| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1035.1 | See also COMET::FUTURE_ORG_DESIGN (press KP7) | PHAROS::DMCLURE | Positively think! | Thu Feb 22 1990 01:55 | 22 |
| re: .0,
There is very definately an information business revolution underway.
The businesses which survive the nineties are those which can capitalize
on this information business revolution. Digital is in an excellent
position to capitalize on this revolution if we move quickly to develop
the number one choice in electronic vehicles for the information business
revolution.
Picture the world free market system operating at the speed of light.
This is the sort of world market system we are approaching. People are
going to be looking for faster and easier ways of buying and selling
information. Computers and networks will be used to achieve this speed,
and the quality of the information management software running on these
computers will determine which computer vendors survive this revolution.
I am not quite sure whether the role of managers in such a future
is any more certain than that of anyone else, but one thing is for sure,
and that is that the automation of slow and inefficient processes
should be the number one priority in any future business decisions.
-davo
|
| 1035.2 | managers who perpetuate barriers | ODIXIE::CARNELL | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Thu Feb 22 1990 09:34 | 306 |
| REF: <<< Note 1035.0 by SVBEV::VECRUMBA "Blunt is Better" >>>
-< Digital management: where do _we_ go from here? >-
>> Such radical, barrier-free solutions play havoc with management
hierarchies. That's fine, says Mr Peters: scrap them. He reckons the
only management-organisation chart worth heeding is a plain circle.
Inside it should be all the firm's employees, with as few management
ranks and innovation-limiting job descriptions as possible. Preferably
none. Mr Peters is especially keen to be rid of middle managers, who he
believes perpetuate the barriers he wants to smash down.>>
Here's my assessment, and suggested idea solutions, which I submitted
to Alan Zimmerle last August as part of the employee involvement
program emerging in Digital. Any Digital employee has my permission to
forward this note to anyone in Digital.
d i g i t a l
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 16-Aug-1989 11:55am EDT
From: David Carnell @ALF
CARNELL.DAVID
Dept: SOA CS Proposals Sup Grp
Tel No: 385-2901/404772-2901
TO: Alan Zimmerle ( ZIMMERLE.ALAN AT A1 at BARTLE at CFO )
Subject: SUGGESTIONS FOR INCREASING EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT
Responding to your memo (19 July 1989 -- enclosed below) inviting me
to provide input with regard to your putting together an Employee
Involvement Program at the request of the Executive Committee, and
believing the desire is to increase employee involvement toward more
effectively growing, building, developing and directing our company
into a more successful and profitable future, here are some additional
thoughts, ideas and suggestions for consideration (which includes
input from a few co-workers) that might make such a program REALLY
work.
Thinking about what inhibits optimum employee involvement, I
personally believe the crux of the inhibition to be in the philosophy
practiced by many people who are managers (defined as one who has
direct report employees).
Many people, upon becoming a manager of people, seem to view being "a
manager" as a reward for having played the system effectively. Thus,
in becoming a manager, they suddenly perceive they are entitled to
having more power, more money, more prestige and a better opportunity
to implement "their own" ideas.
Further, what I really believe inhibits optimum employee involvement
is the attitude where a manager feels he has "earned" the position
where people, namely his new employees under him, are now responsible
for "making him" even more successful. His employees are responsible
to catering to him, doing what he wants, and if his employees "do it"
right, he will reward them accordingly. Some call this "office
politics" and its practice can be said by many to have little to do
with skills and results and performance that pertain to the overall
success of the total organization.
If this assumption is on target, one could easily see that optimum
employee involvement with regard to growing, building and directing
the overall success of the organization now and into the future is
certainly NOT a priority since the main emphasis is for an employee to
cater to building the career of his manager, who in turn builds the
career of the next manager up the line.
Is this the right management attitude for the next century that will
lead to success and longevity of a corporation in a rapidly shrinking,
increasingly competitive world?
Should not the managers of the future be those who see being a manager
as a "calling" where you take responsibility for developing, leading
and nurturing your employees, and where you as manager are responsible
for making "your employees" successful, not yourself, and, not unlike
a parent raising a child, where their success as employees benefits
them, the overall company, and then finally, as a consequence and
reflection, you as their manager -- with this being the real
measurement of your success as a leader of people.
I would argue that this latter philosophy is inherently and
intuitively more correct and beneficial to Digital, its employees and
even the managers, both in the short run and in the long run.
To change the system and attitude that has existed in the world for
ten thousand years, where personal agendas and ambition come first,
would probably take a major shift in how the current system works in
Digital. The specific fulcrum points of change would have to be
determined that would absolutely ensure the change, and the commitment
to incur that change would absolutely have to come from the very top
of Digital.
What points of change might be considered? Here, briefly stated, are
some ideas and suggestions that might have the desired effect that
might be worth thinking about:
If the base ever-escalating salaries (regardless of results
or leadership metrics) of being in management were
eliminated, the profit motive for "professional bureaucrats"
would be eliminated. Have all managers paid a fixed salary
(different levels for different leveled managers) where
additional income comes ONLY from performance bonuses
contingent on obtaining goals and leadership metrics, which
by nature then, would necessitate more effectively leading,
developing and nurturing your direct report employees to be
successful.
If managers received six-month leadership performance
appraisals from their direct reports, there would be
accountability for leading effectively. Amend the
management metrics system (and indeed the total metrics
systems in general since our behavior as a total company is
driven by this). True partnerships, like between a husband
and wife, would have two-way feedback systems. Institute
"manager performance appraisals" by a manager's direct
reports on the manager's leadership and support efforts and
skills where those appraisals from his employees' are put in
the manager's personnel folder as a permanent record, making
these metrics mandatory up from the bottom, level to level,
in addition to downward, all of which would have EQUAL
IMPACT.
If people get an equal say in picking the leader they are to
follow, they will provide optimum employee involvement,
commitment and loyalty, following the leadership of their
chosen leader. Change the hiring policies of managers to
where the "hiring manager" and all the direct report
employees of a new manager select their new leader. When a
manager position becomes available, have the direct reports
and the hiring manager all jointly and equally determine the
desired qualities and metrics (which would be listed in the
job posting req), all equally determine who will be
interviewed, all equally interview each of the selected
candidates, and all equally decide on a consensus who will
get the job of being their new manager, with one equal vote
for every direct report with the hiring manager having no
more power than his or her one equal vote.
If people get an equal say in deciding whether they will
continue to follow their leader or replace their leader with
a new person, optimum involvement, commitment and loyalty
will continue. To get professional bureaucrats out who
refuse to lead and nurture a group to success, who put their
own self-aggrandizement, agenda and ambition over the
company and their people, change the Digital personnel
policies to where the direct reports and their leader's
manager have a closed door annual "vote of confidence" of
their leader. After performance appraisals of a manager are
done by both the manager's manager and all direct reports,
the group discuss jointly the leadership of their leader,
the metrics and then takes a vote (one equal vote for
everyone), arriving at a consensus electing either to retain
and follow their chosen leader for another year, or to
replace him with a new leader. If the consensus is to
replace, the group will begin seeking a new leader and
policy would be mandatory that the current manager seek
immediately either a individual contributor position or a
leadership position with another Digital group looking for a
new manager and leader.
If managers more effectively communicated with their direct
reports, working relationships would take on greater aspects
of real partnerships and total mutual involvement. By
policy, make it mandatory that every manager work with each
direct report employee to create a written, proper employee
job, training and development plans, plus, make it mandatory
that the group of direct reports and manager's manager,
jointly create a written job plan for the manager of the
group on the requirements of leadership in leading the group
to success as well as the business metrics of him and his
group. To ensure two-way communications for building real
partnerships, by policy make it mandatory that a manager and
his direct reports meet regularly as a group (phone or in
person) where each is free to express likes, dislikes, wants
and suggestions as they relate to each other's job plans.
If Digital measured creativity, changes would occur more
rapidly in greater quantity, thereby enabling the company to
compete more effectively throughout the world. By policy,
have a mandatory (downward from the top) creativity metric
for all managers. Have managers measured on how many ideas
and suggestions his or her direct reports made for either
increasing productivity, saving money or time, or for
growing customers, margin and revenue; how many have he or
she implemented and/or championed, for those implemented or
championed how will each impact the company; and for those
suggestions or ideas that a manager has not implemented or
championed, justify why not.
If employees received an incentive for creative thinking,
they would be motivated to create more, which may be the
real differentiator of one company over another. Institute
a monetary award system for employee suggestions and ideas
that either increase productivity, save money or reduce
costs, or increase customers, margin or revenue. Make the
award size dependent upon impact to the company. Offer an
EXTRA award (large) for the number one best idea implemented
each year. Publicize all award winners, size of award to
each winner, and a summary of each idea or suggestion of
each winner. [upon reflection, I believe equal profit sharing
for all employees without a cap would be a better approach
that would drive creativity PLUS cooperation and harmony].
If creativity could flow faster within Digital, and for
those ideas that go beyond one's immediate job could reach
higher levels faster, the company could respond faster to
change, all of which could be a significant competitive edge
to Digital in the next decade. To ensure bypassing any
bureaucratic bottlenecks to fast communications, institute
(Corporate and by country) telephone suggestion boxes with
computerized voice mail to collect ideas and suggestions
from employees (and even customers), at the moment of
conception. Utilize hypercard memex technology to manage
the huge amounts of textural input.
If Digital's 127,000 employees were to have real
partnerships with total employee involvement on everyone's
part, then like in a successful marriage between husband and
wife, there would be shared visions, values, goals,
standards and dreams. Like Digital preaches, 127,000
computers can only work together if they share common
values, standards, and rules. Likewise, Digital's 127,000
employees must share a common vision, values, standards and
rules, with each member thoroughly knowing them. Create a
"separate employee relations" group, separate from personnel
(a critical must), whose job would be to address and preach
via "in-person" interactive groups (managers and their
direct employees together), once EVERY quarter, the vision,
values and standards of Digital. These employee relations
peoples' job would be to speak and lead these regular
meetings, communicating and reinforcing the values,
philosophy and standards of the company plus inspiring the
soul within each employee and manager to work together
toward common goals and values, "doing what's right" (and
explaining what exactly that means) plus serving as the
"check and balance" to ensure the Open Door Policy is
enforced, with special emphasis in representing the
employee's viewpoint (not managers hiding behind "business
decisions), making sure that the standards and rules and
values are actually being followed, and making sure action
is taken with those who do not adhere to them, especially
ensuring there are no double-standards (one for managers and
another for employees).
If people are treated fairly and equitable, with equal
opportunity and justice for all, there will be optimum
involvement, loyalty and commitment. Have this new employee
relations group create their own hotline suggestion box:
What are YOUR perceived inequities towards employees in
Digital, and what suggestion do you have to correct the
situation across the world for all Digital employees. For
example, a significant number of employees perceive that
there is NOT equal opportunity for all -- many available
jobs are NOT posted at all, or not until a candidate has
already been selected, and people who perceive they may be
qualified candidates never even get a chance to interview,
or get short perfunctory obligatory interviews, or get put
down as not being qualified with little real justification
provided. There is a great belief that jobs go to "who you
know" and not to the one with the best skills and desire --
to correct this, make it policy that all peers within a
given group, when filling a peer position, have an equal say
in determining desired qualifications, selecting candidates,
interviewing, and finally hiring a new member to the group,
with the leader having only an equal vote.
If people have no fear of losing their jobs, or of being the
victim of reprisals, they will be creative and open with
their thinking, and their grievances against poor
leadership. Digital does commit job security to people to
nurture openness and commitment to the corporation. To
ensure there are no reprisals for those employees expressing
their opinions, ideas and suggestions, and grievances
following the Open Door Policy, and to ensure greater
equity, have raises and promotions determined by one's peers
within the group, with the manager having only one equal
vote. Furthering this thought, consider even fixing
salaries for all jobs, employees and managers, at a single
competitive point, with additional increases being 1) For
employees: equal profit bonuses plus for those employees who
turn in performance above and beyond as voted by the group,
an additional monetary bonus award; and 2) For managers,
profit bonuses (equal by level) plus bonuses based on the
attainment of goals and leadership metrics. When base
salaries do increase, have them increase for all across the
board, leading to perceived equity and fair treatment of
all. Another item to change regarding salaries would be to
have group salary "raise" monies separate from base salary
monies needed to bring internal employees up to a new job
level coming into positions within a given group (thereby
making it "easier" to hire internal candidates versus hiring
candidates from outside Digital which only add more
headcount when there are internal people available for new
jobs).
If people were empowered employees and REAL empowered
"owners", absolute "entrepreneurial" involvement might be
achieved. The last suggestion might be to consider taking
the company private (especially considering how Wall Street
behaves), having Ken Olsen help secure a BIG bank loan to
enable the employees to purchase Digital TOTALLY under a
ESOP plan. (Yeah, I know, Good Luck!)
(Zimmerle's memo to me removed)
|
| 1035.3 | The Alternative way ? | AYOV18::TFYFE | On my way.... | Mon Feb 26 1990 05:56 | 48 |
|
Reading your note David, reminded me of something that I have pinned up
on my wall, which if followed I'm sure would make life a lot more
pleasant for us all. However each of us are different, we all have
differing values and characters - this is life. But to deal with some
of the issues you bring out in your note - maybe we should have a
management charter - soemthing that REALLY counts and to which managers
are held accountable to, anyway here are the Alternative Ten Commandments
for Managers.......
Tom
1. Blessed is the Leader who has not sought high places, but who
has been drafted into service because of ability and willingness
to serve.
2. Blessed are the leaders who know where they are going, why they
are going, and how to get there.
3. Blessed is the leader who knows no discouragement, who presents
no alibi.
4. Blessed is the leader who knows how to lead without being
dictatorial; true leaders are humble.
5. Blessed is the leader who seeks the best for those whom he
or she serves.
6. Blessed are the leaders who lead for the good of the most
concerned, and not for the personal gratification of their own
ideas.
7. Blessed is the leader who develops leaders while leading.
8. Blessed is the leader who marches with the group, interprets
correctly the signs on the pathway that lead to success.
9. Blessed are the leaders who have their heads in the clouds but
their feet on the ground.
10. Blessed is the leader who considers leadership an opportunity for
service.
Anon.
|
| 1035.4 | Posted on behalf of author who requested anonymity | DR::BLINN | Mind if we call you Bruce? | Mon Feb 26 1990 08:14 | 37 |
|
I received the following in the mail from a conference participant
who asked that it be posted as an "anonymous" reply to this topic.
I am willing to forward MAIL to the author should anyone feel the
need to contact him or her directly, but can not assure that he or
she will respond.
Yr. Obdt. Srvt.
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've long wondered why we need so many middle managers. My
group recently lost its supervisor. I think he was bored.
We're a group of highly motivated people who know what to
do. We average about 3 years in the group. We know what the
goals are, what needs to be done to reach them, and we do
it. We also have a good enough relations with our "customers"
that we talk to them regularly and keep very current with
their wants and needs.
For what do we need a supervisor between us and the Cost
Center manager? Reviews? The CC manager only has 2 direct
reports now, are 4-5 more reviews a year going to kill them?
Apparently, because they are fighting hard for a req to fill
that job.
We've gone without supervisors before and to tell you the
truth I haven't seen a big difference in how we work with
or without them. Except we do have more meetings of marginal
value when we do have a supervisor. When we need a meeting to
hammer out technical problems we seem to manage them pretty
well without "management" help to.
I can't see it. I really can't. Why this constant need to
add layers and layers of management?
|
| 1035.5 | | WMOIS::FULTI | | Mon Feb 26 1990 08:52 | 6 |
| > I can't see it. I really can't. Why this constant need to
> add layers and layers of management?
Can you say EMPIRE BUILDING? ..... There, I knew you could!
- George
|
| 1035.6 | Make them do the work | CUSPID::MCCABE | If Murphy's Law can go wrong .. | Mon Feb 26 1990 13:36 | 8 |
| As a cost center manager with no supervisors between me and my senior
engineering people I can attest to the fact that it works.
If it weren't for all the paperwork, there are still somedays when
I'd feel reduandant.
-kevin
|
| 1035.7 | Sometimes, it's just stove-pipes | SVBEV::VECRUMBA | Do the right thing! | Mon Feb 26 1990 14:22 | 12 |
| re: .5
>> I can't see it. I really can't. Why this constant need to
>> add layers and layers of management?
>
> Can you say EMPIRE BUILDING? ..... There, I knew you could!
It wouldn't be so bad if we actually built things the size of empires.
Usually it's more like small huts with inordinately large and impenetrable
STOVE-PIPES (mistaken for embryonic empires by small-minded managers).
-Peters
|
| 1035.8 | not just for the "paperwork" | XANADU::FLEISCHER | I have NO management hat (381-0899 ZKO3-2/T63) | Mon Feb 26 1990 15:43 | 34 |
| re Note 1035.4 by "anonymous":
> We've gone without supervisors before and to tell you the
> truth I haven't seen a big difference in how we work with
> or without them. Except we do have more meetings of marginal
> value when we do have a supervisor. When we need a meeting to
> hammer out technical problems we seem to manage them pretty
> well without "management" help to.
Here in central engineering, I think that many of the layers
of management exist in the name of "coordination".
Back when I joined the company, 11 years ago, there were many
nearly autonomous engineering groups. They built a lot of
similar or even duplicative products. In some cases,
architectures were so incompatible that they could not easily
interoperate. This was "badness".
During most of my time here at Digital, there has been steady
progress towards increased centralized control of engineering
for the purposes of minimizing duplication and encouraging
interoperability. (These same mechanisms were also set up to
encourage the "right" investments, those in accord with
corporate "strategy".)
Centralized control always has its costs. Either you have
endless committees, meetings, memos, and long processes to
ensure consensus; or else you simply manage things
centrally. Digital has done a lot of both. (The latter
tends to encourage extra layers of management; I think that
there is a perception that flat organizations are harder to
coordinate.)
Bob
|
| 1035.9 | Half a billion per manager | SVBEV::VECRUMBA | Do the right thing! | Tue Feb 27 1990 00:56 | 46 |
|
re: .last several
Yes, coordinating the actions of multiple groups definitely requires
real manpower. I think, however, that the most effective answer isn't
necessarily more layers of management, using them to "group" interests,
but more effective liaisons between groups. This means, of course, that
you wind up with entire organizations devoted to promulgating standards.
But it doesn't mean that you need deeper levels of management.
Just for fun, I did a quick mathematical exercise. Assume Digital employs
125,901 (the one is for K.O.) people. If every level of management had
the same number of direct reports, we get the following numbers.
[From 3 intervening levels of management up, every additional level of
management costs Digital at least half a billion dollars.]
# direct # of management
reports to Indians at cost, at
+----------+ each mgr bottom 100K each :-)
| K.O. | in chain of pyramid in expense
+----------+ ---------- ---------- ----------
|
8 intervening managers 3.7 91,752 3.4 Billion
|
7 intervening managers 4.3 96,892 2.9 Billion
|
6 intervening managers 5.4 102,379 2.4 Billion
|
5 intervening managers 7.1 108,116 1.8 Billion
|
4 intervening managers 10.5 113,877 1.2 Billion
|
3 intervening managers 18.8 119,216 668 Million
|
2 intervening managers 50.1 123,388 250 Million
|
1 intervening manager 355 125,545 35 Million
|
Everyone works for Ken 125,900 125,900 100,000 ;-}
|
+-------------+
| single |
| contributor |
+-------------+
|
| 1035.10 | A "5 by 5" Model | JAWJA::GRESH | Subtle as a Brick | Tue Feb 27 1990 14:40 | 39 |
| continuing the direction of .9 by SVBEV::VECRUMBA
The large North American company that I call on has the following
formula to guide their organizational structure.
``No "manager" will have less than five direct reports, and
there shall not be more than five levels between any employee
and the president.''
If you expand this formula to specify a maximum number of direct
reports as well as a minimum, it might be: "not less than five or more
than nine". This would provide a single organizational model that
would accommodate the requirements of a company ranging from as few as
19,625 total employees to as many as 597,871.
5 Direct 9 Direct
-------- --------
1 1 President/COO
5 9 EVP
25 81 VP
125 729 Director
625 6,561 Sr. Mgr.
3,125 59,049 Mgr./Supervisor
15,625 531,441 worker bees
-------- --------
19,531 597,871 Total Employees
======== ========
How many "managers" do we have at Digital that have less than five
direct reports? And how many unnecessary layers does this create?
There's one other interesting point about adhering to this model. In
times where the total employee population is expanding, this
organization grows from the bottom up. When the total employee
population is shrinking, the organization contracts from the top down.
Therefore, the most expensive employees are the last to be added, and
the first to be redeployed.
-Don
|
| 1035.11 | Can I get a cut of the savings? | SVBEV::VECRUMBA | Do the right thing! | Tue Feb 27 1990 16:02 | 24 |
| re .10
> ``No "manager" will have less than five direct reports, and
> there shall not be more than five levels between any employee
> and the president.''
>
> If you expand this formula to specify a maximum number of direct
> reports as well as a minimum, it might be: "not less than five or more
> than nine". ...
Or, put another way, 5 direct reports translates to an average of
6.3 managers between an Indian and K.O., 9 direct reports translates
to an average of 4.3 managers. It doesn't seem like we're anywhere
near the "4.3" average.
I figure we can easily save half a billion to a billion here. Say, how
about employee awards based on a percentage of cost-savings of
suggestions? ;-)
Does anyone know how many "individual contributors" there actually are
at Digital? It would be interesting to work backwards and see how many
levels of management that implies.
-Peters
|
| 1035.12 | managers vs leaders | TINCUP::BAKER | | Tue Feb 27 1990 23:41 | 7 |
| re .3
Here's a quote I heard someplace:
"Things are managed. People are led."
Mike
|
| 1035.13 | A wealth of management aphorisms | STAR::BECK | Paul Beck | Tue Feb 27 1990 23:57 | 3 |
| As in "I must hurry, for there they go, and I'm their leader..."
Or as in "Managing software engineers is like herding cats..."
|
| 1035.14 | Money is really just an O.D. tool | VERITA::BAHLIN | | Wed Feb 28 1990 16:55 | 25 |
| I've noted this before somewhere but it's appropriate here, I
think.
The complex economy at large is distributed, capitalist and on balance,
highly efficient. It is a closed loop system where the feedback loops
are simply money.
Inside large organizations though, you inevitably find a centrist,
socialist, open loop model. All money comes in through one 'cash
register' and it is distributed by a bureaucracy in a manner which is
actually orthogonal to the primary information flow which is flowing
among the worker bees. Most worker bees then have two loyalties; one
to the money tree, one to their customer. Bureaucracies need to
establish artificial metrics to grease this bizarre system.
When this model is taken to extremes you will find lots of 3M
projectors and conference rooms (where funding is achieved) and
you'll have to look hard for a work bench (where customers get
satisfied). You won't find any 'cash registers' either.
You will find organization charts. I have six on my wall that
represent a 2 1/2 year history of my group. I often wonder if my
group would be 'in business' if our funding came from our customers
instead of our slide shows.
|
| 1035.15 | The SOURCE | VMSDEV::HALLYB | The Smart Money was on Goliath | Thu Mar 01 1990 18:00 | 7 |
| .12> Here's a quote I heard someplace:
.12>
.12> "Things are managed. People are led."
"You manage PROJECTS. You lead PEOPLE."
- Admiral Grace Hopper USN (Ret.), possibly the eldest DECcie.
|
| 1035.16 | If you can change the chain, does it matter? | SVBEV::VECRUMBA | Do the right thing! | Thu Mar 01 1990 22:37 | 46 |
|
re 1027.16 (seemed like this was a better place to continue)
> 1990 1989
> Olsen Olsen
>
> Shields
>
> Zereski Grainger
>
> Herbener S. Davis
>
> Fox Weinfuss
>
> Cochrane Ellison
>
> me me
>
> ICs ICs
> (Note that I haven't changed jobs, nor cost center.)
Whoops, there goes another half a billion. Seriously, no matter how
savvy you are as a manager or how long you've been at Digital, it takes
time to become productive in a job.
If we can change a whole chain of command and not adversely impact
Digital, then what are we saying about the criticality of that chain to
the successful operation of Digital? (We all know Marge really just wants
to work for Ken :-) Are we _so_ ingrained in following process that
it no longer matters who's at the helm? That all you need is someone who
has the patience to deal with 100 DECmails a day? That all these managers
in Marge's example are glorified administrators looking after the
sanctity of the "process"?
There are far too many people in management with no imagination. In
fairness, after two years managing, I was reduced to crisis fighting,
and the positive things I had done in prior management jobs, that I
thought were second nature, faded into the background either from lack
of time or authority. Digital is great at delegating responsibility
without authority. Or, more accurately, if you're dealing in an area
with no rules, the sky's the limit; but if you're dealing in an area
with "process", you're chained to the oars.
So, how do we start to shed the shackles?
/Peters
|
| 1035.17 | | SA1794::LIVE | | Fri Mar 02 1990 06:45 | 4 |
| re .16>There are far too many people in management with no
>imagination
There are far too many people in management *period*.
|
| 1035.18 | | REGENT::POWERS | | Fri Mar 02 1990 09:03 | 31 |
| > The large North American company that I call on has the following
> formula to guide their organizational structure.
>
> ``No "manager" will have less than five direct reports, and
> there shall not be more than five levels between any employee
> and the president.''
Talk about stupid, empty, misapplied metrics! I would hope this is just
a guideline, not a mandate. As it is stated, it's an excellent example
of imposing a solution without stating the problem.
The right answer is that there should be enough management in place
to see that the job can get done.
If project complexity and liaison activity limit a manager's effectiveness
to (say) only three supervisors (perhaps each of whom oversees a group
of four to seven individual contributors), so be it.
On the other hand, an assembly line operation may allow one supervisor/foreman
to oversee the work of twenty or more people.
Much of our work is not truly hierarchical. We have "implicit staff,"
individual contributors who assist in administration without the mantle
of "leadership." I'm one who does not believe that "leadership" is the
exclusive purview of management; strong individual contributors can lead,
and their management can follow (or break ground) by cleaning up and
facilitating.
I'm not an apologist for bureaucracy - there's often too much - but don't
be blinded that a "5/9" solution will create or even streamline a path
to efficiency!
- tom powers]
|
| 1035.19 | Total Quality Management & Japan Study Available | ODIXIE::CARNELL | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Fri Mar 02 1990 09:23 | 433 |
|
Ron Bourque @WJO / DTN 282-1329 , for just the cost of travel expense
has indicated he is willing to provide a Top Quality Management (TQM)
seminar for top managers and/or a slide presentation on the highlights
of Digital's Study Mission to Japan, both of which are relevant to
future Digital management practices.
The seminar is outlined below along with the study (Ron's permission
has been given, as is mine, for this note to be copied and forwarded by
any Digital employee to any Digital employee).
Total Quality Management
A picture of how the best in the world do it
Why are so many American manufacturers closing down U.S. operations
because they can no longer afford to manufacture here? At the same
time, Japanese [and other foreign] companies are building factories in
this country at an increasing rate. If they can afford to manufacture
here, why can't we? Don't we at least have a home court advantage?
In fact, manufacturing is not the only segment of the economy which is
beleaguered by foreign competition. Ten years ago, the largest banks
in the world were American. Today, seven out of the top ten [17 out of
the top 25] are Japanese, and yes they are continuously gaining even in
this country. In fact, we wonder if Tokyo, rather than New York, is
now the financial capital of the world?
Why are some insurance companies processing claims overseas in coun-
tries like Ireland? Why are some airline tickets and many other
reconciliation type processes done on Caribbean islands? Is it just
the cost of labor which encourages administrative processing at remote
sites which are logistically far less convenient to the market place?
Could it be that there is another advantage besides the cost of labor
that more competitive operations are pursuing? In the case of Japan,
it is the most expensive place on earth. Real estate, raw materials
and energy are far more expensive there; their labor force is also one
of the best paid on earth.
There is no question that their government strategies and educational
levels are powerful tools in international competition. Nonetheless,
their management practices may, in fact, be their single most powerful
advantage. Many aspects of this system were developed in America and
exported to Japan. These same practices are now enjoying a revival in
this country amoung companies that are rapidly becoming world class
competitors.
Total Quality Management
A One Day Seminar for Top Management
In the morning, we will present an overview of TQM as practiced by some
of the most formidable competitors on earth. More specifically, we
will review:
o Japanese Cultural Traits: to provide some background on our
competition and separate out the threatening cultural issues so
people do not discount the entire presentation as "Japanese".
o Management Aspects: how do they do it? Where do they spend
their time?
o Management Paradigms: what are the key principles and beliefs
that make them respond the way they do?
o Results: what happens when they put it all together?
o Supplier Strategies: this is the scariest part. In many cases,
American companies are sourcing key components to future compet-
itors!!!
o Recommendations: all within our spans of control.
An opportunity will also be provided for questions and answers to
ensure a more comprehensive understanding in as short a time as possi-
ble.
Total Quality Management
A One Day Seminar for Top Management
That afternoon, participants will be treated to a special workshop on
the TQM Tools. The "Seven Simple Tools" are often the stumbling block
which prevents many improvement efforts from getting underway. Even
though managers often agree that these tools may be useful on a produc-
tion line, they often have difficulty realizing the usefulness of these
tools in management and administrative activities.
o Pareto Diagrams: separating the "vital few" from the "trivial
many".
o Flow Diagrams: have you ever tried finding a hotel in a strange
city without a map? Although everyone knows how to create and
use process flows, it is incredible how often we fail to take
advantage of these.
o Cause and Effect Diagram: the only one of these tools invented
in Japan and exported back to us, it helps us identify causes to
control rather than effects to hope for.
o Trend Charts: do we know, actually know, if it's getting better
or worse and by how much?
o Histograms: often developed from Tally Sheets, these can be most
revealing to us in areas where we thought we knew the answers.
o Control Charts: how can we differentiate between machine or
systemic caused problems and people caused problems. It's really
futile to ask people to be more careful when carelessness is not
a cause...
o Scatter Diagrams: when we have no idea what causes what, this is
a very inexpensive way to see if there is a relationship of some
sort.
If you're sick and tired of "trial and error" as a management system,
or if you simply can't afford it anymore because your competitors seem
to enjoy an unfair advantage, these tools can help you find the right
answer [and precisely the right dosage] the first time. Most of the
examples are administrative and/or management type examples to help you
see how much easier and more effective your job can become.
Unfortunately, you will not become proficient in all of these tools in
one afternoon. For instance, the use of control charts will certainly
require further study. However, learning the power of these simple
devices will encourage you to ask a different set of questions and
possibly encourage further study where appropriate.
STUDY
D I G I T A L E Q U I P M E N T C O R P O R A T I O N
Total Quality Management
Study Mission
to Japan
2 - 19 November 1988
Summary Notes Prepared by:
Ron Bourque
U.S. Manufacturing
Quality Assurance
Japanese Companies visited:
Fujitsu Nagano Factory
Ricoh Atsugi Factory
Ricoh Gotemba Factory
Fujitsu Numazu Factory
Mitsubishi Electric Corp. [Kita-itami Works]
Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd. [Kadoma &
Osaka Works]
Omron Tateishi Electronics Company [Kusatsu Works]
Hitachi Ltd. [Kanagawa Works & Odawara Plant]
Nihon Digital Equipment Corporation [Ichikawa Plant]
Oki Electric Industry Company, Ltd. [Honjyo Works]
Sumitomo Corporation [Tokyo Office]
The Study Mission also included a Lecture on Japanese culture
and customs by Ms. Jean Pearce of The Japan Times,
an all-day Lecture on Total Quality by Dr. Ichiro Miyauchi of
JUSE
a weekend visit to a Shinto shrine: Tsubaki Grand Shrine
and a little sightseeing [e.g. Nijo Castle & Ninomaru Palace,
Handicraft Center, Kiyomizu Temple in Kyoto, etc.]
Cultural Aspects
o We strive to achieve economic security; they know it just
doesn't exist and are always trying to optimize the
opportunity of the moment
o Group activity is part of their culture; they do it
naturally
o The Japanese try so hard to make us feel comfortable;
making suggestions in their culture must be a low risk
proposition
- Cannot debate in Japanese
- Sato / Nixon misunderstanding
- No one is ever all right or all wrong
o Concept of WA ---> Harmony in everything
o "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down..."
o Self-Discipline is valued [Shintoism]
o Value the process, not just the results
Management Aspects
o Japanese managers think in terms of customer desires and
conveniences instead of their own or their company's
- The customer is KAMI (God).
- Corroborate data with customers
o Management by and with factual data
- Relevant and necessary, not just obtainable
- Process control, not just results data
- Properly analyzed
o Detailed knowledge of manufacturing operations seems to
increase with the level of management
o Management and control organizations view problems as
opportunities to help, rather than as evidence of poor
performance
o The goal is "to avoid the slightest possibility of a
defect occurring"
Management Aspects
o Exponential improvement results are achievable
- Routinely seek 3X improvement goals in quality and
reliability
- Yearly goals and slogans
- Constantly visible [e.g. badges, etc.]
- January newspaper publishes yearly plan
- Sent home to family!
o Their philosophy on people especially their employees is
best summed up by Omron Tateishi's motto:
"To the machine, the work of the machine; to man, the
thrill of further creation."
Technology is for people, not the other way around
Socio-Tech: Technology for Society [e.g. conference room
toys, etc.]
o Automation is done to reduce variability and improve
quality as the primary goal
- Attack toughest problems first
- Eliminate mundane, difficult or hazardous jobs
- Autonomation is the norm
Management Aspects
o They manage the process not just the results
- When testing yields no failures, they increase the
severity of the test
- The goal is always to reduce Baratsuki [dispersion]
- Continuous, never-ending, improvement
- Inspection is done to obtain the information required
to improve the process [e.g. P-D-C-A], not to sort out
the bad
o Visibility Management: scoreboards, competitive bonuses,
etc.
o Strategic Planning / Total Execution
- Dynamic [e.g. Flight Plan, etc.]
- Everyone is involved [even send plans home in company
newspaper
o Continuous Education
Paradigms (in U.S. and Digital)
o Stockholders' return is most important vs "the customer is
KAMI."
o "The Boss" is the most important customer instead of the
next person in the process
o Management by Exception vs Continuous Improvement
o Meeting specifications and standards vs trying to excel
o "Not invented here" syndrome vs trying to learn from
everyone
o The Lone Ranger vs Teamwork
o Privileged Information vs Visibility Management
o Quality costs more
o Quality Control is the job of specialists & professionals
in the field vs quality consciousness in everyone
Paradigms
o Total Quality includes quality, reliability, cost,
delivery, safety, morale, etc.
- Quality of the company, management, product/service,
employee behavior, human resources, etc.
- KAIZEN & P-D-C-A Cycle [the secret!]
o Improvement when we have time vs as the top priority
o Valuing labor for their hands instead of for their minds
o Education as an expense vs as an investment
Results
o Very few people controlling many machines
o Try to find someone not doing something
o Highly competent workforce like world class musicians
learning to play a symphony
+ Just about every Japanese Company that has won the Deming
Prize was looking at Chapter 11 when they started -- As
they recovered, they recognized the power of TQC and kept
going. They didn't stop at solvency!
Supplier Strategies
o When we can no longer compete, we turn our former
competitors into suppliers [e.g. Fujitsu, Ricoh, Hitachi,
etc.]
o The Japanese never allow an external supplier to manufac-
ture a key component
o Suppliers are usually affiliated in some way
o They maximize their value added wherever possible
Remember our television industry?
What percentage of your components and sub-assemblies are
made in Japan?
To become more competitive as managers, we should:
o Invest at least 20% of our time in our own training and
self-development
o Obtain a better understanding of quality management tools
and begin using them with our people
o Change the environment to one where both good and bad news
are valued
o Become more familiar with our operations -- obtain
detailed knowledge beyond budget and schedule data
o Become more familiar with our customers
o Increase our knowledge of the competition [what they are
doing, not just their financial reports]
o Become involved with and participate in SGIA's
o Make improvement our highest priority
o Re-visit our sourcing strategies
It isn't so much the difference between their workers and
ours as it is the differences in management styles which
create the differences we see on the factory floor.
We are in a race that has no finish line!!!
Thank you,
|
| 1035.21 | Here's the answer | TIS::AMANN | | Mon Mar 05 1990 22:08 | 20 |
| VERITA::BAHLIN (Note 1035.14) provided the answer. Digital must scrap
the internal centrist, socialist, bureaucratic approach to funding and
adopt a distributed, efficient capitalist system.
This means that all direct and allocated funding for internal service
organizations would end. Only groups directly involved in designing,
manufacturing or selling products would receive direct funds. All
other groups - personnel, information systems groups, marketing support
groups, standard writing groups, engineering service groups, site
services, etc. - would receive their cost center funds from their
internal customers (the people designing, manufacturing and selling
products.) Thus, these various service groups would need to satisfy
their internal customers in order to exist.
The funding chain - which is often orthogonal to the information and
service flows needed to be successful - would be broken. People
involved in support operations would have one master - their internal
customers, and managers of these groups would be measured totally on
whether or not they have the services to survive.
|
| 1035.22 | A proposal for debate | VERITA::BAHLIN | | Tue Mar 06 1990 09:59 | 101 |
| I have further detailed my thoughts on this subject and submit them
below for debate. I would like to see serious discussion of this
as a way to develop it into a serious long range proposal.
Anyone who wishes to do so has my permission to distribute this as they
see fit.
Turning Digital Upside Down
The complex economy at large is distributed, capitalist and on balance,
highly efficient. It is a closed loop system where the feedback loops
are simply money. Using money in the feedback loop is the elegance of
capitalism. Economies organized around other economic systems are
failing all over the world.
Inside most large organizations though, you inevitably find a centrist,
socialist, open loop model. All money comes in through one 'cash
register' and it is distributed by a bureaucracy in a manner which is
actually orthogonal to the primary information flow which is flowing
among the worker bees. Most worker bees then have two loyalties; one
to the money tree, one to their customer. Bureaucracies need to
establish artificial metrics to grease this bizarre system.
In companies where this model is taken to extremes you will find lots
of 3M projectors and conference rooms (where funding is achieved) and
you'll have to look hard for a work bench (where customers get
satisfied). You won't find any 'cash registers' either.
You WILL find organization charts. I have six on my wall that
represent a 2 1/2 year history of my group. I often wonder if my
group would be 'in business' if our funding came from our customers
instead of our slide shows. I know (because I've asked) that most
people percieve 'their customer' as a Digital customer, even though
most people never deal with such a customer. They deal, in reality, with
internal people that ARE their real customers but aren't perceived
as such because of the cloudiness caused by the effects of 'process'.
My idea is to scrap the whole idea of functional organization. Functional
organizations are really just stove pipes oriented upward to the source
of their organizational funding. No real work ever takes place entirely
in a single function. Real work takes place cross functionally and
for this reason it seems more correct to organize around mission.
Here is the mission I read from corporate strategy:
Build a highly responsive, flexible company that is positioned
to be the best in the industry at satisfying the customer.
WE ARE NOT ORGANIZED TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL
The reason for this dichotomy is related to money or more correctly,
to the way that money shapes modern organizations. Money makes us
centrist. Money flows inside our organizations from a central finance
function down (in parallel paths via budgets) to individual functional
organizations. The not so surprising result of this flow is that a
company's resources are mostly lumped around its center. We are, in
effect, a 12 billion dollar company with one cash register. If this theory
leaves you skeptical, open up our telephone directory to the section
titled Massachusetts, now count facilities.
So while we sloganeer about responsiveness and getting close to the
customer our physical organization is isolationist/centrist and our
logical (financial) organization is socialist. Instead of having our
best and brightest of resources dispersed among our true source of funding,
the customer, they are clustered around an insulated core. Every mission
requires an unnatural bureaucracy to be established in order to bring
together and cross pollenate among the stove pipes.
This, I submit, is the fundamental cause of malais in all large
organizations. Ironically, the very economic model that makes our
external economy sound, is ignored internally.
I propose that we do two things in tandem to break this hypocrisy.
First we distribute our manufacturing and engineering closer to our
customers. Stage II can take place in Districts, stage I in Areas,
stage 0 stays put. Secondly, we give all of these new organizations
their very own cash register. You live or die by it. You keep your
profit (if you can make one) to reinvest for the future fulfillment of
your mission.
No implicit buying relationships should exist. i.e. a district buys
stage I parts from the area that can produce the best price/performance.
Areas buy their parts from their best source. This should set up
healthy competition between all parties. Let the forces of competition
level the field. Let an internal free market economy exist where
your very existance is a function of your value to your customer and
encourage as many cash registers as is practical so that everyone has
a more precise sense of who their real customer is.
Corporate is at the bottom of the money/food chain in this model and the
corporate role becomes that of referee and architect, not bank
vault/controller. The customer 'owns' the organization and the unstable
feedback of 'metrics' gets replaced by the stable feedback of money.
Do we dare to approach this model?
|
| 1035.23 | Decentralize Marketing Management a 1st step? | ODIXIE::CARNELL | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Tue Mar 06 1990 10:36 | 138 |
| REF: <<< Note 1035.22 by VERITA::BAHLIN >>>
-< A proposal for debate >-
>><<Turning Digital Upside Down>>
To survive and grow in a rapidly shrinking globe that is increasingly
competitive, turning Digital upside down may be the best approach for
the future, a concept supported by such gurus as Dr. Deming and Tom
Peters. Making a radical departure from traditional American
management practice and traditional American business school philosophy
would seem to necessitate several phases, in addition to a real desire
and commitment from executive management.
One step might conceivably be decentralizing marketing management to
the lowest levels, revolving around the key persons responsible for
winning and keeping customers, i.e., the account manager (a Digital
person "owning" a given total customer account). This step could
conceivably be implemented tomorrow, say as an example, for the United
States market, a memo from Dave Grainger, as "suggested" in the
following:
We need to drive changes on a proactive basis, matching targeted
customer account wants and needs against virtually every Digital
employee's actions that ultimately impact U.S. customer accounts. To
ensure optimum effectiveness in winning and keeping all targeted U.S.
accounts, we will reverse-engineer all business/marketing plans,
working backwards from EACH targeted account's perspective.
My office will maintain a list of all targeted accounts and the
Digital employee who has final responsibility and authority to
develop, win and maintain that account. Each such employee owning a
given account will be responsible for identifying all individual
decision-makers and influencers within the account, and will be
responsible for identifying all customer wants and criteria with a
clear action plan of Digital actions and changes necessary to win all
the business we want. Each such employee will be responsible
collecting on an ongoing basis account intelligence and for copying
account intelligence to all Digital executives in any part of Digital
where actions are needed in order to ensure winning and keeping the
account.
To augment customer account intelligence gathered by the account team,
effectively immediately, every U.S. field employee who meets with any
customer account contact, be it in-person or on the telephone, will
ask the contact, before the interface ends, the following:
"Before we end this meeting, I and Digital would like you to candidly
share your thoughts on four quick questions so that Digital can not
only ensure your satisfaction, but could in fact derive recommended
changes that might be considered in order to INCREASE how Digital
satisfies your wants.
"What are your likes?
"What are your dislikes?
"What are your wants?
"What are your suggestions for changes?"
The employee will then write this information down, preferably
electronically, and send a copy to the listed Digital employee that
owns the final responsibility for developing, winning and keeping that
account (if there is no identified employee who owns the account, the
intelligence is to be sent to Bob Hughes, U.S. Marketing Manager). If
there is an assigned employee who is managing the account, he or she
will be responsible for integrating all incoming customer account
intelligence that is flowing in regularly regarding his or her
account. The intelligence is to be maintained in a master account
intelligence electronic document. The account owner is also
responsible for forwarding regularly the input upward to all
appropriate Digital executives for consideration and review for
possible action or changes.
From this extensive amount of customer account intelligence being
methodically sought by EVERY U.S. field employee interfacing with
every customer contact, each and every time, it will be the
responsibility of the employee owning the account to write, and
continuously expand on, a detailed ACTION PLAN of action items or
changes necessary by both the account team and by literally all other
appropriate employees in Digital affecting the account per the plan.
The plan would be copied to all account team members and to all other
Digital managers affected by the called for action items or changes.
Thus, in effect, each account owner becomes figuratively a marketing
mananger responsible for driving planned changes into reality,
anywhere within Digital, so that Digital wins and maintains all
desired revenue and profit goals from each targeted account.
As a supplement to this decentralized marketing manager account
responsibility, supported by all field employees interfacing with
customers, it will be the responsibility of U.S. Marketing (Bob Hughes'
group) to consolidate all incoming U.S. customer account intelligence
from all account owners into a master hyperinformation database from
which additional action ideas can be intuitively derived for
consideration by the U.S. Field, U.S. Management Team, or any other
appropriate part of Digital, which upon implementation, will lead to
greater success in building customers, revenue and profit. Thus, all
account owners will copy Bob Hughes' group with ALL ongoing account
action plans and ongoing intelligence coming in to the account owners.
As it pertains to those with the authority, it will be the
responsibility of all those receiving such detailed account
intelligence and plans to see to driving into reality those action
changes necessary that will lead to perfect alignment between Digital
information technology and all actions by all Digital employees to
customer account wants and expectations as outlined by the plans
leading to where our U.S. Digital goals are achieved.
Our U.S. Digital goals, simply stated, are that we want to make more
money with the assets of this company. We will make more money by
winning more customer accounts and more business within those
accounts. We will accomplish this because we will satisfy customer
wants better than any other alternative to such an extent that
customers will willingly buy from us, will willingly pay premium
prices for perceived and received premium added value, and will
willingly remain loyal. This will be accomplished by fine-tuning all
Digital actions via tens of thousands of identified suggested action
changes derived from extensive customer intelligence obtained
methodically and universally from all targeted U.S. accounts.
Thus, by this simple change in "the rules of how Digital works,"
customers (from whence all money originates) "truly own" the first line
Digital organizations (account manager and the account team) to which
they are most in communication with and it is the account manager and
his or her team that drives change upward from the bottom (Digital
turned upside down) with FACTUAL massive amounts of DOCUMENTED feedback
from the marketplace to support all recommended changes, seeking to
perfectly and optimally align Digital information technology and all
employee actions with customer wants and expectations, all in order to
win and keep optimum amounts of accounts, revenue, margin and profit.
This is my idea of "an initial step" worth considering to support your
proposal in turning Digital upside down in order to build a better and
more successful Digital, greater than what is. My permisssion is
granted for any Digital employee to copy this to any other Digital
employee.
|
| 1035.24 | Decentralize "Change Management" Responsibility | ODIXIE::CARNELL | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Tue Mar 06 1990 11:12 | 120 |
|
REF: <<< Note 1035.22 by VERITA::BAHLIN >>>
-< A proposal for debate >-
>><<Turning Digital Upside Down>>
Another step might conceivably be decentralizing "change management" to
the lowest levels, revolving around having all employees, from THE
BOTTOM UP, "being responsible" for creating, driving, and championing
change that will lead to a more effective Digital in winning and
keeping customers, and making money from satisfying their wants. This
step could also conceivably be implemented tomorrow, say as an example,
for the United States market, a memo from Dave Grainger, as "suggested"
in the following, which would use the DELTA program for ensuring
changes are documented and tracked to implementation:
It is no longer enough in today's U.S. market for U.S. field employees
to just do their job well. All Digital's U.S. field employees
(individual contributors and managers alike) must further take real
ownership and leadership for creating and driving qualitative changes
in order to build a more successful U.S. Digital, ensuring our future
prosperity. To ensure that this happens, in the least amount of time,
effective immediately, every U.S. field employee will provide the
following in writing, every 30 days, to his or her manager:
1. What action ideas for change have you directly implemented, which
you have formally submitted to your local DELTA council and have
copied to DELTA in Stow, that will lead either to increasing
productivity, to increasing customer satisfaction, to cutting costs or
to growing Digital accounts and business?
2. What action idea suggestions for change have you created but
cannot personally implement, which you have formally submitted to your
local DELTA council and have copied to DELTA in Stow, that you believe
will lead either to increasing productivity, to increasing customer
satisfaction, to cutting costs or to growing Digital accounts and
business?
3. What action proposals for new programs, projects, products,
services, or NEW businesses have you created and submitted to your
local DELTA council and have copied to DELTA in Stow, which you would
run or participate in, that you believe will lead either to increasing
productivity, to increasing customer satisfaction, to cutting costs or
to growing Digital accounts and business?
4. What new action ideas have you championed and how are you helping
to drive them into reality that you believe will lead either to
increasing productivity, to increasing customer satisfaction, to
cutting costs or to growing Digital accounts and business?
Each manager will review and consolidate this input from his direct
reports. Then that consolidation, along with the manager's personal
answer to the above, will be sent up the line to his or her manager.
And the same again, until I receive consolidations, plus personal
answers from my direct reports.
With this in mind, effective immediately, performance appraisals will
be done every six months for all U.S. field employees, and the above
qualitative creativity will be considered the highest priority in the
appraisal.
To further ensure that all U.S. Field managers are truly leading
employees within their organizations to higher levels of excellence
through creative change, effective in 60 days and every six months
thereafter, all direct reports will write a performance appraisal on
the leadership and support provided by their manager, which will
become a part of that manager's personnel file. These appraisals will
be shared with the group manager and copied to the manager's manager.
In addition, every group of direct reports will discuss as a group,
without the group manager, all performance appraisals made
individually on the group manager, and after discussion, will take a
"referendum of confidence" in the leadership of the group's manager.
Any manager failing to win a positive referendum from a majority of
the group will be required to submit an action plan of changes to the
group plus his or her manager on exactly how he or she will improve on
his or her leadership skills in order to more effectively lead and
support their people to be more successful in growing a more
successful Digital.
To ensure that all of the above is considered critical to building a
more successful Digital via fine tuning U.S. Digital efforts through
extensive qualitative change driven upward from those employees
closest to winning and keeping customers, all future field promotions,
especially within management levels, will necessitate the above
documentation where there is clearly demonstrated leadership in
creating and driving action idea changes that genuinely lead to a more
successful Digital.
The future Digital -- that is already here today -- must have within
all key positions and within all manager positions, ONLY those
individuals who can show proven leadership skills in leading their
people in creative, constructive change. Just managing the status quo
or making today's "numbers" or "looking good" is simply no longer
enough for Digital to survive nor enough for any employee to earn more
responsibility and compensation with our company.
Digital needs leaders who can think, create and make real those action
ideas that will make keep us successful, and in fact, make us more
successful in winning and keeping customers, competing effectively
with today's aggressive competition; and it is ONLY those employees,
who demonstrate this in tangible form, who will be tomorrows best paid
individual contributors and managers within this company.
Thus, by another simple change in "the rules of how Digital works,"
customers (from whence all money originates) "truly own" the secondary
line Digital organizations they are closest to (i.e., all field
employees) where the responsibility for creating and driving change
moves upward from the bottom (Digital turned upside down) with FACTUAL
massive amounts of DOCUMENTED change, via both a formal reporting
system as well as through the DELTA program that was designed to
nurture and track constructive change from THE LOWEST LEVELS!
This is my idea of "another step" worth considering to support your
proposal in turning Digital upside down in order to build a better and
more successful Digital, greater than what is. My permisssion is
granted for any Digital employee to copy this to any other Digital
employee.
|
| 1035.25 | Less (process) is More (work getting done) | SVBEV::VECRUMBA | Do the right thing! | Tue Mar 06 1990 12:35 | 59 |
|
re .21-.24
First, a general comment. Nothing kills a lively discussion faster than
a series of tomes. Please state what needs to be done succinctly --
what we need to focus on is the essence, not the implementation details
of the process (like, "every six months...").
re .21
Internal service organizations are already funded, in large part, by the
organizations they service. These organizations, however, report to a
single point so far up the chain that they behave like completely
independent entities. Instead of making these organizations answerable,
we've instituted metrics and processes designed to tell if [prove] that
the service organization is being responsible.
Yes, chuck the process and make services answerable to their customers.
re .23
We already know what customers want. They want it to be EASY TO DO BUSINESS
WITH DIGITAL. Period. End of Discussion. For example, they shouldn't have
to sign three separate sheets of paper to place a consulting order.
Here is the real crux of the matter: what we are doing to respond is to
define processes which will make things "flow smoother" through the
system. _More_ process. What we _need_ to do is reduce the number of
steps we have to do internally. The question is, "How do we make it
easier for the customer to do business with us." THE ANSWER IS NOT
"LET'S MAKE A FRONT-END PROCESS"! The answer is, "Let's simplify the
way *WE* do things."
re .24
Too much DELTA process for me. Just one suggestion every six months from
each employee is over two suggestions every second of every working day
of the year.
Please, please, the answer to simplifying what we do is to do less, not
to do more in the hopes that someday we will do less!!
---
Turning things upside down is fine, but that sort of thing does not
happen overnight. At any rate, all you're really proposing is that
management actually listen to what employees have to say. Well, my two
cents, from spending two years as a manager is:
- Simplify the "process" and management will have the time to listen
to its employees and improve Digital -- instead of just dealing with
the process.
- Simplify the "process" and individuals will have the time to work on
building relationships with customers and fellow employees -- instead
of just dealing with the process.
/Peters
|
| 1035.26 | We sell computer solutions - why not try a computer solution? | OLDTMR::DMCLURE | Positively think! | Tue Mar 06 1990 13:06 | 45 |
| re: .23 & .22,
I agree that an internal free market system is desperately needed
for [our] corporation to thrive in a world free market system. One
way to implement such a revolutionary funding mechanism would be to
implement the Info-Market idea (note #1024).
One of the main goals of the information market idea would be to
provide a means of "reverse engineering" a sale backwards from the job
of attaining and maintaining a high level of Customer Satisfaction back
to the sources of that level of customer satisfaction. The method of
engineering such a customer-driven internal corporate structure involves
the exchange of on-line money (or info-dollars) in exchange for information
(in the form of [on-line] assistance, as well as goods and services) which
lead to the acheivement and maintenance of that high level of customer
satisfaction.
The network notesfiles could be retrofitted with a few new noting
commands to allow information goods and services to be purchased and sold
by internal DEC employees to each other in a real-time noting environment.
Future applications could later be added to enhance such an info-market
system (as well as eventually providing a means of selling information
directly to customers in a similar time-tested version of such an on-line
info-market environment).
Because the info-market would be an on-line system, it would provide
a highly automated and equitable means of implementing an intra-corporate
free market system to control the flow of information goods and services
(as opposed to the existing socialistic or worse yet even non-existent
information market system).
Should such an info-market system prove successful on an internal
level in acheiving higher levels of customer satisfaction as well as
providing a more flexible means of responding to the external market,
then the software system could be offered for sale to customers as well.
Such a revolutionary software system would, in itself, provide customers
with yet another reason for purchasing Digital Equipment (since they might
also want to use such an info-market software system to implement a free
market system within their own corporations, as well as externally with
other corporations). The end result might even be a fully connected
world information market (courtesy of Digital Equipment Corporation).
-davo
p.s. See note #1024 for more information...
|
| 1035.27 | Agreement on simplicity | VERITA::BAHLIN | | Tue Mar 06 1990 14:12 | 22 |
| re: .25 by SVBEV::VECRUMBA
I think we are in agreement more than you think. You advocate
simplification of process and I submit that my proposal is the ultimate
in simplicity. There is no intergroup 'process' except for money. Real
money! You either serve your internal customer or you don't get paid.
Of course the rub here is that there can't be a safety net for you if
you fail to produce. The penalty has to be real (as in: you're out of
business). I don't know how to moderate this. What I'd like to see
in this case (failure) is that the participants are forced into a
learning mode where they can learn from the successes of others.
This does not happen today.
I don't agree that we are funded internally by our internal customers.
There is input of course and there is indirect contribution but if
you look at most groups their funding arrives by a very circuitous
route. It is quite possible to get funded for work ABC then perform
work DEF with no penalty provided it was 'the right thing to do'. Very
often the 'right thing to do' gets biased towards whatever the
political winds carry and away from the customer.
|
| 1035.28 | More detail on USDD | VERITA::BAHLIN | | Tue Mar 06 1990 15:46 | 56 |
| Here is a cut at what the USDD (upside down Digital) would look like:
* Headquarters functions:
builds all component level product with unique DEC value added
designs architectures and standards
sells components for a profit to areas/districts
licenses architectures for a profit
designs kernel level software i.e. VMS, Ultrix, DECNET, etc.
sells kernel level software to areas/districts
market promotions
sells component training to areas/districts
* Area functions
builds and designs modules
sells modules to districts
sells module repair service
designs device level software
sells device level software to districts
sells module training to district
* District functions
builds and designs systems
sells systems to branches
sells system repair service to branches
designs sytem level software
sells system level software to branches
sells system training to branches
* Branch functions
market research
perform order consolidation and staging
builds and designs enterprise solutions
sells enterprise solutions to customers
sells enterprise repair services to customers
designs application software
sells application software to customers
sells enterprise training to customer
I see this organization as concentric circles with corporate at center
and the customer at the perimeter. Each level has a clear mission to
serve the next layer out. Each layer has a cash register.
The following things change dramatically....
* Field service as a functional entity goes away to be replaced with the
concept of layered repair described above
* Repair depots go away
* marketing as we know it goes away
|
| 1035.29 | | JUMBLY::DAY | No Good Deed Goes Unpunished | Wed Mar 07 1990 05:18 | 21 |
| Re .10 . Might be better to think of Corporate at the perimeter and
the Customer at the centre (sorry center).
Disagree on Marketing. I've dealt with/tolerated/suffered from both
Marketing and Sales types many times over the years.
Not, in general, my favourite people - I won't go into details ..
But unless Marketing is a fully-funded and high level/profile activity
we are all out of a job - and very quickly. It cannot be carried out
on a branch basis.
The Account Manager approach is the right one. A customer wants one
contact for everything. The implication is that authority (and power)
must be held by that Account Manager. Not "pretend" power - real
power to cause/force action as needed within Digital.
I have a vague suspicion that it might cause the odd problem with
local empires - and that the approach might therefore be a non-runner
due to internal politics.
Mike Day
|