As I mentioned in my first post (and thanks for those that provided feedback via Facebook..... I will figure out how to leave comments here!), I'm going to share some of my experiences and thoughts about Apple and its competition in blog entries going forward. So I'll start now. And I apologize in advance for how long this entry will be.
One obvious question is "what's it like to work at Apple?" Here I'll share some of my thoughts, based on my time there. Frankly, it's tough to figure out where to start and what to say, because there's so much.... so obviously, I will leave a lot of very relevant stuff out. I'm going to try to cover this in 2 posts - first, by talking about what the work itself is like, and later about some of the "extra-curricular" consequences/benefits of being "the Apple guy." As I start, I have to make some disclaimers:
- My experiences are probably not sizably different from anybody working in similar roles in other current high-tech companies (e.g. Google, Amazon, Samsung, etc....). A lot of this is probably not unique to Apple, and thus friends of mine who work in other high-tech companies will say "so what?" This entry will probably be more appealing / interesting to those not within high-tech.
- My roles were in new product manufacturing, so I had visibility to the hardware engineering development process, but only limited visibility to other areas such as software engineering, marketing, or other disciplines.
- Similarly, while there are common themes, not every product area is managed the same way. What I experienced working on Mac and iPod (and Watch) products is likely not identical to the experiences of those working on the iPhone, iPad, or other product lines.
- Different organizations obviously have their own processes and deliverables; even within Worldwide Operations, people with responsibility for factory operations have different cadences than those in procurement, which differ from those in supply/demand management, which differ from those in materials management, etc.....
So with all that said..... a word about confidentiality.
To this day, confidentiality is taken extremely seriously. On my first day in 2008, I completed orientation, and shadowed a colleague to a meeting regarding the new laptops being developed. Prior to the meeting, we had printed out a copy of a form, which I signed. As we walked in the room a minute or two before it started, the meeting's leader looked at me and asked my colleague "Who is he, and has he signed the NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement)?" In fact, that was the document I had signed; we turned it in, and I was allowed to stay. I have no doubt that I would have been asked to leave if I hadn't already signed the NDA.
The physical paper NDAs have largely (if not entirely) been replaced by an on-line project management system which includes NDA information..... and for some super-secret projects, separate "private" systems have been developed, so that people can't inadvertently see project code numbers or names. But a fundamental tenet remains, which is that people are generally only exposed to information on the projects they're working on. If you're not working on something, why do you need to know about it? As the company has grown, it's been difficult to maintain this level of secrecy as effectively; part of this is because the sheer level of activity and "hallway chatter" has risen, so invariably you hear things about other products. But part of the cause is external - there is now an entire industry built around figuring out what Apple is doing, leading to an incredible number of rumors..... many untrue, but some true. As employees, you hear many of these rumors, and it leads to questions, suspicions..... and more internal chatter than is needed.
Now, on with the show.
Apple is fueled by new product development, pure and simple. While thousands of people in Cupertino have critical responsibilities to execute sustaining operations, sustaining product engineering, AppleCare, etc..... new product development is the fuel that makes the company go. Apple reported sales of 74 million iPhones last quarter - that's a staggering number. For the past several years, new phones have been introduced every Fall; should that hold true (and having never been involved with the iPhones, I don't know one way or the other), there will be roughly a year's worth of shipment, trouble-shooting, and support that has to be done after the product introduction. But the reality is that the manufacturing capacities, the support plans, and even product improvement efforts are all conceived and implemented (sometimes completely implemented) prior to the product's introduction. A successful product introduction plan sets the stage for a hopefully smooth sustaining effort (though obviously new issues are found which have to be dealt with). Usually, as was my experience, a hand-off to a product's sustaining team is done within a month or so of product release to the public, and the New Product team (for Operations) starts working on the next product. And obviously, the design engineering team has actually started working on the next generation even earlier.
The work within New Product Operations, and what determines the workload at any point in time, really revolves around 2 cycles which run concurrently:
- The product development cycle - depending on the significance of the development effort, this can literally be multiple years (in the case of a new product platform), 12-18 months (significant changes to an existing product), or 6-12 months (smaller changes to an existing product). Obviously those durations are approximations, there are exceptions.
- The weekly cadence of meetings and reviews.
Even now, Apple remains a company whose entire product line could fit on a table. (These days, it would have to be a fairly large table, but a table nonetheless.) Compare that with other hardware companies such as Samsung or HP, who have many, many more products and categories. As has been well-chronicled, one of Steve Jobs' famous talking points is that it's very important to say "no" in order to retain focus on the products. With the introduction of the Watch, there will still be only 5 major hardware product lines: Watch, iPhone, iPad, iPod, and Mac (desktop and portable). Each line has anywhere from 1-4 major products (setting aside minimal differences such as memory or screen size of Macs). Some of the products use common, or at least similar, main components. But the key point is this: there are few enough products that the top executives can know exactly what is happening with every major new product development. And, in fact, they insist on it, which is where the weekly cadence comes in. Intense focus on the details every single week by executives is one of the main reasons Apple is successful - problems generally don't slip through the cracks, they are addressed quickly. Problems in product development which could linger for weeks at companies where I previously worked are typically dealt with in 24-48 hours at Apple, because they are highlighted quickly, and resources marshaled to resolve them quickly. (Note: I don't mean to suggest that all product introductions are "defect free" - far from the case. But the reality is that not every problem can be detected in the relatively small number of units built during the development timeframe.... some issues only become evident when millions of units are built and delivered to customers.)
So what were my individual workdays like? That depended on the answers to a couple of questions:
- Was I in Cupertino, or was I in Asia to participate in a build event?
- What day of the week was it?
- Was there a significant problem that I was having to address?
In other words, there really weren't "typical days".... but some basics did apply.
While in Cupertino, my counterparts and I typically put in 60-80 hour work weeks, if not more. Time physically in the office probably averaged 45-50 hours from Monday-Friday, but that's really the tip of the iceberg. Even before people arrived in the office each morning, they were checking e-mail, dealing with any issues that materialized overnight from activities in Asia..... during the workday, most folks had between 4 and 8 hours of meetings..... and nights aren't free. Far from it, in fact. With the majority of the supply base in Asia, most employees within Operations spent most of the evening working on e-mail, participating in conference calls, or gathering data and / or working on presentation materials. My general impression was that if I received an e-mail that required my response / attention prior to about 10:00 p.m., I wasn't doing my job if I didn't respond that evening. I expected the same of others, and by and large, that's what happened. There are also plenty of examples of people who would still be sending e-mails at midnight, 1:00 a.m., 2:00 a.m., or later..... and I'm not simply referring to executives; that level of passion and dedication exists throughout the rank-and-file.
This dedication wasn't limited to 5 days..... while there was more freedom on weekends, recognition was that "whatever time is necessary to do things right, that's what should be put in." Saturdays and Sunday mornings were times to catch up on what couldn't be completed during the period from Monday-Friday.... and the reality for most folks is that the work week actually starts on Sunday night, as the company's Asian workforce and supplier base is already working on their Monday. Plus, many groups have some type of reporting that they need to provide either Sunday night or Monday morning. During my years with the company, Shelley grew accustomed to the fact that after dinner on Sunday night, I would retreat to my workspace in the house, and she was probably not going to see me again for any meaningful amount of time that evening. I suspect the same was true of most of my colleagues.
The weekly cadence (for Operations) revolved around the New Product Review, or NPR, for the product line. (Other organizations, such as Design Engineering, conduct similar executive reviews weekly, and each organization's leaders typically participated in and supported the complementary organizations' reviews - thus, information travels very quickly. A major issue which is brought up in the Engineering review is expected to be discussed [at least, the implications of the issue] within NPR, for example.) In NPR, presentations are given covering each major product being developed, the main audience being the Operations executive management team (VP's and subordinates, including functional groups such as procurement, operations engineering, etc....). For each product, the review is led by the New Product Operations Product Manager, and attended by cross-functional members. And the agenda? It varies, depending on what phase of development the product is in. Very early on, the updates are light - primarily focusing on the schedule, technology challenges, high-level plans for capacity, and the like. As the product starts becoming more developed, issues are identified, and representative team members are brought in to address the issues - including potentially asking for help, if needed. NPR was in many ways the culmination of the week's effort, particularly for teams under the microscope - even if it was on a mid-week day such as Wednesday or Thursday. The vast majority of the focus of a team with an issue was doing everything possible to be prepared for a successful presentation at NPR - including, ideally, resolving the issue successfully in such a way as to avoid being on the agenda.
Outsiders to Apple may not appreciate the level of attention to detail which exists.... I've touched on it somewhat, but there's more to it than meets the eye. At this point in its existence, virtually every major sub-system within Apple's products comes from internal development efforts..... very little is bought "off the shelf". Displays, batteries, cameras, keyboards, speakers, microphones, enclosures, even most of the major chipsets are the result of internal efforts (obviously in concert with external technology suppliers). Each of those elements has cross-functional teams of engineers, supply chain managers, quality advocates, etc..... Similarly, assembling and testing the products requires highly customized equipment, much of which is collaboratively developed with equipment suppliers. Entire teams now are in-place at Apple to help manage the development and production of the equipment - similar to the development and manufacturing of the product itself. In short, Apple directly manages virtually every element involved with ensuring that the product ramp will be successful - the final assembly, the components used within it, and even the equipment necessary to build it. And through the series of forums that exist on a weekly basis, issues in any and all areas are surfaced, and the teams are kept aligned on schedules and requirements. And in my opinion, this wouldn't be possible without the executive focus that comes from maintaining a narrow product portfolio.
Travel can be extensive, particularly depending on the role. Colleagues of mine have spent literally half of their time in Asia (predominantly China) working with the supply base. (Note: in a future post, I will talk more about some of the realities of the supply base.... so stay tuned.) In my roles, my travel was more moderate - anywhere from 30-70 days/year, with trips ranging from 7-20 days. I spent the majority of my time in either Shanghai or Suzhou, and usually was there with a team of other folks from Cupertino, along with locally-based team members who participating in the development activity and ultimately led the sustaining production effort. In simplest terms, most of those trips were exhausting - the team would be in the supplier's factories 7 days a week (this scaled back to 6 days a week in approximately 2012), typically leaving the hotel via a shuttle bus at about 8:00 a.m., and leaving the factory between 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. (or later, if there are severe issues). The hotels we stayed in were fantastic, 5-star hotels - but also, typically an hour or more from the factory, so the round-trip could easily be 2-3 hours on the road in a day, depending on traffic. And missing in the schedule above is the fact that everyone was on-line before leaving the hotel (and many were working while on the wifi-enabled buses) and usually doing reporting or on calls back to Cupertino late into the evening. So the reality is that once jet lag had been dealt with and the body was acclimated (which usually took 3-4 days to achieve), most folks were busy from at least 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. or later in work-related activities..... 6 days a week. But conversely, there was also a camaraderie that existed - frequently team members would get together and enjoy great dinners, exploring the city for a couple of hours at night before the inevitable return to work at the hotel. Plus, there was another side which I didn't participate in to any extent - the nightlife, and some legendary stories of folks who partook in it. The simple rule which existed - "anything goes, as long as you make the bus in the morning". And while I never was part of that crowd, there definitely were (and probably still are) some who burned the candle 24 hours a day in China.
And the final main note..... as can be seen, working at Apple is extremely demanding, high-stress, and challenging when it comes to having a work/life balance. One of the first phrases I heard from a manager when I joined Apple was "Apple is a great place for guys who are single..... or want to be." Sadly, there is some truth to that. I've known folks whose relationships deteriorated significantly (or never developed) because of the time commitments and stress involved with working at Apple.
Conversely, though, there's something amazing about the environment at Apple. The reality is, almost everybody buys in and tries to be part if the solution, not part of the problem. More than any other place I've been, people try to help each other, in the interest of getting the job done. It's not unusual for people to step across organizational boundaries and try to solve problems. By and large, there's a collaborative spirit - nobody benefits from a problem being unresolved. Does that happen everywhere? No, and it would be naive to suggest that's the case. But more than anything else, the attitude seems to be "we're all in this together - let's make the best thing we can." And it's exhilarating to be a part of that. My biggest regret in leaving is that I'm no longer part of that team, with an amazing attitude and spirit.
One More THing.....
A question I was frequently asked - has Apple changed since Steve (Jobs) passed? To me, it's not a simple "yes or no" answer. From my perspective, as an employee relatively low on the totem pole, there were no obvious changes. The day-to-day work was the same, the decision-making process was the same, the demands remained as high as ever. But the reality is that the company has grown remarkably within the past 3+ years, including radical growth in the employee base, and has been subject to even more intense media scrutiny in certain areas, such as Apple's responsibility to improve supplier working conditions. There has been evolution in some of Apple's policies and procedures - but are the changes because of the change at the top, or are they the result of other factors related to the growth and scrutiny? In my opinion, both factors contribute - the simple fact is that Apple has changed, but I have no evidence that those changes wouldn't have happened if Steve was alive, as a pure function of size and evolution that was happening within the company and surrounding industrial environment. In other words..... it's different, but I don't think the main reason it's different is because Tim Cook is running the show as opposed to Steve.
