Conference 7.286::digital

>I would like to see a requirement of an advanced degree in either a 
>technical or business field, several years of experience, and proof that 
>the individual has led the company forward.  Leading a product development 
>effort into a new direction or business for example.  This should be 
>reviewed at a board with perhaps a sponsor consultant and several other 
>consultants and perhaps a senior marketing manager.

	Why do you want to *require* of the individual to posses an advanced
	degree ?  You are excluded a lot of people (like myself) who did not
	have the resources to attend college after high school and then
	had other responsibilities (like work & children) that make it 
	difficult to pursue a piece of paper.  I don't like educational snobery.
	There has been a general feeling here and in other Notes conferences
	that MBA-types have hurt rather than helped the company in it's 
	direction.  The theory being that they lacked practical application
	of their education within the company and that their MBA's alone 
	awarded them a far greater "rank" and influence than their experience
	dictated they should have.

	Regards,	

	Chuck

    even in software one dont need a degree to do a good job at writing
    software, one could always take a few courses as needed here and there, 
    and that is all.
    
    \bye
    \nasser
    
    

    
    	RE: the replies so far
    
    	I agree... I have yet to see Common Sense 101 (or 401 - grad level)
    	on any advanced degree curriculum.  
    
    	Ed

    
     So OK.  Promote them to Pundit, Oracle, Futureteller.
    What we want to reward is success at predicting what will
    be profitable to do !
    
     That is easily quantified - either he/she succeeded, or not.
    

O.K., if advanced formal training as a requirement is bad, then perhaps 
give points for certain skills, experiences, successes, and attempts.  I 
happen to think that a combination of academic AND professinal work 
experience leads to a better grasp of the present and ability to predict 
the future.  I honestly doubt that there are many self taught engineers 
that are capable of doing what Bob Supnik and others like him can do.

DEC seems proud of the fact that we distrust marketers, and especially 
formally trained ones.  Then we bemoan the fact that we are unable to 
predict future volumes, market directions, or even run a successful advertising 
campaign.  Meanwhile, Apple Computers has a formal MBA program run in their 
facility that San Jose State University provides.  The classes are the same 
one SJSU offers in their Executive MBA program.  Rarely do I see notes and 
mail insulting Apples's marketing.

Why do we think that Engineering is a profession and Marketing is not?  I 
spent some time in a marketing group back in Marlboro, and I was one of the 
few who proposed a new product.  The predominate thought was that it is 
marketings job to manage relationships with vendors and give input to 
engineering upon request.  There is some implicit belief that 
engineering understands the future, and that marketing is some slimy art 
where "marketers" try to sell unwanted things to unsuspecting people.  
Hogwash.  This assumes people are dumb.  I do not buy that.

John Sculley made himself the chief technical officer at Apple.  Not because 
he understands the math behind a scheduling allocation algorithm for 
hierarchical signal flow, but because he believes he can feel the direction 
the market moves.  Remember, this is the guy who was "peddling sugar 
water."

I strongly belief in the engineering consulting program, even when I 
strongly disagree with some of the conclusions one of them draws.  
Unfortunately, there is no one on a peer level with them that can attempt 
to approach an assigned problem from an orthogonal direction.

We expect too much from the consulting engineers, and when they can't 
deliver, we are shocked that a program looses money!  We expect consulting 
engineers to review proposals from customers, but these people have no idea 
what these customers even do!  This is NOT the engineers fault.  I do not 
want generalists in a senior technical role.

Since a few people do not like requiring formal education, what do you 
think we ought to do to create some rigor in the marketing organization?  
Or, do you believe that are marketing group would benchmark as one of the 
best in the world?  If you do not believe the later, than I would hope to 
see some ideas for the former.

Matt

    
    Re -1
    
    I saw several comments pushing back on the need for an advanced degree
    - not people pushing back on the need for advanced training. Not
    necessarily the same.
    
    Absolutely relevant training may be experience with a leading marketing
    company, secondment to a suitable department, post-grad professional
    training etc. Depends on the country, but all of these are possible in
    the UK without a first degree, subject to proving competence &
    experience.
    
    Colin

    
     Sorry if .4 sounded like a dig at 'Marketing as a Profession'.
    It was more intended as a lighthearted joke, but with a slightly
    serious point.  The most brilliant software engineer I ever knew
    had never finished high school.  He just sat down at a computer
    and wrote the best standard-cell chip router that existed up to
    that time, all by himself.  Today, after founding a company and
    selling it, he is retired young and wealthy.  I also know a hardware
    engineer at a local networking company who never got a degree, but
    is chief corporate scientist, and decides all the technical parts
    of their strategy.  He taught himself in his garage with soldering
    irons and scopes, and taking apart telephone equipment.
    
     The Consulting Engineer program works pretty well (this from a
    principal who covets the rank more than money, but hasn't made it
    in ten years trying).  Two principles make it work, and if Marketing
    wants a similar program, I think it should adopt them.  One is that
    only actual performance is recognized.  Patents, publications, hardware
    or software designed, profits made.  You get nothing for attendence,
    and nothing for credentials.  The other is that only current consulting
    engineers get to vote - you are 'recognized' by your peers.  Your
    manager can recommend, but has no say.  And there is no money directly
    involved - the promotion carries no automatic raise.
    
     Perhaps Marketing COULD be improved in this way.  Do you think that
    Marketing programs can be analysed by top company marketers after the
    fact, and critiqued for excellence and expertise in an objective
    fashion, as the Consulting Engineering program can (and is) ?
    

re .7
>     Perhaps Marketing COULD be improved in this way.  Do you think that
>    Marketing programs can be analysed by top company marketers after the
>    fact, and critiqued for excellence and expertise in an objective
>    fashion, as the Consulting Engineering program can (and is) ?
    
I certainly think that quantification is possible and, further, necessary in 
evaluating all marketing programs.  For some reason, DEC marketers think 
that quanitification is impossible.  The Japanese marketing model used 
widely emphasizes measurable objectives prior to funding.  Then results are 
measured against the forecast.  

To be objective in the measurement will require some quanitification.  I 
also think it will require some formalization (not necessarily in school :)) of 
the mathematical process inherant in doing this.  Market share, profit, 
growth, incremental revenue, load balancing are all fine goals, but they 
need to be stated BEFORE a marketing program is undertaken.  There was a 
joke passed aroung the net a couple years ago about the project plan for 
marketing programs.
	1. determine budget
	2. invite senior managers
	3. set date
	4. send invitations
	5. write congradulatory messages
	6. hold event...

I think this is too close to accurate.  All of our programs are not going 
to be roaring successes.  Currently, however, few are.  The 1 800 pcbydec 
marketing program is a great example of a success.  A new channel was 
found, pricing is market driven, products are rolling out to address the 
customer needs.  Getting Cooperative Marketing Program participants ported 
to Alpha is a failure to date.  It could be turned around.  Currently it 
has poor measurement criteria and has poor results.

DEC is leaving marketing up to well intentioned people that often have no 
way of succeeding, no way to tell how they are failing, and no way to find 
people that could help.  There is no way to identify our best marketers.  
We have no system of assigning successful marketers to failing programs.  I 
would like to thik we could learn from our experiences in addressing similar 
problems in engineering.

Matt

    Let's not be too hasty.
    
    Let's not underestimate John Scully; he probably does understand the
    maths behind it - Read his autobiagraphy 'from Pepsi to Apple'. He is
    hell of lot more than meets the eye.
    
    Also, it is unwise to argue 'for' or 'against' formal education. Each
    is valid and just as vital as the other. Favouring one at the expense
    of the other is like 'throwing baby with the bath water'.
    
    Of course, it is possible to learn what one wants by 'doing' but it
    does take a long time. Books help speed up the process. Formal training 
    pushes one in the desired direction. Higher education thus
    qualifications simply trains one to 'learn'. It is just one tool in one's 
    quest for learning. It opens one's awareness for which there is no
    price. Perhaps an analogy will clarify my viewpoint.
    
    Analogy: If all that one wants done is hang doors then practical,
    	     first-hand experience will suffice but Don't expect revolution 
    	     by design. It is more likely to occur by chance. 
    
    Of course, there are exceptions in either path. 
    
    
    
    
    

re .9

>    Let's not underestimate John Scully; he probably does understand the
>    maths behind it - Read his autobiagraphy 'from Pepsi to Apple'. He is
>    hell of lot more than meets the eye.
 
I have read the book.  I think of him as a prototypical example of a 
marketer.  I think that we have an opinion of marketers as specialists in 
"the 4 P's."  And that is true for some.  I think we forget that one of 
those "P's" is Product, and in our industry knowing the marketing side of 
product requires a lot.  I think a marketing background may be an EE or CS 
degree and an MBA as a solid start.

I think time spent as an engineer, as a product manager, and then product 
marketing as a prerequisite for being grounded in the technology.  I 
honestly believe that further training in the marketing and business skills 
is also a requirement.  I have met quite a few very bright engineers that 
have never read the 10Ks of the customers who buy their products.  Many 
never even bother to read the annual reports of the leading companies we 
try to sell to.  They want to meet with customers, but refuse to do any 
preparation work.  I wish these were the minority.  Gathering first hand 
market data is fun and very interesting, but often misleading if the proper 
backround work is not done.

The concept of durability is a perfect example of asking the wrong 
question of the wrong people.  We designed workstations that could continue 
working after undergoing very large physical abuse.  This raised our 
prices.  We asked customers how much quality they wanted, all said a lot.  
We built high quality, rugged boxes.  Our competition built boxes we 
laughed at because of their flimsyness.  After railing against engineering 
for a while, I finally had engineering talk to a customer who didn't buy 
our stuff.  He said, "I tell my engineers not to drop the computers on the 
floor.  Most don't.  When we break one, we take a spare out of the closet 
and replace it.  The data is on the network, not local.  I tell the 
engineer who broke a machine to be more careful.  I find engineers 
understand dropping computers is bad for them.  I will not pay you to build 
machines that are designed to be dropped."

He was one of the first people to buy into Sun in a big way, over 400 
machines a year starting back in '85.  He is a market leader you rarely 
talk to by talking to customers.  I found him as a result of a statement 
in a Sun Annual Report.

I worry greatly that we think having great engieering will pull DEC 
through.  Great engieering existed while we got into this mess.  It will 
not get us out of it alone.  Great marketing must exist if we are to get 
out of it.
   
>    Also, it is unwise to argue 'for' or 'against' formal education. Each
>    is valid and just as vital as the other. Favouring one at the expense
>    of the other is like 'throwing baby with the bath water'.
 
I guess the statements from the Consulting Engineering program review puts it 
quite well.  It states that while a graduate degree is not strictly a 
requirement, it is strongly recommended.  It is not impossible to become a 
Consulting Engineer without one, but having one is looked on very 
favorably.

Matt