Conference 7.286::digital

    Things have begun moving in the direction you suggest; technical
    software people used to work for SWS management.  Now Sales Support
    technical resources usually have a technical manager, who reports to a
    Sales District manager.. meaning that the Sales Support people are
    effectively working for (and funded by) a Sales Unit Manager.  So in a
    remote field office like this one, Sales and Sales support are under
    the SUM, and any PSS people are managed (remotely) by an EIS manager,
    and Fiel.. sorry, 'Customer' Services is on its own, like always.
    
    As to whether technical people like being ultimately managed by Sales,
    that's probably a topic for SOAPBOX.
    
    karl

	... but it will be a matter of changing the culture.  Think of it as 
moving from the customer seeing 3 or more stovepies back to DEC, to one 
where they look into the neck of a funnel at a unified organization in the 
hopper.

	IMHO, if we don't go to this concept, we are going to cause our own 
destruction with these counter-punches between organizations.

    re: .0
    
>				... Software Services (is that
>    name in vogue these days?), ...
    
    $ OPEN/RATHOLE SOFTWARE_SERVICES

    A memo thundered its way down from up above instructing us that the
    term "Software Services" should not be used, as no such organization
    exists.  The appropriate term is "EIS".
    
    All of our electronic mail headers are to say "EIS".  All the
    secretaries are to use the term "EIS" when answering phone calls.
    
    Also, we are not to call ourselves "PSS".  "PSS" is a type of business,
    not an organization.
    
    $ CLOSE/RATHOLE SOFTWARE_SERVICE
    
    Maybe we should start the "Organizational Acronym of the Month Club".
    
    -- Russ

>    Also, we are not to call ourselves "PSS".  "PSS" is a type of business,
>    not an organization.

I guess somebody forgot to tell Personnel, as my ELF entry shows my org.
unit as U.S. EIS (PSS).

Of course, it's another question completely,as to why I should be considered
part of PSS, since I'm an ACT system manager.

Bob

    re: .4
    
    You know, that edict really pissed me off.  In our office, the EIS UM
    and myself (SSUM) are in adjacent offices.  Our secretaries are right
    outside our doors.  They cover the telephones for both groups.  The EIS
    secretary now answers the phone "Digital EIS", which prompted mine to
    start answering with "Digital Sales Support".  I just about blew a
    fuse when I heard this.  Why isn't "Digital" sufficient; we are one
    company aren't we?  Unfortunately, the EIS folks are not as "empowered"
    to take a little initiative in order to do the right thing as my
    organization, so we are currently at a stalemate.
    
    Whose brilliant idea was this, anyway??
    
    Al
    

	... we are in violent agreement on TWO things!  :>)

	I just answer "Digital Equipment, Jack Cole speaking ..." now.

	I do wish we could replace this "EIS" moniker!

I've got an even better idea.  Start answering the phone:

"John Doe, Digital YKS"

To get back to the orginal topic - 

	Amen!

This company has needed a single manager at the district 
and regional level whose in charge and accountable for the
entire scope of the business. If plants need managers and
engineering groups need managers why don't districts? It's
a constant dog-eat-dog battle between the groups for
resources and attention. Each has different messages coming
down and different goals/metrics. It's crazy. 

-Ray

Have a branch manager?  That's the silliest idea I've heard in
this company.  Under the current system you have a sales manager, a
software manager, and a field service manager.  Having a branch manager
would eliminate the need for two managers and their staffs and eliminate
two whole stove pipes.

It would be grosssly unfair to restrict the promotional opportunites for
a managerial or political career in Digital by reducing number of
management positions.  There are already so many managers in the
corporation that it is hard to move up.  

    The original motivation for the stovepipes no longer exists.
    
    Through most of the 70's, the three "field" lines of business sales,
    field service, and software services controlled three separate revenue
    streams.  The idea of holding a manager accountable for the decisions
    of other managers when all the key decisions (staff, equipment,
    priorities) are being made to support that _vertical_ business.
    This lead to having the customer have three Digital contacts, fill out
    three surveys, have three phone numbers to call for assistance from
    Digital.
    
    It made sense at one time, but we now have entrenched vertical business
    managers and there are going to be far fewer slots for them if we go a
    account manager-as-business manager strategy.  The "right" question
    today is what's right for "International Widgets" as opposed to what's
    helps Metropolis' PSS number.

    re: .10
    
    That's mostly nonsense.  You presume that a branch manager would be a
    consolidation of existing managers.  I don't know about your facility,
    but the management team here isn't exactly loafing.  How do you expect
    a single manager to do the work of several others PLUS provide the extra
    needed leadership?
    
    The basic concept outlined in .0 is not far off the mark, but it is
    probably far too expensive and inefficient. It would require
    replicating someone with DM-type skills at every branch.  The various
    organizations would still need some form of functional leadership from 
    above.
    
    How about the following:  A general manager at the district level. A
    single operations management charged with contribution margin. The
    entire district sharing a set of congruent goals, e.g. CERTS, NOR, and
    customer satisfaction.  Functional guidance continues to be provided by
    the existing, but downsized, organizations.
    
    Al
    

    re: .0
    
    What we are talking about is a move to general management. 
    
    This really has been attempted before, to some degree. 
    
    I was delighted when Dave Grainger was placed over sales and services
    (what? an ex-field service guy managing sales?) because it was a clear
    sign that the US Field was moving towards a single focus point for all
    lines of business. 
    
    Yet, now it isn't clear that Dave has the same degree of control. 
    
    Remember the predecessor to the DCC, the SIB (Solutions Integration
    Business)? Here in the Southern Area, the Field Service Area Vice
    President was given responsibility for the SIB, which was another clear
    attempt to align sales, software services, and field service under a
    general manager for a single line of business. 
    
    Now the power for general managment is in the hands of the Business
    Units, according to Ken. We already see alignment of three
    organizations in the Federal Government Region, down to the district
    level. It really wouldn't be difficult to align general managment at a
    non-geographic branch level.
    
    I predict that we will see a new alignment of business managers over
    industry segments in our territory. E.g., an EIS Telecomm Industry unit
    spread out over a large geography, supporting the accounts in a
    Telcomm Industry Sales District.  
    

	... districts are a form of "General management".  There are still, to my
knowledge, measurements of revenue and profit applied against more than one
function.  My concept of G. M. is only ONE function having revenue and profit
measurements.  Everyone else would be measured by their "support" contribution
to the G. M.'s accounts.

    I think the company is moving in the direction outlined by 1. in a
    gradual manner.  i am an EIS District Manager, and it is clear to me
    that the sales DM is supposed to be considered the "team leader" or
    "first among equals" in the district for business purposes.  DM's are
    more and more being measured on CROSSFUNCTIONAL profitability, not just
    functional profit.  
    
    This more or less accomplishes the goals outlined in 1. 's initial
    point, without adding an actual layer of management.  It basically adds
    another layer of dotted-line management (i.e., CS and EIS to Sales). 
    This could probably be implemented pretty easily at the Unit manager 
    in a remote branch, where there are one of each type of unit.  It is
    more difficult in a big city where the correspondence between units
    onto teams is more confused.  Even at the district level, the matchup
    with Customer Service in big metro areas is kind of vague, but there is
    good matchup at the Regional level, where the Sales RM is clearly the
    team leader.
    
    Having been a manager in both Sales and EIS, I feel that this works
    pretty well. It was also the way IBM did it when I worked there in the
    early 70's.

    RE:  1242.10
    
    Your joking, Right!!!
    
    Jay

re: Note 1242.10 by ACOSTA::MIANO "John - NY Retail Banking Resource Cntr"

It sure looked tongue-in-cheek to me.... John, did you forget
the smiley faces?? =8^)

Lee

>It sure looked tongue-in-cheek to me.... John, did you forget
>the smiley faces?? =8^)

I guess so.


8^)   8^) 8^)


         X     X
            |            

        V       V
          V  v