Conference 7.286::digital

    Tis frightening that Gullotti isn't aware of the VP signoff thing...
    
    q
    

    Not so frightening.  At least his office responded, and quickly.
    
    Signs of hope.  Good story, thanks.
    

      Re .1/.2
    
     Gullotti's aware of it...believe me!! Some of his people may not be,
    but that's not hard to understand.
    
      What really bugs me--since I'm part of that "purchasing" entity that
    seems to be the whipping-post of most of the people in Digital who have
    no idea an no real interest in discipline and sound business practices,
    is that Purchasing is almost automatically the one that's blamed when
    nobody bothers to follow the Policies and Procedures that the company
    has in place. 
    
      Please tell me...is there ANY operation or department that does NOT
    have Policies and Procedures that they are required to follow?? If so,
    tell me where this entity resides, please?? Purchasing MUST follow
    Corporate Purchasing Policies & Procedures whenever they receive a
    requisition. This is true whether the end User--be he/she "manager" or
    not--has followed the Corporate Policies or not..("NOT" being the NORM
    rather than the exception in this arena!).
    
      Please tell me .0...WHEN did you or your organization FIRST contact
    Purchasing?? Was it when you discovered and/or initiated the original 
    CAR? Or was it the day you sent the req. to Purchasing?? Maybe...JUST
    MAYBE if Purchasing was involved 'up-front' as sound business practices
    have dictated for as long as anyone can remember, just maybe Purchasing
    could have HELPED with the process. How'd YOU like it if everyone in
    the company came into YOUR space, did your job for you, then told you
    to "justify" what they'd messed up, and when you objected, called your
    boss and told him/her how unco-operative, rigid, rude, etc., etc.,
    etc., your are?? The Purchasing person involved had no choice. The
    requisition was rejected because Purchasing was DIRECTED by JACK SMITH
    to follow SPECIFIC rules for ALL Purchases via a series of memos that
    originated in his office. Purchasing DOES try to follow Corporate
    Directives. We DO NOT sit here all day trying to think up ways to stop
    businesses from progress, but we---if you look at the Corporate
    Policies---are the ONLY persons in the Corporation except for Corporate
    Officers who have the AUTHORITY to make commitments...I.E.--"cut
    deals". 
    
      Oh sure, I KNOW that this is not one of the rules that is followed
    very often...but it IS Corporate Policy. If you really WANT to follow
    Policies and Procedures, then anyone who has VTX can readily access the
    Corporate Purchasing Policies & Procedures...which, by the way are NOT
    only to be followed by Purchasing...they are CORPORATE Policies!
    
      It's been said that Digital is made up of around 100,000 "buyers" and
    a few dozen who are AUTHORIZED to buy. If Policies were followed, we'd
    save a ton of money each year. Maybe it's about time we start...maybe
    it's way PAST that time????
    
       We're here to make things happen, but if you go off on your own, "do
    your thing", and then dump a mess on the Purchasing person without the
    proper justification and documentation, the Purchasing person IS DOING
    WHAT HE/SHE'S been DIRECTED to do. If that upsets people, take it up
    with the Executive Committee....don't beat on the buyer!!
    
      I've been beaten on, cursed, threatened, intimidated, sneered at and
    insulted for over 23 years----all because I INSIST on doing my job the
    way the Corporation has decided that I will do it. Rules being ignored
    just MAY be one reason that Digital stock is selling in the low 30's
    today instead of nearly 200 where it used to be. Before you castigate
    Purchasing, maybe it'd be neat if you all looked at the rulebook...
    
      JMcD

    While I can't comment on the specifics of the issue in .0,
    the best Purchasing folks I've had the pleasure of working with
    bend those same rulebooks in order to 'do the right thing'.
    /john

    re .3
    
    It's tough to argue with someone who's just doing their job, and I have
    no idea of what the situation was in .0 ...
    
    But, some of the frustration that has been unjustly taken out on you is
    caused by the fact that things move fast, sometimes.  If we don't move
    fast, we lose.  
    
    Business discipline is good, and good business practices are needed,
    but a rigid adherence to procedure will sometimes kick you in the
    behind.  It's not your fault, it's the fault of those who set up the
    system.  If you don't build slack into the system, and truly enable
    low-level people to make exceptions, you hamstring yourself.
    
    Business is messy.  We can clean up our act most easily by not selling
    anything.

       Re .4
    
    
      THose people---who "bend the rules" just to get along, are the ones
    who receive a "5" at Audit time and are the prime candidates for the
    TFSO....or worse.
    
    
       Re .5
      The key thing in most of LIFE'S situations is KNOWING what the rules
    are and working within them. Many people seem to have this really weird
    idea that "rules" are set up specifically to STOP people from getting
    things done. After over 2 decades of Purchasing and over a decade of
    Technical experience prior to that, I've come to the realization that
    "Rules" are the KEYS to GETTING things done... Only little catch here
    is that to make the rules work for you, you first have to know what
    they are and then follow them. That is not one of Digital's
    strongpoints over the past 30 years or so. 
    
    
       Here's an AVERAGE scenario from the Purchasing desk:
    
       Charlie the using manager calls George the Buyer at 4:45 on the
    friday before a long holiday weekend:
    
      Charlie: "Hi..this is Charlie from MLO-44....I have this requisition
               here in my hand all signed off by everyone for this
               piece of gear that will be delivered on Wednesday morning 
               when we come back...and I need a P.O. number NOW so the
               company will deliver it. I have the invoice here for
               $40,000.00.....so when can you pay for this and get me a 
               P.O. number....I'll be here till 5:30???????"
    
      Sam:     "Sheesh! Charlie!! Do you have a C.A.R. for this?? A 40 
               Grand piece of gear requires a Capital Appropriation Req.
               and we can't really do much here without that! Also..who's
               the vendor? Are they on the Corporate Contract for this
               Equipment?? What exactly is this gear?? 
    
      Charlie: "Keerist! I shoulda known!! All you guys are is bureaucrats!
               All these meaningless details!! I need this damned O-Scope
               in here next week!! I don't have time for this crap!! Who's
               yer boss??"
    
      Sam:     "Charlie!! Take it easy!! I'm trying to help, but without
               some data I can't do a thing to help?? What sort of O-Scope
               are we talking about here?? When did you discover that you 
               had this need?? Why didn't you call before now??"
    
      Charlie: "O.K.!! O.K.!!  It's a storage scope..comes from Mitsubishi,
               and I've been trying to get the req. signed off for over 6
               months now..and I just got the last signature a week ago...
               This is a real beaut...40MHZ, does 3 channel storage, and
               it rolls on a cart that has ball-bearing wheels... What else
               do you want to know?"
    
      Sam:     "Geeez...Charlie, did you know that we just last month          
               signed a big contract with Tektronix for 500 new scopes??
               They've introduced a machine that far out-performs the model
               from Mitsubishi and it goes for less than $20,000.00...and 
               we have 6 of them already in house in the test equipment 
               warehouse. You could actually get one of those this
               afternoon...if you have a C.A.R. signed off, that is." 
    
      Charlie: "????Good grief???? I didn't know that!!! You mean I can get
               one of those new Tek's NOW??? That's a much better scope...
               but how'm I gonna get out of this deal I made with the
               Mitsubishi rep? I alreadytold him we had this all set up,
               and now I havta go back and tell him it's no go?? What a
               pain this is?? I've got the right paperwork, but it's made 
               up for the other scope."
    
      Sam:     "No problem, Charlie.. We can modify the C.A.R. and show a
               real cost avoidance... Also..I have a pretty fair amount of
               influence with that rep...and he KNOWS he's supposed to keep 
               me abreast of any developments, so I'll take the heat and 
               convince him to let this drop without a lot of dust.. We do
               much business with them, so they are pretty easy to deal
               with."
    
        This is a TYPICAL secenario!! I don't remember HOW many req's I've
      received with a month-old invoice attached to it....so many that I 
      can't count. Those "deals" cannot be fixed at that late date....and
      in MANY cases the product and/or services was already on contract
      from other suppliers at much lower cost, or we had already bought the 
      identical service for another cost center and would have been able to
      provide the data for free to the new need. I have found that if
      ALLOWED to do MY job instead of having someone do it for me, that the
      EASIEST thing in the world in Digital Purchasing is saving money! 
      Purchasing has NO desire to run on their own...but they DO have a
      desire to be part of the process...especially sinc OUR names get
      signed on the bottom of the P.O.'s...
    
    
       B.T.W....did you all know that there's a Corporate Policy that
    basically sez that Digital Employees are expected to KNOW the rules and
    that Ignorance is NOT an excuse??? 
    
       I have NO problem with "doing the RIGHT thing"...but I think when a
    user IGNORES Purchasing and then makes us the scapegoat it IS NOT doing
    the right thing... 
    
      John McD

>       B.T.W....did you all know that there's a Corporate Policy that
>    basically sez that Digital Employees are expected to KNOW the rules and
>    that Ignorance is NOT an excuse??? 

	One can never know all the rules.. Nobody has that much virtual
	memory.. That's why most know the rules in the speciality they
	work in. Having a Corp. policy that says I have to know all the
	rules in DEC is stupid.

						mike

    I think Digital MAJOR PROBLEM currently is that there are too many
    people around who wan't to follow all the RULES instead of 
    DOING THE WRIGHT THING. This makes us much too complicated,
    bureaucratic, slow, expensive  and difficult to do business with, in the 
    chagning world of today. If we don't change this (and fast) we are soon out
    of business.
    
    		Pekka

      
       Due to some off-line correspondence, I think I should make it clear
    that my replies here were in NO way directed at any individual...but
    rather at the situation. It did hit one of my "hot-buttons", because
    there IS a certain mindset that Purchasing can be a roadblock...some of
    it well deserved. However, It really gets me ripped when I find out
    that this has happened, because that simply means that the particular
    Purchasing individual has failed to do their job. We're here to MAKE
    things happen...within the rules, and in co-operation with the persons
    with the requirements... Purchasing maybe should have HELPED get those
    signatures...
    
       Re .7
      I think you know what my message is...It doesn't say you have to
    memorize all of the Corporate Policy manuals...but just so you WILL
    understand, I quote DIRECTLY from the Policy:
    
      "At Digital, you are expected to KNOW whether what YOU are doing is
    right, and in accordance with the principles outlined in our Policy
    statements. If you have any doubts about particular Policies, practices
    or situations--consult your manager." (P&P's, Section 2.02)
    
      I guess I don't buy the ignorance defense. If you don't KNOW that
    what you're doing is NOT wrong, then don't do it! If anyone has any
    real doubts, a lunch hour spent in VTX will usually get you the answer
    to your doubts.. 
    
    
    JM

      Re .9
    
      I totally disagree. I think that what's done a lot to generate stock
    in the low $30's is the failure of MANY Deccies to even try to
    uderstand what the rules are. Policies--as I stated previously, are NOT
    designed to STOP you from doing your job, or to ROADBLOCK you. This is
    only the result that IGNORANCE of the Policies causes. Policies are
    synonymous to "guidelines", but in some environments---Purchasing for
    example---Digital Policies are directly associated with LAWS! If you
    think you can ignore LAWS, then we're heading for anarchy....and if you
    really believe that we can discard the Policies and operate the company
    in an anarchy, then please let me know in advance so I can get off the
    buss before it disintegrates..because I can guarantee you that that
    will be the ONLY possible result. Discipline is essential to running
    any sort of entity--be it a family, household, store, restuarant, or
    Computer Manufacturing Corporation such as Digital is. Discipline
    doesn't mean Prison....it means direction, regulation, rules-of-order.
    Doesn't an Engineer have basic rules that he/she has to follow??? Can
    you design a circuit and ignore Ohms Law??? Is it possible to design
    and code a piece of software and ignore binary theory?? Maybe so, but
    I'd like to see what the product will be like... Same thing holds true
    in any other area of business.
    
      John McD

    Laws of Nature and Laws of Man are two different animals.
    
    You can't violate Ohm's Law; it's a theorem.  You can violate a
    statute; it's a human creation.
    
    Engineers know the difference.  They don't violate Ohm's Law. 
    Sometimes they violate prevailing human standards.  Sometimes that's
    what engineers call "progress" -- doing something new because that
    isn't the way it has always been done!
    
    Our purchasing procedures are a mess.  I had some orders lost for a
    couple of months this summer because paper signatures were needed, and
    the paperwork went into interoffice mail, and nobody knew where it was.
    Purchasing of course denied responsibility -- they were doing a
    pas-de-deux with finance, with choreography by the mailrooms.  Nobody
    was responsible, of course.  It just got lost.  Nobody to blame. 
    Everybody followed the rules.  Nothing got done.
    
    Now, an "executive VP" (very pissant) has put out rules which require
    several thousand dollars' labor for a $50 purchase, and cause major
    assets and projects to be idle while waiting for a VP signature or
    scrounging around for days to find a $3 cable (that's real) instead of
    just ordering it from DECdirect.  That's why we lose money.  When the
    system prevent us from doing our jobs, and makes us waste most of our
    time on bureaucratic inanity, it's insantity.
    
    There need to be inviolate rules (obey government laws like
    reciprocity, fair dealing, etc.; don't take bribes) and there need to
    be guidelines (bend if it's the right thing).  If you bend a guideline,
    you should be responsible for the consequences.  But anal-retentive
    insistence on following the letter of every edict-du-jour, regardless
    of the consequences and regardless of the original motiviation or
    rationale (if any) behind the rule, is a money-losing strategy.

      Re .12
      Your entire diatribe is exactly what's wrong!! Stuff "lost in the
    mail" now becomes the autmatic responsibility of Purchasing, huh? (Oh,
    sure..they simply threw the stuff in the dumpster!)
    
      Let's get right back to the REAL issue, O.K.?? First of all, Jack
    Smith's message did NOT in any way cause any unwarranted delays or
    require any "$5,000.00 worth of work" to get the proper approvals. What
    it DID do is cause some of the totally ridiculous and duplicated
    spending to come to a halt. Anyone who has had a REAL need, and who has
    their ACT together around that need, has--like the basenoter--had
    LITTLE if ANY problem in obtaining the proper documentation. I have
    on my desk currently NUMEROUS requisitions with Jack's memo's attached,
    Strecker's, BJ's, Vin Mullarkey's, Bobby Choonavala's, Win Hindle's,
    Frank McCabe;s John Sims', Russ Gullotti's, Ed McDonough's and Bill
    Steul's authorizations too. MANY of these are bia electronic
    mail...which, by the way, is NOT prohibited by Policy. 
    
       Your little episode cuts right to the grain: Either YOU or the BUYER
    or BOTH didn't KNOW ENUFF about the Policies to be able to utilize
    them, so your situation dissapeared into the "Black-hole of Ignorance".
    Result seems to be--instead of a LEARNING experience--a frustration and
    finger-pointing rage...instead of trying to find out WHY your
    expectation wasn't met, your have decided that the "whole place is
    screwed up" and left it at that. I don't run Accounts Payable, but I've
    had little or no problem when dealing with them...but they too have
    rules, so they just don't pay bills unless they HAVE bills.
    
      As for interoffice mail---better known these days as "snail-mail",
    it's truely amazing that anyone would use that media to send important
    documents around the company. Demand Shuttle allows a trace, and it
    takes 1 day. Out-of-state can utilize UPS 2nd day, UPS overnite or any
    number of other ways. Most--if not ALL---facilities have FAX machines,
    and that media can be used without much difficulty too. Either you or
    the buyer SHOULD have been able to solve the problem without dumping
    documents into snail-mail.
    
      I'm realy happy that you entered this though...because it simply
    confirms what I've been saying for the past 3 or 4 replies...if you do
    not KNOW the rules, you most likely won't follow them, and then you'll
    NOT get what you expected....and frustration will be the result.
    
      John McD

RE: .10

	Well John, I don't think you know the message I was trying to
	convey.. It's my belief that I shouldn't have to know what
	bloody rules have to be followed to get a $3 cable. It's
	a waste of my time and DEC's time to look up the rules. I 
	should just ask someone who's job it is to know the rules to
	either get me the cable or tell me I can't have it.. I don't
	WANT to know the reasons and procedures surrounding getting a
	$3 cable.. I just want the cable so I can do my job.

	From what you have said, it almost sounds, to me, like all
	DECcies should be reading the rulebook for anything they
	do. DEC wasn't concieved that way. We were told to use
	common sense. And common sense is to ask for a cable, not
	research the procedures to aquire a cable.

	We've got to clear out of this morass..

							mike

    
    	Re: .6
    	I said nothing at all about someone bending the rules "just to
    	get along".  People who are willing to evaluate a situation,
    	take a risk and accept the consequences in an effort to help 
    	the company succeed are much more valuable than  rule-book
    	toting automatons.  The "rules at any cost" approach is what 
    	makes the federal government such a maddening money sink.
    	
    	/john

    It's been my experience that when Russ Gullotti "questions" why he has
    to sign something that it is because he feels that in that situation,
    the people below him should be enpowered to handle the approval.
    
    Russ was willing to delegate authority/responsibility.  He made us,
    finance, think carefully before adding any add'l requirements.  If
    Russ' managers are making poor decisions, he'd rather educate and/or
    replace them, instead of requiring add'l approvals.
    
    			Jeff
    
    P.S.  Russ' quick response does NOT surprise me.  I've often seen him
    logged into the system very late at night.  He used to read everything
    sent to him ASAP.  So do yourselves a BIG favor and only send him memos
    that you need him to read, and make them short and to the point.  Lastly, 
    be prepared to respond to his questions!  Russ likes to understand
    whatever you need him to approve (i.e. He's no rubber stamp)

       AH!! It seems that we're getting to some of the points now...
    
       Re .16
         I agree...you didn't SAY bending the rules just to get along...you
    just inferred it. My resopnse to "bending the rules to 'do the right
    thing' is very simple: Any Purchasing individual who "bends the rules"
    is NOT doing the right thing!!! The rules---and this is beginning to
    sound like a broken record, but it would seem that some people are not
    READING what I've been saying or are incapable of UNDERSTANDING what
    I've been trying to get across, so I'll repeat it again---THE "RULES"
    are NOT designed to STOP things or make it impossible to do things!!
    They are there as CONTROLS so the unguided missiles that live in this
    company don't finally destroy it entirely! Any Purchasing individual
    who's so ignorant about the Policies and Procedures that they should be
    USING to make thing happen should not be in a position of
    responsibility! Purchasing DOES have a responsibility to ASSIST users,
    but in order to do that, the Purchasing person had better know what
    those rules are! The USER also has an obligation---to COME to
    Purchasing with the need. If Purchasing then gives the user a set of
    requirements, then that user must DO what is required. Usually this is
    where the trouble begins. I wish I had a nickel for each time I've told
    a user that I MUST HAVE "A", "B", "C", & "D" before I can proceed with
    a particular request. That usually generates a series of obscenities,
    reflections on my ancestry, shots at the Corporation or a scarcastic
    diatribe. Eventually the individual may provide "A", or even "A" and
    "B", and then they get really upset when nothing happens. This isn't
    rocket science folks....if I tell someone I MUST have 4 specific and
    not very difficult things, and they give me 2 of the four, it isn't
    gonna hack it!! Next step usually is calling some Purchasing Manager
    and telling a string of blatant lies...usually about the
    "unco-operative attitude" instead of telling the truth....which causes
    the buyer to have to spend half a day defending his/her actions, and
    then the user is told by the manager that they have to do what the
    buyer originally told them anyway. THAT'S where the $5,000.00 is
    lost...wasted time that could have been prevented if the user had
    complied with the requests. Purchasing doesn't sit around thinking up
    ways to cause headaches..we got enuff of those already.
    
      Re .14
    
      Oh, I understand the message very clearly. My response is pretty
    simple too... You should only have to know ONE rule---when you have a
    need, CALL PURCHASING. When you contact the person who's responsibility
    it is to get that cable, and that individual gives you the set of
    requirements, then do what he/she has oultined. No more...no less.
    What WILL cause a lot of big-time headaches is when---instead of
    calling Purchasing---you pick up the phone and call "Chuck's Electronic
    Supply" and tell him to deliver the cable... If Purchasing does not or
    will not give you the service that you need, then you should escalate
    the issue...
    
      JM
    
    
    
    
       

      Re .17
      I've found this to be true with most if not ALL of the Senior
    Executives. Digital has placed a large amount of responsibility in
    their hands along with their authority. I cannot recall a single
    instance where a V.P. has NOT responded expeditiously. Sure...they may
    have questions...and I think that's a plus! I'd feel pretty
    uncomfortable if they did NOT question some of the stuff that they're
    asked to approve... 
    
      My problems usually don't happen at that level...they happen when the
    lower level manager doesn't WANT to do what is required, and they try
    to intimidate and pressure us to do what they WANT rather than "the
    right thing".  
    
      B.T.W....."Do the right thing" is pretty subjective... What's "right"
    to one person may be a disaster if forced on another individual...
    In other words: What's "right" for a specific individual MAY not be
    "the right thing" for Digital.....
    
    JM

    JM:
    
    In reading this string, I alternate between thinking you're a
    straightforward fellow just trying to save us from ourselves, and
    thinking you're a rigid thinker with a somewhat shrill message.
    
    I shuddered when I read your horror stories about reckless people
    spending thousands of dollars in unauthorized money and asking you to
    clean it up.  As a digit who spent his whole career in the lowly
    confines of the field organization, I can't believe it.
    
    Then when you explain your vision of the system, where people call up
    clerks who will explain to them the four things they must do to Get Past the
    Gate, I shudder again.
    
    Do you want engineers doing paperwork, or designing?  Do you want sales
    people chasing down "industry application codes" before they can book
    an order, or do you want them selling?
    
    I guess I would feel better if I saw any indication in your notes that
    you understand the problems of the other guys.
    
    The rules which to one person seem simple and non-burdensome, when
    added to a whole series of other rules encountered at every step, can
    mean that we spend our whole time collecting lint from our own navels. 
    That's the emotion you're feeling from the other side.
    
    Let's agree that everyone should call Purchasing at the first sign of
    need.  Then let's see if Purchasing can't help DO the paperwork, or
    help GET the approvals, or just be a team member, instead of just 
    reading off the names of the hurdles that must be jumped.  
    
    If that's what you're saying, then I support you completely.
    
                                         

RE: .13

>      Let's get right back to the REAL issue, O.K.?? First of all, Jack
>    Smith's message did NOT in any way cause any unwarranted delays or
>    require any "$5,000.00 worth of work" to get the proper approvals. What
>    it DID do is cause some of the totally ridiculous and duplicated
>    spending to come to a halt.

I hear what you're saying John, but I have to agree with Fred. In my 
organization, we read the memo just as a P/O was required to renew our pagers.
Do you have any idea how much management time was spent going up the levels to
get the approvals? Most of that time was in relation to that memo - what has
changed and how do we address it? And the fact that there were additional 
guidelines on pagers wasn't the issue.

The memo from Smith also mentioned not taking equipment home without a VP 
signature. One day I was coming in in the afternoon, and there was an engineer
taking out a VAXstation 3100. I got some money out of the ATM, then asked the
security guard if they got the Smith memo. He said yes, but THEY WERE IGNORING
IT BECAUSE IT WOULD SERIOUSLY IMPACT VALUABLE WORK DONE IN THIS FACILITY. The
whole facility!

You also mention that it eliminated _some_ of the "totally ridiculous and
duplicated spending." Since you seem to be talking from a position of some
authority, why wasn't this spending curtailed before?

Basically what this says is that we have some managers, at whatever level, who
have abused the system. It says that it has reached a level where it cannot be
tolerated. I say warn, then ditch those managers who continue to spend money
like this is a country club; Trust your other managers to do what is appropriate
to get the required tasks done. Address the PROBLEMS, not the SYMPTOMS.

Bryan

    Maybe part of the problem is that DEC has to many different sets of
    rulebooks.  Like some of our documentation, you gotta dig deep to find
    what you need to know sometimes.  Gets to be a pain.
    
    my $.02,
    macgyver

        
    Re last few...
    
      Maybe if I go through the ACTUAL things that Purchasing requires it 
    may make some sense... I'm speaking STRICTLY from a
    "pre-Jack-Smith-Memo" standpoint now...and specifically relative to 
    purchasing Consulting Services...P.O.'s OVER $10,000.00(which most
    are).
    
       (1)We need "Competitive bid" information. Policy--AND reasonably
    good business practices require that more thn one supplier be solicited
    to bid on big contracts. If we are using numerous "sole source"
    consultants, we are putting the Corporation at some risk... If we get
    too deep into a true "sole source", and he/she gets hit by a bus, we
    are in trouble.. I find it rather humorous to see the lame excuses used
    for NOT bidding out jobs... It's really hard to believe that there's
    only ONE company in the entire world that can or will do a job. 
    Bottom Line here: If you've gone and done the deal, 'fess up! If not,
    get me copies of the bids! (IDEALLY: You come to Purchasing and we GIVE
    you a NUMBER of potential sources---then we get together and get a BID
    package out to a few.)
    
       (2)Price and Source justification: WHY did you go with the
    supplier??  WHY is the pirce a reasonable one?? Short note is all we
    need here..if (1) has been done properly, this is a really simple task.
    (ITEM: The LOW bid isn't always the BEST supplier...but that rationale
    HAS to come from the user.
    
       (3)A FORMAL PROPOSAL from the Supplier. This is not really difficult
    either! Why so many people have no guts when it cmes to this one I'll
    never be able to figure out! The supplier's making the bucks...make
    them tell us what they're going to do for the bucks! I've NEVER had a
    supplier refuse to do this...in fact, they'd much rather do this than
    leave things up to guesswork, since a formal proposal is typically made
    part of the P.O. and it protects BOTH sides.
    
       (4)A properly filled out and approved requisition. I can and will
    assist with this. However, I cannot and will NOT go through the
    approval process for a user. First of all, I do around 2000
    transactions per year...that translates in my space to working on about
    1500 totally different projects/contracts. Sorry, but my little mind
    isn't capable of LEARNING 1500 different careers and/or businesses.
    YOU--the USER--must get the proper signatures/approvals for the
    purchase. I cannot "justify" to your managers and/or V.P.'s that the
    purchase of the services is warranted. 
    
       That's about it...there may be some other issues around a brand new
    supplier that we've never used before, but those things can be worked
    out in parallel with the 4 major points. I have to have "vendor code"
    numbers, Consultant Agreements, sometimes Legal Reviews of specific
    contracts, checks must be made of the "denied parties list" that the
    Federal Government puts out, I have to be aware of TAX issues, whether
    the person and/or company is a former DECCIE who has a time
    restriction, etc.etc etc.etc....... Many of these issues are never
    brought up and users aren't even aware of them....cause they're OUR job
    as well as making things happen.
    
      Getting back to the managers/users who spend money foolishly or
    without proper authority... As you are probably quite well aware, not
    ALL Digital managers are or have been totally dedicated and/or
    competent, and others have been there more for THEIR good than for the
    good of the company. How many times we've ALL been directed to do
    things that waste time.... Some of these individuals are LIVING
    EXAMPLES of the Peter Principle in action...Times 3 or 4 in some cases.
    Many of these folks are no longer with us, and in times to come we'll
    hopwfully see more go. I have no argument with eliminating
    non-performers. I have worked for some FINE managers and some that were
    about as bad as I've ever seen. Somehow I do not feel as if my
    experiences in this regard are all that unique either. The BIG problem
    occurs when I've worked for a 2-times-Peter-Principle in action and we
    get hooked up with one of the same type on the user side. That's been a
    recipe for disaster...and personal pain. I've seen my reviews get
    downgraded for "doing the right thing" and refusing to roll-over for
    political reasons...so be it.. Hopefully thies thing are and will be
    corrected in the future..
    
      JMcD

    I can't believe it.  The original note was to add something positive in
    a time when it is really needed.  Instead of people reading it and
    feeling good about what happened it turned into more negative
    complaining and explaining.  I for one am tired of the constant
    complaining and instead of hitting next unseen, I think I'll do a
    delete entry and get out of this notes file.
    Get a life people!
    
    "Flame off"

      Re .24
    
      A rather sad but not UNexpected response! An alleged "positive
    experience" may not be so positive to Digital....so when some
    disagreement or rebuttal to something is noted, the reaction is to get
    angry. Maybe if some of the folks in this corporation would begin to
    try to understand what's been going on and LISTEN when explanations are
    given, we'd have some hope. The last 24 replies have MANY examples of
    the things that have caused Digital to go where we've been going. There
    seems to be an increasing mindset that "if I don't LIKE what's
    happening, or if I don't WANT to follow rules and/or Policies, then I
    won't participate!!!"
    
    
       Yeah...I agree...LET'S get real.....maybe at the same time some of
    you ought to GROW UP as well!!
    
    JM