Conference 7.286::digital

    A lot of folks in my office laughed out loud after reading
    the FORTUNE magazine article in which she appeared.  The
    concensus opinion was that her "performance" in the article
    was abysmal at best.  Could this have had anything to do with
    her departure?
    
    As far as the demise of the CBU's, I hear they are going to
    try a RED Line, BLUE Line, WHITE Line to streamline communications
    and improve productivity.

    re. RED line, Blue line, etc.
    
    Somehow that sounds vaguely familiar.
    
    Ken

rumor has it that Willow Shire is going to work for Hillary Clinton, I would
assume in a healthcare role.

or it could be JAR, Just Another Rumor

.1>  A lot of folks in my office laughed out loud after reading
.1>  the FORTUNE magazine article in which she appeared.  The
.1>  concensus opinion was that her "performance" in the article
.1>  was abysmal at best.

    Could you supply a reference, please? I'd like to read the article.

    My only recollection of Willow was quite the opposite. When Bob
    introduced the CBU managers in a DVN broadcast almost exactly a year
    ago, Willow was the only one who said anything substantive -- all the
    others provided the usual fluff. My impression was echoed precisely
    in Paul Kinzelman's comments on that broadcast in note 2332.11.



    

Note 2834.1 by GRANPA::DMITCHELL
    
    >As far as the demise of the CBU's, I hear they are going to
    >try a RED Line, BLUE Line, WHITE Line to streamline communications
    >and improve productivity.
    
    i really hope not. it was a disaster last time and we probably haven't
    learned from that and would try to implement yet another disaster.

re: .1

I have the page of the article with Willow Shire in front of me.  I don't see
anything wrong with it.  Of course, I'm not a member of the GOB club, either.

I AM amazed that she was able to tell that Digital was losing money doing
business with a particular customer.  I thought our admin systems were so
screwed up that no one really knew what was goin on.

Bob

    It is indeed a sad beginning for a new year. Having heard Willow speak
    several times and attended several customer meetings with her I can say
    without a doubt that we have lost a very valuable leader.
    
    

    Willow was out of touch with reality.  I think she was a smart person
    who didn't know how Digital actually relates to customers and the
    competition.  She was unfortunately not the only senior manager with
    that limitation.
    
    As to the fate of CBU's, they will be dismantled.  By summer we will
    see another reorganization, but it will be a productive one.  (For
    those of you finding this surprising since it comes from a perpetual
    cynic, please hear me out).
    
    Here is what I think will happen.
    
    Lucente will drive an integrated responsiblity down to the field level. 
    He is known to favor having a single point of responsibility in each
    geography, responsible for every aspect of the way Digital relates to
    the customer.  These people will be held responsible, and (this is the
    big change) will be given the clout to rationalize Digital to the
    customer.  
    
    They will be the ones who drive behavior up the organization, from the 
    customer through the field organization to engineering and marketing.
    By their influence and responsibility they will be able to fill the
    between the cracks, forcing our bickering to cease while we deliver a
    service that makes the customer want to buy more.
    
    The field will fund engineering to develop products (as opposed to the
    old days when product engineering funded the field).  They will fund
    marketing and the other support functions.
    
    CBU's will be dismantled.  Their marketing and technical specialists
    will be folded back into the central organization.  Some of their
    management levels will be redundant and people will be released.
    
    Lucente will move to CEO, Palmer will park at COB for eighteen months
    and then cash out, thus fulfilling the original prophecies when he came
    in:  that he was here to cut and reorganize, then hand the reins over
    to someone else.
    
    Brebach will lead Digital Consulting's spin-off to an uncertain future. 
    With him will go all the managers and staff who have developed such
    arcane procedures based on imaginary market expectations.  They will
    take few of the technical delivery people, since in their view they can
    hire off the street as needed.
    
    Lucente will retain a sprinkling of technical people to support product
    sales and customer requirements for small-scale integration.  Over
    time, this cadre will develop into a balanced force with certain areas
    of expertise that can be marketed into successful projects.
    
    Digital will stabilize with a new culture, focused outside the company
    instead of on internal posturing.
    
    Let it be so.
     

    And if you believe that Plan will work any better than any of the
    others proposed to date, then I have some prime real estate that you
    might be interested in...
    
    :-)
    
    The same players will do the same things...
    
    Single point of responsibility in each Geography. Oh, you mean more
    VP's, who when help responsible, will "choose to pursue other business
    interests outside of the company".
    
    q

    I know, I know.  I'm usually the one doing the knocking, so I
    understand what you say.  The difference is, focusing from the customer
    inwards instead of from our organization outwards is the only way to
    re-establish a worldview based on reality.
    
    The same players will indeed do the same things unless they are driven
    by new players who understand what is wrong and what needs to be done.
    
    The fact that VPs leave when they are held to the fire can mean one of
    two things:
    
    1.  They can't hack it when they are given no place to hide.  For them,
    good riddance.
    
    2.  They realize the system does not give them the power to hold others
    to the fire.  Responsibility without authority is worse than useless. 
    For those who leave under this situation, no blame should be attached.
    
    We are flailing about because our corporate culture is sick.  It worked
    (after a fashion) in years past when the outside world was different,
    but it was a functioning cripple.  We were a closed society with our
    own internal rules and when the world changed our flaws became
    debilitating.
    
    Our cure is to clutch reality and hold on.  That starts from latching
    onto our customers (that's "the field").  If "the field" drives our
    behavior, we will get well.  To do that, the field managers have to
    have the power to tell the rest of the organization what needs to be
    done if our corporate entity is to survive.
    
    Think of "the field" as the nerve endings (the senses).  Right now the
    nerve endings keep saying there's pain, but the brain keeps trying to
    put the hand back on the stove.    

re: .8

You mean Lucente will become President and Palmer stay CEO, i assume.  The
way they made a point of creating both titles when Palmer stepped in presaged
something like that.  I dunno...at some point we have to make a current
organization structure work rather than constantly changing it.  When the
problem is your house burning down you can't keep going back to design a new
and fancier fire hydrant.
								- paul

    
    
                      When in trouble, or in doubt,
    
                    run in circles, scream and shout.

>>    The field will fund engineering to develop products (as opposed to the
>>    old days when product engineering funded the field).  They will fund
>>    marketing and the other support functions.


This is what the CBU's were SUPPOSED to do.  The supposed benefit of the CBU
structure was that they understood the customer's business.  The "field" is 
too diverse to fund marketing and product engineering without some 
organizational focus above it (call it a CBU or whatever you like).  In NY we
have a large financial customer base, as well as significant government and
commercial focus.  If a geographical VP were to fund product engineering,
what market does he represent?

I still think some elements of the CBU structure are worthwhile and should be 
retained.

    The CBU's became another empire, isolated from the customer.
    
    I agree that you can't re-organize every 6 months.  It is past
    ridiculous.  We stand in the doorway and alternately beat our head
    against the left jamb and then the right.
    
    I also agree that the funding decisions would have to be managed by
    some level above the field managers.  The field managers, though, would
    be the ones who had the clout.  If they wanted something pushed, it
    would be pushed.  If they didn't care about something, it would
    languish.   The important thing is, from where does the power flow?  If
    it flows from the customer inward, then that is the essence of a
    market-driven company.  Our main problem is that we are an
    internal-Digital driven company.
    
    I also agree that certain parts of the CBU idea should be retained: 
    industry focus on developing specific applications, solutions, and
    technical expertise. 
    

    As a "field" sales person, I thought the CBU segmentation was the best
    idea Digital ever had.  I did not expect that it would work overnight. 
    I expected to see replacements in industry subgroup management by
    hiring from those industries over time.  Eventually we would begin to
    design, build and MARKET products people wanted rather than the
    exercises in engineering arrogance we try to sell today.
    
    Our biggest problem has been and continues to be the inability to
    comprehend what our customers will need by the time it will take us to
    build it.  Reorganizing along products is a step away from that.  If
    you can describe how a "singleton" like me or five or six of my peers
    across the country will be able to influence a product group to build
    what our industry niche requires, I would be surprised.  Instead, I
    feel our message will be lost, or design wins will be lost and our
    customers will be lost.
    
    Product Groups do not take field input, they provide field "training"
    to sell their "solutions".  Industry unique needs?; Application
    requirements?; Installed base migration paths?; Who cares, that stuff
    is inconsequential.....right?
    
    Not at all, I expected to see a subgroup like Forestry Products (to
    pick one at random) identify the leadership applications in that
    industry and point channels at the source for recruitment.  They would
    determine who (which companies) are leading the rest and make them
    strategic targets.  They would develop industry plans that positioned
    Digital as a long term player with marketshare gains as the goal.  They
    would hire and build sales, sales support, and marketing expertise in
    forestry products over time.  If they did not stick to the plan, the
    management gets dumped and Digital hires from Georgia Pacific or
    Weyerhauser or similar the right people to get that job done.
    
    So here we are with a great framework and its not "profitable" in five
    months so junk it?  Start over?  I have this sinking feeling that our
    customers gave us the last reorganization as just that; "The LAST
    reorganization".  How many points (marketshare) do you think the next
    will cost?
    
        

    RE: .12  by SSDEVO::PULSIPHER 
    
    >                  When in trouble, or in doubt,    
    >                run in circles, scream and shout.
    
    
                        If you can keep your head
                  when all about you are losing their's
                          and blaming it on you
               you obviously don't understand the situation
    

re: 10

You mentioned responsibility without authority. I believe that we have even more
serious problem of having authority without responsibility. When internal 
accounting can't give true information of were the profits and losses are done,
people at all authority levels can play with that and produce obscure results.
And they do..... And nobody can mesure them based on actual achievements.....
So, there is no real responsibility.....

We have also a problem of concentrating to our internal understanding of the
business needs. I wouldn't base future planning even to the undertanding
of our current customers. They are (an important)part or the market, but
they are the ones, which have still been ready to cope with our shortcomings.
From the revenue and profit figures we can see that that is not enough.

    Re :  Willow not being in contact with reality...
    
    That has been one of the prerequisites to becoming a member of the SLT
    from what we have been able to see.
    
    Dave

    re < Note 2834.10 by ANGLIN::ROGERS "Sometimes you just gotta play hurt" >
                    -< Not the deck chairs on the Titanic >-

    
>    We are flailing about because our corporate culture is sick.  It worked
>    (after a fashion) in years past when the outside world was different,
>   but it was a functioning cripple.  We were a closed society with our
>   own internal rules and when the world changed our flaws became
>    debilitating.
    
    There is nothing wrong with our corporate culture. It is one of the few
    things that is holding the shreds together. It has been a trendy
    whipping boy to blame over the last few years, but a lot of what
    "Digital" claims is it's direction in terms of Customer understanding
    and service, is what attracted so many of us to "DEC", and was an
    ingrained part of the corporate "culture".
    
    q
    

    re .10  IMHO, your 2. "system stifles authority" is really 1.  A VP's
            authority must be established right from day one in the new
            position.  If you can't, then I guess you're not really VP
            material.  If this seems unreasonable, try substituting 
            "manager" or "supervisor" for "VP".
    
    						Don

    Re .8 
    
    I like your assessment.  My take is similar -- The CBUs as currently
    constituted will morph to something else.  The risk is that it's
    another end-of-the-year Digital reorg.  The opportunity is that Lucente
    and Palmer see Digital clearly and will not allow the the Annual ReOrg
    Kabookie Dance to take place.
    
    I also believe that Palmer and Lucente will force accountability --
    Those who do the dance are gone.  
    
    IMHO
    
    Dennis

RE: .16 by TOPDOC::AHERN

>>    RE: .12  by SSDEVO::PULSIPHER 
>>    
>>    >                  When in trouble, or in doubt,    
>>    >                run in circles, scream and shout.
>>    
>>    
>>                        If you can keep your head
>>                  when all about you are losing their's
>>                          and blaming it on you
>>               you obviously don't understand the situation
>>    


I am concerned you didn't interpret the poem I quoted (which is actually
an Army marching cadence) within the context of the replies preceding it...
starting with 2834.8 by Mr. Rogers who was sharing with us his predictions
for this year. 

He is predicting yet ANOTHER reorganization driven by the desperate
situation that Digital has been in for a number of years now.  It is a well
known fact that when managers (not necessarily "leaders") are perplexed
("When in trouble, or in doubt") their response tends to be to reorganize
("run in circles, scream and shout").

Just about every Digital employee understands the situation Digital is in....
it's just that very few know how to get us out of it.

I am concerned that Digital will keep waffling through until the economy
improves to the point where we will actually show a profit. Then everyone
will heave a great sigh of relief, congratulate themselves, and not
use the opportunity to really "fix" the problems within Digital.  Of course,
when the next crisis or recession hits, it will be back to our current
circumstances.

					Thank you, and Happy New Year


							Jim P.

    re: .19
    
    "Corporate culture" means lots of things, and different things to
    different people.  I also admire the parts of the corporate culture
    that stand for integrity and honesty, as you do.  I agree that a core
    of stalwarts is all that is holding our company together.  I agree that
    parts of our company do try to commit themselves to customer service
    and satisfaction.    
    
    The parts of the culture that I am saying are crippling include our 
    self-preoccupation, our inward focus, and our inbred organization.  Too
    often we do what we want to do, not what our customers need us to do.
    
    Many of the things that are vital for us to change get lost in endless
    internal squabbling.  Mini-empire versus mini-empire.  The power
    struggles are enervating.  In reorg after reorg, many of the real
    culprits escape their fate because of who they are friends with, or who
    they once worked with.  Or else the units are re-named, responsiblities
    are re-assigned, and nobody is held accountable because the decisions
    on a project were spread over four different managers over two years.
    
    We are too closed.  We don't have a critical mass of people in
    authority who have seen it done different ways.  Too many managers grew
    up here and know nothing different.  It leads too often to decisions
    made the same old way because of some ingrained faith that our way is
    the best way, and sadly this is not true.
    
    We can learn.  Digital has great people -- still, despite the turmoil
    and departures of the last couple of years.  But we have to have a
    connection to reality and a structure that can carry that information
    back inside our organization and make things happen.
    
    

    re:  .20                              
    
    You're right that they overlap, but...
    
    The structural flaws are bigger than any single VP can handle, even one
    that tries to establish his authority from day 1, as you suggest.
    
    The legacy from the management style established by Ken Olsen is that
    we still are fragmented and stovepiped.  Executives get stuck in the
    cross-departmental divide when they try to get things done.  And
    everything originates from that center, which is divided.  Our
    attention and energy is spent on the wrong priorities.
    
    re:  .21 
    
    I agree with you about the risk of another reorganization.  We have
    been reorganizing the deck chairs on the Titanic as a substitue for
    steering changes.  I can't say why I'm optimistic about the next one,
    except that I sense a critical mass developing that will drive us to
    saner behavior.   But Palmer and Lucente can't force accountability
    without structural changes that will drive cultural changes in the way
    we think about ourselves as a company.
    
    re:  .17
    
    You're right that we can't base our planning on an understanding only
    of our existing customers.  We should use them as a basis for
    improving our procedures, our business practices, our service, our
    flexibility...as we we that, we should be concentrating on gaining
    volume through new customers. 
    
    We can't keep strip-mining the installed base.
    
    re:  .15
    
    An excellent description of the desirable results we wanted from the
    CBU's, and a summary of the capabilities we want to retain.  My sense
    has been that the CBU's have been too removed from the field (= the
    customers)...they have been caught up once again in the internal
    bickering.  They have also been hampered by our unwillingness
    (inability?) to seek out the best talent from outside companies like
    Weyerhauser.  I think that has been due to a lack of defined mission as
    to what Digital will be.
    
    You're right that the public (Wall Street and customers) are weary of
    our constant re-morphing.  Let's make a resolution to re-morph quietly
    from now on, instead of trumpeting each one as the answer to our
    problems.
      
    

    
    
      Excuse me people ...
      note .22 has got it right on
    
      Remember the old Sperry Univac (where many of us once worked)
    
      it took them about 10 years of layoffs and changes to become 
      close to "right" again
    
      You cant honestly think another reorg is going to do it. My first
      thought when I read this was that someone sacastically brillant was
      formulating a joke :-). I think the press and our customers will
      try to sink when they see we've reorg'ed again and still are not
      swimming with our heads above water. Reorgs cant help us much - 
      we still have to do the same work no matter which part of the reorged
      company we work for. We have mucho contact with our customers right
      now a reorg isnt needed for that. Instead of reorging to "listen
      better" why cant we just "listen better".
    
     

    
    
      I forgot to ask Mr Rogers - you mentioned "focusing outside the
    company". Can you state some other companies that do that?
    
    
     regards
    

    I guess the flip answer would be that almost any company does a better
    job of it than we do.  I am not necessarily just comparing us to other
    computer companies.  I am in sales, and one benefit of the job is that
    you get to know a lot of different companies from the inside over your
    career.  All of them have warts.  But most of them do a better job than
    we in focusing on the outside world.
    
    We have wedgies in our underwear because of our focus on internal
    politics, an overweening belief in our own procedures, and an
    ineffective feedback loop to the outside world.
    
    There are many good people at work in Digital who do listen to
    customers and try to move things along.  They are why we function at
    all.  But the lack of cohesiveness in our organization and structure
    wastes their efforts.  We all get lost in a structural muddle when it
    comes to reacting to change and implementing necessary measures.
    
    This organizational miasma will cripple even the best-intentioned
    managers.  In addition, they are typically managers who grew up here
    and have never seen it done differently.  We -- all of us, as a company
    -- have blind spots about ourselves and our own outlooks.  The way we
    look at problems, at products, at customers, and at competition will
    invevitably color the way we implement solutions, procedures, and
    policies.
    
    Part of the reason we haven't clawed our way out of this hole is that
    the company is driven from the inside out.  There is not enough
    information reaching the command center from the outside.  People at
    the center (staff and managers) certainly feel the pressure.  They
    scurry around weekly making new plans in response to the heat being put
    on them, but they are following the old rule that says, "Having lost
    sight of our direction, we redoubled our efforts."
    
     

    re .24 'internal bickering in the CBUs.."-what do you expect?Almost
    without exception the majority are old-timers well versed in the ways
    of Digital politicking and in many cases real professionals.
    As far as another reorg is concerned-yes,it will probably happen and
    then I will have to think up yet another way to defend our company when
    a client says that a 3-year project will not use Digital because of
    constant changing of people and subsequent changing in product policy.
    As long as our company values politics and procedures more than
    customers(and if you want documented proof in a job plan I can give you
    it),then we are in for a dire time indeed.
    I once worked for a company where I missed my objectives in both money
    terms and actions but I got a raise.I was delighted and asked why.My
    manager told me that we had been though a chaotic time but that I had
    always done what was right by customers.
    I no longer believe that would ever happen in Digital and this is a
    very fundamental problem.