Conference 7.286::digital

The most interesting statistic in the quarterly reports these last
few quarters is that the net revenue keeps rising but that the
net income keeps decreasing !  It looks as if the internal
disorganization will finally get us in the end.

I'm not in Selling but I can imagine that those who work their butts
off to sell Digital products and services must not be very strongly
motivated by the decrease in benefits to the company resulting from
their efforts.

    Is there any break down as to what the non-US contribution to total
    revenue was?  ie GIA, Europe, etc...  Some have said it exceeds
    50% of Digitals total revenue.  Is there any information how it
    breaks down or what areas are the highest growth areas?
    
    Yes, we in the field have to contend with the daily, weekly, monthly,
    and quarterly reminders from our management to bring in the bread
    to feed the masses.  Another way of looking at the "NET INCOME DLRS
    per EMPLOYEE" is 40,000 (Approximate field population) divided into
    "NET INCOME DLRS: 256,442,000" yield about $6,411.05, per employee
    net earnings for Q3.  Now that looks a little better, doesn't it?
    
    Come on DOWN... to the field.
    Les

    According to todays Globe, overseas sales accounted for 56.8% of
    revenues for the quarter.

re: .2

> I'm not in Selling but I can imagine that those who work their butts
> off to sell Digital products and services must not be very strongly
> motivated by the decrease in benefits to the company resulting from
> their efforts.

  Or, those of us not in Selling who work our butts off to produce
  Digital products and services might not be very strongly motivated
  by the decrease in benefits to the company resulting from _our_ efforts.

re: .3

>    Yes, we in the field have to contend with the daily, weekly, monthly,
>    and quarterly reminders from our management to bring in the bread
>    to feed the masses.  Another way of looking at the "NET INCOME DLRS
>    per EMPLOYEE" is 40,000 (Approximate field population) divided into
>    "NET INCOME DLRS: 256,442,000" yield about $6,411.05, per employee
>    net earnings for Q3.  Now that looks a little better, doesn't it?
    
   Well, on the surface, if you want to bend the figures that way, I guess
   my next question would be how you intend to maintain that level of
   earnings if "the masses _you_ are feeding" weren't around to produce the
   products you are selling?

   Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to turn this into a we vs. you or
   a field vs. corporate discussion. Let's just recognize that the state
   of the company's financial picture is not the reflection of one organ-
   ization's success or another one's failing. Yes - we have excessive
   headcount in some areas - I think that we're trying to solve that
   problem. One good way to do that (and still uphold the no layoff
   tradition) would be to enact a total, corporate-wide, long-term hiring
   freeze in _all_ areas, forcing openings to get filled from within or
   not at all. Now, who wants to sign up first?

   -Jack

    Jack
    	it is my understanding that a hiring freeze went into effect today,
    for the duration of Q4.
    
    Andy

    
    Well, I reckon that the two lines on the revenue chart will
    continue to converge as long as "headcount" is seen as the
    answer to any given problem.
    
    There's an organization I know of where hiring is done whenever
    there's an little increase in workload.  The same organization could
    have a select 15% or 16% of its CURRENT staff extracted 
    all of a sudden, with no impact on its ability to get the job
    done.
    
    As long as "Hire!" is the watchword, and Digital is seen as a
    charity ward, without regard to individual productivity,
    the problem won't improve....
    
    Steve h

Re: .7

>               -< Productivity plummets - so hire more people ! >-

How about this: "Productivity plummets - so hire better people!"

>    As long as "Hire!" is the watchword, and Digital is seen as a
>    charity ward, without regard to individual productivity,
>    the problem won't improve....
    
Yes, there has to be more attention paid to individual productivity.  Instead
of a hiring freeze, we should have a "hiring [ice] cream", to make sure that
the people we hire are among the most highly qualified/talented available.
Dollar for dollar, these people would probably contribute far more than we pay
them.

				-- Bob

    _HIRING FREEZE_, you got to be kidding me.  Digital in NJ is
    advertising for VAX SYSTEM V developers and support staff in the
    NJ STAR LEDGER this past SUNDAY.  Won't that increase expenditures
    rather than reduce it?  
    
    I think it's a great idea to move talented people around to more
    challenging positions but from what I have seen around here in the
    field, management would rather see talented person quit the company
    before they approve a transfer.  It's usually over some silly issue
    like "district truff" or "headcount" or "what R U going to do for
    me".
    
    I know I am blowing some "steam" but I think it is less productive
    to _HIRE_ new blood into the DEC culture and wait 6-12 months before
    they get DECsized and productive, rather than _STOPPING_ willing and
    able, talented and culturized DEC'ies, consideration from those
    positions.
    
    It's like throwing bodies at a problem that can be answered if you
    just look around.
    
    View from the Field,
    Les

	Sometimes we have no choice but to hire from the outside. I assume
	that the System V work is for AT&T and that it makes logical business
	sense for those jobs to be located near the customer or at the site.
	It may very well be that the only people we have that could do the
	job would rather quit the company than move to NJ. So we have to
	hire from the outside or turn down the business.

	There is also the problem of field people who would like to move
	but their local management is unwilling or unable to help. (That is
	why I left DEC once upon a time.) That appears to be less a problem
	than it once was. The main reason why it continues to be a problem
	is that hiring in new people for the field is not easy. We don't
	pay enough to 'steal' people. We also don't spend enough time and
	money on training so managers hate to lose what ever they did spend.

	Unless you make it easier for manager to get field people you can't
	blaim them too much for trying to keep the people they have now.

			Alfred

    I doubt that the key to the expense issue lies in hiring.  Sure,
    relatively unproductive people cost more and bring in less, but
    I suspect that the partial increase of costs due to this factor
    is much less than the extra costs incurred by the inherent internal
    disorganization.  For example, the needless duplication of effort,
    the lack of communication of necessary information, the
    inter-functional lack of trust and cooperation all contribute 
    an emormous amount to cost and lack of efficiency.  

    It is harder to calculate the dollar value of these "hidden costs",
    but considering that they are present in all three areas of Digital
    to varying extents, the total is very large.  Consider, for example,
    the effect of these phenomenae on the "number of days outstanding" 
    on the balance sheet and a rough idea of their value can be seen.

    The solution to this cost problem is not easy, since it requires
    qualities of management determination and outlook that Digital 
    has yet to experience.

re: < Note 784.11 by SHIRE::GOLDBLATT >

    I agree that disorganization, duplication of effort and waste are
    all costly problems, but I also feel that a long-term, corporate-
    wide, no-exceptions hiring freeze could help this situation, too,
    given the management qualities you alluded to. If people would
    just face up to the fact that, in order to hold onto the no layoff
    tradition and keep the business afloat, they _CANNOT_, under any
    circumstances, hire from outside the company (or increase contract
    worker costs inordinately), then people would find ways to increase
    productivity _BY_ eliminating a lot of the waste and disorganization
    and duplication of effort.

    I think that along with the understanding of that basic concept (you
    can't hire outsiders), we've got to change a few other rules. As an
    example, we have to be able to increase headcounts within organizations
    without being penalized. For instance, if a software group can provide
    x amount of support and leverage $y in sales with the addition of
    n people, than it shouldn't matter what their budget is or what their
    staffing limits are provided we have excess people elsewhere in the
    company. They should be able to do all the internal recruiting they
    need to. I mean, lets face it, the money all comes from the same
    place, right? We've all got the same signatures in the lower right-hand
    corner of the paycheck. So what's the difference what the budget is -
    people will still get paid, the only difference is they'll be more
    equitably distributed if they are working productively where they
    are needed, regardless of what the budget there is.

    Sure, we can say that it's impossible to get people to move to Joisey!
    That gives us a good excuse to ignore the headcount problems elsewhere
    in the company instead of using the New Jersey openings as a means of
    solving some of the problems. I'd be willing to bet that with the
    "all hands on DEC" program or some other creative initiative we could
    find more than enough people already in the company to fill the support
    needs of the projected AT&T sales (or whatever). (We might also find
    that with the right internal people we don't need the same level of
    support.) Tough to get 'em to go there? I'm not so sure about that.
    Then again, perhaps there are other ways of handling it. What about the
    temporary vacancies they leave elsewhere? Couldn't it be that among
    the 125,000 employees the company has that with a little bit of shuffling
    (which takes time, I realize that) those vacancies would get filled
    up (or maybe it would be found that they didn't need to be!)

    I've been managing engineering projects for quite a few years now. I
    know it's tough to deliver when you can't get the people, but it's
    not impossible. Work _DOES_ get done somehow, albeit maybe slower
    at times. Personally, I always feel better knowing that we've pulled
    it off without adding bodies.

    -Jack

    re .12;
    
    While I agree with your basic thesis, you also have to realize that
    a good part of our PSS business is done on a T&M basis - that is
    bodies translate directly into revenue.  Our revenue goals this
    year were such that we could just barely achieve them with everyone
    billable 100%.  We're being asked for a 50% increase next year and
    told that, by the way, there's a hiring freeze!  This doesn't make
    a lot of sense.  Moreover, transferring to our geography (Westchester
    County, N.Y.) represents a major increase in living costs to anyone
    in the company, so there aren't a lot of folks from the Greater
    Maynard area dying to transfer down here.  Any suggestions?

    
    
>    It is every individual's responsibility to develop and maintain
>    a marketable set of skills.
	
    
    
    	That's assuming that people have the knowledge or foresight to
    
    be able to predict accurately just exactly what is widely considered
    
    currently to be a "set of marketable skills" or what lies ahead in 
    
    the not so distant future. I would tend to believe that for the most
    
    part a lot of folks have a hard enough time trying to figure out what
    
    is happening today, never mind what may happen tommorrow and if we 
    
    guessed right, be ready for it.
    
    
    /ray.
    

    I don't think that developing and maintaining a "marketable" set
    of skills necessarily requires accurately predicting the future.
    
    Marketable skills and state-of-the-art or leading-edge skills are
    two different things.  One can certainly lag the state-of-the-art
    and still maintain marketable skills.  However, if a persons does
    nothing to improve his/her skill set over a long period of time,
    their skills would become obsolete.
    
    A person with obsolete skills is of little-or-no value to their
    employer.  They will also have difficulty placing their skills
    in an open and informed market.                  
    

    Given that maintaining one's skills *is* important, then why it is rumored
    to be so difficult for some SWS Specialists and Consultants in the Field
    to get Training on new technology and/or modern equipment upon which
    to hone such skills? 
    
    What I am specifically referring to are comments, verbal and in
    Notes, that:
    
    * Workstations are difficult - if not impossible - to acquire in
      some (but not all) locations
    
    * Training is difficult to get since some SWS units are unwilling
      or unable to incur the expense (often including travel) and/or
      forego the revenue (time spent in training is not generally 
      "billable")
    
    If the employee *wants* to upgrade his skills but "management" is
    relunctant to make an "investment", what then?
   
    If the skillset in SWS begins to seriously lag behind the "state
    of the art", what are the implications for the Company and its ability
    to sell "solutions" and consulting services? 

    Our present (hardly dominant) position in this lucrative market is not 
    helping Q3 (or any other period's) earnings...
    
    Remember when KO said we needed to become a software company? He
    certainly has the right vision but are we as a Company really doing
    the best we can to implement that vision?
    
    -    Bob
    
    P.S.	I am neither in the Field nor do I have *any* difficulty
    		obtaining the required training and/or equipment. And
    		that's one (major) reason that I'm quite happy where I am
    		(Corporate Finance).
    
    		I do feel compassionate towards my brothers in the Field,
    		however, and am concerned about maintaining our ability
    		to compete in the highly lucrative systems consulting market...

re: .17,
    
>    * Training is difficult to get since some SWS units are unwilling
>      or unable to incur the expense (often including travel) and/or
>      forego the revenue (time spent in training is not generally 
>      "billable")

	This is not a new problem.  Years ago, IVIS (Interactive Video
    Information System) was introduced as a means of providing internal
    on-site training for both hardware and software products, as well as 
    new technologies, techniques, and methodologies, etc.  Thousands of
    dollars are saved each year by Field Service Training for example
    which utilizes a large percentage of IVIS courseware as an alternative
    to flying field service technicians into Bedford, Colorado Springs,
    etc., for training.

	IVIS was ahead of its time, and now time has caught-up to IVIS.
    Since IVIS runs on a Pro-300 series computer (with the IVIS backpack),
    it is now undergoing an evolution.  The old Pro/IVIS workstations are
    still in widespread use across the corporation, but while IVIS courses
    continue to be developed, the rate of new courses being produced
    has been drastically decreased from its peak in earlier years.

	Soon, however, IVIS (or some variant of IVIS) should once again
    appear on some sort of new DEC hardware and a new will once again
    provide a viable alternative to live training.  It is important that
    the IVIS evolution be given the attention it deserves so that it will
    succeed: please contact either myself (David P. McLure) or Lee T. Davy
    (PSYCHE::DAVY) here at the IVIS Technology Center in PK03 for more
    information.

				    -davo

Re:   784.13                     -< PSS Woes >-
>    
>    While I agree with your basic thesis, you also have to realize that
>    a good part of our PSS business is done on a T&M basis - that is
>    bodies translate directly into revenue.  Our revenue goals this
>    year were such that we could just barely achieve them with everyone
>    billable 100%.  We're being asked for a 50% increase next year and
>    told that, by the way, there's a hiring freeze!  This doesn't make

Well, the emphasis for years (not achieved IMHO) has been to move away from T&M
and resident business and move to the more profitable projects business.  One
way to make that happen (SOP in Digital's field it seems) is to change the
metrics (i.e. you WILL bring in 150% next year).  If you have to meet the
numbers, you'll change the way you do business to achieve it.  Of course,
that's the plan.  Reality has a way of altering the execution of the plan ...

                                    Steve

Re: 784.19: -< No problem, change the metrics and things happen >-
    
>Well, the emphasis for years (not achieved IMHO) has been to move away from T&M
>and resident business and move to the more profitable projects business.  One
>way to make that happen (SOP in Digital's field it seems) is to change the
>metrics (i.e. you WILL bring in 150% next year).  If you have to meet the
>numbers, you'll change the way you do business to achieve it.  Of course,
>that's the plan.  Reality has a way of altering the execution of the plan
        
	You're right: PSS is now going after the "projects business".
    
    	But are the metrics really changing?
    
    	When I think of "projects business", I think of fixed-priced
    	contracts for delivery. As I understand it, the Field is still
    	charging for actual "time and materials". 
    
    	The impression I have after interviewing at two separte District
    	Offices in the ECA is a heavy emphasis on "billable hours".
    	
    	If the projects business were handled on a fixed-price basis,
    	I would suspect there'd less emphasis on "billable hours" and
   	more concentration on "delivering quality solutions, on time
    	and within budget".
    
	I agree with Steve's statement: "change the metrics and things
	happen" but I haven't seen any evidence that the metrics have
    	changed... 
    
    Bob
	                                    

>	You're right: PSS is now going after the "projects business".

Attempting would be a better word.  There are least three serious
problems: 

1) The "metric" method used to grade field managers is dimwitted.  The
most tangible evidence of this is the joke that customer satisfaction
surveys have become.  Field managers only care about the dollar that is
coming in today.  Doing fixed price projects requires long term
thinking.

2) Digital charges at least twice as much as anyone else does to do
projects (Gotta meet Ye Olde margin).

3) The field operates on the interchangable body principle (Read BODY
SHOP).  When a big project comes along you hire the people off the
street.

In short, any BOZOTECH or COMPUTER GALAXY can do the same job as DEC PSS
at half the price.  The only advantage that DEC PSS gives a customer is
that we have to protect our name.  Some companies could change their
name in an instant.  Of course that's not the case for some of our
quality competition such as Andersen.

John 

    re: .21's reference to Andersen Consulting,
    
    I hope nobody gets the impression that AA undercuts Digital on price.
    We cost about the same. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the rest of
    your points. 
    
    re: "Change the metrics and things happen",
    
    Quite so. Districts start calling plain old T&M business "projects". Do
    it enough times and, voila! we've grown our "projects" business by 150
    biziilion %! It is frequently quite a stretch to define, for example,
    the "deliverable" of some of these so-called "projects". I guess you
    could say that "time" is a deliverable, right? I've seen it done. 
    

    Time and Materials charging is safe. Your back is covered.
    You know you should make a profit. The only (slight) difficulty
    is getting your customer to agree to an open-ended contract of this
    type ...
    
    Fixed Price should get more business in - it is inherently more
    attractive to the customer. BUT. You had better be very good at
    Project Estimating, Project Planning, and Project Control.
    Perhaps this is why we still do a lot of T & M - or am I just
    an old cynic ?
    
    Mike Day
    

    On a business basis, selling T&M contracts is gold, selling FP is just
    dust. When I worked for a bodyshop, it'd cost us our gonads to come
    back from a customer with a signed FP contract in our pockets.
    
    - Andy

    re: .24
    
    I don't agree.  When you sell T&M, the customer is buying just the 
    "product".  When you sell FP, the customer is buying the product
    along with a service.

    Competitive pressure has essentially turned T&M into a commodity.
    Customers no longer see an added value in Digital when it comes
    to supplying bodies.  We cannot make our required margins _and_
    compete effectively with bodyshops, who charge half the price for
    ostensibly the same skill set.  We are reduced to selling our
    reputation, which does not work well (i.e. is not often of value to the
    customer) except for key contributors on a project.
    
    On the other hand, we offer an important service in addition to
    the product when we sell FP.  We are assuming the risk of failure
    for the customer.  That has a tremendous value which is enhanced
    by our reputation.  In fact, our reputation becomes an powerful
    way of leveraging this sort of business.
    
    SIB takes this one step further.  We price the product on the basis
    of what it's worth to the customer, rather than on the basis of
    our margin requirements (assuming the value is greater than the
    cost plus profit!).  We then guarantee success of the solution to
    the customer, i.e. we not only guarantee that the solution works
    as designed, but that it solves the problem it was intended to and
    that the return on investment (or whatever value metric was established
    before the sale was consummated) is met.
    
    If we are smart (and that is a big "if"), we will know how to evaluate
    risk and price it accordingly.  The end result should be margins
    and revenue in excess of what we can achieve through T&M project
    alone.  
    
    Al
    

    RE: .25
    
    Are the project team members and project management of FP Projects
    measured on "billable hours" (activities) or "quality results, on
    time and within budget" (deliverables)?
    
    Under the "billable hours" scenario, one could spend 40 hours a
    week "managing by walking around" and having a series of time-killing
    meetings. Because 100% of your time is "billable", you may be a
    "hero" to your management. But the project may not be getting
    annywhere fast. But who cares? It's T&M anyway! 
    
    Could this have anything to do with why we are not competitive with
    major systems consulting firms like the DMR Group, EDS, etc.?
    
    Under the "results" scenario, it matters not whether you spend 4
    hours, 40 hours or 40-days-and-nights; all that counts is what has
    been accomplished, its quality, timeliness and cost-effectiveness. 
    The more efficient you are, the more profit you generate (at least
    under FP). And that profit is a hard-to-beat metric of one's contribution...
    
    In my experience, I have found that the latter approach is far more 
    PRODUCTIVE than the former. Yet, much "management" in Digital today
    focuses on activities. Until people are primarily measured on 
    deliverables, significant productivity (profitability) gains will
    remain elusive...
    

    One point on pricing-
    
    	T&M is priced by the published price list and one has
    	to argue the 'value' based on comparisons with other
    	price lists.
    
    	FP is BOUGHT (notice I do NOT say sold or priced) based
    	on business decisions - ie. the perceived cost vs benefit
    	of the SOLUTION to the business entity of the buyer.
    
    You can do VALUE based pricing in FP (as long as it equals or exceeds
    the cost based pricing) but must do cost based pricing for T&M (to
    be profitable).
    
    Maybe this discussion should be moved to the PSS or SOFTWARE_SERVICES
    conferences?
    
    	-Barry-
    

    Ref .27
    
    "maybe this should be moved to PSS or Software_services"
    
    Not necessarily.  Enterprise Services Programs is essentially also
    marketing the same thing.
    
    If any conference, then MARKETING.
    
    However, I think addressing topics generally dealing with Digital
    overall and where are future lies, and how to get there, is as
    appropriate to DIGITAL as anywhere.
    
    Just my 2 (AGH! No "cents" key %^)
    

    re: .26
    
    Software management is not, to my knowledge, measured on "billable
    hours."  Units are measured on margin, revenue and customer
    satisfaction, roughly in that order.
    
    Project team members are, in a sense, measured on "billable hours"
    or, more specifically, on application.  In other words, if you are
    assigned to a project, you are expected to charge as little of your
    time as possible to administrative or slack time activities.  Any
    measurement of this must always tempered by judgement on the part of 
    the UM, as poor utilization can not always be attributable to an
    employee fault.
    
    "Billable" with respect to FP projects is somewhat misleading. 
    Revenue is claimed by a unit through accruals.  Simply stated, the
    price of the project is treated as a pot of money.  A unit claims
    revenue from this pot on the basis of time applied divided by total
    anticipated project effort, or essentially percent complete (if only one 
    unit is involved).  Note that the total project effort can increase as
    schedules slip, and revenue can accrue in a negative fashion as
    a result.
    
    So, I guess I don't see a problem with the metrics as they are 
    currently structured.  The measurement of individual contributors
    is and should always be dependent primarily upon customer satisfaction
    and objective assessments of their performance.  Managers should
    be measured more on financial performance.
    
    Al

    

	... me, I agree with Barry about moving the discussion, but then I'm
biased!  :>)

	As to some other points:

	First, let's separate HOW we get paid (T&M or FP), from WHAT we do (Con-
sulting Services or Project Services).  We can do T&M Project Services and FP
Consulting Services, if we want.  However, WHAT those two "deliver" are dis-
tinctly different, or should be.

	Secondly, I'd like get us, meaning DEC, out of this mindset about risk
on FP project services.  We are NOT "assuming all risk" on FP projects, else the
contracts wouldn't be so long.  What we are doing is SHARING risk, AND assuming
MANAGEMENT of the risk!  And you better believe the customer is paying something
for that management.  That's how the big-8s got that way!  If we do our job
right in planning, controlling, and closing the project, we will either avoid
incurring the risk as some expense, or can get enough advance notice to minimize
the impact.  For example, a full-time project leader as opposed to a part-time
one is on example of "risk management".  In my District, I also have estimators
apply a "risk person", or "risk stretch" to tasks, and price that time as a
"risk member".  But that's a discussion for PSS!

	Lastly, just to clue everybody in on how FP Projects are priced, the US
SWS Finance team has distributed a model that covers pricing of DEC personnel,
third party product and services, travel, etc.  DEC personnel are priced at per
call, undiscounted rates, based on skill level (SW Engineer, Consultant, etc).
The Area or District Finance folk can then see what the margin is by putting in
"cost" figures.  Other "expenses", ie, what DEC writes checks for, are entered,
uplifted by some %, and then an overall price and margin is determined.  The
DSWM then sits down with the DSM and allowance requirements are determined. Once
the necessary approvals are obtained for the allowances, then the price can be
quoted (yea, I know, fat chance of keeping Sales quiet!).

    re: about the last 10...  This discussion sounds EXACTLY like some
    things that got said here before the messenger got shot.
    
    Re: 19
    
>Well, the emphasis for years (not achieved IMHO) has been to move away from T&M
>and resident business and move to the more profitable projects business.  One
    
    Where?  It appears from here to be nothing more than lip service. 
    Corporate says "WE WANNA BE A PROJECTS COMPANY"...  But NOBODY makes
    anyone GO AND SELL THE DAMN THINGS.  And they aren't going to sell
    themselves.
            
    >I agree with Steve's statement: "change the metrics and things	
    >happen" but I haven't seen any evidence that the metrics have	
    >changed... 
    
    AMEN.  Sell hardware.  Sell bodies.  Sell whatever gets the MAXIMUM
    IMMEDIATE return.  I once heard a manager make the statement.  "I'll
    get the revenue this quarter.  Next quarter has to take care of
    itself."
	                                    
    >Quite so. Districts start calling plain old T&M business "projects". Do
    >it enough times and, voila! we've grown our "projects" business by 150
    >biziilion %! 
    
    It ISN'T just T&M.  Here, a SALES effort that involves demonstrations
    has a PROJECT MANAGER.  Upgrading a customers cluster GETS A PROJECT
    MANAGER.  You're right...  Add enough project managers, and everything
    MUST be a project.  Voila... we're a "project" company.
    
    re .25
    >Competitive pressure has essentially turned T&M into a commodity.
    >Customers no longer see an added value in Digital when it comes
    >to supplying bodies.  We cannot make our required margins _and_
    >compete effectively with bodyshops, who charge half the price for
    >ostensibly the same skill set.  We are reduced to selling our
    >reputation, which does not work well (i.e. is not often of value to the
    >customer) except for key contributors on a project.
    
    So what do we do about it?  How do we get sales to FOCUS on selling
    projects instead of thinking that ANYTHING that involves SWS, no matter
    in what capacity, must be a project?  How do you get SWS management to
    use the proven technical resources they have instead of creating new
    pigeonholes?
    
    re .26
    >Under the "billable hours" scenario, one could spend 40 hours a
    >week "managing by walking around" and having a series of time-killing
    >meetings. 
    
    Yup.  As in a conversation where a project manager tells a team...
    "I want to see 87% of your time billed to the project"?  Not, finish on
    schedule, not produce a quality product, not be efficient.  Just, bill
    time.
        
    
    Quite frankly, I don't care whether we give a fixed price or do the
    work T&M.  As long as we define, manage, and implement the effort, 
    develop the technical capabilities of the software specialists
    involved, and  pursue interesting, challenging software efforts.  That,
    and a defined deliverable, makes it a project.  And, for those people
    that like residencies we should have GOOD residencies, not the ones
    where the resident is a garbage collector doing the work that none of
    the customer's people feel like doing.  

    
    Re - several
          
    The customer is a bit short on mentions in the T&M/FP debate.
    
    Before I joined DEC I used to commission & pay for large amounts
    of software consulting/systems integration.
    
    If anyone wanted my business they quoted FP. I understood my budget,
    & the assumptions I had made in creating it. 
    
    I expected my suppliers to have done the same - if they were only
    interested in open-ended cheques they could go find other customers
    than me. I wanted a job done to a guaranteed spec/delivery/price.
    
    No guarantee - no sale. Why should our industry be different to
    anyone else I used to buy from?
    
    

I sat in a very interesting meeting a couple of weeks ago.  The meeting 
included salespeople from Digital, servicing one of our large accounts, and 
salespeople from one of our SCMP's.  The topic was a huge plant automation 
project for which the large account was about to develop an RFP, and how 
Digital and our SCMP could jointly go after it.  I had talked at length 
with the SCMP before this meeting, and learned that one reason they wanted 
to partner with Digital on this was that the systems integration was far 
more than they thought they could handle alone, and they felt Digital could 
bite off a big piece of it.  In other words, this was an opportunity where 
there was more than enough to go around.

Early in the meeting, and at least three or four times after that, the 
digital salesman made the following comments.  While the quotes that follow 
obviously are not his exact words, they are very close, simply because I 
was so horrified at what I was hearing that it became etched in my memory.

"I don't care about getting the systems integration piece.  We've been
looking at that ourselves, and, well, frankly, we've had some problems
pursuing it internally.  Digital hasn't ever done any of this type of
business and as far as I'm concerned, if you guys have done it before and
know how to do it, then you can have it all.  I just want to sell
platforms.  If I can sell 10 VAXes, then I'll get my run rate business and
my field service contracts and my residencies.  That's all I really need to
make my budget, so the systems integration piece is all yours." 

Unfortunately, this seems to be the attitude of the sales force at large.  
And I have seen or heard nothing to convince me that any real effort is 
being made to change it.  Yes, I hear a lot of *talk* about changing it, 
but I haven't seen any metrics changes to go along with the talk.  Maybe 
I'll be pleasantly surprised in July, but I'm not holding my breath.

							Pat

    Ref: .33 (below)
    
>>  We looked at that ourselves, and, well, frankly, we've had some problems
>>  pursuing it internally.  Digital hasn't ever done any of this type of
>>  business and as far as I'm concerned, if you guys have done it before and
>>  know how to do it, then you can have it all.
    
    
    Yes, I have seen and heard the same and more, and not all from sales.
    We have excellent sales people in ECA who are very good and are
    doing their part in selling projects and system integration business.
    But I am relatively new to Digital and I see a morbid fear of getting
    involved in any project business that is even 10% risky.  I came
    from a 100% projects background where I was involved in successful
    proposals for, and managed, projects from as LOW (!?!) as $ 15 million
    to over a billion dollars.  I have been a DECcie since DEC-10 and
    early PDP days and I know we already have the best iron in the
    business.  I came to Digital because it is a vibrant company.  But
    we have to get off our duffs and behave like the big projects boys
    if we want to be taken seriously by them.  Namby pamby behavior
    in front of SCMPs, customers, and competitors will only get us chopped
    off at the knees before we even get started.  I have hope for us
    if we start listening to the industry heavies who have come into
    the company with a cumulative experience of hundreds of years in
    the business.  We have to start somewhere and sometime and have
    to stop saying it has not been done before.  Most of what we have
    done since the '50s has not been done before either, so why stop now when
    we are so good at breaking new ground.
    
    
    Dr. Suchindran S. Chatterjee, SWS

    >> Namby pamby behavior in front of SCMPs, customers, and competitors will
    >> only get us chopped off at the knees before we even get started
    
    	VERY WELL PUT!  Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!