Conference 7.286::digital

    And just for the record here is what I think will happen.
    
    Everybody will go back to doing their same old thing of products for
    MIPS/OSF. This will delay layered product software on Alpha. Alpha/OSF
    won't get the attention it needs and will never take off. Meanwhile
    MIPS hardware will be deadended and that product line will die a slow
    painful death. Yet another example of DEC spreading itself too thin.
    
    How is it that key multi-year strategy decisions can flip flop like
    this so quickly. In the Stone memo it even says he conferred with
    Charlie Christ. Well as far as I can see he must have misunderstood
    Charlie's nod of agreement as real agreement. Instead I presume it was
    the traditional DEC head nod.
    
    Anybody got any real data on how/why this flip flop took place.
    I can see Charlie Matco is going to have a field day.
    
    Dave

As Dave Garrod mentioned in his base note, discussion in this topic should not
discuss Digital's UNIX strategy.  There is already a discussion of this in note
1854 of the Marketing conference.

Please keep this discussion relevant to the purpose of this conference, the
Digital way of working.  We don't need multiple threads in multiple conferences
discussing the same thing.  Granted, it's a hot topic.

Paul, co-moderator

    Can't please everyone.. all the UNIX people in the field are doing
    backflips of joy.
    
    >Anybody got any real data on how/why this flip flop took place.
    
    For one thing, the UNIX* Partners did a survey and analysis of the
    impact of our decommit from R4000 and OSF/1 on MIPS which was put 
    together and submitted to the VP's in question.  I'd like to think
    it had some effect.  
    
    The result ?  We have something to work with in the interim until
    affordable ALPHA OSF/1 machines are available.  We've sent a message
    that the installed MIPS base is important to us.  In case customers
    mysteriously don't get mesmerized by ALPHA, we have a viable
    alternative RISC UNIX platform.  
    
    karl, UNIX* Partner, able to look customers in the eye for the first
    time in weeks

    Re .-1
    
    Does that mean that the original Stone decision was made with no field
    input? The Stone memo says that the "business implications and risks"
    had been reviewed with Charlie Christ and Frank McCabe. Was this not
    the case? What business implications and risks changed in the space of
    less than 2 months?
    
    Can we ever trust VP decisions again? If the April 22nd memo was just
    meant to be a straw horse why did David Stone communicate it in
    interviews to the press (I read somewhere that he personally took part
    in some press interviews).
    
    And one final thing. Where have all the people magically appeared from
    that'll be needed to support OSF on MIPS? I presume when Stone made the
    April 22nd decision he knew where he wanted his people working. Does
    the latest missive mean he will have to replan everything?
    
    How much will this back flip have cost the company? Should be do
    another one? Is this the new way of doing business?
    
    Sorry for all the questions but I bet our customers/competitors will
    ask all these and more.
    
    And really finally. How can the market place have faith in Digital the
    company if it reverses major policy decisions in the matter of a few
    weeks? How can they ever trust anything Digital ever tells them again.
    Anybody for $20 a share.
    
    Dave

    >Does that mean that the original Stone decision was made with no field
    >input? 
    
    As NONE of the UNIX Partners I know agreed with the original decision,
    from here it looks like yes, that decision was made with no field
    input.
    
    >How can the market place have faith in Digital the company if it 
    >reverses major policy decisions in the matter of a few weeks? 
    
    It worked for the Coca-Cola Corp.
    
    karl

    We'll survive this one.  You gotta admit that it takes some guts to
    reverse a decision like this without having to fall on your sword.

    The "right" thing was done.  It's sort of a shock to our system, but it
    means that people like David Stone aren't going to pursue the wrong
    strategy when they don't have a mandate from customers and the field.

    The real puzzle is DIGITAL's decision making process.  I suppose the
    original Stone memo could be looked at as a novel way of 'soliciting
    input'.
    
    I am involved in ULTRIX/OSF sales support and actually had mixed
    feelings about OSF/MIPS.  Commiting to OSF/MIPS certainly gives us a
    much cleaner story to tell.  I'm not sure we can now regain the
    momentum present before the shock treatment, but I am much more
    motivated to try!
    
    I wonder it the real cost of the original decision has yet to surface. 
    How many UNIX specialists started shopping their resumes when they
    felt they had little to sell in the next 18 months?  I've seen evidence
    of some considering a switch to VMS support!
    
    Hopefully these specialists that Digital will need in the next decade
    will stay the course.

    
    Too bad this is  too late to make Unix, uh, OPEN SYSTEMS Today!
    
    They really crucified us again.
    
    -Ed_in_Silicon-Valley
    
    

    Not only was there a lack of field input to the original decision,
    there was no marketing input as well.  Therefore, the customer was
    completely left out of the process.  I see this as the new "customer"
    and "marketing" model working the way it's supposed to.
    
    Mark
    

    But, and this is a big BUT, while we are getting (finally) some of the
    input needed to make decisions of this nature, it (the decision making
    process) is certainly not as clean as the Mgmt 101 textbooks would
    suggest.  Maybe our OPENness is in "laying out the decisions where
    everyone can criticize them", not in the technical content of our
    products.  :-)  In a company as large and disperse and disorganized as
    we are, it isn't surprising that even VP's can't figure out how to get
    the input they need.  It doesn't let you continue to believe the myth
    that management walks on water, but maybe that isn't really a priority?
    
    Messy, yes.  Somewhat embarrassing, not unless you're a perfectionist.
    Open, yes.  In summary, I prefer backtracking to obstinacy in the face
    of disagreement.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

	I'm glad to see 'em reverse themselves.

	Because my customers ( Ultrix MIPS owners/users )
	were really hacked that DEC would abandon them...
	and that's the way they felt.

	It was obvious no one asked them....

	Nothing like driving your customers headlong into
	the arms of the competition...when sales are already
	depressed, huh ?

	Steve H

   The Christ memo stated that the decision was reversed because of the
   clear customer desire that OSF/1 be supported across all the MIPS
   line.  This clearly indicates to me the Stone memo showed a decision
   with no field or marketing input.  
   
   The customer base does not change its mind in two months.  My
   customers have had this concern ever since rumors of Alpha started
   getting around.  Seems a lot of people were unhappy with Digital's
   approach of selling them a bunch of MIPS machines, convincing them
   that OSF/1 was what they, and the rest of the world, really needed.
   Oh, and by the way, it won't work on any of the architectures we've
   told you we were committed to for the long term (ACE).  So, would you
   kindly fork over a whole bunch of money for hardware so you can use
   OSF/1?
   
   This is the attitude that caused lots of low-end IBM customers to
   switch to DEC.  They got tired of IBM bilking them for money
   everytime IBM came out with the next generation of low-end to medium
   systems they were totally incompatible with previous system (System
   36/38, AS400, etc.)  Everytime Digital makes a box which customers
   are dependent upon obsolete we open the door for them to select a
   non-Digital solution.

    
    As I recall, the Stone decision, while sounding quite definitive, did
    leave a window of ambiguity indicating that customer pressure could
    reverse the decision.  Since that did happen, all in all, i think it
    helped put the skids on a very bad situation.
    
    We are clearly in a time of having to prioritize what things will get
    done and what things are going to be cut.  OSF/MIPS is not the only
    area where we have to chose between putting resources into futures or
    continue to feed current money makers.  We clearly cannot afford to
    do all things for everyone in this climate.  In the internal world,
    everyone champions their turf as absolute neccesity, so who do you
    trust?  The fact that senior management listened to customer reaction
    versus internal "wisdom" seems to me to be a step in the right
    direction.  Certainly preferable to the "will tell customers what they
    need" model.
    
    bob

 .13�            The fact that senior management listened to customer reaction
 .13�    versus internal "wisdom" seems to me to be a step in the right
 .13�    direction.  Certainly preferable to the "will tell customers what they
 .13�    need" model.
 
     Maybe they listened to customer *reaction* but was there any external
 consultation prior to the original decision. This process of announcing a
 cessation of development for the MIPS line then announcing a change of
 heart may well get to where the customer wants to be, but it's surely taken
 a route that many will have found worrying and, from the comments in the
 Usenet news-groups, has lost us many $'s worth of sales and opened up new
 sites to competitors.
 

    The "original" decision was made based on costs and domain team
    (engineering)
    feedback and did, indeed, leave a backdoor "if customers want it".
    It was unfortunate that the material got viewed as *absolute* with no
    flex but most of us involved in a daily basis on this one, assumed that
    once the field (and customers) got the message, the real demand would
    be heard. Also pressure from European management and UNIX Partners 
    had a lot to do with it as well.
    
    We actually could get some good press from this..analysts *love* to see
    major companies reverse decision..shows they are *responsive to market
    demands*. 
    

I was lucky enough to see the process that reversed this in action. I can claim
no credit for it, but I did some tactical things that the task force used
as data to support the argument (ie: I read all the customer memos, about
200 of them, tabulated them, and created a chart of quotes. This was read
by Christ, Stone and others. They also read many of the memos in their
entirety. I also sat in on two days' worth of task force meetings that
prepared the case, and I wordsmithed some stuff.)

I'm too low level a flunky to state "the truth", but I'll share my personal
opinions on some of this.

There was some research and field input sought and provided before the
statements were made to the press. Apparently, this input grossly underplayed
what customer and field reaction would be. There's no way around it; some
people are out of touch, but I'm not sure who.

The comments made by David Stone did indeed leave a backdoor open to change
the decision in view of customer feedback.

The customer feedback was THE compelling reason the decision was reversed
by the executive committee on Tuesday morning.

Ex post facto market research is a hell of a way to set strategy.

Clearly, this points out that whatever process DEC is using to take customer
input into account on such decisions is broken, or the input provided isn't
being used by decision makers.

David Stone is being demonized now as the source of this fiasco. Since I
work in USS, and this thing will seriously hurt our business, I could easily
fall into the trap of looking for someone to blast. He's a convenient target
because he was quoted in the press. But this seems too clean to me; it's
too easy. Somehow this had to be more than one guy making indiscreet comments
to a reporter. Obviously, there is a serious organizational/decision-making
problem that must be fixed. I don't know where it is or how to fix it, but
it's naive to think that one guy did all of this.

The people who would not rest until this was fixed are very courageous
and persistent. I saw Skip Garvin, Bill Maruchi, Ed Manning, Ken Milne,
Chris Atkinson, and many others stay on this relentlessly. This was
Matt Kochan's finest hour: he just wouldn't give up. Don't underestimate
how much guts it takes to keep fighting on an hot turf issue like this when you
don't know who your next boss will be. At a time when many DECCIES are
laying low, these people took a strong stand and kept working the issue.
I find it very inspiring.

Jeez, I hope we all learn something from this. Customers like our strategy!
They like the products! They bought it, and they had confidence that 
DEC would always deliver on our promises and protect their investment.
We will, but I hope we can convince them of it.

    
    This is a disaster, not a fiasco. 
    
    The damage runs deeper than a rediculously embarassing public display
    of Digitals poor judgement.
    
    

    
    IMHO
    
    Reverse judgement is better than Poor Judgement. As long as the 
    judgement can make money and bail DEC out in the long run.
    
    Michael..

RE: .17

Boy, it is it interesting to see yet another example of how removed GMA
is from the rest of the universe.  Digital needs to charter more
frequent space shuttle flights so people up there can see what's going
on Sol's third planet.

How in the world anyone in this industry could possibly image that such
an announcement would have anything other than a completely negative
reaction is inconceivable.

The folks of planet GMA keep telling us that we need to make sales now
yet they keep sending message to customers that they should wait to for
Alpha...or more likely that we don't have it so buy it somewhere else.

John

    As far as the decision goes: I applaud it. I'm a MIPSbox owner and want
    to be able to progress. I'm not alone.
    
    As to the process for reversing the decision, I applaud it. A bunch of
    people stood up and proved that our customers wanted this decision and
    the Executive Committee had the balls to go with them. Great. A remnant
    of DEC survives.
    
    As to the original decision and announcement: with 20/20 hindsight we
    can say that the decision was based upon poor information. What can we
    learn from this? To ensure that we have all necessary information and
    customer input before an important strategic decision is made. Where
    should this information come from? An efficient Marketing organisation.
    Unless David Stone et al turned a deaf ear to specific inputs,  I can
    only believe that the Marketing folks failed to provide the necessary
    info.
    
    I'm unsurprised by the poor information flow from our customers to our
    devleopment funders. It's been that way for 9 years to my personal
    experience. We can only hope that things change for the better.
    
    /andy
    
    
    

    
    ...what .20 said! In spades!! Emphasis on the marketing bit!!!
    

There were alot of MAYNARD folks working to reverse this decision.

Stereo-typing all GMA folks as out of touch is un-true. Let's spend our energy
fighting the competition, not ourselves!!! Let's spend this net bandwidth sending
INTERNET mail to our customers with the good news.


Bill Zaharchuk
USS Marketing Manager
VAXstations and ALPHA Workstations

Former DWT Sales Rep.

    
          This (these?) decision(s) have been a hot topic among the
      usenet community over the past few weeks, especially in the
      comp.sys.dec newsgroup. In general, the MIPS-box owners who
      chose to speak in that forum were more than a little annoyed
      (read LIVID) that we would even consider dropping MIPS support
      for OSF/1. Paul Vixie, Gail Grant, Marcus R. (sorry Marcus, the
      last name won't come to me), and others from DEC encouraged
      these customers to make their feelings known to their sales
      people, and also passed customer comments up the line of
      command. I suspect that the direct quotes from the people who
      have input into or make buying decisions for their businesses
      had some impact on the decision to support the MIPS platform.
      It was disconcerting to me to see customers talking seriously 
      about buying their future hardware from Sun rather than us.
      It may be argued that this is simply a vocal minority and
      does not necessarily represent a large source of revenue, but
      one should also realize that a beach erodes one grain of sand
      at a time.
    
                                                   Steve
    
      As an aside:
           It may be of interest/benefit to monitor some
         of the usenet/internet newsgroups. These are 
         real customers that participate and the insight
         into their concerns and issues will not be gained
         through a marketing textbook. (no slight intended
         towards marketing folk)
      

Side rathole: VMS users within DEC can run their own Internet news agent-
              See the CLO::VNEWS notes conference for details.

              News feed 'backbone' information is in the UPSAR::NEWS-BACKBONE
              conference.... note 95 lists available servers.

Lee

    When the next UNIX announcement is made, ask what input UNIX Marketing
    and the UNIX_Partners had in its development.  Let's see if we have a
    trend or a point off the curve.
    
    Mark
    

    I think that we're getting too used to back-seat driving with 20/20
    hindsight...

    I would agree that marketing is out of touch, and this is part of the
    problem.  As an engineer who has worked in a marketing organization,
    I would submit that there is incredible inertia behind the slogan-of-
    the-month within our marketing organizations, and a tendancy to stick
    to something which appeared to be working long after a new idea should
    be explored.  Marketing is reactive, not proactive.  But I submit that
    marketing isn't the only organization that has individuals who are out
    of touch.  I'm glad to see that engineers around me (and myself) are
    striving to understand the market better, and I am overjoyed to see
    management supporting our efforts.

    I remember a few years back, when marketing was telling its own
    engineers not to even _ask_ about the projects behind the codewords the
    managers were dropping to show their prowess.  We were to stick to the
    knitting and not question the strategies and the "architectures" being
    developed, on technical or any other grounds.  Just keep your nose in
    the furrow...

    Where I am now, I'm seeing a much freer flow of information, and I was
    able to ride out the MIPS decision with some level of confidence that
    the reversal would come (because I know it was the right thing :-).

    Until we can break down the fiefdoms and communication barriers within
    the company, the only way to float a proposal from on-high is to
    present it as a done deal.  Otherwise, half the company will just
    ignore the decision.

    OSG and AOSG were briefed on the decision to drop MIPS support, and
    were also briefed on the importance of not leaking that decision until
    it was final and the spin doctors had found a way to get it past our
    customers.  I think one reason that Digital ended up looking foolish is
    because the decision leaked during DECworld, or else our customers were
    just too perceptive when talking to a huge number of Deccies on the
    floor.
    
    If the people in this company were able to communicate openly _before_
    a major strategic direction was "committed to", David Stone would not
    have had to present this as a "done deal".  And if we could learn to
    howl loudly about bad decisions to the appropriate _internal_ people,
    while keeping our cool in front of our customers, we might have been
    able to get through both the "drop MIPS" propsal and its reversal
    without airing it in front of our customers.

    By the way, I do agree that the time for this whole "to MIPS or not to
    MIPS" discussion was over a year ago.  I know one sales support person
    who left the company not long ago, who was agonizing a year and a half
    ago because he was positive that selling MIPS machines was leading his
    customers down a blind alley.   He would have been overjoyed if we
    decided one way or the other, and then got our messages straight.

    Well, enough random ranting.  This came out better than we feared, and
    maybe we can learn from it before the next major decision...