Conference 7.286::digital

    The first step in problem resolution is problem recognition.

    Enthusiastically going in the wrong (non-profitable) directions (that
    our customers didn't) is what put us here.
    
    Energy is not enough.
    
    	- andy

    In my time at Digital, more than 6 years now, one thing has struck me
    more than any other, as a cause of the seeming inability to recognise
    problems. The reluctance and sometimes downright refusal, of some
    people at all levels, to tell the truth the the next levels up the
    line. I understand the reasons, even if I don't like them, and time and
    time again, it's clear that the message from the troops doesn't reach
    the generals. This conference, and the other versions around the world,
    should be compulsory reading for all the top people. Hell, they should
    *contribute*.
    
    Laurie.

Here here for -.1!  So what are we going to do about it?  I have sent mail to
KO and gotten a response. Have you tried it?  It isn't for the faint of heart,
but if you believe strongly enough in your position, go for it!  It just might
change something.

So that's a bit radical.  How about just pushing harder?  The only way this 
mess turns around is if we (that would be us grunts in the trenches) turn it
around.

Hell no, we won't take it anymore!  Let that be our battle cry!

Kelly

Boy, I'm sure enjoying this conference!

And thanks to .0 for the quote.  It goes up on the wall around my office as soon
as I can get it into DECwrite and cleaned up!  

Words to live by.


K

   I just got thru rereading some old stuff by Strecker, Hanson,
   and Olsen, 1987-1988 vintage.  They were all saying then the
   same things we say now about customer driven business,
   excellence in products, customer relations, etc.
   
   I am impressed that the causes of our failure are not the
   kinds of things we often comment on here, not on philosophy,
   not on processes, and not on goal setting.
   
   We fail by not achieving the goals we set for ourselves, we
   fail by not meeting commitments, we fail by committing to
   plans that haven't been thought through, we fail by failing.
   
   Our problem is simple, we don't make _it_ happen like we said
   we would.  
   
   How many projects have you been on which came in late, or
   over cost, or didn't meet all of their goals?  How often do
   we flounder in our own daily work?  How often do we postpone
   a distasteful decision or carrying a distasteful message?
   
fwiw,

   Dick

    Bob Hughes reads NOTES conferences and participates! And I'm sure his
    staff does too lest they get caught short by one of Bob's quiet but
    often devastating questions. So don't be so sure you're remarks aren't
    being read, and taken to heart, by some pretty influential people. So
    keep the good ideas and thoughts coming!
    
    Which also says our remarks should remain professional and
    constructive, and not something that would cause any Corporate
    executive to have to take action on.
    
    Fred
    

    I must agree with .6.  We have forgotten how to act, to do, to perform.
    
    I have seen so many plans for a plan for the replan of the plan.  A
    customer commented that we must eat menus rather than food.  All effort
    is spent in planning but the plans are never executed.  The process has
    become more important than the result.  We are like deferred addressing
    that has gone one level too far.  We meet, we plan, we argue, we write,
    we continue.  But we have forgotten how to decide, act, do, finish,
    accomplish, complete, close.  We have lost just those things mentioned
    in .0. To strive, to dare, to struggle, to dare greatly, those things
    give life color and texture.  We as a company (and many of us as
    individuals) have faded to black and white.  Too comfortable in our
    complacency, in our golden handcuffs.
    
    Judy
    

re: .2
    
>    Energy is not enough.
    
Yes, it's not sufficient by itself but it is necessary.

The three things i think we don't do well are probably also the three
things that coincidentally are among management's top responsibilities:

1.  put the right people in the right jobs
2.  set priorities that are clearcut and not just buzzwords du jour
3.  follow up to see that the work being done matches the priorities

								paul

    Yes. Also, don't place the needs of the short term ahead of the needs
    of the long-term - seek a balanced approach.
    
    /a

    A dying person has no long term if the immediate symptoms are not
    cured.
    
    Enthusiasam in the wrong direction may be misguided , apathy in the
    supposed correct direction is terminal.
    
    

    What is this, aphorism of the day?

My own experience with the BoM is that they're an excellent escalation route
but a poor dumping ground. If problem statements come with a proposal, you'll
get a good response.
								- Ian W.

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    Not following through on our actions, boy is this ever true.

    Marketing (and  IS)  folks  are  great  at  it.  You go to one of their
    constant  meetings,  and  they  sit  around and complain (usually about
    internal product positioning), yell, bitch, yawn, then they all pack up
    their  books  and  head for the planes for the trip to the next meeting
    location.   No  action  items,  rarely  minutes,  no action reports, no
    followup,  NOTHING.   Then  80% of them turn up at another place and do
    the same thing.

    You want  a  way  to  save  a load of money for little cost? SACK EVERY
    MARKETING PERSON IN THIS COMPANY OUTSIDE THE U.S. and 50% INSIDE IT.

>    You want  a  way  to  save  a load of money for little cost? SACK EVERY
>    MARKETING PERSON IN THIS COMPANY OUTSIDE THE U.S. and 50% INSIDE IT.


	If you don't want to sell anything outside of the US (thats over 50%
	of the business, by the way) then this is the way to do it.


	Heather - trying really hard not to loose her cool.	

As a contractor (like Laurie Brown) I have to be a little more careful when
opening my mouth here, even though I have been involved with this company 
for nigh on eleven years both as employee and contractor. Criticism, even
if positive, is not always welcome from contractors although a customer
making the same noise would be listened to. Whenever I am in a position to 
do so, I push Digital solutions and, on occasion, am successful in gaining the
company a little extra revenue.

However... I often feel let down by the reality. For example, FS took three
months to provide a cable to link a Digital PC to an LA75 at one company I
know of. Another company ordered some kit and there were parts missing. I
learnt of decision today (which I may address later) which seems to say that
Digital is going to abandon a significant market arena to the competition.

Sometimes it's the little things that sink you.

Gavin

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    Argh, but  you  would  be  labouring  under  the  false  illusion  that
    marketing in Digital actually helps you SELL something.

    We haven't  had  marketing  for  VMS in Europe for ages, and it's still
    selling  ok.   For some of the marketing groups in the US, I've nothing
    but  respect  for  the work they do, and the dedication they have (well
    mostly).   For  the  people outside the US (not just Europe), it's just
    one big travel and mail forwarding club.

    Back to 0. When will we start to promote goodness and stop
    concentrating on finding fault without at the same time putting
    in constructive proposals..
    
    As for the replies... QED
    

>    Back to 0. When will we start to promote goodness and stop
>    concentrating on finding fault without at the same time putting
>    in constructive proposals..
    
I for one intend making some very constructive proposals when I mail the
person who made the decision I mentioned. I'll keep my fingers crossed at
the same time...  :-)
    
Gavin

   Re: Note 1860.3 by PLAYER::BROWNL
   

�    In my time at Digital, more than 6 years now, one thing has struck me
�    more than any other, as a cause of the seeming inability to recognise
�    problems. The reluctance and sometimes downright refusal, of some
�    people at all levels, to tell the truth the the next levels up the
�    line.
   
   This has been one of my pet peeves for several years.  We became a "good
   news" company.  I know of managers who will not let you use the word
   'problem' in any meeting they attend.  They prefer to call them
   'opportunities' instead.
   
   There has been on effort in this country to soften language so that things
   don't sound as bad as they really all.  Digital has latched on to this
   philosphy with a vengence.
   
   Why don't things get fixed?  Because there is nothing to fix according to the
   above managers.  I'm sorry to say this, but the truth of the matter is
   opportunities don't require fixing.  Only problems require fixing.  If we
   have no problems we have nothing to fix.  If we have nothing to fix we need
   not direct our resources and energies into fixing them.  On the surface,
   everything looks "just fine".

re: .20

How true that is.

Also correct are the people who talk about the plan for the plan, to plan the plan.

The Peter Principle had a cue to an incompetence which seems to apply to all to
much of this company. We concentrate on the input not the output.  We pat 
ourselves on the back for doing a good job at planning and scheduling and 
co-ordinating and communicating and managing and analyzing; BUT WE NEVER WORRY
ABOUT BUILDING OR DELIVERING OR SERVICEING. I have actually heard a manager
ask for a schedule to be written up formally for a task that had been finished!!!
It seems that the project wouldn't be successful unless this was done. This 
same manager, though, had no time to even look at the product which had been
developed or review why it was built.  We have lost sight of what is important.
We have to regain that vision and "keep our eyes on the prize".

Alan

re.  .14

>    You want  a  way  to  save  a load of money for little cost? SACK EVERY
>    MARKETING PERSON IN THIS COMPANY OUTSIDE THE U.S. and 50% INSIDE IT.


I know nothing about the marketing organization outside the U.S., but  I 
have been observing Digital's U.S. marketing operations for the last 5 years.

Considering that Engineering is apparently going to be severely 
cut-back (and made subserviant to marketing?), I question whether we are 
getting our money's worth out of marketing's high-priced organization.  
I base my opinion on performance in three of marketing's primary areas of 
responsibility.

Company and product recognition
-------------------------------
If marketing has done its job, customers and prospects know something about a
company and its products  before sales approaches them to solve a business 
 problem.  Instead, what we find is that customers either don't believe or 
are surprised to hear that we are the number 2 or 3 computer company, we are the industry 
leader in offering open and standards conforming products, we offer 
CISC computers that can compete with RISC computers on a price/performance basis,
 etc., etc.   As a result sales ends up being less effective because they 
have to make up for a weak marketing effort.  

Product Positioning
-------------------
Many other notes in this conference have commented on Digital's 
	- lack of product focus
	- high-priced products
	- hard-to-use products
	- bug-filled products
	- overlapping solutions

In my opinion, marketing should provide direction to product development based on
knowledge of customer needs and competitive situations.  This has not 
happened.  Can a newly empowered  marketing organization perform this role
using the same people that couldn't do it before? 


Understanding of the Market Place
---------------------------------
The biggest indicator here is Digital's timing on new products and strategies.
We are almost always late. (PC marketing, Unix, RISC computing. TCP/IP, shrink-wrapped 
products, etc.)  To optimize our chances for success, marketing should be 
able to recognize trends early and even predict trends.

In other situations, we have had a good product before the rest
of the market, but marketing was not able to capitalize on it, e.g. VAX NOTES. 

    RE: .11........makes a good point about the long term of no value to
    the dying, but in this case the dying elephant hopefully is not
    terminal and it is precisely the neglect to the long term that is the
    cause of the illness, and attention the hope of the cure.
    
    .6, .8, and others are very much on the point

    RE .22  I really agree with the point that the customers would know
    about our products if marketing were effective.  It is my observation
    that we do most of our marketing to the sales force instead of to the
    customer.  It may be slow in taking effect, but the Marketing for
    Results Program will really help greatly (IMHO).

Re: .17

>    Argh, but  you  would  be  labouring  under  the  false  illusion  that
>    marketing in Digital actually helps you SELL something.
>
>    We haven't  had  marketing  for  VMS in Europe for ages, and it's still
>    selling  ok.   

The very fact that you mentioned the above says you don't know what you're
talking about - and making sweeping generalisations to boot.

I'm looking here at a boston box with UK market share and UK market growth for 
a variety of our product segments. The origin of the axes are set at overall 
market growth here and our UK market share. Our staple VAX platform sales are 
already in the dog quadrant and heading south west at a fair clip.

So please define "selling ok" in this context.

The ultimate reason for loss of market share is by asking every salesperson
to sell a list of products and services that no single planet-brain can fit
their head around - and not being targeted enough to address just the niches
that will fulfil our growth and expertise ambitions. We're peanut-buttered
everywhere, and normally being attacked by focussed niche players everywhere
we turn.

That's down to a lack of direction from the very top, and a discipline to
stay focused on which markets, product segments and industries are truely
strategic to the overall company vision. 

This is changing with an absolute vengeance here.
								- Ian W.

    re .25
    Ian,
    could you explain how things are changing?  It wasn't clear where you
    disagreed with Mr. Hagarty except possibly with his statement that VMS
    is still selling well.
    David

RE: .22

There are no `Marketing' organizations in Digital.

    re: .0
    
    "The man in the arean" can be the savior, of no value, or the death of
    what was to be accomplished.  The same can be said of the critic.
    
    Can anyone think of a gold medal winning gymnast who didn't have a
    coach to 'point out how the strong man stumbles'?
    
    Management by aphorism CAN lead you to make stupid moves and ignore
    opportunities through out of hand dismissal of valid, but
    non-conforming, ideas.
    
    -joe tomkowitz
    
    

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    I did  put  "ok"  in  lower case, I know that it's in a bit of trouble,
    what  I  was  trying  to say was that their is no doom when there is no
    marketing (especially what we've got) (this is esp. on a Euro-level).

    I *KNOW* why VMS is dieing in Europe, and I can name names.

    Sweeping generalisations, sure, but I can't put everything in here that
    is  swinging  my  guns  to this quadrant.  There's a mindset in country
    marketing organizations (including the UK) that are doing their best to
    drive us out of the VMS business.

    Competition for them is "internal positioning" and "relative pricing".

    
    the comment about being a "good news" company has been certainly true
    for much of the last 5-6 years. It has taken specific, and angry
    customer reaction to overturn such thinking.
    
    As for the comment about concentrating on inputs and not the outputs -
    that is true also.  Think about it for a second - product developemnt
    and delivery are uncertainties - if you work in IS, politics can and
    will your best technical efforts. The same has held true in areas of
    engineering, especially those run by "good news" managers. It's kind
    of like "If i think good thoughts, magic will develop good products".
    Yes, good products require  imagination, but there needs to be some
    reality (like a quality development group) to take imaginative thinking
    reality.
    
    So, if the substance is uncertain, you concentrate on good form! We
    all like to be rewarded for our good efforts, so the best hedge where
    the output is uncertain, you concentrate on the input leg.  We do
    reward people for that - it's negative thinking to hold that perhaps
    all the "good form" caused a negative result.  (I mean, what will
    people think, you know?)
    
    	no mystery here, or frankly at any other large organization
    of people.
    
    	Besides, if we were all wonder workers, who would need personel?
    
    bob
    

    I worked for one of those good-news-only-managers once.  Not only were
    we not allowed to use the word "problem", but we were required to
    smile all the time.  I actually got called into this idiot's office
    on more than one occasion to be cautioned that my employees weren't
    smiling.
    
    The good news is that this guy would have made an excellent Boy Scout
    leader......the bad news is that he is still with DEC.

>    I did  put  "ok"  in  lower case, I know that it's in a bit of trouble,
>    what  I  was  trying  to say was that their is no doom when there is no
>    marketing (especially what we've got) (this is esp. on a Euro-level).
>
>    I *KNOW* why VMS is dieing in Europe, and I can name names.
>
>    Sweeping generalisations, sure, but I can't put everything in here that
>    is  swinging  my  guns  to this quadrant.  There's a mindset in country
>    marketing organizations (including the UK) that are doing their best to
>    drive us out of the VMS business.
>
>    Competition for them is "internal positioning" and "relative pricing".

There is European Marketing for VMS platforms under Mike Brading. The country
VSS team here is headed up by John Rea. The only thing that went missing for
12 months was country VSS marketing (call it Production Systems if you wish).
Promoting UNIX like mad when it was all quiet on VMS was a mistake.

The country added value is knowledge of local competitors and price/position
alignment to them. Also to ensure that the field are putting the right
resources in place to sell effectively, and to keep folks up to date with
pertinent information without drinking from firehoses.

Could you help me a bit by highlighting how people are "doing their best" to
drive us out of the VMS business? I don't see this here. People are very
committed to the VMS business and demonstrably fight competitors as their
priority.

om

What I was alluding to in my earlier note was that we're in the process of
sizing our marketing, sales and support resource/funding levels against best
in class competitors. That will flush out any added value that is superfluous
to the needs of the business. At this stage, the software marketing headcount
levels are best-in-class by miles already. The VSS and USS folks are subject
to the same review vs Sun, HP, ICL etc here, though i've yet to see those
numbers.

For FY93, we're running each line-of-business to best-in-class resourcing and
funding levels. I know how many salespeople I have, how many marketeers, how
many EIS specialists, etc. It's certainly a very different Digital here next
fiscal... and i'm looking forward to it!
								- Ian W.

RE: .31

>    I worked for one of those good-news-only-managers once.  Not only were
>    we not allowed to use the word "problem", but we were required to
>    smile all the time.  I actually got called into this idiot's office
>    on more than one occasion to be cautioned that my employees weren't
>    smiling.
    
I once had a manager whose first words every time I came to try and get
problems on projects resolved were "I don't want to hear about it."

John