Concerns are specific to PADI (PA Digital) India, particularly over the last 2–3 years.
Capable and experienced employees have been terminated abruptly, sometimes within an hour, without a transparent or humane process. This happened to me and to few others I personally know. Such practices feel inconsistent with ABB’s traditional values and are concerning.
Internal politics and centralized control have increased noticeably, in some cases becoming more pronounced than in competitor organizations.
Decision-making is highly centralized at senior levels, reducing transparency and ownership at execution levels.
The testing team has been significantly influenced by Product Management and senior stakeholders, resulting in a lack of independent and objective assessment of product quality.
Technical contributors (developers and QE) have limited influence on product, architecture, and quality decisions, despite being closest to real delivery risks.
Quality Engineering (Testing) is often treated as a support or compliance function, not as a core engineering discipline.
Agile practices exist formally, but real flexibility, open technical debate, and early risk surfacing are discouraged.
A one-size-fits-all standardization approach, borrowed from hardware-oriented divisions, is applied to software R&D and services — which does not work well for software businesses.
In PADI, a significant number of senior leaders come from non–industrial automation backgrounds. This makes it challenging to fully grasp ABB-aligned business dynamics, often leading to difficulties in prioritization and, at times, the sidelining of experienced domain experts.
While software revenue exists, profitability and long-term sustainability of software offerings lag behind hardware-driven divisions, indicating a need for sharper focus and different operating models.
