Thread regarding SAS Institute layoffs

All ”fluff” has got to go!

Fact: SAS succeeded when it was an R&D driven company. This has been slowly diminishing for 20+ years while Product Management and Marketing has grown considerably. SAS could eliminate 60% of the marketing-related positions and it wouldn’t matter.

If new life is not breathed into R&D then the slow bleed out that will continue at SAS. It is also true that Viya can compete with Open Source for certain massively scaled use cases. Problem is it requires considerable R&D involvement to have a successful POC leading to a sale. These are large deals, often into the $Millions and are sticky. However, maintaining fiefdoms seems more important than cultivating and compensating people who can get the job done no matter what organization they are officially in.

JG has tolerated too many historical “hanger-oners“ along with too many slick arrogant corporate types. If SAS could get back to simple integrity and deep commitment to the customer then maybe they can establish a profitable niche market going forward and build from there. All ”fluff” has got to go!

Well said, @4ocx+1nOpn3sw.

by
| 1513 views | | 6 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1o1M6lhy

6 replies (most recent on top)

The more SAS does the DEI agenda, the more they look guilty and are trying to save their image. SAS always was diverse, that’s one thing I notice when I started over 18 years ago. I find it all very demeaning and unnecessary, but I guess they need to keep their DEI score high.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2ztt+1o1M6lhy

The thought that anyone could become JG's successor is nonsense. Have you folks not watched "Succession" on HBO?

Any "offer" of being "the successor" is simply a tease - the treats are visible, but always out of reach. If there were to be a successor, there would be one by now. Same with an IPO. Wise up, folks.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1vdv+1o1M6lhy

There was a reason why Oliver who was to be JG successor left because the direction the company was going.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1elb+1o1M6lhy

Of course the variables you speak of played a role …. but wasn’t Marketing and Product Management supposed to help increase SAS’ “luck” as markets evolved? They’ve been in power @SAS for about 20 years now and during that time the analytics markets grew by double digits YoY.

https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/advanced-analytics-market

What the he-l happened? Certainly can’t blame it all on R&D, boomers or children of questionable parentage.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dsl+1o1M6lhy

Let's make something else perfectly clear. Luck and market timing also play a role in growth and success. SAS filled a niche long ago. Now there are other players. Talent, diversity, or not, sometimes the market doesn't want what you're selling. Like it or not, those variables also contributed to the downturn of SAS.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hrl+1o1M6lhy

Let’s make something perfectly clear. SAS has had ”diversity” for decades. Women, minorities, LGBQ, etc. and folks from around the world have had opportunity at SAS since the 80s. JG has supported this and I heard him say (within the last 5 years) that SAS “already does plenty in these areas”

Make no mistake about it. Making SAS more “woke” is not going to improve its products or stature in the world of business and industry. Sure, the major West Coast tech companies are very woke. The difference is they can afford to hire truly 99+ percentile world class engineers and product design people. It stands that many of these folks will represent “diversity” because talent is more or less equally distributed and when you can pull from the largest pool of the best talent you’re going to increase your chances of hiring the best across a range of social/racial/gender/whatever demographic.

At the end of the day, it’s not how diverse or woke a company is that makes it successful. It’s about how good it’s leaders and people are and whether or not they generate an execute upon great business ideas.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ofo+1o1M6lhy

Post a reply

: