Conference 7.286::digital

>    My question are customers, not the shareholders, really seeing
>    improvements in Digital?
>    
>    Where in the trade press have customers been quoted as praising these
>    changes in Digital?

Well, we all know the answers to this.

Analysts view those at the 'top' of DEC, Customers view/interact with
those at the bottom. There continues to be, to a large extent, disconnect
within Digital from the top to the lower levels.

While those at the helm are charting new course(s) those below decks are
still dealing with many of the same old problems... just choosing a new
course doesn't fix them.

Customers end up being the loser as those at the bottom still struggle
and flounder with these problems.

Lee

    No, digital ends up being the loser as customers give up on us and
    purchase equipment and services elsewhere.
    

    Downsizing and "reengineering" (changing the way you do business in
    order to be more efficient and responsive to customers and market
    conditions) are two separate and very different things.
    
    The field organization, the people that deal face to face with
    customers daily, have been downsized.  It has not been reengineered
    (downsizing could be a part of a larger reengineering scheme, I grant),
    at least not yet.  That must happen next, hopefully over the next six
    to twelve months.
    
    From what I can see, there is still too much duplication of effort; two
    many groups trying to do the same things, each with their own agenda. 
    This is not necessarily conducive to achieving the greater corporate
    objectives, and one can question if it is in the best interests of the
    customers.
    
    I am of the firm opinion that each field office should have one and
    only one General Business Manager to whom all other groups are held
    accountable.  This includes sales, sales support, consulting services,
    and field services.  The GM is goaled on two things, predominantly,  a)
    customer satisfaction, and b) profitability.  Members of each of the
    functional groups should work together, not necessarily in dedicated
    teams, but perhaps assigned to any number of "virtual teams" by
    account.  This is not complete, by any stretch of the imagination, but
    it is the start.
    
    Today, you still have too many chiefs, too many separate sets of
    objectives, and too many agendas.  This has to change, it will not work
    in the business environment today.  Fat profits in the past could hide
    these inefficiencies; today we have to scrape for every penny to add to
    the bottom line.

    Re: .3
    
    	Can not agree more with you.
    
    	In fact if you read the book 'Reengineering the Corporation' it
    specifically states that you have to do re-engineering efforts first.
    The consequence of a specific re-engineering effort MAY BE that you
    need less people.   However interestingly enough, the examples that are
    in the book of succesfull re-engineering efforts, the jobs that are
    'lost' to a re-engineering efforts are those of managers and
    supervisors and NOT OF WORKER BEES !!!!!!!!!    We (our leaders) are
    choosing to do the contrary.......we are going to pay dearly !!!!!!

    Problem Statement: 
    
    	Revenue (short term - quarter to quarter) is what is being praised.
    
    If the company is not profitable (had a net earning in a particular
    quarter) then it is not succesfull.   Whatever the management of that
    company does to make it profitable is a sign of a strong management.
    In this scenario, manpower is JUST ANOTHER COST, that will be
    eliminated (if you eliminate the manpower, you eliminate the cost,
    therefore you have a better probability of becoming profitable)
    if required for profitability purposes.   The GOAL is to make money.
    Versus:
    
    	Feasibility in the Long Term.
    
    	Many Japanese companies have very low to almost nothing in revenue
    quarter per quarter, however they are CONSISTENT quarter in quarter out
    due to the fact that they look at the bigger/larger picture of
    CONSISTENT REVENUE five, ten, fifteen, etc. years from now.   They
    are seeing themselves as a GOING CONCERN.
    In this scenarion you can plan your manpower and take care of them.
    The GOAL is to give the Customers what they need.

    Do customers see a change in Digital's employees that make them want to
    bring their business to Digital?
    
    Do the employees of Digital bring more confidence and enthusiasm for
    the products of Digital to customers than ever before?

Think of how much overhead we could reduce if we got rid of all our
employees! Why, the numbers are staggering.

While we're at it, we could really save on support functions if
we got rid of all our customers.

I think the model here is the "product-less" company, the next 
step up from the "paper-less" office. All we need to do is keep 
those stockholders trading our shares around.

    re .6
    
    Pat, to your first question, it is implicit in my remarks that changing
    how customers do business with Digital, and feel about it, must be a
    central part of any reengineering effort.  This is the part that was
    completely missed in the "reorg."
    
    re .4 and .5
    
    Yep, agree completely!  Too often too many people put the cart before
    the horse, and then don't understand why they can't go anywhere!

back to .0 -

I have had conversations with people on the US Design Team and with people in
other process-heavy organizations.

The net impressions - and even one direct quote - is that IMPLEMENTATION was
*not* given a lot of thought in the redesign of Digital.

Which is why the PLANS look wonderful (as views from 10,000 feet can be) ... but
the REALITY on the ground where our ordinary customers live is that there are
fewer of us and the few who are here are viewed as apparently disorganized and
relatively unresponsive.

Norm

    re .9
    
    Sorry to disagree.  The new organization was implemented just as it was
    explained.  In my humble opinion, the wrong people put the plan
    together and implemented it.

>    Do customers see a change in Digital's employees that make them want to
>    bring their business to Digital?
>    
>    Do the employees of Digital bring more confidence and enthusiasm for
>    the products of Digital to customers than ever before?

Why do we need confident and enthusiastic employees? You make it sound as
if having happy employees will improve our success on Wall St. Customers
don't pay any attention to employees, they respond to slick ad campaigns
and catchy marketing slogans.

The [satisfied] customer is less and less a part of the picture... cost
reduction is our panacea... and that can easily be performed as an
administrative function.

Lee

    
    >>>>           -< It's the customer, stupid. >-
    
    	Hmmm. Very offensive. Who exactly is stupid here?

    Once upon a time a friend of mine started a business. They put together
    a business plan and had it reviewed by someone from the Small Business
    Administration. It looked great. The margins looked good. The products
    looked good. The whole thing looked like it would have to work.

    The business folded in six months because people didn't buy enough. The
    plan was great except that one assumption, that the location picked was
    a good one, was incorrect.

    I think we're seeing some of that at Digital. On paper the plans look
    great. We've seen it a 1000 times. The business plan shows a great
    profit in n years based on selling y systems. Two years later the 
    project is shut down because the assumptions that led us to believe
    we could sell y systems were wrong.

    On paper all the Bob Palmer reorganization plans look great. The
    resumes of the people he's bringing in from outside look great. Wall
    Street and the Wall Street media seem to agree. It will take longer 
    to see if it actually makes a difference in sales and customer
    satisfaction. If I knew how it was going to work I could probably get
    a job on Bob's staff. But I don't.

    I do believe, .11 not withstanding, that in the long run we will have
    to provide service and product that meet our customers needs. Quality
    will make a difference in the long run. (An article of faith, if nothing
    else, with me) This will include a sales force that has the resources 
    to talk to customers, answer questions, and make quotes. These people
    will have to be supported by a manufacturing system that can ship
    quality product on time, an engineering system that can design
    buildable and reliable product that solves real problems, and an 
    administrative system that keeps track of it all. Frankly, some of
    those pieces still seem missing to me. But I don't pretend to know
    or understand the whole plan. I'm an engineer in an out of the
    frontlines facility.

    To answer one of the questions in .0, I don't see much in the media
    about the people who pay the bills (customers) saying that they're
    happy with the changes as they affect their business with Digital.

    			Alfred

    2 years ago we had 7 Sales Reps, 1 Sales Manager, 3 Strategic Account 
    Managers, 1 Corporate Account Manager, 1 Field Service CAM, and 1 EIS
    CAM selling to a single "Corporate Account".  We had 3 dedicated Sales 
    Support Consultants and easy access to other District Technical 
    Resources when needed.  Our revenue that year was $25M+.
    
    Today, we have 3 Sales Reps (1 on Maternity Leave), 30% of a Sales Manager,
    & 1 Worldwide Account Manager covering the same customer.  We have 2
    Sales Support "slots" from the local RMC (Regional Marketing Center). 
    Our budget this year is $9M.
    
    Do you think the customer is better served today than 2 years ago?  
    
     

>    	Many Japanese companies have very low to almost nothing in revenue
>    quarter per quarter, however they are CONSISTENT quarter in quarter out
>    due to the fact that they look at the bigger/larger picture of
>    CONSISTENT REVENUE five, ten, fifteen, etc. years from now.   They
    
    What!!!!!!!!!!!!?  Low to almost nothing in revenue quarter to quarter 
    but somehow they get to be a Fortune 500 company?  I'll have to see
    your data, professor.  Sony has a ton of revenue.
    
    And just for the record, Japan is in a steep recession despite all of
    the management du jour techniques that everybody in this country(almost) 
    are so in love with.  Why are not all of these great management ideas
    bailing them out?  The bottom has fallen out of the stock and real
    estate markets there and I do not think that was in their, how do you
    say, 'bigger/larger picture'.
    
    But, I will refrain from calling you stupid, as another reply has
    done.  I just don't agree with you.
    
    bill

    From: InformationWeek
          August 30, 1993
    	
    	  DEC Shows Its New Fall Line
    
    	Last paragraph:
        ---------------
    
    		While longtime customers say they are curious about these
    plans, they are also a bit skeptical.   "The guys on top may have a 
    strong plan, but getting that message through to the people the
    customers deal with probably won't be too easy," says Harvey Shrednick,
    senior VP of information services at Corning Inc. in Corning, N.Y.
    "So far, I haven't noticed much difference in dealing with Digital"
    ==================================================================
    
    
    Re: I know is the customer, what I'm trying to show is that is not only
        us is the way that the American Business have developed over the
        years.   The goals are different, one is ONLY emphasizing COST
        the other (Japan) is emphasizing Customer Satisfaction.
    
        Re: Mr. Kemp - You can disagree with me all you want, please read
            Akio Morita's book - "Made in Japan" you will see that revenue
            is the last word spoken in Sony.   In fact on Chapter 2 Mr.
    	    Morita says: "Sony goal's is not to compete on cost/price, but
            in technology and customer satisfaction."
            You can not argue with sucess, can you ???????

    "It's the customer, stupid" is of course a reminder to us all and
    borrowed from the insight of a James Carville.
    
    Everytime someone says "Digital isn't (or American companies aren't)
    enough like Japanese companies" or "Digital's short-term thinking is
    driven by paying too much attention to Wall Street", "Digital's  new
    logo", "Digital's new 'imagine' ad campaign", etc. I've concluded it's
    not worth the effort to debate anymore.
    
    The focus has to be on the customer and until the focus of the little
    discussions we have here get back to the customer we've lost the battle
    without even being in it.

RE: .13

Hmmm... guess I forgot to put a smiley or "tounge-in-cheek" on my .11

Lee

    Jose,
    
    Your statement was not that they do not emphasize revenue.  That may be
    true.  Your statement was that many Japanese companies have very low to 
    almost nothing in revenue quarter per quarter.  Sony has plenty of
    revenue quarterly even if they don't emphasize it's importance.  If
    they had very low to almost nothing in revenue per quarter, my guess is
    that it would begin to take on just a bit more emphasis.
            
    Bill 
    

    Sony pays a lot of attention to what customers want and getting stuff
    out of the lab and into the hands of customers.

    Re. .16
    
    In the same issue of "InformationWeek" a high level manager gave some
    insight into the changes that took place and is currently taking place
    within the company.
    
     "...some of the internal work, which he hesitates to call
    reengineering, did not directly benefit customers. Rather, he says,
    that work concicted of practical steps taken to put 'tourniquets on the
    bleeding when the company was losing $3 million a day, every day it
    operated.'  Customers will see changes rolling out over the next six
    months that will improve the way they order products and services,
    receive invoices, and deal with Digital on administrative matters.
    That's the mission of the customer engagement process, which is only
    three months old and 'probably the process most critical for the
    company at this point,'..."
    
    The bottom line appears to be that the NUMBER 1 issue was to SAVE THE
    COMPANY.  The NUMBER 2 issue is to IMPROVE on CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENTS.
    Without number 1 issue number 2 would be a moot point.
    
    
    

    We, in sales and sales support, have been told to 'quit doing other 
    people's jobs' - for example, when an order is taken by a salesrep,
    they are supposed to hand it off to an 'order admin person' who
    HANDLES IT! in the current implementation, the order admin person
    FAXes it to DECdirect - Gee, couldn't the salesrep do that, thereby 
    obviating the need for order admin????? In any event, what has
    happened is that order admin gets the order wrong somehow, so the 
    salesrep has to step in an fix everything after the fact, pushing the
    salesrep to bypass the order admin person in the first place, in
    effect 'doing their job' - I won't go into how sales support has
    to clean up afteCS and the CSC.....
    
    
    I guess we could take the attitude 'not my job', as is the case in
    my office of 9 people (w/o a secretary or receptionist) who (8 out
    of 9) absolutely REFUSE to answer the 2 incoming phone lines which
    are published in the phonebook - it rolls over to voicemail which 
    is very infrequently checked by sales.  I personally cannot listen
    to the phone ring off the hook wondering if its the hospital trying
    to reach me because someone in my family is in trouble.
    
    The company is falling apart in its asinine devotion to cutting cost
    without considering the consequences of each action.
    
    Ah well, my extremely bad attitude has led me to decide to take some
    long overdue vacation next week....
    
    
    Later, dudes & dudettes, after all its only a job....
    

    >effect 'doing their job' - I won't go into how sales support has
    >to clean up afteCS and the CSC.....
    
    Just like I won't go into how the CSC has to go in and clean up after
    sales and sales support :-)
    
    What I'm saying by returning this comment is not to be defensive so
    much (although I am in some ways), but more to point out that if we
    each have to bail each other out, then we have a major disconnect with
    each other and we major disconnects with the customer!  And the latter
    is the moral to be learned from this story ... somebody somewhere
    has not listened to and taken the responsibility to solve the customer
    problem until it becomes a "bail out" situation.
    
    Stuart

    CUSTOMER IS KING - this is the 'right' attitude.   However from saying
    to actually doing, there is lots of difference.   We cry out loud
    Customer Satisfaction, however when put comes to shove, we do not
    stand firm in our commitment.    There is where the big difference
    is between Company Culture between American Companies and
    Japanese Companies.   It is what I call 'no questions asked Quality'.
    Don't get me wrong, there are many companies here that do this, they
    are all doing very well (H/P, Microsoft, Harley-Davidson, among
    others).    However, some other companies Lip Service about it, but
    when the Customer has a problem he/she is not even a peon.   We say
    Customer is KING, but our actual actions say Customer is S.....T!
    Or at least that is the perception that WE have created among our
    valued customers.
    
    On the importance of revenue, I'm NOT saying that Japanese companies
    do not emphasize revenue, but it is NOT their Number 1 goal.   Also
    when I say small, I mean as a percent of revenue, many Japanese
    companies have less than 10% Net Margin Ratio (Net Earnings/Net Sales).
    
    Last, I will never say it is Wall Street's fault, I say it is the
    capitalist culture of short term revenue generation that is in fault.
    One of the characteristics of a Corporation is that of being a 
    'Going Concern', that means long term feasibility, we are certainly
    not doing this.

    RE:14,22
    
    Things will get much worse before they get better.
    
    3 of the best salespeople in my office have given notice over the
    past 2 weeks.  There are 2 others within days of giving notice.
    Everyone else has begun the process to find another job.  The 
    reasons are plenty:
    
    		20% cut in salary
    		Unrealistic FY94 Budgets
    		Fewer and fewer Sales Support folks
    		Lack of confidence in management
    		etc., etc.
    
    I have asked several people in my office what the upside is, or will
    be, for Digital.  To date, I have not received a good answer.  I am
    still looking for one.

   Re: Customer Satisfaction vs. Revenue
   
   I have wondered what's happened to our attitude toward customer
   satisfaction.  It's probably the "old digital" (14 years in Nov.)
   that was ingrained into me by other "old digital"ites when I hired
   on.
   
   When I interviewed with my future district manager in the summer of
   '79, he asked me a question.  It was, "What's more important: profit
   or customer satisfaction?"  I hemmed and hawwed;  gave reasons for
   why both were important and hard to separate.  He then said that
   answer was fine, and "as far as Digital is concerned [yes, he said
   digital, not DEC], they are synonomous terms."
   
   Are they still?  I don't think so, and I believe we acted as if they
   were in the early '80s (from a Software Services perspective).  Back
   then it was simple: the customer isn't happy, we get no money.  We
   used to say how amazing it was how many people in Digital didn't seem
   to realize where those numbers on the righthand side of their
   paychecks came from.

    RE: .22  You are full of crap, reread .23 several times, therein lies
    the problem.  I (in admin) spend plenty of time fixing sales screwups. 
    It's a 2 way street and we have got to learn to work together.
    
    
    
    Mike

    Revenue always remembers me of a statement of a former manager. I was
    working in retail then:

    "I don't care about revenue in the first place, I care about employee
    happiness. Because, when my employees are happy they do the best
    possible job. This makes the customer happy and generates the greatest
    revenue possible under the given circumstances."

    Besides that he was dead honest on that, it contains a whole load of
    wisdom and the correct perspective on the issue - at least in my book.

    Alain

    It is a vicious circle:
    
                            +------------------+
                            | Happy/Productive |
                            | Employees        |
                            +------------------+  
                            ^                   ^
                           /                    \
                          /                      \
                          V                       V
                     +---------+              +-----------+
                     | Revenue |<------------>| Satisfied |
                     +---------+              | Customers |      
                                              +-----------+
                                                 

    Yup, I'm full of crap!  (that's why on on vacation this week, except
    for some 'recreational noting') - really, we all end up cleaning up 
    after each other - the 'disconnect factor' mentioned earlier.
    
    When I came to DEC (ooops, digital), in 1982, I was told - 'do what
    is right' and 'customer satisfaction is our #1 goal!' - from the
    bottom of the heap, it appears that cost reduction is now our goal, 
    to the detriment of all.  It's all in attitude - when I feel like 
    going home at 5:00, instead of continuing to work on that critical
    customer problem (their machines are down, and they're a 24X7 shop)
    - I need an attitude adjustment.   Vacation is one way to do that, 
    but concise, clear, effective communication of who we are and where
    we are going is another.  'Open, client/server, customer-driven
    solutions' is very fluffy and content free.....
    
    From the beach......

Re .26 Customer isn't happy, we don't get our money.

That axiom is still true.  With sales-outstanding at about 70+ days, I'd
say customers are real happy, and we're not getting our money.

MS

    
    Re: .17
    
    > The focus has to be on the customer and until the focus of the little
    > discussions we have here get back to the customer we've lost the battle
    > without even being in it.
    
    It doesn't take a genius to figure out WHAT to do even when DOING it
    is difficult and can be complex.  This says it all.  If we don't focus
    ON THE CUSTOMER we aren't even in the battle let alone winning it.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .24
    
    > We cry out loud Customer Satisfaction, however when put comes to
    > shove, we do not stand firm in our commitment. 
    
    Interesting.  Myself and a colleague in doing the prework (a KJ)
    for the Center for Quality Management course in Concept Engineering
    (a customer-focused product development process) came to this very
    conclusion as the fundamental weakness in Digital's software
    engineering process.  We say all the right words, but at the heart of
    it we are not yet truly committed to our customers.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .26
    
    I'll beat my drum again.  According to Deming, profits come from
    repeat business, not new business.  The customer who keeps coming
    back costs you much less to get in the door than the new customer
    whom you had to lure with expensive advertising.  You don't get a
    large base of customers who provide repeat business without meeting
    their needs.  How do you get it?  You commit yourself to satisfying
    them.  Again, WHAT to do is not hard to figure out.  It's quite
    simply actually.  Focus on what THEY need and the revenue and
    profits will come.
    
    Steve