Conference 7.286::digital

    Peter,
    
    What do you do?
    
    
    Michael

    Thought I'd enter this here instead of a new topic (though, being in
    sales, I'm VERY interested in what THIS might wind up revealing!)...
    
    I've been asked by my client for a copy of an internal document that
    describes Digital's IT architecture. They had a copy a couple of years
    ago and misplaced it. THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE CURRENT!
    
    They wanted to use this as the outline for thier own, i.e. they thought
    that the WAY we defined things, the LEVEL of detail, etc were
    "spot-on". I've asked a few folks in the local office if they have a
    copy, but no-go.
    
    If anyone from IM&T, or other, has a copy, or knows who I can contact,
    or where I might find a copy , please contact me asap at
    PARVAX::SCHUSTAK, Steve Schustak @NJO, or dtn-335-5826.

RE: .2 

>>    I've been asked by my client for a copy of an internal document that
>>    describes Digital's IT architecture. They had a copy a couple of years
>>    ago and misplaced it. THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE CURRENT!
    
>>    They wanted to use this as the outline for thier own, i.e. they thought
>>    that the WAY we defined things, the LEVEL of detail, etc were
>>    "spot-on". I've asked a few folks in the local office if they have a
>>    copy, but no-go.
    
If this is indeed an internal document, the client should NOT have access to
it unless they have a proper non-disclosure agreement signed.

You might want to check out Digital Standards on VTX SMC as a start.

    I know the people working on Digital's future corporate architecture.
    
    I could put you in touch with the right person.
    
    I would not be surprised, however, if that was highly confidential
    info.  
    
    Michael

    This is a fairly large account, and we operate under a master
    non-disclosure agreement as an amendment to our DBA.
    
    Again, tho a current doc would be find, one from cica 1990, or 1991
    (i.e., two or three Digital's ago :-) would be fine. 
    
    Please DO put me in touch with someone in that group!!!
    
    Thx,
    
    Steve

    Digital Information Systems published "Information Systems Technical
    Strategy and Architecture" in June 1989.  We got lots of brownie
    points, but no revenue in sharing it's contents with a top 15 Fortune
    500 Account some time ago.  We call it "sucking our brains".  
    
    Henry Theberge wrote the Preface, and I believe led the effort.  Try 
    him or George Champainge for copies or more current version.

    You should contact Dave (rumor::) Doxey, who leads the Information
    Architectur group for IM&T.
    
    I am aware that we have shared some of this type of information with
    major customers in the past (specifically Apple and GM), with the right
    non-disclosures, etc.
    
    /thorgan

    Re .6 & .7 Thanks, on my way...
    
    Re .6
    >>Digital Information Systems published "Information Systems Technical   
    >>Strategy and Architecture" in June 1989.  We got lots of brownie   
    >>points, but no revenue in sharing it's contents with a top 15 Fortune   
    >>500 Account some time ago.  We call it "sucking our brains". 
    
    Too true. Sometimes it's VERY tough to transition from "sharing some
    insights in a partnership" to having a top-notch consultant NICELY let
    the client know that in most cases, "the only way to get to a result
    like this is to have done it already...and I am available to work with
    you on this if youd like beginning Monday, at $X per day..."
    
    

    re. 1
    
    I am currently a sales support manager for financial accounts in NYC.
    Last year I was in Digital Consulting (as was all sales support) and
    one of the teams I managed was a solution team focused on process 
    visualization and design for the financial industry.
    
    Peter Dillard

    George Champagne is the correct spelling. George came to talk to my
    customer some time ago about the "vision" and, I believe has some
    capacity to host customer visits.

This is amazing.  A string with 11 replies, *not one* of which relates to the
base topic.  I've seen notes which stray from the topic before, but to not
have a single reply relate to the topic (I think) a new record...

My hat is off to all of the people who replied to this note.  Goodjob...

-- Ken Moreau

:-) for the humor impaired...

RE: 3216.36

>MOVE CVC TALK TO CVC NOTE

Ok.  To start things off, could you respond to the query in .0, or to some of 
the ideas presented in 3216.33, or to the questions in 3216.35?

Thanks in advance.

-- Ken Moreau

re Note 3225.10 by GUCCI::HERB:

>                             -< Spelling correction >-
> 
>     George Champagne is the correct spelling. 

        By remarkable coincidence there's also George Champine, who
        is Manager for Infrastructure Technology and Architecture.

        Bob

    In the 4/11 issue of Digital Today there is a CVC insert that describes
    the Customer Engagement Process (one of five defined by CVC).
    
    The article says:
    
    	"Two initial worldwide initiatives have been identified within the 
    	Engage Customer process - Contact Management and Order SUpport. 
    	Both the Engage Customer process and the two initiatives are
    	managed by Joe Ford, who is leading a team in the development of
    	new process and tools in each initiative"
    
    	"The Contact Management work is broken down into four areas:"
    
    		Communications Standards
    		Campaign Management
    		Customer Profile
    		Capability Map
    
    	"Order Support is focusing on making it quick and easy for
    	customers, partners, and account teams to configure, quote,
    	propose, order, receive delivery, and pay for Digital based
    	solutions."
    
    	"The Order Support work is broken down into four elements:"
    
    		Configure, Quote, Propose
    		Electronic Access
    		Order Fulfillment
    		Order Management/Customer Administration
    
    The text detailing all of these activities seems to focus on providing
    better support for the selling activities that I see taking place now
    as opposed to production of a new process for selling.
    
    I say that because the key element of convincing someone to buy what
    you have to sell is not directly addressed in the article.  I get a
    sense from the article that the job of selling is confined to dropping
    a Configured Quote and Proposal in line with a Digital Capability Map
    on the desk of a customer identified in a Customer Profile who then
    buys through Electronic Access and we then only have to deal with Order
    Administration.
    
    Peter Dillard

    Re:14.  No, the job of sales begins after you have the misfortune of a
    misguided customer actually placing an order with you.  Then you must
    drop EVERYTHING to ensure that some semblance of what he ordered
    arrives on time and working, dealing with the shortships and missships,
    substitutions, scheduled an installation, and hoping it all works. 
    After that, you have the formidable task of attempting to get credit
    for said order, and then you have the task of tracking whether the
    sales credit correctly booked to the correct customer number and that
    your badge number was associated with that customer number.  This is
    complicated when your customer is nationwide, with over 600 CBA numbers
    and multiple billing and shipping, with both direct and indirect
    orders.  
    	You can further complicate this process by understanding that as a
    salesman you are the ONLY person who has a large percentage of your pay
    based on commission, so you are the only person with "skin in the
    game."  Everyone else has the luxury of standing around wondering why
    you're getting so upset and not being a "team player" (a convenient
    euphemism for someone who gives up when met with any adversity).
	If the people doing the sales re-engineering have half a brain,
    they will please please please talk to someone out here in the field
    for ideas on how to improve things.  I hate random carping, and I have
    some good ideas for improving the sales process, and would welcome the
    opportunity to contribute to a solution.
    
    

    this sort of begs the question: will there be any sales peoples left to
    re-engineer? isn't looking to promising out this way.

re: 11

>This is amazing.  A string with 11 replies, *not one* of which relates to the
>base topic.  I've seen notes which stray from the topic before, but to not
>have a single reply relate to the topic (I think) a new record...

 Yeah, it was really hot and humid here today. Reminded me when I used
to live in Texas.

So which is more hot and humid, Houston or New Orleans.

Say, is Madonna a real blonde or what?

         <<< HUMANE::DISK$CONFERENCES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
          
>>This is amazing.  A string with 11 replies, *not one* of which relates to the
>>base topic.  I've seen notes which stray from the topic before, but to not
>>have a single reply relate to the topic (I think) a new record...

 
.17 >Say, is Madonna a real blonde or what?

    Oh, I get it...you mean to what extent Madonna has reengineerd herself
    in order to improve her CVC and provide overall improved customer
    service?
    
    (Thank God, At least .17 is trying to relate to the base topic :-) :-)

    rep .15
    I believe the reason this note was written is to see if anyone in
    sales/sales support has any INPUT that may help solve some of the
    present problems, NOT bitch and moan about the problems w/o any
    positive input.  (just an observation   ;-)      )

    re .16 -
    
    The one consistant thread I hear in all the reports/rumors is that we
    will continue to call directly on some number of 'large' accounts.
    My personal interest is in reengineering that sales process.
    
    One initiative that is being proposed in this (NE) region is to focus a
    part of the sales effort to calling on consultants/system integrators
    that may be the preferred partners of our customers.  The idea being
    that we will be more effective by selling to the people/companies our
    customers want to do business with.
    
    I see this as a fundamental change in the process of selling to large
    accounts for this account base.  Having supported sales to Andersen
    consulting in the past, I know the support requirements to be different
    than direct account support.
    
    There are a host of other issues that arise if you adopt this strategy
    in acount.  Just one being the positioning of Digital Consulting vs.
    your 'customer'.
    
    Peter Dillard

    I will take a stab.  Our sales system just needs to be fine tuned a
    bit.
    
    o We have too many sales people focusing on the same customer.  I am an
    account manager for Texas Instruments (one of my accounts to be used as
    an example).  For TI, we have me and my partner (two reps), a PC rep, a
    telesales rep, a PCBYDEC rep, a DECdirect rep, a storage rep, a networking 
    rep, a couple service reps (not to mention the service engineers), a
    printer and terminal rep, an MCS rep, several Digital consultants and 
    countless distributor and VAR reps.  All of which feel they do not need to 
    contact the account rep, but occasionally do so out of courtesy.  Most of 
    them I am asked to introduce around so they can drive business.  Clearly 
    there is a better way.
    
    o The preferred method for getting information is always going to be
    human, no matter how good the Integrated Repository gets.  This can be
    supported by online information or faxed info by the human.  Keep
    things like DECSALE and the Competitive Hotline alive.
    
    o There should be some harmony to the plethora of sales tools being
    distributed.  There needs to be a centralized theme among them.  This
    will in turn be translated through to the customer.  Today, we receive
    so many different tools and training aids that by the time the
    information disseminates to the customer it appears as though Digital
    has a million products and no cohesive strategy.
    
    o Invest in TV ads please.  It will make selling into new accounts so
    much easier.  For the most part, the customers that know of us get
    their information from CNN, the Wall Street Journal or whatever about
    our financial woes.  Some advertising demonstrating our
    state-of-the-art products would help our image.  We don't need image
    ads that don't sell anything, image will take care of itself.  We could
    also use the ego and morale boost.  Do you remember how excited we were
    when we announced we would be advertising on TV.  The ads were so-so
    (various people talking to unplugged machines sitting in chairs and
    steam rooms), but they were exciting.  Unfortunately, they were too few
    and far between.  You need lots and lots of the ads out there before
    you are recognized and the public is humming your jingle, talking about
    your product or whatever.  
    
    o Ditto the above for Talk Radio ads.  This medium is quickly becoming
    the rage in America:  from Rush Limbaugh to Howard Stern, these guys
    are pulling in big audiences at a fraction of the advertising cost of
    TV.  We automatically get a spokesperson (especially if it is a live
    commercial or a commercial taped by the host) that the audience already
    likes (or else they won't be tuned in).
    
    o Ditto again for getting us placed in movie and TV casting sets.  My
    friend at Cannondale has based his entire career on getting bikes seen
    in these shots:  a gift to the President congratulating him for
    something they support (Earth Day or whatever), hanging on the back
    wall of Jerry Seinfeld's apartment, etc.  IS types notice all of the
    phones in every movie last year had an AT&T logo on the mouthpiece. 
    They remember the SGI and Apple computers in Jurassic Park.  I believe
    it was Compaq in Pelican Brief and several others.  Where is the Alpha?
    
    o Too many people are shadow-booking in this company.  There was one
    sale in our group that had six people's names attached to the order,
    all receiving 100% credit:  the account rep, the NAM, the Finance rep,
    a networking or storage rep, and two others I can't remember.
    
    o Sales training has become a joke at Digital.  It is not training. 
    Rather, it is Product Marketing marketing to the sales force to try and
    get them to sell their product.  All we get is a bunch of one-liners
    for positioning and another set of one-liners for competitive
    postioning...  God forbid the customer has a reply where our one-liner
    doesn't fit.  At a minimum, we should be seeing a demo of the product. 
    I am supposed to create an image in my customer's mind.  Let's say I am
    selling Pathworks 5.0A and my selling point is ManageWorks.  I've never
    even seen the ManageWorks screens, how can I explain to my customer how
    easy it is to use and why their job will be much easier with that
    product.
    
    o We have too much literature.  I have actually had complaints that we
    dump expensive looking literature on them.  For a computer company, we
    use an awful lot of paper.  I have heard that DECdirect is going to be
    on CD-ROM.  If we can just get our literature the same way with
    printing capabilities, we'd be set.  All I would need then is to make
    sure my customer has a CD-ROM (buy them one if necessary, it's still
    cheaper than the paper and you get them used to using our product).  I
    would then hand them the CD and a quick pointer as to where on the CD
    the information is.  They should be able to print any information they
    want from the CD.
    
    o Convince our distributors to get on the internet or somehow have an
    easy way for them to send us mail, quotes, etc.  If we are supposed to
    work more through channels, this process has to get better and fast.
    
    o Fix the credit system so that we are automatically getting credit for
    VARs.
    
    o Make sure VARs are really VARs and not distributors getting an unfair
    advantage in the market against other distributors.  Too many add no
    value to our sales, yet get the special coop ad funds and better
    discount rates.
    
    o Getting credit for a sale should be immediate for channels and
    direct.  Currently, we see credit for a distributor a month after the
    sale and we have to fill out all kinds of forms for getting credit for
    VAR sales.
    
    o Kill all the rumors about reps not being able to sell certain
    products for credit:  PCs, etc.  If this is the plan, it will do much
    more damage than you will be gaining in savings that you don't have to
    pay reps.  I guarantee you that reps will spend a great deal of time
    fighting for credit somehow or trying to find a way around the system. 
    Just make sure we get credit for ALL of Digital's products.  You don't
    want us pushing Compaq through 3rd party purchasing because we get 15%
    there and 0% on DEC PCs, do you?
    
    o There is roadshow and seminar overkill.  It seems as though there is
    a Q3 push for marketing to put tons of these things out there so as to
    drive Q4 sales.  Our managers then nag us about invites and/or low
    attendence and we are no longer concentrating on sales.  Coordinate
    these somehow and put out a calandar monthly for each area, including
    partners and VARs that will be demonstrating our products with theirs. 
    We can then pass this on to our customers who can ask for further info
    on a particular seminar if necessary.
    
    These are just a few suggestions to make selling easier.
    
    ..Larry

    Larry -
    
    	You are so right, and no one else seems to understand. It ain't us
    that's broke, it's the system we sell under.
    	
    	Enrico - read note 3225.21 and fix each point and you can go back
    to sleep and look like a hero. We'll do the rest.
    
    		the Greyhawk

RE: .19 -< input please >-

>    I believe the reason this note was written is to see if anyone in
>    sales/sales support has any INPUT that may help solve some of the
>    present problems, NOT bitch and moan about the problems w/o any
>    positive input.  (just an observation   ;-)      )

Ok, you have input in several notes.  3216.33, 3216.35, and 3225.21.

Can someone *respond* to this input please?

-- Ken Moreau

    In my not so humble opinion, seminars/events et al are not a Sales
    activity at all; they are a marketing activity.
    
    Currently my group run seminars that we think up ourselves on an almost
    adhoc basis. This is not a good way for salespeople to spend their
    time.
    
    My simplistic view of life is that marketing find out what the target
    markets will want to buy in 'n' months/years hence, engineering build
    it, marketing 'merchandises' the product/solution, sales sell it
    (amongst other tactical activities).
    
    Fix this and we'll retire rich...
    

    >> In my not so humble opinion, seminars/events et al are not a Sales   
    >> activity at all; they are a marketing activity.
    
    ALL marketing activities are sales events!  The concept is that
    marketing activities create interest and exposure to products we want
    to sell.  I have never seen a seminar or event from marketing that
    invited customers and not their sales counterparts.
    
    >> Currently my group run seminars that we think up ourselves on an
    >> almost adhoc basis. This is not a good way for salespeople to spend
    >> their time.
    
    We don't spend our time running seminars or "thinking-up" seminars.  We
    are required however to encourage our customers to attend.  Our mailing
    lists our typically so poor, they never actually reach our customers,
    or at least the ones we talk to.  Instead, we hand invites all the time
    to our base and encourage them to attend.  Sitting with a customer as
    they watch a demo of our latest widget and a professional pitch as to
    how it will make their lives so much better is on the contrary, a very
    good use of my time.  I can move that interest into a follow-up session
    at the site with more specific detail for their environment, and voilah
    we have made a new sale.
    
    It is the responsibility of marketing to support the salesforce.  We
    are the troops, you are central intelligence.  Marketing needs to view
    the Digital Sales force as their customer.  Marketing should be
    involved in my sales and they are not.  I was in Corporate Marketing at
    Digital and now I am in Sales.  Since moving to the other side, I have
    received very little contact from anyone in Marketing and I have some
    customers that could be huge accounts for us:  Motorola, NEC, Hitachi,
    Texas Instruments, National Semiconductor, SGS Thompson, Cyrix, Dallas
    Semiconductor, Boeing, Hughes Aircraft, AST Research, General
    Instruments and a few others.
    
    I have received the following:
    
    o Sales tools that rarely have practical use for sales.  Things like
    sales configuration tools are stupid.  Inevitably, we are going to use
    the SOC, or have a sales support specialist configure the system, or
    have a distributor do it.  Configuration is not a good use of my time
    nor am I well trained for it. 
    
    o Charts comparing our family of systems.  These are useful.  They
    would be a bit more so if they compared our systems to our competition.  
    
    o Digital Today.  This is pretty interesting and once in a while gives
    me ideas.
    
    o Sales Update.  I guess its good.  I'm not really sure, I never read
    it.  It seems to big and boring for me to actually spend time reading
    this. 
    
    o I have received some floppy diskettes recently.  I saw one of the
    CBTs on it and thought it was great.  I have never loaded any of the
    others because I have no room for files on my old 320P PC.  Even with
    DoubleSpace, I have no room, but for the bare essentials:  Most of us have
    MS-Office, ACT!, KEAterm, Pathworks, Windows, DOS and part of Horizons. 
    This takes up about 130MB or so.  There is no room for anything else
    considering we only have 80MB disks. Good idea though.
    
    
    o Readers Choice stuff.  Pretty good, especially the specific
    newsletters concerning promotions, information and ideas for MY
    customers.  The DMD Value Line is one tool I never miss reading.
    
    o Sales lead from a trade show.  I have received two of these now.  The
    first one was sent electronically to the wrong person.  That rep
    forwarded it to me.  It didn't really matter though, because it was
    about two months late for a product we didn't sell.  The second one was
    from a Consulting seminar on Help Desk support.  This one also came a
    month later, but it has some potential.  I was quickly contacted by
    someone in consulting to offer me help on developing this lead into a
    sale.  This was handled very well; the consultant referred me to the
    person I was going to work with (TFSOd, but they found another person). 
    That person sent me some literature on our offering since I didn't
    really know everything we did in that area and what the customer had
    seen.  Maybe it was in one of those Sales Update articles...  Our only
    hesitation now is to present something to the customer as we see Wall
    Street Journal articles about DC being sold to CSC.  Oh well.
    
    o Telesales (is this marketing?) has been good or useless depending on
    how large my customer is and how good the telesales rep is.  I received
    one call giving me a lead on something I had sold nearly
    two-months earlier.  That same rep gave me about three more leads a
    week later on projects I had been working on for about three months.  I
    am assuming that they double booked me on these.  In telemarketing's
    defense, a different rep gave me some leads.  She had been working with
    the customer over the phone for about a month before she filled me in.
    
    o Training.  A very expensive joke.  See previous comments in .21.
    
    o Corporate programs.  Very good.  This gives direction to many reps on
    what to sell.  We have so many products, it is often difficult to
    create your own campaigns.  I may see that we have a special sale on
    X-terminals, Infoservers and some software.  It will trigger me to
    think about where that may fit into my customer's enterprise.  I
    typically let the customer know verbally or via internet as a balloon
    and if it brings back interest, I drive the sale.
    
    That's pretty much it.  Only two times: the Telesales lead and the
    Consulting lead did a marketing person act proactively with me. 
    Typically, I have to find someone in marketing that can answer or
    verify something for me...  completely reactive.
    
    ..Larry                    

    >>My simplistic view of life is that marketing find out what the target   
    >>markets will want to buy in 'n' months/years hence, engineering build   
    >>it, marketing 'merchandises' the product/solution, sales sell it
           
    I almost forgot to reply to this one.  Marketing at Digital does NOT
    find out what markets will want to buy in the future.  I never saw
    original research being conducted at Digital in any group while I was
    in Marlboro.  We used secondary research only!  This meant reading G2,
    Gartner, IDC, BIS and all the trade rags.  There was little analysis
    beyond what was bought;  Instead, the information was re-packaged to
    fit our current structure.  Bean-counting firms rarely break out the
    numbers exactly the way we would like.  And only in one instance was
    that information ever given to the field.  Healthcare has a database
    they purchase for about $100K or so called Dorenfest (from a guy named
    Sheldon).  This survey data is re-cut into reports that are very
    specific to the Healthcare rep's territory.  Come to think of it, they
    did do one original research project at DECWORLD '92 where they hired
    several hospital CEOs and CIOs that were not our customers.  The
    information was quite valuable.  Too bad we let go of this forward
    thinking VP and eliminated the wholeness of the business unit to be
    merged in with something completely unrelated.
    
    >>engineering build it,
    
    Engineering builds what they want to build.  Marketing RARELY
    communicates to Engineering what features need to be added or what
    products need to be built.
    
    >>marketing 'merchandises' the product/solution
    
    To who?  We hire companies to run our ad campaigns.  I guess these are
    the ad hoc seminars and trade shows.
    
    >>sales sell it
    
    But not at a profit.  Too much overhead (not in the sales offices I can
    assure you -- we haven't been allowed to order a new pencil since Q2
    and we have one secretary for every 15 reps and their manager) prevents
    the profit from happening.
    
    As long as I am on my soapbox, and somebody may be listening, I would
    like to mention something about our obvious move towards channels
    taking over most of the accounts and laying off the sales force.  The
    numbers for channel sales look VERY good and VERY profitable on paper. 
    Please understand, corporate Digits, this is a mirage.  We are incented
    to make them look good and it seems to have dug our grave.
    
    Channel reps cannot sell!  They take orders.  Most of the time, they
    are only in the account because the sales rep brought them in.  We
    receive 90% of list price no matter what price the product is actually
    sold at.  If I have to take 20% off the price to beat the competition,
    or if the DBA is 11 or 12%, there is no reason not to book the sale
    through the channel.
    
    I was told that the President of one of our top distributors gave a
    presentation to Digital about selling with a very low cost of sale. 
    The President gave this presentation to our SLT bragging about how
    their COS was one of the lowest in the industry.  This still makes me
    angry.  
    
    The reason the channel COS is so low is because they go in and out of a
    sale quickly.  They do not sell, they just throw a quote in front of
    the customer a week before they issue a P.O. and try to win on price. 
    If a mistake is made in the sale, Digital pays for the mistake by
    making an allowance.  We have to in order to keep the customer
    satisfied.  Example:  I just walked into an account.  We just gave them
    an allowance for $136K!  The DEC rep sold a Momentus deal and turned it
    over to a distributor because he thought he could get 90% credit for
    the $1.2Million software that was given for free with the $220K
    refurbished CPUs.  He didn't get credit, but the distributor
    additionally told the customer that they could keep the old CPUs.  He
    also said they could have cluster-wide licenses even though they were
    only replacing a couple of systems on the cluster ($114K mistake). 
    When they went to the customer explaining that a mistake had been made
    and the customer needed to give back the old CPUs, the customer told
    the distributor and DEC rep that they had already planned on selling
    them to buy some disks.  The distributor and rep said to give back the
    CPUs and they would "take care of" the disks (add another $22K
    allowance).  Clearly this was not the mistake of the DEC rep alone, yet
    DEC took the entire allowance yet shared the sale with the distributor. 
    Also, all of the technical sales support specialists used in this sale
    were from Digital, the quoting system used was the Electronic Store
    paid for by Digital and all of the promotional materials were created
    by Digital, the part numbers for the quote were supplied by
    1-800-DECSALE by Digital, Competitive counseling was given by
    1-800-DECISIT by the Competitive Hotline run by Digital, whenever the
    distributor went to visit the customer with the DEC rep it was in the
    Digital Taurus, and if they went to lunch Digital ineveitably picked up
    the check.  This is how you get a low cost of sale.  This is all very
    common to every sale and very screwed up.
    
    I asked my customer if he would buy from the distributor I had in the
    account booking 100% of my sales if they did not have a Digital rep. 
    No.  I asked my customer if he would buy from me if I were not a
    Digital employee, but rather a Digital Sales Agent...  Nope, well
    maybe.  It depends on whether or not you can still get me the resources
    and sales support I am used to today.  The bottom line is that channels
    cannot sell and if we turn over 70% of our clients to channels going
    solo, I guarantee you the demise of Digital Equipment Corporation. 
    Channels have a wonderful purpose and certainly have a place in our
    selling, but they are not ready to take over.  If we had inside sales
    reps that could do the order taking, quoting and delivery issues in
    front of the customer if neccesary, we probably could do without 80% of
    the the channels organization.
    
    This is very negative, and it may be unfairly so.  Marketing at Digital
    is very good at several things, just not the above.  Marketing has been
    very good about establishing the name Alpha in the market as a
    contender.  Engineering is making the best products in the world right
    now.  Marketing has been very good about getting involved in
    consortiums.  Marketing has done a world-class job in partnering with
    ISVs and pushing them to port to our platform.  Marketing always has
    excellent suggestions for FUD.  Marketing always has the answer to a
    specific question (finding the right marketing individual for the
    answer is another story).  Marketing is often very creative in
    developing complex strategies.  The problem is just in how they get
    executed.  Marketing does not communicate with Sales or Engineering
    very well.  In fact, it wasn't until we hired Ed Lucente that Sales and
    Marketing reported to the same VP.
    
    I don't have the answers, but I can sure see some of the gaping holes
    and I'm willing to help anyone fix them.
    
    ..Larry 

    .26 is right on relative to distributors finding sales. For the past
    year or two I have asked many sales and support people to point out ONE
    example of a major sale made by a distributor. 
    
    To date I have not found a single case.
    
    Rather, the example detailed in .26 applies- DEC people make the sale,
    write the proposals, do the demos, etc etc. The distributor comes in to
    pick up the PO.
    
    I believe DEC management will finally understand this about
    mid-september or early October, when the revenue numbers are headed for
    zero.
    
    Please, someone out there give me an example of a sale by a distributor
    without DEC help.
    It will, unfortunately, be to late to correct.

    re: .26
    
    If what this note is saying is true (and I figure it probably is) this
    message should be escalated, if it hasn't been already.  It completely
    changed my perspective of the role of channels in sales.
    
    Steve

    
    I have to take exception to one of Larry's comments, specifically:
    
    "Channels reps cannot sell!"
    
    There are good salespeople and bad salespeople, independent of 
    sales assignment.  For every "horror" story about a channels rep, there
    are many stories of "horror" stories about end-user reps.  For every 
    good story about and end-user rep, there is a good story about a
    channels rep.  The stories that I could tell...
    
    What may be misunderstood is that the business models (and therefore
    the selling models) associated with TOEM/VAR/Distributor/Master
    Reseller versus a commercial account are quite different and require a
    different mindset.  Granted, traditional channels accounts do receive a
    higher discount and allowance --- it is required to provide margin so
    that the channel partner can stay in business.  The problem is not that
    the channels rep may be cutting allowances to win business --- the
    problem is that we are not competitively priced EVEN AFTER DISCOUNT in 
    many areas (memory, PC disks, for example) FOR THE RESELLER MARKET.  We 
    may be well positioned when selling into the commerical market at list
    price with a small discount for a specific customer --- we are no where
    near close for the reseller market.
    
    If we cannot afford to sell memory or non-Avastor disk technology to
    resellers at a price which results in sufficient margin for the
    channels partner, then fine.  Let's get out of the business.  Let's
    also give me the $1.5M budget reduction associated with the memory and
    disk business that I fought tooth and nail for (and dare I say, sold?)
    and won from Camington, HP, Arrow, Connor, et. al.  Let's also get out
    of the consultative sales business with commercial accounts unless they
    bring in sufficient margin when looking at the entire account --- not
    on a deal-by-deal basis.  
    
    The selling activities that are required in a "channels" account are
    quite different.  Many times, you are not selling a systems integration
    project (MRP, GLAPR, etc.)  More often, you are selling Digital's 
    technical and service capabilities for embedding systems or layering
    products.  It's simply a different type of sale.  Applying commerical 
    account mentality to all channels account types (each of which is very
    different from each other) and then making blanket statements 
    such as "Channels reps cannot sell" is not appropriate and 
    is short-sighted.
    
    It always amazes me how, in general, Digital's commercial sales force
    refuses to try to understand the channels business models but expects
    the channels sales force to support their every decision.  But then
    again, there are good people and not-so-good people wherever you
    look...
    
    FWIW,
    
    Don Payette
    CHANNELS (and proud of it) Sales Executive
    Schlumberger, Ltd.

    Mr. Rose is absolutely on the money regarding the fact that the Digital
    Sales Reps are doing the selling, the Digital Sales Support folks are
    doing the pre-sales support, and the Distributors are picking up the
    orders. At the beginning of FY94 the goal of the Sales Managers was to
    move business to the distributors. So sales folks were encouraged to
    take this type of action.......sell the customer and let the
    distributor take the order. I'm sure the numbers showing the increase
    in Distributor business are extremely misleading. The distributors are
    in no way geared up to pick up the slack left by missing direct sales
    and sales-support folks. Revenues will fall. And the distributors may
    move to another vendor........
    

    The sales scenario seems to be oh so true. It takes one Digital sales
    rep, one Digital pre-sales person and one distributor to sell anything.
    But we were told to use distributors is the common cry. The sales
    management really needs to have their knuckles rapped for the many
    abuses and waste of time that have been occuring.
    
    I have seen sales rep work on a sale for 2 years (large sale 5 plus
    Million) and at the last minute give it to a distributor because they
    do not like to do configurations! Oh well why not give away some more
    margin dollar! I do not understand how or why this activity can still
    be going on inside of Digital!
    

    	People, please stop making the terrible mistake of lumping all 
    "Channels Sales Reps" under the sub-category of distribution. Many of
    our channels partners are true "Value Added Resellers" with the
    applications that are driving the sales! Applications are "King" and
    never more so than now.
    
    	The sales reps of most "VARS" are excellent and they do the lions
    share of the work if you point them in the right direction! Any
    comments in this string where "channels" is mentioned and then the
    noter goes off unilaterally on a critique of distributor sales reps are
    ludicrous. 

    
    	Second that .-1 Again, and again, and again. 
    
    	It is the tragedy of Digital, my beloved DEC, that we actively pit
    sales against the marketplace realities for our products. Everyone who
    sells Digital-logo equipment is forced to compete with each other for
    the sale to one end-user. We double, even triple count one sale for
    credit to a mutitude of "sources" for the sale. 
    	We compensate sales forces for "getting the order" instead of
    rewarding people for satisfying a customer need, providing lasting
    benefit, or securing a NEW piece of business for Digital. We goal
    from the top down; we spend from the bottom-up - completely the
    opposite is the proper way to run an organization. You don't even have
    to have an MBA to know that.
    
    	To have this note degrade into end-user reps against "channels"
    reps, and vice-versa saddens me beyond anything I would ever care for.
    
    	I cannot shake this feeling that I am watching, and hearing, the
    end of a wonderful era. Maybe it is time......
    
    		the Greyhawk

    In reading the recent string on 'channels sales', I believe we need to
    be more precise about which reps are meant.
    
    There are the Digital sales people that sell to channels.
    
    There are the sales people that work for the channels and sell to the 
    customer.
    
    There are also many different types of channels:
    
    	OEMs
    	VARs
    	Distributors
    	...
    
    Most of the account teams I support moved aggressively to try and
    integrate distributors into their sales teams.  Some of the distributor
    reps were good (sometimes better from the customer perspective than the
    Digital rep), some weren't.  Even in those cases where the sales side
    of the distributor equation was strong, substantial sales support (from
    Digital) was still required.  I believe that the distributors we work
    with will need to substantially ramp up their technical support
    capabilities to take more of the load from Digital.
    
    There is still an issue with controlling channel conflict.  Some of my
    accounts have gone to 'aggressive sourcing' policies.  This means that
    every purchase request is put out to bid among multiple suppliers of
    the item.  There have been numerous cases where distributors/brokers
    have been solicited after a significant sales effort by
    Digital/selected distributor and are passing on there discounts minus 1
    or 2%.
    
    What IS best for Digital?
    
    Peter Dillard

    I have talked with several Digital sales reps - all kinds.
    
    The general feeling I get from both direct and indirect is that selling
    with partners is just as difficult, time consuming and costly as
    selling direct.  If a channels rep does not smother both the partner
    and customer with attention, the sale will go to HP.  We do not have
    the relationships in place right now to sell 80% through partners.  If
    we PUSH 80% through, please don't be fooled into thinking that this
    will make our cost of selling like HP's or whoever.
    
    It won't!!
    

    re: direct vs. indirect ...
    
    >The general feeling I get from both direct and indirect is that selling
    >with partners is just as difficult, time consuming and costly as
    >selling direct.  If a channels rep does not smother both the partner
    >and customer with attention, the sale will go to HP.  We do not have
    >the relationships in place right now to sell 80% through partners.  If
    
    There's a couple of factors here. First, it will be impossible for us
    to sell through channels if we don't have decent marketing. No matter
    how well-versed the distributor or VAR may be, they don't have the time
    it takes to "educate" a customer from scratch. The proper marketing
    activities must take place to inform the customer and make him disposed
    to purchasing a Digital box *before* the distributor gets there.
    
    Second, all of the problems that haunt *our* sales reps go double for
    most distributors: stupid part numbers, crazy pricing, and so on. If
    these problems don't get fixed, *nobody* is going to be selling any
    Digital products, direct or indirect. At least our own sales reps have
    a few resources left to call; the distributors and VAR's are getting
    even less help.
    
    Make no mistake: selling through channels is no magic cure. We still
    have to get our act together, or it's all over.
    
    Geoff

    We talk about marketing - it's no good here, it should support sales... 
    Here's what I learned in business school that marketing is.
    
    4- Ps (the alliteration is a stretch)
    
    Product.  What will prospects buy?  This task is to define demand
    preferences, segment the general market, identify buying preferences in the
    segments, and specify the product mix that will sell  in the future.
    
    Price.  Estimate demand.  Given the features and market
    segments, and competition, how should a product be priced to maximize
    revenue and profit?
    
    Promotion.  This is a PART of marketing's job, but this is what we
    think marketing is.  This is advertising, free promotion, product
    information, trade shows, etc.
    
    Distribution (I forget the word beginning with p that fit this
    category, but it didn't fit anyway)  How will this product be sold? 
    This is based on the above, and is to arrive at the way to sell a given
    product or service that maximizes profitability.
    
    Those four things are what marketing does in a marketing-oriented
    company.  The product manager is typically in charge, has a business
    background, and makes all four decisions by developing a business plan
    or market plan for the product.  The first P is the most important one. 
    Without that, the others have a strong chance of failure.  
    
    This is an educational message brought to you by one who cares.  No
    value judgements except to say that Digital doesn't do it this way.
    
    - Don R

placement, I believe... (dusting off my memories of Marketing 101...)


In other words, where it's sold, how it's distributed, etc.

John

    >>placement, I believe...
    
    So maybe this is why we are having so many problems in channels...  we
    forgot what the 4th "P" stood for in Marketing.  ;-)
    
    ..Larry

    Peter,
    
    I naively assumed that the Value Chain Reengineering folks were already
    looking at the items I will list.  I was proven wrong when after
    approximately two years the only result we've seen is the new veneer
    for VTX, the socalled Integrated Repository.
    
    Of course, Digital must develop a stronger channels strategy and how
    it will interact with those partners.  However, my list concerns those
    things that I believe have to be fixed in order to make the direct
    sales force, regardless of its changing role, more efficient.
    
    o We have to do something about the way we package and sell products,
      i.e. we have to figure out how to make it easier for sales and sales
      support to configure systems and produce quotes.  The Systems and
      Options catalog is a nightmare to deal with; it takes too long to
      figure out some system configurations.
    
      The Digital 2100 Configurator is a great first tool in the right
      direction.  I would also like to see more creative packaging. For
      example, if a customer wants a StorageWorks configuration featuring
      RAID 5, why not offer packages with one order code - all the customer
      has to decide is exactly how much storage they need.  Today, you've
      got to figure out what cabinets, which drives, which controllers,
      which cables, which controllers are supported on which system units,
      etc.  Offer packages for the 2100, the 4000, and 7000 class systems
      with a single order code.
    
    o We have to do something about software licensing.  The way we do it
      today is bizzare, to say the least!  Especially in today's market
      where customers buy shrink wrapped packages, for the most part, it is
      ludicrous to have to explain:
    
    	- # of user license
    
    	- run time licenses vs. development licenses
    
    	- the right to copy license
    
    	- the right to upgrade license
    
    	- the software maintenance service fee
    
    	- the software support service fee
    
      And I'm sure I'm leaving something out!  It's almost impossible for
      customers, let alone us, to understand.  Why not offer software pricing
      and licensing that is analogous to buying shrink wrapped software. 
      It's easy for the customer to understand, and it's easy for us to
      generate the proposal.
    
    o Training.  We need detailed product training courses that will drill
      us on everything from the architecture of the product through 
      configuration and pricing guidelines.  By the end of a course a 
      person should be able to deliver a product presentation, discuss the
      product intelligently, know how to position it, and know how to
      configure it.  This will also help with the first item listed.
    
    o This is related to the first point, but we also need to improve how
      we enter and track orders.  The current AQS system is okay for
      generating quotes, but I don't know of any easy way to enter and
      track orders once we've gotten a P.O.  Often a customer asks what the
      status of their order is, and there is no quick, easy way to get that
      info - you've got to track it through CAS which takes time.
    
    o We should reinstitute promotional activities, such as the Discovery
      Seminars and Travelling Road Shows.  We should include our partners,
      both channels and third parties, which would enhance the value of the
      event for our customers, and help us share the costs of the events. 
      By including our partners we could also broaden the interest for the
      event, thereby drawing more attention to it.
    
    
    These are a few of the big items I can think of that need to be looked
    at and changed for the better.  Hope it helps.
    
    Angelo

    re: .41
    
    Pardon me if I'm way off target here, but it sounds to me like a lot of
    your problems with configuring the product and tracking the orders are
    because the products themselves are too complicated and have too many
    options???  It seems like a lot of what you're doing is compensating
    for the product using a gazillion different components, instead of
    having a few standard components?  I'm thinking especially of things
    like cables and cabinets. 
    
    Or am I missing something? 
    
    --bonnie

    re .42
    
    As our products become more commoditized, logic says they should become
    easier to sell.  But that has not happened, and I think you agree with
    me.  I believe one of the ways we can solve this problem is through
    packaging.  Another approach to solving this, which I believe you
    alluded to, would be to streamline the product lines we sell. 
    I believe packaging would force the streamlining, or at least identify
    products that could be eliminated from the catalogs.
    
    The goal is to make it easy for a potential customer to do business
    with Digital, and to make it easier for a Digital sales rep to conduct
    business.  From my observations and experiences, we spend too much time
    trying to figure out how to configure things so we can then generate a
    proposal.  That is valuable time that we could use to sell more
    product.

    re: .43
    
    Yes, I was suggesting that streamlining the products would make them
    easier to sell.  I wasn't sure whether you thought the complexity was a
    problem, or if the only difficulties were in the configuring and
    ordering.  
    
    It also seems like manufacturing and overhead costs would go down 
    because we wouldn't have to make or store as many different components. 
    Volume on the ones we do make would also go up, which should lower the
    cost.  But we still design most products as if each sale was a custom
    system.  
    
    --bonnie
    

    RE .41
    
    I'm not sure I agree with you, but on the other hand I'm not sure I
    disagree either!
    
    I help resellers with configurations and they do suffer the problems
    you mention but they in turn are driven by end-users; their customers.
    
    My problem is with the comonality of language and with internal
    organisation and process I guess...
    
    What we sell has the following names: Engineering code-name - Sable or
    Flmingo: Generic name - Storageworks: Model type: DEC 3000 Model 600
    AXP Workstation: An operating system - OVMS or OSF/1 etc: An option
    or ordering number - PE411-CB or SA-PE430-AD: A number of user licences
    One or several or unlimited: A media Kit: A county specific item -
    Keyboard or documents or power cord. To complicate matters Europe and
    possibly AP don't always use the same packages as domestic US. Talking
    of packages the systems can be either a building block or a package or
    an advantage server. They may be sold direct or as part of a trade-in
    or upgrade against an existing machine. It's not too complicated once
    you get used to it - the resellers don't complain too loudly. What they
    do tend to go on about is how digital keep things secret, don't tell
    them of all the options available, make it difficult to determine what
    will work with what and if it dosn't now, when might they both work
    together. How many devices they'd love to sell and the customer would
    love to buy but have not been qualified and consequently are not
    supported. I think we could get a lot smarter here.
    
    The Systems and Options Catalog(ue) is excellent - you should see how
    tightly the resellers hold on to their copy once they manage to get
    their hands on one. It's generally accurate - mostly complete and
    restricts itelf to facts rather than promotional hype. It's the one
    document that informs the user what to order and which steps to
    consider. I like it.
    
    
    Bucko...
    

    Agree with -.1 about the SOC, an indispensible document.  
    
    I think the systems in the SOC are getting far easier to configure,
    just check out the DEC 2100/Sable.  Everything is included basically
    except your monitor and software media.
    
    I think (install arrow-protecting armor now) that a lot of this
    complaining about too many products and too complicated to configure et
    al is a direct result of ignorance of the product family.
    
    

    re .45
    
    All the above.  I believe packaging would help eliminate a lot of that.
    As for the S & O catalog, just think how much better it could be if it
    weren't an inch thick, and required you to follow any number of pages
    of guidelines to configure a system!
    
    Computer systems have become commodities.  How we package and sell them
    has to change.  We have to be a lot more efficient at generating
    proposals, and we have to spend more time actually selling.  The
    current system was developed in the heyday of our systems business. 
    Just as our organizational strategy has had to change to reflect
    today's business environment, so do our internal business systems and
    processes.  
    
    re .44
    
    Agree totally.  There would be lots of other benefits.
                

    re .46
    
    No arrows are flying.  It is perfectly natural for people to hold on to
    and defend things they are accustomed to.  But that doesn't mean there
    can't be improvements.  Remember, the goal is to figure out how to be
    more efficient and easier to do business with.

    Peter and whoever you are,
    
    "new veneer for VTX, the so called IR."
    
    1. CVC did not develop IR.
    
    - They are putting a new front end on it so you can use it easily.
    - CVC is only 11 months old - not 2 years
    
    YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 
    
    Although I will not go into every CVC project, 200+ of them, I will 
    assure you that all you have mentioned are in the 200.  
    
    I enjoy reading the notes file, but don't have all the spare time you 
    do to write long, false and many times ignorant messages.
    
    
       

    re .49
    
    The base noter inquired as to the status of the reengineering effort. 
    No one responded from the CVC.
    
    No reason to flame, I'm just posting my ideas to try and help this
    company.
    
    Who I am is not important, but that I do work in the field is. 
    Clearly, you do not work in the field and so YOU DON'T GET IT!  Not a
    single thing has been done, from where I sit, to help us be more
    efficient, and easier to do business with.  As a matter of fact, I know
    of no one that was ever interviewed by the CVC to discuss things that
    could be done to help people in the field.
    
    The results of the CVC speak loudly.  If you don't like it, too bad. 
    
    The CVC has had ZERO impact on how we work.  If the IR is your idea of
    reengineering sales, you ought to spend just a little time in a field
    sales office to learn exactly what it is we do and how we have to do
    it.  The IR is a joke!
         

    The IR is not a CVC Reegineering Sales anything
    - you mentioned that!!
    - It may eventually give people in the company an easier way to find
      info. - It is not CVC, so I can't answer.
    
    I came out of the Burlington Sales Office.  I sold to SME and do
    understand many of the problems.
    
    My guess is that you are support, not sales.
    
    Sales would never spend that much time in the notes file.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Just trying to get you angry.
    
    Michael

    You are right that we should send better messages to the field.
    
    Unfortunately, that is not a priority of our most senior person - my
    manager asked him for me.  

    re .49
    
    I believe you either have a serious problem or a problem communicating.
    How could we be "ignorant" of what we experience or do you feel you
    understand better than we do what we experience?
    
    It is too bad that VTX IR is not an outgrowth of CVC.  It is IMHO a
    very good effort at seeing the field gets more and timely information
    ala my interpretation of 'Knowledge Aquifer'.  If it was it would give
    more of us a feeling that CVC was producing something.  One thing I am
    NOT ignorant of is the change in my work process as a result of CVC. 
    Measuring CVC's performance based on the changes I've experienced would
    cause me to think we should invest those resources elsewhere.
    
    Your comments imply a lack of concern about the reaction of one of the
    targeted organizations to your reengineering work.  This IS
    unfortunate.  Reengineering efforts most often fail (don't deliver the
    promised benefits) because of implementation problems tied to
    organization resistance.  There are many here that WANT to see CVC
    succeed.
    
    The creation of this note was a response to your suggestion.  I assumed
    that you would have a interest in seeing and participating in this
    discussion as a 'real' CVC person.  Since as you've stated you don't 
    have the time and sales people wouldn't take the time to participate,
    why did you make the suggestion?
    
    

>>                     <<< Note 3225.49 by ASABET::LONDON >>>
>>                             -< You don't get it! >-


No, Mike, YOU DON'T GET IT.

We here in the field are getting blamed for the company's woes (every
industry article I see about DEC castigates DEC's "inferior" sales force), our
friends are getting shot, and the entire sales force is in for a major
downsizing/restructuring AGAIN in a few weeks.

So get off yor high horse and remember from whence you came.  CVC has produced
NOTHING yet of any substance.  Maybe there are wonderful things coming, maybe
not.  But the apparant arrogance of CVC management reminds me of DEC's "field
of dreams" marketing of the past.  And you should know where that got us.

Bob (sales exec in NY)

    I think this is going too far.
    
    Let me clarify some things.
    
    I do not believe that I know what your problems better than you do.
    
    However, I do know what is going on in CVC better than you do.
    
    I am a field liason of CVC.  I bring sales needs to management's
    attention. 
    
    If you think of IR as a start to the knowledge aquifer - fine.  It is
    in some ways.  It will be a very small part of it.
    
    Sales people - Put your self in my shoes.  I am trying to help - List
    your problems and I will try and get them solved. - or at least tell     
    you why they are not being looked at.
    
    I have sold - 7 mo. ago.  Since then I have talked with sales - everyday.
    I may have used some harsh words, but you are fighting with the wrong
    person.
    
    You are telling me that because you don't see results, nothing is being
    done.  Only 20% of your salary is on "results".  Give me an 80% for now
    and than fire me in a year.  That is what you get. 
    
    
    
    By the way, it was not CVC mgt that does not want to market our work
    internally it is B.P. 

    re: .56
    
    Our most senior person seems to have a penchant for working in the
    dark.  
    
    This is a great company.  I love working for y'all.  But some of the
    things that happen are enough to drive a saner person than me completey
    bonkers. 
    
    --bonnie

>>    Sales people - Put your self in my shoes.  I am trying to help - List
>>    your problems and I will try and get them solved. - or at least tell     
>>    you why they are not being looked at.
  
I would suggest that a better, more efficient way to address this is for CVC
management to tell US what's planned, and then we tell YOU what's right or
wrong with the plan.  Why have 2000 (or whatever the hell the number is) sales
reps tell you what we need?

Bob (who's begining to feel like a mushroom as respects CVC)

    
    re:-1
    
    	First intelligent idea to come out of this whole string.
    
    	CVC should communicate to the field sales force (and include sales
    suuport, if you don't mind) what its plans are, what the tools will
    look like, how we will be trained, when we can utilize them, etc. And
    then we will be happy to tell you were to focus your efforts and spend
    your (our) money.
    
    	Any other way is self-flaggation, folks.
    
    		the Greyhawk
    

    I'd prefer it my way.
    
    I don't expect 2000 sales people to reply - probably 10 or so.
    
    I do not have control of what is planned already nor do I know all the
    details.
    
    I can, however, promise you that if you feel strongly about something I
    will make it known to senior management.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Michael

    Grayhawk,
    
    I am a person from CVC with a job. - Sales Needs
    
    If you want to talk with deployment, tools, etc...  
    
    I am the wrong guy.
    
    
    

Re -1, -2

Uh, how can you separate "needs" from tools and deployment?  And why do you
feel 10-20 reps make a sufficient sample regarding needs?

Frankly, Mike, the more you tell us about your job and the way the CVC is
progressing (regarding sales), the more I think the process is broken.


Rev

    Not sure if this was EXPLICITLY said...
    
    Yes, we in sales need MUCH better systems
    	more functional
    	more real-time information
    	less need to be "connected" unless via wireless of some sort
    	etc
    	etc
    	ad nauseum
    
    If I were developing a product with a poitential market of ~2000, I
    SURE wouldn't ask 2000 people for input. I'd use a statistical
    approach, use many rapid proto tools, beta tests, etc in a controlled
    process.
    
    In all likelihood, B.P. didn't want CVC to promise loads of VERY SPECIFIC
    features, in specific timeframes, promise the world, which would ensure
    not meeting client expectations.
    
    I've been involved with two major sales re-engineering efforts at two
    F50 accounts over the last 8 years. Involved a core team of IS, Sales
    liasons (like 2 or 3), comms, senior mgmt (sales, mktg, fin, ops/mfg),
    and partners (platforms, sw, and consulting cos). Research. Proto. demo. 
    modify. repeat until acceptable. Develop. demo. modify. repeat until
    acceptable. test in a unit or district. rollout.
    
    Of course, this is vastly simplified, but you get the picture.
    Apparently, CVC encompasses mroe than just an SFA project, so is much
    more complex (I'll let someone else debate whether we _might_ have
    bitten off more than we can chew, and precluded some high-return
    throwaways which could have helped IMMENSELY)...
    
    I'm as PO'd as most, I NEED better systems to "feed and clothe my
    family", but get real, solicit input from "every sales rep"???

OK, so asking EVERY rep isn't practical.  But having each district or other
major organizational element have input could be done.  London's experience
and needs, as well as those who he's talking to, might NOT match what is 
needed in other business segments.

I just want the population sufficiently large to be meaningful.  AND, I want
the CVC to be more proactive in their approach.

Rev

PS - Didn't the SLT survey EVERY EMPLOYEE recently?  Hmmmm, couldn't the CVC
do something similar, passing out their ideas and see how they fly? 

    You could sample the entire population but it would be expensive (as
    the survey was).
    
    Selecting representatives is standard practice but it also makes sense
    to pilot the result on a small scale and involve the pilot group in
    more of the preliminary work so they BELIEVE in the result.  If the
    pilot is successful you then have the proof points for the rest of the
    population.
    
    If there is not going to be a small scale pilot then I think it is
    critical that a mechanism exist to ALLOW input from the complete
    population.  I do not think that this necessarily means publication of
    all of the details of the work.  In these instances I think the work
    either needs to be  very secret or very open.  CVC is very much in the
    middle of these two.
    
    The 'field' is a very diverse environment.  I've seen very different
    approaches to selling in different large accounts, much less accross
    different districts and geographies.  Having been part of some Digital
    committees seeking to set policies, I am very aware that the process
    often is NOT representative of the entire population.  Not that it is
    designed to be that way, but this is the result.
    
    The thing I find most amazing is that no process to accept feedback has
    been created when it is such an easy thing to do given the Easynet.  If
    people then choose not to participate in the process (as was the case
    with a percentage of Digital with the survey) the responsibility is
    theirs.  Giving people the opportunity to participate in the process
    seems an easy way to raise morale a notch and to likely develop a
    better solution that addresses the wide range of sales situations.
    
    Peter Dillard

RE: the SOC

I like the SOC, and value it for its wealth of information.  Ok, sometimes
I need 5 or 6 bookmarks at various points in order to configure a system,
but I can do it.  Compare the SOC with the new Networks Buyers Guide to 
see the difference between solid detailed technical info which I and my
customers treasure, and pure hype with no value to our customers.


RE: Mike London's responses

RE: .49 -< You don't get it! >-
    
>    YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 
>    
>    Although I will not go into every CVC project, 200+ of them, I will 
>    assure you that all you have mentioned are in the 200.  

I am sorry to say this, but here we go again.  Vague statements, carefully
devoid of any content, talking about how wonderful it is going to be, saying
that all of our needs are being addressed, but not giving any details or
information which could reassure us that things are in fact getting better.
    
>    I enjoy reading the notes file, but don't have all the spare time you 
>    do to write long, false and many times ignorant messages.

Notice the times that I write my notes.  I do this on my own time, in an
effort to make things better.  And yes, our notes *are* ignorant about the
plans that CVC has to make things better.  But that is because we are not 
being given the information we need by CVC.  Please enlighten us and make
us less ignorant.


RE: .56

>    However, I do know what is going on in CVC better than you do.
>    
>    I am a field liason of CVC.  I bring sales needs to management's
>    attention. 

But that is only half the necessary work.  You also need to bring your
activities to the field's attention!
    
>    Sales people - Put your self in my shoes.  I am trying to help - List
>    your problems and I will try and get them solved. - or at least tell     
>    you why they are not being looked at.
    
CVC people - put yourself in our shoes.  We are trying to help - we have
listed our problems and gotten nothing back but vague content-free promises,
gratuitous insults and deliberate attempts to get us angry (.52).  We ask for
information and get nothing back: we have *never* seen any communication
which showed us what CVC is doing for us, or even what it *will* do for
us in the future, just "we are working on every one of your problems, you 
will be happy when you see the results, but I can't tell you when that
will be".

>    You are telling me that because you don't see results, nothing is being
>    done.  

Wrong.  Flat, absolutely wrong.  We are telling you that because we have
never seen any substantive plans, or solid ideas, or any proposals for
concrete changes from CVC, that we have no faith in CVCs efforts.  

RE: .60

>    I can, however, promise you that if you feel strongly about something I
>    will make it known to senior management.
    
**IF** we feel strongly about something?!?!?!  What has this entire string
been about but the incredible hopelessness, anger, depression, bitterness, 
and general frustration that we all feel about Digital's current methods
of doing business?  We desperately need to fix it, otherwise the next
20,000 people who get TFSOd will be only the vanguard of the legions to
follow them out the door.

We are on your side, Mike.  We want to fix this as much as you do.  But
one of the things that will help is 2 way communication: not just us to
you (with vague promises that if you see something significant you will
"make it known to senior management"), but you to us as well.  The morale
boost generated by any substantive communication will be amazing.


RE: .53 and .59

>    You are right that we should send better messages to the field.
>    
>    Unfortunately, that is not a priority of our most senior person - my
>    manager asked him for me.  
>
>    By the way, it was not CVC mgt that does not want to market our work
>    internally it is B.P. 

And I think that this statement says everything we need to know about CVC.
The most senior person in CVC feels that "sending better messages to the
field" (ie, communicating with customers) is not a priority.  The deliberate
secrecy we see is forcing us to conclude that CVC is simply another very
well hyped and ultimately futile corporate boondoggle.  

Sad.  Truly sad.

-- Ken Moreau

      Re. communication, as I noted in 3216.5 there is a CVC Notes file.
    No-one from the CVC organisation appears to have read it in the last
    fortnight, or if they have they haven't bothered to respond, even to
    the note asking if there was anyone still around. I gather at least
    one moderator (John Zanini) got TFSO'd. Would our CVC friend care to
    respond either there, or here, and tell us if this particular avenue of
    comunication is another cul-de-sac?
    
    Ken

    re. the SOC
    
    I'm not suggesting we water down, or remove any of, the quality or
    quantity of information in the SOC (as it is affectionately referred
    to).  I am suggesting that we develop creative packaging that makes it
    easier and more time efficient for us to sell, and easier for the
    customer to understand.
    
    The example I used in my original note was a customer looking for a RAID
    solution for a new system.  Regardless of the class of system, why
    don't we offer a single part number that includes all the components,
    or at least all the basic components required, for that configuration? 
    Instead, we have to figure out what controller we need, which cabinets,
    which shelves, which cables, make sure all the parts are supported
    together in the same configuration, etc.  Instead, why not have:
    
    - StorageWorks 2100
    - StorageWorks 4000
    - StorageWorks 7000
    
    All the customer has to tell you is how much disk space, the preferred
    number of spindles, and how long he wants his cables.  S/he gets one,
    two line items at most, on the proposal.  How many line items does it
    take now?  With order codes and product descriptions that almost
    require a Rosetta Stone to interpret.
    
    Look, it's just an idea.  My view on reengineering Digital, or any
    other company for that matter, is to try and figure out how to be more
    efficient at what we do and to make it easier for customers to do
    business with us.  In fact, if we make it easier to do business with us,
    potential customers will WANT to do business with us.  Sales folks
    could spend more time selling and showing prospects how to solve their
    problems with our products.
    
    re. the CVC
    
    The methodology being employed sounds just as broken as Digital's
    product planning and development methodology:  develop -> build -> mfr
    -> distribute -> let customers tell you what they really want, but
    ignore them.
    
    Just like a lot of our failed products, I am convinced the CVC is
    doomed for failure.
    
    Angelo M. DeRise
    

    London-san,
    
    This conference is aimed at improving the role of sales in the
    company's value chain.  Moreau points out in .66 all the thoughts I had
    of your comments over the last week.  As a sales manager and 14 year
    employee, I am concerned about our ability to add vaue to our customer
    in the sales process.  Most months I send to my boss a report with at
    least 10 items where we need to improve to be a better sales force.
    
    I write letters to Russ, Scott, etc.  I get "we're looking into it"
    responses.  7 years of writing memos and reports, very little
    substantial action.  I still write, because the bureaucracy that has
    strangled this company has to know that there are people who care.
    
    What are you doing to add value to our sales process??  Be specific. 
    Tell us what you do.  Give some details.  Let us use this conference to
    banter the pro's and con's.  And be very careful about broad brush
    criticism in public.  I believe Notes has some bad aspects, but
    bureaucratic "fog" is not one of them.
    
    I am sure you want to contribute and we want you to, let us help.
    
    ;-|                                     

    re: .68 and SOC
    
    Although it would be nice to have a single and simple product offering
    to a specific sales situations, this is not the nature of the
    beast. There are a million ways to configure computer systems because
    there are a million ways that customers want to buy them. Believe me,
    if you can't configure a system the way a customer wants it (forcing
    him to pick an undesirable option), you will be reducing the number of
    potential customers.
    
    Of course, this basically goes out the window with PC's, which can
    easily be put together with a menu.  Maybe there's a point there
    somewhere....or maybe this is what we like to refer to as "value
    added".
    
    8*)  Jim

    I think there is a lot to be learned from looking at the PC world.  The
    customers I work with certainly expect this level of ease with any
    system that does not require raised floor (and some now expect it for
    those systems as well).
    
    In many cases Sable is competing against single and multi-processor
    Pentiom systems (PC).  We don't win points in these cases when out
    quote looks like a good nights read and the system arrives missing just
    that little piece needed to get the system up.
    
    Most PC companies try to identify the configurations that make up large
    numbers of their orders and set these as standard configurations.  With
    marketing you can 'steer' some larger number of people to these
    configurations.  They still provide the custom build options but
    typically with longer ship times.  Many also provide price breaks on
    the packaged configurations.
    
    The StorageWorks example Angelo gave points out another issue: getting
    the different product groups to create some type of compatible
    packaging.
    
    Peter Dillard

    
    	The problems, unfortunately, are all worse than we believe. I could
    do 500 lines tonight just on screw-ups, botches, stupidity, and rank
    customer disregard over the past FY. I could also do probably 350 lines
    on DECies who went beyond the call to fix the aforementioned. Therein
    lies the crux of our frustrations, and management's inabilities. We
    cannot shrink the 500 lines and we cannot grow the 350 lines in one FY
    without changing the entire way we do business - and our current model
    is a Russian truck (no motor, no tires).
    
    	We point fingers at each other in notes, we get hostile about stuff
    that is totally nonsensical. Who cares about the SOC's difficulty in
    creating an easy environemnt for putting a quote out? Who cares about 
    all the bucks going into the CVC? Who cares about SLT communications
    with the ICs?
    
    	JUST US ICs, folks. And Digital is telling us we don't matter.
    Wake up, smell the coffee. We are a dinosaur in the age of mammals.
    Us and IBM. Only their installed base is bigger, so they have more time.
    
    	I don't mean to put a downer on this, but I'm really tired of being
    treated by my own company as just something really unnecessary to the
    overall well-being of that company. I'm sorry those of you in the SLT,
    but you're wrong. Without me, and my peers, you are the ones who are
    unnecessary.
    
    			the Greyhawk
    
    stuff?

    re .72  You are right on!  The problem is not how much we cost, which
    seems to be the SLT's primary focus and their strategy of "Downsize to
    Excellence"!  Our Corporate problem is we are not generating enough 
    revenue.  That doesn't mean ignore improving cost effectiveness, it
    means concentrate on how we can sell more, when we get that right, we can
    find improved ways of doing it.  But, if we don't increase revenue   
    drastically, we should order the headstone...

    
    	:-1 Absolutely, business is full of firms that "downsized"
    themselves literally out of existence. This whole concept of
    chasing optimal revenues (read: lower than you have now) is spook-
    speak by the management consultants hired by RP and Co. If you doubt
    what is happening folks, get your hands on this weeks' Business Week
    magazine (the one with the wacked-out consultant on the cover), and
    read the cover story.
    	We've become a consultant's dream "a case history in progress"
    as they say. Quite frankly, I'm lacing my skates.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Michael London's Job
    
    - About 6 months ago, I was asked to find out exactly what type of
    information sales need at their fingertips to do their job.
    
    Our goal is to provide sales with a "SIMPLE" mechanism to receive
    this vital information. - The term being used is a Knowledge Aquifer. 
    
    My personal goal is to keep sales updated - Not my job, not being
    goaled on it, but realize its importance.  - Probably should be a full
    time job for someone.  
    
    There have been over 50 world-wide studies done on sales people's needs
    since 1990.  I have read them all and considered all their results. 
    Since I am extremely cheap - salary between 30 and 40 thousand dollars,
    they thought I could be a verifier of previous studies.  
    
    I conducted my own WW study of sales needs - took me three months, cost
    the company almost nothing but my salary.
    
    I used 3 methods - Contextual Inquiry - Watching sales at work.
    
    Personaly conducted surveys.
    
    Focus Groups.
    
    I surveyed all 7 types of sales people in the company.
      - Try and list 7 different
    
    - Yes statistical research techniques - I was the #1 marketing graduate
    from Babson College a few years back.
    
    I had representation from every country Digital does business in - Yes
    more in the U.S. but pretty global overall.
    
    Since I just came out of the Burlington Sales Office, I knew the right
    questions to ask and understood the sales cycle.
    
    -----------------------------
    
    I already have the results done and submitted.  When I ask for feedback
    from you in the notes file, it is more for verification.
    
    If I heard something very different from my results, I would
    investigate further and if I was wrong, I would do whatever I had to
    to get things changed.  - I am young, extremely marketable and don't
    really care about stepping on toes if I have to.  Even VP level toes.
    I could tell you stories.... I want things to be better for Digital
    sales.  
    
    Anyway here are the basic submitted - Lucente saw these before he left.
    
    Not a list like this but a detailed document.
    
    1. Sales needs leads 
    2. Accurate Measurement Information
    3. Product Information
    4. Configuration/Quotes
    5. Order Status
    6. Partner Information
    7. Quotes 
    8. Proposals
    9. Competitive information
    10. History of Accounts
    11. To Forecast Better
    12. Fast way to do expenses
    13. Product Strategies 
    14. Company Strategies
    several other minor things
    
    I realize that sales gets many of these things in 1 form or another.
    
    
    However, substantial improvement is needed to increase productivity,
    shorten the sales cycle and increase confidence throughout sales and
    Digital.
    
    Please understand that there is about 10 pages of explanation under
    each heading.
    
    I did not ask if I could share this information, but I figure you know
    it already.  
    
    Waiting for you all to bash me again,
    
    Michael
            

>> Knowledge Aquifer

This conjures up images of sales people with divining rods and heavy drilling
equipment trying to obtain information by trial and error, with little or
no understanding of where the information originally came from.

Come to think of it, that's not far off the mark for the current state of
Digital's infrastructure :-)

--RS

    The name isn't good - but I hope the results will be.
    
    As I said in a previous note, the KA is trying to give sales the exact
    accurate and timely info. needed to do their job.
    
    This way sales can maximimize the time they can spend w/cust.  
    
    John Z. left the company - he was outbound marketing for the KA and
    in charge of the notes file.

    -.75- Mike
    
    If you are focusing on the Information required, it leaves out some
    topics like the tools available to improve sales performance.  But
    typically, the following topics deserve greater discussion and would
    like more feedback on the content of your research.
    
    As an end user sales manager, Some things jump out that need t/b integrated
    for better sales performance.  Those items which will improve our
    performance in front of customers, your items
    
    4 configs
    5 order status
    6 partner info
    7 quotes
    8 proposals
    9 competitive info
    13 product strategies
    14 company strategies
    
    Of these, configs and order status is where the info required to
    available has the greatest differential.  Timeliness of some items
    (partner, competitive info) is particularly problematic.
    
    As for 7 categories, if we are trying to reengineer sales, I sould
    think there would be many more different categories available.  But the
    2 largest must be end user sales (in $ rev and no of empl) and channel
    sales.  Lets focus on these groups for maximum benefit to the company.
    
    Can you give additional info on configs?  A few years ago in one of the
    downsizing plans, they were going to cut 1800-decsale.  When the field
    heard, such a stink was raised, that they were saved and other field
    reps must have been cut.  
    
    John
    
    

    
>    Not a list like this but a detailed document.
>    
>    1. Sales needs leads 
>    2. Accurate Measurement Information
>    3. Product Information
>    4. Configuration/Quotes
>    5. Order Status
>    6. Partner Information
>    7. Quotes 
>    8. Proposals
>    9. Competitive information
>    10. History of Accounts
>    11. To Forecast Better
>    12. Fast way to do expenses
>    13. Product Strategies 
>    14. Company Strategies
    several other minor things
    
    
>    Waiting for you all to bash me again,
>    
>    Michael
 
    Hmmm, quills at ready :-)
    
    After only 3 weeks and some 75 replies it looks like this thread
    may actually be ready to talk about sales reengineering :-).
    What might be an idea is for each of the 14 items to formulate
    a reply here consisting of 2 paragraphs - one describing the
    current status and major obstacles and one describing the (your)
    proposed improvement. There is obviously a lot of interest and
    bright experienced minds here in your results. Put them to good
    use. Quills can be put to other uses too :-). The pen is after all
    mightier than the sword...
    
    re roelof           

    Why don't we use the ILBBAK::US_SALES_SERVICE notesfile for this type
    of discussion.  This notesfile was started by a former DEC sales
    executive who tried creating a two-way communications vehicle.  Of
    course he is one of many bodies littering the salesscape of Digital.
    
    I wonder if Ed or Scott even knew about this wonderful means of
    communication - oops, I did receive an "FY94 Perspective" note from 
    Mr. Roeth so I guess he still exists.
    
    Mr. London, I suggest you use that forum for the discussion of what the
    sales force needs are, of course it is not limited to just US Sales,
    especially since our new boss is european. 
    
    Dazed & Confused

re.80:

>    Why don't we use the ILBBAK::US_SALES_SERVICE notesfile 

Because of this------------------>^^

Dave.

    re .80
    
    Also the (breakdown of the) Digital Sales Process seems to
    crucially affect the Digital Way of Working which seems to
    me to make it germane to this notes file.
    
    re roelof

    I expected a big response - What's wrong???
    
    
    Michael

    You must not be part of the problem and we want to be part of the
    solution.

    
    	Dear Michael -
    
    		It is not that we in sales do not want to reply to your
    requests. It is just that it doesn't make any difference anymore.
    As a Sales Exec in Chicago, I am now undergoing my third sales
    reorganization in 13 months. In the past three years I have had four
    managers, three of whom are no longer with Digital. I have no
    compensation plan, no account responsibilities, no budgets, nothing.
    
    		And today I learn that we have created three new regions in
    the US Sales org with attendent "overhead" for us to support. I'm tired
    and disgusted. And this is from a guy who is considered one of
    Digital's top channels reps. 
    
    		My suggestion to you is do whatever you do well - cause in
    the long run, it ain't going to matter.
    
    		the Greyhawk
    

    Thanks for the suggestion.

RE: .75

>    I did not ask if I could share this information, but I figure you know
>    it already.  
>    
>    Waiting for you all to bash me again,

No bashing from here.  Your reply .75 was by far the most clear, direct,
substantive and informative message I have seen out of CVC.  Thank you.

And, to address your first point, no we did *not* know it already. Your
definition of the Knowledge Aquifer and the list of the 14 points showed
(for the first time to my knowledge) that CVC actually understands the 
problems that they need to be addressing.

It seems that in fact CVC does understand the problems, so our earlier 
charges of being out of touch were wrong.  This is half the battle!  Now 
all we need in order to support CVC is knowledge of the other half of the
battle: the changes you plan to make to fix them.
    
>    I already have the results done and submitted.  When I ask for feedback
>    from you in the notes file, it is more for verification.
    
Were there any surprises from this string of (sometimes heated) replies?

>    My personal goal is to keep sales updated - Not my job, not being
>    goaled on it, but realize its importance.  - Probably should be a full
>    time job for someone.  

If you continue writing things like .75, you will succeed in your goal.  And
yes, it should be a full-time job for someone.  But I guess we cannot be
too surprised that Digital actually understands the problem, has a good idea 
of how to fix it, and does its best to hide that fact from its potential
customers.  Certainly that has never happened before... (heavy sarcasm)

But thank you, Mike, for keeping at it, and giving us replies like .75.
    
-- Ken Moreau

P.S. But somehow the word "aquifer" seems to not denote the full and easy 
     spread of information.  My dictionary defines aquifer as "A water-bearing 
     rock, rock formation, or group of formations".  The phrase "Knowledge 
     Aquifer" literally means that our information will be cast in stone :-)

    Reorg..........smeorg..........
    
    
    I call on the same folks I always have and they look forward to seeing
    me.  Even if they aren't happy with message I bring.
    
    Look outward, not inward.
    
    and a list?
    
    try this and forget the rest
    
    		In priority order: don't bother with a 
    		following step unless the prior ones are
    		done.
    
    		1. Find out what customers want
    
    		2. Get engineering to build it
    		
    		3. Advertize the hell out if
    
    		4. Tell us who wants it
    
    		5. Tell us how it compares 
    
    		And get the heck out of the way............
    
    

    Rogers List}
    
    What you said is exactly the way I would do marketing at a company.
    
    However, this is not what we are talking about.
    
    We are trying to give sales people the information they need to sell.
    
    If we don't give info. to sales and other employees so they have what
    they need, sales will be forced to look for that information. - wasting
    valuable selling time.
    
    Also - If sales has one simple way of getting what they need, we can
    eventually shut down other methods that are not being utilized and are
    costing the company billions.
    
    This must be done for our survival as a company.
    
    The knowledge aquifer will cut costs and increase revenue all at once.

    Any thoughts from Peter or Angelo?
    
    Michael

    As I said earlier I think the concept of Knowledge Aquifer is a good
    tool to support the sales force but I don't see the REENGINEERING of
    the sales process just in the easier availability of information.
    Instead what I see is stepwise refinement of existing processes.
    
    Focusing on the top 'n' accounts directly also does not say how we will
    sell differently.  Pushing more through channels POTENTIALLY implies
    that we will be selling differently but my experience (and seemingly
    that of some other people) is that we use these often as fulfillment as
    opposed to sales channels.
    
    "the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business process to
    achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of
    performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed."  This is how
    Hammer defines reengineering.
    
    I have not seen the "radical redesign" and don't know other than
    revenue and profit the "measures of performance" relative to
    reengineering sales
    
    I think we can provide input to help make the Knowledge Aquifer
    everyones ideal of an information source (hypertext, content based
    retrieval...) and that will allow sales to focus more on the customer
    but still selling the same way.  This would undoubtedly lead to
    improvements, but I don't think this will lead to the kind of "dramatic" 
    (order of magnitude) performance increases normally thought of as the 
    ultimate benefit of reengineering.
    
    Peter Dillard

    What if you could do a quote or a proposal at a customer site in 5
    minutes?
    
    Would that be BPR?
    
    You should not take the BPR definitions too literally.
    
    After hearing Mr. Hammer speak 3 weeks ago in Newton, we discussed the
    work I was doing.
    
    He described it as information Reengineering - and said that it is a
    good way to achieve a competitive advantage.
    
    You do BPR because you want to achieve a competitive advantage.
    
    That is the goal of the Knowledge Aquifer.

    
    	Look, the problem is not being able to do an instant quote or
    proposal. It is doing it perfectly when it's delievered.
    	I know very few sales reps who could do an Alpha OSF/1 server with
    25 PCs connected talking in "real Time" to an IBM mainframe (or VAX VMS
    cluster for that matter) scattered over three sites running both TCP/IP
    and DECnet with links to SNA.
    	Let's get serious here folks. We are tail chasing.
    	What a Digital rep needs is answers to the above questions with
    part numbers, order (read: parts) substitution capability,
    configuration "gotcha's", current pricing, network installation costs,
    warranty information (for all the parts, not just some CBU's current
    favorities), delievry info, and lease rates.
    	Until the system can do that - IT IS WORTHLESS TO A REAL REP.
    
    		the Greyhawk

>    	What a Digital rep needs is answers to the above questions with
>    part numbers, order (read: parts) substitution capability,
>    configuration "gotcha's", current pricing, network installation costs,
>    warranty information (for all the parts, not just some CBU's current
>    favorities), delievry info, and lease rates.
>    	Until the system can do that - IT IS WORTHLESS TO A REAL REP.
    
This might sound really stupid but whatever happened to the XCON project ?
I remember it from the early 80s.  It was supposed to do just the things
you say you need.

It makes me sad to hear that almost 15 years later this is still a problem
for sales.  Why is it such an insurmountable problem ?  Extensive 3 minute
analysis leads me to believe we have all the manpower, information and
technology we need to do the job.  What gives ?

I think a customer should be able to type:

$ sell me something		or
% sell me something		or
C:> sell me something

and he should be able to sit there and point and click his way through
hardware, software, prepackaged systems, etc and the order should be
automatically faxed or emailed somewhere and acted upon.

Why not ?  

Scott

RE: .92

>    What if you could do a quote or a proposal at a customer site in 5
>    minutes?
>    
>    Would that be BPR?

No.  It would simply be doing what we do now more efficiently.

Having said that, I think the ability to do a 

	---->   CORRECTLY CONFIGURED, ACCURATE and COMPLETE  <----

quote or proposal at a customer site in 5 minutes to be by far the most 
valuable contribution toward profitability that I can think of.  It would 
enable me to really cover the accounts I have been assigned, as opposed
to the frustrating prioritization and time-slicing I do now.

But notice the phrase I added.  Doing a quote with pieces missing, or with
the wrong cables, or with components that have not been certified together,
is worse than useless: it is dangerous because it is going to cost Digital
lots of money (either my time or huge allowances to fix the problem) later.

Greyhawk Corson in .93 explained this situation very well.
    
RE: .94

>This might sound really stupid but whatever happened to the XCON project ?
>I remember it from the early 80s.  It was supposed to do just the things
>you say you need.

We had several tools like the one you describe.  The 2100 (Sable) configurator
program is an outstanding example of how to do this correctly.  And it runs
on the notebook PCs available in the field.

The funding for it was cut, and there will be no updates for it.  There is
no equivalent tool that I am aware of for networking, other AXP systems,
or software.  There was one proposed for Storageworks, but it was never (to
my knowledge) available to the field.

And as far as I know, XCON is not available to the field.

-- Ken Moreau

        RE: .94
        
>  I think a customer should be able to type:

>  $ sell me something		or
>  % sell me something		or
>  C:> sell me something

>  and he should be able to sit there and point and click his way through
>  hardware, software, prepackaged systems, etc and the order should be
>  automatically faxed or emailed somewhere and acted upon.

>  Why not ?  
        
        Have you read any SPD's for new product offerings?  Some of them
        have as many as 20 prerequisite hardware/software line items to be
        satisfied, before the layered software product will function.
        Then there are always the cases where the standard Digital SPD
        prerequisite line reads "version x.x or higher", when the product
        manager knows the newest version is incompatible.
        
        With Digital developing more solutions that connect the world,
        prerequisites are becoming increasingly complex and difficult to
        understand.  Unless the sales rep is knowlegdable with the
        specific product, they won't even realize that all substitutes are
        not equal.
        
        Dave Zaniewski

    Re -.1: ...and then some of them have few or no pre-requisites. I think
    this was an excellent suggestion, the more so since I made the
    equivalent suggestion to B. Palmer a year or so ago. A lot of people
    got involved with that one (some were nice enough to copy me). 
    
    In the end I got a "thanks, but no" reply.
    
    Some inquiry as to the why led me to believe that our Admin systems
    would not be able to handle this. Nothing to do with telling a Customer
    what the environmental conditions for using the product(s) are or
    mailing them an SPD or some such.
    
    I also think the "Knowledge Acquifier" may be a large step in the right
    direction and that we *will* implement something of the sort. We could
    do it today around the DECdirect catalogue (if we could figure out
    where to send the bill and some other small details like that).
    
    Al
      

    RE: -(last few)
    
    If you guys think configuring for a sale is fun, try putting something
    on an MCS service contract. I (and a total of three others, so far)
    have spent several hours trying to find a system-type that the SMART
    database would eat. I copied the system-type directly off the box
    (VS22V-A2) and got nothing but "Invalid <mumble>". It's REAL
    frustrating dealing with ever-changing, convoluted, incomprehensible,
    incomplete systems. I further challenge someone to point out where, in
    our currently available resources, what option has an M7164 in it.
    (That should be in capitol letters 'cause that one BUGS me.)
    
    "Sure Mr. Customer, We'd be GLAD to service that box for you, but I
    can't put it on contract, we have no number to describe it! Sorry."
    
     .mike.
    (annoyed again, or is it 'Still'?)

    What  you folks are articulating is that there is a need to consolidate
    efforts between Engineering Marketing Sales and Service.  It is all
    being done on an individual basis these days. It was handled
    differently in a previous life at Digital. There were people that
    used to work with Engineering to ensure Maintainability was engineered
    into products so it did not require a degree to fix em. These same
    people used to coordinate efforts between Marketing, Manufacturing, 
    Training and course development, Manufacturing and Logistics. They
    also ensured that pricing was in place for service. But, alas, the
    field never knew that this organization did, and when management was
    cornered to define the organization, roles, and 'value added'.....it
    couldn't be done to the satisfaction of certain VP's......therefore the
    group was NUKED, and a new charter/paradigm was instituted.....These
    folk (the ones that are left) are now relegated to writing
    Serviceability specifications and throwing them over the wall of
    engineering for engineers to ignore, and the rest are doing 'process'
    engineering to re-define the service offerings with something entitled
    the NEW SERVICES MENU (insert joke here). All of which in my humble
    opinion are destined to fail.....
    
    By the way, for those of you that haven't figured it out yet, the name
    of this old group was Customer Services System Engineering (CSSE). We
    were the 'string' that tied all this together! I'm not saying that they
    did everything right.....but that was their charter, and now that they
    are gone, you are seeing the result of what management could not
    articulate to the company and was therefore 'whacked' from existance.
    
    
    Gawd, I'm glad to get that off my chest!
    
    
    I personally still believe in the viability of the job, and am
    attempting to provide that function in my new role within the
    engineering group that I am currently working in.
    
    the 'Parrot_Trooper'
    

    Re: .98

    In looking at the Option Module List it appears that the VS22V-A2 was
    used as an intelligent video terminal (ie. predecessor to VXT's), 
    booted off an ethernet controller.  It is listed as used on the
    VS220-VS235.

    The M7164 is listed as used on the KA820, which leads me to believe 
    it's related to the VAX 8200/8250/8300/8350 family of processors.

    Kevin

    
    re: .98
    
    STARS is the tool to use for finding things such as which option
    includes the M-7164.  doing a search on the keyword "m7164" brought
    up a few dozen articles which contained it, one of which was the
    parts list (QRL) for the KDA50.  
    
    bill

    re: .98
    
    A tool I find very useful is VTX CEO. It is the option module listing
    on line. Looking in there I found that the VS22V-A2 is comprised of a
    630QV-B2, MS630-BB, VCB02-C and a DELQA-M in a BA23 box.
    
    In our contract system the VS22V-A2 does not price either.
    
    Hope this helps
    
    George
    

re: .98 <Title: Try it, I dare you.>

>    If you guys think configuring for a sale is fun, try putting something
>    on an MCS service contract. I (and a total of three others, so far)
>    have spent several hours trying to find a system-type that the SMART
>    database would eat. I copied the system-type directly off the box
>    (VS22V-A2) and got nothing but "Invalid <mumble>". It's REAL


Never knew MCS service contract or configuring for sales, but I know about
Mosaic/COMET/STAR, so I 'Tried it', searched "VS22V-A2" in STAR using
COMET/Mosaic, and got:



        VAXSTATION II/GPX

        SMART SYSTEM MODEL NUMBERS              LARS CODE
        --------------------------              ---------

        VS230-FA/F3/F4/GA/G3/G4                 VS22V-A2/A3
 

>    incomplete systems. I further challenge someone to point out where, in
>    our currently available resources, what option has an M7164 in it.


Again, searched "M7164" in STAR using COMET/Mosaic, and found:

   stars_all_rsst_databases (1 references) 
   stars_csse_time_critical (4 references) 
   stars_hardware (29 references) 
   stars_operating_systems (1 references) 
   stars_qrl (8 references) 
   stars_remote_sales_archive (2 references) 
   stars_sales (1 references) 

Point-and-clicked on hotspot, 'stars_sales' above, and found:


 [VAX 4000] Model 200/300 Questions and Answers

QUESTION 66:       What are the options supported on the VAX 4000 Model 200?
OPTION SUPPORT
(VAX 4000-200)

ANSWER:            The VAX 4000 Model 200 supports the same options as the
                   VAX 4000 Model 300.

                   Options listed here have been tested with VAX 4000
                   Model 200 in BA213, BA215, and BA430 enclosures using the
                   latest version of MDM software in standalone and system
                   exerciser test modes.

                   OPTION             MODULE         REV        FIRMWARE
                   ------             ------         ---        --------

...........

                   KDA50-SE           M7164/5        C1-P1

............


Other references on M7164 may give other options or more info on it.
For info on Mosaic, please look into notesfile, internet_tools on sofbas::.

May I say, let's work smart and take Digital's Internet Advantages in
Reengineering Sales!!!


Regards,
Edwin

re .96
>
>        Have you read any SPD's for new product offerings?  Some of them
>        have as many as 20 prerequisite hardware/software line items to be
>        satisfied, before the layered software product will function.
>        Then there are always the cases where the standard Digital SPD
>        prerequisite line reads "version x.x or higher", when the product
>        manager knows the newest version is incompatible.
>        

With my customer hat on...

Granted that SPDs can be error-prone but so what ?  As a customer I want
my dealings with Digital as simple as possible.  I care nothing for Digital's
failure to organize information or whether the SPD is accurate or complex.  
I only care about the functionality that I want to buy.  And if you make it 
difficult for me to buy you can bet I'll go elsewhere.  

>
>        With Digital developing more solutions that connect the world,
>        prerequisites are becoming increasingly complex and difficult to
>        understand.  Unless the sales rep is knowlegdable with the
>        specific product, they won't even realize that all substitutes are
>        not equal.
>        

I know that sales is hardpressed to keep up with new products (believe me,
so am *I*) but again so what ?  If we gave sales some decent tools this
wouldn't be a problem.  Heck, this company has written lots of complex
software.  I'm sure we could do some decent sales tools.

Scott

XCS/XCON is still available , and used.

In Europe, it can also be used from AQS or OLIS.


David

Euro XCS tech Support.

    Or better yet buy some decent sales tools
    
    That way they would be proven
    
    
    Michael

    Mike- We need to think of large medium and small systems in the 2
    dimensional grid - for a particular system, it has so much mem (x axis)
    and disc (y axis) and in the each box the number of slots available for add
    in packages (tapes and comm).  The price would be fixed and customers
    could pick up the phone and call with a PO number.
    
    
    If they wanted to build a system from scratch, so be it but it we would
    save so much time in the field because we could pick up a priced system
    grid and sign it as a quote to a customer.  Their discount could be
    added someplace, etc, etc.
    
    Very simple from 7000 to pc's... 

    
    Re. 103
    
    	I'd love access to STARS!
    
    	Who can access it?  Need some type of account?  Submit request where?
    
    	You say 'Digital's Internet Advantages', this is on the internet,
    	easynet, both?
    
    Mike M.
    Digital Consulting

re Note 3225.108 by NEWVAX::MURRAY:

>     	I'd love access to STARS!
>     
>     	Who can access it?  Need some type of account?  Submit request where?
  
        Can you access the World Wide Web via Mosaic, Lynx, or
        another Web browser?

        If so, the STARS databases can be searched via the URL:

        	http://aztech.cxo.dec.com:1999/stars

        (It will ask you for a username.  This is any name of your
        choosing -- it has nothing to do with any system account you
        may have or need.  It is just to remember your preferences
        between sessions.)

        Bob

    Assuming you have Mosaic capability, take a look at:
    
    http://www.nyo.dec.com/info/sales-support.html
    
    It's what the name implies. In particular, look on that page for a
    pointer on COMET.

    
    re: .108
    
    Find a system which has MOSAIC installed, your system manager may 
    be able to help, get an account on that system; or if your node has
    UUCX installed, then you can install it yourself, the kit location
    can be found in internet_tools notesfile.
    
    Once you have MOSAIC running, then you can get to COMET, the searching
    machine, via URL: http://www-comet.alf.dec.com:8033/
    
    Once you are on COMET, then select STAR, and put in the character
    string you want to search, then it'll come up with the STAR articles
    which has the searched string in it.
    
    As for Digital's Internet Advantages, once you get on MOSAIC you'll
    know it, again internet_tools notesfile on sofbas:: would be a good
    place to start.  I chose to say 'Let's take Digital's Internet
    Advantages' because I saw the title of the basenote and figure Sales
    can/need to benefit from the Advantages most...
    
    Regards,
    Edwin

If your system doesn't have Mosaic, you can use the IDC WWW demo account on
BROWNY. You'll need a workstation in a non-hidden DECnet area to do it.

Do a SET HOST BROWNY, log in as WWW and answer the questions.

You can also use the LYNX account to get into LYNX.

Perry

Reading the last several entries, does anyone wonder why we need to completely
overhaul the systems supporting sales?

Rev

    "Reading the last several entries, does anyone wonder why we need to
    completely overhaul the systems supporting sales?"
    
    The current systems are difficult to use, costly to maintain and do not
    give sales what they need to close as much business as they can for
    Digital and themselves.
    
    I do not know what you mean by "completely overhaul" - I think of it as
    improve where needed.
    
    Today our sales people spend less time in front of customers than
    nearly all our competitors.  This is not something sales can fix
    without fixing some of the systems/processes.  
    

    
    Wow!  Thanks for all the responses!
    
    Yes, I'm on the internet, (on site at a customer site).  I've used Mosaic,
    as a user.  I can't get to any of the mentioned URL locations, however
    I can get to the Digital one known as http://www.dec.com/info.html
    
    Message is always:
    
    	ERROR
    
    Requested document (URL http://www-comet.alf.dec.com:8033/) could not
    be accessed.
    
    The information server either is not accessible or is refusing to serve
    the document to you
    
    
    Ideas?
    
    Thanks,
    Mike M.
    mmurray@census.gov

re .-1

    Requested document (URL http://www-comet.alf.dec.com:8033/) could not
    be accessed.
    
    The information server either is not accessible or is refusing to serve
    the document to you
    
    
    Ideas?

You can't access systems that are inside of Digital from the outside;
www.dec.com and www.digital.com are on the outside, that's why you can
reach them fron census.gov.

/harley

    
    Re. 112
    
    Well I like Mosaic, but the info is more important, so thanks for the
    LYNX tip!
    
    Great Stuff
    
    Mike M.

Re: .114
>>			-< Why fix the systems? >-

>>    The current systems are difficult to use, costly to maintain and do not
>>    give sales what they need to close as much business as they can for
>>    Digital and themselves.
    
>>    I do not know what you mean by "completely overhaul" - I think of it as
>>    improve where needed.
 
Oh, fer cryin out loud.  If I had a customer who had core systems in as bad 
shape as ours I'd be all over them with proposals.

You answered your own question.

Rev

    Amen, Rev.
    
    Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord, and its not
    clear if He's walking with us or agin' us.

re Note 3225.118 by POCUS::OHARA:

> Oh, fer cryin out loud.  If I had a customer who had core systems in as bad 
> shape as ours I'd be all over them with proposals.
  
        Believe me, there have been a *lot* of proposals including
        some projects currently in development, some even in pilot
        deployment.

        Bob

                         <<< Note 3225.119 by POCUS::FOERCH >>>
                       -< Never confuse activity with progress. >-
    
        Amen, Rev.
    
    Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord, and its not
    clear if He's walking with us or agin' us.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
    
    	Fundamental error here - the Lord doesn't walk with anyone!  We may
    walk with Him or agin' Him.
    
    				Malcolm.

re.: 116

URL: http://www.dec.com:8033 
URL: http://www-comet.alf.dec.com:8033/

both gives following error --- any idea's

I am using MOSAIC as VMS-client through server.

===============
ERROR

Requested document (URL http://www.dec.com:8033/) could not be
accessed.

The information server either is not accessible or is refusing to serve
the document to you.

===================

thanks

Remi

Assuming that:

- you are trying to access these URLs from inside Digital
- you can access other URLs inside Digital

then the problem is most likely that the server/port isn't available.
I'm currently able to access http://www-comet.alf.dec.com:8033/. I'm
not sure why you're even trying to access http://www.dec.com:8033 - the
Web server at www.dec.com has only ever answered to the default port
number. Try leaving off the :8033 (the port number), and just accessing
http://www.dec.com/. This works for me.

Anyway, the page at http://www-comet.alf.dec.com:8033/ is one interface
to STARS. You should also try the one mentioned in reply .109 (and
others): http://aztech.cxo.dec.com:1999/stars

<<< Note 3225.121 by SUBURB::POWELLM "Nostalgia isn't what it used to be!" >>>
  -<     Let's get the findamentals right at least!     >-
                        |
    Yep, found it ------+    :):)
    
    John.

    RE: .41
    
        
     >     The Digital 2100 Configurator is a great first tool in the right
     >     direction.  I would also like to see more creative packaging.
    
    
    Could someone give me a pointer to the 2100 Configurator tool please?
    Yet another of the digital-best-kept-secrets?
    
    -- Rob