Conference 7.286::digital

Copyright � 1992 Dow Jones & Co. from Business Wire
Digital Equipment reports first quarter operating results



  MAYNARD, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Digital Equipment Corp. (NYSE:DEC), the 
leading worldwide supplier of networked computer systems and services, today 
reported results for its first quarter, which ended Sept. 26, 1992.

  For the quarter, the company reported total operating revenues of 
$3,314,299,000, up 1 percent from the $3,293,085,000 of the comparable quarter 
a year.  The loss for the quarter was $260,546,000 or $2.04 per share compared 
with earnings of $11,662,000 or $.09 per share for the comparable quarter a 
year ago prior to a one time charge related to a change in accounting for 
postretirement health benefits.  The net loss for the comparable period a year 
ago, including a $485,495,000 one time charge for the accounting change, was 
$473,833,000 or $3.80 per share.

  ``Weakness in the world's major economies continues to present difficult 
challenges for our business and the information technology industry in 
general,'' noted John F.  Smith, Senior Vice President of Operations.  ``We 
experienced revenue growth in areas such as Systems Integration, workstations, 
personal computers and Digital's multivendor integration software, Network 
Application Support.''

  ``Customer interest continues to grow in the next generation of computing, 
Digital's Alpha AXP systems,'' he added.  ``Nearly 1,000 software vendors and 
Original Equipment Manufacturers have publicly stated their intention to 
develop products based on the Alpha AXP architecture.  Recognizing the 
importance of these vendors, we have shipped over 800 development systems and 
have opened 34 migration centers around the world.  Just recently, Raytheon 
announced it is licensing the Alpha AXP architecture and will develop systems 
that meet military specifications.  At the same time, customers are very 
enthusiastic about our 'Alpha-ready' program, which provides a clear, 
consistent, and economical migration path from the VAX systems they buy today 
to the Alpha AXP system they'll need in the future,'' Smith added.

  ``We continue to eliminate costs in accordance with our recovery plan,'' 
said William M.  Steul, Vice President, Finance.  ``R&D spending is down year 
to year and total population declined by 5,300 in the first quarter.  We will 
continue our aggressive restructuring and cost reduction efforts.''

  In commenting on the Company's direction, President and CEO Robert B.  
Palmer said, ``Digital will change.  We are intent on ensuring that the 
customer is the focus of everything that we do. Moreover, our shareholders and 
customers want and expect us to be financially strong.  Every activity that we 
undertake is guided by the goals of customer focus and a return to profitable 
growth.''

  ``While it will take time to bring about these changes, we have already 
begun the work,'' Palmer stated.  ``I am confident, given our large and loyal 
customer base, our leadership technology, and our skilled employees, that we 
can meet our goals.''

  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.

  Note to Editors: Alpha AXP, AXP, and VAX are trademarks of Digital Equipment 
Corporation.


  OPERATING RESULTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER ENDING:


  SEPTEMBER 26, 1992  SEPTEMBER 28, 1991


 PRODUCT SALES              $  1,767,821,000    $  1,862,849,000
 SERVICE & OTHER REVENUES      1,546,478,000       1,430,236,000
 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES      3,314,299,000       3,293,085,000
 COST OF PRODUCT SALES         1,019,957,000         910,148,000
 SERVICE EXPENSE               1,017,650,000         893,204,000
 TOTAL COST OF SALES           2,037,607,000       1,803,352,000
 RESEARCH & ENGINEERING          405,477,000         412,353,000
 SELLING
  GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE     1,131,187,000       1,057,706,000
 NET INTEREST (INCOME)/EXPENSE    (9,426,000)        (20,569,000)
 INCOME/(LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES
  & CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CHANGE
  IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE       (250,546,000)         40,243,000
 INCOME TAXES                     10,000,000          28,581,000
 INCOME/(LOSS) BEFORE CUMULATIVE
  EFFECT OF CHANGE IN
  ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE          (260,546,000)         11,662,000
 CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CHANGE IN
  ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE, NET OF TAX         0         485,495,000
 NET (LOSS)                     (260,546,000)       (473,833,000)
 AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES
  OUTSTANDING                    128,001,937         124,836,380
 INCOME/(LOSS) PER SHARE
  BEFORE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF
  CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE     $ (2.04)            $   .09
 (LOSS) PER SHARE ON CUMULATIVE
  EFFECT OF CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING
  PRINCIPLE                                0             $ (3.89)
 NET (LOSS) PER SHARE                $ (2.04)            $ (3.80)



  Q1 - FY 93


 PRODUCT SALES                                    $ 1,767,821,000
 SERVICE AND OTHER REVENUES                        1,546,478,000
 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES                           3,314,299,000
 COST OF PRODUCT SALES                              1,019,957,000
 SERVICE EXPENSE                                    1,017,650,000
 TOTAL COST OF SALES                                2,037,607,000
                                GROSS MARGIN               61.5%
 RESEARCH & ENGINEERING                               405,477,000
 SG&A (SELLING, GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE)           1,131,187,000
 OPERATING (LOSS)                                    (259,972,000)
                            OPERATING MARGIN               (7.8)%
 INTEREST INCOME                                      (13,216,000)
 INTEREST EXPENSE                                       3,790,000
 (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES                          (250,546,000)
                              PRE-TAX MARGIN               (7.6)%
 TAXES (TOTAL FEDERAL, STATE & FOREIGN)                10,000,000
 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE                                          4.0%
 NET (LOSS)                                          (260,546,000)
 EPS                                                     $ ( 2.04)
 AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                           128,001,937


  BALANCE SHEET - Q1 FY93


 CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS                             881,251,000
 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE (NET)                         3,316,130,000
 (RE:  A.R. DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING)                      90 DAYS
 INVENTORIES:  RAW MATERIALS       311,709,000
               WORK IN PROCESS     548,518,000
               FINISHED GOODS      917,096,000
                      TOTAL                        1,777,323,000
 PREPAID EXPENSES                                     357,801,000
 DEFERRED INCOME TAX CHARGES, NET                    222,794,000
 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS                               6,555,299,000
 NET PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT                   3,417,544,000
 OTHER ASSETS, NET                                    766,831,000
 TOTAL ASSETS                                      10,739,674,000
 BANK LOANS AND CURRENT PORTION OF LTD                54,559,000
 TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES                          4,790,494,000
 DEFERRED INCOME TAX CREDITS NET                      23,033,000
 LONG TERM DEBT                                        43,300,000
 POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS                            1,191,725,000
 TOTAL LIABILITIES                                  6,048,552,000
 STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY                               4,691,122,000
 BOOK VALUE PER SHARE                                    $  36.59
 CAPITAL SPENDING (INVESTMENT IN PP&E)      - Q1     131,919,000
 DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION                - Q1     189,619,000
 NON U.S. REVENUES - QTR                           2,066,709,000
                                           OR                62%
 TOTAL EMPLOYEE POPULATION APPROXIMATELY                 108,500

           CONTACT:  Digital Equipment Corp., Maynard
                     Bradley D. Allen, 508/493-7182


08:11 ET   OCT 14, 1992
---
opClass: N
opMode: I
messageType: N
timeStamp: BW629 OCT 14,1992 5:11 PACIFIC 8:11 EASTERN
categoryCompany DEC
categoryIndustry I/CPR => Computers
categorySubject N/ERN => Earnings
categoryMarketSector M/TEC => Technology
categoryGeographic R/MA => Massachusetts
transmissionTime: 0845
originAddress:   DJ
messageDate: 19921014
messageSequence: 0126
displayTime: 0844
rawSource: BW  
storyChecksum: 545215
storyLength: 8167
headlineLength: 60

Worldwide News                      LIVE WIRE

                         Q1 loss despite revenue increase

  For Q1 of FY93, Digital reported total operating revenues of $3,314,299,000,
  up one percent from the $3,293,085,000 of the comparable quarter a year ago.
  The loss for the quarter was $260,546,000 or $2.04 per share compared with 
  earnings of $11,662,000 or $.09 per share for the comparable quarter a year 
  ago prior to a one time charge related to a change in accounting for 
  post retirement health benefits.  The net loss for the comparable period a 
  year ago, including a $485,495,000 one time charge for the accounting 
  change, was $473,833,000 or $3.80 per share. 

  "Weakness in the world's major economies continues to present difficult 
  challenges for our business and the information technology industry in 
  general," noted Jack Smith, senior vice president of Operations.  "We 
  experienced revenue growth in areas such as systems integration, workstations,
  personal computers and Digital's multivendor integration software, Network 
  Application Support (NAS).

  "Customer interest continues to grow in the next generation of computing, 
  Digital's Alpha AXP systems.  Nearly 1,000 software vendors and Original 
  Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have publicly stated their intention to 
  develop products based on the Alpha AXP architecture.  Recognizing the 
  importance of these vendors, we have shipped over 800 development systems 
  and have opened 34 migration centers around the world.  
 
  "Just recently, Raytheon announced it is licensing the Alpha AXP 
  architecture and will develop systems that meet military specifications.  
  At the same time, customers are very enthusiastic about our 'Alpha-ready' 
  program, which provides a clear, consistent, and economical migration path 
  from the VAX systems they buy today to the Alpha AXP system they'll need in 
  the future."  

  Bill Steul, vice president, Finance said, "We continue to eliminate costs in
  accordance with our recovery plan.  R&D spending is down year to year and 
  total population declined by 5,300 in the first quarter.  We will continue our
  aggressive restructuring and cost reduction efforts."  

  In commenting on the company's direction, President and CEO Bob Palmer said, 
  "Digital will change.  We are intent on ensuring that the customer is the 
  focus of everything that we do.  Moreover, our shareholders and customers want
  and expect us to be financially strong.  Every activity that we undertake is 
  guided by the goals of customer focus and a return to profitable growth. 

  "While it will take time to bring about these changes, we have already begun 
  the work.  I am confident, given our large and loyal customer base, our 
  leadership technology, and our skilled employees, that we can meet our 
  goals." 


         OPERATING RESULTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER ENDING:

    			  SEPTEMBER 26, 1992  SEPTEMBER 28, 1991

PRODUCT SALES		   $  1,767,821,000    $  1,862,849,000
SERVICE & OTHER REVENUES      1,546,478,000       1,430,236,000
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES      3,314,299,000       3,293,085,000
COST OF PRODUCT SALES	      1,019,957,000         910,148,000
SERVICE EXPENSE		      1,017,650,000         893,204,000
TOTAL COST OF SALES	      2,037,607,000       1,803,352,000
RESEARCH & ENGINEERING          405,477,000         412,353,000
SELLING
 GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE     1,131,187,000       1,057,706,000
NET INTEREST (INCOME)/EXPENSE    (9,426,000)        (20,569,000)
INCOME/(LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES 
 & CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CHANGE
 IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE       (250,546,000)         40,243,000
INCOME TAXES                     10,000,000          28,581,000
INCOME/(LOSS) BEFORE CUMULATIVE 
 EFFECT OF CHANGE IN 
 ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE          (260,546,000)         11,662,000
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CHANGE IN
 ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE, NET OF TAX         0         485,495,000
NET (LOSS)                     (260,546,000)       (473,833,000)        
AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES
 OUTSTANDING                    128,001,937         124,836,380
INCOME/(LOSS) PER SHARE 
 BEFORE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF
 CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE     $ (2.04)            $   .09
(LOSS) PER SHARE ON CUMULATIVE
 EFFECT OF CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING
 PRINCIPLE                                0             $ (3.89)
NET (LOSS) PER SHARE	            $ (2.04)            $ (3.80) 

                            Q1 - FY 93
PRODUCT SALES.................................. $ 1,767,821,000
SERVICE AND OTHER REVENUES.....................   1,546,478,000
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES.......................   3,314,299,000
COST OF PRODUCT SALES..........................   1,019,957,000
SERVICE EXPENSE................................   1,017,650,000
TOTAL COST OF SALES............................   2,037,607,000
                               GROSS MARGIN....           61.5%
RESEARCH & ENGINEERING.........................     405,477,000
SG&A (SELLING, GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE).......   1,131,187,000
OPERATING (LOSS)...............................    (259,972,000)
                           OPERATING MARGIN....          (7.8)%
INTEREST INCOME................................     (13,216,000)
INTEREST EXPENSE...............................       3,790,000
(LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES.....................    (250,546,000)
                             PRE-TAX MARGIN....          (7.6)%
TAXES (TOTAL FEDERAL, STATE & FOREIGN).........      10,000,000
EFFECTIVE TAX RATE.............................            4.0%
NET (LOSS).....................................    (260,546,000)
EPS............................................        $ ( 2.04)
AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING.....................     128,001,937


                     BALANCE SHEET - Q1 FY93

CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS........................     881,251,000
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE (NET)......................   3,316,130,000
(RE:  A.R. DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING).............         90 DAYS
INVENTORIES:  RAW MATERIALS...... 311,709,000
              WORK IN PROCESS.... 548,518,000
              FINISHED GOODS..... 917,096,000
                     TOTAL.....................   1,777,323,000
PREPAID EXPENSES...............................     357,801,000
DEFERRED INCOME TAX CHARGES, NET...............     222,794,000
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS...........................   6,555,299,000
NET PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT................   3,417,544,000
OTHER ASSETS, NET..............................     766,831,000
TOTAL ASSETS...................................  10,739,674,000
BANK LOANS AND CURRENT PORTION OF LTD..........      54,559,000
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES......................   4,790,494,000
DEFERRED INCOME TAX CREDITS NET................      23,033,000
LONG TERM DEBT.................................      43,300,000
POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS........................   1,191,725,000
TOTAL LIABILITIES..............................   6,048,552,000
STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY...........................   4,691,122,000
BOOK VALUE PER SHARE...........................        $  36.59
CAPITAL SPENDING (INVESTMENT IN PP&E)..... - Q1     131,919,000
DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION............... - Q1     189,619,000
NON U.S. REVENUES - QTR........................   2,066,709,000
                                          OR                62%
TOTAL EMPLOYEE POPULATION APPROXIMATELY........         108,500

    Why did we pay $10M in taxes on a $260M loss? Quarterly contribution in
    anticipation of profit for the year? Major costs that are not tax
    deductible?

    Wonder how many years are we going to continue to blame weakness in the
    world's economy for our financial problems?  
    
    The really bad news in these numbers, in comparison to last year, is
    that the loss is an operating loss -- last year we actually showed a
    profit of $.09 a share for the quarter before taking a $3.89 a share
    hit for accounting changes.
    
    

	Revenue went up only in service revenue. Product sales revenue
	went down. Service costs and product sales costs both went up
	but service revenues went up more than service costs. The lose
	appears to me to all be in product sales. And admin. Perhaps we'll
	see big cuts in admin? Manufacturing operations have already been
	cut quite a bit. 

	Research and engineering took a $7m hit. Why does the phrase "eating
	the seed corn" come to mind? Probably not a problem short term but 
	it will be interesting to see what develops after the pruning.

			Alfred
	

    But this makes 23 successive quarters without profit from US product
    sales (adding one to Don Zereski's number from last quarter).  Maybe
    the judgement has been made that with our current structure, we *can't*
    be profitable in product sales.  If so, R&D aren't at the top of
    priorities any more and obviously manufacturing isn't either.  So, the
    priority seems to be, invest where we have demonstrated we can make
    money, services.
    
    My conclusion is that there is no intent to be profitable in product
    sales any more.  Should we invest in R&D on loss-leaders?
    
    Dick

.5>Revenue went up only in service revenue. Product sales revenue
.5>went down. Service costs and product sales costs both went up
.5>but service revenues went up more than service costs. The lose
.5>appears to me to all be in product sales. And admin. Perhaps we'll
.5>see big cuts in admin? Manufacturing operations have already been
.5>cut quite a bit. 

Really ticks me off to see Customer Services being cut up with layoffs
when its the organization keeping its head above water.

Lee (in customer service)

    	This is getting really serious.   I've been tracking some ratios
    of DEC P&L for about five years now.   I have not seen our ration of
    Selling, General & Administrative Expenses to Net Sales going below
    the 30% mark.   This is really depressing for the investment
    community.   When DEC started cutting Cost of Good Sold (Manufacturing
    Expense) we agreed that it was the right thing to do because you can
    get the biggest bang for the buck.   However that is no longer true.
    As of right now the Selling, G&A expense is 34.13% of Net Sales while
    Cost of Good Sold is only 30.77%.   The very basic accounting
    principles for performance says that Cost of Good Sold expenses should
    have a ratio of 2 to 1 against those of Sales, G&A.   However, we have
    the ratio backwards.   For me it clearly demostrates that right now 
    the cost cutting efforts are not focused on the critical issues.
    We MUST get lean and mean in Selling G&A if we want to keep the
    DIGITAL logo or soon someone will come and takeover.
    

    re .7
    	To make matters worse many of the former service people are
    now working for third party service companies and taking customers
    away from Digital.
    Jeff Filer
    SSR - Systems Support

    re .8
    
    Jos�,
    
    We've had this discussion before.  Nobody understands the
    administrative overhead of this company.  A lot of us know it's too
    high, but nobody can sort out the value added from the waste.  I've
    finally come to the conclusion that only by shutting down big chunks of
    the company can we figure out what we need.  That would be so
    disruptive that BP won't do it.  It would cost him his job too!
    
    I hope I'm wrong for the sake of you and the others that will stay on,
    but I am pessimistic.
    
    Dick

> ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE (NET)                         3,316,130,000
> (RE:  A.R. DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING)                      90 DAYS

    I don't claim to be a wiz-bang accountant (just a lowly engineer)
    but aren't these just a little high?  I thought we had goaled (a
    year or so perhaps) to bring this down significantly.  Is this
    still a goal?

    -Eric

    Does anyone believe managements story that the losses are the result
    of a "worldwide economic downturn"?
    
    A show of hands, please.

>                 -< nobody in charge of administrative costs! >-
>
>    We've had this discussion before.  Nobody understands the
>    administrative overhead of this company.  A lot of us know it's too
>    high, but nobody can sort out the value added from the waste.  I've
 
	Of course....there's no great big building called the
	"Admin, Overhead and Boondoggle Group."

	The overhead is liberally salted throughout the corporation,	
	from the many consultants who only go to meetings, to the
	Ed Services and Personnel folks that provide "Empowering
	Your Happiness" seminars, to "Liaison Coordinator for
	Vision Managment" offices.

	They have an entire group of people here at the CSC called
	the "Center Redesign Team", that produces nothing but E-mail
	messages.  How's that for G&A expense ?  Note that all these
	folks are doing just a bit better than minimum wage.

	The group above is just one of the many pure-boondoogle
	groups throughout the support center, and throughout the
	company.  But every one could likely produce copious documents,
	impassioned arguments and impenetrable justifications for
	their continued existence.

	If you are a manager of a swelling empire, pulling down 
	dandy Digital manager pay, eyeing the next level up, are
	you really gonna report to a VP that your work is total
	overhead and does not design, build, ship, sell or service
	computers or software?  Are you gonna mention that you have added
	staff every year, with administrative help ( secretaries ),
	office space, computers, desks and all the other ratta-fratta
	that goes with it ?

	Not likely !

	Until someone from outside DEC goes through every organization
	and trims these B.S. outfits mercilessly, the decline
	will continue apace.

	Got your 'chute on ?

	Steve H

    
    The loss is a result of continued "birdcage management" and DEC's 
    insistence to perpetuate "The Greater Maynard Good Old Boy's Marching
    And Chowda Club"
    
    -Ed_Generation_X_and_angry!

    it would due the higher ups a lot of good to seriously look at .9's
    words. I see it everyday. EVERYDAY!
    
    Gene.

    I suspect that if you asked BP, he'd say that the Supply Chain task
    force was his leading edge on controlling adminstrative costs and that
    outsourcing was another.  I'm not optimistic that the theorists of the
    Supply Chain will do the job.  My observation is that you get
    efficiency by putting some people who will get their hands dirty
    (instead of writing white papers) in charge and let them change the org
    to make its work simpler.
    
    Dick

    
    Re: .16  Is the "Supply Chain Task Force" another incarnation of the 
    "Greater Maynard Good Old Boy's Marching And Chowda Club"?
    
    ;-)
    

    In .16, Dick speculated on Bob Palmer's reaction.  His actual words are
    quoted in .1, "Digital will change.  ... we have already begun the
    work."
    
    Mark

    Re: .0
    >why are we still losing money?
     1 of the answers is: the expence of COE and other sales perks STILL
     being offered. See note 2141.*
    

    
    re: .5
    
    	It seems that both product sales and services were losers although 
    services much less so. Although service revenues went up, the cost of 
    service went up by an even larger amount resulting in a net service
    loss, at least the way I see the report.
    
    - Jim K

>    >why are we still losing money?
>     1 of the answers is: the expence of COE and other sales perks STILL
>     being offered. See note 2141.*
>    
PLEASE don't take that rathole up here!!
Take it to 2141 if you must, but we really don't need yet another COE-bashing
note.

Thanks,
Kevin

    RE: .20 You are correct. I added too quickly and used the wrong line
    for service costs.
    
    		Alfred

re Note 2156.12 by SMAUG::CARROLL:

>     Does anyone believe managements story that the losses are the result
>     of a "worldwide economic downturn"?
  
        Well, President Bush just blamed the problems of the US
        economy on the "worldwide economic downturn".  Doesn't it
        make the same sense?

        Bob

    Economic downturn, my [expletive]...this is a DEpression, not
    a REcession!
    
    Massachusetts alone has lost almost 500,000 jobs in the last 
    two years.  Obviously, those jobs have not gone to New Hampshire.
    Interestingly, not all of them have gone overseas, either.  A lot
    of them have simply *gone away.*  Some jobs aren't being done by
    people anymore because the work can be done easier, cheaper and
    faster by computers/robotics.  Some jobs just aren't being done
    anymore, period.  
    
    The six=state New England region has lost a million jobs, perhaps
    closer to two million jobs, since 1989.  It is the biggest job
    loss since the Great Depression.
    
    In 25 words or less of Standard American English, this means that
    business as usual is no business at all.  There is plenty of
    blame to go around -- foreign countries for "dumping" cheaper goods
    on the market, American basic industry for taking quick profits and
    executive bonuses and failing to make the productivity and quality
    improvements that would have kept us leading-edge; incompetent,
    impotent political leadership at all levels of government; selfishness
    on the part of almost everyone, from leaders of organized labor on
    down to the folks on the shop floor.
    
    The point of this irritable reply is that Digital should and can do all
    it can to get its own house in order, recognizing that at some point,
    it's like shoveling sand against the tide.

    I noticed the round figure of 108,500 for Employee Population, down
    from the 127,500 high in 1991.

Quick spreadsheet showing year to year % change of each line

                                                                 Percent
                                                                 Change
                               sept 26, 1992    sept 28, 1991    (1992-1991)/1�

PRODUCT SALES                   $1,767,821,000   $1,862,849,000          -5.10%
SERVICE & OTHER REVENUES        $1,546,478,000   $1,430,236,000           8.13%
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES        $3,314,299,000   $3,293,085,000           0.64%
COST OF PRODUCT SALES           $1,019,957,000     $910,148,000          12.06%
SERVICE EXPENSE                 $1,017,650,000     $893,204,000          13.93%
TOTAL COST OF SALES             $2,037,607,000   $1,803,352,000          12.99%
RESEARCH & ENGINEERING            $405,477,000     $412,353,000          -1.67%
SELLING
 GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE       $1,131,187,000   $1,057,706,000           6.95%
NET INTEREST (INCOME)/EXPENSE   ($9,426,000.00)    ($20,569,000)        -54.17%
INCOME/(LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES
 & CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CHANGE
 IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE         ($250,546,000)     $40,243,000        -722.58%
INCOME TAXES                       $10,000,000      $28,581,000         -65.01%
INCOME/(LOSS) BEFORE CUMULATIVE
 EFFECT OF CHANGE IN
 ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE            ($260,546,000)     $11,662,000       -2334.15%
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CHANGE IN
 ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE NET OF�               $0     $485,495,000        -100.00%
NET (LOSS)                       ($260,546,000)   ($473,833,000)        -45.01%
AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES
 OUTSTANDING                          128001937        124836380          2.54%
INCOME/(LOSS) PER SHARE
 BEFORE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF
 CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCI�           ($2.04)           $0.09       -2366.67%
(LOSS) PER SHARE ON CUMULATIVE
 EFFECT OF CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING
 PRINCIPLE                               $0.00           ($3.89)       -100.00%
NET (LOSS) PER SHARE                    ($2.04)          ($3.80)        -46.32%

    The fiscal results state a population reduction of 5300 in Q1. Where
    are the TFSO costs in the results? Usually, a TFSO'd employee has a
    one time higher costs. Can some enlighten about the impact of 5300
    TFSO's employees?

    The one-time cost of TFSO'd employees is covered by the FY92 Q4 charge
    of $1.5B, or possibly by leftover unspent reserves from the FY91 Q4
    charge.  It was estimated that $1.5B would cover 15,000 TFSOs.  So are
    we now 5300 down, 9700 to go? 
    
    

    
    wrong note for this topic, however it was already stated that $1.5b was
    not just TFSO money.  It also covered plant/office closing, terminating
    leases and such like things.
    
    I don't think that one can figure out if its 9k people or 19k people to be
    TFSO'd  can be made by looking at the $1.5b.

    Re: .21 I was simply answering the author's question:
         "why are we still losing money"?

      Most of the restructuring sits in the Current Liabilities section of
    the Balance Sheet. Overall, Current Liabilities are down $315.6m and
    cash is down $455.9m. If the drop in liabilities is due directly to
    TFSO (perhaps some SERP as well), it is costing DEC $59.5k per person
    dropped (315.6m/5,300 people). The real cost per person dropped maybe less
    than 59.5k because the TFSO includes building consolidation, etc.    

    
    re .31 
    
    Sounds correct I have heard a figure of approx $50k per person in USA
    for TFSO.   So of course using the algorithim in previous note that = a
    lot more than 9700 heads.

    	Hello Dick, long time no see talk.   Guess you are right.  Hope
    that BP does something of the BIG mess we have with Selling, G&A.
    
    	On the other topic that someone wrote in the 90 days of sales
    days outstaning.  On this one we (DEC) got the audacity to be the
    WORST IN THE INSDUSTRY.....NO ONE IS EVEN CLOSE because the average
    for the technology industry is 30 DAYS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    So therefore, we have about $3,684K per day outstanding and if we 
    say that the probability of bad debt increases with account over 
    30 days and we have 60 days our probability of bad debt in these
    recession dates is about $ 2,210,753,000.   So my good friends.
    
    	What is the Value Added from Selling, G & A.......can someone
    answer this ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
    

    I think the two of the most important indicators in the Q1 report are 
    AR and DSO.  These can be considered as direct measures of customer 
    satisfaction in our administration activities.  They are increased by 
    no one taking responsibility for delivering a solution that WORKS and 
    is ON TIME to the customer.  They are increased by the lack of cooperation
    between Sales, Services, Manuufacturing and Administration that lets the
    customer's well being fall into the gaping cracks between Digital's
    functional divisions. 
    
    These indicators will not be improved by eliminating employees and
    maybe not even by eliminating managers.  They can only be addressed by
    a change of metrics accross this company that result in a UNIFIED
    effort to satisfy the customer.
    
    
    David - European Capability Manager for the IEM and CCOO services  

    
    
    	Heard on NPR on the way in this morning that in light of Digitals'
    	$260 million loss, layoffs will be accelerated to 5K more by the 
    	end of the year.
    
    						Mike
    						----

Copyright � 1992 Dow Jones & Co. from Wall Street Journal
Digital Posts
 1st-Period Loss,
 Plans More Cuts
 ---
 It Will Accelerate the Pace
 Of Reductions in Staff;
 Stock Rises $1.375 a Share
 ----
 By John R. Wilke
 Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal


  Digital Equipment Corp. reported a wider-than-expected loss, but its stock 
climbed as investors focused on evidence of tough new cost-cutting and a 
prediction that losses will narrow over the rest of the fiscal year.

  Digital said it had a loss of $260.5 million, or $2.04 a share, in its first 
quarter ended Sept. 26 on revenue of $3.31 billion. In the year-earlier 
quarter, net was $11.7 million, or nine cents a share, on revenue of $3.29 
billion. The 1% revenue gain was achieved as higher service revenue offset a 
6% decline in product sales.

  The nation's second-largest computer maker, based in Maynard, Mass., also 
disclosed that it cut 5,300 jobs, or 5%, during the quarter and said it would 
cut more than that in the second quarter. Digital, which had the lowest 
revenue per employee of any major computer maker last year, cut its work force 
to 108,500 people at the end of the quarter.

  Digital's long-depressed shares gained $1.375, to close at $37.125 a share, 
in New York Stock Exchange composite trading on volume of 805,600 shares.

  "They are signaling that we've finally hit bottom and the trend is up from 
here," said Jay P. Stevens, an analyst with Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. "We've 
just passed the inflection point."

  Although Digital executives wouldn't predict when the company would return 
to profitability, William Steul, chief financial officer, told reporters and 
analysts "you can expect progress in that direction over the next few 
quarters" based largely on further expense cuts.

  John F. Smith, senior vice president, said reductions in the work force in 
the second quarter "will be more aggressive" than in the first quarter. He 
told analysts that the company could cut its work force by as much as 20,000 
more jobs over the next three years, depending on business conditions.

  Mr. Smith also said the company "doesn't expect significant revenue in the 
current fiscal year" from its next-generation Alpha computer design. Some 
analysts had hoped that sales of the first Alpha machines, which will be 
unveiled next month, would help bring a return to profitability in the third 
quarter ending next March 30.

  Steven Milunovich, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, reduced his earnings 
estimates after the results were disclosed. While he had previously expected 
Digital to break even in the March quarter for the next year, he now expects a 
35 cent-a-share loss. He now expects Digital's first profit of $1.32 a share 
to come in the June quarter.

  But he applauded the prospect of significantly faster reductions in the work 
force, calling them "a necessary condition for a turnaround."

  Mr. Milunovich added that "there was a perception after Chief Executive 
Robert B. Palmer's presentation last month that he still intended to go slow, 
to stretch the cutbacks over tr -- as customers have begun buying a new line 
of VAX computers that is designed to be easily upgraded to Alpha technology 
when available.

  Still, revenue in Europe fell 8%, excluding the effect of the acquisition of 
a Philips Electronics N.V. unit, according to Barry F. Willman of Sanford C. 
Bernstein & Co. He also said that gross profit margin on service revenue had 
fallen to its lowest level in years.

  Unfavorable currency translations trimmed 30 cents a share, or $48 million, 
from first-quarter results, Digital said. Mr. Willman said he expects currency 
to be a neutral factor in the third period and "could become a substantial 
positive" in the third quarter.

  Mr. Palmer, who was named chief executive after company founder Kenneth H. 
Olsen was forced out in July, has said that Digital's "historically high 
margins on hardware and the business model upon which Digital was built are no 
longer sustainable." He said the company will step up cost-cutting and end 
some product lines to focus on semiconductors, software, service and computer 
networking.

    SGA
    
    This is not meant to be an all inclusive answer, but some of the items
    in the SGA expense area:
               * All support personnel charged to the Sales Unit -
                 secretaries, temps, OMS, CSRA, etc.
               * Exception Orders & P1's
               * Corrected Allowances or Discounts
               * Indirect costs for support centers
               * Heat, Light, Water, Lease
    
    Again, this isn't meant to be all inclusive, only the area that I'm
    aware of.  Maybe one of our Sales Managers or Finance People could
    explain in more detail.

    
    RE: .31
    
    Need further clarifaication. $316.5M/5300 TFSO employees is a world
    wide number. Did the $316.5M have any impact on the $260M reported
    loss for Q1, 1993  or $260M is pure operating loss in addition to the
    $316.5M spent on TFSO payments? Is there any relationship between the
    two numbers. 

      Re: .38
    
      TFSO execution is now a balance sheet entry. It has no impact on the
    loss for the quarter. The liability (current) is reduced by reducing
    cash. These transactions do not affect the income statement (a.k.a.
    P&L).
    
      Hope that helps.

	Maybe we will get serious about eliminating waste and
	overhead and reducing the outstanding receivables 
	when folks throughout the corporation stop saying
	"profit" as if they had just bitten into an aspirin
	tablet.

	Steve H

   RE .32 >> I have heard a figure of approx $50k per person in USA
    
   Are you saying the average compensation for a US employee is 50K annual
    ?
    

	RE: .41 Remember that total compensation covers more than just the
	pay check. It also covers benifits which may amount to a third of
	what a person actually gets paid. I would assume that there are other
	expenses in having a person on staff such as phone, office, and over
	head functions.

			Alfred

    
    
    No, just the average cost of TFSO is about $50k.   I don't have the
    calculation method but I do know a few people who had approx 7 years
    with DEC ended up with approx $50k when they were TFSO'd.
    
    I guess if one had the data they could give better examples than this
    one.

    DEC's Survival Kit
    ------------------
                          Very Short Term Goals
                          ---------------------
    
    P&L Improvements
    ----------------
    1) Reduce Service expense by $ 300M, $ 150M per quarter
    2) Reduce Selling, General and Administrative Expenses by $ 621M, $310M
       by quarter.
    3) Increase Product Sales by 5% through Marketing Programs
    
    	These efforts will get us to: Net Earnings of $ 794M
    
    Balance Sheet Improvements
    --------------------------
    1) Reduce A.R. Days Sales Outstanding to 30 days or $ 1,105,376,000
    2) Improve Finished Good Inventories to $ 500M.
    
    	These efforts will get us: Cash up by $ 2,629,000,000
    
    	
    		         Long Term Goals
                         ---------------
    1) Common Product Strategy for all our product lines that will provide
       the customer with a viable solution (H/W and S/W) at the Time, Cost
       and Quality expected by those customers.
    
    2) Continue management of non-value added activities as viewed by our
       customers.
    
    

================================================================================
Note 2156.13                         Q1 loss                            13 of 40
CSC32::S_HALL "The cup is half NT"                   44 lines  14-OCT-1992 12:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>	The overhead is liberally salted throughout the corporation,	
>	from the many consultants who only go to meetings, to the
>	Ed Services and Personnel folks that provide "Empowering
>	Your Happiness" seminars, to "Liaison Coordinator for
>	Vision Managment" offices.


	I take exception to the tone of your note. I work in the
	U.S. Education and Training group. My main 'customers' are the
	Digital Services (aka Field Service) people. As a matter of fact,
	our organization falls under the Digital Services umbrella.

	Our organization is staffed with dedicated, hard-working 
	professionals. We provide valuable training to many of the
	folks that are on the front lines every day. But I certainly
	don't have to justify anything to you. Suffice it to say that
	your message was in poor taste and not at all appreciated.

	John Sobecky

>        <<< Note 2156.45 by TEXAS1::SOBECKY "It's all ones and zeros" >>>
>                            -< Poor taste, S Hall >-
>
>	I take exception to the tone of your note. I work in the
>
> 	...............
>
>	John Sobecky

	Ok, I'll back off when Ed Services and Personnel stop
	holding courses on "Self Managed Teams," "Stress Management
	Workshop" and hundreds of other bottom-line-draining
	claptrap.   This corporation is LOSING money.

	Lately, the Personnel organization here has been sending out
	mail like:

	"This class is now free !  No charge!"

	"Open seats available in Conflict Management Class. Sign up today !"

	They've been trying to fill seats in classes that most folks
	just don't have the time for.  After all, those of us who
	actually do work need classes on operating systems, networks,
	compilers, new hardware,  databases and so forth.

	"Managing Your Career Opportunities" is a first choice only
	for boondogglers and the Overhead Club.

	Sorry, but I believe the appropriate title for your Note
	should be:

		"Methinks the lady doth protest too much...."

	Stay well,

	Steve H

    
    What is the "other" in "Service and Other Revenues"? Anyone know how
    this breaks out?
    
    I agree with .34, this company has many spokes but the HUB either
    doesn't exist or is badly damaged; customer satisfaction won't be
    achieved no matter how good the spokes are. 
    
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K

>        <<< Note 2156.48 by TEXAS1::SOBECKY "It's all ones and zeros" >>>
>              -< Protest all you want..you're still out of line >-


>
>    	BTW, my current assignment is to deliver hardware training on the
>    	new Alpha platforms. I've been to CXO at least 4 times this year
>    	delivering this type of training. 

	John,

	It's not the Alpha classes and other valuable ones that 
	I'm barking about.  It's the useless ones, which seem to
	dominate the curriclum lately.

	Steve H

	P.S.  "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" is a
	polite way of saying:

			"A stuck pig hollers."

	You know, like when someones ox gets gored ?    

	re .13:

>        The group above is just one of the many pure-boondoogle
>        groups throughout the support center, and throughout the
>        company.  But every one could likely produce copious documents,
>        impassioned arguments and impenetrable justifications for
>        their continued existence.

	Right on! Additionally, they have the big advantage of always
	being free to go to meetings (worldwide, because they often
	seem able to travel to internal meetings ad lib while delivery
	groups are dying for lack of essential training travel).

	Meantime, the people who are doing the most for the company
	are out there with customers 40 hours a week and struggling
	with obsolete administrative systems and barbaric procedures
	another 20 or so. They don't get heard - they don't get asked -
	they don't even get to be THERE!

	/Tom

    rathole #:
    
    Ladies = pigs 'n oxen, huh?
    
    nice correlation. NOT!
    
    Reg.

    Re the slam at Ed Services:  I also work for Ed Services.  I teach
    various C programming and ULTRIX/UNIX topics.  Most of my students are
    PAYING CUSTOMERS -- read $$$ coming in to Digital!  Some of my students
    are Digital employees, who use these courses to enhance their
    revenue-producing skills.
    
    Similar statements can be made abouth the other 15 VMS, ULTRIX, and
    other technical instructors at my site.
    
    I don't know where you get your "information" about Ed Services, but I
    can assure you that the center that I work at is profitable, and is a
    contributor to Digital's income!
    
    lrd

    re: .13, .45, .46, .52
    
    I don't believe that .13 was totally knocking ed services.  He was
    pointing out waste.  Believe me waste exists throughout Digital and
    ed services is no exception.  There are too many "self help" courses
    that in my opinion have to value.  The stress management is a waste.
    I took it and it only created more questions rather that answers. All
    these free courses and "seats are available, sign up now" courses keep
    someone in their job.  I do agree that courses that have paying
    EXTERNAL students do contribute to revenue for Digital.
    
    Personnel is another area where there is a lot of waste.  

    Last one out please shut the door.
    
    The way we are heading and with all the bickering we may end
    up much like Amory Maynard's Woolen Mills.
    
    Jim C.
    

    
    To the file in general:
        
    Let's be fair; every time you criticize another organization
    please put forth one directed at your own organization. 
    
    Just something I saw yesterday that caught my eye (paraphrased a bit):
    
    	"When looking for faults use a mirror instead of a telescope"
    
    Probably said by the inventor of the Hubble.
    
    - Jim K
                                                            

	re: last 2

	I maintain that there are huge numbers of the useless and
	overpaid in my organization and others.

	As regards criticism of other organizations and my own....

		I did both.

	Do I think any of it'll be fixed ?

	Not as long as the "Defenders of Overhead, Amalgamated"
	continue to have the loudest voice, and uses the
	most muscle to stay where they are.

	Regards all,

	Steve H

    I've been with Digital almost 5 years. I've been forced by my
    managers to attend many seminars/courses. Most of them are a COMPLETE
    WASTE. Some of the attendees actually fall asleep without hesitation. 
    The persons distributing the mandatory attendance notices were usually
    the person that was responsible for arrangeing the seminar. It didn't
    take me long to see the political connection. Sickening. I'm sure that
    many many of us have experienced this. This mis-management is on it's
    way out...I can see it...just give it time. No more spoiled deccies...
    there time has come. The waste will stop.
      

It may be that the writer expected that all training courses were designed and
taught by Educational Services.  Someone told me about two years ago that
there were between 96 and 102 organizations in Digital that delivered training.
Maybe it was one of the other organizations.

BTW, I have no way of verifying that number, I'm just trying to point out that
all training does not come from Educational Services.

al

    
    Folks,  I have a suggestion.  Could someone start a topic where we
    could list the BLATANTLY wasteful things like the
    "feelgood-pop-psychology" courses and those ridiculous casette tapes we
    get in the feild and then extract the notes and send them to BP?
    
    -Ed
    

             
    re: .57
    
    	Steve, thanks for pointing that out but I still think we could hold
    that mirror closer. For example, any criticisms about your own job
    function as it relates to waste, expense, etc.? I'm not looking for a 
    response since I need to work on my own first.
    	We could hold the mirror even closer if we dare and look right at
    ourselves, to see how the individual is within the job function. I
    understood what you said but it is too damn difficult for many of us to
    fix the problems at the top; it seems best to start with ourselves,
    hopefully next the job function, then if we're lucky our own
    organization and possibly how we relate with other organizations within
    the company.
    
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K 
    
    - Jim K

    I have a solution for the evaluation process of determining what is
    redundant and if Digital is getting a Return on Investment (ROI) for
    any particular job.
    
    1st, don't let the fox in the henhouse.  In otherwords appoint an
    independant task force to evaluate each and every function at Digital
    (ie: Finance, IM&T, Ed Services, Sales, Marketing, etc.)  Do not
    appoint anyone from personnel, since they are not objective and usually
    in the pockets of management.  All these functions have waste.
    
    Start by looking at an organizational chart for each function starting
    at the top. (ie: how many people, what do they do, and what are they
    paid).  Waste will quickly stand out and then can be cut out.

    If we want to identify waste shouldn't someone in this company know
    what the correct ratio is of X to employee. eg, X number of managers
    to E, X number of PSA's to E, X number of in-house Field Service
    support to E, X number of system managers to E, X number of consultants
    to E and so on. Isn't this a simple way to at least identify positions
    to be cut (then people to cut). I know people are going to say "this
    has been done already" well I don't think so.. As I look around my
    office I see about a 3-1 (employee/manager) ratio in my group.
    
    There has been a lot of talk in this note about people looking for work
    elsewhere - IMO, if your resume isn't ready *now* to be sent you are
    not watching out for yourself. The latest number of people that need to
    exit this company is 25,000 (1 of every 4 of us). If people are
    thinking "it won't be me i'm safe" I ask you to count the number of
    people in your group and guess what the odds will be that it won't be
    you.
    
    For the person who thinks everything is fine and dandy - wake up. 
      

    This discussion is interesting and all that, but it seems to me that the
    essential points of .0 are not being given the attention they deserve.
    
    Take waste, for example.  Sure, we have to reduce waste but the results
    of this, from a business perspective are a reduction of costs.  Fine,
    since profit = revenue - costs, this increases our profit.  But is this
    the most important and most effective way to do it ?
    
    What makes anyone think that reducing waste will improve Digital's
    market shares, customer image and revenue ?  Our major problems are in
    these areas as well as in profit.  What should we do to prepare for the
    time when the waste is reduced to an acceptable minimum ?  What will
    have happened, during all that time, to Digital's market shares ?  To
    its customer image (expressed by AR and DSO) ?  Will we have a lean
    organization whose customers have deserted it for better (from the
    customer's point of view !) suppliers ?
    
    Competent business management will manage profit, revenue, market share
    and image.  Incompetent business management will do the things that
    appear easiest ie. cut costs.  Which do you think we have and which do
    we need ?  Personaly, I hope that Mr. Palmer is as competent a business
    manager as he's reputed to be !  
    
    David

    I've said it before and will again: one must fix #1 first before the
    team can be fixed.  Sounds like we're all looking out for ourselves:
    1 in 4? coming from personnel (I believe?)- there's a morale booster.
    
    Ogre.

	... no one has mentioned where our cash level is now!  The "magic" $1B 
barrier has been broken - from the wrong side!

>	Sorry, but I believe the appropriate title for your Note
>	should be:

>		"Methinks the lady doth protest too much...."


	From your name, I would have never guessed that you were a lady,
	much less from your replies.

	John Sobecky

 Digital - Losses soar; will speed job reductions
	{The Boston Globe, 15-Oct-92, p. 41}
   Digital said yesterday it had lost an unexpectedly large $260.5 million on
 weak sales during its most recent fiscal quarter, and company executives
 revealed their plans for accelerated job cuts.
   Digital said it would slash headcount by up to 23,500 by the end of 1993,
 including more than 5,000 jobs by year's end.  Digital currently employs
 108,500.  The company will also continue to shut facilities.
   It was the first time Digital had attached firm numbers to its newly
 energized cost-cutting efforts.  On Oct. 1, his first official day in office,
 president and chief executive Robert B. Palmer promised that the company would
 cut expenses more aggressively, and said job cuts could total 25,000 over the
 next several years.  Yesterday senior vice president John F. Smith gave more
 specifics, telling financial analysts that Digital's plans called foe
 employing between 85,000 and 90,000 by next year's end.
   "Palmer speaks Wall Street's language: make operations efficient and reduce
 expenses.  He's moving straight ahead with no wasted motion," said Robert G.
 Herwick, an analyst with Hambrecht & Quist in San Francisco.  "He may not be
 able to do anything about revenue, but he's going to take down expenses."
   Indeed, Wall Street seemed to welcome the hard-hitting specifics.  In New
 York Stock Exchange trading, Digital's shares - which had been falling in
 anticipation of today's numbers - rose 1 3/8 to 37 1.8 on consolidated New
 York Stock Exchange volume of 751,200.
   The stock uptick served as an unusual coda to a day on which the company
 announced a loss that was eve larger than most Wall Street analysts had
 predicted.  The $260.5 million loss for the first fiscal quarter, which ended
 Sept. 26, amounted to $2.04 a share.  Sales during the three-month period rose
 slightly less than 1% over the same period last year, to $3.29 billion.
   During its first fiscal quarter last year, Digital earned $11.6 million, or
 9 cents a share.  But after taking a one-time charge fore retiree health
 benefits, the company ended up with a net loss for the quarter of $473.8
 million, or $3.80 a share.  In fiscal 1992, which ended in June, Digital lost
 a total of nearly $2.8 billion.  That figure included a $1.5 billion
 restructuring charge for layoffs and facilities closings.
   As has become their practice - this is the company's fourth consecutive
 quarter of operating losses - Digital executives declined to predict when the
 $14 billion company would return to profitability.  Smith said only that he
 was "cautious relative to the return of profitability during the first half of
 the year."  He added that "we have some level of optimism" that the current
 quarter, which ends Dec. 26, will be an improvement over the September
 quarter.  Much of the company's cost-containment efforts, he said, weren't
 fully realized because they didn't occur until the end of the quarter.
   Of the 5,300 positions that were cut during the first fiscal quarter, Smith
 said that about 1,000 positions were because of normal attrition.  He
 estimated that 3% of the job losses came out of Massachusetts, where Digital
 now employs about 24,000.
   On the revenue side, Digital's best hope for reviving sales rests with its
 new Alpha-based computers. The systems - some models are expected to be
 launched on Nov. 10 - employ Digital's own ultrafast Alpha processor. But
 Smith said that he doesn't expect Alpha "to start clicking in" in terms of
 revenue until the next fiscal year.  "We'd sure like to be surprised," he
 added.
   Smith's comments may have been aimed at lowering expectations to a more
 realistic level.  "Many analysts consider Alpha to be a miracle product line
 that would remarkably transform the fortunes of this company," said William J.
 Milton Jr., an analyst with Brown Brothers Harriman.  "Management was trying
 to get across that this will not change the company overnight."
   Smith reiterated that the company did not expect to take further charges to
 pay for restructuring costs.  But clearly the restructuring has drained
 Digital of some cash.  Yesterday it said it had cash and equivalents on hand
 of about $881 million, compared to $1.3 billion at the end of the preceding
 quarter.  William M. Steul, vice president of finance, reported that Digital
 had last week issued some $250 million worth of 10-year bonds.  In July,
 Digital filed papers enabling it to raise up to $1 billion in bonds.
   Though there were few encouraging signs in yesterday's numbers, analysts
 noted that sales of the company's flagship VAX computers were stabilizing.
   "That's important because it means that customers have bought the company's
 story about migrating to Alpha," noted Marc G. Schulman, president of
 Technology Strategies Group In Stamford, Conn. "It would seem that Digital's
 situation had bottomed out.  The wild card is what's going to happen to the
 world economy."
   In that regard, Smith said yesterday that "economic indicators have not
 improved relative to the last time we had this discussion."

    Re: Note 2156.69 
    
    I guess the Globe will never give up.
    
    	"That's important because it means that customers have bought
    	the company's story about migrating to Alpha."
                      ^^^^^
                        |
    I'm sorry, maybe it's me; but this reeks of junkyard journalism.
    
    

>    
>    I guess the Globe will never give up.
>    
>        "That's important because it means that customers have bought
>        the company's story about migrating to Alpha."
>                      ^^^^^
>                        |
>    I'm sorry, maybe it's me; but this reeks of junkyard journalism.
>    

    Just to be fair, this is a quote from Marc Shulman, not from the
    Boston Globe.

    -Eric

    re: .back a few...
    
    	I fought a battle about a course titled "Becoming an everday
    Genius" back a couple of years ago. I took it to Jack Smith. I was
    somewhat skeptical of the relative value of this type of course given
    its expense. Among the course objectives was one that suggested that
    you would learn the differences between the right and left halves of
    ones brain. I had a difficult time swallowing this one. Given the fact
    that we are a computer company selling hardware and software I couldn't
    see the immediate value in this sort of thing. We were spending as a
    company upwards of nearly 5 million dollars a year on this course back
    then ( i don't know how much of this is "funny" money vs. "real" money)
    but the response I was given when I took it to Jack was short of what I
    would have expected. It was basically "the managers will decide which
    is best and if this course is not good then they will not commit the
    time and money for it and people will not be sent". Sigh..... 
    
    It was a frustrating experience to say the least... one that continues.
    This course is still being offered in the company from what I gather.
    
    Tis a bit sad that we can't seem to bite the bullet on some this sort
    of thing.
    
    

       
       
       RE: .72
       
       It is. I just got a flyer about the course.......
       
       				->Jay

From:   COMPAC::MALONEY "13-Oct-1992 0846"
To:     @TLGEXT
Subj:   Today's Notices

The following notices were received in TLG:

    1.  Becoming an Everyday Genius
...
BECOMING AN EVERYDAY GENIUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGISTRATION:  Please use COURSES, an on-line system, to register.

                To access COURSES:  $ set host SIMVAX or 56668
                                    USERNAME: COURSES
                                    PASSWORD: TRAINING

COURSE NUMBER(S):  RBCEG-36  Nov. 3 - 6  at ACO
                   RBCEG-37  Dec. 1 - 4  at ACO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION:

BECOMING AN EVERYDAY GENIUS is a course which offers introductory and
intermediate-level "brain-training" techniques for improvements in business
and study skills.

This video-based program features the lecturer, author, and brain-researcher
Tony Buzan.  He covers topics such as: brain history, left- and right-brain
functionality, mind-mapping, memory, advanced reading techniques and the
Buzan organic study method.

OBJECTIVES:

The participant will be able to explain the difference between the left and
right brain functions; create mind-maps and utilize the technique in a variety
of professional situations; use basic memorization and study techniques; and
demonstrate improvements in reading skills and brainstorming.

INTENDED AUDIENCE:  Individual contributors, managers, and teams
                    facing major programs of study or professional
                    change.

PREREQUISITES:  None

TRAINING FORMAT:  Workshop

LENGTH:  4 days

CLASS SIZE:  Minimum 8 / Maximum 20

COST: $850

SITE REQUIREMENTS:  1/2" VHS VCR, TV monitor, and 2 flipchart stands

       RE: .72
       
There are 2 points of view about cost centers and their budgets/management.

One point of view says that a cost center manager has a budget, but they
can only spend it on what the company says they can. The other point of view
says that as a cost center manager I justify my budget however it needs to be
justified and then I am trusted to spend it appropriate to my business.

As a cost center manager, I jump through hoops to get a budget justified, then
I have to get signatures up the kazoo to spend the money.  Talk about waste of
energy.

I submit that since Digital needs to save money, each Cost Center Manager
should be told to take the budget they now have, cut it by X% and spend
NOT A PENNY MORE than that amount.  How those savings are made should be
up to me as the person who knows my business best.

If I want to send all the people in my cost center to the course you mentioned
or any other one because I determine that the ROI is sufficient to do so
then I should be able to do so.  If I make a mistake, then I will learn
from it and move on.  If I make a lot of mistakes then I shouldn't have
the responsibility any more.

	If this guy is getting Digital to spend upwards of 5 million
	on this course, I'll submit that he, at least, is 
	"an everyday genius"...

						Tom_K

    
    Ah! yet another huckster in the tradition of Tony Robbins and Tom Vu.
    
    I wonder when we can expect to hear DEC has hired Werner Erhard.
    
    -Ed
    

    re:.76 >>If this guy is getting Digital to spend upwards of 5
    million...
    
    What guy? 

This guy:

.74>This video-based program features the lecturer, author, and 
.74>brain-researcher Tony Buzan.

    I appreciate all the critical comments about my future competition. 
    After I leave Digital, I will be working to get my piece of that same
    action.  There are still plenty of managers of plenty of companies who
    can sign for big-bucks-seminars.  And I want to get cut in.  After all,
    I can carry slides for more than 50 miles and qualify as an expert too!
    
    Dick

	Yeah, this money-sink ( "Becoming an Everyday Genius" ) has
	been a favorite of one manager here at the Center for years.

	It's colloquially known as "Learning to Juggle on Digital Time."

	Just think, you spend a few days mouthing platitudes,
	learning to juggle, and doing other assorted pop-psych
	horse-crap, and get paid to do it !

	Your cost center also pays Ed Services a *handsome* fee for
	you to waste your time this way, and Ed Services people
	get well paid to consume DECbucks.

	Add in the cost of your *not* solving customer problems that week,
	floor space in the Ed Services building, admin overhead to
	register attendees, handout duplication, slide preparation,
	Ed Services "instructor" preparation time, and you've
	got a serious hole in the ol' cost side of the balance sheet.

	Does anyone give a rip but me ?

	Steve H

    Re .75
    
    Thank you for stating the obvious.  All those hours we've wasted
    trying to get expenditures approved...
    
    I try to be patient when the obvious gets overlooked, but this
    one has driven me nuts.

Instructor: Wile E. Coyote, Genius
Company:    Acme Consultants, Inc.

The cartoons probably have more content, too :^(

/harley

            Re the following,


>>           <<< Note 2156.75 by CAPNET::CROWTHER "Maxine 276-8226" >>>
>>                        -< 2 schools of thought  . . . >-
>>
>>then I should be able to do so.  If I make a mistake, then I will learn
>>from it and move on.  If I make a lot of mistakes then I shouldn't have
>>the responsibility any more.
>>

    Maxine,

    	I totally agree with the above... BUT...  The sad fact is, that this
    corporation is in trouble.  People are loosing their jobs.  It appears
    the things we have done in the past was either not effective, or
    probably wrong (don't get me wrong we did a lot right, but not enough).
    	It also appears those who made the decisions are still making those
    decisions.  We aren't doing what you suggested that, they should no 
    longer have responsibility.  Now what do we do about it?

    Jim Morton

    Having taken and gotten value out of some of the sorts of classes that
    are being bashed in this topic, my suggestion is simple.  If you don't
    think a course will help you be more productive on the job, then don't
    take it.
    
    -- Mike

    Re: -1
    
    Agreed.
    
    Some of the material referenced here is quite powerful for some
    people;  a waste of time for others.  One thing is clear;  if we are to
    dig ourselves out of the rut that we are now in, we will have to think
    and behave differently - each of us.  If Robbins, Buzan, Garfield, or
    whatever is your cup of tea, we cannot all help but profit from the
    energy unleashed.  We suffer from a paralysis rooted in fear and lack
    of hope;  we need to consciously change that.
    

    
    re: .81
    
    	If we spent half as much time speaking and strategizing with our
    customers and employees, our eyes would be opened more than attending
    many of these courses IMHO. 
    
    - Jim K

    
    
    	re .81
    
    	See .85
    
    	John

>        <<< Note 2156.88 by TEXAS1::SOBECKY "It's all ones and zeros" >>>
>    
>    
>    	re .81
>    
>    	See .85
>    
>    	John


	Oh, how sweet !

	.85 says something like:  "If you don't like the class, don't go."

	And I suppose an auditor who sees waste and abuse should just
	"not look."   And the CEO who presides over redundant 
	departments should just "not worry."

	Waste is waste.  Classes like we've been discussing may certainly
	have some value for someone.  But they should be the concern
	of folks pursuing degrees in basketweaving, advanced folk
	guitar, and Tibetan gong cleaning -- not a money-losing computer
	firm with competitors that have passed it by and expenses
	climbing quarter-by-quarter !

	Steve H

Does this sound familiar????

                             A Grim Fairy Tale
                             -----------------
                             
Once upon a time, an American automobile company and a Japanese auto 
company decided to have a competitive boat race on the Detroit River.  
Both teams practiced hard and long to reach their peak performance.  On 
the big day, they were as ready as they could be.  

The Japanese team won by a mile.

Afterwards, the American team became discouraged by the loss and their 
morale sagged.  Corporate management decided that the reason for the 
crushing defeat had to be found.  A Continuous Measurable Improvement 
Team of "Executives" was set up to investigate the problem and to 
recommend appropriate corrective action.  

Their conclusion:  The problem was that the Japanese team had 8 people 
rowing and 1 person steering, whereas the American team had 1 person 
rowing and 8 people steering.  The American Corporate Steering Committee 
immediately hired a consulting firm to do a study on the management 
structure.

After some time and billions of dollars, the consulting firm concluded 
that "too many people were steering and not enough rowing."  To prevent 
losing to the Japanese again next year, the management structure was 
changed to "4 Steering Managers, 3 Area Steering Managers, and 1 Staff 
Steering Manager" and a new performance system for the person rowing the 
boat to give more incentive to work harder and become a six sigma 
performer.  "We must give him empowerment and enrichment."  That ought 
to do it.

The next year the Japanese team won by two miles.

The American Corporation laid off the rower for poor performance, sold 
all of the paddles, cancelled all capital investments for new equipment, 
halted development of a new canoe, awarded high performance awards to 
the consulting firm, and distributed the money saved as bonuses to the 
senior executives.


-- 

    re:  .89
    
    Steve, 
    
    Is it your opinion that companies should only offer technical courses
    and that anythink that might help improve one's thinking or motivation
    should not be taught?

    
    Re: .89
    
    >	And I suppose an auditor who sees waste and abuse should just
    >	"not look."   And the CEO who presides over redundant 
    >	departments should just "not worry."
    >   
    >	Waste is waste.  Classes like we've been discussing may certainly
    >	have some value for someone.  But they should be the concern
    >	of folks pursuing degrees in basketweaving, advanced folk
    >	guitar, and Tibetan gong cleaning -- not a money-losing computer
    >	firm with competitors that have passed it by and expenses
    >	climbing quarter-by-quarter !
    
    Personally, I think the mess that Digital is in is caused more
    by narrow thinking, of which the above is an example IMO, than
    by offering classes that don't have direct technical content.
    
    Steve
    

>    Steve, 
>    
>    Is it your opinion that companies should only offer technical courses
>    and that anythink that might help improve one's thinking or motivation
>    should not be taught?

	I'm glad you asked !

	Do I think that *all* companies should only offer technical
	courses ?

	Heck no.  If Sun wants to blow its profits on this junk,
	then have at it.  Their stockholders can take it up with
	management.

	But it's clear that a computer company  should be making 
	a profit, and a healthy one, before it even *considers*
	teaching happy-go-lucky feelgood courses.

	Digital has way too much ground to cover in the changed
	model of computing in the world today:  microcomputers and
	departmental servers, transaction processing on Unix, and on
	and on.  Most of our corporate applications and computer 
	use/knowledge revolves around VMS and serial terminals.

	Until we are riding the crest of the technology wave, 
	profits are booming, Wall Street loves us, and customers
	are abandoning other vendors for us in droves, we should not
	consider teaching pop social science junk at a cost of
	millions of dollars each year.

	Steve H

    re:.93
    
    Then, are you saying that we have been reduced by recent
    circumstances to the lower two levels of Maslow's hierachy (that is,
    safety and physiological needs) and that those have to be satisfied
    first before we can even think about the higher needs of acceptance,
    esteem and self-actualization.
    
    If that is true, that the organism is starving, then it's mental health
    is almost irrelevant until it has some food in its stomach?
    
    Or, is the company starving because because it has long neglected those
    needs in terms of its management style and practices?
    
    Or, are you suggesting that most programs that attempt to focus on the
    upper levels of Maslow's hierarchy are and always will be a waste of
    time and corporate resources?  

    Re: The last 20 or so replies
    
    Has anyone here actually attended this or similar "non-technical"
    courses, such as "Investment in Excellence?"  If so, what are your
    personal comments on the particular courses?
    
    	Bill

    they get you out of the trenches for a while, 
    are fun to go to,
    you learn a little, meet new people, 
    go back to the office,
    and do the same ole stuff.
    
    people don't change behavior much through the years.

my opinion...

not much value...touchy, feely, and whole lot of time wasting.

I have attended a few of these, like Investment in Excellence, HPO,
Conflict Management, and Negotiation Skills.

only one, Negotiation skills was worth anything, but I used most of
what I learned outside of Digital.

Dan Lowry

    I've attended some (mostly at the discretion of management request in
    hopes that my personality would change to be like them) and they are
    just what others are saying: fun, meet new people, a waste of time.
    
    Why? because at the end of them all, the basic concept is: "I'm okay,
    you're okay; let's work together and not expect anyone else to be like
    you"  (wish management would take more of these instead of trying to
    change their employees).  Nothing I didn't already know.
    
    I know a couple of people who took the intelligence-enhancer course and
    it didn't work for them at all; meanwhile, the excessive fee for the
    course was wasted and I was not allowed to take a systems course
    because funding was not available and they couldn't afford to let me
    go- BUT, they could afford the price of touchy-feely-mindlink courses
    and justify my absence away from the job for those.  Go figure.
    
    If they still want to continue having these type of courses because
    some feel they're really worth it, than sure have them.  I just have a
    problem with the cost.  How can they charge so much per individual per
    course? We're not a privately funded college or Ivy league quality
    schooling; we're a company offering courses to employees and I know DEC
    can't possibly be paying the "instructor" that much!  And our customers
    complain about the cost of our time- another go figure.
    
    Ogre.

    
    I attended Investment in Excellence and found it to be what the others
    have said. I'm also irritated by some of the more technical courses
    which happen to be the buzz word of the week such as Six Sigma and JIT. 
    
    That's the trouble I think, we seem to grasping for some magic straw
    which will provide the security we seem to think we need.
    
    - Jim K

    Well, there are fluff courses that have technical names, just as Six
    Sigma misuses technical terminology for public relations purposes.  So
    purging a catalog of non-technical course titles won't solve the real
    problem.  And there are courses with fluff titles that have some meat.
    
    Dick

re 94:

Pure psycobabble.

DEC didn't loose $260 million last quarter because the employees are
lacking "the higher needs of acceptance, esteem and self-actualization",
it lost it because it didn't sell enough product and it spent too much
money dealing with the stuff it did sell.

If you want to stay alive, you cut *anything* that does not contribute
to the customer's willingness to sign a check.

    
    Re: .98
    
    > Why? because at the end of them all, the basic concept is: "I'm okay,
    > you're okay; let's work together and not expect anyone else to be like
    > you"  (wish management would take more of these instead of trying to
    > change their employees).  Nothing I didn't already know.
    
    Well if you and, by implication most of us, "already know" this then
    why aren't we doing it?
    One thing I expect we can all agree on is that the company is in
    trouble and without making some changes we might all be looking for
    work.  Given that, IMO, of the many reasons why we are in this mess the
    single most pervasive one and perhaps the root cause of many of the
    others, is the unwillingness of the many functions and organizations of
    the company to work effectively with each other. In my nearly 12 years
    at DEC, in EVERY case where groups I have worked in have found
    themselves in a mess either with respect to technical or business
    issues, of the factors contributing to the mess, the one that was
    present in EVERY instance was a failure to work cooperatively so that
    we could all succeed.  Instead various functions or organizations came
    to the table each looking out for their own agenda so in the end we all
    lost.
    
    If some of this "fluff" can help us solve this problem it will be
    worth more than all of the technical courses combined.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    re: -1
    
    Let me approach it from another angle.
    
    It's very clear that for you, and for others, these kinds of courses
    have no value.  No one, I suspect, can convince you otherwise.
    
    There are others who perhaps feel differently.  The entire subject of
    peak performance has been researched extensively and some of these
    types of courses reflect that research.   We are a company in need of
    peak performance.  We need those insights to fuel our trip through the
    next few years.  The route to peak performance may be radically
    different for each one of us.  
    
    What I am advocating is essentially a free market - if these courses
    are of little value, then they will die a natural death.  People will
    vote with their feet, and their tuition dollar.  
    
    But I would not say eliminate certain courses from the catalog just
    because a few people didn't like them.  
    
    Nevertheless, you and others raise a very important question, and that
    is, how useful is this stuff?  For me (although I can't really speak to
    the ones cited here - I've not taken them) some of this kind of
    material can be very useful indeed.  If Investment in Excellence has
    made a difference in some people's lives and the quality of work they
    do at Digital, then maybe it has served its purpose.  If it hasn't,
    then I assume it would have died by now.  It's been around for a long
    time.
    
    Or, are you saying that the kind of people who take a course like this
    aren't really interested in improving their performance?
    

re .102

>	In my nearly 12 years at DEC, in EVERY case where groups I have 
>	worked in have found themselves in a mess either with respect to 
>	technical or business issues, of the factors contributing to the 
>	mess, the one that was present in EVERY instance was a failure to 
>	work cooperatively so that we could all succeed.  Instead various 
>	functions or organizations came to the table each looking out for 
>	their own agenda so in the end we all lost.
>    
>	If some of this "fluff" can help us solve this problem it will be
>	worth more than all of the technical courses combined.

	And a good manager who won't tolerate such behavior would be 
	worth 10 times more.

						Tom_K

    re:  .104
    
    Good managers cannot command such behavior out of existence;  they need
    to have the skillset that will help them effectively set a climate
    where this won't occur.  Such managers are rare, very rare.

    The point here is not "if you don't like the class, don't go."  The
    point is that "if the class won't make you more productive, don't go." 
    That is an important distinction. I have taken so-called "fluff"
    courses which have benefited the way I do my job.  Snide comparisons to
    basketweaving and Tibetan gong weaving completely miss the target.  To
    repeat: if one of these classes won't help your productivity, don't
    take the class; it's as simple as that.  But if the class indeed helps
    me do my job better, then the company benefits. 

    -- Mike

    
.103>What I am advocating is essentially a free market - if these courses
.103>are of little value, then they will die a natural death.  People will
.103>vote with their feet, and their tuition dollar.  

Is the operative word 'value' or 'popularity'?
    
.103>Or, are you saying that the kind of people who take a course like this
.103>aren't really interested in improving their performance?

Ask someone who writes user documentation and they will tell you that it
is written for only about 15% of the people. I.e., there are some
people that will never read the manual no matter what and on the other
side there are people that will figure things out without any
documentation, so only about 15% ever use it.

I feel that "Investment in Excellence" (yes, I've taken the course) has
pretty much the same batting average- maybe 15% put it to good use;
for everyone else it was a waste of time either because they already
possesed those skills or would use little/none of what they learned.

Lee

	There is a fundamental schism in the approaches to the
	fluff classes:  One angle says "it could be valuable for 
	some....we need all the help we can get" and so forth.

	The other angle says "we shouldn't spend money on 
	institutional wishful thinking."

	I know that the folks here that go to these courses are either
	management "suck-ups" or look forward to the time off phones...
	paid vacation on DEC time.

	Neither of these is appropriate for DEC to spend its money on.

	But, I am confident that as DEC fails horribly, month-by-month,
	the defenders of waste and overhead will be well-steeped in
	New Age jargon and management-speak.

	They'll be able to hold their own with any of the middle-managers
	in the unemployment line !

	Steve H

    re: .108 and others...
    
	>I know that the folks here that go to these courses are either
	>management "suck-ups" or look forward to the time off phones...
	>paid vacation on DEC time.
    
    I really wish everyone would stop making such unprovable statements. 
    
    Steve, in this case your statement implies that you know that no one
    who has ever taken any of these courses went because they felt that the
    course could help them.  Did you interview everyone who has ever taken
    any of these courses in order to validate your statement?
    
    Bob

    re:  .107
    
    You raise yet another issue - and a very important one.   That is, how
    much of any course is ever put to use?  Some research, done at Xerox in
    the 80's, suggests that only about 10% of a course remains after about
    2 or 3 months unless the culture or immediate environment reinforces
    the content.
    
    This research was based on the technical types of courses, not on those
    with a psychological bent.
    
    Seems to muddy the waters a bit, doesn't it.

    re effectiveness of courses
    
    "Use it or lose it!" is a valid slogan where training is concerned. 
    That's why we so often have the impression that little is learned or
    that the course is ineffective.  If a person is enrolled in a course
    too early or too late, the company may never see any benefit.  
    
    "Different strokes for different folks!" also applies.  If the course
    is too theoretical or too applied, it may miss the mark for some of its
    audience and be right on for others.  
    
    The trainee may have personal and/or health problems that interfere
    with learning at the time the course is offered.  The business may have
    critical needs that make it imposssible for the employee to attend when
    the timing is right.
    
    You know what?  It's not easy (possible?) to balance all of these
    factors.  And of course, this is not the manager's or the employee's
    first priority, most of the time.  So, why are we surprised when
    training doesn't work the miracles that were advertised?  Maybe a
    little more skepticism on everyone's part is called for.
    
Dick
    

I agree with .93 in that until we are profitable, Digital will have to forgo
the luxury of some of these courses.   They may be useful but I would wonder
if the benefit of these courses outweighs the cost.  During these
times I don't think so.  I think there has to be more justification.  I think
we have many other ways to spend our money  that are more pragmatic and closer
to the knitting.  For that matter, if you consider this money, "seed" money, 
then there are better places this money can be spent for Digital's future.

	Bob  

    
    
    In good times, yearly outings and anniversary celebration dinners were
    a good idea; in bad times it seems they're not.
    
    In good times, touchy-feely self-improvement training was a good idea;
    in bad times, it's not.
    

    re:  ..113 I agree that it is foolish to spend money on anything at
    this stage that is not aligned with our survival.  The question for me
    is just that - what does our survival look like beyond money in the
    bank (admittedly an awfully good start).  What,then, is our vision, our
    direction for the future?  I'm not sure everyone is in agreement on
    that.  Once we are clear, then it's fairly easy to determine where the
    available $$ should be spent.
    
    Some of these courses, I would hope, should help people align with that
    direction.
    
    re:  a few notes back - if people are taking these courses to avoid
    their own work, is that the problem of the course?

    I went to them to suck up for a better performance review because of
    personailty conflicts with management, THEY thought I could use these
    courses.  
    
    Someone asked why don't we put it to use and why can't anything ever
    get done: well (IMO) it just might be that the management structure is
    too fat and too many empires and fear of kingdoms being overthrown that
    we can't get anything done. (believe me- I've lived in/with it long
    enough to see the power struggles and back stabbing and a** kissing: a
    loud sucking sound heading towards the DEC presidency, then and now)
    In my time here and (maybe) because of downsizing, it appears to be 
    getting better.  However, I still see the management/employee ratio way 
    out of sync, too many people doing duplicate work, and too many valuable 
    people doing a job that's really not needed for DEC.
    
    Ogre.

    	I'm almost afraid to admit it (based on previous replies) but I
    took a combination "Investment in Excellence/Everyday Genius" course
    and I feel I got a lot out of it. 

    	Many of the benefits were indirect. I'll give a couple of specific
    examples -

    	Investment in Excellence had a positive affect on my home life,
    which indirectly allowed me to come to work with a better attitude.
    Some people, myself included, fall into a trap of unknowingly perpetuating
    a negative situation. I did this by typically complaining about
    something as soon as I got home from work. 

    	Over time, my wife got defensive, and took innocent remarks to mean 
    something that they were never intended to be. Over more time, she began 
    to anticipate and expect a fight as soon as I walked through the door. We 
    had conditioned each other to expect this without realizing this.

    	Taking this course helped me to look at things a little more
    positively. In other words, instead of complaining that the house was a
    mess as soon as I walked in the door, I'd ask how her day went. In
    doing this, I may have found out that she spent the whole day doing
    laundry, and didn't get a chance to clean the house.

    	Instead of getting on her case for what she didn't do, I made a
    conscious effort to praise her for things she did do. In turn, she felt
    that her efforts were acknowledged and appreciated. She liked this feeling 
    and in turn, "wanted" to do more. 

    	I know I'm skipping some of the details, but it's sort of related to 
    working for a boss that no matter what you do, they always find something 
    wrong. It demotivates you. When your not involved in one of these
    situations, this may seem like common sense. For me, it wasn't, and
    this portion of the course made a dramatic improvement in my life.

    	The Everyday Genius course had speed reading concepts and a note
    taking system that proved invaluable in the CS degree program I'm in
    now. It cut hours off of my study time by teaching me much more
    efficient study techniques. This gave me that much more time to spend 
    with my family. It also allowed me to be more focused at work by not 
    having to worry about school work nearly as much. The same techniques
    helped me to organize and deliver more clear, concise, and "connected" 
    presentations when and as needed, either at work or in school.

    	Contrary to what I've heard many people say, speed reading can be
    applied to any type of material. You just can't read a technical manual
    as fast as a novel. You can go through the technical manual faster with
    speed reading techniques than without.

    	As someone else said, if you don't use it, you lose it. I went to
    this course and put the valuable principles I learned to work right
    away. Maybe I'm one of the few, but the course was a valuable learning 
    experience, directly applicable to my work and home life. The above
    things, among others, without a doubt, increased the quality of my
    life.

    	One of the principles learned in Investment in Excellence says that
    if you go into something (such as a course) thinking that you'll get
    nothing out of it, it's very likely to come true.

    	Ray

I don't think anyone seriously disputes to value of these courses. As someone
said, the bad ones die on thier own.

It's the decision to spend money on them during hard times.

If we don't start making money soon, I'd expect to see every course canceled
with the possible exception of the ones needed by the field people to install
new products.

    For me, one of the primary causes of our decline is our failure to
    attend to the needs of our employees over the past few years.  There
    has almost been a continued harassment of the field for orders, a knee
    jerk reorg du jour amidst a general malaise brought about by
    downsizing.  I know of no one who is feeling particularly secure these
    days at Digital.  We still lack a clear vision of our future and we
    don't know how to relate well to each other (that's not unique to
    Digital).  We are in a similar situation to the one described a couple
    of notes ago - a nigative mindset that can not only destroy a marriage,
    it can destroy a whole company - and for that matter has been doing so
    at DEC for some time now.  Our collective mental health is poor;  these
    courses suggest that we, not events or profit, can change that.  This
    mindset goes back several years;  we only just started losing money.

    I attended Investment In Excellence about 5 years ago; I enjoyed it,
    but found that what I was able to take away from it and use fit into
    the personal side of my life rather than my work environment.
    
    In my case it was *mandatory* to attend.....my entire group was taken
    off the phones (I also work in a CSC) for an entire week!!!  Not that
    Steve needs any defending but I would have to agree that the largest
    percentage of my co-workers attending the class viewed it as just 
    another opportunity to get off the phones.  A lot of them fell asleep
    during the Lou Tice video portions of the training (this was a consid-
    erable portion of the course).  The class was held off-site, and I'm
    sure theis & the snacks etc. mounted up to a fair amount of cash.....and
    this was at a time when DEC was not in the financial straits we're exper-
    iencing now.
    
    Our UM and DM also attended the course and seemed to "buy in" to the
    message Tice was trying to get across.  Alas, when we were back in
    the workplace, all the IC's who believed in the "empowerment" part of
    Tice's message tried it, the DM & UM fell into old patterns and a few
    IC's almost wound up with their butts in slings as they tried to prac-
    tice the "empowerment".  Once the IC's saw each other getting slapped
    down a few times, morale dropped tremendously within the group.
    
    I would have no objection to such courses should DEC return to a more
    profitable state; but when people are crying for technical training
    (and in a lot of cases being refused such training) I don't think
    it's out of line to "re-think" some of our course offerings for now.
    
    Perhaps it would help to draw a line down the center of a piece of
    paper - head one column "Training *Interesting* To Have" and head
    the other "Training *Necessary* To Have" and see if some of these
    courses can still be justified within DEC today.
    
    Karen
    

    I would hope that the people who have been on the so-called "fluff"
    courses and didn't get much out of them made sure that they put
    suitable comments on the questionnaire that you complete after every
    course (In Australia, and I assume the US, the questions are in English,
    with one of the ones part way down the first page asking what your primary
    language is - always makes me smile!).
    
    If the questions are answered honestly then hopefully the people
    running the courses are making sure that only quality courses are
    offered. 
    

    re .120
    
    The feedback is not needed by the course deliverers who read the
    questionaires.  It is needed by the person who authorized the spending
    of Digital money on the course.  I realize that might put some folks in
    a bind, not too many want to go to their boss and say "You just wasted
    $1000 by sending me to that course."  But, that is the only place the
    feedback makes sense.  Kind of explains how these courses are allowed
    to continue, eh?  Nobody is willing to criticize the decision makers.
    
    Dick

    I've taken a few of these courses over the 13+ years I've been
    with DEC. Awfully expensive entertainment, for the most part.
    
    I think the idea that two or three days of some sort of Hokus-
    Pokus is going to be life changing is silly. A big waste of money.
    
    I'm glad a few folks got something out of them. But was it worth
    millions of DECdollars? It wasn't to me. 

>I don't think anyone seriously disputes to value of these courses.
    
    I would agree that some of those who are criticizing these courses do
    accept their value for other individuals in the conduct of their jobs. 
    But it is also true that others have used words and phrases like "pop
    social science junk", "New Age jargon", "institutional wishful
    thinking", and "Hokus Pokus" to describe the classes.
    
    -- Mike

    Welll.....
    
    I have taken a number of these courses.  I was usually forced to by
    some manager.  The courses *I* wanted to take were usually turned down.
    I begged for VMS Internals, I got Investment in Excellence TWICE!! 
    Both times it was manditory!!  
    
    I have found that technical managers will let me take technical
    classes.  Busness type managers will let me take business type classes,
    and pycobabble manager will only allow me to (or will force me to )
    take pycobabble classes.  Unfortunately, over my 11 years with DEC I
    have seen the tech and even the business managers fade away, and the
    pycobabble managers become the majority.  They appear to find us old
    techie Deccies rather scarry, so they try to mellow us out by filling
    our brains with this stuff.
    
    I try to refuse to go, but they go so far as to make it a 'payroll
    continuation plan" issue.  
    
    There is a great live comedy show on TV in Seattle called almost live.
    They do a series of skits call "Ineffectual Middle Management Suckups".
    The sceen is a conferrence room full of the Suckups, and they do
    streight psycbabble.  There was one where an employee came in to tell
    them the building was on fire.  I will spare you the details, but...
    the sceen ends with the group doing a brainstorming on emergency
    preparidness as they fade away in the gathering smoke.  Great stuff!
    I've taken that class....
    
    I would consider my life greatly improved if I never had to do another
    "roll playing exercise" or take part in another "Brainstorming".
    And as for those "personallity assesment instraments (test)"
    ^%*^$(%#$(.  Neither I nor my managers (I have trouble finding out who
    I work for these days) need a 10 page 'instrament' to figure that out.
    We also don't need to spend DEC money on it.
    
    Sorry for the bad tone.  My test system is down (which is why I'm in
    notes) and this day is going to be a waste, which means I will probably
    have to work all next weekend (AGAIN).
    
    Judy (always on the critical path and really grumpy today)
    

    
    at the library a couple of weeks ago, I picked up a magazine that
    featured TQM (total quality management). The article on TQM pointed out
    that when companies got themselves into trouble these types of courses
    became extremely popular among the management staff. It went on to
    point out that it was due to a lack of understanding of what made
    them successful in the past that caused them to throw these types of
    courses at their employees thinking that they offered some sort of
    "magic". Since if they weren't aware of what made them successful then
    it would stand to reason that they wouldn't understand why they were
    failing. It was a fitting article to say the least. 
    
    I would suggest that if we don't succeed in the computer goods and
    services business in the near term then these types of courses are of
    dubious merit.  Chapter 11 has a way of sorting out the realities of a
    given situation. 

    
    	First it was employee empowerment, now self managed teams. Ironic,
    though, that each time I go through this I feel less autonomous than
    ever (even though I'm the type to set my own direction). 
    	So I got to go home to the wife and kids and show off the 4 X 4
    jigsaw puzzle I assembled with a team of people (no one was allowed to
    talk, however, so chaos reigned). Now that's something to be proud of
    after 15 years, ain't it?
    	
    
    - Jim K 

Re: .125

When all is said and done, TQM, Six Sigma, and quality in general come down to
doing your job right and doing it right first time through. This is just common
sense, and because common sense appears to have become a marketable commodity
these days, it has acquired sophisticated packaging.

If quality in all its forms and packaging is seen as simply this, then it
becomes clear that it is an absolute pre-requisite for stemming the kinds of
losses we are experiencing.

Because of the prevailing economic conditions, competition in this industry is
fiercer than it's ever been. Long term survivors will be those who can achieve
excellence in all dimensions.

Call this motherhood, etc. if you like but there is no longer any place for
almost right, or right but on the second or third attempts.

	Richard.

    If TQM etc are common sense and management turns to such programs in
    time of crisis, maybe its because management has rediscovered an
    ancient truth,
    
    
    
    "Common sense is the least common of the senses."
    
    Dick

If we have to follow these types of courses, than why not develop some usefull
 ones like:

1-"Managing crisis"
2-"How to get unemployment benefits AND the package"
3-"Effective downsizing"
4-"Efficient downcosting" (4 is prerequisite)
5-"Abondoning notes without cold turkey"

we also could introduce some new product trainings like:

DECline, DECease, DECay, DECeption, DECompose, DECrease.

Timo

    
    Nahh! these are better:
    
    
    1) "Schmoozing For Success" 
    
       How to keep your job and even advance your career in spite 
       of an obsolete skillset and TFSO.  Learn the vital boot-licking
       skills that are the hallmark of successful DEC employees.  
        Prerequisite: Golf 101
    
    
    2) "Meaningless Managementspeak"
    
       Learn those catchy, professional-sounding phrases used by managers.
       Convince your superiors you are "Executive Material".  Special 
       emphasis on "Power" phrases like "Leverage opportunities" and
       "Action Plans".  
    
    
    3) "Taking Credit Instead Of The Initiative"
    
       Why risk humiliation when there are so may other peoples ideas
       you can "Leverage" off of.  
       Prerequisite: "Fixing The Blame Instead Of The Problem"
    
    
    -Ed
        

		( P.S.  SMT = "Self Managed Teams" )

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

                  SMT ENROLLMENT NEWS !!

       Enrollment needed for SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24TH AND
                             WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28TH!!!
Additional enrollment MUST BE RECEIVED by Wednesday, October 21st,
if these two sessions are to be held.

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

From:	XXXXXX::YYYYYYYY "19-Oct-1992 0903" 19-OCT-1992 09:26:47.80
Subj:	We still have opening in "Deliver at Six Sigma".....


             THERE ARE STILL OPENINGS IN DELIVER AT SIX SIGMA

********************************************************************************
                     EDUCATION AND TRAINING APPLICATIONS
                                 Announces...
********************************************************************************

                        ** DELIVER AT SIX SIGMA **

                COURSE NUMBER:  SC110-47
                         DATE:  October 22, 1992          
                      TUITION:  $225.00      
                         SIZE:  maximum 16  

AUDIENCE:  The course is designed to provide time for participants from the 
           functional/service areas to begin to apply the steps to Six Sigma 
           to their own work.  Therefore, to derive maximum benefit, it is 
           recommended that participants attend in teams.  Managers/supervisors 
           are encouraged to send intact groups or several members of their 
           organization.

DESCRIPTION:  Deliver at Six Sigma is focused on learning how to apply the 
              Six Sigma method to functional/service areas.  Achieving Six 
              Sigma in functional/service areas requires two main activities:
              - decreasing the defects in the products/services produced
              - streamlining/improving the processes of how work is done.

              In Deliver at Six Sigma, application of the steps to Six Sigma 
              will be clarified through exercises and discussions.  In the 
              afternoon, participants will work with colleagues and begin the 
              process of applying the steps to their work.


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


            MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY TRAINING and DEVELOPMENT (MTT&D)

                                ANNOUNCES

            ****************************************************
            *                                                  *
            *  LEADERSHIP SKILLS FOR TECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS   *
            *                                                  *
            ****************************************************

         - A 5 Day Program on Developing Technical Leadership Skills -
       

               COST:  $1,200 per participant

DESCRIPTION: 

LEADERSHIP SKILLS FOR TECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS is for individuals in technical 
disciplines who lead people involved with projects or programs in 
Manufacturing, Engineering or technical support organizations.  It is 
designed to provide technical leaders with comprehensive education in 
those leadership skills and techniques necessary for successfully leading 
and coaching today's technical professionals. 

This workshop focuses on providing participants with knowledge about how to 
effectively lead individuals and teams, and with the skills and behaviors 
that will lead to technical leadership in the following situations:

	-  coaching for peak performance
	-  running organizational interference
	-  orchestrating professional development
	-  expanding individual productivity through teamwork
	-  facilitating self-management

The program design for LEADERSHIP SKILLS FOR TECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS is 
based on four well-established learning principles - modeling (what to do), 
skill practice (how to do it), reinforcement (why do it), and transfer 
(where and when to do it).  This design facilitates the learning process and 
provides opportunities for learning new and powerful ways of leading, 
coaching, and motivating today's technical professionals.
   
OBJECTIVES:

The participant will identify the unique needs and perspectives of technical 
professionals, and balance these with the mission of the business.  The 
participant will apply specific motivational skills in situations typically 
faced by technical leaders.  Upon completion, the participant will have the 
appropriate strategies, tools, and skills to effectively lead and motivate
technical professionals to get things done in situations which are critical 
to success.  Each module provides a pattern which leaders will use to 
establish conditions for excellent performance.


INTENDED AUDIENCE:  Technical Professionals in Manufacturing, Engineering, and
                    technical support organizations charged with project or 
                    program responsibilities who must provide technical 
                    direction and leadership to others


LENGTH:  5  7-hour modules

COST:  $1,200 per participant

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

	ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULING FOR SMT -- "MORE EMPOWERED/INVOLVED TEAMS"



               IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS TO PROVIDE

 ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULING FOR 1 DAY SMT -- MORE EMPOWERED/INVOLVED TEAMS --


TWO ADDITIONAL WORKSHOPS . . . MORNING WORKSHOP AND AFTERNOON WORKSHOP . . .
TWO CONSECUTIVE DAYS . . . APPROXIMATELY FOUR HOURS EACH DAY . . .
ARE SCHEDULED . . .

FIRST WORKSHOP WILL BE TWO CONSECUTIVE MORNING SESSIONS:
TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, 11/3 AND 11/4, 

SECOND WORKSHOP WILL BE TWO CONSECUTIVE AFTERNOON SESSIONS:
TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, 11/3 AND 11/4,

Please send enrollment information (name, mail node, phone extension,
manager's name, identify morning or afternoon workshop) to XXXXXX::YYYYYYYY
by Friday, October 30th.  If you are scheduling through a Team Scheduler,
please follow Team enrollment procedure.

Thanks for your interest and commitment as we travel on this continuous
journey to team empowerment and involvement!!
                                          
	----------------------------------------------------------

Subj:	we still have opening in "Multiphrenia or Flow" course...


********************************************************************************
                    EDUCATION AND TRAINING APPLICATIONS
            
                        COMMUNICATIONS SERIES
********************************************************************************

              "MULTIPHRENIA OR FLOW: THE DECISION IS YOURS"

COURSE NUMBER:		PE178-01

DATES:			November 4, 11, 18, December 2, 9          

TIME:			8:30 - 5:00
			           
TUITION:		$990
        
SIZE:			15 MAXIMUM           

AUDIENCE:		Individual contributors and managers who are involved 
			in problem solving, decision making, and collaborative
			teams.

PREREQUISITES:		none

DESCRIPTION:		

This course will:

- help you design and use technologies that result in collaborative team 
	efforts.

- learn problem solving models that optimize information and reduce decision
	making stress.

- achieve multi-disciplinary decision making process that has proven to reduce
	time in meetings by 35% and double the amount of decisions implemented.

- have the ability to differentiate professional burnout from information
	overload and learn how to cope with it.


*******************************************************************************

        -------------------ETA Course Schedule-----------------

********************************************************************************
                            CURRENT COURSE LISTING

        
  MANAGEMENT/MARKETING CURRICULUM
=====================================
   PE178-01   Multiphrenia or Flow:
              The Decision is Yours                         11/04-12/09   $990
   PE179-01   Effective Presentation Skills                 11/12-11/13   $350
   PE180-01   Writing for the Information Age               12/07-12/08   $440
   QU060-01   Applied Leadership Skills Workshop            12/14-12/15   $775
   PE177-02   Digital Finance for the Non-Financial
              Employees                                     12/16-12/18   $650
   QU016-07   Achieving Consensus Decisions:
              Using Facilitation Skills                     12/17-12/18   $460

 
  SATELLITE COURSE CURRICULUM:
 ============================
   SU496-01   Changing the Essence:Leadership Roles        11/02-11/02   $200
   SU501-01   Quality in America                           11/06-11/06   $300
   SU497-01   Collaboration as a means of
              Changing the Essence                         11/09-11/09   $200
   SU498-01   Business Re-Engineering for
              High-Performance Teams                       11/16-11/16   $200
   SU503-01   Refrigerator Journalism:
              Writing More Useful & Usable                 11/16-11/16   $125
   SU499-01   The Ultimate Advantage: Creating High
              Involvement Organization                     11/23-11/23   $200

    
    
    	re .131
    
    	See .88
    
    	John

Having said that doing a job right and doing it right the first time through is
only common sense as well as being the essence of TQM, I'll say more on the
packaging.

For some reason, plain old common sense has not been recgnised as such for the
last few years -- and this is not a phenomenon that's peculiar to Digital.
There has been much resistance to it. So, common sense appears to be a lot more
palatable to many people when presented in in the sophisticated packaging of
programs like TQM, Six Sigma, In Search of Excellence, etc. Not only is it more
palatable, it is also saleable. I suppose also that when an organisation has
paid for an expensive seminar, there is more of an inclination to take the
content on board. The problem is that it then becomes hard to distinguish,
superficially, between programs that are rooted in common sense (like TQM &c.)
and those that are genuine mumbo-jumbo, hogwash, and snake-oil.

But at the end of the day, it all still comes down to doing a job right and
doing it right the first time through, as a guiding principle. This is easily
said, of course, but the fact is that most of us have extremely complex jobs
and so applying the principle will also be complex. In that light, high quality
training, seminars, etc. are quite appropriate.

But long term survival still depends on the application of that guiding
principle.

R.