Conference 7.286::digital

    	One other side affect that I've heard of, but have not seen in
    writting, is the product/service avoidance factor. For example, people 
    TFSO'd from DEC are finding their way into positions with other
    companies where they can affect the outcome of a computer purchase.
    
    	Disgruntled employees have the motive to do whatever they possibly
    can to sway the purchase decision away from their ex-companies products
    and services. What do you suppose the chances are that a "right-sized" GM 
    worker will turn around and purchase a GM product ? 
    
    	This is not to say that all "right-sized" employees will react this
    way, only that they are being provided a motive. In the end, it is
    certainly not something that is helping the domestic economy.
    
    	Ray

    I wouldn't think that every laid off DEC employee would be so bitter
    that he/she wouldn't want anything to do with DEC and DEC made
    computers. Infact, having years of experience w/ DEC HW/SW, their best
    bet is to support/promote DEC HW/SW for the good of their careers. Just
    imagine - if you are the one to get laid off, would you rather work in a
    company having DEC stuff or IBM stuff? 

Re .1

I have experienced what you have described first hand.

A former DEC employee was hired as a consultant to one of our very large 
customers.  They had a sizable VAXcluster installed which originally was
made up of and networked by 100% DEC gear.  Once this person came on board
he made sure that all the subsequent purchases for disk and memory upgrades
went elsewhere.  All network components (x25routers, terminal servers, etc)
were also procured from third parties.

Eventually, DEC lost the field service maintenance contract for the system
as well.  Ironically, this person spent most of his years in DEC in Field 
Service.

By the way, this person left on the first TFSO which was very generous compared
to what is offered today.

Never say never.  I estimate this person easily cost Digital a couple of 
million dollars worth of business because his recommendations were taken 
elsewhere in the account as well.

    re .2
    
    I agree.  Some of the biggest DEC supporters at the customer site where
    I am a resident are the TFSO'ed ex-DECies.  They realize that their 
    security and future is where their experience is.  The voluntary
    ex-DECies are the ones that are not so 'hot' on DEC products.  Probably
    the reason they quit in the first place was that they did not believe
    in Digital.
    
    bk

    They forgot one factor around 'remaining employee morale' - the
    'Am I next?' factor. That does more damage than having to pick
    up the work of the departed.

    Thanks for including these two articles.    It feels re-assuring that
    what you are telling higher management that will happen is not only 
    your view-point but experts are saying the same thing.   Though, these
    two sources did not handle the question: What will happen when the
    economy gets back in track and orders begin to increased on 'cost
    reduced' companies.  My guess, they won't have the flexibility to
    react.   Why, they will have lost the talent, experience, education and
    they employees left will have very low morale to give the extra mile.
    Therefore, the worst is yet to come and maybe in the 'good times' that
    all of us are for so long waiting for.   So, it is not over until is
    over !

    The comment in the Times article about loyalty slipping?  It has fallen
    flat on it's face in terms of a supported & nurtured value. It seems to
    exist in some of us but the tide of the river has turned and to
    maintain it, we have to swim against the current for the 1st time.
    Others - like most of us - are not so much loyal as now looking over
    our shoulder's at what is very often a highly illogical process coming
    straight at us, regardless of how well we do our jobs. If you're in the
    wrong place - watch out for the random number generator TSFO machine!
    Loyalty? What loyalty gives is what it gets. It has been tossed out the
    window as a value cherished by corporate America, only to be lauded if
    it happens to serve the bottom line philosphy at the time, which these
    days seems to be extremely myopic.                  

    
    I think there are ways to help Digital succeed, and at the same time
    create (for lack of a better term) a "skills-parachute" for yourself.
    
    As we continually move to open systems and slowly learn to use tools
    and processes that other companies also need (instead of DECentric
    tools and processes), we can effectively kill two birds with one
    stone.  I'll give you an example:
    
    It seems pretty clear that one of the operating systems of choice in the
    1990s will be NT (ok, maybe Win32c).  To both help Digital now, and to
    prepare myself for the future, I ordered the SDK (after taking
    advantage of the short-lived EPP 0% loan to buy a PC).  In my current
    project, I have been working 70-75 hours per week for the last 8 weeks
    because I really want the project to be a success.  The extra hours,
    though, are spent on learning tools that will be able to be applied to
    the Microsoft environment later, in case Digital makes an immensely
    stupid decision and lays me off.  The work I am generating in the extra
    hours will be used by the project, but I, personally, get the benefit
    of the skills developed.
    
    I am doing the above not because I am a glutton for punishment, nor
    because I am stupid.  It is, pure and simple, a calculated decision to
    increase the probability that I will a) succeed at the new Digital, or
    b) be able to find employment elsewhere.
    
    Comments on my approach?
    
    Glenn

re: .9

Sounds very similar to what I'm doing.

Bob

    re: .9
    
    That's what I'm doing.  I even had to upgrade my DEC system (long story) 
    so that I now have a Windows NT system.  It's up and stable at home.  It's
    being used to run new software for my group and will be used for further 
    software development.  And, I'm using my home system to do nearly all of 
    the work for preparation of a technical paper that I'm presenting at a 
    conference (IEA/AIE-93) on Digital's behalf in Scotland at my own expense 
    (travel, per diem, postage, slides and so forth) and on my own vacation 
    time this summer.  Things being as tight as they are, I had to agree to 
    covering all my own expenses without reimbursement in order to get approval 
    from Digial to publish.  But, I'm doing it because I think it's what's best 
    both for Digital and for my career.
    
    Steve

    
    re: .9
    
    	Anyone who is not preparing for the future, as you highlight, is
    making a BIG mistake.
    
    
    			fred deady

    Re; Base question.
    
    I personally question whether the recent layoffs in many of these
    American comanpies have laid off the right people.  In any large 
    organization, decision makers have to rely on data that comes from 
    others.  My experience in government (prior to Digital) has shown me
    that many managers forward reports using "situational strategies"
    rather than plain truth.  I saw productive and/or necessary people so 
    busy working that they weren't represented at the meetings where the 
    future budgets were planned.  At the same time, unproductive and/or 
    un-necessary people had all the time in the world to write impressive
    justifications of their jobs and next year's budget increases.
    
    I'm surprized I haven't seen the term dumb-size associated with
    laid-off the wrong people.
    
                                       Kurt

    Relax, by the time we get to 50000 we're bound to have gotten some of
    the "right"people.

	re .2:

>    I wouldn't think that every laid off DEC employee would be so bitter
>    that he/she wouldn't want anything to do with DEC and DEC made
>    computers.

	Bitter? They wouldn't have to be bitter.

	A friend of mine once worked as a waiter in a Swiss restaurant
	during a summer vacation from college. Since then, he has never
	eaten anything in a restaurant. You see, he saw what went on in
	the kitchen.

	Just imagine giving some of our presentations to an audience
	of important customers, one of whom used to work for us and knows
	the reality that lies behind the carefully constructed facade.

	To do it, you'd need to be more than usually hardbitten.

	/Tom

RE: -1
> Just imagine giving some of our presentations to an audience
> of important customers, one of whom used to work for us and knows
> the reality that lies behind the carefully constructed facade.

  All the more reason for us to "get real" and stop constructing
  facades. Yes?

    /se


    

I was at a Market Research company this morning - one run by an ex FMCG guy -
and he has a database of every IBM Mainframe user in the UK Geography (it
also has the contents of the Top 7500 IT user accounts - who all get surveyed
every 4 months - hence he has excellent data on the VMS base, the UNIX base,
the ICL base and all the related software/technology changes underway as well).

He said that 10% of all IBM mainframe sites are "rightsizing" - consolidating 
into fewer datacentres - year on year. 5% are downsizing onto other platforms,
primarily for new applications (either UNIX or PC LANs in sorta equal amounts).

PC LANs?? I guess this says a lot more about the fundamental weakness of IBM's
base and the vulnerability of key software applications running on their 
mainframes - far from all of them are traditional, mission critical, database
dependant legacy business apps.

We should have a quality marketing database like this. In the meantime, this
one is available to us for less than $60K/year with regular updates.

								- Ian W.

    Along with Downsizing comes the moving of fixed cost to variable costs.
    This means having fewer permanent employees and many more temporary
    people.  

    It's relatively easy to see the logic of this at a micro level, ie a
    single company.  The problems occur at a macro level.  When a recession
    comes, many people lose their temporary jobs and their spending power. 
    The same people will be financially insecure, even when working, hence
    less spending when in work as well.
    
    Maybe this leads us to the thinking that moving too many fixed costs to
    variable costs ould just be shooting ourselves in the foot.

    re .18
    
    Reminds me of a possibly apocryphal story where Henry Ford was showing
    the automobile union president a fancy new, heavily automated (for the
    day) factory.  Pointing to the machines, Henry grinned at the union
    pres. and said: "How're you going to get THEM to pay union dues?"
    
    The union guy looked at the machines a bit and replied: "How are you
    going to get them to buy cars?"
    
    /Butch

    .20 Hear! Hear!
    
    I wish I could remember the source, but there was one writer who
    pointed out about a year-and-a-half ago that those who force massive
    change on extremely large organizations - he was referring to Akers at
    IBM - don't realize that the effects of that change will be greater
    than they expect, far different than what they expect and well beyond
    their control.  His example of note was Gorbachev.  Now he can use
    Akers too.  Next year Bob Palmer?
    
    
    Don
    

    Any manager that will do anything -- ANYTHING to keep the job isn't
    going to give a tinker's flatus about helping employee morale.  I would
    not be surprised if a common attitude among upper managers is that bad 
    employee morale among the ranks actually helps.  Demoralized employees 
    will either "straighten up" or leave without the need for TFSO (or
    whatever it's called in any given company).  The metric du jour for 
    successful management (reduced headcount) will make (short-term) heroes 
    of those willing to make "the difficult decisions."  The time for even 
    considering employee morale will only be when "the economy improves"
    and they can rehire from a cheap labor force.  I think the problem pointed 
    out by the article in .20 is endemic to upper-level managers across different
    companies partly because they compare against each other to prove that 
    they aren't doing anything stupid.  This is all IMHO, of course ...
    
    Steve

    There was an item on the CBS Evening News tonight about how downsizing
    has backfired on corporate America.  Many companies have discovered
    that repeated layoffs have left them without the workforce to do the
    work and achieved only short term gains for the bottom line.
    
    A recent study by Arthur D. Little found that, of the management
    surveyed, 40% were "unhappy" with the results, and 45% were 
    "really unhappy" with the results.
    

    
    
    	That ok.. By the time we (Digital) get through selling off 80% 
    	of the company, there will not be too many jobs to go around.
    
    	And those of us who are left will be busting our humps from the
    	the time we get in, to the time we leave at night.
    
    	There are STILL too many employees (not all) out there comfortably
    	coasting through an 8 hr (maybe!) day. With (maybe!) 2 hrs of
    	real work to do...
    	

    Last wek's "The Economist" had three articles on corprate downsizing
    under the title "Corporate Anorexia".
    
    Makes for some interesting reading.
    
    (Maybe someone with as canner can scan the text... it's rather
    lengthy).

    something about how the work is still there with less people to do it
    and those 'left' are demoralized, etc...