Conference 7.286::digital

re: < Note 343.0 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Pat Sweeney" >
                 -< Layers of Mgmt; Productivity from OA here >-

>    One of the benefits to office automation suggest by John Sculley,
>    the CEO of Apple, was that it's fostered effective communication
>    within organizations, reducing the layers of management.

Blatantly true.  In fact the note entry is somewhat self proving.
    
>    In how many parts of this comany are there really an appropriate
>    number of layers of management?

How many (few really) see enough of the company to competently
answer this question?  (As if "appropriate" wasn't vague enough
by itself.)
    
>    If _you_ were asked to comment on Digital's effective use of office
>    automation, would you get tongue-tied over NOTES, Vogon's, and informal
>    channels before you identify something that a non-technical and
>    skeptical audience could recognize as an improvement to productivity
>    that will make Digital more profitable or serve customers better?

No.  It would be a very easy question to answer.  Every manager acts
primarily through meetings and memos.  Electronic mail is an incredible
productivity tool.  I would be loathe to move to a company without
it.  Most manager's i know agree.  They would give up their phone before
their terminal and that is remarkable change in attitude.  Mail not
only directly increases written productivity; it indirectly improves
meeting productivity.

Probably the greatest down-side to office automation is its that can
dehumanize -- that is, be substituted for face-to-face or at least a
telephone call, where such is really the appropriate response.


- greg

ps: What is the difference between "_you_" and "you"?

    re .1 >ps: What is the difference between "_you_" and "you"?

    I assume that Pat is using the convention where '_foo_' is the
    representation of the italicized or underlined form of 'foo', 
    namely, for emphasis.
    
  --Simon

    Simon is correct, I was hoping to elicit responses of the form:
    "I understand it, it helps me" as opposed to "Well, I use the network
    for notes, and I get computer junk mail, but _someone_ must be able
    to use it effectively."
    
    While we may take it as an article of faith, there's a large number
    of studies emerging that "prove" that the billions spent on OA in
    large corporations were largely wasted.
    
    Before we confidently sell more of this stuff, it would be nice
    to be reassured that we indeed use it effectively.

    
    Although automation was not the primary cause of the recent (ongoing)
    field service reorganization, the fact that the supporting systems
    had evolved as much as they had made it easier to accomplish. Basicly,
    the BOD mandated that FS align with the other field organizations
    - that meant doing away with the 'branch' level of structure and
    management. Some of the old staff positions had been more necessary
    at an earlier time when so much had to be done manually. It is part
    of DEC's way of doing things that almost all of the old BM level
    managers were assimilated into the new org so there is not a real-
    time net reduction in payroll ... but that will come with time.
    
    Anyway, there is now one less level of management - whether FS can
    do business as well is yet to be proved.

re: .2, .3

I was unclear; I knew the convention, was asking, "why the emphasis?"

>    While we may take it as an article of faith, there's a large number
>    of studies emerging that "prove" that the billions spent on OA in
>    large corporations were largely wasted.

Not too surprising, but I hope .1 gives an example of where it has
worked quite well.  I guess I think electronic mail and word processing
are the correct "heart" of OA, and that probably other OA systems reach
too far, rather like the first attempts/promises at AI.

OA carries a chicken-and-egg problem and I suspect it has been much
easier for DEC  (a computer/technology/yuppie company) to quickly
implement than more traditional industry.
    
I've proposed for several years that DEC fund a documentary on how
Easynet, mail, and notes have changed the way we work, with the pre-stated
intent that we will use it for advertising.  Perhaps something like a
one-hour Nova show, with a 1/2 hour version based on extracts from
the show and outtakes.

- greg

    Today it helped a lot.
    
    This morning, a tech writer in Reading completed edits to a base level
    text which I am to review with someone else on Thursday, in Europe.  (I
    leave Mass. tomorrow night.) After completing the LN03 image
    preparation (using DOCUMENT, I suppose), he sent me mail giving a
    pointer to the file on  his node, and I copied it, printed it on our
    local printer, and began to review it.  This before lunch. 

    Lessee, without computers a similar operation would involve typing,
    flying the paper over,....
         fred

    I don't think I would equate "OA" with the kind of Electronic
    communications described in .6.  OA out here in the boonies appears to
    be implemented using All-in-1, through which I am bombarded with junk!
    Anything important is communicated either through the phone, in person,
    or by VAXmail.  
    
    On the other hand, we use the network for a lifeline to Digital.
    Documentation, products, some communications, are all done through
    DECNET.  Notes are now so pervasive that when you call Colorado
    for help they may (and HAVE) tell you to check a Notes file first.
    
    Dave P    

    I have two observations. Now in my second corporate group, I observe
    the need for tools to keep information up to date with hundreds
    of people both within Digital and in other organizations. The first
    group I joined is staffed by traditional managers who have a
    disappreciation for new systems (and thoughts) and have built an
    enormous layer of middle management to keep up with the myriad of
    external contacts to do their jobs. My current organization uses
    the most advanced OA tools available and has kept operations small
    and simple. I cannot help but believe that without using these assists
    we would have added a layer of information "coordinators" or
    "researchers".
    
    Another thought of interest: we cull much information from technical
    papers written in universities and other laboratories. The writers
    in these environments are becoming more sophisticated in their
    publishing techniques and enhancing their technical work by means
    of added graphics, etc. Our OA tools currently help receive documents
    and extract pertinent information for use, but I would not be surprised
    if we find ourselves limited in the next couple years. We must stay
    in touch with the users to understand their tools as well. Otherwise,
    we could create more office support jobs and find the people
    photocopying papers again.

OA is probably one of the most misused acronyms in the industry.  When people
first started using word processors, that was considered by many to be OA.  Once
MAIL came out, THAT became a component of the OA suite.  Then came Visi-Calc,
electronic calendars, message desks, and a whole lot more.  So just what is OA?
It's anything you want it to be.

Using that definition, being able to distribute documentation or sofware is
DEFINATELY saving the company big $$$'s.  The problem is we take everything we
do for granted and as a result forget how automated we reallty are.

Just to through out some contradictory discussion, how many times have you got
burned throught MAIL.  That is, you start an electronic discussion with one or
more people and due to the lack of voice/personal contact, something gets
misinterpretted.

btw - 	I liked the earlier suggestion about a documentary.  The world deserves
	to get educated on just what really is possible.

-mark

    
    Here is a DEC anectode from this week's issue of InformationWeek:
    
    Quote 
    
    		'The Tom Sawyer Approach'
    
    If you really want to get everyone in your company to use E-mail,
    try withholding it from them. That's how Digital Equipment Corporation
    got its troops on-line. Company president Ken Olsen got the ball
    rolling by giving the vice presidents who reported to him network
    accounts, which he insisted they use to communicate with him. Then
    the VPs' direct reports clamored for mail privileges and got them.
    And so it went. "It filtered down, and for a while you had to be
    a manager to send mail and it was a big deal because then you could
    send mail to Ken Olsen and the vice-presidents," recalls marketing
    executive Dave Conlon. Now almost all DEC employees are E-mail addicts
    and Olsen gets so much mail he needs three secretaries to sort it
    out. Perhaps the chapter on how Tom Sawyer got his friends to paint
    a fence for him-by making it seem a privilege- should be anthologized
    for management textbooks.
    
    End Quote
    
    
    How true is this story and what morals can be drawn?
    
    
    RV

re .11

The story is true as long as you ignore VAXmail on the Engineering Network;
it's true for the non-computer-literate managers in the "business" parts of
the company or at the pinnacles of Engineering.

The individual contributors and managers up to the CC manager level in
Engineering have all had access to and have been using electronic mail
since 1979-1980.

/john

    RE: .11
    
    
    	Sounds to me like that was EMS. Different from VAXmail and the
    	predecessor to DECmail and the like. Many people had to be pulled
    	away screaming from EMS "cuz that's the way I've been doing
    	it for years".
    
    							mike

    When the engineering net came to Reading in England we were at last
    able to stop using the awful RCS system for communicating with fellow
    engineers in the USA. It was a while before we could use VAXmail
    to communicate with our managers, because they all had EMS accounts
    which they read maybe once per week. Eventually we trained our managers
    in the use of VAXmail and they got to like it.
    
    The engineering network was put together informally by engineers
    for their own use, and VAXmail was a midnight project done to make
    the engineering network more useful to engineers. It's come a long
    way since then!
    
    I've had some amusing experiences with fairly senior managers, new
    to the company who really couldn't get used to VAXmail and the absence
    of paper memos. There was one who had his secretary print all the
    new messages every morning to make a pile of paper in his "in tray".
    She would also type the replies for him.
    
    Richard.

    343.11 is really confusing several issues.    
    
    Even today, systems that exist for CC mgrs and above are _consistently_
    too slow, too unreliable, too difficult to use such that the familiar
    pattern of having secretaries print out the incoming mail and
    input the outgoing mail is "how things get done around here".
    
    Keyboarding to read, store, and send mail is considered something
    that hackers ie individual contributors, and the bottom two levels
    of mgmt do.  You know, people whose time isn't valuable...
    
    What we have here is a system of transport of 1950's-style
    communication that is faster than the US or interoffice mail.
    Eliminating the mail delay _is_ a big step forward, but hardly a
    revolution for top mgmt. 
    
    The "clamor" to get EMS accounts wasn't to be able to send messages
    _to_ senior management.  The "clamor" was to get EMS accounts in
    order to cope with very unreliable mailing lists and gateways into
    other messaging systems to get messages _from_ senior management
    who had unrealistic expectations regarding when the message would
    be received and acted on.  The only way to avoid being "blindsided"
    by EMS was to have an account and hope that the EMS node to EMS
    node paths were operating at least once per day.  The Dave Conlon
    version of the story is cute but in my opinion wrong.
    
    Most of the gimmicks of the early days of usage of electronic mail
    seem to have faded from DEC's scene but they pop up every so often
    at new customers as they change their culture.
                                                         

    Re: .14
        
>    I've had some amusing experiences with fairly senior managers, new
>    to the company who really couldn't get used to VAXmail and the absence
>    of paper memos. There was one who had his secretary print all the
>    new messages every morning to make a pile of paper in his "in tray".
>    She would also type the replies for him.
    
    I know a number of managers who still have their secretaries print
    all new messages and type in their responses for them.  Some people
    will never learn...
    
    -  David

Back to .0 and similar relevant commentary...

Mark (Seger) is right that OA means what you want. VAXmail is OA.
ALL-IN-1 is OA. DECMAIL is too. If that is what you call it.

Do we use it to improve our effectiveness or serve customers better?
I think so. Frequently, the only way to reach someone is through mail.
Electronic mail is faster than Inter-office, and is generally more 
efficient in turn-around. That is significant. (No, Pat, you can't claim
it's just 1950's style stuff done with electrons. We are using 10,000 BC 
communication, too - it's called talking.)

Keep in mind also that Office Automation (however you choose to define it)
is usually just an interface to a computer. We (Digital) have a big 
advantage over many (all?) companies because our "computer" happens to be
a network. Thus we can actually accomplish many things that are beyond
the realm of non-networked OA environments. And, yes, we do tend to take
them for granted.

So I _do_ buy into the gains suggested by previous replies. And, near as
I can tell, our corporate culture has a fairly large chunk of something
that sure looks and smells like OA in it, too. 

Are you sure that a "non-technical and skeptical audience" would NOT
recognize NOTES, Vogon's, and informal channels as an improvement to
productivity, etc? 

What does seem to have been (mostly) lost in this discussion is the leading
question of .0. "Where in Digital are there really an appropriate number
of layers of management?" I don't have a comment on that one, although
it's kind of fun to think about.

Karl
Karl

    One specific example of increased efficiency/decreased response
    time is in the PSS project review area.
    
    PAST-
    	local office prepared plan/proposal etc.
    	either FedExed it to next level for approval or approver travelled
    		(1-2 day time + cost)
       	changes made at review level (red ink)
    	FedEx back  (1-2 day time + cost)
    	re-type with changes
    	issue to client
    
    NOW-
    	local office prepares
    	transmits via network
    	return with changes inserted
    	laser print for delivery
    
    
    An additional point, from one in a geographic area covering 9 states
    is that my mail can be read from any terminal!
    
    QUALITY ISSUES
    
    Some additional quality induced by OA:
    
    	DECspell
    	standard 'boilerplates'/templates
    	capability of having additional reviewers (disbursed)
    
    
    -Barry-
    

    When I first came to DEC, I worked in a group which had DECmail and
    VAXmail.  Most people there used DECmail by choice and VAXmail under
    coercion (and only if they had to communicate with engineers!).  Most
    people who had secretarial support asked secretaries to print their
    mail daily and type in most replies.  Most people in the above group
    also had PCs. 
    
    There was no way to predict what system a person was on.  People
    outside the group had to send mail and hope--often mail from outside
    the group was followed up by a phone call to make sure the person knew
    that they had to look at their VAXmail or DECmail account! 
    
    I came to work at Spitbrook last spring where everyone is on VAXmail.
    (I work on ALL-IN-1 products as a course developer, but that system
    is only used for development).  Having everyone working on one networked
    system is very efficient, and is a great asset to productivity.  All
    of our phone messages come to us over VAXmail, allowing us to log
    in from anywhere to quickly get them.  Managers can send messages
    to everyone and be assured that people will have them if they are
    working.  There is a world of difference in the level of efficiency!
    
    I think the difference is that we can predictably reach anyone in
    our group who is at their desk as long as the system is up.  
    
    This factor seems like a good case for developing ALL-IN-1 type
    systems for non-techical audiences.  The ideal situation would be
    for everyone in a group to log in through a basic network and to
    be able to receive messages and announcements through one source
    even if working on a PC or foreign system.                
    
    Holly

    addendum to previous note --
    
    I meant to say *continuing to develop and promoting* ALL-IN-1 systems,
    not merely developing them.                         

    Here in the Southwest, Software folks use VMSmail by choice for
    'peer-to-peer' mail. Our 'corporate' mail accounts were on DECmail
    systems (under protest) along with Sales (who didn't know any better), 
    but Software has been transitioned to a couple of remote All-in-1 
    systems. We can get there via DECservers and a T1 link.
    
    However, as Sales is still hipdeep in DECmail, this gives us all
    fits trying to comprehend what the various message routing systems
    want in terms of recipient syntax between the various mail systems.
    
    I know someone will say, 'look at page 331 in the latest Digital
    telephone directory'... you'd better check it again..
    
    So: MAIL systems... DECmail was a disaster. All-in-1 mail isn't
    much better. VMSmail is at least logical, and doesn't have a massive
    menu structure to learn and then avoid, but, admittedly doesn't
    do well with large distribution lists.
    
    k moeller

    I have to get DECmail from lots of folks.  Up until about two months
    ago, I had a DECmail account on the local MLO machine (DRWHO?).
    
    Then, I found out that anyone who has VAXmail can get their DECmail
    delivered to their VAXmail account (the local DECmail person has
    to update some database, and off it goes)
    
    
    Now, I can send mail out to DECmail sites as well as getting all
    my DECmail that is sent to BILL JACKSON @MLO delivered to my account
    on our cluster.  
    
    
    DECmail is a real pain, and I agree, it was a disaster.  The problem
    is that the sales force is really used to the menu-driven DECmail
    and they'll never change.  (sigh)
    
    
    -bill

    Many of the previous replies to this note keep mentioning 'All-in-1'
    or 'All-In-One', etc, etc.  The correct usage and spelling of this
    Digital trademark is:
    
    ALL-IN-1     ( all caps, digit 1)
    
    As a heavy Oa-er, I, along with many other dedicated ALL-IN-1 support
    personnel, are on an active campaign to educate the general user
    base as to the correct spelling of our product.  Remember what happend
    to aspirin and kleenex!  Help protect our trademark.
    
    Please use the proper spelling!
    
    Regards,
    
    Al
    

    re -1, 'ALL-IN-1' trademark concerns..
    
    Valley National Bank in Arizona has a 'comprehensive banking plan'
    called 'All-In-One'.
    
    Really.
    
    k moeller sws tucson az

    The All-IN-1 folk spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy
    devoted to pushing the spelling of the monniker/acronymn compared
    to clarifying why anyone really needs the product.........
    
    

    I understand that 'All-in-one' is also a popular brand of diapers
    in the UK.
    
    fwiw
    Jon

    Re: .25 (Insulting those of us who support ALL-IN-1 by Iwantawitz)
    
    Yes, it's great fun poking fun at ALL-IN-1 and it's easy to hate.
    
    The reason that it exists is to allow real human users gain access
    to VAX/VMS.  Hard as it may be for you to understand, DCL and almost
    all of our products under VAX/VMS are far too complex for real users
    to use directly.  ALL-IN-1 provides the beginning of a software
    bus.
    
    Real users are people who don't care about computers.  Real user
    far out number the techie users not only in numbers but in value
    of sales.
    
    ALL-IN-1 accounts for a VERY sizable part of Digital's revenue stream
    and will continue to expand in spite of narrow minded people attacking
    it.
    
    Our customers know a good thing when they see it.
    
    And yes, you did manage to misuse the trademark.
    
    Have a happy life,
    
    Don

    Don,
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we sell ALL-IN-1 with a system
    doesn't the amount of software bookings (products, consulting etc.)
    usually exceed the hardware? This is probably true for MVII's as
    a matter of course, but I remember that it was true for big systems
    also...
    
    Those of you that choose to slam All-IN-1 probably haven't seen
    some of the applications that people such as Mr. Vickers have whipped
    out using ALL-IN-1 and a few other accompanying layered products.
    
    They're SUPER!

    Do I gather from this discussion of mail that the terse command
    format of VMSmail is preferred by heavy users and the menu mode
    preferred by casual users (stating the obvious)?
    
    I get this feeling that one could build the same code base and just
    allow a user-selectable user interface.  Yes, I know about menu
    bypass, but if you don't want to see the menu at all, why force
    the poor (1200 baud) user to even look at them.
    
    One difference between VMSmail and DECmail/ALL-IN-1 mail is that
    VMS mail immediately confirms the addressee while DECmail/A1 allow
    store and forward in case the recipient's node is down.  I'm ignoring
    NMAIL for the moment, which in essence turns VMSmail into DECmail.
    
    The VMSmail approach has the advantage of instant verification that
    the address is correct.  The DECmail approach allows mail to be
    batched up in case the target node is down.  I suspect the networks
    of customers (and our own field offices) may not be quite as robust
    as the Easynet in New England.  This could be a part of the reason
    why DECmail/ALL-IN-1 mail is so popular with customers and the DEC
    field organization.
    
    john

    Re: .29
    
    John,
    
    Your analysis is quite correct as far as it goes.  The most obvious
    difference between VAXmail and ALL-IN-1 mail is the initial UI.
    The ALL-IN-1 UI provides additional user support and feedback in
    that the user can enter partial names of addressees and search through
    lists of local and remote users.  It should be pointed out that
    ALL-IN-1 works just fine sending and receiving through VAXmail which
    is the way a fair number of people in the field operate.
    
    The real reason that ALL-IN-1 accounts for such a large amount of
    customer sales is that it is _far_ more than mail.  ALL-IN-1 provides a
    platform for a very wide range of application integration and
    development.  It provides a very easy means for being molded to do
    exactly what users need in very short order.  It certainly isn't shy
    about using resources; it never uses more than are available. 
    
    Any ALL-IN-1 system that is being used properly should have many
    site extensions.  The first thing most people do is to create a
    mail menu that suits their needs which for most field sites is to
    have a 'command mode' mail menu which just contains a context window
    for the current mail message.
    
    Have a ball,
    
    Don

    I used ALL-IN-1 when it was known as the "Charlotte Package" and
    to see how it has evolved from then to now is amazing!  I think it's
    a fantastic product and when this geography changed from the Southern
    Area to the Mid-Atlantic Area and we had to switch from ALL-IN-1
    to DECmail it was almost the same as going from a BMW to a jalopy.
    Thank goodness we have ALL-IN-1 back and even though our present
    systems people have not given us the ability to use some of the
    applications we had used previously; i.e., DECalc, it's still a
    tremendous tool.  It's everything I could ask for in one neat package.
    Yes, it would be nice to have the choice of eliminating menu screens
    but I can live with them.
    

    I can certainly live without formatted screen menus! I'll
    take a command line anyday thanks! 
    But aside from this why is it so tough to paint format and
    data to the screen at the same time? I'm tired of using internal
    applications like OASIS and SCS that have to fill the screen in
    two passes. Is there no way around this?
    
    lee

    re .32

�    ......why is it so tough to paint format and
�    data to the screen at the same time? 
    
    Its not hard at all.
    
�    I'm tired of using internal
�    applications like OASIS and SCS that have to fill the screen in
�    two passes. Is there no way around this?
    
    Yes, there is a way....good software :-)
    

    Thanx George, suspicions confirmed!
    
    lee

    I'm a bit behind reading this conference but I can't leave some
    of these replies go without expressing an answer....
    
    Re. 21 - "ALL-IN-1 mail is a disaster" ??????
    
    It's so much of a horrible disaster that over 1.3 million customer
    users are quite happy with it and a further 10,000 of them join
    every week.... Also, it's so much of a disaster that ALL-IN-1 has
    now taken 47% of the office market, thus reducing IBM and it's
    PROFS/9370 VAX-killer OIS solution to 20% of the market, and even
    more so much of a disaster that we are constantly being quoted as
    being _the market leaders and pacesetters_ within the OIS market.
    
    Not bad for a disaster huh ?  Maybe you'll think that it's good
    when it's got 100% of the market...
    
    Re .25 - "why do we need the product"
    
    Well, for a start, if we didn't have ALL-IN-1 then you'd have to
    take a 25% cut in your paycheck 'cos that's what ALL-IN-1 means
    to Digital in terms of getting sales dollars. Maybe you can afford
    to sneer at good products which generate that amount of revenue
    but I for one, can't.
    
    I get very pissed off when Digital people castigate our products
    like ALL-IN-1. Our opposition like IBM, Wang and Data General do
    enough of a job without loudmouthed, unknowing and ignorant insiders
    helping them along. Customers do hear about Digital internal opinions
    and these type of replies don't help at all.
    
    If you want to comment about a product wait until you have taken
    the time to totally understand it. At least then you'll spare us
    all from having to read through ignorance. 
    
    Best Regards
    
    Tony

    re .35
    
    Well, as I read .21, the statement was that DECmail was a disaster
    (my limited experience with it leads me to concur). ALL-IN-1
    mail was mentioned as not being much better, so your reaction
    may be justified, but your quote is inaccurate.
    
    Keep in mind that a successful product from the SALES perspective is
    not necessarily a top product from a TECHNICAL perspective.
    Remember, they sold an AWFUL lot of Chevettes. 

    My impression is that ALL-IN-1 sells well because it fills a void,
    and the its mail agent is just PART of the reason people buy the
    overall package. Just because ALL-IN-1 is a successful and
    profitable product does not justify complacency or the dismissing of
    technical complaints regarding ALL-IN-1 Mail. Make it better, and it
    should sell even better, right? (Sure...) 

    From my time in the field, anyway...
    
    Both Decmail and ALL-IN-1 were pleasant to use only when the system
    in question was configured to match its workload;  this was almost
    never the case.  VAXmail seemed much less vulnerable to system load.
    
    Could this explain some of the comments in previous replies?

    Way to go, Tony Redmond (.35) ...
    
    I would venture to say that you will not find a whole lot of 'lukewarm'
    opinions about ALL-IN-1 inside Digital.  People either love it or
    hate it.  I happen to love it.  It inspires a 'religious' fervor
    among its followers unlike *very* few other DEC products, VMS and
    DECnet notwithstanding.  ALL-IN-1's 47% market share and 1,000,000+
    users is a source of tremendous corporate pride and makes it *FUN*
    to go to work.  To the ALL-IN-1 faithful, it is the heartbeat behind
    "Digital Has It Now."
    
    As for its internal reception, what do you, the readers, expect?? Most
    of the systems in Digital's field offices are sadly under-configured to
    run their current application mix, let alone ALL-IN-1.  Most of the
    systems don't have a third of the capacity they need to run ALL-IN-1
    properly.  I recall a conversation with a manager a short while back
    when I requested permission to install it ...  "Sure, Bob, go ahead.
    Just so long as too many people don't use it."
    
    When the powers-that-be in Digital put the *exact* same emphasis on
    capacity planning, systems management and office automation tools
    that we try to *SELL* to our customers, then and only then will
    DEC correct an embarrasing situation.
    
    I guess I've tipped my hand.  Our District still doesn't "Have It
    Now." 
                                                                
    OA$FRUSTRATED
    
    Bob Hunt

    Thanks Bob for the support...
    
    Re. 36.
    
    I don't believe that the ALL-IN-1 community within Digital are content
    to lie back on the numerous sales awards that the product has gained
    for the company. In fact they represent a dynamic, demanding group
    of people who are forever asking for the product to be extended
    so that it can meet customer demands.
    
    ALL-IN-1 is unlike any other product that we sell. It does not have
    a definiable limit to it's capabilities. Every day I find out that
    I can do something else with it and it's power further impresses...
    
    We all know that ALL-IN-1's mail system will not give the absolute
    technies within Digital their ideal mail system. It's whole purpose
    in life is NOT to provide technical people with the way, truth and
    life of a technical mail system. It's true purpose is to provide
    office users with a total OIS environment, a job which the product
    does beyond belief, and which the markey has recognised with all
    the sales that Digital makes with ALL-IN-1.
    
    We know that the product could be better. We know that the performance
    could be better, but the ALL-IN-1 community also recognises that
    we have the best, most flexible and powerful OA tool out there on
    the market. It also socks Digital's other 4GL application development
    offerings into the middle of next week !
    
    Performance is a matter of setting user expectations correctly.
    With in-house machines we don't do a very good job of that and with
    overloaded field machines we make constant ballsups with sizing.
    Given the right environment and the right type of system management
    then ALL-IN-1 can, and does, perform - many customers will testify
    to that... but if Digital peoples' only exposure to ALL-IN-1 is
    on an overloaded, underconfigured VAX then I'm not surprised that
    they complain about performance - but it's not ALL-IN-1's fault,
    rather it's the fault of management who have failed to predicate
    the machine resources that they require to implement a total office
    solution.
    
    Within Digital we must also understand that IS/DIS are making a
    very big changeover at the moment. They are going from DECmail,
    a bounded product whose limits they knew and understood very well
    to ALL-IN-1, a product which is not just a mail system but is also
    word processing, application development, communications control,
    a window to all sorts of other DEC products and much more... is
    it any wonder that they are having difficulties making the change
    - the training headaches alone are enormous - and their difficulties
    are sometimes reflected in comments like "ALL-IN-1's a bitch etc.."
    which come from their lack of understanding... a thing that will
    come with time.
    
    I don't want to restate my case so I'll finish with this : don't
    comment on a product unless you understand it from a technical point
    of view... and finally, don't worry about ALL-IN-1; we have a great
    internal community that is forcing the pace with development of
    the world's best OIS product - as Bob says, it proves on a daily
    basis to our customers that "Digital has it now !"  
    
    Regards
    
    Tony
    
    PS. Ever take 55 seconds to post a 1 page memo to 3 local addressees ?
    That's IBM's answer to ALL-IN-1....

    >>    PS. Ever take 55 seconds to post a 1 page memo to 3 local addressees ?
    >>	  That's IBM's answer to ALL-IN-1....

    Ever tried using ALL-IN-1 on a 780 with 40 other ALL-IN-1 users?
     Least now we have a 785, only takes 40 seconds.
    
   ALL-IN-1 has a great sales record, and if I happen to be using the
    785 by myself, a good feel.  But I STILL prefer VAXmail...
    
    Dave (who has gone through ALL-IN-1 classes till he is sick.)
    

Re .39:

What are some requirements of a "technical mail system" (whatever that is)
which a "total OIS environment" should not have to satisfy?
				/AHM/THX

< Note 343.39 by BISTRO::REDMOND "Thoughts of an idle mind...." >

>    I don't want to restate my case so I'll finish with this : don't
>    comment on a product unless you understand it from a technical point
>    of view... 

So what does this mean?  That a person whose life is made difficult by the 
FUNCTIONAL deficiency of a product can't criticize it because they don't 
understand it's TECHNICAL workings?  Sorry, my opinion is that systems
must be judged strictly by how completely they supply solutions to users
problems, how well they perform, and how well they integrate with other 
systems (if this is a requirement).  HOW they accomplish these goals is
immaterial as long as it does not adversely affect any of the functional 
requirements.  BTW, this is not a criticism of A1.

    Re. .41
    
    A technical mail system - like VAXmail - is just for mail. It's
    whole purpose in life is mail. It does the mail job very well and
    very fast, therefore it's successful.
    
    However VAXmail is difficult for office users to come to terms with.
    If you give VAXmail to a new user who has never seen a computer
    before and has visions of how the computer is going to affect his/her
    job, then the inherant difficulties of having to learn VAXmail commands
    to be able to use the system can reinforce the "I never like using
    computers" feeling that the user may have started with.
    
    ALL-IN-1 is MUCH more than a mail system. It is a total OIS environment
    which can be moulded to do whatever the customers and their users
    want it to do. It's much easier for new users to use and once they
    have mastered one subsystem they can use the others. ALL-IN-1 is
    customisable so the users can get access to everything via the one
    environment that they are used to. However, what you gain in
    flexibility and user-friendliness is offset by the fact that ALL-IN-1
    is slower than VAXmail. But that's OK - as long as you recognise
    that VAXmail is fast because it is addressing one function whereas
    ALL-IN-1 is addressing many.
    
    Re. 38
    
    Your 780 was very probably underconfigured or badly managed on the
    ALL-IN-1 side. I don't blame you that you were unhappy with the
    state of affairs - I would have been too.
    
    Re. 42
    
    What I am trying to say is that I am continually pissed off by people
    who don't know the product making silly and extremely stupid statements
    about it. It seems to me that the only people who ever talk sense
    about ALL-IN-1 are the people that have taken the time to come to
    terms with it and fully understand all the benefits and pains that
    come with the product. Those people apart, Digital seems to be full
    of people who comment freely on ALL-IN-1 without any real knowledge.
    
    I'm certainly not perfect, but at least I try to understand something
    before I'll comment on it....
    
    Thanks
    
    Tony
    

    Sometimes I think the people who speak the most vehemently against
    ALL-IN-1 are the ones who are most worried that they will soon be asked
    to use it.                         
    
    Tony, I think you said it very well!
    
    Holly

The bad news is that ALL-IN-1 is indeed slow and you need a lot of horsepower
to run it.  The good news is that customers don't care and are more than willing
to buy those big machines.  The the other piece of good news is that our CPU's
are finally catching up the requirements of ALL-IN-1 and so the cost/user is
coming down and making it more affordable.

To address the issue of mail, VAXmail is indeed faster than ALL-IN-1 mail, but
VAXmail isn't really intended to provide a "filing cabinet" type capability and
ALL-IN-1 is a hell of a lot more than mail! A filing mechanism is a basic
requirement of any OA type system. If people think VAXmail's filing system is
even close to usable, perhaps they should take a closer look at ALL-IN-1 and
see how it should be done. 

VAXmail is a great example of a Point Product. ALL-IN-1 is an example of an
Integrated SYSTEM.  Of course a point product usually can do a specific job
better than a more general purpose one, but customers don't want point
products, they want SOLUTIONS! 

The sooner people can understand this very simple concept, the better off the
company will be.  

-mark

Re .43:

If you subsequently think of any additional requirements besides high
performance, it would be interesting to see them.
				/AHM/THX

        Re: .39 -- first you say

>    We know that the product could be better. We know that the performance
>    could be better, but the ALL-IN-1 community also recognises that
>    we have the best, most flexible and powerful OA tool out there on
>    the market. It also socks Digital's other 4GL application development
>    offerings into the middle of next week !
        
        I won't quibble with the first part -- All-in-1's performance
        could be lots better, especially on systems managed by internal
        MIS, which are usually underconfigured for the load they have to
        carry, and often tuned to make performance even worse; at least it
        runs pretty well if you give it enough resources, and it's lots
        better than DECmail.  But your remark about 4GL application
        development is another thing entirely.  I'd suggest you take
        your own advice, from your final paragraph..

>                                                               don't
>    comment on a product unless you understand it from a technical point
>    of view...
        
        All-in-1 was never designed to be a 4GL application development
        environment, and its capabilities in this area simply can't
        match those of our best products, or those available from some
        of our marketing partners.
        
        Tom

        And further, from your .43:
        
>    What I am trying to say is that I am continually pissed off by people
>    who don't know the product making silly and extremely stupid statements
>    about it. It seems to me that the only people who ever talk sense
>    about ALL-IN-1 are the people that have taken the time to come to
>    terms with it and fully understand all the benefits and pains that
>    come with the product. Those people apart, Digital seems to be full
>    of people who comment freely on ALL-IN-1 without any real knowledge.
>    
>    I'm certainly not perfect, but at least I try to understand something
>    before I'll comment on it....
        
        Now, suppose we substitute 4GL application development for
        All-in-1 in the above extract..
    

    Re: (-.1,-.2) Tom Blinn ...
    
    Gasp!  
    
    Tom, you have unknowingly commited the most serious of sins.  The
    product is called "ALL-IN-1" and is spelled with *ALL* capital letters.
    It is a trademark of Digital and must be used in its exact form.
    Otherwise, Digital could, in time, lose the right to the name, a la
    'kleenex', 'xerox', 'nylon', 'jello', and so on ... 
         
    To the ALL-IN-1 faithful, 'All-in-1' is pantyhose and 'All-in-one'
    is a brand of diapers.  'ALL-IN-1' is the finest integrated office
    system available today.
    
    If you think I'm joking, just hop in and join the OAXTRA::ALLIN1_V2
    conference.  We'd love to have more people join the *BEST* conference
    on the network.  But, spelling and capitalization count for big
    points.
    
    Keep the faith.
    
    Bob Hunt

    Re: .47 and .48 (ALL-IN-1 not being a 4GL)
    
    As Mr. Hunt points out your misspelling of the product name indicates
    that you are not familiar with ALL-IN-1 programming.  Ever done
    any ALL-IN-1 programming?
    
    I suspect that you are comparing ALL-IN-1 to TEAMDATA and products of
    that nature as 4GL's.   The normal view of a 4GL is that it's a
    language suited for end users which drastically decreases the time
    taken to develop an application.  ALL-IN-1 is not intended to provide
    significant end user programming capability but it does offer an
    incredible ability to decrease development time.  I believe that
    it does deserve mention as a 4GL.
    
    Just this week at the World Trade Center a very good benchmark was
    made thanks to the DIS(ney) organization.  As many of you may know,
    the room reservations at DECWORLD '87 have been in somewhat of a
    mess.  I am one of the technical support people at the event and
    was called over to the West Head House (Hoser House) due to an apparent
    inability to print a document on the giant cluster.  Investigation
    showed that it was a user error (these are DIS people, afterall)
    and it was corrected.
    
    The document that the DIS people were trying to print was a document
    which they had copied up from their DECmate III which contained
    a list of the Digital people which were going to allowed to stay
    on the ships.  Yes that's right folks, DIS believes that a DECmate
    III is the way a data processing application is done.  And you thought
    that they did EVERYTHING in COBOL.
    
    I offered that it would be quite easy to provide an application
    under ALL-IN-1 and in fact, four hours later (including one spent
    doing hallway monitor duty) I delivered to the DIS people a complete
    ALL-IN-1 application which allowed all the normal functions of Create,
    Edit, Read, Delete, Print, and Index.  The DIS people didn't like
    this application because ALL-IN-1 is too cumbersome for their tastes
    and more importantly, the badge numbers they used were wrong and
    the ALL-IN-1 system used them as the index.
    
    They had asked someone to do the application in TEAMDATA.  This
    application required, AT LEAST, six hours to complete and, in fact
    was not done until late the next day due to the fact that TEAMDATA
    is much more particular about the format of the input data than
    nasty ole ALL-IN-1.
    
    This ad hoc benchmark not only indicates the very poor state of
    data processing skill in DIS but also that ALL-IN-1 can stand up
    to 'real' 4GL's quite nicely.
    
    Back to you, Tom.
    
    Don

    Sounds like a lot of people haven't learned the concept that different
    tools do different jobs and some jobs require specific tools.
    
    A crude example is that I can pound a nail in a board with a pair
    of pliers (...it gets the JOB done!...) but it's much more efficient
    to use the right tool for the job, a hammer. Another lesson that
    can be learned from this type of analogy is that the more "technical"
    type of people are inclined to have a toolbox full of different
    tools each suited to specific tasks. Less technical people are more
    likely to have one of those multi-attachment tools that allow you
    to change if from a screwdriver to a hammer, etc. (You know the
    ones; they have the various "attachments" in the handle).
    
    I guess it all boils down to the same old saying that you can please
    some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of
    the time, but you CAN'T PLEASE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME.
    
    The same can be said for every application. Integrated applications
    are more suited to pleasing all of the people some of the time,
    whereas specific products are more likely to please some of the
    people all of the time.  (Or is it vice versa?)
    
                                                     Warren
    
    

        What is going on here? We are comparing teamdata to ALL-IN-1???
        
        They are like chalk and cheese.
        
        All-in-1 is a damn good office automation system, our sales
        figures for it show that it outsells everything else in the
        field.
        
        What a lot of people within Digital object to is the abysmal
        implementation of it within internal sites. All-in-1 is designed
        to be a basic office automation system, but one of it's most
        important features is that it is a Shell upon which to build
        many other applications. Some good examples of these include
        the System for Sales and Marketing, and the system for Business
        Operations, both of which are well designed and very functional
        enhancements of All-in-1 for specific business needs.
        
        I have noticed that office automation presales support from
        Software Services is one of the biggest people users. Why,
        because 1) Not enough people take it seriously enough to invest
        sufficient training etc. 2) Our own imlementations are so lousy,
        that our sales people are often loath to sell it.
        
        q
        
        
        

Something I gave up on around a year ago was trying to convince people to
unbundle the applciations engine (called Flow Control) from ALL-IN-1 (yes,
that's with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS .-1) and sell it as a program development tool.

Quite clearly it would be big bucks for someone to buy ALL-IN-1, throw away all
the forms and build something that has little to do with OA.  However, the
development time saved might even make that worth it.  If I were to pull a 
number out of the sky I would bet that the average user interface, including
maintenance of simply indexed files (no multiple record transactions) could be
done at least 5-10 times faster if not more and this is independent of the
number of screens or files AND the performance would be very close to that of
a custom application.

The thing ALL-IN-1 does extremely well is process forms.  There's absoutely
nothing wrong with its performance in that area.  As for file maintenance, it
does a fairly nice job there too.

-mark

    Is the information/messaging system at DECworld based on All-in-1?
    If so, it has good points and bad, from a USER'S point of view.
    Nice point: address mail recipient by his real name, and if no match
    choose from a list of names.  Bad points:  no word wrap in mail,
    no way to backspace to a previous line.  Come on, folks... These
    are things we should not even have to think about.  Very bad points:
    wrong keystrokes at the command level would cause your mail message
    to disappear completely, rather than showing an error message. 
    Also, it was not clear to casual users how to back up to a previous
    menu, and there were no on-screen reminders.  I saw several terminals
    stalled on a lower-level menu because people could not figure out
    how to cancel their choices or otherwise get out.
    
    These are the kinds of things that are very irritating to the casual
    user, who expects the computer to accomodate his actions, not the
    other way around.
    
    BTW, it used to be that All-in-1 would really hum if you had an
    on-site guru to tune and customize it.  And only if you had an on-site
    guru to tune and customize it...
    
    Wes Plouff
    
    

.54 doesn't sound like ALL-IN-1. When you are writing a message in 
A1, you are using WPS+, WPS, or EDT style editing. All of them allow
word wrap and previous line backspacing. Sounds like it's something
else, courtesy of DIS. The ther stuff sounds similarly non-ALL-IN-1.

Wish I were there to see for myself...

K.

    re .54, the mail messaging in the DW87 "guest services" system is
    a combination of several things.  The user is limited to *one*
    addressee, but yes, can select that addressee via last name.  The
    text of the message is entered via a half dozen or so 80-character
    FMS fields, so backing up to a previous line is done with the standard
    FMS "backspace" key.  (You're right, though, this is *not* indicated
    on the screen, and is clearly not obvious to a new user).  So in
    effect, we are *not* demonstrating word processing capabilities
    at all, but merely showing the clumsiness of FMS when trying to
    implement a mail system.  The mail message itself *is* sent using
    ALL-IN-1.
    
    That is just about the only part of the "guest services" system
    that uses ALL-IN-1; the remainder is primarily VTX.  Kind of like
    using a Winnebago to drive to church on Sundays....
    
    A disclaimer about that mail system: it was developed for a 300+
    person convention in Europe early this year, and the author of that
    particular system advised the DW87 implementors *not* to use it
    for DW87 because of its lack of "robust-ness" when implemented for
    a 50K person trade show.  Excuse me, "corporate visit".
    
    Jon

        Re: ALL-IN-1 (NOT SHOUTING) vs. TeamData - like the man said,
        designed for different purposes.  Your example of speed of
        implementation could easily be the differences in the people
        instead of the tools.  And I'd probably choose Rally as the
        implementation tool, not TeamData, if I were going to try to
        make a comparison.
        
        I suspect that, in addition to the quality of ALL-IN-1 support
        internally, and the common approach of seriously overloading
        the host systems, there's the problem that many internal ALL-IN-1
        systems are hobbled by the refusal to allow people to really
        use the things ALL-IN-1 can provide.  It can be lots of fun
        to use something that's flexible and customizable if you're
        the person making the configuration decisions.  It's no fun
        if you're just using the system, and the person making the
        decisions is doing so in a vacuum, and is in no way accountable
        to the people who have to live with the results.
        
        Tom

			� Don't answer that, please (`; �
    
    I believe that the person doing the TeamData implementation was quite
    good so I believe that the comparison of the two products in terms of
    implementation time is a fair one.  I fully concur that the two
    products do not attempt to fill the same needs. The point of the
    comparison is to illustrate the ability of ALL-IN-1 to do some forms of
    'real data processing' in a very fast and effective manner. 
    
    Mr. Blinn also has an excellent point about the fact that many of
    the ALL-IN-1 systems used internally are setup such that the users
    are forced to suffer due to inflexible and/or poorly designed systems.
    A large part of the problem is that the management of many of the
    systems do not appreciate the power and flexibility of ALL-IN-1.
    
    In addition, it seems that many system managers have the attitude
    that the system is there for their use and not for the users.  There
    is a feeling that the system would be better off with no users.
    Not unlike a company with no customers.
    
    Clearly, our interest should always be in making our users and
    customers more successful.
    
    Don

    re ~the last .8
    
    I like the definition of the various tools.  I think there are
    important differences in the products (carefully AVOIDING the "A" word)
    that make them work best in different areas.  
    
    I'm glad there are OA systems for casual users.  I'm also glad there
    are development tools and products.  I don't see any reason to try
    to force any one tool to do everything.
    
    We are FINALLY in a position to remove the OA systems FSSBS, SBS...
    from our development systems.  Now we can do development without
    being slowed down by "casual users" and they aren't adversely affected
    by people compiling, linking, and doing development work.
    
    Just out of curiousity, when you all insist that all we need is
    to "properly size our machines" for our OA product, what do you
    mean?  We have an 8600 with a ton of memory, limited logins so that
    people are constantly being refused access, solely running OA, and
    it still runs like SH*T.  

    The other members of the ALL-IN-1 community have answered the points
    raised regarding my comments on application development so I won't
    drop my two franc's worth into that pot....
    
    Regarding sizing for ALL-IN-1 (end of .59); I don't believe that
    many of our machines are configured for anything, rather they are
    assemblies of whatever hardware was available and could be installed
    with whatever other hardware was around at the time. Thus we have
    inhouse configurations that we would never have on customer sites
    - or configurations that we'd be telling the customer "you should
    really replace those old .... as we have a much better .... that
    has much lower maintenance costs".
    
    Then we tend also to run whatever comes to hand on the machine.
    We don't tend to set things up properly and we expect that all the
    different software products can all run together at the same time
    with a widely differing user community and that we'll get great
    performance to boot.  Again, if a customer expected this to happen
    we'd be doing our best to bring him gently down from cloudcookooland.
    
    There are good inhouse ALL-IN-1 machines. But they are the ones
    that have been installed for a singular purpose - to provide OA
    to particular users communities - and they do perform well. They
    have adequate memory ( ALL-IN-1 does like it's daily ration of pages
    to consume ), enough disks to spread the i/o load across, and they
    have enough CPU power to provide users with good service times.
    But most of all, they are managed well.
    
    It's regretable that many of the inhouse ALL-IN-1 systems that I
    have come in contact with have been totally mismanaged. Performance
    on those systems will always be a dog until someone gets down and
    spends some time restoring it to the way it should be. 
    
    Regards
    
    Tony

        Re the ALL-IN-1 zealots being so particular about the spelling
        of the products' name.
        
        May I refer you to the ALL-IN-1 office menu installation guide.
        AA-N323E-TE. Page iv in table of contents. Reference to appendix
        D.2
        
        It reads.
        
        "Converting the Mail file for Vax-22 Decmail." (Really means
        Vax-11) 
        
        Let's not get self righteous about names, guys...  :-)
        
        q
        

    But who's being picky about all caps, here?  (`;
    
    Your point is, of course, a good one.
    
    Keep smiling,
    
    Don

    Back in July the base note asked for information on how DEC had
    benefited by using OA.  Since I spend a lot of time speaking to
    customers about how we use our own products I was looking forward to
    some nice examples rolling in about how OA had helped increase
    profitability or served customers better.  Thats what was asked
    for after all.                         
                                           
    Well here I am 62 replies later with very little really useful
    information about applications or benefits of using OA.  Does this mean
    that few exist or that the people who respond to this note are
    more interested in technical issues?   
                                           
    Please prove me wrong on both options.. 
                    
           
    malcolm                
           

    As the author of .0, let me say that I was not disappointed by the
    discussion.  This is VAX NOTES, after all and forcing a reply to
    conform to the base note is neither a product feature nor good
    etiquette.
    
    Real systems to help manage people and information are few and far
    between.  There's an illusion of effectiveness by providing
    connectivity, good to fair response time, and a electronic mail
    facility.
    
    Office automation isn't automated.
    
    We may have the best tools in the world for transforming raw data into
    information when organized effectively.  I (and I suppose everyone in
    the field) have an almost infinite backlog of ideas they'd like to
    explore if we only had access to data that's scattered throughout the
    company regarding products and customers. 
    
    The outlook is grim.  Brand new systems are based on pen and paper
    data entry which is submitted to a data entry operator who then
    runs off a report which is then printed.  Data needs to be changed
    and then the process repeats.