Conference 7.286::digital

>    How do we achieve excellence as a company?  
>    
>    Obviously, individual contributors, regardless of job titles or areas 
>    of expertise, must be motivated to put forth their best effort on a
>    consistent basis.  
 
        See  Topics  1265  and  1274  for  thought-provoking  discussions
        concerning compensation and retaining a high-skilled workforce. 
        
        Later,
        
        John

    How about some real profit sharing.  HP out here in the Springs just
    issued quarterly profit-sharing checks averaging over 800 bucks.  That
    sure beats hell out of a turkey.  Oh, BTW, HP also pays better than
    DEC.

    I just scanned 1265 & 1274.  
    
    $ = motivation & performance
    greater $ = greater motivation & performance?
    
    It can't be that simple.  Of course money is a great motivator and it's
    vital for Digital to retain & attract talented people.  But we're here
    now.  For those of us who choose to stay, for whatever reasons, and
    endure what Digital is going through, what's going to inspire us to
    achieve excellence?  
    
    I get paid much more now than when I started with DEC, yet I don't feel
    as motivated as I did my first year.  Morale seems to be low, and I
    haven't seen inspired leadership from anywhere.  The focus seems to be
    on reducing cost & headcount.  Are we losing sight of our most valuable
    asset, people?  What's going to motivate us to do more?  
    

>    $ = motivation & performance
>    greater $ = greater motivation & performance?
>    
>    It can't be that simple.  Of course money is a great motivator ......

I apologize for offering second hand and possibly anecdotal evidence,
but I have been told (at courses and through reading) that money
is only a short-term motivator, but lack of money is a very strong
and pervasive de-motivator.
That is, people will leave in droves when underpayed, but feel not great
need to overperform or maintain loyalty when overpaid.
Thus the win-win situation is fair pay for the work performed,
where "fair" is defined as what supply and demand set for the market.

- tom]

	It's interesting and, I think, encouraging to see that topic
	8 in this conference is also entitled "Excellence". Then as
	now, this is a preoccupation of many Digital employees.

	No matter how hard I try, I really can't think of any way
	that management is going to promote excellence - or create
	excellent teams, which is another urgent requirement.

	What management can do is to facilitate and stop hindering
	excellence - and stop attacking it when they see it, as
	occasionally happens ("the best is the enemy of the good").

	Jack Smith and lots of other people (including Pier-Carlo
	Falotti in Europe and Geoff Shingles in the UK) seem to be
	doing their best to encourage us to work more effectively.
	They have all made positive efforts to encourage openness,
	to create a climate in which employees feel free to make
	suggestions and raise issues, and to cut out bureaucracy
	and simplify our processes.

	I believe the answer to this topic is - each one of us
	has to try to achieve excellence as best we can.

	    "The longest journey begins with a single step".

	Here are a few things that I'm trying to do, for what
	it's worth:

	1. Understand what's needed - reading books by people
	   like Phil Crosby, Tom Peters, W. Edwards Deming, etc.
	   Reading this conference, also other related ones.
	   Talking to colleagues. Being sensitive to the rising
	   tide of quality-consciousness and customer-orientation.

	2. Reflect on where I am today. Look back at the past.
	   Try to see patterns, detect weaknesses and strengths.
	   Consciously work at correcting the weaknesses, and
	   building on the strengths.

	3. One of the foundations of Crosby's approach to quality
	   is reliability and trust. Commitments should be sacred:
	   when you have a commitment from a colleague, you should
	   be able to relax in the knowledge that it's as good as
	   done. If we all deliver what we promise when we promised
	   it, then the customer will get what Digital promised when
	   Digital promised it.

	4. Be on time (I have a LONG way to go on this one!) Crosby
	   says somewhere that you can get a first rapid index of the
	   attitude to quality in a company by seeing whether meetings
	   start on time. I groaned when I heard that - the Digital
	   meetings that I attend rarely start on time. Sometimes
	   nobody even gives an expected finishing time.

	5. Be open-minded, friendly and courteous. Imagine how the
	   other person feels. If YOU were buying a computer on
	   behalf of your company, what would you

		(a) expect

		(b) hope for

		(c) be surprised and delighted by?

	   In many ways we are still groping towards (a), but if we
	   want to be the best we have to aim for (c).

	6. Work continuously at improving your competence. We have
	   all got lots of scope for this. If you're poor at writing,
	   practice expressing yourself. If you're good at writing
	   restrain yourself 8-). If you're rather innumerate, try to
	   strengthen your skills. If you aren't very assertive, get
	   some training - or at least read one of the many books.
	   If you don't understand office automation, databases, 
	   RISC, desktop publishing, imaging, vector processing,
	   communications - try and learn a bit about those topics.
	   Same goes for business skills. It doesn't need an MBA!
	   You can get very useful ideas just from a newspaper
	   column. There's probably someone in your office who
	   would be glad to tell you a bit about his/her special
	   field of knowledge over a beer or a coffee - why not ask?

	   Customers love to talk to competent people. The more you
	   know about and understand, the more they'll value your
	   company. Pay for it, even.

	7. Don't be afraid to make suggestions, even if they're in
	   the form of questions.

		"Why do we do it that way?"

		"Would it help if we tried....?"

	   Often you'll be asked to make a proposal. Don't get scared and
	   back down. Put your ideas on paper or on the screen and send
	   them in to DELTA, or propose them to your local managers.

	8. Remember the Digital Philosophy (see notes 36, 97.1 and 1062.6
	   in this conference). Remember especially that this company
	   is committed to

			HONESTY
			SIMPLICITY
			and
			QUALITY

	   above all, whatever local conditions may be at the moment.

	/Tom

    I'll speak for myself.
    
    I've been here long enough, and started well enough, that the size of
    my paycheck is a non-issue.  I know that it is not that way for
    everyone, but it is for me.
    
    The following are the things that really motivate me:
    
    o  working on projects that have both solid business content and are an
       intellectual challenge.
    
    o  learning something new almost every day, about computers, about
       business, about people, about organizations, about Digital.
    
    o  the opportunity to raise the visibility of some normally invisible,
       but hard working and inventive colleagues.
    
    o  the occasional "aha!" experience when I learn something that
       corrects a previous blind spot, and opens new visions.
    
    
    and there are some demotivators:
    
    o  seeing the same mistakes being repeated day after day.
    
    o  seeing people do things that I believe are definitely against their
       own best interest.
    
    o  seeing people cover up problems, rather than face them head on.
    
    o  seeing people too timid to assert themselves hunt for protection
       before they take a risk.
    
    o  seeing predatory people use others and then discard them after their
       usefulness has ended.
    
    o  listening to the cacophony of the few who think that the world ends
       just outside their cube, or site, or state, or nation.
    
    o  waiting for some positive sign (beyond words) that action will
       finally be taken to pull the employees of this company into the
       powerful competitive business weapon it could be.
    
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Dick

    Wow, exactly the same as *my* list!

    See, great minds think alike!  :-) :-)

    As note .4 pointed out, excellence starts with each of us, but I don't
    think that's enough to bring excellence to Digital.  Management can and
    must promote excellence in order for Digital to succeed.
    
    I was watching the Giants-49ers game and a comparison came to mind
    between Digital and a football team.  For this analogy, think of the
    coaching staff as our management, and the team players as us.  
    
    Clearly, a football team win games consistently only when there's
    effective coaching, motivated players, and an effective strategy.  
    
    The successful coaching staff provide a clear strategy and gameplan for
    the players to follow.  Each player must know how he's going to
    contribute to the success of each play to win the game.  You can't send
    a team of players out onto the field, tell them to do the best in their
    position without a gameplan, and expect to win the game.  Where's our
    gameplan?  WHAT'S our gameplan? How can each of us contribute to the team?  
    
    A quarterback relies on pass protection and receivers who can get open
    to complete passes.  A running back relies on lead blockers to open
    lanes to run through.  Defense relies on effective rushing, tackling,
    and secondary protection to shut down the opponent's game.  A team
    excels when each player knows his position, plays his best, AND can
    rely on his teammates to do the same.  As a salesperson, I rely on
    engineers to produce quality products, software specialist to help me
    propose the right solution, order administrators to cert my orders,
    manufacturers to build and ship the products, service engineers to
    install the stuff, the list goes on.  The point is that EVERYONE
    contributes something, and that we have to perform as a team for
    Digital to succeed.  Engineers can design an excellent product, but
    without excellent salespeople, manufacturers, software support, etc,
    Digital will still lose the game.
    
    Everyone wants to play on a winning team, and nothing motivates players
    more than winning.  Right now, it feels like our team is on a losing
    streak, and our coaching staff isn't being very effective.  Rather than 
    focusing on what we need to do to win games, we're focusing on cutting 
    headcount and taking away watercoolers & post-it notes.  Hey, I'll live 
    without the nonessential items.  Just let me know that I am still playing 
    for a team that wants to win, and I'll get real motivated.  I won't 
    even mind losing a few if I knew our coaching staff is trying to win.  
    
    The season ain't over yet!  

    I've been waiting a long time to say this...this is probably as good a
    place as any to say it!  .8 talks about the "team" winning the game.
    But this entire notesfile is full of notes by, for, and about
    "individual contributors".  IMHO, one of the real problems with this
    company is the "individual contributor" syndrome.  If you think about
    it, the very term IC is the antithesis of "team player".  We work
    in a company that says "lets play on a team", but does not reward
    teamwork.  Instead, it rewards the few IC's whose accomplishments
    are more visible than others.  So, what we get is a bunch of people
    running around, trying to get noticed, and the whole team concept
    falls by the wayside.
    
    This company could benefit much by re-visiting the team concept, 
    and rewarding it.  Synergy is not a buzzword; it is a real by-
    product of working together.  My first job with Digital (7 years
    ago), was as a team member in a group that even had TEAM as part
    of its name.  Never have I enjoyed a group or a job as much as I
    did that one.  Never have I learned so many things so quickly,
    because part of the job requirement was knowledge transfer between
    team members.  And because we were charged with dispensing technical
    information to others in the company, the sin was not in "not knowing".
    The sin was in "not asking first", before you gave out bad information.
    
    In my current field position, I am part of a District that has a
    long history of IC's ("because if you work as a team, how do you
    know who to reward?" [really!])  It gets brutal out here.  You
    simply have to know it all, or pretend to, because there is no team/
    net to turn to.  So, the end result, IMO, is that the customer doesn't
    get the best information, or the best service/solutions, because there
    has been no pooling of the best talents in the District.  I don't
    see this changing any time soon.
    
    An ex-Digital employee, and a very inspirational leader by the name
    of Joe DiNucci was once fond of saying:  "It's amazing what you can
    accomplish when nobody worries about who gets credit."  I wish
    this company believed that.  It's gotta be a first step toward
    excellence.
    
    Vicki

    re .10
    
    Of course we all believe in teamwork.  But its hard work and less
    satisfying to the ego than IC-ship.  :-)
    
    You should remember that when you read our notes, you are not tapping
    into the teams we belong to.  We write from a personal point of view,
    because we respect our teammates too much to presume to speak for them.
    
    One of the often quoted reasons for the 'no commission policy' is that
    we want to foster teamwork in the field.  If there is something else we
    can do (practically, not ideally) we would all appreciate the input.
    
    Regards,
    
    Dick

re: .10,

	This is an interesting perception.  I think it's all based on
    that fact that when it comes down to getting pay raises, or even
    getting paid at all (these days even retaining a job is an art here),
    it all boils down to how well *you* did compared to how well everyone
    else in your immediate group did.  Whoever does best in an immediate
    group (or whoever rubs the manager of the immediate group best) gets
    the best reward.  How well your immediate team did compared to other
    teams doen't matter much as each organization typically divides money
    evenly to all teams across the entire organization, and then allows
    each team to fight over who gets what.

	While I do strongly believe in the notions of competition and
    paying for performance, I also think that placing people at odds with
    their immediate peers is least likely to produce any sort of team
    spirit within the immediate group.  This is also why I tend to think
    that people of different groups (virtual teams) often work more
    effectively since they are not threatened by each other as much
    when it comes to comparative performance measurements.

	One analogy which comes to mind here is a family unit.  Imagine
    a family in which each member of the family was given different
    amounts of food at suppertime based on how good they were (as opposed
    to how hungry they were).  This might be the case in certain families,
    but I would imagine that the typical family would share the food evenly
    among it's immediate members.  If a team were "fed" more like a family
    (as opposed to a pack of wolves), then perhaps you would see more team
    spirit among team members.

				    -davo	

>    Of course we all believe in teamwork.

I think this is too simple a statement.

I consider myself an "individual contributor" and am proud of it.
My keyboard only has room enough for one person's fingers at a time.

Individual Contributors:
	- turn thought into reality
	- take personal responsibility for their actions

The same cannot be said of "teams".  In fact, the only EFFECTIVE team
is one in which there are one or more individual contributors willing
to do the work.

Ultimately, progress can only be made by individuals.  Perhaps working
together if the problem is large enough to require it, perhaps alone.

For example, I think of a road work crew as a collection of "individual
contributors".  Only one person can hold a shovel at a time.  Lots of
people, lots of shovels.  Individual effort joined towards a common goal.

The best "team" is a collection of excellent "individual contributors"
who are smart enough to keep out of each other's way!

In engineering, there is a notion called "conceptual integrity".  This
has fallen into disuse (disrepute?) lately, but I still believe in it
completely.  This is what binds a team of individual contributors.

To me, "conceptual integrity" means that there is one person who has the
whole picture in their mind of what is to be built and how to build it.
The system is decomposed by this person into subsystems that are
decoupled as much as possible from each other.  This allows them to be
implemented by other people who may not have the "big" picture entirely
in their mind.

If this person is "smart" enough, very large and yet elegant and simple
systems can be built.  This is how DEC built most products until
about 5 years ago or so.  Sometimes these people were called "architects", but
more likely they were just "project leaders".

-steve-

    Achieving excellence is a natural striving of some, and for others it
    can be energized, and for others it'll never happen.  I don't know what
    role the company can play in this.  The cover story of Business Week
    December 10, 1990 issue was "Motivating People in Difficult Times"
    Digital was not mentioned.
    
    Achieving frustration is a natural outcome of centralized bureaucracy.

re: 1291.10                  Achieving Excellence                      10 of 14
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                              -< Down with IC's! >-
>
>    I've been waiting a long time to say this...this is probably as good a
>    place as any to say it!  .8 talks about the "team" winning the game.

It is a sad commentary on our busines to think that there would be no room
for IC's.

Its been eleven years since I joined Digital, and have seen the results of
both "Teams" (where the metaphor is Basketball, Football and  other
IC oriented sports), and IC's, where the metaphor is the Captain of the
Ship, The Willing Explorer, etc.

Teams, as I understand the ones I belonged to, and were succesful, were
comprised of Individual Persons, each with a Skill, managed by a skillful
manager (that is their skill), and together propel the salable unit
into the marketplace, and followup on that salable unit to ensure
customer satisfaction.

Eac IC was individually graded on their contribution to the Team Effort. The 
"Prima Donnas' were given "staff" positions to capture their intellect
into useful information flow; there were 'converters' or 'aides' who could
understand the technical advances and make them manufactureable, and the 
ever watchful "referree" who made sure any shortcuts would not translate into
grief for the final maintainers.


>    But this entire notesfile is full of notes by, for, and about
>    "individual contributors".  IMHO, one of the real problems with this
>    company is the "individual contributor" syndrome.  If you think about
>    it, the very term IC is the antithesis of "team player".  We work
>    in a company that says "lets play on a team", but does not reward
>    teamwork.  Instead, it rewards the few IC's whose accomplishments

The problem is neither IC nor Team. The problem is how to best coordinate 
the IC's into a viable Team. That is the issue. That is the Goal. That is where
EIS is succeeding !!


One needs to remember that some (IC's) will (because they are committed
to their purpose) put in upwards to 60 - 80 hours per week putting their
ideas together, and working out the myriad of details, and coordinating the
efforts of 10- 15 differeing groups.

-BobE

    I want to comment on the use of the term "team player", and NOT the 
    concept of team work.
    
    
    Personally, I dislike the term "team player" and its connotations per
    my experience.  In my 7 years with Digital, I have NEVER heard anyone
    in the company use it in a positive light.  Whenever I've heard the 
    term used, it has always been in the context of someone "_not_ being a
    team player."  Further, its generally been the response to someone
    trying to do the "right thing" and get a problem resolved, rather than
    covering the a.. of a superordinate.
    
    A particular incident comes to mind where someone was considered a
    non-team player because they would not LIE to a customer when told
    to do so.  I've come to view people that frequently use the term 
    as stuck up, petty people who have risen to their level of
    incompetence.
    
    
    Dave

    
    
    I you would like to hear the term 'team player' used in the best
    sense of the term, come visit us at the Colorado Springs CSC. 
    
    We have some of the best teams anywhere.  And excellent team players.
    
    Mary Jo 

	re .10:

>    We work
>    in a company that says "lets play on a team", but does not reward
>    teamwork.  Instead, it rewards the few IC's whose accomplishments
>    are more visible than others.  So, what we get is a bunch of people
>    running around, trying to get noticed, and the whole team concept
>    falls by the wayside

	This is a really important, fundamental perception, and it is
	utterly TRUE. It is one of the statements made in this conference
	that truly would be worth Jack Smith and/or Ken Olsen's time.

	How about a football team where each player only gets paid
	for the touchdowns he scores? Something tells me you'll see
	the quarterback give up throwing, and take to making hopeless
	suicidal runs himself. Of course, he'll get mashed. Would any
	sane coach adopt this strategy?

	If not, how come football coaches are smarter than EIS managers?

>    In my current field position, I am part of a District that has a
>    long history of IC's ("because if you work as a team, how do you
>    know who to reward?" [really!])

	In other words, we won't run our business in the best way, because
	it might be harder for managers to do their jobs. Of course, if we
	all worked in teams, with the company as the super-team, we'd
	very likely be so successful that the LOWEST-PAID would make
	more than most of us do today. The fly in the ointment is...

>    It gets brutal out here.  You
>    simply have to know it all, or pretend to, because there is no team/
>    net to turn to.  So, the end result, IMO, is that the customer doesn't
>    get the best information, or the best service/solutions, because there
>    has been no pooling of the best talents in the District.  I don't
>    see this changing any time soon.

	Otherwise known as "The tragedy of the commons", or "The prisoner's
	dilemma". These refer to well-known game theory situations where
	the best payoff for everyone is to cooperate. However an individual
	can get a GUARANTEED payoff for betraying everyone else and
	pursuing his own interests. In that case, everyone else gets a
	low payoff. Problem: how do you construct a system of rewards
	so that the weak people don't pursue their own selfish interest?

	As to the statement that "it gets brutal out here", I couldn't
	agree more. The first-naming and fine words just make it starker.
	The thing that hits you in the face is the lack of trust and
	commitment. Lack of commitment on Fred's part breeds lack of trust
	on Pete's part. Pete cannot trust Fred, so he competes with him -
	to give that "visible" briefing, to participate in that proposal,
	to be "on the team", to be the local "guru".

	Teams have to specialize to some extent. It's like soldiers in
	foxholes. You have to trust your mates to protect your back. If
	you don't trust them, you have to defend a 360 degree perimeter
	on your own - you'll go mad in one night.

	re .12:

>	This is an interesting perception.  I think it's all based on
>    that fact that when it comes down to getting pay raises, or even
>    getting paid at all (these days even retaining a job is an art here),
>    it all boils down to how well *you* did compared to how well everyone
>    else in your immediate group did.

	That's right! As people have pointed out OVER AND OVER, there is
	no way of recognising a successful TEAM. As long as every group
	gets an equal pot, out of which all reviews have to be paid,
	a successul group will be punished in the most savage way -
	by being forced to compete with each other for the fixed amount
	of recognition.

	There's only one answer - managers will have to wake up and pay
	attention to what's going on outside their offices and conference
	rooms.

	re .15:

>  The problem is neither IC nor Team. The problem is how to best coordinate 
>  the IC's into a viable Team.

	Right. That sounds a good statement.

>  That is the issue. That is the Goal. That is where EIS is succeeding !!

	But for me, this spoils it. These categorical propaganda claims
	that "EIS is succeeding" turn me right off. How can you know
	that? Tell me what FACTS you base that claim on!

	re .16:

>    Personally, I dislike the term "team player" and its connotations per
>    my experience.  In my 7 years with Digital, I have NEVER heard anyone
>    in the company use it in a positive light.  Whenever I've heard the 
>    term used, it has always been in the context of someone "_not_ being a
>    team player." 

	Because managers have succeeded in turning black into white.
	"Team player" has become a dirty word! When these people are
	subverting the very language we use, it's hard indeed to see
	any light.

	/Tom

    Could we be playing on a team with the "zero sum" syndrome?  That's to
    say that my success comes at someone else's expense?  A dollar in my
    raise is one less dollar for someone else?  My recognition as someone
    remains anonymous?  Management must promote a "net gain" team, where
    everyone is a winner.  More revenue/profit means more dollars to go
    around for everyone.  More team recognition means more people will feel
    good about their contributions.
    
    My district used to give out tangible rewards ($$$, sweatsuits,
    plaques, etc.) & recognition to a team of people involved in a
    successful sale, including sales, support, services, admin. & anyone else 
    who contributed.  I felt this promoted teamwork effectively.
    
    ICs are critical to the success of any team, just look at Lawrence
    Taylor or Joe Montana or Bo Jackson.  But their talent and effort must
    be harnessed and directed to the success of their teams, otherwise,
    they'll simply be good players on losing teams.  One thing in common
    with these winning teams is that they have great coaches, who know how
    to inspire the players to play beyond themselves, to bring EVERYONE up
    a notch in performance.
    
    Joe DiNucci was an inspiring "coach" when he headed up our U.S
    workstation sales effort.  I'll always remember how he fired up the
    troops during the DECtop University training session for the District
    Workstation Sales Teams.  Our workstation sales nearly doubled that
    year.  While we still did not meet the VERY agressive growth numbers, 
    I always felt I was playing for a winning team.  It was a major 
    disappointment to see him go.
    
    Digital can use more of these inspiring "coaches".
    
    David

    I've seen at least two types of teams at Digital.  The one type is a
    bunch of people thrown together in a cost center and told to get X out
    by a certain time.  Assignments are divided up and things just kind of
    flow.  This is the run of the mill kind of team and it works as far as
    getting things moving.  You hear a lot of "we're in this all together",
    a lot of talk about personal careers, talk about whether or not we'll all
    be rewarded after it's all over, concerns about the schedule slipping
    and cutbacks, and so forth.  It's okay, but nobody really gets all that
    excited about anything.  It's a good breeding ground for top ICs
    because they basically get bored just toting the line with everyone.
    
    Then there's another type of team.  The rules are different.  The
    team is brought together of it's own volition apparently because it's
    not in the plans.  Team members may or may not be part of the same cost
    center.  It's thrilling because of the variety of skills brought
    together which guarantees that everyone will be contributing at their
    level and at a high degree.  There may or may not be a budget. 
    Contributors may work midnight hours or take special time out to get
    together and share progress.  
    
    It starts because people of different disciplines and often from 
    different departments got together because they discovered they had some 
    shared interest or a problem that they happened to stumble on that is of 
    mutual concern.  These groups get together as a result of taking courses, 
    having lunch together, participating together in non-work related note 
    files, friends-of-friends-of-friends arranging a talk, or other
    opportunities for general mingling.  
    
    These teams are like little startup companies.  I don't doubt that 
    startup companies have started this way from THIS company.  
    
    I work in both types of teams.  Digital used to take steps to encourage
    the latter form of team, but lately there have been pressures created
    that squelch the formation of that type of teamwork.  That is, by
    discouraging taking courses because they are deemed discretionary or
    because team members (from the first type of team) are deemed too
    valuable to take time off for a general course, by formally
    discouraging participation in non-work related note files, by
    just generally taking away opportunities for Digital folks to mingle
    we lose one of our most valuable resources.  By taking such steps we
    create walls between employees that might otherwise form the latter
    type of team.
    
    I appreciate the concern expressed in some other note that when
    individuals are more concerned about what's in it for them the team
    does not work well.  It's in the latter form of team that I have NEVER
    seen the individual members become obsessed with personal interests.
    They focus on doing something wonderful where the sky is the limit.
    They operate on a shoestring.  There are few deadlines (not that they
    would really need any because of the excitement).  Everyone knows that
    the success or failure is dependent on them.  The reward of the
    adventure is partly in doing something that nobody has ever done and
    that nobody really knows can be done.  It's also partly in knowing that
    success (or failure that we learn a lot from) can lead to other
    exciting opportunities and rewards.  You can take risks without 
    jeopardizing your "real" job.  Sorry about rambling, but this is the
    area where I get excited.  And, some of that excitement and enthusiasm
    for Digital often rubs off on the "regular" teams that I'm a part of.
    
    
    Steve 
                               

    
    Re -1
    Yes Steve - I know those kind of hot, unofficial teams you mention.
    
    Do you think these were what Tom Peters was meaning by "skunkworks"?
    
    'gail

    Yup.  I'd like to see more emphasis on "skunkworks" operations.   
    
    Steve