Conference 7.286::digital

    
    I am not trying to argue, but La Jolla is NOT LA.  It just outside
    San Diego. 
    
    And a very long drive from LA.  And a VERY expensive area, as is most 
    of the San Diego area.  Unless, of course, these folks want to stay 
    in Tijuana...

    I do not know why those people are attending the CI conference either.
    I do know that here in the west coast, we use CI database (internally
    available in MRO though US Datawarehouse) very extensively.  It is
    used extensively to identify and target SUN, IBM, HP, and other
    manufacturers' installed based for new programs, service contracts etc.
    Working in IS, I get an average of 10 requests weekly for extract from
    CI database.
    
    So, As far as I can see the database is infact very usefull to field
    sales and marketing personnel.  In fact there is a campaign underway
    named "get off base!!" for going after NON-DEC accounts.
    
    I agree with .1 as far as the cost in San Diego Area.  Those who live
    in Orange, LA, and San Diego counties do know that hotels and
    accomodations are very costly here.
    
    As far as I am concerned it's cheaper than attending a useless meeting
    backeast.  No ofense intended to my east-coast fellows...
    

So, is the problem that people are attending a conference?  Or that 10 
people are going?  Or that they are staying at a hotel that is $135 per 
night?  Or that someone who never travels doesn't know that La Jolla is 90 
miles from LA?  Or that someone thinks that staying at a safe hotel is a 
bad idea?

Maybe the problem is that a group found a useful tool and we need to avoid 
that?  Could the problem be that a finance guy is reviewing decisions he 
doesn't understand and is raising it to people who should be making 
important decisions?

When people attend conferences part of the reason is obviously to make 
further connections.  That can not be done staying at Motel 6 15 miles from 
the site.  I say ask the attendees to go over the weekend and enjoy the 
left coast while getting less expensive tickets.

If the group is failing in it's mission, fire the bad performers.  If the 
group is doing it's job well, leave it alone.  If the group is wasting time 
answering useless finance questions, fire the finance guy.

Matt Haley

    re .5
    
    I'm not trying to pass judgement on the "group of ten."  Just want to
    ask you a simple question:  What exactly is wrong with asking people to
    cost-justify their expenditures?
    
    Seems to me that not asking people to cost-justify things is one of
    many reasons why this company is in the mess it is in.

    
    
    "Cost-justify" can be legitimate.  But it is also really annoying, 
    time-consuming and tough when the person or persons you are justifying
    to are so out of touch, FOR EXAMPLE, to think that LA is close enough 
    to San Diego to commute.   Or out of touch enough to think that all 
    you need is a VT100 (for $100) when you really need a work station. 
    
    I went through this with a previous employer.  Spending $200 to save
    $5.  For example, I wanted to stay at a hotel that was right just
    blocks from an event.  It cost $10 more a night than the one my boss 
    wanted me at.  But the one I wanted to stay at offered free breakfast, 
    free parking if I had a car but I didn't need one because I could
    walk.   Instead the one farther away required that I rent a car, pay 
    for parking, pay for toll roads, required I pay for breakfast... 
    Guess where I ended up staying. 

    
    
    	I think that it is very premature to second guess these folks'
    	reasons for attending this conference, why they had to spend
    	the amount they did on their hotel, or whatever. For all you
    	know, they had very valid business reasons for attending and
    	spending.
    
    	I also find it very disheartening that someone in finance can
    	'instruct' people to justify what they do. I thought that that
    	responsibility ultimately resided with the managers.
    
    	'Cracking down on the boondoglers'? Don't you think you'd better
    	wait and see?
    
    	John
    

    Has there, in fact, been a justification for the attendance referred
    to? Did the team go anyway? I notice that most, if not all the people
    on the To: list have to travel to CA and back from the east coast. This
    sort of expenditure is maddening to someone who is bringing in from
    home scrap paper and pens because company cost edicts prohibit 
    purchasing any office supplies.

    This is not about hotels and who or how many should go to the show. Its
    not about pen and scrap paper or free breakfast. Its about
    accountability for money being spent by the company. Its about an
    auditor saying "STOP This is not business as usual". He or she is
    raising the question do we need to spend $135 times 10 people times #
    of days? and if we do need to spend it, what do we get in return? Its
    fundamentals of business.

I dunno...
I've seen a WHOLE LOT of time and money spent lately double and
triple-justifying what should be routine expenditures.  It really seems like
there are some folks who have decided that "cutting costs" is the PC thing
to do in this corporation, and that its the best way to earn corporate brownie
points.  

Do you really think that the memo went to SLT because the sender wanted the SLT
to be aware of the attendees' names, or bedause the sender wanted the SLT to be
aware of the sender's name?

Seems to me that I remember a certain saga about someone trying to purchase some
PC software that was essential to his job, and getting blocked by someone who
knew nothing of the issues, but thought it would be a good idea to
microscopically examine all expenditures...  How is this really different?

    re .9
    
    Exactly correct!
    
    I truely do not understand the rather emotional responses that have
    been made in this note.  One is almost left with the impression that
    some people think they should have carte blanche to do what they please.
    Of course, this is ludicrous.
    
    I agree with the comment that it should be each person's manager to
    decide whether something is justified or not - based on corporate
    policy and guidelines.  Whether the person in finance understands what
    you do for a living or not is completely irrelevant.
    

    Perhaps part of the problem is that we are new to this and we are doing
    it with a sythe instead of a weeder. Also communication is a factor. My
    customer often need to justify in black and white why they should
    upgrade their DEC CPU. also re .10's anecdote about "PC software that
    was essential to his job," to me reads 'one man's essential ia another
    man's do we really need this expenditure?' The "essential" needs to be
    communicated these days where in the past it may have been rubber
    stamped. For all the anecdotes about expenses being turned down there
    are just as many about junkets and "meetings" with open bar and other
    abuses.
    

i would like to question why DEC spends 300M $ in electronic packaging 
research and development.

i would say 287M is a better figure.

with my Plan i could save the Company something like 30 million. i'll also 
send the names of the groups responsible for such waste to the SLT + 
the entire DEC community and refer to them as "possible bums".

i will also question the Storage business expenditures at a later date.


/MM

    Just for information purposes....I stayed at a very nice hotel -
    downtown San Diego for $40. a night.  Also, I stayed in Santa Clara for 
    $69. a night at a very nice hotel.  Maybe questioning the $135. rate is 
    not unjust.

    
    Downtown San Diego is a good 30 minute drive from 'down town' 
    La Jolla during 'rush hour'.

    One thing to consider is how booked the hotels in the area expect to
    be. If they know they'll be so overbooked that folks will be wondering
    if they have to sleep in their cars, they can charge whatever they
    want.
    
    This summer, when the Pope was in Denver, hotels and motels were booked
    solid months in advance, as far away as Colorado Springs (65 miles!).
    The Super 8 motel in Colorado Springs was the only place in town with
    rooms available. Their normal price is $29.88. That week their
    'corporate rate' was $78! The next week the sign had changed back to
    the regular rate. :-(
    
    A couple of large conventions in a city can cause the same kind of
    booking problems. Then it's supply and demand time for the hotel
    owners. Thay can charge pretty much whatever they please.
    
    Harry
    

    I also am very uncomfortable with the notion of public pillorying of
    folks who are on the attendee list of this meeting.  At the very least,
    .0 should not have included specific names.  In the absence of hard
    data on the purpose of the meeting and the alternatives to the costs
    that were expected to be incurred, I think that exposing folks'
    reputations to damage is questionable.  I certainly would neither do
    that, nor appreciate anyone doing it to me.
    
    Ymmv, fwiw.
    
    Dan
    

    re: .17  "exposing folks reputations" - a dilemma
    
    Putting their names in this file does violate a cultural norm against
    telling on one's peers.  On the other hand, this norm is one of the
    reasons hierarchy's are in place to supervise people - because they
    can't be counted on to raise delicate issues like this one. 
    
    In this instance, however, perhaps they should have been addressed
    directly by the base noter.  To enter their names here perhaps is going
    too public than is appropriate.  It is not the best forum in which to
    defend oneself because people who saw the base note may not see the
    response, assuming that they provided one.
    
    On the other hand, I hear stories of expenditures for weekend
    boondogles of over $2500/day per person for a sales manager and his
    unit (I have a hard time believing that).  Unless behavior of this type
    is brought out into the open, it will probably continue unabated.  But
    I think it starts with personal confrontation, which we all find
    difficult to do.

    Oh, come on now. Identifying the people's names even *after* "proof of
    boondoggle" is inappropriate - that's between them and their management.
    The fact (if it ever becomes a fact) that somebody was censured for
    overspending at a conference would be useful to distribute, so that
    nobody else does it, but who cares who's involved?

    Identifying accused people by name before there's any resolution of
    whether the expenditures were appropriate or not is somewhere between
    insensitive and irresponsible.

    This really smells of McCarthy waving lists in front of a camera.
    

    I believe the answer lies in changing the mind set of what is
    "routine expenditures"...To some this means office supplies,to 
    others this means $135.00+ hotel rooms.Until everyone gets the
    drift that we will not operate in business as usual mode anymore,
    everyone should be held accountable for expenses.Then the bean
    counters can be called off.

    re: .20
    
    But that's the point:  it isn't just between them and their management. 
    When I overspend, it directly impacts what other people can spend -
    it's a limited pot, and my peers are affected.  Waiting for a manager
    to catch me, when my colleagues know and say nothing, is an abdication
    of their responsibility.  
    
    If they assume that responsibility often enough, they won't need a
    manager (at least for that purpose), and then maybe, just maybe, one
    of major gripes of this conference would just disappear.  
    

    Maybe just put them in stocks in the town square.  Isn't that the way
    the founders of Mass. used to do it?  Sounds like a legacy that may be
    coming back.
    
    bill

re .27 et al

What accusations?  When I re-read .0, I cannot find any accusations.  

I certainly find no references to suggestions for placing individuals in "A 
wooden framework with holes for the head and hands..."

Perhaps I either missed something or am thick_skinned by nature. 

    re. .28..............
    
    Noter .27 makes a very valid point.
    
    The original note referred to "boondoglers" and then (I assume,
    without their prior permission) posted the names of the individuals 
    (presumed to be guilty?) involved,
    
    Given the emotional nature of this notes files, I view this as
    a "Salem witchhunt" (viz, the oblique reference to pilloring "wooden
    framework with holes...").
    
    Some finance managers are doing a good job to control obvious waste;
    other are blindly "managing the numbers"...no clue, in this case, who
    is right or wrong but a public trial in this notes file is as
    appropriate as having the AXP performance discussed on 
    the "Jenny Jones" TV "expose'" show.

re .28 

I do find being called a "boondogler" an accusation.

If the note had been about a trip I was on, I would be rather upset.  I 
would be mad at the finance drone as well as the poster of the note.

Matt Haley

    Actually, I think Dave is having one over on us - he's now got us all
    spelling "boondoggle" as "boondogle" [sic].

    Maybe "boondogle" is British slang for "good doggie"...?

    re. .31
    
    It is *very* difficult to accept your interpretation....
    
    Like, Not!
     

    
    I have now seen the original memo (not the base note) sent out by
    Finance departments to addressees across the world as an example of how
    expenses are being examined.
    
    The wide distribution included all the original distribution list
    names.
    
    I make no comment on how this affects perceived management style.
    
    
    Colin

    
    I also don't believe that the basenoter appreciates the chilling effect
    that such sensationalization has on "legitimate" travel requests.
    
    I won't bore the audience with the justifications, but I believe that
    it is in the best interests of Digital that I attend a committee meeting 
    in Portland, OR in early October.  My manager agrees, HIS manager
    agrees.  I have been trying to get "the Request" approved for two weeks 
    now, and today the word is that even if Bill Demmer (a VP) signs it, 
    that might not be good enough for the finance people.  I do know for 
    sure that my $300 travel advance request has been cut to $200.  If I
    indeed get to go, Digital will fund even more of the trip on my credit.
    
    	>>>> Flame on <<<<
    
    One wonders if upper-level managers ever have a chance to get real work
    done with these sorts of distractions.  Maybe this is one reason that
    we haven't been able to come up with a clear hardware product strategy.
    
    I guess that "do the right thing" has been replaced with "do the
    politically correct thing".   Will it ever end ?
    
    	>>>>> Flame off <<<<<
    
    
    .... whew ... I joined the complainer crowd ... At least it felt good !
    
    I actually do have hopes for this company.  I know that there are a lot
    of good people in my area (Hardware Engineering) and I have hopes that
    we will once again get products to design; not like the old days, but
    enough to demonstrate our "excellence"
    
    Cheers,
    		John

    Wow... 
    
    After all this I have to go to my boss and tell him that I've had
    three sessions accepted by the DECUS National Event in San Francisco
    this December...
    
    Hope he hasn't read this note;-)
    
    He might accuse me of only wanting to go on a boondogle instead of 
    participate in a customer training event;-)
    
    
    

    I'm sure Bill Vanatten and Dave Garrod mean well, but its important to
    use
    common sense.  I hope by attaching the justification for this trip
    everyone
    will stop wasting time in this Notes Conference.
    
    The important question here for everyone is as Bill asked:
    "What are YOU doing to increase revenue over the next 3 months?"
    Of course this trip was justifiable and we had VP approval.
    
    It's very unprofessional to post people's names as "boondogglers" when
    it is clear that you know nothing of the circumstances.  It serves
    no useful purpose - a true boondoggle.  If you wanted to "take a stand" 
    on this issue you should have at least informed the people you accused.
    
    If you feel you have a responsibility to expose and police this issue
    where
    does that lead us?  Everyone's business plan, development plan,
    performance
    review and every last minor expense should be publicly posted and
    required to
    be reviewed by all?!?  Then who works on increasing our revenue?
    
    After 13 years at Digital I still enjoy working hard for the company,
    and
    the support of my work is evidence of the contribution I make.  I
    sincerely
    hope that mistrust of fellow employees doesn't undermine our recover
    from
    this market transition and point of low morale.
    
    Dom
    
    ** Attached **
    To: "Bill Vanatten @MRO" <vanatten.bill@a1.usctr1.mro.MTS.dec.com>
    Cc: dom, g_eckroth@memit.enet.dec.com, hamer
    Subject: Re: Corporate Travel Restrictions 3 
    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Sep 93 16:56:01 PDT."            
    <52929171903991/2001072@USCTR1> 
    Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 15:30:33 -0700
    From: Dom Ricchetti <dom>
    X-Mts: smtp
    
    
    While attending the Annual CI/Info Corp Client Forum may not generate 
    immediate revenue or be customer related, it is most definitely a
    profit 
    and revenue required activity.  Our ability to efficiently and
    effectively 
    identify target markets is a critical business need. For this activity, 
    CI/Info Corp is an important strategic supplier.  In many cases,
    CI/Info Corp
    is the sole source for market information that has been consistently
    requested by the SLT and the CBU managers.
    
    CI/Info Corp not only supplies tactical field sales information; 
    more importantly, they are a market research and analysis supplier.  
    While the tactical sales info is probably capable of being centrally 
    coordinated at Digital, the market research needs to have product group
    involvement.  Corporate Market Intelligence and the Librarys
    Network cannot supply the level of market analysis needed by product
    groups to run their business.  So, sending only these corporate 
    representatives is not adequate.
    
    The payback of this travel expense and working with CI/Info Corp is
    a direct effect in the bottom line of our business success through more
    effective marketing and product development strategies.
    
    The payback is consulting and research, besides training on how to use
    CI.
    The relationship with key analysts at CI/Info Corp has been primarily
    developed at this annual event.  Through these relationships we have
    obtained
    better, exclusive and sometimes free consulting and research work.
    
    For example, CI/Info Corp was the only firm that could supply us with
    segmentation of the workstation market by Digital's CBU industry
    definitions.  My relationship and training with them which largely is
    a direct result of attending last years Forum, was the only means by
    which we knew how to access and use this vital information.  Of all the
    data presented at Ed Lucente's June 22 Woods Meeting, this workstation
    CBU segmentation was the most detailed and withstanding.
    
    The payback is also a cost avoidance.  Digital, with our decreased
    spending
    has become less of a customer of analyst firms over the past 2 years.
    We must preserve the relationships if we hope to continue to influence 
    analyst firms strategic direction and product delivery.  Digital
    currently
    has a contract over $800K with CI/Info Corp that is being signed.  The
    total
    expense with CI/Info Corp is down from last year.
    
    Attendance is necessary to maximize the return on our spending with
    CI/Info
    Corp, just as participation with other analyst firms is.  The firms
    will
    focus on delivering what their clients influence them to do.  Our
    competitors
    are there influencing the analysts.
    
    As far as the amount of the expense is concerned:
    - No conference fee is charged, normally other firms charge over
    $1,000.
    - It's an annual conference and can't be postponed until next year.
    - Hotel at $135 includes 3 meals and eliminates need for a car.  The
    hotel is
      the only one near the CI facilities which will also be used.
    - My flight is only $199 round trip.
    Clearly, if I stayed at a $75 hotel, bought my meals, and rented a car
    (all
    within the Corporate Expense Policy), I would spend more money.
    
    Your attachment shows a "Guideline" in which "Travel should be limited
    to 
    revenue/profit-related opportunities or customer-related issues."  I
    view
    this differently than a "corporate wide restriction".  I'm sure that
    the 
    guideline is not meant to spite our ability to do business.  I
    appreciate 
    your concern for corporate expenses.
    
    
    Thank you,
    Dom
    
    P.S. IBM, HP, Xerox, and Toshiba send the same number of people. 
    Digital 
    is not sending the most.
    
    

I guess the problem I see (problem around justification, NOT around publication 
of the memo), is not so much that justification is required as it is how much 
justification is required and at what level.

I used to think that one of the tasks of a manager was to manage a budget.  
That meant that the company trusted that manager to some level of 
responsibility and that the manager was held accountable for the intelligent 
management of that budget.  There always was a presumption that, within broad 
guidelines, the manager had enough enderstanding of the business to know what 
was intelligent spending and what was not.  It was not extrodinary for 
succedingly higher levels of management to have succedingly higher level of 
spending authority.

I used to think that, if a VP has to approve a $1000 spend, the lower levels of 
managers should be freshening up their resumes since, obviously, they no longer 
enjoyed the trust of the company to do an intelligent job.

Personally, I have no problem at all in justifying any of my spending and no 
problem at all with that justification being put into a public forum. If I 
cannot justify the trip and/or I am reluctant to put that attempt at
justification into a public (including stockholders) forum, perhaps I should
NOT be taking the trip. But that is, admittedly, a personal position not shared
by all and not one I would expect others to agree with.  

I consider it totally dysfunctional when a REAL VP has to approve what is
actually "noise level" spending after a string of managers, controllers, Jr.
VPs, et al have endorsed the spending.  Of course, if all the lower levels of
approvers are doing is passing the request upwards, perhaps the VP should be
looking at TFSO candidates. 

Just my opinion

Dave