Conference 7.286::digital

    ...maybe they (the directors) all have golden parachutes...

Well, since Digital Consulting was killed-off this to me is a clear sign
that we shall NOT have any SW people and that means we shall not have any
projects either. 

/Tom

    I disagree that DEC is great at projects and OUR projects are what sell
    our hardware.  DCs profits do not come from large SI type projects. 
    We are much better at small quick in/out projects.  
    
    Although projects sell machines, those projects can just as easily be
    run by someone else (ANDERSON, EDS, etc.).  Problem as I understand it
    is that those guys use vendors that DON'T compete for SI business. 
    Enrico will make sure that we get those guys to sell our products at
    the expense of DC or anything else  (IMHO).
    
    Jack

    Given that we've sold off Rdb and that the fate of the ENTIRE software
    business is due to be revealed in a couple of weeks, what makes people
    so sure we'll have any products to sell? The way we're going, we may be
    left with only AXP chips to sell.

    My 2 cents
    
    	I dont think Digital will stop it's DECline until it produces and
    sells chips only.
    	As for the resellers, They get better every day as more and more
    people from Digital join them. 
    
    Soon to be a reseller. *8-)
    
    Dave
    

It was only a while back that I was told that the new Digital ( versus the
old DEC ) was in the 3 S's ...

Silicon
Software
Services

Rumours abound that SQF ( the Scottish foundry ) is about to be sold to
Motorola and that might just be the first - strike 1

We have sold Rdb and looks as though only we will only have
O/S and layered software in the future - strike 2

We have tried to sell DC and have now moved it to BTS ( ? ) under John 
Pacy's OMS organisation; unclear where this will lead - strike 3

Not too sure where any projects fit with the latest picture.

Who has the vision?

   Just to share my understandings of things here in the UK...
 
   DC folks (those that remain) will be "absorbed" into the ABU structure so as 
   to provide pre-sales capabilities/resources to the account teams as well as 
   bodies for sale to those customers who will pay for them... To my mind this 
   is where we were several years ago - a bit of "back to the future".... 
   Quite whether implementation and individual metrics will still get in the 
   way remains to be seen...  
   ie. Q? "Want to help (presales) my $m project ?" 
       A. "Nope, gotta make my weekly/monthly/quarterly target earnings !"  %^(
 
 
   I'm heartened by some of the attitudes etc. I see in MCS and the new 
   approach to business that's emerging there too... Support for project work 
   is being made available where they can see potential in and beyond the 
   project itself. Mind you, you've got to have a persuasive argument that you 
   have a good chance of winning.
 
   Direct "house account" sales teams (those that remain) will be the direct 
   sellers to those "lucky" selected customers and the projects that arise from 
   them. The emphasis will be demand creation within the customer base for DEC 
   products and to satisfy that demand with the best resource or facility we 
   can. If we can use DEC people fine, if we need a VAR to deliver kit, that's 
   fine too. 
 
   When we see a project we can determine how best to approach it - direct on 
   our own, via a VAR channel, in partnership, as a sub-contractor to a.n.other 
   or not at all. Part of the qualification process as to how to win should 
   look at the best approach. 
 
   Optimistically......
 
   Rog

    Rog -
    
    	You are more right (as in correct) than a lot of people in the U.S.
    would like to admit. As a quick example, Andersen Consulting sold over
    $100MM in H-P equipment last year, while reselling less than $3MM in
    DECproduct. Why? Because we compete with them. Even more stupid, we
    lose almost all those deals, but we delay their sales cycle so they
    give us the proverbial "bird".
    
    	Now for the first time in my nine years at DEC, we seem to be
    finally facing the realities of a highly competitive, and fragmented,
    marketplace. The trick folks is not competing, it is winning. More
    than your competitors' and every day. I, for one, would be in seventh
    heaven if the US Justice Department were investigating us for "unfair"
    competition, instead of Microsoft or IBM.
    
    	Yes, there is going to be a lot of pain and suffering. We have 35
    years of cultural "fixing" that needs correction, and refocusing. This
    will take serious time. It will be two-three more years before we are
    a lean, mean fighting machine. Get use to it.
    
    	The new focus, as I see it, will be on systems engineering,
    systems software support, after market support, and sales. Virtually
    everything else is up for grabs. If the price is right, some of the
    units comprising the four areas above could get sold also. Spending
    cash and people time for product maintenance that will not be market
    leaders is a waste of capital. Therefore goodbye rdb. There are going
    to be a lot more goodbyes as time goes on. But it is necessary, and
    needed.
    
    	Alpha is a winner. PCs, if you produce high quality, is a winner.
    Networks is a winner. Everybody else better hustle to become market
    leaders, or else. 
    
    	I go on and on whenever, or wherever. But we can survive, and grow,
    and prosper; but like raising children, it ain't going to be without
    some serious pain.
    
    		the Greyhawk

>    units comprising the four areas above could get sold also. Spending
>    cash and people time for product maintenance that will not be market
>    leaders is a waste of capital. Therefore goodbye rdb. There are going


Technologically Rdb is a market leader.  Any Digital database engineer 
that was out on the interviewing circuit knows this, Digitals 
competitors in the database market have voted unanimously on this.  What
Rdb did not have is a company that understood what database market it was
going after, a company that was confused on who their competitors 
really were and basically no marketing whatsoever.

Rdb survived all these years because of its technical excellance.  
Digital did not know how to kill it.

The sad part is that I could have replaced Rdb with a number of 
different software products over the past 10 years at Digital.

People that had to draw up the 'Rdb deal' realize how central it was 
to all software, support and consulting within this company.  For 
those that don't know there are about 10 software projects/products 
lumped under the banner of 'Rdb' in this sale.

From my perspective good luck with the alpha chip sell those boxes.

-Jay

    re: -previous...
    
    Properly structured, large and small projects can and have been 
    profitable. I think the key to success (and the direction of Digital
    Consulting), is to focus on being experts at applying our technical
    knowledge to solve a problem using our products - not to be a be all,
    end all, consulting house.
    
    /ljj
    
    

    .10
    
    How are we to determine what business we want to be in and what
    business we don't?
    
    If we measure it by $$$ only, the small sales will never turn into big
    sales.  If we measure by our product only, some inital sales won't
    qualify at the expense of future projects.
    
    Example, in FY94 a customer purchased a little more than $100K in
    Digital Consulting.  Now, in FY95, we're entertaining a possible
    multi-million, multi-year opportunity.
    
    If we would put too many restrictions on what business/projects we want 
    to do, this will be at the expense of future business.
    
    My .02. 

Hi Greyhawk,

I like your note .8 ... (your notes in general)

The problem is that what you say is already reality since years now ...
and look to what some people still think ...

I would like to remain optimist as you seem to be but reading all what internal
people can still say (for example about RDB) show clearly that this company is
not yet ready to admit market *facts*.

It seems also that within this company, instead of doing what your boss tell you
to do, everyone begin to enter a debate ... Result : a lot of ressources spended
for nothing, and nothing is done ...

Marc.

    
    	Yo, Marc - you're right about the market facts, and in most cases,
    the assumption that business as usual still permeates middle management
    at ol' DEC.
    	Where I draw the line today is that thinking is different at the
    very top, and is not reflected by our middle management folks. This is
    why all MM jobs now go to outsiders.
    	The key to all this will be in the execution of whatever strategy
    results from *their* thinking (read experience in the new job). I've
    talked with many of the newbies, and they are, for the most part,
    pretty hip as to the marketplaces we are in. Their focus on improving
    our marketshares will tell the tape.
    	None of this stuff is rocket science anymore. I know it used to be,
    but it isn't now. Remember what it was like in the late 70s to make a
    SNA/SDLC network interop with anything? Now SNA is a dead duck
    everywhere. Most anatysts, and users, agree that in five years this
    technology is history. So what is going to replace it? Not APPN I'll
    bet, nor IBM's HPR. Probably TCP/IP at the backbone level with very
    sophisticated architectural enhancements.
    	Is anybody there yet? Are we close? I'd put my money on our
    engineers in front of anyone else given resources to be the leader.
    Hey, watch this space. It may very well determine our entire future as
    a company. After all, we really did invent networking!!!
    
    		the Greyhawk