Conference 7.286::digital

I feel  saddened  by  the  base  note  and  its implied statements about the
judgements of those previously responsible for ordering internal equipment.

Absolutely  true that we need to cut useage wherever possible. But an across
the board freeze will leave many groups who need equipment struggling. We need
to  focus  on  making the people as productive as possible. One part of that
is giving them the tools they need. This  decision makes doing that either
very difficult or impossible for some period of time. 

It is  true  that we can do some amount of juggling what we already have.
There may be serious hidden costs involved in managing this.

Perhaps the  most serious concern I have is the implication that people have
not  been  managing  responsibly, and that we all abuse the internal acquisition
process. Sure it happens, but hope it isn't the norm.

Some of the possible consequences:

1. This will  have serious consequences on those of us who have near term plans
   to work on multiple operating systems, as urged by various senior managers. 

2. If history is any indicator, when the freeze is lifted there will be a 
   buying frenzy ("get what you can in case it happens again"). Wrong thing
   to do from a big-picture point of view, but it happens.

3. People will make do with what they have, and will use that as an excuse
   for why they can't work better, or move to new operating systems...people
   will feel their hands are tied.

4. Folks  in some of the groups singled out (IS, Purchasing, etc.) will have
   another reason to feel like second-class citizens.

5. Word gets out, and other companies follow our lead ("hey, if DEC can't
   but equipment at their low internal rate, how can we?").

   This is a serious concern. We should strive very hard to be a leading
   example of how to use computers, pushing the edge wherever we can. That's
   going to be very hard to do.

I'm worried.

    
    
    	Re .1
    
    	The memo said that engineering would not be affected which would 
    	lead me to believe that engineering work on software pertaining
    	to different operating systems would not be affected.
    
    	I agree I.S. will feel like a second class but so what else 
    	is new ? They're considered overhead, necessary but still overhead.
    
    	I am glad that someone is finally putting their foot down and
    	saying this is the way it's going be let's get to work instead
    	of let's take it to commitee and discuss it for N months.
    
    						Mike
    						----
    	

    Sounds like a good move to me.....but maybe doesn't go far enough.
    Correct me if I am wrong (never fear), but I still think that in
    engineering, etc., there is still a strong orientation towards having
    the latest toy.  And BTW, does everything have to be duplicated at
    home as well?
    
    Wouldn't it be possible to time-share a lot of this equipment by 
    putting engineering and others on shifts?

    I don't think this goes anywhere near far enough. I think IEG should
    charge full MLP for internal equipment. That would make cost center
    budgets more realistic. For cost centers you just fix the problem by
    upping the budget and then reviewing it in that light. That will make
    cost centers make REALISTIC decisions between equipment and people.
    
    For revenue centers it is ridiculous to be able to buy cheap equipment
    because it simply allows another revenue center (manufacturing) to not
    have accurate ROI figures.
    
    Dave

>Wouldn't it be possible to time-share a lot of this equipment by 
>putting engineering and others on shifts?

	I presume there will be a generous shift allowance?

	A workstation might be cheaper!

	You'd also have to hire a whole lot of replacement engineers...

DG

    The base note contained evidence of the following Digital Diseases:
    
    1) Nobody but the man-at-the-top has any brains.  
    	- those organizations which are no longer permitted 'stuff'
          are implied to be buying frivolously
    2) You are in charge of, but...
        - here's your allowance, Timmy, and here are the things you
          can/will spend it on so you learn responsibility
    3) Everyone beneath me is a cheat
        - rule #4, manufacturing is to ensure compliance
    4) I *MANAGE* computer people, I don't have to know anything about
       computers.
        - where's the consistency between the "Your I.S. department
          should have the <insert current product of choice> to give
          your 'enterprise' the 'competitive edge'..." and the concept
          that for our multinational company thses things are a waste of
          money
    
    Like the comments in the DVN broadcast topic, more evidence this
    corporate pyramid is weathering badly at the top.
              
    Don
    

	Well, I agree that the shift comment is not a good way to go, but I
applaud the intent of making groups look at their compute "needs" more
realisticly.  And frankly, I wouldn't exempt Engineering.  (And I'm in that,
so this isn't a "don't go after me, go after them" kind of statement.)  On
average, we have a phenominal amount of computing capacity at our fingertips
and I'd bet that having 50% less for the average engineer wouldn't amount to
a hill of beans of difference when it comes to productivity.  Please note I
did say "on average", I'm sure there actually are groups out there that keep
their system saturated 100% of the time and thus increasing some capability
results in a real productivity boost.  On the other hand, I bet a large
majority of the groups use less than 1/4 of their capacity even during the
normal work day.

								-craig

    There are a significant number of people in DEC with resources at their
    fingertips that either they do not know how to use, or do not want to
    use. In both cases the money for these resources was not well spent,
    and indicate the need to couple training with providing resources. Most
    of the engineers in DEC could use 100 mips effectively, if they knew
    how to use all the fancy stuff DEC sells. The administrative staff
    could probably use twice that.  But the sales force is not the only
    group that does not have time or access to the proper educational
    materail to learn how to use DEC's products.  The problem is not the
    $1B spent on resources, but the lack of spending the other $25M to reap
    the productivity benefits that would occur if the resource potential
    were used.
    
    mike

I would hope that terminals (VT3xx/VT4xx/VT1xxx) would be exempted from this.
Many IS groups that i've seen still have their computer rooms full of VT100s
with half the keys non-functional.  What do they do when these clunkers die
for good?

One thing that should NOT be exempted is printers!  This company has too many
"personal printers" (especially hanging off of terminal servers) that are a
pain in the ass to support and that (in many cases) sit unused 95% of the time.

Maybe there should also be a dictate of "no PCs or workstations for managers
and their secretaries under any circumstances"!  And i don't want to hear any
complaints about "how will I do my presentations?"  If certain segments of this
company spent less time on presentations they might get more real work done.
							:^)  paul

    What freeze......
    
    
    We in the field have been working under these conditions for years. We
    still have people working on VT100s, a few years ago it was VT52s. But
    the people in the administration areas get to order new PCs with color
    monitors and color printers, and so on, etc. To get workstations for
    us we have to get scrap parts, broken machines, equipment that has been
    junked and try to make them work.   Or we have to find equipment that
    has ZERO dollars on it because of budget concerns (handme downs).
    
    We in the field have to support what we sell, and it makes it tough when
    your only exposure to a product is on the customer site. SO by putting
    some scrap equipment together our group has some workstations that we 
    can run ultrix, vms etc. on. But this is only for a few individuals.
    
    How about using what we better. Send the excess to the field areas, 
    instead of sending it to scrap. If someone upgrades to a newer, faster
    box, how about sending the older, slower box to the field, where it 
    can be used. I know ogf groups that got rid of their VR260 monitors
    because of the wavy lines and bow problems. They went to scrap. 
    
    The DIAL system helps but there is still lots of wasted dollars that
    goto scrap.
    
    Any other ideas....
    

    Well since note 1178 can't be replied to I feel the need to start a new
    note which should serve as the continuation of the discussion over the
    "IEG freeze".
    
>Absolutely  true that we need to cut useage wherever possible. But an across
>the board freeze will leave many groups who need equipment struggling. We need
>to  focus  on  making the people as productive as possible. One part of that
>is giving them the tools they need. This  decision makes doing that either
>very difficult or impossible for some period of time. 

>Perhaps the  most serious concern I have is the implication that people have
>not  been  managing  responsibly, and that we all abuse the internal acquisition
>process. Sure it happens, but hope it isn't the norm.


>This is a serious concern. We should strive very hard to be a leading
>example of how to use computers, pushing the edge wherever we can. That's
>going to be very hard to do.
    
    Re:1178.1
    
    I can speak from experience, I used to be one of the chief lobbyists
    for capital equipment in the internal group that I was in.  Oh yeh, I
    practically may C.A.R. writing a science.  I made all the eloquent
    arguments about productivity gains and using leading edge technology,
    etc., etc.  
    
    One thing that I discovered was that yes you can be twice as productive
    with a workstation.  However this has implications for headcount.  As
    long as people can produce more in the same amount of time, than there
    should be an equal decrease in the group's headcount.  You want these
    toys, and they can enable you to do the job of two people?  Fine, than
    along with your C.A.R. let's see a plan for headcount reduction.
    
    Productivity related to headcount is no secret in this company.  It's
    just that management doesn't want it discussed because it's a
    "sensitive" issue.  
    
    I even did a productivity study that I used for a course in grad school
    and there were charts and stats on how many fewer heads different
    departments in my former organization would have to carry.  I couldn't
    have presented this to management as it would have brought that
    verboten subject up again.
    
    The message is simple, if you want capital equipment than tie it to
    headcount planning.   I've always moaned the fact that Digital was
    Digital's best customer.  A workstation should have only one
    destination now, and that is to a customer or an organization that has
    direct affect upon revenue, rather than a secretary who would use it to
    prepare her boss's presentations.
    
    --David 

    

    RE: .-1
    
    I think that your argument is only valid when an organization has a
    fixed workload and the breadth of the work the organization is required
    to do remain constant.  There are a number of exceptions:
    
    1. In my organization, we are being told to do more with less.  The
    size and complexity and number of products that we are working with is
    growing, but we are not getting more headcount and, at times, we haave
    lost  headcount through attrition and no replacement reqs.
    
    2. In order to do our job, we need a variety of hardware to either
    duplicate problems or test products.  We have a great deal more
    hardware than a small company with our headcount outside DEC would
    have.
    
    3. The argument also breaks down in a growing business.
    
    I don't think that you can just look at productivity per head and
    ignore growth in business.

    I moved replies .14 and .15 from a separate note.  I had forgotten to
    reenable replies when I unhid the note.  My apologies for the
    inconvenience.
    
    				Steve
    

	We often complain about time-wasting committees, and yearn for
	some outright decision-making. That's what Jack Smith's memo
	looks like. Well, one thing that might have been useful would
	have been a bit of information gathering as to how equipment is
	actually used before making such a far-reaching decision.

	Some facts jump right out at me:

	1. We do use an awful lot of equipment.

	2. As someone who frequently meets with customers, and helps to
	   try to sell them our equipment, I strongly regret that more
	   of our people don't know more about our equipment. That does
	   not support the diagnosis that the field needs less of it.

	3. I believe that close examination of the ALL-IN-1 sales
	   documentation (Sales Updates, etc.) will reveal explicit
	   warnings from Product Management that ALL-IN-1 requires
	   some 4-5 times (or more) as much hardware per user than
	   vanilla VMS running on the same configuration.

	   Yet some years ago senior management decided that everyone
	   in the corporation would use ALL-IN-1 for most of their
	   computing needs. This was an unfortunate decision, because
	   not everyone is selling ALL-IN-1. Moreover, ALL-IN-1 is an
	   expensive luxury which governments and big banks can afford,
	   but which smaller enterprises can only put into their corporate
	   headquarters.

	   Digital runs ALL-IN-1 in practically every office. I would like
	   to see how much of the total IEG spend goes to IS, DIS etc. and
	   other organisations which support the "non-technical user".

	   Also, please note that IS does not itself need computers. Its
	   "users" do. Refusing an "IS" request for some workstations may
	   in practice mean that one or more field offices do not have
	   access to the latest technology (which they may be trying to
	   sell against SparcStations, RS/6000s etc.)

	4. Jack's memo states that  "Only the Engineering, Sales, and
	   Customer Service organizations can purchase IEG for the balance
	   of FY91". I see no mention of EIS (including SWS or SWAS). Yet
	   EIS are the only people in the field who understand our software
	   (and our hardware above an elementary level).

	5. I agree with most of the observations in .1 (Horgan) and .7
	   (Don Thompson). In particular, if Jack's reservations about
	   investment in computing equipment without conclusive proof of
	   ROI leak out to our customers, we could be in big trouble.
	   Because the fact is, absence of clear productivity benefits
	   is the rule rather than the exception.

	6. Craig Yankes (.8) says:

>>>	On average, we have a phenominal amount of computing capacity at
>>>	our fingertips and I'd bet that having 50% less for the average
>>>	engineer wouldn't amount to a hill of beans of difference when
>>>	it comes to productivity.  Please note I did say "on average",
>>>	I'm sure there actually are groups out there that keep their system
>>>	saturated 100% of the time and thus increasing some capability
>>>	results in a real productivity boost.  On the other hand, I bet a large
>>>	majority of the groups use less than 1/4 of their capacity even
>>>	during the normal work day.

	For over two years I have been telling customers that the old
	scenario where the accountants say "No, you are only using 75%
	of your existing computer, you can't have another" is obsolete.
	Today, I have been saying, the argument runs "Our valuable
	staff are only 75% productive because they waste time waiting for
	jobs to finish. We can't afford that so we must equip them with
	sufficient flexible desktop computing power that they are fully
	productive".

	A typical workstation might be only 15% utilized and yet
	thoroughly justify itself. Compute servers should be fairly
	heavily utilized, and here we see the crux of the problem:
	most senior managers are still living in the era when all computers
	were compute servers. That was some years ago.

	7. Some people expressed criticism of the "desire to have the latest
	   toy", and were sceptical of whether anyone needs that much power.
	   Well, first of all, if you just stop and reflect for about 15
	   seconds, you can see that if nobody needs them, we're a bunch
	   of mugs trying to sell them, aren't we?

	   Secondly, and more to the point, have you tried running DECplan
	   or DECdesign or CDD/Repository or any of the products layered
	   on Rdb lately? How about Trellis or expert systems tools? How
	   about imaging software?

	   Just to get good quick performance out of DECwindows, even a 3xxx
	   series VAXstation is barely adequate at times. We need more and
	   more disk space to store today's large products, not to mention
	   mail, Notes, articles, white papers, and documentation.

	   As for home equipment, well, most people don't have it. Those
	   who do, mostly have a dumb terminal. Those who have a real
	   computer or workstation, use it. Of course, we could withdraw
	   that equipment, and then they would spend their time at home
	   doing other things. This corporation floats on so much unpaid
	   overtime that if it was ever withdrawn it wouldn't know what]
	   hit it.

	8. There is a difference between internal presentations and
	   customer presentations. The former arise because we spend too
	   much time arguing the toss and being indecisive. Possibly, also
	   because too many of our people are too ignorant. The latter are
	   absolutely indispensable to doing business, and they have to be
	   accurate, up to date, and effectively put together.

	With this, as with a lot of other measures recently (e.g. rightsizing)
	I feel rather like Odysseus and his friends in the cave with the
	blind giant. That big club can, and does, strike anywhere. And
	not with any particular rhyme or reason.

	/Tom

I find this whole string totally depressing.

Software development groups out in the field have had inadequate equipment
for at least the 3 1/2 years I've been working here.   Everyone's whining
about excess headcount, etc., but I can hardly count the huge number of
employee hours wasted around here because we have inadequate computing power
for our needs.  If a customer tried to run the configuration we have here
doing the work that we do we'd tell them that they were crazy and we couldn't
possibly support such a configuration.  And then, to add insult to injury,
we ship our product to our customer and find out that it performs poorly.
It seems that on the customer's machines, our software is disk-bound.  We 
never noticed that here because our CPUs were too saturated to ever stress
the disks.

What really galls me is that we can spend tons of money doing reorganization
after reorganization of the countless layers of management above us, but if
we need to get any equipment to do actual *work*, we practically have to be
good friends with God's nextdoor neighbor.  What this latest memo tells me
is that the endless reorganizations aren't accomplishing anything useful at
all.

	Re: .17

>For over two years I have been telling customers that the old
>scenario where the accountants say "No, you are only using 75%
>of your existing computer, you can't have another" is obsolete.
>Today, I have been saying, the argument runs "Our valuable
>staff are only 75% productive because they waste time waiting for
>jobs to finish. We can't afford that so we must equip them with
>sufficient flexible desktop computing power that they are fully
>productive".

	Hmmm, if you claim the staff is only 75% productive since their
computers are 75% busy, wouldn't it hold that *decreasing* their compute
resources so that the smaller machine is 100% busy would increase their
productivity to 100%?  And if you sold them a faster machine that is now
only 50% busy, is the team only 50% productive?  I'm obviously not being
serious about this, just showing that the corolation you're trying to draw
between percent-busy and percent-productive is thin at best.

	And, incidently, getting back to the original point that prompted
your reply, at the 75% figure I would have little objections to a group getting
better resources.  Its at the 10-20% level that I have real problems.

								-craig

    RE:  .10 AND .14                                               
    
    Gentlemen,
    
    This secretary uses a workstation to do a whole lot more than
    "presentations for her manager," including spreadsheeting for budget
    reviews and forecasts, business plans and project management.  
    
    If you care to have further discussion on this matter, why not
    cross-post your note in the DIGITAL_SECRETARY conference on node
    MOMCAT?
    
    Regards,
    
    Marcia Landingham
    Executive Secretary

	 re .20:

>>>	 I'm obviously not being serious about this...

	Right.

>>>	just showing that the corolation you're trying to draw
>>>	between percent-busy and percent-productive is thin at best.

	Wrong. 

>>>	And, incidently, getting back to the original point that prompted
>>>	your reply, at the 75% figure I would have little objections to a
>>>	group getting better resources.  Its at the 10-20% level that I have
>>>	real problems.

	My company car is only used about 10% of my working time (it can
	be even lower - 2.5% of my total time). However the possession of
	a car is essential for me to do my job. Moreover, I wouldn't be
	happy with a two-stroke banger - nor would the company be happy with
	the results I got using it. Even though, please note, if it was
	slow enough I would be spending 20-30% of my working hours in it.
	Would that represent increased productivity, or decreased
	productivity?

	/Tom

    arghh... no more bottled water, no more magazines, no more mileage
    reimbursment, no more computers, no more pencils, no more paperclips,
    no more telephones, no more offices??? how bout a ban on "fuzzy
    thinking?" Just think of all the money we could save if we simply went
    out of business? With this current penny wise and pound foolish
    mentality it would seem that we are going to "save us out of
    business".. 
    
    
    
    /ray.

   It's been a few years since I was in DIS, but here's my 2� worth from
   that perspective that promotes purchase of newer equipment:

   - Increased utilization of resource-hungry products such as ALL-IN-1
     (this was pointed out in previous notes). It's a great tool to
     leverage hardware sales and its worked- both internally and
     externally.
   
   - Pressure to do more with less people- reduce the expensive headcount.
     As a result, many DIS data centers have been striving to achieve the
     goal of 'lights out' operations... i.e. no or few operators. To do
     this takes ever increasing amounts of disks for doing unattended
     backups.
   
   - Limitations on floorspace and air conditioning. Newer equipment is
     more efficient in terms of heat and footprint, so newer equipment is
     purchased instead of making larger rooms and using older equipment.
   
     In the field new offices are not being fitted with 'computer room'
     type floorspace. The view is that compter rooms are for data centers
     located in an Area (ooops... those are called 'Regions' again,
     aren't they?) type facility. But the need for computes still
     exsists/grows in the field offices, despite the growth of ALL-IN-1
     in the data centers. The field offices must have computers that work
     in an 'office environment' since the computer room is no longer
     available. Putting an 11/785 next to your desk just won't work.

   - As already pointed out, newer products need newer equipment to run
     on. As we transition from character-cell based applications to
     windows-based applications there is going to be an overlap of old
     and new gear... and much of the old cannot run the new software.
   
   All of the above spell a demand for purchase of newer, more efficient
   equipment. Sure, older equipment may be able to do the job but nobody
   wants to bear the cost of the computer rooms and staff to handle it.
   
   Lee

	Re: .22

	However, Tom, your arguments ignore the cost factors involved.  If it
costs a million dollars to give you the car that is fast enough that you only
spend 2.5% of your time in it versus spending $1,000 on a junkbox that consumes
30% of your time, no offense, but the junkbox might be more cost effective for
the company.  Clearly, me having a cluster of VAX 9000s at my personal disposal
would increase my productivity.  Is it cost effective?  Not at all.  The
argument can't be the absolutist "the faster the better" but rather has to be
"is spending $X instead of $Y on equipment going to give you more than $X-Y
cost worth of productivity improvement?"

	And, incidently, I believe that "productivity" is absolutely the wrong
metric.  What is important is the company's return on its investment in the
employee -- salary, offices, computers, lights, phones, etc.  We could all
be super productive at a cost that would bankrupt Digital.

								-craig

    re: .21
    
    The comments about "doing the boss' presentations" was not intended as
    a slight to secretaries, although it could have been interpreted that
    way.  You are obviously an exception in that you fully utilize the
    workstation for other than "mundane" tasks.  In the faciltiy where I
    used to work the secretaries are getting workstations, but they are
    spending most of their time doing presentations.  If you have a piece
    of capital like a 3100 than it should utilized to the max or not at
    all.
    
    --David 

One argument used in the past to justify purchase of new replacement
equipment was that the maintenance contract price on the older stuff was
so high, that it would be cheaper overall to buy the newer product.  I don't
know if this still holds.  If it does, it may be an effect of requiring each
individual organization to make a profit.

				Steve

Oh, and the thing about "Digital is its own biggest customer" is a red herring.
How many companies are there that are bigger than Digital that rely on only
one vendor for their data processing products?  This justifies nothing.

				Steve

	Re .28:

	In fact, Steve, when you consider that Digital's main source
	of revenue is selling our hardware and software - most of which
	runs only on our hardware - we BETTER be our own biggest customer.

	What other customer's business depends on knowing all about ALL
	of Digital's products?

	/Tom

I don't see anything inherently unreasonable in Jack's memo, given that both
Engineering and the Field are exempted from the restrictions.  Just because
the Field has a history of not providing the equipment in the past doesn't
make it Jack Smith's fault now.

Capital equipment should be restricted, but i don't think that expensed
stuff (terminals, modems, cables, etc.) should be rolled up into the same
ball of wax.  I hope there's some clarification on that (we don't want to
see a case of "For want of a modem...the Enterprise was lost", to update WS).

The blather about manager's presentations (and NO, that did not refer to
customer presentations but to purely internal presentations)--just how did
they do their presentations before workstations came along??  Why does the
format have to be "pretty" anyway?  Accuracy in budgeting and forecasting
are more important than three color bar graphs or a black border.  Sheesh.

The item Steve brought up about Field Service costs is worth keeping in
mind.  Maybe Jack should order them to reduce their internal charges for
supporting older equipment to underscore the new mindset.
								paul

    re: .0 "The Memo"
    
    I think the intentions are good, and the idea of curbing extravagant
    equipment requisitioning is timely.  What makes me a believer is that
    I recently took a customer on a site visit to one of our manufacturing
    facilities.  The customer got a look at the onsite "computer cavern"
    and exclaimed "It takes all of these computers??  I run our whole
    company (Fortune 500) on less!!"
    
    Times are tough.  Productivity is nice, latest equipment is nice, but
    there are limits.  When you don't have the money to spend, you have to
    learn to do another way.  I see secretaries doing WP and spreadsheets
    and presentations on VAXstations that cost twenty thousand bucks, where
    my dad's secretary does the exact same thing on a PC that cost him $1700
    including the software.  I see system managers buying disks out the
    kazoo because they hate doing tape backups.  And I see lots of last
    year's equipment sitting in storage because "Yuk!  That's last year's
    model!  We want ..."
    
    Computers are our business, and we do need them.  What we don't need
    is the attitude that we can't make a little extra effort to conserve.
    
    
    Geoff Unland
    (done on a VT220 hooked to an MVII that serves maybe 60 people!)

    Frankly, I am purely and simply glad to see someone at the top making
    decisions that directly impact the bottom line.  Yes, I know that
    arguements can be made that this will adversely impact the bottom
    line through in-direct channels (productivity etc.)
    
    Jack Smith gets paid the big bucks to make decisions.  If he's right
    he'll be a hero, if he's wrong I've heard that other companies have
    been willing to hire our executives in the past and they may be
    willing to do so again.
    
    Second guessing the boss won't pay the bills.  Taking his decisions
    as gospel and working with him may help.  We have to be prepared
    beleive that he's doing the best for the company and find ways to
    make his decisions work, rather than creative ways to get around
    them.  
    
    If he's to have any chance of being a hero from this decision we have
    to work with him.
                                  
    Ian   
    

    
This decision typifies what happens when you use a meat-axe on something that
requires neurosurgery. Jack Smith has used a blunt instrument to fix a broad
statistical indicator in the fastest way he could. He has decided to fix the
statistic instead of the problem. At some stage these groups who have had their
capital resource requests restrained will have to get some equipment, when the
    freeze comes off heaven help the budget for that period. While I
    appreciate he is desperately trying to contain costs, this is not the
    right way to do it.

The problem is that it adds uncertainty to departmental resource allocation, 
during times that managers can purchase equipment they will tend to overbuy
to compensate for run-down during the freeze periods. This is the same result
you get when you have any resource freeze such as the last staff freeze.

All the indicators are their that there is a misallocation of resources and
field units are not getting the tools they require. This decision does not
address this imbalance and does nothing to fix what caused the imbalance in the
first place. 

A lot of groups have been hurt by blanket resource freezes, whether on staff or
capital equipment. We have to identify where priorities are BUT still ensure
groups can function when the stock of resources run down during a prolonged
freeze. All my basic economics training tells me that there is a point of 
maximal efficiency and a point of declining returns. Obviously, the VP is 
telling us that some functions within the corporation are beyond that point.
I cannot see that every group within a given arm of the corporation could be
in that situation. The point is that during a freeze of a given set of resources
some groups will fall below the level they need to be able to do the job 
function which they were established to do. Any addition to the resource stocks
of this group will add to that groups ability to produce return to the 
Corporation. Indicators are that many field units are below this point in terms
of the Capital equipment and exposure to it that they receive. We should be
changing the metrics that force field managers to knock back capital equipment
requests.

We need to get a bead on what minimum level of human and capital resources
a group function needs to do its intended role. We try to do this on an job
wise level with the job profiles. I submitted a suggestion to the DELTA program
3 months ago (and havent heard a word about it since it was forwarded to 
Corporate Personnel) suggesting we build basic models of the minimum resources
a group function requires to function and also attempt to identify a rough 
bounds on the maximum level of resource. These figures would be flexible in 
that the minimum would be generous and the maximum rigid for the period of 
review (say 1 year).
During a freeze then a group below the agreed level of minimum effectiveness
could grow to that level, despite the freeze, but no higher. Groups consistently
above the high line but showing no relative improvement would be trimmed back
by the freeze. This may be a dumb idea, I have no idea, because no has bothered
to follow it up with me. Perhaps they are understaffed or something 8^).

I came up with this idea after the last missive from above, the staff freeze.
Ours was a new group who had just completed one project. We lost two engineers
when the head freeze came on. The result: our engineering group ended up doing
muck work for 12 months because we couldnt get the heads to effectively form
another development team (for some reason contractors are a no-no in this
part of the world). It was the most frustratingly wasted period I've spent in
Digital when you consider that we actually had lots of money and lots of revenue
positive work to do. The result was that jobs that had to be done BUT could be
done by very junior engineers were being done by senior ones. No body minds 
filling gaps but it is sub-optimal for the company and should only happen for
short periods of time. 

I cant see why we have developed sophisticated resource planning tools, 
schedulers and people have written weighty tomes on resource allocation when a
Senior Manager, who has been mulling over one statistic can bludgeon any lower
managers attempts with a Centrally planned Soviet-style dictum. We also cannot
say that compared to Company X or y or Z we have too many managers until we
sought out valid ways to help the ones we have do the best they can. Its like
the stupid revenue-per-employee metric, great indicator there is a problem
somewhere, but all companies are not created equal (some, for instance, have 
massive chains of PC distributorships with lots of salespeople, support persons
and technical staff that NEVER appear in the revenue figures because they dont
work for Company X.), we instead react by attacking the components of the
broad statistical indicator (removing employees) instead of changing the way
we distribute, produce, manage.

I cant agree with some of the people who maintain that our ONLY problem is too
many levels of management. We have to change the controls that managers have
and the way they are allowed to use the metrics they themselves get and find
ways of them sharing results from other managers of like function. They have
to have realistic metrics set that achieve results and those metrics should be
less rigidly focused on the short term than they currently are. A field manager
who wants to take a risk on longer term business should be able to more easily
make that decision and have it weighed up in the light that their may be 
shorter losses for increases in things their may not be a short term $$$ metric
for, such as customer satisfaction, confidence building in the delivery teams,
understanding new potentially lucrative fields of business... They should also
not have their plans stomped on by Senior management decisions that look to
fix short-term corporate metrics for short-term gain. If "do the right thing"
is the order of the day, we should goal managers on whether what they do is
focused on that, and not on the narrower goals of empire building, helping mates
up the ladder, killing long term efficiency to meet short term metrics.....


Regards,
John 
EIC/Engineering, Sydney






    

re: .34

>All the indicators are their that there is a misallocation of resources and
>field units are not getting the tools they require. This decision does not
>address this imbalance and does nothing to fix what caused the imbalance in the
>first place. 

You're waving the Field red herring around again.  The Field owns its own
capital forecast...we're not exactly talking about competition for a scarce
resource here (for the most part).  And the Field is specifically exempted
from this order.

In fact, when he says that Strecker, Zereski, Grainger, Gullotti, Falotti
and Poulsen are exempted, he could just as easily say that Sims, Hindle,
Osterhoff and Hoffmann are NOT exempted, since they're the only folks left.
Face it!  This is aimed at the Admin/Finance/IS side of the house, not at any
"revenue-producing" groups.

Part of the message, as i get it, is that this measure may allow us to reap
some Manufacturing cut-backs too, since Manufacturing is spending a certain
percentage of its resources to fill internal equipment orders.  What might
throw a monkey-wrench into that is if IS starts ditching its timesharing
contracts (due to "insufficient resources") and forcing its client groups
into purchasing their own systems.
								paul

    I've been in the field for 4 of my 6.5 years at DEC.  Finally someone
    says maybe we can't have capital equipment?
    
    When I transfered to SEO, I got a 4 year old pro-350 to connect to 
    GUIDUK, then a 7 year old 11/780.  Three years later, because of a hot
    project purchased some VT320's, I got one of those.  Finally, six
    months ago, I got a DECstation 3100.
    
    This is the first time in my career at DEC, I've been able to work on a
    system before I was sold at $150 on it as an expert.
    
    We in PSS/EIS last year were PCSA experts, I'd never owned a PC in my
    life or had one at DEC.
    
    We have to be workstation experts, the only people that have them are
    MGT and Sales support.
    
    
    Finally, the corporation decides to give EIS some capital assistance
    and the corporation tells us we're bad for doing it.
    
    No wonder, we can't make money.
    

I applaud Jack's decision. I'm in Sales in a District where we do get 
the resources we need (doesn't seem to be the case for all districts), so 
I'm exempt from this freeze.

However, I'd feel the same if I was in my old job as MRO Site I.S. Manager. The
reason is that there are so many little empires around this company, each with
their own computer resources and staff. The DIS/CIS organizations have tried
for many years to sell the economy-of-scale savings inherent in the site
concept of computing resource management to these empires. There are many
people who have their own little piece of Digital and don't want to give it
up, even if its 'best' for Digital to do so. 

We have PLENTY of computer resources and other capital equipment within the 
corporation (at least the parts I've seen in 12.5 years) to be successful. We 
just have to learn to use it more wisely than we have in years past.
Jack Smith's edict will hopefully get these small 'empires' to make better use 
of the corporation's assets.

Jim

    For those groups which have been excluded from the IEG route there
    is of course still a VERY large source of equipment - via DIAL.
    Perhaps Jack has realised the only way to get real use out of DIAL
    is by stopping people from ordering from manufacturing!!!!!
    
    j.e.

    I am quite happy to see this more directive style of management at
    Digital.  Mr. Smith has clearly made a decision (you know, a clearly
    identifiable choice from a set of alternatives).  I am sure he has also
    put in place the appropriate tracking system(s), having the necessary
    reporting structure (as a tickle/exception report) to determine
    progress against the goal(s) he is aiming at and in what timeframes.
    
    But remember, as the legacy of Mr. Shields and his Parthian guard,
    aided by the timidity of other "heard no evil, see no evil, ..."
    senior Digital management, comes to fruition -- the weaning of old
    habits will become more difficult.
    
    In "good" times everyone is happy.  If you were concerned about
    costs (particularly operating expense below the Gross Profit Margin
    line), you more than likely got into big trouble -- or "killed" to use
    DECspeak.  You weren't with the program -- " ... we must be doing
    something right, look how successful we are!"  Digital got sloppy
    (probably NEVER really developed tough-minded business senses) because
    it forgot what made it successful.  Maybe it was just luck, being
    in the right place at the right time, ..., but the wild ducks have
    become tame or they have been hunted down.
    
    In "bad" times no one is happy.  Tough decisions must be made. As the
    circling of the wagons continues, let's let senior management do its
    job -- made clear decisions modelled after Mr. Smith's.  They are
    accountable -- it is only Digital's future at stalk here.

    jOe

	Personally, I think the idea of hooking customers on bigger and
    better hardware systems simply because our software requires them is
    a sign of poor quality software.  We should be selling customers the
    bigger and better hardware systems because they like the quality of
    our products and they want more and not because they absolutely need
    bigger and better systems to even run our products at all.

	As to internal purchases of our products, it won't hurt to tighten
    the belt a bit when it comes to our own internal system purchases.  Who
    knows, maybe by tightening belts at the development end, we will be
    forced to invent newer and better ways of designing our systems and
    software so that it doesn't use so many compute and storage resources
    to begin with?

	I do hope however, that in the scramble to save money on equipment
    purchases, that the field continues to get their hands on the latest systems
    though, because this is the only way they can ever be expected to learn
    how to sell the stuff.

				    -davo
			    (composed on a VT220)

    It's amazing how the pendulum can swing.  For many years in the Field,
    we've had to "make do" with whatever equipment we could lay our hands
    on, including customer machines.  Now, after listening to one of my
    co-workers kvetch and snarl about how long it's taking to get both
    workstations (the 3100 at the office and the 3100 at home) upgraded
    to Model 38's with the Sony monitor,  I have to wonder ...
    
    Maybe Jack's memo should apply to *all* of Digital.  It seems the
    Maynard CPU-hoarding disease is rampant throughout the company.
    
    

    I' not sure whether this belongs here or in the "Do you know who you
    work for?" topic, but here goes.  A few days after the no more IEG memo
    was posted here, I was copied on a memo from someone several levels
    above, stating basically, NO MORE IEG PURCHASES, only to be followed a
    day later by a memo from someone else stating that we were not affected
    by the freeze.
    
    This may sound crazy, but I don't know for sure who on the memo, that I
    report to.  And worse yet, Apparently someone several levels above me
    doesn't know either.
    
    Bob

 . . . that Ken said to Jack, "I want you to come up with whatever you
possibly can to help us avoid a layoff".

 Then I'd guess Jack's doing his job - and damned well at that.

 For anyone who hasn't yet noticed, business as usual has not been in
the prognostication for some time now - ask anybody on transition or
who took the package. 'Spose those folks would be in different straits
if we'd saved this billion earlier?

 I, too, must admit to being exempted from Jack's "decree". Even if I weren't
I'd be willing to make some sacrifices to adjust. That's part of what I
like about my job. Maybe I'll make some adjustments anyway - might be
able to get some more stuff into DIAL for others.

-Jack

	re .35:

>>>	 And the Field is specifically exempted from this order.

	This is an over-simplification. My reading of the memo says
	that Sales and CS are specifically exempted.

	EIS is specifically not exempted.

	That means all the pre-sales and post-sales support, the ACTs,
	the demos, the benchmarks, and the technology experts who have
	to try to enthuse customers about things like NAS, DECwindows,
	CDA, COHESION, DECtp, our new workstations and PCs, etc.

	/Tom

    re.35
    The "field":
    Might be a great opportunity for the CS and EIS field folks to
    talk to each other, to share the scarce computer resources.
    Who knows, there even might be a "human resources" sharing
    coming out of it.
    
    Ex:
    CS's effort could be to make a lab not always look like a mess
    
    EIS's effort could be to consider that CS folks do wash their
    hands from time to time.
    
    Am I too optimistic ?
    Fred

	... that CS and EIS are the same thing!?  :>)

>               -< The Field isn't all that thrifty anymore ... >-
>
>    Maybe Jack's memo should apply to *all* of Digital.  It seems the
>    Maynard CPU-hoarding disease is rampant throughout the company.
>    
	Flame on:         (Sarcasm on high)

	Fine.  We *should* shoot ourselves in the foot.  Our customers
	buy the latest and the specialists who have to support it don't
	get their hands on it until it is obsolete.  That makes just
	*reams* of business sense.  Did you know that a few years ago
	that workstation support was being done on VT100's because the
	field couldn't get their hands on enough equipment? 

	Flame off

	If the support centers and the specialists in the field are going
	to work with customers, they HAVE to have access to both the latest
	and greatest AND old 'junk'.  A lot of customers would kill to have
	what we have on dial...

	Times are tough.  The cuts that are happening are probably happening
	in the right places.  There are support groups to support groups who
	support groups who do research on supporting groups *throughout* this
	company.  They employ many well qualified people who for some reason
	are doing work that does *no one* any good.   DEC needs to get these
	people out in the front lines, either working with customers or
	helping to increase our profitiability in some way.

	At the same time, we must ask ourselves are we really hitting the 
	right places.  We lost our manager to the last buyout and with the
	looks of this next one, we may be managerless for some time to come.
	Would you like *your* review and salary action written by someone
	who doesn't even know your name?


	Rick Beldin
	VMS Workstation Support
	Alpharetta, GA

re   <<< Note 1178.44 by COUNT0::WELSH "Tom Welsh, freelance CASE Consultant" >>>
                    -< Not "The Field" - just Sales and CS >-
>
>	EIS is specifically not exempted.


From Jack Smith's memo...

>    1. Only the Engineering, Sales, and Customer Service 
>       organizations can purchase IEG for the balance of FY91. 
>       That means Strecker, Grainger, Gullotti, Poulsen, Falotti, 
>       and Zereski ONLY!!  No one else.  I don't worry about 
>       other high-return requirements; they will find their way 
>       to the surface.
>
>    2. Strecker, Grainger, Gullotti, Poulsen, Falotti and Zereski 
>       must assure that only their DIRECT people can get 
>       IEG--e.g., their Finance, Purchasing, Personnel, I.S. 
>       people can't have any more.

Russ Gullotti is VP of EIS.  Reads to me like EIS "DIRECT" people are exempted.

No?

Dave

A small story...

I'm in EIS in a field office. A couple years back, I was asked to go to a
customer site to "consult" on a brand-spanking new DEC<mumble>. When I first 
saw the DEC<mumble>, I just managed to stifle the comment:

"Gee, I just read about these things in Digital Review. I've been dying to get
my hands on one".

Needless to say, when the customer was paying $130/hr., this comment would not
have been well-received.

As a side comment, in our office our equipment numbers had already been slashed
to the bone before Smith's memo, i.e. no new equipment this year ("not even a
modem" to quote). We are lucky though, we have enough "stuff" (MicroVAX
II-based LAVC with VS 2000's in the office, VT220's at home) to see us through
the next year(s).

Bruce

    
    As [a couple] said, EIS is not mentioned as an organization which is
    exempt but our VP is mentioned as one who is exempt. If you take the
    caps off of Customer Services than it makes sense. 
    
    By the by - most of the demo type equipment comes through Sales in the
    form of rotational stock. So even if EIS couldn't order, we could get
    stuff to show customers through Sales.
    
    It is all rather moot as it appears that all orders since sometime in
    mid-Q3 are in lala land somewhere anyway. Hopefully, this mandate will
    start a few of those orders moving. And I've looked and bought through
    DIAL ... a good share of that stuff is OLD, OLDER, OLDEST so
    maintenance and footprint cost us mucho more than the new stuff ONCE we
    spend the bucks to make operational what is often close to junk.
    
    And this stuff isn't just toys in many cases. A large in house project
    with big bucks and margin for DEC cannot be done on the limited
    hardware in many offices. 
    

    Greetings from the tip of the spear,
    
    I work in CS and the cost cutting fever is everywhere. When I worked
    for another company I remember a fellow tech saying that he was
    able to rebend a stylus so he didn't have to replace it. Needless to 
    say the tech was a proud as a peacock at his contribution those
    styli cost $00.27. The frightening extention of this policy is that
    its awfully easy to not spend money and be a hero. In the end we 
    all need to be as efficent at our job as possiable and within reason
    that means to spend money on equiptment to make our labor more
    valuable. 
    
    One last chestnut. In our branch the FSE's have been given VT100's 
    (I presume because that's cheaper than throwing them away) and Df112's
    for use at home. Our customers who have all gone to VT320-generation
    tubes tell me that they think we must get the best of everything DEC
    builds! I tell them I'll trade them anyday!
    
    Fred Mudgett
    
    PS. I happen to like the VT100, I'd kill for something more powerful
    than the 11750 in the office though.

Here's a few tidbits:

1) Login screen from IEG VTX server

2) Login text from DIAL� system

Both contain useful information.

Lee

�DIAL is the Digital Idle Asset Listing system. It is a database
 of used and/or excess equipment for internal transfer within Digital.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WELCOME TO THE IEG OM BULLETIN BOARD  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEG'S VTX INTERNAL ORDER STATUS DATABASE UPDATED AS OF  9-SEP-1990 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

**** PLEASE READ ****

9/11/90 -- Re: JACK SMITH memo impact.....We are currently in the process
of trying to operationalize Jack Smith's recent memo.  At
this time we are not in a position to discuss the impact to
your organization or specific orders you may have in-house.
I would therefore ask that you refrain from calling your CAS
REPS as they are not positioned to answer these inqueries.

We are working to define the process which will be used to
obtain Internal Equipment and will use VTX to publish it.
Stay tuned.

IEG Order Mgmt.

DISCOUNT RATE IS 70% OFF LIST PRICE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "THE DIAL SYSTEM"

Notice:
	When Logging into DIAL, All Badge Numbers must be SIX Characters.
	Please use zeros to make the sixth character.

	The DIAL Admin Group is pleased to announce that a Notes Conference 
	for DIAL USERS has been set-up on the SIMVAX Cluster.

	The entry for access to the Conference is SIMVAX::DIAL.

	This conference has been set-up to better serve you and for
	communications to be made easier.

	If you have any questions, call DIAL Administration at
	DTN 240-6330 (Outside Area Code 508/474-6330).

  **********************************************************************
   Effective 13 September 1990, the DIAL Administration group will be
   moving to Dascomb Road.  The mail stop will be DAS/DIAL.  Electronic
   mail can be sent to DIAL::DIALAD.  The main phone number will be
   DTN 275-DIAL (275-3425).  Outside area code (508)474-DIAL.
   To access NOTES, continue using SIMVAX::DIAL at this time.
  ********************************************************************** 
 
              Property of Digital Equipment Corporation.
		       Internal use only.
             Unauthorized access to this network is prohibited.

Username: 

    re:              <<< Note 1178.47 by PEACHS::BELDIN >>>
                    -< Who needs to keep up the customers? >-

>	Flame on:         (Sarcasm on high)

>	Fine.  We *should* shoot ourselves in the foot.  Our customers
>	buy the latest and the specialists who have to support it don't
>	get their hands on it until it is obsolete.  That makes just
>	*reams* of business sense.  Did you know that a few years ago
>	that workstation support was being done on VT100's because the
>	field couldn't get their hands on enough equipment? 
    
>	If the support centers and the specialists in the field are going
>	to work with customers, they HAVE to have access to both the latest
>	and greatest AND old 'junk'.  A lot of customers would kill to have
>	what we have on dial...
    
    This is an old argument, and it doesn't necessarily hold up.  I've
    been in the exact situation you describe, and I still found ways to
    get the job done.  Face it, what does make *reams* of business sense 
    is to keep our cost of doing business down, so our workstations don't 
    cost three times as much as everyone else's.  Talk to a SUN technical
    rep and find out how many of their people have *multiple* high-end 
    systems at their disposal ...
    
    Times are tough right now, but I don't hear people saying "Gee, if our
    unit had a workstation, I could learn DECwindows."  What I hear most
    often is "Grrr, if I can't have my own workstation, I'm not going to
    touch DECwindows.  Go ask someone else."  I just don't think this kind
    of attitude is going to get us very far ...
    
    Geoff
    Geoff
    

    
    In the hardware world there are programs called SEED UNIT or PRE-
    REVENUE UNIT shipments. These are for brand new products and are
    required for FS assestment, EDU/Training requirement, Customer
    Demos etc. Some are not revenuable quality but most are and all
    must not be sold to any customer. My point is, that once the
    above functions are finished with the product, where does it go?
    
    Likewise what happens to all that latest DECnnn kit which goes to
    such extravanganzas as DECVILLE?
    
    
    Don H.
    

>    Likewise what happens to all that latest DECnnn kit which goes to
>    such extravanganzas as DECVILLE?
    
    Quite often these are used at a lot of other trade shows. Also I
    have heard of such systems being borrowed *for* the show. Sometimes
    they do go to peoples offices after one show but that is usually
    something that is worked out before the show to break up the cost.
    
    		Alfred

	>EIS is specifically not exempted.

	>That means all the pre-sales and post-sales support, the ACTs,
	>the demos, the benchmarks, and the technology experts who have
	>to try to enthuse customers about things like NAS, DECwindows,
	>CDA, COHESION, DECtp, our new workstations and PCs, etc.

	Uh-uh, EIS is exempted, however purchase requests will be 
	scrutinized.
	
	--David

	re .56:

>>>	Uh-uh, EIS is exempted, however purchase requests will be 
>>>	scrutinized.

	I don't see that in Jack Smith's memo:

>>>    1. Only the Engineering, Sales, and Customer Service 
>>>       organizations can purchase IEG for the balance of FY91. 

	EIS is not part of Engineering.
	EIS is not part of Sales.
	EIS is not part of Customer Services.

	Therefore EIS can not purchase IEG for the balance of FY91.
	Right?

>>>       That means Strecker, Grainger, Gullotti, Poulsen, Falotti, 
>>>       and Zereski ONLY!!

	Ah, wait a minute! You mean one of these guys is in charge
	of EIS worldwide? The names are familiar, of course, but I
	wouldn't know what they're in charge of this week. I gave
	up trying to keep track of that stuff years ago, they keep
	changing around.

	In that case, why would Jack Smith send out an explicitly
	contradictory memo? If he's going to make these very hard
	decisions, it's mandatory to ensure that they are not
	ambiguous or misleading.

	/Tom

>>	Ah, wait a minute! You mean one of these guys is in charge
>>	of EIS worldwide?


     Yup.  Gullotti is in charge of EIS, and since Ferry's departure has also
assumed the duties of US Country EIS management.  No word yet on whether or
not he'll ever name a replacement (at least no such rumor has yet made it this
far west).  Of course, as you also correctly stated, that's *THIS* week! ;-) 


Andy

>                       <<< Note 1178.38 by JGO::EVANS >>>
>                  -< RATHOLE -- TRY DIAL (PLENTY OF GOODIES) >-
>
>    For those groups which have been excluded from the IEG route there
>    is of course still a VERY large source of equipment - via DIAL.
>    Perhaps Jack has realised the only way to get real use out of DIAL
>    is by stopping people from ordering from manufacturing!!!!!
  DIAL is (IMO) a very inefficient system for redistributing idle assets within
DEC. I have had a DIAL account for 6 years and have tried to use it both to get
and to peddle used equipment. Occasionally I have been successful, but I have
spent a lot of time poring over listings with no luck.
  Until the IEG freeze went into effect, the solution was simple: try DIAL and
if it didn't work, buy new equipment (thru IEG, DEC-Direct, or outside) and
scrap used equipment. The IEG freeze has raised the stakes because now the
only option for most people who need internal equipment is to get it second-
hand. 
  We need a new electronic database for used equipment NOW, and I think the best
way to create it would be to open a notesfile. The Notes utility provides most
of what DIAL does and some things that DIAL doesn't, such as electronic mail
addresses.

RE: .59

>  We need a new electronic database for used equipment NOW, and I think the best
>way to create it would be to open a notesfile. The Notes utility provides most
>of what DIAL does and some things that DIAL doesn't, such as electronic mail
>addresses.

So go open the NOTES conference.

--PSW

	I worked for a group who bought more than half of their equipment off
DIAL.  That was the only way a 40 person manufacturing group could swing having
a workstation (VAXstation II/GPX - most 13 meg)  for all of their developers
as well as a test cluster (2 785s) to go with their development cluster.

	You may have been frustrated, but we sure got a whole lot of use and
value out of it.

							--D