Conference 7.286::digital

    For .1's benefit: 
    
    Let's say Digital, in a desire:
    
	1. To re-instate with all employees worldwide that
    	"entrepreneurial spirit", 
    
	2. To build THE "greatest" successful organization in the world,
    
	3. For greater personal commitment from all employees,
    
	4. For employees to take ownership and responsibility for
	making more effective actions, and
    
	5. For employees to determine individually (and to implement)
	the changes necessary to achieve those goals,
    
    what is it that you, as an individual employee, want.

Re: .3

Give us a verb!

				-- Bob

    The basic sentence seemed to be, "What is it you want?"  The verb is
    right at the end, where any good German knows it belongs.
    
    There were a few bits I left off the end, and I had to guess at the
    subjects of a couple subordinate clauses, but I think the meaning is
    the same, and it's still all one sentence, more or less.
    
    Now for the answer ...

    
    MORE! 

    
    	* Less secretiveness about our development projects
    
    	* Less management, more resources (all varieties, including
    	  human)
    
    	* More agressive training of employees
    
    	* More corporate backing for <expletive deleted> corporate
    	  programs (such as S.I.C's, and "solution selling", in general)
    
    	* A decent set of computerized sales tools (such as an AQS system
    	  that really works, on-line pricebooks with cross-referencing
    	  and compatibility validation between product lines)
    
    	* Bring two-seater cars (like my MR2) into Plan B
    
    	* Stop using DEC-double talk (such as problem=opportunity)
    
    	   That's the top of my list... I can go on if you like.
    
    	- Greg

    Free hardware (workstation/terminal/whatever) at home to encourage
    personal development.
    
-Andy

    
    	How about a better Employee Stock Purchase Plan or possibly
    	matching 401(k) contributions.

>        1. To re-instate with all employees worldwide that
>        "entrepreneurial spirit", 
>    
>        2. To build THE "greatest" successful organization in the world,
>    
>        3. For greater personal commitment from all employees,
>    
>        4. For employees to take ownership and responsibility for
>        making more effective actions, and
>    
>        5. For employees to determine individually (and to implement)
>        the changes necessary to achieve those goals,

What would I want?

I'd want a commitment (and by that I mean more than just lip service) from
senior Digital management that would convince me that *they* want those
things. That commitment could be demonstrated by things such as positive
moves to (a) emiminate the stovepipes, (b) cut the jobs that serve no
purpose other than empire-building, and/or (c) change the metrics of the
sales organization to reflect what we *say* we want to sell these days. 

If I could believe the commitment was there on the part of Digital's 
leaders, then it would be easy for me to feel that commitment personally 
and professionally.

							Pat

    
    Since he communicates so well, I will quote from the book THE EMPOWERED
    MANAGER by Peter Block (Jossey-Bass Publishers), which I highly
    recommend as a guide to moving to an entrepreneurial spirit from a
    bureaucratic one. 
    
    I would want the re-instatement of the values I believe were part
    of the early DEC, which were known, understood and followed by
    everyone, making DEC a great place to work, with everyone working
    together to build something great.
    
    Here is what Peter Block says in his book,
    
    "An endless number of values can get expressed in stating how we
    want people to work together.  It is up to all of us to ask ourselves
    which are the values and beliefs we hold most dearly about human
    interaction.  These very personal values drive our vision of greatness
    for the people within our group (and organization)."
    
    Examples of such values:
    
    * We want consistency between our plans and actions
    * A willingness to share
    * Disagree without fear
    * Commitment to a long-term strategy
    * Create a safe workplace
    * We want to live our values
    * Have each person connected with the final product
    * Treat each person in a unique way
    * Overcome levels and hierarchy
    * Our employees are as important as our stockholders
    * Our people are the business
    * A positive attitude, less energy on bad situations
    * We want to see caring and love in all our actions
    * Every person is responsible for building the business
    * Work as a team
    * Each person has a place at the table
    * Each person feels valued and respected
    * Provide meaningful work
    * Managers exist to serve their employees
    * Eliminate nonproductive work
    * Each person has the right to say no
    * Control of our own destiny
    * Freedom to fail.  People are shot only for not trying
    * Honesty at all times
    * Empathy for others' pain
    * Each person is heard and understood
    
    "It is up to us to know our own values and decide which we want
    expressed through our work."
    
    I believe the author in that achieving a vision of greatness requires,
    as part of creating that vision, instilling within the organization
    the values of effective human interaction that lead to excellence
    and greatness in our work, and in how we act with one another.
    

    
 >   I would want the re-instatement of the values I believe were part
 >   of the early DEC, which were known, understood and followed by
 >   everyone, making DEC a great place to work, with everyone working
 >   together to build something great.
    
    
    
    	Unfortunately those days appear to be long gone. Wish they weren't.
    
    	The "NEW" DEC tends not to stress the values of old. Expenses
    	outpace income in most of our product development. Why? One can't
    	seem to accomplish even the smallest of tasks without having the
    	consent of any number of committees and attending numerous
    	meetings ad infinitum. 
    
    	Product quality and customer satisfaction
    	were the number one messages in the "OLD" DEC. Today priorities
    	seem to be time to market/market share/gross margins and then
    	somewhere way down the list is product quality and customer 
    	satisfaction. 
    
    	Is it my imagination or has DEC become overly conservative? Are we
    	to become simply a marketing company with the word "buyout" the
    	only word in our vocabulary? 
    
    	Here's a vote to return to the values of the "OLD" DEC.
    
    	

    I think the comments in the preceeding replies are very valid:
    the main reason (IMO) for the loss of that spirit is the emergence
    of various "empires" within Digital, and beaurocraries that have
    grown around them. As you can tell from the text that follows, I
    am an engineer, and from my perspective, we in engineering are no
    longer "permitted" to act as entrepreneurs.
    
    This reply started as a long winded anecdote, but Ive shortened
    it and will cut directly to the chase:
    
    I WANT:	MARKETING and CSSE to serve in a purely advisory role
    		in making decisions as to which products to develop,
    		when it is appropriate to ship them, and whether they
    		are supportable/serviceable. Neither of these organizations
    		should have the ability to cancel a project. Engineering
    		should bear full responsibility for all decisions and
    		their outcomes, and have full control over same.
    
    WHY?:	You cant be an entrepreneur when your hands are tied.
    		
    
    REALITY:	We are too big, and the various non-product-making
    		organizations too powerful and entrenched, to ever
    		get that spirit back. What Ive observed is that people
    		who DO have the entrepreneurial spirit find that the
    		only way they can be true to themselves is to LEAVE
    		Digital and go to a smaller company, where they are
    		allowed to be entrepreneurs. Thats really too bad,
    		but probably inevitable. Bigger is not always better.
    
    What do you think KO would have done if MARKETING told him he couldnt
    ship the first PDP because there was no "market window"? Or if CSSE
    told him they were cancelling it? 
    
    More current: We have all heard how marketing at SONY tried to cancel
    the WALKMAN. If it had been Digital, they likely would have SUCCEEDED.
    		
    
    
    

    
    
    NMA = No More Acronyms
          -  -    -
    

    I would like to see DEC hire employees with the correct expertise.  No
    more overhead employees.  I'm tired of being 'spread too thin' (read
    *stressed*).  I don't mind being one of the worker bees, but even
    worker bees need a rest (or at least a counterpart) once in a while. 
    
    If there are employees out there who aren't being utilized (read 'dead
    wood'), then let's train them to do something where they would be
    useful. 
    
    Colleen

     I would like to see more TEETH put back into training (if there
    ever were any, I've only been teaching 6 years). 
   
     I take a great amount of time, interest and responsibility  
    in making sure all my students can do the job when they
    leave my course. Those that do not successfully complete the course
    I do not CERTIFY and state that the person can not work on the
    equipment without possible danger to themselves or others. (Such
    student are those that come up to me and ask "how do I work this
    DVM I haven't had basic electronics and proceed to put their hand 
    on a powered up transformer." This student is today working on the
    equipment!!!! AND RECEIVING HELP FROM A SUPPORT GROUP THAT KNOWS THE
    PERSON HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED TO WORK ON THE EQUIPMENT!! (it might
    help to know that the course I teach is mandatory training before
    a technician can work on the equipment!)
    
    NEXT: I would like the prerequisites to the course to be real 
    prerequisites, not just something that sounds good on paper
    and each student arrive in class having taken those prereq's. 
    
    THAT WAY I DON'T HAVE TO TEACH THEM HOW TO LOGIN, 
    WHICH END OF THE SCREW DRIVER TO USE 
    AND THAT AN ELECTRON IS NEGATIVE,                                     

    before I begin to teach them something about the equipment they
    came to learn.
    
    I could go on, but then I would begin to babble and SCREAM and get
    all upset!!! and I always get in trouble after I do that.
    
    Thanks I needed this!
    
    MAC
    
    
    
    
    I would also like to see more students trained in the software and
    the hardware. Some students arrive in class and can not even LOGIN
     into an account.  Some of this is due to lack of resources back
    at their branch. They have no accounts of their own, no time to
    practice using the software and are rushed so much on calls.

    SPR has just had a management shuffle which is aimed to implement
    a new structure which places greater responsibility at the district
    and branch level than previously.  It looks good on paper and I
    hope it works.  It should mean greater flexibility at the branch
    level in terms of resource management.  We also (at least my branch)
    have been fairly aggressive in our training, although lack of equipment
    hampers both demonstrations and as tools for building and maintaining
    our skill sets.
                                                              
    But, to back this up, I think we need far greater flexibility in
    attitudes and responsiveness right back up to corporate.  I've made
    my feelings known previously about the lack of responsiveness by
    management (in some areas) to field needs (= customers needs).  We
    need also to shed our paranoia about futures.  This does NOT mean we
    throw PIDs out the door.  But, for example, when you are working on a 
    large project (such as I am currently, $US5-6M), and you NEED to
    design nearly announced products in, you get the support you need, not 
    pro-forma mumblings about seeing the PID representative.  We don't need a
    PID, we need real information.
                        
    I want to see evidence of commitment from senior management (in
    particular product and marketing) that we mean what we say by producing
    products that the FIELD tells them we need.  If we don't know then
    some bureaucrat in an office sure as hell won't.
                                                                 
    I want to see, wherever possible, field people working in tandem,
    as policy.  As most programmers or engineers know, having another
    specialist around to bounce ideas off and pick up your mistakes
    generally means faster, cleaner solutions.  Too often field people
    are expected to work on their own.  Let's hire more workers at the
    coal face, and fewer bean counters.  Growth follows quality, right?
                                                                       
    I want to see the 'right' put back into 'do the right thing'.

    Well, everything is already here, we don't need to invent any new
    wheels, have you ever seen the script on DEC philosophy and business
    ethics ? 

    The  conclusion I draw from it is that there should not be any
    conflicts between the company goals and ethics and employees career
    goals and personal ethics. 

    The very few conflicts and sour points I have with management resources
    come mostly from the disregard of The Basic Rules.

    re .-1
    
    When I joined Digital I read that stuff and thought it was great
    (particularly after some of my earlier experiences).  I just don't
    see it across the board.

I'd like to see designated groups instead of competing groups.
For example, there's 26+ groups with Ed Services; some have
over-lapping charters, others have similiar charters to do the
work that they chartered to do. There's been cases of bids to do
work for CXO documentation projects by folks from eastern doc
groups.

If we work for the same company, why are we cutting each other's
throats for the project dollars?

I'd like to see more communications between locations that are
assigned to the same project. We hear developments out here in
the Rockies that has been in the verbal (call it rumors)
communications back in Mass area.

cal

    	My wish: pay-for-performance including, but not limited to,
        stock options not only for senior management but for the key
        people whose individual contributions create the very success
        their managers are rewarded for.
    
    	While granting stock options to *every* employee as does Cincom
    	(see below) may be going too far, rewarding key employees for
    	their direct contributions seems very fair to me. Rewarding
        only top management appears to me, a history major, to have
   	its roots in feudalism as much as capitalism.
    
    	Here's an example of how another high-tech company handles
    	stock options:
    
    	'In the 5-Dec-88 issue of Information Week, for example, Cincom 
    	was touted as one of Cincinnati's "most successful businesses".
    	It was described as a great place to work, where all [not just
    	an elite few] employees were granted stock options and where
    	there was always a "certain mystique about becoming a Cincomer".
    	In fact, one of the most serious problems confronting Cincom,
    	according to Tom Nies, was having "occasional trouble attracting
    	people because of the company's location...' *

    Now, I wouldn't want Digital to adopt Cincom's example of how to
    handle business downturns* and, all things considered, we at DEC
    *are* better off having secure incomes and jobs.
    
    Still, a more realistic chance of being granted stock options would
    be a nice incentive to push even harder than we already do...
    
    Bob    
    
    *   For more (balanced) info re: Cincom, see:
    
    <<< SWSVAX::DISK$UTILITY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MIDWEST.NOTE;1 >>>
                           -< The American Midwest >-
================================================================================
Note 7.2                      Cincinnati & Vicinity                       2 of 2
AKOV75::BIBEAULT "Corp Financial Strategies"         89 lines   5-APR-1989 12:36
               -< Warning: Greener Pastures Turn Brown Quickly! >-

        This is a digression, but, re: .21 --

        What makes you think you wouldn't be eligible to receive stock
        options *if* your management believed you deserved them?  It is by
        no means the case that stock options are only awarded to managers,
        much less only to senior managers.

        Tom 

    RE: -.1
    
    while it's true that stock options ARE issued to non-managers, they
    are RARELY issued to anyone below the level of principal engineer.
    This info comes directly from the new hire orientation I heard a
    few years ago.
    
    Instead of stock options, I'd like to see a corporate-wide profit
    sharing plan.  This would give people a direct stake in the
    profitability of the corporation, as opposed to stock options, which
    are more of a "golden handcuff".
    
    Steve
    

Re: .22:

>        What makes you think you wouldn't be eligible to receive stock
>        options *if* your management believed you deserved them?  It is by
>        no means the case that stock options are only awarded to managers,
>        much less only to senior managers.
    
    	"Discussion of who gets what is a taboo subject". That is a direct quote
    	from:
    			A STUDY IN CORPORATE CULTURES
    			DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
    				THE MYTH:
    			A CULTURAL OPERATION MANUAL
    
    				  BY
    
    			    REESA E. ABRAMS 
    			   STEPHEN P. HEISER
    
    	under the heading STOCK OPTION. 
    
    	Consistent with that quote and my own discetion, I will not
    	comment on the 774.22 as it relates to my personal situation
    	nor that of any other individual or groups of individuals within
    	the Company.
    
    	I will say this, though:
    
    	I have *heard* from several reliable sources in different
    	organizations and functions within the Company (without revealing
    	my sources) that stock options are being granted more
	conservatively than in the past, often on less favorable terms
    	and, to the best of their knowledge, the granting of options
   	to persons other than senior (to me, Level 14 and up) managers
    	is becoming much less frequent an occurrence...
    
    	Assuming this is true (and I have no reliable way of confirming
   	or disputing this proposition), it means one - but by no means
    	the only or the best - incentive for superior performance on the
	part of persons who help make those senior managers successful
    	may be being underutilized.
    
    I thought the topic of this discussion was something like: What Do You
    Want? 
    
    	I put in my 2-cents. I'm sorry you don't agree my contribution
    	was worth that...
    
    	Bob

RE: .23
    
>    Instead of stock options, I'd like to see a corporate-wide profit
>    sharing plan.  This would give people a direct stake in the
>    profitability of the corporation, as opposed to stock options, which
>    are more of a "golden handcuff".
    
     Good point, Steve. Profit-sharing would be nice. P&G and a lot
     of other Fortune 500 Companies have excellent profit-sharing plans.
     It would be nice if DEC had one, too. 
    

    I would like US DEC to start valueing employee's family life.  I
    would like to see a company wide policy on flex hours, real maternity
    leave (instead of STD), on-site daycare, subsidized daycare, etc...
    
    I don't feel the policy of "leaving it up to the individual manager"
    is at all fair.  There are alot of managers that don't have the
    slightest clue as to what it takes to raise a healthy family.....
    
    Anna

    Anna, generally I agree with you.  However, there are some areas where
    flex time may not work as well as in others, and leaving it up to the
    manager to make that determination on a case by case basis only makes
    sense.
    
    Marge

RE: .27
    
>    I would like US DEC to start valueing employee's family life.  I
>    would like to see a company wide policy on flex hours, real maternity
>    leave (instead of STD), on-site daycare, subsidized daycare, etc...
    
>    I don't feel the policy of "leaving it up to the individual manager"
>    is at all fair.  There are alot of managers that don't have the
>    slightest clue as to what it takes to raise a healthy family.....
        
    Right On, Anna!
    
    In my current organization, I can honestly and with great appreciation
    say that the family is respected and that employees are treated
    flexibly with regard to their family obligations provided that they
    are still able to meet their project commitments on time, within
    budget and in a professional manner. No one punches a clock here
    but results are important and they are measured against expectations.
    The environment creates a win-win situation for this Digital organization
    and its employees. We are equally happy and productive as coworkers
    and family members.
    
    Unfortunately, this is not true throughout the Company. I have left
    positions within Digital because of inflexibility and insensitivity
    to family issues. I have put career plans on hold due to an apparent
    inability to continue the flexibility I enjoy here were I to accept
    a position with certain other organizations.
    
    A corporate-wide philosophy supportive of employees who have dual
    responsibilities: to family as well as to career would, ideally,
    be formulated and become part of the "culture" throughout Digital
    (or, at the minimum, at least throughout the Company within the U.S.).

    There should be no stigma attached to being on the "Mommy Track"
    nor the "Daddy Track". Rather, persons who can do both and still
    perform should be recognized *at least* to the same degree as those
    who deliver equivalent performance with little else to concern
    themselves with other than their own careers.
    
    With respect to on-site day care, I have not formed an opinion.
    As to subsidies, well, I think the Company has gone as far as it is 
    likely to with its new dependent care program. Cries for "more", 
    in my opinion, will only create a backlash from those who don't have 
    this need and would not be inclined to subsidize those that do 
    (via limitation of other current or potential future benefits which 
    others *could* use). So, if subsidized day care were one of my hot
    buttions (which it is not), I'd concentrate on writing Congress for
    passage of one of the various proposals currently on the table to help 
    those in need of affordable child care...
        
    On the "Daddy Track" and Proud Of It,
    Bob    

Re: .-3

>>    I would like US DEC to start valueing employee's family life.  I
>>    would like to see a company wide policy on flex hours, real maternity
>>    leave (instead of STD), on-site daycare, subsidized daycare, etc...

FWIW, I believe that Ken Olsen places an incredibly high value on
	the family lives of DEC employees.  It may not trickle down,
	or be in the P&Ps, but valuing the family of the employee
	is the message that I have heard more often than any other
	coming from Ken's mouth.

	He once said that the most important reason for DEC to
	continue to be successful was that there were over 100,000 
	families who depended on it.  He has often encouraged the
	ambitious and the overachievers to make sure that they are
	spending enough time with their families, because their family
	is the most important part of their life.

	I'd also like to see the benefits extended in the direction
	you suggest (and how about some improved benefits for elderly
	care, too!).  And I think that the policy that does the most
	for families is the no-layoff policy.  I believe that DEC's
	desire to continue this policy is a direct reflection of it's
	president's most cherished values.  IMHO. 

	And yes, it would be especially nice if these values were 
	shared by ALL the managers in the company, regardless of
	the geography or function!

RE .28   
    
>    ... there are some areas where
>    flex time may not work as well as in others, and leaving it up to the
>    manager to make that determination on a case by case basis only makes
>    sense.
    
    Marge,
    
    I generally agree with you.
    
    Let me ask you this:
    
    Why would the request for "flexibility" given the exact same person,
    organization and circumstances (except the manager making the decision)
    result in totally different approaches and justification for the
    decision depending on the manager making the decision?
    
    Would a particular manager's *own* set of values have *anything* to
    do with it?
    
    If so, might a Company-wide or Organization-wide set of values and/or
    guidelines serve to make treatment of similar requests placed under similar
    circumstances *more* consistent than may be the case today?
    

    o	Fewer memos, more action and initiative.
    
    o	More accountability to solve problelms, rather than
    	forwarding them to the next person.
    
    o	Recognition for following something through to completion.
    
    o	An end to management overlooking the "dead wood" and always
    	piling more on the good performers.
    
    o	Honesty from senior management about where DEC is going, and
    	their commitment to leading us there.
    
    

    And hearty agreement towards a company-wide policy on flextime!
    

    
    I'll join those in favor of some sort of profit sharing -- but I
    woudn't want it to be across the board.  Some kind of system tying
    the amount to performance would have to be used.
    
    Also, on the "who gets stock options" issue.  I received stock options
    for 13 years as a manager.  I never heard of anyone but a manager
    getting any......as a matter of fact, there never seemed to be enough
    even for the first level managers and supervisors who reported to
    me.  There seemed to be rather extreme hogging at the higher levels.
    
    I would also like to see a 6-8 week sabbatical every three years
    ala Apple.

    re .31:
    
    Given the exact circumstances you outline, I don't know why the
    response would differ...did you ask?
    
    My concerns about "mandated" flex time policy is that some
    organizations use teams to do the job.  Chaos would result if one team
    member were off every Monday and another team member were off every
    Thursday. Essentially, the team would only be working at peak
    productivity when all members were present.  
    
    Marge

    .31  Ra Ra!   I've seen the same manager manage flex hours to accomidate
    	aerobic classes but can't accomidate the same hours for day care
        pickup!  
    
    .35  Flex time doesn't just mean entire day changes, but changing of
    	hours which can be just as valuable to those that need it.
    
    Just a company wide policy so that managers can feel good about them
    selves when they can participate in it.  
    
    Show the familys of DEC some respect instead of putting up with their
    situations......Anna
    
    

	If the company wants me to feel ownership...give me stock.
	(BTW, give is not the same as sell at a good price.)

	If you want to make me feel that profit is good for me personally
	give me prifit sharing. I read once where KO said that DEC shares
	profits by giving pay raises. That may have been true once but it
	doesn't appear that there is a direct coorelation at this time.

	For myself, I think I'd like some profit sharing. We've (while I've
	been with DEC) been asked to share the pain ( I remember a 6 month
	pay freeze). We should also be allowed to share in the good times.


			Alfred

� Note 774.28 by SCARY::M_DAVIS "nested disclaimers" >
        
�     flex time may not work as well as in others, and leaving it up to the
�     manager to make that determination on a case by case basis only makes
�     sense.

     And also leave room for managerial abuse :-}?

        -  See note 774.20  A good statement I agree 100%
    
        -  Less Talk more ACTION!
    
        -  Remember DEC Europe is important too....
           "Digital Equipment is one company, with one strategy
            and one message."
    
        -  Managers & Employees who really take this message seriously!
    

    I want all DEC employees to understand the underlying philosophy
    of the company, what it values, and the culture.  This is not happening
    enough!!  I see some folks caving in to demands, not pushing back,
    not taking risk, etc...... those types of DEC values which I believe
    are still important.
    
    But why are some organizations/groups/sites so different?????? 
    We grew fast and didn't take the time, nor effort, so communicate
    to our employees (including managers) what the DEC values and culture
    is all about.  
    
    It's not too late, but maybe it is.  Culture changes. It evolves
    over time.  But values should not change and we (I) should make
    every effort to communicate to fellow employees DEC values.
    
    More new employees should participate in the program called "Intro
    to Digital for Engineering"; a 2-day program designed for new
    engineeris and technical professionals.

What do I want the most?  For people to stop griping about how things aren't
like the old days at Digital.

A company that doesn't change with the times dies the death of a dinosaur.  
I argue that it's resistance to change hurts the entrepreneurial spirit--and
is hurting Digital--the most.

As a company, we have to be willing to change.  We have to be willing to
set precedents.  That's what will give us a competitive edge.  We will not
get ahead of other companies by copying other's successes or complying with
government regulations when we're forced to.  

Perhaps the best example of this company's reluctance to change is how
difficult it is to set policy.  Irrespective of whether or not you smoke:
it took this company two years to arrive at *any* smoking policy.  
Apart from how pay re-structuring will affect you: it has taken this 
company a year and half to update the antiquated pay vs. function 
salary ranges (JEC) and it is *still* unfinished.  It doesn't matter whether 
or not you personally will take advantage of daycare.  The fact is that 
the composition of the U.S. work force has changed:  in most American 
homes both parents have full-time jobs and *benefits* a company to support 
its employees with daycare. 

Let's keep up with social forces.  I think that's the way to keep the 
leaders, movers, and entrepreneurs happy working for Digital into the future.

So, let's not complain about how we're not the Old Digital.  Engineers
who question the function of CSSE and MARKETING and who want the freedom 
to design anything they want do not understand business.  They should 
go work in a university setting.  Unless, they want to make money;
then Digital is a good place--here, at least *engineers* get 
stock options.

					- Anne Marie

Re: .41

>Let's keep up with social forces.  I think that's the way to keep the 
>leaders, movers, and entrepreneurs happy working for Digital into the future.

There are some social forces I DON'T want Digital to keep up with.  For example:
mandatory drug testing.

				-- Bob

        As I quite agree with some of the ideas expressed in this note, I
        don't understand  some  of the complaints however.  We work for a
        company that as  they  say  is  in  the business of making MONEY.
        Digital is a good  company  to  work  for  and I wouldn't like to
        think about looking for another job in the industry.  We all know
        how bad it is now!!!

        Also I have like the discussion going on with this note as well a
        few others in this conference.


                                                        Regards,

                                                          Rich

    More intrapreneurship - make it possible for people to develop and act
    on ideas....empower people to take risks and succeed. Sure, we need
    some level of control so that proposals are well thought out, but once
    they have been reviewed and people have "signed up" clear the way so
    that the proposers can deliver on their committments.
    
    So what's stopping us? 
    	
    	- excessive financial controls, both short-term (the need for
    	  multiple levels of signtaure on many items) and long-term
    	  (the yearly budget review process)
    
    	- fewer risk-taking managers 
    
    	- no clear reward structure for those who dared
    
    	- ongoing changes in higher-level directions
    
    	- the reality that as our products get more and more complex it
    	  becomes increasingly important to coordinate/integrate projects
    	  in multiple groups. Few projects can be done in a vacuum. Guess
    	  we need more collaboration between supporting groups.
    
    	- difficulty in getting resources needed (in some cases). Again,
    	  if resource was included in proposal and approved as is then
    	  there should be no question about getting what's needed.
    
    ...and probably lots more.
    

RE: 774.41  CURIE::BRAKO -< ENTREPRENEURS: on the leading edge of change >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> A company that doesn't change with the times dies the death of a dinosaur.  
> I argue that it's resistance to change hurts the entrepreneurial spirit--and
> is hurting Digital--the most.

> As a company, we have to be willing to change.  We have to be willing to
> set precedents.  That's what will give us a competitive edge.  We will not
> get ahead of other companies by copying other's successes or complying with
> government regulations when we're forced to.  

	Are you suggesting Digital has to be different for the sake of not
	"copying other's successes"? 

	If an idea is good and has been proven successful, I wouldn't 
	necessarily rule it out simply because someone else implemented
	it first...
    
    	BTW, isn't that the way we went into the personal computer
    	business, refusing to build IBM-capatible PC's because they
    	weren't "invented here"? Remember the result?

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        
	I'd like to suggest we take a look at child-care benefits (as
    	reported by USA Today in a recent issue). The specific benefits 
    	covered are Day Care, Flextime, Parental Leave, Sabbaticals, 
    	Work at Home and Job Sharing. The companies are Allstate, AT&T, 
    	Apple, DuPont, Exxon, Gannett, GM, IBM, Merck, NCNB, Polaroid.

	On each of the following pages find a table indicating how the above
	companies handle each area. (It may be a good idea to PRINT this note
	to a spooled device...)*

	Once you realize how other companies are handling these issues,
    	you may be able to offer more informed opinions as to what may
    	be realistic for Digital...
    
   * 	"A Look at Child-Care Benefits", USA Today, April, 1989. Copyright
	Gannett Newspapers. Reproduction allowed for personal use only allowable
	by copyright law, as is insertion in this Notes Conference.

    
    
    
				 Day Care

	Allstate	Referral

	AT&T		Donates money, equipment to day care centers to give
			AT&T employees special consideration; referral

	Apple		On-site day care center; $575/month up to age 2,
			$475/month for 2-3.5 years, $400/month over 3.5

	DuPont		Subsidizes off-site day care centers

	Exxon		Referral

	Gannett		Referral

	GM		No subsidies
	
	IBM		Referral

	Merck		Subsidizes off-site day care centers to accomodate
			Merck children; no subsidies for employees; referral

	NCNB		Referral; planning on-site day care (for future)

	Polaroid	Subsidizes up to 80% for families with Gross Annual
			income under $30,000.


    
    
    

				Flextime


	Allstate	Yes

	AT&T		Yes

	Apple		At manager's discretion

	DuPont		Yes

	Exxon		At manager's discretion

	Gannett		At manager's discretion

	GM		Yes
	
	IBM		Yes

	Merck		Yes

	NCNB		Yes

	Polaroid	At manager's discretion	


    
    
    
				Parental Leave

	Allstate	Paid sick days for disability leave; unpaid leave of up
			to six months with job guarantees, no benefits; unpaid
			up to 2 years with no job gurantees.

	AT&T		Disability leave usually up to 8 weeks -- full or 
			partial pay depending on years of service; unpaid 
			leave of up to 6 months or more with job guarantees,
			no benefits.

	Apple		Paid disability leave usually up to 6 weeks; unpaid
			leave up to 4 months with job guarantees and benefits;
			unpaid leave up to 8 months more with no job guarantees.

	DuPont		Paid disability leave usually up to 6 weeks; unpaid 
			leave up to 2 months more with job guarantees and
			benefits

	Exxon		Disability leave usually up to 6 weeks -- full or 
			partial pay depending on years of service; unpaid 
			leave up to 6 months with benefits.

	Gannett		Paid disability leave, usually 6 weeks; unpaid leave
			of up to 1 year with no job guarantees and no benefits

	GM		Paid disability leave, usually about 6 weeks; unpaid
			leave up to 1 year with no job guarantees, no benefits
	
	IBM		Paid disability leave usually up to 8 weeks; unpaid
			leave of up to 3 years with benefits

	Merck		Paid disability leave usually up to 6 weeks; unpaid
			leave up to 6 months more with job guarantees and
			benefits; unpaid leave of up to 18 months for returning
			to a comparable job.

	NCNB		Paid disability leave up to 6 weeks; unpaid leave up to
			6 months with job guarantees, benefits.

	Polaroid	Paid disability leave usually up to 8 weeks; unpaid 
			leave up to 3 months with job guarantees and benefits.


    
    
    
				Sabbaticals

	Allstate	Unpaid leave up to 2 years with no job guarantees and
			no benefits.

	AT&T		Unpaid leave with no benefits at manager's discretion;
			no time limit; top consideration for jobs, no 
			guarantees.

	Apple		Six weeks paid after 5 years at company.

	DuPont		No.

	Exxon		No.

	Gannett		Unpaid up to 1 year with no benefits and no job
			guarantees.

	GM		Unpaid leave up to one year; no guarantees, no benefits.
	
	IBM		Unpaid, up to 3 years with benefits.

	Merck		No.

	NCNB		Manager's discretionl unpaid leave with benefits;
			no time limit.

	Polaroid	Up to 3 months with old job guaranteed; indefinite
			amount of time with no job guarantees, but top
			consideration given for openings.


    
    
    
				Work At Home


	Allstate	No.

	AT&T		Manager's discretion.

	Apple		Manager's discretion.

	DuPont		Manager's discretion.

	Exxon		No.

	Gannett		Manager's discretion.

	GM		Manager's discretion.
	
	IBM		Limited pilot program.

	Merck		No.

	NCNB		Yes.

	Polaroid	No.	


    
    
				Job Sharing


	Allstate	Yes.

	AT&T		No.

	Apple		Manager's discretion.

	DuPont		No.

	Exxon		No.

	Gannett		Manager's discretion.

	GM		No.
	
	IBM		No.

	Merck		Experimental.

	NCNB		Yes.

	Polaroid	Manager's discretion.	

    I'm all for change in policies and strategies that make Digital
    a more competitive company in the market place. However the changes
    that have occurred in my nine years have not done that.
    
    Administration is too complex and reliant upon paperwork. Shovelling
    bits of paper around the company is expensive and time consuming.
    Don't forget the number of trees we are responsible for chopping
    down. Computerise administration, move the employees on to revenue
    earning functions.. Stimulate growth. 
    
    Marketing don't really know what the Digital market is... They still
    foist upon us U.S. products that don't best meet the needs of our
    largest market ... Europe.... or our largest growing market ...
    GIA. In terms of computing the U.S. is the old world and if it doesn't
    watch out there will be another Boston tea party.
    Get the right products to the right market at the right time...
    simple eh? 
    
    
    The change that I don't like in the U.K. is the changes in attitude
    towards people. When I joined we used to be a "family" unfortunately
    that is not so now. People worked overtime and didn't claim it because
    they fealt part of a "family". As we all know the most successful
    organisation in the world is THE FAMILY - the Mafia. Look after
    the family and the family will look after you.
              
    
    Cheers
    
    Jon
    
    
    
    

    Matching company contribution to the employee SAVE (401-K) program.
    
    		[This is probably only relevant in the U.S.]
    
    Regards,
    Don Gresh

    re: .41
    
    		sigh... change perhaps? but not for the sake of it....
    
    		also, if it ain't broke why fix it?
    
    
    		/ray.

    Matching company contributions to the 401k plan.
    
    "Cafeteria-style" benefit selection.
    
    d

re: < Note 774.50 by HSSWS1::DUANE "Send lawyers, guns & money" >

	Yup.

	Also, 1-2 weeks pay as a Christmas bonus wouldn't hurt either...

--axe--

    More vacation for US employees (add a week to the current schedule).
    Sabbaticals.
    Less of a knee-jerk reaction to Wall Street.

.12>    What do you think KO would have done if MARKETING told him he couldnt
.12>    ship the first PDP because there was no "market window"? Or if CSSE
.12>    told him they were cancelling it? 
    
    According to the story I heard, they did.  Supposedly, he went to the
    board of directors for financing for a project to build a small
    computer for engineers.  He was turned down, because IBM owned the
    computer market and the board didn't want to compete with IBM.  So he
    went away and came back later with a proposal for an extension to the
    company's line of switches and relays: since it could be configured for
    many  different operations, it was called a "Programmable Data
    Processor."  The board swallowed it and the PDP-1 was born.
    
    You can draw what conclusions from that you wish.  There are people
    around who have made the company a lot of money by breaking the rules. 
    Some of them are very bitter about the result.
    
    	HRB

    I missed .12 initially, thanks for drawiing this to my attention.
    
    CSSE cancel a project? Please don't talk piffle. CSSE work to ensure a
    successful introduction to the field of a product. 
    
          CSSE's Mission Statement

             The Purpose of CSSE is -
                   Make Certain Digital's Systems Are Serviceable.

             The Mission of CSSE is -
                   Provide Technical Leadership for Services.

             Throughout the life cycle of products/systems, we have
             activities that span advanced development technology,
             serviceability / maintainability, management and op-
             timization of the performance of products / systems.

                               - Don Herbener, Manager, CSSE, April 1989
    
    
    CSSE on behalf of field service will sometimes have issue with phase
    exit, possibly even phase 3 - but if phase 3 exit isn't acheived, be
    clear, everyone in the business end has failed in their jobs.
    
    Please don't talk from a position of such arrogant ignorance in the
    future - if you don't understand what we do, ASK.
    
    - Andy
    

    er, Andy, I "cancelled" a product once...once in probably 300 projects
    that I've worked on since working for CSSE.  The product manager came
    up and thanked me afterwards; he simply hadn't been receiving the
    support he had sought from his upper management in killing the project.
    
    grins,
    Marge

    Nevertheless, CSSE on its own cannot cancel a product. At least thats
    been the picture for the 3 years I've worked here.

    In case my remark isn't off topic (I've only seen the last two replies)
    I'd like to add that field remedial services actually expect from CSSE
    to eventually cancel a product should it proof to be not maintainable
    under resonable costs. 
    What's the purpose of phase review processes that require "signatures"
    from CSSE as various "Phase exit criteria" when CSSE won't/can't
    use their legitimate power?
    What good is it for DIGITAL to "waiver" around several rules and 
    bring a product "quick to market"  that cost more to maintain that
    it ever returns in revenue ?
    Sure, as long as it (initially) sells well, product management is
    happy, as FS pays for the fixing.
    Once the "owner" finds out (if ever) that the product doesn't perform
    well in the field, it's too late, he/she is already measured on the
    next "quick to market".
    I'd see the actual "kill" of a product only as an exception however,
    where Engineering didn't meet after all the maintainability
    requirements.
    Anything I missed ?
    Fred
    

    Quite a lot, really. I suggest we take this to mail.

    
    
    How about starting a new topic?
    
    LaDonna
    

...Well, you DID ask..

    I am an engineer at dec.  Been here for 8 years.   I guess I am what
you would call an entrapeneur, (even if I can't spell)..

1)  compensation for unsolicited "value added"

    I have developed a number of " Midnight Hacks" in addition to
my regular work (This NOTES client for the PC is one of them)...

    Now, I know several other engineers who have or are developing very
useful things which DIGITAL could (and in fact WANTS to) be part of a
product.  However, they are very reluctant to part with the code, or even
finish what they started, because DIGITAL will not in any way compensate
the engineer, who most likely did all or almost all of the work on his/her
own time, and certainly not the detrement of any other project.

    Is this the way to spark creative, independant developement of things
which will benifit the company?  I think not.  If DEC is making extra money
essentialy for free, why not give some of it back?  

    It may seem like a radical idea to some, but you'd sure see a lot of
    stuff coming out of the closet...
    
2)  Engineers are given NO reason to pull in a schedule, add value, go the
    "extra mile"..  There are simply NO bonuses here (at least none that
    I'v seen) that ammount to anything.  
    
    At one company (ok, it's MASSCOMP), I attended an engineering quarterly
    review, and they gave out some REAL bonuses.  One engineer got an
    11% increase, IN ADDITION to the regular increase which he was going
    to get anyway.  Now, that's what I call motivation!  There were many
    bonuses that night...to regular engineers who went the "extra mile".
    
3)  The one thing that really got me a few years ago... I got a "1" review.
    someone else (a good friend) got a "3".  Know what?  I a 2% LOWER
    increase than my friend (our reviews were within a month of each other).
    
    yup...heck of a way to motivate...
    
    I could go on, but I won't.  I think you get the idea...I love to
    do extra stuff - add value - go the extra mile, or 2... help out..
    Isn't that important to anyone anymore?
    
    If I ever have my own business, I will certainly try:
    
     a)   to keep my people motivated to work real hard..
     b)   give them "decompression time" (a month or 2 off, maybe a trip)
     c)   encourage ideas, input, extra "tidbits" which make our product
             offering better.
     d)   share the wealth.  The company's profits are up, so are yours.
     

                Regards,
                       Steve Cloutier
                       

RE .-1
    
>3)  The one thing that really got me a few years ago... I got a "1" review.
>    someone else (a good friend) got a "3".  Know what?  I a 2% LOWER
>    increase than my friend (our reviews were within a month of each other)

This one has been explained many times before in this conference.  A 
particular rating *does not* mean a particular %.  It is quite possible, 
fair, and logical for someone rated higher than someone else to get a lower 
% increase at salary review.

Jilly

re .61

    Yes, a perfect example of rewarding the status-quo...
    
    Positively re-inforce those who just get by.  Is that REALLY the
    way to build a better product/company/world?
    
    In my experience, it is not.
    
            Regards,
                    Steve Cloutier
                    
    (anyone else have thoughts on this?)
    

I've been away from this conference for a while, and haven't read this entire topic
(yet), but here's my idea of what I'd like to see:


First, and foremost,  a commitment from higher-up that people are allowed to do 
their job without outside interference.  If someone is given a task to do, don't 
get in their way, but hold them responsible for doing it.    I guess I'm looking
for accountability.

In my experience, people are never held accountable for their deicisions
and their commitments to do things.  If you tell me you will deliver this on 
friday, it should be delivered, and I expect it.  If you give me a budget of 
$1M to do a function, fine.  But don't tell me that I can't spend it unless
you approve something.  (I actually know of a case where someone was given a
Cost Center budget of $1.1M and couldn't sign for anything over $750!)


Second, listen to the market. We continue to build systems that don't 
satisfy the demands, but people continue to buy them just because they're
a VAX.  This isn't going to happen anymore, and we need to  know what people
want.    Marketing needs to get better at this, and engineering needs to listen
a little more.  We really need to spend money on market research, which is not
typically done at Digital.  Market research is a science, let's treat it as such.


Third, listening to what people want isn't the only thing.  In the walkman 
example, people never imagined that they could get a walkman.  In this case, you
have to let the engineers think of new, exciting things, and give them
a chance.  There should be a certain amount of the budget that is spent on 
pie-in-the-sky research that just might yield the "VAX of the 90's)".
To paraphrase Ken, People can't tell you what they want if they've never seen
it before"



Fourth, give the sales force what they want.  Commissions.  Forget the crap that
commissioned sales people will sell anything to make their commission.  They'd
do that no more than non-commissioned sales people will sell anything to make
their budget.



Fifth, I think we need to return to the product line structure.  I've seen some
inklings that this is starting to happen, and I see this as goodness.  Product
lines allow product groups to better define their needs to other component 
organizations, and allow the component engineering organizations to be more 
responsive, as the product lines are paying the bills.  (again, with a certain
amount of pie-in-the-sky stuff, maybe funded by all)