Conference 7.286::digital

    
    <----- only till they get around to laying you off, of course.

    Bob explained pretty well that we are in a good position bacause we are
    there where the market is going (64 bit, VLDB, NT, Internet, ..).
    
    But we have had excellent products for years and years. Now, how come we
    are still a 11-14B$ company (since 1988!), where competitors have
    showed sustainable growth. Having products is not enough.
    
    The question is: HOW ARE WE GOING TO REALIZE GROWTH.
    
    Cheers,
    Henny

There were two main messages that I picked up:-

When we are leading the industry with productivity and admired for our 
profitability, we _may_ get better pay.

It's not Digital's fault that this isn't a good place to work anymore, it's 
the same everywhere, because consumers (us) demand higher quality at lower 
prices.

Dave.

    So, then, what are Bob's plans for improving productivity and
    profitability ? Whatever happened to "re-engineering the customer value
    chain?" (which seemed to be a good idea), rather than continuing to
    live by the structures and processes which have shackled this company
    for the last N years...
    
    I didn't see the DVN, but I don't mind, because actions say more than
    words.
    
    regards
    john

    re .4
    point one - be on the French TMT and you will get better pay regardless
    point two - there are parts of Digital less affected and still fun to
    be - some of the vertical business units for exampl.Wonder why...
    At least I found out that not all countries in Europe are the same ;-)

This may not be a new thing but I noticed that Bob used the live questions as
subjects to talk around for a bit rather than as questions to answer. More often
than not, he didn't actually answer the question at all. There was so much
waffle that even the originator of the question probably forgot what the
question was.

Also... Someone asked about the 7000 job losses and the extra efficiency
required from the remainder. I don't think he answered that question BUT he
inadvertently answered one of my (unasked) questions: 

I wanted to know how the figure of 7000 was obtained. Was it:

a) they identified certain businesses we don't want to be in any more and there
were 7000 people involved in these (I could accept this)

or

b) They picked a number out of the air without any idea where they would come
from in order to cut people related expenses.

It sounded like b to me (it certainly wasn't a). The cuts are across the board
and we must all work more efficiently.

Regarding Q4... Strangely he refered to the results in the past tense a lot as
if they were already released (year on year improvement in revenue still true
for this Q4 and profitable before the charge).

He also talked about Q1 being BAD and even possibly even making a loss
(seasonally weak quarter being the main reason behind this) so beware!

    So there was no mention of the promised resignation if the results
    didn't improve, then?
    
    Laurie.

RE:               <<< Note 4710.4 by VANGA::KERRELL "salva res est" >>>

>> It's not Digital's fault that this isn't a good place to work anymore, it's 
>> the same everywhere, because consumers (us) demand higher quality at lower 
>> prices.


Really?

Well, son, I can remember when Digital was doing very well and it was a great
place to work.  Yes, that was back in the days when consumers loved to pay more
and didn't care about quality.

Paul

re.9:

>Really?

Yep, really! What's up don't you believe it?

Dave.