Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/another-intel-leader-bites-the-dust-is-this-good.20198/
        )

    [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] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

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

Another Intel leader bites the dust, is this good?

TBiggs

Active member
Longtime executive and buddy of Pat and IFS leader is gone and Intel gets its third leader and second outsider. I’d have thought Stu would have lasted longer, really short stint!

Can this be good three leaders in such a short time?

Kevin O’Buckley to Lead Foundry Services at Intel​

O’Buckley will oversee Intel’s systems foundry growth strategy.

SANTA CLARA, Calif., May 13, 2024 – Intel Corporation today announced the appointment of Kevin O’Buckley as senior vice president and general manager of Foundry Services, the customer service and ecosystem operations division of Intel Foundry. O’Buckley starts today and becomes a member of Intel’s executive leadership team reporting to CEO Pat Gelsinger. He succeeds Stuart Pann, who will retire from Intel after 35 years of service at the end of May and remain an adviser to support a seamless transition.

“Kevin brings a unique blend of expertise from across the semiconductor industry, having served as a senior leader and technologist in both foundry and fabless companies,” Gelsinger said. “As we continue building the world’s first systems foundry for the AI era, Kevin will play a critical role in helping customers achieve their goals by leveraging Intel Foundry’s unique ability to deliver process and packaging technology through a resilient and sustainable supply chain.”

O’Buckley will spearhead the growth of Intel’s foundry business and continue to build out its ecosystem of intellectual property and electronic design automation partners. In this role, O’Buckley will work closely with Intel Foundry’s other senior leaders to fulfill the company’s ambition to create the first system foundry for the AI era.

The Intel Foundry business encompasses Intel’s technology development, global manufacturing, and foundry customer service and ecosystem operations. It brings together all the critical components that fabless customers need to design and manufacture chips for a new era of AI-driven computing.

O’Buckley joins Intel with more than 25 years of semiconductor industry experience. Most recently, he was senior vice president of hardware engineering for the Custom, Compute and Storage Group at Marvell Technologies. He joined Marvell as part of its 2019 acquisition of Avera Semiconductor, where he served as chief executive. He also served as vice president of Product Development at Global Foundries, and before that spent more than 17 years at IBM leading technology development and manufacturing organizations. O’Buckley has a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering from Alfred University and a Master of Science in electrical engineering from the University of Vermont.

Pann retires from Intel after 35 years of distinguished service with a wide-ranging legacy of achievements including successfully standing up Intel Foundry under Intel’s new operating model. Pann previously served as senior vice president, chief business transformation officer and general manager of Intel’s Corporate Planning Group.

 
Kevin is a long time IBM/GF ASIC person. GF spun it out and sold it to Marvell for $650M in 2019. I met Kevin at GF after the IBM Semiconductor acquisition. I was impressed. Great sales presence. I do not know how the ASIC business at Marvell is doing but I see this as a good move. In semiconductors, experience is everything, absolutely.

This was a surprise move so I'm not buying the Stuey retirement narrative.

1715620338551.png
 
Interesting… Given how short Stu was in charge it seems like he was intended to be more of an interim head of IFS when the old guy got poached to head that new Indian national champion. Either way sounds good that Stu’s replacement has a strong resume since the prior ones felt like the best folks intel had rather than the best folks period.
 
I got to give Intel Credit. News reports show Intel foundry has revenue of 4.4B in Q1 2024. They did not mention the sales of wafers and packaging to companies other that Intel (foundry work) which was reported in the 10Q. We have the gory details on our website www.mkwventures.com and the scenarios that are playing out right now.
 
Poster on LinkedIn by an Intel guy, LOL
Vinayak Agrawal

Intel Foundry is having a re-org, the chief Stuart Pann is leaving after about a year

previous boss was Dr. Randhir Thakur who left months before Stuart replaced him


I'm actually surprised anyone is interested in this position.

To outsiders Pat Gelsinger is trying to create a foundry business and it is called Intel Foundry Services (IFS) or Intel Foundry

reality is quite a bit more complex. Ann Kelleher leads the organisation called TD and there is another organisation for packaging and testing. PAt combined all of them and called it Technology and Manufacturing Group (TMGF, I guess F stands for Foundry).

customers are exposed to Intel Foundry but in reality the work is to be done by TD and the other organisations. So when those organizations don't deliver, IFS can do something about it, right? absolutely not. IFS just forwards emails back and forth.

IFS faces the customer, but in reality they have less power than a postbox or email server.

Customer requests have to be routed to the TD etc. and if TD doesn't deliver, IFS faces the music. And it has faced a lot of music.

In theory IFS's job is customer satisfaction, in reality they have 0 power and their real job is to protect the other organisations where real power lies

if Pat Gelsinger is serious about Intel Foundry business, then Kevin O'Buckley will have Ann Kelleher and the other people whose organisations are responsible for delivering the goods and services to the customer reporting into him. I don't see this has happened. Kevin is a lowly (in Intel Corporation nowadays that's how things are) SVP and Ann and others are EVPs.

Else Pat should just drop the pretense of this Intel Foundry Services organization and make Ann Kelleher the boss directly responsible for facing the music from customers and investors - the present arrangement is unnatural and even unamerican.

Otherwise this is just a rearrangement of deck chairs, designed to shield and shirk any responsibility. As an Intel Corporation shareholder I hope somebody puts the feet of Pat Gelsinger and David Zinsner to fire in the next quarterly over this absurdity and others
 
Poster on LinkedIn by an Intel guy, LOL
Vinayak Agrawal

Intel Foundry is having a re-org, the chief Stuart Pann is leaving after about a year

previous boss was Dr. Randhir Thakur who left months before Stuart replaced him


I'm actually surprised anyone is interested in this position.

To outsiders Pat Gelsinger is trying to create a foundry business and it is called Intel Foundry Services (IFS) or Intel Foundry

reality is quite a bit more complex. Ann Kelleher leads the organisation called TD and there is another organisation for packaging and testing. PAt combined all of them and called it Technology and Manufacturing Group (TMGF, I guess F stands for Foundry).

customers are exposed to Intel Foundry but in reality the work is to be done by TD and the other organisations. So when those organizations don't deliver, IFS can do something about it, right? absolutely not. IFS just forwards emails back and forth.

IFS faces the customer, but in reality they have less power than a postbox or email server.

Customer requests have to be routed to the TD etc. and if TD doesn't deliver, IFS faces the music. And it has faced a lot of music.

In theory IFS's job is customer satisfaction, in reality they have 0 power and their real job is to protect the other organisations where real power lies

if Pat Gelsinger is serious about Intel Foundry business, then Kevin O'Buckley will have Ann Kelleher and the other people whose organisations are responsible for delivering the goods and services to the customer reporting into him. I don't see this has happened. Kevin is a lowly (in Intel Corporation nowadays that's how things are) SVP and Ann and others are EVPs.

Else Pat should just drop the pretense of this Intel Foundry Services organization and make Ann Kelleher the boss directly responsible for facing the music from customers and investors - the present arrangement is unnatural and even unamerican.

Otherwise this is just a rearrangement of deck chairs, designed to shield and shirk any responsibility. As an Intel Corporation shareholder I hope somebody puts the feet of Pat Gelsinger and David Zinsner to fire in the next quarterly over this absurdity and others

Recently ex Intel guy from India:

Intel Corporation logo
Director of Engineering/Principal Engineer (elected PE 2019)
Intel Corporation Jul 2018 - Jan 2024 · 5 yrs 7 Bangalore India
 
Poster on LinkedIn by an Intel guy, LOL
Vinayak Agrawal

Intel Foundry is having a re-org, the chief Stuart Pann is leaving after about a year

previous boss was Dr. Randhir Thakur who left months before Stuart replaced him


I'm actually surprised anyone is interested in this position.

To outsiders Pat Gelsinger is trying to create a foundry business and it is called Intel Foundry Services (IFS) or Intel Foundry

reality is quite a bit more complex. Ann Kelleher leads the organisation called TD and there is another organisation for packaging and testing. PAt combined all of them and called it Technology and Manufacturing Group (TMGF, I guess F stands for Foundry).

customers are exposed to Intel Foundry but in reality the work is to be done by TD and the other organisations. So when those organizations don't deliver, IFS can do something about it, right? absolutely not. IFS just forwards emails back and forth.

IFS faces the customer, but in reality they have less power than a postbox or email server.

Customer requests have to be routed to the TD etc. and if TD doesn't deliver, IFS faces the music. And it has faced a lot of music.

In theory IFS's job is customer satisfaction, in reality they have 0 power and their real job is to protect the other organisations where real power lies

if Pat Gelsinger is serious about Intel Foundry business, then Kevin O'Buckley will have Ann Kelleher and the other people whose organisations are responsible for delivering the goods and services to the customer reporting into him. I don't see this has happened. Kevin is a lowly (in Intel Corporation nowadays that's how things are) SVP and Ann and others are EVPs.

Else Pat should just drop the pretense of this Intel Foundry Services organization and make Ann Kelleher the boss directly responsible for facing the music from customers and investors - the present arrangement is unnatural and even unamerican.

Otherwise this is just a rearrangement of deck chairs, designed to shield and shirk any responsibility. As an Intel Corporation shareholder I hope somebody puts the feet of Pat Gelsinger and David Zinsner to fire in the next quarterly over this absurdity and others
I'm not seeing the issue here. IFS in Intel's org is really an external sales and service organization, including account management, getting IP ported, supporting industry standards, establishing customer relationships, gathering requirements... this is pretty typical. In fact, the TSMC org chart has a similar structure to what this director/PE guy (which means he is/was a 1st level director, not even a senior director) was complaining about. Here's the TSMC org chart:


Note the Worldwide Sales and Service organization, and that R&D and Operations organizations report separately to the CEO.

That BS discussion about EVPs versus SVPs is silly. Gelsinger has never believed in strictly hierarchical organizations like that. The EVP versus SVP titles are about scope of responsibility.

Intel has a lot of issues, but the org chart isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:
In the interest of full disclosure, prodded by a friend who sent me a private message, I used a TSMC org chart from 18 years ago in the previous post, because that was the only one I could find that made the distinction clear between R&D, manufacturing (called operations), and customer relationships. Since then, TSMC has become less specific about how their org chart looks in detail, but their current website has a high-level chart that closely matches the overall structure from 18 years ago:


TSMC has a flat organization that reminds me of Nvidia's. I view this as a good thing. It wouldn't surprise me to find that IFS and Intel's fab technology and manufacturing groups were modeled after how TSMC operates.
 
Last edited:
Intel Foundry new general manager Kevin O’Buckley talked about "Silicon Customization for a 3nm World" last year when he still worked at Marvel as Senior Vice President, Hardware Engineering, Compute and Custom Business Unit.

 
I'm not seeing the issue here. IFS in Intel's org is really an external sales and service organization, including account management, getting IP ported, supporting industry standards, establishing customer relationships, gathering requirements... this is pretty typical. In fact, the TSMC org chart has a similar structure to what this director/PE guy (which means he is/was a 1st level director, not even a senior director) was complaining about. Here's the TSMC org chart:


Note the Worldwide Sales and Service organization, and that R&D and Operations organizations report separately to the CEO.

That BS discussion about EVPs versus SVPs is silly. Gelsinger has never believed in strictly hierarchical organizations like that. The EVP versus SVP titles are about scope of responsibility.

Intel has a lot of issues, but the org chart isn't one of them.
Intel organization has always been matrixed (i can give multiple examples) ..... so it more complex than a chart shows. With Intel claiming that Foundry and manufacturing are separate from product groups, it becomes even more complex as the public chart needs to show this clearly although reality may be different.

Since wafer foundry sales to non-intel customers are almost non-existent today (see my report), 99% of Intel manufacturing work is for Intel product groups. nothing separate about that.

There are a lot more details to discuss on this... but one thing i agree on. Intel has a lot of problems (technology, cost, minimal foundry revenue). But org chart isn't one of them.
 
Back
Top