Conference 7.286::digital

	.0 reformatted so I can read it.

							mike

<<< Note 5193.0 by NQOS01::tunsrv2-tunnel.imc.das.dec.com::Werner "Still crazy
after all these years..." >>> -< We're number 485, out of 500 >-

"Our strategies are working..."

The 1997 Business Week Performance Rankings are out and we're ranked number 485,
out of the S&P 500 companies, above only Apple (489) and Intergraph (494) in our
industry category.

"I've never been more confident..."

We scored straight "F's" in every category - Total Return (1 year), Total Return
(3 years), Sales Growth (1 year), Sales Growth (3 years), Profit Growth (1
year), Profit Growth (3 years), Net Margin and Return on Equity.

"We have great products and strong management leadership..."

The top 10 for this year included Intel (1), Microsoft (2), Dell Computer (3),
Cisco  Systems (4) and Compaq (9). Oracle was 11 and SUN came in at 13. HP for
those who care  was ranked 51 and IBM 71. 

"Our sales of Alpha systems in it's first three years greatly exceeds the ramp
up of  sales of the HP PA-RISC architecture, when it was introduced..."

The only mention in the accompanying article - "Still being in the right place
does not  assure success... Lockeed Martin Corp. explodes in an ailing industry,
and Digital  Equipment Corp. ails in an exploding one." Strangly, no mention
that our strategies are  working.

"Our 1-3-9 strategy is widely accepted by industry analysts..."

We also were highlighted in a graphic that listed the ten worst Earnings
Declines,  expressed as losses in earnings year-over-year over the last 12
months. We were listed at  number 5 at -342.8 Million dollars. Apple (2)
declined more, listed as -867.0 Million and  SUN was on the chart at number 9,
with an earnings decline of -281 Million year-over-year  (but it still ranked 13
overall).
 
But hey, "our strategies are working..."
 
-OFWAMI- 

    I have read the article, or rather scanned the charts.  It could
    actually be worse than what was shown in the original note, since 5
    firms (Cognizant, Lucent, Seagram, Tupperware, and Unilever) out of the
    500 had insufficient data, so they did not rank them.  So instead of
    485 out of 500, we were 485 out of 495.  
    
    BTW, only four other companies (Bethelem Steel, Louisiana-Pacific,
    Intergraph, and Echo Bay Mines) shared the straight "F" distinction. 
    As a friend in Digital said who saw the report on-line, "I was hoping
    to see a D anywhere!"  Our sights really have been lowered over the
    past 5+ years.
    
    Chuck         

    Just about anybody in the field could have told you what the base note
    had said.  The folks in corporate, marketing, engineering, management,
    support, etc., are in their own self-focused bubble and do *NOT* know
    how things effect the FIELD and the CUSTOMER.  THAT is where it's at.
    
    Until we reorient everything that we do to the customer - and out of
    that self-focused attitude of how wonderful our stuff is - we'll
    continue to be at the bottom of the class.
    
    It's really sad to see such great potential unactualized by such self
    focus.
    

>>    Until we reorient everything that we do to the customer - and out of
>>    that self-focused attitude of how wonderful our stuff is - we'll
>>    continue to be at the bottom of the class.

I'm in corporate (Product Management) and we are struggling with outdated and
non-functional internal systems.  This situation requires that I spend 90% of
my time trying to get information out to the field and to customers, answering
hundreds of phone calls and e-mails a day from the field asking for the
information I already sent out, and dealing with orders for my products that
cannot flow normally through the Digital's numerous order processing systems. 
About 10% of my time is spent performing normal "Product Management" functions
such as meeting with customers, doing demand generation for my products, etc. 
The 90:10 should be flipped the other way in my opinion.

Today, we operate unoffically as a number of semi-autonomous companies: US,
Canada, LAC, Australia, Japan, general APA, and every individual coutry in
Europe. The biggest help Digital top management can do for us is to merge all
the geographically-base entities into one "company" with one order system, one
system for sending info to customers and the field, and one accounting system.
Either do that or make them officially separate companies that must purchase
products from corporate.  Until that happens, we will continue to be inwardly
focused just to keep going.

Jim 

    re .4,
    
    Have you looked at Digital Business Link as a way to provide the "one
    face" to the customer (and field). I have been impressed with what they 
    are doing and their plans such as tying into the SAP/R3 order systems.
                                           
    Don

| <<< Note 5193.4 by ZEKE::BURTON "Jim Burton, DTN 381-6470" >>>


| I'm in corporate (Product Management) and we are struggling with outdated and
| non-functional internal systems.  


	I thought Exchange mail was one of the newer ones... :-)

    ...and to think I could be working at #1 right now. 

    
    	Just chalk it up to #2 luck, Mike.
    

    Slab, why don't you join #2 so we can be #1

    
    	I don't have to take that #2 from you.
    
    
    
    	8^)