Conference 7.286::digital

> DEC declined to
>    comment on its reasons for abandoning the deal.
>    ********************************************************************
>    Question: Does anyone know why we pulled out?

	Given that Digital has declined to comment to the press and the
	number of times that people leak things to the press from mail and
	notes, if I knew the answer I probably wouldn't post it.

			Alfred

    actually the answer is buried in that note on the Wellness Center now
    charging a fee. The group that were to do the project were TSFO'd.
    

    I can tell you that the group did not get TFSO'd. I would guess that
    all deals would be under intense scrutiny by our senior executives for
    profitability and understanding the risk factors. When all was said
    and done, this one may have been too risky at THAT time for DEC to
    make a commitment & investment. 
    Regards.
    ps I also agree with the previous noter re:confidentiality & press
    leaks.
    
     
    

    This speculation is off the mark.  In any complex project, a lot of
    things have to come together to make it worthwhile.  I don't believe
    this turn of events carries any special implications for our ability or
    willingness to undertake other such projects.  (And this is from
    someone who often "comments" about things we're not doing well enough
    in SI).
    
    If you have a business reason for needing to know details of what
    happened, the McDonnell Douglass account team can point you in the
    right direction.
    
      

Re: .-1:
    
>    If you have a business reason for needing to know details of what
>    happened, the McDonnell Douglass account team can point you in the
>    right direction.
 
Well, there are many of us involved in potential outsourcing opportunities and 
I'd sure like to know why we're getting this sort of bad press. No COMMENT 
just makes things look worse both inside and out.   

Jim

    re .3
    I found and re-read the note (2096.112), to which I referred in .2. And 
    you are right, it is apparently a different system integration contract. 
    That one was only 30-40 million, not 3 billion.
    
    M

    I don't know the reason why and I am not speculating.  
    
    However, the following is patently clear.  Neither Outsourcing nor
    Systems Integration are lines of business any longer under the new
    Digital model.   IBM spun off ISSC (with a huge employee and capital
    base) as a separate company (read business) to attack this kind of
    market.  $3 Billion deals require significant business decisions -
    maybe our CBU's just ain't quite ready yet.
    
    /Chris.

    re:  .5
    
    I know it's maddening not to know.  I believe that the MDC account team
    could at least re-assure you that what happened was not due to any flaw
    in our capability or willingness to undertake this kind of business,
    even if they wouldn't tell you exactly what happened.  The company
    needs to keep some cards close to the vest, because it often winds up
    playing against the same competition in another city.
    
    re:  .7
    
    I agree that our SI commitment needs to have teeth behind it.  Our
    company is on the right track to re-establish our competitiveness in
    "commodities", which is what our traditional offerings have become.  We
    have not done any serious restructuring around the "solutions"
    business.  We're still trying to run it business-as-usual, and getting
    ignored in the marketplace.
    
    Having said that, I don't believe that that shortcoming was involved in
    the rejection of this opportunity.
    
    One additional comment:  we need to separate out the "solutions"
    organization.  However, this is only a necessary-but-not-sufficient
    step.  One fatal flaw we continue to have is to believe that if we
    define a box for some vital function, it will automatically happen.  It
    won't.  We need new people with the right experience and mindset, and
    we need a new culture.  "Solutions" and SI work is not tidy.  We need
    bold and determined, gritty people to do things -- not talk about them.
                                                       

re : last few...


I work in the St. Louis office.  While not on the MDC account any more (I 
started in Sales Support on that account) I do maintain my contacts their.  The
scoop I got was that the decision was made at the Corporate level to back away.
The sales reps (Digital's) agreed with the decision.

That's really all the info I got... but got the impression that it was necessary
to do (to back away, that is)

Jim()

    While never having been in on business deals of this or really any
    other sort, (Excepting personal purchases like cars and stuff) I can
    see how DEC could back out at the last minute or at anyother time the
    agreement was not formalized and signed. It seems tome that in any
    business, when making such deals that involve several or even only one
    other party, if everything that DEC came to the table offering and
    everything the other parties were offering were not mutually
    satisfactory then it stands to reason that DEC, if they could not reach
    a compromise they or the other parties could live with, then they
    should back out. The "last minute" business may be just that DEC was
    willing to entertain options and offers and to extend counteroffers and
    ideas up until the contract deadline. 
    
    This is all just of the top of my head and may not make any sense in
    the business world, but it seems simple and commonsensical to me.
    
    Phil

    
    I wonder when I see things like this, as I am waiting to hear about
    General electric's RFP on out-sourcing their IT organization. DEC was
    supposed to be a bidder, but I (as a lowly FS Resident) hear nothing
    from DEC or the customer.
    
    Do we actually DO this sort of thing?
    
    .mike.

    YES!  We do these things, and often with a high level of
    confidentiality.  We are preparing a bid for GE, and from my
    perspective, saying no to the MD situation was a very strong move for us. 
    We are typically very weak in negotiations, increasing our risk and
    reducing our profitability.
    
    I would like to say more, but both deals will require our discretion
    for the time being.  We try to get the customer to agree to press
    releases anytime we sign an outsourcing agreement.  Hopefully you will
    see more positive press.  IBM has always been better at this than us.
    
    Yes, we are in the outsourcing business.  Yes, we have made some
    mistakes.  Yes, there is someone to call if you have a lead: Jim
    Kimball @MRO, dtn 297-3875.
    
    cheers.
    
    Paula
    (Outsourcing Group Member)