Conference 7.286::digital

Digital today has no corporate vision.  Or, the corporate vision changes weekly,
which amounts to the same thing.  This has been the case since the demise of
"One Company, One System, One Message" several years ago.

Establishing such a vision and keeping the company on track towards achieving
it was one of the things that Gordon Bell did very well.

--PSW

>Digital today has no corporate vision.  Or, the corporate vision changes weekly,
>which amounts to the same thing.  This has been the case since the demise of
>"One Company, One System, One Message" several years ago.

>Establishing such a vision and keeping the company on track towards achieving
>it was one of the things that Gordon Bell did very well.
    
    Sun has used Gordon Bell's vision to kick our ass!

    re .0

>   "Many shared visions are extrinsic -- that is, they focus on achieving
>   something relative to an outsider, such as a competitor.  Pepsi's
>   vision is explicitly directed at beating Coca Cola; Avis's vision at
>   Hertz.  Yet, a goal limited to defeating an opponent is transitory. 
>   Once the vision is achieved, it can easily migrate into a defensive
>   posture ...

    Digital's vision:


                           B E A T    I B M 


    Works for me.

    /Peters

    When asked, there were first laughter, and then these points were
    made:  Digital's vision is that it is now generating cash and
    surviving, and the it needs to be well organized and ready to take on
    change and know where our costs are...
                                                                        
    A world vision that encompasses all the possibilities that can happen
    in the future? I don't know...  We're committed to adapting to change
    and being happy and doing well no matter what... (more laughter)
    
    Educational Services, Sales and Sales Support Training, Audio Cassette
    Program, "Digital Quarterly Report", Tape 202 Side B, Sept 1990
    
    This was also videotaped as well, but I never saw the video of this.

    I'm not picky, you don't have to give me a single, unified, worldwide,
    fully applicable vision.

    Just give me a list of goals which extends beyond this quarter, and which
    isn't subject to constant reversal.  I'll even let you slip in a few
    conflicting goals...

    Visions can be dangerous.  Volkswagon (sp?) had a vision to beat the
    America Car builders in the small car business.  They did it and then
    sat back and collected the profits.
    
    Then came Tora, Tora, Tora and kicked Volkswagon's A**.  I don't even
    know where there is a Volkswagon dealer near my home.  
    
    
    Regards
    
    
    Bob
    
    

    Never seen or heard of a Tora, Tora, Tora. 

		Here's the Corporate Mission statement 
		 - but I guess you could call it a 
		Vision.  More detail in next note ....

		=====================================
                       TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE
                            BEST PROVIDER
                                 OF
                         QUALITY INTEGRATED
                        INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
                   NETWORKS AND SERVICES TO SUPPORT
                         CUSTOMERS WORLDWIDE
		=====================================

		Here FYI is the full text of our Corporate 
		Mission and Objectives (with some European 
		specific annotation).

		As the Appendix indicates, a similar set 
		of M&Os has existed in Digital Europe since 
		at least 1986.

		I hope this helps the discussion.  

		Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          D I G I T A L   M I S S I O N   &   O B J E C T I V E S


                          TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE
                               BEST PROVIDER
                                    OF
                            QUALITY INTEGRATED
                           INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
                     NETWORKS AND SERVICES TO SUPPORT
                            CUSTOMERS WORLDWIDE



What does the mission statement mean ? 


- BE RECOGNIZED ... we want to be the best and have our customers know it.


- THE BEST PROVIDER ... we are a reliable and easy-to-do business with   
  international supplier.


- QUALITY ... measured by customer satisfaction and adherence to the 
  highest standards in the industry.


- INTEGRATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS ... the way in which a 
  company acquires, shares, integrates and uses data to fulfill its 
  mission, optimize its productivity and competitiveness and plan its 
  evolution. This includes a wide range of compatible information-handling 
  products suitable for a heterogeneous multi-vendor environment, from the 
  user-tuned workstation to non-stop multi-MIP computers, supported by a 
  complete set of software tools, applications and consultancy, integrated 
  with internal and external networks and database architectures. 


- SERVICES ... the widest range of services from first contact through end 
  of product life and any services with added value to help the customer to 
  design, implement and manage his information systems and networks, 
  setting the effectiveness standard in the industry and continuing to set 
  the pace in service technology.


- CUSTOMERS WORLDWIDE ... from the individual professional to the large 
  multi-national enterprise in all its locations.



                           P O S I T I O N I N G


                                 STATEMENT
 



Digital Equipment Corporation is the world's leader in networked computer 
systems. 

Through innovation, we lead the market with our compatible product family, 
open networks and fully integrated information systems.

You will find us open, friendly and dedicated to providing systems and 
solutions that help you increase your competitiveness.                

We are your long-term partner. 


                         PURPOSE OF THE OBJECTIVES





A) All employees should understand the objectives and use them to guide 
   their behavior and work output. The objectives should help to make 
   employees proud to work for Digital and should influence the quality of 
   their work and their productivity.


B) All employees should be able to explain the meaning of the objectives to 
   their colleagues and friends (and customers).


C) Customers who happen to be shown the objectives should understand them 
   and feel good about them (although they are not written with external 
   publication as an intent) and should notice Digital's dedication to 
   quality.


D) Therefore, each objective has a short explanation associated with it 
   which can be used by managers as an aid in explaining the objective to 
   employees, written in clear language for a multi-national population. 


                       THE OBJECTIVES & EXPLANATIONS





MARKET


Introduction -- the meaning of "preferred partner"
         

         We like to establish partnerships with key strategic accounts 
         which go beyond selling systems. We want a deeper relationship, 
         which implies mutual satisfaction and long term investment on both 
         sides. We aim for the highest share of the Information Systems 
         spending of our strategic customers. Our message to all potential 
         preferred partners is: "Digital can help you to integrate your 
         enterprise and its partners and offer greater system flexibility 
         to allow you to change your way of doing business, as your 
         customers change their demands on you." 

         We collaborate with leading application developers and other 
         distribution channels to complement and supplement our solution 
         selling and marketing efforts to maximize quality, profit, and 
         volume, precisely in that order. 


1.  BECOME A PREFERRED PARTNER FOR ENTERPRISE-WIDE AND CROSS-ENTERPRISE 
    DISTRIBUTED INFORMATION SYSTEMS.

         Explanation : There is a growing market recognition that 
         distributed computing is a more effective way of responding to the 
         changing needs of business. We will capitalize on Digital's 
         leadership in distributed computing to build a portfolio of 
         products, services and applications either from Digital or its 
         partners. We will develop the full capabilities to Market and sell 
         Enterprise Computing Solutions. We will make a major effort to 
         have applications developed by Digital and its partners on the 
         Digital Extended Enterprise Computing Environment : specifically 
         the new Digital Architectures such as DECWINDOWS, Application 
         Integration Architecture (AIA), Distributed Transaction Processing 
         Architecture and the Compound Document Architecture. This will 
         enable Digital to become a preferred supplier to our customers and 
         partners for all application development.


2.  ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A STRONG MARKET POSITION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

         Explanation : the Public Sector includes the Scientific, 
         Educational and Research communities, Health Care, Public 
         Institutions, etc. These markets exert a great influence on the 
         total Information Systems industry and a strong Digital position 
         in them has a beneficial impact on other markets. Also, we strive 
         to be good citizens of the communities in which we operate by 
         contributing to the public sector needs of society. 


3.  BE A PREFERRED PARTNER TO THE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES.

         Explanation : Our products are particularly suited for the 
         Manufacturing industries and, over the years, we have developed a 
         good understanding of the applications and needs of these 
         industries. Digital is a manufacturer, and we make use ourselves 
         of what we sell. We will develop an application portfolio strategy 
         for each of the manufacturing industries which includes acquired, 
         developed, jointly marketed, and referred applications. 


4.  BE A PREFERRED PARTNER TO THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SERVICE INDUSTRIES. 

         Explanation : In this objective, we address the Public Service 
         Industries and Private Services such as Banking, 
         Retail/Distribution, Insurance, Transportation. We understand the 
         requirements to provide industry specific Solution Systems. We 
         will develop application architectures based on a thorough 
         understanding of the future business requirement of each industry. 
         We will invest in the development of platform systems and 
         encourage application developers to integrate their products to 
         meet these needs. 


5.  BE A PREFERRED PARTNER TO THE TELEPHONE SERVICE PROVIDER AND 
    TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES SUPPLIERS FOR DISTRIBUTED 
    APPLICATIONS.

         Explanation : Because the Telecommunication markets are going 
         through major changes, a significant opportunity exists for 
         Digital to sell its distributed computing environment. In selected 
         market segments, country by country, we will focus on internal 
         data processing, software development, network management and new 
         telecommunications businesses such as value added networks. 


6.  ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS AND COMPLY WITH ALL 
    GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO BE A MAJOR PARTICIPANT IN THE 
    GLOBAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MARKET. 

         Explanation : Because of our size and market position, we play a 
         significant and visible role in the economies of most countries. 
         Our strength in technology, our complete product and services 
         offering, and our goal of open architectures makes us an ideal 
         supplier to ensure an open market and standards environment. 
         Therefore, we have many opportunities for local presence and 
         participation as a quality supplier, customer, employer, 
         technology partner and standards partner. We want to address these 
         opportunities fully in our relationships with customers, 
         governments, suppliers and the Information Technology industry as 
         a whole. 


PRODUCT/APPLICATION


7.  ENSURE THAT CORPORATE PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR WORLDWIDE MARKETS ARE 
    DESIGNED TO ADAPT EASILY TO ALL COUNTRY MARKETS AND THAT WE CAN PERFORM 
    THE ADAPTATION AND COMPLEMENTARY LOCAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT NECESSARY TO 
    MEET COUNTRY PLANS AND THE REQUIRED QUALITY STANDARDS.

         Explanation : It is company policy to design and manufacture 
         products that can be easily adapted to country markets, while 
         meeting our quality standards. We do this in order to maximize our 
         presence in all countries and therefore our worldwide sales 
         volume. It is an objective of the European Marketing and 
         Engineering organizations to identify these needs and make sure 
         that they are satisfied in our Product Development Plans. 


SERVICE


8.  STRENGTHEN OUR LEADERSHIP POSITION IN THE SUPPLY OF A FULL RANGE OF 
    QUALITY SERVICE PRODUCTS.

         Explanation : We must continually emphasize effective, high 
         quality services. We recognize that our industry is becoming ever 
         more service intensive and that we must anticipate and meet the 
         demands of our customers. In order to retain our leadership, we 
         must keep on expanding our service offerings. Services are an 
         integral part of the overall operation. 


9.  "MEET OUR CUSTOMER'S NEEDS BY PROVIDING FULLY INTEGRATED SUPPORT  FOR 
    SYSTEMS, APPLICATIONS, NETWORKS,AND SERVICE PRODUCTS."

         Explanation : More and more customers want complete solutions to 
         their business problems, not just separate hardware, software and 
         service components. This means that they require Systems 
         Integration in a multi-vendor environment;  we meet their needs by 
         supplying standard Digital hardware, software and services, 
         together with customized services and project management. Where 
         necessary we will form alliances with independent suppliers of 
         professional services to meet full customer needs.


BUSINESS


10. MEET OUR OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES WHILE INVESTING TO ACHIEVE OUR 
    LONG-TERM GOALS.

         Explanation : We include long-term investments within our 
         short-term operational objectives. We are committed to a change in 
         operating style which will produce an increase in financial 
         performance, especially in return on assets. A key to these 
         results is successful implementation of our cross-functional 
         integrated operating plan and dedication to quality and 
         productivity throughout our organization.

INTERNAL

                                     
11. ENCOURAGE CLOSE COOPERATION, TEAMWORK AND INTERDEPENDENCE AMONG 
    INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH THE GOAL OF PRESENTING OURSELVES AS ONE 
    COMPANY TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD. 

         Explanation : Within each cross-functional management team, the 
         following functions have the primary responsibility to define and 
         implement our integrated business plan: 

         Computer Special Systems, Educational Services (customer 
         training), Engineering, Field Service, Manufacturing, Marketing, 
         Sales, Software & Application Services. 

         As part of each cross-functional management team, the following 
         functions are responsible for defining and delivering effective, 
         efficient and high quality cross-functional service: 

         Administration and Logistics, Educational Services (internal 
         training), Finance, Human Resources, Information Services, Law. 

         We will implement team metrics to ensure proper feedback to 
         individuals on their team behavior. 


12. ENSURE THAT ALL EMPLOYEES ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN DIGITAL'S COMMITMENT TO 
    QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY. 

         Explanation : Technology, competition and customers are changing 
         at an ever-increasing rate. We must adapt to these changes to 
         ensure our success. Digital's employees and their interactions are 
         key to meeting our objectives. Therefore, changed objectives will 
         be communicated effectively to maximize employee contribution to 
         the successful implementation of the changes in a decentralized 
         environment. We  use a formal change management process for major 
         change programs (the "PROMPT" process). 


13. ENCOURAGE WIDE PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND 
    DISSEMINATE ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE APPROPRIATE GROUPS IN A 
    TIMELY FASHION. 

         Explanation : To achieve quality, decision-making that is based on 
         proposals is preferred and listening to a wide variety of views is 
         encouraged. The company supports an open and innovative internal 
         environment receptive to employees' ideas for internal formal 
         change and improvement. We prefer a decentralized decision-making 
         approach, with small teams used to stimulate innovation. Some 
         decisions cannot be participatory; however, all decisions will be 
         clearly communicated and explained. Efficient implementation plans 
         which affect people's tasks will encourage participation as much 
         as possible by the individuals affected. 


         In the exceptional case that agreement on an issue cannot be 
         reached in a timely manner, the individuals involved are 
         responsible for escalating the disagreement to the appropriate 
         manager(s). This is an important part of our decision-making 
         process. 


14. ENSURE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SKILLS OF EACH EMPLOYEE TO ENHANCE 
    CURRENT JOB PERFORMANCE AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION, AND TO ENABLE 
    EMPLOYEES TO SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MATCHING THEIR CAPABILITIES WITH 
    CHANGING BUSINESS NEEDS.

         Explanation: People are Digital's most important asset. We believe 
         that the high level of skill and capability of Digital employees 
         is a major contributor to business success now and in the future. 
         We will provide an integrated framework of people development 
         tools and solutions which match the needs of employees with 
         changing company needs throughout their careers. 

         ... Enhance current job performance

         We will strive to ensure that each employee is given the 
         opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to perform their 
         current job. 

         ... Share responsibility

         All employees are responsible for their own development together 
         with their manager. 


15. MEASURE EACH EMPLOYEE ON THE SATISFACTION OF OUR CUSTOMERS AND ON THE 
    QUALITY OF SERVICE RENDERED TO OUR COLLEAGUES.

         Explanation : customer and colleague satisfaction are central to 
         our success. We expect clear measurements of satisfaction to be an 
         important part of the feedback which improves our performance as 
         individuals and as a company. 


                                            Attachment II



    COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 1986 M&O AND THE NEWLY AGREED 1989 M&O


The purpose of this memo is to describe briefly the important changes 
between the 1989 version of our Mission & Objectives and the previous 
version which we distributed in 1986.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS THAT THE 1989 MISSION AND OBJECTIVES
ARE NOW A DIGITAL SET OF STATEMENTS INDICATING OUR WORLDWIDE 
CORPORATION'S VIEW OF HOW WE SHOULD SATISFY CUSTOMER NEEDS.

THE PARAGRAPHS OF EXPLANATIONS ARE SPECIFIC TO EUROPE BUT THE WORDING 
OF THE MISSION & OBJECTIVES IS SHARED WORLDWIDE.
			[my `bolding' - Jim Wade]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

POSITIONING MESSAGE
The positioning message is the same as 1986.

PURPOSE OF THE OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the objectives is again the same as the 1986 version.

MISSION
The mission wording has been augmented to include the following 
concepts :

1 - To be recognized as the best rather than just to be the best 
    supplier.

2 - Focus on integration of the corporation.

3 - Focus on networks as one of our main strengths.

4 - Focus on our worldwide capability.

Otherwise the underlying mission statement is exactly the same.

THE OBJECTIVES
The objectives are mostly the same with a slight change in their order 
of priority and some specific focus points added to individual 
objectives.

The following paragraphs discuss briefly the changes of the various 
objectives. They are given in the order of the new objectives.


EXPLANATION OF "PREFERRED PARTNER"
The new objectives begin with an explanation of the meaning of 
"preferred partner".  This is to avoid having the same words in each 
of the first four marketing objectives. It also focuses strongly on 
the partnerships which we will use through various channels to provide 
additional added-value to our customers. This focus on OEM's or 
complementary solution providers is made here in the beginning and in 
addition in each of the marketing objectives themselves.
This focus within the marketing objectives replaces the old objective 
# 5 which separately stated our commitment to OEM's.

OBJECTIVE 1 - PREFERRED PARTNERS AND ENTERPRISE-WIDE DISTRIBUTED 
              INFORMATION SYSTEMS
This new first objective focuses on the company-wide and inter-company 
information systems activities. It draws on wording from old objective 
# 5 for OEM's, # 7 for Application Software and # 9 for Networking.
It is the basis for our thrust into the integrated enterprise.

OBJECTIVE 2 - PUBLIC SECTOR 
This is almost identical to our old objective # 1.

OBJECTIVE 3 - MANUFACTURING
This is similar to our old objective # 2.

OBJECTIVE 4 - SERVICE INDUSTRIES
This objective is half of our old objective # 3 since we have split 
apart the service industries and the telephone industries.

OBJECTIVE 5 - TELEPHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS & TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT 
              MANUFACTURERS
Due to the enormous opportunity in the telephone market, we have split 
out the telephone industry marketing objectives from the service 
industries. This focus is also seen in the new corporate worldwide 
organization focusing on the telephone industry.

OBJECTIVE 6 - PUBLIC POLICY
This objective is similar to our old objective # 4 but with more focus 
on policy participation, compliance to government regulations and the 
global nature of our participation in worldwide public policy.
The previous objective focused purely on single country governments.

OBJECTIVE 7 - WORLDWIDE PRODUCTS
This objective is the same as old objective # 6.

OBJECTIVE 8 - SERVICE
This objective is the same as old objective # 8 but with an emphasis 
on our current leadership position in the supply of service to our 
customers.

OBJECTIVE 9 - INTEGRATED SUPPORT
Objective 9 expands on old objective 9 but emphasizing on multi-vendor 
support and systems integration capabilities, in addition to our 
interest in managing corporate networks. This objective demonstrates 
some of the new behaviors which we need to exhibit in order to become 
the preferred partner for integrated enterprises.

OBJECTIVE 10 - MAKING NUMBERS
This business objective is the same as our old objective # 10 with a 
new focus on longer term investments in addition to making the 
short-term budgets.

OBJECTIVE 11 - ONE COMPANY
This objective is a simplification of the old # 11 with the addition 
of team metrics to reinforce our one-company behavior.

OBJECTIVE 12 - QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY
This objective combines old objectives 12 and 16 and simplifies the 
wording.

OBJECTIVE 13 - DECISION MAKING AND INFORMATION FLOW
This objective is the same as old objective # 13 but with a new focus 
on participation in the decision making process by a wider group of 
employees.

OBJECTIVE 14 - EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT
This objective is an expansion on old objective # 14 to show our full 
commitment to employee development. It also focuses on the employee's 
own role in their career.

OBJECTIVE 15 - MEASURE SATISFACTION
This objective is identical to our old objective # 15.


Distribution List:

NAME: David BARLOW @GEO <BARLOW AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: John BARRETT @GMO <BARRETT AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: Hermann BINDER @OUO <BINDER AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: Georges CASSIR @GEC <CASSIR AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: Bruno D'AVANZO @GEC <DAVANZO AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: Shel DAVIS @GEC <DAVIS AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: Dick ESTEN @GEO <ESTEN AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: Pier Carlo FALOTTI @GEO <FALOTTI AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: Sergio GIACOLETTO @GEO <GIACOLETTO AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: Marie-Jose HAUZENBERGER @GEC <HAUZENBERGER AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
WILLI KISTER @RTO,
NAME: Earl MASON @GEC <MASON AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
PIER PAOLO MONDUZZI @IYO,
NAME: Werner OPPLIGER @GEC <OPPLIGER AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: Jack SCHWEIZER @GMO <SCHWEIZER AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
GEOFF SHINGLES @REO,
NAME: Beat STIEFEL @GEO <STIEFEL AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: David L. STONE @GEC <STONE AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NAME: David BARLOW @GEO <BARLOW AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
NIELS BIRKEMOSE MOELLER @DMO,
BO DIMERT @SOO,
HANS DIRKMANN @ZUO,
NAME: Pier Carlo FALOTTI @GEO <FALOTTI AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
MICHEL FERREBOEUF @PAO,
BERT DE GROOT @UTO,
WOLFGANG JAEGER @SQO,
HANS JARNIK @VNO,
HENRY KELLER @BRO,
WILLI KISTER @RTO,
BRUNO KRUL @XIP,
BIRGER KVAAVIK @NWO,
DEREK MACHUGH @DBO,
PIER PAOLO MONDUZZI @IYO,
MARTIN RANWELL @REO,
PEKKA ROINE @FNO,
YVES SARRAZIN @PAO,
GEOFF SHINGLES @RES,
NAME: Beat STIEFEL @GEO <STIEFEL AT AMIS1A1@EHQMR1@GEO>,
GIL WEISER @ISO
LAURENS BOUWMAN @UTO,
MARIE BRESCIA @GEO,
JEFF BULL @GEO,
JOHN CARTLAND @GEO,
GIORGIO CORSI @GEO,
SHEL DAVIS @GEO,
ANNE-MARIE DUVOCELLE @EVO,
ERIK FAES @BRO,
DOINA FILIP @GEO,
EHUD HAR-CHEN @ISO,
YVES IGNAZI @VBO,
PETER KOPPES @JGO,
GEORGE MANN @GEO,
JOE MCALLISTER @ILO,
JACK MCDERMOTT @GEO,
PETER MEDEK @VNO,
LAURENCE MEGSON @GEO,
ANTONIO MELA @IYO,
FRANK MOELLHOFF @GEO,
JORGE MOREIRA @XIP,
MIKE MULQUEEN @ILO,
KAJ NORDSTROM @FNO,
DAVID O'DONOVAN @DBO,
LEIF OLSEN @DMO,
ENRIQUE ORTEGA @SQO,
PHIL PORTER @GEO,
WERNER SCHAERER @ZUO,
HALVOR SKJEGGESTAD @NWO,
RICHARD STAHLI @GEO,
ERIK TEGNER @SOO,
PETER THOMSON @RES,
HERMANN WAGNER @RTO,
WAYNE WATTERS @GEO,
ALASTAIR WRIGHT @REO,
GILLES REGAMEY @GEO,
FOTIOS PAPANDRICOPOULOS @HEL

    To .8 - You must be quite young or pulling my leg.  If fact today marks
    the event that Tora Tora Tora took place in history.  Now maybe I
    spelled it wrong but it is when Japan caught the US sleeping and got us
    good.  Tora Tora Tora was the war cry.
    
    The point I was making was the car builder was watching the US builders
    only.  Then Japan came along in the car business and kick butt.
    
    Digital must not get caught in the same trap.  Our mission statement
    should be flexible enough to cover all bases.  We need to learn from
    the German car builders mistake.
    
    Regards
    
    
    Bob
    
    

    Just received this...
    
    
                Excerpt from a Boston Consulting Group publication
                "Perspectives" (summarized)

                          WORLD CLASS COMPETITORS
                          -----------------------

    o  Select group of corporations that do a great many things right and
       get steadily better.

    o  These companies continually develop new competitive advantages instead
       of always resorting to the old ones.

    o  Their profits don't seem to be at the mercy of currency swings.

    o  They are led, not just managed.

    o  These companies are the Benchmarks and they include Hewlett-Packard,
       Milliken, ICI, Chapparal Steel and Toyota.


                         WHAT DO THEY DO DIFFERENTLY?
                         ----------------------------

    o  FOCUS ON EMPLOYEES, NOT CAPITAL ASSETS

       -  Tap the creative potential of employees to improve their performance 

       -  They find that employees provide simple, low cost solutions to
          problems, often avoiding major capital expenditures.

    o  MANAGE THE WHOLE SYSTEM, NOT JUST COMPONENTS

       -  Compete as a whole enterprise, not just as departments or 
          functions.

       -  It is cooperation and cross-functional teamwork that create
          unique value for Customers.

    o  MICROMANAGE, NOT MACROMANAGE

       -  Top companies don't change technology and add new investments
          until they have refined and improved the capabilities of the
          exisiting processes.

       -  They make small changes that cumulatively have large effects.

       -  The best companies know that competitive advantage is in the 
          details.


    o  FOCUS ON TIME, NOT COST

       -  Faster response time to Customer

       -  Develop New Products in half of the time of competitors

       -  Time is the best way to measure the performance of their
          day-to-day operations as a system.

       -  Cutting time means cutting waste.

    o  ORGANIZE AROUND VALUE CHAIN, NOT FUNCTIONS

       -  Visualize the company as a continuous flow of work toward the
          Customer.

       -  World Class competitors tend to describe themselves more as
          flows of activity than as static structures of people.

    o  LEARN FROM MISTAKES, DON'T REPEAT THEM

       -  World Class companies solve problems by tracking them to root
          causes.

       -  Directly confront problems.

       -  These companies go face-to-face across the organization to get
          the changes they need rather than up the organization with paper
          to complain or seek relief.

       -  A World Class company makes nearly all of its engineering changes
          on a new product before tooling for production while a competitor
          makes thes changes after tooling.

    o  LOCAL, NOT CENTRAL

       -  World Class companies run lean by putting full responsibility for
          management and direction down in the divisions.

       -  Little Staff review of new investments and go/no go decisions.

       -  The key to making this work is small staffs and using only a few
          simple performance measures.

    o  PROMPT, NOT DEFERRED DECISIONS

       -  World Class Competitors act quickly.

       -  With dynamic organizational systems designed for fast response,
          they are able to make quick decisions, perform required analysis
          set priorities for moving forward.

       -  By compressing the decision cycle, they surpass their competitors
          with innovative solutions to problems.


    o  COOPERATION, NOT COMPETITION

       -  World Class companies know that Internal Cooperation creates more
          successes than Internal Competition, so they emphasize company
          performance over individual performance.

       -  Empower a multi-functional team inside the business to figure it
          out and take responsibility for making it work.

       -  Evaluate team members on the solution's success, not their 
          specialist input.  This is where team building comes from,
          not off-site seminars.

     o  WORLD CLASS COMPETITORS

       -  Focus on short term profits and on long-term competitive advantage

       -  Current advantages pay today's bills, but competitors usually
          catch up.

       -  Leading companies think about how good they will have to be three
          to five years out to keep their profit premium.    

            .  How will we save our Customers even more money??

            .  How fast to market with new products will we have to be??

      o  WORLD CLASS COMPANIES

        - Don't let Customers or Competitors set their goals.

        - They don't survey Customers and ask "what more can we do for you?"

      o  WORLD CLASS COMPANIES

        - Figure it out for themselves.


                         

    Vision: Unusual foresight. 
    
    KO had it in 1957 and if what I read in 5th Generation Management by
    Charles Savage (Corporate Consulting Group) is true he still has it. 
    But the company has become so political that the effective delivery of
    that vision is clouded and different from organization to organization.
    
    Charles writes about the human side of networking and the importance it
    has on the future of industry. In it he discusses the transition from 
    Industrial Era to Knowledge Era. An era in which human interaction MUST
    be considered for corporate survival. 
    
    As a kid growing up in New Hampshire I was fascinated by the growth of 
    Digital and by the apparent concern for the PEOPLE in the company. I
    saw a company that was vibrant and alive with excitement. The vision at
    that time seemed to be go and grow, involve your people, and keep them
    interested in all aspects of the company. Then in 83, times got a
    little tougher, the company got extremely political and the excitement
    went away. WHAT HAPPENED ??  The shared vision of the employees began
    to disentegrate and the organizational hierarchy took over. This
    created more distinct lines and boxes for "effective" measurement and
    blurred the ability of groups to interact effectively. Now, a corporate
    vision is nice but when distributed through the ranks it gets twisted.
    
    In the end each organization develops its own vision based on the
    corporate example. 
    
    After reading 5th Generation Management and a slew of others I see a
    need for a basic change. Fully involve the people by breaking down the 
    organizational barriers, get through the "Von Neumann bottleneck" so
    aptly explained in the book. And best of all bring back the excitement.
    Using Charlse's model we can build a Digital that far outstrips the 
    competition and provide an example to the world. If we continue to use
    lines and boxes for ease of measurement and organization we will surely
    see many tough years. I say this because lines have a definite beginning 
    and a definite end with a maximum of two connection points. Boxes give
    people a place to hide or a line to point to another box. Currently, if
    you stick your head up you'll probably get shot. 
    
    The 5th Generation model calls for an organizational structure that is 
    more circular in nature. I like this because there is no beginning and 
    no end to the line. It creates an organizational structure that is 360
    degrees in synch with itself, with an infinite number of ways to
    connect other circles. This model invites teamwork and cooperation
    between organizations. Through the effective development of this type
    of modeling we together can develop a truly effective vision for all of
    us to understand. 
    The proper useage of this type of model will weigh heavily in the
    ability to bring back the excitement. I believe that we are unique in
    the ability to involve the employees as PEOPLE not as numbers in regard
    to other industrialized nations. We must change the current structure
    and show the world that we are NOT just a computer company but a
    company that is as successful as the individuals that work here.
    
    I'd stay at the HELM even if the BOW were buried in a trough. 
    
    Dave Quinn
    

    Anent .10: I'm heartened to see that the European vision and mission
    statements can be summed up in only 583 lines.
    
    Now if we can only inscribe it on buttons...

	Ref .14.  In case it helps, here is the naked Corporate 
	Mission & Objectives statement less all the explanatory
	stuff ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          D I G I T A L   M I S S I O N   &   O B J E C T I V E S
                          
	TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE BEST PROVIDER OF QUALITY INTEGRATED
	INFORMATION SYSTEMS, NETWORKS AND SERVICES TO SUPPORT CUSTOMERS 
	WORLDWIDE

1.  BECOME A PREFERRED PARTNER FOR ENTERPRISE-WIDE AND CROSS-ENTERPRISE 
    DISTRIBUTED INFORMATION SYSTEMS.

2.  ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A STRONG MARKET POSITION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

3.  BE A PREFERRED PARTNER TO THE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES.

4.  BE A PREFERRED PARTNER TO THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SERVICE INDUSTRIES. 

5.  BE A PREFERRED PARTNER TO THE TELEPHONE SERVICE PROVIDER AND 
    TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES SUPPLIERS FOR DISTRIBUTED 
    APPLICATIONS.

6.  ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS AND COMPLY WITH ALL 
    GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO BE A MAJOR PARTICIPANT IN THE 
    GLOBAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MARKET. 

7.  ENSURE THAT CORPORATE PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR WORLDWIDE MARKETS ARE 
    DESIGNED TO ADAPT EASILY TO ALL COUNTRY MARKETS AND THAT WE CAN PERFORM 
    THE ADAPTATION AND COMPLEMENTARY LOCAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT NECESSARY TO 
    MEET COUNTRY PLANS AND THE REQUIRED QUALITY STANDARDS.

8.  STRENGTHEN OUR LEADERSHIP POSITION IN THE SUPPLY OF A FULL RANGE OF 
    QUALITY SERVICE PRODUCTS.

9.  MEET OUR CUSTOMER'S NEEDS BY PROVIDING FULLY INTEGRATED SUPPORT  FOR 
    SYSTEMS, APPLICATIONS, NETWORKS,AND SERVICE PRODUCTS.

10. MEET OUR OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES WHILE INVESTING TO ACHIEVE OUR 
    LONG-TERM GOALS.
                                     
11. ENCOURAGE CLOSE COOPERATION, TEAMWORK AND INTERDEPENDENCE AMONG 
    INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH THE GOAL OF PRESENTING OURSELVES AS ONE 
    COMPANY TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD. 

12. ENSURE THAT ALL EMPLOYEES ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN DIGITAL'S COMMITMENT TO 
    QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY. 

13. ENCOURAGE WIDE PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND 
    DISSEMINATE ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE APPROPRIATE GROUPS IN A 
    TIMELY FASHION. 

14. ENSURE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SKILLS OF EACH EMPLOYEE TO ENHANCE 
    CURRENT JOB PERFORMANCE AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION, AND TO ENABLE 
    EMPLOYEES TO SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MATCHING THEIR CAPABILITIES WITH 
    CHANGING BUSINESS NEEDS.

15. MEASURE EACH EMPLOYEE ON THE SATISFACTION OF OUR CUSTOMERS AND ON THE 
    QUALITY OF SERVICE RENDERED TO OUR COLLEAGUES.

    
    	Fifteen?
    
    	Accepted communication theories agree that more than three
    	messages are confusing and ill-conceived.  So, let's assume
    	there are three objectives, there should be three supporting
    	messages per objective (if that).
    
    	Bottom line:  If you have too many objectives and too many
    	messages you have nothing.
    
    
    

    
    Shouldn't a vision be something with value to society or at least to
    someone other than DEC and DECees? 
    
    I keep thinking of the soap company whose vision is to 'bring sanitation 
    to the third world' or something like that. I keep thinking that ours 
    should be something like 'to solve business problems' and you can add '...
    through application of appropriate technologies and practices' if you
    want. Our vision should not have to include lines like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
    6, 7,8, 10 - 15 ... most of those should be implied and/or included in
    a mission or as strategies etc. 
    
    
    

    The following is printed on the back of every GE Plastics business card
    and hangs framed in many GEP offices:
    
    			QUALITY POLICY
    			--------------
    	"We shall strive for excellence in all our endeavors.
    	We shall set our goals to achieve total customer
    	satisfaction and to deliver defect-free premium
    	value products on time, with service second to
    	none."
    
    						   Signed
    					       Glen Hiner
    				Senior Vice President and
    					  Group Executive
    					      GE Plastics
    
    
    Pretty much tells everyone what they want to be.  Short, sweet and to
    the point.
    
    Al
    

    
    It's a peculiar feeling replying to a note string which has been
    dormant for a while, but there is another attempt at a revision of
    Digital's Vision circulating since the beginning of May.  Has anyone
    seen it.  There was also a solicitation for input and comment.  
    
    From the draft I saw, it looks like very little of the message of
    the previous replies entered here was heard.  I did volunteer my
    input.  Has anyone else responded?
    
    Mike
    

 Following is a vision statement from Dallas Kirk, and comments are
    welcome.  Note that it is Version 6, April, 1992.
    
 In reference to some comments, there is no vision statement if none is 
    perceived, but there are visions if one chooses to embrace (and
    contribute to) those that exist.
 
 Perhaps we are not lacking in visions, but lacking in believers....Dave
 
Subject: (I) DEC's Vision Statement (6th Version)

From:	NAME: DALLAS KIRK                   
	FUNC: CORP. PUBLIC RELATIONS          
	TEL: 223-4562                    <KIRK.DALLAS AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>
Date:	25-Apr-1992
Posted-date: 25-Apr-1992
Precedence: 1
Subject: VISION STATEMENT--VERSION 6                                   2
To:	[deleted]
CC:	[deleted]

Many of you have commented on the earlier version of the Vision
Statement (January 31, 1992).  We have rewritten that statement
from more of a marketing perspective.  It is attached for your 
review, comment and discussion.

Please send your comments, changes, or ideas for discussion
to me @CORE or CORMTS::KIRK.

Thanks and regards,

Dallas

/pa

Attachment

                       DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
                         ... applying the ingenuity
                       and commitment of our people.

	 We provide the innovation and expertise to enable people 
         to work together around the world.

	 Working in partnerships, we know our customers so well 
         we anticipate their needs.

	 Our markets are those which we understand thoroughly and 
         where we add significant value.

	 We are a team of individuals dedicated to learning and 
         contributing.

                            OBJECTIVE

	 Digital helps customers turn information into knowledge 
         and achievement of excellence.  Everyone in small and 
         large enterprises alike can get the right information in 
         the most useful form, from wherever it is around the 
         world...quickly and easily.

                        STRATEGIC INTENT

	 We will grow profitably in targeted industries by 
         producing the world's best integrated business 
         solutions.  We will focus on products that do the job 
         perfectly for the customer, so we can guarantee results.

	 We will lead in the services required to integrate 
         people, business, and technology.

	 We will achieve this by organizing the Company around 
         our core competencies, investing in the technologies and 
         people to implement our strategies.

	 Our business includes:

	 o  full responsibility to plan, design, implement, and 
            manage customers' information systems;

	 o  local and worldwide systems, networks, and 
            applications;

	 o  standard systems and components that lead in 
            function, quality, and price;

	 o  a full spectrum of service from consulting to spare 
            parts.

	 We are strategic partners with our customers and 
         suppliers.

                             VALUES

	 Our customers' success is our success.  Every activity 
         adds value to the customer and profit to our business.  
         Our employees strive to contribute their creative powers 
         to all our stakeholders (our customers, investors, 
         suppliers, industry, neighbors, and each other).  Their 
         success is our success.

                  DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
                ...people come to us for results.

.21 has received permission from the author to post the vision statement.

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

    A Mission statement that is up to version 6, and is subject to changes
    every few months. Sounds like indecision, not mission, to me.
    
    q
    

    re: .21
    
    I want to be a believer, but what I need is an interpreter.
    It's difficult to sort through.  It reads like an insurance policy.
    What does core competencies and guaranteed results mean?
    And what the heck is a stakeholder???
    
    I know Digital wants to make money, but surely there's a less
    circuitous way to state it.
    
    Mike
    

    Re .21
    
    YAWN.
    
    Anybody have a vision statement from Microsoft or something to post
    beside .21.
    
    Talk about pure unadulterated fluff. Doesn't even mention ANY of our
    core competencies. Doesn't mention software, doesn't mention anything.
    Basically just says:
    "we're great guys, we'll work well with us; trust us"
    
    Dave

    re: -1
    
    I still like the GE Plastics vision statement I posted in .18.  I also
    like Microsoft's 'Information at Your Fingertips' and Scott McNealy's
    'One arrow, all the weight behind the point' (or whatever the hell is
    is - at least I remember the basic message).  
    
    Digitals visionary messages have always tended to look like that thing
    in .21 - obtuse, verbose and incomprehensible.  The only thing that
    ever came close was the 'One company, one architecture' message (in our 
    region where facilities was busy implementing a now-dead concept called 
    office of the future, the words 'one desk' were always appended to this
    slogan).
    
    It was bad enough when engineering ran the show.  Now that they work
    for marketing, God help us....
    
    Al
    

"Information at your fingertips" is one take at Microsoft's strategy. MS here
have a slide that articulates their product strategy; it shows one shrink
wrapped box, with the word "Windows" above it.

As for Digital, the long term strategy seems to be:

	- World Class Seminconductor Processors
	- SI/FM

and the rest is designed to leverage one or the other.

Still, we've got the right guy in Strecker to articulate the true strategy as
seen from the top. The one time I heard him talk about Digital's Product
Strategy (it must have been '85/86), he did it in 30 mins and most people left
the room thinking that we wouldn't dare work for anyone else. Great to see
him back in his old role.
								- Ian W.

Ahhh Gi'day...�

	 Mr Strecker hasn't impressed that much in his recent talks.

re .24:

>    And what the heck is a stakeholder???

A vampire killer?

    
    re: .21
    
    Useless.
    
    Doesn't inform, doesn't inspire -- either internally or externally
    (employees or customers).

    Deming has a little story about this:
    
    Seems there was this company that manufactured carburetors. They did
    fine because all cars had carbs.
    
    Then auto manufacturers started to put fuel injection in their autos
    and the carb company started to feel the pinch. They did EVERYTHING
    possible to stay alive: cut costs, built better carbs, layed people
    off.
    
     They closed their doors.
    
     Problem was, they though of themselves as a carburetor manufacturer
    instead of thinking of themselves as a company that builds devices 
    that puts a stoichiometric ratio of fuel and air into a cylinder.
    
     If they would have enlarged the way they thought of themselves they
    might have been looking for better ways to serve the client and might
    have grasped the fuel injection invention.
    
     So, what is Digital's mission in life?
    
    Gregg

    re.31 That reminds me of a basic management course I took a few
    years back. They used the example of one company who distilled
    their mission to the statement, "We coat things." That company
    is Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, or 3M, who, if you look
    closely, do exactly that - coat things. Paper, tape, diskettes,
    all coated by 3M. They excel at what they do, because they *know
    what they do well and stick to it.*
    
    Remember when DEC _was_ minicomputers? Remember when DEC _was_ VAX?
    (Hell, remember when Apple _was_ PC's?) What is DEC today? In five 
    words or less, please.

>   all coated by 3M. They excel at what they do, because they *know
>   what they do well and stick to it.*
			  ^^^^^

    Groan!

I see two problems.

One is very nicely illustrated by .31:  Unwillingness to try different 
businesses.

The second, and related is an unwillingness to really go after a market until
someone else has already saturated it.  (Or so it looks from where I sit.)

When you're playing "catch-up" in a market, which by your own rules is the part
that's shrinking, there are guarantees.  It's just that none of them are very
positive.

	Why can't we build on the legendary DEC mission of old,
    which was to break through the fishbowl and bring the power
    of the computer directly to the user?

	The early days involved long lines of users all waiting
    to feed their punchcards into card readers, only to wait yet
    again for the computer operator in the fishbowl to retrieve
    their job and deposit their paper print-out in the appropriate
    slot in the wall.  Heirarchical structures evolved to protect
    the computer from the unwieldy users, and armies of datacenter
    employees acted as defenders of the castle which contained
    the untouchable computer.  DEC changed all that with the mini-
    computer, together with VT100 terminals & DECwriters, which
    brought the power of the computer directly to the user.
    
	Another evolutionary phase occurred when users began
    to need faster ways of sending data from site to site.  Once
    again, DEC was there to provide state of the art networking
    capability bringing compute power to the [remote] users as well.

	To translate the same paradigm to today's problems, DEC
    needs to focus once again on bringing the power of the computer
    to the user to solve their problems.  Users of today need the
    power of computerized voice messaging systems.  They need the
    power of Desktop teleconferencing technology (so they can work
    at home just as effectively as they can from an office).  They
    need compute power which is open and industry standard.  They
    need compute power without worrying about network viruses (i.e.
    enhanced security products).  Etc., etc.  In short, users need
    compute power in a form which, once again, solves their problems
    and revolutionizes their lives.  DEC empowers the user.

				-davo

Here is Xerox' Vision Statement, what do all of you think of it?
    
  
   
                          XEROX 1992 DIRECTION
  
                           Putting It Together
  
  
        1992 Priorities	
  
                   # Customer Satisfaction
                   # Motivation and Satisfaction of Xerox Employees
                   # Market Share
                   # Return on Assets   
  
        1992 Direction
  
  	           "As The Document  Company, we will strengthen our 
                   marketing initiatives to shape and lead the 
                   Document Services industry and we will drive to be 
                   the most productive company in the industry." 
  
  
        1992 Objectives
  
                   # Continue to improve customer satisfaction with a 
                     focus on making our customers very satisfied.
  
                   # Improve our ability to deliver, in a timely 
                     manner, products and services that fully meet 
                     customer requirements.
  
                   # Enhance the motivation and satisfaction of Xerox 
                     people by realising their energy and creativity - 
                     using their knowledge to add value for our 
                     customers.
  
                   # Increase market share and revenue growth by 
                     growing our current customer base and pursuing new 
                     business through coverage and market development.
  
                   # Find new ways to make every operation more 
                     productive both to fund our future growth and to 
                     grow shareholder value.
  

	re .35:

>        Why can't we build on the legendary DEC mission of old,
>    which was to break through the fishbowl and bring the power
>    of the computer directly to the user?

	Mainly because it's already been done by people who didn't get
	blinded by their own importance. While we were making plans to
	overtake IBM (and working as hard as we could to be even more
	pompous, arrogant and bureaucratic than we *thought* they were)
	some small furry mammals were promoting

		- The Apple way of life

		- The IBM Personal Computer

		- The UNIX way of life, mainly as seen by Sun

	Those are the groups that are "breaking through the fishbowl".
	As for us at Digital, now we're IN the fishbowl. Can *you* get
	access to DCL from your friendly IS-administered ALL-IN-1 cluster?

	Would you, as an end-user, trust someone to "bring the power of
	the computer directly to you", when that someone sells high,
	doesn't advertise because they have all the decision-makers
	in their pocket, and charges far more than street prices for
	perfectly simple commodity products?

	Oh, and don't forget that the computer whose power will be
	brought directly to you has to be a VAX!

	/Tom

    As recent as 1990, the very idea of a vision statement provoked
    laughter among Mr. Ken Olsen and Mr. Jack Smith (see 1300.4)

    As long as the target of Digital's marketing is the enterprise and not
    the individual, then Digital is going to be fundamentally different in
    character from Apple, or companies aligned to Intel platform personal
    computing.

    As far as empowering personal computing, as the history of computing is
    being written in the 1990's, Digital's role is written like a "has
    been".

    1970's: Digital leads in "timesharing" as the replacement for punch
    card batch.

    1980's: Digital leads in creating a compatible proprietary family of
    32-bit computers.

    It's 1992 and it's time to get a post-VAX vision implemented not just
    passed through the process of consensus-building.

    re.36 You've just given a prime example of an over-worded mission
    statement.
    
>        1992 Direction
  
>  	           "As The Document  Company, we will strengthen our 
>                   marketing initiatives to shape and lead the 
>                   Document Services industry and we will drive to be 
>                   the most productive company in the industry." 
    
    Eliminate the verbiag : "As The Document Company, we will lead
    the Document Services industry."

    "leading the document services industry" is hardly a mission statement
    in my opinion.
    
     a mission statement says what the company DOES, not what it's market
    share goal is.
    
     What is it that DEC DOES? Or what should it do?
    
    Manufacture computers?  too narrow
    
    make computers and software? too unfocused............
    
    What is it we want to DO?
    
    Gregg

>    What is it we want to DO?

	Produce damn good products that people want 
	to use.

    Didn't seem very hard for me to figure that out.  What do
    the rest of you want to do?

Yeah, but what *kind* of products?

>  <<< Note 1300.42 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Yeah, but what *kind* of products?

See .41 "ones that people want to use"

Craig

    So does that mean that .41 wants to produce good tractors?
    
    good radios?
    
    good dishwasher soap?
    
    What?
    
    Good WHAT?
    
    a mission statement has to be a bit more specific than that. it has to
    be a wider statement than carburetors...........

re Note 1300.27 by IW::WARING:

> Still, we've got the right guy in Strecker to articulate the true strategy as
> seen from the top. The one time I heard him talk about Digital's Product
> Strategy (it must have been '85/86), he did it in 30 mins and most people left
> the room thinking that we wouldn't dare work for anyone else. Great to see
> him back in his old role.
  
        I thought that Strecker was essentially in charge of the
        product strategy, through the STF, for most of the past
        decade.  Didn't that strategy get us to where we are today?

        When I've heard him speak, I always felt that while he had a
        keen grasp of what Digital was doing and what he felt Digital
        should do, that he had little or no comprehension of the
        industry and market as a whole.

        Bob

Re: .43

Which would suggest that we're putting all our (software) eggs into the PC
arena. We're not, so that's obviously not our mission.

We've gone from a producer of low cost computing ('60s to mid '70s) to higher
cost computing (mid-'70's to today) and into "solving difficult computing
problems for customers" - read: Integrated Information Systems. Now, we're
focussing on the big-buck niches where people operate like a communist state,
which is IBM's traditional territory.

There are only so many 100-person development teams out there, let alone
customers who really wanting to spend time trying to make computers fit their
real business need. The trend is towards convenience, timeliness and
applicability at the "right" price.

While we're out there spending zillion$ trying to earn the big bucks, look
at the cottage industries that Borland, Microsoft et al revolve around. Quite
a heavy portion of them are hiding within the enterprises we know as our
"installed base".

We need firm direction from the very top and to conciously polarise to where
there is value we can provide - and execute it. To do anything else is a slow,
painful death.
								- Ian W.

    Re .several
    
    I thought Strecker got sent to Coventry in the latest birdcage bashing.
    
    Dave

    A mission statement should be the starting point for anyone in a
    project, ie nearly every employee of Digital to ask "Does this project
    contribute to the mission of the company?"
    
    So just "be profitable" isn't good enough.  "Make good computers and
    the software and services that support them." is a good mission
    statement for the 70's, but the wrong one for the 90's.

    why dont we hire a vision statments consultant and let them help us
    write one?
    
    good idea, right?
    
    /nasser

    
    Maybe the vision wouldn't be very popular with some.  It could 
    have a "One World" flavor to it.
    
    Recently, I viewed a DVN and a video that both seemed to spell 
    out DEC's vision.  The DVN was a practice pitch by a DECWorld
    presenter from the imaging, etc group and the video was "The
    Future of Computing".  (or something close to that.
    
    The video was done by someone from the UK, can get the name, etc.
    
    Here's the picture:
    
    Information technology history up to now...we are at the END of
    the information age.  The next is the knowledge age.
    
    The educational and business worlds have done an admirable job
    of tying themselves together, globally, to create the ability
    to allow working teams to span geography.  What has to happen
    next is that we do this to society as a whole.  That's why you
    have a man in Congress fighting to have connectivity for all,
    not just the technical elite.
    
    The key is that up to now, we've made the user adapt his/her
    work to how the system/application 'does it'.  From here on,
    we have to make the systems adapt to how the user 'does it'.
    
    This will mean needed breakthroughs in imaging, high-speed &
    cheap networks, input technologies, etc, etc.  The goal?
    To make the system allow the user to focus on what they are 
    doing and not how to make the system let him/her do it!
    Applications, systems, and network technologies that allow a
    user to access tasks, data, other people, without regard to
    how "all that stuff" works.  Up to now we've taught elementary
    school kids how to program in Basic.  We have to be able to
    teach them how to think, create, and do so, while accessing amounts
    of data that would boggle the mind, transparently.
    
    Now think about our core competencies, our future open
    product sets, and most of all, the relationships DEC has
    made with various business and educational groups.  Then
    ask yourself what other computer company could be better
    positioned to lead the industry into this future, with our
    partners.
    
    It may be that we don't have enough believers, but I've spent
    a lot of my time looking for this vision and I guess by
    entering this reply, I'm a believer.  I don't think we've heard
    this vision articulated through the ranks and we definitely
    need to hear it!
    
    DEC is in a wonderful postion now.  If only we could have a real
    evangelist at a VP (or higher) level that could travel the company
    to bring the vision to us all.  By the way, in this picture of
    DEC's vision, the partnership with Microsoft would have to be
    viewed as unavoidable.  They have the rest of the pieces to complete
    the package.  Of course, from a purely business standpoint, we
    only seek to penetrate each other's installed base/market.  I
    believe that's the short term goal that allows the building of the
    long term vision.  Even NASA can't do anything these days that
    doesn't look like it will make lots of buks.
    
    I'll see if I can get a part number or whatever the the video, if
    anyone is interested.
    
    Dennis,
    Digital Services
    Account Representative 
    (according to my new business cards, guess I'm not an engineer
    anymore)
    

While Digital are well placed on the "large backend integration" facilities
of today, i'd suggest that (collectively) Apple, Nintendo and General Magic
Inc are thousands of miles ahead on the client side.

What's the mean time to create a database on a DEC engine and "publish" it
to electronic subscribers everywhere? In the world of the future, quite a
few "clients" will be able to double as servers too.

Bring on a democratised, "all the world are clients", consumer electronics
version of Lotus Notes. Add Quicktime as a CDA datatype, and go retire on
the royalties while the low cost producers slug it out...
								- Ian W.

    A vision statement is only the starting point for directing a company's
    activities.  Sure, if there is one and everyone aligns his own
    activities according to whether they support or not the vision, there
    will be a kind of synergy that may lead the company as a whole in the
    right direction.  But only MAY.
    
    All the processes, policies, procedures and metrics of a company must
    be coherently aligned with the vision in order that the vision really
    works as the company's leader.  A vision statement without the
    suuporting "implementation" work is only a facade.  I think that we
    have enough facades in Digital.  We don't need another.
    
    David

    No need to hire a consultant.  Everything you need to know about coming
    up with corporate visions, missions, and objectives can be found in the
    book "Selling the Dream" by Guy Kawasaki.  One chapter of that book.
    The rest of the book is about how to make your vision into reality after you
    have decided on what it is.

    
    re:.49 - nice idea Pat, but when the bosses vision does not line up
    with the (your view) of the company vision, the kicks to the head are
    frequent and hurtful.  There was a time when I preached that "if you
    know you are right, damn certain you are right, fight the battle!"
    
    I would NEVER say that again....not in this company!
    
    bob

I saw David Stone articulate the kernel of a vision statement when he spoke of
the "Information Utility."  Like other "utilities", gas, electric, phone, and
meta-utilities such as oil-delivery, television, and so on, the world is moving
to have an information utility service.

I believe that we have tyhe talent and products to integrate DEC's offerings
with the aim of providing the "information utility."  Like every other utility,
the prime mission is uninterrupted, reliable delivery of of the product to the
customer, backed up by sales, customer service, repair, and so on.

Thoughts?
BobW

    Mine would be:
    
    The mission of Digital Equipment Corporation is the capture,
    processing, and distribution of information.
    
    Gregg

>    The mission of Digital Equipment Corporation is the capture,
>    processing, and distribution of information.

        I like this description--it allows me to spend all day in notes
        and still be directly contributing to the success of Digital!

        					B.J.

    Truth is SHORTER than fiction
    
    karl

    My vote is for:
    
       "Integration-anything, anywhere, anytime"
    
    John

Re: back a few

    Stone cut his teeth on MULTICS.  How does his current vision of an
    information utility differ from the MULTICS vision of a data
    processing utility?  Can anyone recommend a good book which covers
    MULTICs and whatever happened with it?

    By the way, there's a Stone video tape floating around which gives
    his impressions of what will and won't make money over the next
    few years, problems he sees with our current software process and
    career paths, where we should be heading in the software arena, and
    what needs to change at Digital.

    I got to see it today; it has content similar to earlier presentations
    he has made, and covers a lot of ground.  If you haven't seen his talk
    about the "domain process", where the margins are going, how much we
    need in volume in order to break even on an OS in the 90's, etc. you
    should check out this tape.  I think he has a lot of good ideas, and
    a good chance of making them happen.  I'll probably be even more
    enthusiastic when I've had time to think about what he said, and see
    some of it starting to happen...

    FWIW, here is an example of a REAL vision -- short, to the point,
    comprehensible by ANYONE, gripping, and realizable:
    
    	"The Boeing policy is to so develop airplane design and
    	 construction that today's spectacular feat of bravery
    	 will become tomorrow's accepted mode of transportation --
    	 inexpensive, dependable, safe!"
    
    This first appeared in "Aero Digest" magazine in December 1927 --
    seven months after Lindbergh's "spectacular feat of bravery."
    
    Any and all vision statements I've seen from Digital or any of its
    constituents (including, mea culpa, some I've had a hand in 
    composing) are stiff, lifeless, uninspiring, and prolix in comparison
    with this little gem.  I don't know if Boeing's vision statement has
    changed in 65 years, but the fact is that this could *still* serve
    as their vision.
    
    -- Paul

    It looks like a mission statement is either what you do ("we connect
    all the dots in your organization") or how you want to change the world
    ("any information you need, when you need it, how you need it").
    
    There's an excellent book on teamwork (so excellent that I haven't
    gotten it back) which talks about the one distinguishing facet of
    successful teams:  a clear, measurable, empowering goal.  The Boeing
    goal in .62 is empowering, in that it's inspirational.  Classic example
    of a good goal is "To put a man on the moon by the end of the decade."

    re: .63
    
    Actually, it was ``...put a man on the moon by the end of the decade,
    and return him safely to earth.''  Yes, that was an inspirational
    goal.
        John Sauter

    A good mission statement I once read was that given by President
    Franklin D. Roosevelt to the general who had just been named head of
    the US Army's Logistics Command in 1942: "Find out what the Army needs,
    and get it."
    
    -- Paul

A vision in 5 words or less ?



			Digital is a Solutions Provider.



A customer has a problem, we provide the solution to that problem, what the 
nature of problem is, shouldn't make any difference to this company, it 
shouldn't make any difference what means are required to provide the solution, 
even if that means providing third-party hardware/software/services; we should 
be acting as a broker.  This is where the money is today and this is what
customers of the 90's want. 


Many groups already do this.   Digital is no longer a "Manufacturer", we moved
beyond this years ago.  To try to stay in this limited niche will kill the 
company.

    This is classic "begging the question".
    
    You've just shift the question from "What is Digital's vision?" to
    "What is a solution?"
    
    And it's obviously false, the corporation has committed itself to
    compete with Intel, IBM, Sun, etc. in the design and manufacture of
    RISC microprocessors.
    
    Designers and manufacturers of RISC microprocessors do not describe
    themselves as "solutions providers".

    the "Solution provider" is just a fluff, a politically correct term,
    but have little substance , every one in the world tells you that
    they provide "solutions", but the truth is that no one can provide
    all "solutions", not even DEC.

    so we better go back and figure some vision that is more concrete and
    has more real words associated to it that normal people can understand.

    /nasser

Omigod.  I just found myself in agreement with both Pat Sweeney
and Nasser Abbasi. 

"Solutions provider" is completely devoid of meaning.
Hey, we could even pee in bottles, sell 'em, and use
the same vision statement.

I agree that 'solution provider' is too vague. Perhaps 'provider of solutions
to information processing problems' would be better, but I still don't like it.

'solution provider' implies that we can provide:

solution to the customer who has a problem shipping widgets from one factory
to another.

solution to the customer who has a problem with the IRS because he hasn't paid
taxes for the last 10 years.

or similar problems.

For that matter, we would not be the company to provide a solution 
of acetic acid.

No, 'solution provider' is so vague as to be useless.

    Vision statement:
    
    	"Information:  WHEN you want it, WHERE you want it, HOW you want it"
    
    Ric

I absolutely hate it.  Solution provider is DECspeak at its worst.  A solution
is what you have when you solve an equation for unknown values.  Are you saying
our market is unknown? That our customers don't know what they want?

Alternaltely, you get a solution when you put a solute in a solvent and it
desolves.  I can buy my daughter's caugh medicine in tablet form or in
solution.  If the later, I have to make sure I shake it well before dispensing.
Then again, given DEC's financials, maybe we can hope something preciptates out.

BobW 

Representative Adam Clayton Powell once was asked, "What is the first duty of
a Congressman?"

He replied, "To get elected."

IMHO, stumbling asll over ourselves to define "Digital's vision," is, at this
juncture, a bit ... um ... autostimulatory.  That is, it might even feel good
without producing much.

Rather than concentrating on the sloganeering, what's important is to look at
strategy and tactics.

Strategy: the company wants to survive and, as appropriate, evolve.

Tactics: find ways to increase sales.
         find ways to increase market awareness.
         find ways to convince potential customers to purchase and stick with
           Digital's products.

To do all (or most) of the above means doing more than talking to ourselves.

It also means a more streamlined, less cumbersome way to respond to customer
wants and needs, and means of becoming more competitive.

Easy solutions?  If I had 'em, I wouldn't be joining into this discussion.  I'm
doing what I can to sensitize the people I'm in contact with about sales and
marketing opportunities.  If we can do this company-wide, it will help.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    .71 is headed in the right ddirection.
    

  While I dislike warm fuzzy statements, the fact is that a "vision" of this
  nature is a prime example of a warm fuzzy statement !  It CANNOT be too
  specific or else it doesn't apply to a large part of this [large, diverse]
  company.  It CANNOT be anything other than DECspeak because nobody in their
  right minds uses a "vision statement" to live, it is just a single line of
  blah that can apply to all employees to give some form of cohesion.  

  I'm not the author of .66 so the following responses are just from _my_
  interpretation.  It just happens that I agree with the paragraph that
  followed the five word slogan in that reply that everyone has latched
  onto.

  Re .72 (Bob)

> A solution is what you have when you solve an equation for unknown values.

  Correct.

> Are you saying our market is unknown?

  Nearly.

> That our customers don't know what they want ?

  No - simply that DIGITAL doesn't always know what they want.  We have to
  *listen* to them to find out the unknowns, then *think* about the problem,
  then propose a solution (or a choice of solutions) rather than just
  waving a price book saying "Pick one or I'll walk away".  Over-simplified ?
  I agree but the essence is there - we cannot keep assuming that Digital
  has "all the answers that are worth knowing".  We need to be flexible.
  
  Re .70

> I agree that 'solution provider' is too vague. Perhaps 'provider of solutions 
> to information processing problems' would be better, but I still don't like it

  So that cuts us out of the growing facilities management market.  Shame, the
  reports I've read show that it's doing quite nicely in the UK.

> 'solution provider' implies that we can provide :
>  solution to the customer who has a problem shipping widgets from one
>    factory to another.
>  solution to the customer who has a problem with the IRS because he hasn't
>    paid taxes for the last 10 years.
> For that matter, we would not be the company to provide a solution
>    of acetic acid.

  Right stick, wrong end.  We don't *manufacture* the acetic acid ourselves
  but we can *provide* it to #3.  We don't have the accountants that #2 needs
  but we should be able to locate them and connect client to end-user.  We
  are not in the transport business but we use it enough that we are able to
  make recommendations for different needs.

  Re .69 (Dave)

> Hey, we could even pee in bottles, sell 'em, and use           
> the same vision statement.                                     

  If that's what the customer wants, sell it !   Charge 'em for the beer and
  recycle the bottle.  Hey, even *I* could become a solutions provider :-)

  Re .71 (Ric)

> "Information:  WHEN you want it, WHERE you want it, HOW you want it" 

  Unfortunately you omitted "WHAT you want" ... which, ironically, makes it
  particularly suitable for Digital at times ... we are good at the "where",
  improving on the "when", starting to discover that "how" is important but
  are permanently in catch-up mode on "what" - but that's a different topic
  really.  The above is every bit as warm, fuzzy and PC as the "solutions
  provider" one, just looking at a different angle, one that cuts out the
  market outside of IT.  If you make it sufficiently detailed to avoid the
  "vague" tag then you have missed the target of a "short & simple" slogan.

  Again, the above is just my view.
  
  Frank

    Some companies have failed for lack of a general vision statement,
    others for lack of specific focus.  No vision statement is a cureall,
    it is only a tool to help you organize for the immediate challenge.
    
    Railroads failed because they didn't realize that their competition was
    in automobiles and electronic communication.  
    
    Many people attribute our losses to attempts to be everything to
    everyone.
    
    Timing is of the essence.
    
    Dick

    
    "Solution Provider" isn't so bad. It's not as vague as "Do The Right
    Thing" -- and I spent at least ten years (just as happy as a clam, too)
    with that as the company's guiding light to actual success.
    
    The point of "solutions" is that the vast majority of customers part
    with cash _only_ in order to solve a business problem. The problem
    arises when we try to think of our 45,000-part price book as the place
    where solutions are found.
    
    No one can be expected to: a) hold down a sales job and b) understand
    all the technology represented by those 45,000 parts. And an approach
    of: "Here, Mr. Customer, let's look through this price book for the
    solution to your business problem and I'll have it delivered." -- well,
    that just isn't going to hack it.
    
    We need to focus on ways to take our off-the-shelf technologies and
    assemble (or tailor or customize) them to solve a particular business
    need for a particular customer. If that solution can be re-worked and
    re-sold to other customers who have that same problem, so much the better.
    
    So people with technical expertise are the lifeblood of this company.
    They are the ones who can take what we have and deliver it in a form
    that results in a happy customer. But they must be empowered to do
    that, and measured on it. And they must have a greater role in
    determining what goes _on_ the shelf so that that right components
    are available for assembly into solutions.
    
    JP 
    

If "solution provider" were a new slogan, I'd have fewer problems with it.  
Unfortunately, we've been blathering on about "selling solutions" for as long
as I've been with the company and we haven't come anywhere near understanding
what it means.

I don't see how continuing to beat a very old, worn drum will turn anything
around.


\dave

   Re: Note 1300.73 by HELIX::KALLIS 
   

�Rather than concentrating on the sloganeering, what's important is to look at
�strategy and tactics.

�Strategy: the company wants to survive and, as appropriate, evolve.

�Tactics: find ways to increase sales.
�         find ways to increase market awareness.
�         find ways to convince potential customers to purchase and stick with
�           Digital's products.

�To do all (or most) of the above means doing more than talking to ourselves.
   
   
   S&T cannot stand alone.  Just as Strategy is to Goal as Tactics is to
   strategy.  Tactics implement the strategy.  Strategy addresses the
   Goal.  You cannot have a strategy apart from a goal.  A vision
   statement should describe the corporation's goal in more well defined
   terms other than be the best, make money, etc.  Goals are more along
   the lines of win the war.

re: .79,
   
>   S&T cannot stand alone.  Just as Strategy is to Goal as Tactics is to
>   strategy.  Tactics implement the strategy.  Strategy addresses the
>   Goal.  You cannot have a strategy apart from a goal.  A vision
>   statement should describe the corporation's goal in more well defined
>   terms other than be the best, make money, etc.  Goals are more along
>   the lines of win the war.

	Good point!  Profiting and surviving as a business is akin
    to surviving the battles in a war, but in itself says nothing
    about actually winning the war.

	Of course, even a goal of "winning the war" is somewhat
    short-sighted, as all wars eventually end.  Now that the world
    is supposedly "beyond war", the goals of what to do after the
    [cold] war becomes yet another question.  In this extremely war-
    focussed culture, we find ourselves clueless as to what to do next.
    With no external wars to fight, we create internal wars (war on
    drugs, war on crime, war on poverty, etc.).  The goal is always
    that of controlling some perceived enemy.  The same war culture
    translates itself to the business world in tactics and strategy
    which are designed to defeat the competition and capture (i.e.
    control) market share.

	I'll admit to being just as guilty of using war metaphores
    as anyone else (ok, so I'm brainwashed too).  What if we all
    took a step back from the war metaphores for a second however
    and asked ourselves what it is that really drives a purchasing
    decision.  Look at the popular computers for example, what is it
    about them that makes them so appealing to customers?  Is it the
    fact that they are winning market share?  People are definitely
    influenced to buy the standard items for fear of becoming obsolete,
    but what is it that distinguishes the standard products from one
    another?

	I claim that the more popular computers and computer software
    are those which are the most *fun* to use!  Look at almost any
    popular desktop computer (Suns, NeXts, Macs, IBM PCs, etc.) - 
    the key thing you notice is that they come fully equipped with
    all sorts of toys!  They typically have some sort of funky
    graphic image backdrop and/or animated screen saver package
    displayed at all times, they typically come loaded with a sound
    package which includes all sorts of silly noises (toilets flushing,
    dogs barking, etc., etc.), and the really good systems also come
    with some neat windowing games and applications to get people
    excited about the product.

	Maybe Ken Olsen is right - maybe Unix, multi-media, video
    conferencing, and all the new technologies are just toys.  But
    what if toys are among the most profitable products of the future?
    Now that war weaponry and all the associated war making computer
    products are becoming less important, isn't it time we began
    refocussing on the "beyond war" marketplace?

	I remain convinced that as serious as people appear to
    be, they are always at least secretly amused by toys.  After
    all, everyone was once a child who at least dreamed of playing
    with toys, so there is a certain amount of playfullness in each
    and every customer.  I think DEC can succeed by capitalizing
    on this hidden playfullness.  I think we should master the art
    of high-tech toymaking.

	Now that the world has won all the wars, it is time to play.
    In this vein, perhaps our vision should involve the goal of
    making computing fun and/or making fun computers and products.
    I say we set about to create some profitable, serious products
    which are more *fun* to use than any other!

				 -davo

    
>    Railroads failed because they didn't realize that their competition was
>    in automobiles and electronic communication.  
 
	Failed? when we're thinking of privatising them?.........it looks more 
	like they are getting better and going from strength to strength, whilst
	the cars get jammed in our ever-conjested road system.
   
>    Timing is of the essence.
 
	and so is flexability  - it's not the same for everyone, or everywhere


	Heather

>	Failed? when we're thinking of privatising them?.........it looks more 
>	like they are getting better and going from strength to strength, whilst
>	the cars get jammed in our ever-conjested road system.

	And Americans get accused of US centric thinking. :-) Railroads appear
	to be doing far better in your part of the world then they are in the
	US.

			Alfred

re: .80

What company has the largest installed base of computers in the world?
Nintendo!

re Note 1300.80 by BIGJOE::DMCLURE:

> 	Maybe Ken Olsen is right - maybe Unix, multi-media, video
>     conferencing, and all the new technologies are just toys.  But
>     what if toys are among the most profitable products of the future?
>     Now that war weaponry and all the associated war making computer
>     products are becoming less important, isn't it time we began
>     refocussing on the "beyond war" marketplace?
  
        Ken is famous for saying -- about 6-7 years ago -- that
        computing should be fun.  If only he and DEC had followed the
        wisdom of this statement we would possibly be in the
        forefront in at least some of the coming revolutions, rather
        than defending the past.

        Bob

    
    I heard information from APPLE's vision instead of DEC's.
    
    It's called NEWTON, and claimed to be greatest innovation since
    Micontosh was introduced on 1984.
    
    Let's wait and see how it can wrap the market. John Scully seems
    transform himself from marketeer into technologiest.
    
    Michael...

    ref .-1
    what is NEWTON? was it the hand helpd computer the APPLE came up with a
    day or two ago? there was something on CNN tonite about somthing like
    that, i think they said it was APPLE who introduced it, it is pen
    based, cost less than $1000
    
    /Nasser
    
    

    I coined my p_n yesterday in response to yet ANOTHER vision statement
    on my desk.
    
    Personally I'm damn sick of visions, paradigms and the like.
    
    Can I get on with the work now please?
    
    /a

    ref .-1

    i guess the idea of having a *real* vision statement, is to give a general
    guidelines of the direction the troops are supposed to be heading
    for. 

    some need to know that, some might not, and they'll just follow those
    at the front who are supposedly know their way.

    i think too that not just DEC should have a vision statement, but each
    department should have its own too, and each group should have its own
    too, heck (..opps , sorry iam getting excited) , i think every person 
    should have their own personal vision statement figured out too ! 

    .. now if i just remember where i wrote my last one...
    
    /nasser

    I think a worthwhile vision warms the blood a little, fires the
    imagination with what life's about.  Making a contribution in other
    peoples' lives.  Making a difference on the planet.  That's fun.
    
    To make that kind of difference seems to require two things:
    
    1	A need nobody is meeting, that is worthy and widespread
    
    2	Technical and managerial means to meet the need.
    
    And others in previous notes have eloquently shown the challenge of
    making it broad enough for all or nearly all of who we are and aspire
    to be, while making it narrow enough to align us reasonably well.
    
    
    I see a gaping hole in the entire computer industry:  it's all focused
    on one person at a time.  Sure, we network those one persons.  But
    networked Lone Rangers are not the same thing as a Posse.
    
    We can talk about Concurrent Engineering but I don't see how anyone can
    do it without spending a lot of time with diverse team members in
    meetings.  And in those meetings, each person having one keyboard or
    pen-based whatsit will absolutely not get the job done.  Big long
    meetings, as most of my fellow DECies don't need me to remind you,
    don't work--at least, not the way they've been designed in the past.
    
    The generating principle behind the tools quaintly labeled "TQM" is
    that they allow for a new kind of meeting design:  one that has
    everyone *see* what they are talking about.  And at present, computer
    technology contributes nothing to this kind of meeting.  With our
    present networked-Lone-Ranger style of thinking about "information",
    you get to use felt-tipped pens whenever there is a meeting.  In really
    modern situations, you get to use 3" X 5" yellow sticky-backs.  But
    the hardware and sofware and user-interface technology to support more
    than a 15 minute meeting-on-the-wall does not seem to exist, anywhere
    on the surface of the earth.  The most wall-size pixels I've ever heard
    of is 6 million, in a super-expensive display at the Media Lab.  The
    usual overhead-projector-modulator doesn't far exceed 1 million.  Any
    well educated Team can use up 10 million pixels just making a simple
    cause-effect diagram.  If they meet for several days (building a QFD
    matrix for example) 30 million or even 100 million pixels will be
    created.  And just having your own private copy for each Lone Ranger to
    consult at their private desk won't hack it, a few years from now. 
    Customers who are learning TQM methods (I call it Managing-By-Eye) will
    still be using giant whiteboards and felt-tip pens maybe?  I doubt it.
    
    
    So if Xerox wants to be the Document company, I say let 'em have that.
    I'd like to work on being the Teamwork company.  The company that
    supports Lone Rangers, sure, and networks the heck out of them.  And,
    the company that can support them while they're a Posse too, not just
    when they are alone.
    
    Our customers all have teamwork problems.  Some of them are
    international, so the teamwork has to be international.  Some customers
    team with their suppliers, so the teamwork has to be inter-company. 
    But the key thing that shows up missing for me:  they need to support
    teams when and as they work *as* teams, not just after they have made
    the team work on the whiteboard and they need documents on their desk.
    
    
    Teamwork is kind of vague, I suppose.  But what I call "optical
    management" is a little less vague I think.  It begins with the "7
    Basic Tools" and the "7 New Tools for Management", all of them optical
    methods.  Necessary, for any team that has to grapple with complexity
    and get it handled right up-front, without a lot of straw-horses and
    reviews and revisons (scrap and rework, you see...)
    
    What if computer technology could support optical teamwork someday?
    Could actually *participate* in Concurrent Engineering rather than just
    collect the "information" and pass it around afterwards?
    
    What if "war room" displays (I hate the metaphor, but it communicates)
    were cheap, available, and really did the job in every room we now call
    a "conference room" which is today nearly devoid of any technology?
    
    What if when we need an around-the-wall kind of meeting, the walls
    assisted us in problemsolving instead of just sitting there passively?
    Would we be less prone to sit around a table and talk and argue
    ineffectualy if it was really easy to not only draw diagrams but also
    edit them, annotate them, develop them, store and recall them full
    size, and send them for full-size sharing with the other half of the
    team in another part of the world?
    
    Would the Arabs and the Israeli's reach accord faster?  Would the north
    and Irish?  Would the Yugoslavs (well, I guess I'm getting a little
    carried away here....)  But the ear hears conflict where the eye sees
    possibilities.
    
    
    Can any others see it like that?
    					Russ
    

    Yes, i see it too it's radical, but it could work.
    Now, where can we find an organization that can both use it and
    bring it to market?   One where teamwork superseded egos?  mwr

.89 might be on to something here.

Imagine design meetings for anything from a chip to a business architecture where
the design tools ( Super CASE ) are part of the room itself!  Input devices
could exist at every seat, or be hand held at the board/wall, or both. There is
a power and focus when one person is standing in the front of the room that is
lost if everyone is chained to and concentrating on a device on the desk. 

Individual seats could support "scratch pads" where the notes to could be moved
to the wall if/when necessary. The possibilities seem endless

So...okay.... let's do it!

Alan

    Doesn't play to our strengths.
    
    But allow the meeting to be taking place in several places at once,
    with our technology tying those places and people together so they
    work just as effectively as if they had travelled to be together;
    now there is a place for DEC to make a contribution.
    
    And also supply the development tools to make it easy for others to develop
    applications of the same nature.

    Back around .19 I mentioned a memo for input for a vision statement.
    I suppose not many either saw or replied  to it.  What caught me
    about the memo was that the company's vision was not firmly in place
    before embarking on a new architecture and technology such as Alpha.
    But how could it be that a multi-billion dollar corporation wouldn't
    have a clear vision of what it had to do well in advance of Alpha.
    
    It seems to me, with all the reductions going around, that Digital's
    vision has already been focused on a little street in lower Manhattan.
    The goal of this vision is profit.  The vision, if you will, is to be
    the "Intel" of the nineties.  We make the super chip and the rest of
    the world can "play around" with the vagaries of a fickle marketplace.
    
    	DIGITAL - Watching you play.
    
    /Mike
                                    

    How about:
    
    		"DIGITAL makes it work."
    
    The problem that industry seems to me to have now is that there are lots of
    "standard" applications out there, but getting them to work as promised
    can be another story.  To quote Mike Jittlov (not sure if he's the
    first with this) as he complained about his small computer system and
    it's problems with doing "simple" things, "Why doesn't it just ... work?"
    
    I wonder how many of our customers are asking the same question about 
    their "standard" configurations and are willing to pay someone serious
    money to make it all work.
    
    Steve

re Note 1300.93 by MIMS::PARISE_M:

>     The goal of this vision is profit.  The vision, if you will, is to be
>     the "Intel" of the nineties.  We make the super chip and the rest of
>     the world can "play around" with the vagaries of a fickle marketplace.
  
        Of course, this is nothing like the route that took Intel to
        its present position.  The 8088 was hardly a "super chip" --
        just adequate.  The use of their chip by a little
        three-letter company determined to make its product dominant
        is what dragged Intel along.

        Bob

    "DIGITAL - More than just a watch!"

    DIGITAL - just watch us.

    An advertising tag line is not a vision.
    
    DIGITAL. THE OPEN ADVANTAGE.

Re "What is Digital's vision?":

Myopic.

IMHO, a "vision statement" won't help solve Digital's current problems; teamwork
and a more streamlined bureacucacy would.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re "What is Digital's vision?":
    
    20/20000 in hindsight.
    
    20/infinity in foresight.
    
    ??? 
    
    {Sorry, I'm having an attack of attitude today}

    ...PARK!
    
    ... and if you don't play my way, you'll all have to go home!!!
    
    
            are initials really necessary??

    re.99 The vision statement helps teamwork by ensuring that the
    team is all playing the same game toward the same goal. Streamlining
    a bureaucracy is easier if you have a clear and simple statement
    of what the bureaucracy is _for_. Look at all the reorganizations
    done, not towards achieving the  ultimate goal, but for the mere sake
    of reorganizing. What is the net effect? Zero. 
    
    A vision statement is the goal towards which _every_ action is 
    directed. 

	Transcribed from the June edition of "Digital Today" (Digital
	Europe's internal newspaper), the following article by Jack
	Schofield, computer editor of "The Guardian", reveals an informed
	outsider's view of this issue. Schofield is not by any means a
	Digital fan, and is turned on to open systems and PCs. However,
	in his articles for "Digital Today" he usually tries hard to
	be constructive, and so I think this article deserves serious
	attention as the opinion of an unbiased industry watcher. The
	article runs about 90 lines.

	/Tom


	HOW JFK PUT A MAN ON THE MOON - AND WHY DIGITAL CAN PROFIT FROM IT
	==================================================================

	Last month the Wall Street Journal published a long article about
	Digital, raising questions about future directions. It began with
	an interesting revelation: that last spring, Ken Olsen "met in
	secret" with Aplle's chief executive, John Sculley, "at Mr Sculley's
	request".

	Note that I say "interesting", not "surprising". With so many
	customers using Macintoshes linked to VAX servers, with both firms'
	support, it would only have been surprising had they *not* talked
	before Apple got into bed with its arch-enemy. What shocked me was
	the comment buried near the end of the article: "Mr Olsen dismissed
	the talks with Apple. "It just never came to fruition. It wasn't
	that important to me".

	There is only one universe where the failure of the talks wouldn't
	matter: one where Digital was a minicomputer company propagating
	the VAX.  That was, indeed, the winning strategy of the 1980s,
	which took Digital from being a $2.3 bn minnow with problems to
	a $13 bn giant.

	But I thought all that had changed. I thought we'd all agreed that
	the 1990s was a new decade, with new requirements. A world of Unix,
	open systems networks, and client/server computing.

	Indeed, Digital seems to have prepared for this new world. It has
	put some beef behind Unix. It has made VMS "open" by building in the
	Posix interface, and incorporated OSI communications into DECnet.
	It has produced one of the best client/server strategies in the
	industry with NAS, opening the door to a large systems integration
	business. It has recognised the importance of Risc by announcing
	the pace-setting Alpha processor, and of microcomputers by starting
	to build its own PCs.

	All this is laudable. But if this is what the company is doing,
	shouldn't it be what the company is saying?

	Journalists make fun of Japanese companies for their "mission
	statements". Sharp, for example, dedicates itself to "Sincerity
	and Creativity". But mission statements are a good way of motivating
	large numbers of people to pursue a common goal.

	The classic example was JFK's statement that America would put a
	man on the moon by the end of the decade. He said nothing about who
	would do it, or how, or what it would cost, or even whether the
	man was to be brought back to earth. Details, mere details.

	What Kennedy said contributed nothing of practical value. But
	as a mission statement it was vital. America would never have
	put a man on the moon without it.

	Obviously, computer companies don't work to such simplistic
	slogans, but Digital ought to be able to devise something suitable.
	I'd suggest: "Digital is dedicated to becomeing the world's
	leading supplier of open, client/server computing systems".
	This would, I believe, have strong support from Digital employees
	and from the majority of customers.

	If Ken Olsen could say it and mean it, such a slogan would clear
	away all the confusion that some people think they see in Digital's
	approach.

	If you look at today's successful computer companies, they have
	clear and simple strategies, even if these are not summed up in
	a mission statement. Dell sells direct and keeps cutting prices,
	to offer the best possible service at the lowest cost. Novell aims
	to be the leading LAN supplier and the glue in multivendor networks.
	Sun has focused on client/server networks. Microsoft's message is
	Windows, Windows, Windows.

	Sun's boss Scott McNealy expressed the idea nicely when he talked
	of "putting all the wood behind one arrowhead". Digital is, of course,
	considerably larger than Dell, Sun and similar firms. It sells a
	wider range of equipment in a wider range of markets.

	But the company did extremely well when it put all the wood behind
	the VAX arrowhead, and I don't see why it shouldn't do just as well
	out of open, client/server networks.

	But if Digital doesn't have such a strategy, and doesn't have a leader
	that believes in such a strategy, then it is never going to convince
	the customers, no matter how good its products are.

    Schofield is wrong on many points.

    The meeting with Apple was a failure because Digital did not see itself
    in need of a partner in the same way that Apple saw that Apple needed a
    partner.  It wasn't a personal whim of Ken Olsen.  An alliance with
    Apple in 1991 would have undermined that Open Advantage message which
    is practically the only clear post-VAX message we have.

    JFK's statement regarding sending a man to the moon, included "...and
    safely returning him to Earth" in the initial message to Congress and
    the people.

    The point with which I agree with Schofield is that Digital needs a
    statement of strategy that's accessible to all employees that is
    convincing and inspirational on how Digital will be restored to
    profitability and grow.

I could swear that Scott Adams, whose comic strip Dilbert appears in the
Boston Globe, works for DEC.  Here's today's strip:

Boss: What the department needs is a slogan to inspire us.  Our new slogan
is "We are quality."

Glassy-eyed worker: Suddenly I feel like working long hours for no extra pay.

Boss, obviously pleased: It's working!

    Please send me a copy of the strip you mention.  My mailstop is Mark
    Selby @UCG
    
    Regards