Focal 2017: Only Fakes

Focal 2017 containing only fakes. I didn’t receive the Focal document until the end of May. All the requests to review my Focal ignored by Intel.

The Focal is the process of evaluation of each employee inside Intel Corporation, for the work done in the past year. It includes writing a document that presents all the work the employee performed and all results achieved. Then there is an evaluation of the work done. And the indication of possible area of improvements for the employee.

Having seen the development of the last months, with the fakes reported by Intel, I was expecting nothing good for the Focal.

I prepared the focal document for manager TM in January 2018. He then replied to what I wrote. His reply is a systematic falsification of the result of my work.

One of my tasks was the bring up of the device. And the programming of a test case in D***S.

I completed the bring up with the planned tasks 7 days before planned. I communicated the results to manager TM and to the team in the daily project meeting. The function I’m working is made available to the team, with the implementation and modification I did to make it work. The same implementation is committed to the central server.

The test-case is added to the daily regression. As anyone in Intel knows a test-case is added to the daily regression only after passing the quality checks. The daily regression is used to test that the device is consistently working through different software and hardware versions. An integrated test-case must be a working test-case.

After my communication that the test is working and added to the regression, I add no reply from manager TM. Nor any complaint from the rest of the team (anyone gets the results of the regression). As it is normal when work is done properly.

Manager TM writes in the focal that the test-case is not working.

In the period of August to November 2017, I worked on the verification of 2 other functions.

Function number 1 had a design issue. I worked together with the designer to find a workaround. The function with the workaround is used, therefore is working, by colleagues to execute the verification. Reports say that the function is working.

Manager TM writes in the focal that the function is not working.

Function 2 is a variant of function 1, just getting rid of the design issue with the help of a software function that is purposely developed by a software engineer. I worked on the verification of this function. I found a bug in the software, that I reported to the designer team. They fixed it.

Manager TM writes in the focal that the function is not working.

Plus other fakes kindly offered by no-one else than manager TM.

In the focal meeting, manager TM refused to give the Focal doc with his observations. He will not give it until the end of May. Until the end of May, I didn’t have the possibility to reply to the fakes.

My feedback to the Focal

I added my feedback to the focal doc compiled by manager TM. I explained, adding evidence where possible and meaningful, that the results reported by manager TM are all faked.

In any healthy company, this will raise an awful lot of questions and investigations.

Not in Intel!

They acted as if they perfectly knew the focal was full of fakes:

• Manager TM signed the focal with my reply reporting his falsification. Not a single reply from him.
• His manager JL also signed the focal without raising a single question.
• HR who handle all the focal not raising a single question.
• The division manager CC, contacted by me (later on this page), also not raising any question.
• The CEO BS, contacted by me (read on this page), not moving a hand.
• The works council, traitors of their office, washing their hands.

I didn’t give up.

Provided the works council already decided to wash their hands of my complaint, answering I can ask a Focal Open Door Investigation, I decided to contact some very high-level manager.

I decided to contact the division manager CC to ask a review of my Focal. As prescribed in the code of conduct I can contact any manager to report violations of the code of conduct.

From the code of conduct:

In accordance with Intel’s Open Door Guideline, you can ask questions
and report concerns about the Code with any manager, such as your
direct manager, a department head, a division general manager, or
another manager up to and including the Executive Office;

I send him my Focal, containing manager TM observations, and my reply with substantiated evidence, and offered to add more evidence if he reputed necessary.

I never received an answer from mister CC, but he kindly forwarded my request to the German HR team, I got contacted from the adorable employee MTR and had a meeting with her, to discuss my request to mister CC.

She offered to forward my complaint to a manager of her choice for a review. My answer was “no thanks, I know how it works”, I didn’t contain a sardonic laugh.

The interesting part of the meeting with the adorable MTR was when she asked: “why don’t you leave Intel?“.

This is Intel HR answer (better to say question) if you report violations of the code of conduct.

The Focal document with my remarks demonstrating the false allegations, signed by manager TM, his manager JL, is uploaded to the system. Where it will stay for eternity (maybe less), in memory of this shame.

Without any single answer on the faked Focal.

On a side note. I decided to contact all these people, from management to the works council, not because I believed they will do anything for me. At least after the first answers was clear that Intel is a unique corporate defending its own interests. Or defending the status quo in the case of the works council. Regardless if those interests are ethical, moral, legal. I did it for documentation purposes only.

“One of our core values is to work as a team with respect and trust for each other. We strive to uphold open and honest communication and to protect employees from discrimination, harassment, or unsafe practices. “

– 2019 Intel code of conduct