Conference 7.286::digital

    GREAT NEWS ! At least we will be able to sell now the watches that
    the "market" expects from DIGITAL. (french spelling: DISHITAL).
    
    Courage Didier !
    Fred
    

    Digital is a very large company, with different "cultures" in different
    parts.  If your part is developing policies that are hostile to
    what you feel is right, it is not too hard to find somewhere better
    to work.  I believe Dave Cutler's group, for example, is extremely
    engineering-oriented, to the point where they seem to completely
    ignore marketing.  Other places have other attitudes.
    
    In other words, you don't have to leave Digital to continue to work
    the way you want, but you may have to leave the part you're in.
        John Sauter, who left LCG

    Re .2, .3:
    
    I agree.  More important, since we don't know [and frankly, I'm
    fairly sure I don't _want_ to know] the context/content of the
    "political" disagreement, we are speaking a little bit in a vacuum.
    
    In my somewhat limited experience, I've observed that most political
    situations are caused either by philosphical or personality
    differences.  If the differences are philosophical, well, that's
    one thing; if it's personalities, that's quite another.
    
    In the case of philosophies, this might be something that can be
    arbitrated.
    
    If it's personalities, then it's probably better to look elsewhere
    in Digital.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I believe it's true that DEC is far less driven by engineering than
    it used to be.  I think it would be excessively optimistic to say
    that it is now marketing-driven, however, as that would tend to
    imply a greater degree of development focus than really exists.
    
    I think DEC is now mostly management-driven - a consequence of the
    past decade of increasing size and product-set complexity.  We
    needed more management to try to keep these increases under control,
    and we got it, but in the process the FOCUS of control moved out
    of the technical area and into the management area.
    
    The main problem with this is that managers are more concerned with
    organizations than with products per se.  Though our market,
    fortunately, continues to grow, the product-set basis has in fact
    shrunk, in some ways, leaving the problem of large existing
    organizations whose original charters have ceased to exist.
    
    Management, naturally, has attempted to replace the old charters
    with new ones, but there's a shortage of new charters in the old
    areas.  So new charters have been invented, often not so much
    because they make sense from a product standpoint as because the
    group needs SOMETHING to do.
    
    Once invented, such charters must be defended against encroachment
    - hence politics.
    
    While I don't like any of this, I have to express some sympathy
    with the managers who have taken this route:  given DEC's 'no layoff'
    policy, and given that high-level management did not provide a clear
    transition plan years ago to move engineers, or even entire groups,
    smoothly over into other endeavors (or freeze hiring far earlier
    so that natural attrition could help out), it left them in a pretty
    difficult position.
    
    It will be quite a while yet before things get back into focus.
    If ever.
    				- Bill
    

    By the way, the word is marketer.  I would deny that DEC is has
    budged one inch towards a marketing orientaton.
    
    There's been no attempt to direct major planning and budgetary
    decisions away from product development and towards addressing
    customer, competitive, and profitability concerns and letting the
    choice of what products to develop to be a consequence.  The trade
    press quite correctly continues to call DEC a product-driven company.
    
    Two trends in DEC are evidenced by Didier's plight.  One is the
    there's been a erosion of DEC's values.  The greatest of this has
    been our flat hierarchy with respect to plans and ideas.  Any person
    with a contribution to make ought to make it without regard to position
    in the company or length of service.  Any employee ought to recieve
    all the resources and responsibility to be successful without regard
    to position or seniority.  Success only comes to those who are bold,
    not to the person who says "No".  Our policy manual speaks one way,
    and our values another.
                          
    The other trend is a consequence of the first.  Without risks and
    risk-takers and achievement to measure success, DEC is reduced to
    employees managing a process.  Managing a process requires stability
    and stablity supports bureaucratic thinking.  Bureaucracies create
    policies that are geared totally and obsessively to their own
    convenience at the total expense of the customer. 

    Getting close to the customers, and knowing what you're doing on their
    behalf is making DEC successful is just one other way of being on the
    "leading edge" of DEC. 
        
    

    There has always been one certainty to me about DEC.  If I didn't
    like it where I was, there are was enough oppurtunity in this company
    that I was sure to find something I did like.
    
    I really don't see any problem with *some* of DECs employees being
    exclusive marketeers, Infact, I beleive it is critical to our success. 
    It takes all kind of people to build and maintain a company like
    DEC and be as successful as DEC has been.  Without marketeers *and*
    engineers *and* managers *and* manufacturers  thinking DEC is a
    marketing|engineering|organization|manufacturing company, they would
    be as successful as they are.
    
    Does it seem odd that a marketeer thinks that DEC is a marketing
    company, or, at least, should be ?  I think not.  Neither is it
    odd that an engineer thinks it's an engineering company.  In fact,
    they are both right and rightly so.
    
    I think Didier has encountered someone with a mission.  If DEC isn't
    a marketing company, this person would certainly like to make it
    one.  I think there is room him, just as there is room for me and
    for Didier.
    
    -phil

   foreword: This is a debate on the issue, not on my own problem, clear?
   (I hopefully have no problem with my management :-)
   
   re: .4 You are right. As I just said before, there is no need to develop
   further. But is is really a philosophical disagreement. The main argument
   in the discussion was "Digital facilities in Europe are, except AYR and
   Valbonne, sales facilities. No place for engineers who wish to keep their
   engineering mind".
   
   re: .7 You are right too. The functional manager involved is new at DEC
   (16 months) and his charter is "to make thinks going well, smoothly,
   without personal conflicts (between people, that is)" He said one day
   that DEC Europe needs medium intelligence people to do what they are asked 
   to do, and take no initiatives whatsoever, except within their frame of work.
   
   This is easy to understand, but the issue is elsewhere: What to do with
   people who are good, and known to be, at solving problems, developing q&d
   hacks which helps everyone, who are interested in communication with the
   rest of the Digital community, who prefer working late at night, who
   like development, research, field-testing new products, in one
   word, who like Digital in its whole, not only their own small business. 

   Another kind of philosophical difference is what I call the "target issue"
   
   My philosophy, which may certainly be wrong, is that a problem needs a
   solution as fast as possible, to recover a lost resource, for example.
   (talking about a software problem on a system). So, when a known problem
   is discovered on a system, if I know about it, I fix it and everyone
   is happy. Then I go and see the guy responsible for the system and explain
   what I did to solve the problem.
   His way of seeing is the opposite: "people first". So he suggests that
   the person who has to deal with the given problem be found, then taught
   on the problem, then s/he will try to fix it, then etc.. He means that
   solving a technical problem must not create a frustration, and hence
   the human part of the issue is the first one to deal with.
   
   This approach is certainly better talking in terms of human relationship
   but during all that time, the system is still stopped and noone can work
   anymore during we are doing "human relationship."
   
   Explaining that to him, the answer was "At DEC, people come first, mission
   comes after"

   Didier

    re: .8--At DEC, people (meaning employees) do not come first.
    This company is in business to make a profit, therefore customers
    come first.  If my management tells me to work hard (nights and
    weekends, etc) to solve a customer's problem, my manager is doing
    the right thing, even if my personal life suffers.  (Of course,
    I expect my management to make it up to me after the problem is
    solved.)
    
    Similarly, if somebody like Didier fixes a problem at a customer's
    site by modifying my software in a way that offends me, I may talk
    to Didier about it, but I won't be greatly upset, because I know
    that Didier was trying to get the customer "back up".  The real
    problem is mine, for creating software that made the customer's
    system fail, and requireing Didier to fix it.
    
    To restate: the customer comes first, Digital employees are second.
    If a manager has his priorities backwards, try to work around him.
    If necessary, keep him in the dark about things if you think he
    would react incorrectly.  (This only works if everybody cooperates,
    of course.)
        John Sauter

    It would also seem that the operations committee is trying to run
    DEC as a business, not as a playpen for engineers (being an engineer,
    I'm not thrilled, being a stockholder, I'm ecstatic (sp).
    
    Danny

    Moderator::  Please delete the last two notes, they are talking
    about unannounced products.
    
    

    In 1974 the Operations Committee published the "DIGITAL EQUIPMENT
    CORPORATION CORPORATE PHILOSOPHIES".  These 15 commandments are
    a major part of our culture and what makes Digital a great place
    to work.  Sadly these commandments are not displayed in all facilities
    as they once were.  Even worse many employees, INCLUDING MANAGERS,
    don't know they exist.  Other people believe them to be too simplistic
    and naieve.
    
    It's very hard to run a business from 15 points of philosophy when
    almost all business training emphasizes quanitative methods.  Managers
    find it far easier to watch the numbers rather than extrapolate
    or interpolate from these points of philosophy.
    
    In true engineering fashion, the 'FIRST RULE' is last on the list.
    It is, of course, in all cases do what is 'right'.
    
    We must ALWAYS do what is RIGHT and force those around and above
    us to do likewise.  Forcing should NEVER mean doing anything negative
    like NOT helping a customer just to prove a point.
    
    Don

    Several significant dichotomies appear in here:
    
    o  "What's right for the customer" vs. "What's right for the people
        with whom you work"
    
    o  "Medicore people who do what they're told" vs. "Self-motivated
        individual achievers who move the product set ahead"
    
    o  "Market-driven" vs. "Engineering-driven" (vs. "Management-driven"
        - maybe that's a trichotomy?)
    
    Perhaps others.
    
    I won't say that such things were unknown in the 'old DEC', but
    they certainly weren't as bothersome.  And, as has been mentioned,
    the primary reason for this was the success of a very flat
    hierarchy with lots of interaction and communication.
    
    Though size increases have made that model more difficult to manage,
    concurrent advances in communication (primarily MAIL and Notes)
    have kept it within the realm of possibility - if there existed
    an explicit, pervasive commitment to maintaining such a way of
    life (e.g., organizational structures that helped support it -
    SARA was one, but not an adequate one, it seems).
    
    A lot of managers, most especially newer ones who never experienced
    the old model in action, have no stake in retaining it:  they can't
    understand how useful it could be (I maintain that you can't really
    benefit from works like IN SEARCH OF EXCELLENCE without having already
    experienced what they're talking about:  their presentations just
    aren't sufficient in and of themselves), and they (correctly) see
    it as a dilution of traditional managerial authority (without which
    they don't know how to make things work well - not understanding
    that in such models, managers HELP things work rather than MAKE
    them work).
    
    DEC has already swung to being a 'managed' company - an apparently
    natural progression in corporations our size (and a lot smaller,
    in many cases).  How to get the pendulum to swing back to some
    intermediate position (I don't believe it can, or should, go all
    the way) is not at all clear.
    						- Bill
    

    By the way, I have to take exception to John's comments in .9.
    
    If my manager 'told' me to work nights, weekends, etc. to solve
    some customer (or development) problem, I would tell him/her exactly
    where to stuff it.  Guess I wouldn't work very well with Didier's
    example mgr.
    
    Not that I'm unwilling to put in such efforts - I often have - but
    because *I* felt committed to the effort, not because someone else
    committed me to it.  In fact, even being ASKED to do this kind of
    thing is fairly rare:  if it really needed doing, I should already
    be aware of the fact and working on it (unless my management and
    I disagree on the problem's severity, in which case we need to reach
    a shared understanding).
    
    Yes, this attitude does not fit in as well in the new DEC as it
    did in the old.  In practice, this makes it more difficult to find
    projects into which I fit well:  not only does the technical fit
    have to be good, but the organizational one as well, if I'm to be
    as valuable a contributor as I can be.
    
    Fortunately, there are still a few places where it does work well.
    If this ever ceases to be the case, there are other companies
    in which it fits well - and while I'll miss DEC, I won't mind
    leaving Digital.
    				- Bill
    

RE: .0, .8

If this manager really believes as Didier has said in .0 and .8, I hope he
leaves, and soon.  There is no place in Digital for somebody like that,
especially in management.

"Thinking like an engineer," indeed.  There are three productive parts of
the company:  those who design products, those who build products, and those
who sell products.  Management is an overhead function, a necessary evil that
should be kept to a minimum.  The good managers realize that.

--PSW

    The major theme that I have seen being articulated by upper management
    these days is: "Customer satisfaction is job number 1." This stems
    from a fundamental belief that by satisfying customers will come
    growth and profits. Customer satisfaction includes many things such
    as product quality and competitiveness (engineering), predictability
    and availability of orderred products (sales, manufacturing), etc.
    The increasing swing to management that I have seen is all driven
    to achieve the above. Of course it is nice to be getting inventories
    under control to free up cash. But the real value is so we can continue
    to have product to offer our customers.

>       Yes, this attitude does not fit in as well in the new DEC as it
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    did in the old.  In practice, this makes it more difficult to find

   
   I am sad to see this expression for the first time since I read notes...

   Let me thank all of you who sent mail about the current discussion.
   Some of them suggested to escalate this 'kind of management' issue to
   pers rep in Maynard. I know by experience (remember Norbert file)
   that to win, an escalation has to be very well documented, and only with
   non-personal elements, I mean without subjectivity or feelings. I am
   mot sure this can be done. The only thing with is worse trying (without
   too many risks) is to try to demonstrate that we work not as well as
   we could do if we had a 'standard' management, dealing more with human
   issues than political ones, in France that is.
   I can't say more here because the discussion (again) is on the root
   of the issue not about myself. I can only give objective examples.
   
   What is also true is that, yes, there are many DEC around the world,
   but it is not so easy to leave a country for another, except in
   giving a dismissal (sp?)
   
   Maybe I can ask the US government for DECpolitical asylum? :-)

   Didier "Work free or Leave"

.16>    Yes, this attitude does not fit in as well in the new DEC as it
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   
.19> I am sad to see this expression for the first time since I read notes...

    People change as the years go by; so do corporations.  The Digital
    Equipment Corporation I work for now isn't the same DEC I joined
    ten years ago, and I'm sure that others who have been around fifteen,
    twenty years or even more feel the same way.
    
    Note that Bill who wrote .16 is a typical "old DECkie," not one
    who says "This is the new DEC; love it or leave it."
    
    While DEC has changed, I feel that her essential character has not.
    It is unrealistic to yearn for the DEC of the old days, because
    you cannot turn back the clock.  To the extent that one can still
    find that essense which is the DEC hallmark, one can still work
    here.  Others decide, as Stan did, that DEC just ain't what she
    used to be and so the right thing to do is to leave.
    
  --Simon
    

    re: 18
    
    "Customer Satisfaction is Job Number 1" certainly is the message
    for the Customer Services groups.
    
    "Best Engineered Computers in the World" might still apply to
    engineering, provided one conforms to existing engineering strategies.
    
    I call these things compasses.  They are organizational devices
    that all point in the same direction when people start arguing about
    funding, deadlines, commitments, etc. and offer an overall
    organizational goal.
    
    It's been my observation that the groups in DEC that aren't actually
    pushing the local "state of the art" forward or directly responding
    to customers don't have compasses that work well.
    
    What's common between engineering and customer services?  We can't
    stand still: just over our shoulder are competitors eager to see us stumble
    and drop the ball.  We've got the discipline of the marketplace
    that tells us what we're doing right and what we're doing wrong.

Didier's original note (.0) keeps reminding me of some things that came
out of the Space Shuttle investigation.

Apparently, on the night before the launch, most if not all of the
Morton-Thiokol engineers who were consulted opposed the launch due to the
cold.  When upper management of M-T got together to discuss what their
recommendation would be, one vice president reminded the vice-president
of engineering to "wear your management hat" (as opposed to his engineering
hat, I suppose).

Bob

               
    I once read that rule number 1 was:  "Do what is right in every
    situation."  The rule further explained that there should be no
    conflict between what was right for the customer and what was right
    for Digital.  Clearly not everybody lives by this rule now, if they
    ever heard it.
    
    I have had managers who were so caught up in the process that the
    product became irrelevant.  I left those jobs.  If this one ever
    gets that way I will leave too. 

    After my first day at Digital (as a contract worker in 1976), I swore I
    would never come back.  The Mill was still a sweat shop where I nearly
    broke my fingers stuffing rubber corks in IC tubes. However, I
    discovered later that managers make decisions based on their own
    styles.  How one manager sees policies varies drastically from how
    another sees it. 
    
    Are we changing?  Yes, but with any luck we will still give engineers
    the freedom to develop the best possible products.   The freedom
    to disagree is what makes this company what it is.  If that ever
    goes away, I think many of the good people will go with it.
    
    Ben

    		I saw this in net.space the other day, and thought that
    it had some ideas related to this discussion which were worth passing
    on...
    
    
Newsgroups: net.space
Path: decwrl!glacier!oliveb!hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!hpfcmp!rjn@hpfcmp
Subject: Tough decisions, jobs & careers
Posted: 15 Mar 86 21:31:00 GMT
Organization: 
 
re:  Between a rock and a hard place?  How did you get there?
 
There has been some discussion in this group [net.space] about whether the
Morton Thiokol engineers ought to have gone to the press with their
opposition to the Challenger launch.  The postings so far have concentrated
on issues like:
  * Would whistle blowing cost them their jobs and/or careers [probably].
  * Do their professional ethics or statute law require them to go public
    [not necessarily].
  * How much proof or certainty do you need before going public [look in
    the mirror].
  * How to blow the whistle anonymously.
 
 
The position in which these engineers found themselves probably did not have
an easy or "right" solution.  I contend that what they "should have done"
was to prepare for this crisis better.  Is this "20-20 hindsight"?  Sure.
But consider the following:
 
* Whenever you are involved in a business (or personal) relationship with
  other people, there is risk of getting out of agreement on any number of
  issues.  If you cannot negotiate a satisfactory solution, your only
  choices may be to capitulate, terminate the relationship, or act without
  agreement (which may terminate the relationship anyway).
 
* Although it may be unpleasant to plan for this, you need to anticipate the
  possibility when you enter a relationship.  If you don't do this, each
  conflict can easily become a crisis in which you find yourself compelled
  to make serious decisions in an uncomfortably short period of time.
 
* Most people don't consider this when they choose a job.  In addition, they
  often adopt the most affluent lifestyle their salary permits.  And, they
  sometimes massively compound the problem by choosing a career in an
  industry dominated by a single organization (.e.g.  air traffic control).
 
* Being "at the mercy of" a job does not encourage dealing with issues when
  they arise.  The tendency is likely to be the opposite, hoping that the
  problem will go away, and procrastinating until there is a dramatic
  eleventh-hour confrontation.
 
 
This article is not really about the M.T. engineers.  It is too late for
them.  They made their choices and now confront the consequences, whatever
they may be.  This is about you.  What will YOU do if presented with a
similar dilemma?  Are you in a position to do what you consider to be the
most responsible thing?
 
The discussion about the M.T. engineers has made me aware of what has been
for me a largely unconscious policy.  These are the principles I seem to
have adopted:
 
* Choose a career in an industry which has diverse and highly competitive
  participants, such that if you resign or get fired, you have alternatives.
  Granted, there will be costs.  If working somewhere else were more
  attractive, you'd already be there.
 
* Choose an employer that has corporate or institutional objectives that you
  can support, and appears to have people willing to live by them.  Such
  organizations are usually more attractive in general, so this may mean
  accepting a lower starting salary.
 
* If the kind of results you want to create in the world are only available
  in a "monopolized" industry (e.g.  astronaut), acknowledge that.  Be at
  least psychologically prepared to start a new career.
 
* Head off crisis.  Take responsibility for making/keeping your organization
  the kind of place at which you are proud to work.  Anticipate and consider
  likely scenarios that would put you out of agreement with your employer.
  Do whatever is required to make the issues visible.  A slow-growing or
  chronic problem actually has the benefit that it gives you both time to
  influence it and/or time to prepare to move on.
 
* This does not mean being a crusader who attacks every decision with
  righteous hostility and moral indignation.  My experience is that
  condemnations and other negative value judgements do not create positive
  results.  What does work is supporting integrity in others and focusing on
  impartial presentations of actions vs consequences.
 
* Keep your "parachute" packed.  My definition of affluence is "living below
  your means".  Should a conflict occur, having a reasonably liquid nest egg
  and a low debt load simplifies the considerations.
 
* Check out "drop zones" from time to time.  Once a year or so, update your
  relationship to the job market.  Have some idea of what you're worth, and
  to whom.
 
There's no need to even advertise this as your policy (too late for me, I
guess :-).  What it should do is merely give you the confidence that, no
matter what the situation, you have the maximum freedom to act with
integrity.
 
Is this posting just pious B.S.?  Not really.  I was NOT in the above
position on the one occasion that I resigned a job over an ethical issue.
I'd rather not confront a situation like that again.  Yes, I could arrange
my affairs so that a future decision would be equally difficult.  And yes,
I could get to feel very sanctimonious about it after making the "right"
choice.  But that's not the objective.  I just like life to proceed simply,
with a minimum of unnecessary drama.
 
Are there any "O-rings" on your horizon?
 
Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland                                            3404 East Harmony Road
[ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn                             Fort Collins CO  80525
 
This article does not represent the official position,  if any,  of the
Hewlett-Packard Company.

    .-1
    
    Absolutely outstanding.
    
    Expresses a great deal of what I've muddled through over the years,
    and only recently tried to put together coherently (so that I
    understood it well enough to take anticipitory rather than after-
    the-fact actions).
    
    Hard enough to follow when you're footloose, single, independent.
    Far worse when families exist to extend and in part divide
    commitments and obligations.  Probably EXTREMELY difficult to live
    with (or even to develop) if these family obligations were taken
    on at a relatively early age - i.e., before you really had a chance
    to come to terms with your relationship to your work.
    
    But if your job is important to you in ways other than simply
    providing a source of income, then it's equally important to
    learn how to live with it under the less-than-ideal circumstances
    that eventually almost always arise.
    							- Bill
    

    re: .24
    
    That's very good. I'll have to try to follow those suggestions.
    I once made a career change (from Registered Nurse to computer hacker)
    because I refused to do some things that I was ordered to do. So,
    I can definitely relate to .24.
    
    -George

RE: .0, et al.... DEC not run by engineering, but by marketing?!?

Interesting that people think that... Do people realize that 80%+ of DECs
product line is now new from 2 years ago...  Take a look at how products
are designed and spec'd...  We didn't market the new uVAXs and VAX 8x00s into
existance we engineered them...  If we were a 'marketing' driven company we
would have a MEGA$$ TV ad and hype budget... if anything we're a MARKET driven
company... you create and fill markets with real products not TV ads, take
DECworld for example...

"We have it now!" not because somebody thought it up a nifty slogan (which
I really like BTW) but because we designed, engineered, tested, marketed,
and sold the damn stuff... Nobody's more important than anyone else, but
if you want to be good at building computers and stay that way you better
spend your time building computers...

Your manager ought to step back think for a moment, he's got a problem...
We're all in this together...  As an engineer I must appreciate that I
must build a product that can be marketed and sold.  I expect the marketing
and sales people would like well engineered products...  I know the 
customers do!!!

BTW, Just to provide balance on what's DECs like, around here in Spitbrook,
New Hampshire USA we have about 2000 engineers...  Sometimes around lunch
time we see people walking around with suits and ties on...  Rumor has it,
those guys and gals are from...marketing or sales... Running joke around here
is if somebody's got a tie on either it's their first day of work or they don't
work here...  So I certainly don't feel that the company is run by marketing...

Britt...

   (this person writes like I did two years ago... with passion!) :-)
   
   Let me clarify the point. The issue addressed here is specific to Europe,
   and as far as I am concerned, to France. Country management here keeps
   on saying that we (French) are here to SELL, not to produce.
   
   I agree with his will, as he is the Country manager, ok? [In Europe, there
   is NO WAY to discuss decisions before they are taken, if it is not in your
   business. So I HAVE to agree, even when I STRONGLY disagree] What I say is
   that there is no will from 'them' to employ people with an engineering mind
   in non-engineering departments. (my own manager told me one day that
   there is no need for engineers in Software Services... Who will maintain
   the SW, then? the marketers? the salesmen? :-)
   
   You will say "so, don't join IS". Ok, but I knew that AFTER joining IS,
   and again it is not specific to MY situation, but it is the same
   unhappiness for all of us who are found reading an Ada documentation
   during work time, and who are told "You are not supposed to learn Ada,
   are you?"
   
   Let me add some new elements:
   Yesterday a friend asked his manager to be allowed to have a Bliss course,
   explaining that he would be happy to move to system programming in his
   next function. His manager replied that there was no need today for
   a system programmer, so he refused the course.
   
   Who said it is the employee at DEC who is responsible for the development
   of his  career?
   
   Didier (we may go on for a looong time if you wish to have more examples)

    *I* said it is the employee at DEC who is responsible for the
    development of his career.  (Even if I didn't say it first, I'm
    saying it now.)  I keep my management informed when I'm unhappy
    for any reason, and I tell them when I go interviewing, but I
    don't expect them to help me develop my career.  I do expect
    them to give me room enough to develop my skills, but I use that
    room to read Ada manuals in the library, and hack together some
    programs.  (And read notes, a very expanding experience!)
    
    However, this "room" that I expect is no different from letting
    me leave work unexpectedly if my wife's car breaks down, for example.
    It is my time, which I use for my own purposes, including developing
    my career.
        John Sauter

    Re: 94.28
    
    I feel that your statement about these problems being specific to
    Europe are over_general.  It's probably wrong to say that these
    problems are to be found everywhere in DEC, and it is as wrong to
    say that they are specific to Europe or to IS_Europe.
    
    I work in IS, I work in Geneva, hence I guess I qualify as working
    for IS_Europe, but I just don't see the problems you descrive happening
    around me.  I have no doubt that not everything in this company
    is perfect, but I remain convinced that, all in all, we have one
    of the best working environment in the marketplace.
    
    I quite easily relate to the problems you're faced with (I had these
    types of problems with my previous employer), but I believe they
    have more to do with specific persons than with a whole function
    or the entire company.  Restes avec nous, Didier.
    
    St�phane.

   When I gave precise details, I specified who said so. I never suggested
   that is is European-specific nor IS specific.
   
   Please, don't make me say what I didn't. And re-read .0
   Thanks
   
   Didier
   (I will stay. I have personally no problem) :-)

Ahh Gi'day...

    Re [.27]

    I think  you are living in an unreal environment, Britt! I would hazard
    a  guess  that  most  facilities  outside the NE, and parts of Seattle,
    Colorado and Reading in England, DO NOT have many engineers. 

    Most of   the  facilities  around  the  world  are  SALES  and  SERVICE
    locations, and it is the dollars that THEY produce that allow YOU to be
    in engineering (and just about all men here wear ties). It was reported
    in  Computerworld  here that DEC in Australia and New Zealand produce 2
    1/2 times the revenue per employee than the US.

    Lack of  an  engineering growth path is a sore point around here, and I
    can see Didiers comments reflecting this point of view.

				{dennis{{{ --

I am another veteran of jobs and roles in DEC. Over the last 14 years I have
been a tech in manufacturing, branch support engineering in field service,
consultant in software service, principle engineer in maintainability 
engineering, product manager in field service product management, and now 
a senior manager in CSSE.

At the time that I joined DEC, Burroughs had offered me a job repairing
memory modules, and AT&T offered me a job maintaining their video (broadcast)
lines. (Most of my BSEE was in analog / radio / video, and I have a commercial
license). DEC offered me a job building complete DECsystem 10s.

When I desired to meet, see, and touch customers, I transferred to field
service.

When I desired to understand HOW the systems were used, sell, and consult,
I transferred to software services.

When I desired to educate engineering regarding our problems of SYSTEM
maintenance, customer dissatisfaction (complaints), etc. I transferred to
maintainability engineering.

When I desired to understand and effect our worldwide service business,
I became a product manager.

When I desired to understand and effect the strategies that govern the service
business(s) I moved towards planning / strategy / ops / etc.

-----------------
My point is that there are a plethora of opportunities in DEC, and that
DEC is a company where it is possible to pursue those opportunities.
-----------------

-----------------
As it was stated in a previous reply, we may sometimes like the 'old' DEC,
but we can not return to the old DEC. I for one was very sorry to see LCG
killed having spent 8 years with those products, however, I appreciate the
business environment, and agree that we could not continue along that path.
-----------------

-----------------
Driven by Engineering or marketing ?
        There is no question. We ARE engineering driven.
-----------------

The funny truth is that there is perhaps an equal presence of both engineering
and marketing talent in the corporation. The E/M drive perception is more the
result of:

	1) Our strategic plan formulation 
	2) Our ability to manage people and projects.
	3) Linkage between organizations.

Taking each item;

	1) A good strategic plan includes a good set of objectives.
I judge the GOODNESS (don't confuse with attributes like aggressiveness)
of strategic objectives using the following criteria;

	1) Should be specific		2) Timely
	3) Measurable			4) Feasible
	5) Acceptable

Almost ALL of the plans that I have reviewed flunk the tests hands down.
We tend to write Apple pie, unmeasurable, non specific, sometimes unrealistic
objective statements. The result is an ambiguous set of statements that
resemble a mission statement. The ultimate result is card blanche to every
manager to translate these ambiguous statements into an agenda that favors
his or her's group. I.E. Engineering's translation does not equal marketing's.

There are various groups that are getting better. In the last few weeks,
I have actually seen specific statements, with specific dates, etc. I feel
good about it.


	2) We have difficulty in managing people and projects especially
in engineering. I know two software engineering managers that are reluctant
to 'direct' engineers too strongly out of fear of loosing the talent. This
is not a special case. The result as seen by non engineering organizations
is the "Engineering knows best" syndrome.
Engineering knows best how to design and build, period.
Some organizations like CSSE tend to fight this battle, others accept it.
In either case, engineering has to regain management control and become 
a better corporate citizen.

Again, I am happy to see the results of change over the last year. With
the creation of the 'PBU' engineering management is getting the message
and responding positively.

	3) Links between organizations. The standard menu of problems exist
here: communications, politics, charter conflicts, etc.

Again, things are getting better. I believe the 'PBU', mentioned earlier,
has had the greatest positive impact.


Overall,

In the past 14 years, we have gone through tremendous change both in our
size, thoughts, and environment.

We sometimes concentrate or push some fashionable idea (sometimes at the cost
of some other), but just as the pendulum swings, so do we. The average
resultant is good.

We have recognized some of our flaws and are actively correcting them.

Look at our stock.

Sorry for my rambling,
Bob Brown...
    

    I for one haven't given up the ship (though there have been times...):
    I'm still here.
    
    No need to apologize for rambling:  it's very nice to see the other
    (good) side of the coin presented in such detail.  Often, people
    (including me) tend to dwell on the things that are frustrating
    to the point where the good points recede into the background.
    
    BUT - it is those problem areas that need the most attention, and
    it's equally dangerous to let the many strong areas push THEM into
    a background of relative complacency.
    
    DEC is currently riding a wave of success, and likely will continue
    to do so for at least the next year.  The stock price reflects this
    product-set strength (with a slight overshoot, since corrected,
    due to the rash of recent introductions).
    
    But the current product set is not a measure of the current health
    of the company.  The major decisions leading to it took place
    between 5 and 12 years ago; even the specific hardware decisions
    date back 3 to 6 years.  The current product set reflects PAST
    foresight - and one could observe that the size of the time
    interval separating this foresight from reality is an indication
    of increasing corporate entropy.
    
    Yes, DEC continues to provide an incredibly rich learning
    environment, with opportunities across the board.  But the
    opportunities to put this learning to use in a focussed and
    productive manner are harder to come by than in the past.
    It's not that people, and the corporation, aren't trying as
    hard:  it's just that growth has made the job more difficult.
    
    DEC certainly won't be in bad shape even 5 years from now, but
    it is possible that more inspired competition will have moved
    us more toward the status of an 'also-ran' by then.  It's also
    possible that the competition will be no more inspired than we
    are, in which case our position will continue to improve - but
    I hate to count on that.
    					- Bill
    

    Didier, glad to see you haven't given up the ship.  DEC is a great
    place to work, and if things get "unacceptable" where you are currently
    working (refer to note 117), you can always go elsewhere within
    the company.  As noted elsewhere, DEC is changing, and if you cannot
    agree with your manager's interpretation of that change, then by
    all means, MOVE.  From my own experience, the system (including
    ODP) works; in my case, I could not agree that revenue was more
    important than customer satisfaction.
    
    Jon

Is revenue even possible over the long term without customer satisfaction?

(I suppose there will be some that say there are firms that make a business 
out of it :-)

	Mike

    Here are two Corporate Sayings (if you know what I mean):
    
    "Revenue comes about because of Customer Satisfaction."
    
    "Growth comes from meeting the budget."
    
    
    RMM

    Also a saying which I believe was originated in the "hypothetical"
    sws district described in 120:
    
    "While Digital appreciates effort, it really only pays for results".
    
    Jon