Conference 7.286::digital

    I was wondering what now becomes of the C&P group that Cabrinety
    had under him now that Christ is gone to HLO.
    

  "�", TGFKAC&P�, no longer exists, I think. Each of the components
  of that group now reports directly to Christ. I know that "Embedded
  and Realtime" (Bill Armitage) reports directly to Christ and I
  believe that the Terminals and Hardcopy groups also do. And now,
  so does Digital Semiconductors (Ed Caldwell).

                                   Atlant


� TGFKAC&P = The Group Formerly Known as "Components and Peripherals",
  with a nod to TL!

And I don't see why Christ has to move to HLO. As other notes mention, 
he still has other groups besides DS.

Re: DEC merging Storage Business Unit with its Systems
Business Unit

From           [email protected] (Terry Shannon)
Organization   Shannon Knows DEC
Date           Sat, 13 Apr 1996 14:26:38 GMT
Newsgroups     comp.arch.storage,comp.unix.ultrix,comp.sys.dec

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Michael E
Willett) wrote:

> There are very few details of what this is all about in the DEC press
> release, except that there is said to be some synergy involved.  Would
> anyone know what this is all about?  

Here's my thoughts on what appears to be a slick exercise in creative
accounting...

Digital has been profitable on an overall basis for about a year and half
now. Nevertheless, several of the firm's business units have yet to
achieve sustained profitability, or the levels of profitability desired by
Bob Palmer and Co. Chief among these are Digital Semiconductor and the PC
Business Unit. Enrico Pesatori's Systems Business Unit might be finding it
difficult to reach its targets as well.

Even during DEC's darkest hours, the Components and Peripherals Business
Unit was profitable and remains so. StorageWorks is another big-time money
maker. And Windows NT revenues are growing quite nicely.

By colocating Windows NT with the PCBU, the PC unit can capitalize on
WNT's success. (It wouldn't surprise me to see the workstation segment
migrate over to the PC business, either.)

The annexation of the storage business into the Systems Business Unit is
sure to boost the bottom line of the latter organization.

And the realignment of the not-yet-profitable Digital Semiconductor unit
into the Components and Peripherals group will spare the much-maligned
chip business from intense scrutiny. Under the realigned business
structure, Digital will very likely be able to claim across-the-board
profitability. Yeah, that's the ticket!

This isn't to say that some of the realignments make good business sense.
After all, the CPBU sells a lot of PCI-based components, single board
computers, VME-based Alpha systems, et al that are manufactured by Digital
Semiconductor.

Colocating the WNT effort with the Intel-centric PCBU seems wise as well.
Not only is the bulk of DEC's WNT business based on the Intel platform,
the consolidation of OS and hardware is likely to simplify DEC's business
practices. One stop shopping sure beats playing phone tag with multiple
business units. On the other hand, it is incumbent on DEC to forcefully
articulate the fact that the realignment does not reflect diminished
support for WNT on Alpha. Despite the closer ties between the Intel and
WNT camps, DEC is banking on WNT to drive increased Alpha sales (stay
tuned until next month for some proof points).

So there is some synergy here. But I find it hard to believe that synergy
is the principal reason for bringing StorageWorks under the Systems
Business Unit umbrella. Yeah, storage gets sold with servers, but so does
networking gear. So where's the networking synergy?

All in all, methinks DEC is trying to ameliorate some of the side effects
of the Balkanized business unit strategy it has pursued for almost two
years. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised to see the firm claim
"across-the-board profitability at the end of the fiscal year.

-- 
Terry C. Shannon, Editor & Publisher, Shannon Knows DEC
Shannon Knows DEC is a twice-monthly subscription-based
newsletter on all things Digital.  For more details and
subscription info,  send email to [email protected].

    
    re .4
    
    That's exactly what the Storage move was about. Now the SBU gets all
    the profit from the storage business and doesn't have to share the
    wealth.
    
    ed

>This isn't to say that some of the realignments make good business sense.
>After all, the CPBU sells a lot of PCI-based components, single board
>computers, VME-based Alpha systems, et al that are manufactured by Digital
>Semiconductor.

Digital Semiconductor manufactured almost none of our products.  We are 
reselling some of their evaluation boards when they are not undercutting
our prices. 

RE: Moving stuff around ...

One way to look at this SWks process it to add the missing pieces from
the rumor mill, as well as educated "crystal gazing" on management
strategies:

-  The PCBU had a REAL problem.  It's competition uses this model for
   collecting $$$ from margins (more or less):
     ---Product-------  --Margins--
   1 laptops: 		next-to-none
   2 low-end desktops: 	slim
   3 low-end servers:	moderate
   4 high-end desktops:	moderate
   5 high-end servers:	fat

   Unfortunately for the PCBU, items 4 & 5 were Alpha-based in the NT world
   (at least for us, right?), making them SBU goodies.  Thus, we saddled the
   PCBU with the difficult task of competing against the Compaq's of the
   world without the margin $$$ as well as the product line breadth it
   needed.  Solution?  Move 4 & 5 (yes, this will mean workstations too,
   if you believe in this business model).  Result? The PCBU gets to be the
   single source for the NT story, the SBU can stop fighting with the 
   PCBU over the location of the line between them, and customers get a 
   clear message about OpenVMS and UNIX versus NT from Digital (at last).

-  Now what about StorageWorks?  If it goes to the SBU, it helps make up for 
   the loss of 4 & 5 (a growing market for the SBU).  As well, what happens
   if the PCBU (which needs a MUCH lower cost of product delivery) stops
   using StorageWorks as a default source of storage H/W?  Result?  NT
   solutions get cheaper, unless customer wants StorageWorks level of 
   gear (compatibility with SBU enterprise systems, or even they like
   all-Digital solutions; some customers still do, you know).

Now add some additional fuel to the fire here:

-  Parts-less MCS / well, if MCS is going to support primarily commodity
   parts solutions for desktops and NT-servers, this might make sense.  It
   might also make sense for the part of MCS that focuses on DEC enterprise
   system parts to be split off and run under the SBU (so that those that
   want real premium service can buy it from the same organization that
   sold them the systems and the storage being serviced; this is assuming
   also that these folks recognize the value in the $$$ to be charged).
   This way, the MCS that is NT & Distributed environment focused can 
   really deliver the work required of them (to customers and on behalf
   of our partners like MS and Compaq).

-  Smaller MCS / same logic applies. :^(


Now those of us that are left can watch the whole VMS/UNIX war happen again; 
this time as SBU/ABU enterprise systems (on UNIX and O_VMS) versus the PCBU 
and NT.  Remember ... I said it here first!

Charles 

(Who works for - 
 	Professional Services <er> 
 		Digital Consulting <er>
 			Systems Integration <er>
 				??? - It's about time for a name change
				 again, eh?)

    re -.1
    
    >> Charles
    
    >> (Who works for -
    >>        Professional Services <er>
    >>                Digital Consulting <er>
    >>                        Systems Integration <er>
    >>                          ??? - It's about time for a name change
    >>   
    You forgot Software Services, in the days before we got professional.
    
    -Mike Z.

>    >> (Who works for -
>    >>        Professional Services <er>
>    >>                Digital Consulting <er>
>    >>                        Systems Integration <er>
>    >>                          ??? - It's about time for a name change
>    >>   
>    You forgot Software Services, in the days before we got professional.
>    
>    -Mike Z.
>
    
    Long ago you had SWAS, Software and Application Services.
    In the middle we had the famous Digital Services (EDU, MCS plus DC).
    And I thought the name is nowadays Solutions in Business....
    
    Regards,
    
    Jan 

> You forgot Software Services, in the days before we got professional.

  Of course, back then, the name self-explained what it was that
  this organization did. I wonder if anyone was impressed by the
  newer, more-imressive, but-much-less-clear names?

                                   Atlant

    re: .7
    
    That's an interesting idea.
    
    Bob

    .10 Atlant> I wonder if anyone was impressed by the newer,
    more-imressive, but-much-less-clear names?
    
    Yep.  Other practitioners of corporate doublespeak at other companies.