Conference 7.286::digital

    I just got off the phone with a customer who bought an AXP box and was
    trying to get help installing some software. He did not have an "access
    number" to the CSC, and per normal procedures, was told he needed one
    to talk to us. (This is the only way we have of not giving away free
    service. Usually we'll take 'em anyway, so I don't know exactly what
    happened here.)

    He spoke to his local office and was told it would take 5 weeks to get
    him the access number.

    Swell. There he sits with our best new box and he can't get help with
    it for FIVE WEEKS. This same customer told me that after three attempts
    to get their software support straightened out via FAX, they demanded
    that the local office folks come out and talk face-to-face. Guess what!
    Even after this, the contracts were still messed up.

    Part of the problem is that a lot of contract administrators have been
    tfso'd over the last year or two and there is still some 'shaking out'
    going on in field, but that answer doesn't cut it with a customer who
    has just been denied service on a system that's down.

    Another part of the problem is that the CSC has their own set of 
    databases and contract administrators in the field work off different
    ones. At last count, there were something like 11 different SMART
    systems which maintained these records.

    You'd think that a computer company could figure out a way to keep
    track of their customers, wouldn't you?
    

    Dear Frustrated!
    
    In the December 13th issue of Computerworld the page 8 headlines read:
    
    DIGITAL PLANS CUSTOMER SERVICE FIXES
    Targets contract administration and telephone support
    
    The article clearly touched the issues raised in your base note.  Slow
    response on renewals and changes, inaccurate information on contracts,
    users routed to multiple locations for approvals, and slow updating of
    service call information were highlighted by the report.
    
    Digital said in the articale that it hoped some changes would be
    noticed by mid-summer; however, "this is not a quick change process,"
    according to Phil Pietrowski, Digital's business operations manager for
    MVS.  The full effects of the planned changes will not be felt until
    1995.
    
    This article was written post the San Francisco DECUS and indicated
    customers are really turning up the heat.  The chairman of DECUS'
    business practices service group said, "It's classic legacy systems
    problems."
    
    It seems we are heading in the right direction although painfully slow. 
    I am certain that this has SLT priority but it is so broke that it will
    take a lenghtly effort to correct it.  In the meantime those of us who
    daily touch our customers, my function is industry sales specialist,
    must continue to address this issue as best we can with the goal of
    minimizing the impact to our customers.
    
    Rgds,
    
    

    
    
    Well, being a contract administrator for 8 years, I can shed some light
    on what needs to be done.  It isn't easy being us (administration).  We
    are frustrated as well.  We depend on so many things to do our jobs
    properly.  A customer issues a PO.  We, in admin, have to make sure the
    PO is correct and that we have any necessary paperwork to have a
    complete file (corporate sets guidelines as to what has to be in the
    file).  If the file is not complete we have to track down the necessary
    paperwork.  We then enter the contract into the database and accept it. 
    At this time, a contract is assigned an agreement number.  Then, a mail
    message has to be sent to Colorado to register the equipment and/or
    software.  We (digital) assign an agreement number to the contract, yet
    the customer cannot log a call with the agreement number which we
    assigned.  If it's a software contract, it gets assigned an access
    number (it still has it's agreement number which we assigned).  If it's
    a hardware call, the customer has to log it with the system serial
    number (not the agreement number which we assigned).  If a box is
    switched out and the technician doesn't inform admin, the serial number
    does not come up in the database.  There are hundreds of instances
    where the process can, and often does fall apart.  If we assign an
    agreement number to a contract, that customer ought to be able to log a
    call with it.  One number to log the call, not an agreement number,
    multiple serial number, and access number (oh, we also assign customer
    codes, but that's another story).  There are many other issues, but it
    would take quite a while to go through them all.  It's quite
    frustrating indeed.  
    
    I have said things about the issue for at least 4-5 years, and we have
    heard time and time again that the fix is in the works.  Each time, the
    fix is eith non existant, or like putting a band-aid on a slashed
    artery.  Hopefully this time, there is a fix coming.  It's going to be
    painful to impliment, but it will pay off big time in the long run.
    
    
    Mike (LSSC rep)  

As an internal customer who has an access number I can tell you contract admin
is poor. We have constant problems with "what is/isn't covered" and occasionally
our contracts "revert" to an older revision without notice. This happens with
both software and hardware contracts.

dave

    
    a current contract cannot revert to an older version without someone
    reverting it.

It never fails to amaze me the number of people who will tolerate a system
as dysfunctional as the one described in .3.

We are supposed to be customer focused.  What's wrong with calling the CSC and
saying, "I'm customer XYZ, and I have a contract.  I'd like service."

Provide the service to that customer and AFTER we've taken care of the problem,
if it turns out they don't have a contract, bill them.  Once they see the per
call rates, they'll probably be anxious to apply the charge to a contract 
anyway.   Incremental business!  Don't make them screw around with serial 
numbers and authorization numbers and contract numbers and agreement numbers.

It makes no sense whatsoever to inconvenience EVERY CUSTOMER WE HAVE, just to 
avoid giving away service to the occasional deadbeat who won't pay for it.

Customer satisfaction isn't rocket science.   

Bob

    
    
    wow..this is scary....
    I put a note in here just a few days ago,,,,and deleted it (hence my
    other notes obviously written in frustration and disgust). 
    I've been fighting the contract issue as well, with little success
    but ALOT of finger pointing. 
    My concerns stem from the fact that we are losing MILLIONS of dollars
    a year on support that we deliver for FREE. I've been on a statistics
    gathering binge over the past week and have come up with a staggering
    50%+ of the calls we take in the center are from people who are NOT
    listed as contacts. These folks MAY be entitled to support, they may
    not be.
    When I try to bring this to anyones attention, I'm told it's not an
    important enough issue.......
    In fact, while we are spending time servicing half of our callers for
    free, the paying customers are waiting in the queue for their turn to
    come up, and getting lower quality service because the call volume forces
    us to 'get to the next call'....
    I've asked what I can do to help expedite the contract 'cleanup'. I'm
    all but told to BUTT OUT. This isn't a new issue. This was brought up
    at a center meeting some 7 years ago and at that time we were told
    "just take calls and let me worry about it". I mentioned that as a
    stock holder, I AM concerned with giving service away for FREE. 
    I got screamed at and a wagging finger to the face and told reminded
    of my option to find another job...
    So, SIr.....here it is...7 years later....and the problem that I was
    told not to worry about has cost us millions and millions of
    dollars.  
    Basenoter, As I plan on bringing this issue up at a meeting tomorrow,
    would you please contact me so that I may use your concerns as
    further evidence of a problem that we CANNOT keep putting aside.
    Cathy
    

re: .7

Just because someone isn't on the contact list doesn't mean that you are giving
away free support.  From personal experience as a customer, I know it can take
months for a contact change to get into the CSC systems.  Once when I changed
jobs, my new employer did the paperwork to delete the old contact and add me as
the new one and sent it off.  After a month of not showing up on the contact,
I simply started saying that I was the old contact.  This worked for months
until one day I was told that the old name wasn't on the contact list.  I then
asked if mine was, and sure enough, 4 months after the change was sent in, the
records were finally correct.  Did Digital provide any 'free' service during
that period?  No.  As such, I can't believe your claim that 50% of the time we
provide free service.

At the same time, IF we do provide some free service, we should bill the
customer for the call and offer to credit the charge towards the purchase of
a service contract, as one of the previous replies stated.  The only problem
with this idea is that we need a 99.99999% accurate data base, and as has been
seen we aren't even close to this.  Of course, the way Digital would do it is
to start charging before the data base was cleaned up and then wonder why we
have so many angry customers.

Bob

    
    This contact thing is a joke anyway.  We are going to charge our
    customers for extra contacts?  That doesn't make any sense to me at
    all.  The company is paying for support and anyone who is there should
    receive the support.  Customers aren't that stupid.  Have one female
    name and one male name, disseminate it throughout the organization and
    that's who you become when you make the call.
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    re .9
    
    
    From Octobers US Software Price List:
    
    Additional Customer Support Center Contacts allow the customer to
    register additional members of their staff as contacts for telephone
    support through the Customer Support Centers.  This service supplements
    the three Customer Support Center contacts included with System
    Support.  This service is ordered by operating system and includes all
    layered products running on the system.  Prerequisite is full telephone
    support provided with Decsystem Support, Basic System Support, or
    Software Support Service.
    
    Open VMS VAX          $200 Per Month
    Ultrix                $200 Per Month
    OpenVMS AXP           $200 Per Month
    DEC OSF/1 AXP         $200 Per Month
    
    -----------------------------
    
    Why is it important to know WHO might be calling for support?
    Without some form on contact control, we may as well open the Dec
    Charity Support Center. All it would take is access to an access number
    anywhere to get phone support.  There have been many occurances of 
    EX employees who remembered their old acess number calling in for
    continued support at their new employer who needs the support but
    doesn't want to pay for it. Lost revenue. Again, making paying
    customers wait while we service a non paying customer.
    
    Exports. Just who is it that you're providing service to anyways?
    We are at risk everytime we provide service to someone outside of the
    list provided by the customer.
    
    The contact list also provides some amount of security to the customer
    who may not want a student 'fixing' the OSF box. (I'm sure we'd all be
    completed floored if we could get stats on how many calls we get from
    students who are either hacking or working on a homework assignment).
    
    If you think that the way we SHOULD be providing service (assuming our
    contracts database was even close to accurate) try to think of another
    suport organization that you call on any kind of regular basis who
    would provide the kind of free for all service that Digital service.
    Can you picture calling your maytag repairman and the conversation
    going like this:
    
    Caller:   I need help with my washing machine
    Support:  Do you have a warranty number
    Caller:   Well, my Fridge is under warranty.
    Support:  Ok, what's that warranty number?
    Caller:   Well, it's not really MY fridge...
    Support:  Doesn't matter
    Caller:   And it's a Kenmore
    Support:  No problem
    Caller:   Oh, does it matter if the warranty expired?
    Support:  No ...our contracts database is so screwed up, you didn't
              never really had to purchase the warranty in the first
              place..
    Caller:   So I shouldn't bother buying a warranty for my washer or
              dryer or dishwasher or microwave oven or fridge or......?? 
    Support:  No way......we make so much money anyways, whats a few
              little warranty sales gonna do for us...
    
    This isn't so far off the mark....I took a call last night from a
    non contact who told me that he didn't work for the company but was an
    independant consultant.  He wanted us to help him install some software
    purchased from SUN.  He said that SUN wouldn't help him, but they told
    him to call us, since we probably would. When I made him the offer of
    charging $200 an hour, he laughed and said he'd just have someone else
    call back "tomorrow".  
    I had another customer last week who is a competitor for our software
    support services. They sell support contracts to OUR customers,
    obviously taking revenue from us. They have ONE access number with
    three contacts listed. I looked back thru their alls and found that 7
    OTHER people have been calling in for support under that access number.
    I also found that ALL of these calls were on THEIR customers systems.
    We are supporting THEIR customers. I spoke with one if their
    'specialists' and found that they were told (all of their specialists
    were told) that they should call DEC support with any customer problems
    that they could not solve. Looking thru their closed calls I found 
    several instances of our specialists dialing into THEIR customers
    systems and fixing the problem. Sounds like quite a scam to me. But we 
    never found it because we have a carte blanche to any and all callers.
    
    You're right in that alot of customers will use the old 'one name-10
    callers trick'. They are usually preetty easy to track down when the
    guy answers the phone "This is Joe" and you ask for Bill and he says
    "oh yeah, this is Bill". I know that we've ALL had this happen to us.
    We can't catch them all. But as it stands now, we are providing free
    service and support to more customers than you choose to believe.
    
    The stats say 50%+.  Taking away for legitimate contacts who have not
    been added to the database, the number looks more like 30% (based on
    conversations with customers who do not show up on the contact list and
    who tell me that they SHOULD be on the list--surprisingly, most of the
    folks NOT listed have no problems with saying that they are NOT
    contacts)....
    But until we FIX the databases, we will never KNOW how much money we're
    losing and how much free service we're spending time on.....

    Thanks for the interest this has generated. Just to reply to a
    few things:
    
    If there was any hint in my original note that the contract admin
    folks don't do a good job, it was not intended. I know what systems
    they work with, and as I told one today, if I had do do what they do,
    I'd be an ax murderer in about two weeks.
    
    And it appears I let my subscription to Computerworld run out about
    two weeks too soon. 
    
    All I can say is, let's hope it really gets fixed this time! And
    soon!
    

   I'd like to add a different twist to this string. I also provide customer
support to Digital customers. I support Financial Trading Systems out of our
New York office. In fact, the products that I support are unknown to our
support folks in Colorado Springs and Atlanta. We also have a very large
worldwide customer base. I can understand how the folks in the support centers
can get frustrated when a customer will call with problems on a product that
is unknown. I'm certain this hasn't been the case with our customer base, 
because we have our own support and maintenance agreements with these customers
and it's clear who they should call in the event of trouble. However, a good
number of calls that I get are for operating systems, networks and non product
related issues. Naturally, we would never refer the customer to Digital 
support without trying to solve the problem ourself and if we did refer them
to to the support center, in more cases than not, we call the support center
ourself in behalf of the customer. When this has been the case, the customer
has been satisfied with the response from Digital. So, from my corner of the
Digital world, I don't think that the situation is that bad, though there can
be some improvement.

Tony

    As an X contract administrator and now a CSC (Customer Support
    Consultant) the basenoter has REAL concerns.  I deal with customers
    daily with the same complaint.  Lets also remember, not only are the
    systems a disgrace, US Logistics (admin) has participated in almost
    every "right"sizing that has taken place.  The work keeps growing and
    there are few people left to do it.  Admin out of the ALF LSSC is
    outstanding, however, the turnaround times have decreased because of
    "transition".
    
    My hats off to all with similar problems.  BP is aware along with the
    SLT that the admin systems SUCK.  Since I've been here, the NEW admin
    system has been rumoured to be "here next year".  Thats 12 years of "we
    know it's broke and we're working on fixing it"; yet it ain't fixed
    yet.  I'm personally not holding my breath but trying to find resources
    that can "work around" the admin system issues.  My advice is to "do
    the same".
    
    -jp....
    

    
    re .14
    
    I wouldn't say that this is an 'all of a sudden' thing. I know that we
    (in the CSC) have been unhappy with our NON contract admin for at least
    the last 10 years.  I was red-faced-screamed-at in front of a cafeteria
    full of over a hundred of my peers by a senior level manager who told
    me NOT to worry about it.  Maybe if we'd done something about it
    10 years ago, we'd actually be MAKING money off of customers and not
    laying people off.  This has never been a trivial issue to those of us
    who see the abuse daily. When I started gathering stats, most of the
    folks on my team suggested that I was wasting my time, that they'd
    already fought this battle and lost.  This sounds like big governmen!
    Maybe the people who SHOULD have taken an interest in this and listened
    to the concerns are 'all of a sudden' waking up to the magnitude of
    this problem.
    

    re: .14
    
    Thats a whole nother story!!! There's a note a few back about the CSC's
    and their delivery/shipment problems.... You should read it just to
    know you're not alone....
    
    Now that the admin systems effect our DSO (which incorrect invoices
    ultimately do) it's getting the attention it deserves.  Everyone has to
    remember, it took us years to get this bad, it's gonna take time to get
    better.  
    
    Find out those resources.... Utilize the systems to their potential,
    add manual intervention, and it CAN (and does) work....
    
    -jp.........
    

Re: .1 About customer having to wait 5 weeks for Access Number.

I hope the local office and/or CSC is doing the right thing and providing 
the support the customer requires NOW. If not, please get me the name and 
number of the customer and I will do my best to help them. There is no reason 
our dismal admin systems should make us do stupid things. I wouldn't have even 
told the customer about the 5 weeks. I would just get their questions answered 
locally and then smoothly transition them to the CSC (if something couldn't be 
worked out sooner with the CSC).

Regards,

Jim Mickol
Senior Consultant
Xerox Acct Team
Rochester, NY
DTN 252-7106

About 10 years ago I was the system manager/jockey/support guy for SMART
(contracts admin. system in the field). CHAMP, too.

Now, as then, one of the problems (to me, anyway) still seems to be that
our admin systems lag behind business changes.

We invent some new 'DECrevive' service and promptly start selling it. The
admin system doesn't know about this gizmo, so the contracts admin person
has to put it in 'almost like DECawake', except mark it different in the
coverage hours field and put in this special comment, etc.; i.e. the admin
system has to be 'bent' or 'tricked' for new stuff that comes along... 
before long, the whole database is a hodgepodge of trick information and
make-do's. Then, try and base your call handling system on this and... 
well... good luck!!

Before we revamp our admin systems we will have to decide exactly what we
are doing, what our service offerings are and how we want to do business
with our customers. Figuring all of this out will be no easy task... it may 
be the largest part of the effort.

Lee

p.s. Maybe we should try the distributed client/server approach... 1 admin
system per office, contract admin people locally (i.e., back to the old 
days!). Central system can roll up/backup numbers each night. 

    
    re 16.
    I am a CSC, I read the note. Nice to know I am not alone and that, yes,
    everybody elses stuff is messed up too. Gee that's comforting. Real
    rosy future to know everything is a mess. Delivery, my system orders
    now get 4-5 ship dates. How's that for failure to delivery. And
    I escalate to VP levels only to be told "It's worse than you think".
     
    
    DSO..I told some sales reps about it and they replyed"So what next?"
    "So what else is new"
    
    
    Please don't preach to me the things I do best, which is to circumvent
    our systems to get things done. Yep, good old manual intervention to 
    do the job a computer program/system was supposed to do. 

re :.18

This has it just about right. There are tremendous problems with our 
systems because there are tremendous problems with our business processes.
I speak from the perspective of 12 years living and dying in the world of 
Admin. Systems.

We have admin systems that have tried (some valiantly, some not) to 
automate everything from the sublime to the ridiculous.

For instance: can anyone quote the pricing rules for services? how about
discount agreements? or something as "simple" as product numbers (the 
infamous DEC standard 12)?

The services admin systems are ~12 years old. They have been targeted for 
replacement for at least the last 10. The reasons they weren't replaced had 
much more to do with corporate politics, turf battles and chaotic processes
than technology.

We are living with contract administration systems that only understand the 
pre-1980 world of systems and options because we have been unable or 
unwilling to make the investments in business process and organization 
re-engineering that the new world required.

There is more than enough blame for everyone involved, both IS and 
business, and while ascribing blame will not solve the problem; not 
understanding it will cause the same disaters to be repeated yet again.

    I recall at least two instance, where named customers of ours, have
    pleaded with us, to take their money. First, a large Pharmaceuticals
    company told us, that they were under-paying their maintenance
    contract, and could we please send someone out to work with them, and
    audit what was covered, as they had $1.2M in escrow to pay for the
    service, but couldn't until they were invoiced. More recently, I heard
    of a telecommunications company, when pointed out that we were several
    million dollars behind in our invoicing of them...
    
    Q

    Being involved in the service delivery piece of this admin issue. From
    my seat there seem to be to many databases that do not interface with
    each other in a productive manner. If we could combine the
    champ/smart systems data into one live site, with backup sites in places
    for redundancy, then populate and maintain this one database, that would
    reflect the customer base for the US area or North America or what ever
    area. It would seem that digital and Customers would all benefit.
    
    William J Sevic
    Field/Customer/Multi-Vendor Customer Service Eng.

    I also do field customer support- used to be called sales support, now
    PSC. I have countless times tried to figure out just exactly what part
    number a customer must order to gain support service. Or to figure out
    just what level of support is provided for whatever contract a customer
    has.
    
    I have given it up as hopelss. 
    
    Just what should a customer order, for example to get CSC support for
    OSF/1? And exactly what level of support will he/she get?

>    Another part of the problem is that the CSC has their own set of 
>    databases and contract administrators in the field work off different
>    ones. At last count, there were something like 11 different SMART
>    systems which maintained these records.

The software contract databases used by the CSC are *manually* updated with
information from the field (e-mail sent to the CSC as .3 mentioned) while the 
hardware support contract database update mechanism is fully automated.  There 
is a 3-phase project to totally automate the software contracts database at 
the CSC with SMART db information so there is no manual intervention
necessary.  (I think it was still in Phase 1 when I last checked back in 
May '93.)

Part of Phase 1 includes checking the validity of 'suspicious' software 
contracts here at the CSC (i.e. no termination dates, contracts expiring in 
1999, etc.) and sending e-mail back to the SMART sites to respond back with
either valid dates or whether the contract has expired.  (These 'suspicious'
contract dates might be a result of how much of a pain contract renewals can 
be.... easier to do it once than having to renew info every year.  I'm 
speaking in historical terms ...just a thought.)  In two months, substantial
progress had been made in solving these 'suspicious' contracts and
decreasing the number of truly expired contracts from from the CSC database.

The project leader also mentioned something about time used in processing
contract renewals at SMART sites might not be considered 'productive' time 
(maybe .3 can confirm or deny).  So, if you are a semi-large to large 
customer and a contract renewal has to be done, the time it takes to renew 
(i.e. 40+ products) can be lengthy and is a hit against you in productivity 
reports.  Rhetorical: What would you do if productivity was a deciding 
factor in a TFSO?  Some may tend to remain productive while others "do-the-
right-thing".  (I think renewals counting against a person's productivity 
was going to be addressed, but I have not heard since I last spoke with the 
project leader back in May.  Again, someone can confirm.)

From what I remember, at the time, some sort of field testing had been 
occurring with all but the California SMART site (I spoke with the contract
administrator there before finding out they had been excluded.  She discussed
the problems in the process.  I cannot remember her name.  The project leader
said that he'd be glad to talk to her about the changes.  I called her back
and left voicemail stating that things were changing and the dtn of the 
project leader if she wanted to hear about them.).

(All this is from memory.  I tossed my notes out awhile back and I do not 
know the current status of this project.)

Dan

    I certainly agree about the delivery part of the contract admin issue 
    being an extremely broken process however I see daily an even larger 
    problem with the contracts and that is that it is next to impossible 
    to get a correct, understandable invoice for service to our poor customers.
    
    I'm now a Customer Support Consultant and need to solve access #
    issues, correct contract issues for delivery folks and also collect
    $ from customers who receive invoices that there is no rhyme nor reason
    to.... I do hope that corporate soon realizes that this is one of our 
    major problems and the fix MUST come soon!  I believe we have the most
    patient and tolerant customers in the world to put up with this so
    long.

...are the last to get new shoes" (or something like that).


Fwiw, on the US DECUServe system there are Notes conferences, and
customers on DECUServe have categorized this under the heading of
"Digital's Biggest Problem Is..." 

And I don't blame them a bit; we're a computer company touting networking, 
client/server technology, PC integration, communications, distributed 
computing, services & who knows what, and our internal systems are are best 
suited for the "museum of horrors" of data processing ;-)

Customers on DECUServe are among the most loyal ones, but many (due to this 
and other problems with Digital) are now heading towards the new definition 
of the CLD acronym (initially "Central Log Desk", nowadays often "Critical 
Level Disruption", but in many customer's mind "Customer Leaving DEC"!).

I've been with the company for 7 years now, and this has been obvious since
day one (my day one was in a telephone support center a.k.a. CSC ;-).

Maybe we should hire a company like EDS or Andersen Consulting to fix our
internal systems, so that we can continue selling similar services to
customers. If nothing else, the press would have a field day, and we'd
get the internal systems fixed ;-)

Simply amazing (almost a miracle) that the company functions at all, isn't it?


...petri

    This may be small comfort I know but all of this sounds very
    much like a classical BPR problem. BPR = Business Process Redesign.
    I personally have been (and still am) involved with a group that have
    been looking at and solving these kinds of problems for several years
    now in the service industries - in particular insurance. The processes
    there are also strongly administrative. The similarities go furthur in
    that the processes selected first for reengineering are the mission
    critical processes that directly impact the end customer: which is 
    exactly the kind of process under discussion here. Again, small
    comfort, but this kind of problem with this level of severity is far
    more prevalent than you might like to think.
    
    As we've been working this field for quite a few years we've discoverd
    a number of things a long the way some of which bear on the discussion
    here:
    
    * Consitency across the problem space. The processes tend to break in 
      the same way and show the same symptoms across industry. This is
      good news because it means:
    
    * Consistency of solution approach is possible. In other words, this is
      not a StarTrek mission. People have gone here before. 
    
    * Incremental solutions are possible. You don't have to BIG BANG this.
    You don't have to rip out all the legacy systems and start anew. Usage
    of explicit business process platforms/engines (also called workflow)
    is key to this. You reengineer (the "re" is often a euphemism :-) the
    process explicitly onto such a process platform and then start tying
    in the legacy systems to provide application and data services.
    
    There even a number of tried and tested prerequisites for fixing these
    kinds of processes. I'll mention just a few:
    
    - you need a recognition that the process is broken (generally not a
    problem)
    - you need a recognition that the process is important enough that it
    is worth fixing
    - most importantly: you need a process owner - a reengineering champion
    with very high seniority - without this failure is virtally guaranteed.
    
    I'm only looking at this from a 50000 foot level but because it sounds
    so suspiciously familiar I'm willing to put my foot in my mouth and
    give a time estimate about how long this will take to fix based on our
    experience in what appear to be similar circumstances if you start
    today: 15-18 months. The following breakdown is typical:
    
    - get the required team together with sufficient authority and scope
     i.e. define a set of process owners with sufficient clout (3 months)
    - carry out the process analysis and redesign (3 months)
    - prototype the redesigned process (3 months)
    - tie in legacy systems/pilot (3 months)
    - pilot/improve (3 months)
    
    If any of you out there have channels to escalate this to sufficiently
    high management I will be glad to point people to the right places to
    tap the expertise and technology within Digital to solve these kinds
    of problems (after all if external customers come to us instead of
    Arthur Anderson to solve these kinds of problems I guess internal
    customers shouldn't be too shy :-).
    
    Following is a list of some of the notes conferences where the
    technology and expertise I was talking about is discussed.
    
    
    For workflow/business process platforms you could look at HLDE01::ECHO
    and HLDE01::CASEWORKS (products that I am involved with). For
    expertise discussions/access SNOCO2::BPR and GVPROD::CONSULTANTS
    come to mind as places where these issues come on the table. There
    are by all means other products and services that aare relevant but in
    any case these conferences can point you to others if you're
    interested.
    
    I hope that some of this can bring us furthur in qualifying the problem
    and quantifying the solution.
    
    re roelof
    
     i..e

    Hey, we were telling management that this was a problem 10 years ago.
    It just isn't perceived to be a big enough problem, until we loose all
    of our business...
    
    q
    

    fwiw, Ed Lucente, in a message to the field, recently stated that our
    problems with admin systems are seen by the SLT as one of our BIGGEST
    problem areas.  Ed indicated that this is a very high priority area for
    a fix.  Hope they can get it done.
    
    I have been with Digital for 7.5 yrs and have been in IS industry for
    20+ yrs.  I distinctly remember being stunned by the complexity of our
    hardware, software, and service products when I joined the company. 
    It's no wonder our admin systems are screwed up.  They are only a
    reflection of our business practices.
    
    I admire all our you people in the CSC's.  Your jobs have been very
    difficult and in most every case you handle our customers with poise and
    tact.  Keep up the good work and the faith.

re: .27

You are right and wrong. Right in the general statement, wrong in your 
understanding of DEC in this area.

The people that have tried to fix these problems have been the IS folks
reacting to the screams of the users in the field; HOWEVER, the people 
with the power have consistently:

1. failed to recognize that the process is broken. These problems have
   been addressed as IS construction problems.

2. Since there is no recognition at appropriate levels that the process 
   is broken any push from below (IS , the field) is resented.

3. There is no single owner at any level for any of our processes.
   Pricing in the services has consistently varied from district
   to district, for example.

    re: .27,.30
    
    So does anybody know who the 'right people' are to make aware of
    the problem and how to do so? Is anybody reading this note involved?
    (Wouldn't it be great if BP himself replied next!)
    

    I know!  I say we let Hillary fix the problem, as soon as she's done
    with health care!
    
    Sorry... couldn't resist injecting a teensy-bit of humor... 8)
    
    John

    As a former contract administrator for 3 1/2 years and now a CSC, the
    #1 problem is the SMART system we use.
    #2 problem is the complexity of digital's p/n's & sftwr service
    offerings.
    #3 problem is lack of competent managers who 'know' how both #1 & #2
    affect total individual performance and productivity.
    #4 problem is TFSO that keeps eliminating the individual contributors
    BEFORE the other problems are fixed, thereby creating a larger workload
    on the individual CA, causing further dents in perf/productivity.
    #5 Digital senior management failing to utilize products/solutions it
    sells to customers to fix their own internal dp/imt problems.
    #6 MORALE is TERRIBLE!

re: .33

Close.  #1 is the fact that the managers in charge think that SMART "runs 
the business".

The folks in IS that have been trying to change it for the last x years 
know that the reps run the business in spite of SMART.

    
     One thing I have said in the past is the field is ran by a flawed 
     (being nice to it) piece of software. 

    My last call of the evening was from a sales rep trying to help
    a business partner quote a 3 year maintenance contract.  She wanted
    to know why she wasn't seeing any discounts for the multi-year
    contract.  Since I handle SW primarily I checked with a co-worker
    who had been in contracts; I was told "oh, the customer can definitely
    get a discount for a multi-year contract, SMART will calculate it
    automatically".  
    
    This was a sales rep using AQS (and trying to get the quote to
    the customer tonight); bottomline rep would have to have someone quote
    it using SMART tomorrow :-(
    

    Someone should extract this entire note and mail it to Palmer and
    Lucente. It is absurd that a mess as big as this has been in place as
    long as this. But of course, managers can extract their well know
    reports that show how good they are doing, keep patting themselves on
    the back with them, and believe things are just fine.
    

    This nonsense of not being able to produce a invoice that the customer
    can understand (mostly all service related) is one of the major reasons
    why Digital does not get paid on time, it cost us millions.  From not
    being able to satisfy the customer, so they will pay us on time, to
    the embarassament of being a computer company that can not keep it's
    contracts straight, it makes one wonder.
    
    There is good news on the horizon, we will be re-vamping our systems,
    the bad news is it will take 2-3 years, and it cost a lot of money
    to do.  Let's hope we can hang on until it does.
    
    

#1 problem is the SMART system we use

NO! In Europe, most of the countrys are already use the SPACE system, which
should be used in the rest of the world soon, acording to my knowledge.

In Germany we use the SPACE system since July 1993. I can't honestly say
that my work is easier since then. 

Some problems still exist, some are fixed, new arised. The people who
designed SPACE had great ideas but didn't think to the end. The only thing
I always hear is, that with the next SPACE version, the problems are solved.
Time will tell because I always heard things like that since I'm with
Digital. 

The Systems we use ARE a big problem but not the only one. Is it realy
necessary to administer contracts line-item by line-item? Wouldn't it be
easier to make standart contracts for standart systems with flat-rates?
The customers I spoke to are fed up receiving huge amounts of paper work
with zillions of terminals, printers, DECservers etc. etc., checking
serial numbers amounts of memorys, DECservers, terminals, printerst etc.

One of the reasons a lot of customers thinking of changing there service-
partner (TPM's) is that the TPM's are making standart contracts with flat
rates. They are able to say, you have this and that system, we offer you
this and that service for that amount and after one year we will see what
you have installed newly and what was deinstalled, fixing a new amount.

Another problem seems to be, that most of the contract administrators have
not the technical backound to understand what they are administrating and
I don't see a way to change this because we have simply to much products.

Just my 2 cents.

Stefan� 

    #1
    
    SMART is the #1 reason why contract administrators have difficulties. 
    The number of manual fixes decrease productivity and increase the
    turnaround time.
    
    #2
    
    There are a handful of accounts in the US that are not billed per line
    item.  Customized invoices, utilizing spreadsheets, facilitates
    payment.  Of course, the trade-off is the tremendous amount of manual
    re-work that the CA needs to perform.  
    
    One of these days, someone on the SLT will have a bright idea and
    discover that we sell the products, solutions and services to rectify
    this problem - and not in 2-3 years, but now!

>SMART is the #1 reason why contract administrators have difficulties.

As I said before, I work with SPACE since July 1993 and worked before that
time with SMART. I still have difficulties. Some are fixed, some still exist,
others arised... 

Stefan�

    
    Is SPACE similar to SMART?  Can you give a brief description.  Thanks
    
    
    Mike

	SMART is NOT the problem!  IT IS THE MOST VISIBLE SYMPTOM!

	The people in charge of defining the contract admin. processes
	do not think that there is a significant problem.

	The last effort to replace SMART with an up-to-date
	system was killed by one simple fact, the attitude of the
	business people in charge (these are not in the field).

	It can be summed up in one direct quote from the person 
	in charge of the project...


	"What do you mean, Make it work like SMART, isn't enough
	of a functional spec for you?"

	This individual is gone but the attitude remains.
	There is a large bureaucracy that has grown up around the
	current dysfunctional processes that has a vested interest
	in the continuation of those processes.

    Symptoms of broken processes include:
    
    * High complexity, many exceptions, numerous special cases.
    * Redundancy, many handoffs, extensive information exchange
      between process players and between process phases
    * High ratio of checking, control and rework with respect to
      client value adding activity
    * Buffers of unprocessed work, high ratio of lead time to actual
      processing time.
    
    re roelof

What is SPACE:

Within Europe SPACE (Service Portfolio Administration of Contracts for Europe),
is the successor of SMART. Within the discussion you've to be aware that
the SMART used in the USA is a different SMART than the one used (on a few
sites still) in Europe.

The basics of the both systems were equal but divided over the years.

SPACE is chosen in the GCS (Global Common Solutions) as the obligation 
management tool (service contract registration).

For you who don't know what GCS is:

MCS Global Common Solutions is and MCS/L&SS program to bring Digital
worldwide on the same applications, this is divided in two phases (I won't
give any dates because they are not really clear), but about another 2 years
before SPACE is live world wide.

GCS-1 
Europe - SPACE (obl. mgt) - NICE (call mgt) - FLS (logistics)
US     - SPACE - CHAMP/CSC CHAMP/FLD - what's the US logistics (FLS?)
APA    - CORE/ENCORE evolution towards SPACE which is integrated system

GCS-2

SPACE - CHAMP (enhanced) - probably FLS

plus
SAP/R3 as the Order Admin systems replacement

SPACE:

SPACE is an RDB/ACMS/DECforms application. It's designed the way the new
MCS services menu is designed.

Basically it's what SMART does:

Customer / Location / Contact / System / Option / Contract / Service type
data.

It's a bit different in the US where the customer and location data comes
from their Customer and Location master file(s).

The differences are in a nutshell:

- SPACE is an relational application. 
- SPACE works with scrolled lists (don't have to know anything) get the scrolled
- list an pick what you want
 
SPACE works with service products and service product attributes which are
called offers and deliverables/modifiers

A short example:

MVAX2 - 12345, customer buys hardware service, 7 days, 24 hours
MVAX2 - 23456, customer buys hardware service, 5 days, 8 hours

A service product for hardware is needed lets assume DSS

5 modifiers are needed 

COMF1 = coverage monday/friday
COSA1 = coverage saturday
COSU1 = coverage sunday
GRTM1 = 24 hors
GRTM2 = 8 hours

Attach the correct modifiers to the DSS and that's what's needed.
The change is that only one hw service is needed and that the obligation
to the customer is done via the modifiers.

The invoicing problem is a know problem for Digital world wide.
The difference between SPACE and SMART invoicing is that SPACE holds history
while the European SMART doesn't hold any history and CORE (APA) and SMART (US)
hold a bit of history for invoicing.

Attached to SPACE there is CSR (which is the invoicing module). The extract
from SPACE --> CSR contains almost any data field in the SPACE database.
This means, and that's the way Europe uses it, is that there are as many invoice
layouts possible as there are contracts. 

Within Europe, Holland, which was the first country live, this has decreased
the >50% invoices not paid in time to appr 4% 

The invoices + plus an European Kontract/Invoice-print project, will help
the customer in understanding the invoice and the contract print.

Of course the World Wide Obligation Program Management Team is aware of the fact
that a significant amount of enhancement is needed on SPACE to support the
US and APA requirements. On senior management level there is chosen for
evolution and not revolution to implement SPACE world wide.

I've read all the notes with interest and I understand what you all are 
complaining about. I've started in Holland at the Field Service Contract
Administration so none of the complaints are new. This is the same in APA/
Europe/US. At this moment I'm a  member of the WW obl. mgt. program team
and working as an admin business consultant for the European organisation.

We all know the complaints about policies/procedures etc. I'm writing a
lot of new procedures for Europe, using existing ones world wide but these
procedures will be guidelines how to register exceptions. There is nothing
against not following them. It's an advice how to register as simple as 
possible.

Eventhought I know most of the used applications in service admin and
call handling in US/APA/Europe and work with SPACE for a hell of a lot of
years I've to say, honestly, like the person from Germany.

SPACE is a change, changes are always difficult. I won't solve every problem,
might bring some new ones but it's a hell of a lot better than what's existing
in the world today. This is the basic functionalities. We are very well
aware that a lot of local development in the US and APA has to be brought into
SPACE or at least analysed if SPACE fulfills that what the local development 
does.

The good thing out of this program is that it has senior corporate VP attention,
very high attention and that it's a cooperation of all the MCS environment.
Nobody does anything before anybody else is informed.

The end goal is that the call management and obligation management application
become a truely client/server model. Like CORE already is for a part.

Why is CORE or SMART not chosen: None of these two applications supports the
MCS services menu as SPACE does. For those who are interested it's all part
which came with the Customer Value Chain.  


For documentation about SPACE please contact your coordinator or whatever.

For more questions enter them here.

Ciao,

Michiel

    
    
    
    Well, .45 is somewhat encouraging!
    
    In case anybody in the company still doubts whether or not this is a
    real problem, note the following from the 1/94 "DEC Professional"
    magazine, page 63.

    "Dealing with DEC II: It took about five passes, but the
    hardware/software maintenance contract for my new VAXstation appears to
    be correct. How do large sites cope with this? A DEC employee on
    CompuServe commented that in 19 years he's never seen a contract go
    through OK on the first try. Funny way for a 'customer-driven' company
    to operate."

    And guess where they got this from. The Internet. Groan... And there's 
    more on that page in the magazine too.
    

The article, I didn't see it, but I'm familiar with the same kind of
articles, is what's killing. But it might be a comfort. We're not as
bad as our competitors. It seem to be a general problem throughout the
computer industry. Which isn't an excuse, just an explanation.

The problem, at least in Europe is that everybody tries to blaim everyone 
else for whose fault it is. It is more a problem of communication between
functions (Sales, Services, Admin etc) than a problem of people not doing
their work. 

As long as we don't supply sales and services people with the right equipment,
quotes and contracts will probably never be correct the first time. SPACE
will not solve incorrect contracts, it's still humans depending on other
humans to get the correct information of what a contract should look like.

Other problems, on which people in the world are working very hard are the
links between Order Admin & Services Admin and Per Call Invoicing are in 
most cases manual work. Offers coming back from sales and services are
handwritten.

The option types (products) are almost not to understand for normal human
beings. (who invented that format?) Maybe SAP/R3 will solve a part of this
since the product type is 18 characters instead of 9. 18 is EDI standard as
far as I know. 

I will not help to change applications and leave policies and procedures the
way they are. 

The US implemented something which they call LSSN (LSS network). Something
like senior administrators are placed within the CBU's (or whatever the name is)
to deal with every admin issue there is. Is there anybody here who has 
experience with this? I'm interested on behalf of Europe.

Instead of simplifying things we do the opposite (PC & Storage warranty),
Serial number tracking, which should be fairly simple with the data stored
in manufacturing, but the links between Manufacturin and Admin are failing.

Most applications are out-of-date, for years. 

All this is recognized by senior management, the only thing is that changes
always cost money. And we all know how much money there is. 

I'm not promising anything, but at least management is aware of the problems
escalated by the people who do the work (CSC's, admin, sales, services).

GCS is step in the good direction. Eventhough it might cost some money,
it will save a lot in the long run when the total corporation uses the same
applications world wide. This will allow us to do global business with 
global customers.

A whole lot of corporate project are running at the same time to make doin'
business with Digital easy. 

Pricing differs to much around the world. This is known and will be solved for
a great deal by the MCS menu.
SPS simplification, get rid of QT-numbers. 
MCS menu
GCS 
SAP/R3

The only shame is that it took so long. As I said if anybody is interested
in SPACE let me know.

SPACE will not solve the problems, but what's learned from experience by 
implementing SPACE in Europe together with CSR (invoicing) and SPORT for 
reporting is that we have visibility of the problems. This way they can be 
addressed and solved, and that's what's happening eventhough it might not
be visible in the countries immediately. 

Ciao,

Michiel

    RE: -.1
    
    The LSSN people directly associated with the CBU are now called
    Customer Support Consultants.  The Logistics Services Support Network
    is a network of 7 centers throughout the US that support the admin
    business, i.e., contracts, orders, registrations, etc.  The CSC's in
    the field support Digital's customers from the initial phone call
    through to delivery and installation and assist the Quality Base
    Management organization with the warranty conversions, etc., i.e.
    installed base.  The CSC's are now transitioning all CR (formerly known
    as AR or Accounts Receivable, now known as Customer Receivables) work
    to those CSC's now in the field.  We are measured on many aspects of
    the business, i.e., DSO, Customer Satisfaction (surveys), results based
    on our Customer Support Agreement with the Branch/District Sales
    Manager, etc.
    
    If you'd like more info, I have some documentation I can share. 
    Contact me at DTN 360-3241.  I'll look forward to hearing from you.
    
    Toodles.....Joan P. Scriven @TLH ODIXIE::SCRIVEN