Conference 7.286::digital

    During the late 70s/early 80s a Cultural Manual was developed. It was
    unofficial yet recieved widespread distribution. Although I was not a 
    Digital employee at that time (my dad was) I got a chance to read it.
    As soon as I became employed by Digital I recieved a copy of it from 
    a friend. It was a hardcopy but still interesting. I'm sorry to say 
    that I do not have a softcopy available.
    I was hoping that some of the original writers had a softcopy available
    for distribution. If anyone does, please send it to me. If none are 
    available, I'll work to put my copy on-line.
    
    

    OK, I'm *sure* in this politically correct day-and-age, I'm supposed
    to know what a Cultural Manual is ("How to Appear Cultured, Even If
    You're Not", Emily Post, 1972), but I don't.  I've got the feeling 
    a 20-30 year old Digital cultural manual of any kind might provide 
    some...amusement.
    
    Does it have pictures?

re Note 2827.3 by DPDMAI::EYSTER:

>     I've got the feeling 
>     a 20-30 year old Digital cultural manual of any kind might provide 
>     some...amusement.
>     
>     Does it have pictures?
  
        It isn't that old and it doesn't have pictures.  I believe
        the manual in question is "A STUDY IN CORPORATE CULTURES
        DIGITAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY THE MYTH: A CULTURAL OPERATING
        MANUAL" by REESA E. ABRAMS and STEPHAN P. HEISER, originally
        1984, revised 1988.

        I have placed a plain-text copy in:

        	nrsta2""::user05:[fleischer.distrib]dec-culture.txt

        Bob

    
    So this still doesn't answer my question...what's it about?  Can
    anyone summarize/critique/review this tome?  Has anyone read it?
    Where's the Cliff notes version, Fleischer?

    Bob,
    
    Thanks for making the copy available for widespread distribution. To my 
    knowledge, this is the latest version. I had seen another in the late 
    seventies that was somewhat similar, if anyone has a copy please post 
    it. 
    With the permission of the authors, we may be able to use a lot of the 
    information in this version. Of course, it will require modification to 
    fit todays business environment. However, I'll bet that many of the terms 
    and definitions still apply.
    Sorry .5, no Cliff notes. However, with your help we could construct an
    abridged version for the mid-nineties.
    
    Dave
    
    

    So,were the two people that wrote this book actually DEC employees or
    were they just guessing? What I'm asking is: Were these people
    long-time employees who were exposed to DEC culture for decades or
    what?
    
    Ken

    OK, Ken, I gave up and read the stupid thing.  If the basenoter thinks
    he's going to update, he better do it either tongue-in-cheek, have
    several gallons of white-out, or a great sense of humor.  I kinda think
    his original note was intended to get us to read this for a chuckle.
    
    The original authors appear to have been slightly sycophantic over
    Digital (yes, at least one was an employee).  They talk in vast
    generalities about the "risk-taking atmosphere", our "concise
    clear-cut proposals", and our "commitment to our hardware", making us
    all sound beautifully dedicated and homogenous, backed fully by our
    omnipotent business entity.  Tons of eighties-era gobbly-de-gook like
    "entrepreneurial", "dynamic", "matrix", etc.  If it had been
    seventies-era it would have discussed our "karma" and "corporate aura".
    
    Good bathroom reading, but not much else, IMHO.  Would like a copy of
    the original for my grins-n-giggles archive, though, if someone's got
    one...

    
    
    	Cultural manual? What for? Is this another one of those
    	make-busywork projects like our 'Branding/Naming' fiasco
    	(see note 2829.*)?
    
    	John

    Don't be too hard on it John.
    
    .0 says "This will be an off-hours effort" so it shouldn't have any
    detrimental effects on the working day. It would be cruel to put it
    in the same class as 2829.*
    
    
    roland

    re -.1
    
    		     2829.*     -vs-     2827.* 
    	
    		         is like comparing
    	
    		Organized crime -vs- trick-or-treating.

    Reesa E. Abrams was with Unicorn Consultants, Inc. of Freeport. ME.
    She did two documents under contract with Digital. The first was 
    "A study in Corporate Cultures"
     " Digital Equipment Company"
      " The Myth: The Philosophy"
    (from the front cover)
    and the second was the one .0 mentioned, written in 1984. The second
    was revised in 1988 and both names appeared on the front of the
    revision. 
    
    It was popular at the time for companies to publish their culture. I 
    remember Bill Thurston took a year off from his duties as CEO of GenRad
    to write their document. K.O. hired ours done, and as a result, it never 
    really quite matched reality.
    
    I have all three document, hardcopy only. If anyone really wants a copy
    of one of them, I might be persuaded to photocopy it.
    
    					Marie
    
    
    				

    re: -.1
    
    Marie, I'd like the *originals*!  This stuff is going to be like the
    old Army training films in years to come, and I'm always up for having
    a grin on file.  I've got copies of "Our Friend the Atom", "Hemp for
    Victory", "Megatrends", Popular Mechanic's "Russians Will Win Moon
    Race", and assorted other now-dated chuckles.
    
    Anyone out there have a spare original?  Would be going to a good home.
    
    PS: Thanks for the additional history and perspective, Marie.

    Curious.

    Reesa Abrams is listed in ELF, so, presumably, is presently a DEC,
    er... I mean Digital employee.

    BTW, who is "Digital Equipment Company" ?

    L.

    "Digital Equipment Company Ltd." was at one time the official name of the
    U.K. subsidiary, and was the company I worked for. I believe they got 
    an official name change to "DEC Ltd.", but that was after I moved to France.
    I believe the company I work for at the moment is called
    "Digital Equipment Centre Technique Europe (SARL)", commonly referred
    to as DECTE, but it could have changed since I last looked. There is
    also a DEC (France), which is a completely different company, since
    DECTE is a non-profit company, while DEC (France) attempts to make a
    profit.

    Good information so far, Marie, if you would like to copy the 3
    "originals" for me I would appreciate it. I'm at NIO/P4 - Thx, Dave 
    
    As for "chuckles" - Fashionable in the forties ? - Weapons - War
                        Fashionable in the fifties ? - Sock hops - TV
                        Fashionable in the sixties ? - Feelings - War
                        Fashionable in the seventies ? - Psychology 
                        Fashionable in the eighties ? Technology - Culture
                        Fashionable in the nineties ? Quality-Superhighway
                                    Corporate Survival ? Re-engineering ? 
    
    ALL are decade long incidents that lead to the short term focus we have 
    today. Maybe culture is the wrong term to use. Maybe we can work
    together to design a new and more fashionable term. Does anyone have 
    any ideas ?
    
    Our leadership is in the process of re-engineering the company - to what ? 
    A dollar value metric ? A ratio of employees to income ? What is it
    based on ? Customer feedback ? Market projections ? Sales figures after
    the fact ? Granted, we will no go anywhere if we do not make MONEY,
    but, how can we (all of us) help to reverse the downward spiral ?  
    What key corporate-wide organizational strengths can we capitalize on 
    for maximum ROI ?  For minimum ROI ? Is it Engineering, Marketing, HR,
    Accounting/Finance, Services, Product Sales/Development ??????
    
    What I am trying to uncover is DIRECTION ! So many people are in turf
    protection mode that the company is stagnating. If we do not at least 
    try to all row the boat in the same direction we will never go
    anywhere but to the bottom as the seats wear out. I am not willing to 
    just sit here and bitch about the state of the stock prices or the 
    organization that I work in, I want to help.
    
    I realize that we are a HUGE company but our markets are changing all
    around us. But, what key primary strengths do we have ? Are we still 
    primarily hardware engineering or are we today software engineering ? 
    Do we sell exceedingly well or are we better at aligning folks to
    market need ? Are we excellent at target marketing or better at market
    analysis ? Is our market research better than our personal management ?
    Is our human relations function more successful at training people for
    work elsewhere ? There are hundreds of potential questions like this,
    and I think if we at least discuss these things, we just might uncover
    some great ideas. We may also uncover things that scare us. All of the 
    functions within the company contribute to the one underlying need, the 
    need to make MONEY.. We are not making it now.
    
    LOOK, we have lost a lot of good, talented people and newly hired or 
    aquired many more more so where do we stand as a general population ?
    We have excellent products and are getting ready to ride a technology 
    wave as the software begins to catch up but for future products our 
    margins will be slimmer forcing us to become smarter as a company !
    If we only know the status of today, where will we be tomorrow ? Or,
    next year ?  
    
    Just try a couple.
    

I'm not sure I understand the reason for all the cynicism being expressed
here and elsewhere in this conference.

Defining the corporate culture is perhaps the most important job of the CEO
of a Fortune 100 company.  This is widely discussed in comtemporary management
texts and should be evident to people who have thought seriously about what
it takes to manage an organization of this complexity.

We should not underestimate the power of myth.  That is, the stories we tell
ourselves about who we are, what we value, and why we're here.  These myths
play an important role in shaping our reality.

The truth is, our industry has changed much faster than we have.  Digital
does not know how to be a 13 Billion dollar company any more and is collapsing
around those businesses that are profitable or most likely to be sustainable.
Yet for many employees, the reality has still not sunk in, they resent the
painful adjustments we've had to make thinking they were somehow unnecessary
or should have been handled better.

Folks, the reality is many of the businesses we are in don't make sense
anymore, and unless we can see a way to transform them, they are going to
disappear.  Our management is only human, and most have little experience
dealing with these kinds of issues.

Let me cite a few statistics to demonstrate the changes that have already
occured.  Consider the number of desktop information systems that will be
sold this year

  40 million will be PCs (85% IBM compatible, 14% Macintosh, <1% rest combined)
   6 million will be video terminals
     1.5 million synchronous (IBM 3270 family)
     4.5 million serial aynchronous
         1.5 million ANSI (DEC VT compatible)
         3.0 million ASCII
   0.5 million will be workstations
       This includes all workstations (SUN, HP, DEC, IBM, etc...)
   0.2 million will be X terminals
       This includes all X terminals (NCD, HP, DEC,...)

If just one percent of those buying PCs use them for software development,
that's 400,000 software developers.  Compare this to a couple thousand
people in Spitbrook.  VAX/VMS or similar minicomputer software will never
be able to keep up in features or price to compete with PCs.

  Why would anyone buy minicomputer software for thousands of dollars
  a copy when you can buy much better programs for a few hundred dollars
  that run on your PC?

Software like DECwrite, DECcalc, Bookreader, VAX language compilers, etc.
are dead.  Even if they exceed their most optimistic plans, they will
lose a ton of money.

Video Terminals, part of our old legacy system that has taken some knocks
in this conference earned $92 million in profit last year.  Why?  Because
they're part of an efficient low cost solution that meets a real need.

CPU performance is no longer a major factor in the cost of information
systems and hasn't been for years.  Alpha is a technical triumph, but
is not going to save Digital.  Too few people have any reason to care.

We need some real creativity here.  Not just products, but process too.
How can we work together to deliver best in class solutions to our customers?
Given that we have the talent and technology base, what beliefs would we have
to hold in common to be successful?

This is what corporate culture is all about.

- Peter

    
    Cynicism is good for discussion. In order for an issue to be fully
    understood, the cynics and the supporters must voice their opinions.
    
    I agree that a very important task of a CEO is to define the corporate 
    culture but, the CEO acting alone is worth nothing. He/She can not
    operate in a vacuum unless the company is structured along the lines of 
    a dictatorship. We do not work for Kirby (sp ?), therefore, we must all
    understand and align ourselves to the changing "culture". 
    
    Yes, our markets are changing and as such so should our business plans.
    We CAN NOT use the VAX models any longer. The reality of the new
    markets is MARGIN and COMPETITION. In the .18 stats, are the projected 
    volume figures industry-wide ? Or Digitals' piece of the market ? Where
    did the numbers come from ?
     
    No, the Alpha chip alone will not save digital, so what will ? A
    primary reason that I had for creating this conference was to see if we 
    (cross-functional)could describe todays market identity and hopefully
    uncover some "points of light". As I said in .16, Culture may have been
    an incorrect term. 
    
    Today, we are disjointed. The proof is in simple things, the entire front 
    page of the Help Wanted section of the Boston Globe (Sunday - 2 Jan.)
    carries ads for PC Engineers and in the Sales section another ad for
    Telemarketers. The printed logos are different. One black background,
    one grey around the name. WHY ?????? We are selling PCs, many of us
    have bought them. Upgrades are difficult to get and consumables nearly 
    impossible. WHY ????  We need to get TOGETHER as a company. 
    
    We need to change our business models and modify our thought processes. 
    The VAX models in todays markets are dysfunctional and WILL NOT WORK !
    We can not do business in the PC market and retain the
    inter-organizational competition that the company has built itself on.
    The margins are just not there. We must look at ourselves from within, 
    identify ways to get together, and help the leadership to align our 
    excellent organizations in ways that complement the developing markets.
    That way, we can respond to the market needs that we help to CREATE. 
    That is the grey area, if we send inconsistent messages to the marketplace,
    NO ONE will want us and no NEED will be created. :^(
    
    IF we UNDERSTAND THE CULTURE or whatever you'd like to call it, We will 
    deliver CONSISTENCY and FLUENTLY wherever we do business. That will
    help to create then very quickly adapt to serve the demands of the market.
    
    The key to todays markets is FLEXIBILITY and ADAPTATION as market
    conditions evolve. In order to be successful, we must become a
    marketplace CHAMELEON. Beautiful to look at, and very difficult to
    catch. We must be able to adapt our organizations to the market in the
    very same way that the chameleon adapts to the changing color scape of
    its environment. 
    
    We already have a unifying mission - We are in business to make MONEY.
    How can we come together to make that happen ? 
    
                                                   
    
    
    

Re -.1

Many good points.

The market figures I quoted are from Dataquest and other industry publications
and are industry-wide.  While estimates fluctuate by 10% or so, the overall
market implications are unmistakable.

Digital alone sells about half a million low end VTs per year.  I don't have
any figures for PCs, but I'm sure they are under 2 million with almost
non-existent margins.  We're just not that big a player in the market yet.
Digital's X terminals and workstations are in the tens of thousands combined.


>    We already have a unifying mission - We are in business to make MONEY.

This is a vague abstraction which I don't find very helpful out of context.
Most of us take this for granted, but it is not totally correct.

Economics is the exchange of life energy for well being.
The purpose of our economic system is to organize the exchange of life
energy to produce the goods and services people need for their well being.
As the major institution of our economic system, corporations exist to
produce the goods and services people want in a cost effective manner.

  The primary PURPOSE of business organizations is to SERVE CUSTOMERS.

There are for profit corporations, and non-profit corporations.
Making money or profit is simply one measure of economic efficiency.
When properly applied with an understanding of the larger purpose,
it is a reasonable measure of cost effectiveness and sustainability.

However, in the complex real world we live in, it is often easier to
shift-the-burden than to pay the true cost of producing goods or services
people need.  If making money is the primary goal, it can all to easily
justify irresponsible economic behavior that undermines the well being
of society as a whole.  It is more profitable to pollute than dispose of
your wastes safely.  It is more profitable to spend tax dollars than
your own money.  It is more profitable to mortgage the future than pay
your own way.

This in fact is exactly what is happening to our economy and why it doesn't
seem to be working very well.  We are undermining our collective and future
prosperity faster than we can grow the economy.  The bills for past
squandering are starting to come due and we resent it.

Finally, making money alone is spiritually empty and will not bring out the
best in people.  As was eloquently stated in another note: we need a new
generous intent or mission.

What will save Digital?  What is our new mission?

  I don't think any of us can answer this alone.
  I have some ideas which I'll share in another note.

- Peter

    re: .19
    
    I think you mean skeptics, not cynics.  Digital currently has a surplus
    of the latter.
    
    Al
    

    re .21
    "skeptics not cynics...." 
    
    Optimism vs Pessimism...Half full or Half empty...Full speed ahead or
    be wary of every step..
    
    Any way you look at it balance is the output. BUT only if people are
    willing to LISTEN and DISCUSS. 
    
    re .20
    Where is the other note ? 
    
    On the "well-being", we can't eat well being. Maybe if we were potato 
    farmers we could eat some and trade some for other goods and exist in 
    wonderland. Don't kid yourself, whether the corporation is for-profit 
    or not-for-profit someone is taking MONEY from the top. 
    
    In our beloved digital, we work to make a PROFIT, that is money in the
    pocket. In the non-profit organizations, the officers that are responsible
    for the operations of the business all collect salaries. Some are quite
    hefty. Nonetheless, your statement about MONEY as a MISSION not being
    "helpful out of context" is exactly to the point. I agree with you 
    wholeheartedly, MONEY as the only goal does nothing but create greed. 
     
    OK then maybe we can say that MONEY (a big pile of it) is a BYPRODUCT 
    of successful business operations. 
    
    Then, what is the mission (culturally speaking)?  How about this:
    
    All personnel employed by Digital Equipment Corporation strive to
    assist each other as individuals and organizations in a complimentary
    fashion that serves to meet the demands of a fast-paced global
    business environment.  
    
    HOW ?
    
    Our organizations are structured to adapt to the conditions of the
    local business or individual customer. Through organization-wide
    teamwork and strong market feedback mechanisms we can modify our product
    and service mix to best meet the changing needs of our customers.     
    
    PURPOSE ?
    
    Our purpose is to serve our customers and ensure that the products
    they need are ready when they are needed. Through new development,
    product sales, and follow-on services we strive to achieve the status
    of champions in the various industries that we serve. 
    
    
    PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE - Feel free to add, change, delete as you'd like.
    
    Dave
     
    

    Real  simple Digital Equipment Corporation is who we work for. A
    "corporation" has one purpose, to make money for it's investors; plane and
    simple. How to do it is definable but the PURPOSE is set if it was to
    provide a service we would be cassed as a Non - profit organization not
    a corporation. 

    
        Re  .23
    
        Well, maybe the "one purpose, to make money for its investors" 
        is "plain" and "simplistic" instead.  Unless you expand the 
        definition of investors.
    
        There are more investors than the ones that buy stock.  Don't 
        forget the customer - they're investing their well-being and 
        future by buying our products.  Don't forget the employees - 
        they're investing their time and career.
    
        Seems to me that every time we concentrate only on the classical 
        stock-buying investors, we sub-optimize to the detriment of the
        others.  And so we engage in short-term maneuvers, short time-
        horizon actions and wonder why we're struggling.  Maybe if we 
        attend more to the customers and employees then strangely enough 
        everyone might profit more, even the classical investor.
    
    
        Peter

    
    Re: .23
    
    > A "corporation" has one purpose, to make money for it's investors;
    > plane and simple. 
    
    Profit today is not very comforting if a corporation is out of business
    tomorrow.  I would prefer to see a corporation take care with my
    investment by first attending to its long term success and worrying about
    profit later.
    
    Steve
    
    

>    Real  simple Digital Equipment Corporation is who we work for. A
>    "corporation" has one purpose, to make money for it's investors; plane and
>    simple. How to do it is definable but the PURPOSE is set if it was to
>    provide a service we would be cassed as a Non - profit organization not
>    a corporation. 

I think you are mistaken.  There really are "non-profit corporations",
that is, non-profit organizations that are legally incorporated.
You needn't take my word for it.  Grab your nearest dictionary and look
up the word "corporation".  Making money does not appear in any definition.

I'm puzzled where this widely held idea that the sole purpose
of a corporation is to make money comes from.

What are we missing?

- Peter

    Language tricks us all the time because of its linear sequential
    structure into assuming that there is *the* anything.  There is no
    *the* purpose of a corporation.
    
    A business process in its simplest form could be diagrammed thus:
    
    Suppliers--->ProcessParticipants--->Customers
    
    All three of these classes of people must get some satisfaction from
    interacting, otherwise any of them can pull the plug.  Customers can do
    it the fastest, by not buying.  Participants do it by retiring on the
    job, malicious compliance with wrongheaded requests, forming a
    competing power structure (often called a "union"), or just leaving.
    Suppliers do it by withdrawing affirmative creativity (tho they
    probably will still accept orders if they can make money at it.)
    
    There are two other classes.  Investors must get a return on their
    stored up human value that allowed the process to be kick-started or
    that allow it to grow faster than its customers will pay it to grow. 
    They stop the music by making it difficult for the next increment of
    growth to keep up with fast-growing opportunities.  Neighbors share the
    atmosphere and if the business process pollutes, the neighbors will
    hinder it or shut it down through various governmental or government-
    like structures.
    
    See, all 5 viewpoints have to be satisfied.  Once you make a picture,
    you can see that there is no *the* purpose, there are five.  Each is
    necessary and no 4 are sufficient for a healthy enterprise.
    								Russ

    re .27
    
    Yes,
    
    All five must be satisfied. But, aren't they just complimentary to the 
    baseline purpose of being in business ?
    
    If it is not MONEY, or some form of barterable instrument that has
    worth in the eyes of another, then the business process will grind to a
    halt. Our businesses use money as the foundation for success.  
    
    Yes, there are no *the* purposes for being in business, there are many.
    Therefore, while language may be linear, business is not. Each
    transaction in a business cycle has many key and co-dependent variables
    that must be satisfied in order for a business SYSTEM to flourish and
    prosper. That is the key, the SYSTEM of basic business is as you outlined
    but many more than five variables occur at any given time. 
    
    If the STRUCTURE of the enterprise is such that allowance for decision 
    making, problem-solving, and creativity in new ventures is aligned with the
    overall goals the business will flourish. When individual accountability
    can be clearly delineated then the business SYSTEM will become more 
    flexible and more easily aligned to the end-users wants and needs. 
    
    Dave