
Andy Grove's Paranoia: Universal Lessons (1996) - tosh
https://hbr.org/1996/11/inside-intel
======
firecall
If you've never read Andy Grove's book "High Output Management" then you are
missing out. It's one of the only management books I'll ever recommend. Truly
great practical advice.

------
gkolli
Pairs very well with Grove's dictum of Objectives and Key Statements (OKRs).
These and Grove's management philosophy are captured very well in John Doerr's
book 'Measure what Matters'

~~~
godelmachine
Second the book - “Measure what matters”

------
sandymcmurray
I toured Intel around this time and attended a press Q&A with Andy Grove. It
was amazing. He was lively and fun and thoughtful. We received a printed copy
of a booklet entitled WIRLII - What's It Really Like Inside Intel. It covered
corporate culture, which was very Andy-centric, including the habit of
starting meetings exactly on time (and not allowing late people in).
Powerpoint was widespread, but our tour guides used low-tech "foils" (aka
clear sheets on an overhead projector) for the presentations. Fascinating guy.

------
lifeisstillgood
Swardley's landscape mapping is a strong replacement for the overall mapping
idea (Porter through Grove) well worth looking up

------
rdlecler1
I haven’t read Grove but I find a lot of these management books just okay. Any
tough critiques from HN?

------
martin1b
So to sum up. Motto for successful management : Jobs - "Stay hungry" and Grove
-"Stay paranoid".

Sounds like Andy Grove was a work horse.

------
darkerside
So much of this holds up, and then you get to RISC vs CISC. It's amazing Intel
has managed to survive and even thrive after failing so hard to adapt to the
changing environment.

~~~
Taniwha
Intel were in a sense lucky, their x86 was just about the most RISCy of the
contemporary CISCs - opcodes are (almost) all one memory operand, no indirect
memory modes, no autoincrement modes (except for stack) etc etc which means
instruction retry on things like page faults are easy because of few side
effects

~~~
ghaff
And they were basically able to transition to chips that were architecturally
pretty much RISC while maintaining CISC compatibility.

Furthermore, they did bet too much on frequency with x86 and compile-time
optimization with Itanium, in part because a major partner was so focused on
single thread performance. But, although AMD had some short-term success with
Opteron, Intel was able to retrench and win out. It continues to have
challenges in mobile and other areas but is still more successful than not.

------
notsosmart
Here is a more readable version [https://hbr.org/1996/11/inside-
intel](https://hbr.org/1996/11/inside-intel)

~~~
dang
Thanks! Changed from
[http://faculty.som.yale.edu/barrynalebuff/InsideIntel_HBR199...](http://faculty.som.yale.edu/barrynalebuff/InsideIntel_HBR1996.pdf).

~~~
fenomas
Can you remove (pdf) from the title please?

~~~
dang
Good point! Looks like a moderator got it.

