Is it me or is this program a total waste! Every case is the sales team crying about unhappy customers and demanding that we send millions in equipment and services. On the customer side it's always bad configuration or issue outside of Cisco gear but it's ok that we spent millions to teach your staff how to manage the network equipment.
17 replies (most recent on top)
CAP “Manager”
Former CAP Manager here. The program is used as a tool by Sales to solve problems that many times they have created(promised) during the sales cycle, thus it is up to the individual CAP team assigned to fixit
Still does not explain what this has to do with layoffs
As a program manager, I always enjoyed working CAP cases. Normally, a program or project manager has "all the responsibility, but none of the power" to run projects at Cisco. With a CAP case, the CAP program manager has major power. If a software or HW mgr/architect/engineer was blocking my progress, I could make one exec phone call and they would be replaced or scolded. I could get stuff done, and done quickly. And a CAP budget is fun to work with (lots of $$ to work with).
You also just described Cisco's acquisition strategy. Acquire a company with $150 million in revenue for $3.7 billion while claiming revenue growth. It's a 'house of cards' in San Jose.
Good luck continuing to hide all the debt.
What does this have to do with layoffs?
Sales team sells a million in equipment, get's the payout for the sale, then pushes for CAP to shower the customer with goods and services equal to or greater than any company profit. Sales get's paid, customer get's good and service worth twice what they paid. Cisco loses money but it's ok because the sales numbers look good.
(Techy Customer) + (Hands-Off Account Team) = (CAP Pervasive)
"Is TAC wasn’t so bad CAP wouldn’t be necessary." Says someone who does not understand the role of CAP.
Not saying TAC isn't bad. I know it didn't used to be bad. I guess I am biased since I was part of the great TAC heydays.
Is TAC wasn’t so bad CAP wouldn’t be necessary.
CAP is not TAC. TAC was always the technical observation or outage monitoring arm of CAP activities. CAP was pretty darn good back in the 90s-early 2ks. Agree the formal lessons learned or accountability and follow-up was always a bit of a gap. They wielded great influence on a number of major issues. Not sure how they've evolved or devolved since I left. The idea any company needs a CAP team is somewhat of a reflection on BUs and Services teams not necessarily having their ducks in a row. But there were a LOT of products and issues would always be expected with a portfolio so broad.
What does this have to do with layoffs?
Both CAPs that i've been on have been because of software quality and slow delivery of the software portion of a program
Crazy how awful TAC has become.
@zfp+186rjasI, not always perse we have seen platforms themselves being on cap. Which typically we make quite good efforts is getting platform in a relative good shape
The problem with CAP is there is no retrospective feedback loop or lessons learnt. Having been involved in many CAP cases with customers, it is very often Cisco quality issues. I didn't see the CAP team pushing the BUs to resolve the issues at source - maybe deal with point issues to resolve an immediate problem but nothing to stop the same issues appearing again.
lol...says the AM who can't handle the customer
its you