Conference 7.286::digital

re Note 2792.0 by GLDOA::ESLINGER:

> This is the first I've heard about this.  Does anyone have any more info on 
> this?  Does this mean that IM&T employees will move over to Digital Consulting
> to service the "Digital account" as in a traditional outsourcing model?  
> Will Digital Consulting be able to claim revenue from Digital the way 
> EDS receives revenue from GM?  What role would MCS play in this scenario?

        This has already happened.  Part of IM&T has become CNS, a
        part of Digital Consulting.  Part of IM&T remains
        "independent".  They tell me that this is one of the problems
        Digital has in attracting a CIO -- the traditional
        responsibilities of a CIO are divided between two
        organizations that can't be combined, since one is internally
        "outsourced".

        Bob

    So, Dick, don't you think the EDS model works well?
    
    Tim

        >So, Dick, don't you think the EDS model works well?

    \Tom, i'll try to answer for \Bob this question.  

    me, \nasser, being somewhat of an authority on this subject (being an ex-EDS
    employee working in GM accounts), i can say this:

    EDS was set up to do nothing but data processing and write
    applications for the customers and do their day-to-day data processing
    work for the customers.

    EDS sets up an account in GM plant to run the plant computer related
    needs and they charge the plant for the service such rendered . the
    account has a budget, and balance sheet and the whole thing, there is
    an account manager , an account manager is very visible person and
    very important, all the plant computer related work go through the
    account, the account has programmers in there to write applications and
    run the computers for the plant. the account work very closely with the
    plant manager and other plant departments to meet their daily
    day-to-day needs.

    i dont think we in DEC are set up to do this sort of work, we in DEC
    are not experienced in writing applications for customers, or we dont
    want to do it.

    so, before we see if the EDS model works for us or not, we must step
    back and look within our self to see if we, DEC, can fit in that
    model, and if not, try to find a model that we'll fit in, or change our
    self to fit in a model we think we should fit in.

    \nasser

>    i dont think we in DEC are set up to do this sort of work, we in DEC
>    are not experienced in writing applications for customers, or we dont
>    want to do it.

What an interesting and fascinating view of Digital there is from the GMA!

I have worked for DEC/Digital for 6+ years.  The whole time has been spent
delivering software services to customers.

I have written application (and systems) software for customers.
I have helped customers write application software.
I have maintained application software for customers.
I have helped with operations, analysis, design, implementation,
purchasing, disposal... the whole life cycle of systems.

We don't do much "product" engineering here in the field.  But we could.  I
even think we should.  I just don't know how to convince people in GMA
that we in the Midwest can be just as intelligent, as capable... well, as
"able" as other geographies.

We do software.  We can even, when pressed, do software engineering.  And
we can be mission focused, and customer focused.  The field has the ability
and the desire to please customers.  

Don't assume that because GMA engineering shows no experience or ability in
customer applications (if even that is true) that the rest of DEC/Digital
is the same way.

JPB

    \nasser....
    
    My question to Dick was tongue in cheek. He and I worked with GM/EDS
    for about a year. We could not talk to GM people without there being an
    EDS person present. They came as a pair, which seemed to be a whole lot
    of overhead, and a whole lot of beauracracy. There was also a lot of
    distrust and bad feelings between the two companies/camps. All in all
    not a model I'd suggest we try.
    
    Tim (or \Tom for \nasser)

    
    .5

    \Tim !! you are an ex-EDSer !! and \Bob too !!

    i did not know that !

    i think there are few other ex-EDSers in DEC, i know 2 other DECsss
    who are also ex-EDSers , and now 2 more, and my self, that makes 5 ! 
    i am sure there are many more !

    i worked in GM plant in Atlanta for one year i worked in the one
    north of Atlanta (they build buicks there?, i forgot) and the one
    south of the city, then they shipped to the troy Michigan to plant
    automation division.

    it was certainly an eye opener experience  for me ! i have never been
    in even a tomato packing factory before in my life, and suddenly here i was
    in the middle of car assembly plants !!

    any way, welcome to your new home, welcome to DEC !

    \bye
    \nasser

re Note 2792.4 by 17185::SLBLUZ::BROCKUS:

> We don't do much "product" engineering here in the field.  But we could.  I
> even think we should.  I just don't know how to convince people in GMA
> that we in the Midwest can be just as intelligent, as capable... well, as
> "able" as other geographies.
  
        About two years ago I took part in a six-week imaging task
        force (more or less a waste, in my not-so-humble opinion,
        judging by the results to date).  One of the points I tried
        to bring up, because it seemed to be exacerbated in the
        imaging space especially, is that Digital's ability to
        design and implement solutions, both generic (products) and
        specific (SI), is widely distributed and divided between
        engineering and consulting/services.  However there was
        little or no synergy between central engineering and "the
        other kind of engineering" (in fact that other kind is often
        not thought of as engineering, but it surely is).  In fact,
        there is often duplication and even conflict.

        I think that SI, professional services, consulting, or
        whatever it is called right now is the most productive and
        highest-quality kind of "advanced development" we could want
        for our products.  But we aren't set up to take advantage of
        it in that way.

        Bob

    re .5, .6
    
    Hey Tim, you never told me you used to work for EDS.  You didn't 
    strike me as the type. 8-) 

    
    Digital's internal IM&T organization was reengineered several years
    ago.  The infrastructure piece (computing and networking) was separated
    from the solutions development piece.
    
    The infrastructure piece is now CNS and is a part of Digital
    Consulting.  The solutions development piece is still called IM&T and
    are employed by the function/business unit they support.  This makes
    sense though it might seem difficult to implement.
    
    The CNS organization now is chartered with delivering the
    infrastructure outsourcing business.  I am not familiar with any
    significant application and operations outsourcing business Digital has
    either won or aggressively pursued.  We can manage the infrastructure
    piece rather easily though.
    
    Funding has always been a complex issue I imagine it has only gotten
    more difficult to understand these days.
    
    jeff

From:	NAME: Bob Palmer @MLO               
	FUNC: PRESIDENT AND CEO               
	TEL: 223-6600                         <PALMER.BOB AT PNDVUEA1 at MLMAIL at MLO>
Date:	06-Dec-1993
Posted-date: 06-Dec-1993
Precedence: 1
Subject: Chief Information Officer -- Bob McNulty                               1
To:     See Below

         *****  Please distribute throughout your organization  *****

Having modern, "best-in-class" management information systems capability is 
essential to Digital's turn-around, in support of the re-engineering of 
Digital's customer value chain, and as a showcase to our customers.

To lead Digital's information systems effort, I am pleased to announce the 
appointment of Bob McNulty as Digital's Chief Information Officer.  Bob will 
assume this responsibility in addition to his position as Vice President of 
Operation Management Services (outsourcing) reporting to Gresham Brebach.  

Bob currently manages Digital's data centers and telecommunications networks.  
In addition, with this announcement, he will manage the worldwide Information 
Management and Technology (IM&T) organization.  Bob will become a member of 
Digital's Senior Leadership Team.  

In his new assignment, Bob will lead the implementation of our internal open 
client-server computing strategy.  All of Digital's IM&T, application 
development, maintenance, support operations, and telecommunications resources 
will report directly to Bob.  IM&T funding will continue to come from the 
functions, business units, and territories. 

Bob is ideally suited for this role.  He was CIO for AT&T and later The 
Equitable Insurance Society, where he dramatically transformed each company's 
information systems to support the fast changing needs of their businesses.  
Bob has also served as Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive 
Officer of Pathe Computer Control Corporation, a technology-based manufacturing 
consulting firm.

He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from St. John's College and an Advanced 
Marketing Management degree from the Wharton School at the University of 
Pennsylvania.

As CIO, I have asked Bob to report to a management board whose members will be 
Gresham Brebach, vice president, Digital Consulting; Ed McDonough, vice 
president, Manufacturing and Logistics; Enrico Pesatori, vice president, 
Personal Computer Business Unit; John Rando, vice president, Multivendor 
Customer Services; Adriana Stadecker, vice president, Executive Operations; and 
Bill Steul, vice president, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer.  This board 
will help Bob determine the company's information systems strategy and insure 
resources are applied appropriately in support of our business priorities.  

Please join me in congratulating Bob and supporting him in this critical 
position.