Conference 7.286::digital

    Who bought them?

    
    
    Didn't say who the buyers are, just a quick statement.  
    
    Several people have mentioned that they heard this too.
    
    Joel

    
    Isn't SHR part of the Quantum sell?
    
    Mary
    

    
    Yes.  That's been the word for sometime now.  I guess I should have
    placed more emphasis on the HLO buyout.  Rumors here (HLO) lately have been
    Intel or AMD related, but I haven't heard anything definate like the
    radio announcement broadcast this morning.  I got the impression a deal
    HAS been made, but the parties involved are waiting to make the
    official announcement. 
    
    For once, I'd like to hear an official announcement from corporate,
    before I hear it from my neighbor.
    
    Joel

RE:                   <<< Note 3248.3 by TUXEDO::PERARO >>>
      
>>    Isn't SHR part of the Quantum sell?
  
          The alleged "done deal" sale to Quantum would include SHR.

                                     Greg

    You folks in Mass may know what SHR and HLO are, but please spell 
    'em out for the rest of us....

    SHR = Shrewsbury Massachusetts
    HLO = Hudson Massachusetts
    
;-)

    SHR - facility in Shrewsbury, MA - mostly storage (Avastor?)
    
    HLO - facility in Hudson, MA - semiconductor operations/manufacturing

    SHR is Shrewsbury, HLO is Hudson... this information is in every
    Digital phone directory and every employee should know of "all" Digital
    locations.
    
    Ana

    Re: -.1
    
    Just as all Digital employees know exactly where Death Park and
    Phoenix House are.

    
    Where's Massachusetts?
    
    Chris

RE:           <<< Note 3248.6 by MSDOA::JENNINGS "Gore in '94!" >>>

>>    You folks in Mass may know what SHR and HLO are, but please spell 
>>    'em out for the rest of us....

          You'd better SMILE when you accuse me of being in Mass.

                                   Greg

	The SHR facility consists of 3 buildings.

	Only SHR1 and SHR2 are included in the Quantum proposed deal.

	SHR3, across the road from the other two, houses Storage Subsystems, 	
	DECUS, VIIS (Video Interactive Information Systems), etc and has not 
	been sold. (yet?)

Larry

    Regarding a few back.....are we suppose to know all the international
    call letters too??????  I guess its time to put all my WORK down and
    start memorizing the phone book. :)
    
    Renee

    re: .9  Digital directory
    
    The last Digital Directory I received was dated Nov 1991.  We were told
    we "didn't need" any directory after that.  Since there have been
    numerous layoffs and office revamps since then, it's amazing that I
    even have this copy, since it is essentially useless.
    
    Please do not assume that "we all" receive phone books, or have ready
    access to them.
    
    -- Russ

    
    VTX SITES will tell anyone what they to know.  Paper free by 83! NOT!
    
             Mark

    
    Rathole Alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THE last tele-book published was December 1993.  I do believe that
    ole digital will be doing a once-a-year jobbie.  See your local 
    mailroom for a copy or where to get one.

    justme....jacqui

    p.s.  Three of us noters are from the same aisle in HLO!

    
    
    	re.9
    
    	 Didn't I see you on television?  Weren't you a finalist
    	in the Trivial Pursuit championships.
    
    	Mike :')
    
    

    I aggree with .4....
    
    >>For once, I'd like to hear an official announcement from corporate,
    >>before I hear it from my neighbor.
    
    Whatever the eventual outcome is, you can be sure that all the rumors
    wil be false except possibly for one.
    
    Allowing false rumors to spread unchecked can cause the company good
    employees as they leave what they perceive to be a "sinking ship".
    
    
    

Since we won't be manufacturing anything anymore, if I interprete the mfg plant
closings and sell-offs correctly, what will we do?  How will we maintain any hope
of technical capability when the main driver of it, manufacturing, is all gone?

Does this mean we become a "super-VAR", making nothing ourself, just building
systems from others' disks, boards, power supplies, VT's, chips, etc.?  If so,
how long can we last in that form?  Not long, I'm afraid...

    
> Since we won't be manufacturing anything anymore, if I interprete the mfg plant
> closings and sell-offs correctly, what will we do?  How will we maintain any hope
> of technical capability when the main driver of it, manufacturing, is all gone?
> 
> Does this mean we become a "super-VAR", making nothing ourself, just building
> systems from others' disks, boards, power supplies, VT's, chips, etc.?  If so,
> how long can we last in that form?  Not long, I'm afraid...

    Do you consider Ford or Boeing manufacturing firms?  I certainly do. 
    They essentially "only" assemble at this point in their evolution.
    
    Greg
    
    

Re: .23
    
>   Do you consider Ford or Boeing manufacturing firms?  I certainly do. 
>   They essentially "only" assemble at this point in their evolution.
    
    Where do you get your (mis)information from?  I spent the better part of
    three years as a consultant on Boeing sites all over the greater Seattle,
    WA area.  I've know friends, neighbors, and acquaintances who do everything
    from milling spars to designing 737-X landing gear to flight testing to
    keeping the bazillion or so engineering drawings available online for
    immediate access.  I seen hundreds of jobs that result in the production
    of stuff you wouldn't recognize as even being remotely related to aviation,
    but that Boeing's business is dependent on (not to mention many people's
    lives).

    Boeing does *alot* more than "only" assemble and, although I don't know for
    sure, I suspect Ford does as well (someone help me here) ... or maybe we're
    thinking of different corporations.

    Bob (refer to 3209.21 as well)

	I think the point was that Boeing itself does very little (if any)
manufacturing, not that all they did is assemble planes.

						--Doug

Hi,

	I was mailed a extract from the Wall Street Journal this morning
	which  contained the following paragraph :

"Mr. Palmer noted that Digital could bring in new cash from the sale of
assets such as its disk-drive operation, which the company is negotiating
to sell to Quantum Corp. for about $400 million. Without offering details,
Mr. Palmer also confirmed negotiations with several companies to sell
excess semiconductor-manufacturing capacity. Digital already has such an
agreement with Advanced Micro Devices Inc. Mr. Palmer later said in an
interview that no Japanese companies were part of those talks."

	Note the potential ambiguity w.r.t. "semiconductor-manufacturing
	capacity"
	
	Coupled with the reference to an agreement already in operation
	with AMD. I assumed that Digital will be selling the services of
	the FABs rather than the actual FABs themselves.

	For those who may have been asleep for most of this year,
	SQF (Another one for the Site code spotters ;-)) are making
	486 clones for AMD. (Or is that just another rumour?).

/Duncan

Re: .25

>	I think the point was that Boeing itself does very little (if any)
>manufacturing, not that all they did is assemble planes.
>
>						--Doug

What exactly do you consider manufacturing?  If taking a half dozen or so
4' x 12' x .030" aluminum alloy sheets and stack routing them into intricate
shapes, milling a 50' billet into a 737 spar, or stretching a the leading edge
of a 747 wind skin in a 400 ton press isn't manufacturing, I don't know what
is.  This is done on Boeing land, in Boeing buildings, using Boeing equipment,
by Boeing employees.  Been there, seen that (building 17-47, Auburn, WA).

This is as much manufacturing as making chips, thin film heads, disk drives,
or enclosures.  Yes, Boeing does manufacturing, and one hell of alot of it.

Bob

RE:  23, 25

YES, absolutely, Boeing does manufacture!  Your position that they only assemble
couldn't be more incorrect!

I supported Boeing in Wichita, KS for 2 1/2 years, and spent 11 years in mfg
before that.  They are the quintessential manufacturer, in nearly EVERYTHING
they do to produce their aircraft.  Sure there are some avionics farmed out to
suppliers, but you must not understand manufacturing, if you believe that Boeing
doesn't manufacture!  Maybe a trip to their HUGE Wichita plant (over 20,000 
employees at peak, mostly in manufacturing) and see real manufacturing (note to
mention the Seattle plants refered to in other notes!)

Assembly, is indeed, manufacturing, but not the high intensity, technology
driving foundation manufacturing like chip, disk, heads, circuit board, etc.
that result in COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE!

    Re .24 - I might add that unless it ceased recently, the Ford Rouge 
    River Works STILL makes steel/glass/etc from raw materials and 
    essentialy builds cars from raw material, energy, and blood. sweat, 
    and tears.  It was (is) the largest vertically AND horizontally
    integrated manufacturing facility in the world.  Many concerns in
    the U.S. still MAKE things - we aren't just a nation of assemblers.  
    And it's a good thing since sale of the created commodities provides 
    most of the new money in the system.   

re: .26

>	Note the potential ambiguity w.r.t. "semiconductor-manufacturing
>	capacity"
>	
>	Coupled with the reference to an agreement already in operation
>	with AMD. I assumed that Digital will be selling the services of
>	the FABs rather than the actual FABs themselves.
>
>	For those who may have been asleep for most of this year,
>	SQF (Another one for the Site code spotters ;-)) are making
>	486 clones for AMD. (Or is that just another rumour?).
>
>/Duncan

It has been publicly announced that we are making AMD/486 clones in SQF to
help fill our fab lines to capacity.

Don't believe we want to sell our fabs, just fill them.  The latest
re-org announcement making SCO (the semiconductor group, including SQF and HLO)
a business unit seems to be in preparation mor AMD type deals.

Alice

    As someone who presently works in the thin film heads manufacturing
    engineering group in Shrewsbury and is awaiting an offer in the FAB 4
    engineering group in Hudson, I'm sure glad I took the time to read all
    these notes to help with my decision! 8^) 8^)
    
    Maybe I need a coin with 4 sides (Digital, Quantum, AMD or Intel). At
    least I feel lucky to be in a group (or going to one) that will not
    likely have layoffs...for a while anyway.
    
    Keith
    
    

    
>>>    Do you consider Ford or Boeing manufacturing firms?  I certainly do. 
>>>    They essentially "only" assemble at this point in their evolution.
    
	WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Ford certainly does not "only" assemble
	at this point. Don't know about Boeing, but Ford does
	do its share of manufacturing! True they do purchase from outside 
	suppliers, but they still have a very large manufacturing base.
	Back in 79, 80, 81 they did have grand  plans to never manufacture 
	and design their own engines anymore, they were planning on "buying"
	their engines from outside suppliers (Japanese). They were also 
	planning on farming out other engineering/manufacturing tasks. The
	Ford PROBE was to be the first of these cars (it was also intended
	to replace the Mustang, sorry not replace but actually be the 
	new MUSTANG). All engineering of the interior/exterior, engine/
	drivetrain were to come from Mazda. I remember Ford engineering groups
	"fighting" with Ford "Corporate" about doing pieces of that car. 
	Eventually, I think they won on the "engine/drivetrain" and "interior".
	Mazda runs the assembly plant where these cars are assembled, but, 
	Ford has assumed more and more control of this car, the most recent
	design changes (which are gorgeous), where headed up by Ford Design
	engineers working with Mazda. And it did not replace the Mustang, and
	became the Probe (this saved the Mustang Assembly Plant from being
	shutdown --- this was supposed to orginally happen around 88 or 89 --
	I think). Bottom line, Ford "changed their minds" about getting out
	of the engine design/manufacturing business. Something about having 
	some control over your own destiny, and reliability of sources. No
	engine available, can't sell a car. One of the problems is that 
	when they find/buy engines from other sources, they have to sign up 
	for "X" number of engines (in order to get a certain price) if the
	car is not selling to well, they still have to buy the engines, if
	the car is "hot", they have to live within the constraints of the 
	original contract and may "not" be able to purchase what they need
	quickly enough. You want to be able to sell those cars when the demand
	is high ($$$$$$) When the plants are controlled by them, they can
	schedule/ramp up production on their own. True for some cases
	like the Ford Taurus "SHO", they purchase special engines (94 SHO has
	a Yamaha, DOHC, 4V, V6 --- nice engine). But, they only plan on 
	selling so many of these. Guess what tho, they are planning on 
	eventually replacing this engine too, with one of their own, (ROMEO
	engine, DOHC, 4V, Aluminum block V8 --- better engine and hotter).

	Ford is definitely not getting out of this business, They are now
	(and have been for the last 5-6 years), in the
	process of replacing everyone of their engines and transmissions with
	new designs (Their own). I've been in these plants and they are 
	huge, lots and lots of machines taking rough castings (received from
	Ford Casting plants) and machine parts down to the tolerances
	 required for assembly in the engine. Same is true on the 
	Transmission side, even in the Car Assembly plants, you'll find some
	manufacturing of parts (Huge stamping presses, making body panels).
	All new engines, new/re-furbished manufacturing facilities and processes
	= heavy commitment (investment wise) to retaining this ability.

	    As far as their suppliers go (for other parts), they have 
	first and second tier suppliers, first tier suppliers get the bulk of
	the contracts (for parts), if for some reason, demand goes up, or the
	first tier supplier fails (to supply quality and contracted number of
	parts), the second tier supplier "kicks in". To be a first tier 
	supplier, you have to meet certain requirements, quality, price 
	(price used to be the only driving force in order to get one of these
	contracts, quality plays a much bigger role these days, and multi-year
	contracts) and capacity. Second tier suppliers have to meet 
	the same quality requirements, but because
	they are a second tier supplier, their price/part may actually be 
	higher than the first tier supplier. Ford may have 
	more than one first tier supplier for a particular part, you really 
	don't want to have too many of these, it may become to unmanageable, 
	in terms of "keeping an eye on the quality" of the parts received. 
	These are big contracts.

	There was a note, that referred to Rouge, its still alive and well.
	Although not what it was in its heyday (back when Henry originally
	built it). The Steel manufacturing operation has been sold off,
	but, you still have a facility manufacturing glass, a facility 
	manufacturing steel,  a stamping facility, and engine manufacturing
	plant and a Car assembly plant (Mustangs) all in the Rouge complex.



	Manufacturing is alive and well at Ford (and GM and Chrysler).

	Rick C.
    

    Re:  Last few...
    
    Manufacturing creates wealth, and drives innovation more than anything. 
    When Digital gets out of manufacturing, we will finish our
    transformation to a Wang, and become more irrelavant than ever.  We
    don't have the expertise or resolve to continue with world-beating
    manufacturing and technological innovation.  I'll say it again,
    manufacturing is the prime source of competitive advantage in our
    business, and we're selling, closing, laying off what's left.

    re: future of chip fab
    
    I have no inside information at all.  I do however read the tea leaves
    differently.
    
    If you want to sell a business (say, a fab),  the buyer will expect
    certain things ahead of time.  Like financial information.
    
    It appears that Semiconductor Ops was a separate PBU in the 1992 reorg,
    but lost its independence late last year and ended up reporting to
    Strecker.  In the latest reorg du jour, it becomes a PBU again.  So's
    storage, though storage rolls into "component division".  So's
    networks.  So's Components & Peripherals.  It strikes me that the
    Component Division is structured to be a spinoff/seloff engine, and
    Semi is so far along it isn't even tied to the engine.
    
    Of course, what do I know?  My group is scheduled to be "outsourced",
    sans US employees, if I'm to believe the birds.

    RE: .11

    >Where's Massachusetts?
    
    >Chris

    	Chris maybe it's better that you don't know.  :^)

    Joe_a_life_long_Massachutts_resident_who_sometimes_wonders_why.

Re .33
        
>    Manufacturing creates wealth, and drives innovation more than anything. 
 
      Obviously somebody forgot to tell this to Microsoft.
    
      Adding value creates wealth and drives innovation more than
    anything. Manufacturing, assembly, services, applications are
    all ways of creating that wealth. In a real sense any of these
    can be considered "manufacturing" which in its true sense beens
    making something new (adding value) to raw materials but
    I don't believe that traditional manufacturing has any special
    claim to fame.
    
    re roelof

RE:  .36

I don't disagree with your definition of manufacturing.  However, our customers
demand products which have competitive advantage created in the traditional
manufacturing space.  Innovations to solve cost, time-to-market, performance,
ease-of-use and other challenges in hardware, software, business solutions, etc.,
occurs at a surprising rate in the "traditional" manufacturing environment.  I
think Digital gives up a huge source of ideas for competitive advantage when we
give up on our "traditional" manufacturing.

Digital will go through a giant metamorphosis to become get "Microsoft wannabe".
We leave a lot of potential on the table if/when we slash and burn our
"traditional" manufacturing efforts.

    The NY Times' Sunday business section from this week has an article on
    the relatively new phenomenon of "virtual companies", companies that
    come up with and market new products, but have someone else manufacture
    them.  I only skimmed the first paragraph or so, and set it aside for
    later reading, so I can't fill in the details - but it would seem that
    if this is the way DEC (er, Digital) went, it would be far from alone. 
    The wealth could be perhaps in the intellectual property, not in
    producing its physical manifestations.

RE: 38

An industry consortium studied this concept of "virtual companies" about 2 years
ago.  A substantial report was written, and is available from Lehigh U.  It
coined the phrase "Agile Manufacturing" talking about companies getting together
to solve specific customer problems by bringing diverse expertise together just
long enough to provide the best possible, cost effective solution, then going on
to other challenges.  What would develop is an environment where competitors
would become partners for specific purposes, in "virtual companies" in many
parallel combinations.  These "virtual companies" would have finite lives.  An
important point is that each would bring expertise in manufacturing,
distribution, design, etc., to maximize value-added to the process.

Because it was a manufacturing based consortium, it focused on the potential of
combining several mfg experts, with specific technical capabilities, to provide
customer-driven, optimal solutions.

    Will a virtual corporation pay virtual taxes to a virtual government?
    :-)

the recent notes about creating wealth are interesting.
there is a difference between creating wealth and getting wealthy.
creating wealth makes a society better off.
getting wealthy may be at the expense of society.
it is also possible to get wealthy by creating wealth.

most wealth is created by manufacturing.
some economists argue that education is creating wealth.
most economists agree that trade, such as grocery stores,
computer distributors, and stock markets create little
wealth, but may make some traders wealthy.  to the extent that the
trader created utility of location, some wealth was created.
to the extent that the trader is more efficient than alternatives,
some wealth is created.  these are minor effects.

some people have gotten wealthy by trading in the stock market but the
stock market does not create wealth. only to the extent that it is better
at making an efficient market for new capital than other forms, such as
investment banks, does the stock market create wealth. as a contibutor to
the wealth of society, the stock market is equivalent to a giant
poker game.

this is not to say that manufacturing is automatically good for society.
there are many examples of manufacturers getting wealthy by passing on
some of their costs to society in the form of crippled workers or a
poisoned environment.

anyway, the distinction between the economic wealth of a society, and
a person or firm getting wealthy might reduce the disagreement.

All wealth is created by one of three things:  farming, mining and manufacturing.
Other activities facilititate wealth creation:  distribution, engineering, R&D,
marketing and others.  Some activities primarily scoop wealth (represented by
dollars) together for the undeserving:  stock brokerage, government, etc.
These represent the leechs on the wealth creators of any, and especially a free
market system.

    re .39
    
    What's a 'customer driven solution or product'? 
    Has anybody an example of this concept? Or is it just a management buzz
    word, hoping things like this start to happen as a result of using
    these phrases?
    

    
    	Like "Ramp up," and Focus in?"
    
    				Malcolm. 

    > what's a "customer-driven solution or product" ?
    
    Its an incredibly boring process that involves talking to the customer about
    his problem and then simply providing something that will solve it.
    
    Its not nearly as exciting as telling the customer what he wants and
    reducing his problem by giving him a whole set of different ones to 
    worry about. 
    
    The drawback is that it needs people to make it work so it looks like
    we will continue having fun right to the end. 
    
    ;-)

    > what's a "customer-driven solution or product"?
    
    Sounds suspiciously self-driven rental truck...

Digital even does this, sometimes...but basically, its working in partnership
with our customers to solve THEIR business problems with our technology and
expertise.  As said before, its as easy as asking them what they need.

Could be big or small, like the Abbott Labs/Digital/Consillium manufacturing data
collection, etc. system that was validated by the FDA recently (a year ago?)

...or the SMARTs project with Boeing (where we didn't listen well, or the
customer didn't tell us what they really wanted).

Or by doing QFD's, customer advisory boards, CI's (Contextual Inquiries), to find
out what the customer want IN THEIR TERMS!  We try to do this for the Storage
Management products here in Colorado, though expedience sometimes precludes this
from being done, or done properly.

It's frighteningly easy, once you sit down and think about it...why does Digital
make it so artificially complex?

RE: .47
>...or the SMARTs project with Boeing (where we didn't listen well, or the
>customer didn't tell us what they really wanted).

Both, not to mention the customer kept changing their mind as to what they
really wanted, not to mention ... never mind.