Conference 7.286::digital

    This really hits a hot button of mine.
    
    The paragraph about 'somebody set the wrong metrics .. ' and 'we get
    behaviour set by the metrics' needs to be read, reread and digested.
    
    This company is driven on 'metrics'.  People are coerced into forms of
    behaviour in order to meet metrics.  Activity and effort is focussed
    into meeting metrics.  Indirectly, metrics are supposed to be set to
    encourage the correct behaviour. Invariably they are not.  The blame
    then falls on those who set the metrics.
    
    We used to try and do the right thing.  I have never seen, and cannot
    even imagine, a metric that encourages this behaviour.  Therefore we
    cannot always (or even most of the time) do the right thing, as our
    metrics do not support this activity.
    
    Metrics also allow an unlimited number of excuses.  Do any of these
    sound familiar?
    
    "I can't do that - we're goaled on something different"
    
    "The metrics were wrong - someone else is to blame"
    
    "We will change the metrics to encourage [XXXX] behaviours"
    
    "Metrics will be clearly set"
    
    
    I would go so far as to say that METRICS ARE THE PROBLEM.
    
    Discuss both sides of the argument!
    
    Martin

    I agree, metrics could easily be the death of this company.  I've worked in
    various service organizations since I started with this company over 
    12 years ago.  Whatever happened to, if you had a problem or a question
    you could ask your fellow employees.  I mean after all we are just one big 
    company, we all work for Digital, right? 
    
    Wrong. Now, whenever someone needs help, they hear do you have a contract 
    or did you log a call?  Do you work in our group or we're not chartered
    to do x,y, and z.  Since we've become a metric driven culture, we no 
    longer work with the attitude of feeling free to help fellow employees.
    Since metrics give us accountability, we have become enslaved by them.  I 
    realize that metrics produce nice looking statistics and fancy charts, but 
    from my experience, it has hurt morale and productivity.

re: .0

Besides Lucente, McDonough (VP of M&L) and Steul "elected" to leave, so
maybe they were the ones held accountable for some of the forecasting
problems you mention.

Your point about the rather ethereal output of the re-engineering effort
to date is well taken though.
								- paul

.3> Besides Lucente, McDonough (VP of M&L) and Steul "elected" to leave, so
.3> maybe they were the ones held accountable for some of the forecasting
.3> problems you mention.
    
    But we'll never really know, because that's not the management way.
    
.3> ...the rather ethereal output of the re-engineering effort
    
    You *do* have a way with words!
    
    

    
    re .0
    
>  People from this very organisation were chartered in Week 2 of Mr
>  Palmer's tenure to redesign the company (or, at the very least, their
>  part of it and many related parts). Supply Chain Engineering, I think
>  they called it. Hand-picked by Mr Palmer from among the ranks of
    
    This is true ... for me, the difficulty of implementing supply chain
    ideas has been both 1) incrediably frustrating as well as 2) an amazing
    observation of (mostly negative) organizational behavior.
    

>  Accurate forecasting and delivery has always been a complicated and
>  difficult business. This is nothing new. But there are people who are
>  specialists in the area, and are very good at it. It is in large part
>  the responsibility of Manufacturing Logistics. A part of the company
>  with which Mr Palmer has some experience.

    Historically, logistics has done A LOT forecasting ... especially trying
    to reconsile the often huge disparity between field and business forecasts.
    Everyone seemed to have some responsibility for forecasting.
    
    The proposed supply chain design explicitly got manufacturing and
    logistics (m&l) out of the forecasting business.  M&L was to trust the
    business forecasts and focus on delivery of the product (e.g., only do
    it once in Digital).  
    
    That said your premise of putting forecasting errors at the foot of M&L
    is misguided IMO.  (to put it another way ... as a stockholder I sure
    as heck hope that busines people are providing forecasts and not
    process specialists).
    
    Greg  (frustrated supply chain participant)
    
    
    BTW - I'm not trying to let M&L off the hook.  One of the main reasons
    forecasting is so diffult for Digital is because our lead times are so
    long (the shorter the lead time the closer the window in which you
    need to forecast well ... shorter windows yield better forecasts).  M&L
    is very much responsible for our long lead times.
                       

                                  MEASUREMENTS
     
     I've heard the word "accountability" more in the last three years than 
     in the previous thirty.  It seems to have become fashionable.
     
     However, I doubt whether clear thinking lies behind most of these 
     utterances.  I'd like to suggest below some fundamental principles.  
     For I believe badly designed systems of accountability can cause a lot 
     more harm than good.  (Witness for example, our Q3 disasterous granting 
     of big discounts in order to "win" on measured quarterly CERTs.)
     
     COMPLETENESS IN TIME AND SPACE
     
     The most fundamental issue is the problem of completeness.
     
     Everyone has heard of (and many have seen) CEOs and other managers who 
     are able to "look good" based on short term measurements, and escape 
     to the next job before their rape of long-term investment is detected.  
     Others have experienced the destruction of cooperation and trust, when 
     someone cleverly looks good on his/her measurements by stealing credit 
     or resources or both from distant parts of the social fabric.
     
     So it is clear that consequences remote in time or remote in space are 
     vulnerable if we measure only in near time or only in local space.  
     Those who see such lapses will ridicule "accountability" flawed by it.
     
     COMPLETENESS AMONG STAKEHOLDERS
     
     One way to check for spatial completeness is to sketch out a vestigial 
     flow-diagram of a business process, illustrating its 5 main aspects:
     	      	 			________.
     	      	 		,------'	|
     	      	 		|   Neighbors	|
     	      	 		 \............./	
     	      	 		.................
     	      	 		|		|
     	Suppliers ------------>	|  Participants	| ----------> Customers
     	      	 		|...............|
     	      	 		  .............
     	      	 		 /	       \
     	      	 		/   Investors	\
     	      	 	       /.................\
     Any system of measurements that only senses consequences to three or 
     four of these, sets us up for victimization of the remaining one or 
     two.  The more we "hold people" (as in:  apply pressure) accountable,
     the more those "accountable" will be tempted to cheat and steal from 
     the people and organizations where consequences are unmeasured.
     

     COMPLETENESS IN HIERARCHY
     
     Another way to check for completeness:  look up, down, and sideways.
     For example, a manager who is only measured from above can abuse or 
     steal credit from subordinates so as to look good on accountabilities.
     Systems of "performance review" designed without a discipline to use 
     input from subordinates or without a discipline to use input from 
     colleagues are obviously set up for corruption.
     
     COMPLETENESS IN TIME
     
     Consider how the world of education would change, if teachers were 
     paid by lien on the lifetime productivity of those whom they educated.
     
     Consider how the world of consulting services would change, if 
     consultants were paid in the stock of their client company, with a 
     contract not to sell the stock for at least ten years.
     
     At Digital we have always encouraged employees to own stock in the 
     company.  This tends to give us all a stake in long-term success of 
     our business (except in cases where we can sell it without a delay.)
     
     Deming abhored annual performance reviews, in part because they 
     obviously are not designed to sense contributions that take a long 
     time to bear fruit.  They leave a huge opening to sacrifice systemic 
     contributors by diverting all rewards to the quick-fix contributor.
     
     INTEGRITY VS. DIAGNOSTIC POWER
     
     "Results count."  This might be considered as an abbreviation for:  
     "Some results can be counted."
     
     Usually, the results that can be counted are remote outcomes.  When 
     the life-cycle of a product is finished, its total gross revenue can 
     be counted up and its fecundity (or lack of fecundity) for ancillary 
     business contributions can be sensed.  But at that time, it's too late 
     to make useful decisions to improve the process that was leading to 
     those results.
     
     Usually, results that allow diagnosis for guiding decisions lack 
     undeniable authenticity.  "The jury is still out" and final results 
     can't yet be judged.  But we need to make a decision now.  How?  We 
     need upstream indicators.  Often we need activity-based measures in 
     addition to results-based measures.  Because with some fortunate 
     exceptions, diagnostics lack integrity;  and those measures having 
     ironclad integrity are not diagnostic.  (One such exception:  Days 
     Sales Outstanding or "DSOs" have integrity for one aspect of cashflow, 
     while being an upstream measure of changes in customer satisfaction.)
     

     COMPLETENESS versus COMPLEXITY
     
     In view of all the dimensions I outlined above, it's obvious that 
     systems of measurement that will not cause more harm than good will 
     have to measure many, many variables.  This may be loathsome news for 
     those who lack methods for dealing effectively with complexity.
     
     But hold on.  Historically, measurement has been almost exclusively 
     performed in language and numbers.  Is this tradition, or natural law?
     
     To me, it is obviously not Nature.  Management innovators in the West 
     and in Japan have developed more than a dozen ways to do visually what 
     formerly was only done through the auditory channel.  And eyes handle 
     complexities with far more agility than ears do.  It's like the 
     transformation from serial-access tapes to random-acces disks.
     
     "Keep it Simple" *AND* Complete!
     
     All engineering disciplines deal with complexity.  But if we were 
     doing engineering on the auditory channel only, the way managers have 
     been doing management, 20th century engineers would be lucky to have 
     built a few stone bridges.  Airplanes and cars and computers would be 
     impossible.  All engineering disciplines resort to diagrams from time 
     to time, to allow the pattern recognizers at the ends of the optic 
     nerves to participate.  This way we cope with complexity within the 
     design, and allow the user to experience simplicity.
     
     Multidimensional measurements can be given easy usability by well 
     designed visual display.  Statistical filtering of "noise" to avoid 
     over-reactions can likewise be made easy.  Most of the complexity can 
     be hidden, so that users of a complex measurement system can 
     experience it as simple.  TQM educators & consultants have methods.
     
     IS IT TIME TO DESIGN?
     
     For thirty years Digital's manufacturing plants have struggled with 
     "skew" at the ends of quarters and years.  Customers have even learned 
     brinkmanship with our salespeople to get good discounts at our 
     panic-selling seasons.  This is due to the design of how we measure 
     salespeople.  Our own design is at fault--no law of nature nor any 
     fixed feature of human nature ordains this.  It's costing us!
     
     For thirty years a minority of managers at Digital have exploited our 
     flawed review system, cheating and stealing to look like winners.  As 
     we downsize, the opportunities and the pressures for such abuse are, 
     if anything, increased.  This is due to the design of how we measure 
     managers.  Our own design is at fault--no law of nature nor any fixed 
     feature of human nature ordains this.  It's costing us!
     
     PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT JUST DISCUSS!!!
     
     Discussion got us here.  If you want design, use matrices & diagrams.

    Re: Focus on Metrics
    
    The metrics have always been arificial in some fashion, allowing
    folks in sales to pull tricks to "make the number".
    
    IMHO - This is the worst problem with the sales force at Digital.
    Make the number and you are GOD, regardless of how you do it.
    Do the right thing and don't make the number, and you are
    garbage.
    
    I know of sales reps that are a complete liability to Digital,
    that customers can't even stand to be in the same room with,
    that are considered fine by management because they make their
    numbers.
    
    A customer posted a suggestion on the internet the other day that
    customer's should be able to provide feedback on the quality of
    their rep, just to address this specific problem.
    
    Dan

    For another view, see the Jan-Feb '92 issue of Harvard Business
    Review, pp 71--79, an article called "The Balanced Scorecard--
    Measures That Drive Performance" by Kaplan and Norton.
    
    Here's a brief quote from near the end of the article:
    
    "...traditional performance measurement systems specify the particular
    actions they want employees to take and then measure to see whether the
    employees have in fact taken those actions.  In that way, the systems
    try to control behavior."
    
    "The balanced scorecard, on the other hand, is well suited to the kind
    of organization many companies are trying to become.  The scorecard
    puts strategy and vision, not control, at the center.  It establishes
    goals but assumes that people will adopt whatever behaviours and take
    whatever actions are necessary to arrive at those goals.  The measures
    are designed to pull people toward the overall vision.  Senior managers
    may know what the end result should be, but they cannot tell employees
    exactly how to achieve that result, if only because the conditions in
    which employees operate are constantly changing."
    
    
    Other than returning to profitability, I'm actually not clear that our
    senior managers really do know what the end result should be.  I think
    we used to have a vision;  the best way could articulate it would be
    "Compute-power to the People."  Paul Huntwork got a bunch together and
    they came up with a new one:  "Digital Connects People."  I like it.
    It came from a lot of thoughtful people struggling with the question.
    If we adopted it (with all of the charts that give it a clear context)
    at senior levels, then I'd say "senior managers know what the end
    result should be."  At the moment though, I don't see it.
    
    
    Anyway though, those of you with the motivation to read an HBR article
    related to this topic would probably find the above reference worth
    chasing down.
    			Russ

    Re .1, as tempered by the (long) .6 (i believe!)
    
    Any org MUST have metrics..."do the right thing" works as a guiding
    principle, but we ALL need to have goals, things we ARE accountable
    for, and which we should be evaluated against "periodically" (who'm I
    to argue with Deming!?).
    
    Our problems in this area seem more to be in CONFLICTING metrics, when
    2 or more groups which NEED to act synergistically (sp?) have
    conflicting goals. At least, that's what I've seen in the field. I was
    glad to see/hear of an end to or reduction of our matrix-management
    recently from BP.
    
    I think it's the matrix, not the metrics, that are the problem!

    Another Fortune 100 Corporation I worked for had 4 levels of mgmt
    between the CEO and the individual contributor.  The divisional VP,
    three levels of mgmt above me, sat together with his counterparts on
    their equivalent of the SLT and decided what metrics was being focused
    on that particular quarter.  10 days into the new quarter, we all got a
    written copy of said metrics.  Guess what, my metric was in direct
    HARMONY with those metrics cross-functional.
    
    Ever happen here?  Last 5 people left standing can let us know.

    re:  .0
    
    There was a lot of discounting, apparently, last quarter.  The margins
    definitely weren't healthy.
    
    But there may be other explanations than "sales people weren't driven
    to the right behavior."
    
    Sales people live in a world with lots of interaction, direct and
    indirect with the marketplace and our competition.  If the competition
    is offering an equivalent product at a lower price, what is the "right"
    behavior?  On one hand, you can walk away from the unprofitable
    business, but what if you sold this at less than what our "profit
    model" says is breakeven?  Then (assuming you are at least covering
    your variable costs) the sale will contribute to covering some of the
    corporations fixed costs.  If you don't make any sale, nothing
    contributes to those costs and the full amount still remains to be
    recovered on the next sale.
    
    The business textbooks devote chapters to strategies and alternative
    considerations in setting price and selling product.  The answer isn't
    obvious (except selling below your variable cost and trying to make it
    up on volume).
    
    The current push to improved margin may degrade our total revenue. 
    Then we'll likely see a mad rush to get revenue at any cost.  It's liek
    the coffee commercial where the passengers keep rushing from one side
    of the ship to the other, and you can hear the ship groan as she heels
    over.

    This topic and string is very constructive, lots of wisdom in every
    byte.  Something needed to help our "vision" flourish is creativity 
    mixed with a firm grasp of the technologies we are selling (and
    servicing/supporting.)
    
    This deficiancy (imho) is one of the reasons why exciting visions 
    that catch our imagination and engage us all levels are in such 
    limited supply, especially from those leading us.  We can all help
    by making it our responsibility to know our marketplace better.
    
    marty
    

    	To link this to another string, it is suggested there that no
    employee has the right to expect the employer<->employee relationship
    to be a long term one.
    
    	Without that expectation there is no long term accountability for
    short term behaviour. Ken obviously expected to be there for life, and
    tried to encourage other employees to expect the same.

    
    <<< Note 3124.13 by PASTIS::MONAHAN "humanity is a trojan horse" >>>
           -< a short term employee isn't long term accountable >-
    
     
    
    	Absobloominright!!!
    
    	It was mentioned in a meeting last night that DIGITAL managers tend
    to come into a new job, set off all sorts of "new plans," changing
    eveything - that all the underlings KNOW will not work, but just before
    "the pidgeons come home to roost," the manager is promoted off to some
    other job.  The replacement manager comes in and finds all the problems
    coming in, but disclaims all responsibility (it was his predecessor's
    fault!), sets up all his own "new plans" .... and so the cycle
    continues on and on.
    
    	Of course, it is never "my fault" always the fault of the guy in
    that position last - who is no longer accountable!
    
    	And so the company continues its downward spiral.
    
    	What we need is accountablility as the Topic says.  We need
    managers to stay in the a job long enough to "reap the rewards of their
    efforts," and I DON'T mean their next promotion!
    
    	Please don't misunderstand me, I am NOT, definitely NOT saying that
    all managers are the same, I am not even saying that all managers who
    get promoted every two or three years are like this, BUT in twenty one
    years with DIGITAL come August, I have seen so many and the trail of
    destruction that those who are in this category leave behind them, that
    it is a wonder that the company has lasted this long.
    
    	I realise that this isn't the point that PASTIS::MONAHAN was trying
    to make, but I think that this is relevant to the Topic of
    accountability.
    
    				Malcolm. 

    Good note string --
    
    Forecasting -- I was wondering about that as it relates to
    accountability.
    
    It is a mystery to me how my "forecast" which is revenue based is
    converted into say: a 3000/600 128 MB of mem, 2 GBytes of Disk, etc.
    
    Given that this is the beginning flow of the pipe, how does
    manufacturing translate that to real product needs?
    
    That got me to thinking about systems -- Every deal needs a quote.  Is
    the AQS system visible to the forecasters?  If so, is it used in some
    fashion to get a pointer to activity in order to rationalize other
    forecasted information into something useful?
    
    We are having major difficulty getting things shipped.  In a twon
    meeting prior to his leaving, Lucente said that the 250 Mill backlog
    that was at the end of Q2 was 400 Mil in mid March.
    
    I wuz just wunderin'
    
    Dennis

    Re. .8:
    
>     Other than returning to profitability, I'm actually not clear that our
>     senior managers really do know what the end result should be.  I think
>     we used to have a vision;  the best way could articulate it would be
>     "Compute-power to the People."

    I believe the original DEC vision was technology driven.  Engineers
    built things that had just become possible to build because of
    advancing technology, and a sufficient fraction of them turned out to
    be useful that it made the company successful.  We indeed built
    some things because we thought, "hey, if I build this it will be
    NEAT!"

    Nobody called this a "vision", but most everybody acknowledged that
    this was the way DEC worked.

    However, as the company grew bigger, the business "experts" came along
    and said that method was bad.  It was nothing more than engineers
    amusing themselves. Instead, we needed to be "market driven", and
    *follow* "industry standards", "supply chain", and a bunch of other
    stuff.  Some of these things were indeed needed in a large, established
    company, but in the process, engineering innovation, particularly in
    software, was largely quashed.

    Just look at all the areas where DEC software led the industry 10-15
    years ago and observe that we have given up anything like leadership in
    virtually all of those areas.

    Well, I say this business is still technology driven, and the companies
    that succeed will be those that are first to deliver new technology to
    the market, PARTICULARLY SOFTWARE.  And the only way to do that is to
    have many independent product lines (or business units, pick your
    favorite term) that can encourage technological risk-taking and decide
    quickly what to develop.

    So long as corporate management is locked into a monolithic structure
    of control, especially one with metrics which myopically reward only
    what got sold last quarter, it won't happen.


    dlm

    re -1:  building "neat things" has indeed been one key aspect of
    Digital's historical success.  However, I don't think there's any
    conflict between being excited about the process (gee, what a neat
    thing....) and being excited about generous human purposes (and 
    customers could do "x" with this neat thing....)  One aspect of
    "neat" is the possibilities it will generate, as imagined by the
    creative mind who perceives it as "neat."
    
    And remember, for years DECUS put our engineers in good touch with
    a lot of customers who were at that time typical customers.  Plus,
    in a smaller company that is hiring a lot of people every month,
    both the surface-area-to-volume ratio and the rate of ingress
    tend to keep people grounded in external realities--so that what
    one person thinks is "neat" can get quickly tested for business
    viability.
    
    As for "trends" and other numb-mind dullness:  I acknowledge that we've
    let far too much of this creep in.  A company that follows trends
    becomes merely market-driven and competitive.  Whatever Business School
    professors might believe, it's still dumb.  Customer-driven and
    contributory can build a temporary monopoly, with monopoly profit margins.
    Market-driven and competitive is a sure route to thin margins, if any.
    (Especially if "market driven" and "competitive" is currently trendy!)
    
    							Russ
    
    							(who is in no way
    							 humble about this
    							 fixed opinion!)
    

  Re .0:
    
  > I've been thinking about the infamous Q3 and the explanations we were
  > given for what happened. A couple of things have occurred to me.


  >  * We couldn't deliver product.

  > When I heard Mr Palmer's explanation, it sounded to me a bit like what
  > I used to tell my high school teachers about why my homework wasn't
  > done: a long, complicated, rather technical list of excuses, all
  > valid. Somewhat out of character from his usual, crisp replies.

  > In my opinion, we and the BoD, as non-experts in forecasting, have
  > been "snowed". Not deliberately, but it was the kind of answer one
  > might expect from someone who is quite close to the domain. The fact
  > is, as far as the results are concerned, he might as well have said
  > "my dog ate the forecast".

This has been bothering me too. These were BP's words on this
(see note 3000.0):

         "The changing nature of our business continues to present both 
   challenges and opportunities.  We are experiencing significant growth, in 
   both revenues and in units, at the highly competitive low end of our 
   product line.  In fact, one contributor to our disappointing results was 
   our inability to satisfy rapidly increasing customer demand for personal 
   computers, Alpha AXP workstations and some storage products," he said.

What bothers me is that according to this the forecast was too _low_.
If I have 10 marbles, go out and sell them all then I know what my
profit/loss will be and I could never chalk up "unexpected losses"
to the fact that i could have sold 12. Unless Digital is being
sued for breach of contract wrt delivery delays (which I very much
doubt) I simply don't understand how this could lead to additional
loss, far less how this could possibly lead to _unexpected_ additional
loss.

re roelof

    RE: -1
    
>         "The changing nature of our business continues to present both 
>   challenges and opportunities.  We are experiencing significant growth, in 
>   both revenues and in units, at the highly competitive low end of our 
>   product line.  In fact, one contributor to our disappointing results was 
>   our inability to satisfy rapidly increasing customer demand for personal 
>   computers, Alpha AXP workstations and some storage products," he said.
    
    What this says (IMHO) is that we sold all the marbles (as the previous
    noter's analagy put it) we had, each one "discounted" so deeply as to
    incur a negative margin and we were unable to satisfy the resultant
    rapidly increasing demand.  In other words, as has been pointed out
    before, we only lost a little bit on each one, but we made up for it in
    volume.
    
    <;^}
    
    tony

RE   .16

>    However, as the company grew bigger, the business "experts" came along
>    and said that method was bad.  It was nothing more than engineers
>    amusing themselves. Instead, we needed to be "market driven", and
>    *follow* "industry standards", "supply chain", and a bunch of other
>    stuff.  Some of these things were indeed needed in a large, established
>    company, but in the process, engineering innovation, particularly in
>    software, was largely quashed.


     This reminded me of two such experts (manager and supervisor)
     who once critiqued a fellow manager as "running a country-club for
     engineers".   The individual under discussion was actually a talented,
     creative, and energizing engineer/manager.  The experts were something
     altogether different ...

    
    
    	Two words which just about sum up the problems....
    
    
    		"Lead" and "Follow"!
    
    
    	I was amazed to learn about two years ago that the cost of having
    inventory on the high seas being shipped from the Far East to Europe
    was unacceptable, and that it was ultimately cheaper to manufacture in
    Europe at higher workforce cost than it was to manufacture in the Far
    East where workforce costs are much lower, and ship to Europe.
    
    	This sets the context of the problem!
    
    	We cannot afford to FOLLOW in today's market there just isn't time.
    
    	Products (whether HW or SW) are obsolete in six months! (The ship
    time by sea from Far East to Europe is too large a fraction of this
    time!)
    
    	Leading implies a time advantage, and we seem to have the products
    to take advantage of this.
    
    			Dave Clark

    	This is no doubt why we have closed down disk manufacturing in
    Germany and are building a disk manufacturing plant in Malaysia. Or
    maybe air shipment changes the cost balance as disk drives get smaller
    and lighter?

    
>    	This is no doubt why we have closed down disk manufacturing in
>    Germany and are building a disk manufacturing plant in Malaysia. Or
>    maybe air shipment changes the cost balance as disk drives get smaller
>    and lighter?
    
    It depends on the technology ... the far east makes sence the more
    stable the technology and the commodity like the product (e.g., price
    is the game and you can afford (and I mean mostly time here) to have
    the product floating on a boat) ... quicker changing technology where
    the technology itself is a driver are pulled closer to the end customer
    (e.g., proximaty to engineering and avoiding shipping stuff by planes
    rule).
    
    Greg
    
                                                                 

    re .23:
    
    Sorry, I didn't get any of that.  Have you considered writing press
    releases for a living?
    
    
    ;->

re: .24

Not sure whether your smiley was for you last sentence or the whole thing...

.23 was stating the obvious,  If your product won't 'spoil' during shipment,
it doesn't matter where it comes from, so you should get it from the cheapest
source.  On the other hand, if it will 'spoil' during shipment, you'd better
find a closer source.

This ignores the problem of the lead time required to change supply caused
by a change in demand.  If it takes months to add or remove product from the
market, you will be in trouble if demand is significantly different than
forecast.

Bob

Re. .1 & others

I recently read in DIGITAL today that Win Hindle plans to retire at the end
of June.  That in conjunction with the grim tenor of the current work
environment reminded me of a note sent around by a friend and former colleague
Will Kohlbrenner, whom I think would not mind my reposting it here.  It's
about 5 years old and reminds us that a productive work environment is
the result of good will, cooperation and common sense taking precendence
over blind adherence to guidelines, metrics and scrambling to look good.
Also, while I know nothing whatever of Win Hindle, I was saddened to
hear of his plans to retire, based just on my friend's observation about
him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	RAGMOP::KOHLBRENNER  "The answer lies in the question."  6-OCT-1989 12:24:43.13
To:	@WORDSMITHS
CC:	
Subj:	Comments on our work environment

This is an observation on CUP Engineering and CUP/ITG.

I had an opportunity to spend an hour with Win Hindle, one of
our two senior VPs.  Hindle was visiting Spitbrook to
"get the lay of the land."  I was volunteered with six other people
from the ranks, so to speak.  (Five men, two women.)

We gathered in the ZK3 lobby, while we waited to meet with
him in the Edison conference room.  We probably spent fifteen 
minutes in the lobby, since we all arrived a little early (!) 
and another group that was meeting with Hindle ran over their 
allotted time.

Three of the other men in the lobby were from the same organization,
and I knew one of them slightly.   I was struck by the posturing
going on.  They were pacing around, mostly avoiding eye contact,
standing tall in white shirts and ties, speaking in technotalk.  
I quickly dropped out of this coded exchange.

Well, the meeting with Hindle was pleasant if uneventful.  The
three men took their opportunity to make an impression, and I 
think I even saw a little smile on Hindle's face at one point,
as he observed what looked (to me) like an audition.

(By the way, I liked Win Hindle, who seemed to be unpretentious, 
relaxed, perceptive -- even articulate!)

As I walked back to our area, I was thinking about contrasts.
I once again marveled at how easy I think our daily exchange of 
information is, and how little posturing there is.  I feel that 
I can walk into anyone's office and ask a question and get an 
absolutely straight answer, and that the person there will care 
about whether I understood the whole picture, and not just give 
me enough to get rid of me.  And I don't feel that I have to 
think about the "politics" of asking the question.  And I don't 
ever worry about being uninformed or "looking dumb," even though 
there are many subject areas in our group on which I am uninformed.

All of that is in contrast to the feeling I got in the lobby.
That feeling in the lobby reminded me of past work environments 
where I was made to feel like an idiot when I asked a question 
and I had to decide how best to ask it, how to deal with the 
probable one-word response, whether it was worth the effort of 
asking, and whether it was wise to even ask!


So, I thought I'd better not take this environment for granted!
Hence, this message.
   

re: .26

Others have had other kinds of experiences with the soon to be departed
Mr. Hindle.

Bob

    
>    Sorry, I didn't get any of that.  Have you considered writing press
>    releases for a living?
    
    Sorry about that ... here are two extremes ...
    
    Toothpicks ... no problem with obsceleance, guesses at demand patterns,
    low technology process ... so build them wherever the toal cost is
    cheapest (unit cost + freight + duty) ... likely in a low labor place.
    
    Hot Board Game (like Trivial Pursuit a couple years ago) ... can't
    afford to fly the finished goods and the demand pattern is almost
    totally unpredictable so using boats for shipments unrealistic (you
    have to guess demand months in advance if you use boats) ... that draws
    the production closer to the customer away from the cheapest labor
    markets.  (This example ignores the technology component ... say a new
    release came out on average every 3 months but you're never sure
    exactly when they would come.)  How well can you plan a product pipeline
    that is 2/3 of the life of the product?  Is that worth saving 50 cents
    in labor instead of knocking 6 weeks off your cycle time?
                                  
    Greg
                        

    Re .16, .17 (engineering `if you build it, they will come'):

    Ah, yes.  Ye Golden Olde Dayes.  I wasn't a Digit then (I was a
    customer!), but the impression I have is that some engineer could come up
    with an idea for a Neat Thing, and hack on it with all the midnight oil at
    his disposal.  If it was a Good Thing, other people would get energised
    about it, there'd be lots of feedback, and it would improve in quality and
    scope according to the availability of that same midnight oil.  If it
    wasn't a Good Thing, the originator was the only one spending time on it.
    At some point, either customer demand would develop (possibly via some
    engineer mentioning it at DECUS or suchlike), or an expected demand would
    be perceived, and voil�!  The necessary work would get done to make it a
    product.  Improvements would be driven by feedback and more of the
    creative thinking that made the thing happen in the first place.

    From talking to customers (and being one) over the last few years,
    primarily at DECUS (where the audience has a very high loyalty factor),
    it's clear that this situation has changed.  Here are the complaints I
    repeatedly hear from customers about our software (there are other
    complaints about Digital, but it's the software-related issues I want to
    mention just now):

     o Too little too late.  Digital's offering arrives well after our
       competitors have established a market presence, and our version lack
       functionality, interoperability, and/or robustness.
     o Accountability.  Digital just isn't interested in making things work
       right, apparently.  The QAR and SPR processes are a complete waste of
       time�, and new versions keep coming out WITH unasked-for functionality
       but WITHOUT requested capabilities.  Much of Engineering is regarded as
       being locked (by their desire) in an ivory tower, handing out to
       customers what they feel like producing - which may or may not bear
       some faint resemblance to what the customers want.

    Essentially every complaint I hear about our software boils down into one
    or the other of these.  Basically, some perceive us as not being
    competitive because a) we're too tangled up in Process to be timely, and
    b) we're not listening to our customers.

    It seems clear to me, from my own experience, that these are real and
    serious problems.  At public (well, internally so) meetings, I've asked
    pointed questions of Don Harbert, Bill Strecker, and Bill Demmer (in that
    order) concerning budgeting for remedial work.  (I.e., `how much of our
    resources are going to be allocated to fixing problems in our immense
    backlog, as opposed to working on whizzy new features?')  Both Don and
    Bill Strecker basically dodged the question while glaring at me, but
    Demmer had the intestinal fortitude to answer, essentially, `None.  If
    a customer has a problem, it should be handled through the CLD process.
    Even if it was reported [and ignored - kc] years ago, it needs to be
    re-entered into the new system.'  Back when I was a customer, I received
    more than one SPR closed with a remark similar to `we will think about the
    possibility of considering tentative discussion of your issue for some
    Future Unannounced Major Release.'  I've also noticed that some QARs get
    closed without commitment, apparently to improve the `numbers' against the
    responsible engineer's name.

    Some, possibly most, individual contributors are still committed to
    quality, but it seems as though they can't meet the commitment because
    Someone has other plans.  Witness how virtually everything else stopped
    in the late '80s while products were scrambling to provide DECwindows
    support.

    As for Process damaging our leadership ability - well, between multiple 
    product groups competing for the same space, turf wars, budget
    justification battles, hypothetical Market Analyses, a multi-year phase
    review process, and end-of-quarter management, I'm inclined to agree.

    I dislike griping or identifying (IMHO) problems without also suggesting
    solutions, but these are toughies.  Here are some possibilities, though:

     1. Abandon all software products that are currently uncompetitive unless
        they have a plan to fix it within twelve months.  If they haven't made
    	it, or at least *substantial* strides toward it (like curves making it
    	within another six), by then, can them 	outright.  We can't afford to
    	be spending money on things that won't make money (unless they make
    	Good Will).  [Twelve months is considerably less than I'd like - it
    	smacks of the `can't see beyond the end of the quarter' planning I
    	deplore - but we're in a bad way here.]
     2. Centralise some/all Marketing funding.  Currently, different groups
        must buy their own space at trade shows.  You get as attractive a
    	booth as you can afford.  To increase attractiveness, you may need to
    	divert funds from other areas - like LRP or development.  IMHO, there
    	should be a central pot of money for these functions, and groups
    	should be able to get funding from it strictly on the basis of
    	justification - without it having to affect the rest of their budget.
    	[I don't think I'm saying this very well.]  I think the current
    	situation is contributing to the `loose coalition of warring tribes'
    	effect.  `If we don't hang together, we shall all most assuredly hang
    	separately.'
     3. Create an SPR system that works, and give remedial work TOP priority.
        Restore our customers' faith in our commitment to quality and
    	addressing their concerns.  This needs to apply across the entire
    	Company.
     4. Stop the restructuring!  Digital's organisational structure has been
        at a rolling boil for as long as I've worked here.  I estimates tens
    	of thousands of dollars are wasted every time some `realignment'
    	happens - firstly because of the effort needed to correct
    	documentation and redo plans, and secondly (and with a greater
    	impact, IMHO) because of the confusion engendered among the employees.
   	How many workhours are spent trying to determine who's responsible
	for X this week?  Also, it seems to have become an habit: if a
        group is failing, change the name and shuffle the players a bit so it
    	can continue to fail with a clean slate.
     5. Implement budget responsibility.  If I'm a CC manager, hold me
        responsible!  Don't let me pass the buck to Finance, but neither shove
    	Finance into my face.  If it's my budget, it's for me to spend.  If I
    	don't spend it wisely, address the issue at the next budget cycle.  If
    	I do, reward me appropriately next time (with a bigger budget,
    	probably).  But get the ruddy Finance signatory chain out of my face!
    	IMHO, Finance's r�le should be strictly advisory and consultive - it
    	should have NO authority to veto or approve.  Its job should be
    	helping me find ways to do what I want in a cost-effective way, not
    	watching my pennies and slapping my wrist.
     6. *Listen* to our customers & act on what they say.  Treat all
        customers, large and small, alike.  Make the results known
    	Company-wide, not just private to the group involved.
     7. *Market* our products!  Get adverts on prime-time television &
        rush-hour radio!  Anyplace our competitors advertise we should too!
    	At least!
     8. Make Quality priority #1.  When introducing a new product, keep it
        simple for V1.  Let it do limited things, but those very, very well
    	and very, very reliably.  Avoid creeping featurism.  Keep it lean and
    	mean so we can be one of the first suppliers of the functionality -
    	avoid the Too Little Too Late effect.  Keep the quality high so we
    	DON'T have to spend a lot of remedial money, but can instead focus on
    	adding CUSTOMER-REQUESTED features.  Our V1 products have a bad
    	reputation (I've heard customers say `Never buy a Vn.0 product from
    	Digital - always wait for at least Vn.1') - let's fix this.
     9. Design for interoperability.  Customers are endlessly inventive;
        they'll always want an API or a documented format (like
    	accessing/modifying DECW$CALENDAR's data file from something other
    	than Calendar).  Don't use obscure, undocumented, or proprietary
    	formats - CPU and memory power are cheap enough now that we can afford
    	to have things a little more human-readable than computer-readable.
    	Try to find existing standards or conventions to meet, or else provide
    	clear documentation of what you're doing.  Provide in the LRP for
    	retrofitting if a standard emerges later.

    I think I'm starting to rave, so I'd better shut up now.  Look for
    solutions, not problems - keep the faith.  `Digital is not yet dead!'

    Cheers..

    #ken    :-|}

    
    	#ken -
    
    		Your note should be required reading. And it applies to
    more than just the SW functions. Anyone who disputes you mightly is
    brain-dead. Too bad the SLT doen't read these files (probably can't
    stand the pressure, or "We believe you do not understand the BIG
    picture" thinking). Where I came from (Motorola) is exactly what
    you desired. And their performance over the past decade speaks for
    itself.
    
    		the Greyhawk

        You are assuming that no one briefs the SLT on what's being
        discussed in DIGITAL and other conferences.  I can assure you that
        is not so.  While I wouldn't expect Bob Palmer or other SLT staff
        to read Notes directly, rest assured that there are people who are
        in senior management or on their staffs who follow DIGITAL and a
        number of other conferences, both to have a sense of which way the
        wind's blowing, and to be aware of good ideas that surface.
        
        Tom

    
    Re .31:
    
    "Rest assured", when all available evidence points to the contrary
    and the downward spiral quickens?
    
    Would that we had some concrete proof of this allegation.
    

There's evidence that senior management is aware of some of the discussion
that goes on in here.  Whether they follow any of the advice given here is
a totally different question.

re .29
good stuff. right on.

In over 17 years here, I've only seen one LRP that directly addressed
quality.  Bill Heffner put support of existing products as our #1 
responsibility.  I think it also should be our #1 ethical requirement.

This is probably not an exact quote, but I think it captures the spirit:
"The first thing we have to do is give our customers what they have
already paid for."

    .32, etc. (excuse me if I'm off a note of two, it's late and I'm on
    a grape fizzey)
    
    	Can't believe we are paying somebody to read NOTES files to tell
    the SLT what they could damn well do themselves. If this is even
    remotely true, we are in deep sneakers. Come to think of it......
    
    		the Greyhawk
    
    		- Hey Bob, I'm in Chicago DTN: 474-5180. Give me a call,
    		  we'll do lunch. My treat.

    
    it should be a required part of the job for the CEO to read 
    digital:: and the 'box, for much wisdom lies within.
    
    it might be hard to recognize, but it's in there.

    Oh, be sure that "they" read this conference. I have proof. I wrote
    something a long time ago in here that exposed a senior manager and his
    machinations as detrimental to the Company. He *demanded*, through my
    management chain that "severe action" be taken as a result. As I was in
    the right, and my assertions were correct, my management declined his
    "offer".
    
    Oh yes, "they" read this all right, they probably find the ramblings of
    the uneducated, great-unwashed who simply don't understand big
    important management-type things, highly amusing. They sure as hell
    take little notice. The matter I risked my job for went ahead anyway.
    
    Laurie.

	I'm sure there are qualified people reading this conference
and reporting back to BP.  They are probably the same people that kept
him up to date on the numbers last quarter. ;^)

	Joe

    
    To add a touch of fact into the proceedings, I was at a presentation
    given by Palmer to approx 12 senior customer VP's a couple of weeks back.
    
    He made specific, & complimentary, reference to Notes as a vehicle for
    tracking major issues affecting the workforce. No trace of side in what
    he said, but he clearly does get feedback. 
    
    Those noters that want him to read Notes himself should just pause to 
    reflect on his work schedule - it's truly impressive what the man 
    delivers & achieves in terms of inspiring customer confidence, but I 
    do wish it was more visible, internally & externally. A great asset, 
    inadequately reported & valued.
    
    
    Colin

    Well, how about someone on BP's staff then? I don't ever recall seeing
    a note in this conference by anyone that identified themselves as being
    on KO's or BP's staff.
    
    It appears that there is a genuine fear of being held accountable
    (basenote topic, right?) for somthing that may be entered here.
    
    It has been said many times here that if BP or the SLT would begin
    communicating with employees via this notesfile (instead of just fiats
    via memo from on high) there would be an instant leap in the morale
    level amongst employees.
    
    Communication, trust, goodwill, give it any name you want- it sure
    would generate some hope if there would be this type of visible
    communication. But will BP or the SLT dare to match the level of
    honesty and frankness that would be required/expected? I suspect not,
    else we would have seen them (or their representatives) posting in here
    before now.
    
    Lee

    I'd be happy if someone in charge would just answer some of the more
    lurid rumors with a nice, "No, that's not true," or "We'll have an
    announcement at xxx date," or "I'm sorry, we really can't talk about
    that right now."  Real statements of what *is* true would delight me. 
    
    I'd even settle for a "Mr. Palmer will give a mid-quarter DVN update
    next week to let everybody know how we're progressing."  Providing Mr.
    Palmer would indeed let us know what's going on.  
    
    Information, real information from somebody who knows what's going on,
    kills rumors on contact. 
    
    --bonnie 

    
    I have thought about this (and discussed this to some extent) not with
    corporate management, but with local management, but I guess this have
    got a strong analogy to corporate level.
    
    To begin with - the managers we have got left, are usually really busy
    talking to customers and talking to their own people - and I do think
    they priorize their time right by doing so, instead of reading or
    especially writing to Notes files.
    
    Then - Notes isn't something every one within Digital does, I would
    guess that not even 30 % of us. So it can't be used for communication
    ment to all people in about the same time and with about the same
    context.
    
    Further - even if many/some of the managers regularly/occasinally reads
    some of the notes files, they usually choose not to express themselves
    in them. It is very difficult to explain complicated things in a
    concise written form so that it would not leave too many openings for
    misinterpretations. And, even if this could be done in some cases at
    least, I think senior management replys in Notes files usually would
    kill the discussion. If this (whatever) is like this, then what. End of
    discussion. At least in some cases they don't express themselves just
    to have the discussion open (I'm now referring to local notes more than
    to this one, but I suppose it isn't that much different).
    
    Just another kind of opinion to this subject ...
    
    Pirkko
    

    Another view...  Management participation in any medium tends to
    legitimize it.  Formerly "too busy" folks, noticing that the top brass
    are visible therein, tend to want to be visible as well.  It feeds on
    itself.
    
    Agreed that it's hard to discuss complex issues in writing, but I've
    seen corporate cultures handle that challenge.
    

        Speaking as a moderator who has some history with this conference,
        I have (in the past) been contacted by Corporate Employee Communi-
        cations to post material here or respond to a note here, and it's
        been as much a mystery to me as it is to you why they don't just
        do it themselves.
        
        There is something about Notes (as distinguished from VTX or MAIL
        or other electronic vehicles) that seems to prevent "corporate"
        participation.  Maybe it's the immediate (and often vitriolic)
        feedback.  Can you imagine someone officially responsible for some
        of the "unpleasant messages" getting flamed as much as volunteers
        get?  But then, they get it anyway..
        
        Tom

>        Speaking as a moderator who has some history with this conference,
>        I have (in the past) been contacted by Corporate Employee Communi-
>        cations to post material here or respond to a note here, and it's
>        been as much a mystery to me as it is to you why they don't just
>        do it themselves.
    
    	Ask them for a cross-charge number if they ask you to do something.
    That's the way things are supposed to work these days, isn't it?
    
    Maybe they just don't know how to use Notes? Offer them a course.

    >Maybe they just don't know how to use Notes? Offer them a course.
    
    Actually, there's already an excellent course available. Any time that
    a new user enters notes for the first time, notes creates a
    NOTES$SAMPLE conference. Unfortunately, many folks "don't have the
    time" to read the directions. They show up every day in every notesfile
    from A to Z starting new topics that already exist. If they'd take 20
    minutes out of their lives and type OPEN NOTES$SAMPLE and follow the
    extremely easy prompts on their screen, they'd be experts before they
    knew it!
    
    Harry
    

    I vaguely recall my daze as a notes newbie.  I recall the help of the
    NOTES$SAMPLE but I don't recall it being as useful as WATCHING SOMEONE
    use the product.  It's hard to understand the problem that DECnotes
    solves if you have never seen it in action.  Not impossible for
    excellent docs in the system to help; just that some folks (me
    included) do lots better if they see someone using it and talking it
    thru.
    
    FWIW.  
    
    Now back to the topic at hand (yeah right :-) ...
                                                

    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to ROWLET::AINSLEY, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

Dear Digital,

We grew together for over 20 years.  During this time we've had our ups and
downs.  I've tried to hold up my end of the deal, I wish you would.
I know I am an employee at will.  That I should be happy just having a paycheck.
I hear these things all the time.  Over the years I've turned down a number of
job offers, remaining loyal to you, yet you have lost your loyalty to me.  No
person should expect permanent employment, yet if a person is doing a good job,
they should expect, no demand, a sense of security.  At least they should know
if the job they are doing is valued.

We've watched you foolishly take away our WSJ, water cooler, raises, 
canobie lake, turkeys, post-a-notes, health insurance, on-site nurses, 
heath centers, libraries, advance pay, free discounts, matching gift program-
reduced then eliminated, our headquarters, and our fellow workers.  Not to
mention the most important thing you took away, our trust.  And for all those
unimportant things you took away, we have seen no payback.

You game has not been working, has it?  Let's try a new game.

YOU tell us what the corporate vision is.  I can come up with a budget
[you remember the days of budget and cost centers?] and project plan.
My group follows our plan and spends to our budget.  If we miss, chop our heads
off!  Fire us!  If we make it, reward us.

You can plan a whole year this way!  You know how much you are going to spend.
You know what project/products you are buying.

We know we have a job if we come to plan.  we are now in control of our future.
You make sure our plans are good, that our spending is ok, and we make our plans
work.
We don't have to look over our shoulder EACH day to see if this is our last.
I'll tell you something, it was a lot easier in the old DEC days to work our
butts off in OT to bring a project in schedule than it is today when working
extra hours means your boss has more time to search you out to lay you off.
and the reward today for finishing a project?  exposure to being non essential.
Some incentive to completing the project, huh?

give us back trust and accountability with a vision, We'll give you back 
profits.  You don't have to turn the ship alone.

    
    
                  THE   TALE   OF   D. E. C.    (pronounced: "dee eee
                                                           see",please)
    
            This tale is told in many places,
             by different mouths on different faces.
            But don't be fooled by what you see.
            The best are dumped by the heirarchy.
    
            By striking firebrands from the force,
            The rest get very still, of course.
            But fear instilled promotes decay,
             constructive critics fade away.
    
            Harmony gives way to hate,
            Pearl Harbor files are in a spate.
            And managers without a name
             absolve themselves of all the blame.
    
            "The errors of the past", they say,
             "we're sorry for, but start today
              "to build a ship, all shiny and new !"
            I say, "Look, the keel's askew..."
    
            The Mate, on drugs, he fantasizes,
             "Add horizontal stabilizers,
               "give them a title and a fancy name !"
            But a yes-man is a yes-man, just the same.
    
            The Captain's dead, his officers drugged,
             the hull's too leaky to be plugged.
            You don't cure problems by curing effects,
             you must cure causes, not paint the decks.
    
            Our ship sets sail on troubled seas,
            Following management's directionless lead.
            The causes infect us from stem to stern
            Our temperature rises, the fever burns...
    
            Our sights get foggy, our ship she pitches.
            "It must be THOSE mutinous sons-of-bitches !
             "We'll keelhaul the dogs, and feed 'em to the sharks !"
            Never realizing the water's gone down to two marks...
    
            Our festering ship goes down to the sea,
             our shiny new ship called D.E.C.
            Our tale will be told in mariner rhyme,
             a sea-going nightmare...a black hole in time.
    
            We'll all be forgotten as time passes by.
            We must all learn a lesson before we must die.
            A lesson of what we all ought not be...
            And thus ends the tale of D.E.C...
    
    

If there is a time to put all the cards on the table as far as accountability
goes, i would think that after the Q4 results get announced would be the time.

We supposedly know what the problems were in Q3 now.  We let our expenses blow
up in anticipation of revenue that never materialized due to poor forecasting,
undisciplined discounting, and inability of M&L to fulfill orders.  Now we
should have leftover Q3 orders in the pipeline, we're clamping down on expenses
big-time, and the discipline in Sales and M&L should be under microscopic
scrutiny (plus the Teamsters' strike is over, right?).

If we break even or are within negligible distance of it (either way), then the
Q3 "surprise" will look like an aberration, as described by Bob Palmer, and we
should be able to feel a little more confident about the future, even knowing
that we face a lot more cuts and a wait for revenues to pick up.

If we take it on the chin again, as in Q3, then it will be time to question
whether anybody in charge (up to and including the BOD) knows what's going on
anymore, versus whether we're just lurching from crisis to crisis in reactive
mode.

I sure don't know what to expect.  On the hopeful side, Bob Palmer is a very
persuasive individual, he seems to have the complete support of the BOD (at
least some of whom have run pretty huge businesses themselves), our technology
still looks like it's at the forefront, and with Enrico Pesatori now in charge
of major segments of the business we have someone who has been demonstrating
success driving the behavior of broad areas of the company.  I also continue
to be impressed with Charlie Christ, who's actually getting us into NEW MARKETS
(like the video servers) rather than circling wagons around the installed base.

On the less hopeful side, we have seen three major shifts in organizational
models for the company in a very short time (CBUs-->Lucente "product" model
-->Pesatori ??? model), three different individuals in charge of our crucial
Marketing function in the same amount of time (Bill Johnson-->Lucente-->
Pesatori), many of the top VPs who were brought on board with great fanfare a
short time back now pitched out, and some extreme fluctuations in our notion
of how many lay-offs were ultimately needed and how quickly they should happen.
One of the most ominous signs to me is that we dawdled through Q2 and Q3 doing
very few lay-offs, and yet WE DIDN'T TELL PEOPLE AT THE BEGINNING OF Q2, "Hey,
don't worry about lay-offs for the next six months, just focus on performance!"
If it was really the plan to hold back on lay-offs, we missed a significant
opportunity to positively impact the morale of employees by just saying so!

By the end of July we should know whether we're attempting the desparately
difficult but still possible, or whether we've just been simulating survival
in the frantic mode of headless chickens.
								- paul

Thanks, that was quite sane.

>If there is a time to put all the cards on the table as far as accountability
>goes, i would think that after the Q4 results get announced would be the time.

It is now 21 June. Q4 is almost over.

    so ...its the end of Q4. What has really changed since Q3 ?
    
    8k cut with another 25k on the way.
    
    Everyone now knows that getting the tap has nothing to do with
    performance any more and as a result everyone is nervous...work
    suffers.
    
    No real process changes
    
    No real policy changes
    
    Still no clear direction from the SLT
    
    Still the same problems with order delivery
    
    Still moving people from here to there doing the same job under a new
    name.
    
    
    
    Q4 will show still deeper red. 
    
    
    Brian V
    
    
    They still don't get it
    

    
    RE: .54 That pretty much about says it.
    
    Mike