Conference 7.286::digital

        Where did you see this policy?  I ask because your question
        suggests you have seen such a policy.  Where are you located?
        According to MININODE.LST, TAZRAT is at facility ZWO, but I
        can't find that facility in the Digital Telephone Directory.
        
        I ask this because I can find no policy on international travel in
        the U. S. Personnel Policies and Procedures manual that would
        suggest that a VP signature is required to authorize such travel.
        However, such a policy may exist in Europe or GIA. 
        
        Tom

    I doubt if there is any particular policy in the US Personnel Policies
    and Procedures Manual related to international travel, more likely
    a group level financial policy related to business travel in general. 
    
    For example, in SASE all domestic travel must be approved at a fairly
    high level. International travel must be approved at the VP level.
    I would guess that travel restrictions vary from group to group.
    
    Joe
    

    re: .1
    
    TAZRAT was in ZWO (Wilmington) but ZWO doesn't exist anymore.  This
    node is now in Andover-Dascomb Rd. Field Service Logistics facility.
    
    There probably wasn't a written policy, but in field service these
    days it seems that everything needs Dave Grainger's signature,
    particularly an international trip.
    
    David

	For the US Field, almost ANY travel outside your District needs 
approvals at some level.  Due to expense crunching, the CC managers need to 
weigh the cost/benefit aspects of travel on a situational basis.

        My recent trip to the U.S. required about 7 signatures, right
        through to a V.P. It's a pity that such important people have
        to end up spending their time, pencil pushing...
        
        q
        

    There were memos issued to that effect about six months ago.  The
    one I received was issued by US SWS (Bill Ferry) and a similar memo
    was sent to Sales.
    
    If I still have it in my A1 account, I will post it if desired.
    
    	-Barry-
    

    I just had one signed by a VP--I believe it's been S.O.P. since that
    crunch on discretionary spending in July 1985. It's also that way in
    several other companies with even tighter cash flow for domestic
    travel. 

    The three previous replies all verify my original belief.  Those
    individuals that still don't require a v.p.'s signature are basking
    in a fiscal paradise.
    
    David
    

Yes, indeed. My recent trip to Puerto Rico required several signatures
including that of a VP. It was not a pretty picture.

Jenna

              <<< TIS::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]TSG.NOTE;2 >>>
                                    -< TSG >-
================================================================================
Note 195.0                 DECWORLD attendance policy                 No replies
TIS::AMANN                                           37 lines  25-APR-1988 12:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Message-class: DECMAIL-MS
From:	NAME: SHIELDS
	INITLS: JACK
	FUNC: SSMI ADMINISTRATION
	ADDR: OGO1-2/R12*
	TEL: 276-9890 <183@DECMAIL@CORMTS@CORE>
Posted-date: 15-Apr-1988
Subject: DECWORLD ATTENDANCE POLICY

To:	See Below

Due to the very limited hotel space in the south of France during 
DECWORLD and, more importantly, due to our continuing need to control 
our expenses, I am asking each of you to restrict attendance at 
DECWORLD in Cannes as follows:

Only three categories of DEC employees should be in Cannes for 
DECWORLD:

    1. Sales Account Managers escorting their customers and 
       approved by their Area Vice President.

    2. People who are doing booth duty, setup, giving
       presentations, or other staff jobs as required by the
       DECWORLD Committee.  There will be a formal registration 
       process and a limited number of such jobs.

    3. Senior Officers who are invited by Pier Carlo Falotti to 
       play a leadership role in hosting the event.
        
Anyone who does not fit in one of these categories should not go.
Since international travel requires your signature, I am asking each 
of you to assure that this policy is adhered to.

Please be sure to pass this message along to your entire organization.

.-a few had it right.

A while back, the highest levels of the corporation perceived a fiscal 
crisis.  One of the responses to this crisis was a memo describing 
financial controls.  There were more than half a dozen separate line items. 
Stangely enough ( 8^) ), nearly this exact memo came out under every V.P.'s 
signature.  Some of them were modified slightly to more describe what was 
meant in that V.P.'s organization.

Among them were items roughly like "eliminate outside contractors/
consultants", "eliminate outside training", "no off-site meetings", "no
company-paid coffee&donuts at staff meetings", and also this one, "no
far-away travel without a V.P.'s signature". 

These were all reinforced a lesser while back.

Like "hiring freezes", I can remember at least four of these, none of which 
were formally rescinded (mostly because they make good economic sense, in 
general), but specific provisions of which were over-ridden when people 
proved that it was the right thing to do.  (Or when they thought no one was 
looking.  Had any company-paid c&d at an off-site staff meeting lately?)

To explicitly answer .0's question, "It depends on your V.P., but I haven't 
personally heard of one who's relaxed this rule."

Ray

    Although I've been with Digital for almost 7 years now, I've only
    had occasion to do international travel over the past 3+ years,
    and have done it from SWS, Marketing, and SWS/E.  I thought it was
    always the policy -- VP signature for international travel, cost
    center manager for domestic travel.  I looked it up in the latest
    issue of the P&P, it's not mentioned there!  But my actual experience
    in all 3 of these organizations is that is *is* required for
    international travel.  I'm not aware of anyone who has done it without
    a VP signoff.
    
    Jon

    As was stated in a previous reply, last fall (around the first of
    November) a memo was issued that, among other things, required
    executive committee member approval for international travel. In
    engineering, that means Jack Smith.
    
    We just received a memo stating that he has delegated this authority
    one level (i.e., to his staff) but that they can not delegate it.
    
    So, it is still more-or-less at VP level (some of his staff is VP,
    some is not). And in this case, a "freeze" has been recinded.

        Of course, one could ask how people joining Digital, possibly at
        senior levels, are ever supposed to determine current policy if it
        is codified largely by memoranda that may or may not have ever
        been circulated to everyone, and are not necessarily kept in any
        central repository from which they are re-distributed to new
        employees. 
        
        Not that I'm going to ask that question..
        
        Tom

    From my experience, both here and when I worked in the UK, the booking
    agent (here - Amex, UK - Hogg Robinson & Amex) have been instructed by
    the corporation not to accept the travel requisition for long-distance
    (i.e. transatlantic, transpacific) flights unless they have been signed
    by an appropriate VP, BOD or CMT member. 

    Jon

One would think that the VP signature would be required based on the expense
of the trip, or the distance, and not whether any frontiers were crossed.
Detroit/Ottawa is a lot closer and cheaper than Pittsburg/Tucson.

    To the uninitiated, intrnational borders are easier to recognize
    than arcane things like cost or distance.
    
    ;^)) Jim Williams

    From cc 31L (in Boxboro, Mass.) the Mississippi river is considered an
    international boundary when it comes to getting travel authorizations.
    (I'm serious. Crossing the Mississippi requires permission.)

    Back in October, 1987, if a Valbonne (France) employee wanted to
    travel to the USA, all he/she needed was a site manager's approval
    (and there are several of them).  In any event, aside from my CC
    manager, that was the only other signature I needed.  In December,
    I had to have my CC manager's and a VP's signature.  Still two
    signatures, either way.  I think this policy is still in effect
    today.

    
    If one travels to Widsor Canada from Detroit ( Only Detroit river
    seperates the two cities), will that be considered international travel in
    DEC rules- Particularly when there is no overnight stay or plane
    travel involved ?
    
    

    There is probably some bean counter someplace who would bounce an
    expense account because you travelled "internationally" from Detroit to
    Windsor. But I wouldn't worry about it. Just do it and submit the
    expense form. It will undoubtedly go through.
    
    I think the big item of concern is the air travel expense. That is the
    concern in Boxboro: crossing the Mississippi requires VP approval, but
    the concern is really coast-to-coast airfare. 
    

>    I think the big item of concern is the air travel expense. That is the
>    concern in Boxboro: crossing the Mississippi requires VP approval, but
>    the concern is really coast-to-coast airfare. 

Last month I went to Cincinnati:  $408.50
Last week I went to San Francisco:$300.50

    Yeah. I'm not at all sure it's possible to have a rational DEC policy
    in the face of irrational airline fares. The VP concern is still
    keeping travel expenses under control. 

    And, the concern is probably not the airfare itself, but the total
    cost, including lodging and food.  It is possible for someone from
    GMA to attend a one day, fly in/fly out meeting in Chicago (albeit,
    somewhat rushed), but not practical on the west coast. 

    Boy I love this notesfile, throw in a question/rumor and you get
    replies up the gahooch!  
    
    Seriously I want to thank everyone for answering or rather confirming
    my original question.  I've got a possible international trip coming
    up in a few months, and this will put my curiosities to the test.
    
    David

    I once flew from GMA to LA for a meeting (I didn't want to, but
    my boss made me do it) and flew back the same day on the "red-eye"
    only to return to work that day.  Didn't miss a day at work, except
    for about 6 hours of the meeting day.  I don't recommend it as a
    way of life :^).
    
    Bill

    Where is GMA?
    

    GMA = Greater Maynard Area

    According to the most updated Corporate Petty Cash Manual:
    
    "International Travel Approval changes depending on various events
    or economic factors.  The enforcement of mandates or memos issued
    is the responsibility of the approvers."
    
    Well, gee, I hope *that* clarified it for you!!!
    
    In a meeting I attended at which a Corp. Petty Cash person talked
    about the new policies (effective July 5, 1988), she said that a
    VP approval is NO LONGER REQUIRED by Petty Cash to process
    international stuff.  However, she was careful to state that specific
    departments may require the VP signature for their own tracking
    purposes.
    
    By the way, they also said that, effective July 5, only two
    appropriately-leveled signatures will be required to process exception
    vouchers.  For example, if you have a voucher that's over the maximum
    number of days, it used to be that a VP approval was required. 
    Now it only takes two signatures from people who are approved for
    the specific dollar amount of the voucher.
    
    
    

>      <<< Note 554.5 by BUNYIP::QUODLING "It's my foot! I'll Shoot it!" >>>
>                        -< From AUstralia, it does... >-

>        My recent trip to the U.S. required about 7 signatures, right
>        through to a V.P. It's a pity that such important people have
>        to end up spending their time, pencil pushing...
 
 What a bureaucracy!
 If the VP is the person who gives the final yes/no approval, and the
 original manager is the person who initiates the process then don't we
 just need these two signatures? Do the other x managers in between
 really add any value? Doesn't it just slow the whole process down,
 create bureaucracy and make more unneccesary work for the middle 
 managers? 

 There was a case quoted recently where someone wanted to install
 turnstiles to get into a certain Digital site. They worked out that
 this required 20+ signatures! Everyone said 'yes' except the last
 person in the chain who said 'no' and that was that. 20 people wasted
 their time! I would argue that for a suggestion like this that you only
 need 3 signoffs:

 The Proposer
 The Approver
 The Implementor

 In the case of travel, then just the Proposer and the Approver.

 Can anyone come up with a good reason why this should not be the process
 we follow? It would save a lot of time, effort, paperwork and bureaucracy!

	Craig

> Can anyone come up with a good reason why this should not be the process
> we follow? It would save a lot of time, effort, paperwork and bureaucracy!
    
    You'd hurt too many empires.

re: 554.1 
        
>        I ask this because I can find no policy on international travel in
>        the U. S. Personnel Policies and Procedures manual that would
>        suggest that a VP signature is required to authorize such travel.


Ayup, the US PP&P does not cover it all. There is also a corporate manual for 
petty cash (or some such title). That is where the procedures are documented.
I think that it is on line in VTX.

In any case, a Veep (or their designee) is required to sign for International 
travel and exceptions to policy.

    ...in the US.

>  <<< Note 554.31 by SNOC02::SIMPSON "Those whom the Gods would destroy..." >>>
>                                  -< obvious >-

>> Can anyone come up with a good reason why this should not be the process
>> we follow? It would save a lot of time, effort, paperwork and bureaucracy!
    
>    You'd hurt too many empires.

There is a step towards this bypassing of hierarcy mentioned a few notes
back, in the current UK policies and procedures manual. The bit about
the 'Requester must be able to approach the approver directly'

Craig

UK Policies Dept.
UKPOL 1.1.10 Approvals Delegation
Digital Internal Use Only - UK Policies Dept (7)830-4893
Revision number: 2                     Revision date: 17 Jan 90

APPLICABILITY
Applies  to  all  controls  in  the  UK  except  where  specifically stated
otherwise.

PURPOSE
To minimise approval processes and assist delegation of decision making. 

POLICY
Approvers must avoid making the approvals of others a prerequisite to their
own approval. Requesters must be able to approach the approver directly.

Approvers  may delegate their approval authority as  they see fit, although
they  remain accountable for approvals  given in their name.  Delegates may
not  delegate further any approval powers given to them unless specifically
authorised to do so.
 
Approvers  must maintain a record  of their delegates together  with sample
signatures  of  those  delegates  who  will  be  required  to  give  signed
approvals.

For  the purpose of administration and audit,  all delegates will have full
approval  powers. Approvers must manage their delegates accordingly if they
wish to give only partial delegation.

    If and when the same thing hits SPR P&P I'll let you know how it works
    out.