Conference 7.286::digital

The Western Region (U.S.) sales support organization will be meeting with 
Pesatori and Damiani later this week.  Any good questions I/we might ask 'em?

I can probably formulate the previous into a query.

Bruce

RE: .1
>Any good questions I/we might ask 'em?


    Why does it take 1/2 day of my time, plus the time of 3 managers
    (including a VP) to buy $150 of software for PC at work, for work???
    Even if they say NO, the process to say no costs 20 times more than
    it would cost just to buy the software!

<SET MODE DISGUSTED FLAME ON>
    Maybe if the company would just do a little bit of employee empowerment
    and stop supporting 2 or 3 unnecessary layers of management that do
    nothing but create bureaucracies to justify their existence maybe we'd
    turn a profit!  But I'm sure next week's major reorganization (35th
    reorg this quarter) and announcement of 15 new VPs will solve the problem.
    For Christ's sake: get out of my way and let me continue to be billed
    out at $100-200/hour like I've been doing for the last 10 years.

There is no matrix in the UK situation. The UK SBU manager, reports directly
to the European SBU manager who reports into Corporate. What is different
is that the UK SBU manager does NOT report to the UK Managing Director 
except for pay and rations, the same goes for SI, ABU, PC, etc.

That's the theory anyway... 

re: .1 "Pesatori and Damiani"

I've been informed that only Damiani will be there, no Enrico.

Bruce

re.3:

I find it interesting that people refer to the next MD in the UK as a 
caretaker. Although a companies liability maybe limited under law, a 
director's liability for damages will be unlimited. I imagine the situation 
will be similar in other sales subsidiaries. So who would take this job 
with all of the responsibility but none of the power?

Dave ;-)

    Re .3
    
    You say there is no matrix then go on to refer to the U.K., European
    and Corporate SBU managers!  Isn't this a matrix of market (so-called
    channels) and geography?  Why introduce geography?  There needs to be a
    geography manager and a market manager.  They don't need to be
    subordinate one to the other and there doesn't need to be more than one
    of either.  As it is we'll have another set of U.K. managers for ABU,
    for PCBU etc.
    
    dp

re -1.  

You only need a geography manager if there is a geography P&L. The plan is
that within a territory there will not be one P&L, but many, one for each 
business unit. The territory manager will not be responsible for managing 
the resources between the various business units.  

This is the business model used by many large multi-nationals. Look at 
Unilever in the UK, there is a Unilever, UK Managing Director, but this does 
not mean he manages all the UK Unilever companies. The Unilever UK business 
unit managers receive budget, headcount and performance reviews from their 
respective 'business unit' managers who have European or w/w 
responsibilities. The model works for them, they are extremely profitable 
and work with paper thin margins.

There is one caveat, for legal reasons there is a country based P&L, board 
of directors, fiscal accounting  but this different than the operational 
management. 



 

    .7,
    
    This is interesting.  I understand what the intention for the territory
    is.  I don't understand why you would start organizing a market sector-
    based company by geography first.  It seems to me part of a first cut
    for SBU would be ISVs, VARs, master resellers, distributors and what I 
    would call generics--people like MicroSoft, Informix and Novell.  Some of 
    these divisions would never need to reflect geography in their structure. 
    If, for example, your "account" is Oracle, perhaps you can do product
    and marketing things at corporate level and market it through their
    structure rather than ours.
    
    Just to bang on a bit more.  Why START with geography?  It smacks to me
    of the old Digital mutt not knowing any different: "That's what we
    always do, ain'it?"

Re: .7

<<You only need a geography manager if there is a geography P&L. The plan is
<<that within a territory there will not be one P&L, but many, one for each 
<<business unit. The territory manager will not be responsible for managing 
<<the resources between the various business units.  

Then, what does P&L have to do with the territory?  Nothing.  If a 
business unit wants reps somewhere, fine; if not, also fine.  Why should 
the "territory" make the decision?
.
.
.
<<There is one caveat, for legal reasons there is a country based P&L, board 
<<of directors, fiscal accounting  but this different than the operational 
<<management. 

Exactly.  So, how can you justify setting up a "territory" organization 
to match the businesses?  Sounds like a matrix to me.  Not only that, 
but it looks like we're again expending the effort to set up a big 
organization, rather than on making our customers happy and making profit.

Of course, you have my apologies, if in fact it is the business units 
that want the territory management.

- Scott

    I think you'll find geography an important consideration in places like
    Europe, where culture and language can vary a lot with just a border.
    
    Different culture means different business practices and even (wrongly)
    different pricing or product specifications.
    
    Paul

re: .10

Which is why we have Sweden, Switzerland and Spain in the same 
territory, I suppose?  [Or whatever that combination is].

- Scott

    The territory groups are not always logical...
    
    And were pretty much force fitted IMHO.
    
    Paul

We find the same issue in the US.  Cultures such as the West Coast and 
New York and the South are separate regions due to the large cultural 
differences.

Seriously, there isn't matrix management but there is specialization.  We 
have many specialists throughout the region - software, hardware, network, 
etc.  Now that we're vertically managed, I've found specialists doing the 
same work - creating the same programs, holding similar events, and 
duplicating work.  Maybe geographical organization makes some sense.

re .9
>Exactly.  So, how can you justify setting up a "territory" organization 
>to match the businesses?  Sounds like a matrix to me.  Not only that, 
>but it looks like we're again expending the effort to set up a big 
>organization, rather than on making our customers happy and making profit.

Hopefully the "territory organizations" are being dismantled. If they are
not then the company will continue its death spiral. However I am 
pessimistic that this will happen. We have gone through many organizations 
(account mgmt, 3*3, CBU and now BU) every time the countries (to be precise)
continue to operate the same way. Even today, people are hinting that
in a country the SBU and ABU managers will be the same person! Arg...

Too bad Palmer doesn't practice what he preaches. Two years ago he said 
that it doesn't really matter what organization you have, as long as you
implement it well..

    There is this subtle little thing called career management. For
    practical reasons employer/employee relationships are managed locally,
    or by country (labour laws et al).
    Now suppose you are a local BU manager, reporting through the BU layers
    and ignoring the country manager. He signs of salary change requests of
    everyone in his territory and he is also therefore quite influential in
    promotion or job assignment matters.
    Guess what this ignoring-the-CM will do to you.
    
    You still wonder why all these BU-manager flock the CM's office?

    I have recently heard a marketeer say, only half-jokingly, "I don't
    want to speak to someone in the country management.  I'm area."  This was 
    in the context of a situation where they were having desperate difficulty
    trying to understand who owns the issue of funding the port by an ISV 
    in the U.S. of a mail product to OSF/1 initially for a consumer industries 
    multi-national based in the U.K.
    
    If it wasn't so tragic it would be comic.  (And I know that should be a
    subjunctive but I speak demotic.  Sometimes.)
    
    Incidentally, my answer would be that it ought to be funded by an ISV
    investment group, however you organize investment.  No crap about
    geography or end-user industry.

    
    	Tell me about it. Getting someone to "fund" a port is like asking
    them to admit they take drugs. I'm supposed to be recruiting these
    folks for Digital, and I have a better chance of buying their companies
    then getting 'ol Digital to provide *real* porting assistance. Makes
    you feel like your in the middle of a Tim Burton movie.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    I agree with your sentiments.  I did say, "However you manage
    investment."  As I understand it you people in sales have difficulty
    spending money which goes beyond the current fiscal.  All programmes
    have to finish on July 31 so that we can be reborn on August 1st. 
    Whether you realize it or not there are marketeers making these
    decisions about which software products to buy onto a Digital platform 
    and spending money to do it.  There are people called "Alpha seed
    captains", for example.  I cleave to the view that, if OSF/1 is so hot,
    we should just sell it to them.  And they should be queueing up to buy
    it.
    
    I have sent you mail separately.  If you can go for the business do it.
    Who is Tim Burton, by the way?  Any relation to Richard (or even Sir
    Richard)?  That's more my era.

RE: .17

	You don't have a fetish for Angora sweaters, do you? 
	(See "Ed Wood")

						mike

    
    	I'm not quite sure what is happening here. Probably another
    complete disconnect with what people are told, and what they do.
    Software houses in the real world get free equipment from Hewlett-
    Packard, IBM, SiliGraphics, etc. The bigger ones get free on-site
    porting assistance, all the hardware they can use, all the middleware
    tools they can learn, and all the time they need to use the stuff, 
    plus tons of love and kisses.
    	Since this IS a competitive industry, if you don't match the offer,
    you don't get the girl! And her customers. I want my company to provide
    me with a level playing field, not 6 forms to fill out and 100
    telephone calls later....
    	Somebody at corporate sends me an A1 saying, "We need more
    information, etc." The fact is you put the resources at the point of
    attack (remember George Patton) if you want to win, not hold them in
    reserve (remember D-Day and the Panzers slept). If you're chartered
    with a mission, you're supposed to get the ammo.
    	
    	Tim Burton is the director of "Nightmare at Christmas" and a known
    wired weirdo. I can't stand Angora - it's like wearing spider webs.
    
    	I just want the tools to win on my say-so. Not some General's
    1000's of miles from the battlefront.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    re: -.1
    
    Correction:  "The Nightmare Before Christmas"...
    
    

    Frankly, I think that's the *only* thing wrong with Greyhair's note.
    This company needs to get the resources needed to support the business
    initiatives "on the front lines", supporting our ability to move FAST,
    DECISIVELY, and EFFECTIVELY. I see some of this happening, but not
    enough. If management (generally, I personally believe my management to
    be very supportive with trust in the competence of myself and my peers)
    allows the IC's to exercise sound business judgement, with
    accountability for the results, I believe we will move down the road of
    success much more quickly.

    I think several of the people here only have a partial view of the
    situation involved with recruiting and proving engineering support,
    marketing support, managing general business relationship issues, etc,
    with third party software firms.  I've been in the tech support end of
    that mess for four years (and the group I've remained in is now on its
    fourth name and third major organisation in that same time) and I still
    can't fully describe the web of complex responsibilities that go into
    handling those kind of relationships.  Some third parties won't even
    talk to us as engineers if their marketing people and our marketing
    people can't agree on what product features need to be engineered into
    their products because of customer demand...and do you know how hard it
    is to get hold of certain DEC marketing people during the last few
    years of reorgs?  At least we consolidated the technical support from
    nine separate organizations into one 15 months ago, so at least we
    don't get some third parties playing two or three different DEC groups
    off against each other to get more support.
    
    I DO know that many people have spent a lot of time doing these jobs in
    the past, and that several of them are hard at work on defining how we
    should do it most intelligently now.  Resources cost.  We can't buy
    every port that every salesperson needs to secure their business.  I
    think some of the views about 'empowerment' expressed here ignore the
    resource costs and acocuntability that we MUST have to ensure that we
    don't spin our wheels throwing resources after ports that won't return
    the investment.  I have hopes that Enrico's stated determination to
    have the entire CSD organisation IN PLACE by 1 January means that our
    Partnering organization issues are going to be worked out by then, and
    we'll all know where to go to make our case for resources.  Until then,
    I understand the frustrations; I think the picture is bigger than you
    realize; and I wish you good luck in coping.
    
    DougO

    
    	Appreciate your note, Doug, very well said.
    
    	The problem is not just any old "port" someone at Digital wants
    done to sell a machine. We are talking companies here with huge
    install bases (1000-7000 customers), multinational sales forces, and
    a very targeted organizational focus.
    
    	They see Digital as a "fading star" (this by a SVP of a $200MM
    developer on Friday), and question our ability to respond to the ways
    the rest of the industry does business. Trust me, it is not complex
    for H-P, IBM, SUN, or Siligraphics. Just ask any reseller of those
    companies what they think.
    
    	This situation is very serious. Over the last three years I have
    been recruiting resellers, with a track record extraordinare. I know
    Maui real well. This year is terrible. I'm not doing anything
    different, Digital is. And our focus is wrong to the market. I'll
    get into all this in a topic with a perscription this week. But the
    field is struggling right now, and it ain't good news. I do not care
    about positive spins, etc. I care about revenue, margins, and the
    competition/market share. And at the business level, we are hurting.
    
    	I care a great deal about Digital. I damn near love this place.
    And I do adore the technology, reliability, and durability of our
    products.  But that ain't selling today the way it used to. And THAT
    is a problem. For all of us.
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

    >ain't selling today the way it used to. And THAT
    >is a problem. For all of us.
    
The public mindset is that Digital is closed, old fashioned, obsolete.
Period.  Right or wrong, that is the perception.  Sun, HP, and other
competitors have, with a lot of help from Digital in the past, inculcated
that image on the computer buying segment of the business world.

It will take extreme differentiation in price, performance and quality over
a sufficient period of time to destroy that erroneous perception.

Its the safme for an individual.  Once a person's reputation has been
comprimised, it takes a very long time as well as an outstanding record
to overcome what takes only a little while to destroy.

Ws

        Re. 23
    
    Doug,
    
         The complexity of relationships involved in getting our act 
    together with ISVs (INDEPENDENT software vendors--and let's call them 
    that, not something anachronistic like CSOs) is a CONSEQUENCE of our 
    matrix organization, not a reason for it.  I too have been involved 
    in that arena and I am appalled that we should still have people 
    talking about "... agree(ing) what product features need to be 
    engineered into their(!) products ..."  That kind of thinking follows 
    from the 1970s premise that end-users need to do business with the 
    manufacturer big boys so we need to have all sorts of two-legged 
    overheads to do industry marketing and product marketing in the 
    corporate and departmental software areas.  It's baloney. We now 
    stand third in line behind consultants, ISVs and database vendors. So 
    let's stop trying to keep the tower of chairs balanced while we do 
    hand stands at the top.  Let it all fall apart, do its own thing and 
    recognize that we have to sell to resellers now, people like �Soft, 
    Oracle, CA, Andersen's etc.
         
         Quite apart from removing the industry marketing crap (or 
    recognizing that our industries now are ISVs, SIs, VARs etc.) which 
    in itself would reduce complexity by one dimension, I repeat my 
    original point:
         
         "What has geography got to do with managing products and global 
    accounts or market sectors?"
         
         I don't want to preempt the GreyHawk's imminent pronouncements 
    but I would also like us to think of a bottom up empowerment process 
    rather than top down so that first call on expenditure and investment 
    is with the salesperson and they can then BUY services, at agreed 
    prices, from support groups, inside or out.  You have to make them 
    profit responsible, of course, and over the longer term too, not just 
    twelve or even three months.

re -1
>        Quite apart from removing the industry marketing crap (or 
>    recognizing that our industries now are ISVs, SIs, VARs etc.) which 
>    in itself would reduce complexity by one dimension

Ever thought of taking a Business 101 course ? 

    Go on.  What is Business 101? ... and why would I care?

    enough of the personal jabs.  Doug's point is that Enrico sees the
    whole picture and is forming a Software Developer Partnering group in
    the SBU, to be operational in the second quarter.
    
    Mark

    > The complexity of relationships involved in getting our act together
    > with ISVs (INDEPENDENT software vendors--and let's call them that, not
    > something anachronistic like CSOs) is a CONSEQUENCE of our matrix
    > organization, not a reason for it.
    
    I certainly wasn't arguing that the complexity justified a matrix
    management.  I was saying that the complexity is not something we've
    handled well at all.  Back in the days when the VAX ruled the 32-bit
    space and we inherited lovely partner relationships from all the open
    unibus peripheral manufacturers, and ISVs had only a tiny piece of the
    market, we didn't understand the synergies that had put us where we
    were.  Having lost the position and having had the market oh so
    painfully inform us by brutally changing the game, we now recognize
    that partnering is the only way to play in many markets.  ISVs can
    outspend us in their niche markets.  We are not organized to handle the
    complex relationship issues that major partners require.  All of this
    is known; building the organization that can handle all of those
    aspects is something that I, and many other people, have been waiting
    for because we're part of the stop-gap effort straining to cope with
    the new requirements despite the handicaps of the old organisations.
    Far from justifying matrix management, I am instead asserting that if
    Enrico keeps his promise to have CSD's new organisation in place by 1
    January, then these issues will finally see closure.
    
    > I am appalled that we should still have people  talking about "...
    > agree(ing) what product features need to be  engineered into their(!)
    > products ..."  That kind of thinking follows  from the 1970s premise
    
    No, that kind of thinking follows from the embarrassment of having a
    major database partner cancel a technical engineering exchange because
    it was supposed to be driven by the jointly agreed marketing
    requirements - and Digital marketing couldn't put a warm body in place
    and canceled the marketing meeting.  The partner saw no point in the
    tech exchange without any well-understood business requirements.  That
    happened in August; it got their point across; and the right butts have
    been kicked and the right people are now much more responsive.  This is
    merely another of the requirements that the new organization for
    partnering has got to accomodate; I mentioned it earlier because I was
    trying to get accross how complex are the situations we are dealing
    with in the partnering arena.  
    
    > recognize that we have to sell to resellers now, people like �Soft, 
    > Oracle, CA, Andersen's etc.
    
    Agreed.  That IS what I'm talking about.
    
    DougO

    Doug,
    
    I think we have a furious agreement going on here.  I recognise the
    perspective you bring to these issues.
    
    I come back to my original point:  If Enrico is working on the new CSD
    organization and will put resellers first, why do we have the
    geographies announcing CSD organizations in advance?  i.e. why
    geographies and why pre-emptively?

	I'm not quite sure whether you are using "pre-emptively"
	advisedly here or whether you mean prematurely.  Anyway,
	it doesn't matter - I haven't a clue as to the timing.

	Regarding your specific question "Why geographies?", I would
	have thought that the answer was so fundamental that I am surprised
	that no-one has so far mentioned it.

	Despite real or virtual organisation(s) and irrespective of
	so-called "Business Units" or "Segments", our Corporation is
	still financially harnessed to its statutory accounting 
	policies.  REVENUE (magic word) is recognised at a geography
	level and the statutory accounts required at these levels
	has never made provision for our real or imagined business unit
	structure.  The upshot of this is that whole business management
	structures obligatorily exist at geography level and that
	this oft-times "leaks" into the current business structures.
	
	Witness : product lines, CBUs, and now Divisions.  Throughout
	these generations of organisation, geography based financial
	management has led (by and large) to geography based functional
	management.  

	I'm not arguing that this is desirable - simply that it is largely
	unavoidable when subsidiary level management continue to insist on
	a subsidiary level head on the block for subsidiary level revenue
	commitments.

/Chris.

    Re. .32
         
         I did have  second thoughts about "pre-emptively" ... and it 
    still  seemed right to me.
         
         The point about geographies  and  financial accounts  was made, 
    sort of, by Dave Kerrell in a previous note.
         
         What you are saying is that the business model must always be 
    either within the  financial accounting model or just ornamental  to 
    it.  That is the way it has been  with CBUs etc. but I hope  Enrico 
    doesn't accept that. After all here in Europe we have units based in 
    and paid for by one geography doing work for another.  It shouldn't 
    be beyond our wit to make that a business unit rather than a country 
    to which the transfers are made, e.g. a team in the U.K. looking  
    after Mentec reporting to an ISV  group  in Corporate.
         
         Having said which it's my view the only way to change the plan  
    of accounts of a company is to  break it up. And  I think I see it 
    coming, starting with MCS, CSD  and CPD(?) splitting up to be 
    followed swiftly by the PCBU.  Separate engineering, manufacturing, 
    buildings, workforces, services, the lot.

re .-1  

>>Separate engineering, manufacturing, buildings, 
>>workforces, services, the lot.

Just a couple more explicit list items ;

	balance sheet, statutory accounts, ...

I tend to agree with your analysis.  It will be interesting
to see how BP, Enrico et al maintain an overall Digital
"holding structure" whilst divisions are cut free and
encouraged run their own world-wide businesses.

    I just got your personal name. Very good.   Like  "Oh! Calcutta."

         Some of us in the U.K. Digital Consulting (or should that be 
    Systems Integration?) community have just had a string of mails from 
    area and corporate (still waiting for the territory one :-/) helping 
    us to "... understand the role of systems integration ..."  Sorry, 
    that should be "Systems Integration".  The corporate one says that we 
    "focus in ... five (IT) areas."  The area one says that we do all of 
    those plus a) solutions architecture, b) project management and c) 
    application and data integration!  Real smart to go back to hacking 
    off our customers (Sorry, "partners") by setting ouselves up to 
    compete with them again, especially when we have so little justification 
    for doing so.
         
         The area one also says that SI will "... focus on meeting the 
    needs of ABU accounts."  The corporate one says no such thing.  What 
    about all those non-ABU opportunities with partners we could service 
    through the SBU?  Is anyone flying this damn' thing?  Or is everyone?  
    The best we can hope for is that it ends in nothing worse than tears.
         
         Is SI independent of area and territory ABU or not?  (Our area 
    ABU man said it was recently.)  Why isn't SI organised globally?  
    What good do the geography layers do?  The best they can do is not to 
    distort the message; they are bound to delay it.  In this case they 
    have distorted it too.  When our team finally comes back onto 
    the field some of us will be playing gridiron, some soccer, some 
    rugger, some Ozzie footy, some shinty etc.  Do you know the story 
    about Chinese whispers?
         
    Input:    "Send reinforcements, we're going to advance."
    
    Output:   "Send three'n'fourpence*, we're going to a dance."
                                                                        
    (*	 Old British money; about $0.25)
    
    Put all those clerks to the sword, Mr. Pesatori, and get a new lot who
    can count in dollars worldwide and produce real business unit P&Ls.