Conference 7.286::digital

    Alfred,
    	I couldn't agree more.  Now if we can get this company going in
    that direction...
    
    Jim Morton

    ... and if we are to make a full recovery, the "Becket Syndrome" must
    be extirpated.  I remain hopeful that most practitioners of this
    management style will, ultimately, get sacked.
    
    /s/ Polyanna, aka Dan. :-)
    

.0 is a gem.

For the longest time I have been wanting to articulate somthing along
these lines and .0 provides good examples of what I call 

        "Preoccupation with appearance rather than reality"

Examples ('We' means 'Digital'):

- We choose to ship buggy junk instead of waiting 2 weeks to get some
  major problems fixed. Customers and support staffs suffer as does our
  reputation (as noted in .0)

- We hide behind policies and numbers instead of making good decisions
  or accepting responsibilty for bad ones.

- We ask people to do one thing while doing somthing completely opposite
  (Don't do as I do, do as I say)

- Spin control is the rule, honest communications are the exception

- Don't tell me bad news, just sugar coat it

This entire trend seemed to start about 10 years ago, as I recall. In
field service, the customer survey process became 'managed'... we were to
coach/coax customers into giving good ratings, even if there were
problems with service. Instead of fixing the problems, we tried to tinker
with the survey results. Number adjustment became the game. We focused on
the survey as if it were the end; customer satisfaction was no longer the
goal.

I was once in a meeting in which a manager for the Logistics organization
(parts dept.) was explaining to the F/S reps that low scores on the
customer survey in the area of "Parts availabilty" were the fault of the
F/S engineers! (somthing we had no control over)... the explanation was
thus: "You use 100 parts at a site during the year... 99 alcohol pads
and one memory board. Memory board was not in stock when system went
down, so you order it, it comes in 1 day later. Thus, you had 99%
parts availability." AND, WE WERE TOLD TO EXPLAIN IT JUST LIKE THAT TO
THE CUSTOMER!!!

Nobody in their right mind would attempt to BS a customer like that,
but that is what we were told to do... and this was over 10 years ago.
The mindset that birthed jewels such as that still reigns today, as far
as I can tell.

I don't think this problem is unique to Digital, it is pandemic in 
many companies and in government as well. I chalk it up to the general
decline in personal responsibility that we have been experiencing in this
country (USA) since the 1960s.

Lee Roth

I can understand the pressure to ship a product before it's ready. 
Schedules are probably far more visible inside Digital than the bugs 
reported back by customers, and anyway, by the time the bug reports are 
coming in, isn't some other organisations problem?

Dave.

    RE: .0
    
    Thank you for that beautifully articulated note. It describes perfectly
    an environment with which, unfortunately, I'm only too familiar. There
    is one part, however, you missed out. You forgot to mention the
    management wannabees; those who cover their own incompetence and lack of
    talent and skill, and who lever their own advancement, by shafting
    others around them. Worse, they're actively encouraged by the
    highly-receptive management types you so accurately described.
    
    Laurie.

	Regarding .0


	Alfred,

	In your last paragraph you alluded that there was noone able to stand
	up and say that a product shouldn't be shipped because of the problems
	it would cause, etc.......

	I *WAS* one of those people Alfred.  I was a Servicability Engineer
	in MCS and stood up many times at PHASE review meetings and stated
	"YOUR NOT READY TO SHIP"  I will not approve the passing of this
	phase.  Many times it was *NOT* Engineerings fault, sometimes it was
	Marketing (No plan or their plan was half-cocked), sometimes it was
	Services (I didn't have my act together), sometimes it was SALES (did
	not have enough training on the product).  All of these interrelate
	to our ability to SERVICE the customer.  That was the view I took.
	I represented not only OUR Services organization but their (our) 
	customer. 

	I was alternately patted on my back and kicked in my rear for doing so.
	I stepped on some upper management toes because I dared to point out
	the obvious.  There were peers in my group who would not do what I did.
	They played the game.  They absolved themselves of responsibility for
	the Field and the Customer in regards to Servicability of products.

	When the time came for TFSO last Spring who do you think was 'let go' ?

	hint: I no longer work for MCS.

	Regards,

	Chuck

    	There's a classic quote amongst support engineers which summarizes
    this repulsive phenomenon so well:
    
    	"The quality goes in when the product comes BACK."
    
    Phil

	Great Note Alfred!

	I couldn't agree more. I'm seeing evidence of customer 
	disatisfaction here in the field. One in particular (whom
	is a good friend of mine), has drafted a letter to Bob Palmer
	listing all his complaints over the past year. I have yet to
	see the letter, but, based on what I've heard, he backs everything
	up with dates and facts.   His management
	has reviewed the letter and has finally approved him sending
	it out.

        This individual, "at one time", was one of the most
	staunch supporters of Digital and its products. He works for
	a very large corporation, they've been a very good customer 
	of Digital, but lately, he's been ready to dump us and consider
	other vendors platforms! I never would have believed to ever
	hear him say those words, "well maybe its time we started looking
	at other alternatives"! The account team has done all that they
	could to get things resolved for this "loyal and valuable customer",
	but with no success!

	His complaints are many, and to hear him talk, he and all the other
	loyal VMS customers feel they have been betrayed. He belongs to 
	DECUS and I guess there's been a lot of DEC bashing going on in
	DECUS notes conferences. One example he gave me, was "why did 
	DEC change the name of VMS to "OPEN VMS"? He said that that has 
	created confusion among VMS customers. Customers managers are 
	saying "Open/VMS"? If we have to migrate to "Open/VMS", then we
	might as well move to UNIX. Now I don't know if this is true or
	not, but I will say that my customers were confused for a long
	time also and thought that they would have to go through some 
	migration and were resisting "OPEN/VMS", until I was on site with
	the sales rep and was asked the question about "OPEN/VMS" and set
	them straight.

	I've asked him (my friend) for permission to post his letter
	to BP in this notes conference. I've told him that I would 
	take out all references to him and his company out of the letter
	and only post his complaints. I believe that it is important for
	this type of feedback to be provided back to ourselves. If we're
	to survive as a Corporation, we need to look at the truth and 
	what (outside, customers) peoples perceptions are of the 
	"NEW DIGITAL". 

	Let me just say, that this Coporation is one of the largest in 
	the world, when they buy PC's they buy them by the thousands at
	a time, when they buy software licenses they buy tens of thousands
	at a time. So, if we can't treat a Corporation of this size, with
	the decency and respect , they deserve, then we need to do something.
	
	I don't mean to imply that based on a Corporations size, it should
	get prefrential treatment, all customers should be treated as 
	a "first class customer", but, you'd think even with a broken 
	system, someone would notice this Corporation was "pissed" and 
	would manage to get things "resolved"!

	So, when I get the letter, I'll post it here. I don't know when
	I'll get it. I want to give him an opportunity to finish it up
	(he's adding more) and send it out to BP. Then with his permission
	I'll post it here (with names and company references removed).

	RC

Re: .8
    
If there were any hope; if customer satisfaction were truly a priority;
if this company really practiced the business ethics it purports to
espouse; then this whole note string would not even be here.  As other
notes before this attempted to kindle a spark of concern at higher 
levels (see note 2292, eg.), the only attention this customer's concerns
will receive are right here, and regretfully, only here.
I'm beginning to think this company is finding it too expensive to care.
It literally can't AFFORD to change!

    re .0:  Excellent note.  I have one thing to add.  Many employees
    mistrust the SLT.  Many think they haven't a clue.  But most of what
    we see of the SLT's actions are the exaggerated versions that get
    implemented on us by the types of managers described in .0.  The SLT
    needs to find out how their messages are being passed on -- and if
    their messages are being distorted, that's another thing they must fix,
    if they want to have any credibility among employees.
    
    For example, is the SLT really so out of touch as to think that shutting
    down dial-in access for engineers (and everyone else who has an office)
    is a good idea?  Or is this just an idea that came up in a brain-storming 
    session and escaped?  Most ideas in brain-storming sessions are silly,
    but one has to consider all ideas in order to find the good ones.
    All I know about this is reports that the SLT is proposing it --
    which makes them look like they haven't a clue about how work really
    gets done in this company.
    
    I don't think the SLT is aware of this problem.  I had a meeting with
    John Buckley (Ops officer for the Ethics Office) in which I argued
    that notes files are *not* (as was stated in a document circulating at
    high levels) a prime way in which Digital's secrets are revealed to
    outsiders.  I argued that email deserves that dishonor.  His reply
    was that he didn't understand all this fear about the SLT shutting
    down the notes files.  Well, if he doesn't understand, he should look
    at the messages that we all get every couple of years that purport to
    originate in the SLT!  But I didn't know how to get that across to him.
    
    		Hanging on,
    		Larry

    While no one would want to see a product ship before it is ready, the
    problem is not only the products unreadiness.  It is not meeting
    expectations set with customers.
    
    Whether by ignorance, or by acts of God, or by a need to give an
    unrealistic schedule for funding, or by arrogance, or by not really
    paying much attention to schedules, or whatever, it is common for
    products to not be ready on the date they were originally scheduled to
    be ready.  
    
    Our engineers and product managers give hints at DECUS (it will be
    ready before the snow falls).  Our people give PID's and although the
    dates are proprietary the presenter never talks about slips.  We set
    expectations and our customers make plans based on those expectations. 
    I have had customers tell me, especially for SW products, 'I was told
    that it would be ready by November, and had put plans in place to begin
    learning to use it in December, etc.  So please can I have an early
    copy to start with?'  If we give it to them, the complain about the
    problems and decide it is too buggy.  If we don;t give it to them they
    get angry and try a competitors product.  It is a no win situation.
    
    Hardware is just as critical.  Not to pick on the HSJ40, but we ordered
    one
    and got a commitment for August delivery. Then, at the end of August,
    we were notified that delivery would be in September.  The customer
    absolutely needed the capacity by October so we were forced to loan
    him a bunch of RA drives just in case the HSJ'40/SCSI didn;t ship
    in time. Because it slipped he was nervous about it not working.  As
    it worked out we got the HSJ, it works great and all is okay except it
    cost us, Digital, a bunch to have those 18 RA drives just in case.  But
    that only shows up on 'my' books so the hole is in my end of the boat.
    
    I ask you that are involved with product development to work a bit
    harder up front on setting expectations you can meet.  I know how hard
    you work and how many hours you put in. And I know how your staff got
    cut or a co-product you depended on got cancelled.  I know how someone key
    can quit.  I know many of the things that can go wrong.  And if I know
    them, you should know them even better and be able to factor that stuff
    in.  Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I only think we often slip.  If so, I
    apologize.
    
    SOmeone told me the following a long time ago.  He ordered a new car
    wwith a special radio.  And when he went to pick up the car, the
    special radio wasn;t installed.  The dealer told him it wasn;t ready
    yet, so he installed a loaner and would call him when the right one
    came in.  About 6 weeks later he got the proper radio.  But he always
    remembered it and never forgave that dealer.  So even when we do damage
    control we don;t always get points from the dealer.
    
    /joel
    
    
    
    
    

    RE: .3
    
    	By Henry, I think you have it. If we can not change our "Form over
    Function" approach, then we can not curb our failures. 

    Setting expectations (salespeak for availability translation)
    
    	ship by end of "N" month (add 30 days)
    
    	shipping in late Q"N" (add 60-90 days)
    
    	available in 2nd half fy"N" (add 2 qtr's)
    
    This is almost always right.  When its wrong you are a hero.
    
    /bob
    

    I always take those dates and numbers as guarantees.
    
    That is, guaranteed not to ship before Q3.  Guaranteed not to exceed 50
    Specmarks.  Guaranteed not to cost less than $80K, etc.
    
    not a hero wannabe, just a 'person with integrity' wannabe.
    /j