Conference 7.286::digital

---forwardings deleted------

SUBJECT:  BREAK THE SEAL (BTS) SOFTWARE/OFFICE SUPPLIES

As you know, there is still a hold on BTS Software and Office Supplies.
Exceptions to this policy require an SLT or designate signature.

Until the Corporation finalizes it's BTS Policy, Engineering will adopt
the following interim policy:

     1) Any BTS Software requests required for product development or
        revenue generation should be signed by the group manager and
        controller (Direct Reports of a Direct Report of Stecker's staff)
        and sent to Jay Zager for signature as required by current
        corporate policy.

     2) Any BTS Software needed for office productivity should be signed
        by a Strecker Staff member and controller and sent to Jay Zager
        for final signature as required by current corporate policy.

Any critical office supply orders should be signed by the group controllers
and Jay Zager.  We will adjust this policy as the Corporation finalizes 
it's BTS/Office Supply purchasing policy.

From:	NAME: BILL STRECKER                 
	FUNC: VP Engineering                  
	TEL: 223-3726                         <STRECKER.BILL AT PNDVUEA1 at CORA 
at CORE>
To:     See Below
CC:     See Below


*******************************************************************
       **** THIS MEMO IS FROM BILL STRECKER & JAY ZAGER ****
*******************************************************************


  **** PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY THROUGHOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION ****


Attached is the Engineering Signatory Matrix, effective immediately.

This document is intended to be a comprehensive signatory matrix 
covering both financial and non-financial activity, including 
hiring, equipment on loan for use at home, software for internal 
use, non-disclosure agreements, contracts, etc.

This matrix will be updated as approval processes and levels change, 
and will be available on VTX (VTX MEMFIN).  If you have questions 
regarding this matrix, please contact Keith Farris, Engineering 
Fiscal Controller. (223-3090)



                    ENGINEERING SIGNATORY MATRIX

                              CHANGES




o  Engineering Controllers limited to 75% of Direct Reports of 
   Engineering VP


o  Spending incurred by Direct Reports of Engineering VP must be 
   approved by Jay Zager, except for Employee Business Expense 
   under $500


o  Consultants/Contractors/Agency requisitions under $250K can 
   now be approved by the Direct Report of the Engineering VP 
   (Strecker)


o  Capital Appropriations under $1.0M can now be approved by the 
   Direct Report of the Engineering VP (Strecker)


o  BTS S/W for Product Research and Development, or Revenue 
   Generation approved by Group Manager and Group Controller    
   (Direct Report of a Strecker Staff member)

   BTS S/W needed for Office Productivity must be approved by a 
   Strecker Staff Member and Group Controller

    Neologism considered harmful.
    
    I'm concerned that the definition of "BTS" software (break the seal) is
    not provided by this flood of memos.
    
    Is there any software of which Digital is not the copyright holder
    (what we've been calling third party software for 25 years...)
    that isn't "BTS" software?  Why this new term?
    
    Isn't all third party software covered by license agreements?
    
    For a company that claims a prominent place in the software business
    this would be funny if it wasn't real.

re .3,

Patrick, you are right.  Digital, one of the largest computer companies in the
world, needs to buy individual copies and manage individual licenses by
individual groups every time someone needs a copy of Powerpoint or Lotus 1-2-3? 
Ridiculous.  The fact that this has been going on for a long time and hasn't
been resolved yet is even more ridiculous.

Paul

	re .3:

>    For a company that claims a prominent place in the software business
>    this would be funny if it wasn't real.

	Claim whatever it might, I do not believe that Digital is in the
	software business. Had David Stone remained, it might have been.
	With his departure, it was doomed to remain "a hobby" (his words).

	/Tom

    Re: -1
    
    Hopefully, with the new controls and new business models, we'll actually 
    become a predominantly software (and services) company.
    
                                     Kurt

    This question is asked in all sincerity.

    Do you see any sign that Digital (ie the senior management of Digital)
    understands the software marketplace today, much less five and ten
    years out?

    By "understand" I mean "what it takes to attract and retain customers
    profitably".

    The only sign of intelligent life I've seen in the software side of
    DEC in the last several years (and the only intelligent acquisition
    we've ever made) was picking up 1800SOFTWARE.
    
    You wanted more than one I take it...?

Re: Note 2523.7

>    Do you see any sign that Digital (ie the senior management of Digital)
>    understands the software marketplace today, much less five and ten
>    years out?

Absolutely.  Can you say Mostek?  I think they understand that unless we are 
selling the NIH stuff (1-800-SOFTWARE), we won't make any money.  Isn't OSF/1
going to SCO (or is that old info, and now we've recanted and will maintain it
ourselves)?  Why wouldn't we farm out the software to companies like Microsoft
and SCO that have been successful?  Have you seen the recent presentations?  

	Today			Future

	+-----------+		+-------------+
	|           |		|             |
	| Digital   |		| Alpha       |
	| +-------+ |		| +---------+ |
	| | Alpha | |		| | Digital | |
	| +-------+ |		| +---------+ |
	+-----------+		+-------------+

Why have we been courting these companies?  And now we can reflect on the 
current 1/3 S/W and 2/3 H/W ==> 2/3 S/W and 1/3 H/W position.  No, it doesn't 
mean we will increase software investment, we're decreasing H/W investment, or 
perhaps we're decreasing both, but at different rates.

>    By "understand" I mean "what it takes to attract and retain customers
>    profitably".

No, it is competitive in the marketplace.  Other than H/W and the related 
services, Digital no longer wants to play in that space, and as someone 
alluded to in an earlier note, I think the idea of being a software company 
left with David Stone.  Wonder why he left?