Conference 7.286::digital

    I think it would be difficult to set criteria that would allow a
    portion of the workforce to receive such a settlement, and disallow
    the same offer for the remainder of the workforce.  
    
    Perhaps DIGITAL could offer such a lump sum scheme based on seniority,
    but I doubt they could do it based on job title or such.
    
    Marge

    It's an easy rumor to start, because there is no way to deny it.
    I suspect that, for a sufficiently large lump sum, everyone in my
    department would leave.  I know I would, and I like working here!
    
    I intend to ignore it, unless someone actually makes the offer to me.
        John Sauter

    re: .0
    
    Interesting.  A coworker just informed me that this past Sunday,
    the _Washington Post_ ran a Digital ad looking for SWS-types.  He
    claimed that the ad didn't seem to be very specific about any peculiar
    sorts of skills which might warrent hiring outside folks.
    
    I'm trying to get a copy of the ad.  I'd be _real_ surprised if
    folks around here are offered bucks to leave after advertising for
    positions.  At least, it doesn't seem like excess headcount is a
    problem in SWS.
    
    FWIW
    
    -- Russ

    To put this in perspective:
    
    A couple of months ago, my (retired) father-in-law was visiting
    us.  He told me that soon Digital would have a layoff.  Since he
    lives in Florida, has had no contact with Digital or any Digital
    employees except me, I expressed a bit of interest.  
    
    "Where did you get that information?"
    
    "It's obvious," he said.  "<I forget which two big companies> just
    had layoffs, so it's Digital's turn."  The companies he mentioned
    had nothing to do with computers, by the way.
    
    After the salary delay, there were rumors sweeping through some
    of the Maynard shops about possible Digital layoffs.
    
    Most of them come from outsiders.
    
    Although it's not _impossible_, such a move would be such a radical
    departure from Digital's traditions that I consider it unlikely
    in the extreme.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    While we are supposed to go to internal sources (i.e., transfers,
    borrowing from other units or districts) first, SWS is allowed to hire
    people to fill specific needs.  
    
    You have to realize that places like N.Y.C. and D.C. have a lot of
    difficulty getting people to transfer in.  The aggregate cost of living
    in either of these areas turns a transfer at the same salary from
    almost anywhere in the country into a significant pay cut.  In the mean
    time I've got a customer who's willing to PAY for consulting and wants
    it NOW!
    
    It's not just how many, but where and with what skills.
    
    -dave

>    You have to realize that places like N.Y.C. and D.C. have a lot of
>    difficulty getting people to transfer in.  The aggregate cost of living
>    in either of these areas turns a transfer at the same salary from
>    almost anywhere in the country into a significant pay cut.  In the mean
>    time I've got a customer who's willing to PAY for consulting and wants
>    it NOW!

	Yeah, we wouldn't want to pay a qualified internal candidate with
	experience any more money to do the job...  :-(  Better to increase
	DEC's population than pay someone who could do the job a couple $K
	more... wouldn't want to upset the personnel folks.

	Believe me, I've experienced this.  I had to turn down a very
	tempting offer for a job that I had proven I could do well simply
	because the group's hands were tied in terms of making up for the
	pay cut I would take by going back to Mass.   The fact that my
	current salary would have been barely above the minumum for the
	pay range had little influence.  They probably ended up hiring
	someone who made already made much more than me .... but that's ok.

I think that a lot of rumors are just that - rumors.  I think if you hear
or read something, you do have the right to ask your boss about it, and 
ask him/her to look into it.  My guess is that a lot of people are 
probably taking those rumors from what they read many weeks ago in the 
Wall Street Journal...  it was buried back in the legal section, but it was
still there for people to read. I wouldn't worry about it.  If there is 
going to be a layoff, there isn't ANYTHING you or I can do about it.  All we
can do is make sure that we are performing our jobs to the best of our
ability.

I know its upsetting to read different RAGS and see this information, but when
DIGITAL wants you to know, they will let you know. All in its timetable that it
has planned, if there is really any plan at all.

Until then, just do the best job you know how, and strived to be the best you
can.

Gale

    Rumor or not, how is it everyone else seems to know our business?
    Customers know about new products before we in the field do. They
    probably know alot more than they're telling us too. What is it
    in DEC that causes Interoffice Memos 3-4 weeks to show up in my
    office and distributed. I get the information in the notes files
    way before its in my office in hard copy. Why is that?
    
    As for layoffs DEC has had to tough it out before but the recent
    problems seem very tough to overcome. WS shows it too. Our stock
    prices are suffering and DEC can't let that go for too long.
    
    

     
    People tired of rumors should stop perpetuating these.

    Here's a good example of how the rumors get started. People take
    one man's opinion and state it as fact. I have seen the Gartner
    report. The report quite simply states the facts we have publicly
    stated about "retraining 4-6000 folks". It then goes into a brief
    analysis of our head count and says that the author believes
    we could remove up to (I don't remember the exact words) 30,000
    folks from the company. The report implies that "incentives" would
    be used to reduce population due to our long standing history of
    no layoffs. 
    There were no "facts" or "announcements" that weren't already public
    knowledge. Some people think that because these facts are in the
    report these people know other things too. They don't know anymore
    than you or I do. In fact, they probably know less. If there's one
    thing I've learned after 15 years around here, It's how much joy
    Ken and friends get out of proving how little the Wall Street folks
    know about DEC.
    

    I'm sure Charlie Maatco has his share in rumor mongering also.
    Did anyone see this weeks column?  He mentions a DEC friend of his
    that resigned because his group is going to experience a 9 month
    salary freeze.
    
    Mike

    re: .6
    
    very accurately stated
    
    re: .4 & .7
    
    Did you ever think that Digital may have placed this ad to maintain
    the proper public image?  Perhaps it is just posturing.
    
    Or, perhaps there are a number of critical positions we can't fill.
    When that happens, we don't automatically call the Post and place
    an ad.  There are job postings, All Hands on DEC, cross
    unit/district/area searches, PSS911, Area Available People Lists,
    etc.  Then, if all that fails, one must request an exception for
    external hire stating the reasons the position has not been filled
    internally, the job description, the business justification, the
    impact of our failure to provide the service to the customer.  This
    must be approved at the Unit, District, Area and Country levels.

    re: .13
    
    Steve, my point about all this was that if these rumors of incentives
    for 10,000+ employees to leave are true, we wouldn't be hiring here
    (Not unless _very few_ SWS people are among the 10,000+).  The fact
    that we are hiring (and with Country approval) makes me think think
    that the rumors are valueless (in the short-term, at least).
    
    Regarding our ad as "public image" -- this seems counterproductive,
    especially when everyone knows (and we keep telling Wall Street) that
    we are not interested in increasing headcount unless it is absolutely
    needed.  Anyway, I certainly hope that we're not in the business
    of advertising for jobs that don't exist (and why do I think that
    you don't believe this is the intent either?  8^).
    
    -- Russ

    
    It's no contradiction at ALL to hire new employees in these times,
    when there is a clear REVENUE opportunity, like a SWS project at
    stake. It's also likely that the talent pool for a project may come
    from outside Digital.
    
    As for the rest of this discussion, when a company increases
    revenues by $1.2 Billion in one year, and profits slip $200M, it
    obviously is failing to bring costs into line, and should be looking
    for ways to reduce overhead. Economics are not "suspended" because
    Digital has a "culture".
    
    /ljj
    

>>    It's no contradiction at ALL to hire new employees in these times,
>>    when there is a clear REVENUE opportunity, like a SWS project at
>>    stake. It's also likely that the talent pool for a project may come
>>    from outside Digital.
    
How frequently does this happen?  And how frequently do such jobs get
posted in Digital (not just with employment, but also in JOBS)?

    
    This happens frequently. The jobs would be posted internally. 
    Since relocation may not be included, such jobs may not be widely
    posted at some locations (see your ER rep for more information).
    
    There was an ad for OLTP people in this Sunday's NY Times. I must
    admit that DEC should try as hard as it can to source these jobs
    internally before putting ads in the paper.
    
    /ljj
    

    
      Last Friday after work, my girlfriend and I went off to dinner.
    While we were sitting there, the couple beside us started talking
    about DEC and the 30,000 people that were facing layoffs.  The couple
    were clearly upset by the info.  I have no idea why, possibly family
    and/or friends working here.
    
      Two things.  First the rummor.  Whoever it was that said DEC could
    downsize by 30,000, (is that the right number?) caused a small panic.
    Why?  Dunno.  Was the article clear?   Second, based on the number
    30,000, they thought the company was in dire straights.  Their
    perception of the number was that the layoffs were to be local,
    not worldwide.   They were thinking of the impact of 30.K lost jobs
    in this area.  
    
      When we were leaving I politely introduced myself and told them
    that the rummor was quite incorrect.  Once out to the car I had
    to laugh considering I looked at this note just hours before.
    
      Rick.
    
    

    re: .15
    
    Let me try again:  if a SWS group in DC, NY, or wherever is hiring
    10 new people, I doubt that they are going to layoff 20.  To do
    so would mean the formation of a body shop mentality (add and drop
    people, instead of training).  Furthermore, if Country knows that
    a) the 20 will be available in a little while, and b) there is a
    Corporate mandate to kiss 15-30K people goodbye, I'd sincerely doubt
    they'd open the 10 slots unless people _couldn't_ realistically
    be trained in time.
    
    If the 20 SWS people were told that there were 10 slots for the people
    with (say) OLTP skills, I think you'd see a motivated ramp-up in
    the OLTP arena.
    
    I've seen a little of what happens when a Corporation decides to
    drop a major portion of a workforce.  I would be surprised if a
    short-term revenue justification would be sufficient to add employees
    under such circumstances (especially when such policies would have
    to take the blame for any bloating that initially occurred).  Now
    if we were advertising for _contractors_ to work for us, I'd be
    much more concerned.  Such would likely be seen as a way to generate
    revenue without increasing long-term numbers.  We've used contractors
    from time to time, but I've never seen an ad for large numbers of
    them (yet) for SWS.
    
    -- Russ

RE: .16
    
>How frequently does this happen?  And how frequently do such jobs get
>posted in Digital (not just with employment, but also in JOBS)?

That's the way it almost always works.   You sell the project, 
worry about getting the resources later, get the project,
hire the bodies off the street.

John

RE: the last few - in particular about hiring from outside for PSS vs
an internal transfer...  [after re-reading the following I should state
that what follows is NOT a flame]

It's all too true that a medium-to-big PSS opportunity can result in
one or many req's to hire from outside the company, even when we're looking
at downsizing other parts of the company.  A req is pretty much always 
posted internally first, but as .15 says, they frequently don't include
relocation, thus almost guaranteeing any field job gets left unfilled from
internal candidates.

See the problem?  In someone's twisted version of reality, it is cheaper
to hire a local non-DECperson than it is to pay for someone's move within
the company!  This is very (!) short-sighted and results in the sort of
situation we're trying to cope with right now.

If every person we hired from outside were super-qualified and could just
step in and handle their new job, it would maybe be worth doing.  But many
many people (even for PSS) come in needing training.  We could have just
as easily trained someone already working for DEC to do the work.  Oh, sure,
we do that pretty often as well ["I just said you were a C expert, you better
get out the SPI, kiddo..."] but the point remains valid.

It's a mentality that requires a major overhaul at upper-to-mid management
levels.  Lower mgmt doesn't have the clout to flaunt the rules and remain
on the salary continuation plan.  Maybe we're seeing some of that overhaul
these days with our reorg-from-hell going on now.

In any case, it's certainly life as we know it in SWS.

K.

RE:        <<< Note 872.21 by WIRDI::BARTH "Whatever is right, do it" >>>
    
>See the problem?  In someone's twisted version of reality, it is cheaper
>to hire a local non-DECperson than it is to pay for someone's move within
>the company!  
    
    Karl, it isn't someone's twisted version of reality, it _is_ reality. A
    hiring manager's cost center has to pay for the relocation. Relocating
    a person can cost some serious dollars and will affect the cost center
    manager's margin significantly. A manager that blows his/her margin
    goal will not be sending a significant number of folks to Excellant
    Awards that year.
    
    What to do?  Perhaps the company needs to fund relocation costs out of
    a corporate budget instead of each individual CC manager.  It will
    still cost the corporation the same amount, but in would encourage
    (rather than discourage) hiring managers to utilize Digits instead of
    hiring off the street.
    
    Dave

How much does the length of time from job offer till the person actually 
starts work effect this ?  If it could take 2-3 months to actually get an 
internal person into the job whereas it would only take 2-4 weeks for an 
external hire wouldn't you put on a no-relo clause and thus get your person 
quicker ?

	I have transferred twice and both times it took 3-4 weeks from 
job offer to actually starting my new job and everyone at the new locations 
were amazed at how quick I got the relo acomplished.  I know of instances 
where it is taking someone almost 3 months to get into their new job.

Jilly

Depends on whether the person transferring had a project to begin with.
If there was no project holding the person back, as is sometimes the case,
frequently the day after the offer is accepted is a good day to start.

	Once upon a time I left DEC working in New York City and started
	with a new company in their Waltham MA office. Left one job on
	Friday, started the other on the next Monday. We did not move our
	home for about two months but I had no trouble moving myself early.
	It wasn't all that much fun living in hotels and flying home on
	week-ends but it worked fine for the short time it was done.

			Alfred

RE:         <<< Note 872.21 by WIRDI::BARTH "Whatever is right, do it" >>>
                       -< Short term thinking & metrics >-

>See the problem?  In someone's twisted version of reality, it is cheaper
>to hire a local non-DECperson than it is to pay for someone's move within
>the company!  This is very (!) short-sighted and results in the sort of
>situation we're trying to cope with right now.

I take exception to your accusation that the field is short sighted.  We
have carefully adjusted and flawless metrics that insure that our
corporate vision extends to the end of the current quarter.  Any manager
who does not acheive these long term goals will be gone in the short
term. 

> < Note 872.22 by YUPPIE::JENNINGS "We has met the enemy, and he is us. >
>               -< Maybe we need to change relocation practices >-
		   --------------------------------------------

Dave, we agree.  I understand that currently it is cheaper to add to the
corporate headcount than to pay for a move.  Personally, I like your idea
of a relo cost center.

K.

Personal to .-1 ---  ;^P  

    As to hiring and reloc policies....
    It seems to be rather obvious that these days be it the US, GIA or
    Europe, DIGITAL has lots of people working in the wrong jobs,
    wrong locations. I don't want to expand saying that there even are
    people doing nothing useful. This is a definite rathole..
    
    So, what do we do to readjust ?
    Great programs, retraining, determining job-profiles, matching profiles
    to jobs etc etc...
    Sounds great, yielding a perfect match between what we need and what
    we have/will have..
    HOWEVER,
    when it comes to real life hard facts, such as volunteering to change
    location when there is a perfect match between the job requirements
    and the employee's profile and skills....guess what ?
    You've said it before:
    Reloc costs prevent it from happening and the hiring CC either 
    "squeezes" a less ideal local canditate into the position or
    hires outside (if still possible).
    As long as there is no solution to this, there won't be any to
    the "wrong people in the wrong job" problem.
    
    As suggested one part of the solution is some sort of centralized
    CC for relocs.
    In addition, I believe reloc procedures need to be simplified.
    The basic idea is still written on top of the policies and
    simply tries to assure that the relocating employee gets
    a "fair deal".
    Unfortunately when the company grew, and probably due to some
    abuses, a LOT of administrative overhead, included outside
    consultants have made the whole process extremely costly.
    It would be high time to apply "do the right thing"
    to relocation!
    Fred
    

    re .28 and others
    
    As soon as our budget is approved we hope to be hiring people.  Someone
    in my organization will attend an internal job fair looking for
    internal people to match our needs.  Digital has structured the relo and 
    other costs to make it advantageous for us to take an internal person
    over an outside person (even if the person has to relocate).  I don't
    have all the details on this, maybe someone else can provide them.

Re: .28

   Relocation is even tougher here in Europe. First, the 
different tax structures and laws make it difficult to 
relocate. If someone relocates to Denmark we have to pay him 
triple his old gross salary if we are to guarantee him the same
net salary. The cost of living is also horrendous here in
Scandinavia. 

   Secondly, Europeans don't generally like to relocate with the
same relish that Americans do. This is partly due to language
barriers and partly due to cultural barriers. It makes it a
whole lot tougher to try and relocate a family. 

   If a European does wish to move however, relocation inside
the EEC is easy. No problem with work permits. So, with this in 
mind, where does DEC have it's European headquarters? In Geneva.
Switzerland, which is outside the EEC, is probably the hardest
place in Europe to get working permission. (No, wait, on second
thought Albania may be harder!) Geneva is also one of Europe's
most expensive cities to live in - with housing costs that are
astronomically high. Of course all this means that while there
are many people who would like to try a stint in Geneva the
company can't afford it and couldn't get the needed work permits
if it wanted to...

          <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;2 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note xxx.0           Yet another rumor of DEC being for sale           2 replies
BLKWDO::FEIT                                          4 lines   2-AUG-1989 23:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Has anyone heard anything about the latest rumor about DEC being for
    sale? I just a rumor about it this morning from one of my coworkers.
    
    Personnaly I think it's a bunch of sh*t. 
================================================================================
Note xxx.1           Yet another rumor of DEC being for sale              1 of 2
SELL::MAYANK "I am working on - am I ?"              17 lines   2-AUG-1989 23:53
                       -< let's not help spread rumors >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .0
    
    if you think it is a pile of s**t, then please do not 
    
     a) start a NEW topic about it, helping spread the rumor
     b) do not put a title like "DEC FOR SALE" which is an assertion and
        not a question.
    
    this notesfile should not be used for verifying(?) a rumor heard from
    'one' co-worker.
    
    - mayank
    
    ps: can the moderators atleast change the title to a question, or add
    "RUMOR:" in front of it ??
     
    
================================================================================
Note xxx.2           Yet another rumor of DEC being for sale              2 of 2
QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent"      14 lines   2-AUG-1989 23:57
                           -< Who is it this time? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are perrenial rumors that someone or other is going to buy
    us out.  They're always wrong.  And I have every reason to believe that
    such rumors are still wrong.  Selling DEC makes absolutely no sense.
    
    Perhaps your coworker was thinking of Wang, which is indeed looking
    for someone to buy into it or buy it out.  (But who would want it - 
    Prime can't get anyone (it wants) to buy it, and it's at least
    making money.)
    
    				
    			Steve
    
    
    P.S.  I changed the title of the base note.

Speaking of rumors, this week's C. Matco column has a great one about KO
assuming a role as Chairman, with Jack Smith being promoted to President,
supposedly in January.

Why would Ken want to step aside when the company is in such a tight spot?
His hand on the helm goes a long way to keeping the Wall Street vultures
quiet.

    I suspect Charlie's column is news to KO.

    I heard the news about K.O. -->chairman and Jack Smith--> pres
    about a month ago at a staff mtg. I was wondering how long it
    would take to appear in this file :-)
    

    re -.1
    
     About a month ago, gee it is great to know that someone heard it
    about a month ago and it did NOT get posted. Seems people are
    slowing down in the gossip grapevine. And that is good... they
    must be working instead. :^)
    
    Personally I find C. Matco and co. repulsive. He belongs on the
    National enquire or whatever. :^(
    
    -Mike Z.

C.Matco had it a month ago also when Jack Shields was nowhere to be
found.   He also had this little joke about the differences between
Mr. Shields and Elvis.

Mike

    and C.Matco has had a better percentage of being right than 
    the rumors I hear around here. (Colorado Springs, Co.) I have
    to read this notes file and C.Matco to find out what's going
    on back East. 
    
    and C.Matco beats this notes file for being right on rumors.
    
    	a  C. Matco reader.
    	Greg
    

    The previous "Charlie Matco", up until a few months ago, used to have
    pretty accurate info long before I would hear it officially here in
    HLO, but the current guy doesn't seem to know anything that is either
    interesting or that turns out to be true, and isn't half as funny to
    read, either.  So, I'm not bothering to fill out the form to renew my
    free subscription - that was the only column in the whole newspaper
    that was ever worth reading anyhow.
    
    /Charlotte

    Has anyone heard about a group of investors bringing suit against
    Digital in regards to our stock performance?

    As a moderator (yes, another one!), I definitely do NOT want to
    see this note nor this conference turned into a place to test out
    the latest rumor.  Please refrain from posting any more "has anyone
    heard" type notes.  Thanks.
    
    					Steve

    re .40 & moderators & rumors
    
    Based on current notes it should be ok to do the following:
    
    What would you do if
       a) some investors filed a suit over the stock performance?
       b) you were offered early retirement?
       c) Jack Shields had a token position within the company?
       d) there was a notes file that supported the "water cooler" method 
          of passing information?

Has there been a "buyout program" or "early retirement program"
offered to any DEC sites yet?

Mike

	RE: .42 No there hasn't and everytime KO or someone at high level
	asked they are told that it is not even being concidered. Why do
	people keep asking? Do they really believe that management is that
	stupid?

				Alfred

    re: .39
    
    someone correct me if they know of a contrary example, but...
    
    the only type of suit that could be rightfully brought regarding a
    company's stock performance is one in which fraud, deliberately giving
    misleading statements, heavy insider trading, etc.  is involved.  If
    investors could sue any company in which they have stock and it
    underperforms the market (slightly or whatever) Wall Street would be
    full of suits from here to eternity.  Such a suit could probably even
    counteracted with an abuse of process suit by Digital (i.e. filing an
    obviously frivolous civil lawsuit for the express purpose of
    financially damaging the defendant). 

    re .43
    
    I think that one reason that people keep asking about early
    retirement/buyout is that they are unhappy enough to consider leaving,
    but don't want to walk away from several years experience and
    `security'. When the rumor about the criteria for early out came
    around, I thought about it and asked other "eligible" people as
    well. Based on my small sample, there would not be 100% participation.
    I would qualify under one of the scenarios, and would definitely
    think about it.
    
    Also, you know that Corporate denials supply high octane grist for
    any rumor mill. ;-)
    
    My .02
    

Re:  .43

>        RE: .42 No there hasn't and everytime KO or someone at high level
>        asked they are told that it is not even being concidered. Why do
>        people keep asking? Do they really believe that management is that
>        stupid?

Gee, is that asking a loaded question? :-)

Steve

    As I mentioned elsewhere in this file, I heard Jack Smith say to a very
    large audience in the ZKO cafeteria that "incentive" plans were indeed
    being considered, but that there are problems in instituting such
    plans.  The concern is that they cannot be done once (one shot deal)
    and then be shelved.  As I recall, his words were, "They tend to become
    institutionalized."
    
    Marge

    re: .47
    
    I don't know what's scarier: the early retirement program which may or
    may not be "considered", or the admission by a senior vice president
    that the policies of the company are not really under the control of
    top management.

    > I don't know what's scarier: the early retirement program which may or
    > may not be "considered", or the admission by a senior vice president
    > that the policies of the company are not really under the control of
    > top management.
    
    I have the feeling that our company is currently driven almost totally
    by Wall Street.  I honestly don't think anyone at Digital is *really*
    in charge.  I've had that perception for about two years, but it seems
    to be getting worse fast.
    
    							Pat

    

    I realize that even since you all saw "Gekko" the character played by
    Michael Douglas in "Wall Street", you've thought of Wall Street as a
    placeholder for objective evil and greed in the world. Wall Street
    doesn't control the Digital or even its stock price.
    
    If the top management of the corporation thinks that quarter-to-quarter
    consistent increases in revenue, earnings, and margins are important
    then it's so.
    
    Blaming Wall Street is just a way of avoiding the manage for the
    short-term attitude really at fault.
    
    If managers want something else then that will happen.  Remember that
    any company exists for the benefit of its shareholders.

RE:  last few as well as comments as to when next BoD meeting is:

        IMHO Jim Osterhoff is, quietly, in charge.  In notes related to the
        recent visit by KO to Tuscon--and the "order" from Ken to put
        cellular phones in the autos and then see who squawks--somebody
        mentioned that "they'd like to see what happened if the resistance
        got all the way to JO and he was the one who opposed KO" (I believe
        this was in the MARKETING conference but it has some relevance
        here). Nevertheless JO worries about DEC's image with wall street
        and it certainly appears as though he has a large role in
        determining the directions we take. This, in the context of Jack
        Smith's remarks regarding "how Sr. Management was asked to come up
        with cost cutting measures and couldn't"--ergo the necessity of the
        salary freeze; as well as in the context of KO's apparent lack of
        having the "reorganization" move as swiftly as HE would like, lends
        some sense of credability to the notion that KO is not in
        charge--or certainly not as much in charge as some of us would
        prefer. 

        As far as another note on the next meeting of the BoD, it was
        mentioned that reporters who go to those meetings are not intested
        in technical things.  I have a different question:  Who from DEC,
        other than KO is on the BoD?  I don't have a recent corporate
        annual report anymore--that document lists the members of the
        board. The reason for asking is this:  rumors from a few years ago
        had it that Ken allowed somebody from senior management to give a
        presentation to the BoD and it was so poor that Ken decided that
        he, and he alone, would be the corporations representative, and
        mouthpiece, to the board--since then no other DEC employees have
        been on the board--nor do any employees make presentations to the
        board.  I'd like to find out if that is still true.  If this is the
        case, it substantiates the feeling that the BoD does not get
        involved in the specifics of budgeting etc, and reinforces the
        appearance that someone other than KO is actually making the
        decisions--KO simply delivers those decisions to the BoD putting
        them in the best possible light and seeking the board's approval.
        Who said KO despised marketing anyway--it appears as though that's
        the majority of HIS job. 
	
later...
 jim

RE: <<< Note 872.50 by CALL::SWEENEY "Honey, I iconified the kids" >>>

    > Wall Street doesn't control the Digital or even its stock price.
        
    > Blaming Wall Street is just a way of avoiding the manage for the
    > short-term attitude really at fault.
    
    > Remember that any company exists for the benefit of its shareholders.
    
    Pat, I don't pretend to be a stock market expert; I know only what I
    have read and that isn't much.  But I have read several articles lately
    that indicated that companies are being driven by market analysts to go
    after the short term dollar at the expense of long-term success.  After
    all, the shareholders (at least many of them) are influenced by the
    analysts, and the company management does what they think will please
    the shareholders, right?  So what I was trying to say was that Digital
    management *is* acting on behalf of the shareholders, who (thanks to
    the Wall Street analysts) are pressuring them for short-term
    profitability.
    
    I read an article recently that said many companies are going private
    for that very reason.  They are fed up with the pressure to maximize
    profits *this* year at the expense of longevity.
    
    Pat, if I'm off base with my assertion I'm certainly open to an
    explanation from someone more familiar with the market than I am.
    
    							Pat
    
    

    

    There is a very simple reason why Digital has to cater to Wall Street. 
    If Wall Street looses faith in Digital, the price of the stock goes
    down.  The price of the stock goes down and Digital them becomes  
    
    DEC - Divison of GE/GM/ATT/.... or whoever else has got some big bucks!
    
    And then KO or JO won't have to worry about running the company!!!

    re .53:
    
    I don't think it is quite as simple as that, or DEC would have been
    taken over some time back.  And the stock price is relatively low
    now, compared to the sales/cash flow/net worth or whatever you want
    to use to determine a good candidate.
    
    One nice thing about being a full service (as opposed to niche) player
    is that any other full service computer company that took us over would 
    have to deal with tremendous redundancy and incompatible product lines.
    By the time those had been cut, (with the associated ill feelings,
    loss of key personnel, etc. - see some of Business Weeks' and Fortunes'
    post-mortems of failed takeovers) it would be hard to justify the cost
    of the takeover.  Spinning off portions would be difficult, because
    DEC is not conveniently organized in readily seperated divisions, and
    (IMHO) the pieces would sell at a discount to the integrated whole.
    This also tends to be a defense against the typical LBO, since that
    strategy requires quick slicing up and sell off of pieces of a company.
    
    Doesn't make us invulnerable, of course - just relatively unpalatable
    compared to a lot of other companies.
    
    I think the upper management is not catering so much to Wall Street as
    it is to the fact that DECs engineering and marketing/sales costs are
    much too high for the likely (lower-margin) future of the computer
    industry.  Manufacturing has been the target of the slicing the past
    few years, while the other functions of the company grew faster than
    they should have.  Now it's our turn under the axe.  It definitely
    looks confused and uncertain.  We don't have much experience in 
    increasing engineering and marketing/sales efficiency and reducing
    corporate overhead.
    
    /Dave

RE: .54


    "...it is to the fact that DECs engineering and marketing/sales costs are
    much too high for the likely (lower-margin) future of the computer
    industry.  Manufacturing has been the target of the slicing the past
    few years, while the other functions of the company grew faster than
    they should have."

	Ummm, I tend to disagree on the "engineering costs are too high". I
	think DEC does pretty good on costs there.. The costs to SELL and
	MARKET our products are way out of line. Unfortunately, any numbers
	are forbidden in this conference. (ie: It cost $xxxxx to sell product
	Y)  I think what is needed is a better way to sell our products, not
	a cheaper way to engineer them. If we engineer cheaper than the next
	guy, what makes our products unique?

								mike

    I've had the chance to work with both Engineering and (in technical
    support of) Sales.  I agree that the lack of P&L metrics in sales has a
    tendency to drive up the costs there, but there are also clearly cost
    problems with product engineering as well.
    
    Not one to side with Sales, usually, I think there is lots of room for
    improvement on both sides.  Sales DM's need to be measured on P&L (i.e.
    margin, not CERTS), but Engineering has to clean up it's act when it
    comes to the product life cycle management, particularly the 'loopholes'
    in the Phase Review process that can drag a project on indefinitely.
    Perhaps the Product Business Plans produced by Product Management
    should also be measured by P&L for success.  I know there are market
    projections built into these plans, but I don't recall anyone ever
    being measured by the actual profitability of a product once it has
    reached FRS and beyond.  If those metrics are in place, it's hard to
    see any concrete effects.  IMHO, Engineering needs to have a tighter 
    grip on market reality. 
    
    There is, indeed, lots of waste on both sides of this fence.
    

    re: cost of marketing
    
    Speaking as a marketeer, I believe we could live without 95% of
    marketing communications folk (trash the sales com model and use Mac's
    with spelling checkers and layout software putting into encapsulated
    postscript for network distribution to the field instead, and contract
    out for the customer glossies). And we could eliminate 80% of marketing
    folk with zero impact on revenues. In fact, revenues would probably go
    up because we could use the extra money for real marketing (timely
    market studies, *real* competitive labs, so that engieering could have
    better product requirements, and machines for ISVs, etc.). But
    there's a lot kingdoms and kingdom builders...
    
    -George

    > But there's a lot kingdoms and kingdom builders...
    

	>RE: .42 No there hasn't and everytime KO or someone at high level
	>asked they are told that it is not even being concidered. Why do
	>people keep asking? Do they really believe that management is that
	>stupid?
    
    Why do people keep asking? Because no one has been giving them a
    straight answer. Ask the employees in Albuquerque if they were offered
    a severance package in '85. The answer is yes. That is the only
    confirmed site I know of, I will not mention the speculated sites.
    
    Will it happen again? Hard to say, is is stupid to consider? No, we
    wouldn't have upper level personnel managers telling us about the
    possibilities of using such options again. 
    
    Gail   

re .52 (Pat Resende):

>   So what I was trying to say was that Digital
>   management *is* acting on behalf of the shareholders, who (thanks to
>   the Wall Street analysts) are pressuring them for short-term
>   profitability.

What really puzzles me is, WHY would any shareholder want short term
profitability to go up? What's in it for them? In fact, why does anyone
hold Digital stock at all (unless to speculate in rises and falls just the
way other people speculate in currencies)? Can anyone (except me) be saving
Digital stock in case one day it is worth more than it is now? (Before you
ask, the answer is "a dangerous blend of blind loyalty and wishful thinking.")

If I were really woolgathering, I might imagine that a large corporate
investor or analyst might deliberately aim to drive down a stock so as to
buy it up - then sell when they relieved the pressure and it popped up again.
But that would probably be against some sort of rules, wouldn't it?

re .55 (Mike Foley):

>  Ummm, I tend to disagree on the "engineering costs are too high". I
>  think DEC does pretty good on costs there.. The costs to SELL and
>  MARKET our products are way out of line. Unfortunately, any numbers
>  are forbidden in this conference. (ie: It cost $xxxxx to sell product
>  Y)  I think what is needed is a better way to sell our products, not
>  a cheaper way to engineer them. If we engineer cheaper than the next
>  guy, what makes our products unique?

Mike, you strike a very sympathetic chord with most DECcies when you identify
our competitive edge with engineering quality. I agree, quality is one of our
strongest suits and it's vital to maintain it. But there are tradeoffs.
Quality is getting the product RIGHT for the user, not THE BEST POSSIBLE.
ALL-IN-1 (sorry folks!) showed us all that a product which invites criticism
from an "engineering quality" point of view can be a winner - because it hits
the market at the right time and the right price with the right features. So
what if it needs five times as much CPU as VMS to run a given number of users?
Customers are happy to pay the price!

One way we could have an excessive cost of engineering could be if the marketing
isn't done right. That is, maybe the engineers and the product managers are
doing a great job, but heading in the wrong direction! I can't help thinking
of the MIPS buy-in... the engineers who were working on what we had in mind
before (home-grown) would probably never have believed how quick and cheap
the solution TO OUR MARKETING PROBLEM could turn out to be. Think of how much
it could have cost us to do it all ourselves.

Or take VAX Ada - probably the best Ada compiler in the world. It came out in
1985 to acclamation, but we soon realised there were a few things missing:
cross compilers, some kind of APSE, and (still being felt) capability to
advise customers on how to set up and run large Ada projects. Also, there
was zero communication with the Real Time people. All these problems arose
at the marketing stage.

Notice that I'm not necessarily criticising Marketing. Engineering has always
done most of its own marketing, and if it stopped tomorrow we wouldn't be
able to produce products. Marketing influences the process (sometimes) but
it doesn't provide ALL the requirements. I think our biggest single problem is
that while Engineering behaves essentially like a single organization,
Marketing is grossly fragmented, redundant, leaderless, and demoralised.
Outside the States, every country has its own Marketing and Product
Management groups. Europe has an intermediate set of Area Marketing and
Product Management people. It gets worse. Corporate Marketing, in many respects,
is really American Marketing, despite all the internationalization efforts.
Thus it comes about that Engineering leads, and Marketing follows - with the
odd critical comment.

What we need is a single, truly global Marketing organisation, staffed by the
people who make the strategic decisions, and assisted by the best senior
technical people (without denuding Engineering). Each country should have a
minimal local Marketing/Engineering group whose task is to identify local
needs and differences. Then we could reduce headcount (expensive heads, too!)
and save a great deal of time.

We could also remove the present anomaly by which there is NO CONNECTION
WHATEVER between the effort Engineering put into developing a product, and
the effort which Sales put into selling it. I know, because the hardest
part of my job is trying to convince Sales and Sales Support to start
selling our excellent CASE products - and you wouldn't believe how hard it
is to reach them. It's FAR EASIER to sell to customers. Moreover, European
or UK Product Management are free to say "we won't sell DECfoobar because
it doesn't fit our strategy/meet local requirements, etc."

>  Sales DM's need to be measured on P&L (i.e. margin, not CERTS)

Dead right! The internal newspaper in front of me ("CONNECT") reports
turnover up 11% worldwide, profits down 18.7%. Prompting the immediate
question, "Which strategic genius planned this?" And the inevitable answer,
about 5 seconds later, "Nobody planned this. That's why it happened." What
it boils down to is that we have been scrambling about, working harder than
ever, but not making as much money as we did last year. A fool's game. Why
do we price our products, and sell configurations, in such a way? It's
certainly logical to suppose it's because nobody is measured by doing
anything different.

re .57 (George vanTreeck):

>   there's a lot [of] kingdoms and kingdom builders...

Ain't that the truth! All of them wanting to channel as much information and
as many decisions as possible through themselves. Or failing that, through
their procedures.

/Tom
 

re .55 (Mike Foley):

>  Unfortunately, any numbers are forbidden in this conference.

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers,
you know something about it; but when you cannot measure, when you cannot
express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind..."

	- Lord Kelvin

Talking (as we frequently do) about Digital's values (which include openness
and honesty), why is that U.S. citizens can find out so much more about their
Government's activities than Digital employees can find out about Digital's?

And before anyone says it, there seems little doubt that the U.S. places
itself at a massive disadvantage with respect to some of its "competitors"
by sticking to freedom of speech and freedom of information. One very good
reason for doing so, however, is that it is futile to protect one's values
through measures which destroy those values.

(But please don't ask me about freedom of information in the UK!)

/Tom

re .60

>>  Sales DM's need to be measured on P&L (i.e. margin, not CERTS)
>
> Dead right! The internal newspaper in front of me ("CONNECT") reports
> turnover up 11% worldwide, profits down 18.7%. Prompting the immediate
> question, "Which strategic genius planned this?" And the inevitable answer,
> about 5 seconds later, "Nobody planned this. That's why it happened." What
> it boils down to is that we have been scrambling about, working harder than
> ever, but not making as much money as we did last year. A fool's game. Why
> do we price our products, and sell configurations, in such a way? It's
> certainly logical to suppose it's because nobody is measured by doing
> anything different.

They are, as of FY90. And last year, Area sales managers were measured on P&L.

/petes

    re .61
    
>  (But please don't ask me about freedom of information in the UK!)
    
    It's a secret and you can't tell, right ?
    
    Jon (expat Brit)

       RE: .61
       
       	Because comments about numbers could be damaging to DEC. Afterall,
       I swear that C. Matco reads this notesfile..
       
       							mike

RE: .64

>       I swear that C. Matco reads this notesfile..

Not anymore.

John

I know the old Charlie Matco.  I met him after he left that job.  His name is
Terry Shannon, and he was NOT reading this conference.  He still swears he put
most of his stuff together from very clever analysis, not from any illegal
snooping.

/john

    re .60  I seem to recall reading that about 75% of DEC stock is
    owned by the big-money players in NYC and elsewhere - trust
    funds, banks, etc. Those people have a short outlook - the
    quarterly report is a matter of life-and-death.

    What is there about the month of August that precipitates crises in
    DEC?  Last July/August was the infamous 'Fleet Car' crisis.  This year
    it is the year of the 'Head Count Crisis'.  I believe that the end
    result will be the same as last year...no change.  The stock will take
    a dive, and recover by say...Christmas.  

  > What is there about the month of August that precipitates crises in
  > DEC?  Last July/August was the infamous 'Fleet Car' crisis.  This year
  > it is the year of the 'Head Count Crisis'.  I believe that the end
  > result will be the same as last year...no change.  The stock will take
  > a dive, and recover by say...Christmas.
    
    Comparing the 'Fleet Car' crisis to the current crisis is like
    comparing a cut finger to a heart attack.  The former was serious, yes,
    but it was contained, black-and-white, and solvable by one simple
    management decision.  The current crisis is too complex for any one
    person to get his/her arms around, involves every single employee of
    this company, bar none, and has the very future of the company at
    stake.  I don't think our current problems should be categorized as the
    "usual August crisis."
    
    							Pat

    

    re .55
    
    Well Mike, everybody has their own perspective, but having been in
    engineering for a while, I think DEC can make a lot of improvements
    in the engineering area.  
    
    We still start multiple overlapping develop- ment efforts in different
    groups - leading to painful wars and/or to terminating projects well
    into their development, when many people are affected.  Or we get a
    painful war AND a product.  (CPU wars, database wars, screen manager
    wars, TP wars...)  Cutting down the number of groups with overlapping
    responsibilities or at least setting up some umpires would either cut
    down the number of people required or free some up for a lot of the
    other product possibilities that go begging for resources.  (I realize
    that sometimes several possibilities may need to be explored, but keep
    it local - easier to compare and control without global company
    politics jumping in.  Or appoint an outside umpire, with "license to
    kill".)
    
    From the software point of view we haven't really put a lot of
    (concerted - to protect myself from "my project is doing...") 
    effort into project management aides (planning, scheduling, tracking),
    or software productivity tools (integrated design, documentation,
    implementation, and debugging).  I have seen some recent external
    and external products/products in this area, but it will take a lot
    of effort and time to work these into the regular line of work.  For
    now, the project I work on makes do with a bunch of hacks and a 
    Macintosh for project planning.  We have nice point products for
    software development, but no integrated environment.  (MMS and CMS
    are nice tools, and so is LSE/SCA, but give me something COMPLETE!!)
    
    /Dave
    

    RE: .71 DEC doesn't perpetuate the end-of-the-year (quarter, month)
    problem. Sales people do. If seen this in several companies I've worked
    for. The company says "Please spread the business around so we can
    balance manufacturing." Salespeople don't do it but find that they
    haven't met their end-of numbers and break their backs at the end-of.
    The easy answer is to tell salespeople not to worry about goals and 
    settle for the same very very low rate of sales that we now get in the
    slow parts of the quarter.

    It's an industry problem not just a DEC problem. As far as I know
    DEC has been trying to solve it for at least the last 12 years.

    			Alfred

>    < Note 872.59 by IAMOK::KOSKI "This indecision's bugging me" >
>    Why do people keep asking? Because no one has been giving them a
>    straight answer. Ask the employees in Albuquerque if they were offered
>    a severance package in '85. The answer is yes. That is the only
>    confirmed site I know of, I will not mention the speculated sites.
    
    Gail, both Albuquerque and Phoenix were offered the 13 week program
    in '85.  I saw DEC Phoenix lose a lot of good people during that
    summer.
    
    The deal then was 13 weeks pay to quit DEC.
    
    Mike

I don't think sales and engineering and manufacturing should have the
same sort of culture, motivators, behaviors, metrics, whatever.  They
should have practices suitable to their situations.

Sales must be tough ... I don't think I could do it:

	Get up early and drag your sorry butt out of bed to
	go make cold calls, suffer continuous rejections and
	failure, deal with cold-hearted purchasing agents,
	answer the slings and arrows of outrageous competitors,
	invest and invest and invest in a decision you don't
	really make, see your co-workers infrequently, see
	your management perhaps even less, watch your successes
	become only "that was yesterday, what did you sell today?!",
	and so on.

It is, therefore, no surprise that there are many cold metrics
and ebulient parties and celebrations.  My brother was a regional
sales manager for Data General and he talked about the constant
turnover, the difficulty in continuously re-motivating folks, the
burden and pressure of being a constant "self starter", the need
for egos among salespeople.

It's almost like artists; performance oriented.  Each and every time
the audience gets to cheer or boo and you're never really sure which
it is going to be.

By comparision, engineering is a big happy supportive family that'll
let you have a couple of serious failures following a big success.

Now, I'm not defending the exact implementation of parties, rewards,
satisfaction surveys, and their ilk, and I'm less sympathetic to their
existance in the service world, but I did want to make the point that
sales necessarily operates under a different value/pressure/morale/need
situation and that that even if the "Q" mentality is wrong, we still
shouldn't expect that the culture-values of other parts of Digital,
or any corporation, should apply equally to field postions --- especially
sales ones.

- greg

RE: .72
>    RE: .71 DEC doesn't perpetuate the end-of-the-year (quarter, month)
>    problem. Sales people do. If seen this in several companies I've worked

I disagree strongly.  This not only goes on in sales, but also the SS,
probably in FS, and in any other organizations where the George
Steinbrenner, make today's numbers mentality pervades. 

The "metric" system that causes this crazy behavior comes from the TOP.

John

	RE: .75 How do you fix the metrics? Sales managers have been trying
	to fix it for decades. If you've got a fix please let us in on it.


			Alfred

    The last several replies on the "fill the pipeline with next quarter's
    sales" mentality worries me.  Isn't this how a company goes bankrupt? 
    Eventually you can't cover up the fact that sales are down; you just run
    out of sales to shovel in the pipeline, and one fine quarter you report
    practically NO sales...

    Re: .74
    
    Thank you for as close an explaination as I've seen here yet on
    the differences between Sales and the other organizations in the
    Company.  We are different.  We choose to accept the responsibility
    of quota's (in DECspeak budget = quota).  We, typically are more
    risk takers than risk adverse.
    
    Addressing the issue of motivating sales to not wait until the end
    of the Fiscal year to bring in certs:
    
    How about tying direct compensation into the equation.  For those
    of you not in sales, we are already goaled toward making our budgets
    (quota/numbers) as early in the year as possible, so that we accumulate
    DECathalon points.  Also, attaining your budget early shows "positive
    account management and control" which is shown on your performance
    appraisel.  Both of these incentives, however, have proven to have
    lost their luster.  How about this :  Bonus dollars (also known
    as SP2 money) based on the month in which they are booked?
    
    I'm assuming you've heard of SP2 money.
    
    
    Bo

RE: .76
>	RE: .75 How do you fix the metrics? Sales managers have been trying
>	to fix it for decades. If you've got a fix please let us in on it.

You've hit the problem exactly.  The people who are trying to fix the
"metrics" are like alchemists seaching for what can never be found.
The solution is to get rid of the system that thinks performance can be
measured by a set of "metrics" entirely.

There is no way to set up a a set of numerical "metrics".  All this
system does is reward people who are good at making numbers and penalize
those with vision.  If performance could be measured through "metrics"
then DEC would be out of business because the AS/400's have a much
better price/performance ratio on the RAMP-C.

For instance it is silly to think that customer satisfaction can be
measured by a stupid survey that has 1-10 numerical ratings.  Who can
say that customer X who gives us an 8 is any more satified than customer
Y who gives us a 7.9.

At a district meeting a few months ago we were told that because of the
concern over salesmen making to many returns, a new metric was going to
be created for measuring returns.  Instead of someone having the balls
and saying "Fred your district is making a lot of returns why is that?"
"Bill you are accounting for 95% of the returns in our district.  Can
you justify that?  If not then cut it out".  Instead, someone in an
Ivory tower makes some grand proclamation that gives birth to a new
"metric".

So what measurement system would I have?  

Something simple.

For example, use profit and loss as the one and only objective
measurement.  Have everything else treated subjectively.

AM:  Well, you were 98% of budget this year.  That's very good
considering the downturn in your industry this year.  I'm going to give
you a good rating.

or

AM: You were 101% of budget this year, however I'm very concerned about
some of the customer satisfaction surveys from your district this year...

or

AM:  Well, you were 75% of budget this year.  You loan of people to the
X District was instrumental in our making the big sale to Z that
resulted in our area attaining 170% of its budget.

The "metric" system is just a cop-out for numbers men and people who
don't want to take responsibility.

John

    re a couple back: what is SP2 money?
    
    I spent 5+ years in field SWS before escaping a few years ago, and I
    heard the following philosophy from almost each & every SWS manager
    that I worked for then: 
    
    "While Digital appreciates *effort*, Digital really only pays for
    *results*, irrespective of effort".
    
    This philosophy was particularly brought5 out at "end-of-xxx" times,
    where many specialists were chided for "only" turning in 40 hours of
    billable time for a week's CLAR.
    
    Jon

    re: .78
    
    Sales people often characterize themselves as risk takers. Don't take 
    offense at this, but I find this characterization as it relates
    to Digital Sales as quite comical.
    
    Generally it stems from the fact that they are not held accountable
    for the consequences of the business they sell. Put a sales person
    in a room full various services delivery people, and he or she will sound
    like a risk taker because they tend to put forth the most irresponsible 
    proposals.
    
    Al
    

    Re: .81
    
    "this characterization as it relates to Digital Sales as quite
    comical."  Compared to other companies in other industries on a
    compensation basis I agree.  Most other sales forces are paid according
    to commission only.  However, what I was also referring to was the
    responsibility and risk associated with accepting some dollar
    figure that your district need for you to bring into the company
    in a 12 month time frame.  If you are under the impression that
    the sales person that doesn't make their budget has nothing to worry
    about then I believe that you have been misinformed.
    
    "Generally it stems from the fact that they are not held accountable
    for the consequences of the business they sell."  How do you mean
    "not held accountable"?  I assume that you perceive most sales that
    you have witnessed within the Company to have been mishandled or
    shoddy.  I too have witnessed some of these and have myself made
    bad business decisions.  There really wasn't a discussion about
    it with my managers, I was responsible for correcting the problem
    and more importantly for learning from it.
    
    "Put a sales person in a room full various services delivery people,
    and he or she will sound like a risk taker because they tend to
    put forth the most irresponsible proposals."  Here again, I imagine
    that you've been there several times before.  I can't possibly know
    the situation/situations you are referring to, but if the account
    manager knows their account and understands the value of being
    realistic when setting business expectations, then I don't believe
    that you would have this perception of sales.  Maybe they don't.
    Maybe they don't understand your position or the position of the
    service delivery people who have to be right ther with the customer,
    right there when those expectations aren't met.  Work with yours,
    make them work with you.
    
    Bo

    The answer is simple but impractical: get rid of the 'financial year'. 
    As long as we are required to make $X revenue in a specific (and
    invariable) period of time we have no chance whatsoever of eliminating
    this mentality.

Some points on the last few replies:

1) What is SP2 money ?? Is it a US-only thing ?

2) I believe that the only way to get rid of metrics would be for Wall
Street to stop placing them on us. If all of our Sales force were bringing
in a small amount of steady business because they were focussed on 
strategic sales 2 or 3 years out then they would never be able to close 
those sales because Digital would go out of business when the first quarters
figures were announced ! It is my opinion that we must keep the markets
happy as our primary goal, and the way to do this is to become effective
business partners with our customers, as through good account management
we can, to a degree, control and predict when our customers will make their
purchases. Good and accurate forecasting makes for more efficient manufacturing.

3) We bring some of the problem upon ourselves. Experienced customers know 
that year-end is always a good time to buy, as account managers need to get
the bookings in. Not only that, but the account managers manager, his 
manager etc. are all in the mood to deal.

4) I know it's a cliche, but we should all have some of the Sales mentality
about why we do what we do. One of the unfortunate truths in the bits of
Digital I come across is that we do sometimes get tied up in procedures
rather than solving the customers problems. I get the feeling that some parts
of the company (or at least some people in those parts) have absolutely no 
idea of what the implications of their actions are to the customer. This
has to change if we are to reduce our cost of sale.

Isn't it great that we can discuss these things in a global forum ! How
many of our customers/competitors would love to be able to do this ??

Cheers,

    Derek

    Someone from sales can explain SP2 better, but basically it's a cash
    bonus program for the top n% of salespeople (at least in the U.S., I
    think it's global).  It's based on revenue (not CERTS or margin).  The
    dollars can get quite large ($12K comes to mind).  Anyway, a
    salesperson can do a better job of explaining that.  When a sales rep
    sells a LOT of product, and it actually gets delivered and paid for,
    they get a cash bonus.
    
    I believe we're legally bound to have a fiscal year of some sort.  We're
    certainly financially bound to have one.  Besides, metrics are
    necessary, ours just don't necessarily produce the best results.
    
    Salespeople are undoubtedly risk takers - it's the nature of their
    profession.  As such, they are also usually adept at risk management,
    always jockeying for the best position and trying to control an
    environment that is, by definition, out of their control.  The
    euphemism 'account manager' seems to point to this - they don't really
    'manage' in the classical organizational sense.  They (try to) control
    the account.  They also try to control their own metrics, usually by
    internal politics.  Good ones succeed at both, resulting in happy customers,
    lots of sales, SP2 for the rep, and general goodness.  It usually gets
    pretty Darwinian, though.
    
    It's interesting to watch, but I wouldn't want to live that way.
    

    RE: .-1
  > Someone from sales can explain SP2 better, but basically it's a cash
  > bonus program for the top n% of salespeople (at least in the U.S., I
  > think it's global).  It's based on revenue (not CERTS or margin).  The
  > dollars can get quite large ($12K comes to mind).
    
    It's a widely held belief that SP2 is bonus dollars, but in fact it's
    not.  It comes out of the big pot of salary dollars, before they get
    divided out to areas, districts, and units.  The SP2 money comes off
    the top of the salary money for Sales, and then is awarded to the top
    salespeople just as a bonus would be.  But technically it's not bonus
    money 'cause it's part of the Sales organization's salary money, and
    would be spent for normal raises if it weren't used for SP2.
    
    							Pat

    
    re sales metrics:
    
    As someone said a few notes ago, it is the artificial boundaries of
    quarter/FY coupled with the total reliance on THIS year's (or THIS
    quarter's) figures that is causing the many behavioral problems we
    see in Sales. For example following problems are caused by above
    factors (this is a non-exhaustive list!):
    
    1. End of FY push. The results of this have been discussed elsewhere
       in this topic.
    
    2. Reluctance to chase long sales-cycle opportunities because after
       all the pain you go thru to win one, it only affects your metrics
       for a quarter or at best a FY. Same holds true for large and/or
       strategic opportunities.
    
    3. The current methods punish someone who made 99.99% of a FY budget
       compared to another who made 100%. Given a salesman who
       consistently makes 99.9% and another who makes 50% and 140% on
       alternative years, guess who gets to go to Decathlon etc.? In
       fact, the system may be encouraging such erratic behaviour (I have
       no proofs though!).
    
    4. Salesperson not held responsible for unprofitable or reversed
       orders if he/she moves on to another job or account. The poor 
       incumbent rep is holding the bag!
    
    One way to correct above would be to use a sliding window (or moving
    average) of past 3-4 years performance (preferably profit) to measure 
    a rep. This tends to smooth the peaks and valleys thus highlighting
    good performers against bad ones. It would encourage
    long/large/strategic sales because the positive effect of such sales 
    would linger longer on the rep's performance measurements. It would
    reduce the mad end-of-FY rush, because one single quarter cannot
    have such a dramatic effect on one's measurement.
    
    Any comments?
    
    RV   

    > One way to correct above would be to use a sliding window (or moving
    > average) of past 3-4 years performance (preferably profit) to measure 
    > a rep. This tends to smooth the peaks and valleys thus highlighting
    > good performers against bad ones. It would encourage
    > long/large/strategic sales because the positive effect of such sales 
    > would linger longer on the rep's performance measurements. It would
    > reduce the mad end-of-FY rush, because one single quarter cannot
    > have such a dramatic effect on one's measurement.
    
    I think that would be a great idea.  But if what I understand about the
    financial community is correct, our stock would plummet with such an
    announcement.  Wall Street wants to buy stock low today and sell it
    high tomorrow.  If the company goes broke next week, they couldn't care
    less.  It all goes back to what we've been discussing about Digital
    being run by Wall Street investors these days.
    
    							Pat

    Worrying about the Wall Street investors is hardly new.  Win Hindle
    told Jack Shields (and therefore me) to ship a non-working PDP-6 in
    order to get the billing included in Q4. This was in June 1968.

    
    Why do we have to read in the Boston Globe a story headlining the
    business pages that DEC plans to reduce staff significantly?
    
    Why are internal memos stating directives to reduce manpower by
    25% by '91 given to the Globe and confirmed by a DEC spokesperson?
    
    

    Re: .90
    
    Is this NEW information?
    
    How about sharing what the Globe says with those of us that don't
    have access to it.
    
    Kevin
    

	DEC memo calls for big cut in jobs
        Goal is to trim 7,000 staffers
	{The Boston Globe, 23-Aug-89, p. 75}
	[By Peter G. Gosselin, Globe Staff}
 [This is the entire article - TT]
   "In a move that could fall most heavily on Massachusetts, Digital Equipment
 Corp. is devising plans to transfer or lose through attrition thousands of
 employees over the next two years to cope with slumping demand for its
 computers, an internal memo shows.
    The company has told at least nine departments, from legal to purchasing,
 to 'reduce (the) population' of their offices by 25 percent by July 1991. The
 order appears aimed at the firm's support staff, which accounts for an
 estimated 30,000 of Digital's 125,800-employee work force.
    Told of the memo, some industry analysts estimated the move could
 ultimately affect more than 7,000 support employees, including many at the
 firm's Maynard headquarters.
   'It's a material tightening of the tourniquet,' said John W. Adams, who
 heads the Boston brokerage firms of Adams, Harkness & Hill and keeps tabs on
 Digital.
    Company officials confirmed the memo's existence yesterday, but sought to
 downplay its significance. They asserted that any reductions, if they are
 made, could be handled through transfers or attrition, rather than outright
 layoffs. The memo discusses moving 'resources' from one department to another.
    'It's not a plan, it's a working document,' said Digital spokeswoman Nikki
 Richardson. 'It's an iteration, a directional document to promote ideas within
 the company,' she said.
    The idea most prominently featured seems to be that of a cutback.
    The two-page memo, from a company 'budget task force,' orders heads of
 affected departments to draw up plans for cutting their budgets for the
 current fiscal year, which began July 1, by 10 percent, adding, 'it is
 assumed that this will include a sizable reduction in population.'
    And it says that to reduce the number of employees in those departments by
 25 percent by July 1991, 'each group will have to struggle with what work to
 discontinue.
   'They should not just shave expenses, but rather eliminate entire efforts,'
 is says.
    The jobs targeted for cutbacks, considered by analysts as support or
 overhead positions, include administration, law, finance, personnel,
 purchasing, data information services, facilities, materials and quality."
   Richardson, the company spokeswoman, said she did not know how many
 employees perform such tasks, but analysts estimated the number could run as
 high as 30,000, or one quarter of Digital's work force. A 25 percent reduction
 in that number would amount to about 7,500 employees.
   Cutbacks or shifts in these positions, if they come, could fall inordinately
 on Digital's Massachusetts work force because the company's headquarters is
 here. 'Home is where the overhead is,' said Adams.
   The company employs 33,700 in the state and another 10,700 elsewhere in New
 England.
   Digital previously said it will freeze salaries of all US employees and move
 up to 4,000 from manufacturing to sales and service positions to cope with a
 slowdown in demand for its computers.
   Last month, it announced that profits during the quarter ended June 30
 dropped 22 percent to $313.2 million on sales of $3.495 billion.
   Analysts attributed the memo's cutback proposals to the profits slump and
 predictions of further problems in coming quarters.
   Rumors of the cutback proposals have swept through the company's local work
 force in recent days, producing a gallows humor. 'I was a great worker at
 McDonald's in high school,' one employee told another, 'I'm sure they will
 take me back.'
   However, Richardson denied the company is studying the idea of letting
 people go. 'We have no plans at all for layoffs,' she said.
   Instead, Richardson said that any cutbacks would be handled through
 attrition and transferring of employees whose jobs are eliminated to other
 Digital divisions.
   The memo discusses the idea of transfers, saying the company should set up a
 system for 'helping those groups which need resources to draw from those
 groups which have excess.' Digital has a longstanding no-layoff policy.
   However, analysts questioned whether the company can achieve the kind of
 cutbacks discussed in the memo without layoffs. Told of the memo, Shao Wang,
 an analyst with the brokerage firm of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. in New
 York, said, 'I think what they're hoping for is doing it through attrition
 (and transfers), but the 25-percent level may be too high.' Despite the
 cutback proposals, Wang and other analysts said Digital is in good shape
 compared to its chief rivals in the market for mid-sized computers, Wang
 Laboratories Inc. in Lowell and Data General Corp. in Westborough.
   The company has added a variety of new machines and beefed up its sales
 force, prompting some to predict company earnings will rebound next year. No
 similar predictions have been floated about Wang or Data General."

I just removed yet another copy of the purported memo from this conference.
The memo is clearly labelled "DIGITAL CONFIDENTIAL" and thus MUST NOT be
distributed in this fashion, nor sent along to your friends.  Note 1.1 in
this conference has more information on Digital's security policies.

In regards to the question in .90:

    Why are internal memos stating directives to reduce manpower by
    25% by '91 given to the Globe and confirmed by a DEC spokesperson?

The answer, of course, is that some employees seem to have taken leave of their
senses and are handing confidential internal documents to the media
without pausing to think of the consequences or even verifying that the memo
reflects reality.

If you receive a copy of this or any other memo that is labelled as
DIGITAL CONFIDENTIAL, do not post it in a notes conference, do not
forward it to your friends, and ask the person who sent it to you if they
really understand what they are doing.

				Steve

    re .90:
    
    Your reading of the article differs from mine.  The 25% refers to
    certain overhead functions, not overall.  
    
    I'm equally displeased to see "Digital Confidential" documents being
    given to external people.  It places DIGITAL in the position of having
    to respond to something that is simply a working document...never
    intended for publication.  If the culprit is found who gave an internal
    memo to the Globe, I hope they're fired on the spot with much
    publicity.
    
    Marge

    Globe article,
    
    It's really amazing because the ``McDonald'' comment was actually
    a ``Subj:'' field from VAXmail someone had added!

    And the "gallows humor" quote about working at McDonald's was a subject
    line from someone's forwarding of this memo. 

    This must have been the fist time since a memo got published in the
    Globe WITHOUT first appearing here.
    
    - Vikas

    The assumption that the 25% headcount and 10% expense (from FY89
    Actuals) reduction is limited to overhead areas in false; the memo
    clearly indicates that the reductions apply to all functions.  This
    is real, and no function is exempt.
    
    Jay 

What follows is Ken Olsen's response from LiveWire...

                Worldwide News             LIVE WIRE

                       Ken responds to newspaper report 

 Yesterday an internal memo marked "Digital Confidential" was leaked to 
 the BOSTON GLOBE.  This memo does not represent any official position 
 or policy.  It was not a plan.  

 "Because of the constant change in our business in both products and 
 technology, we are always making changes in personnel and locations 
 where work is done," explains Ken Olsen, president.  "This means 
 sometimes retraining people, moving people, and sometimes helping 
 people who choose to go elsewhere.  But there is definitely no policy 
 to cut our staff by 25 percent.  

 "Our plan is to grow the company.  By that we mean that we want our 
 business to expand fast enough so that the workforce is the right size 
 at any given time.

 "At Digital, anyone is free to analyze the business and make proposals.  
 We always have the goal of giving individual managers the freedom and the 
 responsibility to run their part of the business, and hold them responsible 
 for the results and the management.  It is, however, very clear that 
 corporate-wide decisions and policies are my responsibility, and individual 
 managers or committees do not make these corporate decisions.  One can see 
 from the R&D budget and capital expenditures that it is clearly the policy 
 of the corporation to grow, expand, and be aggressive in the market with the 
 products we have now and those we have under development."

>    The assumption that the 25% headcount and 10% expense (from FY89
>    Actuals) reduction is limited to overhead areas in false; the memo
>    clearly indicates that the reductions apply to all functions.  This
>    is real, and no function is exempt.

I'm glad you're sure of this, since Ken isn't.

I also think you should take a close look at the memo (well, you should really
delete it since it wasn't addressed to you anyway; I deleted my copy).

You'll see that there were two sections of organizations.  The first section was
overhead organizations.  The second section had a few lines of text, clearly
indicating that the reduction recommended for those organizations was for the
kinds of functions imbedded in the matrix management structure but performing
the overhead functions similar to the overhead organizations.

/john

[tongue firmly in cheek...]

	Maybe people who were miffed 'cuz the memo was deleted from here
(apparently more than once) decided to send it to the Globe and see if they
could get a management response that way.

[seriously]

	I received 2 copies of the memo (including a copy with the
"McDonald's quote") and did not pass it on.  One thought that popped into
my head is that the memo says to develop a plan to cut people.  How many
probably-never-to-be-used-but-still-developed plans do you suppose are
sitting around in reports from committees all over DEC?

						--D

Even discussions of "well, line 17 actually says ..." and, "I got the
memo and it had the McDonald's quote in subj:" are inappropriate.

The only way to stop improper dissemination of confidential memos
and interpretations of them, and partial acknowledgements, and
clouded discussions in the wrong forums is to not discuss them,
period.

Comments about the Globe article, for what they might be worth are
discussion of things outside the company.  But discussing what the
meno "clearly says, or doesn't say" isn't much better than posting
a [alledged] copy of the memo.

The contents of said memo are the purview of the addressees and those
with whom it was legitimately shared on a "need to know" basis.

- greg

    I found it rather interesting to note that people seem to respect the
    "DIGITAL CONFIDENTIAL" nature of major memos like the one all the
    brohaha is about, _except_ when it is perceived that jobs may be on the
    line.
    
    I wonder if part of the motive behind such dissemination is a belief
    that by telling the world about what cruel, nasty people our upper
    management are, these same management will then be cowed or scared or
    otherwise dissuaded from implementing the alleged changes.
    
    All that it seems to have done is raise the general temperature level
    around the company and cause a minor feeding-frenzy amongst the press
    and the Wall street anal-ysts.*  Upper management will still do
    whatever it thinks is in the best interests of Digital to do.
    
    Very interesting bit of social Darwinism at work here...
    
    John Francini
    
    * The hyphenation (and the attendant change in pronunciation that it
    entails) is quite intended.  I'm tired of hearing "J. Random Fuzzball,
    the Digital watcher [analyst] at Foo, Bar, and Baz Securties"
    pontificate about things that they know .01% about.
    
    

>    * The hyphenation (and the attendant change in pronunciation that it
>    entails) is quite intended.  I'm tired of hearing "J. Random Fuzzball,
>    the Digital watcher [analyst] at Foo, Bar, and Baz Securties"
>    pontificate about things that they know .01% about.

    It's very interesting that Digital Employees keep bashing the folks on
    Street. Analysts, investors and others are just doing their job: making
    sure that people who have invested their own money, or who will, get to
    know where their money is heading. This is what helped and is currently
    helping the World's richest capitalist country to get even richer. I
    strongly disagree with the often quoted statement that they
    'pontificate about things that they know .01% about': while they don't
    necessarily know all the things some Digital Employees know, they are
    very often capable to identify some very real holes or problems in our
    strategies which just have been plain overlooked by top management.
    Some of them are bozos, and some Digital Employees are bozos too,
    that's life. To some extent, this reminds me of the very typical IBM
    bashing happening all over the place in Digital, as if IBM or its
    employees wasn't a company worth our respect. By default, I have a
    great deal of respect for anyone doing a job for a living, that person
    being a Wall Street Analyst, Pat Seybold, John Ackers or the young
    woman who comes to clean up my office at night.

    Regards,
    Denis.

          <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;2 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note xxx.0                  CNN rehash of Globe story                  6 replies
DWOVAX::EROS "The tradition continues: 82,85,87,89"   4 lines  23-AUG-1989 12:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CNN reports that DIGITAL has announced "sweeping" personnel
    cutbacks?  Has anyone heard of this or is CNN blowing smoke?
    
    -- Tony
================================================================================
Note xxx.1                  CNN rehash of Globe story                     1 of 6
SMOOT::ROTH "Digital's greatest asset: It's people."  3 lines  23-AUG-1989 12:35
                  -< Source of info probably already posted >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See note 872.92, a Boston Glob article.

(Moderators, feel free to delete my note. Lee)
================================================================================
Note xxx.2                  CNN rehash of Globe story                     2 of 6
DWOVAX::EROS "The tradition continues: 82,85,87,89"   6 lines  23-AUG-1989 12:40
                                    -< Ahh >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm sure that's it.  It fits what I heard, although of course CNN
    claims that it was some sort of "across the board" deal...
    
    Sorry if I've contributed to any rumormongering...
    
    -- Tony
================================================================================
Note xxx.3                  CNN rehash of Globe story                     3 of 6
CECV03::ROBINSON                                      6 lines  23-AUG-1989 13:40
                         -< Article in today's Globe >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I think CNN was referring to todays's Globe article...titled: "DEC
    memo calls for big cut in jobs, goal to trim 7k jobs".  The article
    states that company officials have confirmed the memos existence..
    
    Carol
================================================================================
Note xxx.4                  CNN rehash of Globe story                     4 of 6
MRMARS::SHERMAN "Barnacle 1"                         35 lines  23-AUG-1989 15:17
                                -< Here it is >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                        Date:     23-Aug-1989 10:54am EDT
                                        From:     NEWS
                                                  NEWS@SELL3@BIMMRO@MRGATE@GENDEL@MRO
                                        Dept:      
                                        Tel No:    


Subject: Computer Industry News from MISG

*******************************************************************************

DIGITAL MEMO

	"DEC Memo Calls for Big Cut in Jobs"  (The Boston Globe, 8/23/89,
	 PP:75)

According to an internal company memo, Digital Equipment Corp. is devising
plans to transfer or lose through attrition thousands of employees over the
next two years to cope with slumping demand for its computers.  The company has
told over nine departments, from legal to purchasing, "reduce (the) population"
of their offices by 25 percent by 1991.  The order appears aimed at the firm's
support staff which accounts for an estimated 30,000 of Digital's
125,800-employee work force.  Told of the memo, some industry analysts estimate
the move could ultimately affect more than 7,000 support employees, including
many at the firm's Maynard headquarters.  Company officials confirmed the
memo's existence yesterday, but sought to downplay its significance.  They
asserted that any reductions, if they are made, could be handled through
transfers or attrition, rather than outright layoffs.  The memo discusses
moving "resources" from one department to another.  Analysts attributed the
memo's proposed cutback proposals to the profits slump and predictions of
further problems in coming quarters.  Digital spokeswoman Nikki Richardson
denied the company is studying the idea of letting people go.  
================================================================================
Note xxx.5                  CNN rehash of Globe story                     5 of 6
EXIT26::STRATTON "I (heart) my wife"                 10 lines  24-AUG-1989 00:14
                       -< Please continue in Topic 872 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        re .4 - the entire _Globe_ article is reproduced in 872.92.
        
        Re .* - The most recent (to date) replies in Topic 872
        discuss this.  Please continue the discussion there, rather
        than in this topic.
        
        Thanks,
        
Jim Stratton (co-moderator)
        
================================================================================
Note xxx.6                  CNN rehash of Globe story                     6 of 6
STAR::ROBERT                                          9 lines  24-AUG-1989 00:55
                       -< John Carpenter's next movie? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .1  "The Boston Glob".

I like that!!

re: .5

This isn't really about the topic, so I left it here.

- greg

    For years when the company was growing senior management was fond of
    saying at every opportunity:
    
    	GROWTH IS NOT A GOAL
    
    Not that the growth is flat or negligible, senior management is fond of
    saying at every opportunity now:
    
    	GROWTH IS A GOAL
    
    If you can figure it out, send a unsigned copy of your explanation to
    the Association of Stock Analysts who are Consistently Negative on DEC
    (ASA/CND) to General Delivery, Main Post Office, New York, NY 10001,
    and a great reward will accure to you (or your survivors).  A possible
    spot on the David Letterman show is being negotiated, or at least a
    spot on Nightly Business Report

    The New Hampshire Union Bleeder picked up on this today too with a big
    headline in the business section: "DEC Considers 25% Job Cut By July,
    1991".
    
    -Glenn-

    re: .104
    
>    					This is what helped and is currently
>    helping the World's richest capitalist country to get even richer.
    
    When did Japan come into this discussion?  I heard a news broadcast
    this past week that stated Japan has taken this title ($44tril in
    assets, as I recall; US is #2).
    
    -- Russ

          <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;2 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note xxxx.0                        Get off it !!                        3 replies
LDP::LYSAKOWSKI                                      10 lines  24-AUG-1989 18:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Come on people, quit wasting disk space!!
    
    If you were as busy busting your butt to improve things in and for this
    company as you are noting to each other, then we wouldn't have to worry
    about things like layoffs, hiring freezes, and head count limits.
    
    My $0.02.
    
    RL
    
================================================================================
Note xxx.1                        Get off it !!                           1 of 3
GENRAL::LANE                                           1 line  24-AUG-1989 18:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amen.
================================================================================
Note xxx.2                        Get off it !!                           2 of 3
SELL::MAYANK "I am working on - am I ?"              23 lines  24-AUG-1989 18:48
                 -< pls identify what you are objecting to.. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Re: .0
    
>    Come on people, quit wasting disk space!!
    
    This is out of context and hence does not make sense (as a separate
    topic).  You may do well by posting it as a reply to those notes that
    you are objecting to. (do not worry about hurting people's feelings if
    you believe in what you say).
    
>    If you were as busy busting your butt to improve things in and for this
>    company as you are noting to each other, then we wouldn't have to worry
>    about things like layoffs, hiring freezes, and head count limits.
    
    I think you are grossly mistaken about what you think is useful and
    what is useless.  Try looking at all the "non work-related" conferences
    on this net (I will not name them and will allow you to guess).
    
    At least this conf is very much related to Digital and its people (and
    how they relate to each other).  People are the ones who make up the 
    company, computers and products come later.
    
    FWIW.
    
================================================================================
Note xxx.3                        Get off it !!                           3 of 3
DR::BLINN "Progress, not perfection"                  8 lines  24-AUG-1989 18:52
            -< Not a suitable discussion topic for this conference >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This topic is write-locked.  You have a right to your opinion,
        but it is NOT a suitable topic for discussion.  Anyone wishing
        to provide feedback to the topic author (or to either of the
        two respondents -- sorry, I wasn't quick enough or the topic
        note would be GONE) can do so by MAIL.
        
        Tom
        co-moderator

re .107:

    You mean the folks at the Union Leader read the Globe?!?  Next they'll
    be stealing stories from Pravda!

    Re: .110:
    
    [The Union Leader stealing stories from Pravda]
    
    Has Glasnost (sp?) come to New Hampshire?

    The Globe apparently submitted the story to the AP.  I read it in the
    Washington Post yesterday with an (AP) attribution.
    
    Marge

    IMHO rumours, and their propagation, arise from a basic feeling
    of insecurity in the workforce.
    
    Were I to be a top manager in this, or any other, company, I would
    be extremely worried about this situation.
    
    It is a SYMPTOM, not an illness.
    
    The memo referred to in the last few notes is only going to make
    matters worse.  By its very nature, Digital is a free and open company,
    compared to many, and things like this, whether marked CONFIDENTIAL
    or not will get out into the workplace.
    
    In my last job I had to produce a report for a Management Studies night
    class I was taking.  Its title was "Morale and Motivation in a period
    of uncertainty".  The "uncertainty" at the time was caused by the
    company having recently completed a hostile takeover of a major
    competitor and beginning the process of "rationalisation" which
    usually ensues.  Already at the facility where I worked, our
    manufacturing group had been closed down with a loss of some 5-600
    jobs.  We were an engineering group who were left to complete a
    new product introduction (no doubt, if any of my compatriots are
    reading this, they know where I'm talking about!).
    
    Rumours abounded about "we were next".  However the company insisted
    that this wasn't so, they carried on producing 5 year plans for
    us, our projects were approved, money was spent like water refurbishing
    offices etc.  But still the "leaks" and "rumours" persisted.  Since
    the company was a tightly run "old fashioned" hierarchical set up,
    nothing official ever appeared - just the scuttlebutt.
    
    The effect on morale was devastating.  Long range personal plans we'd
    made no longer seemed like a good idea (get married, buy a house,
    change the car).  Work was a place of little huddles saying "have
    you heard anything yet?"  The best and most able workers left before
    the axe could fall - unable and unwilling to take the uncertainty.
        
    The most constructive suggestion I heard during this period was
    to appoint an official, high level, rumour manager whose function
    was simply to find out the source of the latest rumour and squash,
    correct, or confirm it.
        
    The other crying need which came out of my project was for
    communication - open and honest communication, which Digital claims
    to have as one of it's cornerstones.  "For goodness sake, TELL US
    WHAT'S GOING ON" was the cry.  We wanted news - good OR bad.  We
    even wanted to be told that there was NO news!
        
    Finally, before I'd even finished my project, they closed the facility.
        
    It will take me a long, long time (if ever) before I trust any employer
    again - no matter what they SAY.
        
    Sorry for the verbosity!
        
    Mike
    

re: .114

IMO, Impossible!

Lee

    Let's see:

    1 year = 52 weeks so
    52 + (16 yrs X 3 weeks) = 52 + 48 = 100 weeks pay!

    I figure I should be able to make arrangements to have another job that
    would start within 2 weeks of leaving. which means that I would
    essentially be able to pay off all my bills and have a nice vacation 
    besides. With no bills against my paycheck that means a big build up of 
    savings and a good deal of peace of mind.

    Where do I sign up? 

>    < Note 872.117 by CSSE::CACCIA "the REAL steve" >
>                   -< is this the typical line of thought? >-
    
    Sure is!  That is why it will be selective, if it happens.

>    Let's see:
>
>    1 year = 52 weeks so
>    52 + (16 yrs X 3 weeks) = 52 + 48 = 100 weeks pay!

    Another version of the rumor is 4 weeks per year after 10 years.
    In your case, it would be 
    
    52 + (10 yrs X 3 weeks) + (6 yrs X 4 weeks) = 52 + 30 + 24 = 106
    
>    Where do I sign up? 
    
    You'll have to wait like the rest of us :-)
    
    Mike

    
    
    
    That new calculation would make for a REALLY nice vacation.
    
    have to wait???? oh-darn!

    I was just wondering if companies that institute such plans will allow
    you to ever be rehired by the company? Can you take this plan, go work
    somewhere else for a few years, then come back to the company? I would
    think not, but wouldn't that have to be clearly stated in such a plan
    that "you give up future employment possibilities with the company".
    
    -Glenn-

From the limited knowledge I have on one case, someone who worked at ROLM 
here in the Springs; you would only give up your right to work for a 
limited period of time.  This period of time being slightly longer than the 
number of weeks the money is for.  IE I doubt you would give up the chance 
of ever working for the company again.

Jilly

>From the limited knowledge I have on one case, someone who worked at ROLM 
>here in the Springs; you would only give up your right to work for a 
>limited period of time.

Gack!  Is this how rumours start?  "I don't know anything, but someone at ROLM
says..."

This is DIGITAL.  We have our own Policies and Procedures.  This is an extract
from Policy 2.01 "Employment":

 Rehiring of Former Employees

 Generally, employees who terminate from the Company will not be
 considered for rehire.  A decision to rehire an employee may only
 occur after a careful review of the individual's previous Company
 record and with the approval of two successive levels of
 management.  In addition, reference checks with previous Digital
 supervisors should be carried out to determine if the rehired
 employee will meet the requirements of the new position.  Rehiring
 someone into a senior management position (i.e., direct report to a
 group/area manager) requires the additional approval of the
 appropriate Management and Personnel Management Committee member.
 When a former employee is rehired, that employee receives no credit
 for prior service except as provided under the terms of the Pension
 Plan.  Rehired employees are issued their former badge numbers.

	In 1980-81 Polaroid (sp!) offer employee early retirement if
	they had over 10 years in the company - a friend of mine took
	it and went to school on the money.  He is not able to go
	back to work for the company full time with full benefits -
	since the plan was a "retirement" plan.  I am no longer sure
	of the details but the offer was real tempting since he was
	in a deadend position anyway.  I am also not sure how effective
	the plan was for cutting headcount.

	_peggy

    re: 120-122
    
    If you're in Engineering, you get to check off the infamous "Not 
    Eligible for Rehire" box when you leave. This was true when I was
    on TMP last Fall.

    Re .114 et al ...
    
    Before people get too far along with planning their 2-year vacations, the 
    point does not seem to have been made/accepted that this rumored proposal, 
    if true, (which I _strongly_ doubt) would probably apply only to those 
    few who were already qualified to be early retirees.
    
    In other words, people with 10+ years of service and aged 55+, who are
    prepared to take the early-retirement option. As I recall, this leads to 
    more onerous conditions than usual in trying to negotiate a subsequent
    re-hire, according to the orange P & P book, 
    
    Obviously, whichever algorithm were used to calculate the payoff would
    be very different from the regular pension calculation, but my 
    back-of-the-envelope arithmetic suggests that the amount would be worth 
    roughly 100% - 150% of the current lump sum value of the pension -- for 
    the minority who are eligible. 
    
    This suggests that the payment would be intended to supplement -- rather 
    than replace -- the regular pension.

    -Jim    

    According to the latest DECworld, the Executive Committee:
    
    Is not planning any layoffs;
    Is not considering early retirement plans; and is
    Minimizing external hiring, except in critical areas.

    Re .126:
    
>    According to the latest DECworld, the Executive Committee:
>    
>    Is not planning any layoffs;
>    Is not considering early retirement plans; and is
>    Minimizing external hiring, except in critical areas.

    You made my day! I feel so much relieved. Seriously, if ANYTHING like
    am early retirement plan was being considered by the Executive
    Committee, all members of the Committee would be denying that anything
    is in the make till about 5 minutes prior to the annoucement.
    
    Denis.

    Please delete reply .126, it's not a rumor.

    Re : 127, so , after few weeks, you are not tired anymore and ready
    for fresh rumors .-) ?

    It may be only a rumor
    
    
    but I have one question
    
    
    Who is calling the employees asking them if they are interested in
    the plan?
    
    The phone calls are no rumor.......

    DO YOU KNOW WHO IS MAKING THE PHONE CALLS? I AND PROBABLY MANY OTHERS
    WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO THEM AND FIND OUT THE PARTICULARS.
    
    LARRY
    
    

    re .130
    
    from what I gather, first some people got a memo asking if they would 
    be interested in it...............then a follow up call from their 
    personnel group.
    
    
    

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

                                        Date:     31-Aug-1989 01:36pm EDT
                                        From:     NEWS
                                                  NEWS@SELL3@BIMMRO@MRGATE@GENDEL@MRO
                                        Dept:      
                                        Tel No:    

Subject: Computer Industry News from MISG

******************************************************************************

DIGITAL JOB SHIFTING

	"DEC Seen Job Shifting"  (MIS Week, 8/28/89, PP:4)

Digital Equipment Corp. last week confirmed reports that it will slash 25
percent of its staff in some departments and cut spending 10 percent.  A DEC
spokeswoman denied the firm was contemplating "layoffs" per se, but
knowledgeable sources indicate that DEC's plans to "redeploy" workers from
administrative to sales jobs, as well as from one part of the country to
another, may have the net effect of boosting the attrition rate.
					     (Reprinted in Its Entirety)

    garbage.  confirming the existence of the memo does not confirm the
    contents of the memo...  lousy journalism!
    
    marge_angry

    RE .133
    
    Marge, reread the story. It doesn't say that they confirmed the
    existance of the memo. It says they confirmed the contents. 
    Your entitled to your opinion. Mine says it's happening as we 
    'speak' and the worse the numbers look the faster things are
    going to move.

    Digital did NOT confirm the contents of the memo;
    they confirmed its existence.  Poor journalism.
    
    marge

Re: .126 (DECworld)

Yeah, but that issue we just received seems to have been largely composed in
MAY.  I don't consider it a TIMELY publication.  Them's OLD rumors!  :-)

Steve

    RE .114, .116
    
    So, did the 9/1 announcement that you referred to, happen?
    

    There I go again. Didn't look in Notes for a few days and missed a
    juicy one (.114).
    
    I must apologise to all of you contributors since .114, as I don't know
    what you're talking about. I was just trying to get some work done.
    Please excuse my inattention.
    
    JK

    re .137 
    
    
    
    yes it happened yesterday. check out the Globe.

    No surprises here!  As said in other notes, the handwriting has been on
    the wall for quite some time.
    
    Mike