Conference 7.286::digital

    Re: .0
    
    Marge, I just got done reading that article in the Globe this
    lunchtime.
    
    I then accessed VTX to see if there was any announcement. Not
    surprisingly, there wasn't.
    
    I sometimes wonder what DEC's communication strategies are (pardon
    me while I guffaw), when an employeee has to read about significant
    business developments either in the newspaper, through the grapevine,
    or in Notes.
    
    Our "official" channels seem content to publish ads for motorcycles,
    announce flea markets, and tell us that all's right with the world.
    
      Alan 

I wonder which direction initiated the information in the Globe?

I mean, did Digital put out a press release and the Globe printed it along with 
the results of the interview with Ms. Richardson?

or

Did the plan to retrain "leak" out and the Globe was following the scent of 
news?

Based on the first paragraph...
   
    By Jane Fitz Simon
    Globe Staff
    
    Faced with a slowing demand for its products, Digital Equipment Corp.
    yesterday confirmed that it has begun a major realignment of its
    manufacturing operations.

...it sounds like the later.

I concur with Marge, at least its retraining 4000 employees.

BobW

Why do the fingers always point to manufacturing?

David

	Who is saying anyone in manufacturing is quilty of anything? If
	anything our cuts in manufacturing are a credit to the company.
	It says that manufacturing is doing things more effecently than
	ever. Engineering is designing things to be built easier. The
	whole thing is a possitive message.

	Except if you are a manufacturing person who wants to continue
	getting paid for not working. Which has happened from time to
	time.

	Note that DEC is looking for new jobs for people not laying them
	off. Training is available as well. This is an opertunity.

			Alfred

re .4:

Why do you think the "finger" is pointing at manufacturing?  It's not 
necessarily their fault.  Demand has apparently fallen off, which means
we need to make fewer systems.  Therefore it seems logical that there are 
too many people in manufacturing (I know, don't assume).

I'm rather curious why, given the excess of people in some other areas,
this is limited to manufacturing. Maybe it's harder to determine which
groups have too many people?  You can't simply say something like "all
engineering groups must transfer 10% of their people to sales" because
not all groups are even fully staffed.

Matt

    Is US Manufacturing the same thing as Puerto Rico Manufacturing?
    If not, I would invite you to look at the 'body count' on the
    island and see how many of them are being 're-programmed'...

RE:                    <<< Note 844.1 by FDCV01::ROSS >>>
                  -< The BeiJing Free Press, At Your Service >-
    
    > I sometimes wonder what DEC's communication strategies are (pardon
    > me while I guffaw), when an employeee has to read about significant
    > business developments either in the newspaper, through the grapevine,
    > or in Notes.
    
    Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of the sort of
    non-communication (aka mushroom management) that is causing such a
    flurry in the rumor mill these days.
    
    There was a reply in the note 842 (the Communications Crisis note)
    stating that the problem was NOT management's failure to communicate
    decisions, but rather management's failure to MAKE any decisions to be
    communicated.  I thought when I read it that perhaps it's true in some
    cases, but far more often we have newspaper articles announcing *major*
    decisions that employees haven't been told about at all.
    
    Yes, I'm happy too that we're not laying off all those people.  But
    that doesn't change the fact that Digital employees are finding out
    about the decision via newspaper articles and VAX Notes.  And it
    doesn't make it right.
    
    							Pat

    RE: Communication....
    
    I saw in mail (I think about 20 people forwarded the memo to me),
    the official memo, of what this article was addressing...
    
    so, I doubt that it was a leak...  it was communicated, and then
    released...
    
    

    I've got a question.  Supposedly we're going to move 4,000 people
    from manufacturing positions to Sales/Sales Support positions. 
    I've also heard that a large number of marketing and field service
    people would be making a similar move.  My question is: will they
    be welcomed with open arms in Sales?
    
    There's a lot of talk about ``productivity per person'' in Sales
    these days, and it's not all positive.  (Productivity is too low
    and needs to be much higher.)  The only way to improve Sales
    productivity is: 1) increase sales at a rate high enough to more
    than compensate for the increased head count resulting from the
    inflow of ex-manufacturing, marketing, etc. personnel; or 2) reduce
    the current number of persons holding Sales/Sales Support positions
    with sales revenues remaining relatively flat.
    
    Are we expecting a sudden surge in sales?  Will adding more sales
    people (and conversely reducing the territories of existing sales
    people) generate significantly more sales?  Is the corporate bottleneck
    a lack of sales coverage?  And if so, is this the right way to correct
    it?
    
    I'm not convinced.  If my memory serves me, revenues were up ...
    profits were down.  We need to streamline to be more profitable.
    Moving people from manufacturing and marketing to sales and sales
    support only helps if we are constrained by our sales coverage.
    If we are not, then these transfers may harm not help.  Plus the
    real problem continues un-addressed.  We have too many people, too
    many layers, and too much overhead.
    
    Don

    As a member of a manufacturing site I can tell you that this is
    old news.  
    
    We have already begun a push into the Systems/Solutions Integration
    arena not unlike SWS and/or PSS.
    
    Mike

    
    Re .11
    
    I would be interested to understand more about what kind of 
    retraining programs are in place or planned.
    
    It would seem to me that it takes extensive knowledge of 
    areas such as software/networking/databases/layered products
    as well as years of experience in a vocation (eg., banking) or
    an application (eg., CAD) to be effective in System / Solution 
    Integration.
                            
    Or will we just concentrate on computer manufacturing, and if so,
    who will be the customers ?
                                             
    

    re: .9 and .11  "retraining for Sales/Support roles"
    
    I applaud Digital for the non-layoff moves, but it's not really
    a new maneuver; our illustrious industry leader (IBM) has used
    this tactic more than once.  And it works.  We can always use an
    influx of technical knowledge and experience in the field.  All
    the sales hype in the world can't beat a support specialist who
    can tell a customer "Yes, we've done that, and here's how we
    did it ..."  IBM gets lots of acclaim for their salesmanship, but
    it's their systems engineers that are the real heros.  I work day-
    to-day with a 15-year veteran IBM SSE, and he consistently amazes
    me with his knowledge of the customer and the industry.
    
    Digital *does* need more sales reps calling on accounts, I have
    no doubt about that.  But the way that field sales managers do their
    metrics is often counter to this idea;  managers end up focusing
    in on large installed-base accounts and are unwilling to risk any
    efforts on new customers or long sales cycles.  Staffing is kept
    to a minimum of "account managers", who take equipment orders, do
    basic customer presentations, and fill out paperwork.  While IBM 
    and the other mainframe vendors are willing to work two-year sales
    cycles, we seem to concentrate on month-to-month stuff.  Short term,
    "hit and run", that's the name of the game.  And we're going to sell
    multi-million dollar projects now, right?  Yeah ...
    
    The immediate effect of a sudden influx of sales people is that there
    will be lots of new people with "numbers" (sales quotas), and that will
    be a new experience for them.  Some will find it an unpleasant one,
    and will seek gainful employment elsewhere.  Some will find that
    they are very successful, and the company will benefit thereby.
    As long as our company is offering everone the chance to continue
    as productive employees, then we're much more fortunate that most
    of our peers in the industry, and in business in general.    

    Geoff
    

       Mike H. is right, we in Manufacturing knew about this months
    ago.
                                            Denny

re:	< Note 844.7 by POLAR::POND >
>    Is US Manufacturing the same thing as Puerto Rico Manufacturing?
>    If not, I would invite you to look at the 'body count' on the
>    island and see how many of them are being 're-programmed'...


	U.S. Manufacturing is not the same as Caribbean Operations
	in Puerto Rico.  They are under GIA and the LACR (Latin America
	Caribbean Region).

	I have not seen all the responses to this note so forgive me if
	this is mentioned elsewhere...

	In 1985 COM (Caribbean Operations Manufacturing) went through the
	same exercise the U.S. is going through right now.  They did this
	under the approval of GIA and Corporate Management.  Around 500
	employees were re-directed.

	In my opinion, COM has already done its share of "trimming"
	operations and should not be looked at as a potential for this
	sort of thing unless the business in COM needs it.  Employees
	in the island deserve the same treatment as those in the U.S.
	specially if they already looked at the personnel population and
	re-directed the excess.

Virtually the same article appeared on the cover of Tuesday's Gazette in 
Colorado  Springs with local enhancements (plant manager saying minimal 
impact...) so I suspect that the article was distributed by the Globe as long 
ago as the weekend, giving a local reporter a chance to call CXO.

FWIW,
BobW_who_wonders_if_we'd_seen_it_first_if_the AP_wire_were_still_available

    I work in Corporate personnel in CFO2 (W. Concord, MA)
    Our group (actually a major portion of the facility
    here) attended a Personnel Quarterly in our cafeteria
    at which general information is discussed, new faces
    etc. 
    
    The Quarterly was run by Ted Sares (sorry i don't know 
    his official title) and this article was the first
    item to be addressed (as everyone clutched their Boston
    Globe). This article was not official information 
    given to the Globe by DEC. 
    
    We were told "downsizing" is not planned (kinder word
    for layoff, I think) nad many options including
   " retraining" of "excess personnel" were being looked at. 
    No specifics were discussed beyond the above. 
    
    Since I personally attended the meeting along with 
    many other employees, contract workers and cafeteria
    personnel, I feel it appropriate to pass along 
    this channel. 
    
    

    The Wall Street Journal, and many other local newspapers, ran the
    story and included the 1-2k more to be reskilled in FY91.  One area
    to consider is the cost of training sales and support folks.  If
    we look at 4k for FY90, the cost is $4M if we assume 1K cost of
    training per person, and $40M cost if 10K per person.  I don't have
    any idea of the cost to train a sales or support person, but the
    overall costs will be high...I see this as another extra cost that
    won't make the profits look real good in early FY90, and could
    be one of the items which causes the company to extend the wage
    freeze.
    
    fwiw
    Mark
    

    The cost (including time) to train people to do their jobs has been
    completely ignored for many of these new programs upon which Digital
    is embarking.  Like OLTP.  We seem to feel we can hire these people
    off the streets, ready to go.
        
    Sorry, Digital, it won't work.  (Not if the intent is to "deliver.")

    If equipment sales don't improve over the next 6 months then I believe
    this move will be naught and the worse case scenario will occur.
    From the F-S viewpoint we are over staffed, however the "All Hands
    on DEC" program seems to be working there as a short term solution.
    In this area we are seeing some slight improvement but DLH is still
    not what it should be. 
    
    The last thing I heard wage freezes were starting 7/2 and expected
    to last 6months not the original 3months as planned. All we need
    is a major shift in the economy and things will really get tough.
    DEC Im sure is also monitoring Wall Street how much more can the
    stock take when KO decides enough is enough...
    
     In my opinion Hooray for no lay offs but the way things are going
    WE all better think about what may inevitably happen !
    
    Sorry for the gloom and doom stuff ! But I think were reaching a
    breaking point.
    
    Mike Turro
    

	The last you heard from *who*??? (Regarding freeze going 6 months).
	Please give us a name or expect reasonable people to ignore it
	as just one more rumor.

				Alfred

    Re: .17
     
    > The Quarterly was run by Ted Sares (sorry i don't know 
    > his official title) and this article was the first
    > item to be addressed (as everyone clutched their Boston
    > Globe). This article was not official information 
    > given to the Globe by DEC. 
    
    > We were told "downsizing" is not planned (kinder word
    > for layoff, I think) nad many options including
    > " retraining" of "excess personnel" were being looked at. 
    > No specifics were discussed beyond the above. 
    
    I guess I'm confused. 
    
    Was Ted Sares saying that the Globe article was untrue? If so, I'm 
    surprised that DEC hasn't demanded a retraction, much the same way 
    that we asked NPR to retract their rumor about Jack Shields' resignation.
    
    Or, was the article true, but not yet ready for official internal
    dissemination?
    
      Alan

    Re:22
    
    Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was being extra careful
    not to "rock any boats" or give the appearance of 
    spreading a rumor. (People are so sensitive lately,
    I was almost not going to say anything......)
    
    Yes the article is true. I believe the way is was phrased
    was "yes, 4000 was a number discussed. No word on 
    how re-training would be managed. The words I used in .17 were
    terms used at the quarterly - yes they are pretty vague. Many
    people asked very specific questions, and basically
    the answer was "when we have something to tell you 
    we will". 
    
    
    
    

I wonder how many of those 4000 people are going to be a least a good
salesman or women. It's not everyone that can go out and be a salesperson.
Yes, they will be doing some other job's in those area's but I think that 
DEC is looking for some of these people to go elsewhere when not satisfied
with their job.


Monty    
    
    
    

 -----       Projecting Structural Changes at DEC    
|C I S|                                    
 -----  
Author: Babcock, B.; Wendler, S.;      Source   : GG: Small Computer Systems
                                       Type     : Research Service
                                       Date     : 09-MAY-89
                                       Report ID: 3009859



Section  Topic 
-------  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  Intro       Summary of Report (Supplied by CIS Editor)
   1          Macro Productivity
   2               Table 1 - DEC Revenue/Expense Growth Comparison
   3          Digital Revenue Productivity Issue; Competitive Position


                           GG: Small Computer Systems

                                      ( 1 )



 -----       Projecting Structural Changes at DEC           | 09-MAY-89
|C I S|                                                     | GG: Small Computer Systems
 -----       


Intro: Summary of Report (Supplied by CIS Editor)


DEC's revenue per employee lags behind that of key competitors across market
segments.  With good product momentum but a lackluster FY89 pending, DEC is
likely to act to improve productivity.  How will DEC retain its position as a
leading midrange vendor?



Section: 1 Macro Productivity

The effectiveness of information systems must be measured in terms of
productivity.  In its simplest form, productivity is defined as output divided
by input;  at a macro level, it is defined as gross domestic product divided
by labor, or by a weighted labor/capital factor, traditionally reported in
relative terms (see Figure 1 - unavailable in electronic version).  For the
individual enterprise, macro productivity becomes revenue per employee.  The
correlation of IS investment to organizational productivity at a micro level
is a topic of much discussion, but even at the enterprise level the macro
measure can be used to identify firms that need labor and/or capital changes.
While normally discussed in the context of end-user enterprises, the
revenue/labor statistics are particularly interesting in the IS vendor
community.

Figure 2 (unavailable in electronic version) shows the dramatic difference in
the productivity of traditional minicomputer suppliers (e.g., Digital

Equipment Corp., Hewlett-Packard, Data General, Wang, Prime and Tandem) vs.
the newer microprocessor-based systems suppliers (e.g., Stratus, Sequent, Sun
and Apollo).  The newer vendors show almost 50 percent higher productivity.
This cost structure will provide increasing competitive pressure, to which the
traditional vendors must react to survive in the long term.

Within the traditional minicomputer group, a disparity of less dramatic but
highly significant magnitude also appears.  DEC as a current success story is
of particular interest.  On a revenue per employee basis, DEC has been
consistently below the minicomputer average, as well as below major
competitors.  Looking at operating expenses, DEC's research and development,
and its selling, general and administrative expenses have been growing at a
faster pace than revenue for the most recent two quarters (see Table 1) and
are directly responsible for the second quarter, year-to-year decline in
operating margin.






                           GG: Small Computer Systems

                                      ( 2 )



 -----       Projecting Structural Changes at DEC           | 09-MAY-89
|C I S|                                                     | GG: Small Computer Systems
 -----       



Section: 2 Table 1 - DEC Revenue/Expense Growth Comparison

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                    |
|               DEC Revenue/Expense Growth Comparison                |
|                           (Year-to-Year)                           |
|                                                                    |
|                             FY89            FY89                   |
|                        First Quarter   Second Quarter              |
|                          Sept. '88        Dec. '88                 |
|                                                                    |
|            Revenue                                                 |
|            Growth              +16.3%          +14.3%              |
|                                                                    |
|            R&D, SG&A                                               |
|            Expense                                                 |
|            Growth              +22.7%          +19.8%              |

|                                                                    |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+




Section: 3 Digital Revenue Productivity Issue; Competitive Position

DEC has recognized this revenue productivity issue for some time and has
instituted intermittent hiring freezes.  Centralization of engineering in the
early 1980s also had a positive effect on productivity by eliminating
duplicate efforts.

We believe, however, that these low-impact steps will not be sufficient for
DEC to achieve the cost structure necessary to retain a strong competitive
position in the 1990s.  This year, we expect the minicomputer industry average
revenue per employee to exceed $115,000.  For DEC to match this, staffing must
be reduced by about 12,000, based on projected revenue.  For DEC to reach the
competitive position of $125,000 revenue per employee, a reduction of between
20,000 to 25,000 employees would be necessary.

DEC has had a tradition of no layoffs (although there is no formal policy),
despite the good and bad times in the industry.  We do not expect that

tradition to change.  DEC is more likely to take other, high-impact steps,
such as an incentive retirement program or organizational restructuring.
DEC's multiple marketing organizations, which display a high degree of
overlap, for example, would be a target for centralization similar to its
engineering reorganization.  Another approach would be to freeze headcount,

                           GG: Small Computer Systems

                                      ( 3 )



 -----       Projecting Structural Changes at DEC           | 09-MAY-89
|C I S|                                                     | GG: Small Computer Systems
 -----       

gambling on double-digit revenue growth and restructuring through attrition.

If DEC chooses the proactive approach, we believe that the company will take
some action before June 1989.  The company's fiscal year 1989, which ends June
30, is already characterized by lower than desirable profitability.  We
believe now is a good time for DEC to absorb the costs of additional
restructuring.  While a short-term effect would be negative on profitability,
such a move would position the company to be a much stronger competitor in the
1990s.


In selecting long-term vendor relationships, users should consider the
vendor's productivity as an indicator of both the ability to maintain
competitiveness and an understanding of how to employ IS technology.

Vendors, facing the challenges of the 1990s, should be evaluating themselves
with these corporate productivity measures as a means of projecting the
structural changes necessary to remain competitive.
(c)  GG: Small Computer Systems


                           GG: Small Computer Systems

                                      ( 4 )


    
    In the Worcester Telegram, the article stated we were going to retrain
    6,000 workers, not 4,000

>I wonder how many of those 4000 people are going to be a least a good
>salesman or women. It's not everyone that can go out and be a salesperson.

That was my initial reaction (I know I'd make a lousy salesman), but someone
pointed out that the targets include sales support, etc.

Re: .25

    Revenue per  employee  depends  on  how  vertically  integrated  a
    company  is  as  well  as how efficent it is. We should have lower
    revenue/employee  than  Sun  does  because we make many of our own
    chips.  That  requires employees who don't generate extra revenue.
    (They  do cut the procurement costs, which is just as good, but it
    makes the revenue/employee numbers lower.)

--David

>    < Note 844.12 by NISSAN::STIMSON "Thomas" >
>    It would seem to me that it takes extensive knowledge of 
>    areas such as software/networking/databases/layered products
>    as well as years of experience in a vocation (eg., banking) or
>    an application (eg., CAD) to be effective in System / Solution 
>    Integration.
    
    All of which are done in most of DEC's manufacturing facilities
    today.  Long gone are the days of drafting boards, reams of paper,
    etc. in manufacturing.  Our site performs and/or have performed CAD 
    services for DEC sites all over the West including Colorado Springs 
    and DECwest.
    
    The local MIS and Engineering departments, have been working together
    with the local SWS, in helping out DEC customers in the West for at
    least 3 years.  We've established accounts from the Mississippi
    River to the West Coast, including most of California.  Applications
    run the gamut from manufacturing to military.
    
>    Or will we just concentrate on computer manufacturing, and if so,
>    who will be the customers ?
    
    Another one of our specialties.  We've already received requests
    to help customers on CIM.  Manufacturing is our specialty and has
    been since this plant opened in '76.  
    
    We've proven already that we have the talent here to do other things!
    
    Mike

    RE: .26
    
    That is what the headline said. The article went on to further state
    that 4,000 would be done in Fy90, and an additional 1,000 or 2,00o in
    FY91.
    
    Deb

RE:        <<< Note 844.29 by PNO::HEISER "Bring on the Monsoons!" >>>
                          -< you asked for it... :-) >-
    
    > We've proven already that we have the talent here to do other things!
    
    Hear, hear!
    
    Digital's manufacturing sites have expertise available that the field
    needs, and needs badly!  Several years ago, someone realized how
    valuable this expertise could be to our customers, and a close
    relationship was formed between a number of our manufacturing sites and
    the field.  Time and time again, we have gone to a plant looking for
    someone to help close a sale or to help arrive at a solution to a
    customer's problem or to meet with a customer to establish Digital's
    credibility, and time and time again they have come through for us with
    flying colors.
    
    If those people are no longer needed in manufacturing due to reduced
    demand, then the sales and sales support organizations can use all of
    them we can get out here in the field!
    
    							Pat

    Not to start a rathole, and with all due respect for our friends
    in manufacturing, I've had the impression for many years that our
    manufacturing technology was significantly behind the (pardon the
    expression) 'state-of-the-art'.  That translated into higher unit
    costs when compared to our competition, specifically IBM.  The
    impression I got was that comparable products from the competition
    cost less for them to manufacture, in spite of our lower pricing
    to the customer.  Is this true?
    
    This is an impression, rather than hard information, that I had
    picked up a few years ago.  I recall it coming up during a discussion
    about manufacturing technologies, and 'lights out' operations (which
    at the time we simply couldn't do).
    
    Obviously I know nothing about manufacturing technologies, and by
    no means is this meant as any criticism of the manufacturing groups
    ('some of my best friends are manufacturers :-).  I was just wondering
    how we assess our own standing in this technology, and how our in-house
    expertise would shape up to the test of field exposure.
    
    Any opinions...?
    

re: .33, .32

Yes, but I don't think they are for manufacturing technology ;-)

I'll venture another uneducated guess; any generalization about
DEC mfg is too broad of a brush stroke.  As I recollect, for
example, mfg won a US award relative to performance.  Best inventory
turns or something like that contrasted with other US mfgers ...
and I don't think it was even computer-industry specific.

Regardless, mfg has an upper limit of efficiency that is determined
by the engineering of the products that they build; that is to say,
bad mfg numbers can be engineering's fault as easily as it can
be manufacturing's, so just looking at the numbers is insufficient
to assess responsibility.

Mfg as an organization could be superb, and still have bad numbers
because of bad engineering.

- greg

    Manufacturing is the absolute bottom of the food chain in this company
    today.   One should not evaluate the relative merits of blue green
    algae without evaluating the entire ecosystem.
    

    
    I work in a Manufacturing Plant.  We were told by our managers
    that our "downsizing" will begin in the new fiscal year.  Supposedly
    we are putting into a pool around 300 indirect labor folks.  The
    target date of this information is July 5.  Everyone is waiting
    to hear who is going to be hit.  Let's just hope that the 
    Training Department in our plant is spared.  Generally the past
    history of this plant is to get rid of training first.  What a
    pity!!! Regarding new technology, well our plant is upgrading new
    technologies on a frequent basis. That's why we have a need for
    the Training Department. Another thing that is going on in the
    plant is cross-training.  Assemblers, technicians, and others are
    being cross-trained in many different areas.  The idea is the more
    you are FLEXIBLE the better off you are.

    REF 844.36
    
    If you are hit - ""Welcomt to the wonderfull world of TMP"". I have been
    in it for about 6 months and know of people who have been in it for 12
    to 18 months. currently working on a temp position with hope that it
    will go perm. But then again I suppose I could be like some people and
    just sit around on my hands being happy doing nothing.  Again, if you
    are hit - WELCOME TO TMP.
    
     

    Why do we have people in DEC that have been looking for a job for
    over 18 months?  My understanding of TMP is that with the people in the
    program, it is their job to find a job, devoting 40 hours a week
    to it.  Also that if after 2 offers, they don't accept either/or
    they are out of the company.  Is this true?  If it is, why would it take
    someone more than a couple of months to find a new job if they are
    devoting 40 hours a week to it?  And before you say because of the
    freeze, that was not the case in all of the last 18 months...
    
    Just curious...

    Perhaps they don't have the skills or experience required for jobs
    which have been available during that period.

    I know of several folks who can't get past the first interview step. I
    don't know if it's lack of specific skills, but I have heard that
    many/most hiring managers haven't any money in the budget to send
    people to training so they have to find someone with the exact skills
    they need. This means people who could be hired and given a bit of
    training are languishing on hold trying to find a job. I think that's
    being pound foolish and penny wise, but I'm not a hiring manager.
    
    Tamzen

    Why did it take management so long to realize that they were
    overhiring.  Not much seems to be being planned properly in
    this corporation.  Everything seems to be a reaction to a crisis.
    Some one discovers a problem, so management builds an organization
    around the problem...more people.  Why does Digital have to deal
    with 4000 too many people all at once, they certainly were not
    hired all on the same day...another crisis to react to.  I wonder
    how many of these 4000 are the ones who hired the remaining 3999???
    
    Mike
    
    
    

    
    RE: .41
    
    You know manager likes to hire people;  more than enough to handle
    problem.  If a project needs three people to do it in a small
    company, the manager at DEC will ask for 6.

	RE: .41 Some of these 4000 people are 5, 10, 15, 20 year vets
	with the company. It used to take a whole lot more people to
	build our systems. Things like POM and engineering changes and
	new equipment and 1,000s of other things have happened over the
	years to reduce the need for so many people. It's not like these
	people were hired as overkill. They were needed and needed badly
	for years.

				Alfred

re .42.  Ain't that the truth!  I couldn't have said it better myself!


            Regards,
                    Steve Cloutier

RE: .42, .44

It ain't like that out in the field in SWS.

    RE: .42  "DEC needs layoff!"
    
    Here's a modest proposal.  Have somebody set up a system whereby each
    employee is polled, YES or NO, on whether Digital needs a layoff.  The
    Catch-22 is that candidates for former-employee status will be drawn
    from those voting in the affirmative. 

    

I personaly don't think a Layoff is going to solve the problem.  

Ok, I come from an Engineering point of view.  I'v seen disasterous projects,
fair projects and a couple of good ones.

What I see:

    Projects are bogged down in "process".
    Too many people who don't know what's going on are trying to get a
        "handle" on the project...hence more process.
    Managers try to Cover their behinds, and hire more people than are necessary
        to do the job.
    Those who do more or better work are not suitably rewarded, and slow down
        to the level of the lowest common denominator.

What to do?

    Let project groups behave more like seperate compaines.  Everyone knows
    that start-ups or small compaines have to be more productive.  On the
    flip side, they give their people bigger rewards for a good job.  You
    can't do the first without the second.

    Propose the project as if you were starting a company, looking for
    investors.  You have a profit-and-loss, you get an overall budget
    to do with, more-or-less AS YOU SEE FIT.  Like a small company, you
    make a profit AFTER the project is done, and making money.  Some of
    this goes back to those who worked on it.

    You'd be amazed at how productivity would improve...

            Regards,
                    Steve Cloutier

    re -.1;
    
    Right on!  The one thing that the Digital management style seems to
    preclude is letting people get on with the job.  I'm constantly shocked
    and apalled by the level-jumping and "micro-management" that goes on,
    at least out here in the field (SWS).  We've been treated to the
    stimulating fun of area staffers rewiewing weekly time sheets for sales
    support people to make sure they were properly deployed (jumping over 2
    levels of managers).  The smallest project is subjected to a business
    review (area staff again) appropriate for SDI and the customer is left
    wondering why the our proposal takes as long as the project.
    
    For all our talk of empowering and openness, we seem to have developed
    a nasty, nit-picking, second-guessing management style that seems to
    get in the way more than it gets things done.
    
    -dave

    Re: .49 and .50:
    
    This sounds more and more like the management style of the small
    environmental consulting company I left before coming to Digital.
    I hope someone finds a way to turn things around before the Digital
    style of management becomes nothing but history.
    
    On retraining and lay-offs: IMHO, doing the right thing means laying
    off only those individuals who 1) refuse 2 or 3 successive
    opportunities to take training or job offers, or 2) have been in the
    TMP catagory for more than n months and for whom no suitable matches to
    career advancement opportunities have been made in that time.
    
    In short: selective terminations, but NO wide-scale lay offs. This lets
    us trim our staffs and rationalize not having "broken the no-layoff
    tradition."

    re .49
    
    > Let project groups behave more like seperate compaines.  Everyone knows
    > that start-ups or small compaines have to be more productive.  On the
    > flip side, they give their people bigger rewards for a good job.  You
    > can't do the first without the second.

    > Propose the project as if you were starting a company, looking for
    > investors.  You have a profit-and-loss, you get an overall budget
    > to do with, more-or-less AS YOU SEE FIT.  Like a small company, you
    > make a profit AFTER the project is done, and making money.  Some of
    > this goes back to those who worked on it.

    > You'd be amazed at how productivity would improve...
    
    But you missed the most important point ! In a small company such as
    you describe, people often do tend to work more effeciently and
    productively. Why ? because if they don't they won't have jobs because
    the company they work for won't have the money to pay them !!!! Sound
    familiar ? No, because ...
    
    The problem we have in Digital is that it effectively doesn't matter if
    you don't work to your limits or even have productive work to do -
    you'll still get your paycheck. Where's the incentive ?
    
    I believe that we need to become a leaner company to succeed. I'm
    really sorry if some proportion of the workforce have to be "retrained
    for opportunities outside the company" (sic) or otherwise laid-off but
    real (commercial) life isn't as easy as we have had it in Digital for
    far too long now.
    
    I don't remember putting my money into the stock of a charity - I
    thought I was making an investment which would appreciate.
    
    Jon

    
     We don't need layoffs. What we do need is to get rid of people
    who don't show up for WORK. Either mentally or physically. People
    who want to work will find a way to get re-skilled. That is IF they
    have proper MANAGEMENT direction. How do you find people who are
    NOT working. Simple LOOK, ASK, REVIEW past performance. If some
    MANAGERS are covering duff over dead-weights, then perhaps they
    to should be expelled.
    
     We have good people... lets not make the company suffer for those
    that do NOT contribute. Enough of EMPIRES and such.
    
    -Mike Z.

People who don't work aren't nearly as much of a problem as people who
do bad work.  They are also the hardest to find.  A "lazy" employee
costs little more than their salary plus overhead plus a modicum of
resources.  A "bad" employee can cost millions or even billions of
dollars with a single bad decision.

It's the old 80/20 rule and it applies at both ends of the spectrum ---
something that is frequently overlooked.

- greg

    re .51 -- Selective termination
    
    Nice idea, and actually it's similar to what happens today -- but it
    doesn't work. I have been personally told by people in TMP that they
    will tell interviewers NOT to offer them a job, so they don't get stuck
    in the 3rd-job-offer-you-must-take-it-or-leave category. Some of these
    TMP folks have been in redeployed groups for 6+ months.
    
    Whether we lay off or call it something else, SOMETHING has to be
    decided upstairs, and soon. There are too many people running around in
    circles, looking for jobs in groups that are cutting headcount, while
    little business is getting done. I think a big piece of the problem is
    that most middle managers don't understand the direction of the
    Executive committee on this -- and until they get a clear message, will
    continue to muddle through.
    
    --Lynn
    

    Another interesting twist to this is that some people have set up
    consulting groups in the corporation with particular areas of expertise
    (AI comes to mind).  They then try to sell their services to the
    Field at rates which are competitive with our normal rates to
    customers.  We're supposed to resell them at a profit.
    
    Of course, once we factor in our 50% margin requirements (so that
    both of us make a profit), the rates are no longer competitive with 
    anyone.  In one instance, a particular group has suggested to Sales 
    that they be allowed to "poach", i.e. sell directly to the customer 
    and avoid the SWS middleman.
    
    Needless to say, this is not well received.  I think we need a more
    sane approach to redeployment; certainly we can't have people setting
    up shop on their own in order to take business away from other parts 
    of the corporation.
    
    Al
    

>>    ...I think we need a more
>>    sane approach to redeployment; certainly we can't have people setting
>>    up shop on their own in order to take business away from other parts 
>>    of the corporation.

Really?

-steve-

    re: .57
    
    You're not serious, are you?
    
    Al
    

    re .58:
    
    I believe he is serious, because I had exactly the same reaction.
    
    If there are people who believe they can sell AI consulting to
    customers for a profit and for the general betterment of Digital, then
    I say let them have at it.
    
    We don't need brokers in this company, we need producers. If it makes
    good business sense for all such consulting to come out of SWS, then
    the AI consulting group should be attached officially to SWS.
    Otherwise, just let them prove themselves in the open market. How do
    you think SWS came to be?

        Re: .59

>    We don't need brokers in this company, we need producers.

        We should be concerned that we don't end up with too many
        brokers, but we do need both brokers and producers.

        We need brokers to guarantee that all groups selling services to
        customers have similar customer interfaces:  The same type of
        contract, the same rates for the same services, and sold through
        the same mechanism.  These are several reasons for this:

         o  We don't want Digital to look fragmented to customers.  We
            want to look like (and be) a coordinated company with a
            consistent set of products and services.

         o  We don't want customers confused over which service is right
            for them.  If two group provide similar (but different)
            services with slightly different contracts and different
            rates, then customers will be confused over which to choose. 
            What's worse:  the descriptions of the services could be the
            same while the services are quite different.

         o  We don't want customers turning Digital against itself--
            causing two service providing groups to bid against each
            other without a clear differentiation of services.

         o  We don't want the groups providing services to each have the
            overhead of setting up the services.  If the contracts and
            final descriptions are all handled by a common group with
            experience then they will be produced quicker and better and
            all have a common look.

        					B.J.

    I deleted .60 in order to rewrite it and better focus on what I 
    really wanted to say (instead of what I actually did say!).
    
    .61 came along in the meantime and did a much better job of saying about
    what I was going to say.
    
    What I would emphasize is that :
    
    	1.  We are one company, and need to act that way.
    
    	2.  Competition among ourselves is fine, as long as the playing
	    field is level. We cannot permit it unless everyone is shooting
	    for the same goals (as indicated by metrics) and are held
	    equally accountable for their actions.
    
    Al
    

Let me second .61/.62

The problem of presenting a complex fragmented face to the customers
is growing rapidly serious.

At a recent customer focus meeting with about 20 customers who represent
between 10 and 20% of our total business they said, "we are looking for
other vendors ... there is nothing wrong with your products --- they
are among the best --- but you are impossible to do business with*, there
are alternate vendors, and we feel we have no choice".

This used to be a "threat" ... an attempt to get us to change.  We've
failed to change and actually gotten much worse.  Instead of being a
threat now it is a real statement of intent.

* They gave real examples of this.  For example, many of them deal with
the government who places many administrative burdens upon them.  The
have five administrators for every TWO engineers (not a typo, sad but
true US Gov. buracracy).  They can't fix the gov. so they look to other
vendors that will do business in ways that reduce admin.

This is quite possibly a signifcant factor in our current stock price
and US performance.  (There are some numbers to back that up).

As the person "guilty" of the LMF I've had a lot of discussions with
customers about this problem and it's a lot worse than most people
realize.  Eventually the LMF will help, but it has an expensive
startup price before it pays back.  But the LMF only attacks part
of the issue (sw lic. admin) --- there are many many other "problems
with doing business with Digital".

- greg

    re .63: but you are impossible to do business with
    
    True.  I know a professor at a local college who could not get
    information out of DEC.  Finally I had to yank a high level chain
    and contact was then made in the next day or two.
    This just happened a few months ago.  While I was trying to find
    the high level chain to yank several people told me that I was 
    telling them a very familiar story.

    A quote from KO in the Boston Globe 7/12
    
    "Recessions are a good time to get rid of the riffraff."
                                        
    
    This quote came as he was discussing Digital's continued investments
    and product development efforts in the face of an expected ecomonic
    recession.
    

    Re: .65
    
    I think you're quoting out of context.  To me, the "riffraff" he
    was talking about was clearly the smaller and less viable companies
    in the business, not employees.
    
    				Steve

    REF NOTE 844.38
    
    I have been in TMP since late Feb this year. During this time period
    all but the first two weeks have been spent on temp work assignment in
    hopes that it will turn into a perm job. The position I am filling is a
    WC3 position which pays about $2.00/hr more than I currently make as a
    WC2. Now with the freeze on you tell me, should I take this position
    if it is offered or should I just go back and sit around looking for a
    ""JOB"" and kill time untill the freeze is lifted. It appears that you
    know the answer or you have never been in this position. 
    
    BTW - I currently hold a degree in General Business and am working on
    obtaining my degrees in Business Admin and Computer Sci. (5 courses to
    go to get both degrees in a double degree program. - going at night all
    year around with no breaks).
    

       Seems like as good a place as any for this.
                                            Denny
    
    
<<<  20 million headings deleted>>>>



From:	SOCIAL::SUSSMAN      19-JUN-1989 13:21
To:	SUSSMAN
Subj:	Workforce Planning Issues


* Most other companies in our field have been downsizing in the past two
  years.  We have been growing at 15% a year.

* We are hiring 25,000 people a year, 100 a day. 

* Field hired 1100 people last month.

* As long as we don't have a strategic approach to workforce we are 
  on a see-saw.

* Headcount forecasting is a simple arithmetic prediction that
  takes the projection of business volume and divides the total dollars
  to arrive at a number of total people.  This is done by cost center,
  without the interests of the company as a whole in mind.

* If we live by the cost center, we will die by the cost center.  What I
  mean by this is that there is a corporate cost of decentralized action.
  Line managers hire someone to meet a very short-term local manpower
  need, but that person becomes a regular full-time ("permanent") employee.
  We do not recruit, place, or develop people with their payoff to the
  company over 1-3 years in mind (much less 3-5 years).  And yet we know
  that the work is changing in every job function.  The work someone is 
  hired to do today will not be there in a year or two.

* We have to be more strategic about who we hire and what we do with the
  people we now have.  This isn't the 1970s when we could always replace
  people.  The labor market is different.  There are fewer good replacements
  out there, and the competition is stiffer for the same caliber of people.

* We need to change the mentality that "more is better."  Now, line managers
  often believe that they are doing a better job if they have a larger group.
  Or managers with a larger group are seen as more powerful than those with
  fewer people.  This is a war-lord mentality that will run the company into
  the ground.

* A trend is a pattern of past activity; it does not lock us into doing the
  same thing in the future.  But alternatives must be proposed and considered.
  I find most people thinking the future is going to be like the past, only
  more so.  More of the same is not going to assure Digital's success in 
  coming years.

* Temporary and part-time employees are the wave of the future at all levels, 
  not just as clericals.

* I believe at least 20% of present employees could do their work without
  having a personal office.  We already have enormous squeezes on parking
  and office space.  Instead of assuming that future work requires more
  new facilities for office space, we should consider other possibilities.
  Europe is ahead of the US in doing creative thinking about this.

* Instead of saying that the run-rate requires us to have 150,000 employees
  in 1990 and double that many in 1999, why not look into how work would 
  be organized if we had 100,000 people in 1996, the same as we had in 1986?
  This is a task that should be done under the sponsorship of Strategic
  Resources.

* We are years behind in understanding the potential of flextime, 
  job sharing and distance working.

* We need to think about the change from being a company of people who are
  25-35 years old to being a company of people in their 40s and 50s.  One
  example is that in our first 30 years, only 1000 people retired.  The
  next 1000 will retire in a much shorter period of time.  

* Just-in-Time manufacturing is predicting it will eliminate 6000 jobs.  EDI
  managers predict it will impact at least 1/4 of the jobs in the company.  
  The combination of these and other efforts need to be looked at.

* We have a crisis in our non-exempt workforce.  We can't find secretaries,
  the pool of people is changing or disappearing, and we don't have a career
  path or development program for over 5000 people in the US alone.

* 10,000-15,000 people a week in the US go into the VTX Jobs Book, looking
  for another job within the company.  That's a lot of people who are 
  distracted from paying attention to their present job.

* 85% of the (non-Digital) US workforce in the year 2000 is in the workforce
  today.  So we know who the employees of the future are: they're us.  That
  suggests we need to understand how to grow people over time.  We haven't 
  paid sufficient attention to this and it's about to catch up with us in
  the form of being nickled and dimed to death by innumerable ad hoc,
  stand alone, projects.

* The non-US Digital population is growing faster than the US.  Today, 37%
  of our employees are outside the US.  I figure that, while more than 50%
  of company sales will be from outside the US in FY89, more than 50% of
  our workforce will be outside the US in FY93.

* We are seeing more work being done by dispersed (or distributed) groups.
  Many PBUs cross geographies.  Who looks at work that crosses these turf
  borders?  How much inter-country mobility do we expect to see in the 1990s?
  How are we growing managers to think globally?

 
--Harris Sussman
  

   

    re .68>*we have a crisis in our non-exempt work-force.
    
    Is that surprising ? All the external hiring is for
    sales and service. I haven't seen a warehouser, shipper/
    receiver, secretary, manufacturer etc... hired externally
    in *YEARS*. We had six openings for Warehouser, could not
    fill them. We now have a bunch of temps doing Warehouser II
    jobs. And hiring got frozen again. 
    
    Except !!!! for *more* 'special need' cases. And don't
    be surprised if those are all WC4's. 
    
    Rhetorical question : how many WC4's would be willing to
    take a WC2 job ? 

    Now figure that some WC2's will move up to exempt jobs,
    some will retire, *none* will be hired. Will the crisis
    abate ?
    
    Me ? I'm taking night courses, heading for WC4-land myself.
    But I don't feel that *I* am part of the problem. The problem
    is, there'll be no-one to replace me here. And who owns that ?

Re .68 (the Sussman statements):

I got that mail forwarded to me several days ago. I sent Harris
Sussman mail challenging many of the "facts" presented in his mail,
saying in essence that while they may have been true in the past,
I doubted they still applied. He replied saying that the "facts"
presented were indeed out of date: that not only had some forwarding 
headers been deleted, but also the date of the message: December, 1987 !!!

I don't know what happened. Based on the "evidence" of the mail, about 
the only thing we know [and still can't be *sure*] is that Sussman 
forwarded mail to himself on June 19, 1989, and that this mail contained 
the statements listed. As for who he then forwarded it to, and who edited 
what in subsequent forwardings, I have no idea.

In a nutshell, though, the data and conclusions presented are over
a year and a half old.

> * I believe at least 20% of present employees could do their work without
>   having a personal office.  We already have enormous squeezes on parking
>   and office space.  Instead of assuming that future work requires more
>   new facilities for office space, we should consider other possibilities.
>   Europe is ahead of the US in doing creative thinking about this.

    That was tried in the US, by doubling salespeople up two-to-a-cube, in
    spaces not really big enough for one.  The stated reason was that
    salespeople should be out of the office with customers, not sitting in
    a cubicle.  Trouble was, nothing was done to allow the salesperson to
    BE ABLE to spend his/her time with the customers.  We did away with
    Sales Administrators years ago, and there aren't enough sales support
    people to do the enormous amount of cable-chasing required.  So the
    salesperson chases the cables.  And requires a desk and telephone to do
    it.

    A couple of sales administrators per sales unit would (at least MIGHT)
    have made the facility situation workable.  As it is, at least here, we
    have received an official announcement that the "office of the future"
    is going away.  It was a dismal failure.

> * We are years behind in understanding the potential of flextime, 
>   job sharing and distance working.

    If the word years were changed to light-years, I'd agree totally.

> * 10,000-15,000 people a week in the US go into the VTX Jobs Book, looking
>   for another job within the company.  That's a lot of people who are 
>   distracted from paying attention to their present job.

> * 85% of the (non-Digital) US workforce in the year 2000 is in the workforce
>   today.  So we know who the employees of the future are: they're us.  That
>   suggests we need to understand how to grow people over time.  We haven't 
>   paid sufficient attention to this and it's about to catch up with us in
>   the form of being nickled and dimed to death by innumerable ad hoc,
>   stand alone, projects.

    The company should look inward for the reason so many people look for
    new jobs within Digital.  I don't think it's because 10,000 - 15,000
    people per week are disloyal employees; rather, I think it's because
    something is very wrong to cause all those people to want new jobs.  It
    may be what was stated in the next paragraph about our failure to grow
    people over time.  It may be the fact that we reorganize so constantly
    that there's no stability in a job; the job you love today is likely to
    change to one you don't like very much at all tomorrow.  And we do an
    abysmal job of managing that change.  Whatever the reason, it's
    something that needs to be addressed.

* We are seeing more work being done by dispersed (or distributed) groups.
  Many PBUs cross geographies.  Who looks at work that crosses these turf
  borders?  How much inter-country mobility do we expect to see in the 1990s?
  How are we growing managers to think globally?

    Digital's inability to get past turf issues is the biggest obstacle I
    face in my job (which, incidentally, involves supporting a large
    customer worldwide).  Organizational stovepipes are the second biggest
    obstacle.  Digital is trying to change both, albeit *painfully* slowly. 
    But however slowly we're going about it, at least the problem has been
    recognized as one of terrific proportions and that's the first step
    toward a solution.

    							Pat
    

re: 844.68
    
> * 10,000-15,000 people a week in the US go into the VTX Jobs Book, looking
>  for another job within the company.  That's a lot of people who are 
>  distracted from paying attention to their present job.
    
    And speaking of distractions, who's counting who's being distracted by
    examining how many people were alledged to be "looking for another job
    within the company"?
    
    I thought Digital wanted personally ambitious people anyway.  Would
    looking in the local newspaper's "Help Wanted" ads be better or worse?
    
    George Orwell meets VTX and becomes a sociologist.