Conference 7.286::digital

    What country is this?  'Chap', 'favourite', a 'dear sum', 'lorry';
    hmmm, must be the U.K.
    
    In the U.S. T's & C's are not "put into contracts" by sales reps.  Most 
    deviations from standard (or DBA) T & C's need country level approval.
    
    I don't see why you should be dinged.  You should be judged by the same 
    productivity/yield standards that apply to your peers.  Anything else
    would be arbitrary.  As long as your absences compare favorably
    (favourably?) to theirs you should have nothing to worry about.
    Remember, it's not you who struck this deal.
    
    Al
    

   Any contractual agreement between DEC and a customer that varies from the
   normal terms and conditions needs to be signed off by a legal department.
   We have been in major trouble from sales reps that take the "law" into
   their own hands, before. 
   
   Using "blackmail" to force better support services, is not the "right
   thing". Sounds like this sales rep should be given his marching orders
   asap.
   
   q
   

On the other hand, why should the customer pay for service we don't deliver?

It has been almost fifteen years since my stint as a resident, so my
memory is vague, but I'm pretty sure the standard resident Ts&Cs provide
compensation to the customer in the event the resident is unavailable.

You mention "work to do at local DEC office".  What is this?  One thing
I remember very distinctly about the resident contract was that any and
all other work assignments were expressly forbidden.

/john

	.. and your memory is indeed poor!

	In the US, under our standard terms and service descriptions, the cus-
tomer doesn't get ANY money back, because they only pay AFTER a service is de-
livered and documented (CLAR).  This is true for the Consulting Services offer-
ings, also known in past times as Advisory Services.  One well known customer
tactic is to refuse to sign CLARS, or pay bills, for service perceived to be of
no value, but that's not what I read in .0.  This is standard time and material
billing.

	If a specialist is not available for some reason, then the customer
doesn't pay, period.  The customer sat issue is another thing.  That can affect
forecasted business, not what we've already collected.

	It sounds like we are dealing with some business unique to Europe, be-
cause I don't know of ANY SWDM in the US who would approve that kind of bus-
iness, and in the US, the SWDM must approve it to get it booked!

	Frankly, I don't see any reason for the author to remain sub-rosa. It
sounds like he's too valuable to screw around with!! :>)

	BTW, the "ancient" PDP-11 system wouldn't be IAS, would it?  MUMPS?

Jack, I wasn't talking about T&M, I was talking about resident contracts,
which were definitely billed on a monthly basis.

/john

	...I had forgotten the old policy of billing 160 hours per month regard-
less, and letting the work effort stretch to fill out the money.  That is not
how it's done anymore, at least in the Southeast District to my knowledge.  In
fact, I dare say one of our past DSWM's left their position when the auditors
uncovered "advanced billings" that were masking over poor business practices(no,
not who you think! :>)).  The watchword now is "bill only what you work AFTER
you work it"!   Even when the customer ASKS to be billed in advance, the revenue
must be "suspensed" ie, not on the income statement, until it is worked.

	"Residents" are just a form of time and materials that gives a discount
for buying bulk hours, and spells out a few more terms and conditions about
work hours, cancellation, etc.  They now fill out CLARS, get them signed, etc.

	You would just love it out here, John, give it another try!!  :>)  :>) 

re:  <<< Note 1126.4 by SEDGPX::COLE "A CPU cycle is a terrible thing to waste" >>>

>	BTW, the "ancient" PDP-11 system wouldn't be IAS, would it?  MUMPS?

   I, too, was curious about this. Although IAS and MUMPS are both still
supported (i.e. there are engineering groups which answers SPRs, CSC queries,
CLD's, etc. for each of these as well as the RSX family, RT-11, and RSTS).
The only ancient PDP-11 operating systems no longer supported that I can
think of are DOS-11 and RSX-11D. Well, there's P/OS , too, but that doesn't
yet qualify as ancient . . . 


-Jack

    I happen to feel that the base note author has some valid concerns.
    
    As a resident, I've seen the "guilt factor" used by management to
    keep specialists onsite pulling in revenue when they should have
    in training, on vacation, home sick, etc.  The formal review never
    showed it, but you were made to understand what would happen if you
    stood your ground and took vacations, training, etc. when there was
    a revenue crunch and management had a "metric problem".
    
    The same type of thing could happen in the base note scenario.  The
    best way to work this is to build solid plan with your manager.  In
    it, try to document expected time away from the customer, and what
    the manager is responsible for doing to cope with it.  Don't let
    yourself get railroaded, but on the other hand, work with your
    manager as much as possible to prepare for the situation.  Then
    after it's all over, and you are going through your performance
    review, you have evidence to back you up.  If your manager starts
    to downcheck you for not delivering at all costs, ask him what his
    review is going to look like for not fulfilling his responsibilities
    as documented ...
    
    Geoff
    

    Just a couple of quick notes.

    I am currently working a six-month residency.  Six months now
    means delivering a total of 900 hours ( used to mean 960 hours,
    but that's another story... ). In return for buying 900 hours of
    consulting in one chunk, the customer gets a 10% discount.  If
    they buy 1800 hours at a time, they get 15% off.  My current
    contract is billed in six monthly installments.  In light of a
    couple of replies ago, I'm not sure how the revenue is claimed.
    I have done some per-call work, but only because my customer
    wants to stretch the 900 hours out as long as he can.

    Re: .-1

    It really can be that bad... I remember not very long ago where
    direct billable hours worked counted for ~40% of my P.A.  To get
    a 3, our direct time percentage had to be 85-90% a 2 was 90-95%
    and a 1 was >95%.  You may think "That's not unreasonable being
    at work only 85% of the time."  That is, until you look more
    closely at it:
        There are roughly 250 business day in the year
        - 10 holidays
        - 10 vacation days
        - 10 training days ( that's right only two weeks/year )
        - 5 *mandatory* unit/district meetings
    Without subtracting any further, we're left with 86% ( a 3 ).
    This doesn't include administrative tasks, etc. God help us if
    we're ill ( at all ) or have a home/family emergency.

    Basically what we had was a system of institutionalized overtime.
    Thankfully, it has gotten better.  We no longer have direct time
    on our goalsheets at all.  The only problem now is training is
    still too expensive ( cost of course + travel + lost revenue )

    The training issue bothers me a bit, however because Digital
    charges ~$130.00 ( + any differentials for after-hours work )
    for me to be at the customer site.  I feel guilty about charging
    that much when I'm being asked to support a product with which
    I'm somewhat unfamiliar.

    d

    re .9

    Once the customer signs your CLAR (Customer Level Activity Report), which
    has your hours for the week on it, that is now revenue that your unit
    can claim (by putting your hours through SBS -- Software Business System).

    Billing is seperate and distinct from your unit claiming revenue. However,
    if a customer refuses to pay a bill, and Digital decides not to seek
    payment, then the PSS unit gets charged with the loss at the time it's
    decided not to bill.

    Billing 40 hours a week is unreasonable, like you say, enforced
    overtime. Now, I think most of us put in more than 40 hours a week, but
    there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between O.T. because you WANT to, and O.T.
    because you HAVE to.

>   It really can be that bad... I remember not very long ago where
>   direct billable hours worked counted for ~40% of my P.A.  To get
>   a 3, our direct time percentage had to be 85-90% a 2 was 90-95%
>   and a 1 was >95%....

    I can't believe that the percentage would be calculated based on total
    business days before taking out vacation, holidays, say 2 or 3 weeks of
    training, etc. Also, that may be how you were measured, but when I was
    a PSS UM (roughly FY87-FY88), such a calculation was never anywhere on
    any PA I did, and I had a dozen+ people. As the _MANAGER_, it was _MY_
    job to keep my people occupied and ensure they had time to do the
    ancillary things their job required on company time. If they did 40
    hours and mailed in the CLAR, that was gravy.

    I'll get on my soapbox for a second and just say that this sounds like
    another case of managers not accepting responsibility, just passing on
    what they are supposed to be managing right on to their people.

    I'll even bet that manager was rated superior because they instilled "a
    recognition of business factors" in their reports. Yuchh.

    As for not knowing products, other consulting firms are really not
    a whole lot better. Besides, the customer isn't buying time, they're
    buying having _all of_ Digital on the hook if something doesn't work.
    That is the essence of the customer-vendor services relationship.


    /Peters

    re: .10
    
    You seem to subscribe to the Jesus Christ school of management science:
    managers should die to absolve the sins of their reports.  Rubbish.
    
    No amount of "managing" will allow people to achieve a group goal
    unless they also own their fair share of it.  If the group goal means
    working 40 hours a week or 20 or 60, so be it.  At least people will
    understand clearly the criteria for sucess. We can argue until the cows 
    come home about which goals are appropriate; however, once it gets down
    to the UM level that discussion is closed.  Any manager who sets his
    group up for failure by not ensuring that the sum of each individual 
    success equals the group goal is simply not managing.  And the
    individual contributors end up suffering through low participation in
    recognition events, salaries, promotions, etc.
    
    People need to understand precisely how to achieve a desired level of
    success on their PA before the year starts.  Anything else leads to the
    feeling that performance eveluations are arbitrary and that 1 and 2
    performers are simply the winners of "beauty contests".  If they don't
    like how they are measured, they at least have the option of leaving if
    they cannot abide it, though I would think that it would provide a
    rather useful mechanism for working the open door policy. Telling a VP
    that "my manager expects everyone to work 90 hours a week to get a 3"
    is far more effective than "we're expected to work too much".
    
    And please don't take any of this as my support for all metrics as
    they are currently implemented in Digital.  There is a lot of idiotic
    behavior we foster through inappropriate measurements.  What I cannot
    condone, however, is that idea that managers can somehow achieve
    success without doling out responsibility to their reports.  The idea
    that a revenue shortfall (or whatever) can be made up by management
    hand waving is ludicrous.
    
    Al
    

    re .11

>   No amount of "managing" will allow people to achieve a group goal
>   unless they also own their fair share of it....

    O.K., I left myself open. What I didn't say was that if someone is doing
    PSS full time on residency, for example, I would expect them to put in
    35 hours of billable time (out of 40 DEC hours). We know the criteria
    for success: revenue gates, profit gates, expense gates. My point was
    that to arbitrarily derive someone's performance rating when it is the
    _manager's_ job to keep that person occupied with consulting assignments
    is unfair to the individual and shifts the burden of managing the
    business from the manager to the individual. I don't believe in managing
    by the "screw my metric, I screw you" method.

>   People need to understand precisely how to achieve a desired level of
>   success on their PA before the year starts.  Anything else leads to the
>   feeling that performance eveluations are arbitrary and that 1 and 2
>   performers are simply the winners of "beauty contests"....

    You're saying that meeting certain metrics should guarantee a certain
    rating on your appraisal? That's how we've gotten in this "meeting
    metrics to succeed" mess in the first place. I expected people to be
    professional in their conduct at work and with their customer and to get
    their jobs done. And I let them know what was going on, where we stood,
    and what targets we needed to pull together to meet. Giving people
    formulas to tell them precisely how they are measured is cookbook
    managing -- not managing at all.

    I never had any problems with the reviews I gave my people because

      (a) I had their input and feedback.
      (b) I thoroughly reviewed their accomplishments and performance.
      (c) We (I and the individual) both agreed with the final review.
          (This "I don't agree and I'm not signing my review and I'm
          writing a rebuttal" business means just one thing: the manager did
          not do their job. Period.)

    I never missed a 12 month review cycle, except once because of schedule
    conflicts (the individual's decision). And I did it without a _single_
    metric. You can make all the measurements you want, but it's the _whole_
    person who's being evaluated, not numbers.

    Numbers are for business, not people. I sincerely and fervently believe
    that the "preciseness" and "objectivity" you gain in adding formulas to
    an individuals review DAMAGES BEYOND ALL REPAIR any attempt to instill a
    sense of real purpose. You were concerened about popularity contests.
    Well, numbers contests are equally, if not more, destructive.


    /Peters

    Re: .-1

    I agree wholeheartedly with what you said.  I have had managers
    doing my P.A. who have *never* seen me actually at work.  These
    individuals didn't have the faintest glimmer of an idea of the
    relative quality of my work, my rapport with the customer, etc.
    -- all the things that in the end spell Customer Satisfaction,
    which is in reality what we're all in this for.  The only time
    we ever really spoke was when a) my manager needed something, or
    b) things were going badly and we needed some help peeling our
    customer off the ceiling.  All they knew about me and the other
    members of my unit is what *we* told them.  Customer input is
    very rarely solicited.  I suppose we could stretch the truth a
    little in our monthly reports, although we're all probably not
    willing to do that.

    Re: a couple back

    The manager who instituted the 85% direct time for a 3 on our P.A.
    received an excellence award -- in part for being very profitable
    that year.  When we asked what our real incentive was to work
    overtime ( in addition to getting higher P.A. scores ), we were told
    that we were a team and we were helping our manager be successful. 
    It seems very funny in retrospect that our manager never really did
    anything whatsoever to help us be successful -- very little training,
    virtually no recognition ( not even a pat on the back ), pretty
    meaningless ( it turns out ) advice on how to succeed.

    Things are changing, it appears.  We just got a new manager who is
    really trying hard to understand why ~60% of his unit is actively
    trying to find greener pastures and is trying to figure out what
    he can do to stem the tide.

    re: .12
    
    Naturally, you cannot hold someone to an effort level that the manager
    is unable to sustain with work.  On the other hand, my experience with
    PSS (or whatever they call themselves these days) taught me that the
    good people never seem to be "unemployed" for very long.  Of course,
    that's not a hard and fast rule, but for the most part a tendency
    towards non-renewal is a sign of trouble.
    
    You also should not equate 'objective' with 'numbers'.  Numbers are
    certainly objective and have their place.  If you expect people to make
    a quantifiable contribution, they must be told. They must own it in
    such a way as to pay the price if they fail and be rewarded if they
    succeed.  Numbers alone will not ensure success (you are right: that is
    not management); neither can they be entirely excluded.  It is certainly
    possible (and desireable) to set up objective goals that are not 
    number-based.
    
    Many segments of this corporation have rewarded processes and not
    results.  That must change.  We cannot let people perform jobs without
    assuming appropriate responsibility for the subsequent outcome. 
    Results are what count, not effort.  That's probably not a very popular 
    thing to say but I believe it to be true.
    
    Al
    

  
    re .14

    I totally agree about us rewarding processes, not results, and not
    holding people responsible for results. In fact, we never solve problems,
    we just build more processes.

    Further, when something succeeds around here, everyone jumps on the
    success bandwagon to get their piece of glory -- while the real heroes
    get largely ignored. When something fails around here, there's only the
    sound of crickets for miles around to be heard.

    I understand your point about there needing to be some quantifieable
    goals. However, sales _has_ those quantified goals, should be held to those
    quantified goals, and makes about 20% more salary as their sales support
    (software) counterparts precisely _because_ they are held to those numbers.

    There are, of course, quantifiable results, e.g., $$ of sales,
    $$/duration of PSS extensions, etc. These are all positives in someone's
    review, and can of course be stated as "goals." However, if we are
    trying to undo the numbers mania that has taken over in the last 6-8
    years, then we at least need to undo it at the level at which we
    interface with customers. Going for big opportunities and ignoring small
    ones makes quantifiable sense, but its often a customer's good experience
    with the small opportunities that builds our credibility and opens the
    door directly, or through reputation, for bigger things.

    I simply don't believe in SW managers pushing their numeric goals down
    to their individuals. I believe in accountability, yes, but not _shifting_
    accountability from the person whose job _is_ to be accountable to someone
    beneath them whose job does _not_ include being accountable the same way.

    This "teach our specialists business goals" is just one more way to lay
    the groundwork for finger-pointing and failure. Like I quoted Bear
    Bryant (in 1108 I think) in how he motivated his players:

    	If anything goes bad, I did it.

    	If anything does semi-good, then we did it.

    	If anything goes real good, then you did it.

    I see too little of that and too many "process engineers."

    /Peters

    In the PSS units I have worked in, having a utilization level you
    described for acheiving a "1" for an extended period of time would
    indicate a problem.  Anyway, with the PSS budgets I've seen come down
    the line the past couple of years, there is no way you could come close
    to making budget even with 100% utilization.  The only way to survive
    is to utilize non-tradition ways of generating high margin business. 
    Long term consulting is still the backbone of PSS.  It is one of the best
    selling and customer satisfaction tools we have.  However, each PSS
    manager and his unit must now work to develop new types of business to meet our ever
    increasing budgets. 
    
    I will never agree with utilization being the primary metic of a
    delivery person.  To many factors can cause low utilization numbers.  A
    person should not be judged just by how long they work, but by their
    level of productivity and the value of their contribution.
    
    Rob