Conference 7.286::digital

    
     I LIKE the points. Common sense, direction, and some radical thinking.
    So, go present it to the SLT or the annual "where is the dividend?"
    meetings and see what happens. It looks good. Where is Mike M. to sing
    it for us?
    -Mike Z.
    (I be a field person, �anyone got a Starion? Or a Mikasa? I can have?)
    

    Greyhawk for President
    
    BTW-all good points,all valid and all workable BUT
    whaddaboutthejobsfortheboys factor?
    
    next...

    Mr. Greyhawk,
    
     I'm sure this was just an oversight on your part,Sales are not the
    only Digital representative in daily contact with our customers.Say
    hello to the MCS field engineer next time your on site.
    
    No offense taken,we're used to being overlooked lately.

                          <<< Note 3480.3 by DWOMV2::KINNEY >>>
                                     -< Teamwork >-
    
        Mr. Greyhawk,
    
         I'm sure this was just an oversight on your part,Sales are not the
        only Digital representative in daily contact with our customers.Say
        hello to the MCS field engineer next time your on site.
    
        No offense taken,we're used to being overlooked lately.
    					     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    I thought that was always the case - it was when I was a FSE.
    
    				Malcolm.

    It wasn't always the same.  At least not when I was in sales support. 
    Our FSE was invited to most team meetings, specifically because he
    heard about a LOT of things before the rest of us -- emerging projects,
    incipient problems, changes in key players -- due to the informal
    nature of his customer contacts.
    
    \dave

    Basenote:
    
    1.  "compensate them on margin"
    
    2.  "give discounts"
    
    Now that is a sure fire formula for failure.  Go back to the drawing
    board.
    

    
    We in logistic operations speak to 300-400 external customers per day.
    
    The number one perscription should be to focus on the supply chain.
    
    If we in manufacturing can have our raw material in time, 
    (No Shortages) we'll reduce leadtime and become more predictable 
    with regards to when a order will ship from Digital.
    
    We seem to be fine on PC cpu box's however, our hang on gear from our
    single sourced vendors are killing us.
    
    We have the capacity to pump out product however, we need to and I
    believe we are working on this but we need to hurry....If we can
    improve the on-time ships...the process will flow down and give 
    Sales some leverage...manufacturing can be a sales weapon...but we
    need option gear...so we can get leadtime to one to five days from the
    time a order certs and then ship the order on or before we said it
    would.
    
    Rick
    

    
    	Re: several
    
    	Meant no disrespect to all MCS folks, they are very much a part of
    account teams and should be included always. The concept is to build
    interfaces across the customer by all Digital personnel who then become
    part of the "virtual" team, and are compensated accordingly by their
    success.
    
    	As to reps being paid on margin. Virtually every single reseller I
    know pays their sales force a percentage of margin, not revenue. This
    keeps discounting to a minimum. It also insures that everyone is in
    the same boat since that is the *only* measurement that counts for
    everyone associated with the transaction and the customer.
    
    	Keep responding, keep us thinking.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    re .0
    Good positive thinking and good points.
    
    Will it happen?  Don't think so!
    We want to be a products company, full stop!
    Thus a me-too company, one up now (e.g. Compaq), one down later (Dell),
    BU by BU.
    
    Now, the next question is tough: from a customer's perspective, why
    would you buy from Digital?
    Actually there were many reasons, on by one disappearing: one-stop
    shopping; sustained support (even if business is temporarely slow);
    DECies focussed at solving your problem, not at throwing products at
    them; and so on...
    But then again: we do want them NOT to buy from DEC. Let them go to
    distributors, any of 500. My customer hates to do so. They seem to be
    the exception. I doubt it.
    Profitability you say: this subsidiary has always been very profitable
    in the past of my 9 years with DEC. So we must have done something
    properly in the olden days. We are currently shifting millions of
    business to channels. Total volume unchanged. Margins: down down down!
    
    Probably MCS will become the only one stop delivery channel for our
    products and services.
    
    I heard a senior VP mention "empowerment of Sales". All words. I
    thought I felt nothing but contempt FROM management, until I found out
    that there was nothing to feel. ABU Sales are irrelevant to DEC's
    business, presumably.
    
    Lex
    

    In addition to MCS, there are hundreds of Digital Consulting folks who
    also see more of customers than Sales does. Many of us sit at customer
    sites 40 hours/week.
    
    	BD�

    Last time I heard, those MCS reps out on-site 40 hours a week ARE
    selling too!  They are selling themselves and they are selling Digital!
    
    I think Greyhawk has  a lot of good points, but I'm curious about
    something...
    
    Aren't our sales reps turning their accounts over to vars, oems, and
    resellers to handle?
    
    

    Greyhawk, I do not understand item 2 (opening up Alpha) at all.  This
    is apparently something specific to sales that I do not uinderstand. 
    Can you explain and/or expand example?
    
    Item 4 seems to be where the nuts and bolts are in your plan.  Focusing
    on sales with account teams sounds good (if you say it fast enough);
    however, I would like to know:
    
    1.  Whaskill sets would on the account team?
    2.  What (this is *real* important) responsibility would the account
    team have **and** for how long?
    3.  What structure (generically) would the account team have?
    4.  What would the account team sell?
    5.  What would the account team control?
    
    You asked for input.  The more details (you know - where the devil
    lives) the more input.
    
    rww

    Greyhawk-
    
    How about this one.  Establish a uniform way to deliver information in
    one place for each sales/service/customer support/consulting team (gosh
    I hope I covered everyone) in the field.  That is everyone has access
    to the current up to date information on everything we sell, every
    policy on programs we are offering, the contact managers for every
    customer we touch, all the names by state of distributors, resellers
    and VARS and who to call there if we want to get a hold of them, all
    our technical information by product manager and product line so if
    there's a problem or opportunity we can talk to the experts, all the
    SPD, SOC's product sheets, licensing agreement information, allowance
    formats, discount agreements regarding how we conduct business in one
    single place.  I figure that at most could all fit on say a half a
    dozen CD's perhaps.  Put it into a server and give us the tools to
    access it directly from out office locally or at most regionally.  Give
    us fast notebooks, laser printers, and color printers so we can make
    dynamite quotes and proposals and also a way to deliver that quickly
    into the customers hands.
    
    The supply chain discussion is a good one and we could fill volumes of
    what that would entail.  But simply put there is one and only one
    supply chain really worth worrying about:
    
    Customer need-->discuss and understand it-->propose solution-->
    configure/scope solution--> price solution--> gain commitment from customer
    to proceed-->sign necessary orders (PO's, contracts, workstatements
    etc.)-->build/design solution-->deliver on time, correctly, and
    competitvely-->issue A/R--> collect cash-->close transaction-->repeat,
    repeat, repeat....
    
    In other words it's support and empower the worker bees here in the 
    field,  contributor and senior contributor one and all.
    
    Mav
    

    ><<< Note 3482.0 by ANGLIN::BJAMES "I feel the need, the need for SPEED">>>
    >                -< How about a place for all the stuff? >-
    
    Isn't this what VTX (in particular IR et al) is for?  What would be
    nice is a way of using the information in VTX as a base for a nice
    front end tool.  Kind of like Mosaic is to WWW. 
    
    Phil

    GreyHawk,
    
         Good to see someone putting them on the line and not just 
    finding ways to say no.
         
         I think there are some fundamental issues to be addressed as 
    well.  Like do we sell technical integration (TI) per se or as a 
    component of systems sales.  And is MCS totally a separate business 
    requiring its own sales force, accounts, marketing, P&L and balance 
    sheet.  There is a lot more work to be done on defining products, 
    markets and businesses before the sales model can be agreed.  
         
         I would vote for TI being part of MCS, going totally multi-
    vendor, and becoming one more reseller as far as CSD is concerned.  
    For itself, MCS could do business with anybody delivering systems 
    integration (SI), e.g. IBM, EDS, Oracle, Cincom ...  That does NOT 
    mean that only MCS should deal with these people.  Having one account 
    manager only is a good way to constrain your business to what they 
    can handle.
         
         dave_P

    
    	Much excellent points so far. Let me address several as far as my
    memory serves.
    
    	Open sourcing means just that. You sell your product to whomever
    without attempting to "control" the distribution thereof. Discounts
    are then based on volume by purchaser as opposed to value-content
    of a contract. In our business COMPAQ has gone to open sourcing and
    we all know how well they're doing. H-P also uses open sourcing in
    its distribution of printer products. You eliminate a lot of
    gatekeeping and bureaucracy also.
    
    	As for account teams, visualize a "virtual" team environment for
    the ABU as a primary focus. You have ONE account manager who then
    basically forms "teams" based on each opportunity within the account.
    The rest follows fairly easily. Compensation is based on value of each
    team's success; teams stay together over the length of each
    opportunity; resources are corporate-wide in nature. If you get
    Industry Week magazine there is a fabolous article on a company called
    Opticon (I believe) which utilizes virtual teaming exclusively. Their
    success has been nothing short of astounding. Three years ago they were
    counted out in their industry, they reorg to this model and have grown
    to be #3 worldwide and the technology leader. It works.
    
    	But the real key, in my mind, is my point #3 - NETWORKING. This is
    us. We pioneered it, we do it daily (this conference is just one real
    example). That should be our primary focus in everything we do and say.
    
    	Keep those cards and letter coming.
    
    
    			the Greyhawk

    Greyhawk,
    	
    	You fail to mention helping our distributors and VARs sell.  Our
    direct sales force will be so minimal by the end of this FY, we won't
    have this resource at our beck and call.  If we don't make it easy and
    profitable for VAR/distributors to sell, this company is history.
    
    Brad.

    
    	Your have a good point, Brad; but my contention is that is what all
    Digital reps should be doing. The fact that we have reps solely
    targeted on just end-users (outside the ABU) is crazy. Make everyone a
    "channels" rep. I'll bet sales yields per rep would double, maybe
    triple, in less than six quarters.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
    Greyhawk,
    
    I have read and enjoyed your notes and insight, note I didn't
    say totally agree with.  But, I have this nagging problem with a
    'traditional sales force' which sells, or attempts to sell everything.
    Why do we need it?

    What does this model bring to the table that cannot be addressed more
    econmically, with marketing, tele-communication and consulting.  The margins
    aren't there, are they?  The skill levels needed to cover the depth,
    breadth and complexity of this industry reach far beyond any one, or small
    group to adequately handle.  Large customers have sales reps, but
    aren't they really program managing?

    Your number 1 RX is 'Focus on our sales force'.  Didn't we try that a
    few years ago?  Perhaps it should be 'FOCUS ON OUR CUSTOMERS!'
    
    From my perspective if I want to buy something, I pick up a phone and
    order it.  If I'm unsure of what I want, I ask for tech support.  If its
    beyond what tech support can provide then I should pay for consulting,
    or find someone else to give it away.

    In regards to selling now at Digital, (I'm in consulting), I call the
    product manager.  They appear to be doing the selling now, and it seems
    we end up there anyway when dealing with sales.  I find it faster and less
    political.

    In regards to Government proposals, Digital should have a budgeted group
    which can determine ability of meeting the solution with a competitive
    price.  This group should be able to maintain a hit ratio, like EDS.
    One could even argue if we should even be doing this since the
    competition has gotten so good, and the solutions are seldom single
    vendor oriented?

    With all due respect, I remain unconvinced that this is not just a
    sales job of an old structure in new clothes.
    
    Mike M.

    
    	Mike -
    
    		Had a long focused reply, but the system did a disconnected
    on me and blew out 42 lines of highly articulated response. So I'll sum
    this up quickly.
    
    	We are talking systems here, not commodities. Systems require sales
    people. People buy big ticket items becuase the are sold. Period. 
    
    	Call me if this doesn't do it for you. I have family commitments
    this weekend and cannot face another 30 minutes at the tube. 
    
    	Best regards.
    
    			the Greyhawk

    One word of caution here. Don't forget the customers. Our high
    end(=value) ABU customers expect continuity of personnel (though why,
    after all these years, I have no idea). We also need focussed people
    that KNOW the indusrty they are working on.
    
    Just a thought
    
    Alan

    
    	We seem to be missing connections here. Everything in the base note
    is focused on the customer. They pay OUR bills. As the legendary Peter
    Drucker has noted, "Customers must be your entire focus, for without
    their support there is no business enterprise".
    
    	The whole concept of taking care of our people is so that they feel
    good taking care of our customer.
    
    
    			the Greyhawk

    Greyhawk, in the future, when you get the "Network partner excited"
    message, don't panic. Just re-open the conference that you were
    replying to, find the topic that you were replying to and type
    REPLY/LAST. Your edit buffer will magically fill with the message that
    you were typing. :-)
    
    If you can't immediately access the conference that you were replying
    to, open _any_ conference and type REPLY/LAST. Save the reply as a file
    in your account so that you can do a REPLY FILENAME later, when the
    conference is available once again. Then quit without writing the reply
    to the wrong conference.
    
    Note that once you exit from notes entirely, the buffer (and its
    contents) are history.
    
    Happy noting!
    
    Harry
    

    
    	Harry -
    
    	Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    re: .23
    
    I don't see why you should have to enter reply/last just because
    your network partner got excited.  How about just entering a calm/down?
    8<)  
    
    \ken

    Ken, I assure you that the 'c' was put there quite intentionally. :-)
    
    Harry
    

    I have given some thought on the team concept.  As outlined in the base
    note, it is a worthy idea/goal.  There are some practical problems that
    can occur.  They are:
    
    1.  Resource sharing/ownership.  Unless everybody is technically
    knowledgable on everything we sell, there will be an uneven
    distribution of skill sets.  Resolving Team A's requirement for a skill
    set being used (owned by Team B will be tricky at best and most
    likely result in tremedous time taken up in 'meetings' aimed at
    resolving this conflict.
    
    2.  Teaming does not resolve charter conflicts, one of the single
    biggest internal problems we have, IMHO.  This must be addressed (and I
    have no idea how to do that) before *any* plan will a chance.
    
    3.  Buget/Risk Money.  Who controls this pot?  In the system business,
    one *must* factor in monies used to address unexpect customer concerns
    and/or problems.  Historically, we have not been good at managing these
    and I see nothing here that addresses this problem.  How do you handle
    a customer who has a technical problem, regardless of the origin?  
    
    As a partial answer (opinion) to the above, I see no alternative except
    for an account team that is completely dedicated and surrounded by
    firewalls.  If a new or different skill set is required, the account
    team must either foot the bill for training or hire it in.  Cost over
    runs must absored by the team.
    
    In short, this proposed account team must be an independent business
    that stands or falls on its own.  The corporation (or ABU) gives the
    team a budget and expects a percentage return.
    
    Now for the thought of the day:
    
    As an independent business, the account team can contract out for
    services provided.  Consider the impact on our internal Digital systems
    and the company if this were imposed (using 'real' money) on them.
    
    The mind boggles.
    
    rww
    
    

    
    	-1
    
    	Know of what you speak. Especially when we think in terms of what
    we know as Digital. Now break the rules. 
    	Each Digital location owns its own resources. If you work in New
    York City, you have ONE manager who "holds" every single paycheck for
    every single person who works for Digital in NYC. If I in Chicago need
    a talent to do something in NYC, volia one stop, one call. Same if NYC
    needs something in Chicago, or LA, etc. The mind should reel and be
    boggled. Also this will work. Uneven skill sets on a team, heaven no.
    One account manager, a "virtual" team. Think beyond today. No
    resolutions required. Customer has money, account manager wants money,
    customer wants services/products, account manager provides thru Digital
    employee population.
    	Will there be dislocations? You bet; but it beats headcount
    reductions based on employee location/numbers. At least this mirrors
    the marketplace.
    	The only practical problem is the will to do it. And as so many
    noters have stated so many times, that is a management issue.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
    	Also consider the concept of the field paying for support. The
    CSCs, Admin, Marketing, etc.
    	Corporate "overhead" would be a "tax" on sales, sotospeak;
    everything else is up for grabs. Would make for an interesting quarter
    now, wouldn't it? But in one or two everything would be pretty much
    straightened out.
    	This is what is meant by focusing on the sales force.
    
    	By becoming a sales-customer focused and oriented company, we could
    be big time again.
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

    OK, we moving along here.  I did pick up one clarification, I think. 
    When you refer to account manager, you are referring to a geographic
    area, not a specfic customer.  Thus, *all* customers within a
    geographical area come under the control (and I mean control) of the
    account manager for that area.
    
    If I assumed correctly, this would resolve alot of the local 'charter'
    conflicts, which are really prioritizing of opportunities.
    
    In your team you have called out Sales, Sales Support, Consulting.  Did
    you mention MCS?  Would they be included in the team and use the same
    report structure?  I think that would be required.
    
    Have I got this right or did I miss something?
    
    rww

    Excuse myopia, but I get paid to release software.
    
    Are you suggesting that I not release software for free? That
    instead of having multiple internal managers bicker over 
    product requirements your proposed system would let engineers
    talk, if not to customers, at least to this entity referred to
    as an account manager? Customer wants SCSI controller cum
    management software, on platform Y, by date Z. Who's gonna
    contract us & pay us? 
    
    gosh golly, you mean there's a world out there?  I thought
    conference rooms and DTN-only con calls was all there was.
    
    bk

    
    	-2
    
    	Correct and right!
    
    	MCS would definetely be part of the "virtual" team and would report
    exactly into the local geography manager.
    
    	Software builds would be based on customer demand and THEIR
    willingness to pay $$$ to Digital. 
    
    	I realize these concepts somewhat reverse current thinking, but
    the possibilities of being truly *customer* focused through direct
    involvement by each "virtual" team far outweigh anything else we have
    attempted.
    
    			the Greyhawk

    Greyhawk, there was an attempt to form account teamsa few years ago. 
    It was a bit different than what you propose.  It did not include
    Consulting or MCS and divided the sales and sales support into account
    focused teams with a succeed/fail criteria for the entire team.  Sort
    of 'half way' toward the structure you are talking about.  And there
    was some of the resource sharing problems I mentioned before.
    
    It was spearheaded by Shel Sherman in the LAO office and was, I
    understand, a reasonable success to the point where it was *suppose* to
    be implemented across the US.
    
    I have not spent more than a few months in the office in the last 5
    years.  I am on a customer site 8x5x40+ and am *not* able to keep track
    of the day to day, week to week, or even month to month changes.  Are
    you aware of this program/model and, if so, what happened to it?
    
    Just for the record, what you are proposing is not to far off the
    way we did business in the late 70s.  At that time I was in Software
    Support, responsible for sales support, software installations,
    software warrenty, and consulting.  The Branch Sales Manager was the
    'kingpin' and even though the Software Manager (my boss) and the Field
    Service Manager did not report directly to him; he clearly had input
    into their preformance reviews.  Something like a heavly dash line.
    
    I recall numerous times when the Branch Sales Manager, Software
    Manager, Field Service Manager, the Sales Rep. and myself would sit in
    his office discussing a customer situation.  The meetings were usuually
    very short (always less than 1/2 hour) with concerns voiced and
    agreements would be reached by all parties and it would be done. 
    Period.
    
    And the discussion never strayed far from the question - Is this good
    business?  It worked *very* well. 
    
    By the way, I was the offical first point of contact for any software
    warrenty issues for the customer.
    
    Oh yes, I had *direct* contact with Engineering, as did the rest of my
    counterparts in the field.  So, yes, Engineering had (almost) direct
    contact with customer problems and/or requirements.
    
    rww

    
    	-1
    
    	Very aware of the LAO "teaming" structure. It was a "halfway"
    attempt, as you so well characterized it. This focus of mine is
    no halfway. You either do it, or forget it. Kind of like a team
    being formed for the Olympics (take basketball, hockey, etc.),
    one does not participate to play "halfway", you play to win the
    GOLD. You go for it all, every game.
    	Same here. The only difference is that teams are "virtual".
    They only come together for one game - that sale and the delievry
    thereof - after that it is everybody on to the next game and most
    likely on a "new" team. The logistics are real easy since it is
    all Digits by location. When you need to go out of location, you
    pay your "tax", or "fees", or "whatever"s to make the team work.
    	This isn't rocket science; but it is *true* customer focus. And it
    works because it is driven by $$$$ from the customer thru sales.
    	The key is not sharing resources with different management
    structures. It is ONE management structure. Period.
    	Sometimes, though, I feel like I'm crying into the wind. And it's
    a shame, because the concept to action is already in place. The
    locations and people are here - it is just doing it.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Let me be more direct than last reply. Greyhawk, I'm missing
    the place of systems engineering in this scheme. Per sale
    teams, with existing s/w or groups available at the time to
    write the s/w, makes sense. Maintaining a development team
    across several versions could be done status quo under
    your prescription. Just wondering if you had a better way in
    mind.
    
    
    bk

    
    bk-
    
    	Try to expand the concept of one customer to many who share similar
    attributes. Not necessarily by industry, but by product and product
    usage. This then creates a "virtual" applications/products teaming
    arrangement with the field around the world. The rest then easily falls
    into place.
    	Since everything becomes completely customer-centric, development
    teams/organizations move in and out of field-driven teams based on
    customer requirements and needs. It is a simple process to "test" one
    customer's wants against all similar customers and make solid business
    decisions accordingly.
    	The fact that it is so simple, unfortunately, makes it so difficult
    to "sell" internally. C'est la vie!
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Who was it who said: "For every problem there is a solution that is
    clean, simple...and wrong"?
    
    And I believe Einstein is credited with saying something like
    "A theory should be as simple as possible but no simpler."
    
    I'm wondering if we're not seeing the Swing of the Pendulum here.
    For many years DEC/Digital was (and to a large degree still is)
    dominated by technology push. We all know the problems associated
    with such an approach.
    
    I'm sure Greyhawk will correct me if I'm wrong but Greyhawk's model
    sounds like one where a market pull model will completely drive
    the business dynamics. 
    
    The downside of a technology push model is that the only things
    you may end up making are what customers are not asking for.
    
    The downside of a market pull model is that the only things you may
    end up making are what customers are asking for.
    
    No. No typos or smilies in that last sentence. Telephones did not
    come into existence in 1880 (or whenever) because someone called
    in their AT&T rep and said "I need two talk-at-a-distance thingies,
    one here and one in Chicago. Have them done up in black." And,
    rumours to the contrary, the computer industry did not start when
    a customer called in his IBM rep asking for a combined boxie-thingie
    which could function both as a ventilator heating unit and carry
    out information processing at the same time.
    
    In the industry we are in, technology push _is_ important. So, in my
    view, the question is how do you define a business dynamics which will 
    combine and resolve the conflicts inherent in supporting both models
    in such a way that you end up with the best of both? I doubt whether
    this is very simple (but that doesn't mean its impossible to do).
    
    re roelof
    
    
    
    

    
    	Roelof, you always come up with great comments. Thanks.
    
    	The entire concept of my approach is not to exclude any technology
    creativity, but to enhance it. By using the "virtual" teaming
    methodology, you incorporate engineering (and R&D for that matter) in
    the customer-focused process. What happens is customer #1 says, "I will
    pay $X,000's for widget A/B provided it does XYZ and I can get it by
    next summer. Here is 1/3 of $X,000's to start making my widgets" The
    field team now has the engineering folks to a mock-up with tech specs
    which the marketing folks broadcast to all the other teams world-wide
    to take to their customers/prospects that enjoy similar attributes to
    customer #1. You have must respond dates attached and part of
    everyone's job is to call on their customers - that is what we get paid
    for.
    	If you follow this thread along step by step you eventually get to
    modifications, enhancements, etc. to widget A/B. Since we employ
    hundreds of very creative and intelligent engineering types and we
    communicate with them daily (Use as many smilies here as necessary),
    someone comes up with a **great** idea and we go through the customer
    base now formed by product widget A/B and voila - we either have a
    winner or a dud. Is this not a great company, or what?
    	The truth is always being one or the other -1, or is it the best
    you can do as part of both. Unfortunately we are not a start-up, or a
    small entrapenueral (sp) company anymore. We are a big boy now, so we
    have to play big boy games. I'm trying hard not to be overly simplistic
    here, but the concept is so clear to me, and its implementation is so
    easy relatively, that I feel it just begs for implementation. So I'll
    continue to write, and struggle against "conventional thinking" until
    we either change or disappear as a relativent factor in the
    marketplace.
    	To me it is becoming so sad - Digital was once #2 in the world in
    computer technology. We are now #4 and in real danger of falling off
    the map. And yet everything necessary for us to regain momemtum and
    focus are here still, we just cannot seem to pull it together at the
    top. So sad....
    
    		the Greyhawk
    

    Greyhawk,

         One of the big impediments to delivering what the customer wants 
    is that no single customer is willing (with very few exceptions) to
    pay for the NRE to develop XYZ.  They're willing to pay what they think
    it's worth but no more.  Either that, or their going to buy "hundreds,
    but I only need delivery of one unit right now", for which the NRE is
    amortized over the "hundreds of units" that they often never purchase.

         I work in CSS and we deliver what the customer wants EVERY day!
    It's very tough to push a good idea forward because often times the NRE
    can't be justified for one opportunity.  When we broadcast to the field
    looking for other potential buyers the response is usually NIL.  As a
    result we are often perceived as being overly expensive.  We're always
    looking for better ways to do business and we're pretty flexible.  
    We've been at this for dozens of years and are getting better all the 
    time.  However I believe there needs to be some set of core resources
    (dollars and people) in this virtual system you propose or good ideas
    will die on the napkin because no one will belly up to get them started.

    Kevin

    
    	Kevin -
    
    	Exactly. That is what R&D is for. Spending R&D monies for anything
    not associated with a customer is, IMHO these days, best left to
    "richer" companies than Digital.
    	As I stated in the base note, it is not necessary to be the best
    to be a winner; but it does help to be first. And think of it, having
    $300+ Million each QUARTER to develop products FOR customers as opposed
    TO customers.
    	In addition, making calls on customers/prospects for product
    intelligence should be part of every field person's job description.
    To make all this work, big mindset changes need to be put in place,
    and FOR this to work, senior management has to show a commitment never
    really seen at Digital before. Time will tell...
    
    		the Greyhawk 

    re last several
    
    This is obviously a balancing act. One made a bit more difficult
    because the virtual team = variable workforce and that may make
    populating the engineering side tricky. I don't think the proposal
    works for the OS groups, with large overhead and long turnarounds,
    and it would require some changes to the way StorageWorks (tm)
    software funds and manages projects. But
    for many of the projects that *might* be on our plate for 1/95 
    and beyond, this is **exactly** what I'd want to see. (In fact, Greyhawk,
    if you have wind of specific customer requirements for storage
    configuration control, give me a call!)
    
    I think it's possible to motivate & retain engineers in a virtual team
    environment. I know there are 6 people on this aisle right
    now who'd love to be turned loose to code up a few million in sales.
    *IF* we're content to focus R&D on improving the accelerator
    while we let other companies worry about determining the contents
    of charms, I think we could please/employ/motivate everyone.
    
    
    bk

    I've only been following this string at a distance, but it seems the
    focus has been on *products*. Has it been concluded that we're strictly
    (or primarily) to be a product company? How do the service people fit
    into the grand scheme? I'm talking about consulting services, i.e.
    Digital Consulting who may perform analysis/design/implementation,
    serve as staff supplement, deliver fixed-price projects, etc. I believe
    that the future will be at least as much consulting based as product
    based. We should be able to compete with IBM, EDS, Arthur Anderson,
    etc., if we figure out how to sell our consulting competency (and
    eliminate the overhead that makes our prices too high). Comments?
    
    	BD�

    re: .42
    
    Customer projects quite often modify, expand, and/or enhance already
    defined products.  So, I believe that is what we have been talking
    about.  Consulting would be the spear head for aquiring and qualifying
    projects with help implementing, as needed from engineering, for pay of
    course. ;}
    
    The more traditional products, such as OS, do not lend themselves quite
    as well to the mix and match of field and engineering techies, however,
    the middleware products are a gold mine.
    
    You might view engineering as a contractable source of in depth and/or
    variable (I hate that word but can not think of anyother) skill sets
    that could be used on an as-need basis by the field.
    
    Of course, engineering could view the field in the manner.
    
    This intermixing of field and engineering people could, IMHO, do
    nothing but be of immense benefit to all.
    
    Sorry, in a bit of a hurry, hope this helps.
    
    rww

re. 

Is it only me who thinks that many ideas prescribed in this note are presently
being implemented and are planned for with the 'New Digital' structuring
underway ie CSD-SBU,ABU etc.

No?

Avinash

         All this talk of virtual teams and technology push versus market 
    pull ...
         
         We have a lousy financial model at present which dictates 
    corporate behaviour.  People have to belong to cost (or revenue) 
    centres and their managers have to manage their budgets for one year, 
    and only one year.  This militates against having teams come together 
    ad hoc independently of cost centres -- most of you probably know how 
    your boss reacts when someone else says they want you for a project.  
    "Where's the revenue?  Who said you were free?  I'm the one who says 
    what you do ... and what you don't do.  Right?" Right.
         
         Then there's the problem of money spent today for a return 
    tomorrow.  First the system doesn't enable you to make those com-
    parisons.  In Europe, for example, we have a process called a "PARB": 
    project assessment and review board.  It's probably the same else-
    where.  The truth is, if it's a multi-year project, the management 
    team can say whatever they like because the system can't produce the 
    numbers to track lifetime cashflows.  Nobody knows whether programmes 
    started before the current fiscal are still on track in terms of 
    added value to date and to completion.  Who has any idea for example 
    how much Rdb cost and whether it ever made a profit?
         
         The remedy?  Two things, a cadre of programme managers (PM), 
    empowered (authorized as we used to say) to run programmes with a 
    lifetime perspective, and an accounting system that recognizes 
    programmes, that allows programmes to do business with each other and 
    which can measure how much value the PM is adding over the life of 
    the programme to date and to end.  The PMs get total authority over 
    their programmes including buying from other Digital programmes or 
    external vendors.  (We had a $x00m programme here recently where the 
    PM had to get the cost centre manager's approval for penny ante 
    items like travel and hotels.)  When the PM needs to move on s/he 
    must "sell" the programme plan to their successor because their bonus 
    depends on making the programme.  
         
         It's all very well having great ideas but you also need some 
    metrics and some control.  IMO we couldn't make the required changes 
    to the plan of accounts and systems in time.  I'm still taking bets 
    we won't have corporate BU accounts by the end of the fiscal.  We'll 
    still have geography balance sheets and P&Ls.

    re: .44
    
    It is not clear to me if we are even thinking about doing this at *any*
    level.  Or else I did not understand your comment.
    
    While there is a move to create business units and make them
    accountable, it is the sturcture of the business units and how they do
    business within themselves and within Digital that remains in questions.
    
    Currently, there are still a host of barriers between sales, sales
    support, consulting, support, and break/fix.  Even those co-located in
    the same office.  The model that is under discussion here addresses
    these issues.  And, IMHO, the sale/service/support function is becoming
    a integrated unit located in a geographical area which operates very
    much like a franchise which is wholey owned by the corporation.  There
    are numerous examples of other businesses that operate like this. 
    Oddly enough, most of the ones I can think are in the various commodity
    market.
    
    re: .45
    
    You are very correct.  We need to come to terms with our accounting
    functions across the company.  Very little can rally be done until that
    happens.  Unfortunately, the way these systems are (will be) designed
    and implemented will have significant impact on how we do business,
    both internally and externally.
    
    A PM for the life of a project has been a dream of mine as long as I
    can remember.  Starting in the sales cycle and ending at acceptance. 
    Our current model builds in absolutes that almost guarrentee failure,
    or, at least, increase the risk significantly.
    
    Greyhawk, within this virtual teaming arrangement, how would you:
    
    1.  Handle accountablity (responsibility) for the results of the
    collective team over time, i.e. FY numbers?  Really addressing the
    chain of command, both within the account team and to the corporation.
    
    2.  Address customers whose organization cross several geographical.
    areas?  In particular, the Federal Government where orders may be
    handled in Washington and support required in Nevada.
    
    3.  Long term, high resource volume projects, i.e 1/2+ years with an
    average of 20/30 people.  Would they become a seperate accoun team? 
    And who would they report to?  Hint: Correct answer is yes and report
    to the same 'body' as any account manager.
    
    rww
    

    
    	rww, et al. -
    
    		Accounting methodologies are simply that. To use them as
    a metric measurement is insanity. What you measure is results. And
    results are always measured OVER TIME.
    	Therefore accounting is by project. A project has a result that
    is definative by time and quantified by dollars or units (these must
    always be "hard" numbers). If you have a project that requires multiple
    locations with specific resources, the Project Manager/Account Manager/
    whatever name is in vogue is responsible for pulling those resources
    together, paying for them, and showing RESULTS for the "team's" labors.
    	It doesn't matter where you sit by function, ie. all engineers, or
    DC, or break/fix, sales, etc. What matters is the customers
    requirements being translated into results measured by units or
    dollars.
    	This is not rocket science, and many of you are warming to that
    fact. It is basic common business sense. You have to make a profit to
    survive as a business entity. So we use our resources to create
    "virtual" teams/business entities by TYPES of customers, ie. those
    who purchase ALPHA with OSF/1; those who purchase VAXs with VMS; those
    who purchase PCs with WIN/NT, those who purchase network gear with XYZ;
    etc. all day long.
    	Some teams may stay together your whole career; some may last three
    months.
    	I do not believe anyone in any significant position at Digital is
    thinking in these terms for one very simple reason. If you have only
    200 "virtual" teams you only need 200 "virtual" managers - where do the
    rest of them go? So it is politics as usual, gridlock as a result,
    losses as a fact of business, and declining marketshare each and every
    quarter.
    	My prescription is to help the company get well; but I cannot make
    the company take the medicine.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Well, yes, with each field office a independent business, much of
    'middle Digital', as I call it, goes away.  And this is the biggest
    problem.
    
    This type of solution would be the computer industry equivalent of the
    the new car dealership franchises - with much larger areas and all
    coporate owned.  With a few minor modifications, as needed.  At least
    that is my view.
    
    After all, that is largely what we are selling - commodities.
    
    rww

    
    -1
    
    	Interesting way of looking at it. Maybe more like a superVAR for
    each territory all interconnected to sell each other additional
    resources as needed by each opportunity in their geography. Corporate
    resources are "sold" by product types and "options" demand. And the
    franchise is worldwide. Got a ship to in Hong Kong you just E-Mail
    what you need in resources and they deliver, you pay. Customer pays
    you. Just like car dealers do with new cars at locations other than
    their dealership.
    	The funniest thing about it - it works!!!
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Greyhawk,
    		it's almost exactly a year since the basenote was entered,
    is there any sign of the patient taking your medicine? How is the
    patient, stock price would indicate recovering, what's the realistic
    spin from the guys in the frontline facing the customers?
    
    Stevie.
    
    PS: Enjoyed the Bali trip report!!

    
    	1-4 are virtually no shows; but that type of management change
    	requires a real radical mindset to "shake up" an organization
    	so that it focuses 100% on the customer.
    
    	If FY96 has very little sales growth while the industry goes
    	crazy around us, you may start to see some progress in true
    	employee empowerment.
    
    	Number five is actually starting to happen. The Internet initiative
    	is a great example. MCS Lifecycle services is another. So product
    	progress is beginning.
    
    	This is a critical year for us. Time always tells.
    
    	And customers are still doing wait-and-see in many cases;
    	especially in projects that they regard as "mission-critical".
    	We sure could use some more expertise out here in Unix and
    	Windows NT (and I mean *real* expertise).
    
    	Otherwise moi is still trying to figure out how to make the
    	extremely agressive numbers we have this FY (up about 40%
    	from last year actuals) without the bodies to sell into my
    	account at competitive prices.
    
    		the Greyhawk