Conference 7.286::digital

I'd like to see salary adjustments get back on a 12-month cycle... these
15/18/21 month intervals are a joke. I'd rather have the smaller %'s
at 12 month frequency.

Lee

Re .1:
>>I'd rather have the smaller %'s
> at 12 month frequency.

SET MODE/SARCASM=ON

You mean you're getting bigger raises than you were before? I thought it was 
just a way to give us the same %age over a longer time.

:-)
SET MODE/SARCASM=OFF

But, yes, I agree with you. 

Also, I'd like to see either the Digital Medical plan premiums go down or raises
sufficient to cover the increase. That, plus the salary freeze, dropped my last
raise to below inflation.

    Dream on.

    These policy changes (raises at intervals > 12 months, higher employee
    costs for employer medical) are forever.

    Aspects of the Digital of a few years ago that deal with compensation
    are not going to change.  They are part of the the corporate landscape
    at Digital and other multi-billion $ companies.  There's no turning
    back.

    In so many ways, Digital is becoming another giant multinational
    bureaucracy.

    But since you asked.  I'd like to see a profit-sharing plan for when
    the company again makes a profit, and an employer-contributed 401k
    plan.  Once again, these are part of what other multi-billion $
    companies do.  The old reasons why Digital doesn't have them seem
    strange and quaint now.

>    But since you asked.  I'd like to see a profit-sharing plan for when
>    the company again makes a profit, and an employer-contributed 401k
>    plan.  Once again, these are part of what other multi-billion $
>    companies do.  The old reasons why Digital doesn't have them seem
>    strange and quaint now.

	Some dreams come true....................

	I don't know about a 401K, it sounds specific to the US? but we do have
	a profit-type scheme called a BONUS SCHEME being introduced into the 
	UK for this FY year, and it is currently being communicated to 
	employees through our management.
	I believe this has taken over 2 years to get from concept to corporate 
	approval.

	A similar one is in Sweden and Portugal, and other European countries 
	are looking to implement along these lines in FY93. I believe Australia
	may be looking at one for FY92.
	It's not just profit related, but includes customer satisfaction, 
	Quality and productivity, and Revenue, and also exceeding the target
	subsidiary contribution.

	Heather

    For morale,  I'd like having back our company picnics, christmas
    dances, and the christmas party for our kids.  After such events
    I would leave feeling proud of what our company would do for us.

	I'd just like to see the travel restrictions on some groups
	relaxed to "pre-war" levels.  I'd like to see engineers 
	able to actually fly out here and tell us how their
	products actually really work.

	Steve H

    
    SET Smiley ;^} on:  With the announcement this past week of yet another
    VP-- maybe when post restructureing occurs we could get really serious
    and have at least 200 VP positions.......                  <DICK>

    Hell, at the rate we're goin', we'll have 200 within a year anyhow.
    
    I agree strongly on the profit sharing and full participation by the
    company on our 401K's.  Their present niggardliness is really a bit
    too much.
    
    I'd also like to see special preference given in re-hiring of former
    top contributors, and an absolute end, forever, of any attempt to
    force people to co-habitate while on travel.

    
    
    I'd like to see selective lessening of the hiring freeze and a
    reasonable ability to order supplies again.  Coming from a secretary's
    perspective, I'm particularly speaking about being able to once again
    bring secretaries in from the outside, WHEN NEEDED.  Let's face it,
    many groups can greatly improve their own productivity with a little
    help from a good secretary.  And they can improve customer response. 
    And ultimately they'll improve revenue.  Same with supplies.  A total
    ban on people and supplies which are there to improve efficiency is
    rediculous.  And the existing secretaries in the company simply can't
    do it all and do it efficiently; we need to bring some new secretarial
    talent into this company.  It infuriates me when I see exempt people,
    who get paid a significant amount of money, going to petty cash for
    their own vouchers, scheduling their own meetings, making a large 
    number of copies themselves, and generally doing stuff that a secretary
    could do for a much smaller cost to the company.  I'd hate to see an
    opening of the OUTSIDE HIRING door at this time, but we've got to look
    at critical needs and meet those needs.
    
    
    
    

    Pay for performance.  I could put up with 15 month reviews if ...
    
    Pay for performance.  Via profit-sharing, bonus, or raise, I don't care. 
    
    Pay for performance.  Via salary reduction, demotion, or firing ...
    
    Pay for performance.  Give managers back this most basic tool.
    
    Pay for performance.  Don't make it a slogan that undermines trust.
    
    Pay for performance.  I could tolerate doubling up if only ...
    
    Pay for performance.  That's what our customers do.  Shouldn't DEC?
    
    Geoff Unland

Indeed,

	Senior Management has messed up, We are in their opinion (not mine) an
unhealthy state. We need to improve our profit per employee ratios. We are not
doing that, we are just reducing the employee numbers. The means to an end has
now become the end itself. We are giving people relatively handsome
renumeration to leave to company (albeit less than optimum in the current
employment climate), while we expect those who stay to survive without
support. 

OF course, there is also a hidden problem with all of this. I'll bet that your
average college grad, is looking less and less at DEC as a career opportunity.
Those that have left, and have found employment are surprised to find that
they are being paid better, and a lot of those who remain, would "jump ship"
at the drop of a hat. And I am talking about experienced, qualified 10-15 plus
veterans, because the supposed promise of Tenure is a myth.

q

    Let us all face a simple fact of life in our business...
    
    Fact of Life Number 1.
    
    Engineering and Manufactoring do not generate a dime of revenue for this
    or any other company. Sales generates revenue! When good sales people
    sell products at "real" prices we as a company make money.
    
    Fact of Life Number 2.
    Digital sales people (on which I am not) are not motivated. DEC100
    weekends, do not pay college tuitions, mortgages, etc etc...
    
    Circle of Excellance is very nice, (never have been "selected" to
    attended one) so I hear, but again to get there a rep needs 175% of
    budget. When you start with $2.5M thats like over $4M a tough nut.
    
    Fact of Life Number 3.
    
    Money talks Money talks!!!! Put the sales force on commission NOW!
    The guys and gals I support (yes I am Sales Support) for the most part
    would excell at commission sales. You need to motivate sales people and
    the only motivation that always works is M O N E Y !!!
    
    Oh and buy the way make the selection of Circle of Excellance for Sales
    Support Objective amd not subjective.
    
    Commission Sales Force = Increased Revenue = Increased Revenue /
    Empolyee 
    
    Frank

>       <<< Note 1543.12 by SCAM::KRUSZEWSKI "Z-28 IROC & Roll in FLA" >>>
>                          -< Life Facts for Success >-

>    Engineering and Manufactoring do not generate a dime of revenue for this
>    or any other company. Sales generates revenue! When good sales people
>    sell products at "real" prices we as a company make money.

Really? 

If Digital Engineering and Manufacturing were a seperate company and 
Digital Sales did the selling, then Engineering and Manufacturing would
make money for their company. Sales would need to buy the products 
off E&M with real money in order to sell the products to customers.

Engineering and Manufacturing would make enough profit to stay in business,
and so would sales. 

OK, so they're not seperate companies, but in these days of "profit centres"
shouldn't we be viewing them as such?

Sales don't generate revenue if they don't have products to sell.

Craig

	... "independent" companies:  DEC Sales doesn't have to buy from
DEC E&M and DEC E&M doesn't have to sell to DEC sales!�  You seemed to im-
ply that Sales would have no alternative but DEC products in your last
sentence.

	And indeed, Sales is not "literally" restricted to DEC products
today. Philosphically, maybe, emotionally, maybe, but when the ol' bot-
tom line needs some entries, Sales will look elsewhere if DEC products
can't cut it in quality, functions and price, whatever combination of
those meets the clients' requirements.

    And by the way, I (in manufacturing) welcome the challenge.  It has
    never been easy to get our organization to think competitively when the
    only competitive decision was "where in Digital will it be built?". 
    Today, if we can't compete, we will not survive.  That puts some spice
    in life.
    
    But, there is still a problem.  Some Product Manager or other such
    drives a decision to make "his product" in a specific location for
    whatever reason.  There are labor intensive products, capital intensive
    products, and material intensive products.  There are Digital and other
    manufacturing resources where labor is cheapest, where capital is
    cheapest, and where material is cheapest.  This provides a number of
    money related issues that can be used to make sourcing decisions.  But
    we tend to let political clout or "ownership" override the right thing.  
    
    I wish we'd adopt a pure competitive model without the political input.
    
    Dick

    
    RE:12
    
    Fact #1:
    
    Eng. & Mfg within DEC do in fact generate revenue today by selling
    service and special custom solutions. In fact some of our plants have
    their own Manufacturing Reps (Sales) selling these special services,
    of which these sales folks report directly to the MFG. plant.
    (Surprised?)
    
    Next; A commissioned sales force within DEC, is, and has been with us for 
    the last few years. Though not in all areas but in some that make the
    best business sense. (City Managers, ever heard of them?)
    
    Granted, most of sales is salary vs commission or both but commission
    is not going to increase revenue in the solutions business.
    
    The disadvantage of a commissioned sales force is the Salespeople have
    little financial security; sales managers have minimum control over
    sales that may cause salespeople to provide inadequate service to 
    smaller accounts. Also the selling costs are less predictable.
    
    In reference to your statement of Quality circles let me point out that
    the Q.C. is you speak of is somewhat outdated. I suggest you research TQM
    and everything it employes. 
    
    I hope I'm not coming across vindictive rather more from a awareness
    point of view. It's just that the things you spoke of from a business
    perspective is a little off-center and out-dated.
    
    Rick
    

    I think we're starting to see a trend, at least within my engineering
    group, of cooperation with outside vendors and customers.  That's
    leading to revenue opportunities.  I think it will become more obvious 
    in time that as things get more streamlined engineering organizations 
    will be working more closely and directly with customers.
    
    Steve

RE:            <<< Note 1543.13 by SYSTEM::COCKBURN "Craig Cockburn" >>>

>Sales don't generate revenue if they don't have products to sell.

Then how come Oracle is still in business? :-)

But seriously, if engineering and manufacturing went away complete, yes,
sales could generate revenue.  Sales is the one organization which
everyone is dependent on and which does not have to depend upon
any others.

How sales generates revenue without products is an exersize for the
reader.  It is done all the time.  

John
Not in sales.

    
    RE: 17
    
    You're on the right track. Say more!
    
    RE: 18
    
    You're missing the point. Think solutions, not hands on product.
    
    "Mfg/Eng  could sell the product/solution. Think! How will product get
    into the consumer in the 21st century. Think intergration from a global
    perspective.
    
    Rick

    re: .19
    
    Actually, I could say more, but I don't know if it would be appropriate
    in this forum.  However, I will say that I am aware of two efforts
    within our organization where we may be selling some of our services 
    outside of Digital.  We are otherwise an internal support organization.  
    And, I am working on a software tool that we are considering turning 
    into a product for our customers, probably external as well as internal.
    
    Steve 

    
    	Hmmmh
    	
    	Reinstitute flex time
    
    	Establish long range plans and STICK TO THEM (for more than a
        quarter)
    
    	Re-create the Engineering network? :-)
    
    	/john

    A clarification and re-statement of my original note <Facts of Life>...
    
    When I said that Eng and Man do not generate revenue I did not mean to
    suggest that we have poor product and/or process, what I meant was that
    those organizations do not in and of themselves interface with
    customers, sell to customers, identify customer needs etc etc.
    
    My point was and is that in order for the dollors/employee figures to
    go up we can do one of two things:
    
    	1. Cut the number of employees thus increasing $/per
    
    	or
    
    	2. Sell more at a profit and increase the $/per.
    
    If there is a commissoned sales force in this company it is well hidden
    from the field sales force.
    
    Remember I am not a salesmem, but I work with them all day. The idea
    that sales people will ignore "little" accounts is silly. If they are
    on commission a buck is a buck. Ask the SUN salesmen is he ignores one
    and two seat sales. As far as sparing the sales force the ups and owns
    of $ ask them how they feel. 
    
    An agressive commission structure based on selling at a profit and not
    deep discounts would generate a much better bottom line for us all and
    a much more stable company to work for.
    
    Frank 

r.e>       <<< Note 1543.22 by SCAM::KRUSZEWSKI "Z-28 IROC & Roll in FLA" >>>
                       -< Refinements on Facts of Life >-

    
  >     When I said that Eng and Man do not generate revenue I did not mean to
  >   suggest that we have poor product and/or process, what I meant was that
  >  those organizations do not in and of themselves interface with
  > customers, sell to customers, identify customer needs etc etc.
    
    >My point was and is that in order for the dollors/employee figures to
    >go up we can do one of two things:
    >
    >	1. Cut the number of employees thus increasing $/per
    >
    >	or
    >
    >	2. Sell more at a profit and increase the $/per.
    
    Actually, you can do 3 things, the third is the one that people in the
    sales force seem to always forget. That is to get rid of the sales
    force, sack the lot of them. Then start a separate company called 
    Digital Sales, have them compete with other Authorized resellers and
    pay an amount back to Digital Equipment Corporation for the right to
    sell our products. See how long they last, watch our Revenue/Employee 
    go through the roof because we no longer carry this arm of the company
    on our books. Rehire your best sales people to sell to the sellers
    (which is much larger, more targeted and wider ranging) rather
    than busting their guts on single sales.
    
    Now if I could only persuade you that rev/emp is a dud figure that has no 
    true validity without company structure being taken into account, but 
    I've tried that already.
    
    I could also argue that picking an ideal size for a company out of a
    hat to fix a statistic that needs basis for comparison against like
    corporate staructures is also doomed to fail. It may well be that
    given market segments (such as mainframes) need a greater level of
    employee support of the customer than other segments (like PCs). To
    compete in those markets you need to produce the same levels of support
    as your competitors.
    
    The one thing I would like to happen (I dont think it happened before
    but it couldnt get any worse than it is now) is to have some level of
    reasoned use of the statistics and metrics we have, rather than the 
    wanton use of dud numbers for dud cases. If we made a mistake in one
    market we should not try and react to that mistake with more dud
    reasoning.
    
    regards,
    John
    
    
    
    
    If there is a commissoned sales force in this company it is well hidden
    from the field sales force.
    
    Remember I am not a salesmem, but I work with them all day. The idea
    that sales people will ignore "little" accounts is silly. If they are
    on commission a buck is a buck. Ask the SUN salesmen is he ignores one
    and two seat sales. As far as sparing the sales force the ups and owns
    of $ ask them how they feel. 
    
    An agressive commission structure based on selling at a profit and not
    deep discounts would generate a much better bottom line for us all and
    a much more stable company to work for.
    
    Frank 

    

Re: .18

> But seriously, if engineering and manufacturing went away complete, yes,
> sales could generate revenue.  Sales is the one organization which
> everyone is dependent on and which does not have to depend upon
> any others.
> 

  Excuse me, but the customer I've worked with the past year and a half expects
  a little more (actually one hell of alot more) than vaporware and idle chit
  chat with the sales rep for their 100 million bucks.

  Be it hardware, software, services, consulting, etc., sales (used very
  generic) implies there being something to sell - and deliver.

> How sales generates revenue without products is an exersize for the
> reader.  It is done all the time.  

  I'll pass on the exercise, explain this to me ...

  Bob Lyon
  Boeing GENESYS Project
  Digital Services

    Re .23
    
    I am not sure but I feel that there is a story behind your view of the
    current sales force, whatever you view your point to drop our sales
    force would go over like a lead ballon.
    
    My customers expect to talk to DIGITAL for their $3 or $4 Million per
    year. The vast majority of the sales force works very hard for DIGITAL
    and the customer.
    
    FLAME ON -
    
    If some people north of RT 128 would stop being our own worst ememy
    when it comes to bring out prodcuts and services maybe sales would
    generate more revenu.
    
    FLAME OFF -
    
    Now as far as number go I am not the one pushing rev/emp or staff
    levels I am just in re-act mode like everyone else these days.
    
    I noticed no one has taken up my base assumption that we need a
    motivated sales force to turn this company around.
    
    Frank

>                                 <<< Note 1543.25 by SCAM::KRUSZEWSKI "Z-28 IROC & Roll in FLA" >>>
>                                                           -< Reaction >-

    Re .23
    
>    I am not sure but I feel that there is a story behind your view of the
>    current sales force, whatever you view your point to drop our sales
>    force would go over like a lead ballon.
 
    my point was merely structural, not based on any negative experiences.
    I know it would be a lead baloon internally, but I believe there is
    some argument for changing the mix of sales and improve the way we
    deal with third-parties who sell on our behalf, consultants who
    recommend and OEMS who add value to our wares.
    
 >   My customers expect to talk to DIGITAL for their $3 or $4 Million per
 >   year. The vast majority of the sales force works very hard for DIGITAL
 >  and the customer.
    
    I certainly agree, and for some business segments they want to talk to 
    people who understand their businesses more than some of our salesforce 
    can. For a lot of items, they insist on the ability to purchase them as
    commodities, to get them when they need them, not when some salesman
    finally returns their calls. I just wonder if a model where we direct
    more of the salesforce we have to selling to resellers (these committed
    and dedicated people you talk of and we all know and love) that the
    payoff may just be greater. For segments that demand DIGITAL, give them
    DIGITAL, but expand our sales channels via well-trained and targeted
    third parties.
    
    FLAME ON -
    
    >If some people north of RT 128 would stop being our own worst ememy
    >when it comes to bring out prodcuts and services maybe sales would
    >generate more revenu.
    
    I wont buy in to trying to interpret this.
    
      FLAME OFF -
    
>    Now as far as number go I am not the one pushing rev/emp or staff
>    levels I am just in re-act mode like everyone else these days.
 
    Yes, I react to this because people are setting downsizing targets
    based on fiction. Reacting to incorrect data, ill-defined problems
    and incorrectly set targets is worse than doing nothing. Doing
    nothing leads to decay, attacking the wrong targets leads to 
    destruction.
    
       
>    I noticed no one has taken up my base assumption that we need a
>    motivated sales force to turn this company around.
 
    Yes we do, and a motivated engineering force, consultancy and
    any other segment you care to name. They also have to have direction
    towards a set of goals. Motivated to the wrong goal is even more
    pointless that demotivated people working in the right direction.
    
       

    

    You know what would indicate "back to normal" to me?  Something real
    simple: bring back my group's refrigerator.  I don't care about the
    bottled water machine it was attached to (which is how we lost it in
    the first place) - I live in this town and drink its water at home
    anyhow (high manganese content, fine otherwise - soft, acidic New
    England well water).  I get sick of lukewarm lunches that sit for hours
    on the floor under my desk.  Ycch.  Not too tasty, and in some cases
    not too healthy either.  One of my friends who tends to bring in just
    yoghurt for lunch (I would starve on what this guy eats - must have a
    real efficient metabolism!) has taken to bringing them in frozen, so
    that the yoghurt, which sits in his briefcase until lunch time, is
    still cool when he is ready to eat it.  Warm yoghurt is pretty awful.
    
    Yeah, I could buy a little fridge and park it in my cube - though if I
    had the $$$ for a little fridge for my cube, I wouldn't be a charter
    member of the brown-bag brigade in the first place.  I've worked in
    this building for 6 years, and have never eaten in its cafeteria.
    
    I know this is a minor thing, but it bugs me every time I think about
    it, as a sign of how much the environment has changed.
    
    /Charlotte                                                       

    re: .27
    
    Charlotte... you might try one of those thermal boxes to carry your
    lunch in.  I've been using one for two years and it works fine.
    
    

    I passed an Accounts Manager (aka Sales Unit Manager) that I know in
    the hall and asked him how things are going. He said, "You know, I
    think if we can get out of this swamp and start selling, everything
    will be fine. We've lost a month already."
    
    The "swamp" is the on-going haggling about funding, assignments and
    responsibilities that's going on out here in (this part, at least, of)
    the U.S. Field.
    
    I'm not really looking for a return to the normal "culture" - it never
    really existed in the field anyway. But I sure wish that everybody
    could quit covering their butts with both hands with one eye cocked
    their shoulder. I'd like to get on with it.

    Restore my subscription to the Digital Technical Journal.

    Re: .-1:  (I just had to do it).  Read on:
    
    
    
From:	RDVAX::JOURNAL "Digital Technical Journal  06-Aug-1991 1630"  6-AUG-1991 16:52:17.74
To:	@ENGINEERS29.DIS
CC:	JOURNAL
Subj:	*** NOTICE FROM THE DIGITAL TECHNICAL JOURNAL ***

TO: Digital's Engineers

           -------------------------------------------
            NOTICE FROM THE DIGITAL TECHNICAL JOURNAL
           -------------------------------------------

                                
The Digital Technical Journal is now available at no cost to 
Digital's technical professionals. However, the DTJ will not be 
sent to you automatically. You must place an order with the DTJ 
office to receive a subscription. Your cost center will not be 
charged.
  
To order, please send the following to RDVAX::JOURNAL. 

	 Name:
	 Badge no.:
	 Mailstop:
	 Job title:

All current subscriptions will be automatically renewed. To 
cancel, send a message to RDVAX::JOURNAL or to CATHY PHILLIPS 
@MLO. 

The text of DTJ papers will be available on VTX beginning in 
January 1992. Single copies and back issues of the DTJ continue 
to be available from Digital Press.
    

    re.27
    
    Our facility has microwaves, refrigertors and coffee stations 
    scattered stragegically around the building.  
    
    Find out how many people would be using it and then contact you
    facilities manager to request a refrigerator. 
    
    I would like to see more standardization through out Digital, like
    the refrigerator issue.  If SHR can have them, why not every facility?
    
    We get Post-It-Notes, but some other facilities don't.
    
    Would also like to see either the end of Canobie Lake outing and the
    turkey distribution or see it US (if not world) wide or something
    comparable for those facilities outside of New England.  
    
    Linda