Conference 7.286::digital

    re: .0 We go, they stay ...
    
>                                            To which it will comprise of 
>a core team of management, and that most all of technical resources will
>be out-sourced. 
    
    What happens when those outsourced technical resources develop some
    management skills of their own, and go after customer business in
    competition with Digital? Or, in the case of key engineering and
    technology, who is to say that these independents will not sell their
    services and expertise to the highest bidder (who will most likely
    *not* be Digital)?
    
    Management suffers from some real blind spots when it comes to the
    care and feeding of technical people. They seem to think that, once
    we've worked for Digital, we will always keep Digital's best interests
    at heart, even after we've been layed off and contracted back. I can
    tell you from personal experience with ex-Digit contractors that this
    is not the case. It will cost Digital dearly in the long run to set
    up independent engineering and consulting bodies; but then, I haven't
    noticed anybody at Digital who is worried about long-term developments
    anymore. Anything farther out than next month is next month's problem.
    
    Geoff

      Very interesting. One recurring theme in this notesfile, even from
    some of the most 'negative' noters, is how Digital, with all its troubles,
    still has the best technology. It's in management and marketing
    that we fall down. And these peoples contribution to solving the company's
    woes? Fire the technical people and keep the managers. It's like a
    fat person who wants to be able to run faster trying to lose weight by
    chopping off their legs. What colour is the sky on their home planet?
    
    8*(
    
    Ken (UK)

    
    Sounds like a setup to me...Ahh, yeah, sure outsource it...
    
    (Palmer:  I'll let them figure out how their buisness is organized,
    determine key players, then CHOP!)  Just ask Digital Consulting management.
    
    Palmer's wants to be like INTEL.  Let Microsoft and OSF write the
    software, let CSC, AT&T, EDS, handle services, etc, etc, etc.
    Best in Class, isn't that what he said?  He's been telling us all along
    what he was going to do, perhaps we just didn't want to listen?
    
    
    Well, at least IMHO.

re Note 3209.3 by PEKING::RICKETTSK:

>       Very interesting. One recurring theme in this notesfile, even from
>     some of the most 'negative' noters, is how Digital, with all its troubles,
>     still has the best technology. It's in management and marketing
>     that we fall down. And these peoples contribution to solving the company's
>     woes? 

        In the final analysis, I don't think you can separate
        engineering, on the one hand, and management and marketing on
        the other.

        A complete engineer is one who understands the customer and
        market needs, and constraints, and designs and implements
        accordingly.  In a highly technical company such as ours at
        least a part of the marketing function *must* be carried out
        by the engineers as part and parcel of their engineering.

        And, of course, engineers likewise are involved in
        management -- their own and, at the highest levels, the
        management of the corporation as a whole.

        Our engineers, and our engineering management, have been *far*
        from blameless in the corporation's fall.  We mustn't delude
        ourselves into thinking that if only all those other people
        had done *their* job properly, all would have been well.

        More particularly, we mustn't delude ourselves that our
        engineers built the right products.  In certain cases they
        certainly did, but in many, many cases their output
        contributed to the overall problems.

        Bob

    re: .2
    
    this is not new...isn't that how Boeing has been making money for
    years??? Boeing is only one who comes to mind there are others...
    
    Take a core of managers, bid on contracts, win the job, outsource
    the work and take your 15-30% of the top...
    
    It works as far as making money goes and THAT IS ALL THE STOCKHOLDERS
    CARE ABOUT...IT'S MAKING MONEY..that's the botton line anyone who
    thinks otherwise is on a different planet...

    Although it sounds absurd, .6 has a good point.
    
    There a growing movement, visible both within Digital and in 'the 'real
    world'.  It has been called the virtual corporation amongst other
    things.  It is evident within the System Integration arena and other
    places where large projects happen.
    
    Instead of having a pool of employees who join a project, then move
    onto other projects, you can run a company by hiring in those skills
    you need as and whem you need them.  It is called using contractors.
    
    So - why not?  Have managers (preferably project managers, not
    administrators).  Give them a budget.  Let them run their lines of
    business or projects by hiring in the skills they need when they need
    them.  There are plenty of discussions elsewhere in this conference
    about the death of jobs-for-life, the death of corporate loyalty (on
    both sides).  
    
    Martin

      Re. .7 The idea of a 'virtual corporation' does not sound at all
    absurd to me. However, such an enterprise does require a high degree of
    management skills, since management is basically all that it exists to do.
    Is management really one of Digital's 'core competencies' though? I
    thought it was our technology which was the best, and sold often _despite_,
    rather than because of, our (dis)organisation.
    
    Ken 

    
    As one of the people who will be effected by SES' approach,
    let me say this: there is no reason outsourcing can't work.
    If you pick the right people to manage the projects, it
    *will* work. The only question is, what are the chances that
    the right people will be picked?
    
    Glenn

    My experience (from the field) has been that Digital has been at times
    brilliant, at times unfocused.  What has been lacking is discipline in
    running the business.  It seems that when someone has had a great idea,
    the answer has been, "go for it".  The result has been 30,000 products,
    or whatever the number is, but no vision or focus.  Also, no real grasp
    of market sizing, or marketing strategy for those ideas.  A disciplined
    approach to the business would ask, in a very structured way, "how does
    this idea make money for us, and prove it".  This is the role of
    management in a hi-tech company - set the vision, set the focus, and
    tightly manage resources in order to make money.
    
    My experience with engineering has been overall excellent.  We seem to
    have engineers that can build very high quality product.  Engineering
    discipline is strong at Digital, but management discipline weak.  
    
    So, it appears that we'll take the "worst in class" as our core
    competency, and outsource the best, if .0 is true.  Just one man's
    opinion.....

 
These 'Virtual Corporations' will fail if the managers are retained and the 
Individual Contributors are let go.  I've been contracting for 10 years now, 
and I'll tell you its not the Managers who have the answers.  Its the 
individual contributors - secretaries, folks on the shop floor, salespeople, 
engineers.  The people who actually DO_THE_WORK are the people who understand 
business and production issues.  

-Vin

    re: .11
    Tell that to Boeing and others who have do it successfully for years...

    It *CAN* work.  It doesn't follow that it will automatically work when
    it hasn't been thought through, isn't managed well, and doesn't have
    adequate feedback and control structures in place.  You don't just all
    of a sudden say, "Oh, let's outsource this," and start calling people.  
    
    You have to know what you want, and when, and to what standards.  You
    can't say to an external document service, for instance, "Just document
    this new syntax.  It will be done in June, or maybe September," the way
    you can to your internal writing group. 
    
    --bonnie, also a contractor

>>    --bonnie, also a contractor

No wonder you're so full of opinions all of a sudden.

:)

-steve-

    Also the housing industry has used this model for years to
    build houses in the U.S.A.
    
    Prime Contractor(management/design engineer/etc), sub-contracts
    (outsources) the building of houses to trades
    people(electrician/plumber/roofer) on a small scale and on a larger
    scale it is repeated as when sub-contracting to a general contractor
    the general contractor will sub-contract the work needed to be done
    to independent or union trades people...
    
    

    
    OK, we have two examples where contracting is used extensively: one a
    high-tech industry that is largely kept alive by deep-pockets
    government contracts and $9000 toilet seats; the other an industry that
    sees breath-taking technical advances once every fifty years or so.
    
    Any others?
    

    
    I can't cite sources, but I'm pretty sure that the Xerox,
    Honeywell, 3M, and HP have done siginficant outsourcing
    of their technical publications and training departments.
    
    Glenn

    the auto industry has for years outsourced a number of their
    jobs in spite of being unionized

    re: .14
    
    >>> >>    --bonnie, also a contractor
    >>> 
    >>> No wonder you're so full of opinions all of a sudden. 
    >>>  
    >>> :)
    >>>  
    >>> -steve-
    
    Hi, Steve, haven't seen you around for a while!  :)
    
    Yes, there's a connection -- I still care about the company I worked
    for for so many years, and so many people are afraid to speak up -- and
    the worst part is, their fear is not only justifiable, it's realistic. 
    It's a lot safer for me to say it. 
    
    --bonnie

    
    Hi re the "outsourcing"
    
    My wife works for the UK arm of an American / British outfit:- FOSTER
    WHEELER. They are civil engineers into Hi Tech engineering projects,
    Refinaries, Oil pipeline / storage  gas and petroleum product
    (Plastic) plants etc.
    
    They have been running on a core team / contractor method of working  for
    some years now, very successfully.
    
    They employ a small core team of permanent project directors, managers and
    engineers.
    
    They employ ON YEARLY CONTRACTS a number of further core team design
    engineers and office people.
    
    They hire all the other staff in on contract according to their needs.
    
    The "permanment" staff go out and develop new work. As a contract is
    worked up, the project team is built up from the core teams. If a
    contract is signed, then the team is expanded using contract enginers,
    from outside, typically a startup core would be as little as four or five,
    expanding to several hundred as the contract reaches maximum effort,
    AND shrinking again as the contract reaches itd conclusion. 
    
    From the employers point of view, even the "resident" contract
    employees are cheaper than permies. My wife is a senior sec, to a
    project director, she is on one years contract. She gets holiday pay,
    but NO sick pay, no pension, and no redundancy rights. When the whistle
    blows she is OUT!.
    
    Of course the major advantage is a flexible headcount, and very easy
    adjustment of the headcount to meet the work in progress!
    
    I believe that this way of working will be seen in all industries
    within a few years! There are a number of UK firms doing it this way
    now!
    
    
    regards
    
    Patrick.

Re: .6 and .12

>    this is not new...isn't that how Boeing has been making money for
>    years??? Boeing is only one who comes to mind there are others...
>    
>    Take a core of managers, bid on contracts, win the job, outsource
>    the work and take your 15-30% of the top...

>    Tell that to Boeing and others who have do it successfully for years...

This is an extremely simplistic and largely incorrect view of how Boeing (and
many aerospace firms) operate.

Defense work works something like this (primes and subcontractors), but there
is *much* more to it than managers, bidding, and contract awards.  Although the
margins can be high (15-30% is pushing it), the risks are immense - ask
Lockheed et al about the F-23.  Also, the work outsourced isn't bodies for
hire; its work completed.  Often the subs don't get paid until the work is done,
or worse yet, until the prime does, if ever.

The commericial aircraft side follows this to much less of a degree, but there
again it is for work (read: subassemblies) completed.  Those wonderful folks on
the factory floors in Renton WA, Everett WA, and Witchita KA assembling the
Boeing 7x7s (x=3,4,5,6, and 7) aren't hired guns - they're Boeing employees.

Not being from Digital manufacturing, I can only guess that we follow something
similar to the commericial aircraft side.  Heaven help us if we go to a defense
contracting model.

Bob Lyon

    RE.21
    
    Hey maybe a Defense manufacturing and scheduling model wouldn't be a
    bad next step.  After all we would have a structured methodology
    rigidly put into place and then would have to instill discipline in
    ensuring that "the nose wheels" keep moving down the factory floor. 
    After what I've had to deal with this past month on getting confirmed
    shipments out the door I'm willing to take my chances with a new
    approach
    
    Being in Sales I'm driven on two thigs-helping my customer get the
    goods and services they have contracted with us for and secondly,
    collect the cash generated as a result of doing the first thing fast. 
    The point to all of this is to follow the three fundamental rules of
    financial management:
    
    			get the cash
    
    			
    
    				Get the Cash
    
    
    
    					GET THE CASH!!!
    
    
    			
    

    Another point that we must keep in mind is "What are we selling?"
    
    Contracting is viable if there is an available pool of talent out
    there.  However, if there is not, then you have to train.  You train
    permanant employees not contractors.
    
    Back in the last 1970s through the middle 1980s, there was a shortage
    of electrical and software engineers.   The shortage was so severe 
    that companies were taking non-CS majors off of the street and training
    them to be programmers.  Thus, you had an incentive to hire employees
    bacuase once you invested 10,000 to 30,000 in training, you had to
    get it back by keeping the person around.  However, at the same time, I
    remember that good tech writers were in plentiful supply so they often
    came aboard as contractors.
    
    Now, the problem we are facing is that there is no longer a shortage of
    electrical engineers and software engineers. In fact, there is a good
    supply of very good engineers that have been rightsiszed from Prime/CV,
    Wang, DG, Digital, Raytheon, ....  Thus, you can staff up a project
    rather quickly and get moving without having to incurr training
    expenses.
    
    Thus, at this point, outsourcing will work in the electrical/computer
    science areas.  Where outsourcing does not work at the moment is in the
    biotechnology business.  They are in the high-growth mode at the
    moment.
    
    What does this mean for us engineer types?  Either re-train into a
    high-grown industry or join the be-a-common-cog of contract
    engineering.
    
    -David
    
    

    
    Re .24 (smith)
    
    My wife is one of the core "Semi-permies",  Foster Wheeler give these
    people 3, 6 or 12 months contracts. Because my wife works for a core
    Permanaent staffer, she is on a years contract. If the work is not
    assured then the other office staff only get 3 months at a time. 
    
    BTW  Foster's also use a great deal of TEMP labour, i.e. people hired
    by the hour from agencies.
    
    I would need to see my wife's contract for her T's and C's, I cannot
    remember the exact terms. other than what I said before.
    
    One thing... My wife's boss has a big file of C.V's, (resumeeS), on his
    desk. These CV's are for both people inside FW and from outside
    agencies. Every time he needs an engineer, cad person, stress man,
    project manager, etc etc, he delves into his box of C.V's. He picks 
    (if he can), people from other contracts in FW, who are finishing their
    present work, then he uses the outside agencies, or independants.
    
    Patrick..
       
     

    re semi-permanent contractors:
    
    I seem ot remember that a couple of years ago, IBM was hiring
    workstation sales and technical support folk.  What was particularly
    interesting was that the job advert included the words '5 year
    contract'.
    
    Now, 5 years is fairly long time for a workstation salesman to stay
    with one company, let alone on the same job with that company.  The
    same questions passed through my mind - what if you want to leave
    within 5 years, or they (IBM) no longer wanted you within 5 years?  Did
    you have a contract for 5 years salary?  Was 5 years the minimum
    (renewable) or the maximum?
    
    Possibly the answer is that (like Digital), IBM was trying to avoid
    permanent head count, and these were long-term jobs but on a contractor
    basis (a bit like some of the DECtemps we have who have been here over
    5 years!).
    
    Is this long-term contracting common?  It goes against the principles
    of flexibility and outsourcing that we have been discussing here.
    
    Martin
    
    

We came across an interesting barrier to long term contracting for individuals
here in the UK recently. The Inland Revenue will call a consultancy agreement an
employment contract if it contains anything that is normally associated with
employmenmt, such as regular place of work, regular hours, reporting structure
etc..

The consequences of this are that they can then demand company tax and national
insurance contributions. This is one of the reasons that it's best to deal with
companies rather than individuals for contracts. It would also be interesting to
hear whether redundancy could be claimed by someone with a contract that looked
like an employee contract.

Dave.

re Note 3209.29 by VANGA::KERRELL:

> This is one of the reasons that it's best to deal with
> companies rather than individuals for contracts. It would also be interesting to
> hear whether redundancy could be claimed by someone with a contract that looked
> like an employee contract.
  
        In the US there is a similar policy against contracting with
        individuals in favor of contracting with agencies, apparently
        for similar reasons (a contracting relationship would be
        viewed as an employment relationship if it was essentially the
        same).

        Bob

    Yes, it's exactly the parallel situation in the U.S. 
    
    There's a long list of questions the Internal Revenue Service will use
    to determine whether you're an employee of the company or a contractor. 
    One of the main ones is whether the individual gets to choose where and
    when to do the work.  Hourly contractors are nearly always considered
    employees of somebody, usually an agency.  
    
    Other government bureaus are also concerned in the definition, because
    a company's main interest in contract workers is very often simple
    exploitation -- avoiding the obligations of treating workers fairly in
    matters such as health benefits and notice provisions (most contracts can
    be terminated at the whim of the employer but obligate the employee to
    the full term). 
    
    I've worked both ways.  I like the outsourced piecework better, because
    it's the only way I can take advantage of the fact that I'm more
    efficient than many other contract technical writers.  Right now I'm
    working through an agency because most of Digital's contracts are
    presently hourly and are technically not outsourcing at all.  
    
    --bonnie

    If outsourcing is SO great, why isn't everyone doing it?
    
    I think the answer is that outsourcing IS great for specific areas like
    manufacturing. E.G. we need power supplies, but don't want to make
    them anymore so let's just keep a FEW people around to manage the process.
    The key here is that all management overhead can not stay.
    
    However, there is a reason we don't outsource the design of alpha -
    intellectual property. There are certain areas that companies don't
    want to outsource, so that they can retain a competitive advantage.
    
    Because I feel that a cohesive, quality information set is vital to
    a products success, I'm not convinced that all the technical, intellectual
    property holders in IDC can be outsourced.
    
    The SES presentation does not clearly state:
    
     - Why SES is adopting this model over other strategies?
     - Exactly how this model saves money? It's not obvious to me that
       savings from individual contributors salaries and benefits, will cost
       less than that of the contractors it'll will take to replace them;
       or that the savings will be more than laying off 2/3 of the
       management overhead while retaining the individual contributors.
     - How is quality and consistency ensured
     - How do our customers feel and will they continue to do business
       under this model?
    
    

    
    re: .-1
    
    The problem is that it is subjective. *I* agree with you that
    a cohesive information set is a critical success factor for
    products.  But I don't think current and former tech writers
    or course developers are terribly important in this decision
    making process. The decision makers are made up of people with
    engineering backgrounds who think that technical writing and
    course development are commodity skill sets. 
    
    I also think that *if* people from the former IDC are making
    decisions, they are trying to figure out how to land themselves
    in one of the "cushy" permanent (read: gets benefits) jobs; they
    are no longer engaging in the mostly academic debate of whether
    writing and course development is a core skill or a commodity. 
    
    Of course, all of the foregoing is in MHO.
    
    Glenn

    
    I forgot to add this. I once heard a definition of
    commodity skills that I liked. 
    
    "Commodity skills are those that are downstream from 
    your own."
    
    Glenn

    There was a very good book that discusses much of this that I saw
    at the various local bookstores late 1993 -- I forget the author, but
    the title was "The Rise and Fall of the Software Engineer" or "The
    Rise and Fall of the American Software Engineer."  The book discussed
    the current/future state of  software engineering in Corporate America.
    It said, in effect, that the future was outsourcing. I have no idea how
    valid the information is/was.
    
    Carel

>    There was a very good book that discusses much of this that I saw
>    at the various local bookstores late 1993 -- I forget the author, but
>    the title was "The Rise and Fall of the Software Engineer" or "The
>    Rise and Fall of the American Software Engineer."

I haven't seen the above title. 

Might you be thinking of "Decline and Fall of the American Programmer", by
Ed Yourdon? (Ed Yourdon is a prolific author in the "methods" space, and the
co-developer of the Yourdon-DeMarco data modeling methods, etc...)

Yourdon always struck me as pretty pessimistic about the productivity/person
equation in software development. He cites evidence of greater productivity
and quality in places like India, Taiwan, Japan, etc. "Outsourcing" to other
countries is what he sees as the real threat to the "industry". 

For a different and refreshing point of view, you might try "Peopleware", by
his co-author, Tom DeMarco, and Tim Lister.

JO

rep .32

>     - Why SES is adopting this model over other strategies?
 because its good for downsizing while maintaining functionality

>     - Exactly how this model saves money? It's not obvious to me that
 Money is not a issue - Downsizing is THE issue!

	Its KEY you know that ****DOWNSIZING****is the goal here.  It becomes
obvious thereafter.  At our forum we were told ANY out sourcing constitutes
downsizing. 

    eg. One function is being looked at for out sourcing out of our group, TO
another group WITHIN Digital.  They are talking about our selling a cluster,
and removing one headcount from our Cost Center, adding a headcount to the 
other group.  This constitutes downsizing for my CC!!!   Get it?  Carry this
model on for a while, with more out sourcing (inside or outside of Digital,
doesn't matter)  and then you'll watch SES management telling their VP  "look
at us, we've downsized N% headcount while maintaining functionality!" SES
management gets a pat on the back.  Funny money play it may seem, but if 
your a CC manager, and you can get headcount OFF your Cost Center payroll, 
you are a success.  Doesn't matter if digital is tricked, as a CC
manager your a tenstar brilliant manager.  We go, SES management stays.
    
    

    I've been reading a new book entitled "Corporate Renaissance -- The
    Art of Reengineering" by Kelvin Cross, John Feather, and Richard Lynch.
    It addresses some of the thoughts in this notesfile, and this string
    specifically. I would recommend it to anyone, managers and IC's.
    Management should be required to read chapter 12 -- "Renaissance
    Transformation." The acknowledgments even mention Bob Cahill, a former
    Digital Equipment Corp. employee. ISBN 1-55786-471-3.
    
    cheers,
    		Fred Deady

    re: .38
    
    For those that missed this note, it is, IMO, a very accurate
    description of what is happening in much of the company.  
    
    In short, it's not reducing costs that is the issue.  It's reducing 
    the number of heads, even if it means added expense.  Even if all that
    happens is that the same person, doing the same job, coming
    back to the office as a "temp" and costing Digital more money.  Even if
    all that happens is that an experienced person is replaced with a more
    expensive, inexperienced "temp."  Even if whole sections of the company
    are "sold" and "leased" back to the company at higher rates.  Granted,
    it would be "nice" if money could be saved, but it's getting rid of
    heads that is most important.
    
    I think the reason for this is that the number of heads is a metric
    that the powers that be demand be reduced, accepting that revenue will
    not improve.  It is a metric that can be satisfied and has visibility.  
    If you can't be more efficient, at least you can make the numbers look 
    like you are more efficient if you reduce heads.  In a crude, simplistic 
    model that apparently the powers that be accept: 
    
    	efficiency = revenue/heads
    
    And, "temp" help and resources basically don't figure into the equation 
    ...  yet.
    
    I firmly believe that many managers are stuck in the difficult role of
    proving they are doing nothing stupid when it is obvious to the most
    casual observer that something stupid is happening (as demonstrated by
    tremendous monetary losses over a long period of time).  I also firmly 
    believe that most waste can be tracked back to someone proving they are 
    doing nothing stupid.  In this example, the proof that nothing stupid
    is being done involves drawing attention away from "real" problems
    and towards a reduction in head count.  (The term, "peanut butter"
    comes to mind.)
    
    FWIW, management in my organization seems to be consciously avoiding
    the "peanut butter" approach and is truly, consciously trying to
    improve effeciency by using head count reduction as a last resort.  I
    applaud this attitude and approach.  They are not perfect.  But, their
    actions seem to me to have embraced the true spirit of improving
    Digital's ability to compete and thrive in the marketplace.  I am in
    Networks.
    
    Steve

   I heard a story once, supposedly a true story, of a very large
   corporation which was sufferring very badly from too much bureaucracy and
   an organizational structure with too many fragmented empires...
   subempires... etc.  The manager/worker ratio was very very small.  The
   company seemed to  be choking on itself whenever it needed to get
   something done. 

   Well, the commander and chief got pissed and announced one day that
   everyone in the corporation was fired.  Next, (s)he said that (s)he was
   the persident and was going to hire 15 people (the VPs?).  Those people
   what were each given task assignments detailing everything they had to do
   and were responsible for.  Next, each of those 15 people would hire 15
   underlings to help them, all of which got their assignments. And so on
   until all the work that needed to be done could be done.  Everyone that
   was left over remained "unemployed" by the corporation. A few layers of
   management resulted (try 15**x and note how quickly the numbers rise).  

   If one of the *hiring* employees thought (s)he could get the job done
   better by hiring contractors, then that was their option.  

   As a result, the entire organization was restructured to do what NEEDED
   to be done and NOTHING more.  All the empires fell and non contributing
   functions  were eliminated.  The corporation returned to profitability.
   Happy ending. BLah, blah, blah...

   Sounds to me like the president saw that the corporation was "added onto"
   and "patched up" and "fixed" over time (and probably out of necessity at 
   the time) to the point where it was getting all caught up in it's own
   complexity. The corporation was a large, overcomplicated *CONTRAPTION*
   that needed to be rebuilt from scratch.

   (If anyone can shed some light as to the veracity of this story, or
   correct anything I've said above, you're more than welcome.  I just
   remember the bits and pieces you see here.)
   
   Parallels to DEC?
   

   BTW: I (who has no one working *under* me) am far, far from the expected
   ~4  levels down from B.Palmer given that DEC used the 15:1 mgmt/employee
   ratio. How 'bout you?
                    

    re: .-1 I have no one working for me and there are 3 levels between me
    and B.P.
    
    Debbie
    

Oh, so you're a VP too??

:-)

Dave

re: .42, .41

3 levels top to bottom apperas to be extremely rare in my part
of the company.  There are 7 levels of mgmt. between me and BP,
unless there's two VPs in the chain (I lose track), in which
case its 8.  If we call it 7, and assume 8 underlings per
manager instead of 15, there should be over 2,000,000 Digital
employees.  Just an observation.

	Steve

    re: .43
    
    Hardly......just your basic software consultant II.
    
    Debbie
    

	Sequent did something like this in the last couple of years ... put
	everyone in a pool, made an org chart to do the business they wanted
	to be in and then filled it. It didn't matter if you were the best GUI
	designer on the planet if they didn't have a role for a GUI designer.

	It was brutal, but they're in business and hiring a bunch of our people
	so they can go after high-margin consulting and such.

	By the by ... everyone went into that pool including the entire senior
	management team - not all of them came out.

	Larry_who's_sitting_next_to_a_cheerful_Sequent_consultant

    We had the another SES evolution meeting.   At the end of the meeting on
the way out, we were warned in essence, "you can say what you want, {about
ses} but remember there are worse fates then being outsourced, you can get
fired,  the company's not going to put up with this anymore" 

    I took that "this", as a warning directly to me to shut up, as references
to the theme of this note were quoted.   We were also told the slides are not
to be made public, and so I've removed my note and replies covering any 
substance of ses.

    Other than that, our meeting was given in more toned down way. Also told
most of our immediate functions didn't look like good candidates for out
sourcing.  With the warning, and the sense of eminent avulsion from the
company abated somewhat, I guess I'd better be a good boy and keep my 
discussion generic or just to the philosophy of out sourcing! 

Rep .46                    *SO LETS DO IT TOMORROW!!*

>	Sequent did something like this in the last couple of years ... put
>	everyone in a pool, made an org chart to do the business they wanted
..
>	It was brutal, but they're in business and hiring a bunch of our people
>	so they can go after high-margin consulting and such.
>	By the by ... everyone went into that pool including the entire senior
>	management team - not all of them came out.
	
	Lets do it!  I can live with this, if Digital doesn't need my skills,
I shouldn't be here nor do I want to be here.  What I don't accept is filling 
some inane quota for a look-at-me-I-outsourced-the-most-this-week manager award!
I accept being a not ready for prime time management candidate.  I accept that
I am a nerd.  I accept this role, having toasted cold beers once with one of my
managers after work, who, after hearing me expound around a Why Risc talk I
gave, around chip density, how Cisc could compete, how Dec, made Suns y^2-
1984 MIPs formula before them... he said "well there will always be a place for 
wierdos like you" (Note I do admit can't tell you how the Bruins are doing)

    

    RE: .35
    
    As a senior consultant friend of mine at Digital has repeated remined me:
    
        "We may just become a bunch of  Migrant Programmers."

Be careful what you ask for.  I saw a group in Digital that did exactly what
is being proposed.  The work was defined, the number and organization of the
individuals to do the work was set and then individuals were picked to fill
the slots.  As it turned out, the number of total positions was reduced from 
the old organization chart, but the new number of "necessary" individuals was 
the same number of people left after cancelling the replacement reqs and 
accounting for transfers.  The number of managers in the new org chart was the 
same as the old org chart and guess what - the skills the the existing managers 
exactly fit the requirements of the new organization - as did the skills of all 
the remaining individuals in the group.  In short, it turned into another 
standard Digital reorganization - some of the names of groups changed, but not 
much changed in how the work was done.  Individuals did receive token awards 
for their work in "re-engineering the work of the group".  What was missing
was any feeling of a need to change.  Right now I feel that Digital needs 
to change.  The vertically integrated computer company that builds everything
from CPU chips to computers (desktop to data center) with operating system,
communications, application development and other layered software with service
and consulting services is no longer a viable business model.  It is time for
Digital to change.

Jim

    Maybe the drastic reorg is appropriate, maybe not.  I dunno, i'm just a
    grunt engineer with at least a half dozen layers of management between
    me anf BP.  But I have heard time and time again that DEC gets all tied
    up in it's own red tape... red tape that may not contribute value to the
    products or increase revenue.  The drastic reorg would be one of
    possibly many approaches to eliminate or alleviate this problem.  Plucking 
    the dysfunctional parts out one piece at a time may be too tedious, not to
    mention time consuming.  And if the orginazation that resulted is
    exactly as it is today?  Then maybe the organization is not the
    problem.
    
    -dave
    (Software Engr... not corporate org consultant... Jeans & Sneakers)

    
    	:-1 &-2
    
    	The key to a **successful** reorganization is a reTHINKING of how
    your group does work. Moving people, processes, procedures, or
    practices is immaterial. To be re-engineered (as the popular
    phraseology today) is to be rethought. 
    
    	For example: Chrysler re-engineered how it built cars by rethinking
    the process for market segmentations, actual design, actual tooling,
    etc. And then built a billion-dollar building to put it all in, and
    started by placing every necessary discipline to bring a car to market
    into ONE team. The first result is the INTREPID which is growing sales
    for Chrysler, not replacing existing sales.
    
    	What Digital needs to do is the same. My contention always has been
    to be successful in this effort we need to follow the Chrysler model
    since we are both discrete manufacturers. We make things, not stuff.
    
    	Comments, anyone.....
    
    			the Greyhawk 

    
>    	The key to a **successful** reorganization is a reTHINKING of how
>    your group does work. Moving people, processes, procedures, or
>    practices is immaterial. To be re-engineered (as the popular
>    phraseology today) is to be rethought. 
    
    
    The key to a successful reorganisation is a rethinking of WHAT
    work your group does. How addresses efficiency, what effectivity.
    The term process improvement is often used to refer to the how
    issues.
    
    If you have a clear vision and statement of what business you want
    to be in and what you want to achieve by being in that buisness
    (in terms of business results - not in terms of I want a paycheck).
    The how part will often fall into place.
    
    Digital is often charged with having a lack of vision, clarity and
    focus (which is true) but this is then almost always used as a reason
    that reengineering (rethinking) cannot be carried out at the local
    level (which is false).
    
    None of this is particularly new or rocket science. In fact, process
    reengineering concepts at the individual level has been around for years
    under the name "time management".
    
    re roelof

    Roelof -
    
    	I agree with your premise on what a group does in terms of actual
    work; but my contention is that is not really Digital's CURRENT
    problem.
    	Our current problem is the absolute length of time it takes for
    something to happen with a customer/prospect that provides revenue to
    us.
    	Thus it is the HOW we do things right now, not WHAT we are doing.
    The WHAT is a strategic question, the HOW is a tactical response. And
    tactics is what is killing us in the marketplace today.
    	Keep up the good thinking. I enjoy your notes and your creative
    thought processe.
    
    		the Greyhawk 

    Well, with all those compliments how could I not agree with
    your contention :-)
    
    But even without the compliments I agree that at the field (selling) 
    level the major problem is by far broken processes and this is definitely
    a how issue (how to get the #$%^& things working).
    
    My engineering/pm bias was showing through. At the engineering level
    the processes actually do seem to work reasonably in the sense that once a 
    product actually gets out of the door its technical quality is 
    often quite good it is just that they (the engineering processes) 
    are far too unwieldy and completely blow away time to market 
    considerations nor do they in reality support adequate 
    customer (commercial) input and control.
    
    re roelof