Conference 7.286::digital

    		whitt-*crack*! <thud>
    
    		whitt-*crack*! <thud>
    
    		whitt-*crack*! <thud>
    
    			^
    			|
    			|
    
    	[sound of dead horse being flogged]
    
    
    
    Anyway ... as I have stated before, there are two critical, missing
    components at DEC, without which we don't have a chance.
    
    1. Accountability. People at DEC are not held accountable for their
    actions and inactions, and the higher the level of the person involved,
    the less accountable they become. This is nuts. It is also guaranteed
    to destroy any organization. I have entered in NOTES reams of detail
    on how bad is this problem and how artfully management dodges
    it/retaliates when cornered. [i.e. recently, a long-time DEC employee
    was hiking and was bitten by a rattler. After three days of agony, 
    the snake died.]
    
    2. Complete disconnect between performance and reward. Anyone with an
    impact on profitability should be given a modest salary, plus a certain
    additional amount based upon how well they performed. Giving top people
    huge compensation deals, whatever happens to the organizations they
    manage, is insupportable and immensely counterproductive. Giving lower
    level people lousy compensation, despite how well they perform, is
    equally poor headwork.
    
    Unless things change, and fast, I see only two possible outcomes for 
    DEC at this point, both by 1995.
    
    1: DEC becomes a chip house, with perhaps 60,000 employees.
    
    2: What is left of DEC is sold. Top management walks away with nice
    bundles of money. Stock holders make out. Bond holders are paid. 
    Everyone else is out of work and out of luck.
    
    kbs
    

    Well, this old horse still feels it.  Every little bite welts!
    
    Steve

    There's plenty of evidence that the diagnosis of Digital's problems
    according to .0 is sort of the accepted wisdom.  One might even find
    notes with quotes from Jack Shields to Jack Smith to Ken Olsen to
    Robert Palmer mentioning them.
    
    It's called lip service.
    
    The key accountability for the CEO is the whether the company can turn
    a profit.  The buck stops there.
    
    What Digital failed to do was mature from a mom 'n pop shop to have
    serious business units that would be able to be measured, and invested
    in or discarded.
    
    The gamesmanship continues, managers at all levels just cook the books
    because it's still possible to do so.  Chaos is here to stay in many
    parts of Digital.

Re: .0

>> 3) Poor match of revenues to expenses.

A number years ago, I did the database design for project called CACHE 
(Cost Center Accounting with Capital, Headcount, and Expense).  It won
a DIS Achievement Award as well as Kudos from a study of it by Carnegie 
Mellon University.

One of the topics discussed with the accountant who was the chief funder 
was the idea of attaching project expense to product revenue.  We 
developed a first cut of a data model for doing that based on projects' 
being tied to products and revenue's also being tied to products.  There 
would have some complications caused by different versions of products, 
but they would have been solved as soon as we got the rules.  The 
explanation from the funder at that time was such a tie was not 
necessary because the tracking would cross fiscal years.  


                                Kurt
    

    Re: 0
    
    	>>>>> The penalty for failure in this company seems to be
    	      promotion.   For years I have seen unsuccessful people
              get promoted to new and more responsible positions through
              good old boy politics rather than by accomplishments
    	      assesement.
    
    
    	YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    	To cite a 500 year old advise put together by one of the most
    respected political scientists of the 1500's Nicholas Machiavelli
    in his book: The Price.
    
    		' Is better to appear than to be '.
    
    				or how I call it in more modern times
    
    		Management by Appearances.
    
    

    
    I think you mean _The Prince_
    
    -Ed
    

    Re: .5
    
    	Yes you are right.  Sorry for the typo.   The book name is:
    
    	The Prince by Nicholas Machiavelli.
    
    					

    
    That's "Niccol�" Machiavelli
    
    cbc

    	Why are we in this mess ?
    
    	Some clues:
    
    	1) Company Politics - Its better to appear than to be
    	2) Lip Service - part of the company politics
    	3) Entrenched Management -> Musical Chairs
    	4) "Credibility Gap" -> between management and the 'worker bees'.
    	5) Meeting Mania -> 1,000,000++++ meetings - keep yourself out of
                                                     the real world.
    	6) Accountability ? -> How can it subsist when there are Company
                               Politics and Lip Service at the same time ?
    	7) The overwhelming emphasis on COST -> What about quality - Who
    						cares !!!
    
    	8) Leadership ? -> Do we have any ? or are they really
    			   administrators ?
    	9) Lack of Management Modelling - related to Lip Service and
                                          credibility gap.
    
        10) Teamwork -> How can it be when there is a 'silent'
    			discrimination between management types and doer types ?

    Glad to see "The MAC is back" he would have faired better that most
    in these interesting times.
    
    
    

    Re: .9
    
    Amen, brother.  Do you sense Bob Palmer has this figured out and now
    his top priority is sifting through the jungle to see which of the
    players are the guilty ones?
    
                                       Kurt

    Re: .11
    
    		That is an extremly good question, that unfortunately I do
    not have a good answer for.
    
    		The real problem is that what I point out in note .9 is
    not unique to DEC.   It is a problem or problems reflected in many
    US manufacturers (ie: IBM, GM, Ford, Emrson, GE, etc, etc. etc.)
    Usually the problem is reflected more acutely in Fortune 500's
    companies that have been in the industry for some period of time.
    If you notice the performance of 'smaller' companies, these in general,
    have been doing 'better than average'.   There are always exceptions to
    the rule (ie: H/P is been doing great.)
    
    		The question for me is one of acceptance of top level
    management that we have the problems that I mentioned on .9.  
    But the folks that began this journey (Dr. Deming & Dr. Juran) were
    dismissed several years ago.   Now that Japan, China and several other
    countries are 'eating our luch' some folks have reacted (after the
    fact).   So again the real question is: When are we going to accept
    that we have a real big problem ?   Instead of that, what out top
    management have done is focus on Cost Controls - Cost Competitiveness.
    I've got a secret for them, without Quality, we are going no-where !!! 

    
    re. .9-.12	
    
    	Have you read the book "Danger In the Comfort Zone"? I forget the
    authors name, she was very accurate in identifying many of the problems
    you cite. Very interesting, and sobering, reading.
    
    		fred deady

  Watch the Tom Peters program "The German Obsession with Quality" doing the
  rounds on PBS. It also talks about a company in Indianapolis that turned
  around from "So what if it doesn't work. Let's ship it" to "If it has a
  little scratch on the paint, it ain't going nowhere". 

  If only we can do it with our hardware and particularly our software....

  Nari

    Yes, AMA published the 'Danger in the Confort Zone' book.
    It is a very good book which highlights the same type of stuff that
    we mentioned in .9.    Tom Peters have been another of the authors
    that have highlighted the problems that we mentioned.
    
    The problem is how much have these issues permeate our entrenched
    management culture (Confort Zone).   I don't know this answer, however
    from what I've seen the answer seems to be none.
    
    If you want to read the answer to what will happen if we continue this
    way, please read 'The Great Depression of 1990' and 'How to Survive
    the Great Depression of 1990' both by Dr. Ravi Batra.   Dr. Batra has
    the best economic cycle prediction performance of any particular 
    economist.   Both books are very interesting with very interesting
    data to support his theories.

    
    re: .15.
    
    Um, except he (Batra) rather missed on the Great Depression of
    1990, didn't he?  Also, he bases many of his "predictions" on
    the social cycles theories of an Indian philosopher (sorry, but
    his name escapes me) of little repute, yes?
    
    The fact that Batra (whose books I read and thoroughly enjoyed
    for their entertainment value, by the way) still manages to get
    on talk shows speaks volumes for his PR abilities in any case.
    
    Glenn

    Not yet.  I believe he stated in his book that if the depression was
    averted in 90/91, it would hit in 93/94.  Election year and all.

>	Dr. Batra has the best economic cycle prediction performance of any
>	particular economist.

	On what do you base this rather grandiose statement? I've seen Batra
	on talk shows, etc., expounding his theories. They're the usual
	doomsday predicionts that sell books and then get forgotten when
	they don't come true - and then sell more books when he recycles
	them.

	Anybody who took a semester of economics in high school could say
	"we'll have a recession in 19XX, and if not then, in 19xx + n", and
	have a very good chance of success. Guess what - economies run in
	cycles! Wow, great new stuff that has only been known since Adam
	Smith or so. The length and depth of a particular cycle will vary,
	but if you're hedging your bets by 3-4 years then you've got a darn
	good chance of success.

	You also seem to have missed the usage of the term "Great
	Depression", which obviously doesn't fit the current recession at
	all. It's all just populist doom-saying claptrap.

	Roy

    Re. 18
    
    	Time will tell if it is crap or doomsday is really comming.
    
    	Remember:
    
    		The wolf is comming !
    
                It did not.
    
    		The wolf is comming !
    
    		It did not.
    
    		The wolf is comming !
    
    		It did !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    

.re:                    <<< Note 2517.14 by SPECXN::KANNAN >>>
>
>  Watch the Tom Peters program "The German Obsession with Quality" doing the

An interesting viewpoint - From this side of the pond (I'm an ex-pat
Yank in Germany) the German press is full of stuff about how bad the
German industries have become.  There's a book making the rounds
here called "Nieten in Nadelstreifen" roughly "Losers in Pinstripes"
- all about the incompetent (upper) managers, and which makes a big
deal of the accountability point among other things (they're
administrators, don't care whether their company makes it or not
because they get their money and other goodies anyway, have no
relation to reality as they get chauffered from one comfort zone to
another etc. etc.)

FWIW, I think it's a current widespread Western-civilization type
syndrome.

- Bob

    Has Tom Peters ever run a company successfully?
    
    Has anyone ever looked back a few years at what Tom Peters has 
    described as wellness and sickness and seen if the wells got better 
    and sicks got sicker?
    
    Does Tom Peters ever make precise predictions?
    
    My impression of Tom peters is that he's an entertaining play-by-play
    announcer for the American business scene -- Nothing more and nothing
    less.  Using his 'advice' to run a company is like asking a sports
    announcer whether to bunt, hit and run, or take on the next pitch. 
    You'll get an entertaining answer, but not a winning track record.
    If you'll wait until after the pitch, you'll get even better advice on
    what you should have done.
    
                                   Kurt

    re: .20
    
    Actually, haven't all our 'dominant' civilizations reached a point
    where builders have been replaced by some number of generations of
    administrators (usually about 2) and then faded or receded?  
    
    It appears a part of the 'natural' aging process of societies - big
    like "Western Civilization", medium like "American Way", and small like
    Digital or Detroit.  
    
    Not necessarily inevitable, or, if inevitable, at least postponable. 
    Much like parts of the personal aging process.
    
    Or, as one of my acquaintances put it:  "Digital is a sunset company."
    
    
    Don
    

  .21

  I would suggest that you need to watch the program before drawing your
  conclusions about it. It's not Tom Peters that's relevant here. It's
  what he observes. He doesn't predict anything but visits companies 
  that are doing extremely well in their field and finds out why they are
  doing so well. 

  What comes through in this program is the interaction of engineering
  and design with the customers of the company. This is the underlying "quality" theme
  he observes with two companies in Germany and one in the U.S. The fact that
  there are tons of badly-run companies in Germany or in the U.S is largely
  irrelevant to the discussion here even though the title is misleading that
  way.

  The point is that extremely profitable companies so certain things the same
  way and the hypothesis is that this is the reason why they are doing so well.
  It doesn't say that you need to build a temple for Tom Peters and worship
  him. It's up to you to either believe this hypothesis and try it out
  in whatever you do or not.

  Nari
 

Re: .21

Totally agree. He's a first class observer -- but has turned to recycling
other peoples work and getting prescriptive. He also doesn't seem to write
a lot about Japan...

However, if you need that covered, some of Mary Walton's books are A1...

								- Ian W.

    Agree with the last few noters that these authors, not only Tom Peters,
    observe some of the more competent companies and what they are doing
    to be up there.
    
    It very interesting to note that in general all these companies are
    implementing some of the concepts that were first introduced by
    Dr. Deming and Dr. Juran.
    
    The main reason why Tom Peters don't enphasize Japan or Japanese
    companies is as he said in an interview with 20/20 because: 'I want
    to demostrate that it can be done outside of Japan and even here
    in the US'.    Companies like Hardley-Davidson that were the worst
    in the industry at a particular point in time have implemented
    the Deming/Juran concepts and are now models of well run American
    Companies.

    Re:  All these "brilliant" folks, including Deming...
    
    A MAJOR problem with corporations today, in Japan (evidence is
    beginning to be seen) as well as the more established US and Germany,
    is...
    
    Management has no 'common sense' and cannot think.
    
    Folks flock to see Tom Peters tell them stuff that's is patently
    obvious to anyone who's head is in the air [interpret that any way you
    want].
    
    If you didn't know that customers are displeased with shoddy products,
    you haven't the brains required to run a company.  It's too late to
    learn such things.  Retire.
    
    I would bet the primary reason Deming ideas were not accepted as
    revolutionary and wonderful in North America in the first place was
    that they were neither.  They were common sense.   We can see today
    that whoever-it-was was right in noting: "I don't know why they call it
    'common sense' when there's so little of it around."