Conference 7.286::digital

    Well... I don't think you can blame it all on the internal structures
    of the corporations.  I mean the unGodly slump in the economy and industry
    must've had someting to do with exerting pressure that forced change
    and yes, even a decline in morale. 
    
    I do agree that this is not the time to "give-up" (unless of course you
    get laid-off).  If you lose your spirit, then you've lost the game. There's
    more competition out there ans less profit margin.  If we're to succeed, 
    we're going to have to work harder for less. 
    
    I'm not a manager, I'm just an engineer.  So I do what I can at my
    level.  If I can't see where my work is either directly or indirectly 
    making the corporation money, well, then if someting doesn't change
    then maybe my employment status will.
    
    Keep Pullin!
    -dave

	I used to thing the old DEC was dead. But it's not. I saw it at 
	DECWORLD. It's just that sometimes it's in hiding from some of the
	management. The seeds for a full re-birth are there. I'm not sure
	exactly how to bring it back but I believe that a serious set of 
	goals with a plan to reach them would help.

			Alfred

.1>    Well... I don't think you can blame it all on the internal structures
.1>    of the corporations.  I mean the unGodly slump in the economy and 
.1>    industry must've had someting to do with exerting pressure that forced 
.1>    change and yes, even a decline in morale. 
    
    That's true, but should be taken with a large grain of NaCl.
    
    Look at the financial results, and growth, over the period of our slump
    for companies such as MicroSoft, Dell, Gateway, and maybe even HP and
    Sun (I haven't paid attention to the last two, so check them for
    yourself).
    
    Part of survival, let alone success, is adapting to change.  Those who
    do not adapt to changed conditions perish like the dinosaurs.

disclaimer:  
   The opinions below are based on conclusions I have made from
   information available to or observable by all Digital
   employees.  No communications with top Digital management was
   used except for statements made for employee communications.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The business decisions made within Digital over the past several
years show clear recognition by top management of the burden
which the company's overhead represents and a new, implicit
vision of what Digital is to be in the future.  It also shows
the lack of any ability to control the overhead structure from
the top, thus forcing top management to take drastic actions to
restructure the company without the overhead.

What Business Decisions provide the evidence?
--------------------------------------------
Top management has decided to 

   a) general reduce headcount, 
   b) close specific manufacturing and other facilities, 
   c) spin off external contractors to provide certain services,
   d) acquire several service oriented companies, 
   e) institute a customer driven business philosophy to replace
      the technology driven strategy of the past.

Why is there an Overhead Burden?
-------------------------------
There are several causes for the overhead burden, 

   1) Complexity induced by inability to develop one set of
      rules for a multinational company serving multinational
      and culture bound customers with many diverse products and
      services,
      
   2) Human inability to deal with that complexity with any
      existing management strategies that are compatible with
      the values espoused by top management.
      
   3) No attempt to streamline and rationalize our
      administrative systems to date has been successful.
      Regardless of the reasons for this failures, we cannot
      ignore our failure as administrators.
      

How can we appreciate the size of the Overhead Burden?
-----------------------------------------------------
You can see a graphic demonstration of the burden when an
internal function is replaced by an external contractor.  The
contractor provides the same service to Digital at lower cost
and pays its employees more than Digital does.  The difference
in overhead cost is enough to put more into the pocket of the
contractor's employee than the corresponding Digital employee
made.

Why is there no control over Overhead?
-------------------------------------
Top management has no means to drive the overhead reduction of
the company because at every level, vested interests of
individual employees or misunderstanding of priorities can
override the management directives designed to reduce overhead.
This can defeat all but the most radical restructuring such as
is currently in process and will lead to the realization of the
Implict Vision.

What is the Implict Vision?
--------------------------
The implicit vision is of a Digital Services Corporation which
provides almost any kind of service a customer might need,
either using commodities, internal resources or external
contractors for hardware or software engineering, manufacturing,
or consultation.  External resources will be preferred because
of the lower overhead burden compared to today's Digital.
Reliance on external resources also will enable the future
company to respond most rapidly to customers' needs.

Why must the Vision be Implicit?
-------------------------------
This vision must remain implicit because it implies nearly total
replacement of today's business activities with new ones.  This,
in turn implies almost total replacement of Digital's employees
eventually.  Explicit recognition of the vision could have a
disastrous impact on employee morale that would make it
impossible to stay in business.

What about the employees?
------------------------
Digital's treatment of its employees has traditionally been
enlightened.  Its financial assistence packages to date have
been generous.  Many employees have learned enough to become
successful entrepreneurs after they leave Digital and even more
aspire to do so.  There are also those who learned little which
is transferrable to other jobs or their own businesses.  These
will face hard times.  

What are the prospects for success?
----------------------------------
Success, measured by the profitability of the business entity
known as Digital Equipment Corporation is very likely if
management can stay the course.  Unfortunately, this success
will leave very few elements of continuity between Digital
Equipment Corporation and Digital Services Corporation.  In
particular, most engineering and manufacturing will disappear
and the chummy atmosphere will give way to a very driven one.
The key question is whether Digital can sustain the cost of the
financial assistence levels that have become expected.


/rab
    

I came here in July, 1988. Here's what I saw:

1. A company fat beyond belief, with every kind of resource, particularly
   human. Digital had more microwave ovens than my previous company, Unisys,
   had printers (some exaggeration--perhaps). Tremendous numbers of people.
   I told someone at the time: "Just think if the company ever tried to put
   them to work!"

2. Lots of full-time employees working only part-time. It wasn't exactly that
   the employees were goofing off (though in my opinion many were). They just
   weren't being given enough to do. But everyone seemed to be given tremendous
   amounts of freedom to decide just how much they wanted to do.

3. Deadly dull meetings of very low quality.

4. Happy employees, with few complaints. Remember when there were so few
   complaints that the DIGITAL notes file was dull and hardly worth reading?

I told myself that this wouldn't last, so I might as well enjoy it while I
could. And some others knew it wouldn't last, either. On my first day at work,
one of my co-workers said, "Welcome to Digital. Unfortunately, you're joining
the company when its best days are behind it."

I have to say I like the company better now than I did then, because people are
being given more work (and more useful work). It's beginning to matter whether
people actually show up or not to do their jobs. In 1988, lots of things fell
through the cracks because there were so many people around to do them.
(Therefore, no one took responsibility.) Now, with fewer people, there's a
little more responsibility.

I feel sorry for the people who are being laid off. (And I hope I'm not one of
them.) But the company has to go forward with these layoffs to get back to a
reasonable size so that jobs become meaningful again.

Vicki Meagher

    Re .5 Vicki
    
    I also joined Digital in 1988, along with another chap who was, like
    me, a corporate vagabond with experience in several other Fortune
    500 companies.
    
    As we went through our orientation, we found ourselves repeatedly
    looking at each other in disbelief at how fat and counterproductive
    much of Digital seemed to be relative to our experience elsewhere.
    
    As we have kept in touch, we both agree that, from our different
    locations, that Digital is more like the companies we left in terms of
    employee productivity now, but....
    
    The endless tinkering with measurement systems, and the "52-pickup"
    style of implementing untested reorganizations coming in waves, 
    the relentless sloganeering about delighting, benchmarking, best-in-class,
    quality, simple, clear....I can't say we're on the right track, yet.
    
    My recommendation?  
    
    Make sure the necessary administrative/budget systems are in place
    and tested before the next reorganization is implemented, and use our
    own project-management-trained employees to plan and install it!
                           
    I guess its too late for the next reorganization (coming July 1st?), 
    but its not too early to start planning the one after that (six months?)!
    
    Carter

>>>    The endless tinkering with measurement systems, and the "52-pickup"
>>>    style of implementing untested reorganizations coming in waves, 
>>>    the relentless sloganeering about delighting, benchmarking, best-in-class,
>>>    quality, simple, clear....I can't say we're on the right track, yet.

I agree completely.

I still see too much make-work, too many employees bogged down in irrelevant
tasks, too much effort expended on small things that don't really matter, too
little effort expended on things that do. Too little common sense, too little
questioning about "What really matters?" or "What am I/are we trying to
achieve?" or "Is this job/project/task worth doing?"

Vicki Meagher

    All the organizations at DEC I've worked at have been "below
    strength". Well, not completely, one organization had a few too
    many managers. But every organization I've been part of had a lot 
    more work to do than people to do it. The group I'm in now has more
    work than ever before but is about 25% below peak head count. And
    there is talk about us taking on a number of new and major tasks.
    Even if we don't get more people.

    There other organizations that look, from the outside, to have extra
    people. But it's really hard to judge from outside. And there aren't
    as many of them as their used to be. 

    There are, I believe, a lot of inefficient processes. And probably a
    lot of work being done that doesn't need doing. But there is so much
    work that needs doing that isn't being done that I really have trouble
    believing that we have too many people. It's a matter of properly using
    the people we have.

    			Alfred

    re: .4
    
    Sorry to disagree, but...
    
    The decisions made by Digital management over the last few years
    show directly that upper management has no idea what to do!!!
    
    1)  They (upper management, middle managment, the endless lists of
    VP's) ARE the overhead!!!
    
    2)  Their ranks are growing.
    
    3)  The company is percieved to be introuble because the share price is
    dropping and 'analysts' (read: "people who have financial degrees and
    can operate spreadsheets full of 'indicators' and neither can nor will
    look at whether a company's product and direction make sense") say its
    in bad shape.
    
    4)  Think about this simplification:
    
    	There are 10 of us at work, and we sell 30 things a month.
        The competitor has 20 people and he sells 70 things a month.
        An outsider with NO BUSINESS EXPERIENCE AT ALL says:
           To be competitive with the other company, you must
           get to the magic ratio of 3.5 things/month/body.
        Since he has no expertise in anything but statistical comparisons
        he has no idea how to get us to make the requisite 35 things per
        month so he says:
           You must lower your workforce by 1.5 to be competitive.
    
    Now, if we do that, who is the bigger fool?  And, what is the
    INEVITABLE result?  I'll tell you the result, you can label the fool. 
    The result is, our 8.5 people make 25 things next month, and the
    analyst re-running the spreadsheet says: You didn't lay off enough, for
    25 things, you must have only 7 people.  Get rid of another 1.5.
    The cycle repeats, but, it gets faster because, after the second round,
    our productivity drops to 2.75 things per month per person because
    we're all worried and stressed out.  Ultimately the company DISAPPEARS.
    
    Don
    

    Could we say it this way:
    
    Regardless of how loaded we feel and how much we see work, which needs
    our efforts, in this business today Digital is not profitable, which means
    that something must be done differently to be able to operate with a
    profit. As Digital employees we should think how our work should be
    done differently to produce more/better/right things with less
    resources and are we indeed doing something which adds value in
    relation to the effort.
    If we only reduce headcount, the result probably is that resources/
    production ratio does not improve. We just produce less and/or weaker
    quality.
    
    --Ritva
    

    I keep hearing "Do with less" and "Add value".  Great phrases! Seems
    like something from a Management Productivity Siminar.  I agree with .9
    about why we are getting rid of people and why it has to stop.  I
    disagree with the above pharses.

    Lets take them one at a time.  Lets start with "Add value".  What is
    added value?  Only the customer knows.  In fact, the customer is
    telling us today what they want to buy.  Instead we say, the customer
    whats this and that, and our product is superior because of the fuzzils
    we installed on the blit panel.  Lets watch what is being bought by the
    customer and sell it...

    Next take "Do with less".  Kind of reminds me of this construction
    foreman that wanted to cut down on expenses, and never had the saws
    sharpened.  When a hammer broke never replaced it.  Soon the house
    builders were trying to cut 2x4's with a knife, and driving nails with
    rocks.  Imagine how long it took to finish the house.

    IMO, what needs to be done is make a competitive product, that the
    customer wants, and sell it as cheap or cheaper than the competition.
    Thats it! Plain and simple.  If someone else can do it, so can we...

    Jim Morton

Much more so than at any time in the past 13 years i've been here, i see
worker bee and line manager folks engaged in cross-functional efforts to
break through some of the stovepipe walls and start to get the "big picture"
more in line with reality.  And more higher level managers seem to be aware
of and backing this, although how strongly they'll put their prestige on
the line remains to be seen.  It's promising but i wonder if it's all going
to come together in time to save us from a takeover (or worse).

The biggest disconnect seems to be between the people thinking strategies
and futures and the folks on the front-line trying to just stay afloat.
The strategy folks, who are often the ones justifying reorganizations of
various types, seem to think that we're doing the job adequately now and
just need to be more efficient and ambitious.  The rest of us see every day
that we're failing at the basics, often just not getting the job done and
letting things fall on the floor.  Improving efficiency could help us do
some of the things we're failing at now--rather than yielding all the
desired headcount reductions or allowing us to do flashy new things.  That
disconnect really worries me.

I suspect our predicament now is the result of years of incremental failure
at doing the basics coupled with too many ambitious plans that aggravate
rather than correct that.  Maybe humility is career-limiting at DEC!

								paul

	re .9:

>    4)  Think about this simplification:
>    
>        There are 10 of us at work, and we sell 30 things a month.
>        The competitor has 20 people and he sells 70 things a month.
>        An outsider with NO BUSINESS EXPERIENCE AT ALL says:
>           To be competitive with the other company, you must
>           get to the magic ratio of 3.5 things/month/body.
>        Since he has no expertise in anything but statistical comparisons
>        he has no idea how to get us to make the requisite 35 things per
>        month so he says:
>           You must lower your workforce by 1.5 to be competitive.

	Don, I agree with most of what you are saying. But this
	simplification may have neglected one very likely candidate
	for the root of our problems: complexity.

	I've said it before - Digital seems to be trying to do more
	things at once than any other company in the global IT market.
	Who else competes with IBM in mainframes (in our dreams), with
	Sun in workstations, with Compaq in PCs, with Oracle in databases,
	with Tandem in fault-tolerance, with the Big Six in consultancy,
	with the leaders in Systems Integration... and that's before you
	include intelligent buildings, disaster recovery, imaging,
	publishing, office automation, software engineering, transaction
	processing, aerospace, medicine, manufacturing, finance... The
	list goes on and on and on and on and on.

	Why? Because we are Digital, and we can do *anything* better than
	the others? Because we aren't doing so well at what we used to
	be good at? Because there's always someone new wanting to make a
	name?

	Whatever the reasons, it flies directly in the face of the humble
	folk-wisdom that says "Focus on your core competencies, drop
	everything else". From discussions in this conference and elsewhere,
	Digital doesn't even know what its core competencies might be.

	Now there is a rule that appplies to complex organisations, which
	says that the overhead of communication and coordination increases
	in proportion to the square of the number of people or departments
	which have to cooperate. Is it n(n-1)? That looks good to me.

	In software engineering, we try to keep teams as small as possible,
	in order to minimize n. More and more, we are seeing that small
	focussed companies can beat big monolithic companies. In fact, you
	could view the whole Open Systems movement as an evolution away	from
	vendors who are trying to do "everything", towards specialists whose
	products cooperate through standards.

	Maybe this is why Digital has such a low profit/employee figure.
	All the money that should be going into profit is drained away in
	committees, notesfiles, reviews, matrix management, and the endless
	search for consensus. Which in the final analysis is futile, because
	there can be no consensus between such disparate groups as, say,
	VMS Engineering and the Financial Industry Marketing group, or
	between those committed to selling Rdb and those working with
	Oracle to sell UNIX boxes, or between management consultants
	and product salespeople, or...

	/Tom

    Speaking as a contractor (I think we're called consultants in the US,
    where contractors clean the floors and things) who's been in DEC more
    over the last 6 years than out, if .4 was a prediction, I think it's
    pretty close to what will happen. My observation is, that the biggest
    obstacle to the old DEC surviving is self-protection (including an
    inability to admit to mistakes) by management, to the detriment of the
    overall business.
    
    Laurie.

  >  Well... I don't think you can blame it all on the internal structures
  >  of the corporations.  I mean the unGodly slump in the economy and industry
  >  must've had someting to do with exerting pressure that forced change
  >  and yes, even a decline in morale. 
    
    Althought these seem factors haven't affected other vendors in quite
    the same way. For instance, HP's profits jumped 49% in its first
    quarter back when DEC had its 294.1 Million loss. 
    

    
    What we need to do!
    
    1; Define what business we are in.
    
    2; Simplify our product lines.
    
    3; Create new products that support demand. Do not create products and
       then try to create demand.
    
    4; Intergrate organizations to be customer driven. 
       
       example:                   CUSTOMER
                       MARKETING             DESIGN ENG
    
                                MFG/LOGISTICS
    all are interconnected, all have interdependent metrics. If one fails
    we all fail....end of story.
    
    
    5; Have "ONE" World-Wide ordering channel. Make ordering H/W, S/W,
       Services easy for the customer.
    
    6; Be Very predictiable and flexible on delivery of product.
    
    7; Treat your Vendor as a business partner.
    
    8; Listen to the customer, Focus on customer value....Focus on work
       that the customer will pay for.
    
    9; Systematic continuos improvement not super breakthrough jumps of
       improvement.
    
    10; Lastly, Benchmark, Benchmark, Benchmark. Understand the CORE work
        and center around simplification of process, elimination of waste 
        in all its forms, and the concept of the INTERNAL customer as well.
        This will have a powerful impact on Customers.
    
    
    
    
    Also, Just one last thing. Layoffs....I'm really scared...I look at my
    kids and sometimes wonder how I'm going to support them if anything
    should happen. There's really No jobs out there (Mass, Southern, N.H.)
    I've been to un-employment just to see what's going on and let me tell
    you, everybody is there, I mean all walks of life, its frighting.
    
    I've learned to cope by coming in each day and doing the very best
    I can do. By trying to find answers that will put DEC back on the road
    to profit. If I should get hit then I'll worry about it then. That's
    how I get through it everyday...I hope it ends soon......16 years at
    DEC, I must work and I'd rather it be here.
    
    
    Any other thoughts?
    
    Rick
    
    
    

.10>    ...in this business today Digital is not profitable, which means
.10>    that something must be done differently to be able to operate with a
.10>    profit. As Digital employees we should think how our work should be
.10>    done differently to produce more/better/right things with less
.10>    resources and are we indeed doing something which adds value in
.10>    relation to the effort.
    
    To some degree I agree, but I see a problem.  The problem is summed up
    in one word: "synergy".  More precisely, three words: "lack of synergy".
    
    It is important that each employee think how our individual work can be
    done differently to improve productivity.  But we are still at the
    mercy of how well or poorly the organization of individual work is
    accomplished.  It's like the distinction between efficiency and
    effectiveness:  an ineffective organization can be efficient at doing
    the wrong things very well.
    
    That function is labeled "management".  Management and other employees
    must both do their jobs, and well, in order to succeed.  At its best,
    this represents teamwork in which those functions interact
    synergistically.  Frankly, I don't see a lot of that at Digital now,
    although I once did.  We were more successful then too, maybe there is
    a correlation.
    
    I don't want to be a manager.  At least, if I am I don't want to also
    be an engineer.  I want to do one job and do it well.  But I also want
    the other jobs around me to be done well.  I remember a manager on the
    Pro project responding to the comment "that's a technical issue" by
    saying "that's the reason I've got you engineers" and thinking to myself 
    "and the reason I've got managers is to give me interesting work to do
    and the resources to do it".  The way things are now, I have been
    tempted to fire some of my management (if I could only identify which
    part merits that!).
    
.10>    If we only reduce headcount, the result probably is that resources/
.10>    production ratio does not improve. We just produce less and/or weaker
.10>    quality.
    
    That's why I give "management" as a faceless collective entity poor
    grades right now.
    
    If the ratio (product : people) is too low, there are two ways to alter
    it.  You can increase the quantity of product or decrease the quantity
    of people.  Which is easier for management to implement?  Which is more
    effective?  Which of those questions has a certain answer and which is
    uncertain?
    
    There is another factor.  After attending Simon's funeral I went to
    lunch with a group including Martin Minow, Alfred Thompson, Andy
    Leslie,  John Covert, and several others.  I think it was Martin who
    reminisced about an old quote to the effect that at Digital any
    decision worth making is worth making several times.  How much does
    that sort of thing cut our productivity?  There were also some memories
    about how many times some projects were cancelled before they shipped,
    and a comment that now we cancel projects and they never ship.  What
    does that do to productivity per employee, when management has funded
    and staffed projects and later renders those resources unproductive 
    by cancelling the projects?
    
    But even the productivity per employee is a simplistic measure. 
    Productivity is a measure of revenue generated by sales and ships to
    customers.  If customers don't buy enough of our products is the real
    problem our productivity?  Sure, it can be argued that if we have more
    headcount than the revenue stream will support then we should reduce
    it, but that can, or *should*, take us back to the same question, is
    the problem the revenue stream or the headcount?  Problem is, the size
    of the revenue stream is the result of decisions made by the same
    management function that has to decide whether the problem is how their
    decisions performed, or headcount.
    
    I hate bashing management.  One of the things I loved about Digital
    when I came on board over twelve years ago was that employees and
    managers were on the same side.  Now I feel we took an enlightened
    (what's the term for the Japanese style, "type Z" or something like
    that?) organization and turned it into a backwards (smokestack American
    industrial model) organization.  Over the past several years I've seen
    my relationship with my management (in the person of my immediate
    supervisor) tending more and more toward the model I experienced when 
    I was a card-carrying Teamster, and I don't like it.  But I gotta face
    reality.
    
    Reflecting on Simon's passing, I have been impressed by how far his
    circle of influence extended.  That resulted from his values and how
    they permeated very aspect of his life and his work.  Digital used to
    have values that permeated every aspect of the company, but now I feel
    those values too have passed on.  Can we recapture them?  I don't know,
    I wish I could be optimistic but I'm not.
    
    The title of .10 asks "Is there a will to change?"  Of course, because
    change is inevitable, the question is what will it be?  Will we follow
    the path of Wang, or Apollo, or Prime, or DG?
    
    (sorry if this ran long, this all has been on my mind for awhile and
    once it started flowing I didn't want to bottle it up again.)
    
    --bruce

    re .17
    
    The reasons, why I wrote .10 were well described in your reply.
    But, even when we should learn from the past we should equally
    use this learning to improve the future. I too am disappointed
    and that's why I asked "Is there a will to change". There is a
    big difference between drifting to a change and changing, because
    you want to and are willing to learn how. In good times drifting
    may be sufficent, perhaps helped by paddling but we are not in that
    situation now. And in this context I would like to include to Digital
    employees all of us from individual contributors to the management.
    
    It is the management's responsibility to tell what is good and what we 
    should pursue not only in nice speaches but also in the feedback which is
    consistent with the principles. This does not pre-empt individuals'
    responsibility in their own working environment.
    
    --Ritva
     

RE: .16

>    2; Simplify our product lines.

There are about 250 different variants of about 16 basic VAX systems.  Each of 
these can be configured (in general) as Standalone, Networked, 2 forms of 
Clusters yielding 1000 conbos.  In addition to this software can be bought at 
least 2 ways yielding 2000 combos.  I have left out "creative" configurations.

Why don't we just sell 16 basic machines.

One other example before I bore everyone.  Disks sometimes come with connecting
cables and sometimes don't.  Sometimes the Systems and Options Catalog details
this and sometimes it doesn't.  What are the odds of everything showing up 
correct...very low...

At the same time, simplify doesn't mean eliminate useful options.  Many of the
options that exist are because people believe that packages are easier to 
configure and sell.   In theory they are except that you end up with 250
packages of 16 basic components.  A tool that   automatically built a
custom "package" (i.e. eliminate the complexity and confusion is grouping 
part numbers...i.e. it knew if a disk had a cable or not) would eliminate the
need for 250 variants of 16 systems.

>    3; Create new products that support demand. Do not create products and
>       then try to create demand.
    
>    4; Intergrate organizations to be customer driven. 
>       
>       example:                   CUSTOMER
>                       MARKETING             DESIGN ENG
>    
>                                MFG/LOGISTICS

Over the past 8 years I have delved into the guts of Digital (I have always been
in the field) from time to time on a particular issue.  Everytime, I find out 
more amazing things as I go.  When I do, the reasons for all the ridiculous 
inconsistency becomes clear.  On one of my latest sojourns, I discovered the 
following about software products:

1)  First my impressions before I did this...  The product manager  was 
responsible for all aspects of the product (License price, media, doc, SPD,
and service.

2)  Now for the facts...
	- The product manager sets the license price
	- The services organization sets the service price and package
	- There is an "H-kit" business that decides what media and doc cost
		as well has how it is packaged.
	- There is an SPD Administration groups that gets text or VAX document
		files from product managers and performs some majic to them
	- There is a Business Practices Committee that sets policy but has
		no ability to enforce it.

3)  Why is all of this bad...
	- I estimate that 10 people "touch" each product.  Each of these has 
		their own view of what is right.  No one person can veto 
		absurdities of others.  Because of this we get gross
		inconsistencies.  Also, if we want to become customer driven
		we somehow have to get these 10 people to realize that the
		customer sees this whole package of stuff as ALL-IN-1 not the
		many cuts of ALL-IN-1 that we have (i.e. A1 H-kit, license, SPD
		service).  

4)  Its not that people don't want to be customer driven.  They can't be.  Almost
	without exception, when I talk to any of these people they are reasonable
	and want to do the right thing.  They can't because they have to get
	too many people to agree with them.
    
>    
>    5; Have "ONE" World-Wide ordering channel. Make ordering H/W, S/W,
>       Services easy for the customer.
>   

Amen, I have a couple international accounts...what a nightmare (and they are
only US and Canada).  Unfortunately this has all the issues as 4 above.
 


In my travels I have been frustrated by the fact that there is only one person
in this company that can make a decision without the involvement of a committee.
Because of this, change is so slow that most people  give up.

Ken Slattery

    re .19 - it's worse than you realize.
    
.19>	- The product manager sets the license price
    
    no, the product manager recommends the licence price to a committee
    (PAC) which makes the actual decision to go with the recommendation or
    not.  I've heard of multiple iterations to incorporate various
    suggested revisions or further research.  Note, I am not a PM, but as
    an engineer I interact with them.
    
.19>  ...the fact that there is only one person in this company 
.19>  that can make a decision without the involvement of a committee.
    
    I hear rumors that the BoD may have decided that was too many.
    

    As little as four years ago, I was four reporting levels away from KO.
    Today, I am 10 levels away.  My job function has not materially changed in
    that interval and I've even been promoted twice.  
    
    What does this tell you about our management totem pole?

    ref .-1
    
    how many levels are there in DEC ?
    
    /nasser

    how many "digits" in the "expansion" of Digital?  
    
    	(ie, after the "good old days" point?)
    
    /rab
    
    	

    Something I found which I hope many of you find of interest.  Excerpt
    from "The Fighting Spirit" by Lou Holtz
    
       I saw a group of men in my hometown.
    I saw a group of men tearing a building down.
       With a heave and a ho and a mighty yell,
       they swung a beam and the sidewalk fell.
    And I said to the foreman, "Are these men skilled,
       The type you'd hire if you wanted to build?"
       And he laughed and said, "Why, no indeed."
         He said, "Common labor's all I need.
         For I can tear down in a day or two
         What it took a builder ten years to do."
       And I thought to myself as I walked away,
       "Which of these roles am I going to play?
       Am I the type that constantly tears down
        As I make my way, foolishly, around?
      Or am I the type that's trying to build with care,
    In hopes that my organization'll be glad I was there?"
                        

    Which role am I going to be paid for?
    
    Hardly appropriate to complaining...
    
    Perhaps:  "The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate
               will not submit to arbitrary measures."
    
    is more appropriate.
    
    This see no evil - hear no evil - speak lots behind closed doors way of
    running a company is OBVIOUSLY failing!
    
    Don
    

RE: .21

On the other hand, I have been here 12 years, the full time as an individual
contributor (i.e., bottom managerial latter rung), and my vertical distance
from K.O. is the same now as it was in 1980.

--PSW

RE: .24

Those are interesting words...

I don't know whom they were aimed at (if anyone/note in particular).

I sincerely hope that by outlining the problems, a solution can be found.

With respect to my comments in .19.  I have been "working the system" on some 
of those particular issues for over 6 months.  Although I have made some 
progress, I don't see that I am much closer to a solution today than I was
then.  Also, I have made the most progress after I have "gone public" with
and issue.  I started a note in the marketing notes file (number 1716) last 
December that could be described as tearing down (not building).  As a result
of that, I have gotten access to people that would not have returned my calls 
before.  I wish that change could occur more quickly and with less "bloodshed"
but my experience is that is doesn't.  I predict that this "process" has less 
than a 50% chance of yielding change even now.  Before my note, it had a 0% 
chance.  In order to make it successful, I may have to "go public" again, at
higher levels because the inertia of committees is much stronger than the 
inertia of an individual and the inertia of a system of thousands of people 
that are "guided" by a committee, is several orders of magnitude higher yet.

If I choose to go on another crusade, it will probably be centered on the fact
that no decision can be made without a committee.  The central reason for this
is that no one ACTUALLY has responsibility.

I hope to build Digital up.  Sometimes, the only way to do that is to tear part
of it down.

Ken Slattery

Re Build Up/Tear Down and 250 Flavors of VAX

Once upon a time, the computer was invented.  Whoa, they said,
this will do for the mind what the industrial revolution did for
the body!  Liberation to higher pursuits!  

What have we wrought?  We compute so intensely there's nothing left 
to think about.  Why else would there be 250 flavors of VAX.  Package 
every permutation because it's all so complex, how else can the field
possibly cope?  We sure seem to be *the* industry leaders when 
it comes to packaging!

I've come to wonder if DEC isn't trying to supplant thinking, not enhance
it.  Not just for ourselves but our customers too.  Business partners.  
That's what we are.  We'll tell you how to run your's better.  But wait
a second.  Wasn't it KO who said "we don't build cars."  Now why
was that???

I wish DEC would stop foisting this all-encompassing guru-blab.
The end-users aren't naive anymore.  They don't need hand-holding
and pep-talks.  No nonsense products that justify themselves
and the service to keep them updated and running.  What could be
simpler?  

It would take a lot of down-tearing around here to get to that
model.  "Disclaimer:"  Not that that's any model for success
beyond my naive thinking.

We're desparately close to out-of-control.  There must be some
program that can handle this mess...

Dean

.24>                    -< Which role are you going to play? >-
    
    Roles are a matter of definition and perspective.  My immediate first 
    reaction while reading that was to equate "tearing-down" and "downsizing".
    
    It was only near the end that I got past that image to consider that
    perhaps there are those who would view what is intended as constructive
    criticism to be "tearing down" as well.
    
    Upon reflection, I still feel that criticism offered with the intention
    of causing improvement is constructive, and casting off loyal employees
    without first tackling management problems is not.  And whimsically 
    reshuffling top managers out of jobs they've held for a whole month
    isn't tackling management problems, it's fumbling with them...