Conference 7.286::digital

> Is there an incentive program at DEC such as the one at IBM for programmers?
> How does DEC recognize and reward these types of suggestions and efforts?
    
    Why, you get a signed thank you letter from Don Busiek (VP of Software
    and Ed Services).  What more could you ask for? :-)

Re .0:

> The IBM policy is that any suggestion 
> that an employee makes or any tool that an employee writes on their own time 
> is evaluated and the employee receives 10% of the annual savings or profits 
> from that tool. My friend received a check for $10,000 for his tool. 

I don't know if there's such a program at DEC. I'm sure there are work
environments where such a thing is a good idea. And I know I'd love to get
$10,000 myself. However, in a programming environment, an incentive program
may turn out to be a can of worms.

I'll just speculate on how such a program might affect me. I've been with
DEC about 10 years in software documentation. Over the years I've made many
"suggestions" and even developed a few "tools" that I've shared with others,
and that I assume/hope helped them to be more productive. But if there were
a formal incentive program, I wonder if I would be:

- less spontaneous in my suggestions, more reluctant to share information,
  more concerned with getting my ideas in writing and officially submitted
  before sharing them, jealous of anyone I thought was "stealing" "my" ideas,
  etc. ?

- more inclined to tinker in areas outside my defined job tasks (perhaps
  neglecting my "real" work), in the hopes of "hitting it big" in the suggestion
  jackpot (hoping to deflect objections from colleagues that I was merely
  "doing my job" and that it was on "company time") ?

Finally, the requirement that a rewarded suggestion or tool be developed
"on your own time" seems impossible to enforce. Proving or disproving an
employee's assertion that it was on "my own time" seems hopelessly complicated
when you're talking about something that is primarily intellectual (an idea,
a process, a program, etc.) and when you're dealing with a very flexible
and "liberal" work environment (variable hours, working from home, etc.).

    There have been a number of people who have developed important
    tools at DEC over the years who have recieved nothing more then
    a pat on the head. Several of them have left DEC because of it.
    They did the tools because they wanted/needed to. But after a 
    number of years of no apprecaiation ("any appreciation not expressed
    in cash does't count" according to a boss I had in an other company)
    they got fed up and went somewhere that rewarded people who went
    the extra mile.
    
    For what it's worth, when DEC first announced the Rainbow and Pro
    it was announced that DEC would make them available for employee
    purchase. It was also announced that a plan for employees to make
    money off software developed (on their own time) for those PCs would
    also be coming. I've got my RAINBOW but I'm still waiting for the
    second promise. 
    
    			Alfred

  General Electric doesn't have a great reputation as an employer, but they
have had a suggestion program, with cash awards, for at least 20 years. A
suggestion isn't exactly the same as "software developed on your own time",
but the principle is similar.

    I know of at least ONE person who did several midnight projects
    before finally going it alone. He now owns (runs?) a well known
    software company in Boston.
    
    							Warren
    

    DEC doesn't even give an employee referal bgonus and you want what?

    8-}

    Add IBI to the list of employers who give employees cash for
    midnighters which become assets.
    
    (And which still seem to be midnighters judging from quality and
    support... 8 >)

    Even the Federal Government has an incentive program to encourage
    innovation in the Civil Service ranks.  A friend of mine in the
    Postal Service has cashed in on it twice now, but he ignored my
    suggestions about routing junk mail to the local incinerator ...
    
    DEC's attitude has long been that, if you want money, work for
    someone else.  And there are lots of famous examples of people
    who did just that (De Castro, Wecker, et al).
    
    Geoff

This is an extract from the VTX entry for assets (Horus::"""43=""")

	      HOW TO SUBMIT SOFTWARE TO ASSETS

Through ASSETS, Digital Software Services can share the expertise and
knowledge of its software specialists. 

And you can help.

How? By submitting re-usable software into ASSETS. Everyone - you, other
specialists, and Digital - benefits from sharing re-usable software. 

* You gain an opportunity to share your expertise.*  

* Other specialists gain a competitive advantage by quickly and efficiently 
  being able to use existing code for new projects.*

* Digital gains by cutting costs and increasing profit margins.*

********************************************************************************


 A reply to this discussion mentioned that if cash rewards were offered for 
contributions to Assets, then people might be tempted to work on asset type
of projects instead of their normal job in the hopes of hitting it big.

 This might happen but I would think that the low performance rating and 
resultant salary will offset the cash bonus over time.

 

 A previous group I worked in where a member created a utility which sales
wanted to sell to a customer. In the group discussion which followed, it was
decided that if sales wanted the tool that they would have to pay our group for
it. They balked and much talk was made about the "team hat" and eventually my
manager decided that the tool was unavailable. 

 On one hand it was a shame as our group reputation might have been enhanced. 
 On the other hand "DEC pays for performance" and received the performance
it paid for.

 This decision seems to be a result of the policy of monetary rewards given for 
performance in sales and management and "attaboy, pat pat" rewards given for
other groups.


 Regards,
-Tom

    WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE !!!
    
    What were you hired to do? I am a designer at DEC. If every time
    an engineer or a designer got paid for his "time saving" ideas DEC
    would be flat busted. I was hired to come up with ideas...and I
    do that. I am a co-auther of a patent at previous employer. I received
    a nice thank-you letter, bottle of wine and a promotion at PA time.
    That to me is a fine incentive program, as is DEC's. 
    
    You may notice that "cash bonus" companies do not have a strong
    "promote from within" program. This keeps the pee-on's and the
    management devided. One of DEC's greatest assets is open-doors
    and comunication. Can we (DEC) afford to lose this??
    
    I am not happy with my salary or my last increase. I have choices
    to make. I can leave DEC or prove that I am worth more to the
    corporation. I like DEC and I also know that I can make more on
    the outside. DEC offers SECURITY. Does the outside??? I don't know.
                                      
    
    
    

    re: .11  "the designer's duty"
    
    I totally agree that if your job function is to design products,
    then your salary should cover it.  However, if you took the time
    and went of your way to perform some other task for the company
    (like retraining the cafeteria cooks to make edible food) that
    was not in your job description, then you should be rewarded for
    your extra effort.
    
    My job does not normally require me to produce new designs, ideas,
    or finished products.  If I were to do these things as well as my
    defined job functions, then I am benefitting the company to a much
    greater extent.  What is the rationale for not encouraging this?
    
    Every person's idea of equitable compensation is different.  The
    company that succeeds is the one that recognizes and adjusts.  DEC
    has historically been one of those successful companies.  It remains
    to be seen whether this will continue.  No company in the world
    can survive on its laurels, but DEC sure seems to be trying to
    rest on its laurels rather than pushing ahead for new innovation.
    
    Geoff

re .12:

>    (like retraining the cafeteria cooks to make edible food)

Come now (at the risk of offending the food service people), if you
did that, you would get immediate reward in the form of praise and
other accolades, and probably a fast track promotion and raise!

Seriously, my managers have included extra work outside the direct
area of my responsibility as plusses in my reviews leading to *permanent*
salary increases rather than one time incentives.  Gifts are nice, but give 
me those upward salary steps every time!

Good management will reward - bad management should be punished by taking
your talents elsewhere.  Be careful though.  It is very easy to forget the
basic assignment in the development of a neat tool.  I've seen not a few
cases of people who started something and forgot what they were hired for.
Your manager may be forgiven for taking a jaundiced view of some tool that
benefits the corporation if said manager has just been chewed out by upper
management for missing schedule - and you were a bit late on the last task
assigned...

Of course, there are those absolutely *disgusting* paragons who do all
the work assigned them, all the other unassigned work the group needs to 
get through to meet current (over) assignments, and *still* manages to 
produce products of value to DEC.  I definitely agree that they should be 
given massive awards in the form of promotion and salary advancement - no 
matter ow much I might wish to strangle them for being so relentlessly 
virtuous.

/Dave

    You guys are thinking too small.
    
    In many companies and job environments, it is possible for an
    improvement to save hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars
    annually.  The assembly-line worker who suggests a reordering of the
    machines, the white-collar worker who suggests a more efficient
    procedure, or the programmer who creates a midnight hack that
    eventually becomes a hot product are well-known examples.  Our
    department recently heard a speaker who claims to have suggested ideas
    that save Digital $400,000 a year, and I have no reason to doubt him.
    Why, even lil' old me once got credit for a modest tool that saved my
    department a generously estimated $40,000 annually. 
    
    If you want a permanent $500 or $1000 added to your salary
    in recognition of making such a suggestion, fine; I'd prefer ten
    percent of the first-year savings.  Or even one percent.
    
    On the other hand, one would be naive to think that people will
    actually work on ideas outside their job description without the
    promise of either renumeration or recognition. 

        Re: .14
        
>    Why, even lil' old me once got credit for a modest tool that saved my
>    department a generously estimated $40,000 annually. 
>    
>    If you want a permanent $500 or $1000 added to your salary
>    in recognition of making such a suggestion, fine; I'd prefer ten
>    percent of the first-year savings.  Or even one percent.
        
        O.K.  Suppose we each make a suggestion that saves Digital
        $40,000/year.  You get 1% of the first year savings, that's
        $400.  I get a salary increase of $1000/year.  You have more
        cash then I do for 5 months, after that I keep raking in the
        money.  My expectation is that I get $35,000 from my suggestion
        over my career (plus a higher pension), you get $400. 
        
        [I assumed that it takes as long to arrange for the 1% bonus as
        for a salary increase--the bonus may take longer if they wait a
        year to determine the actual savings.  I also assumed that I
        would keep getting my salary increase until I retire, either
        from DEC or from another company (because salary offers are
        based on current salary).  This assumption may not be true, my
        higher salary may cause me to get smaller salary increases in
        the future.  I still believe that I would end up with much more
        than you would in this case.] 
        
        Even if you got 10% ($4000), I would still win in the long run. 
        
        					B.J.

    Getting the credit can be argued for many replies, but how about
    asserting the need for these tools.  Digital's mainstream products
    are often no more than tools, waiting for use.  How many very expensive
    products has Digital built, and then had them go nowhere.  We need
    the master builders to pick up the tools, and show what can be done
    with them.  Maybe they will only be used by marketing at some trade
    show, maybe they will end up as example code in the documentation,
    maybe they will end up making software services money in the assets
    program, and maybe they will end up as a submission in the DECUS
    library.  The need is there because too few resources are allocated
    to using the tools we produce.  
    
    I agree that some reward system would be nice, but I also think
    that the people that come up with the really good tools are rewarded.
    Those that find tools useful think more highly of the person that
    wrote them, and careers are built on reputation.  There are several
    people I know who are tool makers, who's job is at least a bit more
    interesting because of the extra effort they went to.  It's good
    for the people writing the tools, and vital for the company.  Now,
    back to the discussion of how to cough up a few more bucks for them.

    bill    

 This is not an either/or situation but a both situation. If an employee works
in his field and does well, DEC will reward performance. If an employee does
extracurricular work, especially outside of his field, should he be rewarded? 

 I don't think that sales people get trips _or_ a good salary increase. I doubt
if the new management bonuses I have heard about are given instead of a good
salary increase.

 Where is this same entrepreneur reward for programmers?


 For example, Steve in reply .14, created a tool which saved his group a lot
of money. Assuming that the creation of this tool was outside of his
responsibilities, what reward did he get for it? Was this mentioned in his
review and indicated as a factor for a larger percentage increase than he would
otherwise have gotten? 

 Suppose that Steve had decided not to 'publish' his tool but used it instead
to enhance his own performance. Wouldn't his increased performance result in him
getting a larger percentage, _by_measuring_his_performance_against_his_peers_,
than he otherwise might have gotten?

 The idea is that if his midnight hack improves the groups performance as a 
whole, would he be rewarded _as_an_individual_ *more* than if his midnight 
hack is used to improve his performance individually.

 This is a serious question for hackers to consider and for those who profess
that DEC pays for performance.

 Regards,
-Tom

    [Re: .17]:
    
    >> For example, Steve in reply .14, created a tool which saved his group a
    >> lot of money. Assuming that the creation of this tool was outside of
    >> his responsibilities, what reward did he get for it? Was this mentioned
    >> in his review and indicated as a factor for a larger percentage
    >> increase than he would otherwise have gotten? 

    In point of fact, the tool was outside my area of responsibility; to my
    regret, I was never rewarded explicitly for it; in fact, in a
    well-meaning way I was *punished* for it, by being moved to a tools
    group reporting to a notorious old fart.
    
    Examples of programmers who come up with clever programming tools
    are off the mark.  I'm talking about the bolt-from-the-blue ideas.
    If you do your job well, you should expect a raise.  If you come up
    with something outside of your job that helps the company, I think you
    should be rewarded as well.  Simply to expect people to come up
    with these ideas out of their sense of loyalty to the company--any
    company--is naive.

For what it's worth, I can think of a few midnight products that changed
the direction of the company:

1. Cal Page's RT11 emulator for RSTS/E -- helped push RSTS/E from a
   Basic-only system to a full multi-language timesharing system.
   (This wasn't the only multi-language support for RSTS/E, but it
   brought the idea out of hiding.)

2. The Enet, created by two engineers (Jim Miller and Rich Witek)
   who discovered an unused dedicated telephone line between Merrimac
   and Maynard.  This connected a couple of RSTS/E machines that
   formed the original, quite informal backbone of the network we
   know and love.

3. Jim Starkey's Datatrieve.  One of my ex customers once earned a
   half-million dollars in 45 minutes using it.

4. Len Kaywell's Notes.

Any others?

Martin.

       
       
       	John Buehlers Flight -- It's probably the first thing outside
       of the DEC supplied demo stuff that VAXstation users install.
       It's helping to change people from character-cell terminals
       to workstations. Guess where DEC is going?
       
       	Nmail -- Dave Porter probably did more to keep DrECkmail out
       of Engineering than anyone else.. That alone has probably saved
       DEC kizillions...
       
       						mike

  The discussion so far has been near and dear to my heart.  Those who point
out the na�vet� of corporate loyalty to have the masses of employees bring
gifts to management out of the goodness of their hearts are right on the
mark.  Yet that *does* seem to be the way DEC thinks.

  I'm rapidly (rabidly?) approaching the fed-up point.  I've always gotten
good reviews and salary increases, but I've the got the energy and the ambition
to want more.  So as an outlet for the energy, I develop after-hours
applications that fall in areas that interest me.  FLIGHT was one such
application.  Unfortunately, FLIGHT is not an outlet for ambition, except
in that I put it on my resume and people sometimes recognize the link and
(perhaps) think a bit more highly of me because of it.

  I've at least doubled my technical expertise due to my after-hours projects,
but at DEC you can only move so high with technical abilities.  After a while,
you're expected to have a certain flair for what I call politics.  My
politicking is a bit on the rough side so I'm not advancing very rapidly
any more.

  It would make my day to be able to pick up some extra cash due to my 'energy
outlets' which not only are a release for me but are also a gain for DEC.

  It has annoyed me somewhat to hear people who say that DEC employees would
start to forget about their jobs and go for incentive-rewarding things outside
their job responsibility.  What about the people who would honestly gain
from incentive programs?  Perhaps we'd still have some of those aggressive,
talented people who have walked if we had rewarded that extra effort.

  Now for my understanding of the DEC incentive program.

  It ain't there.  In the case of FLIGHT, I talked with the ASSETS people
and they came up with the decision that they don't have a category for games,
so they can't do anything with it.  I even talked to some sales people who
were interested in using FLIGHT as a demo.  I'm not sure if that even worked
out.

  I'm not *indignant* that I'm not receiving money for my effort.  Obviously,
I'd prefer to have the money, but I didn't get into FLIGHT with the assumption
that this was going to be something that I'd get paid for.  I was na�ve then
and enjoyed programming and learning for its own rewards.  I'm still a bit
na�ve, but I'm also wondering...

  I *am* indignant that people who do thing like Notes and DECnet and the
other product-predecessors don't get significant rewards for their efforts.
It's downright appalling to me.  Think about what goes through the mind of
an engineer who invents the basis for DECnet;

  ENGINEER: "Hey boss, look at this.  We can send information over a phone line
and hook up two computers so they can talk.  We figure a bunch of computers can
talk this way." 

  BOSS: "Looks good.  Thanks for all the hard work.  I think we'll make it
into a product.  Get to work on it."

  ENGINEER: "OK."

  10 years later DEC's basic strategy is based on what these engineers started
with and I wonder what rewards they received.  I would tend to doubt that
they were commesurate with the effort and the value of the original idea.
The engineer might be thinking "Why do I bust a gut for this company?"
DEC indirectly encourages engineers to put out less than their best.  It's
a stifling process that some people can't tolerate.

  The above scenario is only loosely based in fact, but I hope you get the
idea.

  I guess the na�ve ones stay at DEC and the others start companies and make
lots of money (or fail and come back to DEC).  I'm on the edge of na�vet�.

  Everyone should be aware that I'm not the only person who worked on FLIGHT.
The list runs to about a dozen names most notably including And� Pavanello
and Tom Dahl.

John

re: .21:
>  I *am* indignant that people who do thing like Notes and DECnet and the
>other product-predecessors don't get significant rewards for their efforts.
>It's downright appalling to me.  Think about what goes through the mind of
>an engineer who invents the basis for DECnet;

>  ENGINEER: "Hey boss, look at this.  We can send information over a phone line
>and hook up two computers so they can talk.  We figure a bunch of computers can
>talk this way." 

>  BOSS: "Looks good.  Thanks for all the hard work.  I think we'll make it
>into a product.  Get to work on it."

Actually, DECnet was engineered from the ground up to transfer data between
computers.  I don't remember all the names of the original developers, but
Stu Wecker rings a bell.  It's the concept of the Enet -- actually using
the network for un-predetermined data shipment, that's straight out of the
Dec midnight culture.  One should add the original DECnet load test program
(also known as SFL) to the list of midnight hacks.

In some of the cases I mentioned, the developers ended up as project
managers (Datatrieve).  And the guys who "invented" the Enet were the
RSTS/E DECnet developers.

I'm suprised at the "no games" category: 12 years before Flight, Jack
Burgess developed the GT40 moonlander: a full simulation of an Apollo
landing that ran in an 8K word PDP-11/05.  (This was funded by LDP as a
graphics demo for the new hardware.)  Also, the education product
line funded the first edition of Dave Ahl's 100 Basic Games book.

Someone once said that "games were the only application programs Dec
develops."

Martin.

        All right Martin, I'll bite, how did the guy make so much money
        in 3/4 hr using datatrieve.
        
        q
        

    I would dispute that two Digital engineers invented networking as a
    midnight hack, but let's say they invented a Digital product. Let's
    see:  there is now a Networks and Communications group (to which I
    belong) that is today close to a billion-dollar business in its own
    right.  And you say the originators got *no* reward?
    
    Sounds fair to me :^|                           <-----straight face 

    re: .22
    
> Actually, DECnet was engineered from the ground up to transfer data between
> computers.  I don't remember all the names of the original developers, but
> Stu Wecker rings a bell.  It's the concept of the Enet -- actually using

    Isn't Wecker now one of the principals of TCI?  I know that one
    of the original DECnet developers is their key man ...
    
    Anyway, there are a number of DECcies who have learned that extra
    effort really only pays off if you do it for yourself, rather than
    the company.  There have been a number of highly successful spin-off
    companies over the years, who started with a product that DEC had
    either rejected or not been willing to "share-the-wealth" on.
    
    In the field, we SWS types have long ago realized that don't get
    promoted for technical excellence or having bright ideas; the only
    real career paths with any money go through management or sales.
    So, if you intend to retire to something more than just Social
    Security, you had best be planning on your own business, whether
    it's a software company, contract consulting, or whatever.
    
    Geoff

>    Isn't Wecker now one of the principals of TCI?

Yes.  (TCI is now a part of Bell Atlantic, BTW.)

Kawell (original Notes) and Starkey (Datatrieve) have both left DEC as well.

Re: .19, #2:

                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 480.19    DEC and/or ASSETS incentive policy for programmers?      19 of 26
BOLT::MINOW "Je suis marxiste, tendance Groucho"     22 lines   9-MAR-1988 22:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>2. The Enet, created by two engineers (Jim Miller and Rich Witek)
>   who discovered an unused dedicated telephone line between Merrimac
>   and Maynard.  This connected a couple of RSTS/E machines that
>   formed the original, quite informal backbone of the network we
>   know and love.

	I didn't hear ANF10 mentioned and cannot speak for the timeframes
	of when DECnet-E was developed, but I do remember shipping *VERY*
	important personnel/payroll data ONCE A WEEK via ANF-10 way back
	when DECnet was in the EARLY phases. At the time ANF-10 was light
	years ahead of DECnet in terms of connectability, etc. 

	As a matter of fact, if memory serves correctly, it wasn't until
	DECnet Phase II that DECnet even began to come close to what
	ANF10 offered in terms of terminal connectivity and ultimately
	file transfers.

	Can someone more in the know provide timetables for ANF10 and
	DECnet-E?

	Oh, and please NOTE my personal note...I work with all the
	products mentioned EVERY DAY and have for years. I was one
	of the people critical to getting files from Phoenix Arizona
	back east so people out here GOT PAID every week. And it wasn't
	using EASYnet, the engineering net, etc. that wass doing all this.

	So unless someone else provides a better timetable, ANF10 had a LOT
	to do with just what networking could do. Any one that worked with
	TOPS systems remember JANUS nodes that were the first MFGNET gateways?

							Warren

    I'll date myself here...
    
    I can remember a couple of occasions when I "went slumming :-) among
    the -20s and VAXen, and discovered that you had to be logged in
    to set host to another machine, because their SET HOST commands
    ran programs.  TOPS didn't require this;  it did some arcane things
    (which I never made the time to read about in the o.s. code) to
    make the terminal appear on another machine *as just another terminal*.
    
    Oh, yes, and the JANUS nodes, where typing ^\ would allow you to
    check the nodes it could see -- and our group had one that normally
    could see THREE different networks of -10s.  Must have had something
    to do with our group's charter (support for internal -10 sites).
    
    When I read about the DECservers, I had this marvelous sense of
    d�j� vu.  (It wasn't so marvelous when I read the 782 [master-slave]
    announcement, though.)
    
    Dick

re: .23.

My friend who made a bunch of money using Datatrieve ran the Boston
office of a moderatly sized air-freight company.  They kept their
business on a small RSTS/E system.  One fine morning in 1978 or so,
the salesman for an airline offered him a "special price" for certain
destinations.  He sat down with the computer and worked out his needs for
the following year, then called (telexed?) the salesman back within the
hour and contracted for an entire year's air-freight at the special price.

15 minutes later, the airline discovered they had dropped a decimal point
in their calculations, and the price was much more special than they
realized.  Of course, a deal's a deal.

--------

re: ANF-10.  I suspect that it was mature before DECnet/RSX.  One might
also point out the connection between the Dec-10's and Arpanet.  However,
DECnet (PDP-11/VMS) and the Enet brought networking out of the computer
room and into the office/lab/factory.

Take my friend's air freight company, for example.  Freight forwarders compete
in several ways:

-- "we don't lose your shipment"

-- "we deliver quicker"

They don't (didn't) compete primarily on price, since freight prices are
(were) regulated and are set by the shipping companies and are a small
fraction of the worth of the shipment.

When the plane arrives at the airport, the companies must get their
containers into the customs warehouse and present the paperwork to the
customs officers for clearance.

The customs officers work "first come, first served."

Stage 1 (around 1973): terminal operators key in the invoice information
which was printed on an LA30.

Stage 2 (around 1978): the information was keyed  in New York, dumped to
a magtape which was shipped in the same container to the destination.
The magtape drove the printer directly.

Stage 3 (around 1980): when the plane was loaded, the New York computer
dialed the Stockholm computer and DECnet'ed the information directly.
The paperwork was ready by the time the plane arrived.

Note that the people who did this were freight forwarders, not hackers
or computer scientists.  They applied a technology that *we* made easy
to use (Basic/Datatrieve/RSTS/DECnet) to a part of business that they
understood very well.

Martin.

Hello, 
 I am looking for information about assets and also for feedback from authors
who have submitted tools to assets. I had sent mail to the two moderators of
BUFFER::ASSETS_PROGRAM and also enterd note 20 there but received no replies.
 My questons arise from reviewing the work needed on the tool for submission to
the Toolshed verses the work needed to make a 'product' from the tool. 

o  Where does one decide where to submit a tool to? 
   My tool is a conversion tool... which Assets should it go to?

o  What work was needed by the author of the tool to make it presentable to
   Assets? 

o  Once a tool was submitted, what ties did the author have to the tool for
   maintenance, enhancements, etc? Did the author have to generate the change?
   If not, did the author get access to the code of the change?

o  What was the recognition for submitting the tool? How long did it take for
   the recognition to happen?

 Thanks for the help!
-Tom

Re:
< Note 480.30 by HUSKY::TOM >

>>I'll make a stab at some answers. I use the Office ASSETS system a lot - both
as a user and as a 5 or 6-time submitter. BTW, the proper use and spelling is
ASSETS, in all caps (an acronym).
Here goes...

o  Where does one decide where to submit a tool to? 
   My tool is a conversion tool... which Assets should it go to?

>>What are you converting?  Since there are only 3 ASSETS areas; Office,
Networks, and Manufacturing, it shouldn't be too hard to pick 1 out of 3. In any
case, if your chosen area is deemed a mismatch, the ASSETS team(s) will move it
to where they feel it is best suited.

o  What work was needed by the author of the tool to make it presentable to
   Assets? 

Well-documented, WORKING, TESTED code.  Sure, nothing is ever bug-free - we're
only human, but try to test thoroughly.  ASSETS will!  Installation
instructions. user instructions.  What does it do?  Why is it useful?  etc etc. 
Not that working code doesn't necessarily mean self-contained complete packages.
You may have a module or subroutine that does some great thing, that by itself
is useless, but as part of a larger program does miracles.

o  Once a tool was submitted, what ties did the author have to the tool for
   maintenance, enhancements, etc? Did the author have to generate the change?
   If not, did the author get access to the code of the change?

>>Your code will very likely be classified as a Solution Tool.  you as author
are the primary maintenance person if problems occur, since the ASSETS team
certainly can't be experts on 1000's of different modules.  Keep your own copies
around of the source.  ST's give the source as part of the distributed kit most
of the time anyway.  When you find a bug, or write an enhancement, resubmit it
to the team.  I've done this many times with my own submissions (VTXPAGER and
recently A1DECALC interface.)

o  What was the recognition for submitting the tool? How long did it take for
   the recognition to happen?

>>A warm thank you and a pat on the back via mail. Do it because you work for
the best company in the industry and because you care!  They are *trying* to get
a program going which will get a submittor an official letter from the V.P. of
SWS (or whatever) recognizing your contribution, with appropriate trickle-down
through your mgmt chain saying what wonderful things you did! Let's keep pushing
for that to happen!

>>Hope this gives you a better idea.

Regards,

	Al

> 480.30, HUSKY::TOM, Tom
� 480.31, GLASS::HULL, Al

Hello Al,
 Thanks for your reply. I could not find the Network ASSETS in my latest copy 
of Easynotes.Lis but eventually found it on HORUS::NASSETS. There did not seem 
to be a general discussion such as this one so I will continue here.

�...I use the Office ASSETS system a lot - both as a user and as a 5 or 6-time 
�submitter. ...

> What work was needed by the tools author to make it presentable to ASSETS? 
� Well-documented, WORKING, TESTED code.  Installation instructions. User 
� instructions.  What does it do?  Why is it useful?  etc etc. 

> If not, did the author get access to the code of the change?

  Does this mean that if someone else makes a change to the code that the 
 original author can have access to the new code without charge? This might
 be considered a benefit to the original author to encourage more contributions.


> What was the recognition for submitting the tool? 

� A warm thank you and a pat on the back via mail. ...
� They are *trying* to get a program going which will get a submittor an
� official letter from the V.P. of SWS (or whatever) recognizing your
� contribution, with appropriate trickle-down through your mgmt chain saying
� what wonderful things you did! Let's keep pushing for that to happen!

 Who did you receive your 5 or 6 attaboys from? How long did the take? 
Note 480.1, DIXIE1::JENNINGS, Dave, said "Why, you get a signed thank you
letter from Don Busiek (VP of Software and Ed Services)." Is this not done
anymore or done only in some cases? 

 It seems like quite a bit of effort goes into taking a midnight hack for ones
own use and cleaning/enhancing it for the toolshed and ever _more_ effort (after
hours - personal time - not job related) to clean/enhance it for ASSETS. One 
reason DEC is such a good company is that "DEC pays for performance". Have you
been appreciably recognized for your contributions? In what ways?


 Thanks for the help!
-Tom

    Tom, perhaps Al meant the VTX infobase ASSETS_NETWORK.
    
    One way to find all the ASSETS infobases is get into the VTX library
    (For example, from DCL type VTX LIBRARY on most systems).
    The hit PF1  keypad 7  and at the prompt type ASSETS*.  It should
    then display a menu of a couple of the ASSETS VTX infobases.
    
    Or, once you find what you want, for example, VTX ASSETS_NETWORK
    will take you right there.  (After you register), their menu also
    has some choices about how to submit, and another name to contact.
    _bill
    (to other readers, if VTX <and some keyname> doesn't work on your
    system (and you have DCL access), send mail to the Corporate VTX
    Program at IAMOK::CVP)

    This is how to find ASSETS:
    
    via corporate VTX, select Software Services, then either the
    Manufacturing, Network, or Office ASSETS library.
    
    or,
    
     $ DEFINE VTX$SERVER  MANFAC::"""43="""  (Manufacturing ASSETS in Detroit)
     $ DEFINE VTX$SERVER   HORUS::"""43="""  (Network ASSETS in Stow)
     $ DEFINE VTX$SERVER  OAXTRA::"""43="""  (Office in Charlotte)
    
    then,
     $ VTX
    

    __________________________________________________________________________
    
    Problems accessing ASSETS?  Send mail to
    
      MANFAC::MAINTAINER  for the Manufacturing Library
       HORUS::MAINTAINER  for the Network Library
      OAXTRA::MAINTAINER  for the Office Library
    

    __________________________________________________________________________
    
    Notes conferences:
    
       MANFAC::MASSETS  for the Manufacturing Library
        HORUS::NASSETS  for the Network Library
       OAXTRA::OASSETS  for the Office Library
    
       BUFFER::ASSETS_PROGRAM for the ASSETS program in general.
    
    

    __________________________________________________________________________
    
    I have been reading this conference for a few weeks with interest
    but did not want to answer the "incentive" questions until I returned
    from our ASSETS meeting in Detroit this week.  You have brought
    up some interesting questions and responses that I used as input
    to the "Awards and Recognition" workshop that I moderated.  
    I will be addressing your concerns and explain where we are coming
    from shortly.
    
    Regards,
    Dick Rohnert
    Network ASSETS 

	I used to work in the Computer Services group of High Performance
    Systems.  My "job" was Printing & Plotting support for HPS and/or the
    MR01 facility.  When marketing found out that I also had some graphics
    programming talents (from a past lifetime programming IVIS courses for
    Sales Training), they began to use me and my cohorts for special
    projects (announcements, DECWORLD, DECUS, etc.).

	This was fine with me, I got to the point where I enjoyed the
    special project work even better than my regular job.  The only strange
    part of the job was the fact that we did all the work and marketing
    seemed to take all the credit.

	While helping out at DECWORLD-87, I noticed that one of the pieces
    of software we wrote (the Monster Monitor) was recieving alot of
    requests from outside customers to be purchased (It's just like Ken
    Olsen said "people want what they see - but they have to see it first").

	While the DECWORLD version was a little too kludgey to sell
    (written in one month using UIS and hard-coded to monitor exactly
    eight systems), I decided to try and form a group to engineer a
    better version and to then proceed to productize the program.  My
    marketing associate (David Wagner) agreed to help, and together we
    proceeded to run our heads into the [political] wall so many times
    that David finally quit DEC and I decided (with the added inspiration
    from a DECWORLD aquaintence Tomas Lofgren - a HPS SW Engineering Mgr.)
    to go underground with the project and to do it on my own after hours
    (a midnight hack).

	Several months passed and I finally produced a much cleaner
    version of the program which now utilizes GKS graphics (to allow it
    to run on a variety of terminals/workstations, and it can monitor
    any group of from 1 to 24 different VAX nodes in real time.  The
    program (once written) instantly became more interesting to people
    because the development effort had already taken place.  I then met
    up with Bill Ziminsky in the Network and System ASSETS program and
    the program (since renamed "PULSE") is now available both internally
    and externally via the ASSETS Library (see the VWSSPT::PULSE notesfile
    for details on the PULSE kit).

	When review time came around, my management scratched their heads
    and basically decided not to give me anything beyond what was previously
    written into this year's salary plan (a modest amount).  Talk about
    frustration, I could have gotten the same increase without having gone
    to all the trouble to produce PULSE.  I don't really blame my [old]
    manager, however, because this was, after all, a support group with
    reviews based on what time you get to work in the morning, and here
    I was programming at all hours - feat which confused many people I
    worked with.  I was later promised to have my next year's review
    reflect the extra work, but I didn't want to wait that long and ended
    up leaving for [greener?] pastures at a new job with a built in
    promotion (Producer/IVIS product support for ESD&P).

	The point is that the Network ASSETS program was nice because it
    solved the political problem of simply getting the program out to
    customers for me, but the issue of recognition is still rather vague.
    I guess I'm still waiting for my pat on the head...

				   -davo

p.s.	Until I see a reasonable recognition program go into effect, I
	think I'll stick to such extra curricular activities as mowing
	lawns and shovelling walks for extra bucks & career advancement.

    RE: .35
    I am confused.
    Didn't your manager agree that the extra effort would be part of
    the next review?!?  While the time frame is longer than expected,
    the effort did not go unnoticed.
    Also, did the fact that you have a package that can be sold to a
    customer, help when you were trying to get your new job?
    Lee G.

     Re: .35
    
    That is a really an unfortunate turn of events.  You have certainly
    worked long and hard on PULSE and do deserve your recognition. 
    As soon as we accept PULSE into the library, we will recognize your
    submission with a "trickle down" letter.  Later, you may be eligible
    for an ASSETS award.
    
    We have been slow in recognizing our submittors and now that we
    have a plan in place, we have a lot of catching up to do. But, as
    in any new venture there is a lot of organizing, planning, policies
    to implement, library charters to establish, software to run the
    libraries, etc. 
    
    What is important though, is that you and other contributors be
    recognized.  I hope your current manager recognizes your talents.
    We will try to do our part.
    
    But then, it is rare that a person only gets one good idea in a
    lifetime, usually the ideas get better and the rewards much larger.
    
    _Dick
    
    
    
    
     
    Yes, we do have PULSE in the ASSETS queue and will be ready to start our
    Quality Assurance testing soon.

    
    >> ......................................... Later, you may be eligible
    >> for an ASSETS award.
    
       Could you elaborate on the ASSETS award? What is it, how does
    one who makes an ASSETS submission become eligible, is it taxable,
    etcetera...
    
    
    Frank
    

    For as long as I can remember, my mother has had the following note
    posted with a magnet on her fridge:
    
    	Delay is the deadliest form of denial.
    
    I believe this applies directly to any manager who skips something
    at one performance review and says it will contribute at the next.

    re: .38
    
    Unfortunately it is not taxable, but then, isn't it nice you get
    to keep it all... 
    
    No, we can't give money.  But, we can help you to build a reputation
    for yourself.  DeCastro, Wecker, Starkey, and Newell have reputation,
    some have money, but mainly reputation.
                               
    When you submit a package to ASSETS you will receive a questionaire
    by Vaxmail.  The questionaire asks about datarights, documentation,
    lines of code, what it does, if you can support it, etc.  The ASSETS
    team will decide which library will process the package (Manufacturing,
    Network or Office *).  We read the documentation and ask for more
    if not complete, we will try to break your software through our
    Quality Assurance, we will help create a delivery guide, write the
    legal documentation, create overheads and much more.  Then we add
    the package to a library.  If you are still with us, you will get
    a nice "trickle down" letter thanking you for your submission. 
    As you see, it is not a cheap letter.
    
    What we are trying to do is make your package marketable to the
    world.  Internal users as well as customers may want to use your
    package.  As ASSETS is a part of Corporate Software Services, we
    see about 25% of our requestors from our 17 subsidiaries in Europe
    and a dozen more countries in GIA.  Your package could help save
    programming time for an internal group, become part of a Service
    Delivery Kit in France, become a successful demo in Malaysia. 
    If your package is successful, you will be presented an ASSETS
    certificate and a letter telling of your contribution.  The letter
    will be presented by an ASSETS manager or one of your high-level
    managers.  Your name will also appear in Internal Digital Publications.
    You will get visibility and reputation.
    
    If you make a contribution to Digital through use of an ASSETS package
    you can also be nominated for an award.
    
   
    _Dick
    
    
     
    * Our library charters have recently been expanded to include more
    categories of software.. The network library includes Network,
    Performance and Migration Tools. 

re: .36,

>    Didn't your manager agree that the extra effort would be part of
>    the next review?!?  

    	My immediate supervisor agreed that it was a nice program, but he
    was not quite clear on the amount of effort that went into the project.
    The very fact that it was a side-line project (midnight hack) also meant
    that we never conducted any design spec and code reviews during the
    development cycle, so I can't really blame him for assuming that it
    was anything more than the DECWORLD prototype with a couple of bells
    and whistles added (when it was actually entirely reengineered).

    	This brings up an interesting point, and that is: how do you have
    a design spec and code review for a midnight hack?  After all, isn't
    the fact that you are working on something at midnight and/or in your
    spare time due (at least in part) to the fact that you are working on
    something that *you* feel is important, but that for one reason or
    another, you don't yet know if anyone else will think is important
    enough to fund?  By midnight hacking the program, you are trusting
    your own instincts about a software solution which might ordinarily
    be either killed, stolen, or contorted into some totally different
    idea if an entire project team was somehow formed to create it.

    	I mean, it wasn't like I didn't discuss the ideas with anybody;
    I mentioned that I was inspired to proceed by another manager who
    was not really associated with my management chain.  It was probably
    as close as I have been yet to Intracorporate Entrepreneurship (a
    subject I mentioned a couple of years back in this conference), and
    in that sense, it was one of my most exciting projects I have ever
    worked on!

    	Part of the problem is the fact that there is no systematic method
    set-up whereby marketing can get the sort of short notice projects
    completed in time for what they need.  Typically, marketing will not
    know what they need until a couple of months before it is needed, and
    then the needs usually change several times during this panic phase.
    This is part of the "not knowing what they want until they see it"
    syndrome that Ken Olsen mentioned at this year's State of the Company
    Address.

    	This is not neccessarily marketing's fault either, the whole corporation
    is expected to do their normal "Clark Kent" jobs most of the time, and
    this includes marketing (who we all expect to dream up these fancy demo
    ideas), and then two months before an event such as DECWORLD people are
    suddenly caught with their pants down and are screaming for help on their
    demos.  This is when the Supermen and Superwomen from around the company
    shed their normal garbs and transform themselves into a kind of brain-
    storming frenzy in hopes of getting the impossible done by yesterday,
    and nobody really knows what it should look like, just so it looks good.

    	Maybe the solution is to let certain highly productive individuals
    (hacker's anonymous) go off in the corner and just produce software stuff
    for awhile and see what happens.  There may already be groups where this
    is fairly commonplace, but I have yet to see an ad for such a job.  ;^)

    	To conclude, I need to emphasize that I am a real fan of the ASSETS
    program and I hope my preceding note didn't come across any other way.
    I think that Bill Ziminsky, Dick Rohnert, and the rest of the gang over
    in Stow are doing a SUPER job!  After all, we need to be able to get
    software to market in a timely fasion, and the ASSETS program is the
    best way I know of to beat the beaurocratic tangle.   I only wish that
    there were more corporate resources being focussed in this direction.  

    				   -davo

p.s.	As to PULSE helping me in my recent job search, well, I don't know,
	but I should at least thank Bill Ziminsky for giving me some interesting
	leads on job openings.  Thanks Bill!

re: 480.40, BUFFER::ROHNERT, Dick

1� ... If you are still with us, you will get a nice "trickle down" letter 
1� thanking you for your submission. As you see, it is not a cheap letter. 
 
2� ...If your package is successful, you will be presented an ASSETS certificate
2� and a letter telling of your contribution. The letter will be presented by an
2� ASSETS manager or one of your high-level managers. Your name will also appear
2� in Internal Digital Publications. You will get visibility and reputation. 
 
3� If you make a contribution to Digital through use of an ASSETS package you 
3� can also be nominated for an award. 

Hello Dick,
 I read your reply as meaning that these were in place. Is this correct or is 
this a proposed recognition plan which may be put in place? If it is correct,
could you mention some people and contributions which resulted in #1 and #2 and
also who was proposed for and who received #3? This might provide inspiration
and encouragement for other hackers to clean up their code and wade throught
the submission form. 

 Cheers,
 Tom

    Design specs and code reviews are means to an end and not part of the
    end itself. And they are not the only means, just a reasonable means.
    If you have a program that works well, passes a good QA review, and is
    stable, then whatever you did was as good as formal design specs and
    code reviews.
    
    There seems to be a tendency to equate "midnight hack" with "shoddy."
    I'm sure that's true many times. But some of the oldest and most
    reliable programs that Digital has shipped have originated as midnight
    hacks without design specs or code reviews.
    
    Insisting on formal procedures for a midnight project is simply an
    excuse. I don't think KO would approve. 

re: .43,

>    Design specs and code reviews are means to an end and not part of the
>    end itself. And they are not the only means, just a reasonable means.
>    If you have a program that works well, passes a good QA review, and is
>    stable, then whatever you did was as good as formal design specs and
>    code reviews.

	I agree.    

>    There seems to be a tendency to equate "midnight hack" with "shoddy."

	Right.  That's why I was trying to use the term "side-line project".
    
>    Insisting on formal procedures for a midnight project is simply an
>    excuse. I don't think KO would approve. 

	Yes, the requirement of a design spec and code review in the traditional
    sense for a side-line project would probably defeat the whole purpose of
    going it on your own.  The problem is that your management may never
    really appreciate the amount of work put into a project that just seems
    to come out of nowhere.  As a result, there is little in the way of a
    direct monetary reward potential for such activity.

	Recognition, exposure, and awards are nice, but they don't pay the
    mortgage.  Maybe IBM (with their bonus program) isn't such a silly company
    after all?

				    -davo

Re: .42

June 8,1988 (last Wednesday), ASSETS held a Worldwide meeting in Detroit to
decide many issues including "Awards and Recognition".  I made this presentation
and workshop.  All geographies were represented (GIA, EUROPE, U.S.) and came to
agreement on the award and recognition program.  So to answer your question, the
program was not implemented, but is now, and we have a lot of retroactive 
letters to write. 

I would rather not mention names at this time, but I will mention what some of
the nominees have done.  The Network Library nominated two people; one for
submitting 3 very successful network packages to the library and the other for
using a network tool to demonstrate DECnet in the Pacific resulting in sales of
over $2 million in hardware and software.  So here is a #2 & #3.

The Office Library has nominated 10 people, one for submitting 34 packages,
another for submitting 17 packages, etc.

Do not be intimidated by the $2 million sales, or the 34 packages.  The ASSETS
awards are judged independently, and we had a lot of discussion on how the
midnight hacker competes with a software development group.  We decided that
they won't compete!  Development groups will rarely get awards, their reward
will be getting to the marketplace fast.  And the awards are not just for
sales; but a combination of popularity, uniqueness, usefulness are factors in
an award as well.

Just give us some ramp up time, 'cause we are processing submissions too.

_Dick

    So what sort of award will the person with involvement in the $2
    million sale receive?  Or is the letter the award?
    
John

    Re: .46
    
    The letter will state the magnitude of the acheivement and will "trickle"
    down. This has a lot of direct and indirect benefits to both the contributor
    and their organization.
    
    The awards have already been printed and look nice.  They are printed
    on white and mounted on a brick color backing.  Ready for framing.
    This is presented by an ASSETS representative and high-level manager.
    
    We will also present an ASSETS widget.
                                  
    _Dick

    For getting a U.S. patent, Digital has monetary awards. I've gotten
    about a thousand dollars this way as my share of awards on patents with
    several co-inventors. Others have gotten much more.
    
    Awards and widgets are nice, but if you really mean it .... 

    re: .48
    
    Tom, 
    
    tell us more about this program.
    
    Dick

There is a sliding scale of benefits for participating in a patent.
In my case, I was one of four authors of a patent for DECtalk.
I received (if I remember correctly), $750 plus a tax-adder, an
award breakfast, and a black-tie award banquet.

The benefit amounts increase if you have multiple patents.

        There is, of course, a dramatic difference between a good bit
        of code, and a patentable piece of technology.
        
        q
        

    Not so clear any more. Software is patentable, and Digital is pushing
    very hard to get software patents. The company even has an hour-long
    video on the subject.
    
    So, if YOU have an innovative "piece of code", talk to the  patent
    lawyers at DEC. Digital really wants those patents, and getting them is
    worth prestige and cash. 

    re .52
    
>    Not so clear any more. Software is patentable, and Digital is pushing
>    very hard to get software patents. The company even has an hour-long
>    video on the subject.

    A rathole maybe but I'm interested in when software (as opposed
    to firmware) became patentable. It must have been very recently.
    
    Anybody know ?
    
    Jon

    I will get the following information and post it in a NEW topic.
    
    1. A description of the AWARDS program for getting U.S. patents.
    
    2. A description of how patents apply to software (including when
    and how this became possible).
    
    The patent attorney (Charlie Barbas) in my group said he is willing to
    help me get this info into soft copy (he has it in hard copy) so I can
    post it. What he gets out of it is publicity for the program, ie, notes
    readers will be REQUESTED to spread the word far and wide.
    
    So let's leave this particular digression to another topic.

    I've got a little memo (came Email) from the ZKO training people
    that lists a seminar on June 30 in ZKO called "Software Patents
    A Users Guide". I believe that an abstract can be gotten by sending
    mail to UCOUNT::ZKO_TRAINING.
    
    			Alfred

Readers interested in the issues surrounding "Computers and Law" (as well as law
in general) should investigate RAINBO::LAWS (q.v.).  It is pretty high quality,
though historically underutilized.  Its scope was recently broadened to include
non-computer law in order to increase activity.
				/AHM

    .___.___.___.___.___.___.___.            
    !   !   !   !   !   !   !   !         I n t e r o f f i c e   M e m o
    ! d ! i ! g ! i ! t ! a ! l !
    !___!___!___!___!___!___!___!                        SHF:100
    
    
    TO:   JFS Staff                         DATE:  26 May 1988
          Ron Myrick                        FROM:  Sam Fuller
          Wayne Timura                      DEPT:  Corp. Research & Arch.
                                            EXT:   223-3710
                                            LOC:   MLO12-2/T7
                                            ENET:  RDVAX::FULLER
                                            
    
    SUBJECT:   PATENT INCENTIVE AWARDS POLICY
    
    The Patent Incentive Awards Policy was implemented to promote creative 
    contributions to Digital products and technology, encourage inventors to 
    obtain patents of value to the corporation, and recognize and reward 
    inventors for their achievements. 
    
    When the policy was first implemented, no distinction was made between 
    utility patents and design patents.  Experience during the past year and 
    a half suggests that utility patents and design patents are sufficiently 
    different to warrant separate incentive awards plans. 
    
    Utility patents protect the function of an idea and usually provides
    greater protection than design patents which only protects appearance.  A 
    utilty patent prevents others from making, using and selling an invention 
    for seventeen years vs. a design patent which prevents copying for only 
    seven years.  Also, since filing requirements are less stringent, design 
    patents are easier and less expensive to obtain than utility patents.  In 
    the U.S. design patents cost approximately $1,000 and issue about one 
    year after application.  Utility patents run about $7,000 and issue three 
    to four years after application.  In the past 30 years, Digital has been
    awarded about 187 utility patents and 20 design patents. 
    
    The above comparisons should not be interpreted to mean that design
    patents are lacking in value to Digital, or that successful designers 
    should not be rewarded accordingly for their contributions.  They do 
    suggest however, that different incentive awards structures should apply 
    to utility and design patents. 
    
    It is not possible to measure the absolute value of either a utility
    patent or a design patent.  But we have concluded that incentive
    awards should be higher for utility patents than for design patents.
    The Corporate Intellectual Property Committee recently approved an
    incentive award structure for design patents as noted below.  The
    current award program for utility patents is also noted for your
    information. 
    
    
    DESIGN PATENTS                          UTILITY PATENTS
    --------------                          ---------------
    INDIVIDUAL AWARDS:
    $250 per application                    $500 per application
    $250 per patent                         $500 per patent
    Greater than 3 co-inventors             Greater than 3 co-inventors 
    share $750                              share $1500
    
    CUMULATIVE AWARDS: 
    Nothing for applications                10th application $2,500
                                            20th application $2,500
    
    10th patent issued $2,500                5th patent issued  $ 5,000
    20th patent issued $5,000               10th patent issued  $10,000
                                            15th patent issued  $15,000
                                            20th patent issued  $20,000
    
    This change to the patent incentive program will become effective
    Q1FY89 and includes a grandfather clause and provides criteria and a
    screening process for selection of designs to be approved for filing. 

re: Note 480.45, BUFFER::ROHNERT, Dick

Hello Dick,
 Your meeting on June 8 seems to have created a genuine recognition system for
assets contributors. The tone of your entry was very positive but I am not sure
of what the actual "recognition program" and "award program" is. Could you 
elaborate on what each is?

 I understand from 480.47 that someone may receive a "A letter, award and
widget" but am not sure whether this is for an "award winner" or for a
"recognized contributor". 

 You mention that the letter will state the magnitude of the achievement and
will "trickle" down from a high-level manager. What level is a "high-level
manager"... a VP? 


 It seems that you are doing "the right thing" in your effort to gain 
recognition for ASSETS contributors which will benefit both DEC and the
contributors. My intent is not to derogate your efforts in any way but
just to find out what the actual programs are.

 Good work!

 Cheers,
-Tom

    Re: .49
    
    There is a three part "Award and Recognition" program for ASSETS:
    
    1.  We recognize the submittor of a package, once it is accepted
        into an ASSETS library.
        
        The submittor gets: A congratulations your package has been
                            accepted in to the library, etc letter.
                            A cover letter to a high-level manager.
    
        
    2.  We recognize the submittor of a successful package.  Successful
        means an outstanding submission.  It is a judgement by the Library
        or Program Manager.  See 480.45
    
        This submittor gets: A letter stating the magnitude of the achievement  
                             An award certificate
                             A presentation by a high level manager
                               and ASSETS
                             A widget
                             Articles in internal Digital publications
    
    3. We recognize the successful user of an ASSETS package.  I suppose
       in many cases, this person will make the submittor successful
       as well.  Also see the example in 480.45
    
       This user gets:       A letter stating the magnitude of the
                              achievement
                             An award certificate
                             Presentation by a high-level manager
                              and ASSETS
                             A widget
                             Articles in internal publications
    

    What is a high-level manager?  Depends on the contributor's organization.
    With all the solid and dotted line reports within Digital I would not
    presume much to be apparent.  We will ask the contributor.
                               
    
    -Dick
    

    Want something challenging to do?  Need an idea?  Write useful
    things that you can contribute to ASSETS?  See our "Hackers Needed"
    ad in 
                APPLE::DNT   #1354.0
    

So I told my boss that they had this neat new program where I could work
nights and spare time on some piece of software that I would give to the
ASSETS program and they would check it over and sell it and I suppose I
would support it I guess and then if it was a real good piece of software
they would send my boss a letter explaining what I had been doing with my
time and they would probably send me a nice certificate to put on the wall
in my office right next to my graduation degree from Minuteman Vocational
Tech in bread baking and my boss looked at me for a moment and told me I
needed a vacation.

Martin.

        So that's why they're letting you take a vacation!
        
        Tom

re: .60 by BUFFER::ROHNERT, Dick

�    There is a three part "Award and Recognition" program for ASSETS:
�    
�    1.  We recognize the submittor of a package, once it is accepted
�        into an ASSETS library.
�...        
�    2.  We recognize the submittor of a successful package.  
�...
�    3. We recognize the successful user of an ASSETS package.  
�...

Hi Dick,

 Can you give the names of people who have been recognized? I haven't seen 
anywhere in Notes someone mentioning that they had received recognition. I have
heard that many hackers feel that their efforts are not recognized and so they
do not put in the extra effort to make them public.

 I have also heard that local groups are selling or GIVING AWAY SOFTWARE FROM
THE NETWORK and are keeping the revenue. This software _should_ be in the
assets program but isn't. I believe that a part of the reason why it isn't is
a negative perception of the assets program recognition policy.

 If the authors of the hacks are not recognized, then going to extra mile to
make their hacks public is a lose-win situation between the author and DEC.

 I often hear of "midnight hack" utilities being given to customers as the
process for getting revenue blocks the release of the utility. I have heard
that "flexible" offices have improvised the billing and sold these hacks and
kept the revenue. While this is good for them in generating income for DEC and
fulfilling the customers need, this doesn't encourage the author of the hack
to go the extra mile to make it available to all of DEC.

 Hopefully by naming names of who was recognized and by demonstrating that both
the author and DEC benefits then more software will be put into assets to 
generate more revenue.

 Cheers,
-Tom

> I have also heard that local groups are selling or GIVING AWAY SOFTWARE FROM
>THE NETWORK and are keeping the revenue. This software _should_ be in the
>assets program but isn't. I believe that a part of the reason why it isn't is
>a negative perception of the assets program recognition policy.
>...I have heard
>that "flexible" offices have improvised the billing and sold these hacks and
>kept the revenue. While this is good for them in generating income for DEC and
>fulfilling the customers need, this doesn't encourage the author of the hack
>to go the extra mile to make it available to all of DEC.

The major reason this stuff isn't in ASSETS is that the local office wants
what it is measured by:  revenue.  ASSETS hasn't figured out how to track
income such that it can credit the submitting office/person.  [As of the
last time I checked.]  Not that this is necessarily ASSETS' fault, just that
it hasn't been done, and most field bodies get brownie points based directly
on how much money they bring in.

If you really want people to submit their work to the corporate program,  you
have to provide an incentive (ie, money) to the office where they live.
Otherwise, it makes more sense for every office to go into the ASSETS business
themselves.  By doing it themselves, they can charge everyone (including
internal users like engineering) for the code.  EIS is all about money. And
DEC's measurements for EIS are such that the way to be successful is to pursue
it relentlessly.  Smile a lot, write good code, be on time, dress right, 
blah, blah, blah, but above all 

"Bill 'em, Dan-o"

If you think anything else matters to an EIS manager, you are on Mars.
(If you are an EIS manager and say otherwise, I doubt if your actions match
your words.  Call me a cynic - I prefer the term "realist.")

I've been there.

K.

Karl,

You have hit one of ASSETS problems right on the head - tracking the 
revenue.  BUT as of July 2, ASSETS will be tracked via unique part numbers
in the Q2 class.  This is described in Sales Update of 6/24/91 so I am 
told.  Europe has been successful doing this in the past and the US is
now going to use the same methods.  Now all of the part numbers will be
in the AQS system for making quotes which should greatly help the field
include the correct numbers for the customers and at the same time help
us to track the sales.

There are other changes in the works.  Like the rest of the company, we are
trying to change to meet our customer's needs.  But also like others, these
changes will take some time to be implemented.

Lee G.  

>          <<< Note 480.66 by BASVAX::GREENLAW "Your ASSETS at work" >>>
>                    -< We are solving one of the problems. >-
>
>Karl,
>
>You have hit one of ASSETS problems right on the head - tracking the 
>revenue.  BUT as of July 2, ASSETS will be tracked via unique part numbers
>in the Q2 class.  This is described in Sales Update of 6/24/91 so I am 
>told.  Europe has been successful doing this in the past and the US is
>now going to use the same methods.  Now all of the part numbers will be
>in the AQS system for making quotes which should greatly help the field
>include the correct numbers for the customers and at the same time help
>us to track the sales.
    
    That's PART of the problem fixed. 
    Some questions:
    
    How is the question of repatriating a portion of that revenue back to the 
    developing group or person (some ASSETS are not merely hacks but are 
    developed according to various Corporate procedures) being addressed?
    Without a formal mechanism for this there is very little incentive for
    maintenance of ASSETS product beyond V1.0. Ideas that should be
    developed beyond the initial good hack dont get the money to support
    them or for timely bug fixes. Groups who developed an idea for one
    customer end up supporting lots, often in disparate places, with little
    return on investment to support that effort.
    
    
    What system is in place for ensuring that a group is notified of the
    submitted ASSETS contribution to:
    	a. leverage on sales
    	b. true billable line item dollars
    for each accounting period? We are in business people, not some charity
    organisation producing software for the greater good of mankind. We
    have produced products that are first rate ASSETS tools, but the
    problem is that we dont get good data on the sales of the product.
    Also, EIS can charge what they like for ASSETS, the dollars marked as
    the price are at the discretion of the delivery unit. Guess what gets
    gouged when they are looking for margin? If a fixed repatriation amount
    were applied to each ASSET, then at least the developing group gets
    that amount. Any freebies should come off the EIS delivery unit's
    bottom line.
    
>
>There are other changes in the works.  Like the rest of the company, we are
>trying to change to meet our customer's needs.  But also like others, these
>changes will take some time to be implemented.
>
>Lee G.  

    Its improved a lot. Unfortunately, until Developing group managers can
    	a. see the positive impact on the bottom line of an ASSETS
    	   submission.
    	b. can demonstrate the worth of spending extra time to produce an
    	   an ASSETS submission.
    	   When you develop for customers you are producing a one-off
    	   solution. When you develop for ASSETS the product has to be more
    	   generic. Documentaion has to be much better, and the question of
    	   support alters quite considerably. You are also not getting
    	   billable hours for support outside that directed at the specific
    	   customer. Factor that in roughly adds up to 1 tech writer for
    	   most of the development time and an extra engineer over the life of 
    	   a project at say $300K.
     
    	c. Developers can take the value of their submission into reviews
    	   and show how its helped a. the group b. the Corporation
    	   	c. themselves in some QUANTIFIABLE way.
    
    ASSETS will continue to have problems unless clear costing and returns
    occur. How could anyone look at V2.0 of an ASSET without clear data
    on the success of V1? How can a manager review and reward someone for 
    what is a sunk cost with no demonstratable return to their own bottom
    line? There have been some very clever submissions to the ASSETS system
    which have pulled Digital out of more holes than most peoplt would
    realise. ASSETS clearly have plugged customer perceived deficiencies in 
    major products such as ALL-IN-1 and VTX, added to our communications 
    ability, and produced solutions when the major products have faltered.
    
    I still believe that this is due to very capable EIS people being
    closer to the requirement of the customer than its possible for
    engineering to sometimes get. Sometimes the solution is
    not pretty, sometimes its magnificent. Lets give them the training,
    rewards and resources to allow them to do it more often.
    
    regards,
    John
    (EIC/E (nee SWS/E + CSS) Engineer and ex-Local ASSETS library manager)
    
    

>     <<< Note 480.67 by AUSSIE::BAKER "Mandelbrot = Paisley of the 90's" >>>
>                  -< Get the dollars back to the developers >-
>    
>    How is the question of repatriating a portion of that revenue back to the 
>    developing group or person (some ASSETS are not merely hacks but are 
>    developed according to various Corporate procedures) being addressed?

What development groups ever get a percentage of the revenue their 
products generate?
"Central engineering" has always been funded on planned product potential,
somewhat biased by the past success of the group in generating revenue.
I've never known of situations where development groups have claims
on any part of the revenue their products generate.
In this light, it seems that tracking the revenue from a properly
Q- numbered ASSETS item is the same as tracking the revenue a "normal"
product generates.  The development group (and its members) gets credit,
but no money, in either case.

- tom]

    re: .68, .67
    
    I believe the intent of the "New Management System" is that all costs,
    including ASSETS development costs, will return a profit to the
    corporation.  A business unit will be funded by the profits generated
    by the products and services which it spends resources developing and
    delivering.
    
    Thus, any profits from an ASSETS package should be credited to the
    group that makes the package available and keeps it working, just as
    with "ordinary" products.
    
    Straightening out our internal administrative systems so that this is
    possible is, in my opinion, the major obstacle in implementing the "New
    Management System".
        John Sauter

RE: .67

John,

I would have only one argument with your statements and that is that 
Digital makes money on the sales.  In an ideal world, that would be all
that matters.  Unfortunately, we do not live in that world (anymore).
So the first step is the ability to track the sales.  The second step
is to address the credit issue since without sales info, you can not
tell how much to send back if anything.  And the answer is "Y
es, this is
being looked at".

Since you use to be in ASSETS, you know the correct people to send your
suggestions, right!

Lee G.

RE: .69

John Sauter points out the issue much more clearly that I did.  We are
working very hard to get the accounting systems to catch up to the
NMS, atleast for ASSETS.  The changes take a lot longer to do than the
decision to do them.  What we didn't want to do was to create more
problems than we solved.

One of the questions that needs to be answered is how much to charge for
a "midnight" package?  Since there is little or no market analysis and no
business plan, the number of the times it will be sold is truly a guess.
So setting a price is tough because there is no way to figure how to spread
the development time across X number of sales when neither the X or the
development time is known.  Then there are those that feel that the package
should be free since it leverages $Y amount of other sales where Y can be
in the millions!

Lee G.

re: .71,

> So setting a price is tough because there is no way to figure how to spread
> the development time across X number of sales when neither the X or the
> development time is known.  

    	Having written an ASSET package (DECpulse), as well as having
    gone to one of the ASSETs pricing seminars, I am somewhat familiar
    with the ASSETs pricing strategy. and believe me, it has little to
    do with the cost of development, and instead is based almost entirely
    on the percieved *value* of the ASSET to the customer.

    	In my case, I spent a large percentage of my free time (spare
    momments, late nights, and yes, midnight hours) hacking away on my
    ASSET package.  As such, the development cost to Digital was $0
    (although I won't comment on what the development cost was to myself
    and my family, nor will I dwell on the fact that I have yet to
    recieve one ounce of compensation in any recognisable form whatsoever
    for my efforts after almost 4 years of development and occasional
    support).  Anyway, to base the resulting cost of the ASSET package
    on the development costs would be silly since it was free to
    Digital, and is currently being licensed at $1650.00 (not to
    mention the various spin-off ASSETs products which are associated).
    
    				    -davo

    r.e .68 REGENT::POWERS
>What development groups ever get a percentage of the revenue their 
>products generate?
>"Central engineering" has always been funded on planned product potential,
>somewhat biased by the past success of the group in generating revenue.
>I've never known of situations where development groups have claims
>on any part of the revenue their products generate.
    
    I didnt say that Central Eng gets a percentage of revenues, although
    that may make for an interesting exercise in ensuring they get closer
    to customer needs. What makes ASSETS development different is that
    often funding is non-existant when the product is developed. Something
    that is developed for a customer may have more generic potential than
    the strictly applied solution for that customer. The process of getting
    something built may not be as clear cut as going to an Investment
    Review Board and getting the cash up front. Often dollars are applied
    and costed to maintenance based on the cost of supporting the initial
    customer, the decision to make it an ASSET comes later. That decision
    becomes much harder when the EIC group realises that it may potentially
    have to support many users when the only customers they can bill for
    are the ones directly in their area. Many good solutions simply are
    not submitted for this reason.
    
    
>In this light, it seems that tracking the revenue from a properly
>Q- numbered ASSETS item is the same as tracking the revenue a "normal"
>product generates.  The development group (and its members) gets credit,
>but no money, in either case.

    Ok, it WILL help and its a big start. The point is, however, that very
    little discretion is available on price for a Product as opposed to an
    ASSET, which is a delivery service of EIC and subject to deep
    discounting. A charge-back mechanism (even in funny dollars) ensures the 
    ASSETS place in the sale (and therefor the "credit") is acknowledged.
    
    r.e .70 Lee GreenLaw
    
    I am glad the question of returns is "being looked at", seems like that
    "look" has been going on for years.
    As regards to sending my suggestions to you know who. Actually, I
    produced a paper on the local ASSETS library prior to a set of meetings
    with the "right people". In it I suggested that we do away with the
    local library because for the geography the number of submissions didnt
    warrant it. I suggested we submit all our gems to the main corporate
    libraries and that the issue of returns and acknowlegement be
    addressed and that the role of the librarian be replaced by a person
    who understood all the items in the Corporate libraries and was able to
    make EIS people aware of how/which ASSETS could solve their problems
    and could become a mechanism for catching ideas from the field and
    helping with the submission process/doc standards ect.
     
    All of my concerns on revenue repatriation were made. I was on 
    another project when it came up and I was told my input was "not required"
    and that all the points my managers needed to make was included in the 
    paper. I gave a lot of thought to why the library wasnt working here
    and made sure my points were known.
    We still have a library, although it gets even less time from the
    librarian than I spent on it, he is on another development project. I dont 
    know if the revenue issues were addressed sufficiently in that meeting. 
    I'd hope that the issues surfaced somewhere up the chain, BUT I'm not the 
    only person who has made them.
    
    
    

>          <<< Note 480.72 by TOOK::DMCLURE "Work to build the net" >>>
>      -< ASSETs are like artwork (the valvalue in eyes of the beholder) >-
>...
>    	Having written an ASSET package (DECpulse), as well as having
>    gone to one of the ASSETs pricing seminars, I am somewhat familiar
>    with the ASSETs pricing strategy. and believe me, it has little to
>    do with the cost of development, and instead is based almost entirely
>    on the percieved *value* of the ASSET to the customer.

That's Business 101 - the first price asked for an item or service
is based on the perceived value to the customer.  The cost of developing
or manufacturing is incidental unless that happens to exceed the price
a customer is willing to pay.  Also to be remembered is that profit 
is part of the cost, not just what happens to be left over.

RE: .73

Two points.

1. You are absolutely correct that ASSETS funding and pricing are different
from "Products".  Again, one of the problems we have is with funding the
support.  Generally the developer does not have time to support a large 
number of customers or the funding.  CSC is funded by Corporate.  Central
Engineering is chartered to make and fix products.  Most of the packages
submitted to ASSETS are done for A customer who is only paying for their
own support and usually for a short time.  We need to get better at doing
this.

Pricing to someone buying an ASSETS package is entirely up to the field
folks for most tools.  (The new Q2 Part Class is originally only going to
cover the PASS type packages.)  So using an ASSETS package in a large 
project is sometimes covered in the allowance money or given away or falls
through the cracks of the process.  We need to do a better job of educating
everyone that the proper way to sell an ASSETS is the same as 
EVERYTHING else that Digital produces.  This will be (and is) a long
battle.  Digital solved part of this problem for products by implementing
LMF (without a key, you can't use the product).  ASSETS may have to start 
doing the same.  When one of our packages went from a PASS to a product,
a large number of licences were found because LMF would not allow them to
use the software until they had the key.  As you said, the delivery unit
has discretion on pricing.  What we would like is the ability to say that
the package was sold, at least as a first step.

2. Boy, do I understand your statement about the length of time some things
are "looked at" before anything happens.  I believe that the new library
software will help (solve) one of your points.  But when you talk revenue,
everyone has an opinion and everyone wants to get involved.  Also people
on the lower end of the food chain are often shut out of these decisions.
Unfortunately this is a fact of corporate life.  I believe that some of
the bigger fish (on the development side) are pushing this issue and you
may see something soon.  But then again, as one of the little fish, I
don't have input into this either.

Lee G.

    Hmm.  Seems funny to me that it makes good "business sense" according
    to Business 101 to leave out the developer when it comes to figuring out 
    who gets paid for a "midnight hack".  That tells the developer:
    
    	1.  Your salary is reimbursement enough.
    	2.  If you wanted more money or recognition you should have patented 
    	    and/or published, too.
    
    I already know engineers that have seen this and decided to just put in
    their 40 hours and sleep at night.  I know of useful tools that are
    getting minimal support because the developers can't justify putting in
    "their own" time on it.  In short, I think there has been some
    reduction in the amount of midnight hacking as a direct result of
    application of "Business 101".
    
    I've gone the patenting and publishing route.  The hardest part is
    getting permission to patent and/or publish.  I know of engineers that
    have just given up on this unless the stuff is directly tied to a
    product.  Of course, then you are no longer eligible for a cash bonus
    for patenting because it is not part of your job function.  Also, good 
    luck getting ideas to the conference of choice if your software is not yet 
    a product.  Budget constraints can mean that it would "look bad" for 
    Digital to have to spring for air fare if the conference is too far away.  
    This has happened to me.  Wound up submitting to conferences that were not 
    choice and where the chances for being accepted were much less.  Not to
    mention, of course, that conferences sometimes frown on hawking a product
    via "technical" papers.
    
    Whatever happened to the idea of not killing the goose that lays the
    golden eggs?  Shouldn't that also be in Business 101?  ;^)  Fortunately
    for me, my managers are very encouraging and permit me to do more than 
    just hacking on my own time.  They really try to reward me and to provide 
    the hardware and moral support I need.  Of course, my hacking is pretty
    much job-related.  But, this has more to do with how my group is
    managed and less with any corporate programs.  The stuff I'm working on 
    has brought and will eventually bring more revenue into my group because 
    of how my group is managing things.
    
    Steve (happy midnight hacker)
    

RE: .76

Since I can not resist the rathole,

The main issue of this note is DEC and/or ASSETS incentive policy for 
programmers, ie recognition for doing something that makes money for
the company even if it is not your primary job.  It was stated elsewhere 
in this conference that everyone should be a salesperson for the company.
The fact that a tool is created that can be sold to a customer should be
recognized and the developer rewarded because the sales folks now have 
something to sell.  What? You say that they can sell the Corporate 
Products?  But there is no corporate product that solves the customer's 
particular problem except this tool.

I have had to deal with a number of situations where developers have been 
told not to work on a tool because it took away from their main job.  Some
of these times the customer is unhappy but this is not a concern for the 
manager(s) involved because it did not effect their bottomline metrics.
If they do help the customer, the developers are not only not recognized 
for the effort, they actually may be hurt come review time.

We do need to get an incentive policy off the ground.  I think that the
first step has been taken with the new effort to track the sales.  It is
sad that doing something that makes the company money is not supported
more by management.  Steve is right; you can kill the golden goose.  Where
did ALL-IN-1, VAX Notes, and others come from?  Midnight hackers!

Lee Greenlaw

    re: .77
    
    the only incentive policy we need are more managers like .76 has...
    
    they know  bus. 101 but also know that it's the customer who pays the
    bills....
    
    pay attention to what the customers need are, service them, the bottom
    line will then be fine....or...
    
    worry so much about the bottom line that you end up driving customers
    elsewhere because of all your damm processes and procedures that are
    nothing more than roadblocks to progress...

    re. past several.
    
    	It seems to me that the business 101 comment had strictly to
    	do with pricing and nothing to do with incentives.  The price
    	is always set by the percieve value to a customer of a product
    	or service...  The follow-on comment that concerned whether it
    	was cost effective to make the product or service (ie take into
    	consideration the cost of producing the product or service) was
    	simply stated to show how when proceeds to the decision on whether
    	or not you want to be in that business or not.
    
    	The price of an asset must be set by the percieved value of
    	the asset in solving the customer's business problem.  Giving
    	it away seems to indicate it has no value.  Accounting for it
    	provides the means to recognize its value and contribution to
    	the solution.  Having this information and a means to reward
    	the asset creation and maintenance group offers the management
    	of those groups with an incentive to reward individual contri-
    	butors who produce and maintain assets (whether they are aligned
    	with their jobs or not).  Absent a means of accounting for the
    	contribution an asset provides to a solution, there is no feed-
    	back to the management of the individual contributors who create
    	the assets.  Absent a formal program to capture the information
    	and to cause sales to account for the use of assets in solutions,
    	there will be no information available to anyone on the value of
    	individual assets.
    
    	This is not to say that some people are not rewarded (probably
    	not monetarily) for the creation of their asset submissions. As
    	has been noted in other replies, some managers provide the means
    	for their employees to generate the assets (access to appropriate
    	training, seminars, equipment, etc...) but probably outside normal
    	working hours.  The employee gets some psychic benefit from impro-
    	ving their skills and knowing that others are using the technology
    	they helped to develop.  They develop relationships with people
    	with whom they would not interact otherwise.
    
    	Is the current incentive enough?  Most people would probably
    	agree that it is not enough.  But I suspect that each contributor
    	would have a very different answer as to how they want the recog-
    	nition and reward to be doled out.  Do you need more time to pursue
    	your interest in the tool?  Would you want a royalty fee for use
    	of the assets?  Any number of these could be had by leaving Digital
    	and forming your own company and trying to sell the tool in the
    	market place (becoming your own boss and creating your own startup!)
	Is recognition of your talent or promotion the real goal?  As you
    	can see development of a recognition program is not a simple task
    	even if you have the data on what an asset is worth!
    
    	I have advanced a few tools in use by the groups I have worked for
    	in Digital over the past 11 years.  I fully acknowledge the contri-
    	butions made by others in developing those tools, and I hope that
    	my enhancements similarly aided other who used the tools.  I think
    	that my contributions to Digital (whether part of my job or not)
    	have been recognized by the management which I have worked for over
    	the years.  I sincerely hope my experience is not unusual in that
    	regard.  I have always believed that it was my responsibility to
    	do what was right, to take the extra step, and live the values I
    	wanted the corporation to apply to me.  Maybe I have been lucky,
    	and maybe the managers I chose to work for were unusual in giving
    	me recognition for my total contribution to the company. I hope not
    	because the recognition is feeling appreciated for what you do and
    	how you do it, whether its a part of your job or not.
    
    

    Good points.  I would like to see some steps taken, though, so that one
    is less prone or less encouraged by the system to having to form a startup 
    in order to get some forms of reward.  Seems to me that Digital would 
    stand to gain if relatively small efforts can keep the talent inside and 
    working for the company.  But, this is probably more of a nit and
    perhaps a bit rhetorical.
    
    Steve

    >>...the customer is unhappy but this is not a concern for the 
    >>manager(s) involved because it did not effect their bottomline metrics.
    
    One of the biggest single things which differentiates IBM from DEC is
    the focus in IBM on the customer.  A manager who ignores a customer
    need like that doesn't last long at IBM, at DEC s/he seems to get
    promoted to V.P.   ...sigh...
    

    Sure we've got individuals in this wonderful company that don't seem to
    focus on customer needs.  They exist at every level but they are the
    exception.  From an Account perspective, every VP that we have raised a
    customer problem to, has gone out of his/her way to provide total
    support.  This applies in the US, Europe and GIA.
    
    The customer focus/support provided by all employees is normally excellent.
    
    Mark