Conference 7.286::digital

    Then there's the Zereski memo that I just received that talked about
    the next iteration in the seemingly endless re-design of the US Field
    organization. 
    
    What with it being so wide-spread, perhaps this isn't a bug, but a
    *feature* :-)

    Well...one example of a successful redesign that lasted for years with
    minor changes each year...
    
    The Volkswagen beetle
    

	MODEL
        NUMBER      DESCRIPTION                      LIST     
      ----------    -----------------------------    --------------- 
   1    RZ57 -E     1GBF SCSI WINCHESTER DISK DRV           4,500.00
   2    RZ57 -LF    1.0GBF 5.25" SCSI Dsk Dr;Fact           4,500.00
   3    RZ57 -LG    1.0GBF 5.25" SCSI Dsk Dr;Fld            4,500.00
   4    RZ57 -RA    1 GBF Removable SCSI Disk               6,300.00

   5    RZ57 -UK    RZ57 1.0GB UPG TO A BA42 BOX            4,500.00
   6    RZ57 -UL    1GBF  5.25" SCSI Dsk;Fld;BA46           4,500.00
   7    RZ57B-KA    R23RZ-A2 Ped w/1 RZ57 -RA               9,100.00
   8    RZ57E-Arz57 1 GBF SCSI DSK, FACT, BA400             4,500.00

   9    RZ57E-AF    1 GBF SCSI DSK, FIELD, BA400            4,500.00
  10    RZ57R-KA    R23RZ-C2 Rack w/1 RZ57 -RA              9,300.00
   4    PS20R-DA    1.0GB RZ57 SCSI Disk - SPINUP           5,200.00
   2    PCXBR-AB    1.0GB 5.25" FH 433T SCSI disk           5,129.00
    
    No time to grab the SZ12 and SZ16 variants, and of course, these are
    the ones we sell today, older rev #'s not on line...

    RE: .3
    
    Whats your point? This is the same product , modified to fit in
    different customer enclosures. I.E. sell more product.
    
    Whats bad about that?
    
    Marc H.

    We shouldn't be designing products (in fact, I don't think we are), but
    product families.  This is the paradigm as I see it:
    
    A certain kind of customer demand is identified, 
    
    A family of products which will:
    
    	satisfy that demand over the whole horizon of the demand.	
    
    	gradually introduce new technology as it matures,	
    
    	and (of course) make money is planned.
    
    	Then the specific products are worked out.
    
    A rough view of "the next generation" is developed to be tested for
    matching with the current family.
    
    and then we go back to square one.
    
    Dick

	re: .-2

	The problem with the many variations of the RZ57 is
	when the customer says, "I want a 1 GB drive for my
	DECstation 5000/200"?  If a customer had to look at
	that price list to figure out which one he needs, he'll
	go directly to Maxtor, Seagate or Micropolis to get
	a 1 GB SCSI drive and then figure out how to plug it
	in himself.

	What happens when the undertrained salesperson looks
	at that list.  If he doesn't know which one the customer
	wants he'll start asking too many questions; 

	"What kind of enclosure do you have?"

	Customer: "A seperate box.  It's got space for another drive."

	Sales: "What's the box's part number?"

	Customer: "I don't know."

	Sales: "What does it say on the front?"

	Customer: "It is in another room."

	Sales: "Can you go look?"

	If the customer doesn't hang up the phone at this point
	you might have a chance at selling him a slightly over-
	priced 1 GB SCSI disk.

    
    Slightly overpriced? The RZ57 is $4,900.  Look in the back of 
    a BYTE magazine. You will see numerous 1GB SCSI drives for around 
    $1,995.  
    
    The other problem with numerous part number variations, aside from 
    people ordering the wrong one, is that inventory of the slow ones
    builds up, when we run out of the right ones. So while you are 
    running short on an RZ57 for one box, and ordering more from the
    vendor, you are standing right next to a box of the exact same
    things, only packaged with brackets for some other box. It's
    ridiculous. 
    

Re:     <<< Note 2004.6 by SSDEVO::ROLLOW "And then there were none..." >>>

Right on! The amount of time even us knowledgeable Sales Support people spend 
configuring diddly-kaka workstations, servers and departmental systems is 
outrageous. KO &/or Charlie Christ's decision to scrap our previous storage 
strategy was a good decision. We need consistent packaging across the whole 
computing environment. It will help us engineer and manufacture and make it 
much easier for our customers to purchase.

Regards,

Jim
Xerox/James River Account Team
Rochester, NY

p.s.: I originally used a phrase in the second sentence above that was deemed 
      potentially offensive by a moderator. Its possible that the variant I 
      selected is also potentially offensive. I'm not sure who the "many
      conference participants" are who would consider the term profane and/or
      offensive, but I'd like to know who they are. They must get offended
      quite often walking around Digital offices, because the term I used is
      quite common (at least in the circles I travel).

	re: price of RZ57

	I thought we had lowered the price down to the competitive
	range.  Guess not.

    
    well RZ57 used to be about 7,300 so they were reduced a lot, but 
    the rest of the market is still much cheaper. 

.4>    Whats your point? This is the same product , modified to fit in
.4>    different customer enclosures. I.E. sell more product.
.4>    
.4>    Whats bad about that?
    
    What does it cost to have each modification?  Consider the total cost
    over the product life, of inventory turns and field service spares kits
    and sales time spent on configuration worksheets and storage and
    processing costs for every seperate entry in the price books and the
    engineering cost to design each variant and the manufacturing cost to
    build each variant (including tooling, component inventories, all BoM
    costs, etc.) and FCC compliance testing and other regulatory costs and
    product management overhead and...
    
    Is it really profitable to have so many variants?  Is it really
    possible to even know the true total costs let alone the actual margin
    on total sales?  
    
    FWIW, I have heard too many horror stories of difficulty in finding out
    total unit sales for some products to dismiss them all, so I wonder if
    we can really assume total sales can be known let alone margin.

.11>Is it really profitable to have so many variants?  Is it really
.11>possible to even know the true total costs let alone the actual margin
.11>on total sales?  

We probably have so many variants because we have so many different packaging
schemes for our many systems. Every new system box seems to be a tad different.

Other systems verdors are not so (mis)fortunate.

Lee

.12>  We probably have so many variants because we have so many different 
.12>  packaging schemes for our many systems. 
    
.12>  Other systems verdors are not so (mis)fortunate.
    					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	or DUMB.
    
    We probably have so many packaging schemes because we've had too many
    people dabbling in P&P engineering. 		1/2 :-)
    
    Seriously, this is one example of our engineering culture riding over
    business priorities.  We've got so many packages because each new
    product has some chance to optimize for some particular technical
    aspect that justifies new design.  Engineering in this company takes
    pride in producing the best products, and being engineers the metrics
    are primarily technical.  So the justification for new packaging design
    wins more often than it should if more global considerations were used
    to evaluate whether engineering produces the "BEST" designs.  "BEST"
    could include not just cost to build and repair and MTBF/MTTR but also
    effect on overall profitability.  Sometimes it might even make sense
    (or dollars, for the bottom line) to give up a small amount of market
    potential if that allows simpler packaging options that increase the
    profitability of the remaining majority of product business.  But we
    don't value that in our culture.
    
    There seem to be a lot fewer variations on packaging in the PC-clone
    world than in Digital, despite the fact that we are one company and
    there are a lot of uncoordinated players out there.  Why?  Or, why
    can't we do as well?
    

    Why less redesign in the PC world?
    
    Because small companies have the discipline of the market to control
    the engineering and after-market costs of redesign.
    
    It's one of Digital's great failures that it never appreciated the
    capitalist model and adopted Soviet-style central planning.

    I'll second the comment on too many packages (product enclosures).  We
    see them all where I work designing packages (cartons, foam, etc., for
    shipment of these products).  We have recognized this problem for years. 
    This enclosure is one half inch taller, this one inch narrower, this a
    quarter inch deeper.  Each time it hundreds of thousands of dollars in
    engineering time, hundreds of thousands in tooling cost, new parts,
    more inventory, and months (years) of development time.  It has always
    been my understanding that this push for new enclosure came from the
    PBU's, not engineering, but then I'm sure engineering has never
    actively discouraged it, ie., cut their own throat.
    
    Take heart though.  This problem has finally been acknowledged by upper
    management.  There is a big plan to reduce the number of product
    enclosures in the corporation.  The first phase of this plan is to
    design six new enclosures and power supplies.  I kid you not.
    
    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...
    
    Have a nice day.
    
    Al

    
    Will disks and other periphs slip in and out of the new enclosures
    like they do on the Indigo?
    
    Will the access plate come off with the press of a button rather 
    than with all manner of hassle with a screwdriver..? 

.15>    Take heart though.  This problem has finally been acknowledged by upper
.15>    management.  There is a big plan to reduce the number of product
.15>    enclosures in the corporation.  The first phase of this plan is to
.15>    design six new enclosures and power supplies.  I kid you not.
.15>    
.15>    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...
    
    Will we continue to stock and ship any products using the old style
    enclosures (as if I didn't know!) ?

    Call me crazy, but I think I'll address the base topic.
    
    >A while back I read an article (by Tom Peters, I think) on how
    >the Japanese do design. They design a product, get it to market.
    >Then, they may do one re-design, to improve manufacturing. After
    >that, they expect to be selling a new and different machine
    
    This is not the situation I am familiar with.  Most accounts
    of Japanese redesign I am aware of deal with continuous improvement
    (buzzword alert!), whereby a design is developed and shipped and it
    is slowly but continuosly improved into an outstanding product.  There
    have been numerous attempts to copy this strategy in the US, but they
    are not nearly as successful because most companies in the US have
    no concept of true long range planning (eg. DEC can't seem to see
    past next year's budget and sometimes not even into the next fiscal
    quarter).
    
    Probably the best example of continuous improvement is the auto industry
    in Japan.  Many people have forgotten that for many years (50s and 60s)
    Japanese products were sunonymous with poor quality.  By the 70s the
    products were avarage/above average, and by the late 70s and early
    80s had developed, by and large, into products of exceptional quality.
    This has been a 30 year process - something that would be unheard of in
    this country.
    
    Another factor, is that after developing an efficient process you
    don't have to start from square one again.  When the Japanese broke
    into the luxury car market in the 80's they could rely on excellent
    processes they had developed over the past several decades to produce
    cars that had very few defects in them in the first couple of years
    of production.
    
    In the USA if you don't show you have made some huge leap in technology
    or quality in a small period of time (usually measured in months) then 
    you (or your project) is considered a failure.  - a very bad side of
    western culture.
    
    One last thing about continuous improvement - how many years has a
    car like the Honda Accord been around - 15?  20?  Isn't it one of the most
    popular foreign cars in this country?  I don't think that is a
    coincidence.
    
    				-David
    

    The difficulty with what you term 'western culture' is the short focus
    of those in the middle.  The deservedly very rich - the Fords and
    Perots of this world do not think only in terms of quarters or even
    years.  And they bring benefits to the rest of us as well as to
    themselves as they are the axles in the economic machinery.  
    
    An double-edged side effect of a 'successful' and rapidly growing
    economy is the equally rapid growth of an 'upper middle' for lack of a
    better term class.  Those who call themselves professionals - doctors,
    lawyers, engineers, etc.  These people benefit from the vision, as do
    all of us, but have not the wit to comprehend it.  They are there
    solely to acquire apparent wealth.  Contributing little in relation to
    their reward, they create a sub-culture which spreads like a cancer
    to the point the worker-types think they too can be rich and that being
    rich is the goal.
    
    On an individual basis, that may well be the goal, but paper riches,
    garnered in paper transactions manipulate apparent wealth but do not
    create wealth - or anything else, for that matter.  The downtowns of
    most of our cities are populated with tall, shiny buildings housing
    people who produce NOTHING!  
    
    Ultimately the society reaches a saturation point where the production
    of real wealth - goods (NOT services!!) - is insufficient to the
    population and rapid, painful change occurs.  Traditionally, mankind
    has organized wars to focus this change.  Now we are seeing how the
    change may be just from one economic leader to another.
    
    HOWEVER - and here's my point, after all this time - no replacement
    society has yet avoided the pain of the bubble burst so...  while it
    may be rough here for the next few years as we drop back to reality,
    Japan is not going to be the economic heaven so many (like -.1) seem to
    think.  
    
    It all comes down to the difference between wanting a car to get from a
    to be easier and wanting a car becasue the neighbour has one.  Greed
    kills.  Absolute greed kills absolutely.  
    
    Or was it "love of money is the root of all evil."?
    
    

re .18, .19

I've read these two notes several times - back and forth, forth and back -
and the only conclusion I can come to is you guys have had too much lunch.

The Japanese automotive industry prospered because they produced a better
product than the competition. There's a dozen ways to define better.
Constant re-design was and is a fundamental part of the process.

As for .19, I pass.

    Not to mention Japan made virtually no money on their cars they
    imported to the US for a very long time.  In some cases they took
    loses.  A very wise marketing ploy:  enter the "new" product into the
    market with outstanding quality and features and take a loss for a
    couple of years until it catches on and then fly with it!  Granted,
    this does not work for all markets, but it did for the auto industry;
    everybody _needs_ a car.
    
    Reg.

    re .19, Goods as only real products (an economics
    rat-hole)
    
    An appendectomy, advice on a will, a haircut and a 
    concert are all services which have essentially no
    "goods" component.
    
    Services do contribute to human happiness ("utility"
    in economists' jargon).
    
    		-John Bishop

    The Honda Accord is currently the best-selling automobile in the U.S., 
    with the Ford Taurus and Toyota Camry in 2nd and 3rd place (source: NPR
    a few nights ago).
    
    \dave

And the thing that hits me whenever I visit the USA is that all the Japanese
cars look identical to the ones around here - while the only thing in common
between Ford/GM/etc models is the name tag.

I'd also question the losses theory. That's a favourite US-bashing-Japan
story - but i've yet to see any proof of this from anybody outside politics!
For a rock in the Pacific with no natural resources, Japan Inc have not done
a bad job.
								- Ian W.

Re: Losses theory

Well, they certainly claim a loss on their income taxes...

    Enough about the imagined high-quality Japanese cars.  It's a myth. 
    Especially .21's comment about their introduction initially they rusted
    in weeks, not months, they didn't like the weather - I had a Honda
    S-600 (1966) which was OK but the dealer network and was closed!
    Leaving all buyers up the proverbial creek - and to get a paddle you
    had to write them in their language!
    
    As to Accords being the best-selling cars in the U.S. well I feel sorry
    for you.  Several decades ago, VW beetles were picked up by the
    ingnorant many a large percentage of whom felt that because they were
    'small' they could fit in anywhere and so they cut you off.  Now the
    accolades for totally rudest drivers must be won by the group whose
    autos bear the top-heavy H - which probably stands for "Hog".
    
    As to the island doing well - hah!  People are now renting to actually
    live in - 6'x6' boxes in building with common toilets and showers and
    no eating areas.  Kids get 3' x 3' accommodation.  This, my friend is
    not doing well.
    
    There is more personal privacy and space in a one-room cabin in the
    back woods of Kentucky, with an outhouse out back and the creek out
    front for washing/bathing.  
    
    The Japanese rich - oh, yeah, I forgot, they aren't rich like North
    Americans because their reporting requirements differ - are as much
    robber barons as their (and our) ancestors.
    
    The real reason for continued Japanese success is a different ethic. 
    No, not some great 'let's work and die for the company' stuff, an ethic
    we would consider immoral.  Japanese companies rape and pillage the
    rain forests - do Japanese citizens demonstrate outside the head
    office, NO...
    
    If Union Carbide had been based in Japan when their factory in India
    leaked, they'd still be around and the Bhopal people would be
    considerably poorer.  
    
    sorry about this rat-hole, but this blank belief that somehow "they"
    have an answer we don't really cranks me up.
    
    Don

>          <<< Note 2004.26 by CGOOA::DTHOMPSON "Don, of Don's ACT" >>>
>                         -< Off the topic I wander... >-

>    Enough about the imagined high-quality Japanese cars.  It's a myth. 

Then it is a myth backed up by facts. In a survey of over 36,000 cars by
the independent Consumers' Association (in the UK), the results for reliability
were as follows:

Better than average:
	Honda, Mazda, Mercedes, Mitsubishi/Colt, Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagen

Good:
	Audi, BMW, Proton, Saab, Subaru

Average:
	Hyundai, Peugeot (diesel), Volvo

Poor:
	Citro�n (diesel), Jaguar, Rover

Bottom:
	Citro�n, Fiat, Ford, Lada, Peugeot, Renault, Skoda, Vauxhall (=GM)

Japanese cars congregating at the top. US cars congregating at the bottom.
"Imagined" high quality? I think not.

    re .27
    
    Did you miss something or did I?
    
    In your bottom category, there is only one US built car.  All others
    are European.
    
>Bottom:
>  Citro�n, Fiat, Ford, Lada, Peugeot, Renault, Skoda, Vauxhall (=GM)
    
    Dick

    re .27
    
    ...and aren't the Fords sold in the UK built in the UK?

    Some are manufactured in the UK. SOme in other EC countries.
    
    Virtually no US-built cars are sold in the UK, mainly because they've
    the steering wheel on the wrong side and they're generally too big.
    
    	- andy

Was this a random sample, or was it (like Consumer Reports in the U.S.)
a sample of members in some organization who happen to respond to a survey?

Is this a rathole?

    Consumer Reports, April 1992 issue rates used cars from 1986 to 1991
    based on repair data.  Generally, the most reliable cars were those
    sold by Honda, Nissan, Toyota, and Mazda.  The least reliable?  Ford,
    GM, and Chrysler.
    
    So, is it a myth or does Consumer Reports have a vested interest in
    promoting Japanese imports?  According to the article accompanying the
    ratings, their data was supplied by car owners responding to a survey.
    
    By the way ... Honda Accord is the best selling car built in America.
    							^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Many Ford, GM, anc Chrysler products are imported here from elsewhere.
    So, how do you determine when you are "buying American"?
    
    ... Bob
    

The question of the accuracy of CR's auto repair ratings has been discussed
to death in CONSUMER and CARBUFFS.  IMHO, it's not an open and shut case
either way.

    re .33  How do I know?
    
    My Grand Marquis was built in Fort Thomas (or is that Port Thomas)
    Ontario, by my fellow citizens - some of the same people who buy Digital
    computers.
    
    And before I bought I made sure.
    
    
    re .34 - I like the 'endless' part of the title, sorry!