Conference 7.286::digital

	... was at RADC in the early '70s. Frank Scoblick (now in Binghamton) was
my rep.
	Good Luck!

    
    
    
         Heard anything about the LMC.

    I worked in Rome before joining DEC.  PAR, On the Mall...
    
    ed

    
    I needed a vacation anyway.
    Over and out.
    
    

    MCS training in PKO was hit, too.  
    
    Quite literally everyone is now leaving... from management down.  (I've
    not heard if upper management was affected, but they got all the
    instructors, all the U.M.s and at least one middle manager)...
    
    There were four instructor who were "saved" but I understand they will
    no longer be instructors.  Not sure, but I suspect they'll be use in a
    consultant capacity.  And I've also not heard what "saved" them.  
    
    I estimate about 16 to 20 or more PKO people were tapped on the
    shoulder.
    
    The unofficial announcements were made last week, but I was reluctant
    to say anything here because things can change, but, Tuesday was the
    official day and here it is Wednesday.  
    
    I lost a LOT of my friends, and I'm in a real pissy mood today.  Is it
    ever gonna get better?
    
    
    tony

    Indianapolis got hit bad also. Myself (Project Manager), 2 support
    engineers and 6 engineers. I was luckly only 9.5 years with DEC.
    Within the last 3 years are office operations has been reduced from
    150 people to maybe 60 people. People are stressed out and morale
    is low. They told me that there will not be a package starting July.
    Look out for sales to get hit next. Engineers with lower income did
    not get hit, we were all in our 40's. Oh, well 3 small companies
    have called me this evening. BP is going to move fast and cut really
    deep. I'll miss alot of the people. I'm going to manage projects as
    a VAR or reseller for Digital customers. 

    re: .5
    
    > Is it    ever gonna get better?        
    
    The answer is yes, it has to get better.  I looked in a recent
    BusinessWeek graph of all of the stock performances of those in our
    industry grouping.  There are about 15 of us in the Fortune 500. 
    Looking at the return on share column, everyone was in the red except
    two companies:  HP and Compaq.
    
    Compaq only manufactures low-end systems and components.  HP has a
    wider range of systems, but they are breathing because of a $5B laser
    printer line.  
    
    Obviously, this is not the end of the computer industry.  We are merely
    reaching a plateau.  Some may say we are reaching the end of the first
    generation of systems.  Where is the future?  I don't know, but all
    signs point to systems centering around multi-media.
    
    Once we get over this "hump," we'll all have a newer direction and the
    cycle will start over again.  Looking at the silicon driving these
    products, everyone is moving toward 64-bits.
    
    IBM:	Power PC
    Motorola:	Power PC
    Apple:	Power PC
    HP:		HP 64
    Digital:	Alpha AXP
    Sun:	UltraSparc
    
    Of these, the only operational chip is the Alpha.  Texas Instruments
    and Sun keep putting delays on the release date of UltraSparc (I last
    heard sometime in 95).  HP is late on their announcement.  Motorola
    couldn't get the 64-bit chip working fast enough and have instead
    released a 32-bit PowerPC chip.  
    
    Every one of these chips requires reporting of all of the applications. 
    In many cases, a new operating system has to be written.  We certainly
    have the lead on this new road.  To regain what they will have lost
    (beginning around 1995), our competition will have to leapfrog us in
    terms of technology.  This is not going to be easy considering the
    aggressive AXP roll-out schedule of a new and faster chip every six
    months.
    
    So the answer is "yes,"  it IS going to get better.
    
    ..Larry

    
    	WOW.... 
    
    	Are you on full salary?

    what a refreshing reply to read!
    

    re: .7
    
    Hey, can I have a hit of that stuff?
    
    Alpha is just an incidental also-ran right now. If this company is
    betting the farm on Alpha it had better do some darn super marketing
    from here on out... I don't see anyone beating a path to our door
    except for our installed base.
    
    Back to the topic... MCS.
    
    WIth about 20% of the F/s staff cut here out my office, I do not see
    how they can hope to service our customers adequately- DECservice
    commitments are being missed now, will cutting staff make it any
    better? No way!
    
    Lee

    Re.7
    
    	Remember that most of HPs profit comes not so much from the laser
    printers they sell, but from the Toner Cartridges that they sell for
    them after they have sold them!
    
    	Remember too, that we sell laser printers using the same engines
    AND our Toner Cartridges fit their Laser Printers - so go *SELL* OUR
    Toner Cartridges to Their customers - HP have eaten too much of our
    lunch already!!!!!
    
    				Malcolm.

    re .11 I'd guess that we don't actually manufacture toner cartridges
    for our printers. We probably buy them from the same plant that makes
    the ones with the HP logo on them. That'll make it rather difficult to
    compete with them.
    
    Right now I can buy new HP cartridges at the local discount warehouse
    for 30-50% below the DecDirect price. :-(
    
    Getting back to the topic.... Houston lost 5 engineers to TFSO this
    week, one other resigned.
    
    Harry
    

    The laser printer supplies business is very lucrative and C&P is in on
    it. We do sell, profitably, Canon toner cartridges--Canon makes the
    laser printing engine--and broker them in large quantities to both
    purchasers of our printers and HPs. The trick of selling them, as I
    understand it, is to be in the right place at the right time, with
    quantity. I'm not sure who's name is on the box for ours--HP certainly
    has the volume pull needed to get custom packaging for their cartridges
    but for volume purchasers the box really doesn't matter that much.

    re: .8
    
    I'm 80/20 soon to be 60/40...  Sales in Dallas.  
    
    That supplies business is lucrative.  I am bidding on all of the
    supplies business from toner to paper in many of my customers.  Even if
    I have to get an allowance to meet the price, we should do the
    business.  I set up the initial deal for a year at a time at set prices
    and then tie in a distributor to provide the order support and
    delivery.  Once I get the initial agreement, I'm on to new sales as the
    distributor spends its resources taking and filling the orders. 
    Furthermore, I get the distributor to set their prices on the HP laser
    printers, Compaq computers, whatever they sell to the street prices and
    lock them in as the only distributor for any computer equipment.  I
    don't get revenue, but I keep my competitor's reps out and I know of
    any "invader" sales about to be made.  I can then preach the goodness
    of DEC over HP, Compaq, etc.
             
    It's not just getting better, it's feeling better.
    
    ..Larry

    
    	Good for you.... Whatever works and can keep you focused is
    goodness. My dream is that Digital realizes it has some mighty fine
    folks in its sales force, and turns us loose instead of creating all
    kinds of stupid rules to prevent sales/sales credit.
    	I recruit new VARs, OEMs etc out of Chicago. And I have more scars
    than Al Capone. But we do have leading edge technology. What we ain't
    got is a corporate feel for the marketplace. C'est la vie.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Since John Rando gives explicit permission to distribute this, I'll
    take that as implied permission to post it in a forum like this.
    
    Well written feedback to management on many of the mistakes that are
    being made from a TFSO'd field manager.
    
    	dave
    
From:	CSCMA::CSC32::BINGHAM "Tech of the Woeful Countenance  20-Jun-1994 1517" 20-JUN-1994 17:35:50.13
To:	@WWWNT,@TBU_TEAM,@SOCIAL
CC:	BINGHAM
Subj:	fyi: Comments from a departing field mngr!

From:   JCR::LASTELLA "Tina, 237-7791, Americas Zone Product & Service Implemen
From:   MPGS::BROPHY "Americas Zone Products and Services Implementation  20-Ju
From:   CSLALL::SRYAN        20-JUN-1994 09:39
From:   CSLALL::PIEHL        "MLMC Business Support, 247-2449" 20-JUN-1994 09:1
From:   CSLALL::KEELEY       17-JUN-1994 14:09:44.22
From:   Walter Keeley @TWO
From:   Bill Koury @TWO               
From:   Richard Michel @OGO
From:   Tim Woisin AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO
From:   DEMORE@CAPNET@STOWOA@MRGATE@STOWOA@OGO
From:   NAME: John Rando @OGO               

Attached is a memo from Paul Grado, a recent MCS transition in the US.  I have 
known Paul for a number of years and have great respect for his integrity, 
commitment and operational managerial skills.  I believe his comments are 
worthy of consideration by all of us in MCSLT.  

There are some very difficult messages for us to receive and accept in his 
note.  I believe Paul is objective and presents a very real perspective as 
seen in the eyes of many of our field managers.  I ask that all of you read 
and reflect on Paul's comments.  We need to keep these in mind as we build our 
FY95 plan and continue to drive our major programs.

Please feel free to distribute this to your direct reports for their 
consideration as well.

On the positive side, many of Paul's concerns could be addressed head on in 
our transformation program and through the implementation of the Change Forums 
and Leadership Forums with the field organization.  We need to accelerate our 
commitment to these efforts throughout the field organization.  We cannot 
spend enough time engaged in two-way communication with our employees and 
managers.

The objectives of the Global Common Solutions Program and the need for its 
implementation are reaffirmed by Paul's comments.  Our Service Delivery 
re-engineering work needs to move quickly to its re-engineering phase and 
beyond restructuring.  Many of the points addressed by Paul, concerning 
Service Delivery, should now be the responsibility of our process managers to 
understand and address through re-engineering work.

We are fortunate to have employees like Paul Grady who, even on their 
departure from the Company, under very difficult conditions, are willing to 
take the time to send constructive criticism to our management.

One final note -  we all owe a note of gratitude and our best wishes for 
success in the next phase of his career.

Regards,



John

jfs

To Distribution List:

removed





From:   NAME: PAUL GRADO @UKO               
        FUNC: FIELD SERVICE                   
        TEL: 352-2845                         <GRADO.PAUL AT A1 at MAIL1 at PCO>
Date:   01-Jun-1994
Posted-date: 03-Jun-1994
Precedence: 1
Subject: Advice From the Field                                                  
1
To:     See Below
CC:     See Below

I've been TFSOd this week, and wanted to take this opportunity to provide some 
unsolicited feedback.  This isn't meant to be a parting shot, but rather my 
sincere feelings about what needs to happen if MCS is to remain a viable
entity.

Bob, I think you've done a fairly good job of setting some of the strategic 
directions for the company.  What hasn't been said is that MCS is a strategic 
weapon.  There's a real strong feeling that because of what's happened to this 
part of the company, we're a piece that Digital would like to sell.  If we're 
not, you saying it would mean alot.  Morale is really bad, and folks just don't 
feel valued very much.

John and John, do you really have any idea how bad it is in the field?  If 
noone's said it, we're almost unable to deliver service.  There are a couple of 
key things that need to happen if there's even a possibility of staying viable.

Field line managers need tools which help them manage their business.  In the 
district I was recently part of, about 50% of the business has no systems for 
management to use to make adjustments, or even tell how they're doing.  The 
contract system is still archaic, and inflexible, and not suitable for a 
significant portion of the business.  The call handling system, which was 
designed for the HPS business, doesn't work anymore.  The DBOS system is used
on  many DTS accounts, and we also have customers who utilyze their own call 
handling systems.  To try and figure out what's happening is totally manual, 
very time consuming, and quite often a waste of time.  Please help, and let the 
field participate.

Much of the downsizing has been "justified" with some inaccurate assumptions.  
One of the assumptions was that "support" work is "rework."  This hasn't been 
the case for a very long time.  The skills and knowledge of support engineers
is  very different than the skills of a district engineer.  The strategy to
"reduce  headcount by 200-300, and expenses by $28M-$35M by moving support into
the  districts, therefore closer to the front of the call, although sounding 
rationale, wasn't totally sound, for the following reasons:

        -the plan called for an 18 month implementation, then happened instantly

        -the above mentioned skills misconception, (support skills are additive)

        -the whole plan was based on re-engineering the front-end screening 
         process, (this never occurred)

The last point is key to the whole problem that the field faces.  Downsizing 
basics say that if your going to be successful in downsizing, that work needs
to  be re-engineered to be more efficient.  With all of the changes that have
taken  place, reorganizations that have gone on, responsibility shifting that
we've  done, work still happens in the same way.  We haven't "really" changed
anything.   Everyone is still responsible for everything, and we haven't
empowered anyone  with the flexibilty to manage what they're best suited to
manage.  All of the  promises about the added value that MCSE was going to add,
haven't happened.   All of the new systems that were going to appear to help
the field become more  efficient haven't appeared,  all of the redesign that
was going to occur to make  us more effective has been structural. What needs
to occur are functional  redesigns, which improve the efficiency of the work. 
Despite what may be  perceived, this hasn't happened.  Please test this by
asking some first line  folks.

Tony, some good news for you.  I've been involved with PCI in Manhattan since 
mid January.  This business has real good potential.  In Q2, the district did 
$250K, in Q3 $450K, and the Q4 forecast is $850K.  Until this past Monday, I 
estimate that we could fairly easily have done between $6M and $8M in fy95. 
I'm   not sure what impact this week will have, but it certainly impacts next
year,  from both a resource and morale standpoint.  The only piece of advice I
have is  to consider the potential of increasing the low-end of the business. 
I could  have done an almost unlimited amount of $65/hour system administration
work,  with mostly temporary resource, at a cost of about $35-$40/hour. 
Although this  doesn't make the margins you've been looking for, since it's a
cash-flow  business it can bring some much needed margin dollars into the
company, without  tying-up any money.

Ralph, when you first came on board you came to our staff meeting.  You said 
that "we" think that the field can't bear much more cutting, and "we" would
look  other places.  This statement helped make people feel real good.  They
finally  saw an end to the massacre hitting the people who actually do the
work.  After  this past Monday, noone belives anything anymore.  The viability
of MCS is  honestly at risk.  We need to become realistic about some of the
expectations we  have about what MCS can and can't bear.  

If HPS is going away as a result of technology, then so-be-it.  Figure out
where  the real opportunities lie, and go after them.  Instead, we seem to be
looking  out for our own turf.  An example is the plan to go after IBM's RS6000
and AS400  base.  Noone in the field sees the strategic point of this, nor
feels we bring  any differentiation here.  There's also very strong doubts
about Digital's  ability to be successful if we can win any significant
marketshare.  We haven't  done any training for 2 quarters, we've cut headcount
to the danger zone, we've  lost most of our high level expertise, and there's
no "investment" money, for  anything.  How does anyone expect us to stay a
world-class competitor?  We can't    do things, just because someone wills us
to.

What made MCS (Field Service) powerful in the past was our discipline, 
creativity, culture, and instinct for the service business.  We often made 
mistakes, but overcame them, learned from them, and won more often than we
lost. We had a good mix of autonomy in the field, and direction from
headquarters,  mixed with trust.  Our people were motivated and valued.

The only thing remaining is the discipline, and this is tainted because instead 
of being fostered by loyalty and trust, its driven by fear to say what's really 
going on.  If this is going to change, it's got to start now!

I hope this input is taken in the right way.  I really am trying to be 
constructive.  I've invested 22 years of my life in this company, and wish it 
only the best.  I met many wonderful people, learned alot, and most of the time 
had fun doing it.  I wouldn't have missed it for anything.  Good luck!



                                                Sincerely,

                                                Paul 
  

To Distribution List:

bob palmer @mlo,
john rando@ogo,
john paget @mro,
frank branca @ofo,
ralph lipizzi@ofo,
anton farkas@alf,
richard sellers @cxo

CC Distribution List:

removed
    

    Excellent analysis!  Too bad we're losing this type of dedicated and
    concerned resource.  Really, it's a shame! 

    
.16> We are fortunate to have employees like Paul Grady who, even on their 
.16> departure from the Company, under very difficult conditions, are willing
.16> to take the time to send constructive criticism to our management.
    
    WRONG!
    
    We are fortunate when we find ways to hang onto them.
    
    Until then, we are just plain stupid.
    

    The analysis is very insightful ... and is not new information for the
    MCS organization.  I guess I would only wonder why we have not acted on
    the issues so clearly detailed.  
    
    When I was in Field Service as a Support Engineer, I always said if you
    can clearly define the problem, the solution is not far away.  In this
    memo, the problems ARE clearly defined.  
    
    Still waiting ...
    
    Chuck

I'm not quite certain how to take this message:

Here, you have John Rando forwarding a message from someone that is 
believed to have "integrity", and the statements in the message are
"worthy of consideration by all of us in MCSLT."

Up to this point, has MCSLT been simply blind to this kind of feedback?
What does it take to make this kind of feedback "worthy of consideration?

Surely this cannot be the first time comments of this sort have made
their way to MCSLT... can it?

I can only hope that, considering John Rando's comments, it is being
looked at seriously.

-Andy