Conference 7.286::digital

    Personally, as a TSFO'd employee, I would welcome such a dramatic act
    as one of the first most NEEDED actions to show that there is change in
    the future.  I've been looking for an upper level management house
    cleaning to change the "management culture" as one of the minimum
    number of actions needed to get this company going forward again.
    
    I hope it comes to pass.  I hope BP is highly successful in turning
    over the ground for a new planting season so the company can get back
    to bumper crops of success once more.
    
    It will certainly be interesting to watch from the outside in ...
    
    Jack Bouknight

    
    
    	I think the success is going to be tied very closely to how well 
    BP does with his committment to hold managers accountable to their
    actions, something that has been glaringly absent for some time (IMO).
    It will, of course, take some time to do this.  Probably at least 2
    quarters.  
    
    	I think the bigger problem we are facing immediately is that 
    there is NO mission statement that anyone can associate any of the
    current actions in the company to.  I think that human nature requires
    (and that employees DESERVE...) an association of that type.  If we 
    knew what "the plan" was, we could evaluate actions against the plan
    and could either agree or disagree...but as far as anyone can tell,
    there is no plan, hence the inability to make sense out of any of this.
    
    	The whole thing smacks of one Digital's classic problems which I
    believe has increased over the past decade, that being a disconnect
    between the multiple layers of the company.  Classic examples abound in
    the layoff notes in this conference.  Take the example of the two C/S
    engineers:  
    
    		One volunteered for the package, was refused.  The other
    		was layed off instead.  The first then quit anyway, forcing
    		the re-hire of the other.
    
    	Don't know if there were any other pertinent facts, but this is
    clearly ludicrous...leaving us with two assumptions:
    
    		1) those at the top still don't know what's going on at 
    		the bottom...and are therefor not being held accountable
    
    		2) they DO know, and people are still not being held
    		accountable.
    
    	You decide which is worse...but either way, it is something that
    	CLEARLY screams to be fixed, and I feel that it is at the heart of
    	what most people currently find to be so demoralizing and
    	confusing.
    
    
    	Jim

    Coming down from the heady heights of the Corporate throne, I believe
    that the company should establish a policy that no manager may occupy
    the same position for a period of more than, say, 5 years.  I know of
    several managers who have been in their position for so long (15 yrs or
    more) that they cannot keep up with or accept the changes in how things are
    done.
    
    Too many of those in control are unwilling to do anything new or to
    explore alternative ways of doing business.  I believe that managers,
    that is professional managers, should rotate from function to function. 
    That way they learn new skills and begin to understand how the company
    functions beyond their own small part of it.
    
    There is little upward mobility at Digital.  There are far too few
    managers willing to take a chance and break out of the old style of
    working.
    
    Its great that we have an energetic new leader at the top.  It would be
    better still if we had energetic leadership in the middle.
    
    Marv
    

    
    	Agreed on the 'mission' BUT there is another glaring absence in DEC:
    
    	There is NO FEEDBACK to all the people at lower levels who believe
    they are doing the 'right thing' only finding out (long) after the fact
    that it wasn't.  Example:  In January, Zereski stated that we hadn't
    made any profit on 'products' for 18 quarters (now equal to FIVE YEARS)!
    How on earth is that possible?  In this business, 5 years is at least
    2 product cycles.  Thinking about this later, when was the last time
    your manager (at any level) sat down with your group and gave you ANY
    feedback on how the 'business' was going?  In 10 years I haven't seen
    anything.   Are we just not 'worthy'?  Or can't we be trusted?  Or are 
    all the 'numbers' are held very closely so that they can be manipulated?  
    
    	I hope BP can develop a 'system' real fast so that the beginning of
    1993 starts a trend toward openness and honesty within this company. 
    Otherwise I suspect we're headed for WANGdom.
    
    :^(
    JN
    
    

    We should all remember that Digital is a *vendor* and, despite however
    many different terms (partner, etc) we've stated that our customers
    should view the company, we are simply a vendor.
    
    I think most of us will agree that many popular computer products (HW &
    SW) aren't necessarilly associated with the vendor but rather the
    product's worth itself. If we have products that the customer is
    delighted with, they will learn who the vendor is and ask "what else
    you got".
    
    I don't think that all the many comments associated with internal
    company problems are what the custoemr cares about. If we don't bring
    (as a vendor) products to market that the customer wants, we will be
    out of business. If we do, the challenge will be to maximize on that
    business opportunity and this is where I think all the concerns with
    internal communications will be important for "growth". For now, we are
    working on the "start" so the growth must come later.

    I believe a change at the top can and will make a difference.  BP will
    make a difference especially if he holds senior management responsible
    for their actions or inactions.  Changes at all levels of management,
    especially senior management are also needed.  It's not the average
    worker that got Digital into the position that it finds it self into
    today.

    re:.5
    
    At Decworld, in the Innovations Showcase, there was a pc on display
    with a color flat panel display.  I had a converstaion with one of the
    "design engineers" that was working in the area after hours.  I asked
    if the unit would become a "real" product, and the individual replied
    that no decision had been made, for a number or reasons, among them
    the fact that the flat panel was only being manufactured by sharp
    (single source problem) and that because only one vendor was building 
    it there was no way to leverage the price, the vendor had a monopoly 
    on the market.  I stated that it seemed that on the other side of the
    coin, this would also keep the "playing field" level for awhile,
    insuring that anyone else using it would have to pay the same price we
    did.  I have no idea if this product is still being looked at, but the
    thing that made me think of this conversation (yes, i really do have a
    point to make here) was a report on a.m. radio news earlier in the week
    that DELL had announced it's "new, color, notebook p.c." $2850, and I
    don't remember the exact config, but it was pretty robust, and I
    couldn't help but think that it should have been DEC in the news that 
    morning.  This was not an advertisment...it was a morning news
    broadcast.  
    
    I write this in agreement with you...we ARE a vendor (one of many) and
    we used to have a pretty good reputation for bringing new products out
    ahead of competition.  I question our ability to do that anymore, and I
    think it's one of the things that BP obviously needs to focus on.  We
    as a company seem to have a very hard time keeping projects on
    schedule (look at the perception of ALPHA right now...), and this plays
    heavily into a customers confidence level in the company. 
    
    Jim

    The switch from Ken Olsen to Bob Palmer is similar in ways to the
    current Presidential political scene. One person was successful for
    many years with a specific philosophy, however, due to changing times,
    those philosophies just don't apply anymore. New management, better or
    not, is needed just to get a new perspective. However, just as a new
    national presidency needs to operate, so does a new CEO. Palmer must
    not just constantly communicate, he must say something of substance.
    He must stop this totally demoralizing and production-killing sequence
    of layoffs. Based on forecasts, etc., TFSO to a specific number once-
    and-for-all and have that be it for the rest of the year. Establish
    a measurable vision and goal for this company, look at more than just
    numbers but at converting valuable people into the most needed areas,
    crank up the Digital marketing organization, ensure that products ship
    on time..... Be clear, be honest, be decisive, and be consistent.
    

    I find it absolutely amazing that so many of us out at the end of the
    pipeline have the same views of the issu.  Regardless of whether we are
    "corporate" or "field" we can put the pieces together and form a common
    view of Digital's problems.  Additionally, although we may use
    different words, our recommended solutions are all toward a common
    goal.
    
    When will we see the same level of consistency from those who should be
    guiding us?

    	How's this for an idea? We (the grunts) create DEC manager trading
    cards, fashioned after baseball cards. There'd be a picture of the
    manager on the front and statistics on the back, such as how many
    direct reports he/she has, how much money they've lost for the company,
    the history of cancelled or failing projects they've managed, salary
    plus bonuses received, etc. If you had had the old Bob Palmer rookie
    card, it'd be worth big bucks now! The K.O. card would be a collector
    item.
    	Yeah..yeah..I know..Nobody liked my "Nerd of the Month" calendar
    idea either...

    I *like* it!  
    
    8^)

Ummmmmm, I don't think you're getting enough sunlight. However, I'll trade
you a ol' Cutler and a Get-out-of-TFSO-free card for your rookie Palmer..

    RE: the stats on the back of the cards:
    
    The way TFSO is going, the average employee per manager will probably
    come in at 1.2 to 1.5.....
    
    8^)

    re .12
    
    The most interesting would be the cards of the managers, who have been
    the nice gyus, made big promises, changed the job before the results
    are required to be seen, made big promises again... In general,
    been good in selling themselves but too busy to sell Digital.
    
    --Ritva

    Re .12
    
    Hey great idea. how about doing it here in this notesfile. Both good
    and bad things should be listed. Let's have a note per person. I'd
    love to see the notes building. Reserve a block of notes and off we go.
    Now who's going first. The only problem I have is that I don't have
    much positive to say about a lot of our senior VPs. The only ones with
    any power that I feel positively about are Stone and Thurk.
    
    Question for the mods? would doing this violate and DEC policy?
    
    Dave

    .17  apparently you didn't violate anything, else your note would be
    gone.  And- did you know you made the first entry into your suggestion?
    Might as well start th enew note! 8^)
    
    Reg

	RE: .17 I'm not a mod here but I do tend to think that saying
	bad things about identifiable people, as most VPs are, in notes
	is contrary to company policy. I'm even more sure that it 
	could be a career limiting action. Saying good things is 
	probably ok. But it would probably make for a quiet topic. :-)

			Alfred 

    	Wow! I'm impressed! Now all we need is a program office, program
    manager, a few people with unrecognizable titles, and a budget. Another
    DEC group is born!

    Instead of cards, give every employee N "points".  The employee can use
    his points in one of two ways:

        1. Assign them to someone who the employee thinks should "go".
        2. Use the points to cancel out points assigned to them.

    Order everyone by number of points assigned to them.  Start lopping off
    the ones with the highest number of points.

    If the idea of points being only bad is too hard to stomach, allow the
    employee to use their limited set of points as either + or - when assigning
    to someone.  That way they could vote to keep the people they think are
    helping the company.

    This would be much more exciting than trading cards with somebody else's
    picture on them :-)

    (Not my original idea, a fellow Digit suggested this about two years ago)