great analysis Marco, didn't see it anywhere else... "consensus", as you said.
what puzzles me is that other big conglomerates (Siemens, Samsung, Hitachi, ...) are still... conglomerates, so it will require some time to understand GE's move... for sure it will make each GE business more profitable but in the long term it may be different.
Also, from a former employee point of view: I still remember the "GE familiarization" course at Florence Learning Center, where new hires learned that GE was producing everything and everywhere; probably that spirit is lost forever now: GE people were GE?
Excellent point Fabio. I do think there was something very powerful in that original ambition of being a company that could think big, address and solve big problems and 'bring good things to life'. A shame having lost it, especially in an era where most young employees say they look for a bigger sense of purpose in their careers. The comparison with Siemens, Samsung and Hitachi is very apt, suggesting that breaking up was not the only solution. In the case of GE, activist shareholders became impatient with the stable stock price and that certainly had an impact.
Thank you Marco for making your thoughts available, its inevitable to think 'before was better' as we all come from there, i agree on the end of a era which marks the global inflection point of the internet/digital era, where GE financial approach clashed from revenue model recognition to innovation engine. The new GE represents a crucial link between the old ways and the new disruptive AI models. We're in a phase where multiple AI models are vying for dominance, and the outcome remains uncertain. This uncertainty adds to the challenge of defining what the "right" new GE looks like.
A critical question for the new GE is how it will blend its old culture with a new one. We've seen examples like the Boeing/McDonnell culture clash post-acquisition, which can be detrimental to a company's success. This underscores the importance of navigating cultural shifts effectively in this transformative period. take care.
Thanks Paolo and you are very right to emphasize the importance of culture. It is too often underestimated, especially since working from home has become more common -- and yet you are right, corporate culture is critical to success. All the best. Marco
Thanks for this, Marco. Coming from a longstanding GE family, I mourn the loss. As an investor, I always tend to prefer business models with more focus, but you make a convincing case for many of GE’s synergies. I am also curious to know who will lead innovation in industrial software and data analysis if not an industrial giant like GE.
Thanks Christopher, indeed the question of focus vs synergies, or rather whether a more focused business model can anyway have a more efficient, 'outsourced' access to synergies, is very much an open one. And your last point is perhaps the most important: who will have strong enough shoulders to push the standards and solutions at scale that could accelerate the digital industrial revolution. As we have seen, software prowess is important, but deep knowledge of the industrial processes is just as essential to develop the right solutions and quickly address the inevitable execution headaches.
Nice article Marco. Just subscribed.
Thanks Shane, glad you liked it, and welcome to Just Think!
great analysis Marco, didn't see it anywhere else... "consensus", as you said.
what puzzles me is that other big conglomerates (Siemens, Samsung, Hitachi, ...) are still... conglomerates, so it will require some time to understand GE's move... for sure it will make each GE business more profitable but in the long term it may be different.
Also, from a former employee point of view: I still remember the "GE familiarization" course at Florence Learning Center, where new hires learned that GE was producing everything and everywhere; probably that spirit is lost forever now: GE people were GE?
Excellent point Fabio. I do think there was something very powerful in that original ambition of being a company that could think big, address and solve big problems and 'bring good things to life'. A shame having lost it, especially in an era where most young employees say they look for a bigger sense of purpose in their careers. The comparison with Siemens, Samsung and Hitachi is very apt, suggesting that breaking up was not the only solution. In the case of GE, activist shareholders became impatient with the stable stock price and that certainly had an impact.
Thank you Marco for making your thoughts available, its inevitable to think 'before was better' as we all come from there, i agree on the end of a era which marks the global inflection point of the internet/digital era, where GE financial approach clashed from revenue model recognition to innovation engine. The new GE represents a crucial link between the old ways and the new disruptive AI models. We're in a phase where multiple AI models are vying for dominance, and the outcome remains uncertain. This uncertainty adds to the challenge of defining what the "right" new GE looks like.
A critical question for the new GE is how it will blend its old culture with a new one. We've seen examples like the Boeing/McDonnell culture clash post-acquisition, which can be detrimental to a company's success. This underscores the importance of navigating cultural shifts effectively in this transformative period. take care.
Thanks Paolo and you are very right to emphasize the importance of culture. It is too often underestimated, especially since working from home has become more common -- and yet you are right, corporate culture is critical to success. All the best. Marco
Thanks for this, Marco. Coming from a longstanding GE family, I mourn the loss. As an investor, I always tend to prefer business models with more focus, but you make a convincing case for many of GE’s synergies. I am also curious to know who will lead innovation in industrial software and data analysis if not an industrial giant like GE.
Thanks Christopher, indeed the question of focus vs synergies, or rather whether a more focused business model can anyway have a more efficient, 'outsourced' access to synergies, is very much an open one. And your last point is perhaps the most important: who will have strong enough shoulders to push the standards and solutions at scale that could accelerate the digital industrial revolution. As we have seen, software prowess is important, but deep knowledge of the industrial processes is just as essential to develop the right solutions and quickly address the inevitable execution headaches.