Conference 7.286::digital

    I agree. The message is "all you little people are messing up and
    that's why we're in this mess." There seems to be an amazing lack
    of willingness to take responsibility. 

    Who after all made the choice to stay out of Unix so long? Even though
    I don't like it myself I remember asking 13 years ago why, if the
    customers wanted it, we didn't sell it. I know others who have asked
    that question longer and harder.

    Who designed and ran our so called PC efforts that failed so badly?

    What I want to hear is some honest talk, some taking of responsibility
    commiserate with the taking of large 6 digit pay checks. I'd also like
    to see some examples (and I've said this before) of what upper
    management is doing to save money in their own offices and
    organizations. We need less finger pointing and more real leadership.

    		Alfred

    I agree too. The company's strategic direction obviously has gone
    adrift, and the way to fix that has nothing to do with water coolers,
    mileage, or newpapers. The current wave of purges on these small
    things can only demoralize us all, at a time when we are still
    groggy from redundancies (or "rightsizing" as it is called in the UK).
    
    What we need is a firm commitment to rethink the company's direction.
    Are we a hardware company, or a software company, or a services
    company? Obviously, all three. So let's nail down what proportion
    of the business comes from each of those sources, what our markets
    and customers are, what resources we have, and where we want to be.
    With those inputs, we can make a plan to get there.
    
    5 years ago, senior managers in the UK began to talk about "services"
    and "projects". They hired a lot of "business consultants" from outside
    the company, who took over the top floors of SWAS, keeping the old
    style "software specialists" who knew the products in the basement.
    To get promoted, you needed to "take the pledge" and promise to
    give up programming. Today, many of those "consultants" are being
    made redundant, because apparently they haven't contributed materially
    to the business. Whose brainwave was that?
    
    These wrong directions are much more pernicious than meets the
    eye. Every time management pulls one of these stunts, thousands of
    people change their mental "set" and prepare to meet a subtly different
    set of challenges. They map out new career plans and expectations.
    This tends to soak up all their creative energy and emotional
    stability for a time. What we need to do is to care for our employees
    and seek to get the most out of them - to stop rattling them around.
    
    To take an example, I currently have to deal with four or five
    managers. There is my last manager, who is very conscientious and
    wants to "keep an eye" on me until I am settled elsewhere. There
    is my current unit manager and his manager, who are very supportive
    and friendly. There is my new "functional" manager, who is in Marketing
    (whereas all the rest are in EIS). Another EIS manager mailed a lot
    of us the other day to announce that we are all in her cost centre now.
    I thought I was in a new DCC, but actually I am in Marketing - one
    of my Managers is a Marketing person, the other an EIS person. Dozens
    of people are being placed into my current EIS unit - and I am told
    that, when everyone has moved in, THEN we will be "rightsized" (aka
    decimated).
    
    This does not make one feel specially productive, motivated, or
    optimistic. I hope it goes away soon.
    
    /Tom

In the 11 years that I have been with DEC, I have seen three very significant 
and related problems.

1. The communications channel from the field, i.e. that is those in DEC who
   allegedly find out first hand what customers want, is just not working.

   The Engineering groups appear to not be getting info on at least the 
   following:

     a. What is required in RFP's.
     b. Why we lose particular bids.
     c. Why standards matter and the latest and greatest technical whiz-bang
        doesn't mean, to be polite, ..., ah shucks, you fill in the blanks.

2. Software requirements from the field are misdirected to hardware groups.

   In many cases this occurs because the field does not know who to input to.
   In other case, at least it appears so to me, the "politics" of DEC causes
   information to go to the wrong place.

   In some cases, this information never gets back to the appropriate software
   groups.

3. Critical decisions affecting DEC's future and market share are made by
   engineers, with little or no background/experience in such economic issues.

   Part of the problem is that they are not getting enough info (see above).
   However, I really believe that some who are expected to make such decisions
   in engineering, and the respective "product managers", just do not have the
   background to make such decisions in isolation. Especially as such decisions
   have such an impact on our market share.

DEC's position in the unix and PC market places may be a result of decisions 
from the top, however, the problems faced by our "native" products appear to me 
to a low end problem. For example, the lip service that DEC pays to standards 
simply amazes me (for example, we are getting our clocks cleaned in te 
workstation market simply because we have yet to implement a particular 
standard).

    
    Couldn't agree more with all the foregoing. DEC trusted the employees,
    we were all in the same boat. DIGITAL cultivates an us and them
    approach.
    
    Short term cuts are putting our mid-to-long term prospects in doubt.
    
    We should cut where possible, sure, but apply *logic* to these
    situations, not blanket cuts that may kill us.
    
    /andy/

    I agree muchly with all the previous.  I support the cost-cutting
    efforts so far, but only to the extent that they don't get ridiculous.
    
    I agree that the senior decision makers seem to be lost.  Sometimes
    our arrogance amazes me.  As the only Fortune 500 company without a
    PC on every desk, we have the nerve to try and sell PC Integration
    Services. Astounding!!  (BTW, I know the above might be a slight
    exaggeration, but it came from a senior PBU manager).

>the lip service DEC pays to standards

??  are you serious?

I know of many projects that are being slowed down in order to try to comply
with standards.  Phase V DECnet is the most obvious example.

We comply with standards to the point that it's painful.

Many of our competitors are doing better (in the short term) because they
ignore standards and implement things like TCP/IP.

Our standards strategy is supposed to make us more successful in the long
term.  And I'm convinced it will, if we don't go broke along the way.

/john

re Note 1188.6 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Many of our competitors are doing better (in the short term) because they
> ignore standards and implement things like TCP/IP.

        OSI may have the right blessings from international standards
        bodies, but TCP/IP is enough of a standard to enable systems
        of many vendors to interconnect.

        We picked the slow horse because we liked the way it looks.

        Bob

RE: .6, .7

The problem we often have is distinguishing between de facto standards (what
people actually use) and committee standards (what ANSI or ISO say people should
use).  In many cases, the committee standard and the de facto standard are one
and the same (FORTRAN-77, for example).  There are other cases, such as TCP/IP
vs. OSI, where the committee standard is pretty much being ignored.

--PSW

    re:  "standards" rathole
    
    My only comment is this:  if it *sells*, then it's a standard we
    ought to be supporting, or we better have something else that will
    sell even better.  TCP/IP sells gigabucks.  DECNET/OSI, who knows?
    
    re:  the "real" topic
    
    I agree that trying to squeeze the fat out of the system will not
    restore the company to profitability.  It sends no positive message
    out to the workforce, and it has minimal impact on the bottom line.
    The WSJ/bottled water thing will save us enough money to pay for
    maybe one or two VP's salary next year.  But every little bit helps.
    
    The rank and file (at least in this notesfile) bash management at
    every opportunity for making bad decisions and being self-serving.
    Management seems to be increasingly retaliating with missives like
    the Jack Smith memo that chide employees for causing the problem.
    Whether I talk to employees in the Field, or at Corporate, a sense
    of non-reality still pervades.  "That memo didn't really apply to
    us, we're essential and we'll do what we want."  I don't know if
    even a layoff or pay-cut will shake these people out of the fog.
    
    Geoff

re: 1188.6

>??  are you serious?

Yes.

>I know of many projects that are being slowed down in order to try to comply
>with standards.  Phase V DECnet is the most obvious example.

So do I.

>We comply with standards to the point that it's painful.

Not quite enough.

However, I cannot discuss details in a non-restricted conference.

>Many of our competitors are doing better (in the short term) because they
>ignore standards and implement things like TCP/IP.

ALL of our competitors have already implemented at least one very significant 
standard that we haven't.

>Our standards strategy is supposed to make us more successful in the long
>term.  And I'm convinced it will, if we don't go broke along the way.

It will, if implemented as intended.

    In regards to the cost cutting measures, I agree that we must avoid the
    blanket approach to solutions.  This only gets everybody upset when
    they see things like legitimate mileage criticized, but big ticket
    items ignored.  For example, the latest rage is car phones.  Why have a
    car phone?  Because the regs say I can have one.  Do you need it?  What
    does that matter?  And on, and on,....  This is only one gross case. 
    Now for the big one, and I know that this is going to really upset some
    people so don't FLAME to quickly.  Let's talk about car plans.
    
    Now as I understand it, the rules say soemthing like "every employee
    who has regular day to day contact with the customer..." is eligable
    for Plan A or B....  This is what was told to me.  It may be slightly
    askew. BUT, AT NO TIME DID IT WAS I ASKED DID I REALLY NEED IT.  And
    folks, that IS the problem.  Nobody is thinking anymore.  You may
    disagree with me, but tell me why DEC has anickname as Digital Welfare
    Corp?
    
    Sure, there are exceptions.  But there is an expense problem simply
    because management is not doing its job and making the hard decisions.
    Jack Smith sent out a memo which addressed the symptom of the disease. 
    Until it starts at the top, thinking that is, no amount of expense
    cutting will solve the problem.

    Praises to using our heads once in a while!!!  How about another
    radical idea??? ... like learning from others!
    
    When I was in Sales for another Fortune 10 company, I frequently
    employed a thought-provoking question that helped me make decisions.  I
    learned this method of decision-making from someone else.  The question
    I would ask myself when I was on my own in the Field is:
    
    IF THIS WERE MY PRIVATE COMPANY, WOULD I DO THIS?
    
    If the answer was no, I wouldn't do it.  If yes, I would.  I had one of
    the lowest Expense/Sales ratios in the country.  
    
    However, I was an adult and so were my managers.  And I proved myself
    to them through results.  They proved themselves to me by supporting
    me.  Symbiosis should also be our goal.  Real simple, huh?

    The sort of discretion and care over spending the shareholders money is
    the job of the cost center manager.
    
    Are you saying that cost center managers don't care anymore about
    spending money on cars and cellular phones?  Whatever happened to
    "meeting your number"?

    re .13
    
    You will find this hard to believe, but in some places managers
    are not even asked to explain variances from budget!  It seems that
    so much of the cost is allocations from overhead cost centers that
    operational cost centers have no control, so no accountability is
    exercised.  The people who used to ask the questions contribute
    considerably to the overhead themselves, so there's little incentive
    to ask the questions anymore.
    
    Strange but true!

    Sure, how we spend any Digital resource, including money, is the job of
    the CC manager.  It should be the job of every one of us too. 
    Off-loading that responsibility to CC managers only is subordinates way
    of passing-the-buck.  I don't support passing-the-buck in ANY
    direction.  
    
    Besides, positioning subordinates as children trying to get everything 
    they can weasle and CC managers as policemen trying to catch the kids 
    doing wrong is counter-productive as well as foolish.
    
    As far as I know, nothing happened to "meeting your numbers."  I
    believe I was suggesting that we just use our heads while doing it.  I
    believe we're smart enough to both whistle AND walk at the same time.  I
    don't see how it can hurt ... it's even likely to improve things.

    All I have ever been told is not to worry about my cost center charges. 
    My direct manager does not even know what those charges are.  Our unit
    is part of a district wide budget.  The ONLY (I think) time he gets
    heat from his manager is when we approach the limit or something
    obvious needs review.
    
    What is our budget?  Well, we don't know - remember, it is district
    wide.  Suffice it to say that we came in under by 300K last year.  Last
    week, our manager was told by hs manager that we would have to cut
    costs - no more Digital only lunches on the expense account (<100 per
    week).  Needless to say, car phones, car plans, etc. were not
    mentioned.
    
    I like what Carolyn said - about not treating us as children. 
    Unfortunately, that is probably how many of the managers are
    treated....
    
    From a previous comment: I REALLY like the idea of asking myself if I
    would do something if it were my private company.  It snaps you out of
    the bottomless corporate money pit.
    
    By the way, I've only been at Digital since April 30, 1990 leaving a
    defense contractor.  You think DEC is tight?

    re: "making the numbers":
    
    1.  The assumption is that the "numbers" are correct and well-founded.
    	But how often is this true?
    
    2.  When "making numbers" is the motivating factor, the incentive to
    	reduce costs _further_ disappears once the numbers are made.
    	"A satisfied need is no longer a motivator."  - A.Maslow
    
    -DM-

    ACtually the lack of trust expressed in .0 also applies to the way CC
    Managers are treated today. In my experience, CC Managers don't get
    their budgets cut and the responsibility of sharing out the cuts,
    rather there is a big brother attitude second guessing CC managers and
    even their managers.
    
    Why else would travel reqs, for instance, need sign off by 4 managers
    up a line of command to BOM level?
    
    
    /andy/

    Andy is absolutely correct.  Cost Center Managers who should be the
    hero of any movement to control costs are getting their remaining
    discretion taken away from them.

    On the expense (and opportunity cost) side we have DECWORLDS,
    "universities", and "institutes of technology", which are imposed.
    If you hear the word "tax" in Digital.  This is what they are talking
    about.

    On the non-expense side, we have directives on what money can't be
    spent on, regardless of the impact on local morale.

    This is one of my favorite paradoxes at Digital:  Vice Presidents issue
    memos on trivia and individual contributors attempt to influence
    corporate strategy.  Who's minding the store?

    re: .19
    
    	Well said! When SVP talk about such things as water and mileage,
    	who is minding the store? My managers hands are tied and the
    	perks he can give out are no longer there, taken away by someone
    	4 or 5 levels higher. 
    
    	I guess the reason we need some manager 4 or 5 levels higher to
    	sign for these "NEW" spending issues is to ensure that they have
    	something to do. (?)

    re .19

    Pat, my hero! :-)

    Seriously, talk about getting away from long-term vision -- we're down
    to the sub-micron level of short-sightedness.

    I suggest it's time to do away with some of the committees and have our
    top-level managers _manage_. I'd like to see:

    	-  opinions expressed
    	-  positions taken
        -  decisions made

    not word-smithing or "for example..."'s about the bloated expenses
    associated with our world-wide use of water coolers.

    /Peters