Conference 7.286::digital

Hmmm.  Nobody from outside wanted the job...

What's fascinating is that, as CIO of The Equitable (a major life insurance
company), McNulty refused to buy a damn thing from Digital.

    Having only been here for ~5 months, I would consider him from
    the 'outside'. I think the folks in IM&T will have the biggest
    adjustment to make. i.e. becoming another paying customer.
    
    /Bob

re: .2

Aren't most large insurance companies traditionally large IBM mainframe shops?

Bob

    
    >Aren't most large insurance companies traditionally large IBM mainframe shops?
    
    And Unisys. But not usually exclusivly. We have made in roads into many
    of them over the years. I supported several years ago when I was in the
    field for DEC.
    
    			Alfred

Liberty Mutual uses IBM mainframes coupled with some VAX systems (and
Macintoshes).  My wife is currently a contract programmer there.  She says
that insurance companies (she's worked for some in the past as well) generally
have the most inefficient and outdated computing environments of any
industry she's seen.

				Steve

    RE: .6 That would explain all the IBM gear. :-)
    
    		Alfred

>>    <<< Note 2818.4 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

>>re: .2

>>Aren't most large insurance companies traditionally large IBM mainframe shops?


True, but The Equitable is/was a big Wang shop, too.  Now they're going to HP.

The point in .2 was that Mr. McNulty, during his tenure at The Equitable, 
refused to do business with Digital even though he had numerous opportunities,
and now he's our CIO.

Curious.

    RE: Alfred
    
    > And Unisys. But not usually exclusivly. We have made in roads into many
    > of them over the years. I supported several years ago when I was in the
    > field for DEC.
    
    			
    Alfred,
    
    That was pre-RSTS days. They are gone forever! :-(
    
    Edwin

    
    
    	So, why did he refuse to do business with us when he was at
    	Equitable?
    

    
    I worked in insurance for a time also (IBM 4381 and Wang VS 300). 
    Steve's contention that they're usually way out of date is probably
    too kind.  We converted a card-based system to disk-based in 1984
    (leading edge, 'eh?) and it was still c**p.
    
    My experiences in insurance led me to belive:
    
    * if an insurance company is doing it, it's outdated
    * if it can't be done efficiently, ask for a rate increase
    * don't make it more efficient if you can get a rate increase
    * buy a competent lobbyist to ensure #2 and #3 can be done in
      perpetuity
    
    It was NOT a nice environment and any national health-care plan that
    involves insurance companies raises red flags to me...or anything else
    that involved insurance companies.

>    It was NOT a nice environment

  What was wrong with working with computers in an insurance company, other
than the fact that the systems were out of date? Actually, working with out of
date computers is OK for some people; they don't have to make the effort to
learn new systems.

>    and any national health-care plan that
>    involves insurance companies raises red flags to me...or anything else
>    that involved insurance companies.

  So how would you straighten out the health insurance mess? Having a federal
health insurance "company" would probably be even more inefficient.
  Sorry to rathole this topic, but gross inefficiency in any U.S. industry is
cause for concern.

    Out of date systems run by out of date people charged with justifying
    their existances, is what I mainly saw.  The work-arounds on everything
    were phenomenal!  Total inefficiency.  My manager's sole claim to fame
    was that he could read core dumps (that's how the program said
    "RMS-F-FNF, file not found", etc).  It was a beauracracy run amok that
    incidentally failed, chapter 7.
    
    I'm not for a national health insurance "company" either.  The idea of 
    a government-run insurance company sends chills.  Don't know what the 
    answer is, but if the insurance companies are involved, it means higher
    prices, less service.

    re: .12
    
    banks run with out of date systems most of the time...I'm not talking
    about chase manhatten, I'm talking about your local bank thak 90% of us
    deal with....why should they change, they make plenty of money with
    what they have...even if it is out-of-date
    
    end of the day dumps to the mainframe instead of real time updates
    etc...

>>        <<< Note 2818.10 by ICS::SOBECKY "John Sobecky DTN 223-5557" >>>
                                   -< Why? >-
>>    	So, why did he refuse to do business with us when he was at
>>    	Equitable?
  
Couldn't say.  I wasn't on the account team, but several of my co-workers 
spent several years unsucessfully trying to break into The Equitable.
Why don't you ask HIM?

Bob

    re last 3 or 4
    
    hey folks. you want to "discuss" the ridiculous use of technology by
    insurance companies (i see them a LOT and it IS nuts) then take it to
    the 'box. i'd rather find a bit more about this DEC "veteran" that is
    now our new "CIO".
    
    thanks.
    
    gene

    
    
	re Note 2818.15 by POCUS::OHARA "Reverend Middleware"       

    
>>        <<< Note 2818.10 by ICS::SOBECKY "John Sobecky DTN 223-5557" >>>
                                   -< Why? >-
>>    	So, why did he refuse to do business with us when he was at
>>    	Equitable?
  
>>>Couldn't say.  I wasn't on the account team, but several of my co-workers 
>>>spent several years unsucessfully trying to break into The Equitable.
>>>Why don't you ask HIM?

>>>Bob

   	Because, Bob, you were the one that was there. You were the one
    	that made the statement. Do you want I should go to him and say
    	"Mr. CIO, Bob Ohara says that you refused to do business with us
    	while you were at Equitable. Is that true, and if so, why?"
    
    	See Bob, if you make a statement, you need to be prepared to back
    	it up.
    
    	John
    	
    
           <<< HUMANE::DISK$DIGITAL:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 2818.8                    New CIO Bob McNulty                       8 of 16
POCUS::OHARA "Reverend Middleware"                   14 lines  16-DEC-1993 12:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    <<< Note 2818.4 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

>>re: .2

>>Aren't most large insurance companies traditionally large IBM mainframe shops?


True, but The Equitable is/was a big Wang shop, too.  Now they're going to HP.

The point in .2 was that Mr. McNulty, during his tenure at The Equitable, 
refused to do business with Digital even though he had numerous opportunities,
and now he's our CIO.

Curious.

    
    "Won't buy from Digital"   --  Is this man smart or stupid?
    				Hearing from our customers at DECUS
    				I can see why many would refuse.. 8*(
    
    My feeling is that digitals IS functions help keep the company
    in the 70's..  The internal IS systems stink..
    
    Jon
    

That last comment that our own internal MIS systems are still in the 70's
is true. At the San Francisco DECUS top management said so. They discussed
a plan to upgrade our MIS systems to ALPHA client/server applications. They
said it will be in 1995 timeframe though.

See Computerworld  Dewcember 13, 1993 page 8, article titled:

	"Digital plans customer service fixes"
	"targets contract admin and telephone support"

Renis

    gee whiz, and we just got done moving all those MIS apps to VAXen. 
    Whata shame...

    Sure is nice to hear that we're going client/server - our office in
    Mobile, AL has been trying to get an EASYnet link for the past 5 years,
    only to be told 'its too expensive...' - this for an office that brings
    in between $10-20mil yearly with only 9 people.
    
    Guess they'll give us 14.4 modems or some such idiocy....

    RE: The appointment of a CIO

    I think moving IS to DCS and a new CIO is great news. I've always 
    felt that we should rotate people from the field to IS and from IS 
    to the field. This would be a great training tool and provide a good 
    conduit for technology exchange. 


    RE: Regarding IS in the 70's

    Well our business model hasn't exactly smelled too rosy in the past. And
    you sure don't rewrite IS systems overnight.  IS has only automated
    what they've been funded to automate. In the past IS has been owned by
    the business, they've never had there own P&L until I believe last year
    when they where pulled out from under the business. So if the business
    wanted stove pipes they got them. Just look at SMART. A system written
    on PDP's moved to VAX's and still running the show. Many rewrites
    have been attempted but by the time the business finished adding on all
    the baggage it was an impossible task from a funding perspective.

    Client/Server & Alpha. Don't make me laugh. Technology is the least
    of the IS problem.  We have spent more money and time than you can imagine
    retrofitting systems to these new organizational models only to
    continually frustrate the users since things cannot be done overnight.
    Once the business model stabilizes the IS problem will begin to improve. 
    Hopefully the the supply chain program will address this.

    And everyone takes for granted some clearly defined tasks that IS 
    does dam well like:

    	1.) Getting my paycheck to me every week
    	2.) Keeping the phones running.
    	3.) Keeping the network humming
    	4.) Keeping the Email moving.


    Pete (who works in IS)

Why did we hire McNulty if he never bought from Digital?

Easy.  Now that we've got him in our back pocket, we can
can squeeze him into influencing his buddies at The Equitable
to move to Digital platforms ;*).

    Anyone know who Mr. McNulty reports to?  The announcement doesn't
    actually say, except it mentions a management committee, but I think 
    every employee reports to some person.  I'm really woundering if 
    McNulty is part of the new DC business unit or not.  Anyone have
    any insight on this?

    It's unfortunate that we as a company have the burden of legacy systems
    to carry with us. VT Terminals, centralised resources, it all looked so
    good in the 80's. Now it hangs heavy around our necks. I'm lucky, I use
    a workstation, but the majority of users in this place use VT's. 
    I wonder if this new CIO will manage to set aside the vast quantities of
    cash required to upgrade our desktop computing environment. Of course
    we need to be making VAST quantities of cash before we could do that
    ;-)
    
    In my opinion, people shouldn't be prevented from being employed just
    because they didn't buy something from Digital. That way we can take
    them down with us ;-)
    
                                        
    Callum
      

    re: .24
    
    	McNulty reports to Gresham Brebach
    
    DaveV

    We are like any other large organization. Money is supposed to go into
    the product or service that brings in the cash. Our back end legacy
    systems are outdated and causing us much pain. But since they "in
    theory" don't bring in the cash, they don't get upgraded till everyone
    is screaming, which is happening now. Rumour has it we cut over to new 
    MIS systems and poof, new system doen't work, old system cut up, and
    bingo, we don't ship anything for a few weeks (months?).
    
    It's interesting that for the last 10 years us peddlars have been
    trying to get our large customers to replace these legacy boxes.
    Maybe we should have been selling to internal MIS.
    
    Hey, we're still using All-In-1 and Vaxmail instead of Pathworks,
    Linkworks blah, blah blah.
    
    Oh well, it's the holidays. Enjoy 'em.
    

re: .27 (new systems causing missed ships)

I don't know if that's happened lately, but it did happen in Q1 of either '82
or '83, and it showed in the quarterly results.  I believe the principals
involved in that fiasco still occupy high positions in IM&T.  One problem in
IM&T is that most of the same people have rotated among the top positions since
the DECsystem 10 & PDP-11 days.  So it's good to have a totally new face (Bob
McNulty) in charge now...maybe we'll see some real changes at last.

								- paul

Not just the quarterly results - it made the stock drop 20 points
in one day when we announced that we didn't know where our orders
were.

re: a couple of notes back about internal IS moving to Client/Server


	I hope Digital's IS management and our new CIO do not believe 
  that Client/Server computing will solve Digital's IS problems.  Re-
  gardless as to what the computer media hype is; Client/Server computing
  is NOT the cure for what ails IS orgainzations.   Client/Server computing 
  provides an economical means to flexibly utilize data.  

	The real benefit will come when the total organization has been
  re-engineered and all of the players are playing by the same rules and
  guidelines.  I am not saying centralized operations are better for an
  orgainzation, but I am saying that entities which comprise an organization
  all utilize the same rules and guidelines.   

	Having starting my Digital career in internal manufacturing IS I know 
  from experience how difficult the move to a Client/Server environment will
  be.  I truly hope our new CIO can turn internal IS around so that data can
  be a competitive resource and not just data.

    One more thing:
    If we ARE going to move to a client/server model for internal apps
    ( and I think it would be a good idea)
    Somebody better tell telecoms (or whoever is funding them) to stop
    looking at whacking network bandwidth...

    Re: .31-
    
    	You said it. Bandwidth is the future. AT&T is promoting it on TV 
    advertising the guy on the beach using his laptop...The current
    attitude that we can grow with WATN 1200 baud access is crazy.
    
    Phil

re Note 2818.32 by 35405::MCELWEE:

>     The current
>     attitude that we can grow with WATN 1200 baud access is crazy.
  
        Perhaps the prevailing attitude is that we won't grow.

        Bob

Digital's systems problems are not technology problems by and large.  Lets
not kid ourselves by thinking we have a bunch of COBOL programmers who are
not bright enough to learn Visual Basic, and *THATS* the cause of our
problems.  Client/Server is a soundbite, like MTT, like every other silver
bullet people have tried to find.

As someone who worked elseware in the industry, and in IM&T for a number of
years in "line" roles, Ill give you a few of my feelings and those I have
heard on these problems:

     1 We speak like there is *ONE* IM&T organization that is failing or
       succeeding.  We have tens if not hundreds of IM&T organizations that
       are funded separately, have their own priorities, and are working to 
       their own strategies and technology plans.  If its not geographic,
       its functional, if its not functional, its technological
       (infrastructure vs applications).  Its never been managed as *ONE*.
       We have pockets of excellence, and pockets of incompetence.
       Collectively its not working, and thats the final measure. 

     2 Our problems are based upon the lack of an investment strategy ( a
       combined business and IS responsibility) at the top,  People viewed
       systems as things which broke-and-needed-to-be-fixed, rather than
       competitive advantage solutions.  Still do in many cases. Would
       American Airlines or Citibank say the same thing?
    
     3 Its a "systems problem" vs a "business process problem".  The fact
       that  something isn't automated makes it a systems problem. 
       Automating the absurd is a business issue, but one which IM&T has
       never been able to  push back on.  In many cases (even with 700
       applications talking to each other) the order goes from front to
       back in 45 minutes but is held at a supply point for 3 weeks because
       we don't have enough chips.  In another,  we decide that the
       solution to the problem of Dupont getting a labor intensive box of 
       paper for an invoice is to "automate" the generation of the box of 
       paper. 
       
     4 IM&T has never been a strong function (like finance or personnel)
       and  therefore has had little clout except within pockets of the
       company. In many areas IM&T simply did whatever the business asked
       them to do, acting much like EDP temps or a contract house to
       business project leaders.   This certainly did not lead to a
       "professional" view of IM&T or one in which IM&T could argue back.
    
     5 Since we are IM&T (q.e.d. not bright) we are not respected enough to
       be  listened to.  In many cases outside vendors (like Price
       Waterhouse or Arthur Anderson) are brought in and send the company 
       down a $15 million dollar rathole.  Many of the "IM&T" failures over
       the last few years actually had a PW, AA, Company-X at the helm
       reporting directly to a senior business manager with IM&T simply
       supplying bodies and advice.   This view has been reinforced by the
       length of time it has taken to put a CIO in place (its not
       important, we'll get around to it..).
       
     6 Try and find a list of business priorities (in vertical vs
       horizontal order) for this companies systems.  There has never been
       one at that level.  If any are present,  they exist within functions 
       and are in conflict with other functions.  The MCS priorities don't 
       mesh with the PC CBUs, the PC CBU doesn't mesh with Sales and MKtg,
       etc.  
       
     7 Systems decisions are not data driven.  We decide multi-million
       dollar investments based upon a few slides, and allow anyone to
       argue against real data with verbage and opinion.  Verbage and
       opinion quite often win in an environment where management avoids
       conflict.   Where they are data driven, its in an area that business
       folks usually avoid (like which model number to buy, or which
       telecom vendor to move to..).
       
     8  Many facets of IM&T have "retreated" back into what they feel they
       can control (iron and wires), and moved away from business
       applications support at the "process" or "systems integration"
       level.  In other words, we will run your data centers and telecom
       for you, run WATN, or LATS, but let the people who enjoy conflict
       and misery deal with trying to change the business model in Digital.
       We will deal with Digital like Dupont.  While running this part of
       IM&T as a business is obviously valid, no equal attention was paid
       to the other facets. 

     9 Divisionalization and constant reorganizations obviously complicate
       things to a point where its org-dejour and strategy-dejour.  If we
       intend to have separate systems for each division, we need to say
       it. If we intend to integrate, say it.. Right now the different
       functions and CBU/PBUs give their own messages and each wants to 
       decide (perhaps they should) what systems are used.  In a plant like
       Kanata for example, you might have 4 warehousing systems in place 
       even though one would probably do.. Again, if a formal strategy is
       communicated, things might make sense, but right now its just
       conflict avoidance. 
       
Talk to any of a dozen people in IM&T and you will hear the above come out
again and again, as well as many more I've most likely missed.  We have a
tremendous number of very bright people, who know their field and industry
technology but are not being utilized well.  We are losing quite a few of
them know to other companies where they can (quite easily if they are good)
get positions which have far fewer hassles.   We need these people for both
internal and external work.  The hemorage is serious.

I hope that some quick clarity on the future of IM&T is provided by the new
CIO and others at the SLT level.  We need it. Its easy to bash an
organization as incompetent (IM&T, marketing, sales...) but its always the
other guy thats causing the company to fail.  If we believe that...well.
then I'm not sure we won't..
     
       
Rick

    Noted in a number of publications Bob McNulty resigned to go to Moore
    Corp. as VP - CIO.  Haven't seen anything from Digital yet.
    
    Mark
    

> Noted in a number of publications Bob McNulty resigned to go to Moore
> Corp. as VP - CIO.  Haven't seen anything from Digital yet.

  His mail is still trying to propagate around the network. :-)

                                   Atlant