Conference 7.286::digital

    Stay Tuned ... Directional Memo Due out on Monday

    Some new employees I spoke to last week were completely shocked that
    decisions had been made but the company plays games with when, how, by
    whom, and to whom the decisions are announced.  Routine at Digital, I
    replied.

RE: .2
>    Some new employees I spoke to last week were completely shocked that
>    decisions had been made but the company plays games with when, how, by
>    whom, and to whom the decisions are announced.  Routine at Digital, I
>    replied.

What shocks me is that after the MGMT makes decisions and then playes
games about announcing them they are disturbed about people
spreading rumors.  Some of the recent attacks on NOTES are
manifestations of this syndrome.  One of the amazing things I've found
about DEC is that the rumors generally turn out to be true.  What about
the rumor that the MGMT was going to take the cars away? How many people
want to bet that the rumor about a senior VP turns out to be true in
spite of an offical denial?   The only rumors I don't believe are the
perenial ones: Early retirement and the AT&T takeover. 

In our district there had been rumors about a district reorganization
going around for about two months.  Whenever you asked a manager about
the rumors you got the line "no decision has been made".  There was a
special district meeting a few weeks ago to dispell the rumors that were
going around.  When the distric re-alignment was announced last week is
corresponded to the rumors exactly; right down to the precise numbers of
people involved and the names of the managers who were being moved.

    could you be more specific about the district changes you mention,
    perhaps something can be learned by this info.
    
    Ed

RE: .4

The changes were all local and reflected the business conditions in our
area.  The only thing that could become a trend elsewhere, since it
makes very good sense, is that the projects business is to be moved to 
the area level. 

John

    
    Let's wait for the memo, rather than rumour-monger, please?
    
    No doubt it'll get posted here dam' fast - everything else does!
    
    :-)
    
    Andy
    Co-Moderator

	unless the infrastructure in the Districts is set up to properly qual-
ify, define, and plan the business.  Or unless your District USWM is willing to
TOTALLY give up account control to an Area outfit!  :>)

                   I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                         Date:      5-Jun-1989 10:06am EDT
                                         From:      Dave Grainger 
                                                    GRAINGER.DAVE AT A1 AT USCTR1 AT MRO 
                                         Dept:      US. MGMT
                                         Tel No:    297-4940

TO: See Below

Subject: DIRECTION FOR THE 90'S



    
    
    ************PLEASE COMMUNICATE TO ALL EMPLOYEES************  
    
    
    As we move into the 90's, a key strategy is to make account 
    management our strategic differentiation in the marketplace.  
    We will achieve this through empowering account managers to 
    act on behalf of Digital nationally and internationally and 
    through integrating Industry Marketing and Sales.  These 
    enable us to focus on selling and supporting our customers 
    more effectively.
    
    Towards this end, Industry Sales will be the primary 
    responsibility of the Area Sales Manager.  As these new roles 
    are announced, Industry Sales Managers will report to the 
    Industry Sales/Marketing Vice President for their account 
    responsibilities as well as to the Sales function.
    
    Specifically, Government Sales/Marketing will report to 
    Harvey Weiss, Volume Sales/Marketing to Jay Atlas, and 
    Industry Sales/Marketing to Bob Hughes.  Their responsibility 
    will be to ensure improvements in efficiency and 
    effectiveness through clear strategy setting and direction 
    for their assigned industry accounts.
    
    The Industry Sales structure will provide us an immediate 
    means to integrate the field sales and marketing efforts, and 
    we expect the opportunity for further segmentation will come 
    over time.
    
    Jerry Paxton will assume responsibility for functional Sales 
    which includes sales headquarters, programs management, 
    training, productivity, measurements and metrics, and reward 
    systems, as well as other activities to ensure we maintain 
    one sales force.
    
    Jack MacKeen will continue to provide focus to 
    Telecommunications as well as assume responsibility for the 
    International Programs Office ensuring shared programs and 
    communications for channels, industry, and account management 
    activities.
    
    Chick Shue is handling a special project involved with 
    international sales programs.
    
    In addition to the sales and marketing focus, we are 
    continuing to work the integration of sales and services so 
    that we do a better job of representing Digital to our 
    customer.
    
    Rich Nortz will continue to manage the Customer Services 
    organization which includes a broad portfolio of support 
    services focused on customer satisfaction and leveraging 
    sales of total solutions.
    
    To integrate strategic capabilities and position Digital as a 
    world-class leader in Systems Integration, we have created 
    the Enterprise Integration Services (EIS) organization.  As 
    EIS manager, Bill Ferry will directly manage the Software 
    Services function, the Systems Integration business, and the 
    Program Management office, while host managing Educational 
    Services and Computer Special Systems.  
    
    Our overall aim is to deliver technology to customers in the 
    most effective way.  Product Business Units (PBU's) will 
    continue to drive product, technology, and applications 
    development, and the enhanced delivery of solutions to 
    customers through the Product Marketing Group (PMG) and sales 
    support.
    
    We expect this integration of Sales and Marketing, Services, 
    as well as PBU's, will have a substantial positive impact on 
    communications, sales effectiveness, marketshare, and 
    customer satisfaction.
    
    Digital is committed to providing quality information 
    systems, services, and products to our customers.  With this 
    new direction, Digital anticipates achieving significant 
    success in the 90's.
    
    

    Well if thats "it" I'm a little disappointed. I was rather hoping for a
    statement of corporate vision and how it could be implemented, rather
    than a US area reorg on sales and services - although this is a start.

Does this mean that the typical U.S. customer will see fewer or more Digital
people to help him 'integrate his enterprise'?

Will there be 1 person with the authority/responsibility to bring required
resources to bear to solve a customers' problem?

Bob

    An industry sales/marketing organization is trying to put together the
    messages one needs to penetrate target industries deeply. What's really
    farsical about this that in many cases either we don't have the product
    for specific areas in an industry or lack the sales support to
    adequately sell it. In other words, if we had the product and field
    knowledgable people we'd penetrate those industries without any need of an
    industry sales/marketing organization.
    
    Let me give a specific example. Aersopace marketing wanted to focus
    selling VAX systems for the real-time flight simulation and signal
    processing. The primary competition is Gould, Convex, etc.. A big
    meeting was called. MSD, LDP, ESG, corporate accounts, and other groups
    laid out the issues of selling VAX systems for those application areas.
    It became very clear in the meeting that field did not have the
    expertise to sell at such a detailed level. And so there were various
    proposals on a SWAT teams and centralized support. Also, there were
    some issues around bus bandwidth, VME bus, etc.. 
    
    Industry marketing folk kept repeating the same thing -- something
    along the lines of "But we don't want to sell at the technical level.
    We don't want to talk bus bandwidth, types of DMA, etc.. We want to
    sell at the systems and enterprise level. Why won't the customers buy
    everything from one vendor, even if don't have the best real-time
    solutions or can talk techie?" Corporate accounts and product marketing
    groups had to keep repeating to them that they buying decision was made
    by engineers that had to pick the technology to get the job done. Our
    sales force was totally incompetent to articulate our strengths in
    real-time. And ignorance in the field about specifica application areas
    made it very difficult to get product requirements back to engineering. 
    
    The sales VPs haven't figured out yet that the way to penetrate an
    industry with the right products for SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS in that
    industry and being able to articulate the benifits of those products.
    This new reorganization is going to exacerbate field problems of no
    technical competence and missing products in highly focused application
    areas by adding a new dimension of cross-functional sales overhead. 
    
    -George

    Good point, Geogrge.  I've had a chance to see that same scenario
    from the field sales support/PSS perspective.  It's interesting
    that the view is so similar.  I'm not sure this will mean additional
    overhead, or badly needed vertical market support in the field.
    It's hard to tell from the memo.
    
    One question I'm interested in seeing answered is a pragmatic one,
    for the field anyway:  what about P&L responsibility?  When will
    sales finally be held responsible for seeing that deals are profitable,
    and not simply be expected to close business, at all costs?
    
    After all, Q3's numbers showed Certs up, profits down.  Seems like
    an obvious point, if a little simplistic...
    
    tim
    

    Recently, many events and non-events have bothered me greatly and I
    hope that Digital's watchers here agree with my conclusion that this is
    totally detstructive to trust.
    
    We have here far too many decisions being made with far too much
    information being witheld regarding their outcome.
    
    Grinding out the rumors, even the rumor that "the outcome is undecided"
    or "the outcome is decided" are discussed.  Even the rumors have
    rumors.
    
    If all the "power" some one in this corporation is knowing what changes
    will happen that will affect 1,000 or more people before they
    themseleves know it, then I put it to you, notions of what "power"
    is in Digital Equipment Corporation have become corrupt.
    
    "Who's in" and "Who's out" isn't important.  What's important is the
    goals and organizational alignment, and so much of that is not explicit
    but derived from personalities and career backgrounds.  
                                                          

    One of Pat's "Who's out":
    


                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     17-Aug-1989 04:56pm EST
                                        From:     Dave Grainger
                                                  GRAINGER.DAVE AT A1 AT USCTR1 AT MRO
                                        Dept:     US. MGMT
                                        Tel No:   297-4940

TO: See Below

Subject: CHICK SHUE



    *********************************************************************
    
                 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS TO YOUR ORGANIZATIONS
    
    *********************************************************************
    
    
    It is with mixed feelings that I accept the resignation of Chick Shue.  
    For nearly 20 years, Chick has made many contributions to Digital in 
    numerous positions and locations throughout the U.S.
    
    Chick has accepted the position of U.S. Subsidiary President for Matra 
    Datavision, a Digital Cooperative Marketing Partner (CMP).  Matra's 
    U.S. headquarters is located in Tewksbury, MA.  Digital and Matra 
    Datavision have a great opportunity to substantially increase our 
    combined presence in the U.S. market for mechanical CAD/CAM systems.
    
    Please join me in wishing Chick Shue success in his new position.
    
    DG:sw
    
    

From:	NAME: Jack Smith                    
	FUNC: ENG/MFG/PROD MKT ADMIN          
	TEL: 223-2231                         <SMITH.JACK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>
To:	See Below


I am pleased to announce the formation of the Distributed Software 
Systems Group (DSSG) headed by Bill Strecker and reporting to me.  DSSG 
will be responsible for the development of the operating systems and 
much of the layered software function for Digital's distributed system 
environment.

A traditional source of Digital's uniqueness is its networked computing.  
But, our customers are demanding that we go beyond the simple 
connectivity of networking and move to true distributed systems.   These 
distributed systems will have the functionality, manageability, and 
security of traditional central systems.  DSSG will insure that Digital 
has the industry leading heterogeneous distributed systems for the 
1990's.

Major existing organizations included in DSSG and reporting to Bill 
Strecker will be OS/SB (Open  Systems  Software  Business), PC 
Integration Software, SDT (Software Development Technology), and VMS.  
Secure  Systems Engineering, the Security Program Office, and Corporate 
Standards, currently reporting to  Bill Strecker, will also be part of 
DSSG.

As part of this announcement, I am pleased to announce several other 
changes within DSSG.  OS/SB, previously managed by Bill Heffner, will 
now be managed by Roger Heinen.  Details on Bill Heffner's significant 
new role will be announced separately.  VMS, previously managed by Kurt 
Friedrich, will now be managed by Rick Spitz. Kurt Friedrich will 
establish and manage within DSSG new integrating functions to insure 
that the central mission of DSSG is accomplished.  SDT will continue to 
be managed by Bill Keating, and PC Integration Software will continue to 
be managed by Joe Carchidi who will jointly report to John Rose.

A key part of DSSG will be a Software Strategy Committee which will 
include representatives from DSSG, other Central Engineering groups, 
Product Marketing, and Field Engineering.  The Committee will establish 
Digital's Distributed Systems architecture and insure that all of 
Digital's software fits that architecture.

Another key part of DSSG will be the establishment of a strong marketing 
and business segment focus.   Details on this will be announced later.

Bill Strecker is currently Vice President of Product Strategy and 
Architecture.  With the establishment of the three system business 
segments, I expect the system segment managers to be primarily 
responsible for the segment strategies.  However, software is the common 
element of all our product strategies; and I continue to expect Bill 
Strecker to play a leadership role in defining our overall product 
strategy, and insuring consistency across the segments.  In support of 
this overall responsibility,  Bill will be a member of the new Corporate 
Operations Committee.

Please welcome Bill in his new and expanded role, welcome the new
managers in DSSG, and extend your support to the DSSG organization.

/bc






To Distribution List:

KEN OLSEN @CORE,
JIM OSTERHOFF @CORE,
WIN HINDLE @CORE,
JOHN SIMS @CORE,
JACK SHIELDS @CORE,
MARTY HOFFMANN @CORE,
JACK SMITH @CORE,
ABBOTT WEISS @CORE,
NAME: George Chamberlain <CHAMBERLAIN.GEORGE AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Henry Crouse <CROUSE.HENRY AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Jim Cudmore <CUDMORE.JIM AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Bill Demmer <DEMMER.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Dick Farrahar <FARRAHAR.DICK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Kurt Friedrich @CORE <FRIEDRICH.KURT AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Sam Fuller <FULLER.SAM AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Bob Glorioso <GLORIOSO.BOB AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: BILL HANSON <HANSON.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
HEFFNER @CORMTS @VAXMAIL,
NAME: Bill Johnson <JOHNSON.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
KEATING@PIPE@MRGATE,
NAME: William Koteff <KOTEFF.WILLIAM AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Dom LaCava <LACAVA.DOM AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Frank McCabe <MCCABE.FRANK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: BOB PALMER <PALMER.BOB AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Grant Saviers <SAVIERS.GRANT AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: PETER SMITH <SMITH.PETER AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Jack Smith <SMITH.JACK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
DAVID STONE @GEO,
NAME: BILL STRECKER <STRECKER.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
DICK YEN @TAO,
NAME: Ken Olsen <OLSEN.KEN AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Jack Shields <SHIELDS.JACK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Jack Smith <SMITH.JACK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
WILLOW SHIRE @MRO,
NAME: Bill Demmer <DEMMER.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Bob Glorioso <GLORIOSO.BOB AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Dom LaCava <LACAVA.DOM AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
PIER-CARLO FALOTTI @GEO,
NAME: Dave Grainger <GRAINGER.DAVE AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: DICK POULSEN <POULSEN.DICK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
DON BUSIEK @OGO,
NAME: DONALD ZERESKI <ZERESKI.DONALD AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: BILL HANSON <HANSON.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: BILL STRECKER <STRECKER.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: PETER SMITH <SMITH.PETER AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Bill Johnson <JOHNSON.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: BRUCE J RYAN @CORE <RYAN.BRUCE J AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Dick Farrahar <FARRAHAR.DICK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>

    Why was .18 set hidden? If I remember correctly it was a 300 or 400
    line memo from Dave Grainger/Jack Shields/Ken Olsen detailing how sales
    is now organized. The memo did not say it was 'Digital Confidential'
    and seemed to me to be clearly meant as an informatory memo to Digital
    employees explaining some of the recent reorganization efforts.
    
    In my opinion the hiding of this memo seems to be yet another example
    of notesfile moderator pananoia not to mention a deliberate effort to
    stifle communication of important matters within the company.
    
    Dave

         Aw for pete's sake, give it a break.  The moderator had a reason
    for setting it hidden.  Why don't you just wait and see if it is set 
    revealed later.  The uproar just isn't worth it.
    
                                    Greg

    re: .20
    
    The poster of .18 removed the forwarding information, including
    an introductory message from Dave Grainger.  In the deleted text,
    it is pretty clear from the context (at least to me) that this memo
    was not explicitly intended for wide distribution, at least not
    yet.  
        
    I can't think of a way to say this without the risk of sounding 
    patronizing or gratuitous, so I apologise if the following comes 
    across that way:
    
    There will be quite a bit of change this year - anybody with even
    just a few brain cells has figured at least that out already.  There
    are, however, many implementation details to be worked out.  What
    the changes will mean to the line managers and individual contributors
    at the unit and district levels is still quite uncertain.  The last 
    thing we need right now is people spending time worrying about the 
    upcoming change and lose focus on their jobs as a result.
    
    Of course, if the memo had not been hidden, the all-too-predictable
    complaining would probably have started (and I can't say that I
    would find blame), sounding something like "Why hasn't my manager 
    told me about this yet?  Why are we finding out about this stuff in 
    a notesfile?"  I don't know about other managers in the Field, but 
    this gem showed up in my mail about an hour before it was posted 
    here.  Electronic communication has not, in my opinion, served us
    well in this particular matter, as it has communicated intentions 
    to introduce change at a rate far faster than those responsible 
    for implementing and defining it are capable of sustaining.
    
    Al
    

    This is a good example of what I said in a reply to another note (just
    before now, for you next-unseeners). In the absence of some specific
    indication from Mr. Grainger that the memo is intended for the widest
    audience within DEC, nobody has any business posting it in a notes
    file.

    RE: .23 
    
    Yes, that is exactly why the note was set hidden.  I wanted to give
    the poster the benefit of the doubt, that he had indeed gotten Mr.
    Grainger's permission to post it. I set it hidden so that he would not
    have to repost it, once he sent me the mail with the permission.
    
    Please let the above stand for every one...  YOU HAVE TO HAVE
    PERMISSION to post ANY mail OF ANY sort in this conference. IF not the
    reply (or topic) to the topic will be returned to you.
    
    Gale (co-mod)

    A correction to my reply .22:  The poster of .18 did not, as I stated,
    delete the introductory message from Dave Grainger.  Since .18 was
    set hidden between the time I first saw it and actually replied
    to it, I relied upon memory to reconstruct what was there.  It looks
    like I 'remembered' the wrong thing.  The rest of the reply stands
    as-is.
    
    Al
    

    My manager participated in a con call with Bill Ferry last Wednesday
    afternoon, during which he learned the plans for the new sales reorg. 
    He was given leave to distribute the information on Friday, which he
    did in hardcopy, since his direct reports happened to all be together
    for a meeting.  The announcement was also distributed to us on Friday
    via Email.  The people, including myself, who received this
    announcement are not members of the sales organization, and are not
    managers, but are Software Services individual contributors.  I do not
    believe Bill Ferry would have given permission to distribute the
    announcement to us if it were intended for restricted distribution.
    
    With that said, I will summarize what I received in the following
    paragraphs.  If the moderators choose to suppress the distribution of
    perfectly public information in this conference, then I acknowledge
    their right as moderators to do so.  But in no way do I acknowledge
    that it is the right thing for them to do.
    
    OK, the announcement involved the reorganization of the sales
    organization.  Organization will revolve around accounts.  A sales unit
    will consist of one or more accounts, and will cover the account(s)
    over whatever geography the account covers.  Budgeting will be by
    account, not by geography.  The numbers will be rolled up automatically
    by the accounting system and will be reported monthly.
    
    Six to twelve units will comprise a district.  A district will carry an
    expense budget and will be chartered with providing services and
    management support to the units.
    
    There will be six to eight geographies in the U.S.  A geography will be
    a grouping of districts.  Certain districts will focus on specific
    industry markets, but the entire field will not be organized by
    industry.
    
    The units will be re-budgeted, and the details of all this will be
    finalized by the first of December so the whole thing can be
    implemented the first of the calendar year.  Budgets will cover all of
    calendar year 1990.

>    If the moderators choose to suppress the distribution of
>    perfectly public information in this conference, then I acknowledge
>    their right as moderators to do so.  But in no way do I acknowledge
>    that it is the right thing for them to do.

They are enforcing a new policy requiring explicit permission before posting
anything written by someone else.  (This policy technically prohibits me from
quoting you as I did above.)


The primary use of policies is often to justify NOT doing the right thing.