| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2998.1 | Here's the Pitch.... | ICS::DOANE | | Wed Apr 13 1994 20:29 | 147 |
| 13 Apr '94
Russ Doane
New Purpose
I've just read a paper by Jay Forrester from the Oct & Nov issues
of the MIT Faculty Newsletter, "Sustaining Leadership at MIT."
(Thanks to Sheldon Aronoff for giving me a copy.) As many of you
know, Jay was Ken Olsen's manager at Whirlwind and holds basic
patents in digitally controlled machine tools and as inventor of
the core memory. He was on Digital's board in its early years.
He's been the leader for many years in developing what we today
call "Systems Thinking", most recently popularized by Peter Senge.
When Jay says things like the following, I want to think about it:
An organization needs a goal that reaches far beyond the
present. With no goal, an organization becomes diffuse,
internally contradictory, ill-defined, and ambiguous.
Almost any goal is better than none. Traditionally goals
were set by strong leaders who could unify people toward
an objective. But that seems less possible today. Leadership
is out of fashion. Also, executives occupy office for
shorter time periods both in academia and business. A
significant goal can take ten years to articulate and accept
and one or more decades to implement. If goal creation is
to transcend the tenure of leaders, then goal-setting must be
and on-going process established within the organization.
.
.
Without a plan for the long-term future, decisions respond
to short-term pressures. Almost without exception, in
complex social systems, policies that favor the immediate
future are detrimental to the more distant future; and
vice versa.
There is much more of value in the 18 pages. My copy shows a
hand-printed "To Bill Strecker from Bob Everett" so if you want to
read it I recommend getting a clear copy direct from Bill's office
rather than asking me for a copy of a copy of a copy.... Here, I
want to react to the stimulus of Jay's ideas myself and make some
specific suggestions to which I would like to see your responses.
GOALS vs. GENEROUS PURPOSE
I don't agree that almost any goal is better than none. Some goals
are life-enhancing, some goals waste peoples' lives, and some goals
are life-destroying. I believe a major part of the difference lies
in the degree of generosity or lack of generosity a goal implies.
Last week I listened to a speech by Ricardo Semler, CEO of SemCo
and author of "Maverick!" He stated "I have never met anyone who
is in business to make money." I don't want to take the time here
to give you Semler's evidence for his assertion. You have your
own, if you will but review it. Semler said "money is the fuel
that keeps the machine going; it is not the purpose." This is
clear if you examine the simplest flow-diagram for every business:
-----------
/ NEIGHBORS \
.sharing the ---
. atmosphere \
\ and ecology /
--------------
SUPPLIERS--------->PARTICIPANTS--------->CUSTOMERS
---------------
/ INVESTORS \
/ making possible \
/ growth >> profits \
---------------------
I hope this diagram reminds you, if you had forgotten, that a
business is a set of relationships among five sets of people.
All five sets of people must gain, or at least not be victimized,
if the business is to prosper. A goal could be chosen that would
lead to one of the five being vicimized; and if it is, the
business will be on the road to ruin with no further gain by any.
Choosing a generous purpose however is fundamentally incompatible
with wasting peoples' lives on money-grubbing goals. And as
Digital's first 25 years demonstrated, investors can make *pots*
of money from a company that is focussed on a generous purpose.
In our case I'd say it was "compute-power to the people." Too bad
we outlived our generous purpose long before we realized we had.
SCENARIO PLANNING IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR GENEROSITY
In recent years Shell Oil's success with future scenarios has
become famous. Unfortunately, you can run scenarios for the
computer business without ever considering the possibility that
the very idea of "computer business" might be obsolescent. The oil
business has a lot more inertia than any business based on silicon
chips and bits of information and networks of wires and fibers, so
Shell's success dealing with the oil shock doesn't guarantee ours.
Worse, you can run scenarious without ever getting human.
Generosity can be completely left out. The impression I have from
what I've seen on our recent use of scenario planning at Digital is
that it must have been done by people who were thinking that
Digital is in business to make money, period. If so, a tragic error.
Tragic, because about 90,000 working lives are being spent here.
Not borrowed. Spent. Used up. If these peoples' life's work
is money-grubbing, this company's goals are wasting these lives.
Work that is worthy of peoples' lives contributes in the lives of
other people. And when people are doing work that is worthy of
their only sojurn here on earth, all five aspects of the business
are winning aspects. Customers win, because we're specifically
oriented to supplying goods and services that would otherwise be
missing--we're not just one of the bunch, we're a source of
*unique* contribution. Participants (us 90,000 or whatever) get to
do work that is worthy of us: we get to be satisfied with our
contribution instead of just surviving. Suppliers can be treated
with honesty and respect, grow with our business, and know that
their contribution goes toward the human contribution we make. We
can feel like good neighbors and can afford to act that way. And
because customers will willingly pay a premium for being loved in
ways they havn't been loved before, investors profit handsomely.
OK, SO HOW CAN WE CREATE A NEW GENEROUS PURPOSE?
They're already created. Individuals and teams all over Digital
have already created new generous purposes.
Most of them, however, are personal hobbies and side businesses.
And most of them cannot be aligned well enough with this
corporation's natural strengths to be the core of Digital's future.
But what if we examined *all* of them against our natural
strengths? What if each of us examined our hobbies, our outside
interests, the things that really excite us and give us personal
rewards, and tested them for alignment with the Corporate assets.
What are the chances that *one* of them would be the seed for the
new Digital?
That's what I want to ask you to try on for size. What are you
doing in your life outside of your job (or perhaps as a bootleg
project on the premises...) that makes you feel like an excited,
contributing human being? And how well do you see it aligned with
the momentum we have here, our base of technology, our network of
relationships with customers and suppliers, and our skills?
Nominations for this company's new Generous Purpose, please....
|
| 2998.2 | Richard Seltzer's "Thoughts on the Internet Market" | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DEC + Internet: Webalong together | Wed Apr 13 1994 23:16 | 220 |
| The following material is publicly visible on the DIGITAL Internal Web.
http://www.crl.dec.com/personal/seltzer/marketing.html
Parts of it sound so reminiscent of the basenote that I felt that
Richard Seltzer (of the Internet Marketing Group) would not object to
my "cross-posting" it here. (Richard, incidentally, is the author of
the "Glimpse of the Future" demo VHS tape that Bob Palmer showed at the
recent UniForum as his intro to his demo of both the Web and the Alpha
Laptop.) The Internet market is curious, first, in that its potential
is (I believe) comparable to that of the railroads in 1880; and
further, in that its aficionados within DIGITAL (seeded primiarily by
Corporate Research over the past years) have coalesced in a remarkably
collegial, professional, and cohesive way over the past few months.
This marketplace, imho, offers one major potential recovery arena for
DIGITAL. Enough preamble, over to you Richard...
THOUGHTS ON THE INTERNET MARKET
RICHARD SELTZER, MAR 14, 1994
The Worldwide Web/Mosaic on the Internet represents:
* a new mass communications medium, with the potential to be as
important as print or broadcast, and
* a new environment for commerce -- a global electronic mall.
(The "superhighway" metaphor misses much of the opportunity.)
How Big Is The Opportunity?
What we see now in some ways resembles the beginnings of television --
when there were only a few hours of programming a day, business models
had not yet been worked out, and many buyers of television sets were
simply intrigued by the new technology and willing to watch anything.
The importance and value of this new medium and environment is defined
in human rather than technological terms. It is measured not in nodes
and length of cable, but rather in terms of the number of people and
businesses that use it. Businesses are attracted by the growing number
of users; and users are attracted by the information and services
businesses can provide. This mechanism fuels geometric growth, which
can be accelerated both by media attention and by improvements in
service (e.g., new capabilities made available through new releases of
Mosaic).
In this dynamic system, market studies conducted in the traditional
manner are likely to be late, inaccurate, and dangerously misleading.
We need to quickly develop techniques to use the Internet itself to
conduct the market research we need to help direct our efforts.
Understanding The Internet Culture
Although the influx of new users and commercial information/service
providers is diluting the traditional research-and-education-based
Internet culture, we can expect that the pioneer spirit of sharing and
helping will continue for some time to come. This culture is
self-regulating, based on mutual respect and commonly accepted rules
of "netiquette." Messages of common concern are spread rapidly around
the world. People band together -- at no direct profit to themselves
-- to help those they perceive deserve help and to hinder those who
threaten the basic tenets of the culture.
The following principles often apply on the Internet:
* The more you give, the more you will receive.
* You stand out by rallying others and joining forces with them, not
by going in a different direction.
* If you say what needs to be said -- however softly -- your words
will be amplified by others.
* If you speak only for your own corporate interests -- however
loudly -- your words will be muffled by others.
Messages That Work
Our Internet video seems to have struck a common chord both inside and
outside of Digital.
The key messages of that video are:
* A global electronic mall is under construction. People congregate
here, interact here, find the information they want here. And
here, too, they are beginning to conduct business.
* Here, the smallest of companies can search and shop on a global
scale for the best resources and products at the best prices.
Here, those same small companies can market their own abilities
and products in a global marketplace. This means a new array of
risks and opportunities.
* In the future, you will be forced to compete with distant
companies you never encountered before, and you will be able to
expand to new markets at low cost.
* Here, new business models will evolve quickly, with new kinds of
partnership, and new ways of working together, serving customers
and making money.
* Digital is here already as a leader in the field. With this
capability, we serve those customers and partners who are on the
Internet already, and we gain the experience to better serve them
in the future.
* What's ours is yours. What we learn, you learn.
* Come take a look at the future we can build together.
These messages are consistent with the Internet spirit.
Rallying Cry (Rather Than 'Goal' Or 'Vision')
In this environment, Digital has an opportunity to state its direction
in the form of a rallying cry, rather than traditional static
marketing messages.
A rallying cry is a statement which expresses the wishes of many and
invites them to join in a common cause with clear mutual benefit. When
you issue one, you do not claim that you can do everything alone.
Rather, you are daring to take a step in the right direction (without
waiting for industry consensus or government funding), and are asking
others to do likewise so that together you can have a major effect.
Your words need not be unique. Others may have said similar things
before. Words become memorable when you back them with action. (You
don't just shout "Charge!" You shout while running up the hill.) On
the Internet, words give meaning to your action and your action gives
meaning to your words.
Your passion and enthusiasm help stir others to action.
Proposed Rallying Cry
The direction in which we are heading and the products and services we
will offer can be covered by the phrase: "Access to all."
We can and should strive for every individual to have the opportunity
to access information and services and in other ways to benefit from
this new mass communications medium. We also can and should strive for
every legitimate business to have the opportunity to do commerce in
this new environment.
This goal should be global, not national. The Internet is global and
so is our business.
This is a goal that can be widely understood and supported because of
the social and economic consequences. The free exchange of ideas,
information, goods, and services benefits all. And exclusion of parts
of society or parts of the world -- through difficult, expensive or
restricted access -- could create a whole new set of artificial trade
barriers and a new underprivileged class.
Mosaic and the Worldwide Web are means to achieve "access for all." We
should strive to put Mosaic (or its equivalent) on every desk, and to
put every business on a Web server. And we should selectively partner
with others who want to go in that same direction.
The Action That Backs The Rallying Cry
All of the Internet business opportunities we are now actively
considering support this rallying cry:
* bundling Mosaic with our software,
* making packaged Web Servers available,
* offering Internet-ready systems and services for schools,
* providing consulting to get companies connected to the Internet
and up on the Web,
* providing services to help companies and individual users take
full advantage of Internet opportunities,
* making full and innovative use of the Internet to support our own
business, which points the way for others,
* providing multimedia enterprise-to-enterprise networking over the
Internet for fast-moving leading-edge companies,
* providing the technology (ChannelWorks) that enables cable TV
companies to bring high quality Internet access to homes and
businesses at low cost,
* providing the firewall security (SEAL) products and services that
enable companies to take full advantage of Internet resources,
without fear of compromising their own information systems.
We could provide further support by:
* offering partners the opportunity to get up on the Web quickly,
* building relationships with third parties interested in reselling
our Web server products and services to small companies,
* building relationships with and helping small companies interested
in providing Mosaic (and equivalents) to individuals,
* building relationships with schools and libraries interested in
helping to spread Web technology through their communities by
distributing kitted public domain software and holding seminars.
What Does Digital Stand To Gain?
* Direct profit from the products, consulting, and services we
target at this market.
* Indirect profit from the hardware and software we sell as
Web/Mosaic fuels demand. (Every desktop running Mosaic is a
potential market for faster processors, more memory and storage,
multimedia accessories, and advanced software for retrieving,
filtering, and manipulating large volumes of information and
multimedia files.)
* The active support of all who are inspired by our rallying cry and
the actions we back it with.
In this marketplace, doing the right thing is the right business
strategy.
Beyond Mosaic
We are at the very beginnings. As technology advances, so will the
expectations and needs of the average citizen and typical company. At
this point, "access for all" can and should be our rallying cry.
From the start, we will be offering not only the bare minimum for
access to the Web, but also advanced capabilities, such as multimedia
enterprise-to-enterprise networking.
If we back our words with action and if we stay in the forefront of
technology, we will be in excellent position to issue the next
rallying cry and ride the next wave of market opportunities.
_________________________________________________________________
Creation Date: Mon Mar 14, 1994
RS
|
| 2998.3 | Fast, valuable, matching users needs | MSBCS::HENNING | | Thu Apr 14 1994 06:13 | 25 |
| The fastest computers at the best price with the best compatibility.
Fastest: today's 21064 right on through it's 1000x faster great-
grandchildren over the next 20 years.
Best price: not 'what the market will bear' but what will give our
customers excellent value, make them proud of their
decision, attract new customers. In short, generous
pricing.
Best compatibility: matching the needs of wide varieties of customers,
neighbors, suppliers, OEMs, sw houses, peripheral
manufacturers, and, yes, 'competitors'.
There are parts of the company working this way today: disk engineering
makes products which are excellent by industry standards, not just what
the installed base expects; prices the product so that the value is
inescapably obvious to the buyers; and has absolutely no hesitation
about selling to other computer suppliers.
Thank you Russ for the call to a generous purpose. You have written a
generous note!
/john
|
| 2998.4 | Web/Mosaic - what are they ?? | PLTFRM::SYS_167125 | | Thu Apr 14 1994 09:13 | 7 |
| This may not be the proper note to ask this question, but, could
someone explain to me what exactly Web/Mosaic are, they sure sound
interesting!!
regards,
Stevie.
|
| 2998.5 | | CVG::THOMPSON | An AlphaGeneration Noter | Thu Apr 14 1994 10:18 | 5 |
| The World-Wide Web is a global hypertext system. Mosaic is one user
interface into the Web. Systems all over the world make information
available through the Web.
Alfred
|
| 2998.6 | Some suggestions for improvement | RELYON::CYGAN | | Thu Apr 14 1994 10:43 | 59 |
| This Corporation DESPERATELY needs to re-create the PRIDE in
accomplishments which we once shared as a TEAM!
*** Everyone in the Corp. needs to believe that this is a TEAM
effort,
*** Instill the capabilities for every employee to contribute to
the endeavor to meet and exceed customer expectaions!
** Don't do away with employee input mechanisms like the DELTA
program!
** Initiate a Corporate-wide ( informal/formal) suggestion
program with rewards based on cost savings/avoidance, like
all the other industry leaders!
The Corp. management members (all levels), should be provided with
the best available information on proposed changes in work structure,
and/or manpower reductions as far in advance as technically feasible,
and THEY, above all, should be made to BELIEVE that they, too are part of
a cohesive TEAM!
PRODUCT suggestions:
New models/versions in any given product family should adopt, as their
pperformance and operational program goals, a 10% inprovement in
performance, quality, and reliabilty over the previous model/version,
as perceived by the customer!
The Corporation needs to improve Alpha Chip yields to the point where
we can offer ALPHA CPU chips for under $300 each, and STILL make a
profit at that price! This needs to occur within the next 12 months!
The products we sell are rated very highly, however the PROCESS for
delivery and follow-up customer satisfaction is broken and seriously
flawed. The Corp. SMT needs to publish a plan on how they plan on
repairing the PROCESS, with measurable milestones, to the entire
Digital employee base!
** To find out how flawed the PROCESS is, I suggest that each Vice
President be given the directive to procure, receive and install
one Digital PC, Workstation, Memory Option, each Quarter.
They would rapidly understand the problem!
Just some of my suggestions.
Regards
Dick Cygan
Maynard, Mass.
|
| 2998.7 | | GLDOA::KATZ | Follow your conscience | Thu Apr 14 1994 10:56 | 9 |
| 2 quarters of back to back profits is what we need. Make
this business profitable and we can worry about everything
else. IMHO until we start making money consistently nothing else
is as important.
Long range goals are nice but right now we are trying to
survive and we have a little more then a year to succeed.
-Jim-
|
| 2998.8 | Communication to reduce transportation | INTGR8::TWANG::DICKSON | | Thu Apr 14 1994 11:19 | 111 |
| I can't identify personally with a "purpose" that does not address a
human or organizational need in the customers or society. So I do
not like any "purpose" that is couched in terms of products.
I have a recording of a very entertaining speech that David Stone
gave a few years ago at DECUS. In it he recounts the story of the
tool company CEO who told his startled board of directors that the
customers did not want the company's electric drills. What they
wanted was holes. They bought the drills in order to get the holes.
If you could find a way of manufacturing and packaging the holes (in
various sizes), you would make the customer a lot happier.
He extended this observation to say that customers do not want to
buy computers. They may not even *like* computers; they are annoying
things to deal with. But they *tolerate* computers, because that is
the best way to solve some problem or other today. Some people won't
even tolerate them: if they need their payroll done, they contract
with EDS or somebody to do it for them, and let EDS worry about what
tools it needs for the job.
A purpose that addresses larger goals is easier to "sell" to potential
business partners who themselevs are not just out to make a buck, but
also want to make a difference. (Don't try this on Wall Street.) If
we had a goal like "be the largest distributor of coffee" (Starbuck's
goal, by the way), it is a little difficult to go to a potential supplier
and say "will you help me become the largest chain of coffee stores?"
They are likely to reply "I see why *you* might want to do that, but
why would I want to help you?" If instead we had a goal like "clean
up the environment", or "cure cancer", the potential partner, regardless
of what their business was (chip supplier, ad agency, facility cleaning,
or doing our payroll) would feel good about being a part of that goal.
Ok, so what big purpose like that can we work toward with the skills we
have at DEC? Computers are pretty general purpose things, and we do
not have to necessarily drop everything else, but we should pick one
big purpose to focus our attention. Our "mission". Than we have
objectives and strategies for furthering that mission. (For an excellent
book on how to pick missions, sell them to others, and so on, I highly
recommend "Selling the Dream" by Guy Kawasaki.)
Russ suggested starting with our own private interests or hobbies.
Mine is the environment; fixing past mistakes, and reducing the
continuing impact of human society. From that I select the impact
of transportation on the environment: consumption of fossil fuels,
pollution of the air, noise pollution, wasted time in cars, forests
cleared for roads and parking lots - all so individual people can get
somewhere else to meet with other people, or sit at a desk to work
alone.
The situation is so bad that some cities, such as Los Angeles, have
laws *requiring* employers larger than a certain size to reduce the
number of vehicles used for commuting to their offices. They can
accomplish this any way they like - van pools, bus tickets, distributed
offices with telecommunications rather than one central office. So
there is societal pressure to solve this problem.
There is also personal pressure. I *spend* 10 hours a week in my car
just driving back and forth from home to this 10x9 foot space with
a desk and a chair and a computer in it. During a typical work day
I might need to talk with from 1 to 3 people. (There are exceptions,
but that is *typical*.) I *spend* close to $800 a year just on gasoline
for this commute.
For a couple weeks last month I worked at home 3 days per week. I have
a room (larger and quieter), a chair, and a computer there too. It was
a wonderful couple of weeks. When I was through working for the day I
just turned off the computer, got up from my chair, turned around, and
*poof* I was home. I got just as much done as if I had been here in
DEC's office those days. I even attended a meeting by phone that could
not wait until a day when I would be in. But I felt better. My back
didn't hurt. I wasn't so tired all the time.
I want more people to be able to live like that. Not everyone wants to,
or can because of the nature of their jobs, but a lot can. Not
necessarily in a home office, but perhaps in an office in the town
they live in rather than an office in a town 20 miles away. It does
not much matter where you put the room, the chair, and the computer,
as long as you have good connectivity to the people and resources you
need to get your job done.
Ah, connectivity. That is where DEC comes in. A quote from Bob Supnik
in the April 11 issue of "digital Today":
"Nobody understands networks better than we do.
Nobody understands how to put software into a
distributed environment better than we do, and
nobody builds faster chips."
Communication to reduce transportation. Needs lots of distributed
storage, "telecollaboration", and new networking paradigms. Some of
those telecollaboration technologies need lots of crunch power for
compression and decompression. We know this stuff.
The mission is reduced need for personal business transportation. The
strategy to further this mission is to develop and encourage the adoption
of technologies that make it possible to use telcommunications in place
of transportation on a wide scale.
WWW, Mosaic, Video-on-demand, teleconferencing, enhanced mail, virtual
meetings (like the one you are reading this note in), ISDN, data over CATV,
distance education, online documentation - all these technologies being
worked on in different parts of DEC can contribute to this mission.
Oh yeah, one last thing. I hate to bring it up in this conference again,
but you have to align everything with the mission, and names set expectations.
Change the name of the company to "DEC". Logo to "dec" in three blocks.
We don't want "equipment" to be our middle name any more. Remember, people
don't *need* computers.
- Paul Dickson
|
| 2998.9 | | CVG::THOMPSON | An AlphaGeneration Noter | Thu Apr 14 1994 11:41 | 10 |
|
> 2 quarters of back to back profits is what we need. Make
> this business profitable and we can worry about everything
> else. IMHO until we start making money consistently nothing else
> is as important.
Ready, Fire, Aim? We can run as fast as we want but unless we know
where we're going short term gains will result in long term failure.
Alfred
|
| 2998.10 | my nomination | CVG::THOMPSON | An AlphaGeneration Noter | Thu Apr 14 1994 12:39 | 33 |
|
>Nominations for this company's new Generous Purpose, please....
In my life outside of Digital I've been very involved in education
at the K-12 level. Public and private. One area that I'd really like
to see Digital take a lead in is computers in education. I discovered
computers in college. My son has been using them since 2nd grade. Most
schools start them in the 1st grade and many parents start their
children earlier.
The introduction of Internet connections and the Web open up whole new
doors into using computers for education and communication for school
children. This is a chance for a quantum leap in using technology to
increase learning through something more then tutorials and drill
games.
IBM works with educators to develop learning/teaching tools
for computers. Their Writing to Read program seems to be almost
everywhere. Years before that Apple made cheap computers available to
schools and teachers and Apple was *the* computer for schools to buy.
In an earlier age, DEC helped place computers in colleges and
universities and a generation of students thought of DEC as "their"
computer vendor.
Those opportunities pale next to the potential for the future. The
future belongs to those who see it, design it, and make it happen.
There are a handful of (K-12) schools on the Web today. In a year
there may be scores of them. Will they do it on Suns, Apples, and
donated time of anonymous university systems or will they do it on
Digital computers using a designed and supported bundle of software
and hardware from the world leader in networking?
Alfred
|
| 2998.11 | UNEXCUSED ABSENCE ?????? | AQOPAS::DV780::WEINGARTEN | | Thu Apr 14 1994 13:55 | 19 |
| re.10
You are right on target as far as our (Digital's) lack of interest in
the K-12 education arena! My husband and I just attended the National
School Board Assoc. Convention in New Orleans. This is the 3rd year we
have had this privilege. This is a "gathering" of the school board
members and administrators from across the country and more. These are
the decision makers, the budget approvers,... the money spenders!
Since both my husband and I are both Digital employees we have been
very disappointed each year to finds our company is absent from the
Suppliers EXPO. IBM, MAC, UNISYS, etc., they all make their appearance
and are well know. This always makes us wonder just how interested is
DEC in the education market? Public School's are spending $$$$$$ on
computers and we are invisible at such a high level gathering.
Discouraging to say the least.
|
| 2998.12 | | BOOKS::HAMILTON | All models are false; some are useful - Dr. G. Box | Thu Apr 14 1994 15:29 | 11 |
|
Society is on the brink of either out and out chaos, or the
birth of a new renaissance. If the outcome is positive, it'll
be a technology-enabled renaissance (just like the last one).
A Generous Purpose:
"Digital: Enabling the New Renaissance."
Glenn
|
| 2998.14 | Back to the Future | AKOCOA::MACDONALD | | Thu Apr 14 1994 15:40 | 58 |
| I'm lucky enough to have a match (right now) between my personal and my
work enthusiasms. Before my 13 years at Digital I was an assistant
director at the Children's Museum in Boston, and a Scool Principal
in Newton, Ma. for six years, and a high school teacher of English,
Latn, and Russian. And I was on my community's school committee for
10 years. The work of community learning was and is still my passion.
Now, here at Digital, I am privileged to be building EduLink (based on
LinkWorks) a product whose goal is to make it easier for people in
school settings to collaborate on the work that they need to get done;
learning to write, planning curricula, accessing information on the
internet via Mosaic, getting budgets done, arranging for meetings,
planning for special needs students--the list goes on. EduLink (
LinkWorks for educators) promotes the use of all single-user
applications as just parts of a larger "group application" a
meta-application, the primary goal of which is sharing work and data
toward some common goal--learning about mediaeval music, or calculus,
or getting the school bus schedule worked out, or registering new
students, or writing student evaluations, whatever work needs to be
done by learners or teachers or administrators.
I agree with Russ's view that Digital's great original general purpose was
-Computing Power to everyone- and we made a bundle of money
accomplishing much of that goal. We led the way out of the glass house
and into the dens and classrooms and small businesses and vacation
homes and cars and boats where all that power now can be found. We led
the way, but we did not understand the consequences of our own
passions. Others did. But --computing power to everyone--while a great
and truly generous purpose, fell short of the mark, in retrospect.
I mean this not critically, because I believed in that goal and felt
proud to be working on it with everyone else at Digital, and still do
actually, despite the last three hard years when we had done all
we could with our way of reaching that goal,
and others were doing better at getting it done in their way, and --well
you know the history as well as I.
Picking up on what has been said in several of the earlier
replies here, I would suggest that our generous purpose for the future
might be
--abundant creation and easy availability of knowledge--
and also suggest that this is really nothing more than the logical
outgrowth or extension of our original generous purpose. So, we could
regain our sense of purpose by dedicating ourselves to --what we came
here to do in the first place.
We have much of the wires in place, and much of the silicon needed.
Mosaic, the Internet, and othercollaborative technologies all point the way
toward a world where knowledge, born of multiple and recurring
dialogue with any application or any person, anywhere, should be
available to all people. We should make it our purpose to help make
that happen.
|
| 2998.13 | good point and i agree and give more views | STAR::ABBASI | i like to do it this summer | Thu Apr 14 1994 15:48 | 18 |
| >Society is on the brink of either out and out chaos
i agree \Glenn, in think mass hysteria is on the rise, i think
technology is the cuplit. in the good old days we did not
have so many technology and so we had less crazy people around, but
nowadays look around, and you see many hysterical people,even though
it is controlled hysteria most of the time, it is still hysteria just
as well.
i dont think DEC or any one can do anything about it, it is doomed
to happen, i predict around the year 2000 you'll start seeing
mass hysteria on the rise and every where you look.
lets hope we the sane ones left try to bring sense to the rest
of the masses and try to avoid this from happening in any way
we can.
\nasser
|
| 2998.15 | | BOOKS::HAMILTON | All models are false; some are useful - Dr. G. Box | Thu Apr 14 1994 16:00 | 18 |
|
re: .13
Well, Nasser, thanks (I think -- since I often can't tell
when you're teasing).
But as far as technology and crazy people go, maybe if
people could work at home more, they'd be less likely to blow
away their co-workers, eh? Maybe people could just go
silently nutty, raging at their computer screens in their
tiny..little...rooms....with....the...blinds...pulled -- and
their neighbors never suspecting about the bizarre newsgroups
they subscribe to. (Sorry, I'm getting tired :-))
Glenn
|
| 2998.16 | Practice 'compassion' by rewarding excellence. | PEAKS::LILAK | Who IS John Galt ? | Thu Apr 14 1994 17:13 | 32 |
|
The primary purpose of a business is to make money.
This can be done by meeting the needs of customers so that everybody
wins. But when you put the focus instead on 'noble goals' you again
become the digital of the early 90's all over again.
I refer to the digital that hired and promoted in order to reach
'social goals' at the expense of the competant. We are suffering now
from the legacy of those policies as we have an entreched class of
dubious competency and the few good contributors left are getting
tired of carrying the rest on their backs.
Again, for the knee-jerk crowd out there let me reiterate: being
successful doesn't mean a company can't have a 'heart'.
If we can focus on a goal of providing customers with products and
services that help THEM achieve excellence - and once again reward
excellence within our own ranks, rather than EEO points and political
skills, then we truely will be a company of noble purpose once again.
Otherwise we practice a rather capricious form of compassion.
Is not a company which gives everyone an equal shot at success based
on their own skills (and nothing more) while delivering products to our
customers to do the same a worthy purpose ?
For a deeper understanding of this philosophy I suggest reading the
non-fiction essays of Ayn Rand and others in 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'.
-R
|
| 2998.17 | But which business? | INTGR8::TWANG::DICKSON | | Thu Apr 14 1994 18:00 | 25 |
| There are non-profit corporations, but leaving that aside...
The purpose of having a mission is so we can decide which business
to be in. If we just wanted to make the maximum amount of money
(and we have to decide "for whom"), we would probably not be in
the computer business at all. There are plenty of other ways
to make more money than we are making right now. (heh heh)
And some of the more profitable things we could be doing are illegal,
immoral, or nasty, and we probably want to restrict ourselves there
as well.
How we reward people can still be based on their contribution, not
on who they are. But we have to decide on a contribution toward
what? We can't have everybody running off in different directions
any more, at cross purposes. We need a consistent big picture.
R.J. Reynolds is profitable, but only because they do not have to
pay the medical bills of the hundreds of thousands of people who
die every year as a result of using their products.
A company that makes money on paper but does it by "spending" the
lives of its employees, or worsening the quality of life of people
in the community, is not the kind of place I would want to work.
DEC pays me in exchange for my contribution, but not for my life.
|
| 2998.18 | Direction of purpose does not require Central Planning. | PEAKS::LILAK | Who IS John Galt ? | Thu Apr 14 1994 18:33 | 16 |
|
Additional recommended reading for those who
just don't get the proper role of individual
effort and the role of the corporation might
also read:
'The Mainspring of Human Progress' by Henry Grady Weaver.
Weaver was the director of Corporate Research for G.M.
back in an era when that title indicated something other than
political finesse.
It will shatter some of the closely held liberal myths that
direction requires central planning.
-R
|
| 2998.19 | "innovation" must be required for a good review | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T) | Thu Apr 14 1994 18:49 | 57 |
| I've been concerned for a very long time that Digital's way
of conducting its affairs tends to discourage EFFECTIVE
creativity and innovation.
Don't get me wrong, we do have our moments of effective
innovation (Alpha and RDB are current cases in point) but I
don't think we deliver innovation proportionate to our
investment in R&D.
I have spent a lot of time in some of Digital's internal
advanced development groups. I am familiar with some of the
work in the research labs. There is a lot of innovation,
but is it EFFECTIVE for the corporation in reaching its goals
(any of them, be they profit for the shareholders, delight
for the customers, or job satisfaction for the employees)?
One of the persistent problems I and many colleagues in
advanced development faced over the years is that good ideas
-- even good ideas fully expressed in requirements, designs,
and functioning prototypes -- rarely seem to make it to
product even when competitors subsequently deliver successful
products in those areas (that is, even when the idea is
leading and not trailing-edge, and even when there really is
a market or potential market).
Good ideas just don't go. It is easier for the more
energetic among us to get our good ideas to market by leaving
Digital (or by making freeware or shareware -- thank-you,
Anker). That sounds wrong: there should be some significant
advantage to being in a large and strong company, but there
isn't at Digital (this seemed to be true even when we were
larger and stronger than we are right now).
I suspect that there are a lot of contributing reasons for
this.
One thing I would like to see in Digital is for EVERY manager
to be required, as one of the goals by which they are
measured, to INNOVATE. Some percentage of the work (perhaps
10% is about right) of the people and organizations that
report to them must represent new products, new services, new
technology, new approaches.
(One of the problems we saw in getting technology transferred
from advanced development to product engineering was that
product engineering was always almost fully committed to
maintenance and evolution of current product. It was
difficult to get something truly new "above the line" -- and
between budget cycles you could just forget it -- all
resources were committed. If managers knew they had to
foster innovation, perhaps they would be more open to such
technology transfer and would have some flexibility in their
groups to carry it out.)
Some of this will be hard to quantify, but not impossible.
Bob
|
| 2998.20 | Pointer to the answer to .4's Q: SOFBAS::INTERNET_TOOLS | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DEC + Internet: Webalong together | Fri Apr 15 1994 11:51 | 16 |
| If you are using the terminal interface to DECnotes(tm) from a keyboard
equipped with KP keycaps, press KP7 to add the above conference to your
NOTES$NOTEBOOK.
Anent Bob Fleischer's previous note, I agree 100%. One of the problems
I faced when I was in Corporate Research (and working on technology
transfer from the Labs) was getting "mental shelf-space" from busy
Engineering Managers.
Anything we can do to increase the permeability of the membrane between
Research and Engineering, and also to do more LOCAL Advanced Develop-
ment WITHIN Engineering, would be wonderful. This sort of cultural
change can often not be mandated; it has to be subtly, as well as
overtly, encouraged. Usually (my opinion) the best way is BY EXAMPLE.
"Success Stories" spread like wildfire...
|
| 2998.21 | Doing a Mosaic Bid As We Speak | HOTAIR::ADAMS | Visualize Whirled Peas! | Fri Apr 15 1994 16:25 | 7 |
| re: -1
Tried to SEND, bad DECnet node database here (hmm, DNS anyone? :).
Thanks for the forward on the Internet market arena... Bang on right!!!
--- Gavin
|
| 2998.22 | My Hobby is Incompatible--But I Will Digress | ICS::DOANE | | Thu Apr 28 1994 09:59 | 142 |
| 26 Apr '94
Personal Wheels Complementary with Digital
but not a possible Generous Corp. Purpose
My serious hobby, one that has engaged my increasing spare time
energies since 1968, is far afield from any business Digital is
conceivably ever going to be in. What I'm up to is making it possible
for everyone to be able to live their lives as though the wheel has
been invented for that person. (You can think of this as re-inventing
the bicycle and not be too far from what I've been struggling with.)
So there's no way this can be a candidate for Digital's new generous
corporate purpose. There's zero compatibility with our technology
base, our business momentum, and the network of business relationships
with suppliers and customers that we've established.
However, I'm going to stretch a point here and consider how what I'm
doing could be complementary with a new purpose for Digital.
SUSTAINABLE WORLD
If everyone in the world tries to get as many cars per capita as
Americans and Europeans have, we're going to choke each other in our
exhaust. In some areas of the world we'd have to pave an even greater
fraction of the land than Los Angeles has.
Instead, I see a confluence of telecommuting and non-car transport;
transport such as busses and trains and aircraft and bikes.
People will mostly work in their homes and in small nearby satellite
workplaces. They'll go to a central place once a week or maybe, so
they will still be able to maintain relationships. But they won't be
burning up fuels, time, and money at the rates that our current
Industrialized world has been doing. Individuals will gain time and
save money. Organizations will save real-estate costs while gaining
access to World Class expertise, unlimited by who's physically near.
FLEXIBLE WORKSTYLES
The 40 hour week hasn't changed much (35 hours in some places, a bit
more than 40 in others) during several decades while technology has
been making leaps and bounds. This cannot last. In many places on
the earth, it is possible to live a "good life" on far less income
than 40 hours produces. But we've still got "full time work" as an
expectation and a habit that is hard to break. When enough people
vote with their feet for less hardware at less workhours, or when
enough people are thrown onto the street by the forced option of
"full time" or nothing, irresistible pressures will mount.
You can already see a lot of this happening. I think it's growing
fast and will grow faster. And medical advances that preserve energy
and health to older ages will increasingly make traditional forcing of
retirement at a rigid age totally unacceptable to many many people.
But if more people want to work at 70 and beyond, then if the only
choice were "full time" or nothing, this would exacerbate the
oversupply of willing workers for whom jobs appear to be unavailable.
And increasing demand for hardware will not soak up this supply of
willing workers. People will want lives of freedom and variety. But
they won't want a "standard of living" increase based on symbolic
accumulations of un-needed complex expensive hardware. Big powerful
gadget-laden cars and huge houses will saturate out. Old definitions
of "wealth" weaken with each generation of rich kids maturing in the
developmed countries. And when the rich countries build a consensus
that real wealth is in actual freedoms, rather than in the symbolic
freedoms of over-built hardware, the poorer countries will see a new
vision on their TVs. Greed is likely to shift to new targets.
Worldwide, people will want freedoms the richest humans currently
value, not the overbuilt gadgetry an earlier generation used to want.
TECHNICAL BUSINESS IN A CROWDED, FLEX-TIME WORLD
Several colleagues and I (names if you ask, but I don't want to speak
for them in broadcast-mode...) have been hatching a vision something
like this:
* Hours of work vary with age, financial situation, plans for
buying something expensive vs. desire for free time, etc. etc.
* Networked knowledge workers selling their expertise in chunks
like lawyers' current phone consultations: units of 12 minutes.
* Walking and biking and taking trolleys and buses and trains and
planes will no longer be overshadowed by ubiquitous private cars.
Digital is a technical business. What might our business be then, in
a world of 7 billion cheap, clean, durable, troublefree bikes like the
one my hobby aims toward? In a world where work and home are not
distinct in space or time, because bandwidth is nearly free? In a
world where work teams change configurations at intervals of 12
minutes rather than 12 months or 12 years, merely by engaging a new
set of globally networked temporaries or disengaging them?
Digital may always supply raw compute "horsepower" whether built in
house or by others. Digital may always supply middleware upon which
others' applications will run. Digital may always offer consultation
in the use of these things.
But I think if we choose, Digital can have a larger role.
Stan Davis (Harvard) says the "knowledge exhaust" of any rich-country
business will soon be more valuable than the business itself.
Our company, as I am certainly not the first to observe, has an
incredibly high density of talent. Other companies usually have a few
bright people, and a bunch of others. Here, the bright people *are*
the bunch. So if knowledge exhaust is valuable elsewhere, it ought to
be a golden plume out of a company like ours.
What if we sold the coaching of every Digital employee in 12 minute
billable chunks? 90,000 (or whatever....) bright experienced people,
available over our network to yours. Ready to join your team for an
hour or a day. Easily available: just call our 900 number (or
preferably a WorldWideWeb equivalent I guess) and we'll hook you up
with a world-class expert on any technical subject vaguely related to
our technology. We know what all our peoples' hobbies are too, so you're
not limited to what they do for a "living"; we broker hobby-bred
expertise for a small share in their private businesses, too. Any
time, in any time zone--our people are all over the world. Speaking
English or whatever your native language is--we know every language
each of our people speaks.
Yogesh Parikh likes to say we "breathe our own exhaust" too much.
We've gotten out of touch with what's available and what's needed in
the larger world. But Digital is not the only company with that
challenge! I think we can arrange to sell our "knowledge exhaust" to
others instead of just breathing it ourselves.
What would it take to do this? Is it not technically feasable?
How does it "grab you." Are you repelled, neutral, attracted?
What would this tell us about what we need to invest more in, what we
can invest less in, and what we should get ready to shut down or sell?
Can you build on this? Can you combine this with some of the other
Replies in this string or from elsewhere?
Is there any step you can think of taking, here and now?
Will you?
Russ
|
| 2998.23 | | 33803::LUBER | I have a Bobby Cox dart board | Thu Apr 28 1994 11:40 | 1 |
| huh?
|
| 2998.24 | | 2252::DICKSON | | Thu Apr 28 1994 12:32 | 8 |
| I was with you up to the 12-minute billable chunks part. Controls
on proprietary information would make many business loath to have
people with unknown backgrounds hopping in and out like that.
What you describe is a "piecework" way of working. I do not think
everything can be broken down like that. Longer term relationships
are necessary, perhaps with "contractor" billing such as so much
up front, so much at certain milestones, and so on.
|
| 2998.25 | >>> A Generous Purpose | KISMIF::DIONNE | | Thu Apr 28 1994 12:33 | 63 |
| Having a long term goal or sense of purpose can be very motivating. I won't bore
you with details, but I am a long time Digital employee and remember the
excitement and fun of working for Digital when it was a small, fast growing
company. We felt challenged and energized working to achieve Ken's vision.
We were in the forefront of personal computers. Digital led the way in making
computers afordable and available to all. The visions we had then of the
future have been far exceeded. Even what seemed at the time as pie in the sky
forecast turned out to be conservative expectations.
In considering what talent, skills and resources Digital has, I would propose
a Generous Purpose which is not far related from our core competencies and
business. Our technologies and talents revolve around computers, semiconductors,
communications products, storage, software, manufacturing, etc.
Digital's Purpose could be :"To develop and provide products and services which
enable people to interact (for work or social reasons) in "remote reality!
When I think of the current computer industry and the products and services now
offered or being developed, one thing troubles me. The expanded capabilities
and affordability have brought many new opportunities. Certainly, there are
many applications where these products and services have reduced the drugery
of some tasks, and in some cases even made possible what previously was not.
It is also true that people have in some instances been negatively impacted in
that their jobs have been lost, etc. What troubles me is that most of the
new products and services result in humans inter acting with machines.
People have long sought out human inter action, formed societies, etc. The
evolution of the computer industry has led to less personal interaction. I
would venture to say that it has also led to much frustration among the general
populace. Today, many of us communicate electronically. We do not TALK to
one another, but communicate through the impersonal network. Many people spend
the better part of their day staring at their computer screen, hitting keys or
clicking their mouse! When they do use their phone, they push the buttons and
listen to synthesized voices. There is a growing interest in virtual reality
which will take us further away from the world where real people live and breath.
To cut to the chase, I believe there may be a future revolt or at least a real
opportunity as a result of the human need to interact. Our focus could be on
developing and providing products and services that enable people to get together
remotely in a way which has never been done. Although I believe that some day
there may be a way to beam ourselves around, this is likely to be some time off.
What if it were possible to apply technology in a manner which gave the user
the perception of being else where? Imagine if not only could you hear the
sounds in the remote location (with natural sound, no hand held receiver and
similar to natural hearing), and could see the remote environment (not a picture
on a screen but more like what is being done in virtual reality), but could
also smell, touch and taste what is there.
Imagine working from home and being able to put yourself in a remote environment
to interact with your peers. Imagine contacting a friend or loved one and the
experiece be close to real even though you were thousands of miles apart. Join
a group, shop, visit all without having to leave your location, yet feeling like
you were interacting personally with real people. How would you like to have
a remote pal and learn about his/her culture, customs, etc. Might this bring
about better understanding. The sick, disabled, or anyone could now feel less
isolated and cut off.
This needs alot more work but I thought I would through it out there anyway.
Let Digital develop and offer products and services which help people and
society to live better lives!
Lenny Dionne
|