Conference 7.286::digital

	RE: .0 This is also posted in topic 1010. Also I ask everyone to
	please remember that it is DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY and not to
	be passed outside the company. FWIW, This reminder was given to me by
	one of KO's direct reports.

				Alfred

    I take issue with the fact that the State of the Company address,
    which was spoken in a public forum attended by members of the press,
    is for internal use only. Parts of this were quoted in the local
    papers in November.

    The article from MGMT MEMO is clearly labeled DIGITAL INTERNAL USE
    ONLY. That is how it should be treated. 
    
    If you want to take those press reports outside the company go
    ahead.
    
    			Alfred
    

    	Ok, while this new focus on getting the job done as opposed to
    a preoccupation with process is perhaps old news to some people, it
    still deserves some discussion here as it seems DEC will now need to
    make a major shift in the way it does business.  On the one hand, this
    change (as any change) can be seen in a somewhat unnerving light, but
    it is important to keep the overall business in perspective in order
    to understand what is happening here.

    	A good analogy to use might be to think of DEC as a grand sailing
    ship in a race.  Our ship is much more streamlined and has a much heartier
    crew than the other ships and we are skipping across the water alot faster
    as well, but the strange thing is that we seem to have lost track of most
    of the other sailboats and can not seem to see the finish line anymore.
    It turns out that for years, the tack of our ship has been a starboard
    tack (as our motto of "do the right thing" was apparently taken literally
    by many of the crew ;^), so now we must quickly cross-haul the main sail
    and perform a starboard to port tack so that we can rejoin the race.  In
    the future, we must also remember to remain on our toes because we will
    undoubtedly once again need to tack back from port to starboard and so on
    in order to remain on course and win the race.

    				   -davo

    REF: .0 -- responding to KO's comments on excess process
    
    We are lost in process and bureaucracy and narrow-mindedness and
    stovepipes.  My employee suggestion is that the Executive Committee
    re-define the absolute end desired product of the total efforts of
    Digital, and work BACKWORD FROM THERE in changing the rules within all
    "processes" accordingly, writing a new business and marketing plan
    accordingly, level by level.
    
    My suggested absolute end desired product:
    
    	We want customers (decision-makers and users) who willingly buy
    from us, who willingly pay premium prices, and who willingly remain
    loyal, because we satisfy their information technology needs and wants
    better than any other conceivable alternative, providing premium
    value-added benefits with our products, services and total actions of
    each and every Digital employee.
    

	... get any arguement from me on THAT suggestion!  :>)

	... but whenever you have stovepipes, narrow-mindedness is not far
away!  The stovepipe definitely affects your thinking.  And where the stovepipes
all come together (the mission!) is now too far away from the customer-level
folks.

    
    Ref: 9 ODIXIE::GEORGE
    
    I was agreeing with Ken Olsen about process, and relating process to
    those within Digital who are so involved in process, perpetuate
    bureaucracy and stovepipes and narrow-mindedness to new ideas to change
    that would build a more successful Digital.
    
    As to who exactly is such a person, I can only factually report that I
    have met some, at various levels throughtout Digital and based on
    actions witnessed, specifically the unwillingness to entertain any
    ideas "not invented here", I stand on my adjective.
    
    Some employees throughout Digital are narrow-minded.
    

	Ok, who cares about the adjectives Dave chose in his note.  The
    important idea I extracted from Dave's reply #.7 was the idea of working
    backwards from end result to beginning.

	Does the phrase "reverse engineering" ring a bell for anyone?  This
    could prove to be a winning strategy if calculated well enough!

				   -davo

    .4  your reference to taking a port tack, is that the same as saying 
        "do the left thing" (as in leave the company & stream line the ship
        some more.............a little humor.

re: .13,

>    .4  your reference to taking a port tack, is that the same as saying 
>        "do the left thing" (as in leave the company & stream line the ship
>        some more.............a little humor.

	Yuk yuk yuk yuk....  ;^)

				    -davo

    re: internal use only

    Unless November 16, 1989 in Merrimack was different from the other
    SOC's, the SOC is an internal (ie no press invited affair).  It is the
    Annual Meeting of the Shareholders which is more significant, and, of
    course, the press is invited to that.

    re: parables

    I like a good parable as much as anyone else either to create or read,
    (I was the one who talked about a team of only first basemen being the
    Digital standard team).  Parables are not a vision for the purpose of
    the company, and in this vacuum what's been substituted are "group
    visions".

    re: process

    I talk up a good story on "process over production" and "internal
    meetings over customer contact" and the lack of competitive spirit that
    is the curse of bigness.  But are people putting this into practice?

    One hour people are decrying bureaucracy and the next they are
    scheming to snatch a project from another group in order to get slots,
    certs, or whatever.  Who's the enemy here?

    "Process" enthrones the cost-conscious and the risk-avoiders, and casts
    out or plunges into obscurity the innovators and the risk takers.

    It can't be avoided: austerity rewards the complacent and destroys the
    incentives for excellence.  (and I'm not just talking about employee
    compensation here)

    Most of the my ideas here have been adopted from the Forbes editorial
    entitled "Poland Needs Incentives and Not Austerity" (p.27, Feb 5)

    REF:  <<< Note 1018.16 by CHEFS::CONWAY >>>
                                             
    >><<The customer does not care.>>
    
    I agree.  Thus, from the perspective of a customer decision-maker, and
    indeed ANY and ALL customer end-users, what actions have changed within
    any Digital employee and his or her related functions, that such
    customer contacts can readily "see" have lead to proactively increasing
    satisfaction of our customer's needs and wants, providing increased
    value-added benefits to where the customers are more likely to buy from
    us, stay with us, and pay us premium prices? 
    

    re: .15   process & bureaucracy
    
    It has always amazed me that large American companies are seemingly
    modeled more like the communist/socialist economic theory than the
    capitalist economy they live within.  i.e.  centralized control
    and budgeting/planning not the distributed, profit motivated model
    of capitalism.
    
    Internally, money doesn't flow through the imbedded customer-vendor paths. 
    Rather, money flows orthogonally to these paths.  It is only at our very 
    exterior boundaries that we are capitalist.   I think this is largely 
    responsible for the growth of non-value added bureaucracy.
    
    In our economy we have, at one extreme, the mom & pop store where
    all money flows through a single cash register, while at the other
    extreme we have the giant corporation running entirely on funny
    money (ala Soviet Empire).   Somewhere in the evolution of companies
    they all seem to change from external (customer) focus to internal
    (ruples) focus.  99.9% of us never touch the cash.  It flows straight 
    to corporate for 'distribution'.    I think this can easily result in 
    divided loyalties (who is your customer?).
    
    Do you exist to serve your internal customer or do you exist to
    get next years budget?   A group that is good at slide shows can
    get funded more easily than a group that is good at servicing their
    clients.   When this happens it is 'process' gone wild.
    
    

> < Note 1018.17 by ODIXIE::CARNELL "DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF" >
    
>    I agree.  Thus, from the perspective of a customer decision-maker, and
>    indeed ANY and ALL customer end-users, what actions have changed within
>    any Digital employee and his or her related functions, that such
>    customer contacts can readily "see" have lead to proactively increasing
>    satisfaction of our customer's needs and wants, providing increased
>    value-added benefits to where the customers are more likely to buy from
>    us, stay with us, and pay us premium prices? 

What?

    re .17 re .19

    That was my reaction too.
        
>   I agree.  Thus, from the perspective of a customer decision-maker, and
>   indeed ANY and ALL customer end-users, what actions have changed within
>   any Digital employee and his or her related functions, that such
>   customer contacts can readily "see" have lead to proactively increasing
>   satisfaction of our customer's needs and wants, providing increased
>   value-added benefits to where the customers are more likely to buy from
>   us, stay with us, and pay us premium prices? 

    "I agree. So, let's take a paying customer. No -- let's take ANY
    customer. What's changed anywhere in DEC that's obvious to a customer
    that makes it look like we're

    	(a) trying to satisfy their needs or
    	(b) adding value to our products with our services,

    things that will make them want to keep buying from us, pay through
    the nose --  and be happy doing it?"

    ---

    Please, succinctness in the future. And, please, can we outlaw the use
    of the work "proactive" and all its derivatives?


    /Petes

    
    To all those who don't like my long sentences:
    
                  Current "processes" in Digital metric me
                                 by the word!
     
                                   0     0
                                      o
                                  \_______/
                                

    re .-1

    I know how it can be. You probably even get bonus points for
    "proactive," too. ;-) Nothing personal, but I LOATHE that word!
    I find that most people who preach "proactiveness" do it in the
    following sense:

        "I haven't accomplished anything worth while except maybe keep my
        own butt out of the fire on occasion, so I'll suggest to you, the
        troops, that you lead any and all efforts which I should be leading
        you in. Then, if you actually accomplish anything, I'll take the
        credit for inspiring your efforts and hopefully get promoted to a
        job where I can get by with doing even less."

    As for metrics, you hit the nail on the head. How do you institute
    metrics which reward quality, not quantity? Perhaps we get rid of some
    of the process-mania by eliminating some metrics. It would help unmask
    a whole class of people who don't contribute -- but successfully invoke
    metrics to defend themselves.

    /Petes

    REF:  <<< Note 1018.22 by SVBEV::VECRUMBA >>>
    
    >><< I find that most people who preach "proactiveness" do it in the
         following sense:

     << "I haven't accomplished anything worth while except maybe keep my
        own butt out of the fire on occasion, so I'll suggest to you, the
        troops, that you lead any and all efforts which I should be leading
        you in. Then, if you actually accomplish anything, I'll take the
        credit for inspiring your efforts and hopefully get promoted to a
        job where I can get by with doing even less.">>
    
    Amen, to that.  But worse, for Digital.  We have the one of the highest
    paid workforces in the world, with a lot of darn good people.  WE'RE
    INTELLIGENT, HAVE A LOT TO CONTRIBUTE, AND WE'RE NOT STUPID!!!!!!
    
    So how do all of us feel about being creative when we see some people
    getting promoted who contribute no creativity, take no risks, provide
    no leadership, care nothing about those doing the work, treat people
    indifferently and sometimes with no ethics, give no credit to those who
    create good ideas, protect themselves in secrecy and bureaucracy, and
    excell at personal politicking, self-agrandizement and career
    advancement?
    
    What is the system, in some pockets of Digital, telling us?
    
    I stand on my suggestion that only self-managed employees at all levels
    is the answer with everyone owning creativity, contributing equally in
    unison, and everyone owning responsibility for results within
    interdependent equal rewards.  Orchestra Managers would be individual
    contributors and Orchestra Conductors would be natural leaders
    committed to leading as a calling, chosen by the self-managed teams for
    the very desired leadership skills needed.
    
    

    "Basically" proactive ... aw crap, I've stopped using that one too.
    
    Fred

    Dare I express the opinion that the emperor is not wearing any clothes?

    The restaurant analogy is valid only insofar as the customer's point of 
    view, i.e., the customer wants to deal with "only one Digital". (Of 
    course, in a really fine restaurant, you will deal with the maitre d', 
    the waiter and perhaps the wine steward. I'm willing to leave the bus 
    boy out of the picture.) Beyond that, the analogy fall flat on its 
    face. Anyone ever work in a restaurant? There is an owner or manager 
    who sets the tone of the place, and anyone who doesn't choose to comply 
    with the boss' wishes is pounding pavement forthwith.

    Ken's DECworld analogy is a perfect example of how our little 
    restaurant really works. Our process consists of someone making a 
    decision, and telling everyone else to form a consensus:

    > I will tell you how you run "consensus."  Jack Smith says, "We're 
    > making this change.  This manager moves over here, and that one  over
    > there.  Now let's have a meeting and get consensus about  it."  He
    > makes the important decision, and then they talk about  what they are
    > going to do.

    The issue of metrics is critical. No matter what holy messages come 
    down from on high, people will learn to behave according to how they 
    are measured. Tell Sales to sell Enterprise services and projects, and 
    they'll go for the MicroVAX/ALL-IN-1 sale because those are commodity 
    products with known order lead times and installation requirements- no 
    surprises, folks!- and will allow the rep to meet this months CERTS 
    requirements, and that is survival.

    If our customers see the way we churn internally, with a new set of 
    marketing focuses every few months and a new organizational structure 
    every year, _and_no_consistency_ in sticking with a plan, then they are 
    right to have their doubts about us.

    Some of the comments about management made in earlier replies may be 
    founded in direct experience and personal observation of incompetents.
    But a lot of those comments originate from people who have never had 
    the experience of being managers. Managers don't hack code or design 
    boards or produce other tangible results, so very often, they appear to 
    be contributing nothing. I always enjoy watching the attitude 
    adjustment when someone changes over to management and finds out that   
    he or she doesn't have all the control needed to accomplish miracles.  

    Which is not to say that Digital couldn't do a whole lot better in 
    learning how to manage its resources.

    - Richard

    re .16
              -< Set Hidden by Mod - GLK >-
   
    What have we missed??
    
    j.e.
    

    Where do you get this "highest paid workforce" stuff?  We certainly
    aren't highest paid by any sense in the U.S., and several other
    countries have higher wage scales than we do.
    
    Digital has always had a policy of staying competitive, but highest
    paid?.......not even close.

    RE: .28
    
         You seem to have dropped his "one of the.." off of your "highest
    paid workforce" quote.  It changes the meaning somewhat.
    
                                       Greg

    .....as long as we're on the scale AT ALL, we do indeed fall into the
    "one of the..." category.   sigh...
    
    Jon

We may have been on the scale, we may still be on the scale,
but we're slipping off...
With a {15|18|21} month (pick one) salary planning cycle, and from
what I've been able to gather about the "spend numbers", I'm not even going
to keep up with inflation.
The quality of my work is going up.
Why is the quality of my compensation going down?

Kevin

    re last,
    
    Why do you foolishly increase the quality of your work while the 
    quality of your compensation is going down?

>    Why do you foolishly increase the quality of your work while the 
>    quality of your compensation is going down?

Though the question was not addressed to me, I'll provide at least three
good answers:

1) in competitive times, we often have to run faster and faster just
   to stay in the same place

2) when times do get better, people who have performed well will be
   in a position to deserve and receive better compensation

3) personal satisfaction

And to address the underlying philosophy of the question, how will things ever
get better if people don't work to make it so?

- tom]

    re last, again
    
    You do what you will.  I refuse to co-operate in my own exploitation.
    
    I also refuse to swallow the propoganda/rhetoric that those whom
    work harder and self-sacrifice now will be recognized and rewarded
    later by the powers that be.  That is naiviety.
    
    And if you think I'm simply a trouble-maker with an attitude problem,
    then I challange you to bring yourself, and anyone else you wish (Ken
    Olsen included) and come and pay me a visit.  Un-announced.  I'm always
    ready.  I'll proudly show you my work, my contributions.  The
    dedication, pride and sacrifice of that work will be readily apparent
    to you.  It will grab you.
    
    Then I shall take you and company to the engineers and project leaders
    of these endeavors.  Ask them directly if I in any way have been rewarded
    or recognised.  I'll take you to my manager and you can ask him, too.
    He'll dance and sing for you, but you'll not get an answer. Then I will
    hand you my personell file. You'll see letter after letter from these
    people praising my skills, professionalism, dedication and
    resourcefulness.  Then look around for the reward.  You'll not find it.
    
    You see, this problem is not strictly mine.  It's company wide.
    
    And THAT is THE problem.
    
                                                   Ron

re: .33,

> 1) in competitive times, we often have to run faster and faster just
>   to stay in the same place

	...and the faster Alice ran, the farther she had to run...

> 2) when times do get better, people who have performed well will be
>   in a position to deserve and receive better compensation

	You are assuming that times will get better.  I think that is a
    bit naive.  If times get better, it will be becuase of something we
    do to make them better.  Working hard is a big step, but is it a step
    in the right direction?  You can paddle all you want, but if you only
    have one oar in the water, you'll just be going in circles.

3) personal satisfaction

	True, paddling in circles is good exercise and good exercise leads
    to personal satisfaction.

> And to address the underlying philosophy of the question, how will things ever
> get better if people don't work to make it so?

	I wonder how many people in communist countries have asked this
    particular question of each other?  "Comrade, why aren't you working
    towards the common good?"  Only now is that question beginning to be
    answered.  Why can't we learn from this?

				    -davo

re: .35
I'm going to reply one last time Davo, and then it is my hope that you 
will follow "Wild Bill" Kilgore's suggestion and give it a rest!

>> 2) when times do get better, people who have performed well will be
>>   in a position to deserve and receive better compensation

>	You are assuming that times will get better.  I think that is a
>    bit naive.  If times get better, it will be becuase of something we
>    do to make them better.  Working hard is a big step, but is it a step
>    in the right direction?  You can paddle all you want, but if you only
>    have one oar in the water, you'll just be going in circles.

I fail to see how electronic info that is communicated in the plethora
of notesfiles will be of anymore benefit than it is now just because we
are being charged a fee for it. Please don't tell me that because the providers
are 'selling' the info that it, by some magical means is worth more or is more
accurate.
Don't tell me that there are numerous people who refuse to answer queries or
calls for help from other DECies because they don't get 'paid' for the info,
I just refuse to believe that, there may be some but certainly not enough
to warrant what you are suggesting.

>3) personal satisfaction

>> And to address the underlying philosophy of the question, how will things ever
>> get better if people don't work to make it so?

>	I wonder how many people in communist countries have asked this
>    particular question of each other?  "Comrade, why aren't you working
>    towards the common good?"  Only now is that question beginning to be
>    answered.  Why can't we learn from this?

Finally, I don't understand your analogy, I assume, because I really do not 
have first hand knowledge, that the people in communist countries are not 
employed as we understand the term. They work for the common good and all
receive the same benefits for doing so (at least in theory).
The difference here is that we are EMPLOYED by DEC to perform a function,
we receive a salary or wage for doing so. If we don't like what we receive
as a salary or wage we are free to seek employment elsewhere (I am not
advocating that you or anyone else do this, just stating a fact).
If we choose to stay it should be our collective goal to see that the company
survives. We also gain knowledge about the company and it's products during
our tenure here, I will freely share this info with other DECies because I 
feel that I am already receiving compensation for providing
it (even thou, technically its not what I may believe to be my job) and I
also believe that I am only giving to DEC and its agents (other DECies) that
which it has paid for.

- George

re: .36,

> I fail to see how electronic info that is communicated in the plethora
> of notesfiles will be of anymore benefit than it is now just because we
> are being charged a fee for it.  Please don't tell me that because the
> providers are 'selling' the info that it, by some magical means is worth
> more or is more accurate.

    	The "magic", as you put it, would come from the fact that suddenly
    125,000 or more people would have the opportunity to compete to provide
    a higher quality of information to that potential information consumer
    the same way that they would normally compete to provide any other sort
    of internal product or service.  The motivation would be the info-dollar
    and all of the wonderful things that it might buy internally.  The beauty
    of the system is that we already know it works in the real world, so it's
    just a matter of applying supply and demand economics to the computer
    world in order to watch an entire civilization of information goods and
    services emerge from the current "plethora" (to use your own description).

> Don't tell me that there are numerous people who refuse to answer queries or
> calls for help from other DECies because they don't get 'paid' for the info,
> I just refuse to believe that, there may be some but certainly not enough
> to warrant what you are suggesting.

    	I won't tell you that and I haven't.  In fact, even if you look at
    the "It's not my job" note, you will see that I am one of the people who
    defended the ASSETS group.  On the other hand, I do see a problem.  The
    problem is a lack of motivation, direction, and purpose.  If people
    had the opportunity to literally sell their ideas in an open free market
    styled arena (that the network notesfiles could easily provide) I think
    you would see this company blast off to the moon!  (maybe even Mars ;^)

> Finally, I don't understand your analogy, I assume, because I really do not 
> have first hand knowledge, that the people in communist countries are not 
> employed as we understand the term. They work for the common good and all
> receive the same benefits for doing so (at least in theory).

    	Well, I must admit that I don't have first-hand experience of working
    in a communist country either.  All I have to go on is the "running-dog
    capitalist" press media that I see every day about conditions on the
    other side of the [melting] iron curtain, but if it is even halfway true,
    I think the choice is clear.  Free market capitalism works.  The question
    is not one of "Why should we implement a free market in the notesfiles?"
    but "How can we implement a free market in the notesfiles?"

> The difference here is that we are EMPLOYED by DEC to perform a function,
> we receive a salary or wage for doing so. If we don't like what we receive
> as a salary or wage we are free to seek employment elsewhere (I am not
> advocating that you or anyone else do this, just stating a fact).

    	Don't tell me that you were one of those people in the sixties who
    would say "America, love it or leave it!"  ;^)

    	Come on, this is a potentially HUGE opportunity for DEC!  We could
    revolutionize the entire way of doing business electronically.  Just
    think of the sorts of computer civilizations out there which have yet
    to be born!  Many of these ideas will ever get anywhere without a test
    market.  The info-market can provide that test market.  Mark my words,
    if we don't implement this system, then somebody else will and our
    network notesfiles will go the way of the cave walls.

> If we choose to stay it should be our collective goal to see that the company
> survives...

    	That's exactly what I'm up to - believe it or not.

> We also gain knowledge about the company and it's products during
> our tenure here, I will freely share this info with other DECies because I 
> feel that I am already receiving compensation for providing
> it (even thou, technically its not what I may believe to be my job) and I
> also believe that I am only giving to DEC and its agents (other DECies) that
> which it has paid for.

    	Tell that to all of the groups who sell this information to each other
    already.  Tell Educational Services that they should give you a course for
    free.  Tell Field Service that they should give you a service for free.
    Tell manufacturing that you should recieve your office equipment for free.
    Tell ISWS that you should be able to obtain some of their software
    specialists for free.  Etc., etc., etc...

        You see, there is an inconsistency in the way we do our business.
    The majority of business is handled by means of cost center cross-charges
    for intra-corporate transfers of goods and services.  Information (which
    includes anything you might normally find in a notesfile) is one of the
    exceptions to this rule.  How can we improve the quality of something
    which we expect for free?  We have no choice but to apply a value to
    information.  The choice is one of how we go about applying that value.
    My entire goal with the info-market idea can be summed-up in five words:

    			Let the free market decide.

    				   -davo

    Can we put a price on refraining from the spread of selected
    information.  
    
    Please?
    

re .37

I think we're approaching "let's agree to disagree" critical mass.

>   	The "magic", as you put it, would come from the fact that suddenly
>   125,000 or more people would have the opportunity to compete to provide
>   a higher quality of information to that potential information consumer
>   the same way that they would normally compete to provide any other sort
>   of internal product or service.

I find that _finding_ information, _accessing_ information, and _disseminating_
information is the problem. I, for one, have been extremely happy with the
quality of information available on the network, and have tried to do my part
to return quality information into it.

>                          ...  On the other hand, I do see a problem.  The
>   problem is a lack of motivation, direction, and purpose.  If people
>   had the opportunity to literally sell their ideas in an open free market
>   styled arena (that the network notesfiles could easily provide) I think
>   you would see this company blast off to the moon!  (maybe even Mars ;^)

Without purpose, there is no direction. Without purpose and direction there
can be no motivation. Even _with_ purpose and direction, without recognition or
reward there can be no motivation. Another topic.

Either we're built on the premise that we share information, or we're not.
Period. At DIGITAL information is a resource, not a commodity. What if you left
your house one morning and everyone whose property you crossed suddenly charged
you for "breathing rights?" And guess what? The person with the property next
to the train station "wins," even if their air _stinks_. That's what you're
proposing, 125,000+ people jockeying to control the most widely needed
information. _Quality_ of information will be the _first_ thing to suffer.

By the way, I think we already have the thrusters going full blast. People
just need some friendly pointers to find the ship.

>   	Tell that to all of the groups who sell this information to each other
>   already.  Tell Educational Services that they should give you a course for
>   free.  Tell Field Service that they should give you a service for free.
>   Tell manufacturing that you should recieve your office equipment for free.
>   Tell ISWS that you should be able to obtain some of their software
>   specialists for free.  Etc., etc., etc...

In all cases, these organizations are providing services. I can find out
everything there is in any Ed Services course off the network [and my cost
center pays for each tap it has, including mine] but sometimes it's just easier
for me to pay someone to teach me. None of the examples you cite contradict the
concept that information is a free resource.

>       You see, there is an inconsistency in the way we do our business.
>   The majority of business is handled by means of cost center cross-charges
>   for intra-corporate transfers of goods and services.  Information (which
>   includes anything you might normally find in a notesfile) is one of the
>   exceptions to this rule. ...

As I mentioned elsewhere, if you want to cross-charge across borders, you're
S.O.L.  No JVs, no revenue. Nada.

I don't view the inherent availability of information as a service, so I see no
inconsistency.


/Peters

	I'll post this here, as I can't find the original note,
and access is ssslllooowwww....

	Ken will be on the March 6th Chronicle program, WCVB Channel 5.
Not Feb 28th as previously stated.

Dan

I've check our local listings here and it appears that Chronicle ISN'T on the
LIFETIME channel as reported earlier a few notes back.  So, for those of us NOT
living in NE, can folks post any relevant things mentioned?

Thanks!
Steve

    RE .41 -- The cable channel that carries "Chronicle" is A&E, not Lifetime.

						-- Nina

For those of you who didn't see the telecast:

It was mostly fluff.  Excellent early pictures of the mill when it was still
producing woolen blankets.  Nice aerial shots of helicopters coming into the
helipads...that kind of thing.

KO did an outstanding job.  He was calm, cheerful, upbeat, and obviously
straightforward.  Not a devious bone in his body.  If I didn't know better,
I might also say that there was a tiny Irish glint in his eye.  I really
enjoyed hearing him.

Chronicle also had some business analyst or something from Londonderry N.H. who
apparently was raised on raw lemons.  He was really digging trying to find
something to criticize (as in:  'when someone retires and is not replaced
that's a layoff').

Nothing you all haven't heard before, but it was well done and, in my opinion,
worth repeating.  Particularly if you like Digital history.

Betty

    re: Chronicle program and .43

    I felt EXACTLY the same as you.  A real nice puff piece and that
    consultant dude was quite out of touch.

    I bet if a DECcie got run over by a bus on the way to church, it'd fall
    into his definition of layoff.

    -joe tomkowitz

>>that consultant dude was quite out of touch.                     
    
    Jack Falvey's comment on attrition equating to layoffs was off the
    mark, however, the rest of what he said was certainly not anti-Digital
    and actually made a lot of sense. His Sept. '89 WSJ article "A Winning
    Philosophy Becomes an Albatross" raised a lot of dander, but was pretty
    close to the truth. 
    
    The rest of the program was a stellar performance. Ken was terrific.
    Did my little heart proud to watch the program...
    
    Mike

    Re: the last 3
    
    Watched the program also and echo the sentiments of the prior 3 notes.
    
    Did tape the program and plan to keep it in my library.  Only hope some
    in the corporate staff taped it also and makes it available for anyone
    in the company to view.  A good item for the Corp. libraries.
    

    
    I could also lambaste Peter Mahegan for telling the world that we
    brought the QE-II into Boston for a "corporate party".
    
    ...And I don't care what Ken's heritage is -- he *does* have an Irish
    glint in his eyes.
    

re: .45

>    Jack Falvey's comment on attrition equating to layoffs was off the
>    mark, however, the rest of what he said was certainly not anti-Digital
>    and actually made a lot of sense. His Sept. '89 WSJ article "A Winning

Sorry Mike, lets consider what he termed a "layoff";

. if somebody leaves and is not replaced... thats a layoff
. if the company retrains somebody and gives them another job within the company
  thats a layoff
. if the company offers big enough bucks to employees so that they leave...
  thats a layoff

Now my definition of a layoff is when the company comes up to you and says 
something like:

"George, thanks for all the loyal service but, due to the current situation
here at DEC we do not need you at this time. If the situation reverses itself
we may call you back. In the meantime you can report to the unemployment
office at a time that they specify and collect $99 each week for the next
6 months. Oh, by the way you will also be eligible for food stamps.
Good luck and good bye."

NOW THATS A LAYOFF!

- George

All I want to know is Where did Channel 5 dig this analyst up from?
Its not that I fealt that he was anti-DEC, just that he wanted to make
sure that he could claim that he predicted a layoff at DEC no matter
what actually happened.
Are we sure that that wasn't Jean Dixon in disquise? (-:

- George

    I, too, felt good watching this show!  I also taped it.  I realize 
    that there are many people out there who may NOT have had a
    chance to view, so if you're interested I will gladly send
    it to you.  I only ask that you be willing to send it on
    to others who would like to view.
    
    HOWEVER, I did not have a new tape to use, therefore I have taped
    over... A very Brady Christmas (my kids, not mine) and a recent
    hockey old timers game... Hopefully the quality and sound will
    be ok.  BTW, it's on VHS.
    
    If anyone is interested, I will give it to the first person
    who responds:
    
    wmois::c_jalbert
    
    Regards,
    
    Carla
    

    I thought the Chronicle piece was okay; however, I couldn't help but
    notice that the word "software" was never mentioned...

							-- Nina

>      <<< Note 1018.50 by VIA::EPPES "I'm not making this up, you know" >>>
>
>    I thought the Chronicle piece was okay; however, I couldn't help but
>    notice that the word "software" was never mentioned...

What makes you think that it should have been?
In spite of what DEC would like everyone to believe, its still a hardware
company! We create software only to make our hardware more attractive.

- George

  This may have already been discussed here, but I don't have time to search for
it. On Tue. Mar. 6, Boston Ch. 5's Chronicle program (1/2 hour) was devoted
entirely to DEC. Does someone in the Marlboro area have a tape of it that I
could borrow? I was tied up that evening and missed it. Did K.O. say anything
that we don't already know?

    Bob,
    
    I live in Marlboro and have the show (sans commercials) on tape.
    Send me mail if you'd like to borrow it.
    
    	- Jerry

    It's the other way around, sport.  Which statement sounds real?
    
    "I think I'll buy a VAX!  Hmm... I wonder what I can run on it."
    
    "I think I'll buy DECtp!  Hmm... I wonder what I can run it on."

RE: .52

Well, if we are truly a software company why are we not producing software
that will run on an IBM, HP, DG, MAC platform? 
Please do not tell me that we have a group in a obscure place doing just that.
Thats not what I am addressing. We develop products that run on DEC equip.
Because we want to sell DEC equipment. If we were only interested in selling
software then we would make DECtp run on ANY machine.

- George

    Re: "Software not mentioned"

    Fairly early in the piece while Ken was at a DECworld type event he
    told the interviewer that "Digital is the leader in integrated office
    automation [software]" and shows the interviewer the ALL-IN-1 main
    menu.  You may not consider ALL-IN-1 software but it does bring in more
    revenue than any application level product we have.

    Re: Other points that I heard not already mentioned

    I'm surprised that no one mentioned the point that Ken made about the
    fact that the customers don't what they need and we will educate them.
    The announcers picked on this as arrogant and I believe that they may
    have a small point.  Ken did seem to come off as being just a bit sure
    of himself on the lack of knowledge on the part of our customers.

    Some analyst made a big deal about the fact that the new order in
    Eastern Europe will act as the wildcard in Digital's future.  He
    pointed out that we already are well known there and have some loyalty
    already.  He didn't indicate how we could actually get hard revenue
    from there but seemed very sure that we would win there, somehow.  It
    seemed up beat but not particularly logically complete.

    The program was pleasant and enjoyable, overall.  It's always a
    pleasure to listen to Ken.

    Keep the faith,
    don

>>    The program was pleasant and enjoyable, overall.  It's always a
>>    pleasure to listen to Ken.


      I strongly agree.   Lets face it boys and girls, Ken IS the kind
of President that *everyone* gets motivated by!  I have been with DEC
10 years and have heard many ole timers say," When Ken goes, I go!"
It is so great to still feel you are working for a man that cares about
*people* not numbers.

      Keep the faith,
  
Meredith

    .57   I strongly disagree.  (Sorry.)  I was not motivated by pictures
    	  of circuit boards and terminal keyboards.
    
    	  Just what "faith" is it you're asking me to keep?
    
    .56   Okay, you win.  I was with .50, but you're right -- Ken did
    	  mention ALL-IN-ONE.  Not exactly a piece of software to bet your
    	  business on, but it is a piece of layered software.
    
    .52   We ain't selling (or trying to sell) hardware to engineers and
    	  universities anymore.  CEOs in Boeing and Pacificare and Tyson
    	  Foods and Alcoa say "I think I'll buy DECtp.  I wonder what it'll
    	  run on."
    
    	  Yes.  Thanks, Steve.  Think anybody is listening to you?  Really
    	  listening to you, and able to function properly thereby?  (Well,
    	  you got me to listen to you....There are others.  Maybe I'll
    	  keep faith in that.)
    
    .51	  We should be creating software to solve business problems. 
    	  Putting together some of the pieces of our software to solve
    	  business problems is creating big NEW problems which we think
    	  we will solve with consulting!  Wonder if those big customers out
    	  there will catch on at that arrogance....I also wonder if
    	  whomever we send out there will know how to fix/implement a real
    	  "thing" rather than draw boxes and network "clouds" on a piece
    	  of paper.
    
    	  Yes, it IS still a hardware company.  Without many clues about
    	  managing the development of integrated software, and providing
    	  SUPPORT.
    
    	  All you people out there keeping the faith hear Ken talk about
    	  support?  (In fairness to Ken, maybe he did.  Maybe it was
    	  edited out by a Chronicle hack.)
    
    
    Talk to some sales support folks out in the field, people.  Ask them
    what's happening out there.
    
    What's happening in here, corporate, is scads of dreamers with plans
    and programs from tiger teams to top guns to road warriors (Mad Max?)
    who have no responsibility for implementing any of it.  They can toss
    it over the wall.  They can point fingers at somebody else (like SWSE/
    ACES whatever-they're-called now) who can't support it and can't say
    no.  (Body count doesn't provide support.  Trained, experienced people
    do.)
    
    We are hiring people to staff the oltp resource centers who don't know
    anything about our software.  Why?  We can't find enough who do.  We
    can't put programs together fast enough to do Vulcan mind melds to do
    it.  And we don't have enough trainers to do it, or ways to train the
    trainers.
    
    VAX 9000s will not solve these problems, nor solve business problems.
    At *worst* they will buy some time so that we think we don't have to
    solve those problems, and raise the ante of the problems to be dealt
    with later.
    
    My faith is in the marketplace.  Sooner or later customers will say
    loudly enough "Digital, shape up or ship out," and either we will,
    or we won't.  (Remember, we're trying to convince people who have lived
    with IBM support for *their businesses for decades* and trying to tell
    them to throw that all away!!!)
    
    		bL
    
    P.S.  Sorry, I felt all these cozy, fuzzy warm feelings needed a little
    	  counterpoint.  Excuse me while I reach for a strong pot of black
    	  coffee.  Or something stronger.

    RE: Note 1018.58 by GUFFAW::LINN "Just another chalkmark in the rain" 
    
    >.56  Okay, you win.  I was with .50, but you're right -- Ken did
    > 	  mention ALL-IN-ONE.  Not exactly a piece of software to bet your
    >  	  business on, but it is a piece of layered software.
    
    Well, first off, it's "ALL-IN-1."  That's the trademarked name. 
    Secondly, what on earth do you use to back up a statement like "Not
    exactly a piece of software to bet your business on?"  Do you have any
    business, technical, philosophical or realistic rationale for making
    statements like this?  Or, do you just think it's "cute" to make
    ignorant statements?
    
    At the risk of getting deleted, I have to ask if you were born a twit
    or if you work at it?
    
    Perry

    Hmmm, as someone who is out here at a customer site, in the trenches, 
    helping a customer 'bet their business' on ALL-IN-1, I concur with
    .59 -- ALL-IN-1 may be a bit buggy, but what piece of evolving SW
    isn't?  And before any of you start groaning about its performance,
    get knowledgeable about it and see what you can DO with it in a very 
    short time frame.  Also, ALL-IN-1 sells LOTS of VAXes, terminal
    servers, networks and high margin SERVICES.
    
    AH well, back to the salt mines .... DS.

>    <<< Note 1018.58 by GUFFAW::LINN "Just another chalkmark in the rain" >>>
>                        -< What "faith" am I to keep? >-

    It is never a great idea to wrestle with a pig as you both get dirty
    and the pig likes it.  It's also not a great idea to argue with a fool
    since the bystanders may not be able to tell the two of you apart.

    It seems necessary to point out that the author of .58 not only did not
    have the attention span to hear the mention of software but doesn't
    seem to deal with logic very well, either.

    ALL-IN-1 currently has over 50% of the integrated office market in the
    US and almost as much worldwide.  It generates BILLIONS of dollars of
    revenue each year.  This would seem a clear indication that it is a
    winner in the market.  Several thousands of customers have bet their
    business on ALL-IN-1 and have been made successful by doing so.  Over
    half of these were IBM customers before going to ALL-IN-1.

    The only thing that the author of .58 did get right is that the correct
    faith is in the market.  ALL-IN-1 grew and has thrived by doing just
    this.  ALL-IN-1 solves millions of business problems everyday.  It may
    not be the prettiest or most architecturally pure software on the
    planet but it is clearly the most successful application level product
    in Digital's history.  It gets very irritating to have macho techie
    types attack ALL-IN-1 because of their narrow minded techie view of the
    world.

    If you really want to help customers solve business problems then I
    suggest that you stop being foolish and attacking successful software.

    I suggest that we work together and improve our strengths and eliminate
    our weaknesses.  Making attacks on strengths may be a fun and childish
    thing to do but accomplishes nothing but prove a lack of maturity and
    logic.

    Do the right thing,
    don

    And just to drive home the point that Don (.-2) made so well,
    ALL-IN-1 is the second highest revenue-producing software product
    we produce, second only to VMS!  What other group can make *that*
    claim?!

    Al

    To all since .58
    
    
    A point was missed here....
    
    I did NOT knock ALL-IN-1.  (???)  I didn't say anything bad at all
    about it.  I am aware of its status as money-maker.  Its functionality
    has been described to me.  I did say that it wasn't software to "bet
    your business on," which means I'm quoting the marketing folks who are
    touting Digital software products (plural) as integrating the business
    with the shop floor, i.e. we'll do everything IBM does.
    
    That includes a lot of software.  Digital as EIS.  I'm talking a bigger
    environment than office products.  (That's not to knock ANYTHING, for
    heaven's sake.)
    
    My point was that this was the ONLY software product mentioned.  And
    nothing about support.  This was not meant to knock ALL-IN-1.  And
    it neither makes me a techie or not.  It only means I'm reading our
    own public pronouncements.  Are we serious about integrated software
    and that business?  I didn't see anything in Chronicle to say yes or
    no to that.  THAT was my point.
    
    Again, not anything about ALL-IN-1....
    
    		bL
    
    
    
    
    
    
    But since several people leaped at that, then I guess the point was
    missed, and the fault mine.
    
    
    

[I wrote what's below, but then saw that the author of .58 had entered a 
reply while I was composing mine. Anyway, here's what I wrote, for the
consideration of all concerned.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re. the ALL-IN-1 discussion (furor?) prompted by .58:

Perhaps the problem is an unfortunate ambiguity in Bill's original statement:
"Not exactly a piece of software to bet your business on..."  I wasn't sure
whether it meant (1) Customers shouldn't be expected to bet their businesses
on it, or (2) DEC shouldn't bet its own business on it.

If one takes interpretation #1, then I can see why folks are brandishing the
statistics and hunting for their dueling pistols. (Or is it hunting for
statistics and brandishing pistols?)

On the other hand, if one takes interpretation #2, the statement seems 
reasonable. I'll preface my remaining remarks with a confession that I know 
very little about ALL-IN-1; however, as popular, useful, good, etc., as the 
product is, it might not be a "strategic" product. That is, it may not be 
a good candidate for expending vast corporate resources in the expectation 
of making strategic breakthroughs in technology and new markets in the coming 
decade. Its proper role, on the other hand, may be a "cash cow" like VAX 
DATATRIEVE (a solid, popular product that brings in far more revenues than 
are spent in maintaining and enhancing it).

If my analysis of interpretation #2 reveals me woefully ignorant about
ALL-IN-1 or a twit (born or self-made), I invite aficianados of the product
to enlighten me...(:-).

>    Also, ALL-IN-1 sells LOTS of VAXes, terminal
>    servers, networks and high margin SERVICES.
    
Thank you very much, you just proved my point! We create software to help sell
our hardware!

- George

re Note 1018.65 by DISORG::MURRAY:

> On the other hand, if one takes interpretation #2, the statement seems 
> reasonable. I'll preface my remaining remarks with a confession that I know 
> very little about ALL-IN-1; however, as popular, useful, good, etc., as the 
> product is, it might not be a "strategic" product. That is, it may not be 
> a good candidate for expending vast corporate resources in the expectation 
> of making strategic breakthroughs in technology and new markets in the coming 
> decade. Its proper role, on the other hand, may be a "cash cow" like VAX 
> DATATRIEVE (a solid, popular product that brings in far more revenues than 
> are spent in maintaining and enhancing it).

        Actually, I think that ALL-IN-1 is both a "cash cow" and
        represents Digital's leadership in a market that is "a good
        candidate for expending vast corporate resources in the
        expectation of making strategic breakthroughs in technology
        and new markets in the coming decade."

        The current product may be a "cash cow", and a very
        long-lived one at that;  the office and integrating business
        system of which ALL-IN-1 is our current offering is most
        certainly "a good candidate for expending vast corporate
        resources in the expectation of making strategic
        breakthroughs ...."

        Bob

    RE: .64
    
    Now that I've calmed down a bit [ ;^) ] 
    
    bL,
    
    The one matter that I wanted to comment on regarding your statement vis
    a vis "office automation" and "integration," is that ALL-IN-1's
    *strength* comes NOT from it's OA capabilities as much as from it's
    application integration and development capabilities.  Indeed, several
    large corporations that I work with have "bet their business" on
    ALL-IN-1.  They typically have not done this because ALL-IN-1 has the
    best Word Processing (it doesn't) or the best Electronic Mail (it
    doesn't) or the best Time Management (it doesn't.)  What they have
    bet on is the total package, including the ability to integrate their
    specific business needs seamlessly.  This "package" is what makes
    ALL-IN-1 so unique and successful in the market.  If only we (Digital)
    would *really* use it internally...but that's another topic.. ;^)
    
    Anyway, sorry if I was overly harsh.  You just happened to hit (or so I
    perceived) one of my biggest pet peeves.
    
    Perry