Conference 7.286::digital

re Note 2901.0 by ICS::DONNELLAN:

>     This playing field is brought about by the inaccessibility of data at   
>     all of our customer sites.  Top managers do not have and cannot get in   
>     a timely manner all of the information necessary to run their
>     businesses.  Since Digital's key software products run on multiple    
>     platforms, not just our own, then we are well positioned to take    
>     advantage of this customer need.  Furthermore, it gives us a story to   
>     tell at the highest levels of these organizations.  Indeed, because we   
>     are better positioned than our competitors, it gives us a compelling   
>     story to tell that can further enhance our image and viability as a   
>     company in the eyes of our customers.          
  
        I would like to hope and believe that the above is true.  The
        group (in IM&T) in which I now work is trying to address
        these same problems and issues for Digital internal
        information.

        One problem I have is the sheer volume and apparent
        complexity of our "client/server" offerings.  The number of
        products recently announced is staggering in itself.  I know
        that I could only learn enough about a small fraction of them
        in order to evaluate them for our work.

        I think that there is a real risk that we may win the
        "robustness" war when our customers and our competitors may
        be drawn towards simplicity instead.  The time may be coming
        for forgoing certain features in the underlying mechanisms in
        order to have tools and platforms that mere mortal
        implementors can learn and really understand.

        There is another problem that I often see in our (Digital)
        software offering.  Coverage is often less than complete
        across all platforms and services.  As an example, I think
        the only services we really, really need for internal
        information distribution are included in X.500 and OSF DCE. 
        But complete functionality and platform coverage have been
        slow in coming (but I think are nearly here).  One cannot
        use, for example, LinkWorks to make up for a certain DCE
        server function being unavailable on a certain platform.

        We need to make sure that the very basic services are
        completely implemented.

        We need effective targeting and segmentation in our
        client/server offerings.

        Bob

    re .0
>If that is true, then   
>    Digital, more than any other vendor, has an opportunity to capitalize   
>    on the opportunity because our products (like Linkworks, Object works,   
>    etc.) are at least a generation ahead of what is available from HP or   
>    IBM.          
    
    
    And nearly two years ago, the Alpha AXP was "nearly a generation" ahead
    of the competitors..
    
    t.

    As I was taking Mr. Donovan's training, two thoughts kept going through
    my mind:
    
    1.  Where are the resources to deliver client/server consulting
        services on any type of significant scale?
    
    	In my opinion, even Mr. Donovan was unable to clearly articulate
    what Digital's opportunity is.
    
    
    2.  What was our SLT's reaction when they took the training?  Mr.
    Donovan specifically referred to four strategies that never work when a
    company is in trouble:  downsizing, brand naming, rstructuring, and
    protectionism.  Seems like we've been focused on the first three
    strategies for the last several years.  
    
     

Re .-1

I believe that protectionism was, where Digital started from in early times,
when VAXes started to show some success. I worked for a Digital OEM for 14
years and had good experience from this

Examples:

	-No availability of DECnet standards for external developers -
	 others had to do something else -> they did TCP/IP. There were
	 probably other reasons for this, but Digital's business policies 
	 certainly had a role there.

	-No permissions/lisencies to do development for BI-bus (and later to
	 other technologies) to external developers -> everything had to be 
	 done inhouse -> third parties concentrated in developing for other 
	 platforms.

	-Regular warnings from Digital's sales people and specialists of
	 horrors of selecting/using anybody elses HW and SW with Digital
	 platforms, because others don't know enough of Digital's proprietary
	 products and better solutions are coming anyway some day from Digital
	 -> more and more OEMs used other platforms if they could.

The list could go on but most of you know that anyway. This also created
negative attitudes towards Digital. Results of that can be seen.

--Ritva

    CLient server is a great buzz word. Talk about implementation
    and code writing and the $$$ involved and it loses its gleam.
    We have very few internal people capable of delivering true
    client server to our customers, unless we convince them
    that an X-window session qualifies or that putting an application
    on a server so that multiple stations can use it is the answer.
    Kind of like COSE. Nice idea but try implementing it fully...
    
    			-Jim-

    
    John Donovan's Medicine Show is a blessing and a curse at the same
    time.  He provides a wonderful opportunity for closing sales and
    setting customer expectations unreasonably high.
    
    Without the right resources, this a a formula for failure.
    
    JMHO
    
    -Ed
    

    I agree completely.

    re:  last two
    
    The question then becomes:  Is this the opportunity that we should
    through resources at?  HP gambled and won when they bet on their risc
    architecture just as we did with VAX and DECnet.  Is this the same kind
    of opportunity?

As hinted in .1,

I think "client/server" is a small piece of a larger trend we haven't
internalized.

The most important task for computers today is to organize information
so it's easier to use and communicate it effectively.  The most significant
computing trend of the last five years is "user centered design".  This
actually encompasses "client/server".  If we try to deliver client/server
solutions without user centered design, we will have little success.

Our current Alpha strategy as articulated to the engineering community
is not encompassing enough for two important reasons:  (1) CPU performance
is no longer a dominant factor in the cost of information systems and
hasn't been for some time; (2) Alpha does not relate to the work most
employees need to do.

As leaders we have two critical tasks: first, to develop and articulate
exactly what the company is trying to accomplish; and second, to create
an environment in which employees can figure out what needs to be done
and then do it well.

To remain a significant player in the computer industry, we need to
address the big market, that is, the public at large, with technology
that responds to real public concerns.

I challenge everyone concerned with Digital's future direction to
ask the Big Questions.  What is needed on the planet at this time,
and what can we do to help?

- Peter

re .9

>Our current Alpha strategy as articulated to the engineering community
>is not encompassing enough for two important reasons:  (1) CPU performance
>is no longer a dominant factor in the cost of information systems and
>hasn't been for some time; (2) Alpha does not relate to the work most
>employees need to do.

And when it does, nobody thinks through what the implications are.

>To remain a significant player in the computer industry, we need to
>address the big market, that is, the public at large, with technology
>that responds to real public concerns.

>I challenge everyone concerned with Digital's future direction to
>ask the Big Questions.  What is needed on the planet at this time,
>and what can we do to help?

I would go a step further: Who are we trying to help?  We are not market 
focused, and so we leap at technical answers to poorly defined questions.  
And no, I don't mean our organizational structure, I mean simply, who's 
needs are we trying to address?

I suspect that as we talk about Clint/Server, the needs we are addressing 
are our own.  

When we talk about getting specific types of information to specific types
of users in a specific timeframe in a specific manner, we are starting to
address customer needs.  If we can not articulate why we are doing what we
are doing, and if we can't put a value on it for a potential customer, then we
should not be doing it.  Client/server without a need is much like
artificial intelligence was a decade ago.  Interesting, not profitable. 

And yes, this requires doing hard work like forecasting how many customers 
there are, how many we can sell to, what they will pay, and then all the 
internal engineering work as well.  When we start with the internal 
engineering, and then try to find users, we end up with less than optimal 
company performance.

Matt

    For a long time I have recognized that I have never met a customer who
    said, "I need a computer using client/server technology to ...".  Every
    customer that I meet, has a specific problem, such as I can't get my
    product to market quickly enough.  Investigation then shows that the
    bottle neck is possibly lack of information in production control. 
    Further search shows that they have stand-alone computers, etc. 
    Finally, we are getting closer to what the customer needs - a solution
    for his specific problem.  As .10 said, we need to do a lot of work to
    find out how may potential customers have a need for a particular
    problem solution, how we could address it, how much would it cost, how
    many of them would buy it, etc.
    
    Talking about client/server, alphas, OO is not going to do it.  We must
    deliver specific solutions.

That's exactly it ! 'client/server, alphas, OO' are only technology enablers.
That used to be the old Digital market. 

I think the only CONCRETE way of shifting (beyond the box...) and to be able to
quickly solve customers problems, Digital will need to build a repository of
implementation independent integrated reusable software solutions and populate
it with quality services (that would make the Digital difference).
Unfortunately for many reasons, Digital is going too slow to reach this goal.
It's hard to say but the simplest reusable services such as adding two numbers
are still not available at Digital store in 1994.

However it is not too late. 

Regards,
Jean
    

    So where is the big profit opportunity for Digital?
    
    Hardware and software that plays in a client/server environment?
        --  Probably not: profit margins are too small.
    
    Consulting to help customers implement client/server?
       --  PRobably, if we had the resources and packaged, value priced
           consulting services to offer.  
    
    

    re -1
    " Digital will need to build a repository ofimplementation independent
    integrated reusable software solutions and populateit with quality
    services (that would make the Digital difference)."
    
    And if we were able to do that, we would then have a distinct advantage
    over the competition?  Is there enough value in that approach to
    warrant organizing the company to take advantage of the opportunity?
    

re: .12, .14

The repository of software that you chaps are speaking of will be a by-product
of Digital from listening to customers and providing solutions.  You can't design
solutions and then go solve problems.  That is the same old non-profitable 
Digital we're trying to change.

cw

I was recently talking to a rather bright internal engineer who has been 
told that we are not going to engineer any "industry specific" solutions, 
that we are going to concentrate on building "system level" stuff.  While I 
am sure that may make some managers happy in that nobody has to fight over 
limited resources, the next step seems missing.  Simply, who is going to 
focus on working with the companies that ARE industry focused?

We aren't getting hardware to the SW developers, and we aren't creating a 
simple ordering mechanism for partners, so I hope something beyond my ken 
is being done.

I rather doubt that selling general hardware to a large company without 
some strategic alliances with the major solution vendors will have any 
chance of success.  I understand that in the 6 months the CBUs existed 
with any strong portfolio they did not turn the tide of indifference to 
Digital, but how is a pure product focus going to it?  

I understand our love of consulting - the business that is going to save
us.  Naturally we think this because it is a business we have no
understanding of and therefore must be just waiting for our appearance.  I
have yet to see any numbers published that show our method of consulting to
be profitable when the cost of sales is included in the calculus.  We like 
the Anderson model, forgetting the huge base of customers and referals they 
derive from the accounting group.  We like what Delloitte and Touche have 
done, ignoring their tight industry focus and again the links to other 
parts of their business.

If the PC model is actualy the proper model for all hardware 
purchases, then focusing on consulting is exactly the wrong thing to do.  
If we are doing both to hedge our bets, i.e. customers either want lots of 
handholding, or they want absolutely no hand holding then I suggest we do 
not know to whom we are selling.

I would love to see some real business plan for the company.  What are we 
trying to make, who are we selling to, why they want to buy what we have, a 
$0 base budget supporting the model, and all the costs associatted with the 
model.  We may even have a few business models, but reorging existing 
groups to reach ever changing goals smells like indecision.  Perhaps a 
total lack of focus.

I suspect that the new SME organization was created to have a 
territorial/industrial focus.  Connect to the VARS/VADS/OEMs/Manufactureres 
Reps that sell to the industries that are important in a particular 
district.  This does allow for focus, but it means we focus at the area 
code/sic code level, and have little chance of duplicating success unless 
a large infrastructure is created to spread the word.  Have we built a 
Lotus Notes like support tool so we don't have to have a personnel intensive 
system?  I have not seen a tool that allows joint working on spread sheets 
and documents, let alone true work sharing.

I know it must be tough to be a middle manager like the CBU Veeps or the 
Systems Business Veeps and to focus on solving a set of real problems, but 
if they don't, or aren't allowed to, Digital willnot recover by suffling 
us peons.

Matt

    re: .16
    
    >and we aren't creating a  simple ordering mechanism for partners, so I
    >hope something beyond my ken  is being done.
    
    Electronic ordering (among many other things) for our partners via
    DECgenisys is in external field test.  
    
    Bob
    

    To -2
    In fact, the need for industry specialization is understood, and that
    is precisely the role of the Industry segments (aka CBU - same people,
    same job, new name). These industry groups acquire or develop
    applications and build marketing plans for them, and then communicatoe
    to the territories the applications that are available. They provide
    training and education to the territories in the industry and in the
    applications. And, they help the territories, when asked, with industry
    related issues. Which is pretty much what the CBU's have been doing for
    the last 12-15 months.

�You can't design solutions and then go solve problems.  
�That is the same old non-profitable Digital we're trying to change.

This is not true.
You are mixing component solutions called services which are mainly (however
not exclusively) industry or business specific and solving problems by simply
configuring these build block solutions. So yes the purpose is to build these
building blocks in an integrated environment to achieve re-usability and
sharability and to propose Digital services boxes.

Digital (and the competitors too) do own a plethora of such services and
algorithms in many industry domains but they are not integrated. Because of
this lack of integration the wheel has to be re-invented over and over so
solving business problems always require IS experts while customers are looking
for simpler, less expensive and fast or in other words quality solutions.

The lack of integration is obvious internally within Digital. We are almost all
guilty of such bad situation but it is easy to prove that IS, engineering and
people in charge of technology evolution should feel more responsible for not
having provided us earlier with such an integrated environment. There is no
consensus on API's which are most often static and independent provided they
exist or are made available. Their usage or documentation do not meet the
customer expectations. There is no unique integrated services repository within
Digital.

Today I still cannot get the description of a part number by simply asking
(from any platform) :
	"INVOKE DIGITAL_PARTS FOR PART RD32-A AND RETURN DESCRIPTION"

(By the way, who and how can one state that a customer problem is 'real' or 
not ?) 
So to solve this problem, an average IS would need days, a good IS would need
hours, an IS expert may need minutes. The true problem is that in all cases the
intervention of an IS person is required. And most often the wheel will be
re-invented through one more specific implementation with non standardised
interfaces and it's unlikely that the service provided will be perfect.
Whatever one might say, the added value of such essentially accessibility and 
connectivity work is NONE. This is not affordable especially in view of the
simplicity of the problem to solve. 

On the contrary, the integrated framework would allow the user to instantly
solve the problem by instantly being able to execute the reusable service and
benefit from the last improvements performed by the best experts.

The Digital difference and opportunity would be to fast propose and establish a
strong QUALITY integration framework, platform independent and then to offer a
large choice of quality dynamically interchangeable services in the widest
areas. While the service construction including continuous service improvement
is a matter of both hardware and software specialists, the purpose of the
framework is to give the ability to any users to solve by themselves the
problems by simply configuring, reusing and benefiting from the best in class
existing services. 

Quality services mean among other rich functionality, fast performance, cheap.

Achieving this for sure is very hard but the risks are low. It could again be
seen as a concrete opportunity if the commitment was a little bit stronger.

Regards,
Jean

    

    re: .19
    
    Sounds like the religion for software/service repository or the glitz
    and hoopla over OO.  It all sounds fine and good but for either of the
    mentioned disciplines to work you need a strongly defined set of rules,
    just the sort of thing we've never been able to agree on internally.
    
    In order to integrate all of the solutions that are in the company
    'basket' you'd probably have to re-organize the whole mess; hey, now
    there's a novel idea!
    
    cw

In .9 I challenged everyone concerned with Digital's future direction
to ask the big questions:  What is needed on the planet at this time,
and what can we do to help?

I'd now like to present some of my own thinking on this subject.
Before I do, allow me to set a constructive context.

  Digital is a large complex organization with many facits.  It would be
  simplistic to think that any one technical direction can sustain the
  whole organization.  There are a lot of good people at Digital who are
  working very hard to make us successful.  A lot of good things are
  being done.  The purpose of a broad vision is to help everyone at
  Digital see their role in a way that enables us to work together
  more effectively.

  Let's be gentle.  It's easy to see things that aren't working.
  It's much harder to articulate a new direction that will engage
  people in doing what is needed to heal the system.  None of us
  can do it alone.  If we're too hard on each other, we won't find
  the courage to do it all.

What are the Big Questions?

I won't take your time with a list of crises.  As I see it, we are confronting 
systemic limits yet we act as though there are no limits and we can do 
whatever we want.

    "Surveying the current world scene, one is driven to believe
    that wholeness incorporating diversity is the transcendent goal
    of our time, the task for our generation worldwide."
                                    - John Gardner
                                  "Rebirth of the Nation,"
                                    USA TODAY, July 1993

If we accept this premise, how would this affect our strategy?

We would need to think in terms of minimizing waste across the whole system 
instead of maximizing output and minimizing cost.  This is the essence of SIX 
SIGMA and other TQM approaches.  No more shifting-the-burden.  No more low 
value differentiation.

We would be forced to think in terms of creating sustainable information 
technology.  Affordable systems that empower ordinary people.  Systems that 
don't require complex administration or learning to operate.  Systems that 
perform their task well and just work, and work, and work.  Systems that
extend human creativity rather than just automating human work which
is so alienating.

We would embrace computers as commidities.  By admitting that computers can
no longer be marketed as new, unique, or novel, we would turn away from our
inward focus and take a deeper look at the real world and its customers.
It's a commidity.  We can no longer dictate what technologies our customers
may or may not want.

We would feel individual responsibility for making sure that each of our
customers received the best service possible, realizing that every
customer interaction builds equity that is vital to our future success.

We would be pushing the envelope of telecommuting.  Approximately one third of 
all the energy consumed in the United States is used for transportation.  This 
is an opportunity for business and technology with a potentially huge payoff.

We would focus our best efforts to build products that consume less energy, 
last longer, are manufactured responsibly, and are easy to disassemble and 
recover when their useful life is over.

As I said earlier, to remain a significant player in the computer industry,
we need to address the big market, the public at large, with technology that
responds to real public concerns.  

No single dominant trend has emerged for the next five years, but 
sustainability, customer centered service, and reduced environmental
impact will certainly be important ones.

Our strongest competitors are driven by a vision to change the world.
Let's make our mark by serving both our customers and the planet.

- Peter

re .18
>    In fact, the need for industry specialization is understood, and that
>    is precisely the role of the Industry segments (aka CBU - same people,
>    same job, new name). These industry groups acquire or develop
>    applications and build marketing plans for them, and then communicatoe
>    to the territories the applications that are available. They provide
>    training and education to the territories in the industry and in the
>    applications. And, they help the territories, when asked, with industry
>    related issues. Which is pretty much what the CBU's have been doing for
>    the last 12-15 months.

I would think that any time you reorganize and advertise the change, you 
are saying you do not understand the need for the old way.  I strongly 
suspect that there is little agreement that there is a need for industry 
specialization.  I haven't heard about the Industry segments, but as a 
member of a CBU (albeit a geographically challenged member:) ) I see little 
focus on industries happening.  I will agree that there is focus on ISVs 
that sell to an industry. 

Having the VPs of sales from CBUs move to the field may or may not be a 
good thing, but change after 6 months implies that either the system was 
obviously broken, or we hate to build on a consistant base.

My partner does not believe we are industry focused based on wht he reads 
today, and based on actions that happen.  We recently had an SME event in 
Texas, and the partner was invited through a group in Digital he had never 
heard of, and was told "oh, the CBUs?  They were blasted and now we are 
geographically based."  Luckily the sales rep and I heard through the grape 
vine about the event and had prepared our contacts for the coming 
invitation.

re .21
I understand the issues you raise, but if we can not focus on simple 
issues, I honestly doubt we can focus on major shifts in the economy.  
Heck, we can't even predict the short term economy as well as Sun and HP, 
why should we think we can predict the changes in basic transportation, 
telecommunications, power distribution, and work breakdown?  

Once we prove we can be a successful perveyor of machines and customer 
acceptable solutions in a repeatable fashion, then I can see examining 
issues at the "megatrends" level.  Even SRI has cut from 35 Futurists to 
only 1 now.

Using your TQM model, remember the analogy about lowering the water ni a 
river and then removing all the barriers at the new level?  I think a 
systematic look at our company from a TQM base would show waste as an 
incarnation of group barriers.  I would see a dam which was the shakeup 
caused by continual reorganizations.  We need to remove the largest barrier 
prior to working on the small barriers.  That is why I would like to have 
the company focus on what it can do with what it has.  "Core competencies" 
to use the buzzword, and then just do what it can succeed at while it 
examines where it should aim next.

IBM stock and profit has been rising lately, greatly imho because
Mr.Gerstner said to ignore visions, focus on what we have and what we can 
do.  Visions can follow.  I would like to see a similar guideline.

Matt

    re -1
    
    'Having the CBU sales vp's report to the field....' - this is precisely
    where they have reported for the past 18 months. NO change.
    
    'Disagree with the industry focus...' - the words in .18 are not mine,
    but come from the guy who is running the Systems Business Unit, which
    comprises the product segments, industry segments, and territories. 

re .23
    
>    'Having the CBU sales vp's report to the field....' - this is precisely
>    where they have reported for the past 18 months. NO change.
 
Wrong, Tom Colatosti was the Sales VP for the Discrete Manufacturing and 
Defense CBU.  He reported to Frank McCabe who reported to Bob Palmer.  
Frank now reports to Ed Lucente and Tom has moved into a Sales VP slot in 
New York.  I would suspect that Tom now reports to whoever owns U.S. sales 
this week.  Tom was responsible for selling into DMD accounts, now he is 
geographically focused.  I was told, though I have not yet seen an 
announcement that all the CBU Veeps of Sales moved into geography jobs.
   
>    'Disagree with the industry focus...' - the words in .18 are not mine,
>    but come from the guy who is running the Systems Business Unit, which
>    comprises the product segments, industry segments, and territories.

Which guy would that be?  I will wait and see what happens, meanwhile I 
will try to get support for my partner so we can offer a solution to our 
potential customers.

I don't disagree with any one of the re-orgs, I disagree with the rapidity 
with which we have them.  I suspect that any one of the last 6 structures 
could have worked with the right people and the right products.  Maybe this 
time....

Matt

On a visit to Southern California last week I found out that the Northeast
RMC Manager, Rita Foley, is now the Southeast Geography Sales VP. She is 
scheduled to be at a Town Meeting at my home base of Rochester, NY this week 
which will presumably be one of her last actions as Northeast RMC Manager.

Regards,

Jim

    Rita Foley is not the Southeast VP; she is the Western Geographic
    VP.
    
    

Sorry, I meant Southwest VP... it was late at night. Does Rita manage the 
whole Western USA? Where are the boundaries?

Jim

    Re: .-1 Rita Foley's boundaries.
    
    She was in our office today; the eastern boundary of the Western
    geography: Salt Lake City.  Basically the Western region is the
    Mountain and Pacific time zones except for Colorado and New Mexico.