Conference 7.286::digital

    If I understand your request correctly, I can comment on the
    relationship between networking middleware and Digital's hardware
    business.
    
    We offer PATHWORKS, DCE, LinkWorks, ObjectBroker, DECmessageQ, and
    POLYCENTER (at least) in the middleware arena.  All of these products
    help customers use their networks more efficiently and productively,
    and all are multiplatform, multivendor products.
    
    We can sell these products (well, at least PATHWORKS) into accounts
    that have no Digital hardware and claim the same benefits.  The
    connection to Digital hardware is that once these products are in
    place, we can sell Digital hardware into the accounts wherever it's the
    best solution, and the software will work with the hardware.
    In the case of PATHWORKS, you can sell it into a completely un-Digital
    account, then leverage Digital servers or Digital PCs where they're the
    best solution for the customer.
    
    I suppose one could market the middleware products to new accounts as a
    means of getting the most from their networking investment, making the
    net work, completing the network, opening the network, something like
    that.
    
    I don't know what to say about delivery.

    
    	Steve -
    
    	You have part of it. What we are looking for is the strategy to
    employ. For example, how do we promote (the marketing and selling)
    middleware effectively into non-Digital accounts? What should be the
    delivery mechanism, how do we support the install, etc?
    
    	Would a prospect/customer care if its RISC-based or CISC-based?
    Why? What additional value can Digital add in regards to new products
    and services?
    
    	Get the picture? Thanks for being first.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    'Hawk:
    
    	Amongst the junkmail I receive at home was an invitation to attend
    a strategy session entitled "Marketing on the Internet" - or, in our
    terms, getting the message out to both Digital and Non-Digital
    accounts.
    
    	I sell to distributors in the State of California, and have found
    Internet to be invaluable to communicate quotes, marketing blurbs, and
    the like to my constituants - directly to the individuals - EXACTLY
    like our internal electronic mail.
    
    	EDI is cool, but an overt action on the readers part is required. 
    Internet doesn't...it's where people log on to seek information.
    
    	I discarded the invitation to the strategy session because I
    couldn't afford the admission fee.  I *might* be able to find it if you
    think it would be of value.
    
    Regards,
    bill
        

Greyhawk,

	Hey - this is fun.  Maybe we'll all get calls as well
 	to join you on the CSD "virtual strategy task force" 
	or at least you'll be honest enough to share your Restricted
	Stock Options with us :-)

	I'll take cud #3 -  company-to-company electronic linkages which
	for strategy and marketing purposes, I'll call it "Electronic Commerce"

	By the way, afore I get started, I like the idea of you imposing
	some sort of "template" which for argument's sake we'll call
	the P,S/M,E model.  However, many of us have experience
	elsewhere which uses the 4-P's model ;

		- Product
		- Price
		- Promotion
		- Market (P)osition

"ELECTRONIC COMMERCE"
---------------------

Product
-------
	S/W Laundry List ;
		- OSF/1, TCP/IP and all layered network stuff (SMTP, FTP, etc.)
		- X.400 and all related stuff (MB400 MTA, XMS, Mailworks, etc.)
		- X.500 and all related stuff (XDS, InfoBroker, etc.)
		- Specific transport s/w not covered above (e.g. PPP, SLIP, 
		  ISDN, Mobile ARDIS, Mobile Mobitex, etc.)
		- DEC/EDI
		- Clients of choice (preferrably our own, but need to
		  work with partners for browsers, mail-clients, EDI-clients)
		  Bundle the electronic-commerce clients in for free with
		  popular industry packages such as Sage, SAP, etc.

	H/W Laundry List;
		- Superbly configured out-of-the-box departmental
		  servers (e.g. upcoming Mikasa, possibly Sable foir high-end)
		- Fast, cheap, reliable storage (Storageworks RAID)
		- Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) "black-box" 
		  multiprotocol interconnection hubs a la DEChub 900 
		  (or maybe the 90)
	
		- Can't we stick all this stuff in one box these days?

	Services/SI List
		- Security Services (a la S.E.A.L. and audit/heathcheck)
		- Startup services (a la the Internet WWW start-up server,
		  the EDI First Trading Partner, the XDSU Corporate
		  Directory Synchronisation)
		- OMS FM type services (e.g. a la MecklerWeb announcement)


	Hey! We actually HAVE all of this stuff!  Now we need to
	"Productize" it to offer useful business Electronic Commerce
	functions ;

	Offer a spectrum (I hear that "continuum" is a PC word these 
	days).  You could divide the Electronic Commerce spectrum into 
	(for example) ;

		- Transactional (business critical, financial, legally
		  binding e.g. EDI transactions, Internet shopping)

		- Reference (reliable, robust, highly secure, effectively 
		  read-only, e.g. electronic ads, catalogue publication, 
		  corporate directories)

		- Management Information (effectively read-only from
		  mix of dynamic and static sources - condensed and 
		  value-added for management summary e.g. browsing, 
		  newsreaders, clipping and publishing services on
		  news-wire feeds, Competitive Analysis, Financial
		  trends, etc.)  

		- End User (intra *OR* inter-enterprise).  (effectively
		  free-format, requires person-to-person business
		  context e.g. E-Mail, file exchange pictures, video/audio
		  clips, notes,	spreadsheets, etc.)


	Obviously Digital cannot actually *DELIVER* all of these
	to the *ALL* the end markets.  But we have key CSD componentry
	at every level and it is *THE BEST*. For some applications 
	we need partners (e.g. publishing networks).  See (P)osition below 
	for more on this.


Price
-----
	Hold me back on this subject.  CSD needs to get *AGRESSIVE*

	Price on entry-ticket.  Make added-value very identifiable,
	easily packaged and easy to buy in understandable increments.

	Depends on market.  When you say CSD - depends on either SBU
	(channels approach) or ABU (corporate accounts approach).  For
	GOODNESS sake, ensure that we don't get the two ends played
	off against the middle.  Get a SAVVY indirect channel Marketing
	Manager to do the channels pricing (you know this!).  Ensure
	that the (inevitable) premium that the direct accounts will pay
	is justified with OBVIOUS added value - e.g. - first 3-days
	installation and configuration consultancy is FREE.  


Promotion
---------
	See Pricing above for promotional aspects of pricing.
	
	See Market (P)osition below for promotional aspects of target
	market.

	Generally - Make the MARCOM more functionally oriented and
	less technical.  E.g. "Corporate EDI server in a box".  When 
	technology is mentioned, key words are open-standards, 
	highest-performance, unattended operation, self-configuring,
	1-to-1000 scalling factors, etc.

	Promote this stuff *WORLDWIDE*.  Get smart.  1-800 numbers
	open the door to less than 15% of the potential market.  

	Team up with and become endorsed by some of the giants (AT&T?, BT/MCI, 
	DBT, France Telecom, CAP-SECA, Andersen Consulting, EDS)
	

Market Position
---------------
	Again depends on SBU or ABU within CSD.  This is an extremely 
	important point for market positioning.

	Split the product range.  Take the start-up end (e.g. the
	End User and the Management Information), package the hell out
	of it, offer it OOB through the channels and stack em high
	and sell em cheap.

	Show choice and evolution.  Offer the higher-end (reliable 
	reference and transactional) through the ABU and the SI support 
	people to the 1000 named large corporate accounts.  Don't exclude 
	SME companies from this just because they are not on the magic 
	"1000" list - service them exceptionally on a one-off high-profit 
	basis or refer them to specialized VARs with SI resource, trained on
	Digital Electronic Commerce technology.

	Decide on a Market Positioning stance.  Define, Lead or Follow?
	Publish your market positioning stance and *STICK TO IT*

    Greyhawk, interesting note. I usually read not write but being on the 
    delivery end of the process and trying to understand the business
    processes that support channels environment versus direct sales is
    new set of challenges. AbU supporting 1500 accts and channels picking
    up the other 12k plus presents interesting set of opportunities for us
    folks in delievery business. Someone from the CVC who is working front
    end processes and also the SAP folks in the SBU should find this note
    very interesting. I have an interesting article from August issue of 
    Reseller Management that you might be interested in having me Fax on 
    to you Titled "Is The Virtual Var A Reality" quick quote from article
    without permission
    
     "Distributors think so . They say it's about sticking with your 
    core competencies and cutting costs using their services. But are you 
    ready to surrender configuration, installation, and end user training 
    to the distributor?"
    
    If in fact this is the strategy distrbutors are moving toward it should
    be helpful to concepts brought forward in this note. Let me know if it
    would be helpful to Fax copy???
    
    
       John
    

    
    	Mr. Doyle, thanks I already have the article. That is one rag I
    	read cover-to-cover.
    
    	Let's not be shy folks. Mr. Lovell has written a GREAT note that is
    	on the money. Need more input, overwhelm me. Pick your favorite
    	hot button and go.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
    
    
    
    Thoughts ? Don't know if they fit in with what you are after but ....
    
    Looking at RISC & CISC vs RISC or CISC.
    
    Some background:
    
    From a customer perspective, what does he/she want ?
    
    Lowest cost upgrade path with full backward compatability. 
    
    Now, within DEC, we are talking VAX vs Alpha. What does the VAX give us
    that Alpha can't ? Only layered apps that have not yet been ported. 
    
    What does Alpha give us that VAX can't ? Well, draw up a LONG list.
    
    So, strategy ?
    
    Move VAX engineers ober to porting s/w. 
    Give customers a GOOD VALUE upgrade/migration path.
    Promote the H**L out of the Alpha - we are doing OK but not good.
    Customer mindset is still Intel is best for desktop, Sun best for WS
    and IBM best for central services. We need to change this (is it
    possible ?).
    
    Alan
    

    Give us some time.....
    
    Please give us a little time to answer....I have given this type of
    question a lot of thought lately and it is not easy to answer.  I have
    some basic set of truths (mine) that I believe exist in our market
    today that we must realize and meet head on.  If your mystery guest is
    serious about listening to our input, then some outlines of programs
    can be put together as you requested.
    
    The old approach to marketing and new product development has got to
    change inside Digital (read new process). The old approach, getting an
    idea, doing market research, develop or partner with for product,
    testing the market and then going to market is slow, unresponsive and 
    full of the old Digital product stove pipe mentality.  With the speed
    that is occuring in our marketplace, and the multitude of partnerships
    announced each day, we can never expect to keep up with real customer
    wishes and demands or the competition.  The new approach to what you
    ask for is a new way of marketing and making it the way Digital does
    business not a function of the company.  
    
    Let me give you a little story I picked up in the HBR:
    
    "The old notion of marketing was epitomized by the ritual phone call
    from the CEO to the corporate headhunter saying "Find me a good
    marketing person to run my marketing operation!!"  What the CEO wanted,
    of course, was someone who could take on a discrete set of textbook
    functions that were generally associated with run-of-the-mill
    marketing.  That person would immediately go to Madison Avenue to hire
    an advertising agency, change the ad campaign, redesign the company
    logo, redo the brochures, train the sales force, retain a high-powered
    public relations firm, and alter or otherwise reposition the company's
    image."
    
    Does any of this sound familiar to anybody???
    
    The marketing that needs to be done is like TQM, the current rage in
    manufacturing and engineering, like quality, marketing is an intangible
    that the customer must experience to appreciate.  The new type of
    marketing works like this: 1. Integrating the customer into the design
    process to guarantee a product that is tailored not only to their needs
    but also to their strategies, 2. niche marketing to use Digital's 
    knowledge of segments and channels that we can own, 3. develop a
    infrastructure of suppliers, partners, and users whose relationships
    will help sustain and support Digital's reputation and technological
    edge.  Then we have to learn and learn quickly what our competitors our
    doing and then turn this back into information for new product
    development.
    
    One of the hardest lessons we should of learned by now is that of new
    product adoption rates of our customers.  As we bring all this new
    technology to market, we have to realize that the adoption rate of
    using new technology is different across industries.  We  have to
    target industry segments that we know can exploit our technology (read
    early adopters) and support them with all the best we can muster. As we
    draw these customers in (as described above) we let them help us market
    our products as we move on to other segments.
    
    An last but not least....the line between products and service is gone.
    Servicing our customers is not repairing a product when it fails, it is
    not 1-800-xxxxxxx, or a warranty, or a customer satisfaction survey. 
    Service is the process of creating customer environment of information,
    assurance and comfort....this can be done with the internet and other
    new technology you have mentioned in the base note....We have to figure
    now how the early adopters are using it and then productize it.....
    
    I am a little disappointed that someone in our CSD has asked for this
    help....it sends a signal that this type of planning is not going on
    yet.  I have been to multiple marketing seminars where this type of
    information is common stuff.  In fact my note is the outcome of Digital
    sending me to a excellent program over a year ago.  I am heartened that
    I have finally been asked to use the grey matter that Digital has been
    paying us to use...!
    
    My final request is that if this is a serious request, then it may be
    time for a face to face meeting for all those inclined to offer some
    ideas to move this forward.  I am not going to put energy into
    something that has not the light to grow.
    
    Richard

    
    
    Interesting and very thoughtful note. Funny thing is, you just described,
    in essence, the mission of Mosiac Communications - founded by Jim
    Clark (he of SGI fame) and Marc Andreesen (he of developing Mosiac
    fame).
    
    Now, if Digital could just beat them to the punch.....
    
    Check out the October issue of WIRED for a full-on article about
    Mosiac Communications. Hawk, give the stratego types this one to
    read. It's an opportunity we'd be foolish to pass by.
    
    R,
    
    Kip (he of VideoServer fame)
                                      
     

    
    	All -
    
    		We have time, my meeting is the 29th of September.
    
    		I like the Mosaic route myself, and see tons of
    	productive synergy betwwen Internet and our customers. It lowers
    	our support costs dramatically. Putting software fixes and updates
    	on a WWW server that is password accessed is a pet strategy of
    	mine.
    
    		Use your grey matter. And be assured your voices will be
    	appreciated and heard. I fully intend to make sure the *right*
    	people are aware of this entire thread. So have it. This is a
    	tremondous opportunity for the noters, and Digital. Imagine,
    	strategies from the field to make us better, faster, more focused
    	on true customer satisfaction. The mind reels.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Excellent points, Richard (.8).
    
    Note that the essence of what Richard is saying: true strategy
    in the 90's appears to be more defined around _process_ than 
    around _product_.
    
    Starting off by asking "What should we do in EDI?" for example
    may well be approaching things from the wrong end of the
    telescope.
    
    The most successful companies in the last 5 years are definitely following
    this paradigm.
    
    In this sense, Greyhawk, your rules of the game may not be entirely
    valid.
    
    I'll have more to say on this (and other things including your
    questions) later. I'm still thinking :-)
    
    Actually, Richard, a face to face meeting may _not_ be the best
    thing at this time. A forum such as this is a great leveller and
    people are respected purely on the quality of their thoughts. You
    can't bluster or body language your way through nor can you pull
    rank. Trying to work out strategy on a world wide basis in a public 
    forum is really something new. Let's see how far this takes us!
    
    re roelof
    

         
Following up on what was said in .8 (nice definition, Richard), but with a 
different take on how to achieve this environment:

    Servicing our customers is not repairing a product when it fails, it is
    not 1-800-xxxxxxx, or a warranty, or a customer satisfaction survey. 
    Service is the process of creating customer environment of information,
    assurance and comfort....this can be done with the internet and other
    new technology you have mentioned in the base note....

Tools, technology and processes are all well and good, but they are secondary 
when it comes to the front line service representatives and support personnel, 
meaning PEOPLE. And secondary to the customers they try to satisfy, also
PEOPLE. It seems we are neglecting the human interaction aspect of the business
in favor of other substitutes. I believe services and support is essentially a
human activity; tools, technology and processes were meant to aid this human 
interaction, not displace it. This is not meant to be emotional or to downplay
tools, technologies and processes. But there are no non-human substitutes for 
acts such as SMILE, COMMITMENT, CREATIVITY and RESPONSIBILITY, which are the 
real core of Services/Support (IMO). I just hope that we begin looking at these
very human areas again.   

- Jim K
                

    Maybe we should focus on what strategy is a little bit since after
    all this thread is supposed to be about strategy.
    
    Clearly, what strategy is not is a list of products. A list of
    products is just that: a list of products.
    
    In fact, strategy may not attempt to provide answers at all but
    may do most good in its ability to help ask the right questions.
    Hence one part of strategy is surely providing a framework that helps 
    us to ask the right questions.
    
    A second part of strategy is goaling, determining a set of (coherent)
    goals that appeal to us most and which we have reason to believe
    are achievable.
    
    Three questions have been put on the table:
    	- risc/cisc synergy (but I'm inclined to believe that
    	  was is meant us PC/Server synergy, perhaps clarification
    	  needed here)
    	- interworking middleware, i.e. to borrow a phase from our
    	  friends at Sun, software that makes the network the computer
    	- electronic commerce
    
    So in the light of my little discussion above. Why these particular
    questions? Why not others? Are we idly walking down the beach
    picking up some shiny pebbles or we going somewhere and looking
    for something to help us get there?
    
    Put another way, the very fact that these question are being posed
    (not others) implies that there are bits and pieces of strategy lying 
    around. But what are those bits and pieces?
                                                                         
    Turning to goaling for a minute. The goal that CSD has mentioned a
    couple of times is to be a high volume player but I submit that
    that is only part of the equation. After all, one could possibly
    achieve that by trying to buy up Dell or Compaq or whatever, put
    differently, CSD could attempt to become a financial holding house.
    
    In fact, what I do suspect is that CSD wants to provide a better
    product and/or service thereby hoping that more people will buy its
    products and/or services than competitors. Phasing the question
    differently:
    	- given 5 years and no restrictions what would CSD like to 
    	  be better at than anybody else?
    	- is it clear that that "betterness" is something people might be
    	  willing to pay money for?
    

    
    	Let's back up for a minute and tale a look at what we want to
    accomplish. I'm going to go through one of my pet strategies and then
    you can elaborate or see how to develope one of your own.
    
    	After years (25 to be more exact) of selling computers to
    companies, I have noticed a distinct trend lately of how people (or
    their firms) are buying these machines.
    	In the old days companies had committees that went thru elaborate
    processes to purchase any computer equipment. Today they give the
    responsibility to one person, maybe two (the person and person's boss),
    and expect them to be correct in their decisions. This changes the
    focus of how you sell.
    	My observations have lead me to believe that CISC vs. RISC
    computers is a dead issue. People buy what the end-users want and that
    is that. If the end-users are Engineers and want PRO/ENGINEER on the
    "fastest" machines under $20,000 that is what they buy. If the
    end-users are in Operations and want Pentium-based machines to run
    Excel or Lotus 123 that is what they buy. (they=MIS for the most part).
    	What companies now need is someone to come in and show them they
    can buy whatever they want, we will make it all "play" together
    seamlessly, manageably, and expandibly. OK, so all the pieces are not
    there yet. Then that should be our strategy. "ONE CALL, WE DO IT ALL"
    	Sales and marketing strategy should be into mid-range companies
    (since they cannot afford big MIS depts) thru direct and indirect
    sales channels focused on the message above. Products should be ones
    that fit in the above. (I think we should seriously consider being
    a second source for Apple and PowerPC too). Literature, documentation,
    advertising, promotional items should all focus on the same theme. We
    should plan on a THREE year campaign before we even THINK about
    "pulling the plug" and fund it accordingly.
    	Delivery should be done locally with both our talents and those of
    our partners who will go thru the same training our DIGITAL people go
    thru. No nonsense training should be done on a par of getting a Novell
    CNE. Both tech and SALES must be able to know the products backwards
    and forwards. With tests. If you flunk the tests you repeat the
    courses, if you continue to flunk, you get a chance to work somewhere
    else.
    	Packages of both goods and services are promoted widely with one
    part number representing a TOTAL solution. 
    	You get the picture. Give us your inputs. Thanks. We are still the
    finest creative computing organization in the world. Let's prove it.
    
    		the Greyhawk 
    
    

    Greyhawk,
    
    	Your idea is not a novel one, but nevertheless it is right on
    the money again! (you sure you work for Digital? ;^)  Each idea
    you presented comes from the thought process that in it's simplest
    terms, if we are a true Multi-Vendor service organization, then why not
    be that MV organization starting at sales.......seems like a good 
    intention.  The problem starts there though. In order to be sucessful
    in that endeavour, then we as a corporation MUST aquire a knowledge
    base of all information reletive to the Multi-Vendor's products. Bear
    with me here, it's Sunday morning and I've only had one cup of coffee
    so far.
    I'm not stating that you could never implement your solution, but here
    are a few stumbling blocks you'll encounter along the way. These
    stumbling blocks have been around since Christ was a Mess-Cook, and
    will continue to roadblock your success all along the way. I know! I've
    lived it.
    
    The folks that do all the up front work, get most of their input's from
    reading trade rags. Sure they do do customer visit's sometimes, but
    they usually visit the 'high profile' customers...you know the one's
    that give Digital a rave report about it's customer service
    organization....I've seen some of the reports they take back. These
    are the Customer's that have raped Digital for un-warranted and illegal
    services for many many years.  The reports they generate are usually 
    doctored to eliminate the bad press.....After all, who wants to deal 
    and explain bad press......but on with the story.  In order to
    accomplish what you asked, we as a corporation would have to
    agressively persue negotiations as a third party vendor with these
    companies, and unless there is a CLEAR deliniation between them and
    us, the politics of the corporation WILL NOT ALLOW these negotiations
    to start! Let me cite an example....About five years ago, someone from
    that very organization )high up< funded a research project with a bunch
    of Advanced Development folks to go to the CSC in Atlanta, and gather
    information that would be used to improve the process of service
    delivery in the CSC and gain more profitability in this area. What
    these folks uncovered in their initial investigation was (and correct
    me if I'm wrong CSC!!!) that the reporting mechanisms used to send
    'bean type' data to STOW was the majority of the reason that calls were
    open as long as they were, and the majority of the problem with the
    operation was the REPORTING mechanism's put in place for CORPORATE!  
    
    As soon as this knowledge was made known in Stow, the PROGRAM WAS
    CANCELLED!!!!!!! what does that tell you! 
    
    There are several ways to accomplish what you want to do, I believe
    that one of the most important ones would be to GET Digital working
    in the MultiVendor arena by forcing them to use MultiVendor equipment 
    to do their day to day jobs......This crap of everyone using all in
    one, or VAX/VMS is ludicrous at best. Until you walk a mile in someone
    elses shoes, you'll never understand their problems. 
    
    Next step: generate a computer literacy test, and administer it
    to the management throughout the company, uncover the managers that
    are truly computer illiterate (you'd be surprised at just how many
    there are.....) and either train em, or get rid of em. (I prefer the
    latter cause if they aren't by now, they just don't care)  There are
    some high level people that do ALL their work by paper!  What a waste
    of time, money, and resources. 
    
    Next step: Start an agressive program using very agressive people
    to get agreements in place for hardware and software purchases
    with these companies you want to do business with. I mean I've seen
    many many articles about Digital Partnering with Microsoft to provide
    support of their products......where's the other side of that agreement
    that states that if we ARE to take on this endeavour, then MicroSoft
    supplies SITE Licenses for ALL their products to Sigital at a nominal 
    cost to help us gain that knowledge base required to maintain the level
    of competency. I can't begin to tell you the strife we've gone through
    to try and get software to support a product.  
    
    We need to define as a corporation just where it makes the most
    sense to tell customer's that warranty is all they get plus phone
    support! There are too many instances that Digital has exhausted many
    dollars to solve a customer's hardware problem when the sane thing to
    do was to sell him an upgrade. Buy the broken piece of crap, sell him
    a new one, fix the broken one, and donate it to a university! Three
    year hardare and software warranty should NOT include ever a Digital
    person going on site to repair a problem. It's just too expensive and
    the ROI ain't there.
    
    As for the training piece, you've read the notes in here. Digital
    Service has TFSO'd ALL BUT THREE Instructors....ergo, the products that
    would require HANDS-ON/lecture to learn, and there ARE STILL many, will
    fall through the cracks. I'm a firm believer in training the personnel
    adaquately BEFORE you send them out to a customer site to fix a
    problem. It's the way we've built our reputation in the first place.
    And it's also the FIRST THING that the most senior management from Rando
    to Snyder, to the rest of the fifteen or so V/P's of service have
    forgotten about. And I'm getting pretty sick and tired of hearing all
    the BONEHEAD moves the senior management are making to attempt at
    generating revenue....while killing the company in the long term. But
    then most of them would tell you that I have an attitude problem, but
    most to the trench-types will agree with me. What do you do!
    the frustrating piece of this is that I almost always offer a better
    way or at least a different way to achieve the same goals. 
    
    I tried to tackle the training piece a while ago.....send a really good
    idea into DELTA IDEAS, won an award/plaque for my efforts, then after
    four months went by and nothing happened, I started pushing for
    implementation! I mean, if they gave me an award they must have thought
    it was a good idea right? WRONG! The reason I was wrong was that
    SOMEONE knew that eventually there would be no training any more and my
    idea would never be tested/implimented, so why not tell him? Cause
    that's information! and information is sacred in the political Digital
    and can't be shared with the people that would benefit from it! 
    Sarcasm indeed......but it took twenty years to achieve this level!
    
    Anyhow, I wish you well, you seem to be quite creative, and really wish
    to succedd......but as I found out last night, from some information
    from a friend attending a going away party for a very high up official,
    whose last words were "The company STILL HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE
    problems and spiral down until the middle/upper management start taking
    this serious" !   
    
    Palmer own's the problem in my myopic mind. He makes the really big
    bucks, he should be selecting the people that must go for the better
    of the company. If he continues in the same vein, and that is to
    delegate the problem of downsizing, then we will surely loose the core
    talent that we've built up over the years, and end up with nothing but
    a company riddled with middle/upper management whos only real skill 
    will be running around in circles, and being able to Re-Organize in
    a heartbeat....only to run around in a different circle till the next
    re-org.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to change our course each and every
    day. I work in an engineering organization that really has a chance to
    make it BIG!  But not if the beaurocrats and politicians are allowed to
    continue to 'get in the way' of success!  There are too many 'make
    it'so' management types around, and not enough "I challenge that
    process, thought, strategy, mentality, business decision" types.
    
    I wish you success. 
    
    Chet (Parrot Trooper) 
    

    
    At the risk of tangents, a couple of side comments.
    
    - I've always been uneasy about the "what products are really neat" focus
      in DEC.
    
    - I've seen little DEC consumer testing to understand what are the big
      business issues that end-users are still struggling with, & what do 
      they need (& can afford) from IT to help close the gap. We seem
      better at telling than listening ... I know much of this should come
      from account plans, but how many product managers see account plans?  
    
    My environment is externally-focussed, with end-users & partners. I do
    a fair amount of public speaking at seminars, business schools etc, for
    DEC & privately. I have many 1-on-1's. The one fact that is rammed home 
    to me time & time again is that we in the industry are usually searching 
    for the next great breakthrough, whilst the customer has not yet caught 
    up with those of a decade ago......
    
    Great concepts often have poor economics at the start of any technical
    development cycle. We need to have patience to stick with the key
    concepts until they move to volume take-up. That costs serious
    marketing money, as well as engineering R&D. One without the other is a 
    cul-de-sac, but only volume can generate the attractive prices that
    create real-world business benefits. (I take for granted that other key
    tricks like ease-of-use, reliability, cost of ownership etc are also 
    beaten by the time one moves to volume....!)
    
    I've spoken at network conferences where the Deccies are all fired up
    about ATM whilst the customer is still desperate to understand how to 
    integrate & manage his mixed LAN's. I've talked at electronic commerce 
    seminars where most of the external attendees who say they are into EDI 
    are only regenerating data via a PC, rather than application-to-application
    transfer. I'm told groupware is still a distant mirage by many large
    corporates....   Hoorah for the new technology, but let's make sure we are
    all gaining economic benefit from today's tools.
    
    In summary, we need to concentrate on our great present to show answers
    to known needs, not only talk of the brave new future. We need to earn 
    credibility that we deliver, not dream. We know we have some good 
    business problem-solvers, but all too often our customers don't know. 
    We should NOT be famous for Alpha, but for providing tools that give
    customers unmatched business flexibility, bang per buck, network 
    connectivity etc -- which will use Alpha &/or our other core 
    capabilities, plus the skills & knowledge of our partners.
    
    All very obvious, but it often seems to get missed somewhere ........
    On the other hand, perhaps this is yesterday's thinking & it's me
    that's missing the point.
    
    Colin
    
    We cannot move heavily to indirect unless we show our partners that we
    at least match the HP's & Sun's in terms of support -- whether seed
    units, joint marketing & sales planning etc. No more quarterly budgets
    & a forward horizon measured in weeks rather than months (never mind
    a more normal 2-3 YEAR business development scenario with key partners)
    
     
    
    

Re: .16

As usual Colin, you have hit the nail squarely on the head and is totally 
endorsed with what I am experiencing with our trading partners out in the 
'real world'.

I go into companies, both suppliers as well as customers, with the purpose 
of establishing electronic trading between them and us. What I find is that
they are usually struggling with rolling out their internal E-Mail. In
some instances, I have found that I have had to tone down the way 
Digital works internally because it is so far in advance of these companies 
that it can cause embarrassment. 

In the area of electronic commerce, this is what we should be exploiting. 
I know its not exactly new but I feel we should adopt the strategy of
'Sell what we use'. We should be proud of what we all take for granted.
Tools that come to mind which are our life-blood and are the envy of the
world. Our global ALLIN1 implementation. VAXNotes, VTX (Using ELF blows
people's minds!). One of the things that worries me should I ever leave
Digital is not having this infrastructure to support me. It would be
like being stripped naked not to have VAXNotes behind you when trying
to solve some technical nasty in the field. 

To address one small part of .0. How about marketing and advertising this
competitive lead that we have? I have never ever seen a Digital Ad that
describes in simple plain language how we can solve a particular business
problem/opportunity. How about an Ad which describes a typical set
of events which may, (or may not) take place everyday at Digital.

	A typical morning at Digital........

	Phone rings, customer wants to embark on SAP implementation.
	Wants to know what Digital can offer.
	How do we work this?
	VTX - Get Notes Listing 
	Locate and use relevant SAP related notes conferences.
	Use VTX ELF to get contact information.
	Collate information/contacts and use ALLIN1 via x.400 or Internet
	or DECFax back to customer. All in less than time than competitor.

	Wouldn't you like to be able to do this as well????

Perhaps not a very good example, it is just off the top of my head!

Nevertheless, its the strategy that counts. 

A double-edged marketing strategy which not only gives confidence in our 
products, but the organisation that creates the products.

I'm no marketeer and maybe this is all crap so forgive me if it is.
Just my 2 cents worth!!!!

Dave Pegg

re: .16, .17

It's become perfectly clear that Palmer & Co. have decided that Digital will
be a hardware company, doing only enough software development to help sell
the hardware, and will give lip service to services, but has no intention of
delivering those services.

Bob

Re: .18

Given Palmer's background, I don't think that was ever in question.  The
only thing uncertain would be "how long until he admitted it?"

					Steve

Here's my quick $.02 on this.  It has a DCE-flavor, since that's what
I know most about.



How do we market middleware into non-Digital accounts?

Since we have no direct channel into these environments, we need to
use more "round-about" ways of getting mind-share.  IN the case of
DCE, I have used the DCE SIG at OSF to gain some important visibility
for our DCE on NT product.  This has generated a number of sales,
and invaluable publicity.

In the case of ObjectBroker, we appear on trade show panels, work with
consultants to get ObjectBroker (and its multi-platform-ness) into
articles being written, and generally tout ObjectBroker as the object
technology which is supported on a wider variety of platforms that any
competitive product.  This has worked fairly well in the past, but
we still don't have good mind share in the object world, at least not
as much as we might deserve based on our product offering.

We also have used the Microsoft COM agreement as an excellent
way of generating visibility, as well as a strategic weapon against
the competition.  This arguably puts us at least close to the driver's
seat in the CORBA wars, so this relationship has garnered us a lot of
industry notice and "optics".

Why would we want to push our middleware on other platforms?

Simple.  Anything that lets us get any part of our anatomy (it's
usually the foot) in "the door" is of benefit to us.  If we can sell
OBjectBroker on, say, HP to an HP customer, then we now have a beachhead
in that customer's environment.  They are more likely to buy more ObjectBroker
from us, which makes them slightly more likely to buy other software
products, which makes them slightly more likely to buy Alphas from us.

Also, pushing multi-vendor middleware increases our image in the market
as an open systems vendor.  We've gotten tremendous and good visibility
from the decision to release a DCE product on NT.  It positions us
as being non-proprietary, and as a vendor that can solve the distributed
computing needs of our customers on mixed platforms, not just Digital ones.
Granted, the link here is somewhat tenuous, and varies tremendously on
the customer's existing view of Digital.  But, the more we offer our
software only on our own platforms, the harder it will be to establish
ourselves as a serious open systems vendor.

What additional value can Digital add, and why would anybody buy from Digital?

Our value-add can be:

	o Application development tools to make use of this middleware
	easier.  (we're working on some already.  Frankly, our story here
	is only fair right now)

	o Easier installation and management of the DCE (or middleware)
	environment.  Our story here is good, at least for DCE.  We have
	a number of improvements in the basic OSF code that makes DCE
	easier to install and use.

	o Integration with other middleware technologies (OBB, DECmessage)
	(Our story here is OK, but we're a little behind in getting it
	to the market)


People might choose Digital because we:

	o Have the Microsoft relationship.  We are the drivers of COM, and
	so have specific expertise in this area to be able to offer the
	definitive COM products, probably quicker than our competition.

	o Our relationship with Microsoft means that we have access to
	system information about NT (and Msoft engineers) that help us 
	to deliver the fastest and most integrated DCE on NT in the market.

	o We have been a driver and leader in the DCE world since its
	inception.  This doesn't set up apart from HP, but it does separate
	us from most other vendors.  We released the first DCE product in
	the industry.  We also "wrote the book" on DCE for O'Reilly &
	Associates (O'Reilly is the premier Unix Open Systems book distributor,
	and we authored their entire series of DCE books.)

	o We are converting our entire corporate computing infrastructure
	to be based on DCE.  THis is a huge undertaking, so when we say:
		a) we understand DCE
		b) we are committed to DCE
	We REALLY mean it!  Our entire company computing infrastructure is
	based on it, so we are totally committed to making it successful.

	o We are using DCE as the underpinning of our entire distributed
	computing strategy.  So, all appropriate products will use it, if
	they need these distributed services.  The advantage here is that
	customers will get an integrated, unified environment, in which all
	software products use these common services.

	o We are supporting DCE on all our strategic platforms.  Hence,
	customers won't be left out in the cold if they need DCE solutions.

	

    
    	Great notes so far. we are clearly getting somewhere. Keep those
    replies and ideas coming. I completely sympathize with the frustrations
    expressed concerning training investments, multivendor equipment labs
    for the CSC, and a bloated bureaucracy (which I cannot stomach either).
    	But this is good stuff to make a strategic case for moving Digital
    into the 21st century as a NETWORK provider. I believe any other focus
    is a pure waste of money and time. The marketplace is crying for a
    *real* netowrks firm to do for them what we take for granted (ie. VTX,
    Mailbus, Accessworks, etc.). There are big bucks to be made if we focus
    properly. 
    	Keep your thoughts coming. You are making my day!!!
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
    
    >	But this is good stuff to make a strategic case for moving Digital
    >into the 21st century as a NETWORK provider. 
    
    IF we are going to be in the services industry, some thought ought to be
    given to providing services over the internet. 

    Customers have inquired about
    
    	- the information available from dsnlink being available to them
    via internet.
    
    	- being able to log software/hardware calls via internet
    
    	- being able to order products via internet

    	- pulling software patches off internet

    	- having a Digital sponsored bulletin boards where they can post
    questions
    

I've got a VERY enlightening exercise for you:
Call up various computer companies' Mosaic/WWW Home Pages.

If you don't know about the World Wide Web (aka WWW) and the assorted
tools used to access it like Mosaic, your homework starts here.
See the SOFBAS::INTERNET_TOOLS conference.

Pick a handful of competitors' and check out their homepages:
http://www.XYZ.com/
As in 
http://www.hp.com
or
http://www.sun.com
or
http://www.dell.com

And then look at what WE publish:
http://www.digital.com

Pretty poor in my view.
While the others are slick and easily navigated, our home page
looks like a grad student's playing around with the Web.

I looked at HP.
Their page was colorful, but tasteful.
It provided lots of information about their products and services.
It was easily navigated.
In under 5 minutes, I not only had new information on their products, but
I had also downloaded a new driver for my HP printer on my Mac at home.
Automatically.
From their WWW pages.

We could learn a lesson there.

The question is: 
Who do we need to teach it to so that a better image is projected SOON?

Kevin Farlee

This  is a digression from strategy (strategy isn't my strong suit), but
hell, it's my $.02.

There are three ways of looking at Information Technology's benefits:

	Processing,
	Storage, and
	Communication.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the primary focus of computing, in the public's
mind anyway was PROCESSING.  You know, the "giant brains" that predict
election  results, data reduction that converts space capsule tracking
data into orbital parameters, cranking out the payroll.  The wonderful thing
was always process.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the perception shifted to storage.  Sharing stored
information (databases) for production control at places like Boeing, and
doing the reservation system for the resulting airliners.  "The computer
has a file on you", for the paranoid. The checkout scanner at
Stop & Shop (and the instant inventory update). Storage was the handle
on showing how wonderful the technology is.

In the 1990s, the perception has shifted again, this time to communication:
(yeah, I realize that CD-ROM is still storage, but bear with me).  The
glitzy stuff is all about communicating:  "Information superhighway" NOT
"Global Library" is the catch phrase.  Internet is about communication, 
at least when it's discussed in public.  So I claim that the key to selling
the technology itself lies communication metaphors, not storage or
process metaphors.

Of course this is all sweeping generalization.  You know, and I know, that
any reasonably sophisticated system will combine elements of all three:
process, storage, and communication.  But one of the three faces is the
one that's most in the public's mind, and right now, I claim that the
most visible face is communication.

Where does this all lead?  Well, NETWORKS is one answer.  It's about sharing
data (isn't it always?), and, right now, it's about getting it from
where it's available to where it's needed.

I don't know how you turn this into strategy.

Regards,
    Dave

    Whatever the strategy:
    
    1)  Tell the customers about it.  Repeatedly.
    2)  Once we've announced it and advertised it - do it!
    2)  Once we've begun - stick with it for more than 6 weeks.
    
    \dave

    
    re -1
    
    For PCs
    
    A glance through PC Week will show how some of our successful
    competitors market PCs.
    
    When they advertise, their adds present all the information a customer
    would need to place an order:  the product, the options and the price.
    
    In contrast, our adds usually have some fluffy textual information
    followed by a number to call, which seems a waste of a customer's time.
    
    Steve
    

    getting back -
    
    We must establish what our core technologies are going to be.
    We cannot rely on TIN alone (whatever BP says)
    
    In the 'old days', we used to provide the hardware and the mechanisms
    whereby customers could build apps. Then, it was compilers. Now, it
    must be more. BUT, whatever they end up with, there must be a solid
    foundation. The concept is the same - we cannot and should not do
    everything (which is what we got into in the early '90s).
    
    So, what should this be ?
    
    1. Op SYS - its pretty much agreed VMS, OSF/1 and NT. I have no issues
    with any or all of those. The first two, we can and do get VERY
    involved in. We need to be better involved with MS for NT. Maybe we are
    BUT, we do not hear this so we cna the customers back off [how many
    Intel NT servers are there vs AXP NT servers - now look at the price]
    
    2. Networks. We ARE good at this. We need to focus our efforts. DECnet
    Phase V is not going to be a market leader. Lets pool some efforts with
    some partners and find out what WILL be and then go for it (we did it
    with ethernet !). My guess would be TCP and the next generation and it
    won't be DECnet (or NETBEUI or IPX)
    
    3. Building blocks. Go for the basic blocks on the PC platform -
    PATHWORKS (its an umbrella that customers are BEGINNING to understand
    and like), DCE, ObjectBroker, Linkworks etc. Then provide the tools for
    customers to work with (DCE etc again). Provide some expertise to help
    them build this. Of course, here we are NOt talking about end users but
    about partners who will build and sell the end products.
    
    4. Provide a finite support and a migration path for our legacy apps
    (ALL-IN-1 to Teamlinks etc). Tell our customers of a MINIMUM lifespan
    for these.
    
    5. Tell our customers what we will NOT be supporting [maybe a bit
    drastic?]
    
    6. STICK WITH IT. If we go down, we go down fighting, not running
    around like a headless chicken.
    
    Does all this make sense ? Its late over here!
    
         regards
    
    Alan

    For what it's worth...
    
    My observation recently is that we've been too tenative in almost
    everything that we've done. Some of this is due to the burden of our
    past culture. If we decide to the "middelware" is an important
    component of being successful as a leader in Client/Server, then jump
    in with both feet. Right now we supply critical middleware - DCE
    components, ObjectBroker, etc. - to more platforms than any other
    vendor:BUT (and this is a big, show stopper BUT) we don't supply enough
    to actually go all the way to implementing true, enterprise-wide
    Client/Server. We always seem to be a dollar short - we don't have
    ObjectBroker on one platform (Solaris) or some component of DCE on
    another. We're almost there, but not quite. So what do customers really
    do because they can't really get it from us? They go to one of the
    other vendors with more market pull and standardize on them for
    practicle reasons - they can make it all work, if its all from one
    vendor. The point here is get in or get out, but don't keep wasting all
    of our time with half-hearted partial solutions.
    
    The biggest single roadblock that I'm facing recently in the UNIX space
    comes from being last to get in the game (the Ultrix false start
    didn't count and just delayed real entry into the game). The issue is
    in the Systems Operations and Network Management  (SO&NM) space. My
    customers have all trainied their support staffs on something - HP-UX,
    AIX or Solaris - then we come along wit a better idea - OSF/1. OSF/1
    for all of the hype about it being a better UNIX - ain't easy to
    install and use, if you're used to any of these other UNIXes. The
    suggestion here is - if you're not the recognized leader you can't make
    the rules. We don't need a better UNIX, we need a familiar, easy to
    use, friendly, "just like you're used to" UNIX. Some more attention
    needs to be paid to the whole SO&NM area and how to make integrating a
    Digital UNIX machine easier.
    
    I tend to agree with the gist of some of the earlier notes on the CISC
    vs. RISC issue. There are some more technically aware folks who care -
    engineers and some IS professionals - but by and large the end user
    community just cares about what they see, which is Windows or some
    terminal screens. Do you know any Netware user who is aware of whether
    his network disks are running on a CISC or RISC machine? We might still
    be in the LAN Op System game (some folks still think we are) if we had
    kept PATHWORKS up to date and the VAX platforms cost competitive. We
    are now close to being able to make the differences between Alpha and
    VAX less of an issue to the VMS user base (VMS V6.1). We should be able
    to see fairly quickly if the VAX has a future. In the PC space, I don't
    believe that the Alpha efforts will ever make a dent. The PowerPC has
    only a small chance of denting INTEL CISC Pentiums.
    
    In the marketing space, we seem to be watching a couple of pendulums
    swing to opposite extremes - once again cancelling each other out. In
    the old days we had a fat field organization with tons of loaner and
    demo gear all over th place, but totally ineffective advertising. Now
    we seem to be moving towards agressive, effective advertising that will
    generate much demand on a field of empty sales office with nothiong to
    demo or loan to customers. Let's settle somewhere int he middle. Almost
    all of the LOP and demo programs died recently and nothing replaced
    them. There must be some way for us to take the next step - a demo or a
    short term pilot loan - once the new advertising generates the leads.
    From what we hear is coming (recent Scott Rothe memo) we seem to be
    going rapidly towards an almost zero cost field organization (read that
    as manufacturers reps) - all working out of our homes and cars. "Hey
    want to see a demo, climb in ther back seat here and I'll pull over to
    a pay phone." There need to be equipment/support oriented programs to 
    support the sales efforts. 
    
	- OFWAMI

    
    	Excellent points, Norm, and well worth the effort you made to place
    them here. Thanks.
    
    	Keep those cards and letters coming folks. Only one week until my
    Christmas.
    
    		the Greyhawk

I've been mulling this over some more, and here's what I'm coming up with:

   Information Sharing

That's the stage of the Information Revolution we've reached.  It's what's
behind networks (and what's behind dtatbases, too, for that matter).
I could go on about information sharing, but I won't (...muffled cheers...)

So...

Information sharing and CISC/RISC:

Suppose I'm a customer at an established and growing company (I'm not, and
I don't claim that any of this is necessarily the way a real customer would
think).  

I've got CISC machines coming out of my ears.  Perhaps a pride of mainframes,
a gaggle of minicomputers, and a positive swarm of those little desktop 
machines that extend people's power at readin', 'ritin', and 'rithmetic. 
All CISC.

I've been buying, or soon will be, RISC based workstations.  Why?  Because
I like RISC?  Naah.  What I like is pushing on the price/performance
envelope, and if that means taking a RISC, that's what I'll do.

But I don't want any hidden gotchas to get in the way of Information Sharing.
Not between my RISC and my CISC.
A company that makes both AND has a high reputation for credibility might
be able to persuade me that they are less likely to lead me astray than a
company that only makes one.

Information Sharing and Middleware.

I know so little about middleware that I'm going to put my foot in it if
I get too deep here.  But from the little I do know, I'm going to say that
middleware is ABOUT information sharing.  Period.

Information Sharing and Company to Company Linkages

Well, yes.  Now that my company has learned to share information across
functions and across department, the next logical step is to share information
across business partnerships.  We may need a little more security here.  I need
my business partners, but I don't share everything with 'em.

So...

Is your company ABOUT Information Sharing?  Are you going to help me or hurt me?

Hope this isn't too wide of the mark.

Dave

    Below is an attempt to outline a sketch of some steps in 
    coming to developing a value added strategy. At best a
    candle in the darkness.
    
    re roelof
    
    The question always to start with: Who are our customers?
    
    Large accounts and channels is the simple (but not
    necessarily clear) answer. To me the customer set seems to break
    down into 3 groups. I suspect that the size of each
    group is - or will be - about equal (approx. 1000). For each 
    group profile a separate strategy is likely to be needed. This
    implies that Digital may be able to focus on approx. 3000 
    customers world wide.
    
    The groups are:
    	- large accounts (approx. 1000). Adds value by providing layered
    	  services using the systems to the consumer market.
    	- integration houses. Adds value through integration to provide
    	   tuned systems.
    	- distribution houses. Adds value by providing low cost
          distribution channels tuned to local conditions.
    
    Of the above 3 our "traditional" customer is of course the first
    one. The second are third are far less understood and I am sure
    that our business practices are really geared to these other two.
       
    The next question to ask is: What are our customers _really_ buying?
    Note the focus of this question is not are what we are selling or
    are trying to sell but what are our customers buying or trying to
    buy.
    
    Of course, in any and all cases a customer is buying a solution to 
    a problem. Digitals value added strategies must determine which 
    problem(s) to focus on and then provide the best solution to 
    that problem.
    
    So what problems does a company hope will be solved when it
    buys from Digital?
    
    * What does Digital _really_ do? Or put differently what
    does the market percieve Digital does (best)?
    
    This question helps focus on what problem(s) we should be
    attempting to tackle. Digital for example promotes itself
    as the leading client server company. Not a particularly
    smart thing to do because client server doesn't describe either
    a problem nor a benefit nordoes it easily associate with a (solution 
    to a) problem.
    
    There appears to be a consensus in the marketplace that what 
    Digital is _really_ about is desiging and building (the components 
    of) networked systems. I find it somewhat surprising to note that
    Digital doesn't really position itiself as such in the
    sense that advertisments in my view appear to focus on performance 
    of server (Alpha) and volume growth of PC.
    
    * How does Digital build the best systems? The answer to this lies
      in answering the question what great performance on the part of 
      Digital means _as seen through the eyes of the customer_
    
    To be honest. I haven't seen any clear answers to this question as
    I've never seen any real surveys to customers where this question
    has been asked so I'll speculate on this.
    
    Assuming a customer is approaching Digital as a networked system provider
    what would I consider great performance? Here are some ideas:
    
    As a large account:
    
    - the ability to add or replace a system in the network by simply
      plugging in the modem/token ring/ethernet cable and power cable.
      Self configuration/mutual recognition done automatically.
    
    - networked system design and monitoring services providing a
      choice of guaranteed performance and uptime characteristics 
      against clear price differentials allowing clear perfomance/
      reliability/uptime tradeoffs
    
    - 7x24x365 networked system uptime 
    
    To me Value-Added Strategies based on solving the above
    problems drive purchasing decisions. "Fastest system" is
    to me not a true purchase differentiator system performance
    is withing 25-33% of competitor (for same price).
    
    
    As a system integrator:
    * Value Adding Training Programs providing both technical
      and commercial assistance
    * simple network defintion and assembly (so I can spend most
      of my time in real value add)
    * A feed of possible customers - partnership program
    * Brand Name Reliability Image
    
    As a distribution channel
    * Automatic stock replenishment tying into my stock administration
    * Automatic parts ordering for returns
    
    Note that the above really  shows the importance and differentiating
    power of properly implemented processes as opposed to product. It
    has been pointed out a number of times in this thread that asking
    "What product should we make" is asking the wrong question if it
    is the first question asked.
    
    A value added strategy really needs to set in motion activities
    which help us to 
    - clearly understand the various customer profiles and their
      differences (something which I believe we currently don't)
    - clearly indicates what customers are buying/trying to buy from
      us and not what we are trying to sell
    - defines and promotes those services which influence buying decisions
    - clearly defines system and structure (processes) which will provide
      best in class services [and motivates why]
    - develops clear partnership programs showing well defined value
      add for the partners
    - follows a leadership paradigm based on promoting through deed
      (not word) of customer focus _through employee empowerment_

    
    	Roelof -
    
    		Excellent note, and most appreciated. I agree with the
    three step customer model, and our lack of focus on why business
    purchases our products. Tomorrow is the day, here's hoping. Will keep
    you all up-to-date on the responses. Thanks again.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
    	Well, I had my meeting with the CSD Strategy person and a very
    interesting presentation on strategy methodologies being employed
    currently, the current position of Digital in the *new* marketplace,
    "rules of the game" by technology market segments, and where we
    need to be in the marketplace to "catch the next wave" (which was
    cleverly called "the Convergence Market").
    	It was an very good presentation and an open/honest appraisal
    of where we are today, and what needs to be done to get to tomorrow.
    	While I don't particularly feel like writing hundreds of lines
    of text explaining the above. I will give a quick read.
    
    	Digital is in the midst of a massive shift which incorporates
    not only how and why people use computers, but in the nature of
    what computers are actually used for. Since we fell dramatically
    behind in the second wave after achieving great success in the
    first, we are now positioning ourselves to succeed in the third.
    
    	Senior management is aware. They are getting Digital focused.
    It is messy, sometimes bloody. It is at least a 90-degree shift,
    and more likely 180. Most people are not fully equipped mentality
    to make this shift from an execution (of mission) standpoint. This
    has great social ramifications, ala the HOME program, wired classrooms
    w/interactive training/education, the "who owns the wire?" business
    positioning, etc.
    
    	As a salesperson out in the trenches everyday, I can see it
    happening already; but most people believe it is growing slower than it
    actually is, hence resistence and drawn-out decision-making processes.
    These will change. RP, Enrico, and Co. are completely "brought-in". Now
    it is the rest of the management corps. This will be messy also. C'est
    la vie.
    
    	I found myself agreeing with virtually everything all-the-way down
    the line. 2001 will be here faster than we can imagine, and it will be
    in the middle of the next wave. Digital will be surfing again, or we
    will disappear under the crush. We have only so much resources in
    money, people talents, and time. We cannot screw up this one and
    survive as a viable systems vendor. We cannot play in all the markets,
    we must choose carefully and devoted all our energies to being #1 in
    the markets we pick.
    
    	Stay tuned for further announcements. Not from me, but from what
    we go after. I believe the recent announcements on Linkworks and
    Pathworks 5.1 are the beginnings. This ain't over 'til the fat lady
    sings.
    
    		the Greyhawk
    
    

    Hey Greyhawk,
    
    	Gotta give as good as ya get.  To quote an erudite recent noter in
    this conference ;
    
    		"Where's the beef?"
    
    /Chris.

    
>    	I found myself agreeing with virtually everything all-the-way down
>    the line. 2001 will be here faster than we can imagine, and it will be
>    in the middle of the next wave. Digital will be surfing again, or we
>    will disappear under the crush. We have only so much resources in
>    money, people talents, and time. We cannot screw up this one and
>    survive as a viable systems vendor. We cannot play in all the markets,
>    we must choose carefully and devoted all our energies to being #1 in
>    the markets we pick.
 
    Greyhawk, got to agree with .-1. I guess I also want to know when
    the lights faded and the smoke blew away if there really was a
    rabbit...
    
    But seriously I thought that we had all long passed the "Digital
    can't be all things to all people" awareness building sessions.
    
    I hope you left out a lot of the essential things in your summary 
    otherwise I'm afraid our strategy is not as far along as I hoped 
    (and assumed) it would be...
    
    Another point that came out a number of times in this thread is that
    there is good reason to believe that Digital's quest for the
    killer workstation/application/network/enterprise paradigm often
    detracts from where the market really sees Digital's value add
    (and hence what the market will pay top dollar for). To what extent
    did your contact appear cognizant of these issues and - since talk
    is not highly expensive - to what extent are concrete actions underway
    that address those issues discussed extensively in this thread?
     
    re roelof
           
    

    
    	Roelof, et al. -
    
    	Unfortunately I cannot answer those questions. That is the SLT's
    call. I can note that people up close to the SLT are working on
    changing how we approach the marketplace, but that is still *work in
    progess* at this particlar point in time. Also remember, the SLT target
    date for the *new* Digital is 1 Jan 95. So many more things will be
    revealed as time passes and we get closer to the Jan 1 date.
    
    	We can only hope the SLT strategy focuses on changing the rules
    Vis-a-vis our competitors in each product segment we decide to invest
    and target. My personal belief is that workstations is ripe for such
    a move, while mid-range is a mine field of mega proportions (ala IBM
    and H-P discount wars now taking place-brief note: a VAR of mine
    recently called me to express his unbelievability that H-P offered
    him a 48% discount to sell HP 9000s during the last quarter of this
    year. Two days later the IBM rep offered him an additional 5% off
    HP's discount if he'd move the equivalent volume of RS/6000s which are
    not even HP's target, they are after AS/400s - this market is going to
    get strange real quick!)
    
    	Stay in touch, and if you have any ideas - lay 'em out. 
    
    		Best regards.
    
    			the Greyhawk

    ...And that's all I have to say about that.
    
    				Forest (The Greyhawk) Gump