Conference 7.286::digital

I don't disagree with one word of the sentiment but didn't IBM have the
worst figures in Corporate history. Are they bankrupt? Or do we just have
to wait?

    RE .0
    
    Thanks for the note. An acknowledgement of our problems to a 
    public forum like this is a lot more impressive then the last
    couple years of denial and "light at the end of the tunnel"
    syndrome we have been hearing.
    
    			-Jim-

    
>I don't disagree with one word of the sentiment but didn't IBM have the
>worst figures in Corporate history. Are they bankrupt? Or do we just have
>to wait?

    There were two lists mentioned in .0. Worst losses and worst losses as
    a function of revenue. While IBM may have beat us on the first list I
    believe we beat them on the second. That's not the sort of category I
    want to see us beat IBM in either.

    		Alfred

    	Well, if it makes you feel any better, part of the AEE program is
    focused on totally revamping the way we develop software in this
    company. You may have heard about it referred to as the "internal CASE
    initiative." There seems to be universal recognition by those involved
    that our current methods are antiquated. A number of areas are being
    investigated simultaneously, on an aggressive schedule, to make
    detailed recommendations to Strecker's staff early next year. Strecker
    is serious enough about it to have set aside significant $$$ to address
    this.
    	The bad news is that *I'm* one of the ones involved with this! Hey,
    it wasn't my idea. There is a public NOTEs conference for more
    information/discussion on this in TURRIS::INTERNAL-CASE-USERS for
    anyone interested.

"Making detailed recommendations to Strecker early next year" is not
what I would call an aggressive schedule.

>    Of course the bozos in functions like personnel still continue to put
>    out the happy horseshit memos explaining how all the benefit cuts are
>    good for you and doing all they can to pretend there is no problem in
>    the mistaken belief that morale will improve if the truth is hidden.
>    In reality the exact opposite occurs.
 
No comment.

>    This is not just one person saying this. The amount of engineering
>    effort that this company poors down the drain due to:
    
>    	1, Appalling management
>    	2, Poor planning
>    	3, Empire building
>    	4, Requirements churn
>    	5, lack of accountability
    
>    is mind boggling.
 

... and typical of a company in deep trouble.

In Business School we studied a number of companies in our situation. Almost 
without exception, they were broken up and sold off in pieces. I have seen 
nothing so far that indicates the future is any different for Digital.

There's an old joke:

Biologist teaches frog to jump by saying "jump!"

Biologist cuts-off frog's front leg, says "jump!" and frog jumps.
Biologist cuts-off frog's other front leg, says "jump!" and frog jumps.
Biologist cuts-off frog's rear leg, says "jump!" and frog sort-of jumps.
Biologist cuts-off frog's other rear leg, says "jump!" and frog does not jump.

Under 'conclusions,' biologist writes: "Removed all of frog's legs; 
frog can no longer hear."

Sound familiar?

    Hmmm -- Good base note!
    
    I think the "denial" comment is appropriate.  I believe there are other
    areas within the  company suffering from the same problem.
    
    I believe that if Palmer can execute on his Accountability plan, we
    stand a chance.
    
    From a sales perspective, now I have to address the "risk of Digital
    being out of business in a couple of years."
    
    No kidding!! The prospective customer actually asked me this question
    in a meeting --  The customer likes the products we have but had a real
    concern about whether we would be there for the long term.
    
    Let's hope that Palmer's "No-Excuse" Management style prevails!!
    
    Denni

    There is an editorial in the Wall Street journal today about IBM.  It
    is titled, "The Continuing Crisis at IBM," written by Paul B. Carroll,
    the author of the book, "Big Blues: The Unmaking of IBM."
    
    This editorial is must reading, especially by our senior executives and
    middle managers.  There are a lot of similarities between the two
    companies!

    
    My group, Software Engineering Technology Center, is closely
    involved with the kind of work the AEE program is up to i.e.
    re-engineering Digital's way of working.  It is needed and
    critical to to our survival.
    
    I offer one caution, however, manager bashing is quite popular
    these days and in this file and others we see the lament about
    when are "they" going to wake up and listen.  Understand one
    thing very clearly:  Any new way of working is going to affect
    YOU.  Managers are not the only ones who will have to change.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    Re: PIKOFF::DERISE
    
    	>>> "The Continuin Crises at IBM," written by Paul B. Carroll
    
    	Will you please post the above mentioned article so that those of
    us who receive the Wall Street Journal late (because we live far from
    New York) are able to read it.
    
    
    						Thanks & Regards

re Note 2743.4 by STAR::DIPIRRO:

>     	Well, if it makes you feel any better, part of the AEE program is
>     focused on totally revamping the way we develop software in this
>     company. 

        We're going to buy it, right?

        Bob

    
    The sobering statistic alluded to in .0 is the decline in revenue. 
    The sobering fact expressed in .7 is the erosion of customer con-
    fidence.  Both items are not only sobering, they're ominous.
    
    

    
    Re: .12
    
    Yes, but knowing of one should not surprise anyone at seeing the
    other appear.  There is likely a direct causal connection between
    them.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Just to make things clear, the report Dave refers to in .0 is available
    in HUMAN::ENG_EXCEL_PUBLIC:AEE_STATUS_OCTOBER93.MEM.
    
    To be place on the AEE distribution list, send mail to me
    (SEND::PARODI) or HUMAN::EXCELLENCE.
    
    JP

re: .7  This should allay your customer's doubts in Digital

Amidst the latest round of VP appointments in LiveWire, this liitle jewel
was posted.

I'm going to pull it off and have a chuckle.


                 Customer presentation addresses Digital's 
                      direction, financial strengths 
     
         Because of Digital's Q1, FY94 earnings, customers have been 
   inquiring as to Digital's viability, strategies and company direction.  
   In response to these customer questions, the field worldwide has asked 
   for a sales tool that positively and proactively addresses these concerns.
         "Digital's Direction and Financial Strengths," a presentation and 
   accompanying text, is now available on VTX OPAL for use by the 
   worldwide field.  This modular sales tool positively positions and 
   interprets the corporation's key financial and strategic messages.  
   Geography-specific addenda accompany the corporate presentation and
   can be used as appropriate.
         Called "FY94 Q1 Digital's Direction, Financial Strengths," the 
   presentation can be accessed by selecting option #1, "New and Revised 
   Content," or by choosing option #4, "Digital Corporate Information" off 
   the OPAL main menu.  
         The presentation is accessible in ASCII, PostScript and source file 
   formats to show the presentation directly on the PC notebook.  It will 
   be updated quarterly following the announcement of the company's 
   operating results. 
         For questions on content and customer positioning, contact Karen 
   Cadrin at DTN 297-3540.  For questions on accessing and printing the 
   presentation from OPAL, contact the OPAL hotline at DTN 264-7799 or 
   DTN 264-1051.























                       FOR DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY
 

re: .4

I haven't seen anything officially connecting the Internal CASE
program to AEE (other than the connections up at the
top).  I don't recall it being mentioned at the AEE quarterly, and
it certainly isn't in the October status report mentioned in .0.
That doesn't imply anything good or bad about the Internal CASE
effort -- it's merely an organizational distinction, at least at
this time.

The Internal CASE effort is strongly focused on recommending tools,
and not software development processes.  There are AEE efforts on 
verification/validation, phase management, requirements management, 
hardware reuse, and software reuse.

I'd be delighted to hear that Strecker has already set aside the
money for tool and hardware acquisition, but as far as I know, that isn't 
official.  

   Gary

    Ref: 8
    
    Paul Carroll's "Big Blues: The Unmaking of IBM", was reviewed in
    the Sept. 19th issue of the New York Times Book Review, page 11.
    William Taylor, editor of a magazine on business and the economy,
    had this to say:
    
    "The end of I.B.M. as we knew it, Mr. Carroll writes, 'is a sort of
    Greek tragedy.  It is a very sad story.'  But it is not a Greek
    tragedy.  It is the most acute episode yet in an industry-wide power
    shift that has claimed many other victims:  Wang, Digital Equipment,
    Control Data, the list goes on.  And while it is indeed a sad story,
    it is also a story of our times."
    
    I find that for Digital Equipment to be associated with the Wang and
    Control Data, Digital's image has indeed declined in the business
    world.
    
    Ws

    .7> Let's hope that Palmer's "No-Excuse" Management style prevails!!
    
    May I suggest an addendum to that putative style, that would perhaps
    ensure that a major "excuse loophole" could be closed?
    
          "Bob Palmer's `No-Excuses, No-Reorgs' Management Style"
    

    It is a slow paradign shift, almost too slow to recognize.  Product
    life cycles getting shorter, gradual commoditization of technology,
    hardware and s/w licenses in an ever steeper downward spiral.  We sell 
    more computer power than ever before and for less revenue and lower 
    profits.  
    
    Can a "tools" provider really survive?  I beginning to think not. 
    Should DEC (I'll call us what our customer call us even we can't seem
    to recognize that) diversify?  Into what?  I sell tools in a market
    where tools are moving to mass market channels.  What will I do next. 
    I'd better figure this out relatively soon.  
    
    Hopping to HP or SGI is not figuring it out.  Where is the next major
    social/industry/market need going to come from?  What skills will be
    needed to work there?  How do I prepare?  How will I even recognize the
    opportunity in time?
    
    /bob
    

    re. -1
    
    "Equipment" has been Digital's middle name.  "Machines" has been IBM's
    last name.  "Laboratories" is what Wang called itself.  "Data" was
    CDC's middle name.
    
    Equipment, machines, laboratories, data:  these were once leading-edge
    because they were once scarce and difficult areas.
    
    Now, there are many places in the world very competent to make
    equipment, machines, do lab work, process data.  None of these areas is
    all that scarce anymore, despite the "high tech" label that sticks to
    them all.  And to make a good profit, we have to find things to
    contribute in peoples' lives that *are* scarce, that *are* difficult.
    
    
    Changing organizations so they are far more productive is still
    difficult.  The skills to do it are still fairly scarce.  And it
    involves both training people and using technology, in a clever and
    creative combination.  We have people at Digital who are good at this
    kind of development, from whom to learn--and we can sell their services
    to some of our customers (better yet, to some non-customers who should
    be Digital's growth base.)
    
    But we can't find our way to this sort of future if we cling to
    Equipment as our middle name, just because it has been our past
    success.  Once a year or so I fly this trial balloon:  what if we
    changed our name to Digital Assistance Corp.?  What if we say we're
    willing to commit to a customer's commitments, if we believe in them; 
    and take part of our remuneration in their stock, not to be sold for
    say five years after we begin working with that company (assuming for
    the moment just those customers who have stock...)  We form a
    partnership in which when they succeed, we get most of our potential
    reward--and if they don't, we don't.  We assist them in developing
    their profitable business as well as we can, with all of the resources
    we have or can bring to bear--and only our out-of-pocket expenses are
    covered by cash on the barrelhead billings, the rest have to come from
    equity participation in the customer's success.
    
    What then?
    
    
    					Russ

No comment from me on the substantive part of your proposal,
but as far as changing the name to DAC -- this is the usual
sort of way we try and fix something around here.

Changing the name of something has
no effect other than confusing customers or making them laugh
at us (see "OpenVMS" for a prime example).