| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3135.1 | sheeze | AZTECH::LASTOVICA | straight but not narrow minded | Fri Jun 03 1994 04:34 | 1 |
| groan. one of the really clever things that we had!
|
| 3135.2 | What happened to reuse? | IAMOK::YENDER | | Fri Jun 03 1994 09:10 | 12 |
| Having worked with you, Dick, and your team, I'm especially sorry to
hear the news. I guess responsivenss to customer need isn't as
important as saving $350K.... It strikes me that those who develop
customer software applications will now have to resort to local
repositories to save software modules with all the usual problems
of library control, not knowing what others have developed, and
fiendish bugs. It sure looks like a blow to the concept of reuse.
Good luck.
George
|
| 3135.3 | Are we throwing it away? | WRAFLC::GILLEY | Whatsoever a man soweth, that also shall he reap. | Fri Jun 03 1994 09:27 | 4 |
| Does this mean the software in the ASSETS library will be lost? Before
somebody reformats the disks, I sure would like a network pointer.
chg
|
| 3135.4 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Fri Jun 03 1994 09:36 | 6 |
| This action is consistent with our apparent but unstated goal to get out of the
software business.
As for our customers, well...
Bob
|
| 3135.5 | Did ASSETS make money? | ODIXIE::GELINEAU | | Fri Jun 03 1994 10:48 | 8 |
| Did it cost us $350K to run a $15M business, or were we losing $350K?
That is an important question in my mind since our problem seems to be
figuring out how to MAKE money solving customer's problems.
The economics of our business are mandating that we must choose the
solutions to customer's problems that we provide based upon our ability
to make money. This is the only rational plan for the future.
|
| 3135.6 | Too bad. | DECWET::KOWALSKI | It put flies in my target directories! | Fri Jun 03 1994 10:49 | 4 |
| Great. The VP who thought this up deserves the very best Digital
special treatment. Why don't we give him/her a bonus?
Sadly/m
|
| 3135.7 | Still going..... | WRAFLC::GILLEY | Whatsoever a man soweth, that also shall he reap. | Fri Jun 03 1994 11:02 | 1 |
| I still want a copy of the repository......
|
| 3135.8 | | ALFAXP::MITCHAM | -Andy in Alpharetta (near Atlanta) | Fri Jun 03 1994 11:27 | 4 |
| >For help on ASSETS from this free-agent, send mail to:
>US2RMC::"[email protected]"
Amazing. Get ASSETS help through America Online...<sigh>
|
| 3135.9 | | ICS::CROUCH | Subterranean Dharma Bum | Fri Jun 03 1994 11:38 | 10 |
| Yes and what's even more amazing is that we call ourselves the
"Internet" company but are laying off some of the best and
brightest Internet minds which digital has. Either that or
they've just had it and have left.
The prophecies of Dick Lennard keep coming true.
Jim C.
|
| 3135.10 | Go ahead, say it. | OUTPOS::MURPHY | Dan Murphy, now at LKG. | Fri Jun 03 1994 12:32 | 13 |
| Re. .4:
> This action is consistent with our apparent but unstated goal to get out of the
> software business.
I am now hearing that goal stated privately as indeed the intent of
senior management. I wish they would state it publicly so everyone
would know that Digital is screwing up by design and not accidentally.
(Absence of smiley face intentional.)
dlm
|
| 3135.11 | $350K | SOLVIT::ROHNERT | | Fri Jun 03 1994 13:20 | 33 |
| re .5
ASSETS was funded $350,000 to run the ASSETS library. This included
salaries, benefits, office space and workstations for 3 people. Also
the cost of maintaining our test and distribution system, HORUS. We
were being so frugal that Digital Consulting kept taking the excess.
In return for this funding, we became the low volume software
distribution arm for Digital. We managed the Q2 part class (see
U.S.Systems/Services Price List pages DC 8.42-8.51, tested all
submissions, assigned part numbers, assigned PAKs, had an SSB planner,
created documentation and paid for text editing and submission to
SSB (out of the $350K) set and submitted pricing, wrote Sales update
articles for each product. Also added each package to the E-store and
DEC-direct (which sales were 100% margin for the Corp). Included with
each package was unlimited support for 3 months for any customer (me).
Although anyone could call and get support a year out of warranty.
Now the revenue number was only for the U.S. and includes both direct
and indirect revenue. We could not track APA (aka GIA) revenue or
Europe. 90% of our requests in HORUS are from APA, Canada and South
America. All these sales are not offset by the $350K as it is paid by
the U.S.. Canada has sold over $1 million (canadian) last year and
ASSETS was in the words of their Marketing Manager, the one common key
to every major sale in Canada.
Hope this helps,
BTW please excuse the past/present tense switching in my note
Ciao for now,
Dick
in the words of the marketing manager
|
| 3135.12 | | ODIXIE::GELINEAU | | Fri Jun 03 1994 13:32 | 10 |
| Dick,
I appreciate your response to my question. It certainly sheds a bit of
light on our direction in the software business I think. I wish I
could find a place to invest $350K this year and get back $15M+ which
is mostly profit.
Rgds,
JG
|
| 3135.13 | How to get ASSETS today | SOLVIT::ROHNERT | | Fri Jun 03 1994 13:32 | 12 |
|
You can get ASSETS via
$VTX ASSETS_US if you work fast. If you need help send mail to
HORUS::MAINTAINER
If there is a sticky customer situation, like legal, the only contact
I know of would be Rich Linting, V.P.
Best regards
Dick
|
| 3135.14 | Here's a list | FUNYET::ANDERSON | MmMmMyAlphaGeneration | Fri Jun 03 1994 17:20 | 171 |
| I would *love* to hear why ASSETS is being cancelled. Many times, an ASSET
solution was the difference that lead to a sale.
Here are the solutions we can no longer offer to our customers.
Paul
ABSTRACTS LIST
ACCESS TO DESKTOP MAIL DRAWER
ALL-IN-1 FILE CABINET REPORT
ALL-IN-1 RESOURCE SCHEDULING
ALL-IN-1 SYSTIDY
ALL-IN-1 SYSUSER
AUDIOKIT INTELLIGENT NEWSPAPER
BASESTAR AB DAS V3.0
BASESTAR AB DAS V3.1
BASESTAR AB XL CONVERT
BASESTAR ASEA DAS V3.0
BASESTAR ASEA DAS V3.1
BASESTAR DECALC-PLUS INTERFACE
BASESTAR DNC
BASESTAR DNC DEVICE CONNECT
BASESTAR DNC PE EDITOR
BASESTAR FISHER CHIP DAS V1.0
BASESTAR FISHER CHIP DAS V1.1
BASESTAR GESIX DAS V3.0
BASESTAR GESIX DAS V3.1
BASESTAR GMSRT
BASESTAR LSE ENVIRONMENT
BASESTAR MOD DAS V3.0
BASESTAR MOD DAS V3.1
BASESTAR PI DAS V3.0
BASESTAR PI DAS V3.1
BASESTAR SDG V3.0
BASESTAR SDG V3.1
BASESTAR SHOW POINT
BASESTAR SL-GMS ORDER FORM
BASESTAR TI DAS V3.0
BASESTAR TI DAS V3.1
BASESTAR TIME
BASESTAR UI
BUSINESS REFERENCE GUIDE
BUYER'S WORKBENCH
CAD/CAM 2D/3D DEVICES
CFD RISC/ULTRIX DEMO
CIT/DECVOICE
CUSTOM TRAINING SOLUTIONS GUID
DATAKIT CONNECTIVITY SOLUTIONS
DCMX
DEC COMMSERVER
DEC DISK STRIPING FOR ULTRIX
DEC DISK STRIPING FOR VMS AXP
DEC ISDNCONTROLLER 100
DEC WANCONTROLLER 720
DECACB
DECARTIAN
DECASHIER
DECATG
DECBOOTSYNC
DECDEMO
DECDETECT
DECDMT
DECERASE
DECLINKS
DECMESSAGEQ
DECNAM
DECNET/OSI TRANSITION
DECNMAIL
DECNMS FOR CUSTOMER SALE
DECNMS FOR INTERNAL USE
DECPULSE
DECREMOTEX FOR RISC/ULTRIX
DECREMOTEX FOR VAX/ULTRIX
DECREMOTEX FOR VMS
DECSERVER 250
DECSRS
DECSS7
DECSTRIPE
DECVOICE
DECVOICE BUILDER APPLICATION
DECVTLAT
DECWATCH
DGIT
DMT FOR INTERNAL USE
DNS SDK
DNUS
DPM DEMAND PRINT
DSL SALES KIT
EDI BUSINESS PLANNING SDG
EDI CONSULTING CAPABILITY V.I
EDI CONSULTING CAPABILITY V.II
EDI INTEGRATION GUIDE
EDITOR INTEGRATION COOKBOOK
FBE
FILM RISC/ULTRIX DEMO
FRAMEWORK BASED ENVIRONMENT
FTSV
GRAFKIT RISC/ULTRIX DEMO
IEEE DEMO FOR VMS
ILS RISC/ULTRIX DEMO
IMAGE 3L DISPLAY ACCELERATOR
INTEGRATED TELECOM PACKAGE
LAN BASED IMAGE SERVER
LINE PRINTERS
MAIL JANITOR UTILITY
MAILBUS
MAILBUS MESSAGING SERVICES
MATHEMATICA RISC/ULTRIX R1.0
MATHEMATICA RISC/ULTRIX R1.1
MD410 DOCUMENT SCANNER
METROWAVE BRIDGE
MIRA APPLICATION SWITCH
MODEMS AND DSU/CSU
MUXSERVER/DECMUX 300
NCAR RISC/ULTRIX DEMO
NETAVL
NETCW
NETCW CASE STUDIES
NIWATCH
NMCC/DM REPORTS
NPCS
NPCS-DCSYS
NETCW LIBRARY UPDATES
NETPATH
NETPLAN
NETUPDATE
NETWORKS TECHNICAL REFERENCE
NET_RESPONSE
OPENVMS ALPHA MIGRATION
OPTICAL STORAGE SOLUTIONS
PATHWORKS FOR DEC OSF/1 AXP
PLANNING MASTER
PLEIADES RISC/ULTRIX DEMO
PLEIADES VMS DEMO
PNT
POLYCENTER COMMON AGENT
PRICE LIST
PROFESSIONAL SVCS SELLING GUID
PV-WAVE RISC/ULTRIX DEMO
RETAIL BANKING PERIPHERALS
REWRITE & WORM STORAGE SUBSYS
RF REMOVABLE DISK DRIVES
RPL SERVER
RZ55/56/57 REMOVABLE SCSI DISK
SNACS
SPECTRUM DEMO
STRATACOM IPX TRANSMISSION MGR
SYSWATCHER
TAPE DRIVES FOR VAXBI
TC44 AND DEC CARTRIDGE SERVER
TM32 GAPLESS TAPE CONTROLLER
TSZ05/07 MAG TAPE DRIVES
TCP/IP PLANNING AND DESIGN
TCW FOR VMS
TCWX FOR RISC
TCWX FOR ULTRIX
TELEMECANIQUE UNI-TELWAY DAS
TKZ08 TAPE DRIVE
TKZ09 5GB TAPE DRIVE
TLZ08 SCAN TAPE DRIVE
UTOX
VAX/VMS UNI-TELWAY DRIVER
VAXMODEM
VECTOR JACKETS
VOICE SERVICES PLATFORM
VOICE:MAIL
VTX CONDUCTOR
WANM
WATERS RISC/ULTRIX DEMO
ZAP
|
| 3135.15 | | CARAFE::GOLDSTEIN | Global Village Idiot | Fri Jun 03 1994 17:32 | 4 |
| Somebody should gather them all together and stick them in a directory
(on tape and on the public Internet) labelled "Unsupported".
Sources too. The Unix market likes it that way.
|
| 3135.16 | | AXEL::FOLEY | Rebel without a Clue | Fri Jun 03 1994 17:32 | 6 |
|
I wonder what VP owns this ballywick? Can anyone come up
with a name? Maybe if enough customers complained.......
mike
|
| 3135.17 | DECmessageQ is STILL available | PAMSRC::STUTZMAN | Aut inveniam viam aut faciam | Fri Jun 03 1994 18:02 | 8 |
| re .14: Please be aware that DECmessageQ became a Corporate
product in 1991. We can continue to offer its
capabilities to customers using VMS, UNIX, Windows-NT
and a variety of other platforms, despite the lamentable
elimination of the ASSETS program.
Walter Stutzman,
DECmessageQ Engineering
|
| 3135.18 | | KLAP::porter | the joy of cliche | Fri Jun 03 1994 18:06 | 10 |
| Well, fug.
It only took about 8 years for Nmail to actually find its
way into ASSETS (not that I was personally trying very hard
to push it there; Dick Rohnert deserves most credit for succeeding)
It must have been available for nearly 6 months!
|
| 3135.19 | What about ASSETS_EUROPE? | EICMFG::MMCCREADY | Mike McCready Digital-PCS | Fri Jun 03 1994 18:08 | 4 |
| What is happening to the European ASSETS library? (VTX ASSETS_EUROPE)
Is this also being closed down?
Mike
|
| 3135.20 | | TOOK::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Fri Jun 03 1994 20:32 | 10 |
| re: <<< Note 3135.10 by OUTPOS::MURPHY "Dan Murphy, now at LKG." >>>
-< Go ahead, say it. >-
> I am now hearing that goal stated privately as indeed the intent of
> senior management. I wish they would state it publicly
I wish they would, too. Then those of mostly oriented toward software
products could stop wondering about when to leave.
-Jack
|
| 3135.21 | Bad Idea..... | GLDOA::CUTLER | Car Topin' On The Cumberland | Sat Jun 04 1994 08:38 | 37 |
|
Eliminate 150 million dollars in revenue to save 350K, "makes sense"
, now why didn't I think of that. There must be a "vision", "strategy",
"logic" in what is happening right? Instead of looking at creative ways,
"realistically" of increasing our revenue and maker greater profits,
we (the Corporation) seems to "content" with the idea of "staying"
number 3 in this business. Granted we have a lot of software products,
some we don't need, but "in most cases", having a certain software
products leverage other sales.
For example, the BASEstar DAS's were all Assets, without
them we would have not been able to sell a BASEstar based manufacturing
solution inside of Ford. BASEstar alone in this case, just would
not have "cut it"! These combined with
BASEstar, have provided us an average steady 6 million dollars per
year in revenue. This also includes VMS, DECnet, VAXcluster, FMS, and
GKS software licenses along with the hardware platforms that are
required. We have placed VAXcluster based systems in all of Ford PTO (21
plants), we're the ones they are doing business with. This has not
only provided a steady stream of revenue, but IT HAS OPENED OTHER
DOORS ------ STRATIGICALLY IN THE ACCOUNT! These are long term
commitments, there's more money to be made for Digital. If we focus
on the dollar amount of a license without looking at the "BIGGER
PICTURE" --- then we're doomed. Assets should not go away, and it looks
like they were making "good money" for the corporation, and I'll argue
(looking at the BIGGER picture) that the 150 million was low.
Without those BASEstar DAS assets, we wouldn't be were we are at
Ford today.
My only other comment/opinion is , if we get out of the
software business, then "there is no light at the end of this dark
tunnel we're in --- and customers will not be willing to show us the
way out".
Rick
|
| 3135.22 | Kill the goose! | NYOSS1::CATANIA | | Sat Jun 04 1994 09:51 | 8 |
|
If the assests revenue numbers specified are real then like my father would
say this person needs to be smacked upside the head with a Two by four.
Sorry, but killing the goose that lays the golden eggs is just plain
stupid!
- Mike
|
| 3135.23 | Just little Goose-lets | WHOS01::DECOLA | | Sat Jun 04 1994 13:52 | 6 |
|
Well I guess the corporate decision is consistant at least, no
software other than "core" products (whatever they are) and for DC no
residencies just "big" projects. Unfortunately these new "golden geese" havent
hatched yet, and we're killing the goose.
|
| 3135.24 | speechless and dumbfounded... | WATCH::SANTIAGO | I was a teenage net-random 352-2866 | Sat Jun 04 1994 22:37 | 6 |
| Hmmm, as one who has brought an internal tool to assets
(WHAT->DECwatch), what's to happen to all these bits?
I'd rather sell it otta my garage, then burn them.
/los
|
| 3135.25 | Consistent? | EICMFG::MMCCREADY | Mike McCready Digital-PCS | Sun Jun 05 1994 13:44 | 31 |
| Re: .23
> Well I guess the corporate decision is consistant at least, no
> software other than "core" products (whatever they are) and for DC no
> residencies just "big" projects. Unfortunately these new "golden geese" havent
> hatched yet, and we're killing the goose.
It is not a consistent decision to close down the USA ASSETS operation
and to continue to compete for systems integrations projects in markets
that ASSETS was providing a repository of solution building blocks for.
One of the goals of ASSETS is (was) to increase the profitability of
Digital Consulting through encouraging reuseability.
It would be consistent if Digital Consulting were to retire from the
systems integration market and only offer consultancy centred around
Digital's core products. This fits in with information I have that
Digital Consultancy profit goals (SCM) are being raised 3 percentage
points for next fiscal year. System integration is lower margin, higher
volume business than pure consulting, since on average you can not do
systems integration without buying products and services from third
parties.
If it is indeed the corporate decision not to do systems integration
any more, then why does management not communicate it? If it is the
corporate decision to continue to offer systems integration, why is
part of the infrastructure to support systems integration i.e. ASSETS
being killed? Or are we just supposed to draw our own conclusions and
act accordingly?
Mike
|
| 3135.26 | What to think | MONTOR::GLASER | | Sun Jun 05 1994 19:34 | 8 |
| Closing down assets was not good for us in ACE (Application Capability
Engineering) because that was one of the ways we ditributed software to
be used in consultancies.
However, it appears that there is an active effort to sell us (Digital
Consulting) off. Thus, when we get sold to some new master, the existance
of ASSETS is moot. Perhaps, ASSETS should have been put on the block
as part of DC.
|
| 3135.27 | This needs re-thinking | BIGUN::JRSVM::BAKER | Confusion will be my epitaph | Sun Jun 05 1994 23:21 | 60 |
| Gee,
I guess the Anderson model doesnt have the concept of a re-use
library, so no one up top understands it!
Whether you thought ASSETS caused more problems than it was sometime worth
or not it obvious that you cant tear something down without looking at the
broader implications of what you are doing.
Some things I can see:
1. Central Engineering will have to do a better job of requirements.
Many of the items in the ASSETS library were components that should have
been in the main products. They were often the results of requirements that
were mandatory for a product to be accepted in the customer base. That they
werent was often due to the amazing process we have were engineering
decides what they will build, then calls a phase 0 and "tops up" with
customer requested elements.
2. We will have MORE junk software floating around, not less.
Before the assets library, I could often rely on several solutions to the
same problem, with often nothing from corporate engineering. I cant wait
to see the next project that creates its own client-server messaging bus,
just like the situation prior to ASSETS when we had PAMS, 3D, Speedway,
DASL...ad infinitum.
3. The cost of discovering a solution that has already been done will
increase dramatically.
4. If we are hoping this will increase our Billable Utilisation rate I
would find this non-sensical, we wont get custom business when an existing
solution is cheaper.
ASSETS has made enemies in the past. Sometimes projects have been funded
that competed directly with corporate product. Usually this was due to
engineering priorities being favoured over consulting priorities.
Some problems from my perspective:
1. There was never any way to adequately fund the groups producing the
software. Or to easily measure the leverage the product made.
2. Some things that should have been products remained ASSETS for too long.
This had quality issues. It also had marketing and support implications.
3. ASSETS were often stomped on by newer groups with corporate mandate (i.e
they were often closer to seats of power). So the better product was often
usurped by a lesser one because of NIH.
4. ASSETS people were given targets to meet. The library was still too
small to expect an component to be available to add value to every sale.
I hope we can take a fresh look at this decision with an investors eye
rather than a cost-cutters nose. I would also like to wish Dick and the
team all the best in whatever they do in the future and thank them for
their help.
- John
|
| 3135.28 | Bye-bye UTOX .... | RHETT::KNORR | Carolina Blue | Mon Jun 06 1994 00:00 | 21 |
| $ SET TONE/HEAVY_SARCASM
Obviously none of you listened to BP when he stated that the current
paradigm is to REDUCE COSTS, not GROW REVENUE. We tried that
revenue stuff and it just didn't work!
$ SET TONE/NORMAL
As a contributor to the U.S. Solutions Library (UTOX) I bemoan its
demise like everyone else. One ancillary consideration is the loss to
our internal users. As part of submitting UTOX into the library we
made it available to internal users. (It's useful for, among other
things, creating documentation.) We've had over 300 installations over
the past 4 months alone.
Of course as the previous noter noted, if the VMS DECwindows Motif
Print Screen OOTB was any good, UTOX wouldn't have been needed in the first
place ...
Chris
|
| 3135.29 | | UTRTSC::SCHOLLAERT | Office WEBmaster | Mon Jun 06 1994 04:46 | 17 |
| re. 15
>Somebody should gather them all together and stick them in a directory
>(on tape and on the public Internet) labelled "Unsupported".
>Sources too. The Unix market likes it that way.
VMS market does not. The core business of some large customers
relies on assets. They want supported software and they want to
pay for it.
Regards,
Jan
|
| 3135.30 | | CSOADM::ROTH | What, me worry? | Mon Jun 06 1994 09:59 | 4 |
| Basenote says 15.2 million, entry .21 says 150 million... anyone know
the correct figure? (I'm assuming the basenote is the correct one).
Lee
|
| 3135.31 | | TOPDOC::AHERN | Dennis the Menace | Mon Jun 06 1994 09:59 | 20 |
| RE: .28 by RHETT::KNORR
>As a contributor to the U.S. Solutions Library (UTOX) I bemoan its
>demise like everyone else. One ancillary consideration is the loss to
>our internal users. As part of submitting UTOX into the library we
>made it available to internal users. (It's useful for, among other
>things, creating documentation.) We've had over 300 installations over
>the past 4 months alone.
Wait a minute. Are you telling me that internal users are going to
lose access to UTOX? This has been one of the most useful tools for
producing user documentation. Giving writers the ability to snap
pictures of an application made it possible to illustrate the user
interface without relying on art dept. support. And when the engineers
changed the software at the last minute, you could snap a new picture
without a major setback to the schedule.
Of course, if Digital is no longer going to be building software then
we won't be writing any more user documentation anyway, so...
|
| 3135.32 | Any one of you considered mailing RP with the figures? | SUBURB::POWELLM | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be! | Mon Jun 06 1994 11:02 | 1 |
|
|
| 3135.33 | Still hoping for a network pointer. | WRAFLC::GILLEY | Pay freeze? That's what *you* think. | Mon Jun 06 1994 11:19 | 4 |
| I think I can coerce my CC manager to pay for the tapes. Please don't
scrub the disks.
Charlie
|
| 3135.34 | BASEstar DASes still being sold! | BASEX::EISENBRAUN | John Eisenbraun | Mon Jun 06 1994 11:21 | 1 |
| BASEstar DASes in the U.S. are still available via Ditial Consulting.
|
| 3135.35 | Still Alive | BONNET::GACHOT | WANLAD::EMACS | Mon Jun 06 1994 12:18 | 8 |
|
>>What is happening to the European ASSETS library? (VTX ASSETS_EUROPE)
Still alive.
>>Is this also being closed down?
No information for now !!!!.
|
| 3135.36 | We don't get a dime from internal users ... | RHETT::KNORR | Carolina Blue | Mon Jun 06 1994 12:46 | 8 |
| re: .31 (UTOX)
I'm sure the current version of UTOX (V4.1) will at least remain
available on the net, but obviously we can forget about any
enhancements, maintenance, or support.
- Chris
|
| 3135.37 | ASSETS is not gone | OHFS01::OHFMTT::Dornbush | | Mon Jun 06 1994 15:58 | 18 |
| I would like to reply to a lot of this note and its replies, since I have a
role in the transition of ASSETS. I say "transition" because it is the goal
to transition from the "Digital Solutions Library" back to an "assets"
approach.
First, the revenue and expense figures can be debated. I won't add too much
to them, because I have no better figures. I can say that a large focus of
Digital Consulting in the U.S. is to decentralize the infrastructure back to
the field.
What this means to Assets is that we intend to continue the principle of a
library of reusable components being available to, and from, the PSCs. We
will do it by having a central index so that you can find what is available,
then a decentralized "library" so that you can reach the PSC responsible for
the asset component.
The intent is not to dispose of the assets library, but rather to
decentralize it in the Americas back to the PSCs.
|
| 3135.38 | Information - what a concept | WRAFLC::GILLEY | Pay freeze? That's what *you* think. | Mon Jun 06 1994 16:43 | 6 |
| re: .37
Wow, real information. Thanks for the update. You are now commited to
keeping this topic updated......
Assuming, of course, you're still with Digital next quarter.
|
| 3135.39 | | DECWET::FARLEE | Insufficient Virtual um...er.... | Mon Jun 06 1994 17:50 | 10 |
| I am very glad to hear that ASSETS is not gone.
Thank you for posting that good news here.
I do have one question, though. In the description of the "new/old"
ASSETS model, it seemed to assume that all ASSETS packages came out of the
field. (references to sending them back to their home PSC)
I know that there are some ASSETS that originated as midnight hacks out of
engineering. Is there a problem with that?
Kevin
|
| 3135.40 | | PASTIS::MONAHAN | humanity is a trojan horse | Tue Jun 07 1994 04:27 | 16 |
| There are three sources for ASSETS products. Some of them like
All-in-1 originate as a local office effort for a specific customer.
Some of them like NMAIL originate as midnight hacks, as .39 points out.
Some of them like FTSV originate as funded projects for internal use
only, with no intention to produce an external product, but in spite of
that produce something that could be useful to our customers.
If we are moving distribution and support back to the originators
than it is only the first group that is reasonably safe. The person who
contributed a midnight hack, or the engineering group that produced an
internal product might well leave the company - there is a decent
chance that the local office and their primary customer will remain,
even if they lose their expertise in that product.
Have to leave to take parents out for the day, more thoughts
later...
|
| 3135.41 | | BIGUN::JRSVM::BAKER | Confusion will be my epitaph | Tue Jun 07 1994 20:51 | 76 |
| R.E:...back to the PSCs
This will increase the cost of:
1. Discovery of a solution
2. Time taken to get the material
3. Effort in getting the package in a position to be given to the customer
4. The cost of solution development within Digital consulting
and lower:
1. The quality of the package
2. The consistency of the products released
3. The ability of individual PSCs to produce a solution
We've tried this, as an ASSETS library local manager I found that people
had more trouble discovering solutions to problems held in my library
than when we moved them to the corporate one. The Solutions Librarians were
more able to maintain consistency of product than if individual librarians
did it. In fact, it was the economies of scale that lead to the decision to
shut our area library down in the first place, a completely sensible
decision! A small library has a reasonable operating cost that only starts
to be substantially subsumed when the submission rate becomes reasonably
high.
If we are to assume that a level of product consistency is to be
maintained, then how is this to happen? Are we going to rewrite the
standards?
Lets think about it, Library maintenance, whether using the ASSETS VTX
system or not, will still take time. We are talking work above that for
just a maintainer. The cost of promotion of the solutions now has to be
considered as well. This was burdensome and difficult in the local library
scenario. In some PSCs, with this decision, we have just managed to
substantially increase the fixed cost of producing a solution. Given that
most PSCs will be at the low point of the staffing levels required to meet
their costs in the early stages, this will ensure that some of them will
not be able to carry on the role to which they are chartered. They are in
the growing phase of a new business, hopefully adding resources and
improving their economies of scale. This may well stop them taking an
additional project on because someone has to take the role
of Assets quality/maintainer/promoter.
This reeks of the push-out approach we have seen. To clean up a large cost
in a centralised area the function is pushed out to the the leaves on the
tree. The books get cleaned up centrally and the element becomes a burden
on each of the branches. But collectively, due to the function being
too big (from a fixed cost viewpoint), the library is an excessive cost
burden on the PSC, and the fixed cost, amortised in the centralised case,
drags the overall success of the efforts downwards.
Sometimes, ASSETS has been a no man's land for good ideas starved due to
political incorrectness, proximity or lack of vision. We throw them there
and if they survive then the corporate people eventually take them. The
problem is that the component was often a solution to customer perceived
difficulties or needed features that should have been in a corporate
product. Their success in ASSETS was the tolling bell for the product
managers to wake up. Now that the PSCs will own the distributions, it will
be MUCH harder for corporate engineering to hear that bell. Time to market
of key features will suffer. Sometimes, the ASSETS werent the most elegant
solutions, but they were often the only ones i.e
All-in-1 shared file cabinet Distributed Shared Filing
VTXprep Allowed easy VTX infobase insertion
Netupdate Node Update
UTOX Screen Capture
BASESTAR DAS's Hell if I know what they do
VICfax Fax software on VAX
Jabberwocky Legacy application integration
IMS Ditto
plus heaps of others...some which forced lazy engineering groups off their
tails and into creative mode again.
We need to look at this decision hard. We also need to build a model that
ensures that good solutions and customer needs are incorporated into
corporate product sooner than they currently are. We also need to ensure
that when a significant idea is proposed, it gets the funding it should.
- John
|
| 3135.44 | Need ASSET info: PSART on OpenVMS Alpha? | WOODBX::WARD | | Fri Jun 10 1994 15:53 | 19 |
| Need a pointer.
Does anyone know of the where abouts of a PSART version that will
run on AXP OpenVms V6.1?
I tried all of the logical notes conference and either could not
reach them or they are vaporized (as a cost cutting measure).
I have an important DB tool I use to report on my DB which uses
PSART. I just ported to OpenVMS Alpha and would like to run
my report.
Thanks for any pointers, and sorry for posting this here but this
seems to get the widest possible distribution.
Thankful for any help.
Dan Ward
|
| 3135.42 | ASSETS Software in EUROPE... | ANNECY::AUCLAIR_M | | Tue Jun 14 1994 07:23 | 38 |
|
==================================================================
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Sent: 14-Jun-1994 10:34 GMT
From: Herman OGGEL @GEO
OGGEL.HERMAN ATA1AMIS @EHQMT
Dept: Digital Consulting
Tel No: DTN 821-4933
TO: See Below
Subject: ASSETS Software EUROPE
I would like to make the following comments with respect to the
ASSETS library and Q2- software products in Europe.
o The recent announcement of stopping the US Assets and
Solution library is a US geography announcement ONLY.
ASSETS in Europe will continue its role.
o The US announcement has an impact as some of the ASSETS
solutions where transferred from the US to Europe. Currently
the European ASSETS team is making an assessment of the
potential problems related to US solutions sold in Europe.
The goal is to minimise any impact on the business, assure
customer satisfaction and support or find alternative
solutions.
Please contact Jan Prinsen @AEO for any further information.
Best regards,
Herman.
|
| 3135.43 | Parting thoughts and comments from an ASSETS team member | HORUS::MAINTAINER | Try and imagine ... | Tue Jun 14 1994 11:15 | 117 |
|
The following comments and responses were forward for posting from one
of the U.S. ASSETS library members.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .3
> Does this mean the software in the ASSETS library will be lost? Before
> somebody reformats the disks, I sure would like a network pointer.
Latest rumor I've heard is that the Sales Support Team (who also manage
the library system on HORUS) will not be supporting ASSETS after July 1.
Read:
HORUS will probably go poof!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .6
> Great. The VP who thought this up deserves the very best Digital
> special treatment. Why don't we give him/her a bonus?
Timing is appropriate as well, his first anniversary with Digital is
coming up
in July.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .14
>I would *love* to hear why ASSETS is being cancelled. Many times, an ASSET
>solution was the difference that lead to a sale.
Received this note through my AOL account:
Subj: FTSV
Date: 94-06-07 13:27:12 EDT
From: @ngo
To: AssetsHelp
I am looking for the availability of FTSV on AXP/OVMS for my client.
More than
$500K of business is dependent on the availability of FTSV ver 3.0.
Can some one help ? I can't seem to find ANY information.
Regards,
Manny Gupta
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .16
> I wonder what VP owns this ballywick? Can anyone come up
> with a name? Maybe if enough customers complained.......
Richard Linting is his name
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .18
>It only took about 8 years for Nmail to actually find its
>way into ASSETS (not that I was personally trying very hard
>to push it there; Dick Rohnert deserves most credit for succeeding)
Thanks, Dave. You have a fine piece of work in Nmail, by far and away
the most requested software at DECUS for many years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .29
> VMS market does not. The core business of some large customers
> relies on assets. They want supported software and they want to
> pay for it.
Note: And if you give it away, no matter what you tell the customer
about lack
of support, they will still expect support AND updates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .30
> Basenote says 15.2 million, entry .21 says 150 million... anyone know
> the correct figure? (I'm assuming the basenote is the correct
one).
15.2 is closer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .37
>First, the revenue and expense figures can be debated. I won't add
>too much to them, because I have no better figures. I can say that a
>large focus of Digital Consulting in the U.S. is to decentralize the
>infrastructure back to the field.
>What this means to Assets is that we intend to continue the principle of a
>library of reusable components being available to, and from, the PSCs. We
>will do it by having a central index so that you can find what is
>available,
>then a decentralized "library" so that you can reach the PSC
>responsible for the asset component.
>The intent is not to dispose of the assets library, but rather to
>decentralize it in the Americas back to the PSCs.
The following ASSETS products were developed by the "PSC's" :
DECbootsync
DECerase
DECpulse
DECremotex
DECwatch
VAXmodem
Vector Jackets
Most of the rest were funded in some fashion or developed by an internal
person (midnight hack) Majority will be forced to drop support when calls
come in from many other PSCs as it will degrade their performance.
Internal groups will as well now that the focal person to screen calls has
disappeared. How many engineers are willing to talk to any and all
customers and be knowledgeable about alternative solutions?
|
| 3135.45 | EUR-ASSETS, on the road again... | ANNECY::AUCLAIR_M | | Tue Apr 11 1995 12:32 | 8 |
| Hello...
Please see # 3802 for the NEW EUROPEAN ASSETS PROGRAM Announcement.
Best Regards
Marc AUCLAIR EUR-ASSETS Maintainer
|