[Exposfan]

I was shocked to learn that SVP's, Jim Tobin and Jeff McDowell were fired from RIM. Irrespective of whether they were responsable for the mis-steps and lack of faith demostrated by the marketplace, who is left to run the show in Waterloo? BTW, that is a very apt place name, as they're currently looking their enemies in the face!
I'm left to wonder why Jim Balsillis is the CMO, notwithstanding his CA abilities, he's certainly not demonstrated any aplomb when it comes to marketing. How can these guys think they're doing a great job?
Full disclosure: I was invited to accept some development dollars from RIM for a PB app, (actually 3) but when it came down to decisions...seemingly impossible to get one out of RIM these days, and considering the lack of PB installed base, we've moved on to their competition. As a Canuck, I'm hoping that RIM will not only survive, but thrive, but given the current lack of any forward thinking on RIM's part, I'm moving on, even though I will continue to tout their great handsets,
Good luck to all those who believe in miracles, however the sad reality is that it will be tough in invigorate the remaining staff with their current (what's left of it) senior managment.

[Exposfan]

and now, Vincent Washington, RIM Sports, and Hospitality, a 10 year veteran, not only are they holiding their heads down, I'm sure they're all looking for the head hunters hovering around the coffee shops in Waterloo.
I'm thinking that Tyler Lessard, and Alex McCallum will soon be heading to some other platform that will recognize great talent and give them their head of steam. Unlike RIM that has frozen any new thinking.

[flyersfan76]

[JasW]

I've heard that Ed MacGuffie in Redundant Systems and Sid Blechman in Senior Outreach are toast.

[01itr]

2 weeks ago: RIM needs to fire unproductive people and stop playing favourites to loyal employees if they aren't doing their jobs well enough.

This week: OMG why are they firing people?! He's been with the company for 10 years and they just fired him!?

Give me a break people. You have no idea what kind of things are going on internally at RIM. Just let them do their jobs and stop criticizing and over-analysing ever minuscule step they take.

[Exposfan]

They certainly can fire whomever they choose, I'm simply stating that the guys at the top, Mike L, and Jim B should step down. They make all the decisions, and so far they've mis-fired on apps, services, hardware, and ignored the consumer. Do you think these situations were created by their underlings?

[01itr]

I do not think Mike and Jim should step down. They are doing fine. They have made mistakes (just like everyone else does), and they have learned from them. Shareholders are giving them a second chance, so I think I can too.

[jlb21]

All I know is I would like to see Kevin on the board!

[menaknow]

Oh give it a rest, people just want Mike and Jim to step down but others who are responsible in making changes and motivating works should stay?

While I don't know what really is going on in RIM, if your management team cannot get things done, changes need to be made...

Welcome to the private sector.

[mjordan5]

All I know is I would like to see Kevin on the board!

Agree wonder how RIM would change if Kevin was on the board??

[JAGWIRE]

honestly i dont have any idea who is leaving or really care but when they do axe the next person i hope they hire me lol

[rjshahan]

They certainly can fire whomever they choose, I'm simply stating that the guys at the top, Mike L, and Jim B should step down. They make all the decisions, and so far they've mis-fired on apps, services, hardware, and ignored the consumer. Do you think these situations were created by their underlings?

Mike L and Jim B do not make all the decisions. It is humanly impossible for them to make all the decisions for an organization the size of RIM. They likely set vision and strategy, and work on 2-5 year plans. They delegate responsibilities down stream. For example, the CTO David Y, would be responsible for all things software. He would then have an SVP responsible for new OSes, deciding what is in or out etc. the SVP would have VPs who are responsible for smaller components, the VPs would have underlings working on smaller components, and they would have underlings working on even smaller components until you have a developer responsible for implementing part of a part of a feature.

Mike and Jim would have a say in to which areas to prioritize based on how they see large macro pieces fitting together. So saying that you can understand the complexity of their jobs and that they make all decisions makes you sound simply ignorant.

Mistakes were made, strategies were realigned, delayed, ect. I am sure the decisions to fire/lay-off (two very different things) was made with a strategy and plan in mind. Jim and Jeff may not have fit in with Mike and Jim B's plan for the future.

[flyersfan76]

Did any of these people get axed yet? Or their counter parts down the street/other side of the province?

Executive Profiles

Serious question. Not because they are good or bad at their job but because you can bet that their is overlap. But we don't need to worry about over lap RIM is failing.

[Economist101]

Mike L and Jim B do not make all the decisions. It is humanly impossible for them to make all the decisions for an organization the size of RIM. They likely set vision and strategy, and work on 2-5 year plans. They delegate responsibilities down stream.

Ah. So they don't make all the decisions, just the important ones. How does this help your argument?

I don't believe Mike or Jim should leave, in part because I'm not sure who they could find that would do a better job. But to suggest that they aren't largely responsible for where RIM is today is rather silly.

[sosumi11]

Mike L and Jim B do not make all the decisions. It is humanly impossible for them to make all the decisions for an organization the size of RIM.

There is a much larger company that has half a dozen people that make all the decisions and even these need to get approved by one man.

They likely set vision and strategy, and work on 2-5 year plans.

How can a company that hasn't even caught up to their competition by 2012 be working on plans beyond that?

Mistakes were made, strategies were realigned, delayed, ect. I am sure the decisions to fire/lay-off (two very different things) was made with a strategy and plan in mind. Jim and Jeff may not have fit in with Mike and Jim B's plan for the future.

And yet the two people that made the assumption that a certain multi-touch device could not be produced using 2007 technology or that the tablet form would not be a success are still running the company.

It's like the time when the Chicago Bulls fired popular coach Doug Collins and hired Phil Jackson. Collins got the team from Point A to Point B (conference finals), but couldn't get to Point C (Championship).

The co-founders got the company from Point A (pagers) to Point B (smartphones). Now RIM needs a major software visionary to get the company to Point C (computers).

[rjshahan]

Ah. So they don't make all the decisions, just the important ones. How does this help your argument?

I don't believe Mike or Jim should leave, in part because I'm not sure who they could find that would do a better job. But to suggest that they aren't largely responsible for where RIM is today is rather silly.

I agree with your points, mistakes were made, Mike and Jim should have reacted faster to changing trends, and to a degree they are responsible for all decisions made at the company.

I do however take issue with people who feel the any corrective action taken by them short of stepping down is inadequate. It seems like since an analyst published this theory a few months ago, its become a point many whine over with minimal understanding of organizational structure and dynamics.

Mike and Jim should be allowed to implement corrective strategies to realign the company with the market. They bought QNX a year ago, an acquisition of this size relative to RIM's size three years ago would have required planning and negotiations to begin six months to a year earlier. The BBOS to QNX transition would have been in the works since early 2009. (around the time they were working on 5.0 and realizing that it wouldn't cut it in a touch screen world. They have a plan,and Mike is a strong visionary. We shouldn't let armchair analysts who couldn't run a donut shop shove them out.

[rjshahan]

There is a much larger company that has half a dozen people that make all the decisions and even these need to get approved by one man.

I'm sure Mike sits in his office all day approving code changes because all decisions pass through him.

How can a company that hasn't even caught up to their competition by 2012 be working on plans beyond that?

Read my previous post regarding multi-year strategies. Take a class in technological innovation and competitive trends and then we can discuss this at length.

And yet the two people that made the assumption that a certain multi-touch device could not be produced using 2007 technology or that the tablet form would not be a success are still running the company.

when the device you speak of was unveiled in 2007 many, including a hipster in a turtleneck were not sure of its chances of success. It was an entry into a rapidly growing sector by forking the trend. The iPhone broke several of the requirements that consumers claimed that they wanted from a device. It was created by Steve Job's vision and he deserves all credit for his successes. But it was an incredibly risky move that was not guaranteed to pay off.

As a market player you have to monitor the competition and weigh its impacts on your business, not copy it immediately. 2007 - 2009 the iPhone and BlackBerry actually co-existed quite peacefully, only bolstering the speed of growth of the market. Over the last 2-3 years both have tried to converge as the market is getting tighter and more competitive. This is blurring the lines of differentiation and RIM has found the need to transition to another platform to be competitive at development velocity.

The co-founders got the company from Point A (pagers) to Point B (smartphones). Now RIM needs a major software visionary to get the company to Point C (computers).

Mike forked the mobile device technology in the early days, most went to mobile voice, Mike invested in mobile data. He firmly believed that mobile data will be a valuable space to be in as eventually all communication would be over data networks (voice communication is a type of data). We are seeing this in the modern day LTE specification.

The point A to point B to point C analogy only works if one knows where point C is. In the world of technology the destination is only limited by what technology can do when you get there.

[jerry12]

All I know is I would like to see Kevin on the board!

i would like to see Kevin on the board to.