Conference 7.286::digital

   Re:<<< Note 1864.0 by BOOKS::HAMILTON "All models are false; some are useful - Dr. G. Box" >>>

>Do people stop assuming risk?  Are they afraid to move to a hot
>new project because the safety net is gone?   And if the answer
>to the immediately foregoing is questions is yes, what do we
>lose as a company?

   Many people think like:
   
      "The only reason I am working for a large company is
       because _it_ is assuming the risk.  If _I_ have to assume
       any risk, then I will leave and form my own company."
       
   On that basis, my answer to the question is yes, but its
   because the risk-takers finally realize that they might as
   well get the benefits of being a risk taker as well as the
   lumps.
   
Dick

    Another risk of the short-term profit-at-any-cost approach is that
    people will not only not want to take a risk, but will tend to build
    stronger walls around their turf....and guard "their" information
    even more zealously, thus negatively impacted their whole organization.
    
    I suppose I still kinda-sorta believe that DEC will let you fail
    without dumping you......but like I kinda sorta believe in the Easter
    Bunny too!

re: .0

One of the dangers of the current round of DEC / American / Western business 
bashing going on today is that it is based on exactly the same kind of analysis
which it excoriates; namely short term.

Japan's economic success is a very short term phenomena as cultural trends go.
Japan has only been an economic power for approx. 20 years at most. By looking at
this cultural micro-second and concluding that all of Western economic thought
and practice is fatally flawed is premature at best.

Japan's economic position is the result of a convergence of a large number of
historical forces. IMHO the almost total destruction of Japan's physical and 
social infra-structure in WW II is far more important. It is not, I think, 
wrong to picture Japan as a hot-shot start-up company. In the beginning many
companies look like they're hell bent for success, but, as they mature many
crumble because they couldn't master the internal and external pressures that
their very success generated.

Cultures have much longer lives than companies so the "hot-shot" status lasts 
longer in absolute terms. Japan is just starting to experience the pressures
of a maturing culture, they are being challenged by the newer hot shots of 
the East. They will increasingly be challenged by the awakening of the established
powers. (Especially now that the ending of the cold war will free up economic
resources and change the focus)

Japan is feeling great internal pressures as the people are starting to show
signs of chafing under the autocratic controls (suicide and heart attack rates,
corruption scandals, stock market devaluation) that could end their seeming
economic invicibility.

Personally, I feel that the short term vision overwhelmed any feel for strategic
purpose in the American economy. But, a total reversal to a position that 
ignores short term concerns to focus entirely on the long term is just as wrong.
It is paying attention to short term concerns and cycles that keeps any group
vibrant and alive and dynamic. If all you do is concentrate on the short term
those positive traits become chaos and confusion and aimlessness. The key
is in the balance between the two.

To quote my favorite aphorism  "Everything in moderation; including moderation".

Alan - of course the preceding is all in my very humble opinion.

    Re: .3
    
    I agree that Japan is likely to face increasing social and
    economic pressure; their steel industry is already suffering
    under the onslaught of lower cost Korean steel.  That's why,
    as I mentioned, I am very interested to see how Toyota responds
    to this production cutback vis a vis their employees.  Will they
    lay them off?  Will they retrain them?  If so, how?
    
    In Thurow's defense, he by no means argues that the outcome between
    East/West trade is a foregone conclusion; in fact, while he says
    that Japan seems to have the momentum currently, the US has many,
    many strengths (including, interestingly, its cultural diversity).
    If "winning" in the 21st century ends up including the need for 
    bringing in top foreign management talent, for example, the US has 
    a huge leg up on the closed, homogeneous Japanese corporate and
    national culture(s).  The US has traditionally been willing to allow 
    foreigners access to the executive suites; the Japanese traditionally 
    have not.
    
    I also concur that DEC/Western/American bashing is not going to
    gain us much (nor is Thurow doing that -- and if I implied that
    in the base note, it was unintentional).  However, no one ever
    solved a problem by pretending it wasn't there; the first step
    towards recovery is admission of a problem (if I can be forgiven
    the hackneyed phraseology).  
    
    I think both the US (and DEC for that matter) need to recognize that 
    there are problems, and deal with them by playing to our cultural 
    (both national and corporate) strengths; in both cases, I'm afraid, 
    we're moving away from those strengths in some instances.  
    
    The real issue, IMHO, is not DEC, nor is it the vast majority of
    American managers and workers; it is the relentless drive for 
    short term profit at the expense of *everything* else.  Common sense 
    tells most of us that we need to forego *some* consumption
    today so that we will have resources to consume tomorrow.  Why
    is it, do you suppose, that Wall St. can't get that rather simple
    axiom through its collective skull?  You may need to forego some
    profit today (so you can, for example, invest in R&D), so that
    the viability of the enterprise will be assured for tomorrow.
    
    It is at this point in the argument that using DEC for an example
    is no longer valid; one thing the company cannot be criticized for
    is the *level* of its R&D spending (maybe for *where* the
    R&D money has been spent, but it is difficult to argue that
    the company has inadequately funded R&D.)
    
    I recommend reading Thurow's book.  He has many fascinating
    insights to contribute to the business literature.  It is by
    no means a "futurist" account; it is well written, rationally
    argued, and well documented, in my view.
    
    Glenn   
    
    

    
    	re .3
    
    	Well said, and I agree with you. Also, it is my belief that
    strictly adhering to the long term view of things can be dangerous for
    companies and cultures; it can breed a type of false security that
    even though things are bad right now, everything will work out in the
    long run if given enough time..meanwhile, your quicker, leaner
    competition is eating your lunch. I would think that changing the way
    that things are done would be more difficult in those types of
    companies, also, which could have dire consequences.
    
    Short term also has its drawbacks, I agree. A balance must be struck.
    As far as whether Japan will continue to be the dominant force that
    they are today, it depends how quickly they can adapt to the changes
    that will inevitably come to them as a result of their past successes.
    Cultural changes are on the horizon; for example, their treatment/view
    of women still needs to come into the 20th century.
    
    I don't know if I totally believe that all of Wall Street is so short-
    sighted, either...surely they take many other things into account when
    evaluating a company, like R&D focus, cash reserves, etc. 
    
    Time will tell.
    
    John

    Since this a conference about the Digital way of working and not
    Japanese management practices, let me speak to the "Digital culture".

    Culture in bunk.  The observation I make about risk-taking is that
    ideas that could have saved Digital, some not very risky at all, were
    not evaluated on merit but evaluated on their impact to the careers of
    senior managers.  Starting at the top, failure is explained away, and
    accountability is non-existent, because at Digital more than anywhere
    else the proverb applies:

    Success has a thousand fathers, and failure is an orphan.

    My own proverb applies here: Digital values the absence of conflict
    more than it values results.

    As several of us have pointed out in many other notes, Digital talks a
    good, perhaps great, long-term view.  But Digital doesn't have many of
    the products and services coming out of the pipeline in 1992 that
    Digital talked about in 1990 and 1991.

    I conclude we don't have a long-term/short-term problem, we have a
    dream-it/do-it problem.

    re: .6
    
    I agree.  More, it seems to me to be parallel to the trends we see
    involving our political leaders.  Seems they are willing to seek peace
    at all costs, talking about a "new world order" and exercising
    "economic sanctions" against any boat rockers.  The thing that bothers
    me about this "peace at any cost" attitude is that there should be a
    limit to what is done for peace.  There are some things that are worth
    fighting for.  I wonder whether the leaders of today would have even
    been capable of participating in any of the revolutions that were
    necessary during the birth of our country or in the defense of human
    rights abroad during world war.  
    
    There are times when the survival of an entity depends on making choices 
    which upset the peace.  Consider the human body.  It is constantly at
    war with its environment.  The body is only truly at peace when it
    dies.  Digital is similar.  Though we'd like things to be peaceful and
    take pride in having a high degree of tolerance, there need to be
    limits that, when crossed, result in certain and exquisite disruption
    of the peace.
    
    Steve

.3:

Hmm...  Good point.

.6:

That's certainly been my experience.

re: .6


>   My own proverb applies here: Digital values the absence of conflict
>   more than it values results.


	Truer words were never spoken. It is painfully obvious that many (most?)
	managers at DEC are much more concerned with conflict avoidance than
	with conflict resolution. I personally think that the single minded 
	focus on consensus building is a major cause of the above.

	When a requirement for success is consensus building, any idea is held 
	hostage by every member of the community. For a consensus to exist active support
	is NOT needed, only a lack of demonstrated antipathy. Therefore, in an
	environment like ours where consensus building is the only supported
	tactic for the development of an idea, one active nay-sayer can derail
	almost any project or idea concieved. Additionally, since enthusiastic
	support tends to generate more forceful negative reactions, just one of
	which can kill or seriously wound an idea, it becomes COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE
	to seek active, enthusiastic support. 


re: .4

>   I think both the US (and DEC for that matter) need to recognize that 
>   there are problems, and deal with them by playing to our cultural 
>   (both national and corporate) strengths; in both cases, I'm afraid, 
>   we're moving away from those strengths in some instances.  

I heartily agree. I did not mean to imply by the way that you were D/W/A bashing
in .0. I have seen Lester Thurow on numerous TV interviews and am not so sure
about him.  My statements, though directed to .0, were including much more
that has been said and written in the last few years; (see also Demming).

Alan

    Who is this DIGITAL we keep talking about. The one that gets in our
    way and doesn't understand... The one we know all the cures for but
    individually do nothing about it, bar venting our frustrations in this
    inapproriate vehicle for change.
    
    When will we realize its us... there is no them
    
    I would ask all noters to read back through their notes and replace the
    word WE with the word I... then see if the things they ask US (we) to 
    do they (I) are in fact themselves doing.
    
    I would also ask that you examine every critiscm you have made in this
    forum and look at what constructive measures you took to bring your
    concerns and positive suggestions directly to the atttention of those
    who may have been able to help. 
    
    Wouldn't it be nicer to report here the successes... I think they are
    happening everywhere and this notes file distorts reality in that the
    majority of people who write here are the minority who are truly
    and genuinly frustrated. If anyone reading has success stories about
    DIGITAL and its culture please enter them here.. This notes file is about
    DIGITAL, not just whats wrong with it.	
    
    
    Chris
    

    What are the opportunities?
    
    Please list the opportunities or preceived ones that we can gain new
    revenues.
    

    re: .10, .11
    
    Gimme a break �guys, you go first.
    
    ...You've missed my point.
    
    When you've got near zero influence because of the corporation's
    structure, you accomplish little and only draw attention to yourself
    by taking a position that contradicts the so-called strategy.
    
    And it any case, our failure isn't one of strategy but over the
    mundane tasks of executing it.  I want, oh how I want, the planned-for
    but cancelled or not-yet-implemented 1992 product set.
    
    Operations not vision are the heart of the problem.
    
    What's the point of red flagging our price-performance in UNIX
    workstations, just for example. Everyone knows it by now.

    Re. .12
    
    O.K. here's my opportunity that will bring in revenue.
    
    	o Supply Systems Integration Services to help companies comply with
    	  environmental regulations.  
    
    	Presently the task of Monitoring and Control is based on isolated 
    	systems.  (NAS, SI, CONSULTING, SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, STRATEGIC
    	APPLICATIONS PARTNERSHIPS)
    
    	The records that companies must keep is a manual process. (IMAGING
    	NETWORKING, CONSULTING, SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, STRATEGIC APPLICATION
    	AND CONSULTING PARTNERSHIPS)
    
    	The data is not connected to work issues that identify waste.
    	(WORKFLOW, NETWORKING, NAS, APPLICATIONS, RE-ENGINEERING, ETC...)
    
    	Recaputer time/dollars lost due to work place safety hazards.
    	(WORKFLOW, IMAGING, CONSULTING SERVICES, STRATEGIC APPLICATION
    	PARTNERS)	
    
    
    Just DIGITALS portfolio of services can help companies bring down their 
    environmental cost by bringing in Information technology, which thay 
    don't have now.  U.S. industry is spending in excess of $120Billion 
    dollars in 1991, the percentage of those dollars that are used for 
    Information Services, is around 4-8%. 
    
    We have to identify which customers are facing environmental compliance
    issues. Actually, try identifying the ones who are not facing
    compliance issues. Those companies have budgetsincreased for compliance
    issues.
    
    There are a multitude of concurrent areas that relate to environmental
    issues:
    
    	HEALTH & SAFETY
    	INSURANCE
    	RE-ENGINEERING
    	COMPETITVENESS IN A GLOBAL MARKET
    	LEGAL
    	HUMAN RESOURCES
    	COST CONTROL
    	PUBLIC RELATIONS
    	PRODUCTIVITY
    	FINANCIAL
    	POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
    
    That is my snap-shot to the area that DEC can gain new revenue. It's
    not easy, but there is a growing market and there are willing customers
    spending dollars to comply with regulations, we have a chance to supply
    solutions before our competitors can.