Conference 7.286::digital

    
    This is the best message I have seen in a long while, and just maybe
    some of those who have been whining and complaining will post your memo
    on their office doors and walls. AND maybe even read it a few times.
    
    This is the type of memo that Really needs wide circulation....do it
    
    /Joel

    Danm.  Beat me to the punch.
    
    This conference is full of naysayers and doom-and-gloomers.  The world
    could end tomorrow and most of 'em would just say "See, I told you so".
    
    I happen to agree with Andy.  I'm working on a fun, technically
    challenging project in Storage Systems.  I have to worry about what's
    going on in the Corporation (both as a concerned citizen and as a
    consulting engineer, who by right must offer solutions to problems) but
    I can't be preoccupied with it.  Sure, some things aren't going as well
    as they could be.  But, they'll never get better if *I* don't do my job
    first.  We need new and innovative products to get our market share
    back.   I'm trying damned hard to do that.

    � I'm PROUD of this company. For all its faults, we have a basic
    � philosophy from our founder that is praiseworthy in intent and
    � implementation.
    
    I AM PROUD OF THIS COMPANY. I AM PROUD OF THIS COMPANY'S BASIC
    PHILOSOPHY. I have a picture of KO stuck on my cube.
    
    

Perhaps you are confusing some issues.  I believe that most
employees ARE proud of Digital. 

I have worked for two other major corporations.  Digital is the
best environment I've been in.  DEC is certainly a people
oriented company. That makes me feel "part of the family." 

I came to work at DEC because DEC provided THE BEST software
developement environmet I have ever worked in ... and I have
worked in IBM, Data General, HP, Intel, and Burroughs
environments. 

None of this changes the fact that Digital DOES HAVE PROBLEMS.  I
believe that what we are going through will ultimately be good
for the company, but we have a long row to hoe! 

Since I came to work at DEC about two and a half years ago, the
quality of DEC software products (in general) as steadily
declined.  Our software problem reporting mechanisms are AWFUL 
(and of late, in some ways, have gotten better).

Neither of these facts change my feeling of pride for this
company ...unless nothing is ever done about them!  That is my
point.  It's OK to be proud. I am.  But DO NOT loose sight of
reality!  Don't be so proud as to think this company has no 
problems.  Keep working at making this a BETTER company, one to be
even MORE proud of!



Ken Tice
Systems Support Specialist
Language Support Team
Colorado Customer Support Center

    I agree. You are merely re-articulating the part of .0 that stated "we
    have problems but....".
    
    Realism is SO easy to translate into cynicism. Let's not do that.
    
    

    People keep asking me (people outside DEC) what's wrong with DEC?
    They are particularly interested in the stock. My answer is always
    that we have great products and great people. While we have some
    problems we will do well in the long run. I always add that if I
    had any money I'd be buying DEC stock. And it's true, we have the
    basic tools to be the #1 computer company.

    Some years ago I went to work for a competitor. The part I hated
    most about that company was having to use and sell really inferior
    (to DEC) software. I came back to DEC for the people and the products.
    I'm proud to have been part of both for the last 9 years. Sure I
    complain when I think we are not doing our best but I'm not about to
    go anywhere else. The rest of the world has too far to go to get to
    where we are already.

    			Alfred

    I posted this elsewhere in the Conference, but I think it belongs here,
    too:
    
    I DO NOT agree that the problem is beyond our reach.
    
     I do not agree that there should be any more special groups, peer
    review groups, task forces, commissions, etc. We have too many already.
    We are beginning to look a lot like other corporations where you have
    to go through 20 internal groups before you canget an answer on
    anything.
    
     I do not think it is all managements' fault. I think if you want to
    be an entrepreneur, DO IT. If your super gets in the way, do it anyway.
    FIND a way to do what needs to be done. 
    
     I told my boss this morning that I was tired of waiting for people to
    perform one particular function, and that I and a couple other people
    are going to go do it.
    
     Joel said to go DO IT. :^)
    
     I am not suggesting backstabbing or anything political like that.
    
     I am suggesting that if you are waiting for some Holy Vision Thing
    message to come on down from on High, forget it. If you have a vison of
    what this corporation should be like, then live it. If it's any good,
    it will spread like wildfire.
    
     No manager has ever stopped me from doing what had to be done. Not
    that one hasn't tried.
    
     Don't stop.
    
     Improvise, adapt, overcome!
    
    Or, as another noter has for HIS personal string:
    
     "Lead, Follow, or get out of the way."
    
    Gregg 
    
    p.s.
    
     I am not sitting around waiting for some manager to motivate me.
    That's MY job.

Go back and read 1071.0

I think this is where ALL can begin to turn things around.  Extract it and 
give it to your manager, his/her manager, etc.

-steve

RE the base note.

Andy 

I greatly appreciate your seeking to switch the tone to positive.

You're right: plain negativity doesn't lead anywhere that you'd like to go.
It just tends to make us all a bit more miserable. 

But the values of my sharing a problem are that:
 
	o  it makes me feel better once I've shared it

	o  it makes you feel you're not alone when you perceive the same 
	   problem (even if those around you don't seem to see it)

	o  most importantly, we can move towards solving the problem, 
	   or at least discussing how to solve it. 	

My perception is that most of the folk who exchange in (and follow) this forum 
do so because they care, and want to see things get better. 


Now, your contention is that WE can make the difference, 
and I'm sure you're right ... except that the amount of difference
we can make isn't what it was in Digital's glory days. 

1. The vision of distributed computing has been embraced by the industry,
   and we no longer LOOK different.  Even if we believe our products are
   years ahead of the competition, the market-place doesn't see that.
   When everyone puts out a similar message, the perception is that there
   isn't really a difference between vendors. 
   And perception is reality. 

2. We no longer "own" markets.  Others have seen what we've done right,  
   and copied well.  Or they've come up with a different solution. 
   And the markets want "open systems".  

3. As noted variously, our products really aren't as robust as they were. 
   Quality standards have not been maintained to the same degree, as we've
   grown bigger and bigger, and brought in solutions from elsewhere. 

4. The markets want solutions: not just products and/or technology. 
   Much of our sales organization grew up not having to sell solutions, 
   and they're still learning how to be successful in this environment. 
   And as business executives - who we're not the most adept at dealing with 
   - get more involved in the information technology acquisition process, 
   we're further distanced from our customer. 

5. There's an economic downswing, that's making (almost) all the computer 
   companies suffer.  Bad times show up the inefficiences and ineffectiveness
   in a way that good times don't. 

I'm not trying to start a debate around these five points, nor do I think 
that they're the complete story. 
But if you broadly agree with them, then you might have to acknowledge that
times are tough, and product excellence isn't going to be enough any more. 

And we can no longer ignore the glaring internal problems that are reported 
so well in this file, and nor can our senior VP's and president. 

* We have to be excellent in most everything we do, just to stay where we are. 
Continuous quality improvement has to be the operating imperative. 

* We need vision from our leaders; good policies, structures, and metrics 
down the line; sensible cross-functional business plans for whatever we do. 

* We need to move aside the managers who generate dysfunction, because they 
can't or won't listen to the people on the ground doing the work. 

* In the same vein, we need "Corporate" functions (I'm in one of those) 
to be structured around what the Field needs.  
(But we need to reduce reorganization, so that people can figure out, 
and then get on, with their jobs.) 

* We need to see Digital's core values reaffirmed, and processes in place 
to ensure that EVERYONE supports them - top to bottom. 
It was those values that made me - and many others, I'd guess - want to work 
for DEC, and to stay here.  And seeing them being slowly eroded is terribly 
painful. 


When these things start to happen, then the organization will start to 
deliver what it promises to deliver - and I can regain my lost pride in Digital.

Meanwhile, I'll sign B.J. Herbison petition (NOTE 1229.0) and I'll try 
to set an example through my own efforts. 
And I'll try to follow Andy's proposal, as a way to feel more positive 
about this darned company. 

Sorry about the length of this: my nearly ten years here must be showing.

Best wishes,
	    Martin

	Wonderful, Andy!  Life is not always a bowl of cherries, but I
	always feel that I should have pride in what I do, in my company
	and support it thru it's hard times.

	Digital has treated me well, and I feel it's time I give a little
	of that back.

	No one likes losing their jobs, no one likes recession....but
	certain facts of our society have to be faced and dealt with
	without moaning and complaining.  There's no reason we can't get
	in there and do all we can to help Digital out.  And there isn't
	a one of us that can't make a difference.  Apathy is probably
	the worst killer of all.

	My relationship with Digital is like a marriage.  If we can't
	effectively communicate our desires to each other, and if we can't
	lay aside our differences and work for an amicable solution,
	what's the use of having that marriage in the first place?


	kath

    I want to add to the base note only that each and everyone of us must
    accept the responsibility for the success of this company.  That means
    doing your job to the best of your ability, and not falling short
    blaming poor supervision, government, the wrong committee, lack of a
    quality circle or whatever.  If you didn't do your best, NOTHING ELSE
    IS AT FAULT _ YOU DID IT!
    
    I like this company and I am going to see that it WINS.  Sure it has
    problems, but it has much better products than IBM and I aim to see
    that we are going to get that message out.  Right on .0!!

    What is it that we are being encouraged to be proud about?
    
    Are we proud of the corporate entity, its logo, etc?
    Are we proud of our products and services?
    Are we proud of our colleagues?
    Are we proud of our customers?
    Are we proud of our management?
    Are we proud of our individual knowledge and skills?
    
    Is there some reason that we need to hype ourselves up with pride?
    Maybe it would be worthwhile to look at why and fix it.
    
    And maybe it would be more useful to focus on the issue of integrity. 
    This company was built on integrity, not pride.  In reviewing many of 
    the notes/replies in this conference, I see alot of questions being 
    raised about management integrity.  Let's not sweep it under the carpet.
    
    -dinesh.

    You'll note that the reason I sent my long message to Jack Smith about
    quality (1225.0) is that I, too, want Digital to become one of
    the best, if not the best, computer manufacturer in the US (or the world).
    It is a recognition that unless we do something to turn Digital around,
    we will soon be a carbon copy of Wang, or DG, or Prime.
    
    I think 1228.n is important because, like any organization (or
    individual) going through a crisis, you have to realize the loss
    and hurt which were part of that crisis, and decide to change
    so as to prevent the patterns that led to it. Our (severe) management
    problems are a direct result of a lack of Corporate complacency with
    things as they are.
    
    As the pressure for more productivity came from
    the market, our managers, untrained in the new techniques for reduced
    time-to-market, did (and are STILL doing) all the things they learned
    in the old MBA management schools: assign blame, cut fringes, instill
    fear. What we really need, to quote Edward Deming, is "not to work
    harder or faster, but to work smarter."
    
    I would also not have sent the memo to Jack if I thought there was
    no hope of turning Digital around. I am still hopeful. I am attempting
    to implement the quality techniques in PCSG. Grant Saviers, who is
    near the top of my management chain, has embraced the Six Sigma
    culture, and has all of his managers teaching it to their direct
    reports. The same thing is happening in LES. What we need, I think,
    is a recognition by Jack and others at the top of Digital's management
    that this culture must spread through the entire Corporation, and
    become the benchmark for everyone's activities, especially the
    managers.
    
    							Thanks
    							Jon Campbell

    Take the time to take pride in our ability to do a fine job - and no
    excuses/whining that someone else is at fault for YOUR delivery of a
    poor product.
    
    (Not aimed directly at -1)

    Re: this topic

    Andy, my hero! :-)

    And fellow dieter.

    Which brings up an interesting thought. If we really want to "trim the
    fat," we all need to share this same positive self-image. Belive me,
    I've been through good and bad times at DEC (both for the company and
    for me personally) -- the _only_ thing that keeps me here is an undying
    faith that things can, and _should_ be better, and that _I_ (not
    egotistical, merely singular) _can_ make a difference.

    Sometimes we get frustrated when we see people above us discount our
    contributions or blindly stick to a certain image they have of us,
    regardless of feedback they may be getting. I've been around long enough
    to know that time is on my side. It's really a question -- a choice -- 
    for each of us, whether or not we have the kind of time to invest that
    it takes to see change.

    Anyway, I've been butting my head enough that it's been anesthesized
    in any event. :-)

    /Petes

    
    Q1 results are out, and I DO feel proud.
    
    /prc

I recently sent this memo to the folks who work in and around my area. I think 
it should be in here as well. It seems to me that we should be focusing our 
energies and minds on how to get out of the mire and back up where we belong.
I'll say more after the memo.

==============================================================================

   Subject: Had enough yet?!.

   I don't know about you, but I have had enough of the bad news in the press 
   about Digital and our numbers. I want to issue an open invitation to you 
   all to come up with your ideas on how we could get more business. My 
   manager made it clear, in his last staff meeting, that he would love to 
   hear ideas, proposals, suggestions - no matter how off-beat - as to how we 
   can get more business.
   
   What an opportunity to "Get Competitive". What can we do, say or drive etc, 
   to get a our Rep's more productive, have more "At bats", enable him/her to    
   get new business?. 
   
   When I was a younger man I was a player/coach with a new team that got 
   whipped 40-0 by a team that we had to play again in 14 weeks time. To cut a 
   long story short we returned the favor, with no changes of personnel on 
   either side, and beat them 43-3. What we did was analyze where they were 
   strong and neutralized it, analyzed where they were weak and attacked it. 
   
   			We had a "War-time" mind set. 
   
   Well, we are at war with our competition and we, the Competitive Team, know    
   how to take the knowledge that we have and use to the most effect. Take 
   this note as an invite to think about what we can do and propose it. It 
   could be as simple as pricing, as odd as demos in a truck, as expansive as 
   a National campaign. If you are thinking it - Share it. 
   
   I'll get off my soap-box now and leave the rest to you all.
   
   best regards
   
   Eric.
==============================================================================


I also sent a memo to Jack Smith saying that if we are at war then we need a 
"War-time" government, not a peace-time one.

I am not at all inspired with the talk in this topic. Nor am I inspired with 
laying-off people. I cannot remember a country that sent home "excess" troops 
in the middle of a war.

Are we nuts?. IF WE DO THE SAME AS BEFORE WITH LESS PEOPLE WE WILL STILL BE 
WHERE WE ARE!. Let's do more with the folks that we have. Train our cooks to 
shoot a rifle if needs be.

What I want to see a plan from our company of how to WIN THIS WAR, not just 
how to survive. We need more business and we need it now!. 

   			DIGITAL WANTS IT NOW! 

The lack of forward focus is what we should be indignant about. A good attack 
plan is what we should be demanding and that is where we all should be 
focusing our energy . Turn up the burner folks!.

Eric H.

.........Now where should I have really posted this???.......
         

    re .17
    
    If we are at war, who is the enemy?  Who has attacked us?
    
    We are hurting because we are not getting enough business from our
    customers.  This is not because the competition has attacked us.  It 
    is because we have not listened to and appropriately responded to our 
    customers.  If we are at war, it is with ourselves.
    
    The problem with your war analogy is that it uses "hype" to mask the 
    fundamental problems and to distract us from identifying/solving the 
    real problem.  What are you going to do when the war hype begins to 
    fade, i.e., what's the next "fix" ?
    
    -dinesh.

    RE: .18 Can't help myself. We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.
    Let me say that there is no finer or tougher enemy in the world. :-)

    		Alfred

    Be careful Alfred .....
    
    <<< We have met the enemy and he is us >>> 
    
    is copywrited by Walt Kelly. Pogo made that statement 
    in about 1955!  :^)
    
    Seriously you have hit the nail right on the head. 

   re .17

>  IF WE DO THE SAME AS BEFORE WITH LESS PEOPLE WE WILL STILL BE 
>  WHERE WE ARE!.

   Too brilliant to be appreciated, I'm sure :-)

   and Alfred's,

   And now that we realize we are a formidable enemy to ourselves, we need
   to rememebr that we're equally formidable allies to each other as well.

   (Now, it there were less of a difference between

	Internal Favor --- costs $0, only thank-you and maybe a lunch the
		next time you see someone)

	Official Favor --- costs your cost center mega-bucks to make some
		artificial metric look good, killing all hope

    ...when it's plainly obvious that whatever it is needs to be done in any
    event)

    Just remember, every day we prove that DEC is a plce where _anything_
    is possible...

    /Petes

	re .0:

	Andy, most of us are proud of Digital, and happy to work for
	the company. Many of us could - really - make more money
	somewhere else - but is it worth it?

	But it's not usual to focus on all the things we're doing right.
	(Especially with the stock below 50). Even world-class performers
	in all fields are known for their perfectionism, self-criticism,
	and continual search for improvement.

	As several other noters have pointed out, most of us in this conference
	are here because we take a pride in working for Digital. Also,
	we're here because we have come across obstacles that prevent us
	from doing as well as we would like to.

	The Digital culture typically gives each individual wide
	freedom of how to attain his or her goals. There is even a
	a lot of freedom in choosing those goals. All this is right
	and proper - it means that we are all, to some extent,
	"empowered".

	But when you set out to exploit this freedom, you soon find reasons
	why you can't do the sensible things that you want to. Often, these
	obstacles are not ones you can set aside on your own. Sometimes, if
	encountered by a lone, unprepared individual, they can be overwhelming.

	So the benefits of discussing the "failure modes" and pathological
	syndromes of our organisation in this conference include:

	1. Sharing experience of counterproductive behaviour and obstacles
	   to total quality.

	2. Reassuring colleagues that they are not alone, different,
	   perverse, wrong, and isolated.

	3. Sharing ways of dealing with obstacles and those who create
	   them.

	4. Sometimes, finding out why apparent obstacles and inefficiencies
	   are actually necessary and desirable - or at any rate why they
	   have been believed to be so in the past.

	5. Identifying and "mapping" the location, distribution, and extent
	   of counterproductive people and their systems and behaviours.

	6. Getting a synoptic, or all-round, view of how Digital works.
	   The organisation is so large and complex that it seems unlikely
	   that anyone has a correct overall view of how it works. (For
	   example, see the discussions in the NODEMO::MARKETING conference
	   of what marketing is or ought to be, or even of relatively
	   straightforward questions such as "What is a product manager?")

	7. Seeking agreement about what practices are good and which bad.

	8. Roughing out ideas and proposals to take to management.

	... and there are many more.

	I would like to ask a counter-question. Compared to all this,
	where is the benefit of proclaiming how good everything is?
	Where is that going to get us? If people are going to be
	noticeably motivated and encouraged by reading a note that says
	"Gee, Digital is a terrific company!" - that in itself says that
	their ability to motivate themselves, and their normal state of
	mind, are seriously below par.

	If criticism and analysis of our inevitable faults and deficiencies
	offends anyone, I'm sorry. But I feel it is a necessary, useful and
	positive activity. Criticism is NOT "whining" or "negative". If I'm
	out for a walk with friends and I see a poisonous snake, should
	I cry out -

		"Look out - there's a poisonous snake!"

			or

		"Gee, what a lovely day it is!"

	/Tom

    A) I'm not saying "everything is good" - I'm saying that taking pride
    in doing a good job would make things better, because surely NO-ONE can
    be taking pride in some of the screwups we see today.
    
    B) Conversely to your point, don't mistake whining for constructive
    criticism, of which I see both here.
    
    
    /andy/

RE .22

I agree with you, Tom, that we should express our feelings honestly. I think
wht may be lacking is "balanced" opinion. Our technology may be binary, but the
world and especially human interaction (ie. organizations) are not. (And, thank
God for that, or I'd have been deleted long ago!)

The solution to complex problems is also complex and in good debate, both
the pro and the con of a subject  need to be articulated. We could do
with a bit less of the "love-Digital-or-leave-it" statements and a bit more
reasoned expression of why some areas/processes/whatever may be right.

    If anyone said "Love DEC or leave it", *I* didn't hear them....

Re -1

I used the expression to typify a style of commentary that can be seen 
occasionally in this conference. I've not heard the phrase "Love-DEC-or-leave-it"
either, and hope I never do. 

    "Love DEC, or FIX it?"

    
    "Love DEC, _and_ FIX it."
    

    re in general
    
    There was a program on PBS several months ago on whistle blowers.  In
    it were discussed some of the ramifications of going against the grain.
    One particular story that I remember was about the Bay of Pigs invasion
    (USA attacks Cuba).  In short, there was sufficient knowledge and facts
    known among the group of advisors to Pres. Kennedy that the invasion
    was sure to fail, e.g. large number of well trained Cuban troops and
    no chance of a popular uprising.  Yet the decision to attack Cuba was
    made with exactly the opposite assumptions, e.g. poorly and small
    number of trained troops, and eagerness to overthrow Castro.  Why did
    this happen?  According to the program, no advisor was willing to come
    forward with his information which would have been against what the
    collective group(?) wanted to do (attack Cuba).  So all the true
    information was never put forward becasue no one wanted to be the
    bearer of bad news.
    
    Yep, we need good news too and we shouldn't forget the great and good
    aspects of Digital.  We want that to be the kind of company we work
    for.  But as Tom mentions, we shouldn't ignore the storm clouds
    (snakes) when we want a pleasant day.  Unfortunately, what many of us
    see happening is that too much "good" news has been feed up the pipe.
    Substitute Olsen for Kennedy, and workstation or U*** for Cuba and
    maybe the picture is clearer.  Digital is fixing those problems, but
    there were a lot of howls and screams along the way and a lot of people
    who were told to stop complaining and whinning before the light came
    on.  Maybe you weren't affected by those problems but they existed.
    Maybe people like Andy aren't affected by some of the problems other
    people write about, but that doesn't mean they don't exist nor that
    something shouldn't be done about them.  
    
    Unfortunately, the label "whinning" has become popular these days.  If
    something can be labeled whinning then obviously it lacks credability,
    right?  And then it can be ignored, right?  I've seen this in memos
    from VPs in response to actual problems in the field.  This company 
    isn't going to get well until there is a good faith effort to look
    into all issues.  If Jack Smith really wants input, let him look in 
    the notes files (that would be a low-cost MBWA tour).

re: whistle blowers,

	I doubt you'll see too many more whistle blowers (at least not
    anyone willing to sign their name) given that perhaps one of the
    most courageous and dynamic (given somewhat wordy - but hey, nobody's
    perfect) whistle blowers to hit this notesfile in the past several
    years (David Carnell) just recently found himself the target of a
    transition.

	Coincidence you say?  I say that there are too many people out
    there who are quick to equate the over and above efforts of those
    such as David Carnell (who are willing to share ideas in this and
    other such forums) with those who have "too much free time" and whose
    jobs must not be keeping them busy enough.  The advice I always get
    is "lay low", and although it goes against my grain, maybe it's time
    to start heeding that advice.

	I submit that until the value of sharing such information can be
    adequately established (via such ideas as those presented in note 1024)
    that the days of sharing ideas in forums such as these are truly numbered.
    After all, information shared in notesfiles and such is taken for
    granted anyway (why pay for the cow if you can get the milk for free?),
    and it is much safer to spend one's lunchtime and spare momments in
    activities such as mindless chatter among friends, jogging, playing
    games, or other such things which do not leave such obvious audit
    trails for the bean counters.

				    -davo

p.s.	Good luck finding a new job Dave!

    	It was put to me very nicely..... DO YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR JOB?
    
    Yes, I love my job, my company and I now only complain about things
    that do not effect my group or managment. The weather is a good 
    topic. I no longer have ANY problems. 
    
    Someday, maybe someday......
    

re .31

I've heard it expressed somewhat differently.  On all of Mr. Carnell's
missives to the top brass, he had his organization's name: "Proposal
Design" or whatever.  So maybe someone started wondering what exactly
it was that a Proposal Designer did, and did we need them anyyway?


--

That's just idle gossip, of course, but since I don't know either
what a Proposal Designer does (did?), it sounds plausible to
my prejudices.

I think the idea that the whole cost centre was eliminated, just to
shut up Dave Carnell, is a bit unlikely.

re: .33,

> I've heard it expressed somewhat differently.  On all of Mr. Carnell's
> missives to the top brass, he had his organization's name: "Proposal
> Design" or whatever.  So maybe someone started wondering what exactly
> it was that a Proposal Designer did, and did we need them anyyway?

	See note 1208.87 to find out what David's Proposal Design group 
    was involved with (of course there are two sides to every story and
    this is but one side).

> That's just idle gossip, of course, but since I don't know either
> what a Proposal Designer does (did?), it sounds plausible to
> my prejudices.

	Don't confuse the job of Proposal Design with David's proposals
    to Digital's top brass (see note 1208.72 for a run-down of David's
    purposes in sending all those memos up the chain of command).

> I think the idea that the whole cost centre was eliminated, just to
> shut up Dave Carnell, is a bit unlikely.

	Possibly, yet it does seem odd that at a time when the field is
    in such dire need of support that a group which would appear to be
    put in place to support sales reps in writing sales proposals would
    suddenly disappear like that.  Then again, I know of other transition
    cases which make even less sense (a certain politically disconnected
    Software Engineer I know).

				    -davo

    re: .34
    
    Oh, enough already!  My God, it amazes me how many people will jump to
    ridiculous conclusions of conspiracy without a shred of objective 
    information to base them on.  Let me paint a somewhat more plausible
    scenario based upon no direct information on this particular case
    but just a little bit of public observation:
    
    Fact:  Centralized proposal groups (or technology resource centers, or
    information systems organizations or...) tend to serve districts that they 
    are co-located with disporportionately.  People tend to work where they 
    sit.
    
    Fact:  Remote districts (i.e. those not headquartered in New York, Boston,
    Atlanta, Washington, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis or Santa Clara) have
    long resented paying for these services, as they didn't feel they were
    getting their money's worth.
    
    Fact:  Last year, thanks to COD and some capital set aside at the Country, 
    districts had the option of setting up their own proposal generation teams, 
    under the direct control of the Sales DM's.
    
    Fact:  Many districts went ahead and formed their own dedicated
    proposal teams.
    
    Conclusion:  Demand for centralized services has dropped off. 
    Empowerment has enabled organizations to decide for themselves what
    resources they need to be successful and how best to deploy them,
    rather than having to compete with everyone else in the world for a
    limited pot of resources largely insulated from the information needed 
    to make rational business decisions.
    
    You tell me who's closer to the truth...
    
    Al
    

    
    Pride in Digital? You bet. I wouldn't work anywhere else. I love my
    job, I love this company. Enough said.
    
    /prc

re: .35,

	Like I said in my reply .34, there are two sides to every story.
    Given the information presented when I wrote my reply, I simply felt
    that it was "odd" to see a sales support group transitioned like that.
    I fail to see how my note qualifies as a "ridiculous conclusion of
    conspiracy" however.

	Now that more light has been shed on the subject, then perhaps
    it does make good business sense for the transition after all.

	 Thank you for supplying another side to this story.

				   -davo

p.s.	Whistle blowers please resume whistle blowing!

    re .37;
    
    I must agree with Al (noting that he & I are in the same district). 
    Our area proposal team was one of a whole group of organisations
    created over the past few years (the ACT and SIC spring to mind) that
    opened their doors with a statement of what they WOULDN'T do.  Very
    often, their list on no-no's matched almost exactly what their
    "customers" expected they would or should do.
    
    As soon as funding for a district-level "can-do" organisation was
    available, the area group became instantly redundant.
    
    -dave

    Redundant perhaps, but one function of management is to avoid even the
    appearance of wrongdoing.  I note with some alarm that Mr. Carnell has
    not entered a note in this conference since the day he announced his
    transition.  Am I mistaken?
    
    Dave?

    He put in a reply to another note last week. 
    
    
    /andy/

    REF: <<< Note 1230.33 by MU::PORTER  >>> and others

    	>><<I've heard it expressed somewhat differently.  On all of Mr.
    Carnell's missives to the top brass, he had his organization's name:
    "Proposal Design" or whatever.  So maybe someone started wondering what
    exactly it was that a Proposal Designer did, and did we need them
    anyyway?

    >><< I think the idea that the whole cost centre was eliminated, just
    to shut up Dave Carnell, is a bit unlikely.>>
    
    I'm still here and won't know the status of my position until December.
    
    I have filed a formal grievance right to Jack Smith, et al and have
    outlined to them a sequence of actions, which I believe is based on
    retaliation.  The most notable, communicated to me by my manager a week
    ago Friday, was that "they" said that since I had so much time to write
    employee involvement memos that I MUST not have enough proposal work to
    do and therefore that perhaps my position should be eliminated.  My
    manager defended me stating that I did my job well and that I utilized
    free time at work (which I have since creating selling proposals is NOT
    always continuous work) PLUS at home (having a system) to help Digital
    by contributing ideas for change that would benefit Digital and that my
    work as NOT been adversely affected by writing my employee involvement
    submissions.
    
    My current job for three years has been to create written selling
    presentations (proposals) to win and retain customers and tens of
    millions of dollars of revenue, supporting CUSTOMER SERVICES (not
    SALES).  Our Customer Services proposal group of TWO supported 13
    states, doing in the last three years about 300 proposals, potentially
    affecting $250,000,000 in REVENUE and accordingly MARGIN.  The other
    member of our group of two IS NOW retiring and taking the buyout.  That
    leaves me.  There are NO other persons providing proposal support for
    CUSTOMER SERVICES account reps in the 13 states out in the districts.
    
    To eliminate my position suddenly which has a CLOSE impact on MAJOR
    revenue and MARGIN, or to give now the work to "someone else" who has
    not been doing this work for Customer Services reps, as I have for the
    13 states for 3 years, makes no sense, and to do so, as I have charged,
    based on a series of actions, and statements by managers up the line,
    is flat out retaliation for my activism in employee involvement, for
    espousing reform of certain aspects and pockets of "the system" in
    Digital, and for espousing "new ideas" (like better listening to
    customers, which I was hired to do, and dinged within weeks of being
    hired by an upper level manager who stated, "The field are just doers. 
    We don't create anything.  Corporate does all the creating [and
    thinking of ideas]."
    
    I have never, nor will I ever, agree to the bureaucrat self-serving
    mindset that I, or any employee, is merely a "resource" to do work
    without bringing to the table original thinking that contributes to
    building this enterprise, affecting one's work, group, or in fact, any
    part or function of Digital.  A speak only when spoken to, child,
    mentality.  I am a non-player within this bureaucracy, and I am an
    adult who can think no less than any manager, contributing accordingly
    to constructive change.
    
    The issue is now in the hands of John Murphy and Ross Brown who are
    acting on behalf of Jack Smith and the executive committee.
    
    Digital cannot preach ethics and values at the top and then allow the
    opposite to occur down the line in pockets, with some managers, and
    vice presidents, now using "downsizing" to selectively target and "get
    volunteered" out the door those individuals "not liked" and "not
    wanted" blatantly practicing discrimination in its more subtler forms,
    retaliating against those who have been outspoken for change.
    
    I have acted ethically in all my actions and I will be happy to argue
    in person the merits and ethics of any employee involvement suggestion
    I have made, or all of them, in person, with Ken Olsen and Jack Smith,
    which I have in fact requested [but declined so far].
    
    It will now remain to be seen where ethics and values really are.  In
    the meantime, I will continue to do my job to the best of my ability to
    bring in revenue, which I am closely associated with in my job in
    proposals.  And I am NOT going to volunteer to resign.  Nor am I going
    to be silent while persecuted -- I AM using the open door policy.
    
    And I am continuing to make submissions to DELTA.  Digital must empower
    its workforce, franchising all of us to be "thinking" partners in
    creating original thinking for effective change in building this
    company, eventually generating, tracking and implementing a million
    employee suggestions a year, just like say Toyota, who "just makes"
    cars, yet owns predominance in customer satisfaction and perception of
    value in the auto industry, thereby capturing major market shares, AND
    MARGIN, evidenced by their recent publicized $18 BILLION excess cash
    (profit) sitting in the bank.
    
    Digital must change an entrenched bureaucrat mindset.  Jack Smith's
    recent DVN suggests increased awareness of the underlying issues.  And
    I now see some internal focus groups being conducted by an outside
    consulting group (I suggested bringing one to Jack Smith - declined so
    far).  We shall see.
    
    In the meantime, ol' Jack says keep sending HIM "your" feedback and
    ideas and suggestions.  My suggestion to every employee is to "do it"
    GET INVOLVED -- YOUR ECONOMIC FUTURE IS TIED TO DIGITAL'S SUCCESS!
    

    I've never met David Carnell, nor have I worked with him.  His only
    existence to me is through Notes conferences (and a couple of mail
    messages in which he exhorted me to send in my ideas as suggestions,
    which in fact I did).  Yet his prolific contributions and steady flow
    of ideas have made him a prominent member of the DIGITAL community for
    me and, I suspect, many others.  That qualifies him as a part of the
    Digital culture, and I think a visible part.
    
    Not knowing David or his work, I could not say, nor could most of the
    DIGITAL readership, whether his work is average, above average, or
    below average.  Perhaps he earns his pay, perhaps not.  Perhaps he is a
    joy to manage, perhaps he's a pain.  I also can't judge the value of
    his job to the corporation.
    
    But the fact that David has earned a spot in the corporate culture
    makes him an interesting case.  Transitioning a cultural icon has an
    impact beyond the loss of an employee: it sends a message to everyone. 
    That message can be more powerful and pervasive than management may
    realize.  In this case, the message is: "Keep your damn mouth shut."
    Now, David has to a large extent promulgated this message himself.  But
    the inference is clear, even without his pointing it out.
    
    Given the chilling nature of this message, I wonder if transitioning
    David would cause more cultural harm than financial good?
    
    Lest you think I'm trying to elevate David past his deserved stature,
    I don't think his loss, should it happen, would be remembered with the
    loss of DeCastro or Shields.  But it would be remembered, and
    recounted, in the passage of electrons and the glow of phosphors.

re: .42

>				Transitioning a cultural icon has an
>    impact beyond the loss of an employee: it sends a message to everyone. 

(Note: the following is NOT intended to apply personally to David Carnell
in any way, even if this string of replies started out being about him, but
it is a generalization based on what i see going on across the NOTES world!)

Let's face it: VAX NOTES is a populist rabble-rouser's dream medium, with
all the negatives (and positives) that that implies!  Anyone here can be a
self-appointed "cultural icon" by making more noise (more entries, more lines
per entry, etc.) than the rest of us.  That's why i laugh when i see people
say that Jack Smith or K. O. should assiduously follow NOTES conferences, as
if everything entered here were Holy Writ!  There's enough demagoguery and
self-congratulation in any two non-technical NOTES conferences to make even
a Boston politician gag.  Sure, there's some valuable anti-establishment
views that could only be aired in a forum like this, but the forum is highly
prone to being overrun by cliques and self-promoters of the worst variety.

							FWIW, paul

Re .-1: Nicely Put.

    Every now and then there's a line in this conference in which can be
    found the essence of poetry: "Writing that formulates a conscious
    imaginative awareness of experience..." - Webster.  Just so -.2's
    "populist, rabble-rouser dream medium" description of VAX Notes.  
    
    There are also lines which contain the essence of truth, as in
    Carnell's "Your financial future is tied to Digital's success".  Both
    phrases are worthy of note.  
    
    Don
    

re:  Note 1230.43           Pride in DIGITAL, Pride in our work
LABRYS::CONNELLY "House of the Axe"                  21 lines  28-NOV-1990 23:26
                             -< Democracy .NEQ. Mob Rule >-
    
    > Let's face it: VAX NOTES is a populist rabble-rouser's dream medium, 
    > with all the negatives (and positives) that that implies!  
    
    I think rabble-rousers (without cause) are quickly silenced in this
    notes medium.  Rabble-rousers need a lack of information to be
    effective and a lack of information is not missing in Digital notes.
    
    > Anyone here can be a self-appointed "cultural icon" by making more 
    > noise (more entries, more lines per entry, etc.) than the rest of us.  
    
    There are plenty of people who enter lots of notes, etc. who would not
    be considered a potential "icon."  You missed or don't understand the
    reference .42 made or what makes an icon.
    
    > That's why i laugh when i see people say that Jack Smith or K. O. 
    > should assiduously follow NOTES conferences, as if everything entered 
    > here were Holy Writ!  There's enough demagoguery and self-congratulation 
    > in any two non-technical NOTES conferences to make even a Boston 
    > politician gag.  
    
    I think notes allows people to voice their opinions, frustrations, etc.
    As such, it can be a good place to get a sense of what's happening and
    how people are feeling.  Is it always accurate?  No, but it is right
    more often than not.  Does management have to make changes based on
    what is in notes?  Nope, but they might make more informed decisions if
    they did see what some employee concerns were on different subjects.
    
    > Sure, there's some valuable anti-establishment views that could only 
    > be aired in a forum like this, but the forum is highly prone to being 
    > overrun by cliques and self-promoters of the worst variety.
    > FWIW, paul
    
    If I understand what you just said about the noting population in general
    and about people who note frequently, it doesn't sound good.  I don't 
    think it's true.

re .46 re .43, Well put!

re .43

Well, it's a funny thing. I've had several conversations with David. And
yes, I've entered a few "please, can't you be less verbose" notes myself.
But, the person works very hard in their job, cares a lot about Digital, and
has good ideas. (And I freely admit if I had as much practice typing as
David has preparing proposals, my notes would probably be a lot longer.)

I don't think of myself as a cultural icon, though I've been NOTing long
enough, and made enough contacts at DEC doing it, that I could indulge in
some self-flattery. Like everyone else, I get frustrated sometimes, and that
comes out, or I state things a more black-and-white than they are just to
provoke some thought.

But most of the time I'll think about what I want to say, outline my thoughts,
and then try to reply as clearly, succinctly, and thoughtfully as possible.

Don't confuse delivery with content or intent, or dismiss what you read as
thought-free rabble-rousing.


/Peters

Re. "icons," cultural or otherwise...

The Motif window manager (DECwindows Version 3) uses "Minimize" as the menu
item for shrinking something (window or dialog box) to an icon.

In Delphic fashion, I leave it to the reader to discern any allegorical
significance and interpret accordingly.

re: .46

I don't quite agree with your point about there being too much information
available to the average Noter for a demagogue to sway a large part of the
audience.  I haven't worked in any other companies the size of Digital, but
my feeling is there is too much information hoarding and invocation of "need
to know" on a lot of subjects here.  The intense rumor-mongering that goes
on in conferences like this one is a good indication that people don't feel
like they're getting all the facts.

Even when some facts get presented (e.g., how the salary management system
works as far as "participation", which is in some other note here), people
can just ignore those that don't fit in with their preconceived biases.

>    If I understand what you just said about the noting population in general
>    and about people who note frequently, it doesn't sound good.  

My main point was about the potential of the communications medium of Notes
for certain types of abuse, not about any particular people.  I think it's
dangerous to over-idealize Notes just because it has many of the attributes
of a democratic forum (like a Town Meeting, which we all know of as a revered
and hallowed American institution, right?).  But the point is that a Town
Meeting has some of the same potential for abuse: strong personalities, fuzzy
factoids and emotional arguments among people who all have something to win
or lose do not always add up to the idealized democratic discourse and informed
choice that we'd like to see.

I don't mean to exaggerate the perils, because there is also a high potential
for good that is already being realized in Notes.  But canonization is not
exactly called for any of the contributors here.  At this point anyway.;-)

								paul