Conference 7.286::digital

    Two to one.
    
    karl

Re: .0

Please define what 'a customer' is.

In other words, if possible, all resources }8-)}

Seriously, we did tend to overdo at times when I was in the field.  We seemed
to thake the approach that we needed all possible resources for any eventuality
so we could "impress "the customer with instant answers".

	This sounds like a setup for a good joke, so I give up...

	...how many DECies does it take?

    Since it is not only after five, but I have a 2 hour drive home from
    a customer site, here's the answer:

    	4	to surround customer and deny egress; strategically
    		situated at all four points of the COMPASS :-)
     +	1	to ask questions
     +	1	to answer questions
     +	1	to correct/rephrase any questions asked
     +	1	to correct/rephrase any answers questioned
     +	y	1 for every year customer has been working at customer, out
    		of deference to position/longevity
       ---
        n	total number of DECies


    /Petes

	It depends very much on what size of organization you are dealing
	with.

	If it's a single-department organization with simple needs, a single
	account manager is adequate. Whenever adequate, a single person is
	clearly best. Keep it simple.

	I recently had experience working closely with the account team
	for British Telecom (BT). I don't remember how many employees they
	have or what their turnover is, but it's similar to Digital worldwide.
	In the UK, they have dozens of offices, lots of departments, and
	internal politics that is at least as complicated as Digital's.

	Now, just imagine you are the account manager for a company selling
	into Digital. Who is your main contact? Who is "the" decision maker?
	Don't make me laugh! A hundred people could stay busy permanently
	just keeping up with the latest changes, and trying to figure out
	how much of the gossip is valid. Of course, you *could* work just
	with one department, like DIS, or Engineering, or CUP...

	Having seen a lot of different parts of Digital, I still can't think
	of any job as complicated or demanding as managing a really big account.
	It looks different from any of a hundred different angles, it keeps
	changing all the time, and the decision makers are very often not
	the people who call themselves decision makers.

	/Tom

    re: .0
    
    "Managing" a customer may become a new science here. As for 'nose to
    nose contact,' there's a major issue with the content. That is, the
    complexity of systems and the multidisciplinary nature of newer
    technologies is such that team approaches are necessary for technical
    dialogue. One person cannot discuss technical options then "carry them
    back" to Digital and have any impact.
    
    Users (customers and noncustomers alike) who appreciate the impact of
    new approaches form their own multidisciplinary teams as well. 
    
    /L

    
    Re .0  Good question!
    I have often wondered this, especially since the "front line" ethos
    has encouraged account teams to get as many people as is physically
    possible in front of customers. To show that you are at "the sharp end"
    seems to be a form of job justification in DEC these days...
    
    I believe that we put so many people in front of the customer for
    our own benefit i.e.to refect our own internal structure and account
    management policies - *not for the benefit of the customer*.
    
    Take a key decision maker in a large national account.
    His sales rep will want to see him regulary - with a suitable
    specialist for the subject under discussion (services, software
    support, technical support). Then the sales rep's manager will want
    to look in occasionally - because he is measured on getting into the
    field sometimes, and also to appraise the performance of the sales rep.
    And then....there is the rest of the national account team.
    Such a team will, typically, have a top person plus various other
    specialist account managers - someone for software, workstations etc.
    They will want to visit.
    
    Then there are the support organisations. There's the account
    consultant who looks at the strategic view of the account, and the
    service consultant, who looks at increasing DEC's service presence
    in the account (1994-75% of revenue etc etc)....
    And then there's the customer services engineers, maybe a
    DECresident...
    
    It is good for your job to be seen to be seeing key decision makers
    in major accounts. Whatever your job is. I have often thought that,
    were I a customer of our company, I would be totally fed up with the
    number of people paraded past me - and the frequency with which the
    people changed - and the fact that I couldn't understand their
    titles anyway.
    
    How many people does the customer actually need in order to perceive
    "good service" from Digital?
    
    Do we ever ask them?
    
    'gail
    
    

}							 That is, the
}    complexity of systems and the multidisciplinary nature of newer
}    technologies is such that team approaches are necessary for technical
}    dialogue.

	Agreed, especially in today enviornment.


}	 One person cannot discuss technical options then "carry them
}    back" to Digital and have any impact.

	Maybe this is part of the reason it takes so many managers, we have
gotten away from our roots in the sense that too many managers are asked to
make decisions on technical issues yet they have no technical backgrounds.
The results is they must depend on technical people for input, yet because
they have no technical background they are hesitant to make a decision which
may affect their career, so they bring in more technical "experts" to get
more input, etc. A catch-22 situation.

    	I have wondered about the basic question posed in the basenote.
    I have spent time with customers, and been totally amazed by the
    number of both sales and service folks associated solely with that
    customer.  I was aware of the total annual revenue generated by the
    customer also.  By the way, all those folks DIDN'T include the 
    folks who did part-time support of the sales team, service team,
    or others for that account.
    
    	Last year, DEC averaged just about $104,000 revenue per employee.
    IBM averaged about $186,000.  No matter how you slice it--SOMEWHERE
    we have too many people per revenue $ generated.  You can gripe
    about any single group, but if you look at reality, even removal of
    a very large group (30,000) would only raise our revenue/employee to
    about $135,000.
    
    	So now, the real problem is: too many people?  or too little 
    revenue generated by each and every one???
    
    	I believe that while the picture would not be complete, we 
    ought to look at accounts on a basis of $/employee.
                               

    >	Last year, DEC averaged just about $104,000 revenue per employee.
    >IBM averaged about $186,000.  No matter how you slice it--SOMEWHERE
    >we have too many people per revenue $ generated.  You can gripe
    >about any single group, but if you look at reality, even removal of
    >a very large group (30,000) would only raise our revenue/employee to
    >about $135,000.
    
    Sorry, could someone explain to me how this figure has any meaning in
    this context? Are you saying we parade 10 more bodies in front of the
    customer on every sale, therefore that's why our revenue per employee
    is so low? I have no doubt that there is a problem with our revenue
    figure, but I dont think you'll find that the number of people
    supporting an IBM sale is really any less, its just that the people the
    customer sees is less. If you go over old copies of the sales glossy
    DECsell, you'll find numerous examples of where IBM decided to use
    batteries of people, intervention at higher management levels against
    an intelligent Digital salesperson (this is not an oxymoron) who knew
    to keep the focus on a couple of people and get the answers channelled
    through those people. Customers dont want to know that we can muster 20 
    people for a sale, they do want to know they can get their questions 
    answered and their problems fixed.  
    When I go to buy an IBM PS/2 or even an AS/400, I usually dont talk to an 
    IBM person, they are too busy selling to people who sell their stuff, I 
    talk to one of maybe fifty resellers in my state. Do the fifty companies 
    count as employees of IBM, I dont think so. Perhaps 200 people who make 
    revenue for big blue while not appearing on the rev/emp statistics 
    (maybe 3 employees on the stats)
    When I buy a DECstation, I probably have to talk to a Digital person
    or one of maybe two resellers. Perhaps 10 people who make revenue for
    the company with the kiddy block logo who dont appear on the rev/emp
    statistics (probably 2 employees on the stats for a 50th of the return).
    
    Yes, that figure says we have some sort of problem but I dont think it
    applies in this case. Fix our distribution system and you may impact
    the rev/emp figures with more reason than any layoffs or transition of
    support from the coalface.
    
    John
    EIC/Engineering, Sydney
    

    	I did not attempt to say that the problem was only that we
    put too many people in front of the customer.
    
    	HOWEVER, I have found, in some cases of being asked to 
    work with a customer on a specific issue, that a majority of
    the account team present added little or no value.  I think
    you SHOULD bring in all the guns--WHEN YOU NEED THEM.  I wonder
    if we're smart enough to do that.  It occasionally appears
    that we deploy large teams "just in case".
    
    	The $104,000/employee is an aggregate number, for a
    large, significantly vertically integrated computer company.
    IBM is also large, vertically integrated, and spends phenomenally
    on "blue-sky" research (I used to work there).  
    
	If their revenue/employee is SO much higher than ours, then
    I think we need to look at EVERY area, including sales/field/support
    as well as manufacturing, distribution, engineering, administration, 
    etc. to understand the opportunities.  No single opportunity, such
    as "distribution system" will come close to fixing the 
    problem--the fixes must come from across the board.
    
    
    	

    Thanks for the inputs.  Regards to .2, I was refering to the customer
    that buys from Digital and most of the time sends in a check.
    
    Regards to .5, What you have displayed is what the customer sees a good
    part of the time.  Sad but true.
    
    How about the number of DEC organizations that the customer see's?
    
    In my travels I have see the following:
    
    	Sales Reps
    	Sales Account Exc's
    	Customer Service Sales
    	SPS
    	Customer Service Unit Manager and supporting folks
    	Education Services.
    	Customer Service Area Support
    	Area Customer Relations Manager
    	Corporate Customer Relations
    	CSC Customer Relations
    	CSSE Customer Relations
    
    Let see did I miss anybody?
    
    By the way I have been 4 weeks away from my tube.  I will be more
    active now that I am back.
    
    
    Regards
    
    
    Bob
    
    
    
    

    The last several customers that I have worked with (I'm an EIS on-site
    type) have solved this problem by telling everyone else from Digital
    to talk to their account manager/account representative/sales rep.
    These customers prefer a single point of contact (and no wonder!).
    
    Strangely enough, this customer-inspired action causes the
    "peripheral" DECcies to attack the account manager for being a "control
    freak". You see, your truly peripheral types out here in the U.S. field
    need to justify their existence by being able to say that they "touched
    a live customer this week." 
    
    What a funny little world we've constructed for ourselves. Perhaps the
    "account-focused" re-org in the U.S. will fix it, if it's ever
    implemented. But that's another (scary) story...

    re: .13
    
    At DECUS the customer also sees product development people: engineers
    and product management.
        John Sauter

    re:  <<< Note 1385.14 by SWAM2::MCCARTHY_LA "Value indifferences?" >>>
    
>    freak". You see, your truly peripheral types out here in the U.S. field
>    need to justify their existence by being able to say that they "touched
>    a live customer this week." 
    
    There's another horrible manifestation of this problem:  If you have
    something going that's productive and profitable, watch out!  Hordes
    of hangers-on will come out of the woodwork to take credit for your
    work, and destroy your rosy financial picture by adding overhead.
    
    This is otherwise known as "foundering the lifeboat".
    
    Geoff

    I'm at home, waiting for a FTSV copy to finish so I can update the
    Survival Guide... been too busy to check in the last several weeks.

    I do have some more serious thoughts besides my .5:

    You've noticed that when we outnumber the customer, it's not because
    one DEC organization sent a lot of people, it's because a lot of DEC
    organizations sent one or two people.

    So, you're out in the field and have an important meeting,

    	- coporate account manager
    	- account sales rep
    	- account unit manager (sales)
    	- sales support (one or two), appropriate areas of expertise
    	- sales support unit manager
    	- EIS (consulting) unit manager
    	...

    And the basic problem is that you can't distill these parties down further
    because they all have slightly different views of the universe. Even worse,
    leaving someone out "implies" they're "not important" to the process.

    And if everyone is not there first hand, first person, then they don't
    necessarily "buy in" to what the team who were there say.

    We've talked a lot about "flattening" organizations, that is, if you
    look at DEC as being:

        <--- Organizations -------->
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ ^
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Layers
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ v

    then a "flatter" DEC is

        <--- Organizations -------->
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ ^
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Layers
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ v

    but while we may have gotten rid of management, we've done nothing to
    simplify the process. To simplify the process -- and the number of
    people who need to show up at meetings -- and the COST OF SALES --
    we have to "thin" the organization, so a "thinned" DEC is

        <Organizations >
    	+--+--+--+--+--+ ^
    	|  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  | Layers
    	+--+--+--+--+--+
    	|  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+ v

    and with less organizations and less required "cross-functional"
    interaction, you will naturally require less management (and less
    management layers).

    Flattenning is not a means to an end, it is the _natural_ _result_
    of thinning organizations in the appropriate manner.


    /Petes

    re: thinning and flattening
    How about:
    
    +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
    |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
    +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
    |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
    |  SUPPORTIVE Organizations |
    +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
    +---------------------------+
    | Customers and Enterprises | (Customer meets with Entrepreneur)
    +---------------------------+
    
    /fred
    
    

    re: all of above
    
    
    from .17
    
        <--- Organizations -------->
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ ^
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Layers
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
    	|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
    	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ v

    
    We seem to be ignoring the essential fact.  We send many people because
    there are many interests to be protected and because the information
    which is or may be needed by the customer resides in many heads.
    
    Suppose one person were able to represent fairly more than one
    'interest group'?...  or suppose that we had more people with both
    broad _and_ deep knowledge of the technology.  Wouldn't that make it
    possible to have fewer people in the meeting and still assure the
    quality of the information exchange?  (In fact, it might improve it
    because of fewer faces.)
    
    I don't think any reorganization can cure the essential difficulty.  We
    are trying to protect too many interests and provide too much
    information in a disorganized fashion.  If customer meetings have a
    clear agenda which is adhered to, then we can forecast ahead of time
    who should go and what their role should be.  
    
    But both of those conditions imply discipline, something that Digital
    has not been good at developing.  All of our myths, "Do the right
    thing", "It's easier to apologize than to get permission", "Open Door",
    and so on, are very anarchic.  Where is the drive for discipline in
    Digital?  What are the standards for participation in customer (or any
    other) meetings?
    
    I am coming to the conclusion that Digital cannot survive without
    balancing the anarchic tendencies with good doses of discipline.  But
    who can bell that cat?
    
    Dick

I believe another problem that causes us to have so many DECies during customer
visits are that different organizations simply do not trust each other's
abilities to get the job done, or size the effort, or make commitments that
are reasonable, or etc., etc... This is a variation on the NIH syndrome - If I
don't hear it first hand from the customers lips, then it hasn't been said and
I don't buy into it. We've got to start trusting each other's competencies
until proven otherwise, regardless of organizational affiliation.

-my 2� (worth every penny)

Terry

	re .19:

>>>    Suppose one person were able to represent fairly more than one
>>>    'interest group'?...  or suppose that we had more people with both
>>>    broad _and_ deep knowledge of the technology.  Wouldn't that make it
>>>    possible to have fewer people in the meeting and still assure the
>>>    quality of the information exchange?  (In fact, it might improve it
>>>    because of fewer faces.)

	Exactly what I've been saying for years. Specialisation has been
	killing us - in particular specialisation that results in "experts"
	who are ignorant of most of our business, products, and services.

	I have been writing an introductory column for CONNECT, Digital
	UK's employee newspaper, and I was astonished today when the
	editor told me that the content of the column had been considerably
	simplified after he discovered that references to things like
	"buses" and "high level languages" were completely mystifying most
	of the readers.

	Don't get me wrong: I'm not a technical recidivist who wants everyone
	to be force-fed processor logic diagrams, protocols, and bitmaps.
	A working awareness of technology nowadays requires that we learn
	what's NEW. I wonder what the level of awareness is of things like
	RISC, object-oriented programming, imaging, visualisation, client-
	server, personal computers and everything to do with them, neural nets,
	hyperinformation, transputers, packet switching, expert systems,
	TRON, OSF, ACE, EMA, ATIS, and a whole cascade of other (relative)
	novelties?

	In today's market, however, I have noticed that as the width and
	depth of a person's experience increases, that person's welcome
	with customers, credibility, and effectiveness as part of the
	sales process goes up exponentially. The ideal person to accompany
	a salesman on a call is someone who understands the whole range of
	what Digital offers, and can make sense of it at any level - from
	a single sentence to a week-long seminar. Unfortunately, I can
	only think of about six people who qualify (come to think of it,
	even they would need about half an hour).

	The book all managers should be forced to read (even though it's
	not particularly inspiring or well written) is "Work in the Age
	of the Smart Machine" by Shoshannah Zuboff (sp?) It explains that
	in today's environment, learning is NOT an expensive overhead - 
	it is essential and ongoing. Zuboff puts it bluntly that those who
	are learning continuously are working productively, and those who
	are not learning are not working productively. (Think how this
	relates to the Japanese idea that everyone should continuously suggest
	quality improvements).

	/Tom
   

    Tom,
    	I heartily endorse your suggestion.  Zuboff's book, "In the Age
    of the Smart Machine" (Basic Books, Inc, NY, 1988) is far more than
    just that.
    	Zuboff also has done some original research into management
    coping with an electronically connected workforce and the problems,
    political issues and effects on morale when workers no longer depend
    solely on management to find out what is going on within the company.
    	Although most of the researched organizations were not named,  on
    almost every page I felt she was referring to various groups in DEC (as
    of the date of publication).
    
    	It was excellent reading and a source of many, many points to
    ponder.
    
    Kev
    
    
    

    re last several:

    Well, you know it's interesting -- for years IBM's ace up their sleeve
    had been that their top sales people were people who had been technical,
    could sell, and understood the entire product line.

    You start with the jack of all trades, then call in a specialist as
    needed. Most of our sales people, however good they are, don't have that
    breadth of expertise. So, we "qualify" and then try and bring in the
    right specialists.

    I agree that we need a lot more jacks-of-all trades. I've managed to
    still be one of those, though I'm a lot less technical than I used to
    be. But, I did manage to whip up a DECwindows prototype a while back, so
    there's still hope I can be typecast as an "expert" in something!

    The problem  is that we have so many products in so many areas that that
    path to "seniority" is based on getting focused in-depth skill, not
    skills that cut across products. But skills like jack-of-all-trades are
    only achieved after "being around" long enough, and as far as I can tell
    we don't really recognize people who can handle any product issue thrown
    at them. "Specialists" have the edge in esteem today.

    /Peters