Conference 7.286::digital

    Of course, the title I gave .0 could be construed to have another
    meaning ... :-(

re: .0

|    Total downsizing from 137.5K to the target, about 35-58% when complete,
                                                          ^^
                                      should read         38%

It just feels like 58% .....
    

    That's interesting.  Someone in this very conference predicted at least
    2 years ago that Digital would shrink to 80K employees.  I for one,
    didn't think he was right.  I was thinking more along the lines of 100K
    employees.
    
    Bob

    That will make us comparable to HP. $14 B revenue for 80something
    employees.
    
    jd

re: .4
>    That will make us comparable to HP. $14 B revenue for 80something
>    employees.
    
I guess i'm wondering if the revenue will still be there when the dust
settles and the comparable population numbers are reached.  Also, what
about profitability per employee?   That would seem to be a more meaningful
statistic.

It's an issue of whether we're getting to 85k employees by cutting "fat"
or muscle.  In some sense the current course seems to be positioning us
to be a more attractive takeover target.
								paul

    As one that is still in the tunnel, I'm just hoping the light we think
    we see doesn't turn out to be that on the front of a train.
    
    John (who-is-looking-for-the-fun-times-with-DEC-again)
    

          

	Can the author of .0 be serious  ?

	A light at the end of the tunnel with a YEAR AND A HALF OF
	LAYOFFS AHEAD ???!?!?

	FY 94 ends in JUNE OF 1994 !

	This means that for 6 QUARTERS people are going to be
	looking over their shoulders.

	Get it over with or just shoot this carcass in the head
	and hold a funeral...

	Steve H   

    RE: .6
    
    No, it's not a train, it's just a light.  However, due to budget
    constraints, they're turning off the light at the end of the tunnel!
    :-) :-)

    What is really incredulous to me is that for the past couple of
    years we have been doing $14 Billion dollars worth of business
    supposedly with no products, leadership or strategy. Imagine
    the possibilities if we get just 1/3rd our act together.
    
    Re .0  Well one way or the other the end is fast approaching. What
    happened to Digital was a consequence of believing our own
    marketing and no one taking responsibility for their actions when they
    failed. If we continue to follow our past we will be the next Wang.
    If we wise up, and I do think Mr. Palmer is intelligent enough
    to see the need for change, we might not only survive but thrive. The
    new Digital will not be like the old Digital, it can't if we are
    to survive the 90's.                         

    
    Sounds like a fairy tale.  I'll believe it when a quarter ends in the
    black, because then, although downsizing may continue, the feeding
    frenzy will break up.
    

    
    Whether or not we've seen the worst depends heavily on 
    technological trends.  IBM's mainframe business is falling
    apart underneath them; management there appears to be stunned
    by the rapidity with which that is happening.
    
    The question is really whether computer downsizing (in the
    re-engineering sense, not the people sense), pauses at the
    minicomputer/departmental level of computing before continuing
    its headlong rush to the desktop.  If rehosting (or whatever
    the current buzzword is) catches on, then we'll have some
    breathing room.  If Fortune 500 companies figure out a
    way to get mission critical applications onto LANs while
    skipping the minicomputer all together, than this is far
    from over.  IMHO.
    
    Glenn
    

    
    Re:.4
    
    I seem to remember hearing HP will downsize again so that 14B-80K
    ratio may not be optimal.
    
    Also, HP is much more diversified.  The do lab instruments, and such.
    
    -Ed
    

re: .7
    
|	Can the author of .0 be serious  ?
|
|	A light at the end of the tunnel with a YEAR AND A HALF OF
|	LAYOFFS AHEAD ???!?!?
    
    Yes, I was serious in asking the question.
    
    From the perspective that we're in transition
    	from	137,500
    	to	100,000
    	to	 90,000 (assuming the high-end of the range)
    we might be getting near the end of the massive downsizing.  Smith said
    that the last 10,000 would be harder to do, because we will have to
    re-engineer our ways of doing business in order to achieve it.
    
    I in no way intended to belittle the trauma and tragedy of what is
    happening.  I was just hoping that perhaps we can see the end of the
    storm.

    re: .0
    cc: .7
    
    I read the same article and derived the same interpretation as .0.
    I don't see 6 more quarters like the last 2 or the next 2.
    DEC's workforce is currently at ~ 100k people, two more quarters 
    (Q3 & Q4) @ 6k to 7k will put the workforce at 86k to 88k.
    Q1 of FY93 will be for "Fine Tuning" maybe 2k to 3k people.
    For the forseeable future DEC's workforce will Oscillate between
    83k & 86k.
    Let's face it Bob Palmer & company are not stupid, they know........
    
    > It is going to take a phenomenal performance by all hands to turn
      DEC around.
    
    > To make that "Phenomenal Performance" happen the MORALE of the work-
      force has to IMPROVE significantly and SOON.
    
    > The morale of the workforce WILL NOT improve until OVER is reached,
      or something very very close to OVER.
    
                               Therefore
    
    > It behoove's Upper Management to reach OVER swiftly and completely
      and they do know it.
    
                                                      IMHO     
                                                                Marko
    

I'm not as pessimistic as others.

My old company, Unisys, suffered for years of losses/layoffs/bad morale/inept
management. Maybe they've turned around for good, maybe not, but at least
they've been in the black for four quarters. And Unisys had severe problems
even when it was making money. Plus, its installed base was leaving in droves. 
So we have a better chance.

I'd be even more optimistic if I thought that the managers were as smart and
sensible as the individual contributors. But there's no evidence that they are.

Of course, if they would start explaining themselves better, maybe I'd find out
that they *are* intelligent and sensible. 

Vicki Meagher

Re: .16

An awful lot of the changes being done over the coming months clearly show
that we're shaping up for the small systems mentality. Just look at the
proposed selling channels - most account directors should be discharging
the structure into their organisations right now.

I know the one Corp officer/VP we have here has told the directors to
implement the channels and related pricing structures to the letter or to
go get a different job...
								- Ian W.

    Re .16 AHHH This is it! We just need to pass through the portal to
    avoid DEC before it is hit by the asteroid that is headed for it. So
    you go to the library and help select a place you want to go with the
    help of Mr Atoz or one of his replicas. "Make your selection quickly,
    before its too late. Anywhere you wish to go, it is strictly up to the
    individual." ... "once you have selected your desitination in a time
    past, I will prepare you through the Atavacron.."
    
    You thought that thing they were building in Hudsen was a fab facility.
    Actually its an Atavacron with the library attached.
    
    (From Star Trek Video- all our yesterdays.)
    

    Mr Atoz will only sell what is in Mr. Atoz's best interest, not 
    Digital's! If this is the direction we're headed in, "and I hope
    its not". We're in for more problems.

                                        
                                   Rick C.



    

    
    I think .16 has an extremely valid point.  Those 85000 employees are
    still going to deam the company useless if 50000 of them are managers.
    
    
    Mike

    The whole point of .0 is wrong... You can't get profitable by getting
    smaller.  If you're losing money, you may have to get smaller in order
    to forestall Chapter 7, but it won't make you profitable, unless the
    people you're firing are not paying their own way.  While there are
    many people here who aren't, I don't see _them_ being fired.  I see
    them doing the picking and getting rid of their rivals.
    
    Wang tried to downsize its way to profitability.  It's called a "death
    spiral".  Shrinking company, shrinking revenues, repeat endlessly.
    
    The key to becoming profitable is to SELL SOMETHING.  We need PRODUCTS
    that CUSTOMERS WANT, and we need to SELL THEM.  Our existing Sales
    Prevention Process and Product Prevention Process have got to change.
    Our revenues are declining.  No amount of pissant paper-clip counting
    is going to fix that.

    After reading most of these replies, I feel that I have to throw my
    two cents worth in.
    
    I feel optimistic about the company.  I feel that we will be in the
    black by the end of calender year 93.  Bob Palmer has only been onboard
    since October as Chief.  Alot of people don't like what's going on.  He
    is not done yet.  Just remember, Bob Palmer is not Digital.  You, I,
    your coworkers, your peers, and yes your managers, are Digital.  The
    captain only gives direction of the ship, the workers in the engine
    room give it the motion.  The crew on deck keep the passengers happy.
    
    The company is certainly doing its share of cutting back.  We need to.
    Maybe we cut some "muscle" along with the "fat".  There is no such
    thing as a perfect surgeon.
    
    I am in the services selling arena of the business, and I feel good
    about the state of the company.  For the year I am already over 140%
    of budget, and still going strong.  There are "pockets of productivity"
    within the company.  You have to remain focused on your job and your
    goal.  Everybodies goal should be TOTAL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION!!! 
    Morale is down in our department, and I even have to take a valium 
    once in awhile, BUT, I bust my a##, and I get the job done.  It is up
    to us to make the company profitable.  I will do my damndest to make
    this company profitable until I die, get tfso'd, or find work
    elsewhere.  But as long as I get that blue piece of paperwork every
    Thursday, I am going to strive for profitablility.
    
    Now some people might say I am in a dream land, all I have to say to
    them is it's better to have a goal then to throw in the towel and speak
    bad of the company that puts the bread and butter on your table.
    As long as I work for DEC, that is exactly what I am going to do.
    
    Well, time to call it a night.  Y'all have a good one, and looking
    forward to reading notes in the morning.
    
    
    ciao,
    bob
    

    Can anyone tell me what the "average" employee actually COSTS the
    company?
    
    I work in Ed Services... and my manager told me recently that it costs
    about $110K to $120K (mas y menos) for each instructor here.  That
    figure includes salary, office, support staff, benefits, etc.  
    
    Is this figure anywhere near close?  
    
    tony
    

    Your cost center's figure is similar to that for most U.S. site cost
    centers.
    
    Do you doubt your manager or were you seeking to find out if that
    figure is comparable to that of other groups within the corporation?
    
    If it is the latter, no noter is going to be able to help you.  If the
    latter, then my answer probably addresses what you were looking for.
    
    Leslie Klein

    I'm going to expose my lack of noting expertise.  I'm certain there
    is a way to edit the reply I just entered, but I don't know what it
    is.  One sentence in my reply SHOULD have been:
    
    If it is the former (i.e. the veracity of the manager is at question),
    no noter is going to be able to help you.  If the latter (i.e. asking
    if this figure is comparable), then my answer probably addresses what
    you were looking for.
    
    My apologies for the multiple replies!
    
    Leslie
    

    That's the number they use in the budgetting process.  Some people cost
    more, some less, but that's the average.  And its a pretty typical
    average based on what I've seen in project management courses and
    texts.
    
    	Dave

    no... i certainly have no reason to doubt my manager's figure...
    especially, not THIS manager...
    
    i was looking for comparisons to other cost centers and your answers
    are just fine.
    
    
    thanks.
    
    t.

    
    Couple of thoughts generated by this note.....
    
    1) How many managers from Wang, Unysis etc wormed into DEC after
    managing those compamies into the ground
    
    2) Digital, with all the cost cutting, will probably smell like roses
    in
    about 21/2 - 3 yrs. This is done by cutting the cost of the seed corn
    for the future whilst still garnering revenues from current products,
    but what will the company have to offer in the marketplace in, say,
    five to seven years time? Is this the usual management syndrome of
    "take three years to look good and then move on, leaving the mess for a
    successor to clean up"?
    
    	I wonder .........	 really wonder what the stock price will be 
    in 1997!
    
    Barry

    
    Re: .21
    
    > The key to becoming profitable is to SELL SOMETHING.  
    
    Not the way I understand business.  The key to becoming profitable
    is "to sell something" for MORE than it cost you to produce it.
    
    If your point is that we emphasize cost reduction without equal
    emphasis on generating revenue, then that makes sense.
    
    Steve
    

    Re .21:
    
    Thank you.  Thats the way I see it too.