Conference 7.286::digital

    
    	I am caught in the middle of this issue:
    
    		I know some engineers who attended that award ceremony
    	and I must say that they deserved it, and it boosted their morale,
    	and will effect their performance in the future.
    		On the one side, can we afford to give out trips 
        like this, during these times?  Its kind of a dammed if you do,
        dammed if you don't.  There are people who work long hours, away
        from family, get called out of bed in the middle of night, or
        during dinner for work, and they need to have a pat on the back for
        their efforts, something solid that says their not being taken for
        granted and they are appreciated.
    		On the other side, during times where we are forced to bite
        the bullet, and trying to turn things around, can we afford to 
        do something like this?  From what I gather, DEC basically took
        over Hyatt's resort on the big island, and sent down a couple
        hundred people to stay in $300/night rooms for a week for a party.
    
    		Any other thoughts?
       
      
        
      
     
    
    

>    		Any other thoughts?

Yea!!! I have one, "wish to hell I was one of those that went".       
Seems like the typical boondoggle that starts out with honorable
intentions "honor them worker bees that have spent more time lately
with the VAXes then the spouses" but ends up with the n honorees plus
(n 4) managers.s.

Typical Grace Hopper approach, something about it being easier to
apologize after then to get permission before.      
        
- George      
     
    
    

    Isn't that one of the official project phases -- 'rewarding 
    the non-participants' ?

Given how rough it is in the field, if at least some of the hard working
folks in the field got to attend this event, then it can't be all bad.

    I think the event you are talking about is the Challenge of Excellence. 
    This is a combination of the formerly seperate awards programs of
    sales, customer services and EIS.  For those that may not know these
    awards programs have been in place for years.
    
    I can't say for all of the groups, but for EIS the participation rate
    was about 12% (depending on the groups performance against revenue,
    profit and customer sat. goals).
    
    Given the selection criteria I would hardly call it a boondoggle!  If
    you made 400% of your budget (not uncommon among the sales criteria)
    don't you deserve reward and recognition?
    
    As for the other attendees, I can't say.  In the field district
    managers only attend if they win the award.  In the past it was only
    open to the field groups I mentioned.  Engineering?
    
    Can the company afford it?  Can the company afford not to recognize its
    top producers who work with our customers.
    
    Peter Dillard

   re .0
   
   ... while Digital is letting people go.... 
   
   Watch my (and Jack Smith's, and Ken's ) lips. The company has grown too
   fast. It is being down sized. We are not going to the wall. We are
   successfull Multi Billion dollar corporation, that's needs have expanded for
   the last thirty years without any long range planning. We have reached a
   minor down turn in the economy, which has brought it home to us, that we
   are over staffed. Now, if we don't stop running around like chicken little
   crying "The sky is falling", we will come out of this downturn and not
   realize it. As a Multibillion  dollar corporation, we still have valid
   business expenses, and they include recognition for the achievers.
   
   Cmon, folks, lets stop Nickel and Diming Digital into oblivion, and take
   advantage of where we stand. 
   
   Q
   

    re: >   Watch my (and Jack Smith's, and Ken's ) lips.
    
    I think I'll watch his...not yours....
    
    Jack Smith from 1213.0. 

 "Every area of cost must be examined for cost-reduction 
 opportunities.  There are, of course, the big ticket items; 
 excess people, space, equipment, travel, etc.  But, if you run 
 the projections, these items only get us half of what we require 
 to get back on our profit track.  The rest must come from the 
 "little stuff".  No cost saving idea is too small, every 
 suggestion will be heard, analyzed and acted on.

 It was suggested to me that I stop publicizing "the small stuff 
 in bits and pieces";  that it is being interpreted as reactive.  
 "Smith should be on the 'big stuff'."  The advice was to get a 
 masterplan together and then we could reference everything we are 
 doing to the masterplan.  Clear leadership, organization, forward 
 thinking, control of the total situation would be the resulting 
 message.  "
    
    Mark

Regardless of how people feel about the merit of these events, they are by
virtue of their size planned YEARS in advance. You don't get to occupy an entire
major hotel by calling for reservations a month in advance. I assume this means
a major financial commitment upfront.

Do we stop planning for a recognition event for '92 because of the current
economic climate? If we do and Digital's fortunes once again turn healthy in a
major way, what message will we be delivering to the awardees in '92 when they
pick up their plaque at the local bar and grill? I believe we must keep events
such as this in place to give the hard working folks both the recognition and
a break from the grind.

I'm a manger who had three employees earn the trip to Hawaii...and no, I
didn't go.

-Terry

I have several reactions.

        1) Substantial, visible achievements should be recognized when
        they occur or when the value becomes apparent, not at a periodic
        'recognition activity' for 'all superstars'.  When this is the
        practice, major expenditures can be avoided because the employee
        craves the reward of being treated like a productive human being
        more than materialistic and anonymous rewards delayed.
        
        2) Cumulative achievements should be recognized by performance
        review impact, backed up with 'pay for the performance'.
        Substitution of the legitimate review by a 'boondoggle' is really
        poor management practice.
        
        3) Paul Quodling has a point.  We should not be in panic mode,
        trying to cut every expense in sight.  But I believe this
        'traditional' reward system is the result of 'traditionally bad
        management' as described in 1) and 2) above.
        
Regards,

Dick

    RE: .6
    
    Your complaint about lets stop nicke and dimeing DEC to death is
    responding just like our congress to budget cuts. They and you forget
    that all of DEC (and america) is and should be affected by these 
    cutbacks. It always hurts when it come home to roost in your own 
    backyard. All cuts large or small in any one area become large cuts 
    when rolled up to include the company (or the country) as a whole. Yes
    in times like these trips and awards like these still have a tendency
    to become overused/abused by tag alongs who really did not participate
    in the savings or productity that created the award winning sitiation
    in the first place. Business as usual, or continuing to do today as we
    did/abused in the past is not acceptable during these hard times. Every
    one likes a pat on the back for a job well done but this is not the
    time to continue the excesses and bad practices of the past. Either we
    get serious about turning this company around or we continue to loose
    and continue with the layoffs/buyouts (call them what ever you want) 
    and lower profits.
    
    Regards
    AL ROOT
    
     

    These boon-doggles are becoming just a bit too much.  How about all the
    thousand's of other in the Corporation who are busting their humps
    with 60-80 hours a week (I do not include myself in this category)?
    
    I don't think the field folks who set these things up realize what a
    slap in the face it is to others.....not to mention to real morale
    problems it creates.  If these field people are so extraordinary,
    quietly give them a bonus.....but don't rub it in everyone else's
    face.  I don't think there is any place in this company for an elite.

    Well, speaking as one who did go to the COE '90 Hawaii "boon-doggle"...
    
    Yes, I went, and I was happy to go.  I've busted my butt for this
    company for >11 years, and have attended awards banquets with my
    branch/district over the years.  This is the *first* time that I, as an
    individual have received some type of an award from the company for
    my achievements in the company.  The COE trip comes on the heels of
    receiving:
    
    	DECUS award for "Outstanding Technical Performance by a DEC
    		employee", 1990
    
    	DECUServe Wizard award (only 4 "Wizards" in the DECUS world)
    
    I've been rated a 1 for the past several years, and my customers have
    written survey scores with an average of 9.0 or higher (with NO
    "coaching" by management or me).  
    
    I've been instrumental in the sales of $1.5M over the past year
    (equipment sales is NOT in my job description, as CS engineer).
    
    I've written an error log reporting tool that is in by CS people, CSCs
    and engineering communities around the world (on MY time).
    
    
    Don't tell me the COE '90 trip to Hawaii was a boondoggle.

    Hmmmm.... I've heard that about 5000 people attended this function, at
    about two grand per person (guesstimate).  If anyone has more accurate
    numbers, please correct me.

    You do the math.  Sounds a little 'spensive to me.  I wonder how much
    that many nickels and dimes would weigh?  Probably would tilt the earth
    on its axis!

    I realize that these things are planned long in advance.  I bet we
    could have backed out of the whole deal long ago though and just
    incurred a minor penalty compared to the cost of going through with it.

    As far compensating those "hard-working field people", do it in their
    paychecks.  I spent 10 years in field service, and this is where I
    would have liked to have been "rewarded".  (In fact, when I did put in
    the "long hours", I WAS compensated in the form of OVERTIME... something
    my Wage Class 4-ness will never see again.)

    Oh well again...

    
    Re .11: -- you beat me to it.
    
    If I put out 400% more work than my original goal, I wouldn't get a
    trip to Hawaii and a chance to grossly exceed again next year -- 
    
    I'd get a stern warning to be much less conservative in my scheduling
    (I keep thinking of the term "sandbagging").
    

    RE: .12

    Mr. Fuller,

    There are many people in this organization that can make claims similar
    or more impressive to yours, and they have not been to such a function,
    and may never have the opportunity to go to one.  Where is the fairness
    in this?

    Your worthiness to be compensated above the norms for the rest of us is
    not the issue here.  The issue is is this an appropriate expenditure of
    money given the current cost-reduction measures taking place at
    Digital.  The general consensus so far is no, especially since the
    price tag on this thing probably ran into the millions.

    This was not a personal attack, please don't construe it as such!

    Thanks,

    John

    	There is no question that there are many people who deserve to be
    recognized in the company.  People who go above and beyond the call of
    duty.  I would think that we could recognize more of these contributors
    if we had something local, and a little less lavish.  It could still be
    very nice.  This would be a motivator/morale lifter for more employees, thus
    increasing productivity and improving quality in more areas.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

    re: .9 and others
    
    We have a gross misconception here at Digital, IMHO.  We do need to cut
    costs.  We may need to let people go.  But, we are cutting our own
    throats if we hold back incentive programs or training for the sake of
    reducing costs.  When times are tight, that's when it is even more
    important to provide incentives for top performance and more training.
    IBM does this on a REGULAR basis when times get tight for them.  They
    have PROVEN that this works.  We, on the other hand, are doing EXACTLY
    the opposite.
    
    My own cost center has cut back on how much we are encouraged to get
    training.  Enrollment in courses (except in mandated courses which are 
    something of an anomaly) and participation in external conferences is
    way down.  As an example, I wrote a paper for a conference that I
    finally got to submit after having it squashed last year (needed to file
    patents).  But, I was informed that, given the current political
    climate at Digital, I should withdraw the paper from the signature
    cycle this time ...  because it would have required Digital to fly me
    to Hawaii to present it.  This is the third time that a paper I've
    written has been squashed.  My next attempt will be to submit to
    another conference that is not as oriented to the application as the
    conference of choice.  But, at least this one will be in Cambridge.
    
    It's like pulling teeth to participate in conferences or to go for
    extra training nowadays.  Instead of being encouraged, my perception is
    that folks are being DISCOURAGED from seeking training or other 
    incentives.  We are being asked to perform more for the same pay and to
    just be thankful we have jobs.  If we do go the "extra mile" this is
    often discounted as already being part of our jobs.  Not exactly what you 
    need to have a motivated and dedicated work force. 
    
    
    Steve

    The point is that if you offer a form of recognition to an employee,
    and then the employee works hard to achieve it, you can't just take
    the reward away without seeing dire consequences. The employee will 
    quit -- maybe not leave the company -- but s/he will never work quite
    as hard again. 
    
    The argument as to weather the Circle of Excellence is the appropriate
    recognition is a separate discussion. But we must have SOME form of
    public recognition for our sales people, and cash doesn't do the job
    (although they will get the $ too). One sales person I know has a sales
    goal of $5MM to achieve this fiscal year. He knows he must book $15MM
    to be a clear cut Circle of Excellence (DECathlon) winner. If you
    announce that Digital is cancelling it's 92 COE, do you think he will
    achieve the $15MM or the $5MM?

      I kind of like the idea of a trip to Hawaii, just the kind of place
    to hold the 25 year awards dinner, make it a luau. Some of us who have
    been with DEC through all kinds of ups and downs have never even gotten
    a weekend away with the wife, not even a dinner for two at some local
    restaurant. So this seems like a perfect way to reward those employees
    who have busted their butts for a lot of years. How many of you who 
    worked in some of the manufacturing and engineering facilities remember
    when the pressure was on to "make the quarter", meet "First Revenue
    Ship", work almost every holiday weekend?  Even a weekend at the Cape
    would have been nice.
    
    Paul
    

    Sorry, .12....I still think it's a major boon-doggle.  If you per-
    formed as well and consistently as you say, you should have gotten
    a series of nice raises...maybe even a couple stock options.  That's
    enough!!!  I can't understand why engineering management in this
    company doesn't stand up and stop this.
    
    By the way, what's an "awards banquet"?  As a matter of fact, what's
    a banquet.
    
    I repeat, there's no place for an elite in this company, and that's
    what we've created.

    I was going to try and say something contructive in this topic but
    decided that most of the replies are pretty pathetic rationalizations 
    of sour grapes.
    
    So I won't...
    
    Al
    

    
    ...but you broached the subject anyway, and as some of the arguments
    against the Hawaii boondoggle seem much too sensible to be attributed to
    sour grapes, please enlighten us...
    

    The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!!
    
    

        I get the impression that the reward structure that is deemed
        necessary and/or appropriate for the field is very different
        from the reward structure that is deemed necessary and/or
        appropriate for the "center" (or whatever the opposite of
        "field" is).

        Central, or at least central engineering, gets promotions,
        raises, and stock options. 

        The field gives parties to the star performers.

        I don't know if this is unfair, but it is a difference.

        Bob

    I beg to differfy...the field doesn't get raise, promotions and stock
    options???  They certainly do, plus cars, plus a nice bonus system
    for sales.
    
    This is not sour grapes.....this is gross inequity.  So there!

    re: .25
    
    I presume the stock options must be a mgmt perk, no?  I've never heard
    of a SW Spec receiving stock.  Do non-mgmt Engineers get stock options?
    
    As far as raises go, it seems that the distance between a "1" performer
    and a "3" performer is about 1%-2%.  Not exactly reason to make the extra
    effort.  You can make more money for your family by clipping coupons
    from the Sunday papers than by racking up 500-1000 extra hours per
    year.
    
    There are promotions occasionally.  Of course, it doesn't seem to
    change the financial picture much, so if your trying to keep up with
    inflation, it doesn't help much.  And, if your "years in current
    position" are less than two, you haven't much chance to get a promotion
    anyway.  And by the time you've been around long enough, you go thru
    yet-another-inevitable-reorg, so the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately
    rule tends to win out.  Not a great reason for running hard for the
    next promotion from the starting gate.
    
    Cars: today yes; tomorrow well... I'm not holding my breath.
    
    Cubes, telephones, etc.:  for lotsa EIS PSS folks, no.  Too expensive.
    
    Hardware:  see cubes, telephones, etc. (although things have gotten
    considerably better locally).
    
    I'm not trying to say that GMA folks have it easier.  But there isn't
    much incentive provided out here to do a good job.  Attaboys can even
    be scarce when you only see your manager once every "n" weeks.
    
    Even the Excellence stuff can be counterproductive.  People bust their
    tails and still don't get it because the Area/Region or District didn't
    make the numbers, "you went last year", etc.
    
    How do the orgs closer to corporateland manage to keep people
    motivated?  For example, is there anything that, say, a SW Engineer can
    do to make a significant difference in his/her total compensation
    (beyond 1% or so)?
    
    Just trying to see if other orgs have managed to do a better job with
    limited resources than what I see and hear in the Field.
    
    -- Russ

    I know of one office that had a very simple way of picking the lucky
    persons. Each unit put 4 names in a hat, reach in and pick out 2. Good
    friends put each others names in the hat. I'll say no more.

I've worked both in the field and back east (engineering)...

They are two different companies and I am not entirely sure they are on the 
same planet.  I think the reward structures reflect that...

My characterizations based on personal experience (your mileage may vary):

Engineering...
::  very team oriented... You had a problem to solve and you employed a very 
strict methodological process to get to an answer.  Sure you had to be 
creative in certain phases but when it came down to producing a product your 
mission was quite clear...  Your ulimate success or failure generally was
not so much a function of your individual efforts but of the teams...  i.e.
if my modules or part works but the person next to me does not, the project 
still goes down in flames despite my success...  Working conditions are also 
much better...  We had a very loose culture, you didn't have to watch every 
word you said (no customers around!) for fear of letting something slip and 
you usually had the best equipment and so on to work with...  It was almost 
like being in college...!

Field...
:: very individualistic.  The one "right" person can make or break an 
opportunity.  Most field activity seems to be between lone wolf types who form 
loose teams to go attack the opportunity of the moment, but usually do not 
stay together for any length of time.  Not only is there generally a technical 
problem to solve but there are a raft of political and cultural issues both 
internally and externally that must be navigated to get to a successful 
conclusion.  Teams are generally smaller and each individual generally has a 
much larger impact on the outcome.  Opportunities also are much closer 
together and a person may be working many at once.  Working conditions are 
generally bad (small offices, lack of gear to accomplish things) and there is 
a constant pressure from being in the customers face all the time (gotta have 
a suit on!)...  You are in the front lines and baby it's trench warfare...  
Sometimes you gotta pull out the troops and send them to the rear...  

When I was in engineering I never really felt that need to be sent to the 
"rear"...

Anyway...  How would you like it if we came busting into Maynard and lopped 40
square feet outta all your cubes to save on office space? I'm not saying there
is a right or wrong answer, but I think I understand why there is such a
different reward structure and unless you are going to start providing the
front line troops the same amenities as the rear area folks, why don't we
leave the party/boondoggle alone... 

    re: .26---Do non-management engineers get stock options?
    
    Yes.  I got one in 1978.  In 1988, when it matured, I used it to
    rebuild my garage and add a room onto my house.
    
    As for keeping people motivated, in addition to the insights in .28
    I would like to add that motivation is based on team success.  Our goal
    (not "my" goal) is to ship a product that customers will buy because it
    satisfies their needs, and does this quickly and reliably.  I get my
    reward from customers telling me that they like the product I worked on
    for five years.
    
    I suppose there is a selection process going on.  Different people are
    motivated by different things.  You tend to gravitate towards the
    environment that provides what you want.
        John Sauter

    re -.1 "gravitation towards what you want"
    
     So where can I find "pay for performance"? 
    
    re .26
    
     I heard of management types in IS who got considerable stock options
    during the 80's. Almost to the point of bragging about them. These were
    the equals to "our" UMs.
    
     Got to get back in my customers face. They are not in yet, but i's
    gots to be readi.
    
     Russ, Have you seen my cube lately? I saw the other side of the
    building yesterday..... all gutted out.... again...
    
    -Mike Z. 

    re: .30--Where can I find "pay for performance"?
    
    In the parts of Engineering where I've worked, I've worked hard and been
    paid well.  As far as I'm concerned, that's "pay for performance".
    I don't know how I compare to others.
        John Sauter

>                     <<< Note 1272.20 by COOKIE::LENNARD >>>
>    ...
>    I repeat, there's no place for an elite in this company, and that's
>    what we've created.

Why don't we have a place for an elite in this company?
This is an instance where an elite (if you even choose to recognize
it as such) is ostensibly based on excellence and extraordinary
contribution to the corporate good.  We do have heroes among us.

The argument at hand is whether the Hawaii "boon doggle" was effective in 
terms of 1)rewarding the deserving and 2)encouraging others to be deserving.
It also encompasses the matter of whether it was COST effective in terms
of both the money spent and the side effects on morale because some
of the undeserving (hangers-on) were also rewarded.

I believe the best conclusion to be drawn from the discussion is that
different heroes would wish different rewards, but that the desired
effects of enhancing group morale require a more public display of
the reward than many of the recipients might personally desire,
or that some observers wish to see.

- tom]

    Maybe the reason I have such a sour taste in my mouth for all these
    trips (promise I won't use the b-d word again), is that in the one
    instance I am personally familiar with, the abuses would make the
    S&L scandal pale in comparison.  I won't mention the organization,
    but a lot of non-performers were selected base on purely political
    criteria ("he's a team player"), and every manager and secretary in
    the organization went as well.  It was disgusting.

Most reward recognition trips are planned 6 months in advance to
take advantage of negotiated travel/place to stay prices. I agree
that perhaps that it might be bad timing for moral reasons but if
the trip was planned and paid for, the money's been spent and if
the troopers don't go, they loose all around.

I also know some of the stars of the support team. They do spend
a lot more time than the 7-5 jobs that most of DECies work with
very little of the time being compensated for. If the complainers
are willing to work the 60 to 70 hours weeks for the WC4 jobs,
then the company might not be in the same money crunch.

cal who-used-to-work-the-60+-hours-in-the-field.

    
    
    	Livewire has the full scoop on the Circle of Excellence program
    under Wordwide News, for anybody who's interested.

    
    When I went to the SWS excellance awards my three times it was very
    different. This was back in the days when each region/area/whatever did
    their own and it was a three day weekend. My three were in Pittsburgh,
    Atlantic City and Hilton head. All managers and consultants went
    because they weren't eligble, among other reasons. These were much
    smaller affairs and, in many ways, more enjoyable. I can't imagine
    these cost the company nearly as much money and they achieved the same
    results.
    
    -Ray
    
    

    The Circle of Excellence awards are more often the cause of
    lower morale out here in the Field than a goal to be attained or
    a source of motivation.  We ( the Specialists ) have asked every
    year what the winners did to win the award.  We've received
    answers ( from management ) ranging from "We really don't know
    ourselves." to "We can't read the write-ups because it's against
    Company Policy."  It would appear obvious to even the most
    casual observer ( I love that phrase ;-) ) that for an
    award/reward system to be effective, people need to know exactly
    what it is they are supposed to be striving for.  It's like
    going in for a salary review and being told you only get an x%
    raise instead of an y% raise, but "We can't tell you what you
    can do to get a y% raise next year or what you could have done
    to get a y% raise this year."  I was talking to a former winner
    about what he did to win the award, and he told me he won
    bacause he sold some VAXmates to his customer.  He said when
    they read the write-up at the award dinner he almost had to hide
    because of his embarrassment.  It was generally acknowledged
    that he should win it by everyone in our unit, but not for the
    reason given.  This year's award controversy was that two weeks
    before the winners were to be announced we were told there would
    be nine winners from our district ( ~80-90 people ).  When we
    were all notified of the winners, there were only four.  Again,
    we got answers like "We don't know what happened." plus a number
    of contradictory reasons.

    It appears the system is very broken.  Most of us would probably
    rather have a) bigger raises, or b) smaller awards that more
    people can attend.  Choice "a" above could also mean a greater
    raise differential.  A couple of replies back mentioned the
    difference between a 1 and a 3 performer is only 1%-2%; that's
    only $350-$1000/year before taxes.  Hardly enough to warrant
    volunteering to do middle-of-the-night/weekend upgrades and work
    overtime and drive an hour and a half each way on your own time
    to get to a customer site in the middle of nowhere at 7:00am to
    deliver a year-long residency on a product you have no shred of
    interest in whatsoever with no real guarantee that it'll make a
    difference anyway.

    Excellence awards are nice, if it happens to be your turn/you're
    lucky enough to get one/your residency or current job has some sort
    of potential to allow you to shine enough to be noticed/whatever the
    reason of the day for winning fit you best.  Excellence awards as
    they are now tend to do a whole lot more harm than good; they cause
    feelings of bitterness not only between the GMA and the Field, but
    within Field Districts and Units as well.

    d

    	Yes, that's all very interesting, but such "trips" seem to be rare
    or nonexistent in engineering. I remember a stretch of about a year and
    a half a while back where all the engineers in my group were putting in
    60-80 hours a week steady in order to get a product out the door. We're
    talking hard work that resulted in a few broken marriages, ulcers, and
    other disorders I won't go into. We had to FIGHT and ARGUE for a field
    test DINNER for God's sake. I was the project leader and threatened to
    leave the group if *something* wasn't done to pat the people on the
    back that had worked so hard. After enough brow-beating and
    complaining, we had a dinner. Times weren't as tough then as they are
    now.
    
    I've heard about some engineering groups doing a little better than
    that...but nothing like a trip to Hawaii. So forgive me if I think
    there's a little double-standard around here regarding who gets
    rewarded for what.

   	Holiday in Hawaii is a little too much for an award. A closer
    look at WHO receives an award would be in place. By the way - How
    many women got an award?
    Just wondering?
    Ruth

    re .38, I agree.  I am aware of many software engineers who work both
    long days and nights to get a product out the door while maintaining
    the existing products.  Their ability and dedication are second to
    none in this industry.  I see very little recognition for them.  They
    are percieved as "just doing their jobs" when they put in 50-60 hours
    a week in the office then go home, login and work even more.   There
    are many engineers who are worthy of recognition.  Coffee cups and/or
    t-shirts are not enough.
    
    
    
    I cannot, however, complain about the bennies the field people get.
    Anyone who has worked for a vendor in the field knows that it is a
    hell of a job, probably the most difficult, as far as stress goes,
    of any in the company.  Not only does the Hawaii trip give them a
    reward but it also provides a great stress reliever.  
    
    There are pros and cons to everything.  I think in this instance, the
    pros outweigh the cons and make the trip cost effective.  I cannot
    comment on whether or not the people who went on the trip were the
    right ones since I do not know the selection criteria.
                            

    One of the reasons causing bitterness in this kind of the reward
    activities is some who deserved to go were not selected to go; some who
    think themselves deserved to go were not selected to go; and some who
    did not deserve to go were selected to go. Basically, the selection is
    based on a quota system, not on a well defined criteria.
    
    GF
    

    re:-1
    >Basically, the selection is based on a quota system, not on a well
    defined criteria.
    
      Agreed, but to a point. It is defined enough for those in Engineering
    and Manufacturing to know that they will never be sunning their buns
    on a beach in Maui as a reward for doing a great job on a project. Were
    it not for those groups, sales would have nothing to sell. I don't
    want to suggest that "Sales" is not worthy of recognition for their
    efforts, but naturally there is bitterness from many folks who have
    been told we have to "bite the bullet". We're not talking about a
    little "Attaboy Certificate" or coffee cup, this is something that
    many would consider a dream trip, a once in a lifetime experience.
    
    Paul
    

    Re: .26
    
>    As far as raises go, it seems that the distance between a "1" performer
>    and a "3" performer is about 1%-2%.
    
    If this is the case, then there's probably a problem with those doing
    the salary planning, though it could be your lack of understanding of
    the process.
    
    Being a 1 performer or 3 performer should not be the sole factor in
    determining a salary adjustment percentage.  It should also depend on
    where you are in your salary range.  The idea of a salary adjustment is
    to put you into or towards the place where you belong in your range
    based on your performance.  So, for example, a 1 performer who is low
    in their range should get a larger raise than one who is higher in
    their range.  Someone high in the range who is only a 3 performer may
    be perceived as being already too high for their performance and may
    not merit any (positive) adjustment at all.
    
    This is how we operate and it seems quite equitable to me.
    
    -  David

	The problem I see with awards is that they are binary. You are
	either a "winner" or a "loser" and there are many more
	"losers" than "winners". If, say, 10% of the people in a unit 
	"win" and get to go to <award>, that sort of tells the other 
	90% they are losers. I'd hate to think that 90% of the people
	in *any* organization in DEC are "losers". Better to take that
	money and put it in the envelope, proportional to each persons
	contributions. That way, most people win, to some extent.

					Tom_K

    Has anyone thought how much will be added to each persons W2 this year
    that went on this trip to Hawaii??? Just a thought...
    Renis

    re: understanding the salary process (-.2 ?)
    
    I know the salary theory.  What I am trying to point out is that the
    implementation (hereabouts, at least) does not tend to give any
    significant reward for the exceptional (vs. average) performer. 
    If you remove some form of "Excellence" award, you have a job that
    doesn't encourage you (much) financially to excell and doesn't even
    have many attaboys for encouragement (as you rarely see your
    manager).  The result is an atmosphere almost devoid of positive
    motivation beyond that which you derive from your own circumstance (and
    that can be VERY minimal if you're assigned to a difficult customer).
    
    I just think that there's got to be a better way.  That's why I
    wondered if Engineering, etc. had a better solution.  The stock option
    business is interesting...
    
    re: W-2
    
    I had the good fortune to go last year.  The amount added to the W-2 on my
    account was minimal (most of it was considered a "business trip", since
    there are mandatory seminars and functions -- including one dude
    delivering a bunch of New Age stuff that I didn't think the company
    should be paying for; but that's another subject  8^).  The amount
    added to my W-2 for my WIFE to attend was another matter.  That amount
    was ~$1000, as I recall.  I think there was some partial tax adder put
    on the W-2 as well, but I don't remember the details.
    
    -- Russ

    RE:.43
    
    The problem with your logic is just when you figured you knew the
    answers to what it takes to get to midpoint in your pay range DEC
    changed the questions. A few years back the goal was to get people to
    midpoint as 3 performers. Then DEC needed to cut expenses so they
    changed midpoint to be a 2 performer. This shift automatically put
    everyone in an overpaid portion of their pay range for the same
    performance and effort. As a result people started getting very low or
    non-existant pay raises. The old catagories for performance was 1(hi)
    to 5(low). Now they eliminated one of the catagories and shifted
    everyone down 1 point or catagory on the pay range chart. The net
    affect was that DEC no longer sees a 3 performer as average but a 2
    performer as average. In the field getting to be a 1 performer is seen
    as next to impossible because they perceive the extra work after a
    short while to be the norm and as a result becomes your average (3)
    to above average (2) performance rating. The old comment stated is if
    you do all your paper work (or daily activities) in a timely manner 
    with no errors, thats what is expected of you and as a result you 
    can't do any better, hense no above average performance and this 
    drags down any other catagories in your performance appraisal so a 
    1 level is next to impossible to get and a 2 level is treated as 
    average to slightly above average performance. I have heard managers
    here in the field state outright that they do not believe in 1
    performers (nobody walks on water) and 5 performers should be 
    fired. I might believe this for a 5 performer but not for 1 performers.
    The net affect is during hard time like we are seeing today it becomes
    even harder when the system (pay range shifts in relation to
    performance for the sake of saving dollars) works against your 
    getting good, honest, impartial ratings on your PA's.
    
    Regards
    Al Root
     

    RE: W2

    The last time (last year) I got a monetary reward from DEC, a tax-adder
    was added at the end of the year, so that the award was worth what is
    supposed to be...

    I did not get to go to Hawaii in 1990.  The group I was in became
    ineligible because we were perceived as part of corporate.  I did
    not get to go to Hawaii in 1988, I was selected and ranked 8th out
    of nine who were supposed to go, but a week before the announcement
    our group got only 7 slots!  I was extremely fortunate an got to go
    to the Cruise in 1989, it was an extremely satisfying experience
    which built teamwork and friendship among those lucky enough to go.
    
    There were managers (above the district level to be sure) and support
    personnel who got to do their jobs in a pleasant location for a week.
    
    Indeed there were some people who got to do the trip more than once
    to make sure it would be the best experience possible for the recipients
    and their significant others.
    
    So what's wrong with this picture!
    
    Some people complain because their organization is unable or unwilling
    to offer such programs.  Welcome to the real world!!!  Engineers have
    the best equipment to do their jobs, because they need it, you would
    not want someone to do a loosy job developing hardware or software
    simply becuase we couldn't afford the best tools.  Sales people get
    freer access to expense budgets and reward mechanism because that's
    the best way to attract the best Sales people.
    
    Those people who have to travel, get company cars or stipends for use
    of their cars.  This makes good business sense since we don't want
    employees deciding not to go to a customer today because he/she can't
    or won't afford it.  Similarly we design reward systems and incentives
    that we hope bring out the best in our employees.  Hopefully, we do
    not design them to reward the reward system designers!
    
    As someone who has received three excellence awards (only one of the
    really big ones) and missed one I really wanted in 1988, I think the
    difference between getting the reward and not getting it is too large
    for the people who everyone agrees should be rewarded for their extra
    efforts.  In 1988, when I thought I would be going to Hawaii, I worked
    my normal work week...  All the attaboys and management comments about
    my being rated a "1", did not help my morale that particular week and
    several weeks thereafter.
    
    I worry less about a few mildly deserving or politically connected
    people getting a large award, then I do about the deserving being
    passed by, when we artifically limit the number of people eligible
    for recognition.
    
    Large expensive award programs have positive and negative incentives
    built in.  Hawaiin trips for thousands of people cost big bucks, and
    renting Cruise Ships ain't exactly cheap....  But then neither is
    DEC World or attendance at numerous trade shows...  The question is
    and must be, do the positive incentives and benefits create greater
    revenue for Digital and/or improve employee moral among the people
    the reward system is being designed for.
    
    I came back refreshed and motivated from my 1989 Cruise, it was
    great, but I personnaly doubt it motivated me more, than my missing
    the cutoff to Hawaii in 1988 de-motivated me for a long period that
    year.  
    
    Several people have suggested to management that a smaller reward
    spread over a larger deserving pool would be better.  Unfortunately
    the people designing these rewards always want to make them better
    than the last one and each year we seem to drive to more and more
    expensive solutions which of necessity must be offered to fewer and
    fewer people.  The result is a reward system that demotivates more
    people than it rewards/motivates.  Do not get me wrong rewarding
    everyone equally suffers as badly as rewarding too few people
    greatly..
    
    In other notes here, it has been expressed that getting 1% to 2%
    more in salary for doing "1" work instead of "3" work is not enough
    to get people motivated.  Giving out a one time reward which costs
    DEC $1,200 to $3,000 dollars and recharges the employee might seem
    to the designers of these rewards to be just the ticket.  The problem
    is, it recharges too few people, and demotivates so many others.
    
    I said in 1988, if I was deserving of going to Hawaii, but got cut
    off due to costs, then I should have gotten the week off without
    the trip to compensate me for my extra effort, sort of a second tier
    for those deserving but not receiving the reward.  It would have
    not been as good as going, but certainly better than being treated
    as if I did no better than below average employee!!!
    
    It also took something away from my receiving the award in 1989, as
    it wasn't clear if someone was trying to make up for my not getting
    it in 1988.  One of the people who made the 1988 cut really understood
    how I felt when he missed the 1989 Cruise, and it had a similar effect
    de-motivating him in 1989.
    
    I can't call the reward a boon-doggle...  I can call it less than
    perfectly designed.  The purpose is to reward Excellence and to
    promote teamwork among Sales, EIS, and Customer Services.  As such
    it must involve bringing many people together in a location to allow
    them to network and celebrate their accomplishments.  The nicer the
    place and the longer the period allowed for networking the more
    likely these objectives will be met, unfortunately the fewer people
    able to attend or the more exclusive the reward appears to be, the
    less likely it will be to motivate the employees left behind.
    
    We need to find a way to get everyone motivated to do more to raise
    revenue and cut costs.  Events that celebrate the accomplishments
    of too few, that appear to be too expensive, or too exclusive, do not
    help us motivate the numbers of employees, who need to be motivated.
    
    I hope that the planners for 91 and 92 design rewards which are not
    as costly or as limiting, then maybe we can motivate more people to
    contribute to Digital's success.  When less than a third of a groups
    top performers receive recognition and/or a reward, then competition
    to be in that top third, can destroy the team work necessary to build
    a truly effective organization.
    
    Congratulation to those who received the award, and to the many more
    who deserved it but got to stay home and generate income for the rest
    of us to stay in business.  I have changed groups, so I am once again
    eligible for excellence awards,  and I truly hope the work I do is
    deserving of the award, whether I receive it or not.  Because this is
    the attitude which it will take to bring DEC enough revenue to keep it
    in business until I am eligible and ready for retirement.
    
    

    re: -.1
    
    Reminds me of something I've learned as an engineer at Digital. 
    Basically, it is that the reward for designing is having gotten to
    design, for patenting is having gotten to patent, for publishing is having
    gotten to publish.  The cash rewards I've gotten for these activities
    were much less than the cash tendered by another engineer I knew who spent
    less time in the evenings working for UPS part-time than I spent
    midnight-hacking on the terminal.  I've been told that it looks great on 
    my resume and I know I have Digital to thank for the opportunities.  But, 
    what this also tells me is that I should expect to be rewarded by another 
    company.  This is probably how startups get started ...  ;)
    
    Steve

    If we have to have these trips, I think part of the answer to the
    de-motivation of losers problem is simple.  Establish good, solid,
    objective criteria for the award.....and if the whole damned branch
    meets it...then fine let them all go!!
    
    But, I still think these things are wrong.  It's like the field is
    hanging on to this as some sort of holy-cow perc.....even knowing that
    the perc is starting to smell to high heaven.

    r .39
    
    You would have to ask Customer Services, Sales, and EIS management
    how many women attended .vs. how many are in their employ and eligible
    for recognition.  Since ISWS was not eligible for 1990 I could not
    comment for the COE event, but in previous years when I was eligible
    approximately half my groups representation was female who brought
    one significant other (i.e husband, lover, friend, daughter, son,
    etc...) along for the reward.
    
    Overall women appeared to be between 1/4 and 1/3 of the recipients
    in 1989 on the Cruise, but then I didn't get around to all the group
    meetings to see if some regions had greater representation then mine.
    
    The idea of bringing along a significant other is to compensate them
    also for all the time the employee spends away from home/family/their
    relationship to meet Digital's customers needs.  I whole heartily agree
    with compensating the significant other who helped make the employee
    more successful.  For a few people out there, getting away from you
    spouse and family may seem like a better idea!  But for the majority
    of us, we could not devote the extra time we devote to this company
    were it not for the support we get from our significant others.  So
    they earned there way to the award as much as I did and hope to do so
    again.
    

    re. 51
    
    There were some good solid objectives.. I had to have been part of the
    revenue generating district for at least 9 months, I had to receive a
    customer satisfaction score in the top 10% of the district, I had to
    be rated a "1", etc....  But when it was all said an done, 7 people
    out of probably 12 or 14 in the district of 75 delivery people who
    met all of the objective criteria actually got to go, because given
    limited funds for such expensive awards you can only do it for some
    of the people who qualify.  Having no sliding scale or second tier
    rewards devistates those who think they put in as much as the ones
    who got to go, but they failed to make the magic cut!!!  I found it
    extremely difficult to rank people from my own group in order of
    excellence, its easy to pick the top few and the bottom few so long
    as you don't have to rank them 1 thru 7 or 65 thru 75.  Sometime its
    easy to name number 1 or 1 and 2, but it soon gets messy, why is #7
    number 7 rather than #8 etc...  Binary award mean you get it or you
    don't and excellence is not something you have or you don't!!!
    
    I would opt for smaller but significant demonstrations of appreciation,
    and for some alternative demonstrations of appreciation for those who
    meet the objective criteria but can not be given the larger prize due
    to cost considerations.  I would also hope that the field recognize
    the contribution of our corporate, manufacturing, and engineering part-
    ners in delivering solutions.
    
    
    
    
    

I have heard the opinion (which I share to some extent) that such trips
are, in fact, penalizing to some.  My perpective:

I travel a fair amount, often on Sunday or Saturday.  I also tend to spend 
weekends at work or work late as I see its needed.  That's part of the job.
But, my most precious moments are spent with my wife and 18 month old
daughter.  When we do things together, we do them together: concerts,
movies, dinner, shows, festivals.  That's the way we want it.

A recent "reward" for groups in the CSC was a trip to a ski resort for
couples.  No children.  Period.  Had I been elligible (I was not in the
CSC, so I don't count) and been awarded the trip, I would have been forced
to turn it down because I could not be with my daughter.  I don't even have
someone nearby I could leave my daughter with had I chosen to go.  There
were, of course, no alternatives.  So, the reward for doing an outstanding
job would have been a trip I would not take.

Instead of giving people a "glorious vacation in the sun" (turning my wife
into a crispy-fried sunburnt cinder), would it have been more appropriate
to give the deserving a week's vacation and money to take whatever trip
they wanted (or even hotel and plane coupons)?

For some, these rewards are viewed as gross insensitivity on the part of
the company.

For me, its "throw money".

BobW

    I think the whole idea of excelence awards needs to be more carefully
    thought out.  Not to take a single bit of recognition or apprectiation
    to those who win awards, their efforts contribute daily to the bottom
    line in this company since they deal directly with our bosses, the
    customer.
    
    My area of concern is many of these awards are given to hose of us
    who are most polished and have the best preception with the nominating
    managers.  Every year, these are the same people who win excellence 
    awards.  Those people that maybe a bit ecentric or not the most
    polished, don't get them.  The negative motivator is feeling that
    you know you'll never stand a chance so why try?
    
    The saddest part is that I know many people in DEC that never get 
    recoginition and would never have a snow ball's chance in h*ll of
    winning an excellence award.  They are  socially clumsy,
    physically unattractive, nerdy, and smart.  Without out them,
    we wouldn't have products that lead the industry!!!!!

    I know absolutely nothing about the selection criteria, but many a
    manager or technician or sales person would not survive without
    secretarial support backing them up in a thousand little ways...
    
    Are any secretaries eligible and if so, did any go?
    
    Just curious,
    Linda

    In my office at least 90% of the people don't know that this
    trip took place even though several are selected from our
    office to attend every year. The selection process and the
    criteria for winning are kept secret and the individuals
    are the only ones that are informed.
    
    I wonder if there are other organizations that do it the same
    way.
    
    mm
    

    
    Keeping it a secret? (.57)
    
    Not sharing the rules? (.37)
    
    Arbitrary cutoffs? (.53)
    
    Sounds like a well devised incentive program to me!
    
    It would be wonderful if, next year, some brave manager said, "Thanks
    for the slots, but I respectfully ask for the money instead, so I can
    reward _all_ my qualifying employees in some more appropriate way, and
    also get some much needed equipment for the office."
    

    There is nothing wrong in rewarding a genuine hard work.. However ...
    I am aware of a situation ,where a sales rep went to Australia 
    (DECATHALON) and this person did not sell a dime to her SCMP account. 
    All she did was to beat the system and collect the reverse star
    credits on the sales made by other reps on CMO's software, thus making 
    her sales number as 104%. 
    

    Are field award programs a waste of money ?  Not when we as a company
    are competing for talent with other companies that pay commissions on
    sales.  I haven't heard any of the naysayers complain about DECathlon
    sales winners' "SP2" money ... this cash award can be as high as $12-15K.
    
    Those that want to eliminate the award system on the grounds that it's
    "elitist" and that it demotivates those not selected ought to think
    about socialism, where everyone is treated equally poorly.  .. this is
    NOT a 'love it or leave it' message, just consider systems where
    performers are NOT rewarded, and you get... Moscow.  And some horror 
    stories should not eliminate the awards system.  I know a few myself.
    
    Yes, there's problems with the selection criteria being murky.  I was
    selected for the SWS Excellence Award in '87 and '88, and not since.
    As I've been doing more and better work since then, I don't know what
    magic I committed in those years, and don't know what's missing now.
    At least in Sales it's clear, based on numbers.. however, if you have a
    volume rep doing 120% at $10M/yr and an end-user rep doing 190% at
    $750K/yr, who is doing more for the corporation ?  The pure dollars
    favor volume, percentages favor end-user.  It's easier to blow out a
    smaller budget, ask anyone who dabbles in penny stocks.
    
    karl

    For Sales, the guidelines for SP2 and DECathalon are some of the most
    lucidly written documents in the corporation.  Arguably, they are
    clearer than the guidelines for splits, which is pretty amazing
    considering the frequency with which the latter process occurs and the 
    heat generated as a result.

    At any rate, the selection process for Sales is pretty objective with
    somewhat more than half the criteria based upon percent of budget
    attained (with the comments made in -1 on the size of the budget being 
    right on the mark, though at least everyone knows the implications of a 
    large budget at the beginning of the year) and the rest based upon somewhat
    subjective "management points".  Of course, you still have anomalies.
    I entertained briefly entering some examples, but discretion got the
    better of me.  Suffice it to say that they exist.  The bottom line,
    however, is to recognize and reward the very top performers.  DECathalon 
    meets that need by and large.
    
    For the service and support arms of the Field, the goals are
    essentially the same, to recognize the top performers.  The criteria
    are, by nature, somewhat murkier for a couple of reasons.  First of
    all, no one can tell you at the beginning of the year what any
    individual needs to accomplish in order to number among the top 7-12%.
    You do your best and hope that it's good enough.  There are also not
    nearly enough slots to recognize ALL of the excellent role models. 
    Since I cannot send everyone who deserves to go in any particular year,
    I find myself considering factors such as previous attendance in making
    choices.  The solution is greater participation.
    
    An interesting tidbit more than casually related to this topic: Part of
    a salary planning presentation given by my Personnel Consultant was
    some statistics which show that the percentage of 1 and 2 performers
    (key criteria for COE) goes up markedly as SRI increases.  Might
    explain why some of these events seem disproportionately loaded with
    staff weenies...
    
    An important part of the culture in any sales/support/service job is
    a universal need for recognition.  It's one of the main reasons 
    we elect to put up with these jobs.  This is probably a foreign concept
    to someone in Engineering, Manufacturing or Marketing.  Suggestions by
    any of these to do away with Field recognition programs in the interest 
    of saving money are likely to be treated by us with the same contempt
    reserved for freezing salaries.  Why don't we shrink per-capita
    engineering space and eliminate flex-time in the interest of efficiency
    while we're in a cost-cutting mood, eh?  Perhaps because such actions
    have a superficial appeal only, due to the complex relationship to
    costs?
    
    What I would like to see in Circle of Excellence is greater
    participation.  I see no reason why the stature of the award would be
    greatly diminished as a result.  To accomplish this, we need to either
    spend more money on world-wide venues or spend the same amount on
    regional venues.  Take your pick.  I don't see cutting back on 
    recognition programs as a viable option.
    
    Al
    

    	I don't object to incentives for sales people if that's what it
    takes to attract and keep the best sales people. Whether trips to
    Hawaii during tough times is easy to swallow, I don't know.
    	I just think the same effort should be made to attract and keep the
    best software people in the industry since the future is largely in
    software. I remember the software group at Apple Computer got a trip to
    Hawaii for two weeks (with a guest) when they shipped the Mac. So it's
    not unheard of. Here at DEC a few years ago, a half-assed attempt at
    rewarding engineers with certificates and cash rewards of $250 or $500
    for a group-wide recognition. I thought this was a good idea, but it
    just kind of fizzled out after about a year or so. I guess it's
    unfortunate that good engineers will typically work hard without
    incentives and without the best pay, but long term I have to think we
    won't attract the best software people or be able to hold onto them.
    The companies that place a high value on these people will eventually
    attract them away.

    I think some of this is market-driven.  If you need to compete for a
    scarce resource (people with certain skills) you do what you must to
    attract them.  If that requires treating them a certain way, you do
    that.  Apparently, senior management feels that the best way to attract
    top sales people is to offer them a chance at a trip.  I can't argue
    with their judgement.
    
    With other kinds of people, other kinds of rewards have been judged to
    be appropriate.
    
    In areas where there is an overabundance of supply, regardless of the
    value of the people to the company, little or no rewards are needed to
    attract a sufficient number of people.
    
    Thus, I claim, the reward structure is not based on your value to the
    company (your contribution to the bottom line) but rather on what is
    required to attract and retain a sufficient number of people with your
    skills.
    
    If you don't like the situation that leaves you in, you have a couple
    of choices: learn a skill that Digital must provide greater rewards to
    attract and keep, or find a place to work where your skills are more
    in demand.  That place might easily be within Digital.
        John Sauter

    REF. note .12
    
    I have "busted my hump" for this company for "13+ years" and have often
    been rated a 1.  The secretaries of this company work harder than most
    of the people they work for and almost never receive any reward, other
    than their paycheck.  And please don't tell me that secretaries aren't 
    revenue earners, as if that justifies lack of reward or recognition. 
    Just see how far you, your cost center or this company would get without 
    us. 
    
    I am disappointed that the company could be so insensitive at such a
    time as this.  I thought the R.A.P. awards were supposed to be the company 
    vehicle for rewarding excellence, not trips to Hawaii!
    

    re: .64
    
    I'm glad you aren't surprised.  Good secretaries are easier to find
    than good salespersons, so good secretaries don't get the incentives
    that good salespersons get.  It isn't fair, it's business.  See .63 
    for a longer description.
        John Sauter

    Have you TRIED to get a secretary, any secretary, not to mention a GOOD
    one?  I know quiet a few salespersons looking for jobs, but no
    secretaries.
    
    

    FYI, there are 154 positions open for secretary in this company--300+ before
    adjustment closed many old reqs (some older than a year).  How many 
    open reqs for "salespersons"?                                  

    One has to ask why those reqs are still open.  Is the compensation
    inadequate?  Are the working conditions unreasonable?  Are there better
    places where secretaries can work?  Are the reqs limited to internal
    transfers only?
    
    I don't know the answer to these questions, because I am not familiar
    with the departments which hold these reqs.  If the reqs are still open
    because of the limitation to internal transfers only, then we are not
    serious about filling them.  They are "paper reqs only".  If any of the
    other reasons apply, then I was wrong when I said that good secretaries
    are harder to find than good salespersons.  If we wish to attract and
    keep good secretaries (assuming they are scarce) we must reward them in 
    an appropriate way.  That's probably a combination of good wages and
    good working conditions.
        John Sauter

    To note .68
    
    Please read Note 1271.2 -- Quote: (The company is) "afraid...that to many 
    of the wrong people would except the package...and too many slugs and
    hangers-on would not."  Secretaries were exempt from the package from
    the majority of DEC--they were viewed in too short supply and too vital
    to let go.
    
    As for working conditions--a trip to Hawaii would put a smile on my
    face anytime.
    
    Over and out.

    For those of us in Engineering, did everyone know that Bill Strecker,
    V.P. of Engineering went to Circle of Excellence?  I guess he was an
    invited guest of some other organization.  Now that he has an
    appreciation for this "boon-doggle"  maybe he will put one together for
    those in the effected groups.
    
    Just wondering;
    
    AEB

    Sour grapes?  Welllll....

    Maybe and maybe not.   I'm all for rewarding the top performers in our
    company.  That's important, but PLEASE let's keep things in perspective!

    1. Digital's earnings are down significantly.
    2. We are letting people go.  (Call it voluntary separations or whatever.)
    3. Most of the people I work with haven't had a raise in so long that they
       can't remember exactly when it was.
    4. Just about all our personal expenses (and taxes) have been going
       through the roof.  Even luch at Tobin's (Digital Cafeteria) is
       more expensive.
    5. Digital is asking most of us to pay a larger part of our health
       insurance costs.
    6. A small perk, bottled water, was paid for by our cost center; now
       we are being asked to pay ourselves.   (Just an example.)
    7. And on top of everything else, many of us have seen a significant
       part of our life savings (Digital stock) decline in value by some
       70% since 1987.

    Star peformers are important to Digital's future success, but it takes
    a lot more people than that, ALL doing their jobs competently, for DEC 
    to be successful.

    It should be obvious by now that Digital is facing a difficult period
    ahead.  In order to make it through this, EVERYONE is going to have
    to pitch in; even the star performers!   I don't think many people are
    saying we shouldn't have recognition functions, we are saying, let's
    do them with moderation.

    Finally, some people have said these things are planned long in advance.
    People! these problems didn't develop overnight!  I was reminded of this
    when I happened across the following note.

          <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;2 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 54.8                         DEC Layoffs?                           8 of 10
SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney"                     8 lines   5-AUG-1988 08:24
                     -< As reported in the New York Times >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Three years since the last reply...)
    
    "Thousands of employees in the manufacturing sector have been laid off
    at companies like General Electric, Digital Equipment, and Gillette,
    all major Massachusetts employers.  The layoffs [in manufacturing],
    which contine, reflect a national trend."
    
    New York Times August 5, 1988 d1, Wages that Raise Eyebrows 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    and just in case anyone is doubtful about the layoff issue:

From:	ICS::CISMAIL "21-Nov-1990 1103" 21-NOV-1990 11:09:21.57
To:	@MISG
CC:	
Subj:	Computer Industry News from MISG

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

DIGITAL FIRSTS: CLOSING, LAYOFFS

	"Two First for Digital Plant Closing, Layoffs"  (The Boston Globe,
	 11/21/90, PP:53)

Digital Equipment Corp. will be closing its plant in Phoenix, affecting 475
workers.  Jeff Gibson, a Digital spokesman, said the company will try to
relocate employees to other sites.  He conceded that some will likely be forced
out of work.  Laid-off workers will receive a separation package similar to the
voluntary package Digital is currently offering in hopes of cutting 6,000 jobs. 
An earlier, more generous package voluntary severance plan eliminated about
3,000 jobs.  Gibson said the company could not rule out further closings or
layoffs.  Last week Digital informed workers at the Springfield plant that disk
drive production would be shifted elsewhere.  The company expects about 150 of
the plant's 470 workers to accept the voluntary severance.  The plant will
continue to manufacture tape drives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the sake of all our futures, let's hope that sanity prevails.

    /Chuck

	re .61:

>>>	Might explain why some of these events seem disproportionately
>>>	loaded with staff weenies...

	Another good reason relates to the "upwards" management
	style remarked on elsewhere in this conference. In a culture
	where "if it's not presented to you every second day it
	doesn't exist", ONLY staff weenies are in the office
	enough to "get visibility".

	By contrast, the really hard workers are out earning our
	living up to 100 hours a week. The only people who know
	how good they are are the customers, and maybe the sales
	people - and who's about to ask them anything8? Unless they're
	smart enough to ask the customer to write letters to their
	manager saying how great they are (a practise that sends
	cold shivers down my back, but the alternative is obscurity).

	When will managers adopt the philosophy of the inverted
	pyramid, understand that the people at the customer interface
	are the really important ones, and start making the effort to
	find out what happens there? Instead of sitting back getting
	their picture of the world from computer listings and self-
	serving presentations. These guys are like a fighter pilot
	flying on instruments - and the instruments are broken. If
	he looked out of the canopy, he might notice he's upside
	down!
	
	(Actually, there is one instrument that works - the altimeter
	 or "stock price" in flying jargon)

	/Tom

    	After reading through 70-some entries, I have a few things to
    	add.

    	There *are* people in this company who deserve a trip to Hawaii.
    	The author of .12 seems pretty deserving to me, although were I
    	him I would not have stuck my chin out to take the blows of those
    	who do not agree.  :^)

    	I suspect that there were people on that trip who did not deserve
    	it.  But I'd also bet that most of the people who did go were
    	quite deserving.

    	I read the LIVEWIRE report on the trip.  One of the people cited
    	in the article was a Customer Response Rep.  My first reaction
    	was indignation, I must be honest.  To be a competent CRR you
    	don't need any particular technical background.  You don't make
    	any sales (although you are in a position to lose some...)  You
    	don't write any software.  So how does a CRR merit this trip?
    	But then I got to thinking about it.  The CRR is one of the lower
    	paying jobs at a CSC.  So they are paid based on the skill set
    	required to do the job.  Pay for performance.  Why shouldn't
    	the best CRRs be rewarded for doing the best job of the bunch?
    	Just like the best sales rep is rewarded for being the best of
    	the bunch.  Or the best account manager.  All are paid relative
    	to the requirements for the job.  But some just do their job
    	better than the rest, yet will receive little else for being the
    	best.  I'd have to go along with the secretary a few replies back 
    	who asked why secretaries didn't go.

    	Actually, secretaries DID go.  In some cases, whole groups went --
    	managers, individual contributors, secretaries -- everybody.  But
    	I'd like to bet that there wasn't one secretary on that trip who
    	was there on his/her own merits like the CRR mentioned above.
    	Perhaps there should have been.

    	Maybe we should cut the number of "top" trips to 1000 instead of
    	3200 (per the article), and divide the extra 2200 trips into 
    	smaller incentives.  Under the current Hawaii scenario, it costs
    	about $2000 for an employee and his/her guest.  Well, $250 would
    	make a decent get-away weekend for two, and $500 would make a
    	super one.  We could break up those 2200 trips into 4-8 weekends
    	each!  Maybe have some varying levels of weekends and/or bonuses
    	and/or stock options.

    	So what about the folks who are ineligible for the trip because
    	their organizations don't budget for them?  I don't believe that
    	taking it away from the organizations that DO budget for it is
    	the answer.

	Joe Oppelt

    So do engineers (you know, those people that actually make the stuff
    that DEC sells) ever get fancy trips like this?
    
    I've never heard of it happening.
    
    I might be a little biased, but it seems to me that engineering
    is fundamental to DEC's profitability.  No?

    Sometimes.

    
    And never in Hawaii.
    

    And sometimes engineering management funds the release parties out
    of their own pocket.
    
    		Alfred

    Sometimes the ENGINEERS fund the parties from their own pockets and
    have to hold them off-site because of legal worries around *gasp*
    aloholic consumption.

There are probably very few technical types who went to Hawaii who wouldn't 
have willingly, eagerly traded their trip for access to the kind of 
equipment / software that engineers get.

As for Sales getting the fancy trips ... Digital does what is necessary to
attract and keep good sales reps.  The other large computer companies offer
trips to their top sales people, so Digital feels it just offer them too. 

Steve

    >   <<< Note 1272.81 by SCAACT::RESENDE "Digital, thriving on chaos?" >>>>
>
>There are probably very few technical types who went to Hawaii who wouldn't 
>have willingly, eagerly traded their trip for access to the kind of 
>equipment / software that engineers get.

    Hold on, this may be so, but its a red herring. I use the equipment
    on my desk as a tool-of-trade (my chisel, hammer, saw etc.), if there
    is a problem with the Hawaii "technical types" missing out on equipment 
    they NEED (rather than want), that is an entirely different issue that goes
    to the heart of why companies think they can get away with providing
    workers with less than what they need to do that job. If I'm a
    mechanic, I expect to be able to reach for a wrench (and possibly
    several hundred thousand dollars worth of computer test equipment); 
    if I'm a field-service engineer, I expect a full electronics toolkit
    (the test equipment is often built-in, by H/W & S/W engineers); if I'm a
    Software Engineer, I expect a workstation with development software and
    the hardware needed for the development. I dont think the "greatest
    toy" argument holds that well when the toy is now the standard tool.
    
    If the field is not getting the tools it needs, its not engineering's
    fault because they are (if they are). There are programs in place to
    get field developers trained in CASE (CASE/START...) on 
    workstations. Getting the field managers to look beyond the next quarter 
    is not Engineering's responsibility.
    
    On the other hand, we should not strangle reward systems. We should,
    however, ensure they are fairly administered and available to all.
    During a tough time, its important to cut back, but not at all costs.
    You should not hit reward and incentive to the point where you lose
    good workers. The art of coping with business downturn is to cut the
    fat without cutting out your vital organs. Managers should encourage
    even more during hard-times, and we should always look at any 
    expenditure as investment, not just cost, and assess it in regards to 
    pay off.
    
    
    
>As for Sales getting the fancy trips ... Digital does what is necessary to
>attract and keep good sales reps.  The other large computer companies offer
>trips to their top sales people, so Digital feels it just offer them too. 

    Yes this is true, its part of the market place for those services. You
    have to ask though: are the reward structures adequate in other parts
    of the corporation? Are we rewarding good ideas and effort beyond the
    call in ALL areas? Are our reward systems commensurate with other
    companies? 
    
>Steve
    
    John
    EIC/Engineering, Sydney
    

    My own personal feeling, not based on the arguments I have heard, for
    or against is simple. If things are so bad a company must shut down an
    entire plant, and the news is more "big" closures/layoffs are foreseen,
    than a trip to Hawaii is rather extravagant. That is just the way I
    feel about it.
    
    Dave
    

    
    Smart gut! Would that some brains worked as well.
    

    I've skimmed this topic too, and I have no problem with people being
    rewarded, even with such an extravagance as a trip to Hawaii.
    
    I do wonder, though, if the rewardee's supervisor and manager and group
    manager and senior group manager and vice president and senior vice
    president, and their spouses, should come along as well...

    re: .70
    
    Bill Strecker went as the guest of a winner in the Sales organization
    (his wife, I believe). He graciously agreed to present some high-level
    strategic information to the attendees. This sort of stuff, apparently
    common knowledge in Engineering, is unknown to us boondogglin' field
    types. I, for one, appreciated it.
    
    - Larry.
    
    p.s. - As has been implied in earlier replies, "field" is, of course,
    just another word for "Endless Party"! And we have lots and lots of
    openings, too! C'mon out! Join the fun! :-)

    re: .86  
    
    Boondogle or not, when someone volunteers to make a presentation at
    these trips, they are considered business and as such are not taxable
    items I believe. So Uncle Sam is deprived of a few extra bucks also.
    
    - John

    re: .87
    
    The value of the guest's trip is added to the winner's W2 (if one
    brings a guest). The winner then gets a "tax-adder" which approximately
    cancels the tax impact. So, no, Uncle (or the Inland Revenue or whoever
    else is deserving) gets the appropriate poundage of flesh. Bill was
    just being a nice guy. He could have stayed pool-side.
    
    

    I think legitimate questions are being asked here about incentive
    programs.  We can't afford B-D.  But I warn you:  The whining is
    reaching alarming proportions.  I accept different reward structures
    for different groups and different locations, but I see no reason why
    the company must offer all awards to everyone.  Clearly, there are
    reasons why the company *cannot* afford such largesse, even to the
    relatively limited extent they are offered now.
    
    I remember a department at a company where the manager came into a
    little extra end-of-year money and offered to spend it on a party for
    the employees.  The only condition was that they specify how they wanted
    the money spent.  An employee committee was quickly set up to discuss the
    selection.  Some felt the money was best given as money; some wanted an
    event.  Some wanted a formal party, some an informal one.  Some wanted
    an evening event, some a daytime event.  Some wanted an indoor event,
    some an outdoor one.  Some wanted this restaurant, some that one.  This
    was only a small committee, but they quickly became deadlocked.  They
    discussed and sampled and went out and argued and squabbled and fought
    over this party, and it went on and on for weeks.
    
    Finally, the manager grew tired of listening to the arguing and said
    "to hell with it all," and kept the money.  We never did anything.
    
    If you think this story is an invention, you don't know me well 8^)
    
    This note is probably a substitute for the traditional "why a turkey?"
    note, which annually makes me cringe in fear that KO will decide that
    too many turkeys are being REwarded, not Awarded.  I hope this topic
    dies down soon, before Jack Smith reads it and decides to cancel the
    whole boondo -- trip.

    
    Re: "Please -- keep it quiet!" Nothing will make people touch a wall
    more than a "wet paint" sign.
    
    "Keep it quiet" implies that there's something going on under the
    sheets that polite people don't talk about in public -- is that the
    case?
    
    And I object strenuously to the blanket categotization of feelings
    expressed in this string as "whining". Evidently, many respondents find
    that awarding a Hawaiian trip for two to so some people who are good at
    their jobs, and a handshake (or less) to other people who are good at their
    jobs, smacks of eletism in a company that prides itself on equality.
    How do Hawaiian boondoggles fit in with the handful of people who have
    private offices, the virtual nonexistence of reserved parking spaces,
    open communication and open door policies? Not very well at all.
    
    The party money story has much less to do with awards than with the
    hopelessness of management by committee. The manager who came into the
    money should have asked some trusted compatriots for ideas, then made
    a decision and stuck by it.
    

    3200 people (as the facts suggest) spending a week in Hawaii is also 60
    person years of employee time. This when people are being asked to
    leave seems a bit strange....

    3200 x 2000 = 6.4mio $
    
    How many CERTS equate to this profit ?  How much selling and support
    effort ?
    
    Those are the numbers that should be balanced against the benefits of
    the award.
    
    David

	... with LESS than $6.4M in total CERTS over the measurement period.
The Sales support people probably leveraged at least that much over the year
in support of said Sales force.  The delivery people went out to the customer
site and made it all work to the customer's satisfaction, so he didn't end
up sending it back for an A/R write-off.

	Now, to correct a minor syntax flaw in the previous reply:

			CERTS  .NE.  PROFIT !!!!!!!

CERTS is a management planning tool for predicting revenue stream.  It ain't
PROFIT until the customer check clears! As they are now starting to hold some
Account Managers accountable for PROFIT in their accounts, you may see some
change in quality AND quantity of Sales attendees at Circle of Excellence, at
least I hope so.

	My $.02 worth.

	... from '76 to about '85, Salespeople were being turned out on a
dime for non-performance.  From '85 until now, at "Digital", I can't recall
ever hearing of a Salesperson being fired, only moved to a "staff position
at Area" (some of them are still around)!

    re: .93
    
    Profit is accrued when the customer issues an order and the goods ship
    and invoice.  This is not Digital policy, this is GAAP for accrual
    based accounting. (GAAP = Generally Accepted Accounting Principals
    as determined by Financial Accounting Standards Board - FASB).
    
    Income = Sales less ( Associated Costs including allowances for
    			      Bad Accounts recievable)
    
    Debit - Accounts Recievable
    Credit - Equipment Sales
    
    When the customer check is deposited:
    
    Debit - Cash
    Credit - Accounts Recievable
    
    I get particular because prior to becoming a *hacker*, I was a
    Certified Bookie.
    
    Re: .94
    
    Anyone is sales thinks salespeople are primadonnas.  Maybe many
    are.  However, one adage holds true: "You can never pay a good
    Salesperson too much".  If a salesperson is really selling our
    product, the $3000 to $4000 dollars necessary to send them to 
    Hawaii is money well spent.  The general consensus amoung many
    of our sales people is that Digital's sales compensation package
    isn't competitive with the rest of the world to which I have to 
    agree.
    
    Let me state for the record, I am not a sales person!

RE: .96

>    Profit is accrued when the customer issues an order and the goods ship
>    and invoice.

REVENUE (income) is accrued when the customer issues an order and the goods ship
and invoice.

PROFIT accrues (if it accrues at all) when revenue exceeds expenses.

--PSW

    .96 almost has it right.  It's so close I can't resist the impulse to
    correct it.  Receipt of an order has NO accounting impact.  None. Zip.

    The thing ships:
    Increase (debit) accounts receivable
    Decrease (credit) inventory (other companies use "finished goods")

    The customer pays:
    Increase (debit) cash
    Decrease (credit) accounts receivable
    
    Profit (or Net Income) is a residual of the aggregates of all revenue
    and all expenses and this is reflected in the income statement
    
    Identifying profit on a transaction basis requires a lot of effort to
    accurately assign revenue and costs to that one transaction.  Find
    people in Digital who can agree on this for extra credit in Accounting
    101.
    
    But what I really entered the conference was to mention that
    Wednesday's Wall Street Journal had an article "More Firms Try to
    Reward Good Service, But Incentives May Backfire in Long Run"

    Re last few
    
    Digital's Revenue Recognition Policy, which has remained unchanged
    (other than adding provisions for more complex transactions) for years:
    Revenue is recognized at the time product ships or service is rendered.
    This is accomplished by the generation of a sales invoice OR by 
    accruing for shipments not invoiced during the period.
    
    This is documented in the Corporate Accounting & Reporting Manual
    (which covers domestic, foreign and subsidiary sales) Section 302
    which is available on VTX.
    
    Evelyn

    re. .93 et al
    
    Excuse me for not making myself clear.  By "equate to profit" I meant
    "will generate this much profit" ie. the amount of CERTS that will
    generate 6.4 mio $ profit.
    
    In any case, I was only pointing our that the "funny money", used to 
    finance the Hawaiian trip, was produced by a lot of hard work by 
    Digital people.  This point is often overlooked.
    
    David

    There will be no sales until we invent, develop, manufacture
    profitable, competitive products.
    It seems to me to be an extremely simplistic and banal a strategy for
    DEC to concentrate only on the more visible, obvious correlation between 
    revenues and and their immediate link, i.e. Sales. I am afraid there is
    a simple analogy which should make my point: I will not sell a dime's
    worth if I do not have competitive products regardless of my sales people
    prowess. I can sell a million's worth if I have the best products on the
    market, regardless of my sales people caliber. I believe in rewarding,
    however I do not believe in the disproportionate rewards that DEC now
    has in place. Please do not misunderstand me, good sales people are as
    important as any other function peolpe. The number of replies this base
    note has recieved so far emphasises this point better than any
    dissertation could.
    
    reflects this view rather   
     

    re: .many
    
    All of this discussion about the "obscene" sums available to sales
    people is quite interesting.  However, it effectively skirts the real
    point.
    
    If I, as a salesrep (which I'm not, by the way), know that my top-notch
    skills can result in DOUBLE my current salary on the open market (on
    average over time), why should I stay here?  Some argue for stability,
    lack of commission pressure, etc.  Fine.  But how many top sales reps
    will you lose?  In a word, LOTS.
    
    If I, as a salesrep, know that my average skills probably won't result
    in much more commission than I make on salary here, guess where I'm
    staying.
    
    Shoe on the other foot:  A lot of noise has been made about Digital
    being a few percent below "industry average" in paying our Engineers
    (rathole: I believe we should be at LEAST at industry average). 
    Suppose the survey showed that our top Engineers were paid 25% less
    than average?  Or 50% less?  How many top Engineers would we lose?
    
    We can mouth off all we want about "it's not fair", etc.  Problem is
    that we need to do SOMETHING to attract and keep top talent in a field
    which has a very high pay scale.   So what do we do?
    
    re: .101
    
>    There will be no sales until we invent, develop, manufacture
>    profitable, competitive products.
    
>    						I am afraid there is
>    a simple analogy which should make my point: I will not sell a dime's
>    worth if I do not have competitive products regardless of my sales people
>    prowess.
    
    Simple and, I'm afraid, incorrect.  There are several companies I know
    of that survived YEARS selling hopes and garbage.  There is one HUGE
    company I can think of that used agressive selling techniques to turn
    mediocre products into MONSTER revenue.
    
    You think you need substance to sell?  Pick up a copy of any
    supermarket tabloid.  Here is the essence of of the term "worthless". 
    Yet they are among THE MOST PROFITABLE COMPANIES IN THE INDUSTRY.
    
    >         I can sell a million's worth if I have the best products on the
    > market, regardless of my sales people caliber.
    
    I don't believe that for a minute.  In a heavily competitive
    environment, you need excellent sales people to make inroads -- even
    when you are selling the BEST solution!  I've seen poor selling botch
    golden sales a number of times...
    
    So, should we sell junk?  No.  Should we forget Engineering, etc.?  No.
    But we need to compete for top-notch salesreps.  How about we quit
    ranting and come up with a way to compete in the sales talent market?
    
    -- Russ

    re: 102
    
    Your opening argument is well taken, however it applies to other
    disciplines as well. You keep emphasizing the need for TOP sales
    talent, is that an artifact of our present situation or a real 
    lack of specific resources.
    
    You mentionned that my simple analogy was incorrect. In the context
    it was used, referring to tangible products (computers), could you give
    us some examples of how you could sell some non-existent product for
    the long term. Your analogies are not fair unless we only want to 
    SURVIVE for a FEW years only.
    
    What is worthless to you and I, is  NOT obviously worthless to people 
    who regularily buy these magazines, they get something out of them
    that you and I don't. We are NOT all equal. 
    
    BTW , they are no salespeople, as we know them, involved in your stated
    example of "worthless" high success products.
    
    > You think you need substance to sell?
    
    > So, should we sell junk? No.
    
    You made my point, again in the context of my comments, we better have
    substance.
    
    There is at least one computer company that is doing very well with NO
    Sales force of their own, How? simple, they have the best product on the
    market, demand begs supply, no need for sale pitching. 
    
    The need for Top sales people is inversely proportional to the market's
    demand for a product. Would you hire more salespeople or engineers if
    demand overtakes supply, the outcome of an outstanding engineering
    product. BTW the reverse rule applies, more salespeople will be needed
    if supply is higher than demand.
     
     
    My point in my previous remark and this one is that I do not believe
    that Sales are more important than engineering, however due to the
    fact that they are on the front line, they get more visibility and
    thus get rewarded accordingly, though I believe unfairly. 
    
    
    Over And Out.
    
    Franc.
    

    re: .104
    
    I smell certain elements of a violent agreement here... 8^)
    
    We certainly both agree that we need substance in our products.  My
    argument is that we need equal substance in salesmanship when our
    products cannot establish themselves in a clear, they-sell-themselves
    leadership position.
    
    The era of the bulk of our business "selling itself" is long gone. 
    Even with the best products, other companies are there to compete with
    us.  One certain Blue-colored competitor is notorious for knowing how
    to sell even when a competitor's products may be superior in almost every
    way.  Other competitors use price advantage to unseat superior
    technology.  Many of these don't use a large salesforce, as you
    mention.  But they successfully harness the power of OTHER salesforces
    by making it possible for retailers and distributors to make good
    profits through the sale of the products.
    
    [By the way, using another company's sales force can also be done in
    Engineering:  by buying technology instead of inventing it.  I once
    interviewed at a company which is very well known in the VMS system
    utilities market.  I was shocked to find out that up until 1988 or so
    they had purchased almost ALL of the systems they were selling!  They
    were only beginning to do serious in-house SW engineering on their
    own.]
    
    My thesis point still stands:  we need to attract and maintain
    excellent talent in both the Engineering and Sales arenas (and many
    other areas as well).  In order to do this, we must be prepared to
    offer both groups attractive compensation.  If we are not prepared to
    offer Sales high salaries, excellence trips, or other incentives
    because "Engineering doesn't get them", then how are we to maintain a
    highly motivated and talented sales force?
    
    If we decide to do away with direct sales and go back to an emphasis on
    distributors, we will need to cut distributor prices to stimulate
    selling.  Such talk of reducing precious margins is considered heresy
    these days.
    
    We've got a real life problem here, folks.  Reducing Sales compensation
    is an excellent way of "eating the seed corn".  We'll save some bucks
    up front, people will feel warm and fuzzy, and we'll starve to death...
    
    By the way, I, as an EIS PSS Delivery body, see other inequities as well. 
    There are PSS people here who are billing $90-$150 per hour and up. 
    Do you think they get paid anywhere NEAR that amount?  No way.  Often,
    we're right up front -- just like Sales.  Likewise, Sales Support might
    do a very Sales-like job.  Do we get as high salaries as sales
    folks?  Usually, no.  Why?  Because our talents aren't in the same market
    as sales folks.  Do I like it?  Of course not, but I can't change the
    American free-market any more than anyone else can.  So we just have to
    find creative ways to compete without compromising our values.
    
    -- Russ
    
    PS/ An example of GREAT technology that clearly HASN'T sold itself --
        even when industry analysts seem to be begging for it -- VAX NOTES.

    > One certain Blue-colored competitor is notorious for knowing how
    > to sell even when a competitor's products may be superior in almost every
    
    
    I heard a good anecdote about that.  Seems a lot of companies
    are implementing a certain network protocol (I forget which,
    doesn't matter, it was round about the data link level).
    In the computer, we think of things coming in chunks
    called "integers" and the like, but on the wire, it's
    one bit at a time, and obviously the order matters -- which
    end do you transmit first?
    
    To over-simplify, IBM had managed to misinterpret the
    spec and passed an address the wrong way round.  In some contexts
    this could be fixed up by clever software, but other contexts
    couldn't be handled.        
    
    DEC architects help convince IBM that for the good of the protocol
    (which was supposed to be "open") they *had* to fix their
    bug and do it the same as everyone else.  After all, they were
    clearly the ones in error.
    
    IBM issued a press announcement which heralded this change
    to their software in order to enable communication to
    companies such as DEC, and said how this demonstrates
    that IBM is truly committed to open networking, how IBM
    is flexible in adapting to customer's needs, blah blah.
    
    How come I don't get press announcements when I fix a bug?
    

	re .106:

>>>    How come I don't get press announcements when I fix a bug?

	Compared to IBM, Digital has no central Marketing function.
	I mean one that is proactive, creative, and acts with
	authority to enhance IBM's image in the market.

	Thanks to their Marketing function, IBM can actually do
	things wrong, and come away looking better than us (who
	did things right). This is also partly because Digital
	PR people seem to be past-masters in the art of putting
	achievements in a negative or (worse) boring light.

	/Tom

re: .107,

>	Thanks to their Marketing function, IBM can actually do
>	things wrong, and come away looking better than us (who
>	did things right). This is also partly because Digital
>	PR people seem to be past-masters in the art of putting
>	achievements in a negative or (worse) boring light.

	It might also have something to do with IBM's emphasis on
    marketing.  Way back when I was a programmer for Sales Training
    IVIS courses, the talk was that IBM's Sales Force (which might
    or might not have even included their marketing division) was
    larger than DEC.  Of course, since then they have since downsized,
    and we have probably upsized to try and compensate.

	The point being, with so many professionals specializing
    in mind control (another way to look at marketing and/or sales),
    employed by the competition, you should always think twice about
    what you hear from the industry and trade press.  Luckily, Ken Olsen
    is hip to most of their tricks.

				  -davo