Conference 7.286::digital

Some of the ideas that some brilliant minds have are quite counter-productive.

In MRO4, all the window lights are set up to turn off or on, depending on the
amount of light coming in the windows.  Imagine how productive someone can
be if the lights keep turn on and turn off at random times of the day.
I'm getting someone in facilities to remove those bulbs around my office
so that I won't get distracted by the stupid lights.  With the flourescent
bulbs, I would think that starting them up all the time would be more
expensive than leaving them on for a while, not to mention the loss of 
productivity.

B.

    That's a great idea alright! (that stupid green paper) Must have cost
    us a few rubles to do that,huh? I hope the guy who thought of this
    tripe gets his/her weekly pay in those same green papers.
    
    Ken

    All of us are suppose to save money. Well we try. Some of us are
    spending stupidly as fast as they can. No supplies can be gotten, but
    Marketing spends $$$$$$ for helicopter flights, not for customers, but
    employees, and the "employees" take it and don't mind. Why do only some
    of the employees get the idea of helping DEC and other don't care?
    Ruth
    

RE: .3 (helicopter flights)

On the other hand, it seems to me that there has been a dramatic decrease
in the use of company helicopters in the last year or two.  There used to
be regularly scheduled flights into and out of ZKO.  However, when a 'copter
landed a couple of days ago, I realized that it was the first one I'd seen
in many months.

The key to reducing 'copter flight expenses was when the 'copter service
started charging back cost centers as opposed to being a general overhead
service.

--PSW

    Actually, as one who sits on the Helipad side of ZKO, there is a
    helicopter comes in at least once or twice a week. I am not sure who is
    using it or why.
    
    q
    

There still is no chargeback to cost centers for helicopter service where
scheduled service exists.

Service to ZKO and MKO was terminated when both ZKO and MKO decided to
stop paying the facility charge.

/john

    I remember when there were three or four flights per *day* out of MKO.
    

    Back when we weren't paranoid about the cost of doing business, we just
    did it. i.e. back when made the sorts of margins that Mr Stone is
    looking for...
    
    q
    

    I remember the days when I seldom used my car for inter-facility
    travel. (I'm in MKO). If I had a meeting in Maynard or Marlboro, I
    hopped the chopper. And of course, trips in and out of Logan were a
    blessing with the chopper. I really enjoyed traveling that way and 
    it was a lot quicker, too. C'est la vie.
    
    Mike

    This whole dollar-a-share silliness is more VP-level horse puckey
    that somehow we're supposed to get all excited about.
    
    From my close-in viewpoint, NOTHING has changed in the software
    development world at all.  We're still taking years to develop 
    bug-ridden software, which is too expensive and is not what the
    customer wants.....other than that, everything is fine.
    
    TNSG should clean up its development act, and do away with the
    carnival atmosphere.
    
    

RE: .10

If you think things aren't happening to clean up TNSG's act, your viewpoint
isn't as close-in as you think.

--PSW

re Note 1590.11 by PSW::WINALSKI:

> If you think things aren't happening to clean up TNSG's act, your viewpoint
> isn't as close-in as you think.
  
        You mean we really are doing something other than Yet Another
        Re-Org?

        Bob

    re: Helicopter
    
    You see the helicopters in Maynard all the time. I think the only
    scheduled service left is between Parker Street and Logan. It runs
    hourly. They will also stop at Powdermill Rd. and in Marlboro if
    someone has made a reservation.
    
    A couple weeks ago I saw somebody else's corporate chopper land at
    PK03. It was a giant -- had to seat at least 20 people.

    .11 .... I'm very close and I see NO change.  Lot's a talk, but very
    much business as usual.  
    
    BTW we do (or did) have one very big chopper.

RE: .14

Must be because nobody involved with the changes considers you worth telling
about them.

--PSW

    If you gotta tell somebody (in a group) that something has changed...
    it can't be much of a change!
    
    g

RE: .16

Internal changes aren't necessarily visible outside an organization immediately.
In the case of software engineering, which is what we're talking about here,
there is at least a 6 month to 1 year lag time between when a change is
instituted and when an organization such as the CSSE of which Mr. Lennard
is a part would see the change.

Regarding making $$, look at TNSG's product's contribution to overall corporate
profit and then see if you have grounds for complaint.

I have long been a critic of placing a priority of schedule over quality in
our software develoment process.  I take pride in saying now that I think I
see a reversal in that trend.

--PSW

    hey .15 ... being nasty and/or insulting does not add to the quality
    of this discussion.  I'm in SPS, not CSSE, and a member of the AIM
    Business Management Team (part of TSNG), so I think I have some insight
    into what is happening, or not happening.

Re .18:

Paul thought you were in CSSE because I mentioned to him that's where I thought
you worked.  Based on comments from a member of CSSE, and your ELF entry, which
lists your "position" as "CSSE Service Prod Manager".
				/AHM

    To get back to the original topic of this note - the green "dollar
    bills" with our paychecks...

    I would still like answers to:

    1.  Exactly how much did it cost our organization to design, print, 
	and deliver those "dollar bills" to us?

    2.  What does David Stone believe those "dollar bills" were supposed 
	to accomplish, other than communicating WHAT WE ALREADY KNEW - 
	that times are tough, the financial position of the company is not 
	good, and it is extremely important to weigh EVERYTHING we do with 
	an eye on the bottom line?

    3.  How did those "dollar bills" enhance our bottom line?

    Karen.

On the other hand, everybody in my group (and possibly most of what's now TNSG)
got a "Digital is a software company" mug a couple of years ago.  They're both
supposed to be motivators, but a mug costs a lot more than play money.
Problem is, we software types are probably too jaded to fall for motivators.

    In working for several departments within DIGITAL, and a few other
    companies besides DIGITAL, I have *NEVER* seen an instance in which MBS
    (Management By Slogan), MBP (Management By Poster), MBEPS (Management
    By Enforced Poster Signing) or MBWIF (Management By Whippage Into
    Frenzy) have ever made any measurable positive difference.
    
    I have, however, seen numerous occasions where:
    
    1) By making a visible "program" like this, the manager in question has
    something new to put on a resume ("Started a major program to address
    quality...")
    2) In not knowing what really needs to be done, a manager will do
    something like this because it is what he knows how to do.
    3) A well meaning manager thinks this will make a difference, even
    though there's little evidence or precedent that says it will.
    
    Usually, it just depresses the heck out of me that management is
    wasting my time and the company's money with such juvenile pursuits. 
    
    $1/share is a hell of a lot of money.  It's generally considered
    climbing out on a limb just to promise $.10/share in increased
    revenues.  So, tell me:  Are these "dollars" redeemable for stock
    certificates once the $1/share goal has been met?  If not, I fail to
    see how or why this whole exercise is really going to generate much
    beyond this note and another stack of unused posters and slogans.

re .22:

Reminds me of the story of the three envelopes.

It's not $1/share in increased profits, it's $1/share in profits.  I don't
know what base we're starting from.

    If I recall correctly from Bill Keating's talk, TNSG currently
    contributes about 75-80 cents per share to Digital's total profits.
    So the $1/share goal is within reach, though I am doubtful we can
    manage it within the next year at current staffing levels (we need
    more, and we are hiring, but it takes time.)  On the other hand,
    we have several new high-demand products coming out (DEC Fortran
    and DEC Ada are already shipping) and the potential is there.
    
    I too hate gimmicks like the "dollar bill", and have already expressed
    to Bill my dismay at such tactics, without a clear plan of how we'll
    get there, or any real kind of motivation.  (My biggest fear is that
    if we succeed, next year we'll be told "ok, make it $1.50".)
    
    However, I'm doing what I can, and have sent Bill some suggestions
    for short-term profit enhancers. Bill's response was positive and
    I hope to see something come of it within the next six months.
    
    				Steve

    	I work in Network Management Engineering, and my group was
    just recently absorbed by TNSG.  I figured, yeah, big deal, some
    new faceless VP who I'll probably never even see, much less hear
    from anyway so who cares.  Then I begin to read about David Stone
    in the Boston Globe and the trade rags and I begin to wonder just
    who is this hot shot that gets all the media attention anyway?

	Well, it wasn't more than a couple of weeks after our group
    was absorbed that I actually recieved a mail message (VAXmail no
    less) from the guy!  Ok, so the entire TNSG organization recieved
    the same mail message, but there was something different about this
    mail message.  It didn't seem nearly as sanitized and/or dictatorial
    as the few other such mail messages I have ever recieved from the
    upper echelons.  I actually felt as though David Stone had something
    to say to *me* - Joe Blow employee.  It's a little early to tell yet,
    but so far I must admit that I am somewhat impressed with the way
    this guy actually communicates with people in his organization.

    	As to the fuss over the cost of a silly little half-tone print
    job - I'm sorry, but you people are really losing it!  It is rare
    that management ever even bothers to communicate with employees at,
    all, much less to give them something symbolic such as this, and it
    is no wonder!  Look how many people bitch and moan over a half sheet
    of paper that probably took someone a whole 10 seconds to slice in
    half (most likely much less if done in large quantity - as I suspect
    it was).  Ok, so it cost a few bucks to doctor-up an enlarged photo-
    copy of a dollar bill with pictures of the TNSG management and have
    it printed (probably two copies to a sheet), but at least it was a
    creative jesture (better than someone simply signing a check for a
    shipment of mugs).

    	I dont know about the rest of you, but I've got my TNSG dollar/
    bill hanging on the wall to remind me of a guy who's attempting to
    make a difference and help to lead this company out of its doldrums.

    				   -davo

p.s.	Now if we could only get these VP's to lower themselves to
    	communicating with us here in VAXnotes, then maybe we'd really
    	get somewhere!

    re: "David Stone not just another V.P."
    Could it be that while he was Pier Carlo's European Engineering
    manger that both of them learned something ?
    
    1) Pier Carlo never liked "posters and such" but just told
       us that he would still do a campaign with glossy brochure
       to help every employee beeing proud again in front of
       their wives, husbands.....
    
    2) David Stone seems to be able to COMMUNICATE with Joe
       Bloke employee ? (Pier Carlo always knew how to do that!)
    
    Casual observer,
    fred
    

    
    such gimmicks may not be effective to all you software engineers, but
    they may have an impact on your management - and that counts alot! Or,
    you could work in a "different" culture and appreciate any positive
    communication from above.   Public gestures are sometimes the ONLY way
    short of dismissal to get those dreaming and scheming of empire to at
    least build in the direction you want!  The time complaining here in
    notes probably cost as much, if not more, than printing those $$$!
    
    
    	bob
    

    Bravo .22, you hit it right on the head with your "management by slogan"
    comment.  Just another example of our immature management.  Personally,
    I've had about all I can take of "World-Class", "Best in Class" and
    my all-time favorite "Delighted" customers.  You hardly see a proposal
    these days that isn't full of this PC garbage.
    
    When Stone was out here, he showed some slides that had the software
    business making some profit....until you backed out the services
    revenue.  I think we're losing money on software too.  While I looked
    forward to hearing the guy, I was somewhat dismayed when he showed up
    in this large conference room with his wife in tow!  Management
    immediately buzzed around to find her a front row chair, and then she
    sat there staring at him with that sort of Pat Nixon "ain't he
    wonderful" look throughout the whole presentation.  I thought it was
    most inappropriate of him to do that.
             

RE: .24

Would you have been motivated to send Bill Keating the suggestions on how
we could help meet Stone's $1/share contribution if the "dollar bill" flyer
hadn't been sent out?  Hokey and irritating it may be, but it has been
effective:  people are thinking and talking about the $1/share commitment
and how to keep TNSG profitable.

--PSW

>      <<< Note 1590.29 by PSW::WINALSKI "Careful with that VAX, Eugene" >>>

>Would you have been motivated to send Bill Keating the suggestions on how
>we could help meet Stone's $1/share contribution if the "dollar bill" flyer
>hadn't been sent out?  Hokey and irritating it may be, but it has been
>effective:  people are thinking and talking about the $1/share commitment
>and how to keep TNSG profitable.

As yes but it's only been efective where it's been sent out. TNSG in
England hasn't been giving them out, but since we're outside New England,
maybe nobody cares??? If you're going to apply a scheme, surely it helps
to be consistent about it?

Craig

Well - whatever you think of David Stone's management style, he should be
given some credit for setting for his organisation, a numeric and measurable
goal which has a direct bearing on Digital's profitability. Curiously, this is
rather unusual.

The amount of money spent on printing the dollar bill flyers is a relatively
unimportant issue. The average cost centre manager can turn that sort of sum
into profitless smoke with a single decision.

No - the issue here is that we should hope and pray that Stone achieves his $1
goal this FY. If he doesn't, then -- while I don't actually know what would
happen next -- I can confidently predict we won't like it.

If you're in a position to help, rather than hope, then help!

	Richard.

Re .31:

>Well - whatever you think of David Stone's management style, he should be
>given some credit for setting for his organisation, a numeric and measurable
>goal which has a direct bearing on Digital's profitability. Curiously, this is
>rather unusual.

From "W. Edwards Deming - The Man and his Mission":

"
It was in America that he became aware of the tyranny of fear, of barriers, of
quotas and sloganeering.  Their existance was reflected in his Fourteen Points.
A few years later came an extension - a "later awakening," as he calls the
"Seven Deadly Diseases."  ...

			The Fourteen Points
...
10.  _Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the workforce_.  These
never helped anybody do a good job.  Let people put up their own slogans.

11.  _Eliminate numerical quotas_.  Quotas take account only of numbers, not
quality or methods.  They are usually a guarantee of inefficiency and high cost.
A person, to hold a job, meets a quota at any cost, without regard to damage to
the company.
...

			The Seven Deadly Diseases
...
2.   _Emphasis on short-term profits_.  Looking to increase the quarterly
dividend undermines quality and productivity.
...
5.   _Running a company on visible figures alone_.  The most important figures
are unknown and unknowable - the multiplier effect of a happy customer, for
example.
...
"
				/AHM

    Having worked under a few organizations that lived by "MBO" (Management
    By Objective), I'll echo the content of .32.  When a manager has an
    objective or quota or whatever to meet, he'll do anything, including
    ruining the rest of the company, in his pursuit to meet that objective,
    all in the name of covering his own butt.
    
    I know of a few places where numeric and measurable goals were
    attempted on a very large scale.  They also came up with lots of
    slogans, too.  People made their quotas, and little else.  I don't
    think they're doing so well lately.

    I don't want to start defending David Stone, the way he manages TNSG,
    or anything else. I assume he's able to do that for himself.
    Nevertheless, I consider the profitability goal to be valid and
    important. It is pretty clear that, rightly or wrongly, those who have
    invested in Digital expect and require the company to make a reasonable
    profit. In fiscal year 1991 it did not.
    
    It's a goal - it's a quota - it's an obective, and companies that
    consistently fail to meet it ultimately cease to exist. So ...
    
    By the way -- I am a manager and it is conventionally considered to be
    the job of "management" to run a profitable business. This means I own
    a lot of the problems, and one of the reasons I read this conference is
    to find out about them (when I have time). I mention this to show that
    I am not pontificating from the sidelines, but actually own and am
    working, as best I can, on many of the problems that get discussed here.
    
    	Richard. 

    No-one argues with the idea that DEC is here to make a profit. What is
    argued with is the short-termist viewpoint of "if there's no jam
    IMMEDIATELY then don't make jam", because, some things take a
    while to show a profit. SHort term goals should NEVER be used to
    completely replace long or medium term ones.
    
    If the famous recent quote that went the rounds about "short term
    profit is what matters" was actually said seriously, then I, knowing I
    speak for many here, find that viewpoint UTTERLY dismaying.
    
    	- andy

Indeed. The company must be profitable in BOTH the short and long term because
this is the only combination that works...

	Short term	Long term	Result

	Losing		Losing		Optimistically, Chapter 11
	Losing		Profitable	Not around when long term comes
	Profitable	Losing		Future looks same as now (argh!)
	Profitable	Profitable	Everybody happy.

Short and long term profitability need not (and MUST not) be mutually exclusive.
Actually, I would say that this is elementary.

I suggest that if you hear the the company's management saying that short term
profitability is the only thing that matters and forget the long term, then
they're probably just not communicating well. No-one could seriously advocate
the 3rd line in the above table...

	Richard.

    <<< Note 1590.36 by IOSG::MEREWOOD "Richard, REO/D4-5A, DTN 830-3352" >>>

	Short term	Long term	Result

>	Losing		Losing		Optimistically, Chapter 11
>	Losing		Profitable	Not around when long term comes
>	Profitable	Losing		Future looks same as now (argh!)
>	Profitable	Profitable	Everybody happy.
>
>I suggest that if you hear the the company's management saying that short term
>profitability is the only thing that matters and forget the long term, then
>they're probably just not communicating well. No-one could seriously advocate
>the 3rd line in the above table...
    
    Actually, what was propounded was:
    
    	Profitable	Doesn't matter	Short term profit
    
    Now, I agree that this MUST be a miscommunication, but I'll lay you
    good odds that it's a very common miscommunication over the past
    months. Not least is the laying off of good people who we will need
    "when the upturn comes".
    
    Of course we still have lots of good people, but I see people leaving
    DEC that we should have fought TOOTH AND NAIL to retain. Indeed, I
    imagine we're at the same pub on Friday, sending off a very good
    example of this.
    
    See you at the New Inn....
    
    	- andy

    Re: David Stone's management style.
    
    I had to give a PID recently, and was told I needed my VP's approval,
    so I sent a VAXmail message to Stone.  Got a reply a few days later
    telling me, "go ahead, don't know of any reason why you shouldn't do
    it".  What impressed me was the timestamp on the reply was 3 AM.
    
    When I'm up at 3 AM it's either my 3 month old daughter, or the
    pepperoni pizza which is resposible...wonder what was keeping DS up at
    3 AM answering Email messages?
    

    Plain old VMS MAIL doesn't have sending timestamps, it has
    receipt timestamps.   Which are, naturally enough, expressed
    in recipient local time.   
    
    So it all depends on where Mr. Stone was in the world.  :-)
    
    Or are you saying he (gasp) uses unsupported software?

    As another person who works odd hours at ZKO, I have found that it is
    not unusual to see David Stone leaving at 8 pm. (Usually laden with 2
    briefcases.) However, I would hazard a guess that his 3 AM reply may
    have been made from an overseas location.  (Of course, this will now
    start someone off on a whinge about too much travel amongst the
    executivew ranks....)
    
    
    q
    

I think it would help to hear about two specific cases that are in some
way connected to the dollar a share goal:

In one case, a engineering team did a QFD, involving a fair number of people
from outside the engineering organization, and a dozen or so customer visits.
As a result of this QFD, early involvement of other groups, and a focus on
profit, they made a 90 degree turn which they believe will increase their
first year revenue by about a factor of 10 (if I got my numbers right).  The 
major cost, in terms of process, is that the engineering team had to give up
their emotional investment in what they had wanted to do, in order to
do something that would be more profitable.  They think it's worth it, and I 
agree.

In the second case (my project) we were asked by our management to review
our goals with an eye towards identifying pieces that could be turned into
products earlier in the life cycle.  So instead of doing the whole
kit-and-kaboodle, which would take several years, before earning any money,
we're going to do things in a slightly different order and try to start
selling stuff sooner.

  Gary

RE: .32

So one of Deming's Fourteen Points is to get rid of sloganeering?  Fine.
Let's start with the slogan "Fourteen Points".  I really wish these quality
types could express themselves without "Fourteen Points", "Four Houses of
Quality", "Voice of the Customer", and other such slogans.

--PSW

Re .42:

Since you're so plagued by "these quality types", maybe you can have one of them
explain "Four Houses of Quality" to me.
				/AHM

    re .42
    
    The "Four Houses of Quality" is a new one to me as well.  But Deming's
    14 points aren't slogans - they're a prescription for fixing what ails us.
    They've been posted in 1121.5, and well worth a minute's time to read
    through them.  I know "quality types" have a bad reputation, and some
    of it might be deserved (I remember the little blue plastic "Think
    Customer" signs that were common in HLO a few years back - now _that's_ 
    slogan-based quality!), but I think we all know that for DEC, it's
    either change or die.
    
    Maybe the cynicism that PSW voices in .42 is the result of one "quality
    improvement" program after another, each failing to bring change.  I
    don't have the answer, but let's not shoot the messenger (Deming).
    
    John

I'm not sure where "Four Houses of Quality" comes from, unless perhaps
it's referring to the four sections of a QFD matrix.  (QFD stands for
Quality Function Deployment, among other interpretations.  The name is
a hopelessly inadquate description.)

I do know the meaning of "House of Quality."  It is the name given to the
QFD matrix, because of its resemblance to a stick drawing of a house.  Had
DEC been responsible for inventing QFD, we probably would have given
the matrix some other multiletter acronym or abbreviation, based on
some technojargon, which would leave our engineers feeling warm and
fuzzy about it while insuring that outsiders would remain confused. 
But we didn't invent it, so we have to live with the rather colorful
appellation that someone else has chosen.  Let's
not judge this book by its cover.  

A QFD is a well-defined process for evaluating customer needs against
product features, to produce a set of priorities that helps increase
quality by focusing on the features that have the biggest payoffs.  The
"House of Quality" is
a large table, with several dimensions and types of entries.  The heart of it
lists customer benefits down the left hand side and product features
across the top, enabling us to identify the correlations.  It has been
shown to work well by Japanese companies.  I think it remains to be
seen whether we can put it to good use within TNSG, but some of us are
certainly willing to try.  I think we can already show significant
benefit, based on some insights we've gathered during the data
collection phase preceding our QFD session.

   Gary

RE: .45

Yes, "House of Quality" was the jargon term I was referring to.

"Let's not judge a book by its cover", you say.  But surely presentation and
merchantability are perfectly valid quality dimensions?  What good are QFD and
all the reset if they're presented in a manner that turns their intended
audience (i.e., development engineers) off?  In my experience, the quality
crowd sorely needs to apply its own techniques to the manner in which it
is presenting its message to the intended audience.  In this case, development
engineers are the customers for quality techniques, and the "voice of the
customer" has not been listened to.

--PSW

I'll certainly go along with PSW's suggestion.  Kill off the sloganeering
for real.

If they want to come in and institute a REAL quality control program here
at Digital, they're going to have to start by doing something real, other
than just parroting chapter names from the Quality-Guru-D'Jour's book. 
House of Quality or the 14 Step program or whatever doesn't do it.  We need
the content of those ideas, not just the title.

Unfortunately, too often I see "quality" programs begin and end with the
sloganeering.  Demming isn't at fault because someone picked a title or
line out of his book and made a slogan out of it.  The person who did it is
at fault.  Six Sigma methodology isn't at fault when the local manager just
picks and chooses the bits and pieces that sound good to him, while leaving
all the other bits unmentioned.

Sometimes it does make sense to shoot the messenger:  When the messenger
isn't giving you the whole message.

re: .46

You're absolutely correct, and that's an excellent idea.

Can we help by gathering customer requirements - your requirements?

What are the sales points for you? What would help sell you on some brand-X 
quality program?  What turns you off?  

What do you need from a quality program?  What are your problems that
need to be solved?

re: .47

I consider REAL to be similar to a Supreme Court Justice's description
of pornography; I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.  Unfortunately,
that's not good enough; like pornography, chances are that we won't always
agree.  So could you be more precise, or more detailed?  What makes a 
program real for you?

I just finished the Six Sigma for Software course (yesterday and today).  One
of the important points is that it is unlikely that you can succeed by
trying to do it all at once.  Education takes time; change introduces risks.
So I have to ask you, what is so horrible about a local manager picking
and choosing the parts that seem best, and starting with those?  Is it that
the wrong parts were chosen?  Or that only the easy stuff was done?  Or that
only the ones that could be done by the engineers were chosen, with no
improvements being made by the management?  

Or is it really that the manager said Six Sigma and then did SOT (same old
thing)?  Forgive me if I'm speculating incorrectly.

   Gary

RE: .48

First and foremost, stop the sloganeering.  Also all the hype about "watch out--
if you don't adopt these quality techniques, those nasty Japanese are going
to beat the pants off us".  First off, that point has been made ad nauseum,
and secondly, it's FUD selling, an attempt to scare the customer into going
your way instead of selling the quality technique on its merits.

Actual testimonials from other groups within the company about the success of
quality program X would help to sell it.  I admit that there's a chicken-and-egg
problem here.

Management buy-in is another must.  Right now, TNSG management talks a lot about
how they value quality programs, but as far as I can see it's all words and
no action.  If management were serious about it, every employee would have
attendance at a quality course written into their personnel plan as one of the
action items for the next review period.  As it stands now, the perception is
that I have a choice between attending a quality course or falling behind on
the work I'm measured on.

--PSW

>that I have a choice between attending a quality course or falling behind on
>the work I'm measured on.
    
    	Well, that's pretty easy then.  Choose to attend the quality
    	course, and you won't fall behind on the work you're measured
    	on.   Everyone should be happy with that (well, *you* have
    	to sit through the course, I suppose, which might not thrill	
    	you).
    
    	:-)
    

    Firstly,
    
    I tend to disagree with the idea that you have to force anyone to 
    attend a course. The first thing you have to do is get acknowlegement
    that you have problems that need solving or that you have to have
    something to improve problems the engineers acknowledge exist.
    
    In our case a manager stated a problem he thought we had and got everyone to
    agree that the biggest problem WE faced was a requirements issue. He
    then suggested that maybe WE should look at QFD as ONE approach to
    improving (not solving) what we do. In a perfect world the product
    managers charged with getting our customer requirements would have
    bought in on this too. They didnt see a problem with what they did.
    We were then given a stack of reading material to read up on full of
    the house of quality etc. etc. Not everyone read it before the meeting
    but the people who thought it might help proposed a case study, to be
    generated by two members of the team, at a later date. Note, at this
    stage, besides providing some notes, all management had done was
    suggest to us that QFD may help us produce better product.
    
    The case study was drawn from a couple of senior engineers previous 
    experience and the 4 sentence statement of the problem forwarded to everyone
    beforehand. Some engineers (mostly more senior ones) didnt go, others
    were pushed there under peer pressure, some didnt read up. It didnt
    matter, at the end most were in agreement that the process could
    definitely help them produce better products. It made us question the
    way we single out the most favourable requirements and ignore the rest
    and we saw some problems in the way we do a lot of things now. One
    thing we realised, even if the people closer to customers dont buy into
    the process, it gives you a powerful way to demand answers from people
    who do ask them. Again, if it helps what you do, it doesnt matter if it
    doesnt solve your problem. A low-cost incremental change in the way you
    work may have excellent return. 
    
    We are looking forward to taking this further, but driven by us, not
    some top_down_get_on_the_next_big_wave mentality. Forget the slogans,
    forget the Japanese, no process will work unless you are committed to
    continually looking for ways that may help fix your weaknesses. No 
    magic bullet works unless you commit to firing the gun.
    
    Regards,
    John
    
    p.s the last sentence is copyright,1991 John Baker( Art-Wank Management
    Process Books Ltd., seminars at reasonable rates, wanna by a crystal?)

RE: .51

>    No 
>    magic bullet works unless you commit to firing the gun.

The furthest that my management has gone is, "Gee, perhaps somebody ought to look
into buying a gun."  All talk and no action.

--PSW