Conference 7.286::digital

    	Not a 52 week low but more like 3 or 4 yr low .
    

    
    First, can you say that a company  making more than 50% of it's
    revenue outside the US is not "international"? I think not.
    
    A company does not make itself "international" by relocating to a
    different country. There are things we can do to make ours "more
    international":
    
    o  admit that serious engineering effort takes places at locations other
       than ZK
    
    o  vigorously enforce the "internationalization" of software products
    
    o  open meaningful lines of two-way communication between the people
       selling our products and the people developing them (in US as well as
       across borders)
    
    Second, a person who works for a large food conglomerate once told me
    that in hard times, two types of suppliers regularly survive in an
    over-supplied market:
    
    o  those who supply the cheapest product, regardless of quality
    
    o  those who supply the best product, regardless of cost
    
    Only they have successfully differentiated themselves from the rest of
    the players; the others who languish in the middle of the road will
    either struggle along or collapse on a whim. Personally, I'd rather go
    for best; Digital has always declared that as a goal, and it would be
    disaterous for us to change that now (ie, cut R&D).
    

    I agree with .2 to all intensive purposes we are already international,
    we may not be as good at it as we should, but where we sight our
    facilities is irrelevant to this argument.
    
    The first thing we would find if we relocated physically from the US
    would be a chronic skills shortage, moreover we would loose many good
    people unless we took them with, in which case it would defeat the
    argument.
    
    Further to which, the US business is still a very large part of our
    bread and butter and we would still need it in the sameway, when you
    reach the size and magnitude of Digital you can't sudenly stop 40% of
    your revenues in search for higher returns, moreover we would stop
    being international at that point on the basis we had forsaken a major
    piece of the global scene.
    
    I don't believe we can in these times look for a "way out" as such, we
    must face up to the challenge, times are tough for everyone, but we
    must prove that we can meet that challenge better than the competition
    for that will be the determinant of our success in the forseable
    future.
    
    Guy.
    

Re: .0 

	"change the work ethics of those who remain." Not to start YARH but
what work ethics do you envision need changed in Digital US?

-Terry

    See note 1010.* "DEC - Global Competition" for some interesting
    comments.
    
    Guess What....! WE ARE A GLOBAL COMPANY.....!
    
    DEC has R&D, a good sales force, great support groups (IS etc) and
    the market of the future is here  for development and expansion,
    especially in the Eastern European Countries.  
    
    Let's think international.... and really GO for the international
    market.  We were one of the first computer companies having R&D and
    manufacturing in Europe.  We have the chance NOW.... 
    
    
    GO FOR IT....
    
    
    Bruce in (West) Germany!

re .3

Please excuse this digression; maybe I'm just grumpy today.  I wish the
author of .3 would be a bit more careful about run-on sentences and comma
splices.  The reply felt like a train rushing by.

Forgive me if your native language isn't English; this is an international
company.

/john

    An absolutely great idea.  While our business may be international in
    scope, we really don't think that way yet.  I've always been impressed
    with European management as well.  They seem to get a lot done,
    quickly, while working in a very diverse environment.
    
    This country (USA) is going to be in decline for the next decade or so
    because of a general failure to think internationally from a business
    standpoint.  At the same time a united Europe is going to become an
    economic powerhouse far exceeding our expectations.  I also think the
    Europeans are much better at dealing with the threat of Japan, Inc.
    

   Having moved from the ANtipodes (australia) to the Greater Maynard, I am
   even more firmly convinced that a large number of senior DEC employees,
   dont realize that we do business outside the New England States.
   
   q
   

    We Americans are probably the most provincial people on earth who
    have access to telephones, cable tv, and personal computers.  Many
    of us are PROUD (in a perverse sort of way) that we don't speak
    more than one language, that we don't like strange food or art.
    
    Among Americans, New Englanders of English extraction are near the
    top percentile of provincialism, IMHO.
    

    Odd.  Most of the software people I know like foreign food (Chinese,
    Thai, Indian, Japanese), and many can at least read a bit of French
    or German, but they are mostly Anglos from New England.
    
    Are you sure it isn't just the people you know?
    
    		-John Bishop

    In .4:
    
    > Not to start YARH but what work ethics do you envision need changed
    
    What does YARH stand for?
    
    Thanks,
    aq
    

    You got it!  I know more non-software people, and more non-DEC people
    than you.
    
    :-)
    
    Dick

    You want evidence that Digital still doesn't think or act like an
    international company?   Look no further than a Jack Smith memo of a
    couple of months back on savings in travel costs.  While I can't post
    the memo here, I'll give you the jist of it:   It was issued by a
    Senior V.P. of the corporation -- not just of the U.S. --
    and discussed the necessary reduction in Digital travel expense.
    One part of it mentioned that ALL travel to Europe and GIA MUST be
    approved by some level of Vice Presidency.   That's all it said -- not
    AIR travel, or U.S.-to-Europe travel -- just " all travel to Europe and
    GIA".   To my thinking, "all travel to Europe and GIA" definitely
    includes travel to Europe and GIA _originating_ in Europe or GIA.
    (e.g. Sales rep in Nice, France needs to attend telecom meeting in
    Valbonne)
    
    Think about that.   A Senior V.P. of an international corporation has
    issued a memo to his "jurisdiction" (which is clearly worldwide), that,
    if taken literally, means that an engineer in Reading, England, can't
    travel to Galway, Ireland.   ...or that a sales manager on one side of
    Tokyo can't drive over to the Field Service center also in Tokyo
    without a V.P.'s approval.
    
    The memo is clearly a U.S. memo!   ...despite being written by an
    international manager for an international corporation!  It completely
    overlooked the 1/2 of our company that is already in Europe and GIA,
    without explicitly intending to do so.
    
    While this is really a trivial action in and of itself, it does speak
    volumes about how well Digital is prepared to exploit the globalization
    of economies.
    
    -DM-
    

    Does anyone have any statistics on the distribution of employees within
    the company?   I am curious how many work in Massachusetts, the U.S.,
    the world, etc.  It might be interesting to see just how dispersed
    the company's personnel really is these days.

    -- Mike

>    To my thinking, "all travel to Europe and GIA" definitely
>    includes travel to Europe and GIA _originating_ in Europe or GIA.
>    (e.g. Sales rep in Nice, France needs to attend telecom meeting in
>    Valbonne)

You seem to have a problem with the English language.

To say what you think it said, the correct English would be "all travel
to or within".

If you're already in Europe, when you travel within it, you don't travel to it.

    re: .3
    
>    The first thing we would find if we relocated physically from the US
>    would be a chronic skills shortage, moreover we would loose many good
    
    I'm not sure this is a good argument.  The overall level of "skills"
    available in the U.S. workforce has been dropping radically, especially
    in the science and engineering disciplines.  Many corporate training
    and employment managers rail bitterly about the state of education
    in this country, where there are college graduates walking around who
    can barely read or write, much less do any useful math.
    
    Geoff
    

Re: going international

It surprises me that will all these major announcements etc on DVN that 
DVN isn't international.

A quick look at the DVN sites in VTX  ($ vtx dvn) reveals they are
ALL in the US, bar one which is in Quebec. 

Hey guys, look, we've got one DVN site outside the US ! Aren't we
breaking down the barriers and becoming a truly international company!!

Maybe the list is incomplete, or there are other DVN site lists around.
Does anyone know of any?

I find it amazing that:

1) Working in a town with over 2000 Digital employees Reading, England 
   isn't a DVN site. Being a DVN site seems to be standard equipment in 
   the US by comparison.

2) Important messages destined for the whole company are not being
   communicated to the whole company as a result. Are we out here
   not important enough to be told?  

Hmm, maybe if you guys in the US with videoconferencing could wheel that
gear into the DVN room, us in the outposts can watch the DVN broadcast 
via the v-con here.

	Craig.

    
    Regret I'm with .15 & .19.
    
    DEC may sell internationally, with 56% of revenue non-US.
    
    It has staff internationally, & manufactures in many countries ....
    
    BUT, is you are based outside the US, you realise very quickly that much
    of DEC US thinks US-only, with anywhere else as an afterthought.
    
    Many examples in Corporate policies, engineering programs, marketing
    programs etc. Unfair to detail specifics here, but they exist in
    abundance. 
    
    Unkind generalisation, based on hard lessons from the world of European
    selling. Like all generalisations, there are exceptions .. but these
    often just prove the rule.
    
    Don't want to seem offensive, but I do strongly believe we would
    strengthen our long-term survival prospects if we were more frequently 
    international thinkers first, & US second. (BTW I accept this is a 
    multi-way track & implies that non-US types give due thought to US
    -- & other national -- needs)
    
    
    

    re .17:
    
    The issue is not one of pedantic parsing. The point made was that
    Jack Smith plainly assumed that everybody's reference starting point
    was the USA (specifically, MASS). Note that he did not speak of
    "travel from Europe or GIA to USA", or "travel from Europe to
    GIA and vice versa".
    
    It may seem trivial to you guys, but some of us abroad are sick
    to the teeth of it (to put it mildly). Daily and hourly, we come
    across assumptions that the USA is the centre of the Digital
    universe, and Europe and GIA are remote colonies.
    
    Today, demonstrating CDD/Repository at DECville, I found my
    colleague from Corporate had expanded the demo. Where we had
    a record called FULL_NAME consisting of fields FIRST_NAME,
    MIDDLE_NAME and LAST_NAME, there is now another field called
    GENERATION. Guess what folks, the USA is the only country where
    people put generations in their names. I laughed it off by saying
    that in Europe only royalty get generation numbers (e.g. Queen
    Elizabeth II) whereas all Americans live like kings, but it can
    get bloody embarrassing.
    
    Kathy Hornbach recently sent an excellent paper on the theme
    of US parochial attitudes and terms to a wide distribution. If I
    can find a copy in Notes I will supply a pointer to it - it's
    likely to be in CURIE::CASE. (Shortly after sending this, Kathy
    herself, addressing an audience of European sales people at
    DECWorld, described something as a "curve ball" - a baseball
    term. Guess how many countries have baseball... It's insidious!)
    
    The really important issue, however, is that Corporate sits
    squarely in the US. Please name some Corporate decision makers
    who work in Europe or GIA. This blurs the line between Corporate
    and Area in the USA, and accentuates it elsewhere.
    
    /Tom


                   <<< CURIE::AUX$SYS2:[NOTES]CASE.NOTE;2 >>>
                                      CASE
Created: 11-SEP-1986 08:56         831 topics         Updated: 20-SEP-1990 04:07

================================================================================
Note 813.0          Some Recurrent Themes from my Travels....          3 replies
SSGBPM::HORNBACH "Kathy Hornbach, CASE/AIA/DECwindows/DSS Base Prod. Mkting" 360 lines  21-AUG-1990 16:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


+---------------+
| d i g i t a l |    I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M
+---------------+
                                          DATE: 16-Aug-1990
TO: Distribution			  FROM: Kathy Hornbach
 					  DEPT: Software Development Marketing

CC: KH staff
    SSM staff
    SDT mgrs

Subject: Recurring Themes around the World


Over the last six months or so, I have spent quite a bit of time with DEC field
people and with non-US Country Marketing people.  It was enlightening
understanding the world from their viewpoint, and rather humbling.  I've
summarized below some of the recurrent themes that I encountered in my travels.
It's worth spending some time to see what we can do to get better in these
areas. 


A short summary topics covered in the report:

Doing Business in a Global Market
	- non-availability of strategic third parties outside of the US
	- disconnects when international customers visit Corporate
	- the need to craft messages/programs to varying technology levels
	- connecting on international announcements
	- tailoring our literature to non-US needs
	- working with global companies
	- value of Digital services/support in smaller geographies
	- Japanese computer pervasiveness in Australia

Getting Information to the Field
	- vital importance of VTX infobases
	- DECforms as the model of product information dissemination
	- NAS understanding and lack thereof
	- simple strategy vision needed
	- importance of conveying strategy decisions and rationale to the field
	- importance of knowing what's wrong with product/strategy
	- an alternate approach to PID training
	- US-centric view of corporate-driven programs
	- need for uniform presentation style/availability

Some CASE-specific Observations
	- much higher level of CASE awareness/emphasis
	- high level of interest in IBM-targetted development
	- worldwide customer interest in CASE
	- need to improve demo capability

Other Observations/Trends
	- uniformly high interest in UNIX and open systems
	- pervasive switch to EIS/systems integration model
	- pain from software licensing/pricing
	- account reps more technical
	- picking up new accounts
	- a final observation




----------- DOING BUSINESS IS A GLOBAL MARKET ----------------    

-  We base a lot of our strategy and marketing effort on the availability on
CMPs/ISVs to cover weaknesses in our product lines.  One example is our
reliance on Sabre-C and Procase for an ULTRIX CASE solution.  Well, many of
these companies do not have offices overseas, or they have distributorships
that are poorly supported.  In most cases, there are no local alternatives. 
Country subsidiaries are thus left with no viable solution in critical
markets.  I stood in the booth at Digital '90 in Israel for four days, watching
customer after customer come in and ask what Digital could provide for ULTRIX
lower CASE tools -- the only answer I could give was, "the standard UNIX tools,
a few of which have windowing interfaces."  When we base a major strategy on a
third party product, we should invest more time in making sure that it, or an
equivalent product, is widely available outside the US. 

-  There seem to be disconnects at times, when overseas customers come to visit
Corporate.  The local sales/support person supporting a division of that
account doesn't hear about the visit in advance.  Then the customer comes back
and asks the sales/support person for additional information on what he heard
back at corporate.  Of course, the poor local support person hasn't even heard
of the product or strategy decision that his customer is talking about, let
alone have additional details on it.  This further confirms in the customer's
mind that his local people don't know the latest and greatest, and that regular,
frequent trips to DEC Corporate are a must.  It can also be very frustrating for
the support person who has been trying to establish a partnership relationship
with the customer (a customer who now feels that he must work directly with DEC
Corporate).  Ideally, the senior sales/support people should accompany the
customer on any Corporate visit -- thus ensuring that they know as much as the
customer; that they make the Corporate connections necessary for followup after
the visit; and so that the customer sees the direct linkage between the field
and Corporate (hence adding credibility to the field people).  In cases where
accompanying the customer is not possible, at least the local people should know
what's on the agenda and who presented.  They should also be assured of
far-enough-in-advance training and strategy dissemination that the customer
doesn't bring back something totally unexpected. 
    
-  Geographical distance seems to make a difference in how advanced customers
as a whole are in picking up the latest technology. While there are
leading-edge customers (and laggards) in every country, in general, audiences
in the US, followed by Europe, were more aware of, more interested in, and
further along in implementing the latest technologies.  It's worthwhile to
remember that messages and presentations crafted for one country may not match
current customer concerns in another.  Repository and enterprise-wide
integration messages might work in the US, but messages emphasizing
a simpler level of automation such as VAXset might be more readily received
in another geography.

- The linkages for announcements between corporate and non-US geographies is
not very good, at least for CASE.  The information they need doesn't get there
in time; isn't focused right for an international market; and doesn't get much
visibility at the country level or in the field.  The rapid shifts in
announcement plans and strategies (as products slip, etc) cause even greater
problems internationally than they cause here  -- the information about the
change is not communicated quickly enough, nor all the reasons behind it
explained. The net result is that many of our announcements end up having an
effect in the US only.  Knowing how much effort and time we put into trying to
build international linkages for announcements, I'm not sure what to suggest to
fix this. 
	
-  We've made some valuable improvements to our literature to make it more
applicable in world markets.  While some of the larger countries will do a
translated version of product literature, others just use the
corporate-produced version.  There was much appreciation for the CASE brochure,
which includes overseas as well as US contact information for both Digital and
CSOs.  The inclusion of non-US firms in the testimonial highlight boxes is also
appreciated.  One suggestion - there seems to be quite a strong emphasis on
defense applications, which isn't appropriate/relevant for some countries. 

-  It's obvious we need to re-look at the way we do business with global
companies.  These companies just don't want to deal with
pricing/licensing/packaging/availability/support differences depending on
"which" Digital they are doing business with. (I know that this is an area being
looked at.)

-  On a positive note - one thing that does differentiate Digital from many of
its smaller hardware and software competitors is the availability of truly
worldwide services and support.  This gives DEC a big edge in some of the
world's smaller or less mainstream markets.  I visited the telephone support
center in Sydney that covered calls from not only SPR, but also backup for
calls from the Far East.  Very impressive - if I was a customer from a smaller
Geography, I'd be a lot more comfortable buying from Digital than someone whose
nearest support facility was half a world away. 
    
-  One interesting factor stood out in Australia - the  Japanese computer makers
are a *much* larger and more visible factor in the market there, especially in
the large IBM mainframe-compatible world.  Far more than I've seen elsewhere in
the world, and apparently doing quite well.  If Australia is their test market
before expand to US/Europe, we may be in for some stiff competition. 

RE:                     <<< Note 1189.20 by CHEFS::OSBORNEC >>>
>                         -< Do we think international >-

The problem is much worse than not being international.  Within Digital,
if you are more than 50 miles for Maynard you might as well be in
Europe.

The percentage of employees that are contrated in one isolated corner of
the US is absolutly ludicrous.  It would be interesting to see which
colleges Digital recruits at.  I would venture a guess that most of our
peple are hired from one sector of the county.

What percentage of our marketing and industry specific engineers are
within 20 miles the center of their specific industry?

Unless this company starts to move out of the New England woods we are
never going to overcome the problem of trying to sell to people who have
never heard of us.

    I came into Digital about 1 1/2 yeara ago, and the pervasive attitude
    was definitely, if you are in Europe, you are a second class Digital
    citizen. Some examples,
    
    1. All QAR databases ( that I know of ) are in the states, no attempt 
    has been made to distribute this facility by any engineering group
    I know of. ( A few accept notefiles entries which is better than nothing ). 
    
    2. Product annoucements are invariably made in the states with no
    allowance made for the average 3 to 6 month overhead for getting those
    products shipping in the Europe/Asian area.
    
    3. All the serious product managers are based in the states and of the
    few I have attempted to contact regarding (serious) issues I can only 
    surmise one of three things,
     
    	o The message service trashes (sic) all their phone messages.
     	o They never read their mail.
    	o They ignore mail from strangers.
    
    There are other more cynical possibilities ... but enough.
    
    4. All localised products ship 3-6 months after *GIA* ship date (see
    point 2), this makes for a lot of pain with GIA customers who have been
    waiting for a product they can understand. And this is just Europe !
    I dread to think what happens in countries that don't use ISO-LATIN-1.
    
    5. All new product training hardware & software happens in the states
    first.
    
    6. All new FT hardware requests, are filled in state-side first order.
    
    7. All the sh*tty boring engineering projects are exported, I mean look
    what I'm working on ! :-}
    
    8. Any interesting engineering projects instantly seems to get "imported" 
    to the states.I may be wrong about this in general but it is my 
    perception, based upon personal observation.
    
    International ? We've paid just enough lip-service to fool our
    customers for a while, but take a good look, you think Siemens & Fujitsu 
    are going to be *sporting* and give us another 5-10 years to get our act
    together...
    

  <<< Note 1189.24 by VOGON::DRUMGOOLE "Joe Drumgoole, ULTRIX/LMF" >>>
    All pretty depressing, mostly wrong. Let's take your points one at a
    time:
    
>    1. All QAR databases ( that I know of ) are in the states, no attempt 
>    has been made to distribute this facility by any engineering group
>    I know of. ( A few accept notefiles entries which is better than nothing ). 
    
    Engineering groups based in the US have their QAR databases locally.
    Distributed access would be nice, but.... Anyhow, Engineering groups
    elsewhere (like Reading) DO have QAR databases local to them. You
    simply have to remember that the majority of engineering is done in the
    US.
    
>    2. Product annoucements are invariably made in the states with no
>    allowance made for the average 3 to 6 month overhead for getting those
>    products shipping in the Europe/Asian area.
    
    Might I point out that the DECtp announcement was made in PARIS, in
    Febuary this year? "The biggest announcement ever"....
    
>    3. All the serious product managers are based in the states and of the
>    few I have attempted to contact regarding (serious) issues I can only 
>    surmise one of three things,
>    	o The message service trashes (sic) all their phone messages.
>     	o They never read their mail.
>    	o They ignore mail from strangers.
>    There are other more cynical possibilities ... but enough.
    
    What is a 'serious' product manager? There's a MAJOR Product Management
    group in REO. They're pretty serious when I talk with them.
    
    As to people who don't respond, neither Product Management nor
    Americans have a monopoly on this.
    
>    4. All localised products ship 3-6 months after *GIA* ship date (see
>    point 2), this makes for a lot of pain with GIA customers who have been
>    waiting for a product they can understand. And this is just Europe !
>    I dread to think what happens in countries that don't use ISO-LATIN-1.
    
    
    Because it takes TIME to translate products. SHould we delay the base
    versions (and lose revenue) whilst the product is transalted into
    another language? Don't forget that the majority of our market remains
    english-speaking.
    
>    5. All new product training hardware & software happens in the states
>    first.
    
    Wrong. Just plain wrong.
    
>    6. All new FT hardware requests, are filled in state-side first order.
    
    Again, wrong. Just plain wrong.
    
>    7. All the sh*tty boring engineering projects are exported, I mean look
>    what I'm working on ! :-}
    
    Yet again wrong. Just plain wrong. I wonder what your manager would
    think of such comments?
    
>    8. Any interesting engineering projects instantly seems to get "imported" 
>    to the states.I may be wrong about this in general but it is my 
>    perception, based upon personal observation.
    
    Well, I've been in DEC 7 years to your 1.5. MY perspectice is that you
    are mistaken. Again.
    
    
    
    No-one is going to deny the ethnocentricity of DEC. But let's not
    exaggerate it.
    
    
    /andy/

    >Engineering groups based in the US have their QAR databases locally.
    >Distributed access would be nice, but.... Anyhow, Engineering groups
    >elsewhere (like Reading) DO have QAR databases local to them. You
    >simply have to remember that the majority of engineering is done in the
    >US.
    
    This is exactly my point, the majority of engineering groups are based
    in the states (and quite close together) but there customers/field test
    sites are distributed around the globe. I don't mind a reasonable
    amount of network overhead, but when I spend more time filing QARs
    (due to network overhead) than actually using/testing a product I am
    less inclined to file QARs. 
    
    There are alternative mechanisms for filing QARs, mail and/or
    notesfiles are haved been used by several engineering groups but these
    groups are definitely in the minority.
    
    >Might I point out that the DECtp announcement was made in PARIS, in
    >Febuary this year? "The biggest announcement ever"....
    
    Yes, Thats *one* ....
    
    >What is a 'serious' product manager? There's a MAJOR Product Management
    >group in REO. They're pretty serious when I talk with them.
    
    With all products I have come into contact with, there has been a
    European Product Manager and an American Product Manager. In every
    case the American Product manager is the one who calls the shots.
    
    >As to people who don't respond, neither Product Management nor
    >Americans have a monopoly on this.
    
    Yes, but my difficulties have be purely when trying to contact people
    in the U.S.
    
    >Because it takes TIME to translate products. SHould we delay the base
    >versions (and lose revenue) whilst the product is transalted into
    >another language? Don't forget that the majority of our market remains
    >english-speaking.
    
    Q. Why does it take so long ?
    A. Because engineering the product for internationalisation is low
       down on the development teams list of priorities.
    
    >>    5. All new product training hardware & software happens in the
    >> state first.
    >>
    > Wrong. Just plain wrong.
    
    >>    6. All new FT hardware requests, are filled in state-side first order.
    >    Again, wrong. Just plain wrong.
    
    Hmm, Maybye I should have prefixed this by "In my personal experience". As
    far as that goes this has been true. 
    
    >Well, I've been in DEC 7 years to your 1.5. MY perspectice is that you
    >are mistaken. Again.
    >No-one is going to deny the ethnocentricity of DEC. But let's not
    >exaggerate it.
    
    I'm not exaggerating, I'm speaking from personal experience and
    observation, and what I see is a large U.S. company paying a lot of
    lip-service to its international customers *and* its international
    working partners.
    
    If I'm wrong & you're right, why is the share price so low they
    won't even post it in the canteen these days and why are people
    being right-sized onto the street even as we speak ?
    
     
    
    

    I don't think that the share price is related in any direct way to
    internationalisation issues.
    
    As to "You're wrong" statements, well, you are. Your experience doesn't
    reflect mine - I've HELD product training in Europe more than once.
    
    As to "that's *one* product announcement", you gave a blanket
    statement. My refutation only *needed* one example to show that, ahem,
    you're wrong.
    
    As to "European and US" Product Management, I never came across that.
    I have seen European and US Product MARKETING however. In central
    Engineering there is, in my experience, precisely one PM pre product,
    co-located with the Engineering group in most cases.
    
    
    /andy/

...I have to side with Andy Leslie on this one.  Your unfortunate experiences
do not appear to be representative of Digital as a whole.  


>  >What is a 'serious' product manager? There's a MAJOR Product Management
>  >group in REO. They're pretty serious when I talk with them.
>    
>  With all products I have come into contact with, there has been a
>  European Product Manager and an American Product Manager. In every
>  case the American Product manager is the one who calls the shots.

     Nope.  The REO group is responsible for, among other things, WAN software
and hardware products.  As far as I've been able to determine, there is no US
product manager in this area.  There is some division of responsibilities for
some of the products I was interested in, but the shots were definitely called
by the folks in Reading, UK.  BTW - these products were pretty 'serious' to
my customer.


>   >As to people who don't respond, neither Product Management nor
>   >Americans have a monopoly on this.
>    
>   Yes, but my difficulties have be purely when trying to contact people
>   in the U.S.
 
     I tend to see more of a problem when contacting people in cross-functional
areas (e.g. the field asking engineering for help) rather than cross-
geographical areas.  Probably due to different agendas.  I've also seen less
and less of this in the last couple of years.  A few years back, the typical
response was "how did you get this number?"  Now it seems (at least *SOME* of
the time) to be "what can I do to help?"  Major improvement.  Or maybe I've
just gotten luckier.

     Really too bad, though, that it happens *AT ALL*.  In a few more years,
when somebody calls you for assistance with something that's not on YOUR agenda,
I sincerely hope you remember your current complaints. 


     To avoid addressing each of your remaining points as Andy Leslie has
already done (most effectively), let me just finish by saying that I personally
know of one training course that is offered ONLY in Europe. Strangely enough,
the product is engineered in the states.  How odd that U.S. personnel interested
in this product cannot get trained on it (haven't been able to talk my manager
into THIS one yet ;-) ).


>    Hmm, Maybye I should have prefixed this by "In my personal experience".

     Yes.  Maybe you should have.


Andy

	re .24 - .28:

	Right off, let me point out that this discussion (of whether
	Engineering is heavily biassed Stateside) demonstrates something
	quite clearly, regardless of whether Joe or Andy is "right":

	TWO VERY INTELLIGENT, SERIOUS, WELL-INTENTIONED DIGITAL
	EMPLOYEES HAVE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT VIEWS OF HOW THE COMPANY
	WORKS IN AREAS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THEIR OWN.

	This is a symptom of the endemic ignorance of Digital's
	mission, objectives and organization, which affects all of
	us - even those who, like myself, make a hobby out of trying to
	piece it all together. The fact is, it's all far too complicated.

	On the whole, I strongly sympathize with Joe's point of view.
	He may be wrong in detail in quite a few points of fact, but
	I have to admit that the spirit, if not the letter, is correct.

	There are one or two details I would like to cast light on.
	First of all, Product Managers and Product Marketing. It does
	not help at all that these terms are often used interchangeably
	by people who should know better. Joe's point is that each
	corporate product has one, and only one, Corporate Product
	Manager (CPM). Since most engineering product teams are based in
	the States, so are most of the CPMs. Notable exceptions include
	ALL-IN-1 and a number of comms products (based in Reading, England).

	Now, in principle, Europe and GIA have their own "Product Managers"
	but these are NOT Corporate Product Managers. These people (whom
	I call "local" or "field" product managers) are responsible for sales
	of their products in their geography, and have some responsibility for
	pricing, announcement, and sales support. But they have pretty close
	to zero ownership of the product, as all they can do is ask the CPM
	to make any changes they feel are needed.

	Until recently, each country had its own set of LPMs. Recently these
	were abolished, in Europe (and some rightsized). As of today, local
	product management in Europe is done by one person for each set
	of products. (Another difference - CPMs have one, or at most a handful
	of products to drive).

	I believe that Joe is referring to CPMs when he uses the term
	"serious product manager".

	Furthermore, since field test is controlled by the CPM and his/her
	engineering team, if they are in the States I believe that the
	FT process will indeed be seen to start earlier and get more
	attention in the States. An excellent example which can be
	mentioned because the product was program announced in June, is
	CDD/Repository V5. There are about a dozen groups INTERESTED in
	this in Europe, but FT training is mainly being organized and
	delivered by a single EIS consultant who has made it her business
	to get it done. Her method is to attend the FT training in the
	States, modify the materials, and then teach it later in Europe.

	To summarize, I have a lot of respect for both Joe and Andy, and
	I regret that they have disagreed so forcefully. However, it seems
	to be like the four blind men with the elephant, one of whom thought it
	was a snake, etc. NONE of us can comprehend the elephant - in my
	opinion, not even senior management - and THAT's the real problem.

	/Tom

RE: The last few:

Have to point out that with David Stone taking over all the layered
software products being implemented over here, you certainly have a
friend in high places who'll be more than sympathetic to geographical
issues.

/George

    re .29
    
    Just to be more clear, Engineering has Product Managers, Marketing has
    Product Marketing Managers.  There is usually only one Product Manager
    for a given product in the Corporation.  The exception might occur in
    the case of product internationalization and in this case the roles are
    always clear.  On the Marketing side, there is one Corporate Product
    Marketing Manager, then (at least for major products) a European
    Product Marketing Manager, and (again for major products) a Country
    Product Marketing Manager.  Generally the Country Product Marketeers
    talk to the European Product Marketeer, who talks to the Corporate
    Product Marketeer, who then talks to the Corporate (Engineering)
    Product Manager.  The GIA situation is approximately the same (GIA
    Product Marketing Manager gives inputs to Corporate Product Marketeer).
    The purpose of this structure is to present a unified Marketing
    Requirements Document to Engineering.  The Corporate folks, both
    Engineering and Marketing, are supposed to address internalization
    issues.  They usually pay lip service to this, and then delay the
    internationalization until version 1.1 or 2.0 due to "schedule
    pressures" or "additional functionality" for the initial release.  The
    European Product Marketing Manager frequently ends up cast in the role
    of "uncooperative" when they insist on prioritizing internationalization
    at least as high as functionality and schedule.  Engineering has an
    excellent guideline for internationalization, if it was followed.  One
    of Engineering's favorite tricks is to wait until the last minute
    before field test and then say that they didn't have time to do the
    internationalization.
    
    -dinesh.

    So what should engineering say if they really _didn't_ have time?
    
    You can't have more than one top priority, by definition.
    
    		-John Bishop

    re .32
    
    John,
    
    If Engineering commits to something, then they are responsible to
    deliver it on schedule.  If they get into schedule trouble, then 
    they should not take it upon themselves to make the decision between 
    features, performance, internationalization, or other tradeoffs.  They
    need to communicate the options and listen to Marketing more.  Most of
    the time they simply don't want to cop to the fact that they missed
    their schedule, so they drop internationalization and hope that nobody
    will scream too loud.
    
    The basic problem is usually a tradeoff between features and
    internationalization within a given time-to-market.  Engineers tend to
    believe that features are always the highest priority.  And, besides,
    features are alot more fun to implement.  Many times it is more
    important to the non-US market to have an internationalized product
    than to have the extra sexy features that Engineering thinks are
    important.  Most engineers find it difficult to appreciate the 
    proportion of our revenue that is non-US and that the proportion of
    profit is even higher.  The problem is worse in the Maynard area than
    it is in other Engineering groups, Palo Alto for example.
    
    -dinesh.

    Re: .31
    
    Other views:
    
    Engineering (nee PBU) have: Product Managers (bible is Phase Review,
                                repository of product status, ..., massive
                                responsibility -- no authority)
    
                              : Base Product Marketing Managers (these
                                people "market" Digital's internally
                                developed stuff ....)
    
    Product Marketing (aka ABU) have: Application and/or industry marketing
                                      people that support sales/train
                                      sales, develop relationships with
                                      3rd parties, ...
    
    Ever since Gordon Bell established product manager (to eliminate
    the constant pressure on development schedules caused by developers
    helping sales) there has been some overlap between the "marketing"
    role.
    
    In the international context, Digital greater Maynard is lacking.
    For example, while VDE A is the legal minimum, VDE B helps the
    customer.  Try explaining that to a US-based, cost conscience
    engineering manager.  Other examples abound....
    
    So, the journey will be long and hard, but it begins always with
    the first step (... or words to that effect from the Chinese ...)
    
    Joe

    
    I've been involved in three consecutive releases of a product that has
    not yet been internationalized.
    
    For those three releases, engineering stated clearly in the component
    specification that the product would not be internationalized, and the
    reasons for this decision. The product passed through public phase 1
    reviews of all three releases with no objection to the lack of
    internationalization, and a restatement of the reasons was sufficient to
    obtain SQM certification just prior to release.
    
    If some engineering group committed to internationalizing a product,
    and did not deliver on that committment, that's a point problem which
    should be addressed in no uncertain terms to the particular team.
    I suspect however, as is substantiated in my experience, that the real
    problem is that no one even remotely connected with the release of
    software products has demanded that they be internationalized. Such a
    demand would go a long way toward making Digital a truly international
    software company.
    

    I'm the BLISS project leader, so I have some experience with
    schedules and so on.
    
    Over the last three or more years, we've had no time to add features
    to the compiler.  Minor bug-fixes have been delayed.  Clearly valuable
    improvements have been postponed again and again.  People have left 
    the project.
    
    Our work has been driven by a series of demands from above to do
    certain things (some not yet finished, and so not discussable here),
    along the lines of "You _will_ do X, it is your _only_ priority".
    
    By chance, BLISS is in a pretty good situation with respect to 
    internationalization, but if we weren't, that effort would be way
    down on the list, given the other things we _must_ do, and the 
    important things we have not been able to do.
    
    Now, tell me what the right answer answer to Marketing demands for
    internationalization would be for a project leader whose product 
    had this kind of background.  (BLISS, of course, never hears from
    Marketing at all, but then it has almost no external users).
    
    			-John Bishop

re:      <<< Note 1189.31 by LEMAN::DAVEED "What you get is how you do it" >>>
                  -< Product Mgrs vs. Product MARKETING Mgrs >-

Wow. I'm awed that somebody understand how marketeers and marketing
managers and engineering marketing marketeer managers and so on interact. 
I've always found it confusing and its good to see it in one place.  I'm
afraid I've been in DEC long enough that the explanation makes sense to me;
its just that my head hurts.  No wonder DEC's costs are so high with
respect to revenue.

BobW

    
    Re .31/-1
    
    Don't forget the role of Marketing Program Managers in all this debate
    about Product Managers......
    
    In my case, fit between 18 individual country Product Managers & the
    Corporate Product Manager, & Corporate Marketing.
                             

    Speaking as a guy who has worked on internationalization for 10 years
    and who has recently relocated from the UK to the US, here is my
    tuppenceworth (2 cents worth).
    
    1. Are we international? Not to my mind. We are a US company that
    exports 56% of its product. Being international is being able to
    say that a customer in country X perceives us as good as the local
    supplier. Going even further, if the customer happens to be
    international (or multinational, as we are), he wants to be able
    to buy any of our products in any country that he operates with the
    feeling that we will be superior to the local supplier(s) because
    of our multinational-ness
    
    I am told that it is possible to go to HP anywhere in the world
    and get a quotation for a complex system involving localized
    products in 4 hours. For Digital, this would take weeks if it is
    possible at all.
    
    2. I strongly support the view that many Digital employees in Greater
    Maynard don't really realize there is anything outside the 6 New
    England states. This is one of the biggest eye-openers to me in
    the 4 months I have been part of that community.
    
    3. Should we relocate the company? I'm not sure what that means.
    Perhaps what is more practical is to insist that it is a condition
    of being a senior manager in Digital that you work for 2 years in
    another country. It's true that travel broadens the mind. Our
    lack of international-ness is more dependent on the mindset of the
    people rather than the location of the where they work.
    
    4. Should we forcefully internationalize all of our software?
    Probably, but using the word 'forcefully' smacks of neglecting
    the business issues involved. The more insidious problem is that
    we don't have the processes to sell and support localized software
    in the countries where our customers want to use it. We have Japanese
    VMS now, but it is not in the US price-list and is not supportable
    in the US. We also average 1 multi-national customer per week who
    wants to buy it for use in the US. I'm glad to say that people are
    working to fix this situation.

    With regards to complaints from Euro_Noters in this and the "Jack
    Smith memo" note, I wouldn't blame the US VP's that much.
    
    IHMO they have a rather hard time to find a DEC Europe entity
    anywhere. Of course there's DEC UK, GY, FR.........., but
    no such thing as a DEC Europe.
    
    Is there any DEC Europe Notesfile ?
    NO, but there are UK, GY .... Notesfiles
    
    Is there any European Customer Support Center....
    NO, but there are........
    
    How many folks from Europe participate in this conference ?
    
    Unless "they" play the "power by division" game, I am afraid
    that the blame for a nonexistant DEC Europe is on us!
    
    There will be a united Europe, but from what I can see going
    on ( Customer Services point of view ) in DEC, I doubt that
    there is any genuine European team-spirit around when
    decisions (frequently non-decisions) are taken  about 
    organizing ourselves.
    
    /fred still trying..... 

	re .40:

	Fred, I am not so much worried at the absence of a clearly
	identifiable "DEC Europe" or "European team-spirit". What
	does bother me a lot is the fact that both the Americans and
	the Europeans identify "DEC Europe" as an entity. Who ever talks
	about "DEC USA"?? Why, the very name of the multinational
	business is "Digital Equipment Corporation, Inc." - an American
	title for an American concern.

	I don't really like the idea of "European" or "American" or
	"Japanese" DEC. We all work for the same organization, and
	we have a great deal in common which holds us together. Take
	this notes conference as an example! We have all sorts of
	discussions in here - some of us hold forth a great deal,
	and sometimes persuade other people of the correctness or
	at least merit of our views. Other times we get slapped down
	smartly, contradicted, or plain proved wrong. Because of the
	companionship I feel with all genuine Digital people, I don't
	take these reverses in a bad spirit. Instead, I can say "OK,
	I was wrong, but my friend set me right, and I'm now better
	informed".

	In stark contrast to the informality and directness of Notes,
	we have the hierarchies and committees of senior management.
	To tell the truth, most times when I notice the existence of
	European management, it is as an obstacle. Because if it is
	telling me something different from the corporate line, that's
	a problem which it best slows me down and at worst prevents me
	from offering a customer products and services that should be
	available.

	What we need is a united Digital. But we can't have that when
	much of corporate management tacitly limits its thinking to
	the USA - and that goes for corporate marketing, engineering,
	and product management as well. ACTs, then DCCs had existed
	in the States for over a year when Europe started to set them
	up. I assumed, naturally, that we would simply follow the US
	model. Oh, no! "We haven't yet decided what an ACT should be",
	we were told by the "decision makers" at European and country
	level. We still hadn't decided when it was time to dissolve the
	ACTs (well, some of them). Then we were going to have a "European
	Technology DCC" which would handle technology marketing for
	Europe. But now that idea has gone away too.

	It would be very interesting to audit the corporate, US, and
	European management structures, and ascertain exactly how much
	duplication and triplication there is there. Then decide whether
	that contributes to the business, or hinders it.

	But all this is a management issue. I often wish that the
	number of desks (and "NO" rubber stamps) between Ken Olsen
	and me would decrease. But there's nothing at all I can do
	about it.

	(From this morning's news - I heard about the new schedule
	for announcement and shipping of a critical strategic product.
	"But of course all this will be delayed by an indefinite period
	in Europe" - as usual. WHY???)

	/Tom

I work in the New York area, and I often feel like I'm in a different country
from most of our senior management.  When Viewed from within that fantasy 
universe known as "Greater Maynard", the rest of the U.S.is just as much a 
foreign country as Europe.

-dave

    re: a couple back.
    
    If there is no DEC Europe, what does Pier Carlo Falotti and his
    many colleagues in European Headquarters actually do ?
    
     

Author:	Pier Carlo FALOTTI @GEO       
Date:	26-Sep-1990
Posted-date: 01-Oct-1990
Precedence: 1


     
     This announcement is from: Pier Carlo FALOTTI, President - Europe
     	                        Alberto FRESCO, Country Group VP - Europe
     	                        John SIMS, Strategic Resources, VP Corp.
     
     
     INTRODUCTION
     
     There have been several requests to enhance the European presence at 
     Corporate given that:
     
     1.  Geneva and the European country headquarters are too far from 
         Maynard to afford easy and rich senior management communications, 
         even with our advanced networking capabilities.
     
     2.  The emerging markets in Eastern Europe and Africa require a 
         dedicated response from Digital, and close coupling of European 
         and Corporate management is vital.
     
     4.  Recent episodes involving the best-intentioned managers from 
         several organizations have demonstrated our lack of coordination, 
         sometimes in front of customers.
     
     5.  A senior management activity in Maynard would offer another avenue 
         for European senior managers to serve in the Corporate environment 
         for a time, as part of their management development programs.
     
     Therefore, before going ahead with the establishment of a permanent 
     unit, I would like to start a project to define, initiate and validate 
     the concept of a European management office in Maynard.  There are no 
     limits or preconceived ideas about how to define or operate such an 
     office.  Maximum creativity should be used in developing the concept.  
     If it is found that the concept is unworkable and should be abandoned, 
     that will be regarded as a solution.  The activities should be 
     quantifiable and adding value to the operations.
     
     
     OBJECTIVES
     
     The objectives of this project will be to:
     
     1.	 Evaluate the real effectivity of having a group as an on-going 
         linkage between Europe and Corporate.
     
     2.	 Set up a formal operating unit to channel all the communications 
         and activities between the various corporate groups and Alberto 
         Fresco's operation as regards Eastern Europe.
     
     3.	 Host a liaison person responsible to collect all the interests 
         towards Africa and optimize the activities with CDG.
     
     4.	 Evaluate the feasibility of using the person in charge of this 
         office as a better channel of communication between Europe and 
         Corporate.

     
     
     We are pleased to appoint
     
                                 BRUCE ANDERSON
     
     as responsible for this project. He will take a few months to have a 
     final proposal. For this assignment Bruce will be hosted by John SIMS 
     at Corporate and report to Alberto FRESCO for the Eastern Europe and 
     Africa related issues, and to Pier Carlo FALOTTI for the overall 
     Europe/Corporate part.
     
     We are confident that you will all support Bruce in this project to 
     ensure we channel our resources and quickly assess the feasibility and 
     the effectiveness of this project.
     
     

	re .43:
    
>>>    If there is no DEC Europe, what does Pier Carlo Falotti and his
>>>    many colleagues in European Headquarters actually do ?

	Let me put it this way:

	As someone who has worked in Field Service, a Customer Support
	Centre, pre-sales support, an ACT, and now national Marketing:

	__I don't know.__


	It has occurred to me many times to wonder what would happen
	if, overnight, elves or gnomes were to pick up EHQ and put
	it down on, say the other side of the Moon.

	I don't have any notion how much money that would save
	Digital. How many people work there, how many buildings
	are there, how many computers are used to provide ALL-IN-1
	for those people, how many airfares and hotel bills do they
	incur, etc.? Probably quite a lot, though. Geneva is not
	the cheapest city in the world, in fact it may be one of
	the most expensive.

	Despite a lot of effort, I'm not sure I can think of any
	specific way in which it would affect me, my colleagues,
	the sales and sales support people I try to help, or our
	customers.

	This means one of two things. One of them is that I am
	unbelievably badly informed about the functions of a vital
	part of our organization.

	re .44:

>     Therefore, before going ahead with the establishment of a permanent 
>     unit, I would like to start a project to define, initiate and validate 
>     the concept of a European management office in Maynard.  There are no 
>     limits or preconceived ideas about how to define or operate such an 
>     office.  Maximum creativity should be used in developing the concept.  
>     If it is found that the concept is unworkable and should be abandoned, 
>     that will be regarded as a solution.  The activities should be 
>     quantifiable and adding value to the operations.

	My reaction to this should be fairly predictable in the light
	of what I have said above, taken together with 1189.44 in this
	conference.

	/Tom


 

>    If there is no DEC Europe, what does Pier Carlo Falotti and his
>    many colleagues in European Headquarters actually do ?

I cannot speak for PCF but having worked in European ex-centralised groups 
for over 6 years I can suggest a few activities carried out by EHQ.

1. Goal and budget setting for European subsidiaries.

2. Business performance monitoring.

3. Preparation of accounts rolled up from the European subsidiaries and
   European Manufacturing which is sent to corporate for final roll-up into the 
   corporations financial statement.

4. European product marketing strategy.

5. Development, support and maintanance of internal business systems.

I am sure there are many more activities. 

Dave.

    re: Euro Headquarters
    Personally I respect PCF a lot for having it made up thru the
    ranks from FS engineer to SVP Europe.
    I'm sure he is O.K but the "system around" might not.
    (This aint Europe specific btw).
    
    The traditional DEC way of doing things just doesn't seem to
    work with the big new DEC.
    There isn't much enthusiasm to drop the traditional way.
    (include me)
    PCF with the inverted triangle (empower regions) started to
    work out "smaller" Digitals. 
    Many small "Digitals" means multiplication of equivalent
    (expensive) supporting resources.
    During times of fast growth, this doesn't really matter.
    
    Now, times have changed, we got to use what we have.
    This is the problem.
    We have a lot, but there are too many owners of the resources
    each one pursuing his/her  own valid  goal.
    Even if somebody finds out "what exactly we have", he/she has no power,
    mission to make best European wide use of it.
    
    Management by consensus is fine, but when quick decisions need
    to be taken and you struggle for consenus from >15 countries ranging
    from the size of U.K down to Portugal (who do a great job selling
    ULTRIX btw) then I am afraid you can't progress very quickly and
    the empire building continues.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I have the highest respect for what the countries
    are doing individually and for PCF letting them do it.
    It's just that because of tough times a little more pan_European,
    why not pan_Corporate wide resource sharing would be needed
    to save resources=money.
    
    Take RDC (Remote Diagnosis):
    Until recently the VBO RDC covered all of Europe, except U.K.
    Two engineers where mainly sufficient to cover nights and holidays.
    Figure out how many it takes for the now decentralized RDC
    operations in every country (given same level of service).
    
    Imagine the savings if night shift work could be spread out
    over the globe! Not many would have to do and be paid for
    night shifts in Basingstoke, Colorado, Sidney......
    
    Gee, we are an international company, have the best net, but
    it just seems to be impossible to make best use of it!
    Why ?
    Guess noone is "measured" on that.
    /fred
                                                              

    re .46:
    
�5. Development, support and maintanance of internal business systems.
    
    I thought it's mostly done in Ferney, Munich (and probably many other
    places) rather than in Geneva.
    

The differences, accents aside, between Boston and Los Angeles is the same as
the differences, languages aside, between Rome and Stockholm. DEC Europe
is certainly a sum of its national subsidiaries, but in terms of its business
it IS an homogenous entity. Business requirements of IT systems are fairly
uniform throughout Europe.

Many question the raison d'etre of Geneva. But it is the same suspicion all
have of corporate staff who apparently are not in daily contact with 
Digital's life-line, the customer. This fact does not make thier work any less
important. The issue, I believe, is the numbers of individuals involved
processing, co-ordinating, and - yes- executing decisions. 

The fault I would make of Geneva is not necessarily the numbers 
(not mine to judge) but the site. Wouldnt it be more appropriate for the
center of a company largely deriving its business from the common market to be
located in the common market? Geneva, however, is quite used to such 
contridictions. It is also the location of the United Nations EHQ. Which nation
is NOT a member, and has repeatedly refused to become a member in referendum
votes? Ya got it in one!

But, this is not important. Europe's "capital" is likely to be distributed.
Political power will revolve around Brussels and Strasbourg. London will 
likely remain  its Financial capital and, who knows, Berlin could evolve as
its Business capital.

re.48:

>    I thought it's mostly done in Ferney, Munich (and probably many other
>    places) rather than in Geneva.
    
The location does not matter, it's still EHQ activity.

Dave.