Conference 7.286::digital

I understand your concern , we are all in the same boat and I don't
wish to make light the matter presented in your note BUT I just
received this from the Boss and couldn't resist. Please enjoy!
   
    regards 
    r.k.         

   P.S. as you can see it was originally posted in the Marketing
        conference.

Interesting and creative explanation of Digital.



Subject: A view of how Digital works


 How Digital Operates - An Analogy
********************************************************************************



             <<< ASIMOV::$1$DJA2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MARKETING.NOTE;1 >>>
                   -< Marketing - Digital Internal Use Only >-
================================================================================
Note 935.0                     How Digital Works??                       1 reply
TROPPO::BCOSTIN "Sales, Brisbane, Australia"        123 lines   7-AUG-1989 21:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This amusing document was widely circulated in the South Pacific
    Region (SPR) some months ago.
    
    It gives one person's view as to how Digital works and holds many
    truths.
    
    It was written by Pat Mclean from Software Services in New Zealand,
    and while it is posted here without his permission, I'm sure he
    wouldn't mind if it is seen by an even wider audience...
    
    Enjoy!
    
    Barry C
    Oz

    _________________________________________________________________
    
Someone put the question to me the other day: What are the 
relationships between Enterprise Services, System Integration, Large 
Projects, Account Management, Prime Contracting and all the variants 
of these.

Since this is a common question, I've taken the trouble to get it all 
down in writing for you.

To answer your question, we really have to understand how Digital 
operates. Visualize a whole series of playing fields spread out on a 
vast plain, stretching out to the horizon in all directions. On each 
field, there are several teams, of different sizes and types, but 
there are only about a dozen different coloured uniforms, and teams of 
each colour seem to have a bond with each other that spans the many 
playing fields.

Some fields are large, and have all the colours represented, smaller 
ones have only a few. There is one called SPR that is unique in having 
all the colours, yet is only a very small field, and is so crowded the 
players can hardly move. 

On each field the teams jostle and push each other around, sometimes 
they kick a ball around, other times they throw rocks at each other, 
and for long periods will huddle in small groups mumbling in low 
voices so the other teams can't hear. At random intervals, some 
members of a team will gather on the sideline and yell insults at 
members of the same coloured team in a neighbouring field. We do not 
yet understand why they do this, but both parties seem to find it most 
enjoyable.

Occasionaly, all the other teams in a field will gang up on another 
one, and succeed in destroying it; the members of the victim team 
either become members of other teams, or are driven off the playing 
field. No-one has ever figured out the rules that apply to these games 
on the playing fields, although it is fairly certain that the players 
themselves do know.
                                                                     
Every now and again, play stops, and the parade begins. We do know 
that whoever leads the parade wins, and the extraordinary thing is 
that the teams from each field always form up in the almost the same 
colour sequence. The parades are a lot of fun, with bands and drums 
all competing with each other, and much cheerfull banter between the 
teams.

The right to lead the parade seems to be associated with various 
banners, standards and flags that the teams occasionaly fight over 
during play. The banners change from time to time, and have letters or 
words such as OSF, Enterprise Services, Customer Services, LCG, 36 is 
better than 32, Level of Service, Network is the System, Own the 
Database, B$ST, Follow the Marketing Plan, UNIX, Sell Solutions, 
FMD's, Large Projects, DPM, Solution Selling, and so on. When play 
stops and the parade begins, whoever owns certain flags gets a better 
position in the parade.

In the centre are some extra large playing fields, and we know these 
are called 'Corporate'; confusingly, all the others around this centre 
are called the 'Field'.

The teams on the coporate fields have the ability to create flags and 
banners, which they do so in great secrecy; if another team suspects a 
flag is being made, they will try and tear it up. When a new flag is 
ready, it is taken out to as many of the other fields as possible, and 
the teams on each field will fight over it, or ignore it, or even 
share it, although this is rare. We have never been able to predict 
how the 'Field' teams will react to a new flag.

Well, those are the rules. Lets see what's been going on with the 
banners 'Account Management', 'Enterprise Services', 'Large Projects', 
and 'System Integration'.

Account Management has always been owned by a team called Sales; from 
time to time other teams get a hand on it, but the most they ever 
acheive is to share it for a while. Mostly the other teams seem to 
thinks Sales should have it, and concentrate on arguing that it is not 
as large and important a banner as Sales says it is. 'Large Projects' 
is a new banner, and we're not sure where it came from. It is only a 
flag really, but there has been a lot of squabbling around it, mostly 
over how to share it. Sales seem to be very determined to own it 
exclusively, perhaps to shore up the 'Account Management' banner. The 
other teams are are not sure they want to own this flag, but don't 
want Sales to own it.

Enterprise Services is a biggie. It was made by a Corporate team, one 
of the marketing ones, who showed it to a few of the playing fields 
near Corporate. A team called 'Field Service' saw it first, and ran 
off with it, and gave it to every Field Service team on the plain. 
Only then did all the other teams see what a useful banner it was, and 
start to fight for it. Here in SPR, a team called SWS, with help from 
other teams, has managed to get a hand to it, and so now it is a 
shared banner.

Meanwhile, on one of the corporate fields, the head of the SWS team 
has grabbed a new banner called 'System Integration' and is trying to 
establish it as a more important banner than 'Enterprise Services'. 
This is still in play, so I can't actually answer your question right 
now, but I think you'll have a better feel for how the game is played, 
and this should increase its entertainment value for you.

I can tell you there is a big game scheduled for Monday, March the 
13th, in Chatswood and I've all got a ticket to the main stand. I'll 
give you all a ball-by-ball account on my return.

Regards,

Pat Mclean

    Look around your workgroup: the person who is the team player is the
    busiest, the person with one task who is the champion of the highly
    visible project is the most recognized.

    Alan, I totally agree!  A rumor in regard to cash incentives to
    leave the company has been circulating for over a year.  Yet if
    one of us "dares" to enter a note about what we hear, we're chastised
    as rumor mongers, or our notes are deleted.  I entered a note this
    morning, I had heard the news on the radio before leaving for work.
    there were a couple of replies and then ZAP! my note disappeared,
    along with the replies.   
    
    I wonder how long yours will last...I'm assuming mine was deleted
    because of the nature of the information it contained.
    
    Carol

    please disregard .5...I was in the process of replying to another
    note 915, when it was deleted, hence my reply ends up to your note
    which it has nothing to do with....sorry!
    

> < Note 915.6 by CECV03::ROBINSON >
>                    -< this reply not meant for this note >-
>
>    please disregard .5...I was in the process of replying to another
>    note 915, when it was deleted, hence my reply ends up to your note
>    which it has nothing to do with....sorry!

a bit of Notes tutelage:

You can delete your own notes.  There's no need to apologize, you can 
correct the situation without compounding it.
If something is in the wrong place, then you can EXTRACT it, DELETE it,
and re-enter it properly.  This is even if intervening replies have come in.
So you can do yours, and I can do mine, and we can shorten this topic 
by 3 replies right there.

- tom]

    
    .0:
    
    May I invite you to make teamwork happen around you (as in "Do the right
    thing")?
    
    DECcies can generally be divided into two groups - team players and
    empire builders. Team players are not interested in teamwork; rather,
    they are focused on making the right thing happen, and if it is required
    to cross group boundaries to do so (the normal case), they happily oblige.
    Empire builders, on the other hand, are focused on justifying their own
    corporate existence, and will do anything and everything to prevent
    responsibilities from migrating out of their various spheres of
    influence, which effectively stifles teamwork.
    
    DEC needs more teamwork and less empire building. You can encourage
    teamwork in your area as follows:
    
    	1) Be a teamwork example. Volunteer to take on tasks you wouldn't
    	   necessarily own because you have expertise, or offer to help
    	   and teach someone else. Encourage inter-group dialogue to find
    	   out where there is duplication of effort or where new and
    	   interesting partnerships can be formed.
    
    	2) Be a teamwork advocate. A borderline empire builder will often be
    	   swayed when you demonstrate how a cost can be reduced or a deadline
    	   tighened up by a cooperative effort.
    
    Try it - 16+ years of experience tells me you'll like it.
    	3) Be a teamwork militant. In response to unretractable and
    	   unjustified empire building, work around the blockade, get the
    	   job done another way - and then wage an information campaign to
    	   get the facts known at high levels, and let upper management
    	   remove the obstruction for you. [WARNING: do your homework!]
    

 >   < Note 915.8 by ESCROW::KILGORE "Wild Bill" >
 >                              -< Join the team >-
  
 >       	1) Be a teamwork example. Volunteer to take on tasks you wouldn't
 >   	   necessarily own because you have expertise, or offer to help
  
    And you'll end up as the mug who does everything 'cos nobody else
    owns it (prevalent in Matrix Organisations),
    
    After a very short while it'll become part of your (or, even worse)
    your successor's job.
    
    Believe me - I'm there!
    
    Mike

    
    Re .9:
    
    Don't go out of your way because nobody else does? A very disappointing
    attitude, and thoroughly unacceptable! The best leadership is by
    example.
    
    Teamwork does not mean that you accept everyone's drudge work without
    complaint, or pick up every last unowned pieces. However, after you've
    picked up the first unwanted piece (teamwork example), it becomes much
    easier and more credible to say "Well, there are more pieces, and no one
    person can or should handle them all, so lets's act as a TEAM and figure
    out how WE can get the rest of this stuff done" (teamwork advocacy).
    And those who refuse to be part of the team and carry their share
    should be made uncomfortable enough to do so or get out of the way
    (teamwork militantness).

	RE .10

	Teamwork to me means:

	   If you see something that needs to be done do it, because maybe
	nobody else saw that it nedded to be done!  If your not qualified
	to do it, tell your manager about it!  At least he/she will know
	that it needs to be done!

	- Mike

    re:  .10
    
    Sorry, I guess my sarcasm didn't come across in my .9 (I'll have
    to find a smiley face for a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek comment).
                
    But, having said that, I have found that the "example" didn't work
    - it just seemed that people had found someone they could dump on.
                
    Being new in the corporation I didn't know what was "mine" and what
    wasn't - I was used to an environment where everything had a home
    and you were very clear what your responsibilites were (and so were
    other people).  If something came up which didn't have a "home"
    then one was very quickly found for it (usually by someone at a
    higher level saying "That's yours!".
                
    Digital "culture" seems to preclude this direct giving of
    responsibility (ie. orders!) - rather we form teams and let them
    (and individuals) "work it out".  Ergo, something which the team
    or individual either:
                 
    a)  doesn't want to do
    b)  doesn't realise needs doing
                 
    gets left - for the mug to come and do it.
                 
    And, like everywhere I guess, everything needs done by "tomorrow".
    No time for team discussions as to who should have this
    responsibility.
                 
    And to be honest, we ususally spend so much time in our teams
    discussing "it", that "it" never gets done and is replaced by a
    more urgent "tomorrow task".
                 
    I say, Managers - TELL people what needs to be done and what's expected
    of them.  But DON'T TELL them HOW to do it - that's the "Digital
    Difference". 
    
    Mike
                 

    	Teamwork may not be present if your job because of the way your
    MANAGER works. The lack of team spirit is not "the way that DEC works".
    We always talk about the "good 'ole days when..." but when it comes
    right down to it, it is the MANAGERS resposibility to get his group
    working in HARMONY with other groups involved in the project. 
    
    	This takes a lot of skill. Negotiating, organizing, personnel
    management, long-term planning, training...etc...etc. The problem with
    DEC today is that I do not ever see any "managers" in management
    training. These skills do not come easy, they have be learned. 
    
    	There is little to no TEAMWORK because the management is not
    trained to make it happen.
    
    Regards,
    		Bob

    Bob,
    
    I take your point, but isn't it contradictory to what TEAMWORK is
    all about?
    
    One of the biggest failings I think we make when we (or any
    organisation) takes on the TEAM approach is that we don't redefine
    the role of the Manager (and, more importantly, the Supervisor).
    
    Some classical management training definitions come to mind - for
    example Supervisors become "Interface Managers" who simply manage
    the interface between the team and its environment.
                          
    Isn't the whole concept of the team that it is SELF-MANAGING?  Isn't
    this what we (should) mean when we talk about EMPOWERING people
    - taking away the checking of their work traditionally done by the
    manager or supervisor?  Isn't this the Total Quality approach -
    people are responsible for their, and their team's, behaviour without
    someone else "policing" them?
                          
    Until we really start implementing this then all we are using are
    popular, in fashion, jargon words and we're not really implementing
    the team or group concept.  Then we shouldn't need managers - only
    facilitators who are at the "beck and call" of the groups and who
    provide new members of the organisation with the necessary skills
    to integrate into the groups.  They may also provide high-level
    direction for groups and assist in the disbanding and reforming
    of groups as the environment dictates.
                          
    The problem then of course, is that WE won't have THEM to blame!
          
    Mike  
          

    	Your point is well taken. I somewhat agree...but then, every team
    needs a CAPTAIN. One who will make sure that all have a COMMON goal and
    don't stray too far from the TEAM's goal. 
    
    	TEAM approach to working towards a common goal requires expertise
    in different areas, which when add up "cover all bases". Part of the
    team must be able to point out when "home base is not covered"...the
    captain. Each member of the team does what he does best, and is
    "organized" by the captain to get the job done.
    
    Besides, we need someone to blame it on !! 8>)
    
    bob   

    
    re -16, Ahhh, but watch it with the notion of captain. If you are
    gonna nominate a target, you've also just nominated a winner. Teams
    need team winners and team losers, or the team spends most of it's
    activity pointing fingers, and the work at hand always loses.
    
    	bs

    Excellent points in the last two.
    
    Again, the Group "Theory" says that the group itself appoints its
    leaders - as we all know human nature makes some of us followers
    and some leaders.  So the "natural" leaders tend to surface in any
    group.
    
    Now "natural" leaders, while they have many sterling qualities,
    do not often make good "managers".  They tend to be too individualistic
    for one, and impetuous for another.
    
    The secret of good group dynamics is to have a group of people well
    trained to spot their own weaknesses and exploit their strengths.
    That plus complete trust in each other so that they know they can
    say "You're talking a load of horse-hockey and you know it!" without
    it being taken as a personal insult!  THAT'S the really difficult
    part!
    
    And a good leader in one scenario might be the wrong person for another.
    Again a "good" group realises this and changes leaders as required.
    Finally, the concept of "leader" changes completely - the leader
    becomes simply a facilitator or presenter - the "face" of the group.
    The group actually leads itself.
    
    To really make groups work (again in theory because I don't think
    it's ever been tried - no-one's brave enough to do it!) is to let
    the group review itself and its own performance.  Now give them
    a salary budget and say "Apportion that between yourselves based
    on your own perceptions of how each of you have contributed."
    
    That REALLY requires trust in each other!
    
    Mike

    re: -1
    
    Your "insight" into group dynamics is merely heresay and not supported
    by any empirical research.  The debate of leadership being nature vs.
    nurture was decided back in the 60's.  Leaders are made, not born. 
    There is no set of personality traits or behaviors that can be used to
    determine the effectiveness of a leader.  We all like to think so, but
    leadership effectiveness is more dependent on the situation involved
    than anything else (environment).  A foreman in a factory and a
    software unit manager are going to have very different skill sets and
    management techniques, and even that is too broad a generalization.  So
    much for Leadership 101.
    
    If one thinks of a manager as a facilitator, instead of as a director,
    then his role is a lot different in a group than others in this
    discussion have alluded to.  A group has to have a manager, if for no
    other reasons than to give task clarity, rewards/punishments, and be a
    contact for others outside the group he manages.
    
    HOW he does that is dependent on the environment, needs, and maturity
    of the individuals in the group.  Two people can work together, but one
    may need to be completely autonomous to be productive and the other
    need to be closely monitored and directed for the same reason (task
    oriented).  If managing in this manner decreases, then job
    disatisfaction for one of the individuals will increase, and group
    effectiveness (teamwork) will also decrease.
    
    I've rambled all this in support of the reference a few replies back to
    the managers needing to the trained to manage.  One thing I've observed
    in DEC is the lack of management skills in those promoted from within
    the organization.  When one enters a new job, a new skill set is often
    requisite for the job.  However, when some are promoted to manager, all
    of a sudden "they're managers", period.  The problem is they only have
    their old skill sets, intuition, and zeal to go on.  That may be fine
    for that person, but it doesn't promote teamwork and productivity within
    a group.
    
    
    
    Jim

	Teamwork, ah yes, the idealistic vision in which people drop
    whatever it is they are doing to pitch in and help on a project
    being done by another group which is perhaps totally unrelated to
    your own.  Beleive it or not, it does occasionally happen, but
    usually only in cases such as DECworld and/or highly visible product
    announcements, etc. (none of which are pursued much these days).

	The rest of the time, people are too locked into their own project
    schedules to risk jeapardizing their careers by indulging in such
    volunteer work.  In addition to schedules, the issue of funding runs
    contrary to such free love (er, uh..."work") philosophy as well.
    If you are receiving funding by a certain organization to perform
    work on a certain project, then it would seem somewhat unethical to
    spend *any* of the time you charge to that particular project working
    on some other [potentially unrelated] project.

	That's the way it is for me now anyway, and also a reason why
    you don't see me working on too many sideline projects anymore.
    Of course, I don't work for Digital, I work for Educational Services
    (big smiley face).  Here in ES (more specifically - ESDP), we charge
    other cost centers for each and every penny of time we spend on anything
    (or we are supposed to anyway - hint hint).  Any time not charged to a
    project is called "overhead" and too much overhead threatens to put our
    own cost center into the red.  I suppose this means that we are an Empire?

	Now if each employee controlled their own independent cost center,
    then maybe such goals as volunteerism and teamwork would be more readily
    attainable.  As it is now, however, if there is no DPN (Digital Project
    Number) that I can charge my time to, then there is not much I (as an
    Educational Services employee anyway) can justify working on.

    	re. .20:
    
    	I think you lost the whole point. 

    re: .21, re: .20

    I think he's got the whole point right.  There's too much at risk
    (recognition, the hope of raises one day, etc.), to be a useful loose
    cannon in Digital trying to make things go right.

    Focus on the visible project where you are the visible key player is
    where the action is in Digital today.
    
    If you are just helping out, across cost center boundaries, you're
    lucky to rate a "Thank you".

    Digital today is filled with managers who worry more about solid lines,
    dotted lines, and empire than business development, and customer
    satisfaction. 
                                

    
    	Well, I think the more important is teamwork within the same
    project teams.
    
    	People tend to react in one of two ways when the projects starts
    slipping or starts running into trouble.
    
    	1. They cocoon themselves, adapt a cover-me-a%% position, and
    inevitably start fingerpointing in various fashions.
    
    	2. Pitch in and offering their services in whatever way they
    can to try and get things back on track.
    
    	For me personally, i can live without the 1's.  To my thinking,
    there is no personal success in a group failure. Suprisingly so,
    there's many an engineer and manager who seem to disagree with me.
    
    	Those in the 2 category are worth their weight in gold.
    Unfortunately, the attract the ire and scorn of all those in the
    1, cause god help 'em, they might make them all look like they 
    really are.  A good team leader will recognize where his talent
    is, and what talent tends to idle in bitterness, and isolate
    accordingly.
    
    
    	bs

    I think we've got two crossed lines here (probably my fault,too!)
                         
    One is with regard to the "looking for areas where I can help" idea
    of teamwork where the whole organisation (up to corporate level)
    is looked on as being a single entity and an individual looks for
    opportunity to help out wherever their skills fit.
                         
    That's one type of "team" player - and one whom I contend will end
    up being dumped on from an almighty height!!
                         
    The other idea of teamwork is to actually work well within the team
    to which you are assigned (project, cost centre, staff - whatever).
                         
    That's where I was coming from in my notes regarding "managing"
    these types of teams.
    
    Jim,
                         
    Your comment (.19) regarding my "insight" into group dynamics being heresay
    (I must admit, I first read that as "heresy" and got really worried!!)
    is absolutely correct.  I do not have any empirical evidence to      
    support what I say.                                                  
                                                                         
    However I am working in an environment within Digital where we have  
    commited to the concept of group working and group autonomy.  This   
    isn't heresay - it's "here today" (sorry!).  And my contention is    
    that we don't really know how to "manage" these groups.  We talk     
    of empowerment and autonomy but then come up with comments like      
    yours which say "A group has to have a manager... to give task clarity,
    rewards/punishment.... contact with others outside."                 
         
    The only part I agree with is the last one!  Surely an "empowered",
    "autonomous" group gives its own task clarity - if they don't have
    the clarity then someone is appointed within the group to go and
    get it.  Rewards and punishment I have alluded to - let's give the
    group this authority to decide amongst themselves who is worthy
    of the higher reward.  THAT'S real empowerment.
         
    But Jim, I agree wholeheartedly with your basic sentiment - we MUST
    teach managers to manage.  Our disagreement seems to be "what sort
    of managers do we want, so what should we teach them?".
         
    Mike
         

    <In reply to "Is there teamwork at Digital?">
    
    From an administrative view my feeling is this, If it needs doing and 
    you have the know-how do it.  You can always get back to whatever you 
    were doing a few minutes later and mean while you keep the Digital 
    wheels moving.
    
    Example, my desk is located next to several printers and fax machines, 
    I could easily ignore when people have problems with these machines or 
    I can get up and fix the problem and get them back to work on what ever 
    they were doing before they got stuck.
    
    It doesn't make sense for a 50k+ management consultant standing over a 
    fax, printer, or copier trying to figure out whats wrong when I can go 
    over and fix it and get them back to there desk earning there 50K+.
    
    Its important for me to be flexible enough to help when ever I can.  I 
    work in SWS as an administrative secretary, but anyone from field 
    service/sales or software can come up to me and ask for my help. Since 
    I have extensive knowledge of VAX document and VAXsight I am relied 
    upon heavily throughout the district for proposal, presentation, 
    project documention and graphics support including all of the sales 
    units in my district. I've even had people come up from the area office 
    for my support.
    
    I find it rewarding to be relied upon heavily in the district, it makes 
    me feel my job here has real value and that I'm making a significant 
    contribution.  Some times it gets hectic and when priorities need to be 
    set I let those in charge of the projects work it out.  The benefits 
    are countless thank you letters, lunches, a brand new VAXstation 2000 
    with 19 inch color monitor to replace my old VAXmate and the best part 
    is 5 o'clock rolls around a lot quicker when your busy.
    
    My boss has been very supportive, he says if your not already busy with 
    our group go support who ever needs help you don't need to come ask me.  
    Its this attitude which has made my district one of the most successful 
    in the past and I'm sure it will continue to be in the future.
    
    Not everyone in the district has a teamwork attitude but those who 
    don't are a small group who stick together and complain and usually end 
    up transferring or leaving the company, fortunately most are excellent 
    team players who encourage others.
    
    In answer to the question is there teamwork at Digital?  I can't speak 
    for other areas in the company but here in my district I have observed 
    most everyone seems to be on the same wave length as far as cooperating 
    with others to get the job done.
    
    Gary
    S.F. District

    Although I have never visited the San Francisco office (is is really on
    Polk street?) my experiences in several DEC offices have paralleled
    those of Gary in 915.25.  Whenever I have had trouble with a FAX
    machine, or a printer, or a tape drive, or (more usually) an
    administrative procedure that made absolutely no sense to me, I have
    always been able to find someone to help me with it.
    
    Perhaps because of those experiences, I have always been willing to use
    my talents to help others.  As Gary said, it's a good feeling.
        John Sauter, who was born in San Francisco

re: .25
Nice note, Gary -- and I second the impression that the teamwork here
is one of the nicest things about working in the San Francisco office.

	MKV

re: .21,

	Excuse moi, but if you reread the base note, I think you will see
    that it refers to a specific lack of "company wide" teamwork, and the
    problems different groups face in working together towards any sort of
    common corporate-wide goal.

	My reply #.20 addresses the company wide problems that I have
    experienced, and I too wonder about possibile solutions to what I see
    as an ever-increasing problem.  While I see that the smaller-scale
    issues of teamwork apply here as well, at least the existing managment
    structure is able to deal more effectively with the inner-group sorts
    of issues.  It is the meta-group issues which have slipped through the
    corporate cracks in recent years especially.

	The term "virtual team" comes into play here.  How is a virtual
    team managed?  Or should it be?  What we in Ed Services used to refer to
    as "G-time" (it has a newer, niftier code now: "GNPR") is what one is to
    use for time they spend in non-project related work.  Other organizations
    undoubtedly have other terms for this sort of thing, but it is generally
    regarded as unfunded (and consequently evil) time.  Unfortunately, most
    virtual team work falls into this sort of category unless the virtual
    team is able to somehow provide a DPN for people to charge their time to.

	I used to think that Ed Services was a bit finicky about tracking
    DPNs for each and every project, but it turns out that the Ed Services
    organization is really among the few organizations which even attempts
    to handle virtual teamwork (from an accounting perspective anyway).  My
    virtual team experiences in the past were always saved at the last minute
    by the flexibilty of the DPN system in that skilled Ed Services (or ESDP)
    people could usually be obtained at a momments notice for a given virtual
    team project (as long as the project had funding for such cost center
    cross charging).

	Typically, however, most virtual teams, by virtue of their semi-
    underground (or "midnight hack") nature, operate beyond the scope of the
    accounting realm which normally tracks project numbers and such.  
    Consequently, the virtual team is typically not even a corporate sponsored
    entity (even though corporate is the first in line to take credit for
    successful products resulting from work originally developed by virtual
    teams).  I would imagine that VAXnoting (or at least the fore-runners to
    VAXnotes), as well as the large amount of behind-the-scenes work that
    takes place in these notesfiles is a good example of such virtual team
    efforts.

	So now you see the dilemma faced by the virtual team player at DEC.
    Unless you can both convince your management to allow you to work on a
    virtual team project as well as charge to a DPN for the project, then
    chances are, you won't be encouraged to work on virtual team projects.
    In such a case, one either takes the gamble and undermines the existing
    corporate structure by participating in a virtual team effort that they
    might consider to be worthwhile anyway, or they stick to their own funded
    projects and leave the virtual teamwork to the pioneers and intra-corporate
    entrapeneurs (many of whom soon become frustrated and leave DEC to work
    for other companies that encourage such virtual teamwork).

	Hopefully, some lessons can be learned from this...

				    -davo

   Response to 915.28
    
    
   I re-read the base note 915.0 (Is there teamwork in DEC???)  I understood
   from the quote "at least as exercised in my area" that the writer sees no
   teamwork in his/her area.

   I also understood from the quote "is this company wide or am I just in the
   wrong group" that the writer was asking if there was teamwork elsewhere
   in the company and my response 915.26 was stating there was cooperation
   in my district between groups.  Your problem sounds more specific then I 
   understood the base note to be, or perhaps I misinterpreted the base
   note in which case ignore this.

re: .29,

	Well, for what it's worth, I think the author of the basenote is
    talking more about group to group cooperation than inner-group dynamics
    as you seem to want to claim.  Ordinarily, I might simply ignore your
    rude comments, but this notesfile, being moderated in a somewhat more
    (shall I say rigid) style in terms requiring noters to stick to the
    topic of the original basenote, compells me to support the validity
    of my reply #20.

	As such, to "prove" my point, I offer my own dissection of the
    basenote as well:

>    I have only been working at DEC for 1.5 years and maybe I have not
>    yet aclimated to this company but it seems that the Digital 
>    Philosophy (at least as exercised in my area) prevents the most
>    necessary aspect of our (any) business; that being teamwork.

	So far, there is little mention of anything that would indicate
    a discussion limited specifically to inner-group teamwork.  There
    is a hint of perhaps inner-group problems in the quote "my area", but
    this depends on whether you define "my area" to that of a particular
    cost center, a facility, an organization, or even an entire region.
    So, we continue to read on...

>    There is no teamwork.  Each group operates individually, against
>    the other groups with which it must deal on a daily basis...

	The above sentence is key to what I constitute a discussion involving
    group to group interactions.  Now watch...

>    ...I see
>    real customer critical problems open for anywhere from 3 to 6
>    months, mainly because various groups are fighting each other with
>    no regard for the customer.  Management doesn't care.  (how can
>    we stay in business like this?).
    
	The statement "various groups are fighting each other" indicates
    to me that a problem exists when it comes to forming any sort of team
    which spans group boundaries (i.e. "virtual teams").  Anyway to play
    the hand out...

>    I see no teamwork.  Is this company wide or am I just in the wrong
>    group. (I hope it is the latter.)

	The question asks whether it is a company-wide problem that groups
    have problems working together, or is the author simply getting that
    impression from the group the author presently works in.  In other words,
    "is my group weird, or do other people notice the problems encountered
    when groups at Digital attempt to work together on multi-group (or
    virtual-team) projects?"  I think this is the jist of the author's
    initial question, although we might both be wrong I suppose.

	Now, obviously, inner-group interactions are a subset of group-to-
    group interactions, and as such, I am not about to make a claim that
    any of your replies to this note are either "way off track" or have "lost
    the whole point", but that is primarily due to my liberal view of what
    consititutes a valid notesfile discussion (as well as perhaps a less
    viscious attitude) than anything else.  Care to agree yet?  ;^)

				    -davo

>	Well, for what it's worth, I think the author of the basenote is
>    talking more about group to group cooperation than inner-group dynamics
>    as you seem to want to claim.  

	Teamwork between groups where the individual groups don't
	do "teamwork" within is a farce.  If you don't have teamwork
	with the everyday people you won't have teamwork with people
	outside your group.  So I contend that the replies that
	talk about teamwork within groups is very much a part of the
	topic.

	There is a saying "A child learns what it lives."  If the
	group you are in believes in and supports teamwork that any
	interaction your group has with other groups will also be
	biased toward teamwork.

	Do you understand that discussion about one requires a discussion
	about the other?  In the same note!reply!string!topic!

	_peggy

    A lot of Digital's problems is that we pay lip service to "teamwork"
    without assembling true teams.

    There's hardly a task that can create $1 million for Digital in sales
    that doesn't involve lengthy internal negotiations.  This isn't
    teamwork but trading on the matrix.

    It's as if we have been assembling a team consisting entirely of first
    baseman, and then having the first baseman manager report to the
    infield manager who in turn reports to the fielders manager and then
    having the fielders and pitchers managers get together and discover
    than they can't play in enough games to win the pennant.  (Sorry if the
    baseball analogy bewilders you)

    Every non-trivial activity starts with a discussion of whether the
    decision maker just to get the resources required to _compete_,
    is five, six, or seven levels away from the people in the room.

    We compete with companies that don't even _have_ that many levels of
    management.

    One might have hoped for real decentralized management, but what we got
    was reinforced functional stovepipes.

    Re: .32
    
    While I concur with the 'results' you describe, and particularly
    with the description "... trading on the matrix.", I can not agree
    that 'stovepipes', the (supposed) matrix management structure, and
    separate organizations are at fault.  To blame the company's
    organization for it's ills is to avoid the issue.  Worse, it leads
    to time-, energy- and money-wasting restructuring in order to improve.
    
    Digital's teamwork problem is very simple.  The people at the top
    are not a team.  Their leadership-by-example emphasizes personal
    and unit gains over corporate objectives.  It supports a largely 
    negative internal competition on the level of the sand-pile game
    'King of the Castle'.  
    
    There are a number of reasons for the company evolving into what
    it is.  There are also a number of possible moves to alleviate the
    problem.  This condition is not unique to Digital, nor corporations.
                            
    
    Don
    

    
    As was mentioned by another DECie (somewhere is some note), there is a
    difference between an orchestra manager and an orchestra conductor.
    
    Digital is full of orchestra managers with their numbers and
    satisfaction of personal ambition at all costs; but there are few
    practicing orchestra conductors leading us musicians (employees), first
    and foremost, to play better music in greater harmony, necessary if our
    merry Digital bands as a total entity are to achieve greater success in
    the future.
    
    Perhaps the musicians would have more effective leaders that would
    create better music (productivity, creativity, customers and profit) if
    the orchestra managers were individual contributors and if the
    musicians in a given band had a say in who their orchestra conductor
    was going to be for their given band within the big Digital orchestra.
    
    
    

    Re: .33
    
    I agree that the matrix structure is not "at fault".  It is, however,
    an environmental condition that nurtures many of the negative issues
    discussed here.
    
    Bear with me on the following analogy....  A father is alcoholic. 
    Alcohol, per se, is not at fault.  The "fault" derives from the way
    alcohol is used as a compulsive crutch.  Yet the entire family still
    becomes dysfunctional; each member chooses roles to play which will
    compensate for the alcoholism.  As long as the alcoholic father is
    allowed to continue, the roles played by family members become more
    ingrained.  Then, lo and behold, the kids grow up to be adult children
    of alcoholics.  I understand that ACOA's are much more prone to
    continuing the dysfunctional lifestyle as they grow older.  Thus the
    addictive baton is passed from generation to generation.
    
    [ Thanks for getting this far...  I HATE analogies but am compulsive
    about using them 8:) ]
    
    Likewise the matrix usually begins in a small company.  It is an
    extremely valid organizational style in many instances.  Such as
    project work.  Such as designing computers.  Such as engineering
    software.  Such as when the pieces of the matrix are brought together
    and physically run as a group.
    
    Digital began with a matrix and it worked.  It worked for a long time. 
    And you are right, Don, when you say "The people at the top are not a
    team".  It _IS_ the people that are "at fault".  And changing the
    structure will no more solve the problems than will simply removing
    alcohol from the alcoholic.  Alcoholics can be rehabilitated. 
    Step 1 of many is 'no more alcohol'.
    
    Organizations can also be rehabilitated.  In this company, 'no more
    matrix' is the only way to begin breaking down 30 years of internal
    competition and leadership emphasizing personal and unit gains.

    re .34
    
    In your analogy, the matrix is more like the glass or cup, not the
    alcohol itself.  Alcohol is better equated to metrics and measurement. 
    It's what's in the cup that's the problem, not the cup itself.  Taking
    away the cup won't solve the problem.
    
    The real problem is that no one is measured on how effective a team
    member they are outside of their organization (and often not even
    within it).  Matrix management is an attempt to provide this.  As long
    as the buck doesn't stop until it reaches bottom or can be passed on
    and on, you will not have effective matrix management nor teamwork.
    
    There are two simple symptoms of dysfunctional organizations:  1) are
    phone calls promptly acknowledged, and 2) do meetings start on time.
    This does not mean an organization is not dysfunctional if the answers
    are yes, but if the answers are no then it is highly likely there are
    or will be organizational dysfunction (mainly manifest as lack of
    teamwork).  My experience is that DEC/Digital has serious problems in
    both these two basic areas.

    Spare us the analogies and the apolgies: The current management style
    whether you call it "matrix" or whatever is the cause of "what's wrong
    with Digital".
    
    It is the inability to form teams and make teamwork work which is in a
    nutshell the description of what's wrong with Digital.
    
    It is the constant internal negotiations and empire-building that is
    caused by organizational instablity that is exposes Digital to
    customers as a company that can't make a timely decision nor be held
    accountable to a commitment.
    
    Real decentralized management is the solution, reinforcing the
    functional stovepipes is what we've been seeing more of.
    
    There's hardly any competitve activity that a sales team can perform
    now that doesn't require internal negotiations and escalation.
    
    You can't tell me that this is a requirement of doing business.  In key
    critical markets we lose to companies that can put all the people that
    can compete and win business in one room.
    
    There's just too much whining that "specialists" or "critical data" is
    unavailable, and too much indifference to the fact that teams when
    formed are too weak or incomplete.

    re .37
    
    Decentralization doesn't do diddly until the metrics to support it are
    changed.  The reason all this reorg still looks the like it's the same
    ole stovepipes (only bigger) is because the key metrics weren't changed.
    
    Current management style is based on the current metrics.  Matrix or no
    matrix, decentralization or centralization only causes a momentary
    perturbation unless metrics are changed as well.
    
    Are you assuming that a decentralized structure causes metrics to
    change to support teamwork?  If that's happening, I'd be real interested
    to hear what those changes are.

    
    And one wonders, with the latest organizational reshuffling of chairs,
    and changing atmosphere, that professional stove-pipe manipulators are
    not becoming even MORE hardened, building thicker and higher walls to
    protect self-interests at the expense of Digital, their direct
    employees, total cooperation and harmony, and our future success.
    

    The obsession with quantitative metrics IS the problem.  How about we
    try giving people asssignements and judging them on their success or
    failure, rather than twiddling our STUPID numbers!
    
    -dave

    Since I am new to the organization, my observations may not be as
    accurate as they should be, but I am going to contribute.  The matrix
    organization, the stupid numbers, the leaders vs. managers, and no
    teamwork at the top are seemingly all valid observations, that I have
    confirmed in my short tenure.  I have seen myriad examples of poor
    management/leadership.  We need a rudder for the ship, a captain and a
    crew, a destination and a cargo.  Else, like Alice in Wonderland, it
    does not matter which way we go...  In other words, we need to decide
    who, what, when, where, why and how, and then do it.  I am truly
    astonished at the time it takes to do anything in this company - at
    least eight times longer than my last three employers and even longer
    than government organizations with which I have volunteered.  To me it
    looks like we have a 2000 pound marshmellow and we are arguing where to
    take the first bite - if we don't get to chewing, we'll choke.

    I'm just catching up here, so pardon the late arrival.

    To manage a large organization, you need metrics. Metrics are easy to
    measure --> are easy to manage by. The problem is that the qualities that
    make a good manager good are _not_ easy to measure, so we don't bother,
    since metrics alone take care of "how are we doing in relation to our
    financial goals."

    I've been told more than once, directly, not to do the "right thing for
    Digital." In one case, "doing the right thing" would probably have
    prevented a customer situation in another area that got so bad that the
    customer finally threatened to sue Digital over the performance of a
    CMP software application. "Doing the right thing" would have required
    no more than a few phone calls.

    I'm happy to say that I no longer work for that manager, however, they
    are still merrily meeting their metrics, still enforcing the message that
    their subordinate's mission is to make their _manager_ successful, _not_
    Digital.


    /Peters

re:
    
:        are still merrily meeting their metrics, still enforcing the message 
:    that their subordinate's mission is to make their _manager_
:    successful, _not_ Digital.
:
    
    These are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  In fact, in the
    ultimate, utopic corporation described by David Carnell in this
    conference, the two goals are one and the same:  If the subordinates
    make their managers successful, they are in turn making Digital
    successful.   What is needed (and currently lacking in many cases)
    is the clear vision and goals for corporate success.  If the vision
    is clearly communicated through each level to the next, and success
    equals doing your part to achieve the vision, then each manager's
    success would equal Digital's success.  In this way, the subordinate
    who makes his or her manager successful will also be making the
    manager's manager successful, and so on up the chain, until it all
    wraps into success for the corporation.
    
    In practice, however, we all know how "personal agendas" get in
    the way when managers choose personal/career success over corporate
    success.

    For my part, I am well aware that I cannot and will not succeed
    at my job, unless the people who work for me succeed at theirs.
    In turn, my manager can't succeed at his job, unless I succeed at
    mine.   The people who work for me know this,  and I make sure that
    they know that any success I have (organizational goals, personal
    goals, reputation, salary increases, etc.) is due in large part
    to THEIR work.  As long as the "chain of command" of which I am
    part continues to set goals for the good of the company, this is
    a very nice situation.   As soon as just _one_ person in the chain
    (my people, me, my manager, my manager's manager, my manager's
    manager's manager, etc.) starts striving for personal/career goals
    instead of Digital's goals, the whole chain breaks down, and all
    our hard work goes down the toilet.
    
    The visions are there, and there are 127,000 people who want very
    badly to achieve success for DEC.   All it takes is one strategically
    placed egomaniac or corporate politician (in the negative sense)
    to detach an entire organization -- thousands of people -- from
    the corporate goals.   It's like a house of cards.  It all comes
    tumbling down.
    
    -DM-

    re .-1

    I agree about the chain being as strong as its weakest link. What I
    was intimating, but trying to say somewhat euphamistically, is that
    there are people at Digital who really don't care about what the best
    thing is for DEC and aren't willing to lift a finger if it doesn't
    make them look good on their metircs or goals. And that situation will
    not change until we

    	-  value quality management more than meeting metrics

    	-  reward committment to doing the right thing for DEC

    This is not rocket science. It's pretty easy to figure out who cares
    about DEC and who doesn't.

    /Petes

    re .43 and .44:  You make some excellent points, but I believe you have
    the scenario running in reverse.  Every excellent manager I have worked
    for, with or had knowledge of, did everything possible to make his/her
    employees successful(or look good, as you prefer).  While it may appear
    to be a subtle difference, the results will take a quantum leap to the
    positive.  Think about Tom Lasorda of the Dodgers.  He never looks good
    (even after his fantastic weight loss), but he has made a variety of
    players look great, and the Dodger organization continues to win. 
    Others, like Billy Martin (God rest his soul) never achieved the same
    success, but many believed he was a much better baseball manager, which 
    he may have been - but Billy wanted his players to make him look good. 
    My personal management approach has always been the "Water carrier, for
    my people" - my job has always been to remove the obstacles in the way
    of my people performing their jobs.  Both Billy and Tommy wanted their
    respective organizations to win, but that is not enough!  Managers must
    make their people successful!

    re .44:
    
>    make them look good on their metircs or goals. And that situation will
>    not change until we
>
>    	-  value quality management more than meeting metrics
>
>    	-  reward committment to doing the right thing for DEC

    re .45:
    
>    I believe you have
>    the scenario running in reverse.  Every excellent manager I have worked
>    for, with or had knowledge of, did everything possible to make his/her
>    employees successful(or look good, as you prefer).  
    
    I think just about ANYONE (at least in the field) can cite one or more
    examples where what your are saying is seriously lacking.  
    
    How do we get managers to pay more than lip service to customer
    satisfaction and actually reward those people that bring in the high
    satisfaction ratings?  To treat their employees with respect rather
    than as fodder to be thrown into any assignment that generates revenue
    - regardless of the effect on the employee or his/her career?  
    
    The question is, what can be done from underneath to get the "quality
    management" and "rewards for committment"?

    re .last several

    We've digressed into two issues here, one of management and one of
    teamwork.

    I was a "real" manager before DEC, and also spent a couple of years
    as a manager in DEC. The primary role of a manager is to insure the
    success of his/her people (so as to also insure their own success).
    And attending to the needs of their people is how they accomplish this.

    Teamwork between organizations is an entirely different matter. There
    seems to be a spirit of organizational egotism, like, "We don't need
    organization X to help us. They're incompetent boobs anyway." Or, "We've
    got more computational power in our workstations, combined, than on the
    Area cluster. We don't need a support organization."

    Or, finally, "That's organization X's job. If they can't do it, tough
    shit, we have enough problems of our own to solve. It's not our problem.
    STAY OUT OF IT."

    My take on this is htat unless there is a demonstrable short term point
    benefit to both organizations involved, management actively dissuades 
    people from working together across organizations.

    From my own experience, I wrote a software services "Survival Guide."
    Now, it's spread by word of mouth far enough that in the last version I
    implemented means for customizing "local" editions, and I have a mailing
    interest list that includes the U.S. and Europe.

    My plans for the guide include: incorporating orientation materials from
    the engineering new hire training program (I have a copy of their stuff,
    they have a copy of mine), synthesizing an expanded edition combined with
    a resource "pointer" guide produced by someone in Europe, and providing
    both as a VTX service.

    My district management, however, views the guide as a failure because
    all they see is a loosely organized compendium. Further, I have, and
    continue, to do it on my own personal time [the last edition took over
    100 hours] because then I have to answer to no one about what I am doing
    with it or what direction I'm taking it. If this were an "official"
    activity, how far do you think I would get spending time to make it
    accessible to and usable by people in other areas and organizations?
    NOWHERE. It doesn't matter that poeple in other organizations might be able
    to provide me with help, suggestions, or materials to improve my product.

    It's this myopic and parochial attitude that will spell doom for DEC
    unless it's changed. 


    /Peters

re .44:

>>> And that situation will
>>> not change until we
>>>
>>> 	-  value quality management more than meeting metrics.
>>> 	-  reward committment to doing the right thing for DEC.

Philip Crosby, the quality guru, likes to point out that everyone is in
favour of "quality", but very few people can offer a useful or practical
definition of it.

Crosby's answer is that quality is simply "conformance to requirements".
It's a concept that has an appealing simplicity. Essentially, it means
that if everyone does their bit adequately (not superlatively), the
organisation as a whole will be successful. I really believe this is
the original meaning of "do what's right" (which has since become somewhat
abused).

There's a big assumption in Crosby's definition: that if everybody does
their part right, the whole operation will be done right. And that is the
responsibility of management. Perhaps the second most important statement
Crosby makes is that management always thinks a "quality program" means
a drive to "motivate" the employees. He always has to explain it really
means that management themselves make a commitment to quality, in the
sense that they don't rate everything else more important.

So I feel that "quality management" SHOULD mean "meeting metrics". But they
have to be the right metrics, and they're NOT. Managers have to throw away
their blinkers, and stop believing they can reduce their job to comparing
numbers. Computers can do that much better and faster anyway.

Managers have to accept the responsibility for deciding what's good and what's
bad. Sure, they can use the numbers to argue with each other, but they
must accept the responsibility for making up their own minds using the
numbers, among other things, as evidence.

re .45,.46:

The foregoing implies that the way to get managers to support their people,
to act as "water carriers", to seek genuine customer satisfaction, etc., is
simply to get THEIR managers to do the same for them! Every manager should
KNOW what goes on in his organisation, not just down to his direct reports,
but all the way down, and should accept responsibility for it.

One last Crosbyism before I stop. Asked how to diagnose the health of a
company using a quick and dirty test, he stated two measures:

	(1) Are calls returned promptly, without exception?

	(2) Do meetings start on time, without exception?

I rest my case.

/Tom

    re - .47
    
    I can sympathize with your situation.  A manager at my site was
    involved in a special team which was attempting to consolidate
    documentation used by production operators (Job Breakdowns, Eng
    Specs, Quality Specs, MCO's) into a 2-page handout.  That way every
    operator on the floor would have their own copy.  I suggested that this
    information be stored on a system that could be accessed by these
    operators via their terminals.  This way there would be 1 current
    copy of the information, and everyone would be using the same
    guidelines. It sounded like a great idea to him - I took the ball
    and ran with it.  It took almost 4 months of patting the right heads
    and stroking the right egos before I finally got the silly thing
    on-line !  This is one of the prime reasons why a lot of folks "in
    the trenches" don't make suggestions ... because they either fall
    upon deaf ears, or strangled by red tape.
    
    Is there teamwork at DEC ?		Not like there should be.
    Why ?				Many departments seem to think
    					that in order for them to "look
    					good", that other departments
    					must "look bad".
    How do we correct this ?		We're all in this together.
    					The department you help today
    					may very well save your hide
    					tomorrow.
    
    
    				Jerry ...

    - a few back to Pete Vecrumba,
    
    More than 100 hours of YOUR time?  What do you say to a manager that
    says you should be able to do YOUR work in about a 40 hour week with
    maybe a few exceptions once in a while?
    
    I think it must be a misunderstanding of the words "your" and "mine". 
    "Yours" has to be what we get paid for and "mine" is what I really
    (want to) do.  "Yours" is what we get thrown at, regardless of
    qualifications, "mine" is often how I get to accomplish it.  I suspect
    that many of us are not to open about how much of "mine" we have to
    spend to get "yours" done!
    
    Keep up the good work. I have handed your SG to a few.  There are lots
    of midnight specials going on in DEC that are not appreciated.  Right
    now I am thinking of FLIGHT in the context of a server/client demo
    tool.  Betcha KO has been involved in a few too.
    
    Fred
    

    A big idea about Digital that I've not been able to articulate finally
    came together when I read "Ken Olsen on Teamwork" in an ad that has
    been in print for about a month.  (This one is in the Harvard Business
    Review inside front cover Jan-Feb 1990).
    
    I think this company has an entrepreneurial, teamwork spirit.  The
    problem is that it's too placed too high up inside functional
    organizations to work.  Real teams of individual contributors from
    different functional groups working over weeks or months to achieve
    something tangible are indeed rare.  It's an exceptional event that
    pulls in the right level, skill balance, and number of individual
    contributors.
    
    The Digital team is more often expressed as a team of specialists: a
    team with a roster of 27 shortstops, or 27 left-handed relief pitchers. 
    The team owners are really the people who are a "team" in the ordinary
    sense, that they need to work as a team able to pick the "right" first
    baseman, left fielder, etc. to play one game.  Everyone wants every
    team to be "All-Star".
    
    This isn't a casual observation: this "let's build a team with some of
    my specialists" game is a plague throughout Digital.  When Digital was
    a smaller company the teams were built from functional groups in two
    management layers.  Today it seems that four or five layers of
    management are needed to form an effective team, and it's a greater
    nightmare to transfer all the functional organization metrics into
    clear and understandable team goals.
    
    Perhaps at one point this served flexibility, but today, the
    convenience of computer networking serves the impulse to negotiate
    assignments and organzational structure endlessly and hinders the
    formation of stable well-rounded teams. 
                                                                  

    
    I would not define teamwork as "doing your job well" and "doing what
    the manager wants" and "not making waves" as teamwork.  To me, real
    teamwork means a group passionately working AND CREATING TOGETHER to
    build something great, to achieve a dream, driven, with all members
    equal in owning responsibility to create and implement those ideas and
    actions in order for THE ENTIRE WHOLE GROUP to be successful, AND
    REWARDED, not just a couple of the members, or particularly just the
    manager who is moved upward in the ladder of power and compensation.
    
    Attached is my Employee Involvement Idea Suggestion memo I just sent to
    the corporate employee involvement suggestion box that reflects on
    this.  Any Digital employee has my permission to copy and forward this
    VAXnote to any other Digital employee as desired.
    
                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     18-Apr-1990 09:03am EDT
                                        From:     David Carnell @ALF
                                                  CARNELL.DAVID
                                        Dept:     Proposal Designers
                                        Tel No:   385-2901 404772-2901

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT @CFO )

CC:  Remote Addressee                     ( ALAN ZIMMERLE @CFO )

Subject: Cutting Waste Produces $500,000,000 in net operating income

If certain "rules" were changed, such as if there was equal profit sharing 
with no cap, and if there was true empowerment with authority, and if the 
bureaucracy and good ol' boy system were blown out, and if creatvity was 
mandatory in every employee, and if there was a driving passion instilled 
within every employee, and a few other changes in the rules, then I submit 
each of our current 125,000 employees could find and create, by LOOKING, at 
least one proactive idea for change that could cut waste and increase 
productivity, somewhere.

So I said, let's see how long it might take today to find a single way to 
cut waste and increase productivity, just by assuming all the above, and 
thus being "driven" to LOOK.

45 minutes.

I am standing in a long line at one of our facility's expensive Xerox 
machines.  Current person on the machine finishes and walks away, WITHOUT 
CLEARING THE SPECS SET ON THE COPIER!  Next person steps up, does not press 
the "clear all" button and just changes the number of copies desired and 
hits the print button.  Boom.  7 copies, about 25 pages each, run off, all 
screwed up, because the lens was set for 120%.  Person had to start over.

Wasted paper, machine cost, time.

This person finishes, and walks away without clearing the specs, just like 
the person before!  Next person steps up, changes only the number desired 
and hits the print button.  Boom.  Same problem.  Now 5 sets messed up 
because the spec was set at "staple" and this person did NOT want them 
stapled.

Wasted paper, machine cost, time.

Based on an observation of two samples, I deduce this is "probably" 
universal throughout Digital.  How many copiers throughout Digital?  
100,000?

Times say 20 instances like the above per day?  Thus 20 cases per day times 
100,000 times 250 business days?  Conceivably, five hundred million 
instances per year.

Derived proactive action to reduce this waste might simply be to put a 
yellow 3-M stick 'um over the print button saying "PRESS CLEAR ALL BUTTON 
TO CLEAR PREVIOUS SPECS BEFORE YOU BEGIN -- CUT WASTE"

Potential direct dollar savings just in paper waste reduction?  $250,000 a 
year?  Less?  More?

Much more?

Who knows.  Suffice it to say, however, there WOULD be SOME dollar savings 
and increased time productivity.

So I submit this idea to a Digital idea suggestion box.  Somewhere.

And say there was management support for massive ongoing "fine tuning" 
change and employee involvement and empowerment on all employees' parts.

Stickers would be up on all copiers within 24 hours in this building, 
because the idea makes enough "common sense" to at least "try it" to see if 
indeed it works.

Now let's say that literally and virtually ALL employee ideas go into A 
SINGLE WORLDWIDE VAXNOTES CONFERENCE (write topic only), plus tracking, 
implementation, and REPLY discussion by any employee on the system.

With all employees driven, motivated by the open equal profit sharing with 
not cap, they would be accessing it daily, or at least weekly, and the idea 
WOULD BE UNIVERSALLY IMPLEMENTED WITHIN 7 DAYS.

BECAUSE every employee is driven passionately to MAKE MORE MONEY FOR 
Digital so enough "EXTRA" is generated to create a sizable profit sharing 
check for themselves come the end of the year.

And with all such checks being EQUAL for everyone, interdependently linked, 
this pivotal change nurtures not only a driving passion to make more NET 
PROFIT with Digital's resources, both as a percentage, and in NEW profit 
via INCREASED REVENUES, and ensures that all good "common sense" ideas get 
looked for, created, and driven into reality universally, QUICKLY!

And it nurtures greater INTERNAL COOPERATION AND HARMONY versus personal 
competition up the corporate ladder.

Now some managers and executives may argue that this idea is pidling and is 
of no consequence and not worth "worrying" about as we "do our daily 
business" where we'll get BIG bucks via BIG sales!

Not when we get only small margins on our BIG sales.

Further, I argue that 1,000,000 implemented "little pidling ideas" 
exemplified in my example will equate to $500,000,000 just in reduced 
waste, which drops immediately to the Net Operating Income line.

But no manager is going to create them; only all 125,000 employees, 
individual contributors and managers alike, working as a single driven, 
passionate team can generate and implement 1,000,000 actual ideas, EVERY 
YEAR to "fine tune" the millions of moving actions generated by 125,000 
employees every day within Digital.

Can't be done?  Why not.  Toyata does it every year, and has for years.

Is this being done now Digital?

No.

Proof?  Call randomly 100 employees throughout the world and ask them the 
last time their manager asked EACH for their ideas to cut waste, increase 
productivity, generate new products and services and businesses, increase 
margins per sale and product, and increase our effectiveness in building 
markets, customers, revenues, margins and net operating income.

And then championed those ideas that made enough common sense 'to try' into 
reality.

Ask then each for details of all the ideas each has indeed created in the 
last ninety days and how each employee championed and drove his or her own 
ideas into reality.

I perceive you'll be lucky to find even a handful who are "looking" and 
"creating" and "driving" constructive CHANGES into reality to build a 
better and more successful Digital, greater than what is.

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR ANY EMPLOYEE TO DO THIS.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE RULES FOR EACH TO BE CREATIVE.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE RULES FOR MANAGERS TO ENCOURAGE, NURTURE, 
SUPPORT, AND DRIVE CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS FROM THEIR DIRECT REPORTS FOR CHANGE, 
TO FINE TUNE ALL ACTIONS WITHIN DIGITAL, INTO REALITY.

THERE IS IN FACT A  "DIS-INCENTIVE" TO DO ANY OF THE ABOVE.  IN SOME PARTS 
OF DIGITAL, TO BE KNOWN AS A PASSIONATE CREATOR OF IDEAS FOR CHANGE IS TO 
BE LABELED A TROUBLEMAKER WHO WILL BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY BOTH 
MANAGEMENT AND COWORKERS.

Thus, why bother.  "That's CORPORATE'S JOB -- they'll figure out and tell 
US what needs to be done and changed."  Just do "your job" and "what your 
boss says to do" and you will succeed.  Traditional career path for 
personal growth.

My continued argument: Change certain rules to change the culture to change 
the discipline in how Digital works and we WILL make LOTS more net 
operating income and LOTS more revenue and margins.

Imagine.  All employees linked into a living network of human thought 
focused on continuously fine-tuning all actions, and creating innovative 
new actions, all towards building every day a better and more successful 
Digital, far, far greater than what has already been achieved.

Regards,
David

The Ricoh FT4420 nearest my office automatically restores the initial default
settings after 60 seconds of idle time.
				/AHM

    So what, do you think is the best way to foster teamwork at Digital?
    
    (a) Centrally managed large-scale programs to create incentives for
    innovative and profit-creating behavior.
    
    (b) Forget about incentives, just flatten the hierarchy, and make it
    possible for real teams (ie those with a chance of winning a $10
    million customer contract) to form with no more than 1 layer of
    managers involved in team formation.  Make the real work of managers
    be supporting business, and not the manipulation of people, funding,
    and numbers.

    REF:  <<< Note 915.54 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>
                          -< A clear choice emerges >-

    So what, do you think is the best way to foster teamwork at Digital?
    
     (b) -- common sense says it will be more effective
    
    Regarding the employee idea suggestions on this subject that I sent to
    Employee Involvement @CFO, there must be by now about 200 pages on
    about 50 specific ideas for change.  Enclosed below is the condensed
    summary of 20 that I sent to the new U.S. Field DELTA suggestion box
    (IDEAS CENTRAL @OGO).  Any Digital employee has my permission to copy
    and forward this VAXnote reply to any other Digital employee.
    
                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     16-Feb-1990 04:05pm EDT
                                        From:     David Carnell @ALF
                                                  CARNELL.DAVID
                                        Dept:     Proposal Designers
                                        Tel No:   385-2901 404772-2901

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( IDEAS CENTRAL @OGO )


Subject: Suggestion #1 - Japan Inc and Digital

  After reading the translated Japanese book "The Japan Than Can Say 
  No" co-authored by Akio Morita, Chairman of Sony, plus seeing on 
  February 7, 1990, at the Digital corporate U.S. DELTA program 
  symposium the presentation by Digital's Ron Bourque regarding 
  Digital's "Total Quality Management Study Mission to Japan", it seems 
  that "Japan Inc" is imminently poised to successfully dominate yet 
  another industry, namely computers, much like they have come to 
  successfully dominate other industries, such as automobiles, optics, 
  cameras, and consumer electronics.
  
  For Digital to ensure its future growth, success and prosperity in a 
  global market, no doubt Digital executive management is considering 
  changes in the "Digital engine" to enhance better performance.  To 
  achieve enhanced performance in the least amount of time perhaps 
  would suggest that change be considered in "how" Digital works.
  
  If Digital has such a sense of urgency from what is happening in 
  Japan, and is indeed entertaining "evolutionary ideas" to ensure 
  Digital's future posterity that differ from traditional management 
  practices, then here for consideration are my 20 suggested 
  interdependent actions for changing the rules in Digital in order to 
  ensure -- in the least amount of time -- that Digital comes to 
  successfully dominate the computer information technology industry 
  over the next decade, rather than Japan Inc.
  
  1.  Announce that all Digital income over 15% Operating Income (as a 
      percentage of total overall revenue) will go into a single profit 
      sharing bucket, which will be divided equally by the number of 
      employees present at the end of each fiscal year, with each 
      employee then receiving an equal profit sharing bonus check.  The 
      benefits are that this interdependent reward -- with no cap -- 
      will nurture and motivate both greater cooperation as well as 
      greater creativity to drive vast amounts of good ideas and 
      changes into reality fast, all in order to grow more revenue plus 
      more profit via higher margins and greater productivity.

  2.  Announce that all employees will be measured monthly on their 
      qualitative creativity in designing, implementing and/or 
      championing changes, affecting both their individual actions as 
      well as ANY Digital actions by any employee, that will ultimately 
      lead to increased productivity plus to satisfying customer wants 
      more effectively, all of which will lead to more profitable 
      business.  The benefits are by measuring "qualitative creative 
      change" tied to customer satisfaction, lots of changes will take 
      place leading to a more successful Digital.
  
  3.  Announce that all managers will be measured monthly on the 
      qualitative creativity of the people under them (all levels), and 
      on their leadership actions in driving and supporting creativity 
      and change, all leading toward greater effectiveness in all 
      Digital actions in better satisfying customer wants and in 
      building a more successful, profitable Digital.  The benefits of 
      measuring managers on these two items, as a high priority, means 
      that positive change will occur faster.
  
  4.  Announce that any employee is invited to present a proposal where 
      he or she will create and drive a new business where they will 
      provide, sell and deliver a "value-added information service" to 
      any market niche where premium margins can be realized.  
      (Example: I recall that an "entrepreneur" in American Express (?) 
      consolidated into a single electronic database all airline 
      schedules and then offered a subscription monthly booklet to 
      business travels containing these schedules.  The business came 
      to be sold for around $450,000,000.  Per Tom Peters, Thriving On 
      Chaos, PBS series).  The benefits are the capitalization by 
      Digital on its information technology via generating optimum 
      profit by nurturing internal entrepreneurship in HIGH MARGIN 
      value-added information services, a growth industry of the 90's.
  
  5.  Post in a single Digital public VAXnotes conference (as a new 
      topic) each officially submitted idea, proposal, or suggestion 
      (via DELTA, SIX-SIGMA, I WANT TO CONTRIBUTE, etc.) along with who 
      is considering it, the outcome if implemented and the official 
      explanation if not implemented, and allow for further reply 
      discussion by all Digital employees.  The benefit is that high 
      visibility ensures that all ideas are seen, letting the light of 
      day determine what is good or not, and ensuring that the good 
      ideas are not lost in bureaucracy, politics and inaction.
  
  6.  Reverse-engineer Digital's business and marketing plans, 
      beginning from the final desired result: Digital wants customers 
      who willingly buy from us, who willingly pay us premium prices, 
      and who willingly remain loyal, because we satisfy their 
      information technology/value-added information needs and wants 
      better than any other alternative, providing our customers 
      premium value-added benefits with our products, services and 
      total actions of each and every Digital employee.  The benefit is 
      by working backwards, writing new plans, level by level, Digital 
      can create new "detailed action change plans" for more 
      effectively building a better and more successful Digital.
  
  7.  Turn Digital upside-down.  Take power from bureaucratic managers 
      that stifle creativity and change, and give the power to the 
      employees on the front lines (be they in manufacturing, 
      engineering, sales, support, etc.).  Force managers to begin 
      providing REAL leadership, doing what's necessary to help every 
      work to do his or her job better, to help every worker achieve 
      higher levels of performance, and to champion ideas of change 
      into reality fast that will lead to a more successful Digital.  
      Within every group in Digital, organize rotating councils whose 
      responsibility and function is to ensure good ideas for change 
      are objectively reviewed and driven into reality to fine-tune the 
      Digital engine in the least amount of time.  The benefit is in 
      empowering every employee to take ownership in incurring change 
      in how one's actions impact growing a more successful Digital.
  
  8.  Track and publicize the NUMBER of ideas being created.  Within 
      countries and functions, offer rewards to groups with the most 
      ideas created average per employee and as well as to individual 
      employees with the most ideas submitted.  To really spur total 
      creativity within Digital, offer a annual $100,000 award to the 
      employee with the most ideas submitted THAT HAVE BEEN 
      IMPLEMENTED!  The benefit of awards, especially a huge incentive, 
      is the creation of millions of ideas, ALL NEEDED in order to find 
      both the few great "gems" PLUS the hundreds of thousands of 
      small, subtle changes, all of which together have an accumulative 
      positive effect in realizing greater accomplishment as a 
      corporation.
  
  9.  Delegate all manager functions to individual contributors.  
      Re-name those who lead direct reports and organizations "LEADERS" 
      and make their NUMBER ONE measurement "qualitative leadership 
      ACTIONS" that lead to those organizations achieving both results 
      as well as change through enhanced personal efforts and actions 
      of each and every member.  The benefit is in holding leaders 
      accountable for providing qualitative LEADERSHIP results and not 
      "just" process numeric results -- Digital sorely needs thousands 
      of orchestra "conductors" who lead the musician workers to make 
      better music that gets and keeps paying patrons (customers), and 
      fewer orchestra "managers" who only track numbers and generate 
      reports that measure (a needed function, but one that does NOT 
      lead to musicians making better music).
  
  10. Announce there will be performance appraisals and 
      votes-of-confidence every six months by direct reports on the 
      "leaders" of their given group.  Leaders failing to win a 
      positive vote of confidence by the majority will be required to 
      immediately provide a action plan of actions that will IMPROVE 
      support of the group toward realizing and achieving changes 
      within every member's work that lead to greater Digital success.  
      At the subsequent next six-month vote-of-confidence of such 
      leaders, those leaders who fail to now win a positive majority 
      support will become individual contributors, and the group along 
      with the leader's leader will select a new "natural" leader for 
      the group.  The benefit is in giving workers the authority and 
      ownership to go in tandem with the empowered responsibility to 
      grow a better and more successful Digital via the improving the 
      actions -- and their impact -- of each and every group member.
  
  11. Announce that every employee will begin listening to every 
      customer contact, and will begin documenting that feedback, and 
      will begin moving that customer intelligence upward to where 
      needed in order that proactive changes be made enabling Digital 
      to become more responsible in matching Digital actions to 
      customer wants and expectations.  At virtually EVERY customer 
      interface between a Digital employee and a customer contact, via 
      phone or in-person, the employee will ask the following:  "Before 
      we end this meeting, I and Digital would like you to candidly 
      share your thinking on four quick questions, from which we might 
      derive recommended changes in Digital products, services or 
      actions, that would not only ensure that we maintain your current 
      satisfaction, but would in fact lead to higher levels of 
      satisfaction, all so Digital can be your vendor of choice, with 
      us making money via satisfying your wants better than anyone 
      else.  The first question: What are your likes?  Second: What are 
      your dislikes?  Third: What are your wants?  Fourth: What are 
      your further suggestions for changes?"  As this written feedback 
      moves upward through Digital, have all of it encoded into a 
      master hyperinformation database, accessible to any Digital 
      employee, from which patterns can be derived intuitively that 
      will give Digital new competitive edges.  The benefits are that 
      Digital will quickly discover from our six million customer 
      contacts exactly what must be changed in order to fine-tune the 
      total Digital engine, via hundreds of thousands of subtle 
      changes, to make more money via satisfying customer needs and 
      wants better than any competitive alternative.
  
  12. As the world rapidly becomes a true global village, the use of 
      information technology and value-added information services will 
      be the lubricant that drives the social evolution and development 
      of the planet.  Digital should take ownership of the dream that 
      "Digital will be THE dominant owner of the information technology 
      and value-added information services industry, bringing the world 
      together in harmony via shared, value-added information and 
      technology."  The benefit of a single, easily understood dream 
      would be to fire the imagination of every employee, motivating 
      excitement, change, inspiration, productivity and success to 
      achieve the dream, and in the process, build a better and more 
      successful Digital, and a better world.
  
  13. To capture at the moment of conception all ideas, offer as an 
      alternative to written submittal, a telephone electronic 
      suggestion box using voice computerization, where any employee, 
      OR CUSTOMER, can input their thoughts within seconds by simply 
      picking up the nearest telephone and recording their idea 
      suggestion.  Set up voice computer boxes by country and area.  
      The benefits would be that all ideas are captured immediately 
      upon conception, ensuring that none are lost while someone is 
      waiting for tomorrow to formally "write out" an idea.  Great 
      ideas can only be realized by encouraging massive amounts of all 
      ideas and ensuring none get lost and forgotten.
  
  14. To ensure that all officially submitted ideas via all programs in 
      Digital get seriously consideration, have the charter of every 
      group and idea council to take ownership of reviewing all ideas 
      submitted to them, taking the position that each and every idea 
      will be implemented if it "makes sense" that it "should have" a 
      positive impact on growing a more successful Digital.  For any 
      idea not chosen to be implemented or championed to another group, 
      every group considering it must provide a sound written argument 
      as to why not.  The benefit is the change of attitude from "If 
      you want an idea implemented, then YOU sell me on why I should 
      implement your idea" as opposed to a better attitude of "I will 
      implement your idea unless I can justify why not."
  
  15. Fix all salaries of all leader managers to a single salary point.  
      No raises for any manager unless all managers within that level 
      receive a similar percentage raise.  Make all additional monetary 
      reward for being in management take the form of a "special 
      leadership profit sharing" bonus that is contingent on Digital 
      achieving desired levels of success accomplished by effective 
      LEADERSHIP of all workers via managers who see leading people as 
      a "calling" and not a bureaucratic state of entitlement because 
      one gets an advanced college degree and/or claws one's way into 
      power with the end result being retaining that power at all 
      costs, putting personal agenda ahead of both the corporation and 
      the workers that are being lead.  The benefit is that the 
      additional monetary gain would only be achieved more through 
      effective leadership of one's workers rather than "politicking 
      one's way up" the corporate ladder.
  
  16. Have internal Digital "coaches" address all Digital groups every 
      six months, reinforcing each and every value and goal of Digital, 
      our common dream, and the concept of a single team of workers 
      without managerial or functional fiefdoms and personal agendas, 
      where all are working in harmony to incur constant, positive 
      constructive change in servicing and satisfying customers better 
      than anyone, all in order to realize a more successful Digital 
      that is greater than what is.
  
  17. Make it mandatory that virtually all manager leaders read weekly 
      the existing DIGITAL VAXnotes conference and the proposed 
      Corporate Employee Involvement VAXnotes conference (posting ALL 
      Digital officially submitted ideas).  The benefits are leaders 
      keeping in touch with the thinking of Digital as a single massive 
      team and that all employees knowing management is listening to a 
      common voice in this communication medium where all ideas and 
      opinions on building a more successful Digital have a platform to 
      be heard from for any and all employees.
  
  18. Advocate employees coming up with ways to eliminate their jobs 
      through eradication of waste or increased productivity methods; 
      and then to create NEW jobs and actions that might benefit 
      Digital in greater ways.  The benefit is to nurture employees to 
      stop doing bureaucratic actions that contribute nothing to 
      building greater Digital success and to begin doing or 
      championing new actions that will enhance the effectiveness of 
      Digital to get and keep customers, and to make more money with 
      our assets in satisfying customer wants.
  
  19. Throw out all the rules in personnel and begin anew from scratch.  
      The benefit is reduction in red tape and immediate discontinuance 
      of rules that stifle change and employee drive to achieve change, 
      more skills, responsibility and impact on the company (as an 
      example: an employee taking a higher level position cannot be 
      raised in salary for new skills, responsibility and impact unless 
      his or her "salary plan calls for it" or the hiring manager pays 
      the difference from moneys allocated for raises for current group 
      members.  This versus using for an internal candidate money 
      budgeted for the new position, which can be used when hiring an 
      outsider but not for an internal candidate!)
  
  20. Scrap existing customer satisfaction survey methods and begin 
      anew.  To ensure measuring REAL individual customer satisfaction 
      with Digital products, services, and actions, use bar-code 
      technology to create custom-tailored survey forms, letting each 
      customer contact determine for himself or herself the questions 
      to be asked annually by Digital.  The benefit of custom-tailoring 
      each survey to each contact, asking both quantitative input as 
      well as qualitative (under each question) is that the resulting 
      data offers optimum measurement on whether or not Digital's 
      actions are truly in alignment with a given customer's wants and 
      expectations, which the customer has a right to expect, if 
      Digital wants that customer to give us "all their business at 
      premium margins!"
    

re: .55

Any chance of a summary of the summary?  Say about three lines per
suggestion?  Experience says the best ideas are usually simple ones.

- greg

    
    REF               <<< Note 915.56 by STAR::ROBERT >>>
                         -< Betcha ya can't ....  ;-) >-

    >><<Any chance of a summary of the summary?  Say about three lines per
    suggestion?  Experience says the best ideas are usually simple ones.>>
    
    No chance whatsoever -- I'm metriced by the word ;-}
    
    Regarding best ideas are simple ones communicated in three lines, my
    opinion is that such a belief is a myth, perpetuated by those raised on
    incorrect traditional business school thinking that overheads with
    bullets and little substance somehow communicate better than detailed
    written or verbal dialogue and discussion.  Perhaps such brief
    attention spans are the result of too many Saturday morning cartoons
    rather than reading long books, fiction and non-fiction, that inspire
    the soul and lead one to think about change and creating rather than
    superficially accepting the status quo as the end all, meeking
    following in the footsteps of others.
    
    Donkey Oops -- should be a one liner bullet.  Let's see, how might we
    encapsulate the above into a meaningful bullet that covers what I just
    said and your attack of me and my writing style versus any meaningful
    discussion by you of the CONTENT and MERITS of one or more of my ideas
    suggestions presented...
    
        o  Don't worry, be happy
    
    Nah.
    

    Re .-1
    
    I didn't read your original tome because it was too long. Your .-1 took
    30 lines to basically say 'I disagree with you'. No wonder you're
    having so much difficulty in getting your ideas across. All the good
    ideas are buried in dross.
    
    Dave

re: .57

>    Regarding best ideas are simple ones communicated in three lines, my
>    opinion is that such a belief is a myth, perpetuated by those raised on
>    incorrect traditional business school thinking that overheads with
>    bullets and little substance somehow communicate better than detailed
>    written or verbal dialogue and discussion.

Perhaps, perhaps.  But I'm someone who might be able to do something
with your ideas.  But I haven't and won't read them *in detail*.

I get lots of ideas from lots of people.  There is too much to read.
You can accept that reality, or you can rail against it.

If you accept it, you'll condense your thoughts, learn how to consider
the other person's time, and recognize you're one voice in a thousand.
People pound on my door, ring my phone, and send me land and electronic
mail constantly.  I'm assaulted by sales on every front for everything
from deoderant to new networking protocols.  This doesn't bother me, and
I don't feel the least bit sorry for myself;  however, that doesn't
change how many hours there are in the day.

If you don't accept it you may continue to rail, and you may continue
to presume that the reason your idea is not listened too is the *other
person's fault*  (it couldn't be yours).  But in the end your words
will simply not reach the ears they need to, except by some good luck.
(Perhaps an idea will reach someone who isn't too busy to read it,
and give it the effective articulation you've been too lazy to do).

There may well be wonderful jewels buried in all those words.  Who
knows?

If you don't care enough for your own ideas to present them effectively
why should someone else care when simple direct material is available? 

It is obviously the right thing for DEC to scan as many new ideas as
possible and give them consideration.  The approach you attack as shallow
is, in fact, a very appropriate way to keep the doors open to as many
people and thoughts as possible.

Try and see things from other points of view.

- greg

ps: this note is an example of one that is too long.  If I felt that
    you would listen, I would have taken the time to write it effectively,
    ie., crisply and tersely.  You haven't indicated that you listen.

    I'm trying to help you, though I'm doubtful that you see that.

    I think it was Louis B. Mayer (of MGM) whose position on the problem of
    overly detailed proposals was, "If you can't write your idea on the
    back of your business card, don't tell me about it until you can."

    
    Ref:  .58 - .60 among others
    
    TEAMWORK MEANS VALUING DIFFERENCES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
    
    Sorry, I totally disagree.  I submit you do not understand the ethics
    behind Digital's Valuing Differences philosophy -- namely, that no
    employee, OR CUSTOMER, needs to conform to anyone's personal
    prejudices, whether color, religion, nationality, OR EVEN HOW ONE
    PRESENTS ONE'S IDEAS AND THOUGHTS!
    
    If I resided somewhere in Europe and wrote horrible English, you would
    probably chastise my spelling and grammar.
    
    The essence of my employee involvment argument ON TEAMWORK is that all
    ideas, either from ANY employee, or ANY CUSTOMER, need NOT "conform" to
    ANYTHING, and the value of the idea and thought should be evaluated
    100% based on content and on common sense on whether or not it will
    lead to a better and more successful Digital.
    
    And when personal prejudice emerges (you're too wordy, you're too
    critical, you're too radical, you're not positive, you're not
    positioned right, you're this or you're NOT that) then how can there be
    real teamwork within Digital among employees, and how indeed can there
    be real teamwork with CUSTOMERS when such attitudes pass from employees
    to our customer contacts.
    

    I would submit that, beyond any perception of being judgmental or
    prejudiced about someone's writing style or verbosity, anyone who
    submits an idea would like it to be read. Keeping that in mind, one
    usually tries to tailor the "format" (for lack of a better word) with
    the aim of getting the reader to read it and react.
    
    I keep thinking of the analogy of a resume -- the rule of thumb is that
    you want a resume to fit on one page, and have lots of white space,
    since it's appealing to the eye and gives the interviewer something
    QUICK to read.  Right or wrong, most prospective interviewers go
    through many, many resumes and realistically often read only the
    1-pagers or the cleanest formats.
    
    I view the approach to submitting suggestions the same way -- get your
    initial message across succinctly and quickly -- with the aim of having
    the reader interested enough to follow up for more detail.  The reality
    here is that people just don't take the time (right or wrong) to go
    through a lot of words to find the meat of the matter.
    
    

    re:  915.61
    
    This is not a "valuing differences" issue.  It is a matter of
    communicating effectively (and efficiently).  You have some
    excellent ideas, but if the audience you are trying to reach
    are too busy to sift through your lengthy proposals then you
    are not going to achieve your desired goals.  Perhaps you
    could begin each proposal with a short thesis statement (short
    summary, synopsis, whatever label you would like to attach).
    This would allow readers to quickly decide whether there would
    be a remote chance that they either agree with your position
    or could possibly help you.  You might reach more of your audience
    by trying this approach.

re: on being short & sweet,

	Here it is: Too much potential goes untapped within DEC due to
    a lack of rewards for those who might otherwise contribute their talents.
    The lessons learned by the world's centrally-controlled economies should
    be applied to the corporate-socialist intra-corporate bureacracies both
    within Digital, and with Digital and its customers.  The answer lies in
    the successful conversion of bureacractic corporate structures to those
    which are driven both internally and externally by free-market forces.

    To be competitive in the 90's, Digital should pursue the following goals:

	1. Maximize the potential market share of Digital products and services.
	2. Maximize Digital customer as well as employee satisfaction.
	3. Establish Digital as a leader in intra-corporate entrepeneurialism.

    To acheive these broader goals, the following subgoals must be achieved:

	1. Increase employee participation, effectiveness, and morale.
	2. Provide *rewarding* outlets for untapped creativity.
	2. Create an environment in which virtual teams of individuals thrive.

    Digital can achieve all these goals using the following methods:

	1. Reward excellence using free market laws of supply & demand.
	2. Utilize what we sell (computers & software) in solving this problem.
      * 3. Create a free-market economy of on-line information dollars to
	   facilitate the free enterprise of products and ideas.  This idea
	   (otherwise known as the Info-Market idea) is key to solving all
	   of Digital's problems.  See note #1024.102 in this conference for
	   the final (or at least latest) version of the Info-Market proposal).

				   -David P. McLure

re: .64

I read that one.  And I'll forward it to myself so I can come back
later to see the info-mart proposal.  I've been aware of that being
in various notesfiles (for a month or so?) but haven't read it yet.

I will point out that everything you've said has been said every
six months since I joined DEC 10 years ago, so if it hasn't happened
it's not because no one's said it or endorsed it.  (Actually, how
could anyone oppose any of that?).

- greg

    
    re: -1. Oh, yet another misunderstanding ! 

    This is a sort of strange verbal ritual dance. 

    Not a question of understanding but joining .-)

    Unfortunately this damn network brings all these jewels to planetary
    attention. 

    					Back to work, fight, fight, fight !

re: .66

We're you replying to .65 (your note said .-1)?

If so, I'm afraid I didn't quite catch your point.

- g

    Yes, to your note. Since several years I hear people repeating messages
    like the ones in 64. , infomart excepted. This file is full of a very
    strange selfrigtheous stuff as well. ( type "sea *.* deadwood" ).

    Not that the message is right ( well... it is ...) or wrong but this 
    constant repetitions make me suspect. What *is* the message ? Or is there a 
    message at all ? Maybe all this is a sort of strange ritual , that
    serves some sort of ( unknown to me ) purpose.

    I'm really seriously puzzled.

    		Wlodek 

I should have added in my note that despite the fact that .64 repeated
a lot of motherhood, it was one of the best repetitions I've heard.  I
saved it for future reference.  It has a nice punch to it by collecting
all those messages in a nice 1-2-3 format ... it might be useful in
re-invigorating the messages, which is what the long haul is all about
("I know y'all have heard this 1000 times, but it is STILL true), and
.64 did a good job at saying it.


What is the "real" message these days?   I don't know.  I think we're
seeing lifeboat ethics right now.  I also consider all the pain we're
experiencing to be a silver lining.  Little changes without pain.  We've
got the pain; it is a pre-requisite, though definately not sufficient
condition for improvement.

I put it this way:

	Until a couple of years ago we were enjoying the good
	times that come from the good work that is done during
	the bad times.

	We are now experiencing the bad times that comes from
	the bad work that is done during the good times.

	Let's hope we're doing good work again.

- greg

re: .61, Carnell

David -

Recognize that you are participating in a loosely moderated medium,
trying to attract the attention of participants with a limited amount
of time to spend reading this file in particular and notes in general.
By extension, this is the envirnoment of all of our daily communication,
both business and personal.
By entering a 300+ line reply in this file, you are asking for the
attention of each reader for perhaps 5 to 10 times as long as would be 
needed for a 30 to 50 line summary, which might include a pointer
to a more complete exposition of your ideas for those who wish to know more.

It is imprudent and impolite to expect hundreds of conference participants
to toil through an inefficiently prepared presentation without some
indication of its worth up front.
    
The burden is on you, the proposer of an idea, to communicate its essence.
This means taking the time to distill your ideas.  One hour of your time
can save hundreds of man-hours of your audience's.
If you won't value our time as much as you do your own, you, not we,
put your ideas in an antagonistic framework.
    
- tom powers]

RE: .61 David Carnell

	I'm sorry to say that whenever I see your notes and they are over
	50 lines long, I just hit "Next Unseen". Why? Because when I did try
	to read them, they took so bloody long before I got the point. (If I
	did at all) 

	If you can't catch the attention of your target audience in the first
	SHORT paragraph, then don't expect them to continue reading just because
	you've said "This gets better, trust me". I know *I* don't have the
	luxury of time to read 4-8 notes from you, all with about 300 lines
	of text. That's quite a bit.

	In this and many other mediums, if you haven't said it short & sweet, 
	then you'll never catch anyones attention and interest. Blaming us for
	not reading it just doesn't cut it.. We have real work to do besides
	reading Notes..

							mike

           <<< Note 915.71 by STAR::MFOLEY "Rebel without a Clue" >>>

RE: .61 David Carnell

>	I'm sorry to say that whenever I see your notes and they are over
>	50 lines long, I just hit "Next Unseen". Why? Because when I did try
>	to read them, they took so bloody long before I got the point. (If I
>	did at all) 

>	not reading it just doesn't cut it.. We have real work to do besides
>	reading Notes..

	
	You hit right on the head, Mike. Something I wanted to say for some 
time now. It seems like some people spend their whole workday in notes.

    You hit right on the head, HORSEY::GENTILE.  (And Mike, of course :-)
    The important stuff belongs up front where it is easily read.
    
    In school I was taught math via a precise sequence:  definition, axiom, 
    axiom, lemma, lemma, theorem, lemma, theorem, corollary, REAL_ANSWER.
    As with so many other things in life the "good stuff" was saved for the
    very end of what is/was often too long a buildup.

    That may be OK for school and entertainment but it is bad for business.
    
      John