Conference 7.286::digital

    
    
    	At last, someone who has struck the nail on the head!
    
    	I have taken the saying that was quoted and posted it above my
    desk. I hope that the people that come and see me will take to heart
    what it says.
    
    	Thank you SHIRE::GOLDBLATT for posting this note.
    
    Andy Munslow

     RE .0
    
        That should be required reading for ALL EMPLOYEES,,from
    Ken on down to the rest of us in the trenches!!!
        Then,we (as a corporation) should be required to answer
    the questions asked every 6 months or so just to see if we
    are making any progress.
    
        (of course,,the whole thing seems against unwritten policy
    which states "if it makes sense there *must* be something wrong 
    with it"  )       :-)
    
     FANTASTIC!!
      I've also posted it in my cube
    
    Doug

    OK,again I gues a very valuable speech as I have heard and read many
    of them these last few years,but the HARD facts(history)sofar is that
    we are still for(one)example suffocating under burocratic(I.S.O.
    standards),stovepiping,mistrust.
    
    When are factual changes going to take place,who is really going to 
    stand up and DO something!?
    
    Oh yes,"A vision and a task are the hope for the world".
                                        ^^^^why not a more substantial word 
                                            then this Euphemim?
    
    Jan.(from the Netherlands)

Re .0

Right to the point, excellent.  "Common Sense" isn't practiced by enough people.

Re: .3

>    When are factual changes going to take place,who is really going to 
>    stand up and DO something!?

You completely missed the point... ***YOU ARE!!!***  Don't wait for someone else
to do what you feel is the right thing!


Dave

>
>You completely missed the point... ***YOU ARE!!!***  Don't wait for someone else
>to do what you feel is the right thing!
>

	Great !  Let's do it, but let's make sure we do it the
	Digital has alway s approached these super, new ideas:

	1) Appoint a "Blue Ribbon" task force to study the problem.
	   We'll need about 22 staffers, offices, 4 secretaries,
	   fax machines, phones, publishing budget ( for the
	   glossy brochures that will be published every 3 months
	   telling employees how THEY can make a difference ).
		Yearly budget:  $ 1.6 million 

	2) Hire two vice presidents:  One as V.P. of Corporate Individual
	   Responsibility Enhancement, one as Assistant Liaison V.P.
	   of Corporate Responsibility Enhancement.
		Yearly budget:  $ 900 K

	3) Start a Simplification Board of Review.  This monolith will
	   publish an initial 500-page paper that proposes an 
	   additional study to prepare a 4-volume document.  This
	   last document will set forth detailed "simplicity-standards and
	   review procedures" that are to be followed for all
	   transactions in the company.  Later, an online version
	   will be funded.
		Yearly costs:  $ 1.2 million


	4) Simplicity and Individual-Value Training should be 
	   initiated.  Drawing from the 4-volume "bible" above,
	   it will be mandatory for all DEC employees, take 3
	   days to administer, and will cost $ 150 million, what
	   with instructors, travel, color overheads, handouts,
	   videotapes, satellite links, lost work time, etc.

	Let's do it !  It's the Digital Way !

	Steve H

>You completely missed the point... ***YOU ARE!!!***  Don't wait for someone else
>to do what you feel is the right thing!


Me thinks you have an idealistic viewpoint.

Let me tell you of an incident that happened to me and tell me if I did the 
"right thing" for the customer.

There was a time when I was er, lets say technically knowledgeable of a product
when nobody else was. Because of this I was asked to help out a customer with
a demo. Now it happens that the customer was/is an agent for DEC. That is the
customer sold DEC products directly to other customers in its area because
I guess DEC didnt want to open up a sales office there. Well, anyway I was
asked to demo this product to a third party on behalf of DEC's agent.

I was given a tape with the software product on it, (the agent didnt have it
on his system) and was told by DEC's sales organization to install it on
the agents system, give the demo to the potential customer (a 1 day demo)
and then delete the software off the agent's system. This I did, however
when I told the agent that I now needed to delete this product off his system
he complained, he asked (rhetorically) "How does DEC expect me to be a sales
org if I do not have access to products that customers may want to see demo'd?"
He went on to say that DEC required him to BUY any software that he wanted to
demo to potential customers. He also said that if he did this he would be
bankrupt in 2 weeks. He complained that to his customers HE was DEC, yet
DEC treated him like an ordinary customer. 

I tended to agree with his argument yet, as a DEC employee I felt obligated
to do as I was told and delete the software. Afterall I didnt have both sides
of the story. However, my point is that at the time I thought that the
"right thing to do " was to let the agent keep the software. Oh, another
piece of the story was the fact that the potential customer wanted to
come back on Monday (this was Friday) and "play around" some more with the
product, the agent asked understandably, "What am I going to tell the customer?
That they can't because DEC won't let me keep the software." Now if I let the
agent keep the software and it was found out later by the people that told me 
to delete it, what do you think might have happened to me?

    The author would probably cringe if he discovered that he has now become 
    the latest Guru and that folks are already putting his phrases through the
    same process that has unsuccessfully championed the processes he 
    criticizes.  <sigh>  ;^)  
    
    
    Steve

    re: .6
    
    In my opinion, the "right thing" was to delete the product from the
    agent's disk.  If he can't afford to purchase our products for demo
    purposes, he isn't going to be in business long.  Actually, I suspect
    he was lying to you about being 2 weeks from bankrupcy, and just trying
    to save a buck at DEC's expense.  Buying products for demo purposes
    is standard practice in the software business.
        John Sauter

    Re .8
    
    Naturally the "right thing" was to delete our product from being demoed
    to a potential buyer.  Heck that's the strategy that has taken us from
    having 40% of the oem business to less than 5%.  It is with great
    relief that we have turned the corner on the "right thing" and our
    customers in the near future will be able to order any software for a
    try it you like it 45 or 90 day demo.

    Ho-hum...
    
    After crying chicken little over the Japanese and Germans, the guy says
    "Do the Right Thing".
    
    What on earth is the "parlous" state (of the United States economy)?
    
    What does "slaughted" some sacred cows means?  Are they the "food for
    thought" that he speaks of.
    
    "transnational" and "hyper-complexity" are consultant-speak.
    
    This may be uplifting for a moment or two, but it's inconsequential.

    >What on earth is the "parlous" state (of the United States economy)?
    
    Well, I would have thought that was obvious.  Are you asking what
    "parlous" means, or denying that the economy is in a parlous state?
    
    Parlous = Perilous, more or less.  Not an uncommon word, at least
    not in English usage.
    

    Comments regarding the United States ecomony don't belong on the lips
    of the senior management of Digital, or apologists for the senior
    management of Digital.  Some smaller companies that Digital is trying
    to compete with are thriving.  Some large companies are able to cope
    with the  business cycle better than Digital.
    
    When senior management credits the 1985 to 1988 growth of the
    corporation to the "United States economy" rather than to the decisions
    they made, then I'll accept their blame for 1989 to 1991 on the "United
    States economy".

    In the UK, it is a commonplace (i.e., reported in newspapers)
    that the US economy is in a seriously bad way.  Therefore, this
    is hardly controversial.

    The economy, good or bad, affects all companies.  While sales and
    earnings may be depressed under current economic conditions this
    shouldn't affect Digital's *relative* position.  In particular, failing
    to gain (or even losing) market share can't be attributed to the
    economy.
    
    In this sense, even though it is true that the US and European
    economies are in bad shape, that's not the root of many of our
    problems.

    Amen to the last few!  I think there are basically two types of
    company.  The first says, "Business is bad because of the hard times."
    The second says, "What hard times?"
    
    Steve

What I thought the author was saying was , If the US economy, based on US theory 
and practice is not in a very good state, and the Japanese economy is in a 
state not achieved by any other country (ie 10% growth) then perhaps we ought to 
adopt the Japanese model ?

No where did I get the idea that the author was talking about Digital's 
performance. 

IMHO its a thought provoking piece and hence does have consequences

Roger

    There are three comments from Business Managers in today's economy. 
    The first says "Business is bad because of the economy."  The second
    says "Business is bad?". The third says "Business is ok (or good) in
    spite of the economy."  
    
    The first speaker is making excuses for poor management; there are
    plenty of these folks around.  They take their salary and perqs, sit in
    meetings, meet with the press and watch the world go by.  With salary
    and perqs over $1m in too many cases, they could not care less that
    they are just riding the tide.  
    
    The second speaker does not have any idea what is going on, probably
    does not `manage' his company and is benefiting from being in the right
    place at the right time.  
    
    The third speaker recognizes that the economy is bad, but has been
    managing his/her company to a profit in spite of the hard times.  
    
    When you are in situation #1 and working to get to situation #3, the
    risk is that the economy turns around before we get out of situation #1
    and then you fall back into situation #2.
    
    Just an opinion, of course.
    
    Dave

     Not unless you also want to adopt the Japanese life style and
     society. I'm not saying their life style and society are bad. I'm
     just not sure it's for us.

             m

>What I thought the author was saying was , If the US economy, based on US theory 
>and practice is not in a very good state, and the Japanese economy is in a 
>state not achieved by any other country (ie 10% growth) then perhaps we ought to 
>adopt the Japanese model ?

You're right - it explicity says that DEC UK should pay less attention to
US management ideas, since they're obviously not working so well, and
look at Japanese ideas (which might not be the same thing as "adopting"
the model) since they seem to be producing better results.    

But this being DEC, we got sidetracked into bickering about whether or
not it's proper for someone in DEC to comment on what everyone else
knows to be true!

(Perhaps the Japanese have something to teach us about training in
 understanding the written word?  :-)

dave

P.S.  Bonjour, M. Gascoigne.

I rather thought that the author was attempting to inform us that Japanese
manufacturers have demonstrably outstripped much of the western world in 
industrial and therefore economic performance; and therefore, we should pay 
attention to how they did it, with the hope that we could learn a thing or two
and pay the lesson back.

Further, the author of the base note intimated that just talking about "doing 
TQM" simply doesn't cut it and that it required discipline and commitment. This
is something I criticise people like Tom Peters for; namely, his books waffle
on about TQM, Teaming, etc., BUT DON'T TELL YOU HOW TO DO IT. I imagine that's
because he doesn't know.

I'll give you an example. Ever heard of QFD? Quality Function Deployment is an
advanced product development methodology which was originally developed in Japan,
specifically Mitsubishi Shipyards and a chap called Akao. QFD demands a 
holistic approach to simultaneously developing the product and it's
development, production and distribution processes, while using the "Voice
of the customer" as the fundamental driving force. 

All over the 'States, companies are starting to use QFD, including Digital, HP,
Texas Instruments, Ford, General Motors, etc., and John Akers of IBM has even
told his management that if they don't use QFD, they are not a part of the
company's future!

But I've seen the results of dozens of such projects. Guess what? Only the first 
quarter of QFD is being used (the requirements analysis part), and then the 
methodology is abandoned.

Net result? We are half-heartedly applying proven approaches to quality. 
Abraham Lincoln once said "if I have a day to cut down a tree, I'll spend the
first few hours sharpening my axe" (or words to that effect...). 

Unfortunately, our axes are blunt.

Ray

    It seems that American management thinks the problem is "follow up"
    when it is really "follow through".
    
    Another way of describing the American management difficulty is ...
    
    	Keeping score doesn't win games.  Making scores does.
    
    Unwillingness to go beyond the appearance of quality seems to be the
    symptom of American misunderstanding of Japanese business methods.
    
    Even when the "guru's" give good advice, American managers seem to have
    a thirty second attention span and no ability to follow a plan through
    to its conclusion.  Once they get their short term benefits, they throw
    away the long term benefits by dropping the effort.
    
    imho,
    
    Dick

    I think part of the problem here involves a misunderstanding of the
    job that American managers and individual contributors have.  The job
    of American managers, as I understand it, is to avoid doing stupid things.
    This is why they are paid so much.  It's hard to prove you did nothing
    stupid when your company goes down the toilet.  But, some individuals
    are able to do just that and are rewarded accordingly.  It doesn't matter 
    that their companies are successful, so long as they can show that they
    avoid doing anything stupid.  
    
    That's different from the job of American individual contributors whose
    job it is to do lots of smart things.  For them, it's okay to do
    something stupid every once in a while, so long as they are doing lots
    of smart things.  Since it's easy to show that you do lots of smart
    things the pay is relatively low.
    
    When an American manager is told to implement the process du jour, the job 
    is to avoid handling the process stupidly.  It's okay if the process 
    fails so long as the manager can show that nothing stupid was done.
    
    When an American individual contributor is told to implement the process du
    jour, the job is to do lots of things to make the process work.  It's okay 
    if the process fails so long as the contributor can show that lots of 
    smart things were done to make the process successful.
    
    That's probably why American business has trouble where Japanese does
    not.  My understanding is that Japanese managers are not let off the
    hook if a process fails and if they show that they did nothing stupid. 
    Similarly, Japanese workers are not let off the hook if the process
    fails and if they show that they did lots of smart things.  I suspect
    that the Japanese recognize that excuses don't get results and respond
    accordingly.
    
    Similarly, this may be why American business thrives where Japanese
    business does not.  Our tolerance of failure allows creativity to
    thrive. 
    
    So, to me the question is, do we want security or do we want the
    rewards of taking higher chances and promoting creativity?  I think the
    solution is to get a better balance between the two.  I think that
    Japan is heading toward greater creativity and America is heading
    toward better security.  In the end, the two will be very similar.
    
    Steve

    re .22 Excellent analysis!
    
    We can talk Quality tools till the cows come home but no tool ever
    solved a problem if it was not used in an environment where it was
    part of the culture.  QFD, A/\T, 6 Sigma are all great but if they
    are used incorrectly or in an environment where they done because
    they HAVE to be done then the results will be lackluster.  
    
    We need to fundamentally change the way we work to give these tools 
    the environment in which they mean something.  We need to encourage
    our individual contributors to be innovative and to use the appropriate
    tools at the appropriate times.  The job of management is to provide
    the support the IC's need to accomplish goals in support of corporate
    objectives.  
    
    The problem is that managers manage!!  It's a lot easier to tell people
    what to do than it is to watch them doing it "without you".

The common sense organization is fine.  Love it.  Makes a whole
lot of sense.  The problem is that common sense organizations
won't work in a society within which common sense is sorely
lacking.  Some disjointed ramblings:

   1. 5-6% of our 3 Trillion dollar economy goes to defense spending.
      The Japanese economy doesn't have that drag. (Thanks to us.)

   2. 10-12% of our GNP goes to debt service.  The Japanese economy
      doesn't have that drag.

   (Numbers 1 and 2 above represent a huge opportunity cost.  Figure out the 
    numbers, then figure out what would happen in 10 years if we reinvested 
    that money in education, consumer-based high technology, electronic
    infrastructure, etc.)

   3. Japanese school children go to school *at least* 240 days
      per year (maybe more).

   4. American car makers are at a 10-15% *basic* cost disadvantage
      with Japanese competitors (due to health care, pension, and
      ironclad union agreements).  That means that if the US manufacturers
      did *everything perfectly*, there would still be a cost disadvantage.

   5. A Chrysler Imperial costs the equivalent of 50K in Japan, due
      to tariffs.

   6. We don't make right-hand drive cars for sale in the Japanese
      market.  The captains of the US auto industry argue that there
      is no point in the investment unless they are *guaranteed*
      market share.  Is that common sense?  Do you think the Japanese
      would have gained a foothold in the US in the '60s if they sold
      only right-hand drive cars?  Did they say: "Nope, we ain't
      making cars with the steering wheels where you need them unless
      you gurantee us 10% of your market"?

 Until, as a society, we stop being self-indulgent, whining crybabies
 who refuse to invest in education, demand instant gratification,
 produce products that customers don't want and can't use,
 and continue to elect the yahoos to office who are responsible for 
 1-5 above, our standard of living will continue to decrease.  People with 
 common sense do not act as we have acted over the past 20 years.

 On the subject of the base note:

 There is a project at (I believe) Texas A&M to develop expert systems
 with common sense.  Seriously.  We are now trying to "model" common
 sense.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


Glenn                                             
    

   

    re .25
    
 >There is a project at (I believe) Texas A&M to develop expert systems
 >with common sense.  Seriously.  We are now trying to "model" common
 >sense.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
    
    For those of you who are parents, how successful have you been teaching
    your offspring "common sense"?   Is this just "the other guy's problem"
    or do we own part of it too?
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

Consider the following:  "Copied without permission"

When Mr. Ding came over from the old country, America was a land of 
opportunity.  Ding had beena virtual serf in the old country, subject
to the oppressions and whims of hereditary powers.  In America, he was
free.  He could go as far up the ladder of success as his ingenuity and
drive would take him.

A clever and resourceful man, Mr. Ding saw opportunity in the production
of dingbats.  Soon well-made, affordable dingbats were rolling off the
assembly lines as Acme Dingbat and capturing markets the world over.

Mr. Ding loved the din of the factory, the odors of manufacture, the drama
of brawny men hammering crude metal into sleek dingbats.  He broke bread
with his workers and listened to their suggestions for making a better
dingbat.  He plowed his profits back into the company and into dingbat
research.

Ding gloried in freedom of the marketplace.  He welcomed competition 
because it got him out of bed and inspired him to do his best.  But as
Mr. Ding became more successful and wealthy, something happened.  He
became more interested in his profits than his product.  Loopholes and
subsidies rather than quality and reasonable prices seemed to be the key.
So Ding began to cultivate the company of politicians.

"Only little people pay taxes,"  he said with a wink.

Stranger still, he began to entertain nostalgic thoughts about the
aristocracy that had sbused him in the old country.  He build a home
modeled after a feudal manor, played polo, presented his daughters at
debutante balls, designed a Ding clan coat of arms and with a little
imagination traced his lineage back to Charlemagne.

He spent less time in the factory and more time with his lawyers and
accountants.  He began to regard the blue-collar men and women who
built dingbats as riffraff.  He had given them jobs, paid them honest
wages.  They would afford their own dingbats.  And how did they repay
him?  By going on strike and demanding more. They seemed to think they
had a divine right to live like Mr. Ding, himself.

So, Mr. Ding went across the border for cheap labor.  He laid off workers
at home and replaced them with machines.  But while his work force shrank,
management ballooned.

Managers were preoccupied with their office furnishings and golf games
rather than dingbats.  Office politics and back-stabbings took precedence
over decision-making.  Acme lost touch with its customers, became
corpulent, resistant to change.  Acme dingbats acquired the reputation
for falling apart.

Acme lost market share and hemorrhaged money.  Mr. Ding got the government
to bail him out with a low-interest loan.  Then he rewarded himself with
a multimillion-dollar bonus.  "The survival of Acme is in the interest
of national security," he said.  Then he added, "Greed is good."

He made speeches encouraging Americans to "buy American."  Then he opened
a Swiss bank account and bought vacation properties in exotic lands.

Hungrier foreign companies were making better, cheaper dingbats.  Ding
decided it was really "fair" trade rather than "free" trade he wanted.
"All we ask is protection from unfair competition and a guaranteed share
of the global market," he said.  ....

					Author:  George Curley
						 (Kansas City Star)

--------------------------------
Moderator,

If I will get in trouble for copying an article out of a newspaper, 
please delete.

	Dwight

>       <<< Note 1717.27 by MDKCSW::KERNS "Kansas City is in (KS,MO)?" >>>
>                         -< a lesson here, somewhere >-

Bash, bash, bash.
Am I supposed to see a lesson here?
I see a contrived article, somewhat based on observations from real life.
If it were a movie script, I'd reject it as not demonstrating the motivations
that lead to the central characters' actions or adequately indicating 
how the actions taken led to the consequences shown.
A story of hypocricy?  Perhaps, but what do I learn?

- tom]

    
    Re: .28
    
    > Perhaps, but what do I learn?
    
    I think the point is sufficiently clear IF you want to see it.
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .0
    
    Brilliant !!
    
    Chris