Conference 7.286::digital

RE: <<< Note 1777.0 by GLDOA::SPATOULAS "Don't Automate the Past...Invent the Future..." >>>
>                -< DEC's Notes makes 25 millions for Lotus.... >-

>[[[[[[[....Lotus is making 25 million dollars with Digital's
>...........best kept secret.................................]]]]]]]]]]

     Implying that this piece of text actually existed in the VNS mailing just
might irritate the people who generate that service.

     Now, what exactly is it that makes you think that Lotus' Notes has anything
to do with Digital's VAXnotes?

                                      Greg

> Note 1777.0    -< DEC's Notes makes 25 millions for Lotus.... >-
    
    The problem with the topic title (as it exists right now) is that the
    first word ("DEC's") doesn't belong there.
    
    In NODEMO::MARKETING topic 1770, the same news article is being
    discussed, titled something like: "Notes, the lost opportunity."
    I think we might as well leave discussion in that vein, in that
    conference, but knowing us, I suspect we'll discuss that here anyway.
    
    I think the "best kept secret" isn't so much the product VAX Notes
    itself, but how we are using it.  And thinking along those lines, I am
    concerned.  Just as the product has stagnated, so has our use of it.
    We are a captive installed base, and we'll keep on using the product
    even though it hasn't grown much since it was born.  Do you think we
    are going to buy Lotus Notes and use it?  I doubt it.
    
    Noting in Digital grew out of a grass-roots effort (and I don't mean
    just the product development) and relied as much on word-of-mouth as
    anything else to popularize it.  The last time the creative juices
    really flowed was during the New Notes Project discussions some seven
    years or so ago, the end result of which was VAX Notes V1.0.  Since
    then we've seen only small evolutionary changes in the product, and
    some mid-night efforts to produce tools that augment the capability
    of VAX Notes.
    
    Actually, a fundamental factor in the success of Noting in Digital is
    the invisible infrastructure, the network that makes it possible for us
    to talk to each other.  Fortunately, the company had a business need to
    maintain and invest in this networking infrastructure.  That we didn't
    invest more in truly developing VAX Notes as a product only meant that
    we missed on making even better use of the network.
    
    Besides the networking, we also had people infrastructure to make
    Noting what it is.  Unlike the network though, the people
    infrastructure was all volunteer effort and unpaid.  Perhaps it's
    better this way.
    
    I think if we're to move ahead from where we are and make use of
    groupware, it's going to take another grass-roots effort.  We may even
    have to swallow our pride and use something we didn't build (not
    necessarily Lotus Notes, although that may not be a bad idea). 
    Whatever, don't look to management to build the product or to drive the
    use of groupware.
    
    What do you think?
    
    --Simon

    I think that I'd still like to know what's happening with VAX Notes,
    given the lack of response to notes in that teams conferences and mail
    to their product manager.
    
    If VAX Notes is deadm there are those of us with ideas as to
    improving/replacing the product that might go after some funding....
    
    /a

    Sheesh! While the names are similar Lotus Notes is NOT the same as
    DEC Notes. I have yet to find anything being done internally that's
    close to Lotus Notes (described in NODEMO::Marketing). If anyone hears
    of anything I'd like to know!
    
    /Tim (who works with GM where they have 15000 licenses!)

re:.1

>              <<< Note 1777.1 by IMTDEV::BRUNO "Father Gregory" >>>
>               -< get a refund for that creative writing class >-

>>[[[[[[[....Lotus is making 25 million dollars with Digital's
>>...........best kept secret.................................]]]]]]]]]]

>     Implying that this piece of text actually existed in the VNS mailing just
>might irritate the people who generate that service.


My apologies to VNS folks, it is interesting what priorities people have...

My point of all this was that when we are in times whin revenue is of most
importance to this company and while other companies (such as Lotus) utilizing
the same idea make millions we......reduce resources (people and $$)!!!!!!!!


that's all   8----)))))).

gss

  

Not familiar with Lotus NOTES, but there does seem to be some similarity
between the USENET NEWS software and VAX NOTES.  Which came first?  VAX
NOTES seems to have added the notion of topics and replies, instead of a
continuous stream of notes in a NEWS group.  What does Lotus NOTES add?  (It
sounded in one description here or in MARKETING that each reply could spin
of its own subtree of replies vs. replies being in the continuous stream
that we have in VAX NOTES.  Is that accurate or my misreading of something?)

NEWS, while primitive in some respects (especially UI), has some great
functions that i wish VAX NOTES would pick up (if it isn't in fact dead as
a doornail as a product).  Especially Kill Files: being able to set up a
filter that screens out notes by certain people, or in reply to certain
topics, or with certain keywords in the title, etc.  It's a real solution
to the getting past the stumbling block of the people who like the sound
of their own voice so much that they fill up major chunks of NOTES files
with their nasty diatribes and insults, 700-line extracts of externally
available materials (usually boring), and chatty social club fluff (that
could be better handled by off-line MAIL).  Does Lotus NOTES have this
sort of screening capability?  Whenever i go to my Post Office box and
pull out the pounds of junk mail that get delivered, i think that the
future of information access will belong to those whose products can filter
out the unwanted "noise" as much or more than it will to those products
offer faster and broader retrieval capabilities.
								- paul

    The story I heard was that the inspiration for VAX notes was the Notes
    system that ran on the PLATO educational computer network.  From what I
    remember seeing of notes on PLATO, that sounds plausible.

    -- Mike

Re: .-2

Lotus Notes bears no resemblence to VAX Notes or UNIX conferencing utilities;
you can create what looks like a VAX Notes conference as just one instance of
its data distribution capabilities.

SUN are crawling all over Lotus to get their Notes ported to SunOS. Given
that it solves some of the fundamental information access and sharing needs
that virtually every customer has, we may end up with a rough time.

								- Ian W.

>     <<< Note 1777.6 by LABRYS::CONNELLY "Read My Lips: NO Second Term!" >>>


>NOTES seems to have added the notion of topics and replies, instead of a
>continuous stream of notes in a NEWS group.  What does Lotus NOTES add?  (It

It doesn't take much tweaking of the NEWS UI to give it a two dimensional
structure like VAXnotes. The NEWS_TO_NOTES tool does this for example.

VAXnotes really suffers from network delays, NEWS doesn't. This is one
area which really needs addressed if VAXnotes it to be improved.

Craig

The first NOTES utility at Digital was written by Len Kawell, then a VMS
developer and previously a systems programmer for the PLATO IV network,
in 1980.  Len consciously modelled NOTES after a similar PLATO facility, as
he had done for MAIL a year earlier.

Kawell later left Digital, along with Tim Halvorsen (also a VMS developer
and former PLATO person), and went to Lotus where the two of them headed
the Lotus Notes project.

NOTES at Digital has suffered because of insufficient attention paid to it
by management, who didn't see the potential.  It's now been moved to the
office automation group which does DECplan.  I'm aware of some interesting
new stuff being done for NOTES, but I don't have high hopes for its long-term
prospects.

				Steve

>VAXnotes really suffers from network delays, NEWS doesn't. This is one
>area which really needs addressed if VAXnotes it to be improved.

    Really? I was under the impression that it often took some time between
    when a NEWS item was posted and when it was available all over Usenet?
    Or did you mean that once it got to a site access was quicker? I always
    viewed the need for all that local storage and periodic purging of
    items with NEWS as bigger problems than access time in Notes.

    		Alfred

    
    >> Sheesh! While the names are similar Lotus Notes is NOT the same as
    >> DEC Notes. I have yet to find anything being done internally that's
    >> close to Lotus Notes (described in NODEMO::Marketing). If anyone hears
    >> of anything I'd like to know!
    
    
    The point I believe the author of this note was trying to make is not
    how much Lotus's product is like ours besides in name.  Agreed, Lotus
    Notes is different from ours.  However, the real quesion is why
    is our product (or anything else that we've developed) so primitive
    relative to theirs -- if indeed this is truly the case.
    
    It's not like we don't have the experience.  We have been using *our*
    notes as groupware long before the term was in vogue.  Given the number
    of public and private notesfiles that we've got and the number of
    people who use them, we SHOULD know something about how to make this
    work.  
    
    As was pointed out in one of the previous replies, little
    has changed with the product since the transition from Notes-11 to
    VAXnotes.  The question in my mind is why?
    
    Larry
      
                                                           

    Notes is indeed in the office group now, but that is not where DECplan
    is.  DECplan is done in the CASE tools group (SDE).  The office group
    is the one that does DECwrite, etc.

�            <<< Note 1777.9 by MAJORS::COCKBURN "Craig Cockburn" >>>
�VAXnotes really suffers from network delays, NEWS doesn't. This is one
�area which really needs addressed if VAXnotes it to be improved.

	Not in my experience.  NEWS notes often take hours or DAYS to get
	posted, causing numerous notes collisions and multiple responses
	to the same question.  I see this rarely in NOTES, and then only
	when two respondents repond within minutes or seconds of each other.

	--Mike

    re: .12
    
    I would rephrase the issue as why hasn't DEC developed a product
    similar to Lotus Notes, not why hasn't the DEC Notes product evolved
    into something similar to what Lotus offers. This is a larger issue
    than one development group. It gets to how do we as a company develop
    marketable products.
    

 >  I would rephrase the issue as why hasn't DEC developed a product
 >  similar to Lotus Notes, not why hasn't the DEC Notes product evolved
 >  into something similar to what Lotus offers. This is a larger issue
 >  than one development group. It gets to how do we as a company develop
 >  marketable products.

	We had good ideas early, and then failed to capitalize on
	them, and now we're an also-ran.   Making a sweeping 
	generalization, I'd say that's a frequent DEC problem.
   

I'm having a hard time getting a handle on what Lotus Notes does...some folks
say it's totally different from VAX NOTES, others say there are similarities
(beyond the Kawell connection and the name).  Is it more or less like ALL-IN-1
than like VAX NOTES, more or less like Team Links, etc.?

VAX NOTES could be much better than it is...but WE (internally) are the main
customers right now, and no one has tried to proactively gather requirements
or QFD data from me lately...don't know about you all...so it seems like a
pretty good bet that it's basically a maintenance-only product at this point.

								paul

    
    I have some acquaintances at Lotus. The story is that the IS VP used to
    be a DECcie. They used VAX NOTES extensively at Lotus. One has to
    wonder if they built their own version as an internal tool first and
    then cleaned it up for outside sales.

    I've tried many times to get customers to buy VAX Notes. I've explained
    what it is, how it works, and the positive benefits of it as a tool in
    a development environment. I've helped them think of ways of using it
    for call-logging and other such wondrous things. Most of them are quite
    keen, until they find out how much it costs.
    
    Go on, check out the price in Europe, and you'll ask no more why we're
    the main user base. I have no reason to doubt that it's as expensive in
    the States. Some midnight hack.....
    
    On which subject, does LOTUS charge a different price for their product
    if it's to be run on a 486 rather than an 8088? Or on a network rather
    than a stand-alone? Of course not, so why do we?
    
    Laurie.

 >     I have some acquaintances at Lotus. The story is that the IS VP used to
 >     be a DECcie. They used VAX NOTES extensively at Lotus. One has to
 >     wonder if they built their own version as an internal tool first and
 >     then cleaned it up for outside sales.

    Lotus Notes was not developed internally at Lotus. It was
    developed by Iris Associates, with seed money from Lotus. 

>    Go on, check out the price in Europe, and you'll ask no more why we're
>    the main user base. I have no reason to doubt that it's as expensive in
>    the States. Some midnight hack.....
    
Help me understand this. You can buy VAX Notes clients here for under half
the street price for Lotus 1-2-3 V2.3 - specifically �111.00 per user (call
it $200 CLP) - and that's before any discounts. The server can cost as little
as �1170 for unlimited use on a workstation, or �2340 per active moderator
(concurrent use licence on the server) whatever size machine it's on.

What do we have to do to correct such perception errors?
								- Ian W.

Picking up one of the earlier ratholes: the reason Usenet News *appears*
faster than Notes is that Notes is aggressively synchronous: you ask for
Note N and a message goes to the server. When the server receives the message,
it sends the reply back to you. When the reply (at least one page for classic
notes; the entire note for DecWindows) finally arrives, it is displayed
on your system.

Usenet news readers perform anticipatory buffering: if you are reading
article N, the local reader fetches article N+1 to your local system.

Perhaps one reason behind the improved speed is the difference in
development communities: it is much easier to write a multi-threaded
application on a Unix system. Also, the news servers offer all of the
news available to a site; using background processes to keep their
databases updated.

While it is true that it can take hours (or even weeks) for an article
to traverse the system; this is pervieved as a much less serious problem
than the 5-second delay Notes requires to fetch the next page.

Martin.

>While it is true that it can take hours (or even weeks) for an article
>to traverse the system; this is pervieved as a much less serious problem
>than the 5-second delay Notes requires to fetch the next page.
    
    Not by everybody. 
    
    BTW, reading ahead to n+1 was concidered for Notes at one time. It
    was rejected because it's all too often not possible to know which
    is the next note to be read. I know that when I read NEWS the n+1
    article is not often the next one I read. The same is true of Notes.
    
    			Alfred

Re: selling VAXnotes

If VAXnotes is such a dud (saleswise) then why don't we reduce prices on
it?


Re: Internal view of VAXNotes

A few weeks ago I attended a meeting here in the field in which one of
the VP's was chairing the meeting. Various topics were being discussed.
Aloud, someone described a rumor and asked for feedback from the VP. The
response was, "I suppose you heard that in the notesfiles".

It would seem that (to non-noters) that VAXnotes appears to be merely a
'bulletin board' tool for the gossip mongers. I can understand why there
would be little interest in marketing VAXnotes if that is a widely held
perception by those in upper management.

Lee

    Re .24:
    
    Good point. It is a point of personal prestige and status that senior
    managers "don't do Notes". Many don't even use a terminal to get their
    own mail, preferring a secretary to do it.
    
    In general, Digital is a computer company run by a management
    that does not use computers (with notable exceptions).
    
    Tally-ho,
    
    Ray

>If VAXnotes is such a dud (saleswise) then why don't we reduce prices on
>it?
    
    That's not the Digital Way.  When a product is selling poorly, we
    RAISE the prices to maximize profit margin.
    
    karl

>      <<< Note 1777.24 by SMOOT::ROTH "Networks of the Rich and Famous" >>>

>Re: selling VAXnotes

>If VAXnotes is such a dud (saleswise) then why don't we reduce prices on
>it?

You would hope that at times like this, there is no such thing as a
dud sale. You either sell things which you make money on, or you drop
them. 

VAXnotes may not offer the features of Lotus notes, but it's our
product. If we sell it, then we make the money on it. It's about
time we either started funding it seriously, or dropped it entirely.
I don't think Digital stockholders want Digital to be funding products
which are merely treading water.

Craig.

re: .25,
    
>    In general, Digital is a computer company run by a management
>    that does not use computers (with notable exceptions).

    	If this is really true, then this may help to explain why DEC is
    doing so poorly in the marketplace.

    	Imagine what DEC customers would think if they were to learn that
    our own upper level management tends to pride themselves in not using
    (and consequently also being somewhat ignorant of) our own computers
    and software (in this case VAXnotes).  This is akin to an automotive
    executive who tries to convince people to buy cars when they themself
    choose not to ride in (much less drive) a car, and then they go so
    far as to take pride in using a horse and buggy to get around instead.

    				  -davo

    	(who will not feel fully confident in DEC upper-level management
    	until they too begin to participate in VAXnotes discussions)

    i dont tink that top managers need to use computers like us, i mean
    if the presdent of the United states himeself do not have a terminal at 
    his desk, and still he can manage a whole big country like US just 
    fine (ok you can argue about the fine part), so why cant a manager of 
    a computer compnay manage a company without computers at their desk ?
    
    all what have to happen is that top managers need to be briefied. just
    like the presdent of the US is breified all the time about what is
    going on. and then make directions and descsions.
    
    i tink i make an excellent point here.
    
    /nasser

Re: .29
I think it's a very good point that the upper management should be familiar
with their own products. I think it's outrageous to be "proud" of an
ignorance. Managers may be able to manage without computers, but I'd think
they'd be interested in being familiar with their own product.

As I understand it, Detroit car company executives use only the luxury
cars produced by their companies.
In Japan, every executive drives every car produced by their company (they
rotate thru all the various models). Makes a lot more sense to me.

    Of all the senior managers I know, whether Digital or elsewhere, a
    majority read their correspondence sometime in the evening, because
    that's the only time they have available.
    
    Let's be realistic on what we expect from them.

re: .29,

    	Of course managers can manage without computers and software.
    The point is that DEC is in the business of selling computers and
    software, so DEC should do everything it can to generate a need
    in the minds of the customer for these silly contraptions if we
    expect to sell them.  Having management which prides itself in
    eeking by without the need for computers and/or software is the
    very antithesis to the creation of such a need (at the executive
    levels of the business world anyway - and these are the folks who
    have the deep pockets to buy the stuff in the first place).  After
    all, what sane business executive is going to feel a need to purchase
    computers and/or software from a senior DEC executive who prides
    themself in never using *any* computers and/or software (much less
    their own)???

    	I think that the senior management of a company (any company)
    should be familiar with the products produced by the company if it
    expects to effectively manage the business behind the production of
    those products.  This means that senior DEC management should *at the
    very least* be users of DEC products, if not also understanding the
    basics behind the architecture, design, and the manufacturing process
    behind DEC products.  In any case, if they don't understand these
    things, then the least they could do is to refrain from flaunting
    that fact to potential customers!

    	To give some more examples: how would it be if the heads of MGM
    prided themselves in never having even been to a movie (much less
    understanding what went into producing one)?  How about if the
    heads of American Airlines prided themselves in never having flown
    in an airplane (much less one from their own company)?  What if the
    heads of Hair Club For Men were not also clients?  Catch my drift yet?

    	Sure it's possible for executives run business without any
    knowledge of their own products, but is it wise?  What are the effects
    on consumer confidence?

				   -davo

> if the presdent of the United states himeself do not have a terminal at 
> his desk, 
    
    Ah, but he DOES.. we have a picture of Mr. Bush sitting at a tube
    running ALL-IN-1.
    
    karl

    
    ref       <<< Note 1777.30 by PLOUGH::KINZELMAN "Paul Kinzelman" >>>
                            -< Proud of ignorance? >-
    
>I think it's outrageous to be "proud" of an ignorance. 
    
    Iam *NOT* proud of my ignorance !  PLEASE !!
    
    Thank you very much,
    /nasser

    and one more think please, i dont tink i explained why big managers
    dont need these computers, it goes like this:
    
    we all agree that big managers make big decisions all the time, right?
    and we know that one must be relaxed, calm, and not nervouse when
    making decisions that has large affects, so the offices of big managers
    must have in it a calm, relaxed atomsphere, so that big manager is 
    relaxed and calm and clear head when they decide on things, right?
    so by putting all these workstations, printers,  and terminals in there
    faces, with all the wirining all over the place, and node crashing,
    etc.. the manager get nervouse, and not calm and relaxed, so they 
    start making decisions very nervouse, and decide bad things.
    
    i hope i explained my logic better this time on this subject.
    
    you go to all the CEO officers of all big compaies in the world, you
    see quite, calm, office, with nice elevator music, and pictures of
    occian and blue sky , right? you dont see a computer lab in their
    office? why do you think they do it this way for?
    
    ok, i made my point good.
    
    thank you very much
    /nasser
    

         <<< Note 1777.33 by SALSA::MOELLER "Virtual Bumpersticker" >>>
>    Ah, but he DOES.. we have a picture of Mr. Bush sitting at a tube
>    running ALL-IN-1.
>    
>    karl
    
    I tink you are pulling our feets here, i dont beleive this, the 
    picture must be fake, the presdent cant just read his mail like all of
    us do, i am sure his e-mail get read first by his many secratries befor
    it gets to him, are you really trying to tell us we can just send
    email to the presdint of the united states nilly willy just like that
    and he'll read it at his terminal? somehow it cant see this
    for real ...sorry
    
    byu,
    /nasser

    Karl may have a picture of Mr. Bush sitting in front of a screen
    containing ALL-IN-1 but Mr. Bush does not use ALL-IN-1.  His calendar
    is maintained in ALL-IN-1 via a special ALL-IN-1 application developed
    by the Executive Office of the President with help from Digital.

    The information for this application is done by a woman who has been
    working at the White House since Mr. Truman was there.  The reports
    make it to the Oval Office but there is no computer on Mr. Bush's desk
    nor does he use one.  You may recall that Mr. Bush received a 'lesson'
    in computers about a year ago right before he went into the hospital
    with his health problems.  I am not saying that Windows V3 is hazardous
    to a President's health, of course.

    And now back to the topic?
    don

�                      <<< Note 1777.36 by STAR::ABBASI >>>
�    I tink you are pulling our feets here, 

	And I tink your pulling ours' is getting pretty lame.

	byu,
	--Mike

    Could anyone picture Bill Gates *not* using a computer to conduct his
    business?  One can manage a multi-billion dollar business *and* be
    proficient with computer applications. 
    
    Mark.

    regarding last few,
    
    After all, don't we try to sell the idea that using computers makes
    life easier/better....:-)
    
    	Dwight

Re: .34
Sorry, perhaps it didn't come across right, but when I said "proud of
ignorance" I was refering to .25's quote about managers:
>>	personal prestige and status

The comment was not at all directed toward you.

A CEO who is ignorant of his company's products is ignorant of his
customer's needs.

A high level manager who is proud of not knowing about his own company's
products is saying he's proud that he has no idea why anybody should buy
his products. How can he possibly lead the company?

To Nasser - I'm not saying a DEC manager must use computers in everything
he does. He should use whatever works best for whatever he's doing.
However, I am saying that every DEC manager should know something about
computers to be able to decide whether they can help him. To dogmatically
refuse to have anything to do with computers and to "flaunt" that fact is
to me outrageous.

For instance, I think I heard several years ago, KO put together a required
seminar for upper management. The managers arrived and their task was to
put together a DEC system as a customer would. I thought that was great!

    
    1st rule:
    Know your product.
    
    2nd rule:
    Know your customer's problems
    
    3rd rule:
    Don't use the computer to do things that can be done efficiently
    by hand.
    
    4th rule:
    1 ostrich egg will serve 24 people for brunch
    
    5th rule:
    Don't use hands to do things that can be done efficiently
    by the computer.
    
    As has been stated, we have a business need to use what technology best
    suits the job. Computer technology is not yet at the stage where it can
    cost effectively replace ALL other systems. Certainly Digital finds it more
    practical and cost effective currently to ensure I have a paper based
    diary system. I also find this tool the most effective device for the
    job. Maybe our next palmtop to supercomputer wonder chip will enable the
    next range of cost effective solutions to this business problem to be
    computer based, who knows. As for using computers to do business, it is
    more cost-effective CURRENTLY to have VPs and Ps letting specialists in
    computer-based analysis work the data they have to get the indicators
    they need. 
    
    About getting every executive to rip open a computer. If we took that
    argument we'd be cementing the view that all we make is computers. This
    touchy-feely sort of "get back to your roots idea" is marvellous therapy
    but hardly instructive. Should the head of the Alpha program get his
    bucket and spade out and go down to the beach? We may ship sand castles
    instead of silicon. For starters, some of us are in the system
    integration business, ALL of us are in the problem solution business.
    I believe the first "touchy-feely" exercise is to get ALL of the
    corporation back to WHAT OUR BUSINESS IS ABOUT. Get them talking to 
    customers about the business problems they face. We then have too
    things emerge. Get them to rip open a customer's problem instead.
    Yes we do make hardware. Sometimes I think we need to get back in 
    touch with why.
    
    John
    
    

	re .23:

>    BTW, reading ahead to n+1 was concidered for Notes at one time. It
>    was rejected because it's all too often not possible to know which
>    is the next note to be read. I know that when I read NEWS the n+1
>    article is not often the next one I read. The same is true of Notes.

	This sounds fairly similar to the problem of prefetching
	instructions in a processor architecture. If the RISC architects
	had adopted the attitude implied above, their chips
	would not have attained the speed they did.

	The approach they did adopt was to play the odds. Most of the time
	the next instruction would be executed. Sometimes, too, the software
	can play clever games to compensate for the relatively dull behaviour
	of the hardware.

	Applying this to Notes, it could do multiple lookahead by fetching
	the Next Unseen and/or the next reply, or even prefetching several.
	Moreover, these needn't be thrown away when the reader branches
	aside for a bit - what are the odds that he/she will want the Next
	Unseen sooner or later? Look at the way TPU and/or LSE hoards buffers
	in memory. With relatively short pieces of text like TPU buffers
	or Notes replies, you can keep quite a few in a reasonable working
	set. Even paging them out to disk is a lot quicker than hauling them
	back across the ocean.

	These strategies could even be tweaked depending on whether the
	session is a batch extract or not. There are all sorts of
	possibilities.

	/Tom

    .32�                                                  How about if the
    .32�    heads of American Airlines prided themselves in never having flown
    .32�    in an airplane (much less one from their own company)?
    
      Just for information, the head of Vigin Airlines (Richard Branson), is
    quite often to be found flying on his planes...
    
    ... pushing a drink/food trolley & serving the passengers. Gives quite
    a good impression and keeps him in touch with customer requirements and
    'life on the frount line'.

I don't get into this notesfile very often, but this topic caught my 
eye.

Anyway, as one who has of late been caught up in the crossfire of Lotus 
Notes, perhaps the best way to explain it is to think of a combination 
of mail, note, and an easy to use front end for building aplications.  
All of that in turn is wrapped up in a good (not great) user 
interface.  The ease of building simple apps is perhaps the major 
selling point.  The product does have its genesis in the original 
Notes-11, but has added more type of communication beyond that.  It was 
originally targetted at OS/2, but market realities forced development of 
a Windows client (though the server remains OS/2 based).

Our first answer to Notes is TeamLinks for Windows, which is clearly not 
a one-to-one competitor.  It does combine mail, file cabinet, an 
application development base, document routing, and document conversions 
as well as a Windows client into VAXnotes (called "conferencing")

As a comparison, the mail and document routing capabilities of TeamLinks 
are far richer, the integration of conferencing into the rest of the 
product is not as smooth, and application development is not as 
straightforward.  Also, major vendors (Microsoft and Lotus [!]) have 
agreed to modify their Windows Apps to work in the TeamLinks 
environment.

V1.0 goes out the door in a few months.  Then we tackle what needs to be 
done next (like Novell and TCp/IP support).  Lotus Notes had a five year 
gestation period, TeamLinks less than one.  We've got a lot of catching 
up to do, and we are working very hard to do so.

We need TeamLinks as soon as possible, John. And we need the server on other
platforms as well. Without them and with other internal projects looking to
come to market real soon now, our complete office strategy looks a mess.

								- Ian W.

    Re .46
    
    Thank you for responding with some verissimilitude. We need more
    information on what Lotus Notes really is, and you have, at least,
    scratched the surface.
    
    For the benefit of those who have not received the message yet, Lotus
    Notes can actually be used to build applications, particularly those
    thorny information systems projects in which people need not only to
    conference and mail to each other, but also to manage information in
    such a way that data is available, rather transparently, to anyone in
    the organization. At a mouse click or two.
    
    For example, In Digital, if we have a large document like a Postscript
    file, and we want to distribute it, what do we do?
    
    	a) We mail to a distribution list with a pointer to the location
    	   of the file, so that people can extract it.
    
    	b) We might place the pointer into a Notesfile
    
    The problems with this are numerous:
    
    a) 	Most people in the company have no idea how to extract a document
    over the network.
    	The commands to do it are arcane.
    	People don't know how to set protection in VMS, so more often than
    not, people attempt to copy documents and fail.
    	Once most people have received the document, they are flummoxed
    	by the rediculous 30-character print commands.
    
    b) 	When you are in a note or a mail message, and you see a pointer,
    what do you have to do?
    	You have to write down some stupid great long line of characters
    that appear to mean nothing, and exit the Notes application, then
    retype the copy command.
    	People forget to put in all the required information.
    	People put the node name in one part of the message, then the
    filename in another. Then you have to assemble the bits of information,
    trying to act like some latter-day Sherlock Holmes.
    
    It's absolutely bloody ridiculous. What do you do in Lotus Notes?
    
    You see a piece of information you like, and....click on it, or drag it
    into a folder, or something. And it magically appears.
    
    Tally-ho,
    
    Ray

The problems that we are facing in selling VAXnotes (or TeamLinks) against
Lotus Notes is that it requires

	1). VAX
	2). PATHWORKS

Which means

	1). We are not price competitive because VAXes are more expensive as
	    compared to PCs LAN server
	2). Can only sell to our installed based only (we are neglecting
	    Netware)
	3). Our solution does not run on multiple platform

Here, I don't compare the ease of use (but I know Lotus Notes is certainly
easy to use). Of course we can say that our solution is "enterprise wide
solution", but how many people really need it.

This is the same problem as providing OA solution to the PCs installed base
where the two component above have to be there (as compared for example to
HP's New Wave which runs on multiple platform).

However, we are in the right direction by offering TeamLinks and hopefully we
can provide cheap solution in the near future than just relying on VAXes.

henry 8-)

Here is your chance to have input into the new version of VAX Notes.  This has
been posted with Bill's permission.

Paul

               I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M


To:      Distribution              	Date: 12-March-1992
					From: Bill Hillerich
					DEPT: OSAG Product Mgmt
                                        EXT:  381-0844
                                        LOC:  ZKO2-2/P10
                                        ENET: _VIA::Hillerich


Subject: Phase 0 for Notes Version 2.3

Phase 0 is now open for Notes.  We are now requesting product requirements 
for the Version 2.3 release.

Goals for this release of Notes include:

	- TCP/IP Transport

	- OSF/1 Server for MIPS

	- New Conferencing Workbench Clients for MS Windows, 
	  Motif and Macintosh with support for VAX Notes,
	  News, and Lotus Notes

	- Bug Fixes


Target schedule for field test is Q1FY93 with FCS in Q2FY93.

If you have any requirements beyond the above list of planned product
features, please fill out the attached form and submit them to
2HOT::NOTESPHASE0 by March 27, 1992.


 


                 PHASE 0 REQUEST FOR Notes Version 2.3

                     INPUT FORM

1.  SUBMITTED BY
Name
DTN
Node
Loc/Mail Stop
Dept
Position

2.  ABSTRACT

Include a brief (single paragraph or less) description of each requirement.

3.  DESCRIPTION

Include a detailed description of each requirement and an indication of what 
you hope to achieve.

4.  SCHEDULE

Indicate any schedule conflicts with, or dependencies on, other products.

5.  BENEFIT

Describe the benefit of adding this feature, including substantiating data.

6.  IMPACT OF NOT MEETING REQUEST

Describe the impact to DIGITAL if your request is turned down.  Please explain
this in terms of lost opportunities and markets.

7.  JUSTIFICATION

What is the best argument for doing this work other than the obvious benefit
stated above.

8.  RATING

Rate the importance of including the requirement using the following scale:

	10 - ESSENTIAL         5 - IMPORTANT          1 - DESIRABLE

ESSENTIAL--It is a critical feature, the absence of which would cause most
customers not to purchase the product and would cause major damage to
customers' perception of the product.  The next release of the product should
not be shipped without this feature.

IMPORTANT--The lack of this feature may cause certain customers not to purchase
the product, either because it is a feature that is available and used often in
other products or it is a feature they have requested for a long time.  The
next release of the product should include this feature unless its inclusion
would jeopardize the time-to-market goals.

DESIRABLE--The lack of this feature will cause some customers not to purchase
the product and will be a source of complaint for those who do purchase the
product.  This feature is not necessary for the next release, but it should be
included in a follow-on release as soon as possible.

9.  KNOWN ISSUES

Include a statement of risks to either the schedule or the content.

10. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Identify any documents that add detail to the request.

    R.E:
>    <<< Note 1777.50 by FUNYET::ANDERSON "VMS: First and Last and Always" >>>
>                          -< VAX Notes Phase 0 opens >-
>
>Here is your chance to have input into the new version of VAX Notes.  This has
>been posted with Bill's permission
    >...
>
>Phase 0 is now open for Notes.  We are now requesting product requirements 
>for the Version 2.3 release.
>
>Goals for this release of Notes include:
>
>	- TCP/IP Transport
>
>	- OSF/1 Server for MIPS
>
>	- New Conferencing Workbench Clients for MS Windows, 
>	  Motif and Macintosh with support for VAX Notes,
>	  News, and Lotus Notes

>	- Bug Fixes
>

    But you have already decided what you are going to do!
    This is the greatest problem we have with ALL phase 0 processes in this
    company.
    
    Look, wouldnt you get a better result if you stopped shoving
    Engineering's agenda for the product out first then soliciting input as
    a token gesture afterwards?
    
    Engineering should submit the above requirements at the same time as
    everyone else. They should be asked how to prioritise the need for the
    items above as should all the other people then the requirements
    produced accordingly. This will scale the need across the entire base,
    not split the development into mandates for product from eng then other
    "extraneous noise". I am not saying that the above list got it wrong,
    but the process results in a delayed reaction to any market shift in 
    requirements for a product of this type. 
    
    The way it is currently being done, a market shift or new requirement
    in the marketplace has no way of being heard over Engineering's more of
    the same agenda. For instance, if feedback from customers says the 
    product is great, but we'd like a way of driving navigation around
    notes with some kind of logic. That may be what makes the product the
    worldwide best-seller and puts Lotus Notes to shame. Will it happen?
    No. See, we have an agenda set by a group that isnt close to the
    customer base that is making Lotus Notes eat our lunch. Engineering
    perceives too late that there is a new requirement i.e in this case 
    perhaps the need for front-end tailorability or some upfront smarts. 
    Given the above phase 0 agenda, this need isnt perceived by Engineering
    at all, but we've just had scads of people tell you much of this in the
    previous replys.
    
    When will this perception of inadequacy take place? The field sees it
    right now. Engineering will catch on down the track. When we are getting 
    our lunch eaten after the NEXT version comes out. Because of the process, 
    we are getting done NOW, but you wont notice till much later.
    
    How is this bad? Despite the obvious time to market problem. If we
    look at the above AGENDA we see a requirement for more conference
    clients. Now, say, if your TOTAL input tells you your front-end is
    inadequate (and I'm not saying it is). You produce another 4 or 5
    client front-ends that are the same as before because they are the 
    Engineering priority. How many are you going to have to retrofit new 
    functionality into down the track when you find out the real priorities 
    that you have to hurriedly address? In other words, A small miss in 
    requirements will manifest itself in much greater cost on top of the 
    lost sales down the track.
    
    I think the simplest thing we can do to improve product development in this
    Corporation is to remove the Engineering goals from being sovereign
    over all other goals at the phase 0. Call it QFD, call it what you
    will, I call it common sense.
    
    Regards,
    John
    
    

    re .51: >I am not saying that the above list got it wrong,
    
    I think you can do at least two things:
    1. tell the product manager that his list of goals is right or wrong;
    2. pretend he is opening phase 0 for V3.0 with a completely blank slate
       and tell him what the market really wants.
    
    I don't know if moving from SDT to OSAG had anything to do with this
    Phase 0 announcement; I was kind of surprised myself to see it.  It
    sure looks like a simple Phase Review Process checkoff exercise to me.
    PRP itself is probably a dinosaur.  I wouldn't get too bent out of
    shape over V2.3, since it appears to be a _fait accompli_.  Rather, I
    suggest taking this opening and give the product manager the real
    requirements to make the product successful.
    
    Actually, I have mixed feelings about this.  We have a tendency to
    "react to the last lost sale."  This whole topic sounds like a reaction
    to Lotus Notes.  Sure, it was an opportunity for us to have been in the
    game instead of Lotus, if we had the vision.  Fact is, we didn't have
    the vision, and lost the opportunity.  So, should we invest money now
    to play catchup, out of a sense of wounded pride?  I would say that if
    it is to wipe the egg off our face, it's not worth it.  We should take
    a look at where the market is, what we are up against, and decide
    what's the best strategy that's profitable to Digital.
    
    --Simon
    

Lotus Notes is great except that, like ALL-IN-1, it needs a planet-brain to
install it and set it up before it becomes useful to a real end user.

Shouldn't a notes conference, VTX infobase and Personal Mail folder be
different classes of same CDA-compliant, network-wide database with different
access privileges? Couldn't live database data in any DSRI database be
viewable as if it were another CDA (spreadsheet-like) datatype? Could we not 
get batch procedures updating graphics on specific pages at certain times from 
a routine database query??

The real key is making it easy to collect information from everywhere - for the
first time user of the product - and to make it really easy to share and use 
the information once it's been collected.

Future enhancements? Well, when video/sound get added as CDA datatypes, then
that would give rise to all sorts of new applications. Then add an inter-
enterprise network access option, and you're into EDI or (new) electronic
publishing business applications out-of-the-box.

Design something that does the above as simply as possible and i'd pay the
earth for the capability. You'd have people queued up to add CDA capabilities
to their products for other than (non-revenue) marketing reasons. I know 
thousands of customers who'd do the same thing. Any takers?
								- Ian W.

.-1

>Lotus Notes is great except that, like ALL-IN-1, it needs a planet-brain to
>install it and set it up before it becomes useful to a real end user.
>...
>The real key is making it easy to collect information from everywhere - for the
>first time user of the product - and to make it really easy to share and use 
>the information once it's been collected.

  Sounds like a goal for a Pre-Installed Software/Factory Installed
Software program, to configure sophisticated products like this in a way which
can be easily used by many first-time users (on new or existing
hardware).   IMHO, this goes beyond the SPIA-type automated installation
tools.   We need to package knowledge and procedures and deliver them to
customers for a price, even if some procedures are best implemented by
human beings at the moment.

though Factory Installed software:

- only addresses the 6% of the available market for our software products
  (ie: our own hardware platforms)
- assumes the customer knows what he/she wants at the time of capital
  equipment purchase
- assumes a distribution sales model where we ship the product direct from
  the manufacturing plant to the end customer - or you end up blowing the
  inventory in your supply pipeline up an exponential.

There's no substitute for keeping it simple. Most companies and individuals
I talk to don't want to be in the software installation business; computers
are but an applicational tool!
								- Ian W.

      Agreed, FIS only looks at new hardware from a factory - that's why
    I added a qualifier about a Pre-Installed/Pre-Configured Software
    product/procedure which could be loaded more widely.   (PCS for
    pre-configured software reads better than PIS for pre-installed).
    Loading more widely, gets past some of the distribution sales model
    problems.   Using a "canned" pre-configuration product and procedure
    has to make some assumptions about what the customer wants at the
    time of installation (not quite at the time of capital equipment
    purchase), but it should be possible to make reasonable assumptions
    for new customers, with enough flexibility built in to cope with
    ranges of users, etc.
    
      A lot of the complexity of VMSINSTAL or other kits (Lotus NOTES) is to
    do with the upgrade case.   A lot of the sophistication of SPIA etc is
    to do with the engineer user interface, and to do with the deletion of
    installed products (which is definitely a requirement for VMS).   IMHO
    there's a middle ground for simple pre-configuration processes for a 
    lot of products, where you know these are going to be installed for 
    the first time in an environment that meets some minimum criteria.
    

Re .50 & .51

I think here in DEC we have a problem in gathering the requirements from
the field to the product managers. There should be a formal process/channel in 
gathering the requirements rather than just post it in the notes conference,
which can easiliy be overlooked because of the high numbers of topics. (also
not all of us read the notes conference everyday)

What I would like to see is the more active role of country/states marketing
people to gather the requirements from the field and feed it back to the
product managers. But this may be too much because we have hundreds of products.
So another channel is through the technology partners such as ULTRIX/VMS partners,
OA partners, graphics partners etc.

Posting the requirements through the notes conference will also post a problem
where there probably hundreds or thousands of people giving their feedback and
the product managers will have to spend a lot of time sorting/filtering all these
requirements. As we know that people in the field (like me) like to see as many
features in the  product but this is not necessarily feasible for a given 
schedule.

What are our benefits with this formal process is to have more precise of what
are really required and setting the right priority to meet of these require-
ments. Probably, it can be speed up the phase 0 and hence the overall time to
market.

Just my 2cents

henry

re Note 1777.57 by ZPOVC::HENRYCHEUNG:

> I think here in DEC we have a problem in gathering the requirements from
> the field to the product managers. There should be a formal process/channel in 
> gathering the requirements rather than just post it in the notes conference,
> which can easiliy be overlooked because of the high numbers of topics. (also
> not all of us read the notes conference everyday)
  
        While I agree that there must be a formal process to gather
        requirements, the burden of implementing that process should
        be on those who would wish to build products, rather than on
        the users (or those who are closer to the user).  Those whose
        responsibility it is to gather requirements should gather
        them from wherever requirements can be found -- if they can
        be found (or deduced) from anecdotes in notes conferences,
        then part of their job is to follow the most likely notes
        conferences and collect requirements.

        It isn't an acceptable excuse to say that the users never
        issued any formal Phase 0 inputs!

        Bob

    The responsibility should lie neither with the people who want to build
    a product, not with the people who might use it.   It should lie with
    the people who desire the product to be built, because there is an
    opportunity to make money at it.
    
    These days this is *supposed* to be marketing.

	re .57, .58:

>re Note 1777.57 by ZPOVC::HENRYCHEUNG:
>
>> I think here in DEC we have a problem in gathering the requirements from
>> the field to the product managers. There should be a formal process/channel in 
>> gathering the requirements rather than just post it in the notes conference,
>> which can easiliy be overlooked because of the high numbers of topics. (also
>> not all of us read the notes conference everyday)
>  
>        While I agree that there must be a formal process to gather
>        requirements, the burden of implementing that process should
>        be on those who would wish to build products, rather than on
>        the users (or those who are closer to the user).

	Both points of view are correct. There is a problem, and the
	"product owners" also own the responsibility for gathering
	requirements.

	(1) Today, practically the only "product owners" are product managers.
	    But their writ doesn't run outside their own product teams. They
	    don't know who's out there in "the field" or even Marketing. Nor
	    can they pay for their services.

	(2) As far as I can see, there is little chance of getting really
	    good requirements without paying for them. Most people have
	    their own jobs and are busy at them, and although the "DEC way"
	    is to move on to submitting requirements for other people's
	    products on your own time (about 9 p.m.), there are limits
	    to this: it drastically limits the number of contributors, the
	    time they spend, and the quality of their input.

	/Tom

    
    Re .59:  YES!  RIGHT!   CORRECT!   HIT NAIL ON HEAD!
    
    Re .60:  see .59
    

    y'know... y'all sure argue/talk alot...
    
    what did Lotus do to gather requirements???  Let's do it too.
    
    If it makes them successful, then we'll be successfull too.
    
    Nike -- just do it.

re: last few,

    	All the more reason an Information Market might work to
    provide requirements gatherers, as well as anyone else with a
    decent idea or piece of information to recieve credit for
    sharing that information with the rest of the corporation
    (see note #1024 for more on the Info-Market idea).
	
    	Without such a mechanism for generating customer product
    requirements, then an alternative method of funding needs to be
    implemented instead (such as a Quality Requirements Database
    staffed by a Marketing group of some sort, etc.).  In any case,
    the product gathering function must be funded in order for any
    valid product requirements to be generated (and in order for
    QFD to have any hope whatsoever of being implemented at DEC).

    			    -davo

re Note 1777.59 by KOBAL::DICKSON:

        I see little semantic difference between "the people who
        want to build a product" and "the people who desire the
        product to be built" -- other than the actual building, which
        is NOT the point of this discussion.

        The point is:  if you want or desire to build or have a
        product built, then you better darn make sure that the
        requirements are reasonably thoroughly understood, and that
        doesn't mean waiting for others to come to you.

        You must do something pro-active to determine the actual
        requirements.

        Otherwise, one way or another, you are wasting corporate
        resources.

        If engineering wants to build a product, then engineering
        better know what the requirements are.  If marketing wants a
        product to be built (or acquired), then marketing better know
        what the requirements are. 

        It is not adequate for either marketing or engineering (or
        anyone else) to pick a neat idea and see if anybody offers
        any suggestions while they proceed to expend corporate
        resources.

        Bob

    I won't argue about the need to gather requirements fom users - for
    many products or types of products, especially those which exist and
    are in the process of evolving and being refined. But how do we gather
    requirements for 'products' which are not extensions to what exists,
    but rather totally new?
    
    Were user requirements gathered for Hypercard, or the original
    Macintosh, or Visicalc? Or did some set of folks come up with some
    interesting new use for computer technology and (possibly) then work
    with users to refine the base idea to make it useable? (Or more
    probably did they just trust their instincts or those of someone they
    trusted?)
    
    I maintain there needs to be a variety of approaches applied to
    determine what products we will create. Some will be extensions to what
    exists. Some require creativity, prototyping, limited market research,
    taking a chance. The approach used should be a function of the type of
    product, the state of the market, and our best judgement.
    
    /Tim

    I've heard that "visionaries know best" line before.  Very small
    companies have a very quick feeback loop: be profitable or die.
    
    Actually, the visionaries that translate their ideas into profitable
    enterprises are "right".
    
    Large companies can bury and "shield" products that wouldn't survive is
    the small business climate, or worse yet, have internal accounting
    systems so screwed up that no one has a clue what's really profitable.
    It's all politics.
    
    Before there was a Mac, there was a "Lisa".  Because there was no
    feedback loop to Apple on "Lisa", it had all the success of our own
    Professional Series of Computers.  It nearly wiped Apple out of
    existence.
    
    I'm with Ken Olsen on this one. A "management system" that provides in
    the setting of a big company that same sort of feedback that a small
    company gets by its nature is a good idea.

   Re:      <<< Note 1777.66 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>

I think your term "visionary" may help.  There are indeed people
like Alan Kay who have considerable insight into how people
think and work and use words and symbols.  Their ideas can
either become profitable products or company-killing crocks.
But, and this is a big "but", somebody deliberately chooses to
invest in their idea and their track record is highly visible.
Their personal reputation as a visionary is on the line every
time.

Our average Joe (or Jane) Engineer, in hard or software, would
not qualify as a "visionary", even in his or her own mind.
Nobody should be investing stockholder's good money in a gamble
based on ignorance.  The business-like thing to do is to answer
the question, "What are customers willing to pay for?", not with
hunches or assumptions, but with facts.  Is this hard to do?
Sometimes yes, but that's why they pay people called marketing
specialists, no?

fwiw,

Dick

    Lotus has made around 65 millions so far from its Notes software.
    may make another 10 millions from Arthur Anderson. 
    from Network World, Dated April 6, 1992:
    "Chicago- As part of a major overhaul of its worldwide office computing
     and communications systems, Arthur Anderson &co. last week announced
     the largest purchase of Lotus development Corp's Notes Groupware
     product.
     The tax and consulting firm purchased 20,000 copies of Notes , with
     the option to buy 40,000 more, so Anderson could ultimately have all
     of its 55,000 employees using Notes and still have room for staff 
     expansion.
     Anderson declined to disclose how much it paid for the software,
     although company officials said it received a considerable volume
     discount. At Notes' current price of $495 per copy, 20,000 copies
     of the software would cost $9.9 millions before discounts.
     The deal, consultants said, gives Notes a big boost. The 60,000 copies
     Anderson may buy represents almost half of the 130,000 copies sold
     to date.
     Anderson's purchase may well break the dam for lotus[and result] in
     getting Notes on millions of enterprise desktops .... "

    /Nasser

Such a deal about a piece of bulletin board software... DEC doesn't deal
with such trifles such as "notes", we offer legitimate office automation
software for companies that want to communicate within.... ALL-IN-1 mail
is the solution, sell that.

Lee

    The more serious threat from Andersen Consulting purchasing Lotus Notes
    is not the potential sale for internal use but the ability to resell
    Lotus Notes.  LN does not sell directly but through third parties.  I
    could envision several of the Big Six developing services to resell
    Lotus Notes.  Heck two have already made commitments to Lotus Notes
    with a third coming shortly (in the 20,000 range).  Price Waterhouse
    was the first to make a commitment for 10,000.  However, Price has
    found it difficult to implement and maintain LN having installed only
    about 2500 and as of now does not resell LN.   

    You see using it is far more difficult than selling it in a large scale 
    implementation. 

    Some of the questions we should be addressing is:

    1 - What are our competitive products?  Can we make a profit on them?

    2 - How will we distribute those products? (Direct, Indirect, Both)

    3 - Should we develop a practice around supporting Lotus Notes?
    (Profitably)

    4 - Should we integrate Lotus Notes into NAS?
    
    Regards,
    
    John