Conference ulysse::rdb_vms_competition

Funding discussions, sources of funds, etc. etc. etc. are inappropriate
for a non-restricted forum.

>Funding discussions, sources of funds, etc. etc. etc. are inappropriate
>for a non-restricted forum.

Why?

It seems to me that, if there is a valid reason, then it should be publically
available.  If there is an invalid reason, then we should be able to identify
it as such.

I want to know where my paychecks come from and who is (or is not) controlling
the future of projects I work on...

Rick

The product manager for Rdb is Andy Schneider, I believe.

You can contact him on WILBRY::ASCHNEIDER

Hey, I understand the importance of not discussing funding for products/projects.
I'm just trying to figure out what it all means.  If it means letting Rdb know 
something that they weren't made aware of yet, then I think it is important to
let them know. �I know I sure would be upset if I found out if 20% of the funding
I hoped to get wasn't going to be there before it was too late to do anything
about it.

Besides, I thought I might see a call to arms to let Mr. McCabe know just how
important it is to have his support.

AS I said in the base note, I don't really follow all the budget and funding 
stuff, but I sure hope a second of third CBU isn't planning on divesting on 
Rdb also.  Who knows maybe that ORACLE, Sybase , etc. training is looking better.


Hoping for the best !

Independent of what this precise CBU pronouncement means (and in fact no
one knows), it would be very useful for people to communicate to the CBU
they are now associated with which products are important to their
customers.  Why are people waiting to find out what the CBUs think?  YOU
SHOULD BE OUT INFLUENCING THE CBUs.  The field is their eyes and ears!

Since I heard of this announcement from McCabe's Group, I've been working through
my management and account group to let the CBU know about the importance of 
Rdb.  Unfortunately, the responses I've gotten back are:

	- the decision has been made and they're gonna stick with it.
	- this is what our customers want and since these are Customer Business
	   Units, we're gonna give the customers what they are asking for.
	- don't sweat it, you'll still have a job -- you will just have to 
	  support ORACLE instead of Rdb now.

So, I hope that other CBU's are more supportive of Rdb and other products because
I am not making much headway here.

    I do not like this answer either.  My concern is that if we support
    ORACLE instead of Rdb, we are doing nothing to bring profit to Digital.  
    
    Hardware is not as profitable as selling software and services.  With an
    ORACLE sale, the odds of our selling add-on software and services are
    slim.  Where are we adding value?  The DM & D CBU may wonder why they 
    are paying for these database folks to sell Oracle, why not let Oracle 
    pay their salaries.  
    
    Patti
    

	Would someone please explain to be what '.0 really means ?

	Regards,
	rcs

    Re: .7

       Hardware is not as profitable as selling software and services. 
       With an ORACLE sale, the odds of our selling add-on software and
       services are slim.  Where are we adding value?  

   That is why I am taking a good hard look at what services Digital can
   provide to our customers who use non-Digital databases. How difficult
   would it be for us to incrementally add to our Rdb skills and become a
   full service database design and implementation supplier? Maintaining
   non-Digital hardware has been very profitable on the field service side
   (some field service customers have DEC service all their gear even
   though they have less than 50% Digital gear).

   Comments?


   - Barry

   p.s. This is my last day before vacation :-). I won't be able to respond
   to any comments for at lest a week.

RE: .8

I wish I could tell you what it means.  That's what I was trying to find
out by asking what it means to not get funding from 1 of 5 groups who is
supposed to fund you.


With regards to one of Hal's earlier notes about US influencing the CBU's
there seems to be an attempt by the CBU's to get their input directly from
customers.  I applaud that approach since it helps us become even more customer
focused.  However, I would also argue that it is important to make sure that 
products that are designated as being strategic (as Rdb seems to have been) 
should receive some form of strategic funding.  Besides, who knows how 
representative the survey was (or whatever was used to gather customer 
requirements) of what our customers really need in terms of solving their 
IS problems.  Bottom-line:  doesn't seem as if the CBU's are all that interested
in input from the field.  

The discussion in 1245 about good and bad marketing and the discussion here 
helped me realize that it may not be too late.  If, as we all hope, "marketing"
is going to get a new face and more reponsibility at Digital, we might have just
to convince the right people, both internal and external) to give Rdb a chance 
with good marketing on multiple platforms.

The recent excellent TPC-A numbers should help get some attention, but we need
to tell the world!

Bruce

Based on my knowledge of the engineering funding process, I am not concerned 
about the statement in .0.  There appears to be a lot of "long range vision"
in the CBUs that ignores the current reality of what products and services 
are being sold to fund paychecks TODAY.  The CBUs are expressing a lot of 
vision about how they think the world will be, and demonstrating little grasp 
of what our customers buy now.  This is associated with a lack of clarity 
about what the Digital added value is in a particular vision.  We have a long 
row to hoe educating the CBUs about the value of Digital's database products, 
and it's been difficult to do so far this year, because the CBU's have spent 
a lot of time locking themselves in rooms and deciding what they are about 
through deep introspection.  We've got to do it over the next 6 months or
so, so there's a solid understanding in the next budget cycle.  Engineering
can't do it alone... the CBUs have to engage customers (with the help of the
field) and learn the reality.

    Glenn Reyer's marketing group (CIS and DBS marketing) is spending a lot
    of time with the CBUs and IBUs.  One of the high visability items on
    our presentations is the amount of CIS and DBS revenue (and associated
    revenue from HW, other SW, and Services) that their customers are bring
    to Digital today.  There is no question about whether there is money to
    be made with the products.  The figures do open some eyes.  This is only 
    one of the points that the CBUs are considering, however.
    
    Mike

	The thing that has not been clear to me is whether these guys
	can really hurt DBS or not.  Are we talking about adding a
	couple of engineers to round out product lines here, or are we
	talking about cuts in Nashua ?

	If this is mostly talking heads in an ivory tower mulling over
	our long term strategy for the 21st century I'm not going to
	lose sleep over it.  If they want to touch any existing staff
	in DBS and related space anytime soon, I'd like to hear about
	it and I'd like to know the names of people to contact, etc.
	to do the right thing.

	No matter how screwed up Digital gets internally, we have too
	many technically best-in-class products to lose (especially
	out of DBS).  You keep sending us the products and we'll keep
	selling and supporting them in the field, no matter how short
	sighted people are.  As long as your bottom line is right even
	people who view the world as a spreadsheet won't be stupid
	enough to mess with you... unless you're in government space ;-)

	Regards,
	rcs