Conference 7.286::digital

      I heard it was a bunch of people standing in a circle, each one
    comparing themselves to the person beside them. They were happy because
    they all agreed with themselves that they compared well with everyone 
    else.  
    
    Sorry I couldn,t resist.
    
    D.L.

   Re:                     <<< Note 1821.1 by LUDWIG::LOGSDON >>>

Since nobody is providing the writer of .0 with any substantive
information, I will echo D.L.'s observation that if all you do
is compare to "best of class", you'll never be "best of class".
To get to the top, you have to set more aggressive goals the
"matching the best".

Dick

re: .2

That reply is worse than cynical, it's counterproductive.

There are NO magic bullets.  Nobody claims there are.  Therefore, if X
is a proposed better way of doing things, you will always be able to
argue "But if all you do is X, then you won't succeed."  So what?  If
all we do is what we're doing now, we'll keep losing money.  Just
becaue benchmarking won't guarantee that you'll get to the top doesn't
make it bad.  Don't reject it for being imperfect, and don't hold out
for something perfect, because you'll be waiting a long time.

The proof is in the pudding.  Companies have successfully used
benchmarking as a tool to get to be best in class.  It does the job
it's supposed to do, and it does it well.  Do you need to use some
intelligence in using it?  Of course you do.  Do you need to set
aggressive goals as well?  Yes.  

Should we be aware of the diversity of tools, skilled in applying the
ones we need, capable of learning new ones when they come along, and
wise enough to apply the right ones at the right time in the right way?
 We'd better be.  Our competition isn't going to wait for us to catch
up at our own leisurely pace.

   Gary

>The proof is in the pudding.

Actually, it isn't, at least not according to the 
popular aphorism.

   Re:       <<< Note 1821.3 by TOKLAS::feldman "Larix decidua, var. decify" >>>

I can't disagree with you.  As noted, I was in a particularly
cynical mood when I wrote .2.

Even so, there are many "standard practices" that are not
rocket science which we are unwilling to adopt.  That suggests
that benchmarking begs the question.  Sure, if we get our people
to compare themselves with the industry, they may learn some new
tricks.  But first, we have to have the humility to admit there
is something to be learned.  Benchmarking will only be effective
for those who want to learn.  

My concern is that some people are expecting that benchmarking
will be the silver bullet and that they will rest on that
assumption.  We cannot rest!

Dick

   There is a Benchmarking Group based in Houston and Digital is
   a member. There is also a benchmarking notes conference. If you
   want some info I'll contact you by email. From the remarks already
   here it's hardly seems worthwhile defending benchmarking but I'll try
   since I do it for a living for DEC. I'm in group that is hired out by
   organizations wanting to do Benchmarking.

   Benchmarking is not a magic bullet, but it can be a relatively inexpensive
   way to measure your business and compare it to others.

   You get out of benchmarking what you put into it. If you are already lulled
   into thinking your group is great and if you do your own benchmarking,
   amazing you often find yourself best in class! If you are doing it because
   it's the in thing (and at the moment it is a very in thing) and you were
   ordered to by management, it's a total waste of time, because no change will result.

   BUT if the middle management is open to new ideas and willing to bring in
   consultants to drive the process, it can be an effective instrument for
   real change.

   It is far easier to convince a manager, company x is very successfull doing
   this, why don't we try it that way. Then "this is a better way just do
   it".

   /mike


   On another subject, the overall cynicism expressed in this notes
   conference is just amazing. Sorry to do some flag waving but I just
   can't resist.

     This is a great company and overall an outstanding place to work.
     Yes I've have my fair share of bad bosses and competely unfair raw
     deals SO WHAT!

     We're the second largest company computer and we're cash rich. We just
     announced ALPHA which is way ahead of our competition.

     Why are we doing such a poor job of transition programs, work force
     reductions etc? BECAUSE we're not good at it and I hope we don't need
     it as a regular skill. Want to work for someone good at it? Just join
     any defense company or Wang or Data General. Like Wang or Data General
     it would have been very easy to do a 50% manpower cut and be left with
     a core to start over, want to work for such a place?

     If your complaints are "well I just want to make us better" then learn
     how to effect real change. Understand the issues, try and see the other
     guys point of view and figure real workable ways to change it. In fifteen
     years of working for DEC I can only say I've seen 2-3 poeple who really
     came to work with the attitude well lets see how I can F*** up today and
     cost DEC tons of money.

   Wasting money? Todays New York Times shows how Solomon Brothers
   stock company, handles relocations, it's putting some new exec up at
   a $1000 a night hotel for over six months?  Reason he's still at the hotel
   well he's just too busy to find the time to move to a regular place.

    > Benchmarking can work.
    Agreed.
    > On another subject, the overall cynicism expressed in this notes
    > conference is just amazing. Sorry to do some flag waving but I just
    > can't resist.
    > This is a great company and overall an outstanding place to work.
    Was it benchmarking that got us here?
    > Understand the issues, try and see the other guys point of view and
    > figure real workable ways to change it.
    Being in a group that is hired out by organizations wanting 
    benchmarking have you ever told a group what they
    wanted to benchmark would be a waste of time because resources could be
    better spent? 
    For example - a while back I kept seeing memos come across my tube
    about our benchmarking of Federal Expresses' because of their great
    communication systems with employees. How much of that benchmark did we
    find useful at DEC? I understand Federal was/is considered best in
    class in this area, but have you seen their bottom line???

    re: Federal Express' bottom line
    
    Whatever it is, it is irrelevant to a discussion of benchmarking the
    way Federal communicates with its employees.
    
    Benchmarking does not start by finding out what some competitor does
    that is successful and then trying to copy it. Real benchmarking, as
    opposed to narcissisitic self-congratulation or a feeble renaming of
    competitive observation, has to begin on the inside: first by
    thoroughly and completely understanding the processes, procedures, and
    the business of the organization; then by identifying critical success
    factors-- those practices or procedures or approaches or technologies
    the organization positively has to nail in order to win in their
    business. 
    
    Once the internal part is completed, the organization identifies
    other organizations with similar critical success factors, whether or
    not those other organizations are competitors or not is irrelevant. The
    interest is functional, the interest is in the critical success
    factors.
    
    For example, if employee communication is recognized as one critical
    success factor (in reality, "employee communication" is too glib, too
    superficial, too parenthood-y, too easy, too likely a ploy to avoid
    doing the hard work of really identifying the factors. But it will do
    as an example) then look for organizations that are excellent at it:
    The Vatican? The U.S. Congress? Federal Express? American Express? The
    Audobon Society? GM? Heck, I don't know; that's what the benchmarkers
    have to find out. The point is, other things about the external
    organizations are not that important. You are looking only for "best in
    class" in employee communications. 
    
    **Then** comes the crux of benchmarking: putting the information about
    critical success factors and best in class organizations to a practical
    use which is implementing a plan to -- are you ready for this phrase?--
    leapfrog the benchmark. An organization will never catch up with best
    in class by staying on their normal improvement curve, because the BIC
    will also be improving. So the plan is to identify the best in class
    and then figuring out how they do it, how that differs from how we do
    it, and then improve at a rate so rapid as to catch and pass the
    benchmark.
    
    If all benchmarking becomes is a trendy un-euphemism for industrial
    voyeurism "competitive analysis" or seized as an opportunity to navel
    gaze the critics are right and benchmarking is a waste of time. 
    
    John H.

Re: .6

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that Wang was a "defense
company"??  Their entire sales to the federal government was word
processing systems and minicomputers designed to run COBOL.  The
only thing they make that could remotely be considered "defense
related" is their TEMPEST-qualified systems so government agencies
can use Wang Word Processing without worrying about foreign spys
interpreting the emissions.

				- - Steve

(who came to Digital from Wang)

    re.7
    > Was it benchmarking that got us here?

    imho DEC is what is it more then anything from the imprint of one
    man. That is in itself amazing.

    > Being in a group that is hired out by organizations wanting
    > benchmarking have you ever told a group what they
    > wanted to benchmark would be a waste of time because resources could be
    > better spent?

    The group is fairly new, we have when asked to benchmark process b, after
    review encourged benchmarking process a. If the real question is will I
    tell a group not to waste it's money. I think so. Again the real key is
    a group must want change, if they don't then the whole effort is wasted.

    > For example - a while back I kept seeing memos come across my tube
    > about our benchmarking of Federal Expresses' because of their great
    > communication systems with employees. How much of that benchmark did we
    > find useful at DEC? I understand Federal was/is considered best in
    > class in this area, but have you seen their bottom line???

    Don't know, not familar with this Benchmark. Benchmarking is now
    a very in thing and dozens (hundreds?) of groups are into it.
    See .8 for a good opinion.


    re .8 - An excellent job of explaining the issues and concerns
            in this field.

    re .9
    exuse me? I don't believe I said Wang was a defense company,
    I think you missed the key word "or".

    > it as a regular skill. Want to work for someone good at it? Just join
    > any defense company or Wang or Data General. Like Wang or Data General
    > it would have been very easy to do a 50% manpower cut and be left with
    > a core to start over, want to work for such a place?

    /mike

    re .8
    
    Perhaps you didn't imply this, but based on your description, do
    you think that Digital can do benchmarking for customers, and why?

    >>                  <<< Note 1821.11 by WR2FOR::GIBSON_DA >>>
    >>                          -< looking at the road ... >-
    >>
    >>    re .8
    >>
    >>    Perhaps you didn't imply this, but based on your description, do
    >>    you think that Digital can do benchmarking for customers, and why?
    
    I don't think we can **do** benchmarking for customers. I think there
    are people and groups in Digital that can **help** customers with their
    benchmarking efforts.
    
    We were part of a cooperative effort to develop a neat and easy to
    understand benchmarking model we can share, we have some people who are
    excellent in guiding process, we have some slick tools that, if kept as
    tools and not as ends in themselves, can help with some technical
    analysis. In my opinion, yes we can help external customers.
    
    John H.

    Re .1. My comment was meant to be a satirical comment on what
    Benchmarking can be. Yes, it was negative, but not to be taken as all of
    my opinion on the subject. It can be one of the best devices for
    improving overall quality of products, service, and management. It is
    a cooperative tool between companies and people that has been developed 
    to reduce the cost of competiting in tough times. 
          With the above said however, one phrase that has me a little on
    edge over the past couple of years when we ask about  almost
    anything is, "Well we compared ourselves with everyone in the industry
    and our ******** is competitive". It sounds like Bank rates to me.
    I think that phrase can be more nonproductive than my comment in .1.
    
    Still positive for Dec..
    
    Dennis