Conference 7.286::digital

Is this really new? I thought this was standard operating practice in the
field...

Lee

    RE: .0
    
    "Travel" is a wide target and an easy one for people to look at and
    misunderstand.  Therefore, it's hard for me to see the base topic as
    anything but inflammatory without any supporting evidence.  Is this a
    topic about possible areas in which Digital can cut costs or yet
    another note to overgeneralize about those of us whose job happens to
    include business travel?
    
    [I regret that I can't follow up on this reply: I'm leaving on a
     business trip tomorrow.]

    RE: .2, .0
    
    As another whose job involves business travel I resent the apparent
    implications in .0 that those DECcies who have to travel for a living
    do so with disregard for guidelines on expenses etc.
    
    If this was your intent, please explain the basis for your opinions so
    that they may be debated.
    
    
    - Andy

Back when I had to travel for DEC, I often would take vacation days during the
trip.  I especially tried to do this when the meeting was short (like just
three days) and by extending my stay I could qualify for a reduced airfare.
Using this technique, I have never traveled to Europe for DEC on other than
an APEX discount.

Of course, all costs directly related to my vacation days were paid by me.

The US federal government is silly enough to prohibit this money-saving
technique on the part of its own employees.

    
    I agree with .0.   I believe a lot of business trips are not
    really necessary.  With such advanced communication available
    these days, you can even have TV conference for necessary face
    to face discussion.  Business trip expenses are not small potatoes.
    It can be saved to give people salary raises.   It is just fat
    can be cut off.

There are many legitimate reasons for business travel.  Like any business
expense, there are probably occasions of misuse.  But to imply that anyone
traveling on company business is taking a free vacation is a statement that
shows an obvious lack of knowledge concerning business travel.   I do NOT 
consider it a pleasure to get up at 4 AM to catch a 6 AM flight, spend all
day attending numerous meetings designed to maximize the cost effectivness
of my trip, and then fly back on the 8 PM flight, to finally return home
at 11 PM.  Oh, Boy!  Havin' some fun now!   8^)

People who think that traveling on company business is a pleasure trip
obviously don't travel on legitimate company business.

Also, anyone who thinks its free should try to eat 3 meals a day in hotel
resturants and remain within the expense guidelines.  You can't do it, and
the extra comes out of your own pocket.

Bob

    I work in a hardware support group which covers San Diego, Arizona
    and Nevada.  We have people in the local offices but some travel
    is still required because it is impossible to have the right talent
    in the right place all the time and because of after hour coverage
    (support is a 24 X 7 operation).  We "could" drive the six to eight
    hours on those rare occassions when we are needed on site but how
    good would you be after eight hours behind the wheel?
    
    And those boondoggles to the East Coast for training are sooooo
    much fun.  I just love to leave my family for 3-6 weeks to attend
    the support level courses.
    
    Thanks but not thanks for travel.
    
    Irv Waldo, SWA Support

Re: .8

You are still implying that there is a significant amount of waste in 
travel from people scheduling business trips as a front for vacations.

Since you continue to state that as fact, I must assume you know of at
least one or more individual who is doing this.

I would urge to to identify these offending individuals and report them
to your management (or above) immediately, including all of the evidence
that has lead you to these conclusions.  They will be dealt with.  

My apologies if I'm wrong, but I suspect that you have no evidence, and
are basing your conclusions on speculation and hearsay.  We have enough
rumors, and enough red-tape to cut through to get travel approved without
people like you crying WOLF!

Stepping of my soapbox now... sorry... 8^)

Bob

    This may be old news but the 15-May-89 issue of MIS WEEK contains
    an article on page 30 entitled:
    
		    DEC Cans Plans for DECworld this Year
    
    The article indicated that Robert Randolpf, the leading DEC watcher at 
    Technology Financial Services, Inc., of Chelmsford. Mass., "felt
    return on investment might have been the consideration to scrub this year's
    DECworld."
	
    Estimated savings to Digital, according to the article, was $20
    million.
    
    Another indication of a new austerity program is underway?
 

    Not another indication of anything. This decision was made months ago...
    Andy

    re. .11 & .12
    
    Andy, I am also of the impression that DECworld was scrubbed months
    ago.  But it does seem curious.
    
    In years past (1987 comes to mind), DECworld was touted as a money
    making proposition.  It generated more orders, created more profits
    than the corresponding expenses.  Not to mention the positive press
    and confident image that were created.
    
    Was that just DECworld hype, or does the truth change from year
    to year?

    Actually, it's kind of interesting about this.  Last year's DECworld
    was essentially held in Europe.  My impression was that the U.S.
    based 'events' were underwhelming in impact, while Europe apparently
    went better.  The previous year ('87) in the U.S. seemed to be much
    more successful.  The press certainly liked it.
    
    Look who's numbers (and salary plans) now look more favorable. 
    Funny how one stumble can torpedo a major program such as DECworld.
    
    Apparently the descision to cancel DECworld happened some time ago,
    but the cancellation and the austerity program do bear a striking
    resemblance anyway.  Maybe it's the other way around, though.
    
    tim
    

RE: .13

DECworld may well have made money for us.  The Muck-a-mucks may have
realized that there may not be a need for a DECworld every year.  Every
other or every three years may be enough to get the message across.

John

    DECWorld was cancelled way before the austerity program appeared - my
    vague recollection is that this was decided as far back as December.

I wouldn't be surprized to see the next one be in the EEC 1992 unification
timeframe.  I believe there is a 5 year plan for DECWORLDs and that that might
be one of the next mega events we're likely to see.

I am on international relocation to the US from Germany. The 'benefits' include
one trip home for me and my family. To save the company money I am using an
outside travel agaent which was able to get us fares which saved $1000 per person
last year and $600 this year (times 2.5 for the whole family!).

When I tried to get the tickets paid by DEC I each time run into problems by
the finance people saying that they get 'bad marks' when they are audited and
the auditors find that I was not using the company travel agent AND that they
allowed that. The auditors stick with what's policy.

BTW my boss likes me saving his CC some money.


This looks to me as an area where DEC could improve a LOT!

Thomas 

    Looks like the same person wrote .0 and .8...true? (just love it
    when people delete their notes!)

    .8?  Where?  You must be seeing things.

       RE: .0
       
       	I'm getting mighty P.O.'d with all these deleted .0's.
       
       	RE: DECworld
       
       	We don't need one this year. Pure and simple, the customers aren't
       	buying a whole lot plus, our U.S. sales force, IMHO, doesn't have
       	the resources to "recover" from a DECworld. ie: follow up and
        chase after the contacts made at DECworld.
       
       	DECworld for '90 or '91 is a possibilty if Dave Grainger and Jack
        Shields can get everything in Sales and F.S. going smoothly so
        that it won't be a problem to support the added customer interest
       	after the show.
       
       							mike

    re .20  "we don't need DECworld this year ..."
    
    Ouch!  That one hits pretty close to the mark.  But it assumes that
    revenue growth is a prime goal, and I guess that's not valid anymore.
    Profit margin is the driving force now, at least according to all
    of "austerity" memo's that I've been getting ...
    
    The timing is unfortunate;  I see *many* customers floundering in
    the abundance of DEC product announcements, and putting off their
    long-range plans until things settle down.  But we all know that
    things are *not* going to settle down in the forseeable future,
    so where does that leave us?
    
    DECworld would have been successful, IF we could have presented
    a good computing strategy for our customers.  IF we could have
    demonstrated (like we did at the last one) that a customer could
    build an MIS shop or a CAD department around DEC systems, and be
    assured that it wouldn't fall apart with the next software release.
    And IF we could have convinced the customer that we are building
    products that will outperform most products on the market, and
    interface gracefully with those products that we can't compete with.
    
    DECworld is what convinced a lot of customers to eschew the "hot
    boxes" of 1986 and 1987, and go with MicroVAXes, even if they were
    not performance leaders.  Those DECworlds gave us entry into accounts
    where reliability was the priority, and price was secondary.  And
    that is where high profit margins are still to be found.
    
    So now it seems that the trade rags hold the high ground.  They
    are the ones that are "interpreting" OUR messages to OUR customers,
    and they are the ones that are announcing our products and strategies.
    Fortunately, my Digital Review usually shows up a day or two before
    my customers', so I have time to read it and see what my company
    is doing before the customer asks me about it.  Thanks, D.R.
    
    Geoff Unland
    

RE: .22

	But the point I'm trying to make is that we aren't prepared, as
	a corporation, IMHO, to deal with the after-effects of a
	DECworld in such a way as to maximize the benefits reaped of such
	an event.  Also, another reason is that it probably wouldn't
	look good to our stockholders that we are throwing another
	$xx million event at this time with the talk of cut-backs. It
	wouldn't do our beleagerd stock much good.

	A DECworld in '90 could be a very good thing if DEC gets its
	collective sh1t together.  (Something I assume upper management is
	attempting to do) We'll have more products (h/w & s/w) and hopefully
	a better customer support organization.

							mike

    RE: CANCEL DECWORLD
    
    In reality, it would probably be a disaster if we did.  What is the
    message that would send to the customers?  Maybe we should scale it
    back!  Good companies never get through problems by cutting, sales
    service, or R&D programs.  What we need to do is polish our apples
    and start looking like a real class act.  
    

        re .24 and
        
>    RE: CANCEL DECWORLD
>    
>    In reality, it would probably be a disaster if we did.
        
        Are you saying it would be a disaster IF we cancelled
        DECWORLD?  Previous notes state that it was cancelled months
        ago.
        

	RE: 820.26 The base note (820.0) was deleted by its author. It can
	no longer be seen by anyone. Sorry.

				Alfred

.27 tells the story... the author decided to delete their base note.
Newcomers to this topic are left dazed and confused.

As best I can recall, my comment in .1 refered to an assertion in .0 that
there was fiscal 'belt tightening' and there was pressure being applied
to spend less expense money in the field. (Travel and meeting restrictions,
etc.) From my viewpoint (here in the field) these type of measures had been
ongoing long before the author of .0 posted his/her note.

Lee