| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1977.1 | Which Fortune? | SOLVIT::DESMARAIS | | Fri Jul 10 1992 11:01 | 1 |
| Which Fortune? Date Page? thanks.
|
| 1977.2 | Jul '92 | BOOKS::HAMILTON | All models are false; some are useful - Dr. G. Box | Fri Jul 10 1992 11:09 | 5 |
| re .1
Cover story, July 27, 1992 edition.
|
| 1977.3 | Thanks.. | SOLVIT::DESMARAIS | | Fri Jul 10 1992 11:14 | 1 |
| Thanks I was looking in the July 13th issue..
|
| 1977.4 | DEC Descendants? | JANET::LORD | Janet @OFO, 274-6327 | Fri Jul 10 1992 15:52 | 6 |
| I can only speculate that "we're next..." DEC has, it seems,
has often emulated IBM with these kinds of moves.
Might be fun!
-j
|
| 1977.5 | | SPEZKO::DICKINSON | | Fri Jul 10 1992 16:39 | 8 |
|
What is the advantage of a company doing this ? And to follow .4, what
would DEC gain in following IBM ?
peter
|
| 1977.6 | Focus, competitiveness... | JANET::LORD | Janet @OFO, 274-6327 | Fri Jul 10 1992 17:58 | 28 |
| Again, my opinion... super large companies, like DEC and IBM, with
the scope and breadth of products and services are unweildy to manage;
products overlap; priorities get muddled (sound familiar yet...
think about the recent OSF/1 on MIPS scenario...)? Smaller, more
targeted compaies tend to stay more focused and competitive. P&L
is easier to track, so you know when you're successful and when you
aren't. The fittest survive.
Vis-a-vis DEC's emulation of IBM... it's just an observation. It
seems that when IBM restructures itself, DEC isn't far behind.
A commodities company (PCs, printers, terminals and, perhaps,
workstations), a complex systems company (i.e., VAX/Alpha),
a services company, a software company... each with a different
way of approaching the business... not beyond the realm of
possibility, I don't think. Each would be a multi-billion-$$
entity... I can't speculate on what it might mean for stock (Akers
said IBM might sell stock in each of the Baby Blues later in the
90's...) but it certainly would focus the effort against the
competition.
And I agree that, in that scenario, a sales force for each would
be a reasonable thing to consider... instead of having one sales
force that works for all of the sub-companies. Imagine the training
sessions... each business unit would be competing *heavily* for
sale rep mindshare. Hmmm.... sounds sorta like today, in fact...
:-).
-j
|
| 1977.7 | heard on the radio -- must be true! | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (381-0899 ZKO3-2/T63) | Sat Jul 11 1992 07:55 | 10 |
| Well, to add fuel to the rumor mill:
Yesterday afternoon, after work, I heard a brief discussion on WBZ radio
(Boston) between their business correspondent and the news anchor.
The anchor asked what was happening with Digital. The answer was that there
was some talk among traders towards the close of the market about either
a takeover or an "asset sale". The business reporter specifically said
that no company or party was specifically named.
Bob
|
| 1977.8 | Conversations and observations during last week ... | YUPPIE::COLE | Neck-deep in the Big Muddy, ... | Sat Jul 11 1992 16:40 | 4 |
| ... lead me to believe there will be some sort of split-off of the SI
business this FY. Also, SI managers are scrambling to get financial data up
to date on their programs, and PM's are being told to have "solid" business
plans for their programs by the end of Q1.
|
| 1977.9 | Opinions and speculation *only* | JANET::LORD | Janet @OFO, 274-6327 | Sat Jul 11 1992 23:09 | 8 |
| Just to be clear... my opinions are just that... opinions and
speculation. I don't *know* of any plans by DEC to split up
the business... it's just seems that when IBM has made major
moves like this in the past, DEC has followed.
I was *wondering* why the stock was up a bit on Friday...
-j
|
| 1977.10 | | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | Rum, Romanism, Rebellion� | Sun Jul 12 1992 12:51 | 1 |
| See 1852 here, "The Real Reorganization"
|
| 1977.11 | division | FDCV14::FREITAS | Paul Freitas | Mon Jul 13 1992 00:01 | 3 |
| Digital SI may become a division but not a subsidiary, not a seperate
company (at least that's what I heard). When you look at the margins
compared to the competition this only makes sense.
|
| 1977.12 | RE: .11 - Yes, "division" was the word I heard used, too. | YUPPIE::COLE | Neck-deep in the Big Muddy, ... | Mon Jul 13 1992 09:14 | 0 |
| 1977.13 | | FSDEV::MGILBERT | GHWB-Anywhere But America Tour 92 | Mon Jul 13 1992 14:45 | 7 |
|
Actually, Friday's rumor may have had more to do with the sale of GSO
than with a take-over rumor. I suspect that both DEC and XXX-Xxxx had
to file papers, if not with the SEC at least with some governmental
bodies, letting some people know what's going on. This may have fueled
the "asset sale" talk. Although I also heard the proverbial
take-over/merger rumor was floating around again (NYNEX-DEC this time.)
|
| 1977.14 | not as a division... | FROZEN::CHERSON | the door goes on the right | Wed Jul 15 1992 21:26 | 15 |
| >Digital SI may become a division but not a subsidiary, not a seperate
>company (at least that's what I heard). When you look at the margins
>compared to the competition this only makes sense.
Making us a division, and not a wholly-owned subsidiary (with
NON-DIGITAL management) will not improve margins. We cannot compete
equally with the EDS's and Andersens of the world using Digital
operating system/marketing/sales. If we just become a division than it
will be the same people with different acronyms, which is a familiar
act.
I have tried to start a discussion of this in
BOSDCC::CONSULTING_PRACTICES.
/d.c.
|