Conference 7.286::digital

    An excellent memo. I hope something positive comes of it. But the cynic
    in me fears that one of two things will happen:
    
    	1, Nothing
    	2, Somebody will start poking at the management in your
           organization and you'll end up suffering because you've
           disturbed the peace and threatened an empire.
    
    My reading of this memo is that you had the tacit agreement of your
    manager to send it. But I'm sure somebody will be upset.
    
    Good luck anyway. I admire your effort.
    
    Dave
    

    The Digital logo at the top of your memo does not meet the Corporate
    guidelines.
    
    A "picky" point, but worth mentioning based on the frequent recent
    memo's pointing out the correct format. 

    1381.2 :  I stronghly hope you are joking.  
    
    1381 : All of my support, wich is more or less nothing, for the issue.
    
    Regards,
    Adb  
    
    

    
    re: .3
    
    It's missing the (TM).

    re:.2
    
    GIVE ME A BREAK.... There's always gotta be one in the crowd.... 

    I really think this memo is absolutely accurate in most respects, I am 
    basically {suffering} going through the same situation. I fully
    sympatize with you. My point is, what the results of this memo will be
    and how we will know it. It is fine to make a point or two, but if the
    results are not made public to some extent...as my old philosophy
    teacher used to say "...it is an exercise in methaphores...". I hope for
    all of us {because we are Digital} Jack Smith read your memo and did
    something about...I think it is very important to eliminate this kind
    of problems the bees have.

  I was wrong.

  I fully expected that the *FIRST* reply would shoot at your use of
  the logo.  Instead, it took until the second reply.

  That speaks volumes about what's wrong at this corporation.  (Un-
  fortunately, the same principle seems to apply everywhere:  "Why
  should we strain our brains thinking about the big issues when
  there are so many easier nits to pick?"  See?  I'm doing it at
  this very moment!)

  There are tough decisions that should be taken.  They involve
  such DEC-wide issues as:

    o What markets should we be attempting to sell in?

    o What products should we bring to those markets?

    o How do we reach individual customers in those markets?


  And:

    o How can we engineer more quality into the products?

    o How can we build more quality into the products?

    o How can we support customers better?


  And:

    o What's a fair way to treat Digital's workforce (including its
      managers, *ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP*) if we fail at the items above?


  See anybody taking these decisions?

                                   Atlant

    
> o How can we engineer more quality into the products?
    
> o How can we build more quality into the products?

   	Choosing better vendors would be an excellent start.
    
    	/prc

    re:.1
    
    Keep this note informed if our "caring, customer oriented management"
    respond.
    
    re: .2 "package" material!             
    

    Beautiful .0!!  The bloated good-old-boy management structure in DEC is
    killing us.  I have no hope for any change, save an unfriendly takeover
    or something like that.
    
    The example has to come from the TOP.  F'rinstance, what does Win
    Hindle really do?  When I see ten of our God-knows-how-many
    Vice-presidents get a package, then I'll believe we might see some
    change....and then it has to ripple down through the whole company.
    
    My former organization is pretty clearly going to do some
    downsizing....at least it really feels like it.  They've got enough
    managers to run General Motors, plus a bloated headquarters staff.
    I'll bet a week's pay that not a one gets touched.
    
    ...BTW, on the Digital Logo thing.....that is very, very important.
    If you mis-use your own logo, you are laying yourself wide open to
    someone stepping in and usurping it.  The same applies with terms like VAX.
    Everytime someone bastardizes that word by misusing it, such as
    ".....a large number of VAXes", or anything like that, you create
    the same problem.  It is a very serious issue.
    
    

    re .7  There are tough decisons to be made....
    
    RIGHT. and the tough decisions are NOT being made.
    That is the worst part of it all. The only management
    I've seen is by procrastination and indecision
    especially in regards to layoffs and plant closings. 
    
    I think it's actually more cruel the way people have 
    had to agonize for over a year or more now waiting 
    for management to make the "tough" decisions 
    that should be done by now. DO IT!
    
    Is this the same kind of management that should be 
    saved at all costs?
    
    I hear the new magic decision time now is mid-March for 
    anyone under US manufacturing. In the mean time,
    I wouldn't go up behind someone in the plant and 
    yell BOO!  They just might hit the ceiling.....
    
           
    Mark
    
    

    Company Identity Manual
    Digital Equipment Corporation
    
    Logo guidelines
    DIGITAL Logo 3
    
    Correct Creation of a Digital Logo using Word Processing
    
    Although there are many ways to create a facsimile of the DIGITAL Logo
    using word processing programs, the following standard should be the
    only one employed to insure consistency throughout the company.
    
    Please note use of a TM is not necessary on items of stationery such as
    internal memos. All other uses of the Logo require a TM symbol.
    
    +---------------------------+
    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
    | d | i | g | i | t | a | l |
    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
    +---------------------------+
    
    
    One writer says "why worry about the big things when there are nitpicks
    that we can complain about". The use of the Logo is actually a big
    thing in terms of loss of TM, loss of company identity and other legal
    points.
    My reply was intended more along the lines of "let's do the right
    thing" than attempting to denigrate the base note writers comments.
    I might disagree with his comments about the over generousness of the
    TSO payments but not much else.
    
    BTW I take the comment about how hard I would be to work for as a
    complement.

	Well I do apologize to the corporation for using the
	wrong logo.  I don't write all too many memos, so I
	wasn't aware of any Digital standard header.  Next
	time, I'll definitely use the standard one.....


	-ps

    Me again.  I was really impressed with the new management structure
    (PBU/IBU/ABU approach) as outlined by KO in a recent memo making the
    rounds.  It sounds exactly like the kind of business-like approach to
    all aspects of our business that we need.  At all levels, you either
    make your numbers, or you fold your tent.
    
                          B - U - T
    
    I lack all confidence that it will be implemented in any manner
    remotely like KO intended it.  The management shuckin'n'jivin' must
    already be starting.  Anus-Protectus will be the order of the day.
    
    Reminds me of a statement someone made about Eisenhower when he moved
    into the White House...."Poor Ike, he's going to tell people what he
    wants, and then go back into his office thinking it will happen.  Poor
    Ike!!"

    Excellent memo...just think, a few more TSFO packages, and we
    will be left with only managers and no worker bees.

    
    Re:
    
>REGENT::PATTENDEN                                    33 lines  28-FEB-1991 14:14
>    
>    BTW I take the comment about how hard I would be to work for as a
>    complement.
    
    A complement to what? Their current job? Why would somebody want to
    work for you and do their current job, especially since you're agreeing
    that you'd be hard to work for?
    
    By the way I'm amazed that all people can think of talking about here
    is the Digital logo. Also as pointed out it explicitly says you don't
    need a TM mark anyway for internal memos. I bet the trademark is a
    graphic design anyway. You can't do a graphic design with a word
    processor. So I think it doesn't matter one iota that the base memo has
    '*'s around the Digital name.
    
    Dave

    People cant attack most of the substance of the letter, so they
    attack the form. Another case of the professional nitpickers
    who get in the way of really examining the detail by knocking
    it on the head by look. They are the same people that half evaluate 
    ideas and make a decision, create policies that massage the
    statistics because its easier than finding and fixing the root
    causes of the problem, who lop heads without consideration of
    who is being lopped so they can meet the broad numbers. A coat
    of paint on a rusty bridge and it will be fine.
    
    Those people are hard to work for and are proud of it. You spend
    so much time producing form for them, no one gets any real depth
    to what they do. If you want to talk about trademark issues, open 
    another note.
    
    John
    

    1381.2 sums it all up as to "what" is really wrong with this present
    state of the company. If that's all they have to "do" then they the
    manglers (no I didn't spell it wrong) really think they've accomplished
    something worthwhile during the day.
    A recent issue in Digital News stated we lost 7% market share in
    desktop PCs, I wonder why since someone Rocket Scientist had the where-
    withall to buddy up with Tandy Corporation. I wonder who got a "LARGE"
    xmas bonus from them, plus the fact I as JOHN Q PUBLIC could put
    together any DEC configuration using "industry standard components" 
    and still beat DEC's prices by a few thousand dollars here and there.
    Then the ivory boys have the brass gonads to wonder what is wrong with
    the present state of the company????
    I sincerely hope that JS takes credence to your memo and has the
    intestinal fortitude to really do something constructive about it.
    Lotsa luck and never mind the type of respondents who answered like
    in 1381.2. May the force be with you.
    
    	JOHN

    RE: .0
    
    >Removing the working force while maintaining the current management
    >will not improve our situation.  
    
    No, but we'll have lots of managers on hand to interview new
    applicants, when and if things turn around and we start hiring.
    

    General observation:
    
    If you identify a problem, it's alright to complain, but will it get
    resolved? No.
    
    If you identify a problem in a memo, you should also offer a remedy.
    This will help the reader know you understand the problem and may offer
    additional insight to fix the problem.
    
    
    Just a ground pounder.....

    
    Come on - give the guy a break. He was onlying try to point out
    something very important regarding correct legal form. If you want to
    kill anyone you should do the lawyers first for allowing something this
    stupid to mean so much. This only points out the danger of E-mail in
    that you no longer have someone who knows the "rules" and takes care of
    them for you when required. In the past your secretary took care of
    it and most people never even knew there were rules he/she had to
    follow. You should see some of those rules in the older companies!
    
    You know, if you had just posted a segment of code and someone pointed
    out that you didn't check a return status for a specific error that he
    had just run across and therefore thought you'd like to know about
    you'd probably file it away for future reference and not give it a
    second thought. It happens ALL the time! Let someone point out a
    non-technical detail and everyone jumps on the guy...
    
    -Ray
    
    ps the memo was VERY well done and right to the point. I've seen some
    organizations where the managers were just as technical as his/her
    workers so the ratio isn't as meaningful there but, in general, it's a
    major problem today in this company.

  >  You know, if you had just posted a segment of code and someone pointed
  >  out that you didn't check a return status for a specific error that he
  >  had just run across and therefore thought you'd like to know about
     [...]
    
    
    That's because I can see that getting code right really does
    matter.  Y'know, code is supposed to work and be robust an' all that.
    
    On the other hand, I can't see that putting stars around the company
    name on an internal, unpublished, electronic memo matters a damn
    to anyone with any sense.

>    On the other hand, I can't see that putting stars around the company
>    name on an internal, unpublished, electronic memo matters a damn
>    to anyone with any sense.

Perception is reality...  If some upper echelon VP cares about protecting
our corporate trademarks, then sending a memo to that VP with that trademark
misused at best will go unnoticed and at worst will serve to annoy him before
he even gets to the message.  In sales, and this is what this memo is, a sale
job, we have a rule:

  "Attention must be paid"  (thanks Tom!)

What this means is that you damn well better know what matters to your customer
and you better damn well dot your i's and cross your t's.  It is a shame to have
the customer tune out your real message because you were too lazy or too 
uninformed to understand about some "nit-picky" or seemingly trivial item that
may not be trivial to your audience.

I am not saying protecting the trademark is important to JS, but if it is, then
"attention" has *not* been paid in this memo.

The only reason I bring this up, is because there seems to be an attitude here
that "if my heart is pure and my cause is just", I will win...  That is not
they way the world works.  How the hell do you think IBM sells so many bleepin 
computers with the junk they make and we are still struggling to make a profit
with the gear we have (I assume most people agree that we have a generally
excellent product set)?

/mike (who trys to pay attention but get burned often enough...)

re Note 1381.21 by RBW::WICKERT:

>     If you want to
>     kill anyone you should do the lawyers first for allowing something this
>     stupid to mean so much. 

        You don't have to kill any lawyers as long as you have the
        common sense to know when they should be ignored.

        Bob

re the topic at hand:

> We agreed on the need of TFSO III if and only 
> if it was properly implemented.  

        Given the recent snafu's regarding the "virtual office" and
        biweekly paychecks, why would any employee have any
        confidence that the layoffs were "properly implemented"?

        In fact, why would we have any confidence that they were even
        necessary?

        I could pursue this line of reasoning to other decisions in
        which we might rightly lack confidence, but I'll leave that
        as an exercise for the reader.

        Bob

    
    
    	Would the MODERATOR please change the header to this topic to
    something like NITS RATHER THEN SUBSTANCE. Enough already on this
    garbage about form. The majority of this topic has been on formalities
    of letter writting rather then discussing the original intention of
    this topic. I think he's got the point. If that's all you can talk about
    then go to another topic and leave this one alone. This kind of
    discussion demonstrates the primary reason why we as a company are not
    producing and selling products enough and why customers consider us hard
    to deal with. To much infighting over detail and not enough effort made
    to improve customer satisfaction. Now lets get back to the original
    discussion.
    
    Regards
    AL ROOT
    

Could someone that is in the know, please put Jack Smith's address,
home that is, in here or send me mail as to his address.

I would like to write him but not on company hardware. Through the mail
is preferable.

Thanks Dave

    I think that part of the problem with managers not being
    proportionately laid off is that a head-count game is being played.
    
    Managers cost a lot more to shitcan than grunts, and what we are
    really trying to do is impress Wall Street, and that's fundamentally
    a numbers game.
    
    I also agree strongly that the bi-weekly paycheck and virtual office
    fiasco's made me seriously question if anyone is in charge.

    Coupla thoughts:
    
    As to the form of the memo, if sticking a (TM) on the memo is the
    biggest problem with the memo then hats off to the author.  Would that
    all my memos could have only one flaw in them.  
    
    I recall that after WW I the Germans were greatly limited as to how
    many men they could have in their army (or some such restriction).  So,
    what they did was train all their men to be officers.  When it came
    time to expand, they had the structure in place to grow.  So, there is
    a good argument for keeping a good management structure in place.
    
    The problem is that you need to make sure that you are keeping good
    people.  If you have top notch grunt level workers and not so hot 
    management, it may be better to go ahead and let go of management while 
    promoting the best and most trainable people from the lower levels.  
    The only way to prosper is to keep the best people.  And, the excuse of 
    not wanting to train is lame.  Training was THE KEY to the success of 
    the Germans in building a world-class army.  Training is one of the keys 
    to success at IBM.  It SHOULD become a key to success at Digital with all 
    managers encouraging constant and thorough training of all employees.
    
    
    Steve                             

    REPLY TO .14, that someone was Harry Truman.
    
    paul f

    To the author of .0 - you wrote an excellent memo.  Thank you.  I
    believe you've internalized some key values about helping customers,
    independent of organizational "boundaries".  As a Digital stockholder,
    I hope you'll keep it up.  Thanks for your sense of responsibility to
    customers.
    
    If you hear back from Jack Smith, please tell us?
    
    As to management being affected:  I suspect you can count on it. 
    One of my management 101 classes suggested that during "down-sizing"
    operations, all "support" functions get scrutinized.  Management is an
    example of such a support function.
    
    Wasn't it Ken Olsen who said that at Digital there are only 3 jobs?
    
    	- Build something
    	- Sell something
    	- Or help those who do.
    
    Moral: if you're in category 3, make sure you really are helping those
    in category 1 & 2.
    
    	/a_resident_of_category_3

    "As to management being affected:"
    
    Well, Today I heard two interesting things...
    
    1) Don Zereski rated his reports as 4s, due to the business's problems.
       (Note that the ISP will only be offered to 3s. Hmmmm)
    2) There still appears to be a question as to whether even EIS UMs
       will be 'eligible' for the ISP.
    
    Dave

re: .29,

>    I recall that after WW I the Germans were greatly limited as to how
>    many men they could have in their army (or some such restriction).  So,
>    what they did was train all their men to be officers.  When it came
>    time to expand, they had the structure in place to grow.  So, there is
>    a good argument for keeping a good management structure in place.
>
>    ...Training was THE KEY to the success of the Germans in building a
>    world-class army...

	Oh what a wonderful idea, let's model our corporation after that
    of Nazi Germany.  Surely this sort of elitism must be good for business.
    Let's see, we've got a product line (war machine), so who needs all these
    pesky engineers and developers anymore right?  TFSO is a good step towards
    this "Final Solution" but it needs to be done far more efficiently (ovens
    & gas chambers).  There is still far too much anarchy at DEC, so we need
    to tighten the grip (reign of terror) to get the products (trains) to
    market on time.  Lastly, we need to enlist yet more managers to perpetuate
    an (aryan) "Manager Race".  Good thinking!  With such a master plan, we
    shall surely rule the world!

				-Evad Erulcm

    re: -.1
    
    You've apparently missed the main point entirely.  The Germans and IBM have
    proven that (re)training and keeping good management structure can lead to
    success in organization.  To reject this proof because you don't like
    the Nazis or don't like IBM is probably not prudent.  Operating in a
    fashion that encourages limiting training, keeping poor management
    in place and ignoring those organizations that do otherwise has already 
    lead to the downfall of companies and countries.
    
    Another point to consider, how far do you think our space, science and
    nuclear programs would have gone if we had rejected ideas that were 
    developed by the Nazis?  I don't blame folks for having resentment for
    the Nazis.  (I don't like the Nazis, by the way.)  Even recently I heard 
    of a debate in the medical community about using the medical data gathered 
    on holocaust victims to help medical research today.  Though the 
    information is valuable and could lead to helping people there is conflict 
    with the idea of not rewarding the Nazis for doing their research at the 
    expense of human life and suffering.
    
    Back to the topic, I think we need to place emphasis on retraining good
    people and on keeping good management structure in place.  We should
    not let good people go simply because they are not yet trained to
    manage or to perform other useful tasks.  This is proven to be
    successful for other organizations.
       
    
    Steve
                                       

  >  If you identify a problem in a memo, you should also offer a remedy.
  >  This will help the reader know you understand the problem and may offer
  >  additional insight to fix the problem.
    
    
    If the remedy was any clearer it would bite you.
    
                                               Rich

    RE: .34
    
    Even though it probably is a "worm hole", I was interested in the
    digression about the details of the logo.  

I contend that it is not true that the Digital logo was missing
vertical bars and a "TM".

The word "digital" surrounded by asterisks is not the Digital logo,
it is just decoration.  As such, it is no more subject to debates
about orrect appearance than is the following decorative emblem:

	* * * * * * * * * * *
	*   w o m b a t s   *
	* * * * * * * * * * *

re: .36,

	I got your point.  You missed mine.  Tell me: who *won* WWII?

	You admire the organization of the Nazis, but if they were so
    perfect, then please explain why they were ultimately defeated?
    I'll tell you why.  They blew it because the very elitism that made
    their trains run on time eventually backfired and democracy prevailed.
    Many of the German scientists and engineers who helped to build what
    later became "Nazi Germany" were ultimately eliminated by this same
    Nazi elite.  Now you suggest that DEC follow the Nazi example and
    eliminate its own scientists and engineers so that the managerial
    elite can survive the tough times?

	You also want DEC to become an authoritarian dictatorship like
    IBM?  Do you actually think the DEC "troops" (not to mention DEC's
    traditional customer base of scientists and engineers who also take
    pride in DEC's democratic structuring) would ever stand for that
    environment?  You do realize that DEC was founded in direct opposition
    to such a structure and that the peer-to-peer environment of DEC is
    the very anti-thesis of the hierarchical IBM approach...

				   -davo

p.s.	...or at least that's how the legend goes anyway...

    re: -.1
    
    Where have I stated that the Nazis were perfect?  What is the basis for
    your claim that good organization and not letting good people go is
    the same as elitism?  Where have I stated that DEC eliminate scientists
    and engineers so that managers can survive?  Where have I stated that I
    want DEC to become an authoritarian dictatorship?  And, on what basis
    do you claim that DEC was founded with a democratic structure?  
    
    Before I can answer/defend you must define your terms and show me where
    I have taken the postions you accuse me of having taken.  As a start,
    may I suggest that a democratic structure for a business be defined.
    The phrase suggests to me an organization where all employees are
    considered to have equal voice.  The beginnings and history of Digital
    would suggest otherwise.  I might also suggest that organization alone
    is not sufficient to win a war, but that lack of good organization is
    enough to lose it.  As an example, look to our own American Revolution.
    It got so bad at one time that one of our leaders stated that if we did
    not all hang together we would surely hang separately.  And, the most
    recent war in the Middle East was said to have been made easier for us
    to win because of the impariment of the command and control necessary for 
    the Iraqi army to allow its organization to function.
    
    One other tidbit, the idea of swift and sudden air war followed by ground 
    invasion, which is not too different from tactics that helped us win in 
    the Middle East, is not our invention.  It's called blitzkrieg.  Yeah,
    the Nazis lost.  But, we still learn from them.
    
    And, how can it possibly make sense for us to promote a weak management
    organization and to send good people out the door because we refuse to 
    retrain them?  Sure, we can pat ourselves on the back for being
    humanitarians ...  while we wait in the unemployment lines.
    
                                                               
    
    Steve 

re: .41,

	If your main point is simply that DEC should try and equip itself
    with a well trained management staff so as to be well positioned for
    future expansion, then I guess I have no real qualms with this objective
    in and of itself.  Like you said, the tricky part is identifying and/or
    justifying the promotion of such a management structure.  I'm not sure
    I buy the argument that a good management structure alone is sufficient
    to position DEC well for the future, as I can envision the ideal DEC as
    a self-managing company of highly trained engineers, but then maybe that's
    basically what you are saying (coming at it from the other direction)?

	Instead, it was all of the horrendous implications which could very
    easily be inferred from your statements that had me climbing the tree.
    You must admit that your suggestion that DEC should follow the example
    of Nazi Germany in the way it restructures itself during these times of
    involuntary severance packages is a bit of a loaded gun wouldn't you say?
    I guess things went downhill a bit from there - sorry about that.

	As to DEC, IBM, and democracy (or lack thereof), well, I did
    say I was quoting legend there.  Obviously there is plenty of evidence
    to write many conflicting legends on this subject, but that's the
    beauty of a legend I guess.

				  -davo

    We're probably in more agreement than disagreement.  We do agree about
    the main points.  I note that these are confusing times and it's hard
    for us to direct our anxiety in the "right" directions.  On the one hand, 
    we want leadership.  On the other, we want more say in how the company is 
    run.  We're basically sending mixed signals to management.  We want them 
    to be strong and bold ... and to say and do just as we want.  Bit of a 
    conflict there since the collective "we" is rife with disagreement.  
    
    I believe that good managers are trying to achieve the best balance.  That 
    is, they are doing their best to make leadership decisions and please their
    bosses.  At the same time they are keeping in touch with their people,
    seeking the opinions of their people and promoting the ideas of their
    people.  In a way, that sounds like instead of a democracy (where we
    all have equal voice) or a republic (where we have representatives we
    choose who make the decisions), what we have is a benevolent dictatorship 
    (where our opinions and ideas are solicited but we have little to do with 
    choosing who represents us or controlling their decisions).  Golden
    rule applies.  (He who has the gold ...)   ;^)
    
    Steve

    RE: .0

    This was the third memo  that I have seen  addressed to Jack Smith, the
    first  from Julio Silva a second from  Paul Kinzellman and now this one
    from  Pratish Shaw.  All three have been  excellent, and all have dealt
    with basically the some issue, and all, I believe hit the mark. NOT the
    Digital logo  and NOT the removal of "good management".  But rather the
    excess of management.

    I am not  sure how  or when it  all started  but  I believe it was most
    likely with  the best  of  intentions and went something like this.

    Lets create  positions,  people/managers to  off load the non-technical
    aspects  of  the  engineering  functions  and  allow  the  engineers to
    concentrate  on  what  they  do  best. That  sounds great, yes? And  at
    first, it  probably  was.  So  lets  have some more, lets have, project
    managers,  product  managers,  quality managers,  sourcing managers and
    resource managers lets have finance managers and commodity managers and
    problem  managers, on  and on. Are  all of  these  needed?  We now seem
    to have so many that they are having the opposite effect. The excess of
    management  is now making it difficult for the engineer. It is stifling
    the flow  peer to peer  information  and  idea  sharing,  and  inducing
    errors.  It  has  striped  away that part of the job satisfaction which
    came  from  the non-technical  aspect  of the job.  And it is making it
    difficult for us, DEC to respond to our  customers needs as well as the
    market place in a timely manner.

    Digital can  not survive  without its technical contributors nor can it
    without good management. What it needs is the correct balance. 



    Mike
    

    We have "too many" managers for a lot of reasons.
    
    (1) Digital managers have skill sets finely-tuned to the way Digital
    does business.  Since these Digital processes cannot be found in any
    other company, the fear is that these skills are not portable.
    
    (2) Managers move in cliques that have established loyalty, comfort,
    and predictability.  These attributes are not as portable as technical
    skills.  Advancement in technical career paths is at least partially
    based on merit.  I have no confidence that (a) their exists objective
    measurment of managerial excellence and (b) it would be applied in
    Digital.
    
    (3) The biggest fear is that if serious examination and layoffs of
    middle management would start, it would really have momentum, to the
    point where (a) some managers would not have a job and (b) most
    managers would have far larger groups to manage and a tougher job.

    "Too many" seems to be a nice way to phrase the problem, but the
    real problem is "not enough"
    
    We have too many bodies involved in every aspect of the product
    development process, but very few that add any value.
    
    I know of many cases where we have middle managers in charge of
    large development efforts that have NO experience building products.
    
    We have Product Managers who can not name a single competitor, or
    if they can no features, pricing or plans.
    
    We have program managers who can not name 5 of the programs top
    customers.
    
    We have Quality Managers who do not know a products QAR or SPR rates,
    have not read test plans, etc.
    
    We have certification manager who have never built products second
    guessing project leaders who have.
    
    We have 3rd party relations managers who do not know the product
    lines, revenues and growth rates of the largerest vendors in their
    portfolio.
    
    We have marketing managers who do not know the size of the installed
    base, competition, and pricing.
    
    There are still a number of very talented, committed and professional
    people doing these jobs.  They are dwindling daily.  I suspect the
    motivation level drops when they see peers with no experience,
    producing nothing, get promoted.
    
    Granted many of these are exceptions, but a surprising number are not.
    For proof try to name a project staffed with more than 8 engineers
    whose first version phase 0 occured in the last 5 years that has been
    delivered on time and shipping according to the revenue forecasts.  OK
    any project. 
    
    For extra credit, name 5 HW and/or SW products that are making a
    profit and their margin rates.

    What we have too many of, I am reluctant to call managers.
        
    -kevin
    

    
    
    I wish "they" (the managers) would start a notesfile and sit there
    griping about what the employees are getting up to today, and why the
    heck do we need workers anyway. It would be fun reading.
    
    I think there is far too much lying back in the chair mudslinging in
    this notesfile, at a general amorphous target "middle-management". Bet
    it relieves a lot of bad-feelings?
    
    Simon

RE: .47

Maybe all the complaining is because there is a problem with "them"??

IC's can not move the company in a new direction (towards better
profits) if middle and upper management don't.  Think about it.  It
would take hundreds (thousands?) of IC's working together to get a
change that Jack Smith or KO can make happen with one statement.

No, this is not a manager bashing note.  I just wanted to point out
what should be obvious, managers have the power to make changes either
good or bad.

IMHO,
Lee G.

    re .48
    
    But after KO or Jack Smith make their statement nothing at all will
    happen unless those same hundreds of IC's work together to implement
    the change.
    
    So why not bypass the middle-man and just do it?
    
    	"Be the change you want to see in the world."
    				- Gandhi

    REF: <<< Note 1381.49 by 4GL::DICKSON >>>
    
    >><<So why not bypass the middle-man and just do it?>>
    
    You cannot bypass the middle-man because you will run the very real
    risk of incurring retaliation, from light to extreme, and you will find
    no one to protect you.  That's why.  My rose colored glasses have been
    broken; perhaps you should clean yours.
    

re: .48

David in .49 has expressed one of the issues very well.  Telling a manager that
there is a problem can be VERY career limiting especially if they are the
source of the problem.

My point was from a different angle.  I can spend all my time telling people
that package XYZ will solve the problems of all of the customers and I may
never convince enough people to even keep the product viable.  If KO or Jack S.
or Don Z. say that we must sell XYZ to every customer, it would happen.  That
can be one of the benefits of a Delta program; the ideas get raised to a higher
level in the management chain where they have a chance of being accomplished.

Lee G.

RE: .51

>My point was from a different angle.  I can spend all my time telling people
>that package XYZ will solve the problems of all of the customers and I may
>never convince enough people to even keep the product viable.  If KO or Jack S.
>or Don Z. say that we must sell XYZ to every customer, it would happen.

So why not just tell KO or Jack S. or Don Z., instead of all those other people?

--PSW

hi,
I just tried to send a small mail msg to MR4DEC::SHAW to comment on his
memo and there was no such user, elf reveals no such person. 

What happened? Are you still here, Pratish?

Concerned.

re Note 1381.53 by SQM::EZ2USE::BABINEAU:

> What happened? Are you still here, Pratish?
  
        Should this be a lesson to us all?  :-}

        Bob

>hi,
>I just tried to send a small mail msg to MR4DEC::SHAW to comment on his
>memo and there was no such user, elf reveals no such person. 
>
>What happened? Are you still here, Pratish?
>
>Concerned.

   Maybe it's because the last name is ShaH.


								Dave

thanks -1!!
eyeballs a little worn on this screen color.
8^)

n

    I'm happy to report - and squelch any rumors - Pratish still works
    here!  Sheesh, how easily rumors start!
    
    FYI:  his node has problems on occasion.  If you can't reach Pratish
    SHAH on MR4DEC, go back a couple notes, there's another address 2FLY,
    or something like that...
    
    Signed,
    One of the B4s!  

    From VNS and courtesy of the London Times 3/15/91
    
    New Element Discovered
    
    Physicists at the Harwell nuclear research station claim to have
    discovered the heaviest element known to science -- administratium.  It
    has no protrons or electrons and the atomic number is zero.  It
    consists of one nutron, eight assistant neutrons, 10 executive
    neutrons, 35 vice-neutrons and 256 assistant vice-neutrons.  Completely
    inert, it can be detected chemically because it impedes every action
    with which it comes into contact......
    
    ;^}

Re:<<< Note 1381.58 by SWAM2::HOMEYER_CH "No, but you can see it from here" >>>


Well the folkes at Harwell have been engaging in a bit of plagerisim...
(For the complete text, see note 1108.81)

Lee ;^}