| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1998.1 | Makes ya wanna laugh... | TOOK::TBOYLE | | Sun Jul 19 1992 16:46 | 8 |
| Kick the salesman in the a**
Leverage those boys and make em go hungry
Drop a VAX from an airplane and sell it before it hits the ground.
All these one-liners certainly make ya wanna laugh! (yes, virginia
you may quote me)
|
| 1998.2 | | HAAG::HAAG | Got to keep on keepin' on | Sun Jul 19 1992 17:09 | 17 |
| >Geoffrey Woolcott believes that Palmer needs to
>reverse Olsen long-held aversion to commissions. "He needs to kick every
>salesman in the ass," says the president of Pepperell-based Renaissance Group
>International Inc. "He should cut their salaries, leverage those boys, and
>make them hungry."
Who the hell is this idiot? DEC's sales force, IMHO, is already treated
more shabbily than any other I have been associated with. And I have
personnel friends who are salepersons for IBM, NCR, Amdahl, and a host
of other companies whose name are not important. Yes, we need our sales
people to be hungry. But kicking them in the butt and cutting salaries
isn't the cure.
BTW, I am in sales but I am not a sales representative. Tho everyone
sells at one level or another.
Gene.
|
| 1998.3 | | ODIXIE::RHARRIS | bowhunters release on time | Mon Jul 20 1992 10:40 | 4 |
| amen to reply .2!
bob
|
| 1998.4 | One of the press opinions | LNDRFR::ADOERFER | | Mon Jul 20 1992 10:48 | 124 |
|
headline: Palmer Faces Big Challenge At Digital Equipment
By John R. Wilke
David Stone, Digital Equipment Corp.'s top software strategist, has a
private joke he shares with Robert B. Palmer, who ascended suddenly to the
chief executive's job at Digital last week.
The two men, with Pier Carlo Falotti, president of Digital's big European
unit, had been named in The Wall Street Journal last year as likely candidates
to succeed Digital's president, Kenneth H. Olsen. And they knew that each time
someone emerged as a potential challenger to Olsen's near-total control, they
lost power and were pushed aside.
"When we saw each other after that, we drew a little bull's eye on our
foreheads, like this," Stone says. He gestured toward his forehead and traced
three concentric circles with his finger.
But it is Palmer who will remain, not Olsen, ending a spellbinding corporate
drama with a troubled passing of the torch to a new generation of leadership
at the company. Although Olsen, 66 years old, won't retire until Oct. 1, the
precise and methodical Palmer, 51, is expected to take the reins almost
immediately. He's likely to move quickly to make sweeping work-force cuts that
Olsen resisted and break a logjam of indecision that has nearly paralyzed
Digital's senior ranks for months, the Journal reported.
"Bob Palmer is a strong technologist and pragmatic businessman who isn't
afraid to take the tough actions that are going to be necessary," says James
M. Osterhoff, Digital's former chief finance officer. Osterhoff left last year
after a run-in with Olsen, part of an exodus of talented executives who
tangled with the iron-willed founder.
Palmer will have Stone's help reshaping the company, but not Falotti's,
whose resignation was made public last Friday. In fact, he resigned June 30,
and his decision to leave had a key role in the events leading to Olsen's
exit, insiders said. Digital's board was already alarmed by the company's
freefall and aware that other top managers could be expected to resign unless
Olsen stepped aside. But the imminent loss of Falotti, who had been
responsible for Digital's success in Europe, "was the last straw," said one
executive familiar with the events. "They had to act."
Falotti, whose frustration with Olsen was well known, had decided to accept
the chief executive's job at ASK Cos. But Digital mounted a last-ditch effort
to get him to reconsider. But Falotti had made up his mind. Falotti, in a
telephone interview, said he was already focusing on the job ahead, at ASK.
"In this moment of turmoil and emotion I cannot be quoted on this," he said
from Portugal. "I am a man who looks forward, I do not engage in recrimination
about the past."
With pressure from the board intensifying, insiders said, and a looming net
loss of $1.5 billion or more to be reported on Wednesday for the quarter ended
June 27, Olsen apparently decided the time had come. By some accounts, he had
no other choice. But neither Olsen nor any of the nine-member board would
discuss what happened.
"In the end, it doesn't matter," said Harvey Weiss, a former vice president
who ran Digital's $2 billion federal sales division. "Ken's legacy remains.
His vision and his values endure." But Weiss added that Olsen could be
maddeningly stubborn. Even as the company began to come apart, "he just
refused to take help from anyone."
Digital is likely to become a very different company under Palmer. Analysts
say that while Olsen's organizational model was that of the research
university, with often-fractious cliques and independent departments fighting
for resources, Palmer is likely to build a more top-down management to impose
new discipline and a more traditional hierarchy onto Digital's freewheeling
structure.
As a result, investors and even some Digital executives welcomed Olsen's
exit, even as they hailed his historic contribution to the industry. Digital's
shares gained $2.25 on heavy volume Friday, to close at $43.25, in late New
York Stock Exchange trading. Analysts also applauded. Steven Milunovich of
Morgan Stanley called the change at the top "a significant, long-term positive
for Digital."
For now, though, Milunovich remains deeply skeptical. Dean Witter's Jay
Stevens, on the other hand, immediately raised his recommendation to a "buy"
on Digital stock, betting on a comeback in 1993. But he doesn't think the
changes at the top are complete and predicts that the board will bring in new
marketing talent at a senior level and replace the company's new chief
financial officer.
Palmer takes the helm with Digital in dire straits. Many employees have been
demoralized by the layoffs and by seemingly relentless infighting among
management, while executive ranks have been thinned by an early-retirement
program that claimed many of the company's most experienced managers. Of the
37 men and women listed as corporate officers in the annual report, only 23
remain.
Palmer must also preside over sweeping work-force reductions, which the
company has already said could reach 15,000 in the fiscal year that began June
28, out of a total work force of about 112,000. Many analysts expect Palmer to
push to exceed that number in an effort to return more quickly to
profitability. One consultant to Digital familiar with internal estimates says
that layoffs will range from 17,000 to 22,000 and will commence in two waves,
with the first coming late this month. A Digital spokesman would not discuss
the cuts and said that Palmer wouldn't be available for comment.
Perhaps Palmer's most basic challenge is to deliver on time a new line of
products on which the company's future depends. The products are based around
a powerful new microprocessor chip, dubbed Alpha, that was developed by
Digital's state-of-the-art chip making operation. That unit, considered in the
computer industry to be Digital's crown jewel, has been overseen by Palmer
since 1985.
Palmer's tasks will be made even more difficult by the long shadow of the
founder, whose personality has shaped the company for 35 years. And while it
isn't clear how much influence Olsen will still wield as a director -- his
term expires in November next year -- people who have followed his remarkable
career find it hard to believe he will be able to resist meddling with company
management.
But in an interview in May, Olsen seemed to understand the problem. As he
had said many times before, he repeated that he had no plans to retire and
wanted to stay at least long enough to get his beloved company back on course.
But he added, "the real measure of my success will be how well we fare after I
am gone.
"And once I'm gone," he said, "I'm gone. I'm going fishing."
|
| 1998.5 | UK Engineers view | IOSG::WDAVIES | There can only be one ALL-IN-1 Mail | Tue Jul 21 1992 06:13 | 34 |
| A quick view from S/W Engineering with what *appears* to be the problem
from our perspective:
1. Lack of focus on what the company is to produce, and specifically
what software markets (if any) are we aiming at. Alpha seems to be
well in hand as our hardware product, yet I have yet to see a
vision of what software we expect to run on it. Given the current
craze to see PCs taking over the world, what are we doing about
making the most of our engineering expertise ? Should we compete
with MS in GUIs or concentrate on our Networking ?
2. Lack of strategical vision in the software we are producing - what
will CASE or OA be in 5 years time for example ?
3. Lack of direct interface to customer needs - we engineers can
remedy this, given support. Example - I have produced several small
prototypes for new facilities to ALL-IN-1 - yet I've found it next
to impossible to get solid YES or NO from customers via Marketing.
For requirements, I lean entirely on a few CSC specialists and a
DECUS wishlist.
4. I won't and can't comment on Sales, as we don't know how they work
- but one would at least expect them to act as a channel back for
customer wishlists
Finally a snipe at the logic of headcount cutting - only effective if
the people being laidoff are 100% non-productive. Sure you can temporarily
jack up the profitability, by cutting all but the biggest margin
products - but as mentioned, people don't just buy the big ones, they
want allround. Secondly you lose the critical mass of engineering
expertise, finally where do new products get developed.
Winton
|
| 1998.6 | | POCUS::OHARA | Vote for Ren and Stimpy! | Tue Jul 21 1992 09:00 | 15 |
| >> 4. I won't and can't comment on Sales, as we don't know how they work
>> - but one would at least expect them to act as a channel back for
>> customer wishlists
A few thoughts:
Customers express their wishes by their purchase patterns. There has been
little or no efforts on the part of Digital to elicit feedback from sales
as to what the customers actually want (at least in my experience). Nor has
there been a focal point for sales to channel these wishes back to
engineers/developers. Actually, this is what Marketing is supposed to do.
The formation of the Industry Business Units should fix this, if the right
people manage the IBU's.
|
| 1998.7 | If they'd only tell it like it is... | ASDG::SBILL | | Tue Jul 21 1992 09:02 | 10 |
|
About editing out the good parts of the "State of the Company
meeting"... It sounds to me that the propaganda ministry is at it
again. You know the people that think that we can't handle the clouds
so they only show us the sunshine. Everything is just so watered down
with sugar coating that the real message is lost. They'd like us to
believe that we're doing a great job and everything is just fine, just
don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain...
Steve B.
|
| 1998.8 | my paranoia comes to the fore | SGOUTL::BELDIN_R | All's well that ends | Tue Jul 21 1992 09:21 | 10 |
| re .7
I think you are too generous with the "propaganda ministry". I no
longer believe that they were doing "innocent mischief". I believe
that they were involved in a deliberate conspiracy to sabotage KO and
the company for their own personal benefits. It's time to start a
crusade against "political correctness" and "pollyanna thinking". Too
bad I won't be around after March to help.
Dick
|
| 1998.9 | | WHO301::BOWERS | Dave Bowers @WHO | Tue Jul 21 1992 11:06 | 11 |
| Regarding feedback from the field, one area we miss entirely is analyzing
situations where we lost. Very little thought is given as to WHY the prospect
bought from the other guy. What was it about us or our products that he really
didn't like? What was the competition's winning card? We kind of shrug our
shoulders, whistle a few bars of "Que sera, sera" and go on to the next
opportunity.
If you exclude the feedback from the non-customer, all you end up with is
nit-picking of minor features, not a critique of your overall offering.
\dave
|
| 1998.10 | | IOSG::WDAVIES | There can only be one ALL-IN-1 Mail | Tue Jul 21 1992 11:33 | 4 |
| Neat point - does this happen anywhere ? Is there a central notes file
that SALES people read regularly ?
Winton
|
| 1998.11 | a wild prediction: "portables" | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (381-0899 ZKO3-2/T63) | Tue Jul 21 1992 12:29 | 23 |
| re Note 1998.5 by IOSG::WDAVIES:
> Given the current
> craze to see PCs taking over the world, what are we doing about
I suspect that the PCs have already taken over the world.
The next computing device to take over the world will be the
various flavors of portable devices -- things that people
won't even think of as "computers". There will be 50-100
million of them in the next decade. They will have some
tie-ins to digitally-delivered TV and other information
services.
So what are we doing? We are working to bring Alpha all the
way down to the PC market. That's not low enough. In the
late 80s-early 90s you have to be in the PC market to really
be in computers. Towards the turn of the century, if you're
not in portables, you're in a niche market.
I think we will stay behind -- by choice as we did before.
Bob
|
| 1998.12 | | IOSG::WDAVIES | There can only be one ALL-IN-1 Mail | Tue Jul 21 1992 12:58 | 6 |
| What are the REAL figures of MS-DOS PCs versus timeshare terminals &
workstations.
Winton
|
| 1998.13 | BIG numbers | BOOKS::HAMILTON | All models are false; some are useful - Dr. G. Box | Tue Jul 21 1992 13:40 | 11 |
| Re: real (?) numbers
Last figures I heard were 90M+ installed base of MS-DOS class
machines worldwide.
MS-WINDOWS is shipping at, I believe, 1M copies per month, or
thereabouts.
Don't know about WS or terminals
Glenn
|
| 1998.14 | Wait until WINDOW-NT, then count | RT95::HU | Olympic Game | Tue Jul 21 1992 15:52 | 14 |
|
Re: .13
> MS-WINDOWS is shipping at, I believe, 1M copies per month, or
> thereabouts.
This is absolutely true, and 1M copies is equivalent to the total
VMS licenses you have in this universe as I heard before. This doesn't
count early version of WINDOWS yet. Never mind when WINDOW-NT hit the market.
By now, anyone won't have 2nd thought about the stock price of MicroSoft.
Michael... (happy user of 486 + WINDOW 3.1)
|
| 1998.15 | | POCUS::OHARA | Vote for Ren and Stimpy! | Tue Jul 21 1992 15:52 | 8 |
| <<< Note 1998.10 by IOSG::WDAVIES "There can only be one ALL-IN-1 Mail" >>>
Neat point - does this happen anywhere ? Is there a central notes file
that SALES people read regularly ?
Well, there is a "Sales" conference, but there's only a few active contributors.
In my (limited) experience very few sales reps read NOTES.
|
| 1998.16 | Reaching Sales | STOHUB::DSCGLF::SOCHA | Sales - the original Virtual Reality | Tue Jul 21 1992 17:07 | 26 |
| The successful Sales Rep doesn't spend their time reading Notes! He/she
spends their time:
- talking to customers
- learning the product of the day
- figuring out our confused product strategies
- configuring systems
- fixing order/billing problems
- fixing support problems
- fixing measurement problems
- fixing ...
I you want to drive ANY behavior by Sales Reps AND their Management, then you
need to measure them on it. Right now, Sales is measured by what they sell
this week - with particular focus on hardware sales (because they are
tracked better).
As for lost sales, this is a major hole which noone is attempting
to fix, and noone seems interested in fixing. (Noone wants to decrease this
weeks sales for the opportunity to improve next quarters sales).
I have not experienced much transfer of information between sales
and marketing. I am often amazed at the products and features that we come
up with...
Kevin
|
| 1998.17 | We are suffering from MIS information | RIPPLE::NORDLAND_GE | Waiting for Perot :^) | Tue Jul 21 1992 20:35 | 41 |
|
I just talked to a sales rep who just took over an account 3 months
ago. This was a long time DEC customer but generally an 'IBM house'.
His predecessor took SERP and essentially left him no info on the
account. He bravely spoke of his challenge to 'create demand.' I wish
him well.
But if I was in charge, I'd fire the sales manager who allowed his
predecessor's knowledge to escape the company! The sad thing is that
this is pretty standard. Has been for years - since I was a customer
and a new guy showed up and asked us who we were; since I was in
marketing and could find no one who knew how many VAXen had been sold
to each division of GE, one of our biggest customers; etc.
If we're going to change the company, we better do it from the
viewpoint of satisfying the few customers we still have. The problem
we have is - we don't know near as much about our customers as the
competition does. We should start to collect this information into a
corporate database so that everyone who has to deal with any customer
can find it quickly and act accordingly.
The second thing we need to do is some serious self-assessment. We
have no workable system that allows anyone to ask, say, 'How many
people do we have with IBM Cobol experience that could help do ___? I
think our entire Personnel function is totally broken. Everything gets
done via networking - either you know someone who knows someone or
you're lost. Personnel _just_ files req's and waits to hear whether
they're filled or closed. We need the same information about our
people as we do about our customers and the same ability to access it.
Only then can the company start to set direction. Right now we're
like Sears - a little of everything from applicances to lawn mowers to
underwear. And we have lost our reputation as being good at anything.
Everything you can buy at Sears you can get cheaper/better somewhere
else. Why would you go there? Why would a customer come to DEC? Once
we know what the customers want and know what talent we have, we can
find the common ground and move forward.
Let's just hope that 'Rapid Robert' holds off any amputation until
he looks at the X-rays.
|
| 1998.18 | Post-mortems and GERBIL::US_SALES_SERVICE | NEWVAX::SGRIFFIN | DTN 339-5391 | Tue Jul 21 1992 20:39 | 27 |
| re: .9
> Regarding feedback from the field, one area we miss entirely is analyzing
I know that many major programs have post-mortems, whether we win or lose. We
can learn our mistakes and strengths in both instances. We also regularly
take customers to meet with engineering, one-on-one, to discuss needs versus
current product offerings. Field tests provide another method of feedback.
re: .10
> Neat point - does this happen anywhere ? Is there a central notes file
> that SALES people read regularly ?
GERBIL::US_SALES_SERVICE
Sales people read and contribute. Until his departure, Bob Hughes was a
participant.
re: .16
> The successful Sales Rep doesn't spend their time reading Notes! He/she
I would imagine some of the participants of the above mentioned conference
_ARE_ successful sales reps. Perhaps they feel it is important to provide
that feedback to senior management, or simply to share their experience, what
works, what doesn't, with others, both sales and service.
|
| 1998.19 | | MILKWY::TATISTCHEFF | well, lah-di-dah | Tue Jul 21 1992 20:42 | 53 |
| what should bob do in hardware land?
refocus our efforts on INTELLIGENT engineering.
we engineer our products like nuts (witness six sigma). but what are
the product failures we actually look at? reliability test failures.
do we have any idea what ACTUALLY fails? what is a REAL infant
mortality failure?
no. i can count on my hands the number of chips and boards that fail
at customer sites and are sent back for failure analysis. those that
do fall into two categories: big bucks customer who's witholding
payment (or the next purchase), and the enormous disaster. enormous
disaster like our unpleasant experience with electrochemical migration
(dendrites), or the one when IBM discovered the phenomenon of
electromigration.
we engineer out features we THINK will cause poor lifetimes, but we
have very little REAL data (free of projections) indicating dominant
lifetime killers. if an airplane crashes, it's analyzed and
corrections are implemented. when a bridge falls down or even just
cracks a lot, it's analyzed and those results are shared. if a chip
breaks, it's tossed out (until a zillion chips with the same part
number also fail).
people ooh-aah about electromigration, supposedly a real killer. huh.
the last electromigration failure in our lab was about 5 years ago.
the one before that was in FY83 or 84. neither was a field return.
plenty of folks have predicted (with data to back them up) that this or
that component would croak from electromigration in 500 hours of real
use, but none of those croakers have made their way back to this lab.
and, to my knowledge, none of our suppliers have diagnosed
electromigration as cause of failure in our returns to them. some
killer. think we're overdoing electromigration a bit? how's about we
go back to corrosion, a DOCUMENTED, CURRENT zinger?
i've seen plenty of efforts to get parts back from the field so we can
discover the real lifetimes, the controlling failure mechanisms, and
feed that info back to the designers and the folks who generate the
specs. there's another push on now; i certainly hope it works, but i'm
not terribly optimistic.
i think we are overengineering most of our product, at great expense.
there's no reason to make a worstation where every component has a
real lifetime of 20+ years. and since components fail, we obviously
are NOT reaching that 20+ years despite the fact that our
projections say we DO. what are we overengineering? what are we
underengineering?
we'll never know if we don't get the real data into our hands, analyze
it, and disseminate those results.
lt
|
| 1998.20 | | TOKLAS::feldman | Larix decidua, var. decify | Tue Jul 21 1992 21:33 | 6 |
| re: .19
You seem to be suggesting that Six Sigma is overengineering. Yet the
sort of defect analysis you propose is very much a part of Six Sigma.
Gary
|
| 1998.21 | Actually get real data to make decisions? | DYPSS1::COGHILL | Steve Coghill, Luke 14:28 | Wed Jul 22 1992 12:17 | 38 |
| Re: Note 1998.19 by MILKWY::TATISTCHEFF
� we engineer out features we THINK will cause poor lifetimes, but we
� have very little REAL data (free of projections) indicating dominant
� lifetime killers. if an airplane crashes, it's analyzed and
This isn't limited to hardware. Same thing is often done in
software. We spend lots of time "tweaking" routines we think are
bottlenecks. I was almost forced into tweaking my portion (28K
lines) of a 500K line project for a customer.
I wrote a series of parsing routines which other programs called
(twice) for each data packet coming in off the wire. The time
required to
1) remove the packet from the wire
2) parse it (twice)
3) mangle the data
4) place mangled data in appropriate directory
was "taking too long". Immediate concensus by the customer?
"Parsing is taking too long. Fix it! Now! Or we won't pay the $1M
we contracted for." Digital's response? "CRAP!!! Customer isn't
going to pay his bill. Steve, fix your junk routines now!"
Come on. Fortunately, I had tool (PCA) that would let me see where
the program was spending its time. System spent about 0.7% of its
time in my routines. About 60% of the time was spent in file I/O. I
pointed out to Digital's management that "fixing" my routines wasn't
going to do much.
The thing that ticked me off was that Digital management didn't even
think in terms of "why don't we actually see what's happening and try
to fix it." No. They assumed the customer knew what they were talking
about (they still did all their work in card images; no card readers
or punches, but all data was transferred between machines in card
image) and told us what to do.
|
| 1998.22 | | MILKWY::TATISTCHEFF | well, lah-di-dah | Wed Jul 22 1992 13:16 | 23 |
| re .20 good! does that mean we'll start seeing some field returns
come in for failure analysis? will those results be disseminated to
lab folks, spec folks, component engineers, designers? when will that
happen? i'm not getting my hopes up; six sigma has been here for a
while and we still don't have any such data.
what we've got are loooong projections of data with questionable
relevance to real lifetimes in order to come up with a magic fit
number. kinda like getting an A+ in a class without understanding the
course content; not hard to do, but of dubious value.
projections are a necessary evil, based on good methodology, but i
think there are too many assumptions and simplifications as well as too
few "reality checks". hypotheses must be checked, and it is best to be
extremely critical of them so we are very aware of their limitations.
if all our projections are based on failure modes a,b,c,d, but failure
mode e is the real lifetime limiter, then why have we worked so hard on
a,b,c,d without addressing e?
i think the adoption of "six sigma" (i.e. the buzzwordy, "official"
meaning, not the philopophy) is the result of willy-nilly engineering.
lt
|
| 1998.23 | BOD Confirms Palmer | SWAM2::MCCARTHY_LA | Lie to exit pollers | Wed Jul 22 1992 18:39 | 68 |
| [E-mail of Press Release]
DIGITAL ELECTS ROBERT B. PALMER PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MAYNARD, MASS. -- July 22, 1992 -- Digital Equipment Corporation
announced today, as expected, that its Board of Directors has
elected Robert B. Palmer President, Chief Executive Officer, and
a member of Digital's Board of Directors. Palmer's membership on
the Board of Directors is effective immediately. He will assume
the positions of President and Chief Executive Officer effective
October 1, 1992, when Kenneth H. Olsen retires.
In connection with Ken Olsen's plan to retire, Digital's
Board of Directors released the following statement:
Ken Olsen is a computing pioneer and has
made unprecedented contributions to the
industry. Throughout his long and
distinguished career he has won the respect
and admiration of employees, customers, and
business partners.
When he started Digital, he took on the
enormous challenge of converting the world to
a revolutionary style of interactive
computing. His creativity and success in
doing this and building Digital are
unparalleled achievements. Ken's leadership
has made computing approachable and affordable.
This vision is the foundation of Digital.
- more -
Digital Elects Robert B. Palmer President
and Chief Executive Officer and A Member of
the Board of Directors
Page 2
Ken's vision attracted and challenged some
of the most talented people in the industry.
One of them, Bob Palmer, will succeed Ken.
We have observed Bob for many years. We are
confident that he and his management team
will build aggressively and creatively on the
Ken Olsen legacy.
Olsen founded Digital in 1957, and has been its only chief
executive officer. He is a member of the Boards of Directors of
Polaroid Corporation and Ford Motor Company; the Corporation of
MIT, Cambridge, Mass.; board of trustees, Gordon College, Wenham,
Mass.; the Corporation of Wentworth Institute, Boston; and a
Deacon of Boston's Park Street Church.
Digital Equipment Corporation, headquartered in Maynard,
Massachusetts, is the leading worldwide supplier of networked
computer systems, software and services. Digital pioneered and
leads the industry in interactive, distributed and multivendor
computing. Digital and its partners deliver the power to use the
best integrated solutions - from desktop to data center - in open
information environments.
###
|
| 1998.24 | Unclear press release | SMAUG::GARROD | Floating on a wooden DECk chair | Wed Jul 22 1992 21:10 | 17 |
|
Re:
> Olsen founded Digital in 1957, and has been its only chief
>executive officer. He is a member of the Boards of Directors of
>Polaroid Corporation and Ford Motor Company; the Corporation of
>MIT, Cambridge, Mass.; board of trustees, Gordon College, Wenham,
>Mass.; the Corporation of Wentworth Institute, Boston; and a
>Deacon of Boston's Park Street Church.
Does anybody know whether the omission of the company "Digital
Equipment Corporation" from the above list is just simply a
clerical error or whether it has greater significance?
Dave
|
| 1998.25 | Press release language | MR4DEC::HARRIS | Cent milliards d'�toiles | Thu Jul 23 1992 13:19 | 6 |
| Re .24:
It is neither an error nor significant. That is simply a list of
*other* organizations upon whose boards Ken sits.
Mac.
|
| 1998.26 | Maybe Bob will tell us his plan tomorrow | SWAM2::MCCARTHY_LA | Lie to exit pollers | Thu Jul 23 1992 15:31 | 21 |
| U.S. News LIVE WIRE 23-Jul-1992
Address to employees by Bob Palmer on DVN - July 24, 28 and 29
The Digital Video Network (DVN) will broadcast an address to employees by
Bob Palmer on Friday, July 24 at 9 a.m. and at 1 p.m (EST). It will be
re-broadcast Tuesday, July 28 at 4 p.m. and Wednesday, July 29 at 1 p.m.
The broadcast is expected to run between 10 and 15 minutes.
Bob shares his thoughts on a range of issues, including Ken Olsen's legacy;
Digital's culture; Bob's expectations of managers and employees; his
philosophy regarding leadership, management and accountability; the context
for future decisions concerning downsizing; and new directions employees
can expect.
The address was videotaped Thursday morning. Bob was named president and
CEO on Wednesday by the board of directors. He will also hold a board
position, effective immediately. Bob assumes his other duties on Oct. 1
when Ken Olsen retires.
For a list of DVN sites, access option 99 in LIVE WIRE's U.S. menu.
|
| 1998.27 | Another broadcast to watch | DYPSS1::COGHILL | Steve Coghill, Luke 14:28 | Thu Jul 23 1992 17:14 | 43 |
| I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 22-Jul-1992 04:16pm EDT
From: US_TEAM
US_TEAM@NEST@MRGATE@NROMTS@NRO
Dept:
Tel No:
TO: See Below
Subject: FY93 U.S. KICKOFF PRESENTATION
The U.S. Team is sponsoring an FY93 U.S. Kickoff Presentation via the
Digital Video Network on Tuesday August 11, 1992.
We are asking all employees of the U.S. Organization to plan to
attend this presentation.
Schedule of events:
12:00 - 2:00 Formal Presentation from the U.S. Team
2:20 - 4:00 Questions and Answers
The format of this presentation will be similar to the "State of the
Company" meetings where senior managers deliver the messages the
company will operate under for the next fiscal year.
Please mark you calendars now.
Distribution:
(deleted)
|
| 1998.28 | | ALIEN::MCCULLEY | DEC Pro | Thu Jul 23 1992 22:06 | 36 |
| Yesterday or the day before I happened to catch an interview with
John Sculley, the CEO of Apple, on CNN. He was asked, as one who had
followed a charismatic founder as CEO of a successful computer
manufacturer, what advice he would have for Bob Palmer. Sculley
answered something like "focus on your technology, and your customers."
Thinking about it, I was tempted to believe that there was a point that
Sculley missed, because he had not taken over an organization as
seriously dysfunctional as Digital seems. On reflection though I think
he's right, focus on the product (technology) and the customers and the
rest of the organization will follow that vision. From all accounts
Palmer has the strength to assert his will in taking care of business,
so the organization will follow if the leadership shows a vision of how
our technology answers customers needs.
What can that vision be? Perhaps there's a hint in another topic:
1985.22> While many of you are drooling over this leadership processor
1985.22> technology between yourselves, there are a fair few customers
1985.22> with some magic words stamped on their foreheads:
1985.22> "What's in it for me".
1985.22> You won't catch any wave if you don't answer that one first, IMHO.
I recently received a much-forwarded mail message containing "notes
from a presentation by Bob Palmer at the Process Analysis Symposium for
Competitiveness on April 1, 1992" (but won't repost it because I haven't
gotten permission to propogate it from the author) that identifies
"semiconductors and software" as key core competencies for Digital.
I see this as hinting at a vision of our business strategy to be providing
base platforms using Alpha as a foundation for our software expertise.
My reservations are about whether there is much prospect for success
with W/NT and Novell and Intel platforms already crowding the
marketplace. I think we need some better definition, but this may be a
good starting point.
|
| 1998.29 | Change to spare | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | Rum, Romanism, Rebellion | Fri Jul 24 1992 08:42 | 3 |
| The biggest "change" would be to stop all the internally generated
change, uncertainty, and chaos so that we can get on with serving
customers and respond to external change in the market.
|
| 1998.30 | Amen | SGOUTL::RUSSELL_D | | Wed Jul 29 1992 14:05 | 51 |
| re: .19 & .18
AAAAAmen, AAAAAmen, AAmen, Amen, Amen!
Six sigma isn't a waste of time or effort; HOWEVER, when you fix a
non-problem you're not devoting time to six sigma you are wasting time,
money, and resources. I've seen it all too frequently that saying a
problem is resolved by this afternoon is infinitely preferable to
getting the right answer tomorrow and resolving the problem. Trying to
look good costs a lot more in the long run than actually being good.
It is sickening to see what some of the manufacturing fixes that have
come into place because some people (self-proclamed experts) have,
without data, jumped to some conclusion or another and instituted a
process change. It adds to the process cost and does not eliminate the
problem but very likely results in another, yet to be discovered,
failure mode. Oh, by the way, most of these "heads" will probably
still be here after the "down-sizing," "rightsizing," and will probably
use their expertise to continue to shoot from the hip and shoot others
in the foot.
As far as using real data. I've tried to do that with two facilities,
GSO and SGO. The best I could do was a VAXmate with a couple of
hundred dollars worth of software. Talked with people until I was blue
in the face about getting a little more sophisticated so that more
engineers could have access to analyzing production/scrap/rework data
to improve processes. Never happened. I was told by one of the
computer nerds that is supposed to "facilitate" the eighty-five reasons
why a PC could not be purchased. (He had three in his office!) He
thought that it might be possible to set up another department's PC so
that it could be multiuser, for $2500, the cost of a da** good PC!
Folks, we're beating the buggy, not the horse; and we're wondering why
we don't make headway. The DEC solution--buy a bigger buggy whip!
What is distressing, is that these people who are deciding on the next
generation of buggy whips actually believe they are adding value to the
corporation. They're everywhere, squirrelled away in "special
projects" like determining what toilet paper the corporation should
buy. Some who couldn't run a Koolaid stand tried to run a business,
failed, got put into a closet or are getting a company paid master's
degree. Yes, these mighty minds are still with DEC, as a matter of
fact some are the ones who came up with the list of "heads to chop."
What should Mr. P do? Get back to makin' and sellin' it. (Of course
define what IT is first) then clean the closets, and see if we haven't
come up with 20K heads. If you got rid of all those who were an
impediment to makin' and sellin', you would be surprised at how
productive the rest of the corporation would be. In my not so humble
opinion.
DAR
|