Conference 7.286::digital

        I gather you were attending on your own, as a DECUS member, not as
        an official Digital representative?  I assume this because there
        are specific guidelines for Digital representatives to DECUS that
        clearly state that you're not supposed to do what you did. If you
        were representing Digital, then you should not have used the DECUS
        floor to comment on Digital's products. 
        
        If, on the other hand, you paid your way to DECUS, representing
        yourself, I can understand why you would not have been briefed on
        DECUS symposium protocol. 
        
        As for the behavior of the person "from Corporate", wasn't he or
        she wearing appropriate identification?  Digital staff at DECUS
        are supposed to wear their DECUS badges, with identifying ribbons,
        at all times while on symposium premises.  I agree that if things
        happened just as you say, the person who accosted you was rather
        impolite, but that happens in the real world.  Since you had
        clearly identified yourself as a Digital employee while doing
        something that Digital representatives at DECUS aren't supposed to
        be doing, the somewhat brusque approach is understandable.
        
        Tom

Perhaps you could have avoided the problem by neglecting to indetify 
yourself as a Digital employee.   Then, with the possible exception
of a few people close to the microphone, no one would have known that
you were a Digital Employee, and you still would have made your point,
but without offending anyone.

Bob

Look for a moment not so much at "what you did", but rather at "how it looked".
You, identifying yourself as a DEC employee infront of customers, made a public
statement or request regarding a product feature which apparently was a
"hot button", and which might even have had a DECUS party line associated with
it (this last is only conjecture). How do you suppose customers end up feeling
about this? You may at first feel like a "hero" due to the applause, but the
more significant point is that DEC ends up looking bad, especially as it's
having its deficiencies publicly pointed out by one of its own! That, in my
opinion, is what's wrong with such activities.

As for the activities of the individual "from corporate", I might agree that
it was probably inappropriate, as perhaps what s/he should have done was refer
the problem to your management. And if you were noticeably upset by the actions,
it would have been appropriate for you to request name and badge number for
doing likewise.

-Jack

    It's hard to judge who was the bigger offender here, "you" or Mr.
    Corporate.

    "You" should have put the best interests of the company ahead of your
    own private agenda to embarrass the company.  "You" have plenty of
    opportunity within the company to influence product decisions.  If your
    suggestions don't get the priority "you" wanted then resign, work for a
    customer and withold a million dollar order in order to get them.
    
    I can understand your wish to be seen as a hero and your wish to have
    Digital seen a big, bureaucratic, and unresponsive, but hey, customers
    pay big bucks to do that at DECUS, and you were spoiling it for them.
    
    "Mr. Corporate", get outta here.  If there's one thing I can't stand is
    these creeps who think they are such bigshots but hide behind
    anonymity.
    
    If I were there and saw the whole thing in context and wanted to raise
    it as an issue (this is hypothetical so I don't know the extent of the
    "damage") I'd have walked up to "you" and said "I'm Pat Sweeney, a
    Software Consultant from Gotham City and I think you've just
    gratutitously embarassed the company, I'll relate my version of this to
    your manager and let him or her sort it out."  I wouldn't scare "you"
    but if I thought you were out of line I'd handle it discreetly.
    
    I'd expect everybody to "report" any employee at DECUS or any gathering
    of customers that said something that _substantially_ embarassed the
    company.  Hypothetically, again, I don't think a "missing feature"
    comment is substantial, but an allegation of a lack of honestry or
    integrity on the part of the corporation would be too much to bear.
                                                                       

    < Note 811.4 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Gotham City's Software Consultant" >
>    "You" should have put the best interests of the company ahead of your
>    own private agenda to embarrass the company.  
>   I can understand your wish to be seen as a hero and your wish to have
>   Digital seen a big, bureaucratic, and unresponsive 
    
    I totally disagree.  Major assumptions, that the Digital person
    WISHED to 'embarrass' the company and show Digital in a bad light.
    oh- and 'be a hero'..
    
    If, as a result of unkept promises or nonimplementation of badly-
    needed product enhancements, Digital 'looks bad in front of customers',
    that's the breaks.  Tell me, how is keeping quiet about something
    one might believe strongly 'doing the right thing' ?
    
    I expected better than 'shut up and speak only Digital party line'
    here.
    
    karl SWS Consultant SWA       
    
    

    Oh, it's esclated from a "customer request" in .0 to a "unkept promise"
    in .5
    
    DECUS is a place for customers to make Digital "look bad".  Employees
    don't need to assist in that process.
    
    There's quite a bit of difference in discussing market requirements
    with product managers, base product marketing, and industry marketing,
    as good corporate citizens do, and "playing to the house" at a DECUS
    meeting.  Guess which one is "doing the right thing"?
    
    If "you" doesn't have the clout for his favorite feature then that's
    the breaks: see ya' during phase zero for version n+1.
    
    Don't cast me as "shut up and speak only Digital party line", I've
    spent too much time trying to change it. At least I know the "right"
    method and therefore it's not me that's seeking a trial by VAXnotes in
    order to justify my actions.

>Perhaps you could have avoided the problem by neglecting to indetify 
>yourself as a Digital employee.

The protocol at DECUS microphones is to identify yourself by name and company.
If you fail to do so, the session chair will probably ask for the info.

I think a lot of the flaming Mr. Anonymous Dot Zero is getting assumes that
the way he spoke at the mike clearly embarrassed the company.  Obviously he
shouldn't have embarrassed the company.

But going to the microphone and merely stating a wish list item for a product,
WITHOUT added non-productive info like "the product is useless without this" or
"all my customers have been begging for this for years" should not cause anyone
any grief.  I repeat:  Just state the wish list item.  Add no emotion around it.

/john

re: Note 811.5 by SALSA::MOELLER

>    If, as a result of unkept promises or nonimplementation of badly-
>    needed product enhancements, Digital 'looks bad in front of customers',
>    that's the breaks.  Tell me, how is keeping quiet about something
>    one might believe strongly 'doing the right thing' ?
>    
>    I expected better than 'shut up and speak only Digital party line'
>    here.

   Unfortunate as it may seem, Karl, I think "shut up and speak only [the]
   Digital party line" (even if that means "keeping quiet about something one
   might believe strongly") , when Digital already "looks bad in front of
   customers", _IS_ "doing the right thing". That's largely why party lines are
   written. They represent the corporation's position on the issues. They have
   already been accepted and recommended by product managment, engineering,
   and others in appropriate positions as the corporate stance. John Q. Deccie
   isn't free to take liberties with them in public (i.e. at DECUS). Pat's
   right in .7 - if you've got input there are many appropriate places to
   voice it as a DEC employee. The floor at a DECUS session is _NOT_ one of
   those places.


re: Note 811.7 by COVERT::COVERT

>But going to the microphone and merely stating a wish list item for a product,
>WITHOUT added non-productive info like "the product is useless without this" or
>"all my customers have been begging for this for years" should not cause anyone
>any grief.  I repeat:  Just state the wish list item.  Add no emotion around it

   The problem, of course, John, is in those cases where, in fact "the product
   _IS_ worthless without" it, or when "all [your] customers have been begging
   for this for years", it's not _necessary_ to add any emotion because it's
   right there "waiting to happen" anyway. Calling attention to a recognized
   product deficiency (as seems to be the case here) is inappropriate for a
   DEC employee, as you note.

  -Jack

    A wise man is reputed to have said "a man who sticks his head into the
    lions mouth should expect to get his head bitten off and have a prepared
    escape route".
    
    Andy

As a Digital employee, Dot Zero has the opportunity to submit his/her wish list
request through internal channels. To do so in public is inappropriate, in that
it is stating in public that internal channels don't work, and that the only
way to make this point is to raise it in a public forum. That may or may not
be true in this case, but it's certainly not a good light to put Digital in.
It would take a lot of convincing to prove that the benefit to the company
*if* the wish list item were implemented would outweigh the negative PR.

Re .1:

>... there
>        are specific guidelines for Digital representatives to DECUS that
>        clearly state that you're not supposed to do what you did.  ...

Where may one obtain a copy of these specific clear guidelines?
				/AHM/THX

    I saw it [or something like 'it' happen Friday at DECUS.  It was
    at either Hardware hints and kinks or VAX hardware Q&A. The guy
    gets up and ids himself as someone from DEC.  You could hear the
    reaction of the audience!  Not favorable to be sure.  Audio tapes
    are available of this incident.  He was even challenged, but stood
    fast.
    
    Personally, I was embaressed.  The people present could have been
    addressed at anytime during the week.  This guy [and I don't know
    if it is the same incident] choose to get up in front of a couple
    hundred DEC users who might have never known about the problem.
    
    I work problem support.  I would rather have a chance to work out
    the problem prior to customer knowledge.  If *every* product
    problem/defency was known to the customer.......
    just my observation from being at just one of these incidents..
    were there two [or more]?
    ed
    

    I was sitting in Q&A network session at DECUS in Cannes, and this
    happened as well. A DEC guy asked rather embarrassing question
    requiring long explanation, but nothing really bad.

    My reaction was :

    1. This guy gets in the way. Here is an opportunity for customers to
    meet experts and have some questions asked. They pay for it,
    this guy wastes everyones' time. 
    He could have come back to us later or resolved the issues via mail,
    notes, whatever.

    2. The impression he left ,

    - DEC is so big, unorganized that this is the only chance this guy
    	has to say something.
    - DEC guys are uncivilized and wash their linen in front of the
    	customers, it's plain not serious.
    - I don't pay entry ticket to help these guys sort out themselves.

    If I got hold of this guy afterwards, he would have heard few strong
    words. It's quite a stress to sit in front of few hundred people and 
    publicly cover somebody else screwups, let alone get confronted with
    a DECie playing his ego number.

    Our 0. hero should be happy that "corporate" guy limited it to a 
    verbal reprimand.

Had I been a customer there, I'd have been very impressed with 
Digital as my vendor.

Knowing that an employee could (constructively) publicly stand up
for his needs or for my needs would reinforce a feeling that I am
doing business with the right computer company. 

An impressive demonstration of integrity.

	~Mike

    "Blame the messenger" is wrong.  That's been known for thousands of
    years.  If anybody was embarrassed, including Digital, they should
    blame what they have done to be embarrassed about, not the person who
    points out the fault.
    
    Sales meetings and news conference are for Digital to push the party
    line.  DECUS is a society in which individuals are equal, and it exists
    for exchanging technical information.  Suppressing information does no
    good.
    
    Did the incident make Digital's procedures look inadequate or did it
    merely reveal Digital's procedures to be inadequate?  Prevent
    embarrassment by establishing procedures good enough to leave nothing
    to be embarrassed about. 
    
    
    				-- edp

        This topic will be "write-locked" at the author's request, if it
        does not die a peaceful death on its own.  The author's response
        to some of the points and assertions are offered here, and I'll be
        happy to forward (by MAIL) any comments anyone wishes to make that
        way (but can't promise a reply).  Because the author provides some
        additional information, and because the topic is of interest, it
        will be left "writable" for now, but please try to avoid rehashing
        points over and over.
        
        Tom
        

Subj:	final response and reply - please WRITE-LOCK the note after posting.

[Please post this final note on my behalf.  Thanks.  I've learned my lesson]

After reading all 10 replies so far, I can only say that my wish-list
request was legitimate, and *NOT* spoken in harsh terms in the public forum
(see my last statement at end of this reply).  As a first-time DECUS
attendee, I was not aware of any formal company policy regarding this
topic.  I humbly concede that I shouldn't have made the request, but I did
so in good faith towards the company and the product in question (which I
really LOVE to work with!).  As I can get the drift of the public opinion,
there's no sense in beating this to death. 

I would like to make some final responses to some erroneous points raised
in the replies.


Re: Note 811.1             DECUS experience -- feedback wanted                1 of 7

>        I gather you were attending on your own, as a DECUS member, not as
>        an official Digital representative?  I assume this because there
>        are specific guidelines for Digital representatives to DECUS that
>        clearly state that you're not supposed to do what you did. If you
>        were representing Digital, then you should not have used the DECUS
>        floor to comment on Digital's products. 

I was attending as a session speaker, from Digital, and certainly as
another fellow DECUS member.  Please point out the above-stated policy to
me - no-one ever told me anything like that ahead of time.  I guess that
making a wish-list request could be construed as a "comment" on our
products, but it wasn't meant to be such.
        
>        If, on the other hand, you paid your way to DECUS, representing
>        yourself, I can understand why you would not have been briefed on
>        DECUS symposium protocol. 

This was more or less the case (but I didn't pay).
        
>        As for the behavior of the person "from Corporate", wasn't he or
>        she wearing appropriate identification?  Digital staff at DECUS
>        are supposed to wear their DECUS badges, with identifying ribbons,
>        at all times while on symposium premises.  I agree that if things
>        happened just as you say, the person who accosted you was rather
>        impolite, but that happens in the real world.  Since you had
>        clearly identified yourself as a Digital employee while doing
>        something that Digital representatives at DECUS aren't supposed to
>        be doing, the somewhat brusque approach is understandable.

I saw no Symposia badge or other ID on the man.
        
Re: Note 811.2             DECUS experience -- feedback wanted                2 of 7

>Perhaps you could have avoided the problem by neglecting to identify 
>yourself as a Digital employee.   Then, with the possible exception
>of a few people close to the microphone, no one would have known that
>you were a Digital Employee, and you still would have made your point,
>but without offending anyone.

I was merely following the requested protocol of giving your place of
employment whenever making a statement at the mike.

re: Note 811.3             DECUS experience -- feedback wanted                3 of 7

>Look for a moment not so much at "what you did", but rather at "how it looked".
>You, identifying yourself as a DEC employee infront of customers, made a public
>statement or request regarding a product feature which apparently was a
>"hot button", and which might even have had a DECUS party line associated with
>it (this last is only conjecture). How do you suppose customers end up feeling
>about this? You may at first feel like a "hero" due to the applause, but the
>more significant point is that DEC ends up looking bad, especially as it's
>having its deficiencies publicly pointed out by one of its own! That, in my
>opinion, is what's wrong with such activities.

It was certainly NOT my intent to make us look bad.  I was legitimately
passing on a recurring request from one of my current customers to add to
the functionality of the product, but I did not make this apparent in my
statement (that I was passing on a customer request).  In retrospect,
hindsight is wonderful.... If I could take it back I would. 

Re: Note 811.4             DECUS experience -- feedback wanted                4 of 7

>    "You" should have put the best interests of the company ahead of your
>    own private agenda to embarrass the company.  "You" have plenty of
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HUH ???????????????
What hat did you pull that out of?  I LOVE working for this company, and I
really resent your implication.  I am also a VERY strong supporter of the
product in question.  Since you don't know me, and you appear to be reading
LOTS from between the lines, you're right, I *don't* like your statements.
At least I wasn't getting down to personal attacks....

    
>    Hypothetically, again, I don't think a "missing feature"
>    comment is substantial, but an allegation of a lack of honestry or
                             ------------------------------------------
>    integrity on the part of the corporation would be too much to bear.
     ------------------------------------------------------------------

No such statement was made. Period.  Neither implied nor stated.  Boy, this
is *REALLY* getting blown out of proportion.
                                                                       
Re: Note 811.5             DECUS experience -- feedback wanted                5 of 7

>>     < Note 811.4 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Gotham City's Software Consultant" >
>> >    "You" should have put the best interests of the company ahead of your
>> >    own private agenda to embarrass the company.  
>> >   I can understand your wish to be seen as a hero and your wish to have
>> >   Digital seen a big, bureaucratic, and unresponsive 
     
>>    I totally disagree.  Major assumptions, that the Digital person
>>    WISHED to 'embarrass' the company and show Digital in a bad light.
>>    oh- and 'be a hero'..

.5 is correct - these were MAJOR, INCORRECT assumptions based on emotionalism
rather than the stated facts.
    
Re: Note 811.6             DECUS experience -- feedback wanted                6 of 7

>    Oh, it's esclated from a "customer request" in .0 to a "unkept promise"
>    in .5
    
>    DECUS is a place for customers to make Digital "look bad".  Employees
>    don't need to assist in that process.

I may have messed up here, but with your attitude, I hope you don't come
across to *your* customers that way.  'Nuff said.
    
>    .... and therefore it's not me that's seeking a trial by VAXnotes in
>    order to justify my actions.

...and he was crucified, dead and buried...

who said I was trying to "justify" my actions by posting this?  If I really
felt "to hell with everyone", I never would have opened myself up to
possible abuse.  I really wanted to know.  Now I do.

Re: Note 811.7             DECUS experience -- feedback wanted                7 of 7

>I think a lot of the flaming Mr. Anonymous Dot Zero is getting assumes that
>the way he spoke at the mike clearly embarrassed the company.  Obviously he
>shouldn't have embarrassed the company.

>But going to the microphone and merely stating a wish list item for a product,
>WITHOUT added non-productive info like "the product is useless without this" or
>"all my customers have been begging for this for years" should not cause anyone
>any grief.  I repeat:  Just state the wish list item.  Add no emotion around it.

For the record, I made NO allegations as to lack of quality in the product
or in Digital management of such.   I merely stated "I wish that in the
next release of <product x> that <certain hardware> would be supported."
Why is it that just about EVERYONE who replied here has assumed the worst?
If I hadn't thought the request was in good faith, it would never have been
made.

I concede to the collective will of the respondents: I screwed up. Fine.
Live and learn.  End of discussion.

	X.0

I spent a few years as a DEC customer (or at least had to work with DEC).  
I also attended a few DECUS conventions.  This is not the first time this 
sort of thing has happened but it was always quite infrequent.

I remember a DEC person coming up and asking for added feature to EDT and 
some SLP style support in EDT.  Nobody commented on it at all - one way or 
the other.  The only person who thought it was bad was an ex-DECCIE that we 
stole from engineering to come work for us; he commented on it during our 
debriefing sessions the following week.  In fact, the fact that a DEC
employee made a wish-list style comment showed all of us that DEC used
their products in the same way we did; this was not his intent, it was 
happened.

Bruce

p.s. - I won't comment about the reply that stated that DECUS is out to 
make DEC look bad.  That is simply not the case although limited exposure 
to DECUS activities could cause that mis-conception.  I suggest that the
respondant get involved with DECUS and understand what really happens with 
them.  Also, keep in mind that some DECUS members represent companies that 
put out products that compete with our products.

    What really ruffles my feathers is when someone asks for opinions,
    or "...feedback wanted" as in the title, then gets data contrary
    to what is expected,   this person wants to take his ball and go
    home.   Probably enough said on the topic.
    
    For the record, *most* people are briefed before going to DECUS.
    I attended two briefing secessions and have volumns of reading
    material regarding "partyline".  I feel really sorry for any Digital
    employee who can not find out where to get his questions asked
    /answered within Digital.
    I'm through.
    ed
    

I think most of us have really unfairly trashed this person.

If, as he stated, he merely said that he would like to see hardware device x
supported in the future, and if this was not a hardware device that we are
clearly trying to phase out, then it sounds like he did the right thing, as
a field employee.  There might have been other places he could have done it,
but doing it at DECUS isn't as bad as some of the respondents are treating
him.

Since he talks about "his customer" I suspect that he works in the field,
not in Engineering.  Field personnel are not given DECUS orientations.
Different groups in Engineering expect their group members to behave
differently at DECUS.  Different SIGs at DECUS have drastically different
relationships with their associated development groups.

And this so-called person from corporate was totally out of line being in
the area at all without a badge.  At DECUS Symposia there are a large number
of security guards whose job it is to make sure that everyone has paid the
symposium fee.  EVERYONE!

/john

    re: < Note 811.18 by WORDS::BADGER "Follow the Sun Stream" >

>                            ... I feel really sorry for any Digital
>    employee who can not find out where to get his questions asked
>    /answered within Digital.

    The you feel sorry for a great number of people, because you just
    described a large part of the field organization.  Many of whom
    are fairly new to DEC, and are rarely given much time to learn the
    formal and informal methods of communication to corporate.
    
    I know at least two SWS residents who attend DECUS every year along
    with their customers, who find it advantageous to wear a badge that
    says "XYZ Company" with their DEC badge conviently buried somewhere.
    They say that they can get a lot more information out of the engineers
    like that then if they just went up and said "I'm Joe Blow Specialist".
    
    Geoff
     

    re .0
    
    I think it's time someone jumped in the deep end and says you did
    not embarrass or otherwise inconvenience Digital, and given the
    opportunity I would be prepared to do the same thing.
    
    I've attended DECUS workshops (indeed I've been a speaker), and
    periodically I've been dumped on by a (usually pissed) customer,
    largely on the basis of being the nearest available Digit.  So what.
    As a field person I use DECUS as an opportunity to develop my
    relationships with customers, many of whom I support directly. 
    We talk informally and honestly.
    
    Now, those who are paranoid about Digital being criticised in any
    way shape or form need to stand back, take some deep breaths and
    have a good long look at what we are doing.  We are not perfect,
    and neither are our products.  There is always room for improvement,
    not least of which because products take time to mature, and frequently
    because over time customers present us with requirements we originally
    missed.  I see absolutely no harm in standing up in front of customers
    at DECUS and saying, look, this is a great product but I would add
    these features to a wish list because customers have asked me for
    them/I think they're needed anyway.
    
    My experience is that, if presented carefully (most customers are
    decent enough to understand your position) most customers appreciate
    this sort of honesty.

    
    My last words, I promise ;-)
    
    While mr. Dot Zero remains nameless, one can't really address him.
    I named a secession where something like what he did was done.
    It wasn't an innoncent "it would be nice to add this feature'.
    Without further data, I only comment on the incident I was at.
    I dunno, whats done is done.  I hope a lesson is learnt.
    
    A field service person who doesn't know where to get information
    is more embarressing than the original incident.  I hope we
    don't have too many cases of this.
    ed
    

    re: .21 Looks like some positioning are hardening.  You weren't there
    to actually experience dot-zero's speech which ended in applause, nor
    was I.  We dealing here with hypotheticals.
    
    Let's separate some issues:
    
    (1) Unofficial and official participation of Digital employees in DECUS
        events
    
    (2) Field employees ability to influence products
    
    (3) Speaking on a matter regarding the quality of Digital products in a
        conference where Digital customers and competitors are present
    
    re: (1) NO ONE IS BASHING THIS GUY FOR GOING TO DECUS.  It is
    stipulated that DECUS is an absolute moral good thing for Digital and
    for employees.
    
    re: (2) A field employee should know what the phase review process is,
    what influences the design of products and services, and what formal
    and informal means exist for that employee to put their two cents in.
    That's part of the job.  I mention it in my orientation to new software
    specialists and I hope my senior colleagues in SWS do the same.
    
    re: (3) DECUS and Digital do not share the same business goals.  It's
    called "airing the dirty linen":  DECUS and to a greater extent the
    trade press delight in obtaining information regarding disagreement
    within Digital.  Digital has a business interest in presenting to the
    world outside of Digital, a coordinated unified viewed of product
    direction.  This is a corporation and not a debating society.
    
    If you don't think that customers and third parties _don't_ attempt to
    manipulate Digital based on these visible conflicts within Digital to
    their own advantage, then I invite you to come to New York where it's
    routine standard operating procedure for large customers and agressive
    third parties and competitors.  With all the good that DECUS does, they
    are agency for exposing inconsistencies and disagreements within
    Digital.
    
    Maybe we need the discipline of having a features that "customers have
    requested for years" presented to product managers in front of a
    cheering audience of customers: A Digital employee taking "the
    customer's side" and wearing a white hat, and another wearing the black
    hat who will take the position the company has taken.
    
    Thanks, but no thanks.  I'll forego the applause and look in a VAX
    Notes conference, identify the product manager and take my case to him
    or her.

>>    (3) Speaking on a matter regarding the quality of Digital products in a
>>        conference where Digital customers and competitors are present

I don't think that asking product X to support hardware Y is any reflection 
on  the quality of Digital products.


We have two ways we can build products... Our way, or the customers way.

If we build them our way, then we have to sell them.  If we build them 
their way, then they are already sold.

My $.02

Bob

	I think we are missing the point. DECUS is a forum for Digitals
customers to share information and discuss problems and/or systems desires.
We as employees are invited to help support the "Party Line" and our customers.
We have our own internal mechanisms for discussing problems with our products.
Another way we can think of DECUS is as an Advertising Tool. I agree that this
is not its primary purpose but it is a very legitimate outcome. By your getting
up and discussing a deficiency (sp?) in our products, you help to undermine
the benifit of the Advert..

Just my .02

tac

The more our customers view DECUS as an Advertising Tool, the less they will
attend.   

In this example, the reaction from the customer base indicated that the 
question was of legitimate concern to them, and therefore needed to be
addressed.    It also reinforced the notion that Digital Field personnel 
are there to support the customer's needs, not the company's needs.

"Corporate" people (excuse the stereo-type) tend to forget that.

"If you can't stand the heat...", etc.

IBM will be happy to take all the "Party Line" folks who want to quit.

If you want Field personnel to stop pointing out areas of concern for 
our customers at "public" forums such as DECUS,  then you had better
make another avenue available to them, make sure that it works, and
that they know how to use it!

Playing the party line does not help address our customer's concerns.

Bob

    Bob, you talk as if you heard the particular seccession.  Did You?
    If so, which one was it?  Mr. Dot Zero wanted feedback, we could
    really give him feedback after listening to the tape.
    
    If not, why or how can you talk so positively?  I heard no mention
    of applause before.

    Yes, there are probably pockets of field engineers that don't know
    how to elevate a problem.  we need to get rid of 30K people? Now
    where can we begin?
    ed
    

    I work in Maynard (does that make me "corporate"?)
    
    I make suggestions and wishlist requests (and provide responses)
    at DECUS sessions for, lets see now, about 10 years.
    
    
    Ain't been fired yet.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    Sales 101 : Don't air your dirty laundry in front of the customer.
    
    Pat is absolutely right on this issue.  A Digital employee can pick
    up the phone (the polite way to broach the subject) or send a memo
    to the product manager on almost any working day of the year.  Your
    message will be heard just as clearly as at DECUS.
    
    I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but for an employee to stand up
    at a customer gathering and speak as if he were a customer is at
    best superfluous and at worst gratuitous.
    
    Al
    

        Al and Pat, I hate to bring reality into this, but realistically
        speaking, the efforts Pat makes to help new employees in his
        district understand the phase review process, the existence
        of product managers, and the "official" ways to influence product
        direction, wonderful as they are, are NOT the way things happen
        in MUCH of the corporation.
        
        Al, you say:

>    Pat is absolutely right on this issue.  A Digital employee can pick
>    up the phone (the polite way to broach the subject) or send a memo
>    to the product manager on almost any working day of the year.  Your
>    message will be heard just as clearly as at DECUS.
        
        It's easy to say this.  It's not that easy, however, to identify
        the product manager, even for an announced product, even when
        you're in "corporate" and have access to the reference tools
        that should make it easy.  Most *field* employees don't know
        about the tools, the process, or the people, and that includes
        many of the *managers* in the field, not just the troops.
        
        If an employee has been asked by the customer to carry a message
        to DECUS on the customer's behalf, then it's appropriate for
        the employee to do so.
        
        Tom

re: Ed Badger

No, Ed... I wasn't there, and only know what is posted here.

The applause part was stated in .0:

.0>    My suggestion/wish drew a hearty round of applause from the
.0>    session attendees.  

Bob

    re: .30
    
    I agree that it may not be easy to locate a product manager, but
    it is certainly not impossible.  Part of any professional employees
    skill set should be the ability to identify and establish a network
    of contacts necessary to do your job.  Digital is not unique in
    the respect that it does not hand this information to you on a
    silver platter.  I like to think of it as 'character building'!
    
    As far as customers giving suggestions to Field people, I'm not
    sure that this is necessarily a good idea.  I don't take PO's from
    customers, and I don't try to fix hardware.  Not because I can't,
    but because there are established procedures for handling these
    situations, and there are people who make a career out of knowing
    how to do those jobs properly *under all situations*.
    
    Used to be that the SPR mechanism was an appropriate forum for
    suggestions - one that guaranteed an official response of some sort.
    Is this no longer the case (I haven't needed to know since I was
    a customer, and that was a few years ago...)?  Doing the right thing,
    in my opinion, doesn't necessarily mean taking charge of every request 
    that comes your way.  We have an obligation to act responsibly.
    
    Al
    

re: .32
    
>>    Used to be that the SPR mechanism was an appropriate forum for
>>    suggestions - one that guaranteed an official response of some sort.


Heh, heh, heh...   SPR's!   That's a good one!   8-)  8-)

Bob

    ...and if you don't use the system, what incentive is there for it to
    be improved?
    
    Personally I usually parallel Notes, SPR's and personal mail if I know
    someone in the group. Only for high priority bugs though.
    
    Andy

Re: .34
    
>    Personally I usually parallel Notes, SPR's and personal mail if I know
>    someone in the group. Only for high priority bugs though.
    
I suppose the ultimate would be to show up in a developer's office with a
baseball bat (or cricket bat).

				-- Bob

    re: .32
    
    It sounds like you're arguing both sides of the coin here;  in the
    first paragraph you say that it's the employee's responsibility
    to establish an [informal?] network of contacts just to be able
    to do his job.  Then you turn around in the second paragraph and
    start in on "following established procedures", SPR's and such.
    
    SO, which is it?  Even the "established procedures" don't get
    transmitted to a lot of field software people.  I can name at
    least four people off the top of my head that spent less than
    a week in the office once they were hired, and then were sent
    directly onto the customer site.  Not much chance of even trying
    to develop "contacts" when the only other DEC person you see is
    your manager ...
    
>                                                   Doing the right thing,
>   in my opinion, doesn't necessarily mean taking charge of every request 
>   that comes your way.  We have an obligation to act responsibly.

    This is a disturbing comment.  One of the things they emphasize
    as part of customer satisfaction is to *always* follow up on customer
    requests, and not just pass the buck.  Don't get me wrong, that
    doesn't mean giving the store away just because the customer wants
    a price break, but it *does* mean not letting internal politics
    get in the way of providing quality service to the customer.
    
    Geoff

    re: .36
    
    Have you been taking Quibble's Correspondence Course in Quoting Out of
    Context and Selective Interpretation continuously being offerred in
    SOAPBOX?
    
    Different situations call for different approaches.  For the one
    incident which we are talking about mr. Dot Zero didn't give us enough
    information to "feedback" to him what the correct approaches are.
    
    I can't help it if a lot of information isn't transmitted to the field.
    I can't help it if new employees are not informed, soon enough
    employees realize that it's part of the job to learn what they need to
    know and influence what they need to influence.  I educate the
    uneducated, I don't make excuses for them.
    
    We're not talking here about product managers who refuse to consider
    requests from field employees regarding future product direction, we're
    talking about the _means_ of such communication.
    
    By the way, who's talking about not following up on customer requests?
    It's quite a leap from anything that's been discussed here to the
    suggestion that we are not following up on customer requests.
                                                                 

    Lets be serious, there is no excuse for saying "I have this bright idea
    for product X but I don't know how to feed it back to a proper group".

    			NO EXCUSE.

    If you don't know, find out . Period. 

    All new employees get an informational package, maybe phase review
    process doc plus all the good stuff Pat teaches should be a standard part
    of it.

    re: 33 SPR.

    SPR is one of my primary ways to interact will engineering since several
    years. It works most of the time. The CSSE guys I know go through
    suggestion SPRs before phase opening for next versions.
    If you have any doubts, I have tones of sorted SPRs with answers for
    RSTS, VAX PSI, VMS DECnet and other comms products.

    SPRs are still one of the ways to communicate product wishes to DEC.

    re: .35
    
    See ya in July, Bob!
    
    :-) :-)
    
    - Andy

    re: .36
    
    Which is it?  I thought I was clear, but let me clarify:
    
    There is no excuse for not knowing how to deliver a request to a
    product development group.  It doesn't have to be done at a DECUS
    Q&A session.  An employee has a wide range of formal and informal
    mechanisms to deliver such messages.
    
    Customers, on the other hand, have only formal procedures to rely
    on.  Delivering the message to a local Field specialist might seem
    like a logical thing to do, but it's a request which would be better
    handled by one of the established methods.  We wouldn't let a customer
    call continuously on Sales in order to request service on his system
    now, would we?
    
    What will enhance customer satisfaction is acting responsibly in
    front of the customer, *not* by taking ownership of every problem that
    comes your way.  This means knowing how to put the customer in touch
    with the person/organization who can help him, and following through
    to make sure that he's satisifed.  It does *not* mean doing the
    job of everyone else in the corporation yourself.  You cannot do many of
    them well, and most not at all.  It is a formula for failure and
    lower customer satisfaction.
    
    Al
    

    Re .29:

    > Sales 101 : Don't air your dirty laundry in front of the customer.

    The DECUS symposium is not a sales event.  DECUS explicitly prohibits
    sales activity at symposia, outside the exhibit area.  The symposia are
    for the exchange of technical information. 
    
    > Pat is absolutely right on this issue.  A Digital employee can pick
    > up the phone (the polite way to broach the subject) or send a memo
    > to the product manager on almost any working day of the year.  Your
    > message will be heard just as clearly as at DECUS.

    By the same token, a customer could send a letter on any day of the
    year.  Since everybody has a means of making suggestions that avoids
    making them publicly known at DECUS symposia, should we put an end to
    sessions where wishlist items are presented? 

    Information is good, not bad.  These sessions are good, not bad.  The
    product managers now have information that a certain item is desired --
    is in fact highly desired.  They may even now know they should give
    that item a higher priority than they had before.  A memo would not
    have achieved that affect.  The customers have been served because
    their desires have been represented.  We might even find that some
    customers appreciate honesty and appreciate sincere information about
    Digital's intentions.  Whatever happened to valuing honesty? 

    Any embarrassment is a human failing to be borne by those who are
    embarrassed.  Let them act to correct their embarrassment.
    

    Re .38: 

    > 			NO EXCUSE.
    > 
    > If you don't know, find out . Period. 

    Is this some corporate policy?  I don't see any reason for you to
    declare this final.  If there is any real policy about how information
    is to be communicated, then the information Digital provides to
    employees about this communication is inadequate.  It seems that for
    many employees, nobody has informed them of your feelings, and they
    have no reason to believe DECUS is not an appropriate forum. 


				-- edp

If you received an SPR suggesting a new feature that you
felt would leverage millions of dollars in sales, but the
submitter neglected to sign the form, would you discard it
and the idea as well?

There's been much discussion in this note about the proper
channels for making suggestions, and harsh criticism of the
anonymous author of the base note for failing to follow
procedure.  We don't know how diligently the author tried to
follow procedure, so I think the tone has been unfair.  But
I'm more concerned that an important point has been lost in
the scuffle.  I think the essence of bureaucracy is to act
as if your job is NOT to do your job.  Many of the replies
here reveal a nascent bureaucratic urge to kill the
messenger and discard the message simply because the forum
was wrong.  That, to me, is more wrong than speaking out of
turn at DECUS.

Isn't the point of these sessions to gather customer
feedback?  Well, the presentors got an earful.  Perhaps they
didn't respond earlier because they didn't think the
suggestion would prove so popular.  Now they know better.
I'm sure they are working even now to implement the feature,
as I think that's the right thing to do.  But if they were
to respond as some of you would have them respond, they
would be doing the wrong thing, and for the wrong reasons to
boot.

    re: .38
    
>    All new employees get an informational package, maybe phase review
>    process doc plus all the good stuff Pat teaches should be a standard part
>    of it.

    Is this a statement or a suggestion?  As a suggestion, it is very
    good.  As a statement, it is untrue.
    
    When I came on board (2+ years ago), I received no orientation --
    NONE.  My first day, I spent half a day getting writer's cramp at
    Personnel.  I spent the second half of the day touring my customer's
    site.  My second day on the job, I was on site and billing.
    
    And don't think that information is easy to come by for those who
    ask.  It took me 15 months to get a copy of a Digital phone book
    -- 15 MONTHS!  I was told that resources were limited, etc.  It
    took almost a month to get an account on an internal machine.  And
    try using NOTES, VTX, etc., and Colorado/Atlanta support to get
    answers when no one bothered to tell you about them.
    
>    Lets be serious, there is no excuse for saying "I have this bright idea
>    for product X but I don't know how to feed it back to a proper group".

>    			NO EXCUSE.

>    If you don't know, find out . Period. 
    
    While we're talking about a lack of excuses, let's add a few more:
    
    There is NO EXCUSE for management to fail to briefly explain Digital
    culture.
    
    There is NO EXCUSE for mgmt to fail to explain escalation procedures.
    
    There is NO EXCUSE for mgmt not explaining the existance and function
    of NOTES, VTX, PP&P Book, etc.  (Not a tutorial, mind you, just
    a brief statement of "Here it is and here is what it is used for")
    
    All of this could be done on one piece of paper, accompanied by
    a 30 minute overview of the situation.  To do less than this is
    to do a shoddy job.  PERIOD.  No amount of "This is Digital; do
    it yourself" will cover that fact.  You can't play that game if
    someone hasn't at least explained the rules.
    
    What does this have to do with the DECUS matter?  It may well be
    that Dot Zero had not been able to determine the appropriate method
    of dealing with the problem before the DECUS business came up. 
    It may well have appeared to be "the way you do it".  The fact that
    it was not is now a learning experience.  This should be EXPECTED
    to happen if no one bothers to inform people of simple things like
    escalation procedures.
    
    Also, keep in mind as well that it is frequently the CUSTOMER who pays
    for Digital people to attend DECUS (that's true in this office,
    at least).  It is highly possible that Dot Zero was attempting to
    represent both the best interests of the customer and Digital. 
    Unfortunately, the method selected was not the best.
    
    -- Russ
    
    PS/ Lest anyone come up with the obligatory "Well if you're not
    changing the situation, you're part of the problem" comment, let
    me add this:  I'm sick of people being uninformed.  To help this
    situation, I've hacked together a NEWS system which is currently
    used to inform our local specialists of the goings on around here.
    I am trying to lay my hands on every general circulation newsletter
    I can find in this company and post them for our District.  If we
    don't want to be embarassed by our own poor internal flow of
    information, we need to build mechanisms to inform our people.
    
    We'll never win a war if all we do is lay blame on "the other guy"
    for starting it.
    
    FWIW
    
    -- Russ

It seems to me as though the method would have been a lot more acceptable
had Dot Zero simply gone to the microphone and said

	"I'm Dot Zero, Digital Equipment Corporation. This suggestion comes
	 from one of my customers [who may or may not be named]. 
	 Could you change the frobozz from the gingle to the darble?"

    Postscript to .43:
    
    It is my understanding that our District has begun new-hire orientation.
    I do not know what that orientation covers yet (but give me a little
    time...  8^).  This is obviously needed.  We'll continue to have
    people doing what Dot Zero did until we start pointing people in
    the right direction (even if there is a philosophical objection
    to giving them the answer!).
    
    -- Russ

re: .43   Bravo!

Bob_who_is_still_trying_to_"learn_it_himself"_after_18_months_and_
no_orientation.

    
.43>There is NO EXCUSE for mgmt not explaining the existance and function
.43>of NOTES, VTX, PP&P Book, etc.  (Not a tutorial, mind you, just
.43>a brief statement of "Here it is and here is what it is used for")
    
I would suspect that many 'mgmt' people don't even know about VTX and NOTES
(or if they do they perceive them as a tool for techno-weenies and not the
ordinary employee), so it's difficult to expect them to inform the ranks of
their existance.

Lee

    As a first time DECUS attendee and a 'corporate' employee, I received
    absolutely _NO_ party-line or orientation information. But... After many
    years with this company (in the field), I _KNOW_ there are better forums
    for wish-list requests than anywhere in front of a customer. 

    Also related, I found it interesting that the OA SIG steering committee
    chairman's DECUS badge identified his company as IBM. This person does
    indeed work for IBM, he used to be my customer at Los Alamos. We had a
    nice conversation about old times (mostly ham radio), during which he
    pointed out he worked for IBM's Office Products group. This says the
    competition is there listening to what _WE_ say so it is very important
    to follow the party-line (what ever that is). 


    another $.02 (US) PG

    re: .47
    
>I would suspect that many 'mgmt' people don't even know about VTX and NOTES
>(or if they do they perceive them as a tool for techno-weenies and not the
>ordinary employee), so it's difficult to expect them to inform the ranks of
>their existance.
    
    I guess it depends on what that 'ordinary employee' is.  I would
    consider SWS or FS Specs to be 'techno-weenies' and, thus, in need
    of 'techno-weenie' tools.  A manager needn't know HOW to use the
    tools, but a manager should know THAT they are used and are
    perceived to be important by their direct reports.  Like I said,
    a piece of paper with the names on it is enough to get the ball
    rolling, even for the most non-technical manager  (And let's not
    forget that we need access to a machine running the software as
    well 8^).
    
    Even better than that is to assign a mentor to the new person. 
    Coupling a "set" body of knowledge (on paper) with a "dynamic" body
    of knowledge (a mentor) could greatly accelerate the learning process.
    The mentor assignment is supposed to be a standard for our Area
    (according to rumor), but I've never seen anything official on it.
    
    -- Russ

    Well, I assumed that all new hires get an orientation, week or so,
    apparently not true everywhere. But my friends in VBO edu run such
    training all the time, it's called "survival kit " or something like
    that. I'll definitely mail them whole topic.

    Even without DECUS beriefing, anybody having some customer exposure
    should understand that there are some basic rules about customer
    contacts. You don't start internal discussion in their presence.

    Talking to the product manager off line after the session is much more
    efficient, 0. could have given loads of business, customer related 
    details that are impossible to say loud in presence of other customers.

    re 41. "corporate rule".

    Absolutely yes, our corporate rule is to be active, think and take
    responsibilities.

    				wlodek

  (The following is my opinion.  It obviously differs from some other
  preceding opinions.  I believe I'm entitled to express an opinion here
  because I'm one of the folks at DECUS prominently wearing a blue "DEC"
  ribbon, one of the people that routinely, officially take the heat for
  a wide variety of CPU hardware products, where heat is both existing
  problems and the user community's insatiable desire for newer, better,
  faster, cheaper, etc.)


Dear .0:

  I have no problem with the truth coming out, whether the truth emerges
  because of a Digit speaking on behalf of a customer or a customer
  speaking directly.  I always want to believe that we, Digital, are do-
  ing the right thing (where "right" is some middle ground split between
  the shareholders, the customers, and the employees).  When I believe
  we are not doing the right thing, I'm usually working behind the scenes
  to try to bring us around to doing the right thing so I can still feel
  good about an issue.  (I'm not always succesful at getting done what I
  believe is "the right thing".)

  From the podium, I will often ask questions that could be construed
  as embarrasing to someone.  "How many of you (customers) now own 8mm
  tape drives?  How many of you would buy 8mm tape drives if we offered
  them?"  "How many of you are *NOT* able to migrate to the VAXBI?  Why?"
  I ask because these are important questions.  I *KNOW* they are im-
  portant because I've heard the customers talking about them already.
  I also ask because it's important that some of our senior management
  hear the answers directly from the customers, complete with cheers and
  cat-calls.  And if the customers are already discussing this, I'm cer-
  tainly not airing any new dirty laundry.  I'm just making sure the
  right noses catch the smell.

  So far, it has (apparently) not been career-limiting for me to do
  these things.  If I've ever been punished, the punishment must have
  been being condemned to attend DECUS after DECUS, 'cause the people
  that I might be embarrasing keep sending me back.

  And the customers seem to appreciate my truthfulness.  (Real customers,
  people who own machine-rooms full of DEC gear, not just DECUS attendees
  who've popped in from IBM.  By the way, even IBM can be a real customer.
  They've used '11s in their manufacturing environment for years!)

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  On the other hand...

  I *MIGHT* have a problem if you were just grandstanding, just trying
  to prove that you were "a good guy, on the customer's side".

  I'd have a real problem if you were just showing off your inside
  knowledge, by revealing bugs or deficiencies that are unknown to
  the outside world and really don't much affect them but will now
  embarass us.

  And, while I feel pretty free to say what I feel in *MY* sessions,
  it takes a mighty provocation before I feel compelled to act as a
  public, self-appointed "truth squad" in somebody else's session.
  Instead, I try to hold off until we can have an after-the-session
  hallway or exhibit-hall conversation.  (I violated this rule once
  this DECUS.  But I tried to be very gentle and very positive.  I
  haven't heard about it, at least, not yet.)

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  But you know what you said, and why you said it.  Until I have personal
  proof to the contrary, I'll trust your judgement.

                                   Atlant

re: several

   One thing that I always try to keep in mind is that the DECUS attendees
   are _NOT_ necessarily a representative sample of our customers. Generally
   at least half are not attending for the first time, and a large percentage
   of those are "habitual attendees" who in fact do _NOT_ represent a large
   share of our product installations. Therefore, getting the opinions or
   wishes of the customers at DECUS symposia does not necessarily mean that
   we're getting a representative sample of the customer base's opinions
   or wishes.

   The second, and maybe more important, thing that I try to keep in mind is
   that just because a customer wants it, doesn't make it necessarily the
   best thing to do for the sake of DEC. Customer wishes are _OFTEN_ contrary
   to product strategies which are based on internal plans and knowledge
   which the customers have no access to and hence cannot evaluate. We're
   in business to provide products which customers will (want to) purchase
   so that we as a company make a profit. That does _NOT_ mean the same
   thing as granting all of the customers' wishes all of the time. Let's
   not end up with the tail wagging the dog.

   -Jack

    re: .41
    
    Whether or not DECUS allows sales activities is immaterial.  The
    symposia are chock full of customers, and the messages we send to
    those customers have a direct affect on sales.  
    
    And quite frankly, I can't see how valuing honesty has anything
    to do with this.  DECUS is not an encounter group.  Airing your
    squabbles in front of customers and competitors is not "honesty",
    it is stupidity.  Or at least a derelict lapse of judgment. (Note
    that I'm not impugning the integrity of Mr. Dot Zero - I'm simply
    presuming that the reported reaction of the crowd and the corporate 
    type accurately represent the message sent.)
    
    What customers want (and I can speak from experience here, as I
    see real ones on occasion) is value for their dollar and a sense
    that we understand their business problems. They want to know that
    we'll be around to support their investment after the sale is closed
    and they want to know that *we listen*.  The Field spends an enormous
    amount of money and time listening to our customers and trying to
    understand them.  
    
    We aren't perfect however, and don't always do a good job.  And
    when a Digital employee stands up in front of a group of customers to
    gripe (even politely) about a lack of product functionality, it
    has implications which reach far beyond the product itself.  It
    sends a message that we can't communicate among ourselves.  Customers
    are then free to draw the conclusion (however untrue) that we won't listen
    to them, either.
    
    Funny things happen with customers - they tend to believe our least
    credible strengths and doubt our most powerful.  We spend a lot
    of time trying to figure out how to deliver messages to customers
    such that they believe and understand the offerings we take for
    granted, and so that they will perceive value in those products.
    One loose cannon can do a lot of damage.
    
    By the same token your comments on customer->DEC communications
    are a non-sequitor.  This note is not about customer communication
    channels, it about the appropriateness of Digital employees using
    a customer forum.  Because employees have a diverse set of channels
    (and for the purposes of this discussion, customers could have none)
    their participation in a DECUS Q&A session is unnecessary.
    
    Business is complicated enough without "cowboys" trying to
    single-handedly win the West.  All I'm suggesting is that we let
    those who know how to engineer and manufacture products, those who
    know how to manage customer relationships, and those who know how to 
    market products do their jobs; and let's keep our internal battles
    to ourselves, where they belong.
    
    Al
    

Isn't there an internal DECUS, where DEC employees have a change to ask
questions and offer suggestions without sending the wrong message to
customers?

				-- Bob

IDECUS is always in the GMA, and field people outside of the GMA don't
attend much (if at all.)

RE: .back a few

Is it reasonable to use the word "gripe" to describe a "wish" requested 
by a customer?  Unless you heard the tone of voice, wording, etc,  I'd
suggest you are reading something into the events described in .0.

I am inclined to go along with Atlant...Maybe .0 was technically wrong,
but in this situation it seems like the wrist-slapping was a little
too heavy-handed.  And you can be sure .0 won't do it again!

K.

Not that many product engineering groups attend, either.

IDECUS is mostly IS.

/john

    I think .0 is fundamentally different from .51: in the latter we are
    asking the customers "What's important to you?"  We look responsive and
    open.  In the former, we're talking to ourselves, in public.  We look
    fractured and disorganized.
    
    .44 or thereabouts contained a positive suggestion that would have
    satisfied me, and I wonder if it would have satisfied others:
    explicitly state you were asked to put this item on the wish list by a
    customer who couldn't attend.
    
    Another possibility would have been to suggest to a customer you knew
    that this was an important feature, and someone should suggest it
    (nudge, nudge, hint hint).  Engineers at DECUS do this all the time
    (too much, and too explicitly, in my opinion, so Dot Zero shouldn't
    feel alone) when customers make requests that require cooperation from
    another engineering group: "if support of the frammitz option of the
    foobar facility from our product is important to you, you should make
    sure a callable interface to that option is put on the foobar's
    wishlist."
    
    It also seems to me you have more leeway for a frank discussion of
    products' shortcomings in one-on-ones with customers than you do in a
    forum like a DECUS session.
    
    	HRB

    >Also related, I found it interesting that the OA SIG steering committee
    >chairman's DECUS badge identified his company as IBM. This person does
    >indeed work for IBM, he used to be my customer at Los Alamos. We had a

    Interesting.  Dealing with the topic (slightly) and then above.

    I was calling back into the office to check on some problems etc...
    I was on hold and happened to glance at the gent on the phone bank with
    me.  He looked like a normal DECUS attendee, not dressed up much - he
    fit right in.

    Looked at his badge and it sayed IBM...  Well I thought I needed new
    glasses so looked again.  Sure enough, it said IBM.  He was form White
    Plains, NY.  He was talking and I was listening (impolite as I was) to
    him.

    It was interesting to listen to someone who was excited.  He was trying
    to get a hold of his manager but could not.  He was having his fellow
    worker take notes so that the manager could pass them up the ladder.

    He said something to the effect (this is very rough, mind you),
    'DECWindows is a really exciting.  It is a major product and the people
    are very excited about it.  It is being used by many products and looks
    like a major direction for DEC.'

    He then noticed my interest and the little blue ribbon and turned away
    and then hung soon after.

    I was left with the impression that this IBMer felt DW was an exciting
    and major product.  He made it sound like IBM had nothing like it and
    was behind and better get the ball rolling.  He seemed to view DW as a
    force to be reckoned with and that management up the ladder better get
    prepared.

    IBM is at DECUS.  We should be careful about what we say.  We do not
    want IBM to find out about a product before we announce.  Would you
    show your cards to foe?
                           
    	- mark

    >IBM is at DECUS. . . .
    
    is this really a surprise?  really, now ...
    
    -- henry
    --------

    Do we send people to SHARE?

    
    The President of GUIDE was also at DECUS, as an invited Guest.
    The President of DECUS was recently an invited guest to a GUIDE
    conference.
    
    -- Glinch

    
    re -1
    
    Yes, we send people to both SHARE and GUIDE. We are an IBM customer
    and as such are allowed to attend. We learn a lot by attending such
    as:
    
    * How does product x implement function?
    * What are ths year's "messages"?
    * What's new, what's exciting, what's likely to be coming?
    * What are customers saying, what kinds of questions are they asking?
    * What FUD is IBM using against our strategies?
    
    You'd be surprised at how many IBM'ers become very nervous
    when someone with a badge saying "DEC" on it comes up and asks a question
    or sometimes even when a speaker spots you in the audience. I know
    a lot if IBMers recognize our specialty by our location (Littleton,
    MA), just as many of us know about them as well. I've also heard
    that some of the more common DEC attendees have their "resume"
    passed around by the various IBMers but I've personally never seen
    any evidence of it.
    
    I've never been to US DECUS but I've been to two E-DECUS sessions
    and I like comparing and contrasting the employee behavior at
    DEC and IBM customer conferences.
    
    All I can say is it must be quite a shock for an IBM customer to
    attend a DEC conference given what I saw at E-DECUS (I was also
    on the NaC panel in Cannes when that DECie got up and made
    a jerk of himself). Sorry, that doesn't happen to Big Blue (at
    least more than once).
    
    
    Bill
    
    

    At least something almost identical to the situation in .0 occurred in a
    wish list session.   A specialist from the field who made the very
    reasonable request for some hardware for a subsystem of a software
    product.  This subsystem has received no support in roughly 5 years.
    The customers have requested upgrades on their wish list for a few
    years as the hardware supported is very out of date.  I suspect that
    the customers have given up on getting the new hardware and that was
    why the specialist went to the mike.  Given the customer reaction, it
    was clear that it was a hot item with them.

    Many of us in engineering and the field have been trying with no
    success to get some development done on this subsystem.  Things looked
    positive a few months ago but the single developer was taken off the
    work so the subsystem is dead as far as modern hardware is concerned.

    It was probably very good to have the wish stated and responded the way
    it happened as the development manager was there and, hopefully, heard
    the message.  I concur that it was not great to have a Digital person
    making a wish.  I knew that it was for his customer and believe that he
    MAY have said so.  In addition to the other suggestion of being sure
    that he was acting as a proxy for his customer I would have suggested
    that using the "Digital asks the SIG" session would have been more
    politic.  In fact, I have used that session for the past few symposia
    to TRY to communicate customer needs to the marketing and engineering
    people sitting there (some actually reading USA Today).

    In the case that I saw I believe that the corporate person was a
    marketing person who is the SIG counterpart and, for some reason, had
    no blue (or other) ribbon in Atlanta.  He did have a DECUS symposium
    badge.  Security was nice and tight in Atlanta.

    My view of the situation that I saw was that both sides were wrong but
    the corporate person was much more wrong.  Mr. .0 stated his wish very
    professionally and positively.  He did very little to embarrass
    Digital.

    Don

    
    RE .58 and following - IBM meets the criteria to be DECUS members
    so why not?
    
    At the Rochester MN plant (of SilverLake fame), there have been
    a variety of Digital systems for quite some time. I imagine that
    holds true for other IBM plants, engineering groups, etc.
    
    

    Re 811.53: 

    > Whether or not DECUS allows sales activities is immaterial. 

    DECUS is in charge at symposia, not Digital. 

    > And quite frankly, I can't see how valuing honesty has anything
    > to do with this.

    What's the alternative to valuing honesty? 

    > Airing your squabbles in front of customers and competitors is not
    > "honesty", it is stupidity. 

    It is honest, and it is not stupid.  Putting up a false front is
    stupid. 

    > What customers want (and I can speak from experience here, as I
    > see real ones on occasion) is value for their dollar and a sense
    > that we understand their business problems.

    Customers do not have only one face.  DECUS symposia attendees are not
    marks to be targeted by sales activity.  They are members of a club
    meeting to exchange technical information. 

    What DECUS attendees want is technical information, including
    information about what features are desired in the market and where the
    development groups stand. 

    > And when a Digital employee stands up in front of a group of
    > customers to gripe (even politely) about a lack of product
    > functionality, it has implications which reach far beyond the product
    > itself.  It sends a message that we can't communicate among ourselves. 

    The solution to that is to solve the problem:  Communicate amongst
    ourselves.  Hiding the problem doesn't solve anything. 

    > By the same token your comments on customer->DEC communications
    > are a non-sequitor.

    I don't see what "same token" you are referring to.  My comments are
    relevant:  You stated that because a DEC employee has alternate
    channels, speaking at DECUS is inappropriate.  I show that reasoning is
    faulty by demonstrating that it fails when applied to another person:
    A customer also has alternate channels, therefore speaking at DECUS is
    inappropriate, so we should not hold wishlist sessions. 


    Re .58: 

    > Would you show your cards to foe? 

    That depends upon what game you are playing.  If you are playing a game
    where you try to get the opponent to believe something that isn't true,
    you might well hide your cards and bluff.  Do you think of customers as
    foes? 
    
    
    				-- edp

    < Note 811.65 by BEING::POSTPISCHIL "Always mount a scratch monkey." >
    
    The gist of your reply is, I presume, that since DECUS is not a
    marketing event, DEC employees should be free to say things that
    that would not be appropriate otherwise.  This is clearly false.

    Customers are always customers, competitors are always competitors,
    and DIGITAL employees who speak out at public functions still represent
    DIGITAL.  If a particular behavior would be inappropriate during the 
    course of normal dealings with a customer, it would still be so
    at DECUS, no matter who runs it or what the purpose.

>    What's the alternative to valuing honesty? 
    
    My definition of honesty is don't lie.  It doesn't mean that we
    need to share any secrets, strategies or squabbles.  It also means we 
    don't have to answer every question put to us.

>    channels, speaking at DECUS is inappropriate.  I show that reasoning is
>    faulty by demonstrating that it fails when applied to another person:
>    A customer also has alternate channels, therefore speaking at DECUS is
>    inappropriate, so we should not hold wishlist sessions. 
    
    What on earth is this all about and who cares?  No physical laws
    are broken by asking our employees to abstain from using DECUS as
    a means of communicating among themselves.  They don't need to.
   
    
    I don't intend to debate this endlessly;  in fact, I've said more
    than I ever intended and probably all that I'm going to.  We are a 
    business that is dedicated to customer satisfaction.  Keeping
    customers satisfied and our business profitable at the same time is 
    not an easy task;  sometimes it is impossible or inappropriate to do 
    both concurrently.  One sure way to fail is to allow 137,000 different
    customer relations policies.  It's easy to be honest, hard to be
    responsible, and harder yet to be both.  We pay good people a lot
    of money to build and manage customer relationships; we make their
    careers dependent upon the metrics we put in place to measure how
    well they do at it.  Think twice before you do their job.
    
    Al
    

    Re .66: 

    > The gist of your reply is, I presume, that since DECUS is not a
    > marketing event, DEC employees should be free to say things that
    > that would not be appropriate otherwise.

    Please do not presume.  I do not appreciate having my words twisted.  I
    never said such a thing.  If you are unclear about what I said, I am
    around for you to ask; you don't need to make any presumptions.

    > Customers are always customers, competitors are always competitors,
    > and DIGITAL employees who speak out at public functions still represent
    > DIGITAL.

    I disagree.  At _public_ functions, a Digital employee is a free
    citizen capable of representing either themselves alone or anybody else
    who consents to be represented.  Employees are not slaves; they are not
    bound to represent Digital 24 hours a day by legal agreement, by any
    explicit agreement with Digital legal or not, or by any ethical
    principle.  Employees are no more bound to represent Digital at all
    times than Digital is bound to represent employees.  Digital and its
    employees are merely partners in a relationship, not master and slaves. 
    
    At a DECUS symposium, an employee is acting for Digital, but it seems
    to me that representing a customer by request is also a reasonable
    thing to do, since the customer has asked and Digital has not given the
    employee any PRIOR instructions to the contrary.

    Clearly an employee not given instructions to the contrary has not done
    anything wrong.  The question then is whether or not we want to give
    them such instructions.  I oppose that for the historical reasons for
    permitting the flow of information -- if we restrict information (and
    non-proprietary information particularly) at symposia, customers will
    find them less useful.  If customers find DECUS symposia less useful,
    they will find Digital less useful. 
    
    >>    What's the alternative to valuing honesty? 
    >
    > My definition of honesty is don't lie.
    
    My definition of honesty is do not lead somebody to believe something
    that is not true. 
    
    > What on earth is this all about and who cares?

    You stated, basically: 

	o A Digital employee has non-symposia channels of communication.
	o Embarrassing Digital at symposia is undesirable.
	o Therefore, we should have the Digital employee use the other channels.

    I demonstrate that your reasoning is faulty by showing that the same
    reasoning leads to a clearly incorrect conclusion: 

	o A customer has non-symposia channels of communication.
	o Embarrassing Digital at symposia is undesirable.
	o Therefore, we should have customers use other channels.

    > We are a business that is dedicated to customer satisfaction. 

    I'm more interested in producing a good product and doing the right
    thing.  I'm not a pimp for customers.  Sometimes what customers want is
    not in Digital's best interests.
    
    Besides, if we were interested in customer satisfaction and the
    statements by the Digital employee at the symposium were applauded by
    customers, wouldn't dedication to customer satisfaction mean
    encouraging more of the same?


				-- edp

>    > My definition of honesty is don't lie.
>    
>    My definition of honesty is do not lead somebody to believe something
>    that is not true. 

We want to be technically honest, which includes making sure that the
implications of what we say and the impressions we leave are correct.

When we make a commitment to customers or to employees, we feel the obligation
to fulfill it.

One way for DEC employees to slip their own views of what DEC should be doing
into the DECUS forum is the Reverse Q&A.  The DEC employees line up at a 
microphone and ask a panel of users, "Do you want a shunt-connected analog
deglitcher?"

Development groups are always speculating about what the users really want.  
As far as I know, the Reverse Q&A has never caused any controversy, 
accusations of bad faith, and all the other contumely heaped on poor Mr.
Anonymous Zero of the base note.

    We do have sessions at DECUS, and we do ask them what they want,
    and then we start feeding the input back up the line, and guess
    what? Nobody wants to hear. It's the "not invented here" syndrome.
    So, over time you give it up.
    
    And, I guess this is normal in a company with 110000 employees.
    All this talk about open door, and that you can feed info up into
    top management directly is fairly content free.
    
    We have made Software licencing so complex that we cannot understand
    it anymore ourselves, and any attempt to simplify it will meet with
    a wall of silence.
    
    Regards,
    Heinrich

    This will probably add up to about my 6� worth.....
    
    I'm replying because the same thing happened to me. Many years ago
    at a DECUS meeting I participated (from the audience) in a discussion.
    I consider myself sensitive to my obligations as a DEC employee
    to not embarrass the company. I was startled therefore that I received
    a mail message after the fact censuring me on my behavior. (Believe
    me, this was so long ago that I don't remember any of the details.)
    I do remember thinking, "What is this guy talking about? I didn't
    act out of line."
    
    Now, seeing this topic - and noting that it's generated an
    extraordinary number of replies - I rethought my actions and concluded
    that indeed, I might well have said something that someone could
    misinterpret.
    
    All that aside ....  I do know, after working in Maynard end environs
    for almost 15 years, that many departments used to send representatives
    to DECUS, and that we NEVER saw any sort of printed instructions/guide-
    lines. "Party-line" documents tend to be used for people staffing
    the meetings (or officially representing DEC at conferences and
    trade shows), not for someone who simply regusters as an attendee.
    
    IDECUS came into when some of us realized that we, in Digital's
    own IS departments, heard less about future plans and directions
    that outside customers heard. IDECUS was originally designed for
    Digital's internal users, not for field support groups as whole.
    
    I've been back "in the field" now for almost three years and it's
    a world of difference from being "back east". I have no trouble
    believing the note back a ways that said essentially, "I got hired
    on and sent out to a customer site the next day." Some of us in
    Chicago have also tried to beef up the "New Employee Info Packet",
    or whatever else it's mythically called.
    
    And wow, was I astonished at the vehemence of some of the early
    replies to the original note.  The poor guy asked a question and
    was bombarded my the response.
    
    This has always been a great company to work for, and it's always
    encouraging to see the openness with which we discuss topics. Let's
    not lose sight of the basic goal, to provide quality products and
    services to a set of people whom we value highly, treat honestly,
    and call "Customers". 
    
    	/Marvin
    
    P.S. I'll end with a story I heard attributed to the DEC Field Engineer
    who supported IBM as a customer. Seems the guy he dealt with called
    one day with "a problem with the R-S-T-S [are-ess-tee-ess] system"
    they had just installed. Our guy responded, "Oh, you mean the RSTS
    [ristus] system," and proceded to process the call.  A few weeks
    later, the same IBM'er called, this time with "a problem with our
    new risicks system."  The poor guy totally confused the IBM'er when
    he replied, "Oh, you mean your RSX [are-ess-ex] system!"

    
    RE: .71 and the story with IBM. The person on the phone was
    SWS. He sat next to me and I heard the whole conversation.
    It's a true story. We tried very hard to support those people
    but then that was back when customer support was priority one
    in SWS, pre-sales was number two and PL90 was number three. I
    hear that those priorities are reversed now. Pity.

    			Alfred

    This has been an interesting discussion. 

    I finally went to a DECUS a few years ago and greatly appreciated the
    opportunity. But, in general, I kept quiet and observed only, simply
    because I <suspected> there must have been guidelines, at least to the
    "offical" people there.  However, I deplore the crucifixion of
    "anonymous" and appreciate those that came to his defense. 

    I have read most of the early notes and some of the last ones.  Perhaps
    you will indulge me if I digress into some of the many side issues
    raised. 

    Nine+ years ago, I too was hired and sent out to a customer site the
    next day. But, that is what I was hired for, and knew it when I signed
    on. 

    As a SWS specialist, I have not found much changed today - it is SOP to
    be sent out with inadequate training, expectations, etc. all the time.
    Apparently, it is just the nature of the SWS business, and I do not
    expect it will change significantly.  I think it has something to do
    with KO's dictum to "do what is right" - and "do"ing is what is in the
    eyes of the beholder.  Another ductum: "nothing is wrong with the
    profit concept".  If the customer has paid, says thanks, and keeps
    smiling, the right thing has been done most of the time. 

    General comment to "anonymous":
    
    *Anything* anyone says at any time can/will/most-likely be
    miss-interpreted by someone at some time.  It is the risk we all take,
    and some of us are just more lucky/unlucky than others how we are
    interpreted. 

    Say it verbally and only those that hear it can *almost* know what was
    said. Anyone else that gets it "n-th hand" has to recognize the effect
    of the middle persons.  Makes life interesting sometimes (always?). 

    Say it in writing and anyone has the original - *almost* forever.
    *Almost* used to mean until the huns burnt down the library or the
    worms ate the paper. I am not sure what it means today, but surely the
    scope has broadened chronologically and geographically in some
    significant way. 

    Maybe the last is *almost* true until one understands that the "huns"
    now have nukes! 

    I found the following curious: During the Bejing crisis, while it was
    reported that different parts of the Chinese army were gathering
    against one another, no one I heard mentioned, or was concerned, about
    who controlled the "n00 nukes mounted on ICBMs" that they had ready to
    go - where?  Was the media exhibiting the old "head in the sand" trick.
    Maybe that is/was the right thing to do anyway! 

    Please, nothing racial or geographical implied by my use of the word
    "huns", other than, those other guys, over there, who might think a
    little different from me and who I therefore must make an extra effort
    to understand. 

    Even so, the old saw is still true: "time heals all things" (but of
    course it hurts during the healing). 

    Wondering who understands me - or cares anyway - or should I,
    Fred 

    Hey, I just heard on the radio there is a book entitled "The Cynical
    Americans". I've asked the local library reference desk to look it up.
    They probably will not be able to find it. :-) 
    

My opinion on this matter:

DECUS Symposia are run by customers and for customers.  Their purpose is to
provide a forum for customers to discuss Digital and its products, and to learn
how to use them more effectively.  To that end, DECUS invites some Digital
employees to give technical sessions on products and to listen to customer
feedback.  DECUS Symposia are not held to be marketing shows for DEC.  Some of
the "how to" intro sessions, particularly those on new products, sometimes seem
more of a sales pitch than a technical presentation, but that isn't the intent
and most SIGs that I've dealt with strive for as much technical content and as
little marketing fluff as possible.

Given this as background, in my view, Dot Zero has committed a minor breach of
DECUS and Digital etiquette, on two counts:

1) The microphone line for session comments is there for customers, not DECies.
   This is their symposium.  Sessions, and the post-session  QA period, have a
   time limit.  The customers should have full use of this limited time.

2) As was stated earlier, we shouldn't hang our dirty laundry out in public.
   No matter how politely and constructively it's phrased, it's not good form
   or wise conduct to point out missing features of our products in sessions
   like that.  A far better way to handle such things is to suggest a question
   asking about that feature to the Digital people running the "Digital Asks the
   Customers" session.

From the sound of it "Mr. Corporate" may have overreacted somewhat to what
occurred.  Either that, or not have realized how intimidating he appeared to
Dot Zero.  After all, this was, from the sound of it, a *minor* breach of
etiquette, wrong because "we just don't do things that way" as much as for any
real reason.

--PSW

    re: .74
    
>1) The microphone line for session comments is there for customers, not DECies.
>   This is their symposium.  Sessions, and the post-session  QA period, have a
>   time limit.  The customers should have full use of this limited time.
    
    Question, Paul:  Is it correct to keep Digital employees from the
    mike when the customer is paying for them to be there?  I don't
    know about Dot Zero, but this happens in the Field all the time.
    We get to go iff the customer pays.  If the customer pays, should
    they not be entitled to representation at the mike?
    
    I believe they should be.  And I believe that the Digital employee
    should identify him/herself as "from Digital acting in behalf of
    Whoosydingy Enterprises" (you get the gist...).
    
    To permit customers to pay for DECUS and get less than the full
    benefits of DECUS is, in my opinion improper.  They are already
    doing us a favor by "educating" a Digital employee.  We should not
    reward the customer by saying "Sorry, you'll have to use 'other'
    channels".  Of course, we could disguise this by saying that this
    is a "feature", but this "feature" is available without the expense
    involved with DECUS.
    
    This, of course, does not interfere with your second point.  We
    should not be airing dirty laundry.  But, making a simple, level-headed
    request should never be considered "dirty laundry".  If it is, then
    we have bigger fish to fry (like fixing whatever it is that makes
    the simple request embarassing to Digital).
    
    FWIW, IMHO
    
    -- Russ

    If you think there's a conflict between sentiments expressed in .74/.75
    as I do, then I guess I have company.
    
    If the outward behavior or even the internal thinking of a Digital
    employee is moved one nanometer by the "charity" of his or her customer
    by the act of buying him or her lunch to sponsoring their attendence at
    a customer DECUS symposium, then you have a dangerous conflict of
    interest.
    
    By the way, is anyone arguing anymore that will be "OK" in the future
    for a Digital employee to request a feature or otherwise speak at the
    open mike from the audience?

    re: .76
    
    Interesting.  So, I as a Digital employee should not act _AT ALL_
    with the customer in mind?  Just because they do us the "charity"
    of paying $xxx dollars per hour to do PSS work means that we should
    not consider what might be good for the customer?
    
    So, Pat, we are to do whatever is good for Digital without regard
    to the wellbeing of the customer (since acting in the interest of
    the customer would be clearly one "nanometer")?  Great...  So if the
    customer needs a MicroVAX we should sell them an 8840 because to
    do less would be to be "swayed" by a "dangerous conflict of interest".
    We are to get as much money as we can from the customer, regardless
    of the customer's business needs, is that it Pat?
    
    I don't buy it, and I'd be surprised if you buy what I just said.
    
    We act in the best interest of Digital.  It is in the best interest
    of Digital to give the customer good value for his/her money.
    Does "good value" include standing up and saying "my customer
    would like to suggest that XYZZY be implemented"?  Sounds fair to
    me.  Does "good value" include standing up in public and humiliating
    Digital?  Clearly -- NO.
    
    1. I believe that good business includes benefits to both parties.
    2. I believe that constructive suggestions are good business.
    3. I do not believe that it is impossible to get up in front of
       a crowd and make a clear, contructive suggestion, benefitting
       both Digital and the customer.
    
    If this is such a clear conflict of interest, then I hope that Pat
    and others are working to get some VP to dictate that customers
    will no longer pay for people to attend DECUS.  If being concerned
    for the welfare of the customer is incorrect, then Digital Engineers
    should NOT be allowed to speak to customers.  They might be "swayed"
    to implement something which might help the customer get the job
    done.
    
    I'm really not trying to be a pain or an advocate of conflict of
    interest.  I simply believe that it is possible to act in Digital's
    best interest and still manage to deliver good value to the customer.
    
    I perceive the notion of "Digital employees may not make suggestions
    or ask questions on behalf of the customer" as a rather weak attempt
    to prevent the possibility that a Digital speaker might embarass
    the company.  If that is a concern, then we had better keep ALL
    employees from attending -- I've heard (as a customer) some Digital
    engineers and marketeers say some _VERY_ embarassing things.
    
    IMHO

    -- Russ

Re: < Note 811.76 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Gotham City's Software Consultant" >
                    -< Can you say "conflict of interest"? >-

    
�    If the outward behavior or even the internal thinking of a Digital
�    employee is moved one nanometer by the "charity" of his or her customer
�    by the act of buying him or her lunch to sponsoring their attendence at
�    a customer DECUS symposium, then you have a dangerous conflict of
�    interest.
 
    We're not talking about insider trading here... What we are discussing
    is what Russ in .75 put so very well - that customers have a right to
    expect the resident to relate their view to the Symposia.  This is not
    "chairity" - we're talking about a customer giving DEC 1 weeks' worth
    of residency value, so the resident can attend the Symposim. 
    
    If I paid for you for a biz trip to the bahamas, wouldn't you want
    to "do right by me" for it??
    
�    By the way, is anyone arguing anymore that will be "OK" in the future
�    for a Digital employee to request a feature or otherwise speak at the
�    open mike from the audience?

    Did I miss this somewhere???
    
    Jp
    

    re: the last two
    
    I've been willfully misunderstood before. Please continue to do so if
    you think it serves your point of view.
    
    We all know that resident Digital software specialists provide the
    benefit to the customer of the advocacy of their needs at Digital's
    internal meetings and and use internal communications.  It's also a
    proper function for sales reps and field service reps.
    
    However... 
    
    If you have customers who are so inarticulate that they _also_ need the
    extraordinary expression of their requirements to Digital by a resident
    Digital software specialist at the DECUS open mike, I'd recommend that
    they do a Dale Carnegie course.  Customers at customer meetings should
    speak for customers about customer problems.

    Re .79:
    
    > I've been willfully misunderstood before.
                ^^^^^^^^^
    I think this accusation is uncalled for.  This isn't Soapbox.
    
    
    				-- edp

It always has, is now, and always will be, appropriate for a Digital 
employee to stand up at a DECUS gathering and request on behalf of a
customer that product X support feature Y.

Anyone who is implying otherwise is wrong.  Its called "doing the right 
thing."

You people seem to forget who provides the revenue for your salaries.

Bob

    #1 *is* "do the right thing". This not debatable.
    
    The debate is whether this *was* the "right thing".
    
    - Andy ��� Leslie
    

re: .82   Ok... I say it WAS the right thing to do.

If I stand up in front of a panel at DECUS and ask for feature Y to be
supported on product X, and it brings a thundering round of applause
from the audience, previous replies are saying that that is wrong
because it embarasses Digital.

I'm saying that if the request got that kind of response from the audience, 
then Digital OUGHT to be embarassed, because they obviously haven't been 
listening to their customers!   And to attack the Digital employee who
raises the issue as "not supporting the party line"  is to CONTINUE to 
ignore the customer, and is WRONG!  And *THAT* is not debatable, either!

Bob

    Perhaps, if we adopted a policy of telling the truth, rather than
    worrying about the "party line", this sort of problem would go away.
    
    If there is something that the customers want that we can't or won't
    provide, isn't it better to and say so and explain our reasons rather
    than trying to baffle them with bullsh*t?  
    
    -dave

    re: .79
    
>    I've been willfully misunderstood before. Please continue to do so if
>    you think it serves your point of view.
    
    I said that I thought it unlikely that you were attempting to say
    "we should ignore the customer".  My point is that to draw the line
    at the DECUS mike when we do so much else is _very_ arbitrary and
    highly unnecessary.
    
>    We all know that resident Digital software specialists provide the
>    benefit to the customer of the advocacy of their needs at Digital's
>    internal meetings and and use internal communications.  It's also a
>    proper function for sales reps and field service reps.
    
    Agreed.  I would be shocked if you said anything else.  Violent
    agreement taken on this point.
    
>    If you have customers who are so inarticulate that they _also_ need the
>    extraordinary expression of their requirements to Digital by a resident
>    Digital software specialist at the DECUS open mike, I'd recommend that
>    they do a Dale Carnegie course.  Customers at customer meetings should
>    speak for customers about customer problems.
    
    The current strategy of customer service (Enterprise Services, etc.)
    stresses that we can work with the customer in many capacities (as
    you well know).  To say that a Big-8 firm can approach the mike
    in behalf of a customer, while Digital cannot, is to put ourselves
    in a bind.  We want to service our customers better than they do,
    but we hamstring ourselves in the process.  There is no need for
    this.
    
    As a customer, I found it reassuring that Digital folks could ask
    questions for a customer: it reinforced the notion that Digital
    can ACTUALLY represent the customer in a fair fashion, without being
    paranoid of damaging the fragile ego of some white-tower-type who
    didn't want to hear "the truth".  A company which can display an
    honest respect for "the truth" will not need to play political games
    to make certain that they "look good" to customers;  the support
    of satisfied customers will insure that the company will look just
    fine.
    
    Dealing directly with "customers and Dale Carnegie", I bring to you
    this non-hypothetical situation.  There are a group of software
    specialists "running the show" for a certain government group. 
    These Digits do it all -- manage the systems, manage the network,
    write the applications, etc.  If it is technical, a Digital person
    does it.  Period.
    
    The customer has NO technical staff whatsoever -- NONE.  Digital
    does it all.  The customer paid Digital to send one Spec to DECUS.
    There was NO customer representative present other than the Spec.
    Why?  Because the customer doesn't do the technical end -- that's
    Digital's job.  But they want their concerns voiced, in a
    representative and civil manner.  The "right thing", IMHO, is to
    give that customer the same level of exposure and same methods
    of making suggestions that are available to other customers.  To
    say that the Spec is not trusted to make a balanced presentation
    of facts in public is to raise serious doubts in the mind of the
    customer about Digital's integrity.
    
    I remember quite vividly what it is like to deal with Digital as
    a customer.  If I ever caught wind of the notion that "Digits mustn't
    speak up for customer concerns -- it might be embarassing", I'd
    have seen a giant red flag.  That flag would say "Truth is not welcome
    here".  I would then seriously reconsider attending future sessions,
    as the integrity of the Engineers themselves would be brought into
    question.  "They are in on this too -- they don't care about my
    needs -- they just want my money!".
    
    We can service the customer and Digital in a proper fashion in the
    computer room, in the board room, and at the mike at DECUS.  There
    is no real difference.  Just keep doing the right thing.
    
    IMHO
    
    -- Russ

    I don't really have any problem with Digits representing customers at
    DECUS, if they make it clear that's what they are doing.  What does
    bother me is that customers think this is a reasonable way to
    spend their money.
    
    If we are placing people in residencies, surely one of the selling
    points is that these people have connections within the company, and
    that by hiring them not only can they draw on these connections for
    problem fixes and information, but they have a more direct line for
    getting customer needs heard by engineering than customers do.  If
    customers are sending Digits to customer forums, they must realize that
    the above isn't true.
    
    Shouldn't it be true?  How can we make it so?
    
    	HRB

    Who said "truth is not welcome here " ?
    ???? so please stop this nonsense.

    A Digit has far more opportunities to talk to product managers
    directly then a DECUS customer, former is more efficient and
    appropriate. 

    It's amazing that some people refuse to understand that when you meet a
    customer... you meet a customer, with all implication of it,
    independently of the context. I have some very good friends that are
    also DEC customers and I don't discuss with them anything that I couldn't 
    repeat in a normal customer situation.

    Yes, we have several loyalties in life and sometimes there is a
    possibility of conflicts.

    Re: [.87 (WLODEK)]:
    
    >> Who said "truth is not welcome here " ?
    >> ???? so please stop this nonsense.

    >> A Digit has far more opportunities to talk to product managers
    >> directly then a DECUS customer, former is more efficient and
    >> appropriate. 
    
    I sense a contradiction here.  I'm glad to hear that truth is welcomed
    at Digital; I'd like to think that a truthful message is accepted
    whatever the channel.
    
    Are you saying that if a product manager, or anyone for that matter,
    hears truthful information from an inappropriate channel, the
    information should be discarded?

    re: .87
    
>    Who said "truth is not welcome here " ?
    
    I did.  If you re-read my response, I put my old customer hat back
    on and responded to the notion that Digital employees, paid for
    by customers, could not introduce customer questions at DECUS. 
    The fact that Digital employees _can_ ask customer questions at
    DECUS was a _comfort_ to me as a customer.  It was clear that DECUS
    was there to honestly exchange information, regardless of source.
    It was clear that Digital employees were there to honestly voice
    and consider customer concerns and solve problems.
    
    Now, if I went to DECUS as a customer and found that _no_ Digital
    employees could ask a question in public because it might "look
    bad", I wouldn't be happy.  It would be clear to me that DECUS was
    more important to Digital as a marketing exercise ("make Digital
    look good") than as a way to exchange product information ("product
    flibajig would help us tremendously if it would provide flubble").
    Under those conditions, I (as a customer) would begin to doubt the
    truth content of what was being presented, since the primary concern
    would appear be to "make Digital look good".

>    A Digit has far more opportunities to talk to product managers
>    directly then a DECUS customer, former is more efficient and
>    appropriate. 
    
    In theory, this is correct.  Unfortunately, it does not work well
    in all cases.  Take for example a certain (nameless) group which
    I have interacted with on a couple of occasions.  I have attempted
    to ask for information regarding general product direction, as well
    as short-term changes (next release, etc.) in order to properly
    design an application for a customer (without, of course, releasing
    proprietary information to the customer).  Replies I have received
    have been a terse list of undefined terms with a closing "we're busy
    now; wait and see"-type sentence.  Of course, when you've gotten
    a couple replies like that, you tend to think "well, I guess I'd
    better quit bugging him/her.  It's not getting me anywhere and it's
    just annoying him/her."
    
    I can understand why product managers would tend to be busy.  They
    have enough to do without running one-on-one Ed Services for field
    folk.  But, the sad fact is that the average PSS Specialist (around
    here, anyway) will learn oodles more from a DECUS session than they
    will from a year's interaction with certain product managers.
    (There are other PMs who are great to work with; I say a hearty
    "thank you!" to all product managers who manage to give useful
    information in response to field requests)
    
    Perhaps if there was a more consistent way of exchanging information,
    this entire discussion would become unnecessary.  I would love to
    have an effective, open conduit to channel concerns to Engineering
    without suffering the fear of being quashed like a bug or ignored
    altogether.  Some groups have this through NOTES, MAIL, newsletters,
    SPRs (see related note for difficulties here); others have no good
    channel that is readily apparent.
    
    BTW, if field folk are supposed to "take it to the PM", why is it
    that I've never seen a list of PMs?  If this is a "proper" way of
    getting non-CSC-type questions answered, every Specialist should
    have a list.
    
    -- Russ

    Re: -.1 
    
    I'll agree with Russ on what a PSS Spec. can learn at a week of
    DECUS...
    
    By meeting PM's, face-to-face, I'm able to gain insight on how to
    guide my customers needs.  As well as make many new friends!
    
    I'm able to get a greater amount of training and experiences in,
    (speak of your overload! :') than if my manager sent me to training
    once or twice every six months -- if I'm lucky enough to even get
    it!  (Have we discussed our "Available Warm Body" style of delivery
    yet??)
    
    I get to hear (I think this is the most important aspect) our customers
    tell us what's wrong with our products, and sometimes services.
    This is invaluable information, as it tends to give you a renewed
    spirit to try even harder to help out your customer.  And to watch
    out for the pittfalls of others before you. 
    
    
    Jp

    I finally have to add something: 
    
    When I first joined Ed. Services as (at that time) the only OA
    instructor in my training center, I was sent to DECUS within the
    first month (good luck and timing, most likely the only time!).
    The chance to meet the product managers and get a larger picture
    saved me countless hours of wondering where to look for information.
    
    I also got a quick understanding of what our more clever customers
    have done to stretch the limits of some products. 
    
    However, I was also very aware that my blue ribbon identified me
    as a representative of Digital and I took the professional
    responsibility to behave accordingly.
    
    After a couple of years in training, I have developed other methods
    for understanding and communicating with the folks in product
    management, but going to DECUS was a great intro, more than anyone
    could have provided one-on-one when I moved from a staff organization
    to a customer training group.
    
    ih

================================================================================
Note 811.88            DECUS experience -- feedback wanted              88 of 91
LEAF::GONG "Steve Jong/NaC Pubs"                     16 lines  20-JUN-1989 12:22
                           -< What are you saying? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Re: [.87 (WLODEK)]:
    
!    Are you saying that if a product manager, or anyone for that matter,
!    hears truthful information from an inappropriate channel, the
!    information should be discarded?

    	Did I said that ? If you have to read my mind, why not pick a nicer
    	thought .-)

    re : Russ,

    I sort of regret getting into this discussion, all your generalizations
    are wrong to start with, "truth is not welcome here" while we simply
    say that a Digit has better channels for transmitting that "truth" then
    the one proposed in 0.

    Is the this customer sending a resident DEC specialist for DECUS a real
    one or are we confronted with a purely hypothetical case ?
    Dam dull reality, hope you make it up and we can continue ratholing.

    re: .92
    
>    Is the this customer sending a resident DEC specialist for DECUS a real
>    one or are we confronted with a purely hypothetical case ?
    
    The _only_ way I know of for a Specialist from my office to attend
    DECUS is to go because a customer pays.  This has happened _several_
    times, to my knowledge.  The example I cited refers to someone I
    work with.  The problems of interacting with certain Engineering
    groups are likewise actual.  My apologies if I was so unclear as to
    make this discussion seem hypothetical.

>    Dam dull reality, hope you make it up and we can continue ratholing.
    
    "Dull" isn't the word I'd use -- "frustrating" is.  When your customer
    expects you to have or be able to get information (in order to get
    the job done correctly), and you run into copious roadblocks, it gets
    _very_ frustrating.
    
>    I sort of regret getting into this discussion, all your generalizations
>    are wrong to start with, "truth is not welcome here" while we simply
>    say that a Digit has better channels for transmitting that "truth" then
>    the one proposed in 0.
    
    I must say that this statement bothers me.  "All my generalizations"
    -- what do they include?  You claim that I am nothing but nonsense,
    but you give me no opportunity to defend my points.  So kindly expound
    so that I may be enlightened.
    
    Forgive me, but let me try one more time -- the "truth" statement
    has to do with my past experience as a customer.  I knew folks who
    went to other DECUS-type events sponsored by other vendors.  Some
    of these vendors had a "no employee shall ask public questions"-type
    rule.  Many of these people have commented to me that they felt
    that this created some doubt about the truth-content of the session,
    since it seemed that the vendor had something to hide and wanted
    to look good, rather than deal with real issues.  In my case, as
    a customer, I would have felt similar inclinations.  "Truth" which
    has to be hidden from public view tends to raise questions about
    the motivation for doing so.
    
    You can call this reaction any name you want -- saying it's "wrong"
    doesn't change the opinion of people who are suspicious of a vendor
    which seems to be covering up when it claims to be opening up.
    
    The crux of this problem, in my opinion, is that the information
    lines to the field are a mess.  The availability of timely information
    is often based on the will and timeschedule of a few overworked
    individuals.  NOTES handles a great deal of this information, but
    many futures-related queries are considered "taboo" by product groups.
    PIDs are often unavailable or lack substantial information (according
    to one who gives PIDs).  PMs often seem to have too much to do to give
    a reasonable amount of information.  The customer expects results
    based on "the Digital Difference" of internal product information.
    
    Yet the customer will find out more futures at one DECUS symposium
    than an average Delivery Specialist will find out in a year.  If
    the information is _that_ available to customers, it should be equally
    available to Specialists.  If we could actually stay _ahead_ of
    our customers in "futures", maybe some DECUS questions/suggestions
    would disappear.
    
    Sorry if this all seems to be a rathole -- to me, this DECUS discussion
    smacks of a symptom of a larger disease: insufficient information flow.
    
    -- Russ

    
    
    Do you fancy yourself as a budding writer, well here is your chance to
    get that article published and see your name in print in the DECUS UK
    Quarterly Newsletter.
    
    We are looking for articles for the next edition of the news which
    will be mailed out to our members w/c 17th October. Copy deadline is
    Tuesday, 13th September.
    
    Your article could be on virtually anything, but preferaby with a
    computer slant,  If you are unsure about the content, call either
    myself on 7 830 2812 or David Kerrell on 7 830 2279 or come in and see
    us in F7, in the middle of UK Marketing.
    
    Looking forward to having a flood of copy........ from you all.
    
    Avril
                                                           

Call for papers.

The DECUS UK Annual Conference is the only major Digital event held in the UK.
The conference takes place in May, lasts for four days and consists of over 100 
papers and seminars on a wide range of technical subjects. 

Users attending the conference can gain valuable pragmatic information from 
other users, Digital, Partners, and Consultants. 

If you want to present a paper or seminar to this audience then now is the time 
to act. The Call for Papers deadline is 16th December 1994.

What you need to do.

Send the following details by email, internal post, or fax to:-

Avril Allan REO D1/2
Fax: 01734 202211
Email: Avril Allan @REO or [email protected]

NAME: 	  	 			JOB TITLE:
LOCATION: 	 			DTN:
EMAIL:	  	 			TITLE:
SESSION/SEMINAR: 
ABSTRACT (50/100 words):







PLEASE RETURN BY 16TH DECEMBER 1994

Note: A session is typically a one hour presentation including questions.
      A seminar is a half or one day training course or workshop.

Where and When is the Conference?

The 1995 DECUS UK Conference will take place from Monday May 15th to Thursday 
May 18th in the Allesley Hotel and Conference Centre, Allesley Village in 
Coventry. 

Further Details from:-

To get hardcopies of "The Call for Papers" or if you require further 
information please contact:-

DECUS Support Group REO D1/2

DTN: (830) 2182
Tel: 01734 202182
Fax: 01734 202211

Email: Avril Allan @REO or [email protected]

General information

What is DECUS?

DECUS is the Digital Equipment Computer Users Society. 
DECUS has a partnership relationship with Digital that is unique in the IT 
industry which is endorsed and supported by Chris Conway in the UK, and at the 
highest corporate level of Digital by Bob Palmer. 

Formed in 1961, the Digital Equipment Computer Users Society has become the 
largest and most respected users group of its kind in the industry. There are 
47,000 individual members in Europe and 120,000 world-wide.

The mission of DECUS is to promote the exchange of information among people
interested in Digital and Digital-related products, services and technologies; 
to advance their interests and to help them and their organisations be 
successful.  In addition, DECUS offers its members the opportunity to 
communicate openly with Digital Equipment Corporation on its products, 
strategies and policies.
    

The Call for Papers deadline has been extended to 20th January 1995. This is due
to a decision to move the conference brochure mailing nearer to the event.

Dave.