Conference 7.286::digital

re: < Note 803.0 by DOODLE::MEAGHER >

   Hi Vicki,
      To put things in the proper perspective, I'd suggest that you get a
   copy of the video tape of the ZK or MR road trip presentation. The
   statement you are referring to was past of a bar graph presented by
   George Chamberlain. My impression of the slide was that we were lower
   than others on the chart but not "significantly" lower than many.

   -Jack

    Given the attitude shown towards Dl (production) from IL personnel
    in two of the three DEC facility's I've worked on, there's no wonder
    it's reflected in low productivity, at least in physical product.
    Of course that hurts every employee, but I wonder why people can't
    seem to see the obvious.                                        
    
    Bob

    RE: .0
    
    Productivity is measured in many ways.  One "norm" is to look at
    revenue per employee.  Listed below is the revenue per employee
    for DEC and others in our industry:
              Revenue                 Employees            $/Employee
    
    Digital   $11,475M	            121500                 94.4K
    IBM       $59,681M              387112                154.2K
    Apple     $ 4,071M               10800                376.9K
    Unisys    $ 9,902M               93000                106.5K
    HP        $ 9,831M               87000                113.0K
    Sun       $ 1,052M                7100                148.2K
    Apollo    $   654M                4446                148.6K
    Prime     $ 1,595M               12386                128.6K
    Wang      $ 3,068M               31516                 97.4K
    
    These numbers are from the latest Fortune 500 listing (April '89)
    
    Stan

    re: .3
    
    Actually, I think earnings per employee is a more meaningful comparison
    than revenue.  We could be at the top in sales/employee and still
    be losing money.
    
    Other than that, it is interesting to compare the top of the list
    (Apple) with the bottom (us).  Apple is probably our closest kin
    from a corporate culture standpoint.
    
    Al
    

re .4:
>    Actually, I think earnings per employee is a more meaningful comparison
>    than revenue.  We could be at the top in sales/employee and still
>    be losing money.

    So a company that's losing money should fire everyone, since everyone
    has negative productivity.

	See note 783.23, which includes excerpts from the
	FORBES 500 statistics.

	I don't know if there is a standard metric for productivity,
	but the two obvious candidates are "sales per employee" and
	"profit per employee".  From 783.23, here are the top of the
	list and then Digital:

                                          $k	   Rank
		Sales per Employee:
			   Apple	490.9	     1
			   Compaq	406.4	     2	
			   Digital	105.9	    13
		Profit per Employee:
			   Compaq	 50.2	     1
			   Apple	 46.4	     2
			   Digital	 10.4	     9

	There are many good ways to improve this ratio, and many bad
	ways.  Digital used to always increase Sales faster than it
	increased people.  Then in the period from about 83 to 87,
	there were strategic shifts in growth (how's that for a euphemism!)
	away from Manufacturing and toward SSMI -- mostly Field Ops.
	That was seen as goodness, because the technology shifts were
	driving simpler and smaller manufacturing operations.  And 
	in the meanwhile, the sales and service environment was getting
	both more important (as revenue contribution) and more complex
	(solution selling, etc).  So during those years, the slacking
	growth-rate and productivity numbers were accepted as the
	cost of the strategic change.

	It appears to me that the mucks now feel that the drop-off
	in productivity has the look of permanence.  That is, they
	expected productivity to rebound from the low rates of recent
	years, but they are not seeing it happen.  Hence, ideas about
	early-retirement programs are cropping up, along with other
	plans for "external transfers".  But most of the mucks realize,
	I think, that these are not an adequate solution.

	The future is still up for grabs.  We could be four kinds of
	companies.  We could be a service vendor, like a big eight firm,
	with a competitive edge gained because we also sell hardware.
	Or, we could be a mini-micro vendor like sun and compaq, relying
	principly on public software.  Or, we could be vendor
	of a broad range of niche products, ala HP.  Or we could follow
	the high-growth markets by selling commercial systems software
	and applications.

	Our inertia is to be all four of these options.  That is
	actually attractive, being diversified, but there's a snag.
	Our cost structure (that is, our administrative and organizational
	design) is suited to the company we were 10 years ago, when
	a 1 VUP machine was a big deal, and when we had at least four
	CPU architectures being engineered in-house, and we could build
	institutions and empires and stovepipes without burying the bottom
	line.  Contrast this with the companies that are built around 
	low-cost, low-end products who have a totally different approach 
	to overhead structure.
	
	So the management strategy appears to be: redesign the internal
	structure of the company.  This won't be done via a grand plan,
	or by a bunch of O.D. folks designing new reporting structures.
	Jack Smith means it when he says (as paraphrased) "You tell us
	how to do it".
                                        
	In the past, most "excess headcount" problems were most visibly
	seen in manufacturing direct labor.  As production lines were
	phased down, the DL folks were trained to take on new jobs 
	elsewhere, as field techs or as specialists in new manufacturing
	locales.  Not this time.  

	The techniques to manage today's problem are different from those
	used to manage the headcount problems of the past.  The key will
	be to alter the expectations and operating norms of middle-level
	and line managers in all organizations.  Some of the expectations
	and norms that will need to change are:
	- "If you don't like the service you're getting from another group,
	  then do it yourself."  Such as, if you don't like their database,
	  create your own.  If you don't like personnel's attitude, bring
	  in your own staff personnel consultant.  If you don't like that
	  device driver, write a new one.  Replace this with the rule,
	  "Manage the quality of your vendors". 
	- "A successful career goes up the management ladder quickly".
	  If management is its own reward, then it will perpetuate itself
	  at the expense of the corporation.  Replace this with the
	  rule, "You must serve as an IC at each level before you
	  can be promoted to the next level".  (In other words, a
	  level 12 manager must take a job as a level 12 IC before they
	  can be promoted to level 13 manager.)
	- "Successful organizations will be rewarded with increased 
	  headcount."  And the worst part of this assumption is, that
	  a bad manager will look like a good manager, if they manage
	  alot of people.  There must be a STRONGER recognizable reward
	  for management success, to supplant this way of thinking.
	  Replace with the rule, "Success is rewarded with increased
	  budget for more/better services, better capital, better
	  training, etc."; or some other improved reward structure.
	- "Money for raises will be divvied up evenly among organizations".
	  I'm no compensation maven, so I may be missing the point;
	  but I think a manager should be allowed to give out bigger 
	  raises if the group has been effective.  Then watch the 
	  employees vote with their feet!  IMH(but experieced)O, managers
	  will jump through hoops day in and day out if it means handing
	  out bigger raises to their people.  So replace with the rule,
	  "Organization spend numbers will depend on the degree to which
	  the organization meets its strategic goals."

	Ohwell lunch is over.

    
    Toyota generates a million suggestions a year, from its employees, for
    improving quality, efficiency, effectiveness, etc.  All are objectively
    reviewed and all have a decision made -- and, most in fact are
    implemented. 
    
    Just asking employees will not be enough -- a system will need to
    be put in place that actively encourages creative ideas from EVERYONE
    where there is nurturing of those suggestions, and assurances that
    each will be reviewed objectively, no matter from what source an
    idea may be generated.
    
    If all 127,000 employees are truly allowed to participate in creating
    change, surely the brainpower in that many people could come up
    with a million suggestions, most of which are valid where most should
    be implemented, that would have a dramatic impact on productivity,
    both measured internally, as well as externally in the ability of
    Digital to get and keep a customer while generating desired levels
    of revenue, margin and profit.
    
    I recommend that Digital send someone to Toyota in Japan to examine
    and replicate their system of encouraging and nurturing employee
    ideas and suggestions.
    
    Just a thought.
    

RE: Note 803.7 -< Toyota and a million suggestions a year >-
    
>    Just asking employees will not be enough -- a system will need to
>    be put in place that actively encourages creative ideas from EVERYONE
>    where there is nurturing of those suggestions, and assurances that
>    each will be reviewed objectively, no matter from what source an
>    idea may be generated.
    
>    If all 127,000 employees are truly allowed to participate in creating
>    change, surely the brainpower in that many people could come up
>    with a million suggestions, most of which are valid where most should
>    be implemented, that would have a dramatic impact on productivity,
>    both measured internally, as well as externally in the ability of
>    Digital to get and keep a customer while generating desired levels
>    of revenue, margin and profit.

    My suggestion is that someone create a new Notes Confernce
    dedicated to suggestions regarding "Improving Productivity within
    Digital". Each idea would be a Topic. Replies to each Topic (Idea)
    to discuss, debate, etc.
    
    Management could then go to one place to look for employee suggestions
    on Improving Productivity - - at least those sufficiently
    non-controversial to commit to print....
    
    Just a(nother) thought...

    Note in the previous reponses, figures that indicate Apple and COMPAQ as
    having the largest $/employee. But also note that they do virtually all
    their sales through retail channels!!! Note that the single largest
    organization in Digital is direct sales!!! If we subtracted our sales
    force overhead, I bet you'd see our $/employee looking very favorably
    compared to other companies. 
    
    I agree that we must both do some major reorganization and change
    a lot of people's goals and metrics. But let's not read too much
    into over simplified numbers. Those numbers are created as typical
    over simplified marketing messages to executives. Unfortunately,
    some executives believe those over simplified numbers mean something.
    
    -George

  re: .8
      
    They had that here at the CSC   ( a suggestions Notes file ).  Ideas
    languished there.
    
    Then they "reorganized" it...
    
    No change in sight...
    
    None of this "suggestion box" stuff will work as long as the corporate
    goals are only 1 quarter ahead....
    
    Steve h

    Digital has all of the burdens and benefits of being a vertically
    integrated company.

    Other companies which build systems from higher level components than
    we do (ie chips, boards, enclosures, peripherals, etc) will have
    greater sales per employee.  This is maximized by importers who can
    barely be described as "manufacturers".

    Other companies which rely on distribution channels for their sales
    force will have higher sales per employee.

    Other companies which rely on extensive acquisition of software from
    external sources will have higher sales per employee.

    A narrow view equating sales per employee to productivity is useless.
    (The suggestion to compare the increase in profitability with the
    increase in employee population is a good one.)

    This is Digital.  This is the character of the company the officers,
    the directors, and the shareholders have chosen.

    As markets become more competitive, vertically integrated companies
    such as Digital are at a intrinsic loss.  Firms in the low-end computer
    business are earning low returns per unit sold, and compete like we've
    never seen in consumer advertising, channel support, time-to-market
    with innovation.

    It's no accident that the company is being directed towards high
    margin/high service content lines of business.  We'd lose our shirt in a
    low margin business.

    re .8
    
    I think there is some kind of suggestion notes file either in place or
    eventually being put in place in Central Area.  Some kind of quality
    committee is (maybe) going to be doing something to get suggestions.  
    
    I don't know much (if anything) about this as I am not member of this
    group.

    re: Recognition for Suggestions
    
    Every monthly issue of each site specific newspaper for my client - a
    multi-geographic corporate account - has at least a two page spread on
    the monthly 'winners' for suggestions; names, pictures of the major
    contributors, what their suggestion was, how much it saved the company
    and HOW MUCH THEY RECEIVED (IN $) FOR THE SUGGESTION.  The individual
    not only receives recognition, but also cash.
    
    This practice is common in 'industry' (yeah, the dirty, smokestack
    ones where employees are 'workers') where incentive things like this
    NEED to be done to promote productivity, quality and interest since
    a company spirit of ALL doing what is right and everyone is treated
    as a professional does not prevail.
    
    Not wanting to get into the 'has_DEC_culture_changed' rat-hole,
    maybe with 120,000 mostly hired in the last 5-10 years, 'traditional'
    means should be considered, vs. the 'high-tech' (suggestion_notes)
    that not all have access to or are comfortable with.
    
    	-Barry-
    
    

    re; Pat.

    There is something I don't understand about big money made by companies
    using high level components. 

    1. The high level component is created  and soled,
       the price covers all the cost, etc..

    2. The integration company buys it , puts it in a product that sells
       as commodity.

    Both companies have to make money, pay selling + all overhead.

    Why then is this more profitable then doing 1 and 2 in one company ?



    re : many.

    Yes, I have heard several "You tell us !!", " We don't know, you tell
    us !, " Push the management" messages, but are these sincere ?

    Is there anybody at the other end of the phone ??

    I don't think so, because it just stays, as far as I can see, at the
    at the level of these messages.

    If there was a requirement that all new internal projects,
    reorganizations, etc involved reference groups consisting of people
    being directly involved with the change, the yes, I would
    think it's serious. There is no way productivity or anything else for
    that matter can improve if people dealing directly with "it" are
    not heard.

    Before DEC I've worked for a quality software house specialized in
    fixed priced projects. One of the most important things for the success
    of a project was to create a good reference group of end users. Unless
    these people bought into our project, it would be a failure and we
    would have problems coming back. 

    I've seen many internal changes fail this way .

    				...hm coffee break is over.

    						wlodek

    re .15:
    
    I think you're using a different metric.  Revenue per employee is
    not the same as profit per employee.  So a company that assembles
    equipment may have very high revenue per employee, but a very slim
    profit per employee (or maybe a better measure would be some net
    revenue after cost of operations, but not counting development
    expenditures).
    
    Be interesting to see more detailed figures that allowed us to
    calculate other views.
    
    /Dave

    Overall productivity at Digital does't seem to be a problem here.
    We had a saying early in my management days, " One 'Oh S__t', negates
    ten 'At-A-Boy's'"   
    Much of our productivity increases and efficiency improvements are
    negated by a select few who seem to use the company for their own
    gratification.  I would almost rather see a notes conference for
    whistle blowers. It is time to bring to light the waste and poor
    business decisions being made at every level.  It is the cover-ups
    and the perception that rules don't apply to everyone that is robbing
    us of our profits.  
    Unfortunately, this is not the proper way to handle these things.
    And I do not have a good solution in mind.
    
    Joe

    I just had to comment as this is one of my pet peeves.  At the expense
    of hurting the thousands who put in long, hard weeks, I still maintain
    we have an incredible number of floaters.  All one has to do is
    watch what goes on in Spit Brook (as an example) on the average
    day.  There is still heavy in-coming activity at 0900, lots of cafeteria
    activity until 1000, and the exercise/running/errand exodus starts
    at 1100.  Things don't settle down again until around 1400, and
    around 1600, the great bail-out starts. Throughout my years at Digital
    I have brought family visitors into Digital facilities in several
    occasions.  In every instance, without exception, their first reaction
    is "why isn't anybody doing anything?"  I myself have been in more
    than one job where I literally had nothing to do for weeks on end.
    
    At this time, I am in a staff/administrative function.  I believe
    there are 46 of us doing the same job.  I firmly believe the job
    could be done by 20 without major disruption; perhaps even my 10
    in hard times.  But, I'm not going to suggest that, and bring
    everyone's wrath down on my head.
    
    Finally I strongly support a real Suggestion Awards Program.  IBM
    has a great one, and virtually everyone participates.  When I was
    with their Field Service Organization, each individual was expected
    to turn in one suggestion a month, or you might get a little prodding
    from your manager.  They felt that if you were even half awake on
    the job, you ought to see at least one thing that could be improved
    each month.  You got public recognition,and always cash.  The cash
    was some percentage of the savings.  Awards in excess of 100K were
    given even in the 60's, although that was unusual.  Several hundred
    or thousand was not.  Let's do it!!

    re:.16
    
    Regarding "Profit/employee" as a better measurement of employee
    productivity.  There are several good reasons to avoid this measurement
    in isolation.  Primary among them is the liklihood that employees
    would look particularly unproductive during periods of corporate
    investment.  Nonetheless, here are the figures from the most recent
    Fortune magazine:
    
    Profit/employee--
    
    IBM=$14,998
    DEC=$10,748
    
    Apple=$22,222
    
    Apple still looks awesome.  (for this year)  Short term (year by
    year) looks at these statistics will vary wildly!!

    RE: .18 and arrival/departure times at ZKO

    All those people still coming in at 9:00 are not the same ones
    who are leaving early. I'd be willing to bet money that some of
    those people coming in at 9:00 are still there at 19:00. Some of those
    people leaving right after lunch may have been there since late the
    night before. Unless you can identify individuals who are coming in
    late and making up for it by leaving early (and doing so regularly)
    than I don't think you can make a case for what you see being proof
    of slack. 

    Also consider the people who leave during the day for meetings at
    other sites. And meetings off site that start at 7:00 an allow someone
    to get to ZKO after the meeting by 9:00-9:30.

    			Alfred

    When you consider the number of "overhead" people needed to keep
    this company running, it seems to be an inaccurate measure to spread
    the total profits over the entire company.  While administrative
    groups (finance, personnel, printing & circulation, etc) may not
    directly sell or deliver services to outside customers, thereby
    increasing profits, Digital couldn't function without them.  There
    may be a few employees who do as little as possible, but most
    of those I've met in over 5 years, work very hard.  
    
    

    RE: .18  "It's True - We're Not Productive"
    
    Speak for yourself.  The only thing I can tell from your note is
    that at least one person at ZKO has been devoting entirely too much
    non-productive time to monitoring cafeteria usage.
                                
                                

    Re .18:
    
    > At this time, I am in a staff/administrative function.
    
    Keep in mind that Spitbrook is (or was) primarily a software
    engineering facility.  Keeping odd hours is a firmly entrenched
    tradition in the lore of hacking.  We are not a manufacturing plant
    where machinery or processes have to be started by groups of people
    together at set times, so we do not have a need for everybody to arrive
    or leave at the same time.  So instead of an extreme amount of traffic
    entering or leaving over a short period, you see continual traffic
    entering or leaving over a large period, as people arrive at convenient
    times for themselves (and for the city which appreciates the reduced
    average traffic).
    
    I used to keep later hours, but recently I've taken to arriving around
    7:15.  You say that around 1600, the "great bail-out starts".  But you
    said nothing about seeing me arriving at 7:15. 
    
    If your group is not operating efficiently, you should do something
    about it.                   
    
    
    				-- edp

    I start work anywhere between 5:30 a.m. and 12:30 pm and work through o
    anywhere between 16:00 and 2:00a.m., I have worked these hours for some
    years and in several facilities, including ZK and REO.
    
    I think your prejudices are showing.
    
    - Andy

I think the person who wrote 803.18 has taken too much heat.

He or she said the following:

    >> At the expense
    >> of hurting the thousands who put in long, hard weeks, I still maintain
    >> we have an incredible number of floaters.

Why does this comment deserve denunciation?

There are people outside Digital who see the company as a playpen for spoiled
children. I've heard it referred to as "the velvet coffin." When I interviewed
for jobs last year at several companies in the Boston area, I was surprised at
the perception of the company by some people on the outside. 

I came to Digital from another large company (Unisys) and actually encountered
prejudice against me from potential hirers just because I worked for a large
company. The thinking was, if you're from a large company like Digital, you
won't be able to work very hard. This prejudice was explained to me by a
headhunter.

Don't attribute these perceptions to sour grapes on the part of people who
couldn't get hired here. Many people, including many employees, hold these
perceptions. 

Vicki Meagher

    No one has give heat to anyone because said that there were
    floaters. Heat has been given because they said that the times
    they saw people coming and going proved it. That fallacious
    argument is what is taking some well deserved heat.

    Sure there are people not carrying their weight and there are
    even groups with more people then they are keeping busy. It happens
    and we all know it. But you can't pick those people based on
    what time they come in or leave. For example I came in after
    9:00 this morning and left around 5:00. Someone who just saw 
    that might easily jump to the conclusion that I was working a
    short day. No one is around to watch me work several hours
    from home tonight because I needed an idle system to run tests
    on though. Appearances are not enough to judge by. Not everyone
    needs to be in their office to get work done.

    			Alfred

    As someone who works in a manufacturing site (Hudson--integrated
    circuits) and who has worked for a major merchant semiconductor
    manufacturer before coming here, I feel I can make a few comments
    about Digital's productivity.  I have also had extensive second
    source experience with major Japanese merchant semiconductor companies,
    so I know how things work on the other side of the Pacific.
    
    We are fortunate to have many talented and experienced engineers
    here who take their jobs very seriously and try to do a good job.
    However, there is a lack of accountability here that amazes me.
    Things that I have seen people fired for at my previous employer
    are ignored here.  Many have a "country club" mentality which would
    not be tolerated in the merchant business.
    
    We also have many layers of management, which combined with the matrix
    management system frequently makes for tremendous inertia.
    Manufacturing needs organization, discipline, a responsive attitude,
    and minimal deadwood.  Things are improving here, but we still have a
    long way to go before we approach anything competitive with American
    suppliers, let alone the Japanese.
    
    John 

    To denigrate without substantiation negates the denigration; please
    give worked examples of what the effects are of the things you describe
    and what should be done about them.
    
    Andy

To explode a myth, long hours and / or hard work do not necessarily mean 
higher productivity. 

From my viewpoint, the biggest influencing factor on productivity is 
politics. I think it's a loop, politics get in the way, so promote 
politicians instead of productive poeple and guess what, politics get in the 
way again...

Promote people that get things done and not those who never upset their 
manager!

Dave.

>There are people outside Digital who see the company as a playpen for spoiled
>children. I've heard it referred to as "the velvet coffin." When I interviewed
>for jobs last year at several companies in the Boston area, I was surprised at
>the perception of the company by some people on the outside. 
    
    
    	I've heard this sort of thing since before joining the company
    10 years ago. My neighbors and friends that do not work here at DEC
    are constantly amazed by this "playpen for spoiled children" so much
    so that they've been busting to get in the door here at DEC for about
    as long as they've been criticizing it. It's been difficult to keep
    the playpen alive in the face of those which would seek to
    institutionalize us. A lot of good things have come out of the playpen.
    
    
    /Ray.
    
    
    
    
    

We should generally *not* promote the "people who get things done" over the
people who sit around.  The ones getting things done are clearly in a job they
are well qualified for.  We need them there.  We should, however, pay them
more.  The ones not being productive should be found other jobs where they
*can* be productive, whether it is up, down, or sideways.

Myself, I do not think our problem is that too many people are not working hard
enough.  I see most people working quite hard.  But I think we have too many
people working hard on the wrong things, due to wrong decisions made by various
levels of management.  I can think of some people who are working very hard at
digging us deeper into the hole.  No, I am not going to name names in this
forum.  But I have my list, as I suspect many of us do.

    I am amazed at (?Mr.) Lennard's perception of what goes on at
    Spitbrook.  Stop by some evening around 11 pm, and check out the
    "bailout" -- not of second shift people, either!
    
    I've said hello to the security officer at 7 am when he was leaving,
    and hello to him again when he came back on shift at midnight --
    when I was leaving.
    
    Most of us at ZKO (and I'm a writer/course developer, not an engineer)
    have the types of jobs where it's great to be able to keep going
    when you're 'on a roll'.  There are other days when you stare at
    the screen, sharpen your pencils, look for mail messages, and finally
    decide to leave early and run a few errands because it's just not
    happening.  I'd much rather stay til midnight when I'm inspired,
    and walk out at 3:30 occasionally when I'm not adding a whole lot
    of value.  I love working here, and I honor my commitments.
    
    But the bottom line isn't the schedule.  The bottom line is that
    I'm bringing in courses on time, on budget, and seeing lots of comments
    on performance reviews about "exceeds expectations".  My manager
    is happy; his manager is happy.  
    
    Some of the most creative and talented people in the company are
    employed here at ZKO.  Management needs to take responsibility for
    getting rid of those who won't try to meet time-budget-quality
    commitments.  Hours spent in one's cube (or in the cafeteria) is not
    necessarily a productivity metric.  I often meet with project people
    from the other end of the building in the caf! 
    
    Holly
                                                               

re: .32  ... well said!

Its amazing how many people think they're doing their job just because 
they show up from 8-5 with their shirt pressed and their shoes shined.

Productivity is quality, not quantity, measurement, and if the guy 
next to me can get more done in 30 hours than I can in 50, he's not
the employee with the problem,  I AM !

If you can exceed you job requirements, and make all your gates, I don't
give a damn when you're doing it or how long it takes... just keep on
doing it!

If we all met our metrics, we wouldn't be having this discussion...

Bob

    re 31.
!<<< Note 803.31 by DFLAT::DICKSON "twang and toot, not beep or thud" >>>
             
!We should generally *not* promote the "people who get things done" over the
!people who sit around.  


    Ughm ? Do we work for the same company ? There is a very explicit
    statement in our stone tables " Corporate Philosophy & Ethics" :

    "Promotion

    	We promote people according to their performance, not only their
    	technical ability but also their ability to get the job done
    	and to take responsibility that goes with the job. Ability is
    	measured not only by past results, but also by attitude and desire 
    	to succeed. Performance results are also used to decide whether
    	a person should remain in his or her current position. "


    Rest of the note , it's rather typical reflection from somebody from
    engineering. Thanks God we have duplication of effort and overlapping
    product efforts. In many areas, we can't effort to have just one
    alternative in the critical path.We have not done this with some
    critical areas and hence some of the current holes in our product
    space.  Of course some engineering groups hate competition and put
    significant political effort to stop it. 
    
    There was somewhere here a great speech by Ken about virtues of
    duplicated effort and internal competition, anybody cares to find a
    reference ?

			wlodek

I was talking about promotions into management, not promotions within a
specialty.   For example, senior engineers and principal engineers do very much
the same kind of job, and the skills that make a good senior engineer are
useful to a principal engineer as well.  But a development manager has an
entirely different set of problems, and it is not clear to me that every good
engineer would make a good manager.

	"Performance results are also used to decide whether
    	a person should remain in his or her current position. "

That's what I said.

It *used* to be that there was a lot of parallel development at DEC, but you
don't see much of that any more.  Just try to get funding for something that
the STF considers "non-strategic".  (like something that attempts to solve the
same problem as the "blessed" approach, but by different means.)  Remember, we
have too many people in engineering (see Jack Smith road show note) for the
amount of results we are getting. What I am concerned about is that some of the
"blessed" approaches have not been well thought out and are taking huge
resources.

    Performance and productivity are not just a measure of number __
    And I have to disagree with .33-- If the guy next door does more in 30 
    hours than you do in 50 does not automatically mean that you have a
    problem. How much of that work done in the 30 hours has to be
    repaired/rewritten/redesigned at the cost of an additional 30 hours to
    equal the QUALITY of what you have done in 50?? Notice the net
    difference of 10 hours to your benefit.  

re Note 803.35 by DFLAT::DICKSON:

> It *used* to be that there was a lot of parallel development at DEC, but you
> don't see much of that any more.  Just try to get funding for something that
> the STF considers "non-strategic".  (like something that attempts to solve the
> same problem as the "blessed" approach, but by different means.)  

        Well said.  Or to put it more bluntly, it is the "kiss of
        death" to suggest a parallel development these days.

        Bob