM were working together on OS/2 (before MS went their own way on Windows), they describe MS as a company exactly opposite of the company you've described.
>>
>>And the cause of the friction between IBM and MS was because IBM operated exactly as you describe MS operates today.
>>
>>You'd think the folks who've been at MS from the beginning would remember history and do everything to not fall into the trap they are obviously falling into.
>>
>>>Thanks, Greg
>>>
>>>The majority of my issues, personal and professional, began a few months after your contract expired.
>>>
>>>Ummm....I was your lead :-)
>>>
>>>>Frighten story. I am glad I was not a tester for the VFP team. Wait a minute; I was, during the 8.0 version. As a matter of fact, if it was not for your support and understanding, I probably would have quit the contract early.
>>>>
>>>>I was unaware at the time that you were having so many problems. I knew the tasks you had should of qualified you as a Test Lead. And as by direct contact at the time, I acted as if you were my lead. You made my experience there enjoyable. Thanks John.
>>>>
>>>>P.S. If you ever need a reference, you are welcome to include me. You can get most of the bio about from my membership page here.