Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/intel-employees-very-optimistic.22950/page-5
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Intel Employees "Very Optimistic"

I think there's no point in making empty promises. PG said many things, but just look at where Intel is now...
This is the very reason I want something I can measure progress against. I want to see that what we are hearing from Intel is not more of the same. Given Lip-Bu Tan's past record I'm inclined to believe he will do what he says, but I want a way to validate that belief.

I'd also point out the two things in your list above that are measurable (product launches and IFS breakeven) were laid out under Gelsinger.
 
Thanks for your detailed analysis/info on TSMC's fab-size strategy. Perhaps the Arizona-fab is the new US-version of a connected-GigaFab coming into existence? See also your earlier thread about this, I was not aware of it, my apologies:
https://semiwiki.com/forum/threads/tsmc-phoenix-arizona-fab-site-plan.16066/

Very impressive to scroll through a couple of recent 2025-photos where you can see the shell of Phase 2 done; the groundwork of building Phase-3 started end of April-2025:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/t6U4F29pQezG7fR8A

Here again the link on the story about "super-Arizona-CEO" Ying-Lang Wang:
https://cwnewsroom.substack.com/p/key-figure-behind-tsmc-us-expansion-yinglang-wang
Ying-Lang Wang has long overseen TSMC’s fabs in Southern Taiwan Science Park, the center for 5nm and 3nm production—a critical growth driver that helped TSMC pull ahead of Intel and Samsung in recent years.

In April 2023, he was urgently sent to the U.S. to take over the troubled Arizona fab, successfully leading the team to begin mass production of 4nm chips earlier this year.



Indeed a formidable activity by TSMC in Arizona, in combination with the new packaging plant and "R&D"-center in the future at that site.

TSMC refers to its Arizona project as Fab 21, which includes at least six planned phases. Each phase is designated for a different process node, with Phase One designed to produce approximately 24,000 300mm wafers for N4 per month. If you combine the capacity of all six phases, it would qualify as a GigaFab by TSMC’s standard. However, using Intel’s definition, these would be considered six individual smaller fabs.
 
Nope, I don't know a soul there. His performance at Cadence was nothing short of amazing. It is what gives me hope he can turn Intel around.

I feel like you may have missed my point. So far Lip-Bu Tan has essentially given a list of goals (build trust, deliver promised products/services on time, etc.). However, he has given no timelines nor elaborated on how he measures progress towards these goals. That is the only thing I have an issue with. How am I to determine if his plan to achieve these goals is on track, ahead or behind?

I see your point but it seems to me a bit naive. Cutting a big part of a Intel is a painful process, one that should not be taken lightly. Why would Lip-Bu layout detailed plans to people who will no longer work there? Or are you talking about something like Pat's 5N4Y marketing schtick? Was that really motivating for people in the manufacturing trenches?
 
This is the very reason I want something I can measure progress against. I want to see that what we are hearing from Intel is not more of the same. Given Lip-Bu Tan's past record I'm inclined to believe he will do what he says, but I want a way to validate that belief.

I'd also point out the two things in your list above that are measurable (product launches and IFS breakeven) were laid out under Gelsinger.
Pat Gelsinger inherited inferior node process tech (10nm) & inferior product road map (Sapphire rapids on DC CPU - Alder lake was good on client side but didn't address the notebook battery life aspects) and managed a business under external pressure from degrading PC business after post COVID boom due to inventory glut & loss of DC CPU business due to hyperscalers extending their server useful life post COVID & emergence of generative AI getting all the hyperscale capex.

Lip Bu Tan on the other hand is inheriting a competitive node process tech (even if 18A is only N3P comp) & competitive product road map (DMR, PTL, NVL) in Intel's core markets. He is also coming in just in time for Windows 10 EOL PC refresh cycle and at the end of that post COVID server useful life extension. All he has to do is drive operational efficiency and get customers to sign on for foundry. (& Add competitive AI products to get some revenue)
 
Last edited:
are you talking about something like Pat's 5N4Y marketing schtick? Was that really motivating for people in the manufacturing trenches?
Oh Come on! 5N4Y strategy also came with increased investment in R&D for accelerated foundry node development process. It does not matter how many nodes were developed & cancelled with some delay, the end goal is catching up in process node tech which they have done more or less done. All things indicate 18A is N3P/ N2 comp node depending on which letter you focus on PPACT!
 
Was that really motivating for people in the manufacturing trenches?
1000%. Ann's (not Pat's) 5N4Y plan was a north star for people in the trenches to follow. Going back to Intel's long-standing status as the unquestioned process technology leader was top of mind and a measurable goal to drive your accomplishments towards. That goal is also what motivated ex Intel people who left from the toxic culture and underinvestment of the 2010s to come back from tool vendors, TSMC, Micron, SK, GF, etc. as well as folks who were laid off BK wanted to do cuts because of his failed mobile push.
 
Oh Come on! 5N4Y strategy also came with increased investment in R&D for accelerated foundry node development process. It does not matter how many nodes were developed & cancelled with some delay, the end goal is catching up in process node tech which they have done more or less done. All things indicate 18A is N3P/ N2 comp node depending on which letter you focus on PPACT!

Lip-Bu's point is that you should overdeliver on your promises not underdeliver. TSMC has the same strategy. Which do you think Wall Street prefers?

1000%. Ann's (not Pat's) 5N4Y plan was a north star for people in the trenches to follow. Going back to Intel's long-standing status as the unquestioned process technology leader was top of mind and a measurable goal to drive your accomplishments towards. That goal is also what motivated ex Intel people who left from the toxic culture and underinvestment of the 2010s to come back from tool vendors, TSMC, Micron, SK, GF, etc. as well as folks who were laid off BK wanted to do cuts because of his failed mobile push.

Yes, Pat said Intel would beat TSMC and then he retired unexpectedly. Had Pat said Intel would beat Samsung Foundry he may not have retired unexpectedly. What about BK? He had so much Intel manufacturing and operations experience? He got fired as well and it was not due to his failed mobile strategy (Otellini botched mobile for Intel), it was BK's mishandling of 14nm. Of course Intel said it was because of a past consensual relationship. :ROFLMAO: Just like Intel said Pat retired.

How are employees motived by lies, pipe dreams, and massive layoffs? We call it drinking the Corporate Kool-Aide and Intel is famous for it. Lip-Bu is not famous for it so get ready for change.
 
Before/After/During the layoffs? How many heads at the end of the project? How long to reach the end state?

I have not seen the details on this roadmap, nor even a timeline on when it should get rolled out.

Launch Dates? I've seen EOY for Panther Lake and I think Q1'26 for CWF. The others are still speculative unless I missed something.

This one is clearly measurable. No complaints here

How many should I expect? When?

As I said. Largely a list of goals lacking in clear milestones. Lip-Bu Tan may have something in mind, but he hasn't communicated that to the market. I agree it is fairly clear on what he wants to do, but in most of these cases I don't have a good way to measure progress towards the goals.
I think the reason you and some Intel employees lack a clear sense is because you don't follow Intel closely enough. How is it that I don’t even work for Intel, yet I have a better understanding of what’s going on?


Regarding hiring, DZ mentioned that one of Lip-Bu’s key priorities is to rebuild Intel’s talent pool:


There has already been progress:


As for the AI strategy, you can find it here:


On launch dates, I won’t elaborate because they’ve already addressed this during the investor meeting—emphasizing "execution." MJ and DZ also added more context, particularly about launching products on A-stepping silicon.


They’ve already stated that for 14A, they’ll need a partner. Lip-Bu has proactively visited all potential customers to gather both positive and negative feedback.
 
Lip-Bu's point is that you should overdeliver on your promises not underdeliver. TSMC has the same strategy. Which do you think Wall Street prefers?
Only thing Lip Bu promised so far is to "we are going to delight customers". Lets hope he overdelivers on that.
Pat said Intel would beat TSMC
Pat never said that afaik. He said Intel will achieve unquestioned process leadership with 18A at the end of 5N4Y and in terms of foundry, he said they will become the second largest foundry. There is going to be an Intel 18A product end of this year (one PTL SKU). If that product achieves better performance than TSMC's leading edge process N3P\N3X at that time, then Intel likely does achieves that. Afaik, there is no N2 based products this year and AMD being the first N2 customer likely launches their products late next year (Computex 2026 at best). AMD's EPYC Turin launched in October 2024 iirc, so by the time TSMC's N2 PC\HPC products launch next year by AMD, Intel would have shipped millions of 18A silicon. imo. Remember C.C Wei claimed N3P is comparable to 18A on PPA based on their internal assessments and I still think he was overselling his product in that statement. Let's see how it goes.
 
Pat never said that afaik. He said Intel will achieve unquestioned process leadership with 18A at the end of 5N4Y and in terms of foundry, he said they will become the second largest foundry. There is going to be an Intel 18A product end of this year (one PTL SKU). If that product achieves better performance than TSMC's leading edge process N3P\N3X at that time, then Intel likely does achieves that. Afaik, there is no N2 based products this year and AMD being the first N2 customer likely launches their products late next year (Computex 2026 at best). AMD's EPYC Turin launched in October 2024 iirc, so by the time TSMC's N2 PC\HPC products launch next year by AMD, Intel would have shipped millions of 18A silicon. imo. Remember C.C Wei claimed N3P is comparable to 18A on PPA based on their internal assessments and I still think he was overselling his product in that statement. Let's see how it goes.

Let's see how it goes? It has already gone.

This is the problem with Intel in a nutshell. Do you know how CC Wei knows that N3 is competitive with 18A? Because his customers told him so after evaluating the PDK. Do you not think that customers were part of his internal assessment? He cannot say that of course but I have been told the same. I'm sure Lip-Bu already knows this because he listens to customers.

But sure, 18A is the best and don't worry about TSMC N2 even though it has more design starts than N3 which was uncontested. Hopefully Lip-Bu cuts everyone at Intel who thinks this way otherwise I see little hope of a turnaround. Sorry to be so blunt but I really want to see Intel succeed.
 
This is the problem with Intel in a nutshell. Do you know how CC Wei knows that N3 is competitive with 18A? Because his customers told him so after evaluating the PDK. Do you not think that customers were part of his internal assessment? He cannot say that of course but I have been told the same. I'm sure Lip-Bu already knows this because he listens to customers.
CC Wei made that comment in Q3'23 even before Intel launched 18A PDK 1.0 in July 2024 (Although I am not sure if that would have made any difference). That statement is probably made based on 0.9 PDK metrics. Maybe that is all they needed to make that statement but still Intel 18A ~ N3P is very good achievement imo.

I would be very cautious using the 18A external PDKs based assessments as a measure of 18A performance of Intel's own products. There has been reports that Intel's external PDKs are not good (as you reported here many times) and missing lot of libraries etc that could skew the real performance of Intel 18A. Intel Product design team on the other hand most likely has the know-hows to make this work for their own products as they seem pretty confident about Panther Lake competitiveness.
But sure, 18A is the best and don't worry about TSMC N2 even though it has more design starts than N3 which was uncontested.
As explained above, it is the PDK issues and immature ecosystem that is being a barrier for 18A design wins from external customers. Also not everything needs to be looked at from external foundry POV here, In 2025 & 2026, the important thing for Intel is still Intel's own 18A Products vs AMD's TSMC n-1 node Products. 5N4Y is not a strategy only laid out for IFS, it is also for the benefit of Intel's own products.
Let's see how it goes? It has already gone.
I personally would like to wait until 3rd party reviews of products on these node process to come out before I pass judgement on them. So again lets see how it goes when that 1 PTL SKU launches later this year.
Pat did say that along with AMD is in our rear view mirror. Is AMD really in Intel's rear view mirror? :ROFLMAO:
That is one statement I think was one of Pat Gelsinger's worst moment as the CEO, imho. But IIRC, AMD was in the rear view mirror when that statement was made in end of 2021. It was Alder Lake (Intel 12th Gen) vs Zen 3 in client at least. Intel definitely claimed the Performance crown but it was short lived as Zen 4 launched later to reclaim (or as Pat would have said AMD passed Intel and left them in dust).

Pat did say that along
I have never heard or seen him say that but you are the industry person. If there is an actual quote or interview that he said that, I am willing to accept I was wrong on that.
 
CC Wei made that comment in Q3'23 even before Intel launched 18A PDK 1.0 in July 2024 (Although I am not sure if that would have made any difference). That statement is probably made based on 0.9 PDK metrics. Maybe that is all they needed to make that statement but still Intel 18A ~ N3P is very good achievement imo.

I would be very cautious using the 18A external PDKs based assessments as a measure of 18A performance of Intel's own products. There has been reports that Intel's external PDKs are not good (as you reported here many times) and missing lot of libraries etc that could skew the real performance of Intel 18A. Intel Product design team on the other hand most likely has the know-hows to make this work for their own products as they seem pretty confident about Panther Lake competitiveness.

As explained above, it is the PDK issues and immature ecosystem that is being a barrier for 18A design wins from external customers. Also not everything needs to be looked at from external foundry POV here, In 2025 & 2026, the important thing for Intel is still Intel's own 18A Products vs AMD's TSMC n-1 node Products. 5N4Y is not a strategy only laid out for IFS, it is also for the benefit of Intel's own products.

I personally would like to wait until 3rd party reviews of products on these node process to come out before I pass judgement on them. So again lets see how it goes when that 1 PTL SKU launches later this year.

That is one statement I think was one of Pat Gelsinger's worst moment as the CEO, imho. But IIRC, AMD was in the rear view mirror when that statement was made in end of 2021. It was Alder Lake (Intel 12th Gen) vs Zen 3 in client at least. Intel definitely claimed the Performance crown but it was short lived as Zen 4 launched later to reclaim (or as Pat would have said AMD passed Intel and left them in dust).


I have never heard or seen him say that but you are the industry person. If there is an actual quote or interview that he said that, I am willing to accept I was wrong on that.
Around that time, PG said that Intel’s management consisted of the very best people in the industry. Meanwhile, Sandra from DCAI mocked Nvidia GPUs during one of Intel’s events. Also around that time, when Nvidia was demonstrating AI boundaries in their events. PG, on the other hand, chose to high light AI safety in a grandparent-grandchild conversation format in their tech event. Honestly, I think during his tenure, he focused on things that didn’t improve Intel’s competitive position.

From what I understand, he has always been that way. I think it is better for someone else to lead as CEO.

 
CC Wei made that comment in Q3'23 even before Intel launched 18A PDK 1.0 in July 2024 (Although I am not sure if that would have made any difference). That statement is probably made based on 0.9 PDK metrics. Maybe that is all they needed to make that statement but still Intel 18A ~ N3P is very good achievement imo.

I have never heard or seen him say that but you are the industry person. If there is an actual quote or interview that he said that, I am willing to accept I was wrong on that.

I heard Pat say that at the first Intel Foundry Conference. I am considered media/analyst so I get access. But I heard Pat say a lot of things that did not jibe. He is a shoot from the hip type of person so that happens. Don't get me wrong I liked Pat. BK I did not like, we met at an Intel Developers conference. He was horrible with media/analysts. The problem is that most media/analysts have zero semiconductor experience and I have 40 years in the trenches so we don't necessarily see eye to eye.

CC Wei does not oversell. TSMC is the trusted foundry for a reason. Misleading customers is a very bad thing because they will know the truth soon enough. You have to understand the power of the ecosystem that TSMC has built. There are no secrets because we all know each other and we talk frequently. Me more than others since I manage the business side of SemiWiki and attend quite a few ecosystem conferences every year. My day job is an advisor to emerging EDA and IP companies. I help with business plans, funding, market strategy, getting established amongst TSMC's top customers, and I do exits.

Bottom line for me it is customers that determine what foundry process technology is the best based on PDK evaluations, test chips, and end products. TSMC N3 won by a landslide and TSMC N2 looks to be an even bigger landslide win. I can assure you Lip-Bu will use a similar metric because without paying customers it is a fail no matter how you look at it.
 
Let's see how it goes? It has already gone.

This is the problem with Intel in a nutshell. Do you know how CC Wei knows that N3 is competitive with 18A? Because his customers told him so after evaluating the PDK. Do you not think that customers were part of his internal assessment? He cannot say that of course but I have been told the same. I'm sure Lip-Bu already knows this because he listens to customers.

But sure, 18A is the best and don't worry about TSMC N2 even though it has more design starts than N3 which was uncontested. Hopefully Lip-Bu cuts everyone at Intel who thinks this way otherwise I see little hope of a turnaround. Sorry to be so blunt but I really want to see Intel succeed.
I am bit of confused here is 18A that bad or it is that PDK is horrible that customer can't get proper PPA out of it.
 
Yes, Pat said Intel would beat TSMC and then he retired unexpectedly. Had Pat said Intel would beat Samsung Foundry he may not have retired unexpectedly.
If anything, Pat was pushed out because his 5-year turnaround strategy wasn't completed in 3 years. And if rumors are true, he was pushed out for not having a competitive AI roadmap. Which I guess checks out with intel canceling Falcon Shores just after he retired.
What about BK? He had so much Intel manufacturing and operations experience?
He hated working in the fabs and spent 80% of his career licking boots in Santa Clara instead of managing his fabs (at least, so I'm told).
He got fired as well and it was not due to his failed mobile strategy
His mobile push didn't get him pushed out, but it did get a lot of people laid off to recoup the cost and not all of it was in design like it should have been for a design screw up like that.
How are employees motived by lies, pipe dreams,
What pipe dream? 18A is the most advanced process in the whole world in production and will be the first/only 2nm process with products in the market this year. Ann told Pat that was the moonshoot she thought she could hit when Pat asked her what she could do with a blank check, and by all indications intel has done it. They once again are leading and based on A14 being in production in 2028 (and by extension products being in 2029) then Intel's lead only seems to be growing larger if intel continues with their 2 yr cadence of new cpus on new process nodes as Pat and Tan have both committed.
and massive layoffs? We call it drinking the Corporate Kool-Aide and Intel is famous for it.
While yes that is demoralizing. Intel having poor market estimates and corporate planning isn't mutually exclusive with 5N4Y being a motivator.
Lip-Bu is not famous for it so get ready for change.
Lip-Bu is laying off average joes just like Pat. And I have seen no indication it will just be management getting the axe. After all, he has already made the product side less organized, added more administrative burden to teams. Like a dedicated AI organization that is pseudo separate from DCAI and reports to DCAI and him directly. Doesn't exactly scream simplifying management layers and letting the technical folks do their jobs to me.
This is the problem with Intel in a nutshell. Do you know how CC Wei knows that N3 is competitive with 18A? Because his customers told him so after evaluating the PDK. Do you not think that customers were part of his internal assessment? He cannot say that of course but I have been told the same. I'm sure Lip-Bu already knows this because he listens to customers.
That's the thing he said N3P should be comparable. TSMC is many things, humility when it comes to comparisons with other manufactures or their tool vendors has never been one of them. Even if we disregard that trend, it just makes sense to say your product is better rather than comparable if it is even 1% better. If your product is losing by a bit good marketing will always call themselves "competitive", and if you are even 1% better in any metric people say they are superior. After all, TSMC to this day claims their 16FF has/had better PPA than SF14, yet TSMC's density was like 2-4% worse for the A series SOC and their performance was like 0-2% better. They also tried to sell their 20nm as "comparable" to intel 22nm and their real i22nm competitor 16FF as most of the way as good as intel 14nm when it was around as far behind as intel 4/3 is to N2. Now granted for mobile I'm sure N3P is better than 18A, but for HPC TSMC doesn't have a winner until N2 at best.
But sure, 18A is the best and don't worry about TSMC N2 even though it has more design starts than N3 which was uncontested. Hopefully Lip-Bu cuts everyone at Intel who thinks this way otherwise I see little hope of a turnaround. Sorry to be so blunt but I really want to see Intel succeed.
You can have the best technology and not have more design wins than TSMC... Look at Intel custom foundry when they were sitting around 4 years ahead, and a whole lot of nothing other than tiny FPGA wins resulted from that. From my observations technology is like number 4 or 5 on the priority list of fabless customers (after trust to deliver wafers, trust the wafers will be delivered to spec, trust the wafers arrive when expected, and then maybe design ease of use). You also speak as if Intel hasn't won a single design win from a fabless chip vendor on leading edge processes. Intel could unironically be making 10A wafers today, and they would still have to go through the small trust building contract stage. NOBODY will go all in on an untested foundry with no/negative track record. At least someone like Samsung is a known quantity and has been doing this for around 20 years.

I am bit of confused here is 18A that bad or it is that PDK is horrible that customer can't get proper PPA out of it.
Besides the fact that many people were already doing N2 design work before Pat even became CEO, the problem IMO is that the PDK is later than it would be for typical foundry rollout. 18A is making products in high volumes now, and foundry risk production only started this year. TSMC started their risk production and PDK 1.0 last year and they aren't even launching Apple products (aka virtual IDM relationship) until next year. Even at foundry direct they mentioned that performance on 18A was a few % below the final target. TSMC N2 performance would have been around that level when Fab12 transferred the process to the HVM fab to finish development back last year. As an IDM not a big deal to be working on performance at the 11th hour since Intel products runs respins all the time because they basically don't do pre Si validation, so making late process tweaks for more performance isn't a big deal or a major inconvenience to anyone. For a foundry customer, they won't start designing their final chip until that process is locked down with no more major changes (see NVIDIA on 40nm for what happens when the process/PDK isn't properly locked down before design start). For this reason, TSMC focuses on getting their performance architecture done first so that they can get the transistor models and process flow locked down as early as possible. That way designers can get to work ASAP and accelerate their TTM. Of course this comes at the expense of early yield as the development resources are less focused on running experiments to improve DD as well as new performance vintages inevitably destabilizing the process/raising DD. Once the performance is at that 95% level, you can get the rest of the way on variation reduction and small tweaks that are transparent to designers. Since you aren't doing these big performance revisions to the transistor or spending limited development resources on performance enhancements, you can then see a rapid reduction in DD and catch up to the guy who is doing performance and yield enhancements at the same time. Intel has admitted that what would go on to become 18A wasn't fully defined with foundry in mind because they weren't a foundry when the early pathfinding and process definition was happening, and that 14A was the first process that was informed by learnings from prior customer collaborations on 18A, i3, and MediaTek on i16. Considering that Intel has the major IP vendors on 14A done like 3-4 quarters after Intel announced that stuff being done on 18A and the process is coming out 2 years after 18A, it would seem to point to Intel 14A ecosystem being ready at a more normal time relative to the HVM date (ie before HVM start rather than at/after HVM start).
 
I am bit of confused here is 18A that bad or it is that PDK is horrible that customer can't get proper PPA out of it.

I have delt with PDKs for quite a bit of my career. The problem is that TSMC has had 30 years to perfect the art of PDKs so the bar is very high. TSMC also has the PDK support of the entire ecosystem so it was not a shock that the Intel 1.0 18A PDK was not up to TSMC standards. Last I heard the 18A PDK is good now but the 9 month delay was not good. Releasing a 1.0 PDK that had problems was not good. Put those two together and you get where we are today. Intel still has a good shot at the NOT TSMC market but 18A has no shot at the we are better than 18A market because time ran out. 14A is another story, hopefully the PDK is solid before shipping it to potential customers. I have complete confidence in Lip-Bu on this one. He knows the importance of PDKs since Cadence is in on everyone of them.
 
I see your point but it seems to me a bit naive. Cutting a big part of a Intel is a painful process, one that should not be taken lightly. Why would Lip-Bu layout detailed plans to people who will no longer work there?
So if I'm reading this correctly, you are telling me that once the layoff is over Intel employees should expect him to start rolling out the detailed plan. So my friends at Intel should have a much better idea of where they are going by Septemberish? Given he has been in the position less than a quarter, I guess it is fair to give him 2 quarters to start rolling out detailed plans.
 
I think the reason you and some Intel employees lack a clear sense is because you don't follow Intel closely enough. How is it that I don’t even work for Intel, yet I have a better understanding of what’s going on?
I think there is something inherently wrong with this comment. If employees have to spend all their time away from work digging through media to know what their company is doing, then there is a major problem. If your employees aren't crystal clear as to what the plan is, how do you expect them to achieve it?
 
I think there is something inherently wrong with this comment. If employees have to spend all their time away from work digging through media to know what their company is doing, then there is a major problem. If your employees aren't crystal clear as to what the plan is, how do you expect them to achieve it?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this approach. If things haven’t been finalized yet, management shouldn’t make any formal announcements. Once they are finalized, then communicate them clearly and decisively—that’s how you build trust. In any case, employees can still gather information from various sources before official confirmation.

I believe Intel employees should take the time to study their company. As stakeholders, they should understand how the company can be improved.
 
Back
Top