Conference 7.286::digital

Does this mean the "Looking Forward" document should be re-titled
"Looking Backward".

    
    Yea, Gresh is gone but he's been replaced with 4 or 5 VPs. Fair trade?
    
    Discuss.
    

    Where in Live Wire??

Article 145 of biz.digital.announce:
Newsgroups: biz.digital.announce
Path: pa.dec.com!rjones
From: [email protected] (Digital Press & Analysts News)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Approved: [email protected]
Subject: Press/New Alignment Brings Systems Integration Closer To Customers
Sender: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 94 11:43:12 -0700
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA18541; Mon, 8 Aug 94 12:12:16 -0700
X-Received: by raptor.pa.dec.com; id AA11159; Mon, 8 Aug 94 11:54:08 -0700
X-To: Digital Press and Analysts News:;
Lines: 89

||||||  Digital Press and Analysts News  ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
                                              Digital Equipment Corporation
                                          Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-2571
Editorial contact:

Mark Fredrickson
(508) 493-4930


                  NEW ALIGNMENT BRINGS DIGITAL'S 
           SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS INTEGRATION CAPABILITIES
                        CLOSER TO CUSTOMERS


  . . . Latest Step in Implementation of Palmer's Strategy Moves
      Business Responsibilities Into Computer Systems Division
           and Multivendor Customer Services Unit . . .


MAYNARD, Mass. -- August 8, 1994 -- Robert B. Palmer, President and 
Chief Executive Officer of Digital Equipment Corporation, today 
announced that the company's leading-edge systems and networks 
integration capabilities will be re-aligned to more closely serve 
customers, support business partners, and complement Digital's core 
computer systems and services offerings. 

     Palmer said elements of the Digital Consulting organization 
will be shifted into other parts of the corporation. Enrico 
Pesatori, vice president and general manager, Computer Systems 
Division, will assume responsibility for the Systems Integration 
business and Information Technology Consulting, which will be 
managed as a business segment in the Accounts Business Unit. John 
J. Rando, vice president, Multivendor Customer Services, will 
assume responsibility for Network Integration Services and Learning 
Services. Robert McNulty, vice president and Chief Information 
Officer, will continue to manage Operations Management Services, 
and also will assume responsibility for Management Consulting. 

     The announcement represents the latest step in implementing 
Palmer's strategy, first outlined on July 14, of creating a more 
simplified structure designed to increase management 
accountability, sharpen customer focus and return Digital to 
sustained profitability.

     "Systems and networks integration capabilities are essential 
to delivering Digital's core value proposition to our worldwide 
customers," said Palmer. "Melding those capabilities into the 
organizations that own the business responsibility for directly 
satisfying the needs of Digital's major customers is the best way 
to guarantee that they optimally serve our customers, complement 
our business partners, and directly leverage our core products and 
services businesses. These capabilities greatly enhance Digital's 
leadership in building and supporting, directly and through 
partners, networked computing platforms for heterogeneous client/
server environments." 

     In a related announcement, Gresham T. Brebach, Jr., vice 
president, has chosen to leave Digital to pursue other interests. 
Brebach has managed Digital Consulting since joining the company 
in 1993. Commenting on Brebach's departure, Palmer said, "As a 
distinguished leader in the consulting field, Gresh brought 
valuable thinking and perspective to Digital.  We wish him success 
in his future endeavors."

     Digital Equipment Corporation is the world's leader in open 
client/server solutions, from personal computing to integrated 
worldwide information systems.  Digital's scalable Alpha AXP 
platforms, storage, networking, software and services, together 
with industry-focused solutions from business partners, help 
organizations compete and win in today's global marketplace. 
                                ####

Note to Editors:  Digital, the Digital logo and Alpha AXP are 
                  trademarks of Digital Equipment Corporation.

CORP/95/594
============================================================================
Electronic Editorial Contact: [email protected]
============================================================================
Digital Press and Analysts News is sent as a courtesy to members of the 
press, analyst and consulting community.  For subscription information 
please contact:
  Russ Jones
  Digital Equipment Corporation
  Voice: 415-853-6566   FAX: 415-853-6537    Internet: [email protected]
All Digital press releases, fact sheets and backgrounders are archived on
ftp.digital.com in the /pub/Digital/info/pr-news directory.  They are also
available at http://www.digital.com/ on the World Wide Web .
============================================================================

    You mean I can't take all the good things that I read about DC in
    Digital Today at face value?
    

>>    Where in Live Wire??


Under Worldwide News

    
    Ok, so it splits. I now see a feeding frenzy or TFSO looming in the
    future for most of the DC people. What happens to those accounts that
    are generating revenue and profit, but are not covered by the new
    ABU's? Our PSC's cover or span what Sales and MCS did not. And we do
    so at a profit. Yet no mention of revenue generation.
    
    Gag.
    -Mike Z.

    digital's stock price up 3/4 today--the market perhaps likes the new
    alignment and brebach's demise 

    Enrico Pesatori was in N.Y. last week speaking to the area sales folks. 
    Basically, he indicated that key parts of D.C. would be integrated into
    the CSD and MCS.  He wants S.I. consultants in CSD, and N.I.
    consultants in MCS.
    
    He won, Gresh lost.

    My take is that this will allign the resources directly with the
    business division rather than some removed "profit" center that needs a
    piece of the margin pie as well. 
    
    There are a lot of body shops out there that have some very good people 
    (laid off from previous industry downsizing) at low rates. With all of 
    the overheads and multiple "profit" centers taking a slice of the profit, 
    we can't be competetive.
    
    This way there is only one master needing to be fed. We should be more
    competetive, at lower rates, and with better profit!
    
    Agree??

    I guess this means that brebach will never have to give his two time
    delayed DVN about the future directions of Digital Consulting

>Does this mean the "Looking Forward" document should be re-titled
>"Looking Backward".

Or "Looking elsewhere".

>    I guess this means that brebach will never have to give his two time
>    delayed DVN about the future directions of Digital Consulting
    
    
    Look on the positive side...he kept his word that this would be the
    last cancellation :-)

    Funny this....
    Each time a new VP is announced my mail gets poluted by umpteen pages
    of distribution lists + the announcement.
    If something is announced which may affect me (I'm providing
    application support for MCS, but am on a DC cost centre) I have to tell
    my boss in MCS that there's an interesting press release floating
    around on the net.
    Don't ask me who my boss in DC is, I haven't got clue.
    And the only way to be sure what my cost centre is these days is to
    check it on my pay slip.
    
    Charles

    The announcement is sent out the us grunts now.
    That is to say, a copy of the press release with a cover note saying
    something like "us European managers are as surprised as you lot and
    we don't have clue yet about what's going on."
    
    Disgusted from Holland

    maybe it should be renamed :-
    Looking-forward-to-not-wasting-any-more-time-on-pipedreams
    
    Did you read it?Neat but totally unrealistic.Reminds me of the 'Quick
    Reference Guide' to the 3x3 organisation-27 pages long?Should I post it
    for comparison purposes?

    re -1
    
    what was unrealistic about it ?
    
    Long it may have been, but nothing wrong in that per se.
    
    And the business model is (was?) a valid one for a large, integrated
    consulting business with many service lines. 
    
    Comments please.
    
    AW
    
     
    
    
    
    

    Interestingly enough, HP just recently announced the formation of a
    professional services' organization, because they wanted to be more
    then just box-shifters to customers. "We want to help the customers all
    the way from understanding their business needs, do business process 
    redesign, integrate their sysms and manage them" Quote from an HP VP.
     
    There is no mention of Management consulting anaymore, is that gone
    (together with Brebach?)
    
    Rene

    failed to take into account two things-time needed and internal Digital
    politics and structure.Doomed to failure from the beginning.I'll give
    you a simple example.I am part of an affinity group with a US based
    leader.We meet and agree a plan but the negotiation process which must
    take place for implementation resources(to make the plan work,to get
    the return on the DC investment etc) gets hung up in politics.It seems
    that rule by diktat only occurs to a certain level which is probably
    why the average employee looks on the SLT and any reorganisation
    announcement as would a bemused bystander at a sideshow.A little bit
    like politics in a communist state..

    re 21
    
    The fact that Digital politics and structure got/gets in the way does
    not make the basic proposition of Looking Forward unrealistic.
    
    Brebach perhaps believed that he had a 'Green Field' site when he came.
    Instead, it was a very muddy field, with the grass just refusing to
    grow.
    
    The problems associated with your affinity group that you mention
    are sad. At the end of the day, it all comes down to people.
    
    
    re 20. Management Consulting now reports to Bob McNulty who retains OMS
    and IM&T.  IT Strategy Consulting is now part of S.I.
    
    
    AW

    	I didn't really succeed in understanding why this split.
    
    	Is there somebody able to explain it to me? I'd like to know what
    are the expected improvements this new thing will bring to Digital.
    Thanks in advance.
    
    	As an idea, I don't like this split. I think it will lead to a new
    re-organization (I received yesterday the memo announcing our latest)
    and I think what Digital does NOT need is managers dealing only with
    reorganizations and loosing Customer and people focus.
    
    	I think what we need is a STABLE organization and more focus on our
    true goals. I think Digital Consulting (or whatever will be its name)
    needs to understand, for example, what are the skills needed to provide
    Systems Integration, it has to understand what are the tools and so on.
    	What I think it does NOT need is (again) how we behave with sales,
    how we behave with MCS and so on: our business is quite simple: go to
    the Customer, ask what he wants and, if it is OK for us, provide it in
    the best way.
    
    �AA

    This decision is one of the better made by the SLT. Reading these
    notes, one comes to the conclusion that a major factor has been
    forgotten: competition & marketplace. "Looking Forward" was unrealistic
    because once again, it positioned DC as all things to all people. It
    is- It was- Digital forcing what it wanted to be in a market that
    wouldn't accept it--period---
                                                      
    Look at the competitors who are doing well in the various subsectors of
    the consulting arena- the Andersens, CSCs, McKinseys, etc..... They are
    much leaner and focused and rely on a rigid system that spawns legions of 
    well managed, trained, and
    disciplined 25 year olds to carry out what customers perceive as
    objective assignments-- something that like it or not-- Digital will
    never have the aura of. The split will focus our true core
    competencies -- Network and Systems Integration -- and hopefully
    squeeze more revenue per employee, bringing it closer to market
    standards and reality. As for management consulting (don't get me
    wrong- I have a tremendous propensity for what you do and with the
    professionalism with which you do it), I question whether
    if left on its own, with no support, it could be a viable, profitable
    business. This is one to shed.

    They couldn't figure out how to run it as a business
    
    They couldn't find anyone who wanted to buy it
    
    So they split it up, thereby providing additional TFSO fodder while
    occupying management with the endless (and important!) task of
    "transitioning" to the new organization.

    re 24
    
    ?
    
    I thought the idea behind LF was to shape a consulting business that
    could compete in the marketplace, be it for SI, NI, OMS, whatever. To a
    great extent, the models borrowed from the best in class competitors.
    
    You touch on a key point in all this. The key to success in this area
    is discipline, training and customer commitment. However we choose to
    organise ourselves we will still need all these things - and we will
    need to be consistent across our service lines when we bring several of
    them to bear for the same client - by this I mean approach to defining
    and delivering work, quality procedures, etc. 
    
    AW 
    
    
    
    

    Well for one thing it was missing independence. What customer is going
    to beleive a Digital management consultant who says - "I've looked
    at your business, what you need are these Digital systems".

   rep .12 - Well said, and this structure should generate more
             revenue per employee as .24 indicates.

    I have to wonder about Digtial's management consulting.
    
    What is it about a Digital badge, that makes a good management
    consultant into a better management consultant?
    
    Put another way, why should a client in need on management
    consulting choose Digital.
    
    Put another way, when my doctor can't stop coughing, I begin
    to think in terms of another doctor, whether or not that makes
    sense.
    
    Dave

    re .29
    
    An interesting reply.  I was in the middle of my second consulting
    engagement with a customer before my customer actually realized I was a
    Digital employee. The customer thought Digital had subcontracted with
    me to provide management consulting.  I wonder if I would have won the
    business if the customer had realized I worked for Digital.
    
    With the dissolution of DC, anyone formerly in DC should consider
    themselves TFSO fodder, IMHO.  The fact that I am currently billing at
    $250 / hour in no way protects me.  At least that's the way I'm
    approaching things.

    re: 30
    	Well, you certainly don't include DC managers in the 'tsfo fodder'
    group, do you? Let's understand that their first assignment will be to
    find new management jobs for themselves in whatever org they are now
    in. Then they can proceed with laying off the rest of us.
    
    As far as 'Looking Forward'...was I the only grunt that found this
    document UNREADABLE?

    No, you weren't the only grunt to find it unreadable, and I suspect
    that it had a lot to do with the dissolution of DC.

    Yeah, the Looking Forward document may have been quite a change from
    previous structures in Digital dealing with consulting <cough>, but if
    you have any experience with Andersen Consulting, the structure was
    darn near the same. Only the job titles were changed.
    
    After my manager and the PCS manager discussed this doucment with us,
    it was completely understandable. I was, dare I say it, enthusiastic
    about the upcoming changes. Now were either going to be TFSO'ed or
    stuck in a division trying to support products the rest of the world
    could care less about.
    
    IMO, Gresh was the only VP level person in charge of the EIS/PSS/DC/etc
    organization that ever brought even a grain of focus and vision. Figure
    the odds of the good IC's staying in a company that has a wage freeze,
    in some areas a hiring freeze, and no ability (IMO) to pull itself out
    of this death spiral until the reach 35,000 employees (prediction).
    
    --- Gavin

    I believe the split will work out quite well, at least from my tiny 
    perspective.  I will find it refreshing to have the the NIS folks aligned 
    with the engineers and the MCS sellers, etc.  Because NIS is responsible 
    for the cabling and the plan, but MCS is responsible for the networking 
    hardware, there has been an awful lot of finger-pointing and a lack of
    cooperation in the past.  Since I often have to do my job (relocations)
    at the mercy of NIS's completion, I will be more than pleased to have
    this sensible alignment in place.  MCS Delivery and NIS must work 
    as a team in order to better benefit the customer and "maximize profit"! 
    
    As for the SI and other consulting portions of DC, these services are
    often sold "up front" with new hardware, so this makes a lot of sense
    to me, too.
    
    Working at feeling positive (for a change!!), 
    
    M.
    M.

    I suspect that this re-structuring of DC may reflect input from the
    attempted sale of DC.  This could result in 'some of the bits' being
    more attractive to a buyer by seperating/merging them.
    
    Consider OMS and the now 'cosolidated' MCS.  Of course the 'lump' in
    the middle' that went to CSU will have some shake out.
    
    Comments?
    
    rww
    

    re -1
    
    How about Outsource all of IMT plus the famous Digital Network. Give
    them OMS as a taster too. Get the IT provider to slam new systems in
    fast, to support manuf + logistics etc.
    
    re .33
    
    Correct, looking forward was similar to Andersen (hardly
    surprising, given Brebach's pedigree) - who happen IMHO to be a pretty
    successful player in the consulting marketplace. Digital was, unless my
    memory fails, an average player at best. You probably can recite the
    reasons why Andersen are good at what they do as well as I can. What, I
    want to know is being done to ensure that our new, split, service
    lines will be able to go toe-to-toe with the best in the marketplace ?
    
    The marketplace doesn't change, no matter how often we
    organise/re-organise/re-organise etc ...
    
    AW  
    
    
    

    IMHO this was the best news to come out of these painful reorgs thus
    far. While Gresh himself may have been OK (I have no real opinion on
    that), the whole CS organization has long been over-stuffed and
    existing off the the HW allowance line. No wonder no one in their right
    mind would buy the thing. This was unfortunately a group of great IC's
    being led in circles by a middle management clique without a clue.
    
    Gresh seemed to at least have a clue what would be required to
    compete...BUT remember that Enrico had stated that we will NEVER,
    repeat NEVER, compete with our partners under the new business model.
    Our partners didn't need the DEC CS group running around bidding
    against them for
    every deal that came down the pike (whether they were equipped to do it
    or not). Certainly, we in the sales side didn't need the allowance hit
    to cover the $200./hour rates, when we were competing in $50./hour
    markets. Sooooo... maybe what's left (hopefully the good IC's) can
    contribute to the turn around and rebirth of the new Digital.
    
    ;^)                    OFWAMI
    

    re: last
    
    	And how does the new org obviate the need to charge $150-200/hr for
    Digital consultants? If history is a lesson, Sales will give the
    consulting away for nothing if they can; unless they are measured on
    consulting dollars. The consultants themselves are so measured so if the 
    price/hr goes down, here we go again with conflicting metrics. Remember
    that the COST of a consultant won't change until the overhead does and
    DC claimed that it needed at least >$100/hr to cover that cost, much
    less make some money. Oh my.......

    I find the reaction the sales force over the breakup of DC very
    interesting.  Also, expected.  Particularly those that work in the VAR
    space.  Much of the VAR market views DC as competion.  And it is.  So
    VAR sales is doing what it should - protect its customer.
    
    Until a VAR mucks up an account, then, history indicates, sales wants
    DC to go to the rescue - for free (ala Customer Sat.)
    
    I do hope that the re-newed focus on VARs (OEMs as they use to be
    called) also defines the area of responsiblitity better than in the
    70s.  We had a lot of calls to the local Digital office from customers
    who purchased from OEMs but called Digital when a problem appeared. 
    Why? just look at the tag on the machine.  The end result was OEM with
    profit, Digital with costs.  That was one of the main forces that
    created the (formerly) large direct sales force.
    
    There are 2 different apporaches at work here.  One is quantity based
    (lage volumes with small margins) and the quality based (small volumes
    with large margins).  Both can create profit.  They just come from
    different ends of the universe.
    
    And, yes, I supported the OEM product line in the 70s.
    
    rww
    

    re. -1.  hte '70's is a long time ago.

    re: .40
    
    New Industry - Yes.
    
    Same Problems - Yes.
    
    rww
    

    One of the historical problems with DC has been the local profit
    margins that were required in order to meet corporate contribution
    requirements. The whole metric system has too many organizations
    dipping their hands into the DC revenue stream. Digital needs to
    evaluate DC closer to the way the rest of the industry measures
    themselves. I have many friends at consulting firms who think that 20%
    profit is incredible in 1994. My local management needs 57% margin, in
    order to feed the many layers in Digital who somehow get a cut.

re .33
 >>   IMO, Gresh was the only VP level person in charge of the IS/PSS/DC/etc
  >>  organization that ever brought even a grain of focus and vision. 

Give me a break, do you call 37 affinity groups - focus;  and vision, 
anybody can have a vision to be all things to all people.

The new ABU VP w/w is Vincenzo Diamiani. His Business Unit now owns SI. What 
is his view on SI ?   Well somebody asked him that at a briefing 2 weeks ago 
and his reply was... 

We are not interested in prime contracting, that is the business of our 
partners CSC, CAP Gemeni, EDS, however we do need some technical integration 
capability.

The writing is on the wall and it is very clear. His response was not off 
the wall. He clearly had thought out what he wanted to say and never 
mentioned Digital Consulting.
  

    Another "value adder" that CS piled on top of every project bid was
    their wonderfully scientific provision for risk - let's see we've never
    done this before,soooo double the estimate and add 50%. Gee, wonder why
    we didn't get that bid, or, let's make up the difference in hardware 
    allowances. 
    
    Oh well, all of this is crying (or whining) over the gravesite anyway.
    CS as we knew it is gone. Perhaps what we end up with will be better
    positioned to contribute to the rebirth of whatever this thing is that
    we call the New Digital. 
    
    OFWAMI

I am still trying to work out what synergy there is between Systems Integration
and a high volume commodity computer systems division?

Every presentation from DC management that I have seen for the past 9 months 
has stressed the significant differences between the 'products' and the 
'consulting' businesses.  It all seemed to make a lot of sense.

Gresh offered hope that we might be released from the eternal conflicts that
arise when you try to deliver customer solutions while working for a products 
company.  You don't market/price/sell/design or deliver a one-off bet your 
business type solution in the same way as a PC or Alpha system.  The metrics 
are NOT the same...hence some of the comments in here.  In my opinion Gresh 
failed only in not acting quickly enough and in not getting the OK to spawn DC
as a seperate entity months ago.  

It feels like DC are now in the scrap yard, once all the bits other groups 
want have been stripped off, then the rest will be TSFO'd.  I just wish they 
would do it quickly.

Gavin

    
    re .47
    
    	YES!  Someone please explain how this will work in a low-margin
    	      buisness.  Is this back to 'consulting - give it away'?

    .46
    >>     OFWAMI
    
    Not being a pure english nor american product, I've learned to
    understand cryptic words like
    
    	IMHO
    	ASAP
    	RTFM
    	FWIW
    
    and a few others, but "OFWAMI" is today a mystery for me.
    
    Can someone decypher this for me please ?
            

    shame it got trunca

.42 is right.  Our competition (AC, EDS, Cap etc.) can operate on much
lower profit margins that we can.  At least in our PSC, we always had the
revenue, but never enough margin to satisify our bosses across the big pond.

To be competitive, we either had to take the losses ourselves, or book a lot
over sales allowance, which explains much of the comments to this note from
sales people.

I liked "Looking Forward".  It painted a picture of an organisation that I
would like to work for.  If we had actually implemented it, we may well have
been a contender in the SI market.  Now its dead.  SI is a People business.
It means consistent investment in training and hiring to justify the high
rates.  As an independent division, there was a chance that DC management
could have enough freedom to invest even as Digital was shrinking.  Now there
is no more chance.

IMHO: Digital's problem is not its organisation, or its lack of good ideas.
Its a change management problem.  Every six months comes a new and more
radical organisation.  Unfortunately, before it can be implemented in the
field, it is replaced by a new one.  Nothing works because nothing is ever
given the time and resources to work.  (Although I'm not sure 3x3 would ever
have worked....)  Now two weeks after Bob Palmer announced the newest
organization, it has already been radically changed.  No wonder that no one
takes this all seriously anymore

    "Life is like working for Digital... FG" is from:
    
    "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna
    get."       Forrest Gump
    
    It was the last thing I heard leaving the house this AM, and it struck
    me as totally appropriate for us.  Have we a Corporate motto in the
    making?!   8^)
    
    
    /dlw
    

    Sri, is a good man.   He has proven great success in building the
    Asia/Pacific market. 
    
    

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     09-Aug-1994 05:28pm EDT
                                        From:     Kannankote Srikanth @OGO
                                                  SRIKANTH.KANNANKOTE AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO
                                        Dept:     Digital Consulting
                                        Tel No:   276-8453

TO: See Below
 
Subject: DIGITAL CONSULTING COMMUNICATION                                       

     ****THIS MESSAGE IS TO ALL DIGITAL CONSULTING FIELD PERSONNEL****
    
    As you may be aware, yesterday Bob Palmer announced that the company 
    will be realigning our Systems and Networks Integration capabilities.  
    This action is part of the corporate strategy to create a more 
    simplified organizational structure that will more closely serve our 
    customers.  If you have not seen this announcement, you can access it 
    via LIVE WIRE.
    
    To carry out this realignment, parts of Digital Consulting will be 
    shifted to other areas of the corporation.  In brief, the Systems 
    Integration Business and Information Technology Consulting will move 
    to the Computer Systems Division under Vice President Enrico 
    Pesatori, Network Integration Services and Learning Services will 
    move to Multivendor Customer Services under Vice President John 
    Rando, and Management Consulting will be placed under Vice President 
    Bob McNulty, who also manages Operations Management Services. 
    
    This change means that we will continue to focus on the business that 
    comprised Digital Consulting, however, it will be delivered through a 
    different structure.  As Bob Palmer has stated many times in the last 
    few weeks, Systems Integration, Networks Integration and Outsourcing  
    are part of the core competencies of Digital.  By January 1, 1995, 
    consistent with the corporations restructuring, our goal is to 
    complete this realignment. 
    
    These have been difficult times for all of you.  There have been many 
    rumors and a great deal of ambiguity to deal with.  But despite all 
    of this, you have maintained your focus on the business and Digital 
    Consulting brought in a profit to the corporation for FY94.  Now I 
    must call on you to retain this focus.  We must grow our revenue, 
    increase our profitability, and maintain the stability of the 
    business.  We must absolutely meet our Q1 targets.
    
    Ours is a people intensive business.  Our people ARE our "product", 
    so it is also imperative that we pay attention to the needs of the 
    people who make it happen.  We must be mindful of this as we go 
    along, and we will treat this as a priority.  One of the ways to do 
    this is to keep people informed.  To that end, we will be 
    communicating with you often, both to let you know what is happening, 
    and to hear what your issues and concerns are.  To start this process 
    we are scheduling a DVN shortly.  We will let you know the date as 
    soon as it is arranged.
      
    We are also setting up a meeting for our senior field managers which 
    will take place in the first week of September.  
    
    In the meantime, we must move forward in implementing this transition 
    without disrupting the business.  We have made financial commitments 
    to the corporation that we must meet.  We must keep our customers 
    reassured, and we must maintain our profitability for Q1 and Q2.  
    
    To do this, our Consulting Services Principal structure will be 
    maintained, and the CSP's will continue to work with the Digital 
    Account Managers to assure appropriate services inclusion and 
    response in our accounts.  We will also be providing CSP's with 
    information and tools so they can call on our customers over the next 
    couple of weeks to reassure them that these changes are positive, and 
    that they will have continuity in their dealings with us.  We need to 
    increase our backlog and continue to grow the business for Digital.  
    The CSP's will remain focused on this, and they will continue to 
    leverage business for the corporation.  The PSC managers should play 
    a key role in the delivery of financial commitments, as well as 
    maintaining the stability of our organization and our customer base. 
    
    We must all also collaborate closely with the MCS and CSD 
    organizations to facilitate the melding of our businesses with 
    theirs.  We must do this for our customers, the health of our 
    business, and the total profitability of Digital Equipment 
    Corporation.
    
    With the professionalism and commitment you have demonstrated in the 
    past, I know we can be successful with this transition.  
    
    
    Regards
    Sri
    
    
    

Distribution:
 
TO:  *_DKAS::MAXWELL AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO
TO:  KENICHI ABE @TKO
TO:  SANJIV AIYAR @ZPO
TO:  ROY ALLAN @HHL
TO:  DAVE ARGUE @OTO
TO:  RAY ARNDT @ALF
TO:  ROBERT BATTYE @ERB
TO:  YVON BEAUDET @MQO
TO:  DAVE BEDARD @MRO
TO:  FELIX BERMUTH @UFH
TO:  PIERO BIGA @TNO
TO:  PAUL BOULAD @EVO
TO:  MARY ELLEN BRANTLEY @ALF
TO:  FRANK BRENNAN @DBO
TO:  PETER BROICHER @RTO
TO:  BOB BURKE @OHF
TO:  MELANIE BURNS @LAC
TO:  CATHY CAMBAL-HAYWARD @OFO
TO:  DAVE CAPERELLI @MRO
TO:  DON CARKEEK @TLA
TO:  JUNG-KEUN CHA @DEK
TO:  KEVIN CHAN @HGO
TO:  JAMES COLLORA @LAO
TO:  LEN COSTA @MRO
TO:  MARILYN CROSS @NYO
TO:  DAVID D'INNOCENZO @MRO
TO:  EDWARD DAIHL @DVO
TO:  ED DEARY @MRO
TO:  MIKE DELVECCHIO @SCO
TO:  HERBERT DESOUZA @LAC
TO:  RICK DISTASIO @DCO
TO:  VINCENT DSOUZA @GEO
TO:  MIKE DUFFY @REO
TO:  CHRISTIAN DUGUET @EVO
TO:  JOHN EHRHARDT @LAC
TO:  MARC FAUST @BRO
TO:  DIETRICH FINKE @UFC
TO:  DAVID FINKEL @LAO
TO:  JIM FORMAN @CXO
TO:  DAN FOWLER @SLO
TO:  KATSUHIKO FUJITA @TKO
TO:  ANDRE GALL @EBO
TO:  STAN GARFIELD @OHF
TO:  ANOOP GARG @QCA
TO:  STEVEN GARRETT @WRO
TO:  HELEN GASPER @DCO
TO:  ALAIN GEX @GEO
TO:  LYNNE GILLON @HHL
TO:  PETER GLANZMANN @EBO
TO:  CESARE GONNELLI @RIO
TO:  LISE GORAJSKI @ACI
TO:  ROBERTO GREGIANIN @MLN
TO:  BOB GRIFFIN @OFO
TO:  ROSS HARLING @UCG
TO:  ED HARRINGTON @MRO
TO:  THOMAS HARTANTO @DAI
TO:  FRANK HEIM @MXO
TO:  YUUJI HIGASHI @TKO
TO:  IAN HODGSON @OLO
TO:  KARL HOFMANN @PCS
TO:  KEVIN HOWELL @NYO
TO:  IY HUANG @TPO
TO:  PAULO IGREJAS @XIP
TO:  FAISAL ISMAIL @MSA
TO:  TAKAYASU ITO @TKO
TO:  ROD JACKSON @OHF
TO:  MALCOLM JONES @WRO
TO:  GEORGE KAISER @NYO
TO:  YOSHIFUMI KASHIWAGI @TKO
TO:  PECK KEHLER @ALF
TO:  JOHN A KELLY @MRO
TO:  RON KEMPF @OHF
TO:  WOLFGANG KERAUSCH @RTO
TO:  NOBUO KIMURA @TKT
TO:  DAVE KISTLER @MRO
TO:  SVEN KOLSTRUP @DMO
TO:  SHERRIE KONKUS @OHF
TO:  DHANU KOTHARI @TRO
TO:  LEIV KREYBERG @NWO
TO:  CATHY LANGE @COP
TO:  ERIC LAWRENCE @TRO
TO:  ELEANOR LESTER @TRO
TO:  BOB LIPTROT @RCH
TO:  COR VAN MAANEN @UTO
TO:  AJAY MALIK @GEO
TO:  JIM MAPLES @CYO
TO:  FERNANDO MASELLA @TNO
TO:  MIKE MCCAIG @REO
TO:  TED MCKIE @MRO
TO:  PIERRE MEREA @LDV
TO:  PAT MOHR @COP
TO:  JEAN-CLAUDE MONNEY @GEO
TO:  JIM MORGAN @LVM
TO:  STAN MOSS @TAY
TO:  MARTIN MOYES @ HHL
TO:  DON NEAULT @AKO
TO:  PETER NEDWED @AUI
TO:  FRANK NEWHARD @COP
TO:  JAY NORMAN @ACI
TO:  BILL OBRIEN @MSO
TO:  JIM OCONNOR @WLO
TO:  JOHN ODONNELL @COP
TO:  HERMAN OGGEL @GEO
TO:  WILLEM OVERBEEKE @RTO
TO:  MARY PAJOT @STO
TO:  ULF PAPE @COO
TO:  JOSE PARODI @CRO
TO:  CHARLES PAYNE @DLO
TO:  FABIO PEREGO @GEO
TO:  FRANZ PETER @FRS
TO:  VARDA POLAK @ISO
TO:  JIM POPA @COP
TO:  MIKE POWELL @REO
TO:  CHRISTIANE QUARTERMAN @GEO
TO:  RON RATZLAFF @CGO
TO:  CARLO RITTER @ZUO
TO:  FRANCISCO RIVERO @VNZ
TO:  GEOF ROBINSON @SNO
TO:  THOMAS ROESCH @SUO
TO:  STEPHANE ROUSSET @GEO
TO:  BENGT RUBIN @SOO
TO:  LORENZO RUIZ @SQO
TO:  JARMO SALO @FNO
TO:  Jeff Sands @OGO                      ( SANDS.JEFF AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  CHIKARA SASAKO @OSA
TO:  WALTER SCHAEFER @RTO
TO:  AP SCHOUTEN @DAI
TO:  GREG SCOTT @LAO
TO:  SEAN SHAW @SBP
TO:  YOSHIHISA SHIBASAKI @TKO
TO:  TOSHIO SHIRAKURA @TKO
TO:  HARVEY SILVERBERG @ACI
TO:  BILL SIMPSON @NYO
TO:  BENNIE SLONE @ALF
TO:  RENEE SPEITEL @OHF
TO:  ROBERT STEINER @ZUO
TO:  TERRI STEINGREBE @MKO
TO:  SAID TABET @HAO
TO:  HIROSHI TANAKA @TKO
TO:  TERRY THERET @TKO
TO:  SUSAN THOMAS @PHH
TO:  JOHN TRAVALINI @MKO
TO:  JOAO TRONKOS @DJO
TO:  DAVE VEST @ALF
TO:  MIKE WATSON @OFO
TO:  BARRY WEEKS @MRO
TO:  RICK WELCH @OFO
TO:  GARRY WHEELER @MKO
TO:  ROGER WHITNEY @DCO
TO:  FOKKE WIJNSTRA @ERB
TO:  MATT WILLIAMS @COP
TO:  BRAD WILSON @AQO
TO:  RON WOLF @ALF
TO:  MARCELLO ZOFFOLI @RIO
TO:  *_STOWOA::SHARMA AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO
TO:  Deb Bergevine @ogo
TO:  Ron Bohlin @ogo
TO:  Bob Burke @ohf
TO:  Jim Collora @lao
TO:  David Fritts @ogo
TO:  Ian Hickson @ogo
TO:  Jim Huson @ogo
TO:  Rich Linting @mro
TO:  Dick Loveland @mko
TO:  Bob McNulty @ogo
TO:  Jay Norman @ACI
TO:  William J OBrien @mso
TO:  Dick Scarborough @ogo
TO:  Anita Slater @mlo
TO:  Dan Thatte @ogo
TO:  Cathy Welsh @ogo
TO:  ]emote Addressee                     ( MARYELLEN BEAGEN @OGO )
TO:  GAIL BROWN @OGO
TO:  Jon Caputo @OGO                      ( CAPUTO.JON AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  DAVE CHISAMORE @MKO
TO:  Denis Cocchiara @OGO                 ( COCCHIARA.DENIS AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  TEDDIE DEBOISE @OGO
TO:  BARBARA DEGUISE @MKO
TO:  Susan Dinga @OGO                     ( DINGA.SUSAN AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  Robin Donnelly                       ( DONNELLY.ROBIN AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  Brian Flanagan @OGO                  ( FLANAGAN.BRIAN AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  STEVE W FULLER @OGO
TO:  SANDI GREENBERG @MKO
TO:  Kevin Haggerty @OGO                  ( HAGGERTY.KEVIN AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  LEE HIGLEY @OGO
TO:  Lisa Hutchinson @OGO                 ( HUTCHINSON.LISA AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  Paul Johnston @OGO                   ( JOHNSTON.PAUL AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  Debbie Joy @OGO                      ( JOY.DEBBIE AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  LOREN KELLEY @MKO
TO:  Ross Kelly                           ( KELLY.ROSS AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  DINESH MAHESHWARY @SHR
TO:  MICHAEL PATTEN @OGO
TO:  Bruce Perlmutter @OGO                ( PERLMUTTER.BRUCE AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  MARIE PERRAS @MKO
TO:  Ngan Pho @OGO                        ( PHO.NGAN AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  DON SMITH @MKO
TO:  JOE SMITH @MKO
TO:  JOANNE SOKOLOWSKI @SHR
TO:  Pauline StAmand @OGO                 ( STAMAND.PAULINE AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  Bardia Taleghani @OGO                ( TALEGHANI.BARDIA AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
TO:  BILL VICKERS @MKO
TO:  JON WILLIAMS @MKO
TO:  WALTER WIRTANEN @MKO
TO:  Peter Wise @OGO                      ( WISE.PETER AT A1 at STOWOA at OGO )
 

    Interesting comments -- I actually read all of the notes before I
    decided to respond --
    
    DC gives me heartburn -- I believe that the organization had been
    layered with non-a**-in-the-grass-grunts.  Sort of like the
    featherbedding of the railroad industry.
    
    It always amazed me that the structure kept changing and the cadre just
    kept morphing to the new structure and they were always the same.
    
    We needed to spin-off DC into a separate unit with overheads that were
    consistent with a services organization -- The benefit is that it would
    be measured clearly -- That would have resulted in the non-revenue
    producing overhead to bite the dust -- 
    
    I couldn't believe the amount of hands that touch a proposal.
    
    Whenever I interfaced with them, they always protected their margins
    and if I had to do a negotiation, I had to find other places to cut
    price and slide the "savings" back to SI --- Sooo, they were always
    profitable.
    
    Now we move them back into the "fold" and it will be interesting to see
    any TFSO list and the "titles" that were hit.
    
    I think we could make a slug of money on the skill sets if we measured
    them properly and established competitive prices for the services -- 
    
    Lets' hope that this latest gambit results in net positive revenue, and
    a cessation of the DC margin gimmicks.
    
    My MOST HUMBLE .02
    
    Dennis

    
    re -.1
    
    <<< Now we move them back into the "fold" and it will be interesting to
    <<< see any TFSO list and the "titles" that were hit.
    
     Well past history indicates technical skillsets.
    
     Add comments heard like people business and outsourcing and resources
    and.. and.. and.. all I know is I am understanding MIXED messages.
    People are important, whack, whack....
    
    <<< I think we could make a slug of money on the skill sets if we measured
    <<< them properly and established competitive prices for the services.
    
    Hey, what a concept. But we have wacked so many, we cannot deliver
    anymore.
    
    -Mike Z.
    (cannon fodder)
    

    re .53 (the long one)
    
    Oh Goody! Another DVN to be held 'shortly'!

    ...unless it gets  cancelled...

    re: .43
    
    >> Give me a break, do you call 37 affinity groups - focus;  and
    vision,
    >>anybody can have a vision to be all things to all people.
    
    Compared to what the previous foundering organizations offered, yes.
    
    --- Gavin

    I've thought the looking forward document just didn't fit the model of
    a vendor!  This was months back when I first read this confusing piece.
    Even my direct manager now principle didn't understand how we were to
    get there from here.  I also said over 6 months ago that the consulting
    unit DC should be merged with field organization.
    
    I think it would give the field technichian a next step in there career
    goals. Remove a lot of the overhead of DC and streamline the whole system. 
    This would also reduce COST to make us more competitive.  
    
    Now can we work to make a profit??  Will DC contributors still be here
    tomorrow? and can I expect to have a job in the next couple of months,
    or will they wait till there is no package at all to let me go!
    
    I'd like some answers!  I'm tired of waiting on the end of a string.
    The heartburn is killing me!  
    

    
    	re.: .45 I think you are absolutely right !!
    
    	re.: .54
>   We needed to spin-off DC into a separate unit with overheads that were
>   consistent with a services organization -- The benefit is that it would
>   be measured clearly -- That would have resulted in the non-revenue
>   producing overhead to bite the dust -- 
    
    You are absolutely right! We need less levels of management. I don't
    understand why sales has less levels of management than DC.
    
>   I couldn't believe the amount of hands that touch a proposal.
>   
>   Whenever I interfaced with them, they always protected their margins
>   and if I had to do a negotiation, I had to find other places to cut
>   price and slide the "savings" back to SI --- Sooo, they were always
>   profitable.
    
    I think this depends on your local reality. Here it is often the
    opposite: sometimes people in sales give as a present some consultancy
    to sell a couple of boxes, it often happens we have to manage projects
    which have been sold for 1/3 (yes, one third) of their real value just
    to sell some boxes, it always happens that we provide discounts on the
    SI part of a project.
    
    I think this split will let this situation become more used. But I
    also hope this split will let us have less managers and let us have a
    cost structure able to be competitive with the market.
    
    I heard that here our internal cost (for the average DC employee) is
    about 500 $ per day.
    Sorry, for 400 $ I can stay at home, pay the telephone line to connect
    to Digital, all the other expenses and become very rich.
    
    My humble 400 $ :-)
    �AA

    re. 60
    
    I think we want to do first is to define what is consulting service.
    Consulting service is not just to write a piece of code or to deliver
    a bunch of equipments, ... etc.  Consulting service is to help customer
    to understand their business, to find solutions for their business, to
    deliver the whole solution to customer and ensure them the revenue for
    returns  Consulting service is not one-man show but always a team work.
    
    EDS sent a consultant to UN for a $50,000.00 engagement and turned it
    into a $500M solution engagement.  The winner for consulting services
    not the team with the best academic records neither the team with the
    best equiments but the team with the best knowledge of the customer
    business together with the best solutions.
    
    We have lots of good people within DC as well as other oragnizations do.
    We have people not only strong at technology but also rich in business
    knowledge.  We are "products" of Digital as well as VAxes, Alphas,...
    We are located at the front lines where the office lease are always
    high.  We also have to share to pay the overhead of the whole
    corporation.  The quoted "$500/day" is actually low.   However, our
    customers pay Digital $115/hr to $250/hour.  Our people always work
    days and nights to fulfill commitment made by sales or SLM.   For all
    the above-mentioned, our salary are freezed.
    
    Usually to calculate one man cost is about the salary times 1.4.  When
    we prepare proposal it is about the salary time 2.25 because of the
    huge overhead carried on everone's back.
    
    This topic can be thousands of pages long.  To make long story short,
    consulting service is not a contractor neither a residentila support
    but a solution engagement.  This can not be and will not be delivered
    by people sitting at home without interaction with customers.
    
    Regards,

    re .33 and .58
    
    I agree Gavin, Gresh and his Looking Forward vision gave me hope. A
    long range plan that went beyond the end of a quarter! Guess he
    underestimaged Enrico and Rando.
    
    Steve.