Conference ilbbak::us_sales_service

    Exactly my experience a few years back when I tried to get DEC to
    sell me some word processing systems for Aerojet.  Only, in my case
    NO ONE ever returned my many calls.
    
    Business went to IBM who went after this relatively small piece of
    action like a junk yard dog!

    On a flight last month, the operations manager of a $300M growing
    manufacturing electronics firm told me they were bursting at the seams
    with all their business systems only on PC's, so they just bought a
    whole manufacturing enterprise system from Data General.

    I was pointed to this conference by Dave Gray of the last note....I 
just have gone out to the field after being a manager of an internal 
group for some time. 

    It seems to me that nearly every DEC employee who has been around for 
more than a year or two, has a story like this to tell.....A friend, or 
acquaintance, or someone we are doing business with mentions to us that 
they have bought, or are trying to buy a computer. I wish we could all be 
sales people and literally, "take and order" right on the spot for them! 

    Crazy idea? Sure, I don't know all my T&C's, I don't have a perfectly 
clear picture in my mind to describe the differences between a VAX 4000 
model 200 or model 300, and what the options are with it, although I can 
pull my DECdirect catalog off the shelf and read up on it.....BUT SOMEHOW I 
ought to be able to tell someone "Let *ME* (not you, Mr Customer) make a 
phone call and someone will help you with this. I drop a dime, give someone 
the information and *KNOW* that with the next 8 business hours there will 
be a trained salesperson on the phone or at the Customer's door, with the 
information in hand to discuss the Customer's requirements.....IT SHOULD BE 
a no-brainer.....$5K here, $12K there, $.5K somewhere else should not drop 
on the floor, to be snatched up by the "junk yard dogs" that someone 
referred to.....It is small $ to our regular salesfolks perhaps, but what 
about trainees, what about former datacenter and other people who are no 
longer useful within their current jobs and are going to get packaged out? 
What about our DEC retirees who live in a geographic area? 

Call 1-800-small-bucks-for-DEC and get a person on site tomorrow who can 
discuss, or at least start to discuss(!!) a sales opportunity....and close 
some small, but potentially lucrative sales.....if they need a more 
technical resource, then we find that resource, but at least get someone in 
front of the Customer the next day...

Crazy? Perhaps, but we have all heard too many of these stories to be happy 
with business as usual. And a whole bunch of small sales can make a big 
contribution to the overall company P&L....

OK, that is my $.02 worth...tell me where I'm off base!

    Vic 

    Doesn't sound crazy to me!  I'm going to SERP out here in Colorado
    Springs soon, and would love to be kinda of the fall-back guy when
    regular sales can't or isn't interested in following up.  I'd do
    it for commission only (10%?).  Are we starting something here?

    Vic,	
    	You are 100% correct. This is the way it should be. But when a
    person like myself passes on an opportunity that can generate $4k
    here and $6K there, the reply that I get is, that we only work on
    multi-million dollar accounts. Would you mind telling me, how they
    can say this, when they are not bringing in any money, that they can
    throw money away.
    
    	I have in the past 1 1/2 years, taken many airplane trips for
    Digital, and am constantly surprised to hear people looking for some
    type of computer equipment or service.
    
    	Wouldn't it be nice to say, excuse me sir or miss, why don't you
    take a look at my pc here, and I will call up a listing or some type of
    program and show you what we have to offer, in the particular space
    that you are looking for.
    
    	I recently came back from Network U. in Boston a month or so back,
    I and some other folks at the seminar, saw a very good tool called,
    LANcity. We took this information back to our office and informed
    the powers that be about this multi-million dollar opportunity,
    I have not heard that they are doing anything with it. We are TFSO ing
    people, and we cannot even go after opportunities that are handed to
    people on a silver platter.
    
    	The problem that I see, we should be selling more, we should be
    going after new business, instead of milking dry the business that we
    already have. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GROW DIGITAL, UNLESS WE GO AFTERE
    NEW BUSINESS.
    
    It is a very sad day here at Digital.
    
    Frustrated!
    

    We just don't have the patience to do things right.  Even the ill-fated
    Target Sales Force concept was correct.  We were specifically targeting
    IBM 34/36/38 accounts and trying to move them to the MVII.  Virtually
    every customer we contacted was "new" and most were interested in DEC.
    
    We made a lot of mistakes, and it toook about a year until we really
    understood what it took to move these folks over to DEC......and then
    we were disbanded!!
    
    Any effort like that should have had at least a three year life
    commitment.

I agree with the past few replies here. I'm in Sales Support on the Xerox Team 
and we don't overlook ANY potential sales if at all possible. We involve our 
Channels partners (Avnet, etc.) as part of our team. We share information and 
trust each other.

I, too, spent many years in DEC Corporate and have a few stories like the 
time my mother at Grumman Aerospace wanted to buy a PC. She works in the 
executive offices there and had to practically get on her knees and beg 
Digital to talk to her. IBM sent a limo to take her to one of their product 
demo centers. She ended up buying an Apple.

The stereotype of the Digital sales person is still one of unresponsive 
disregard for the customer. Part of it is the environment under which the 
sales reps work. It tends to be hectic, disorganized and filled with fighting 
the internal admin systems and stovepipes. Some sales people are better 
jugglers than others. I know all of the ones I work with go above and beyond 
to respond to the customer... and when they can't the few us of us in Sales 
Support pick up the slack.

One of the sad things is that to configure and quote even a small VAX 4000 
system can mean hours of time spent making sure you have everything correct. 
The CTS review is ok, but XCON isn't quite there (months after the RF35s 
were announced XCON still knew nothing about them).

Having a distributor call on the Plumber was the right move; unfortunately it 
wasn't the right distributor.


regards,

Jim

p.s.: One of the ideas I've recommended to my account group is that we 
identify every MicroVAX II in the account (from Customer Service contracts) 
and initiate a concerted mail and phone campaign to sell them an 
in-cab VAX 4000 upgrade; Presto! .9 VUPs to 5 VUPs just like that. Same disks, 
same peripherals. Simple.

    re  Looking after the small and easy to sell to - business.
    
    An associate of mine who was let go in the first pass of TFSO, was
    repsonsible for Aftermarket sales. HE typically sold $15 M+ of DEC
    gear, a year - without even having to leave his office. He's now in the
    DEC 2nd hand equipmeent market, and making a killing, at our expense...
    
    q
    

    Sales reps are people, and like all people, are motivated to avoid
    pain.
    
    AQS is **painful**  XCON is **painful**  Systems and Options catalogs
    are outdated, incomplete, and only 85% accurate, IMHO.  So you double-
    check with DECsale, another **painful** process.  They only know their
    stovepipe of information.  We don't have one source of information, so
    it is a **very painful** process to configure and quote something, be it 
    a PC or a VAX 6000.  Same amount of pain for a PC sale as a VAX 6000?  
    Which one do you think you'd spend time on?
    
    Don't blame the reps.  Blame the inadequate systems.  Eliminate the
    pain and people will respond accordingly.	
    

    Kris,
    
    	It is often easy to blame something else other than take charge
    and make a difference.  It is beyond me how our systems can be blamed
    for someone not returning a call.
    
    	Specifically what do you mean by "AQS is painful  XCON is painful"
    we have improved some of these applications extensively and with
    on-line help, generic search of model numbers, configuration creators,
    license configurators, services configurators, configuration technical
    specialists (an actual person) in the field, sales support.......to say
    blame the inadequate systems is not a responsible statement.  I would
    rather hear specifics as to "what do you need, what is wrong". 
    
    	When was the last time you use these systems, when was the last
    time you read the release notes, when was the last time you took some
    training?.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sam.
    

>	Specifically what do you mean by "AQS is painful  XCON is painful"
>    we have improved some of these applications extensively and with
>    on-line help, generic search of model numbers, configuration creators,
>    license configurators, services configurators, configuration technical
>    specialists (an actual person) in the field, sales support.......to say
>    blame the inadequate systems is not a responsible statement.  I would
>    rather hear specifics as to "what do you need, what is wrong". 
    
What do I need ... TIME, Reliable Information

What is wrong ... There are systemic business process problems that place
a huge productivity tax on Digital employees. The very fact that we have to 
have "configuration technical specialists (an actual person)" is condeming
evidence that something is very wrong. 

I took 2 1/2 years away from AQS/XSEL/... and when I returned to direct sales
I expected to see significant productivity chages due to the improvements
you mention. To the contrary, in spite of these improvements, or because of
them, my productivity is worse than before. Minor improvements in the tools can only 
produce minor (10-20%) improvements in propductivity. We need 200-300% 
improvements.

If we still required all of our SW engineers to know assembler code the way
we require Sales reps to know part numbers we would still be selling PAL-11
on PDP's (let's see who gets that one :-)).

In a TQM  (Total Quality Management) environment all sources for error are 
eliminated rather than justtrying to eliminate an error after it occurs. 
Unfortunately AQS/XSEL/XCON/SBS/WAR Games/etc. actually *encourage* errors!

Examples...

AQS - Most service and software part numbers are system dependant. Yet if
I change the system part number on a quote I also have to change EACH software
and service part number ONE-AT-A-TIME!

We have Easy System Upgrades but it turns out that it is often cheaper to 
sell the upgrade ala-carte. The result? Now I have to do the configuration
TWICE for every upgrade to find the lowest price. 

XCON/XSEL - This is a manufacturing system with sales front end tacked onto it.
It primarily answers manufacturing questions, not customer questions. As a 
configuration generator it is too far behind to ever be effective even if it 
did answer the right questions.

SBS - See note 87.* (I  think)

War Games - See note 87.* (I think) and substitute "War Games" for "SBS"

Now for the good news... Someone is doing something. IM&T is working on 
a project to completely redesign our business processes. I have talked to
some of the people involved and I am encouraged by their approach. I have
also been contacted by someone in IM&T regarding input into a re-engineering
effort for AQS. I have a con-call scheduled on Tuesday and I will 
request that they put a note in here soliciting input or at least give me
permision to do so.

Charlie

P.S. I will start a new topic to discuss the ramifications of TQM to Sales
since I think it is worth a topic on its own.

CJH

    	Still you did not tell me what are those systemic processes that
    place a "huge" productivity tax on you.  Understand that the CTSs are
    available for consulting and review, you the Salesrep should know what
    is the solution reqquired by your customer.
    
    	XSEL/XCON, what is it that will give you the 200-300% improvement;
    we need to know specifics.
    
    	Tell me more specifics of how AQS/XSEL/XCON encourages errors. 
    Please understand the difference between quoting and configuring, you
    mention changing a system model number in a quote and then talk about
    the need to change all other part numbers - that is configuring.  AQS
    deprends on model numbers because that is the way business practices
    exist today.
    
    	I would like to encourage a note for imput on these systems.  I do
    agree and see the great benefits in some of your recomendations and
    approach.  I feel that a sales rep should have two ways to generate
    a customer quotation  A) using model numbers like today.  B) getting
    involved in a dialog with the application (user friendly - easy to use)
    and enter requirements and have the system figure out how that dialog
    will transalate into part numbers for fulfillment.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sam.
                                            

    I have been selling for a long time.  I use AQS regularly. No, it's not
    user friendly, but if you know the config that you want, and can
    overlook some of the terrible short descriptions, it is not so bad (I
    HAVE USED OTHERS).  I wouldn't use the XSEL tools, because my own
    experience set seems to be better than the algorithms used; maybe it is
    not possible to imbue to the tools that experience - as each
    application changes the order of importance applied to various
    features.
    
    To pursue the smaller opportunities (and it does take as much or more
    time to handle small $ as large $), we desparately need housekeeping
    tools.  There are some great tools on the market, and I understand that
    some of these tools are being evaluated by Judy G... @OGO, in
    conjunction with Notebook (PC) productivity.  I applaud this...and
    please hurry.  The salespersons are like everyone else, in that they need
    the new technologies available to make them more productive per hour. 
    Without tools, it is difficult to be more efficient than we were 15
    years ago.  Those of us that are left, we have to do more transactions,
    inasmuch as the unit costs are going down.  The math is easy.
    
    The point being made by the previous submitters was not to attack AQS,
    XSEL, etc., but to stress that we need fast, user friendly front-ends
    to whatever systems are necessary to run our businesses, and yes, we
    can handle 50-100 small accounts, but we need the technology tools to
    do so.  Don't we offer great interfacing?
    
    Regards, JVB.                                               

    Thanks JVB for your feedback,
    
    	Believe me I understand and know that we need improvement, I did
    spend 6+ years in the field and was a user of not only Sales tools
    but also administration and accounting tools, I performed a variety 
    of roles from CAS to sales support to accounting.
    
    	The feedback from you folks is what allows us to improve and 
    deliver the kind of tools you need.  However, it does not tell me
    anything if you just say "this or that encourages errors or requires
    too much time" without specifics. 
    
    	Few years back you people said "AQS descriptions are terrible",
    they are not really AQS descriptions but we were chartered to work 
    with product Mgrs and as a result there was very large effort resulting
    in a re-write of thousands of descriptions.  Know what you need and 
    make it happen.
    
    Sam.
                   

    Again - I was not attacking AQS as an instrument when I thumped the
    descriptions, but anywhere one can see a 1 line description there is a
    potential problem.  If we had the option of reviewing all AQS 1 (or 2)
    line descriptions, I am certain that review would prove very useful to
    the contributors of those descriptions (our customers don't much care
    about us saving on disk space).  

I had a very good conversation with the gentleman from "Quoting and Order
Management". The bad news is that there are no resources and no funding
so there will be no real re-engineering effort. I found it interesting that
AQS is part of the group that does ordering systems and not part of the group
that does sales systems (if there is one). Perhaps Sam, who is in or near these 
organizations could explain how they work?

Let me see if I can relate why I think there are systemic problems and
how they relate to AQS et. al.

First, I belive that there is one great conversation going on all of the 
time between our company and our market. At Digital "the field" is the conduit 
for much of this conversation and acts much like a translator who not only
translates the words but also trys to convey the appropriate meaning and 
emotion. The Field/customer portion of the conversation is well known (we
all do it ourselves every day):

o Sales Calls
o Advertising 
o Literature
o Proposals
o Quotes
o RFPs/RFIs
o POs/Acknowledgments/Shipments/Invoices/Checks
o Seminars/Training...

The Field/Digital conversation is less well known. Every system we use, 
automated or otherwise; formal or informal; voice, data, print, paper or video
is part of this conversation. It is what gets translated to the customer and
what gets sent back. Anything that interferes with the clarity of this 
"transmision" interferes with Digitals ability to understand our market and 
communicate with our market.

Second I believe that in Digital a *very* significant portion of the 
conversation that takes place with the field (and thus with customers) is 
informal and subject to no measurement or control. Evidense of this is the 
chaos that occured in 83/84 when the product lines were reorganizaed and we
found out how much of the ordering/manufacturing/shipping "system" was informal
and broke when it was reorged. Similar things happen every time there is a 
re-organization, just not as dramatic. 

Is this bad? Yes and No. We pride ourselve in our unique culture and the 
peer-to-peer way people work together regardless of organization or rank. This 
is good. The bad part is that there is no way of understanding what this 
information flow is and more importantly how much it costs. The reason it is 
expensive is that it is random. Someone may spend an hour trying to find out
a crucial peice of information for a proposal when a person in the next cube 
knew the answer all along. 

Another example is the way information generated
by our automated systems is used. I occasionally see memos refering to quotation
rates for certain products or services. This leads me to belive that there are
manangers getting reports and making decisions based on information *I* put in
AQS. Yet since I don't know how the information will be used and have no way
of indicating, for example, that "all five of these VAX 9000 Quotes are options 
for one sale and that only one will get sold", I have no way of having 
a "Clear" conversation.

How are AQS et. al. involved? Are they at fault? What Role do they play?

All of the systems we have been discusing in this and other notes (SBS 87.*)
are built on an infrastructure (VAX, Easynet, VT100's...) and implement an
information flow in support of the business processes that in turn attempt
to acheive the business objective of the company.  As the business objectives
and processes of the company have changed the information flows had to change to
meet them. When ever the information flows changed without concurant changes 
in the formal systems that implement them, informal information flows were 
created to fill the void. How much of Digitals business is actually run 
over ALL-IN-1, VAXnotes and DTN??? 

Whenever the informal information flows replaced formal flows we introduced
inconsistancy and inefficiency in the business processes. In my humble opinion 
this is the primary cause of many of our problems in the marketplace today. So 
much of our "business conversation" with the marketplace is done informally and 
thus inconsistantly that it has become significantly garbled. We don't know what 
the marketplace is trying to tell us and they don't understand a word we
are saying!

So what about AQS? AQS does its job admirably and the people that have been 
working on it deserve a great deal of praise for keeping it working as well as 
it does. Improvements over the past few years are impressive and appreciated. 
Unfortunately the improvements in the information systems in the field have not 
kept pace with the needs and much of the need is being met by inconsistant, 
inefficient and expensive informal means. This is why there is so much 
frustration in the field with all of the information systems we use, they only 
fill part of the need and the alternatives are too expensive.

Improvements to the existing suite of applications will not fix the problem. I
do not just need better quotes, thus I do not present a litany of AQS needs 
here. What we need, IMHO, is an integrated comprehensive set of tools that work 
with the rest of the company's systems and enable us to have the kind of 
conversation with our the marketplace that we so desperately need.

But how do we get there? Can *I* define it? No, I have some ideas and opinions
(everyone that knows me knows I have opinions) but I do not know the ultimate
answer. I think the way to get there is to implement a TQM program in the field,
particularly in sales, identify what the relevant metrics and measurements of
"sales quality" are and implent informations systems that lead us in that 
direction. I have stated that I am encouraged by what is being done in 
IM&T to redesign the business processes in the company. Mike Houlihan US head
of IM&T will be on the May Sales Focus DVN to discuss this process. I look 
forward to his comments.

    	Thanks for the feedback folks.  Now more about AQS the
    organization.
    
    	The Quoting and Ordering Program Office is responsible to manifest
    and enforce Digital's business rules and practices.  We also have the
    Quoting and Ordering Board which has representation from all our user
    and headquarters community and set priorities on AQS enhancements based
    on Compliance, Strategic Direction, Customer Satisfaction,
    Productivity, and Time to Market.
    
    	The Project Managers are Helen Wheeler and me Sam Ceballos.  The
    Program Office Manager is Don Aharonian, we are available.  The
    IM&T Development group is headed by Hal Kliger.  We review the feedback
    you provide via this notes conference and directly to us.  I would like
    to set up meetings with some of you to discuss your specific requests
    and to get them into the review process, please feel free to contact me
    directly.  Sam Ceballos@DDD  DTN 264-4687.  I know that if we care
    enough we can communicate properly and make things happen, lets's give
    it a try.
    
    Regards.
    
    Sam.