Conference 7.286::digital

Actually, "catching IBM" is a bit like searching for the Holy Grail.
You might as well forget it.  Where we have to watch out is all the
littler guys (and some bigger, like AT&T) who are vying for a piece
of our action. 

In other words, the question in reality is what can we do to remain 
number 2?

			Bob Alpert
			Software Services

<flame on>

Bob,

I perfectly know, that IBM is difficult to reach. And I said DIFFICULT, I did
not say IMPOSSIBLE.

We are #2...While you are worried to "stay" #2, I get worried to get #1!!
Don't you think, that doing our best, to be #1, will automatically solve
the problem to stay #2??

So please, Bob, do your best for the company, to reach the goal of being
number ONE...Once that we will not have anymore problems, to discuss in
this file, then, we will be able to analyse, why we still are not number
one...But one thing is for sure: If there are no more problems to discuss
in this file, that moment, we certainly still will be number two. (and very
very close to International Business Machines)

<flame off>

Norbert (who_belives_that_we_can_do_what_others_did)

Do we really want to catch IBM?  Why??  Is big necessarily better?

	- Jerry

The problem is another Jerry.:

we do not want to reach IBM, but we want to get rid of our mistakes.
If we do get rid of our mistakes, then, sorry, we WILL REACH IBM!

A company like ours, has a potential, that few other companies have.
If we put into practice all our ideas, and if we really get rid of
our mistakes, then we will reach IBM.

Don't forget, that getting rid of mistakes, means approach to perfect,
and the company who is perfect, is also the best, and the best, is also
number ONE.

So ok. I agree with you Jerry. We stop trying to reach IBM, and we start
improving ourselfs, till the moment, where we will not have anymore mistakes
to discuss here. See you that day, to have a drink for being number ONE!

Norbert

this guy believes in his Company. That is good. Go on!

RE: -1

Sounds like a lot of liberal bull to me.  I always do my best job,
irrespective of IBM or anyone else. 

			Bob A.

you like this word, Bob, don't you ? :-)

Ok...let's clear up something:

I love my job! I love this company, and I do my best, to work in the company's
way of doing.

In a short time (I work for DEC since six month) I had the chance to know 
colleagues from all over. (States, France, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, Norway
and some other countries). I have been able to establish a general "feeling
of unhappyness" across Europe. Too many errors are made, and I, as a small
little employee, am trying to do what I can, to get rid of these mistakes.

So, my goal, (and it should be everyone's goal) is to improve myself, and by
the same occasion, improve Digital. It does good to me, to put IBM in front
of me. I like to have very high goals to reach. The higher this goals are,
the better my result is.

We are number two on the market. We only have IBM in front of us. If IBM is
in front of us, this means they are doing better then we are. So IBM is my
goal, because there are no other before.

So please, let me my little dream. It certainly does not any bad to Digital,
if one of his employee, wishes to reach IBM.

Norbert

re: "unhappiness"

	This is interesting. This feeling comes, to me, from the fact
	that in Europe, we don't want to catch and practise this DEC
	mind stating that it is impossible.

	HERE IS THE TROUBLE!

	Let's try to understand it, then let's try to practise it,
	instead of saying again and again that it is impossible!...

	I think catching IBM is a great goal. Even if it is not
	attainable. We should not make the mistake of aiming too
	low.

RE: .7	No one says you are not doing your best. In fact, most people
	will do their best. 85%-95% of the problems (according to
	W. Edwards Deming) in any organisation are the problems caused
	by the system itself. That system is what we need to get working
	at its best.

	We need to improve marketing, cut costs of production, increase
	quality, improve the order entry/delivery/invoicing system. etc.
	We have great people, it is the system that needs to work harder.

Alfred

RE: .7

Yes, it's one of my favorites... speaks volumes in a very concise manner! :-)

RE: .8

Just curious, is IBM's being number 1 based on units sold,  dollar volume,
or just sheer mass?

Seems I read somewhere (sorry, don't remember the source) that Commodore
was the world's largest computer company based on number of installed
systems (something like 2 million Commodore 64's worldwide, as I recall,
plus a million or so VIC's and several hundred thousand assorted other
models).   Of course, at $150 a crack, the dollar volume is not as
impressive as the sales figures would indicate!

Working to catch Commodore...

			Bob Alpert

I think they are number one in terms of dollars volume, but certainly not
in terms of customer pleasure to work on their machines.

Ask people in ZK who come from IBM systems, and you will be surprized that
IT IS FUN to work with VMS! and to have our network.

		"the network is the system"

Didier

In days of old when knights were bold before management and cya was
invented, Digital enjoyed a very high growth rate.    Mistakes were
made, but usually in developing the wrong products.    In general,
the company was run (I mean the people who contributed most) by the
hackers, who developed products, made them , delivered them etc.

Then one fine day, someone invented policies and procedures and CYA,
otherwise known as the system.    The system needs people to run it
and it's self-perpetuating.

I agree it is necessary to change the system, restore the enthusiasm.
This can only be done by reducing the bureaucracy (in US it's much
worse than Europe), transferring overheads to revenue earning, making
everyone much, much more entrepreurial from the top downwards.

We don't need control, we need support and encouragement.
Then we can beat IBM.  
BTW IBM's profit is greater than Digital's NOR.   IBM's profit per
employee is greater than Digital's.     Moral, DEC has too much overhead
(warm bodies :-).

	I would not want to see us become another IBM, with its not so subtle 
use of inefficient software to sell more hardware and incompatible lines of 
products.  There are worse things than being number 2.  On the other hand, if 
we can become number 1, and maintain our quality and pride,  GO FOR IT!

			Max

I heard a speech by KO in which he said too many years of good times were
not good for us.  We loose our ability to effectively compete.  I can
see where good times can lead to alot more waste.

I'm not sure we need to be as big as IBM.  We can be a very healthy company,
turn out good products at a reasonable price, have lots of fun doing it and
still not be a large as IBM.  There are some areas to improve, but I doubt
that improving those things will lead to the phenominal growth that it
would take to become larger than IBM.

I think the "Style of computing" mindset will help us become a
better company than IBM.  If we can make all our of products play well
together, without creating an enourmous bureaucracy then we will be better.

	KC

Re -1

There are a couple of problems with setting our sights low.

1) Our ability to communicate, to the customers, to the general public, and
   to the industry ``experts'' has been sadly weak. (Much of this point has
   been discussed well and widely in the Marketing NotesFiles.) As a result,
   we have not been perceived as a company that has carefully targeted goals
   and met them. I'm reminded of a few audio electronics companies. A Bang
   and Olufsen or a Tandberg can keep its reputation for quality quite well
   by working hard at making the very best in an otherwise glutted market.
   
2) Related to #1, there is a certain amount of ``grow or go'' in the industry.
   A company that does not show itself to be growing at the same rate as
   it had in past years is perceived to be falling.
   
I'm very impressed with this company, with its ideals and technical
acheivements. I think we make good stuff. I know we can make better stuff.
I'm not sure that years of continued success are the cause of the problem.
When contractions come, people tend to dig in their heels and play conservative
hands. We forget that it was risk-taking and innovation that caused the growth
and that it will be risk-taking that gets us out of the rough times.

kh
                                   -30-

Has anyone seen the article in the 15 March 1985 issue of Electronic 
Business?  It asks and answers the question, "If Digital is doing
so badly, how come they're still making money?"  The author, Norm
Alster, interviews KO and Win Hindle to ask this question and to
also get some idea of their insights into the company's progress and
growth.

From the sound of these notes, I think many of you would enjoy hearing
our leader discuss his company in such an optimistic tone.

I have a copy of this article that I can send to anyone who asks.

BIGMAC::CAMPELL
DI

Hi,

I'd be glad to get a copy of this just for me to sleep better... :-)

I really wonder what's to be done about Rainbow product line.

You can mail on PRSIS4::TREGER during week and PRSIS3::TREGER on week-ends.

Bye and thank you.

there is no more Rainbow group, and its manager has left the Company.
The group is now called Personal Computers Group, or something similar.

The Rainbow is far from dead.  In absolute terms, it has done very well and
continues to do well; we've sold thousands of them, more than just about
any other computer that Digital has ever produced.  Sales have continued
to increase slowly over the past few quarters.

In terms of our (and the marketplace's) expectations, the Rainbow has not
done well.  DEC is number 10 in the PC market in the U. S., not in the top
3 as we had planned.  Still, we have done far better than many of our
competitors, many of whom have gone out of business trying to penetrate
that market.

--PSW

  Re: 7.n and 129.n --> we are #1 for products and services, big
  will follow,
  
  Dave.

    We can all talk of catching IBM and protecting our own position
    in the market but to actually acheive that we must satisfy our present
    customers.  Even if we cannot solve all their needs we should instill
    the thought that we are doing ALL we can to do so.  This is the
    reason IBM has become so dominant in the computer industry.  Perception
    of being the best....
    
    Therefore, we owe it to our customers to give them the best we have
    to offer and perform 100% for them.
     

    interesting reading old memo's. Maybe we should learn by our mistakes
    and old attitudes. IBM just shifted a lot of people around because
    they are over staffed, not making enough money and having a lot
    of competion from the little number 2 company called "DIGITAL"
    Seems like what we were doing was working. Is it still working??
    Maybe we caught up with IBM in tooooo  many ways. I as an ex 
    ( 10 years ago ) IBM'er think we did, and not all of it is good.
    

    We got all the problems of IBM by 1990-1991 and have now 'reached'
    number 4 in the world, but we will be probably better for it.
    
    
    As was meantioned in the earlier replies by one noter , we were over
    manned and not making enought $ per employee.
    
    Lets hope the company is now fitter and wiser than before