Conference 7.286::digital

    Let me shed a little ray of reality in here.  The way I heard it,
    BP does not read this conference.  Instead an admin or somesuch
    printed for him and he read offline the note thread he commented on,
    and s/he presumably also typed in his comments.  So, anyone who thinks
    the various additional problems that are being discussed in here are
    being brought to BP's attention thru this conference, guess again.
    

Well, for me, I think that we will have a harder time getting over the 
negative publicity this time around...

On the positive side, I am sure we will still report a profit from
operations, even though the charge will absorb most of it.

-- Guy

    I don't think .0 really thinks Mr. Palmer reads this.  Sounds like the
    audience was all the rest of us, and we already know all that stuff.
    But it was well written, and the writer obviously still cares about
    Digital, as many of the rest of us do.
    
    It's hard to gauge something like overall company morale from a
    notesfile like this, but it seems like the mood has slowly slipped from
    pessimism to quiet acceptance that things are hopelessly broken.  I
    don't know how many people have the attitude I do - keep your head
    down, keep your skills updated, work hard for the customer and muddle
    through - and if things go down the dumper, they go...C'est la vie...
    
    There, I guess I'm somewhat guilty of the "quiet acceptance" I spoke of
    earlier.  I want to do more than that...I have a great manager, and I'm
    working on some interesting stuff, so I'm not unhappy.  But like
    everyone, I'd like to be part of a what you could feel is a winning
    organization with a great future - it makes hard work so much more fun.  
    Is there *anything* an individual can do in the current climate to
    achieve that?  Is the pessimism just among NOTErs, or absolutely
    everywhere?  

    There's always the direct approach:
    
    			Bob Palmer@MSO
    
    Now, it's perfectly acceptable and fine by me that he has one of his
    left-teniuts cruise through this notes file and grab stuff for his
    reading attention.  I mean afterall, he's a busy guy and you can't read
    everything.  The important thing here is that someone does bring .0 to
    his attention.  Hell, if I was walking down the hallway and we were
    passing each other, I'd say, "Bob, did you happen to see the open
    letter to you in the Digital conference today?"  Now he'd probably say
    "No I haven't but how do I get it?"  To which I'd say, I'll contact the
    author Atlant and have him send it to you for you to read."  "Fine,
    have a great Friday"  "You too Bob."  Simnple.  Done.  Onto the tasks
    at hand.
    
    So Atlant?  What's your thoughts?  Will you or will you not e-mail it
    to his attention?
    
    Mav

    
    .4
    
    good answer. Bob lives at MSO not MPO, so your odds of running into him
    in the hallway are kinds remote at best. :-) :-)

    I am from Asia-Pacific. While you folks are in this doomsday mood, we
    here in Manila are triumphant in dominating our local IT market. We
    only shipped 20 units of Alpha in 1993; today, as of July 1996, we have
    just shipped for 1996 nearly 150 of various sizes including half-a-dozen 
    Turbolasers we did not even dreamed of doing a year ago. We have driven a
    monthly seminar on various Digital products, even launched the local's
    first and biggest Internet product launch in Manila. Internet, databases,
    servers, NT - Digital's name is there. Well, a couple of years ago,
    people mistook us for a telephone company in Manila. Not anymore.
    We are proud of Digital, Alpha, and ourselves. 
    
    We are pounding the market with the 64-bit migration issues with
    one seminar after the other. People are listening. With the popularity
    of the Internet, the Digital brand went with it. We were late to market
    but we dislodge Sun from its ISP territory. Fact is we took a coup
    by taking the Internet World Manila in September away from Sun and now 
    we have the URL carrying the Digital logo. 
    
    Everywhere we fight we win. I was in Digital in that fateful October
    of 1993. We thought we were goners. Against all odds, just like you
    folks, we fought back fiercely. Now that we are better we cannot 
    afford to lose that momentum. Our PCs have doubled their sales, in
    fact our best year ever. Just like Claflin said it is selling well
    except in the largest market in the world. 
    
    In basketball, there is a school of thought that says "the best defense
    is a good offense". Now is the time to take the fight to the
    competition while we can before they can setup their defense. Once that
    defense is setup, we will lose if we just trade baskets. 
    
    The news has somehow dampen our victory spirit. But, we feel we need
    to celebrate despite the news. We did fine. We gave our best. And while 
    this great company allows us to do that we will. I am sorry that not
    all Digital (or DEC as some of our partners still call us) is
    celebrating. Nevertheless, for some of us who can we will.
    
    /joeljosol
                                                              

    One attitude that I've heard in a number of places, especially amongst
    service staff is "Do as much overtime as you can, get as much training
    as you can and hope its you."
    
    As for me, my little MTG group from Winnersh is run off its little
    feet.  But, the Classic service group I just left is really in the
    doldrums.
    
    R. Michael,  who rather likes this new job.

  I assure you, I *DID* mail a copy directly to Bob. I'd *NEVER*
  post something like this without doing so -- what's the point?

  (Now I see today that MTS$ bounced the first mail message because
  of a typo, but I'll be sending it again very soon.)

  And if anyone knows either the E-Mail or snail mail addresses
  for the rst of the Board of Directors, I'll be sending them
  copies as well. Monday, I'm sure I can get that answer from
  Investor Services if no one answers here sooner.

                                     Atlant

> (Now I see today that MTS$ bounced the first mail message because
> of a typo, but I'll be sending it again very soon.)

  It didn't bounce this time.

                                     Atlant

    Atlant,
    
    Well done!!!!!!!!
    
    
    Joe
    (whose setting up his saltwater tank again to chill again...)

RE: Message to Bob

Fantastic. I work in SPT (Australia and New Zealand) and a 
particularly large customer asked staight to my face in private. Is 
Digital going to survive. I have this impending doom and gloom 
everywhere around, I said I sure hope we do

    They are aware that you're getting these questions cuz they already    
    responded with this:
    
    Digital Update -- July 1996                                 Presentation
    
    DATE POSTED: 12-JUL-1996    LAST REVIEW: 12-JUL-1996    LENGTH: 0018 Slides
    
     This presentation is designed to help Account Managers and other customer
     facing employees respond to customer questions and concerns regarding
     Digital's recent re-structuring announcement.  The customary Quarterly
     Financial Focus presentation will augment this communication 02-AUG-1996.
    
     The EXE contains:
            - a PPT presentation (18 slides)
            - script in speaker notes sections
            - questions and answers in ASCII and DOC format.
    
Contact:
    MARGOT WALTHALL, @MSO, 223-9224, MSO2-1/H24
    SCOTT CRAMER, @MSO, 223-9227
    CAROL ANN RITZ, @MSO, 223-9248, MSO
    
    File Names     Bytes/Blocks  Description
    OL00E1SC.TXT    13940/    28 English Language, ASCII document
    OL00E1F4.PDF   347316/   679 Speakers Notes - PDF format
    OL00E1D4.PDF   498222/   974 Visuals PDF Format
    OL00E1S4.PS   2119582/  4140 Speaker Notes With Visuals for Any Digital
    Printer
    OL00E1P4.PS   4903468/  9578 PostScript Visuals for any Digital Printer
    OL00E1TM.EXE   248746/   486 Transparency Color PowerPoint Source in Executable
    OL00E1CM.EXE   281799/   551 Full Color PowerPoint Source in Executable File
    

    That's nice, but it's looking backwards (to help retain the attention
    and budgets of the people we are already dealing with).
    
    Digital has 5% (?) of the general IT market. There's lots of room for
    growth. Where's the market-specific attention-grabbing stuff to get
    off-base folks to be aware enough and confident enough to call Digital
    in and talk? When this is done well, the results can be tremendous: in
    one of the sectors I cover, Digital AND ALPHA has come from nowhere to
    top-notch player in less than two years, and some of the customers
    don't just buy kit, they buy 2hour response MCS service too. Let's hope
    this sector doesn't change again that quickly...
    
    regards
    john

> And if anyone knows either the E-Mail or snail mail addresses
> for the rst of the Board of Directors, I'll be sending them
> copies as well. Monday, I'm sure I can get that answer from
> Investor Services if no one answers here sooner.


  Me:                I'd like to write to the Board of Directors.
                     Do they have Email or USPS address(es)?

  Investor Services: What do you want to write to them about?

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Later, we got to the truth of the matter. According to the Law
  Department (where I eventually ended up):

    o The BoD doesn't have EMail addresses

    o The Corporation won't give out their home addresses (no big
      surprise -- angry shareholders might picket them! :-) )

    o But you can write to them at:

        Digital Equipment Corp. Board of Directors
        c/o Office of the Corporate Secretary
        111 Powdermill Road, MS MSO2-3/F13
        Maynard, MA  01720


  Enclose n individually addressed letters, else the Law Department
  will have to photocopy the letters themselves, and they didn't
  sound too pleased about that prospect. In fact, no one seemed
  very pleased that I might want to write to the Board of Directors
  at all. I can't imagine why, this being a publicly-held firm and
  all. Maybe they don't like the owners daring to express their
  opinion.
                                     Atlant

    
    at the UK sales conference last week, we were treated to two short
    videos, one of Harry Copperman, the next of Bob inspiring us for the
    next FY,and explaining what happened in Q4...
    
    Bob's video clip was introduced as  ".. and now, Bob Palmer, who also
    has really great hair..". Which got a great laugh. And probably sums up
    the feeling of the field. 64 bit haircut anyone ?
    

    Re .15:
    
    The haircut comment was probably a reaction to an article titled
    "Can Digital survive latest traumas?" in the July 8th issue of
    USA Today.  The article referred to "Bob Palmer, he of the slicked
    hair, fat diamond rings and short temper."

Not to mention the part in "The Dilbert Principle", where great hair 
seems to be one of the main requirements for senior management.

    _Now_ I know why I never made it!!
    
    
    :-)

re Note 4719.14 by ATLANT::SCHMIDT:

>   In fact, no one seemed
>   very pleased that I might want to write to the Board of Directors
>   at all. I can't imagine why, this being a publicly-held firm and
>   all. 

        I can -- there is no way that Digital would "stay the course"
        established during its decade of disaster if the BoD had good
        lines of communication with the employees in the trenches.

        Bob

    re .14
    Please provide the names of each member of the board.  After eight
    years I leave Digital this Friday (resignation).  I would love to tell
    the board about our less than great leadership.

    Re. 20
    
    Board of Directors (as per November 9, 1995 at the annual stockholders
                        meeting)
    
    Robert B. Palmer	Chairman of the Board
    			President and CEO Digital Equipment Corporation
    
    Vernon R. Alden	Director and Trustee of several organizations
    			Former Chairman, The Boston Company, Inc.
    
    Colby H. Chandler	Director of several corporations
    			Retired Chairman of the Board and CEO, Eastman
    			Kodak Company
    
    Arnaud de Vitry	Engineering consultant and Director and Trustee
    			of several organizations
    
    Frank P. Doyle	Executive Vice President, General Electric
    			Company, Director of several organizations
    
    Robert R. Everett	Retired President of the MITRE Corporation
    
    Kathleen F. Feldstein  President of Economics Studies, Inc.
    			and Director of several corporations
    
    Thomas P. Gerrity	Dean, Wharton School of the University of
    			Pennsylvania and Director of several corporations
    
    Thomas L. Phillips	Director of several corporations, Retired
    			Chairman of the Board and CEO Raython Company
    
    Delbert C. Staley	Director of several corporations, retired
    			Chairman of the Board and CEO, NYNEX Corporation
    
    
    So, these are at least the names. Addresses I don't have, but based
    on the above info it can't be difficult to find out.
    
    I don't want to temper the enthusiasm of those who intend to write to
    some or even all of these Directors, but about a year ago members of
    the works council in France had the opportunity to personaly discuss
    their concerns with Arnaud de Vitry. 
    It didn't help at all and France was hit hard several times (lay-offs)
    
    Regards,
    
    Frans

  I also agree that writing to the Board (or even to senior management)
  is potentially risky, especially if this Corporation's management is
  "running scared" (as it certainly ought to be by now, with the stock
  at least a 52-week low).

  On the other hand, are our jobs any safer if we don't do everything
  we can to save DEC? When the R.M.S. Digital sinks, we're all going
  to be at risk anyway.
                                    Atlant

    If the board or anyone in senior management, really did pay attention
    to what we think, how is it then that there has not been a few replies
    in here from BP, and the other VP's etc. 
    
    Out of 200 or so VP's, am I safe in assuming that none of them
    read/have access to notes. If so, come out and show us who you are!!!
    

> Out of 200 or so VP's, am I safe in assuming that none of them
> read/have access to notes.

  No, you're not safe. Some of the technical leadership of this
  corporation (ranked as VPs) can often be found reading/writing
  notes.
    
  On the other hand, I can see why an "Officer of the Corporation"
  would be reluctant to dash off a quick reply. Even if they're
  just giving you their personal opinion, they might be taken as
  speaking "ex cathedra", and might somehow bind themselves (or
  all of us!) by what they said. Could Bob actually come in here
  and say "Yes, the layoffs must stop!"?

  It's a lot harder to note when every time you want to type
  "REPLY" you have to run it past the lawyers.

                                        Atlant

    
    Bob Palmer has more pressing matters to attend to than read this
    notesfile. I highly doubt you will see a response from any senior
    manager in this company. He sure better be doing something with regards
    to our earnings and stock price. Also, don't forget we are in the TFSO
    mode right now as well.
    
    Mark

Mark:

> Bob Palmer has more pressing matters to attend to than read this
> notesfile. I highly doubt you will see a response from any senior
> manager in this company. He sure better be doing something with regards
> to our earnings and stock price. Also, don't forget we are in the TFSO
> mode right now as well.

  Does he [have more pressing matters]?

  What?

  What are our attrition rates? What functions in the corporation
  are not suffering from the deadly corporate anorexia that he has
  provoked? What are our customers saying about us? What are our
  *PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS* saying about us? How many still believe
  that Digital will exist as a free-standing entity in five years?
  How many of us believe it?

  I can't help but feel you need to read .0 again.


> Also, don't forget we are in TSFO mode right now as well.

  When in the last four or so years have we not been? When have
  DECcies been able to kick back and say "I think I can actually
  just *DO* my job today, and not worry about whether or not I'll
  be TSFO'd tomorrow"?

  It's precisely because we're always in TFSO mode that many of
  the negative impressions described in .0 came about.

                                       Atlant

    
    
    re. 0
    
    Heard everything you said out here in the west.
    Attending  a big track meet, many of those I know were asking me
    what the heck is going on at Digital. All of them deal with us
    in one form or another. Two were wearing caps with our logo
    on it.
    
    Anyway, the track meet was great.
    
    

    
    Not to mention business coming to a halt while the sales people vie
    for the few remaining jobs...
    
    Someone very far from the customer designed this re-org.

    re:.26
    			FLAME ON....
    
    Bob has more pressing matters than to read this notes file??? That's
    the biggest bunch of CRAP (no pun intended..) I've ever heard of !!!!!
    It's pretty obvious the he hasn't done his OTHER pressing matters
    rather well. I'm sure he should atleast have some type of PULSE of what WE
    (stockholders and Valued Employee's (sic) ) see, hear and feel about Digital
    as it once was and is NOW...
    
    Joe Crap

    Two years ago one of my notes in Digital was forwarded to Mr. Palmer
    by one of his notes savey staff.  
    
    I believe (never really verified it) that Mr. Palmer sent me a reply
    but it's one of my most treasured E-mail messages (never got an E-mail
    personally thanking me from a president of the company before).
    
    With that said, it's been a long time since any rumor or reference has
    been in this notesfile that the SLT bothers with anything here.
    
    When I would post stories of some of my exploits, I'd get a couple of
    dozen messages of cheer and support.  Now after all the downsizing I get 
    barely a handful and only the "Old-Timers" who seem comfortable with 
    notes.
    
    I think that's sad, but part of our changing company.
    
    Not to speak blasphemy but perhaps this notesfile is outliving it's
    ablity to be an agent for information and change for many people in 
    our company.  Perhaps it's time to retire this notesfile and move
    to a WEBforum, or something that is directly accessable to the 
    PC driven folks (members of the SLT included).
    
    It's time for one common Intranet within Digital.  On system that
    can address conferencing, E-mail, notes/forums, archives, tools, 
    information, and business systems.  If we do not unify our systems
    we run the risk of continued disjointed pools of employees who feel
    that "My tools" are the best and have islands of information
    inaccessable from other employee's tools of choice.
    
    The best communications system (for better or worse) is a system (like 
    a telephone) that Everyone can use to communicate  with and knowing  
    that everyone else is using the same system too.
    
    The technically challenged of our company are not interested in taking
    the extra step to get to places like the "DIGITAL" notesfile when 
    Altavista and other tools don't stop there from the click of a mouse
    button.
    
    We need to gather everyone back to the same CB channel, WEBpage, 
    E-mail system, Notes/Forum client, so that we can start talking
    to each other again.  In times of rapid change... That type of 
    communication is critical.
    
    Of course that's just my opinion... I may be wrong.
    
    John Wisniewski

    Well, Harry Copperman's apparently learnt how to use WRITE and REPLY.
    If he can, what stops the others...

Just an off-hand observation from .21, having absolutely nothing to do with
the topic -

Did anyone else happen to notice that eight out of ten members of the BoD
are simultaneously a "director of other corporations"?

Does anyone else ever wonder whether "conflict of interest" becomes an
issue for such folks?

RE: .31

	Not to rag on the web forum folks, but it's not there yet. I have
	yet to come across a PC or Web-based application that can compete
	with (DEC)Notes in maintaining a "conversation".  Nor can I find
	any that I don't have to "mouse" thru. I can fly thru a bunch
	of conferences with Notes and its trusty keypad keys. The same
	cannot be said of things like newsreaders, web pages, Windows
	Notes clients.

	Notes is NOT hard. It has NOT outlived its usefullness. Alot of
	products can still learn from an application that hasn't had 
	any serious development done to it in over 5+ years.

	Don't shoot the medium/messenger.

							mike

It is common (indeed, typical) for directors to serve on the boards of
multiple companies.

				Steve

    .32
    Have you been in the ::sbu file? Harry introduced himself and that's
    all. From what I've seen, everyone is waiting for him to use the 
    WRITE and REPLY commands

>================================================================================
>Note 4719.37                       Dear Bob...                          37 of 37
>WRKSYS::QUEBEC                                        4 lines  16-JUL-1996 13:42
>                           -< no one home at ::sbu >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    .32
>    Have you been in the ::sbu file? Harry introduced himself and that's
>    all. From what I've seen, everyone is waiting for him to use the 
>    WRITE and REPLY commands

Have _you_ been in there? He seems to have responded at least thrice in
addition to his introductory note. (See 3.1, 5.2 and 11.2). Not bad for
a conference that's only been around less than a month.

    yes I have --- it had been quiet for quite some time
    sorry

  <<< Note 4719.35 by AXEL::FOLEY "Rebel Without a Clue-foley@zko.dec.com" >>>
                          -< In defense of Notes... >-

RE: .31

>	Not to rag on the web forum folks, but it's not there yet. I have
>	yet to come across a PC or Web-based application that can compete
>	with (DEC)Notes in maintaining a "conversation".  Nor can I find
>	any that I don't have to "mouse" thru. I can fly thru a bunch
>	of conferences with Notes and its trusty keypad keys. The same
>	cannot be said of things like newsreaders, web pages, Windows
>	Notes clients.

    I wasn't doing a technical comparison or the differences (I don't like
    the graphical notes readers either) I was just commenting that many of
    the folks that are left have never used notes, will never use notes
    but may use some other tool...
    
    
>	Notes is NOT hard. It has NOT outlived its usefullness. Alot of
>	products can still learn from an application that hasn't had 
>	any serious development done to it in over 5+ years.

    Notes is not hard, it's just not Universal at DEC (or so it seems)
    We either need to make a transparent medium for DEC folks to
    communicate with.
    
>	Don't shoot the medium/messenger.

    There needs to be a PUBLIC and Private means of Electronic
    Conferencing.  More and more Notes falls into the Private 
    catagory with less and less of an audiance.  I don't have an
    answer... Just that observation...
    
    John W.

    
    Hi Atlant,
    
    I've been holding back to see if you've gotten any life signs from
    upstairs... well, apparently not.
    
    I've been doing a lot of acceptance lately (yep, that's my next
    religion :-)); one of it being nobody is upstairs to check, let
    alone do anything about a note like yours in .0
    
    That was a commendable effort on your part, but I do not get any
    impression that upper management wants any of this appalling death
    spiral to end. Frankly, I believe that the business model Digital is
    getting towards is similar to (not exactly now) some Big 6 whereby
    the core headcount are the VP's and their 1st/2nd level lieutenants,
    while the actual work is being done via outsourced labor. Why else
    would Digital have over 200 VP's (and STILL counting) for stagnant
    14B-size company?
    
    Hope you're not  getting your hopes too high about getting any
    body to bat an eyelash over this.
    
     

    re .41
    
    You may be on to something.  Today a Digital manager told me that his
    goal "is to manage an organization that has no resources."

re.35:

>        Not to rag on the web forum folks, but it's not there yet. I have
>        yet to come across a PC or Web-based application that can compete
>        with (DEC)Notes in maintaining a "conversation".  

Webnotes from OS Tech. comes closest. 

Dave.

    
    Atlant
    
    I was not knocking your note, it was well written. All I was trying
    to point out is that you will *NOT* see Bob Palmer or any other senior
    executive respond to your note in this topic. I would bet my life
    on it, I'm that sure. And, he better be doing something about our stock
    price and poor earnings outlook. We are the laughing stock of the
    computer industry. If this turnaround fails, he should be fired, plain
    and simple. You listening Bob?

.31 is SPOT ON.

Look folks, I've been watching humane::digital for a while now
very quitely.  It's been tough...morale has been at an all 
time low.

We lost a person on Monday in my group, a person that was hired
only two short months ago.  There is no need for me to vent in
here, this speaks for itself.

Digital is probably going to lose me some day.  That's too bad...
but it's a fact because 'attrition' is part of the strategy here.

But that does not shake my deep belief in this company and it's
technology.  YES, this is a technology company, it's not the 
solution, it's the technology, it's the elegance of our Engineering 
and I'll be damned if I ever lose sight of that.  To the bitter end 
I intend to fight for Digital...

Push push push push!!  Beat up your direct.  I am constantly;
"what can I do to make it better boss?"..."look at this change 
I made!" "check out this web page!"

go go go go go!!!

Acceptance?

Never.  I believe in Digital, the people in Digital, the technology,
the culture.  Is it hard? You bet!!  Do I sometimes well up close to
tears as I buck complancency and acceptance...too often I do.  Thank
God I have found an outlet outside of work to vent the stress...

As long as we are here people, let's keep fighting to make a difference,
and console eachother in here...maybe the death of notes and the start
of a new Web based forum will be the sign that we all collectively are
not in acceptance mode any longer, I dunno.

I believe that if the Atlants of the world, the Stephen Whites of the
world, ever do resign to acceptance with the current state of the 
corporation, we are indeed doomed.

This is much like the end of a very long marathon, and now we need to
somehow find the energy to sprint to the line.  Only in this scenario,
the finish line keeps moving away from us!!

-Stephen

    
    Stephen:
    
    I agree that there is something worth saving, above and beyond our
    individual jobs. Digital had a reason for coming into existence nearly
    40 years ago, and I believe that fundamental purpose still exists. 
    
    I think that what we lost sight of sometime ago was the sense of
    purpose and mission. After all, technology in itself is admirable, and
    we've always been leaders in innovative, high-quality IT products and
    services, but I believe our purpose is enabling people at work to 
    exchange data and information with each other,to communicate whenever, 
    wherever and however necessary. OUr mission - purpose in action - is
    the creation and delivery of the best technology possible to achieve
    the mission. 
    
    Until we remember why we're here, fundamentally, it's difficult to know
    what direction we're headed in. Strategies are the ways we accomplish
    our mission and purpose. And among our goals is success for our customers,
    partners, and ourselves and - oh, yes - profitability. 
    
    I've been in so many meetings recently in which people have said that
    our reason for being was to be profitable. Period. But that misses the
    point. Profit is the outcome, not the purpose. If you are true to who
    and what you are as a company and individually, then success, and
    profit follow. 
    
    Growth for its own sake is part of what got us into trouble in the
    first place. And practicing corporate anorexia, as the Wall St. Journal
    described the condition that lots of companies find themselves in,
    in downsizing and restructuring isn't THE answer. 
    
    I'm encouraged by entries here that describe situations in which people
    continue to believe in the rightness of what we have to offer people in
    meeting their need to communicate information effectively in their
    organizations. I'm trying to remind anyone who'll listen to me that as
    long as we focus solely on the bottom line, we'll miss the real
    importance of what we're here for. 
    
    In a world in which it seems that survival is all there is, those who
    survive and endure have something to live for - a sense of purpose in
    their lives. We and Digital have an admirable purpose that is still
    valid - I maintain that if we take embrace that sense of purpose, and
    act on it, we can actually go beyond survival and endurance to triumph.
    
    Gloria     

    Finally got some time to reply to the basenote, which I might summarise
    as follows:
    
    Are we giving the market the impression the company is dying ?
    
    Is the company dying ?
    
    Please stop laying people off, we need them.
    
    Also there is an implicit criticism of Bob Palmer ie do you realise
    what you are doing and how it is being recieved ?
    
    There is also the discussion of the role of the Board of Directors.
    
    Regarding the PR for this wave of layoffs, I agree it has been poor. 
    
    Noone believes anymore that restructuring will cure the company's
    problems on its own, so this line fell as flat as it could have done.
    HP took a charge, but there was less hullaballoo about it. We should
    have done this with more self assurance and less noise. Let's hope that
    the Q4 results will be a pleasant surprise in this context, but there
    was a wave of demoralisation following the announcement that does not
    help.
    
    
    Is the company dying ? I don't think so at all. In contrast to previous
    restructuring efforts, there are some aspects of this round which are
    less gloomy. Firstly, we are restructuring out of a position of profit
    and over a longer period. Secondly, it is not all cuts. There is some
    investment in Sales, Support, and Marketing going on in Europe. Knowhow
    has been brought in and from where I am sitting it is impressive. 97%
    of phone calls are answered in 10 seconds, a lot solved in one hour and
    after one day there is mostly cleaning up to
    do. Thirdly, we have a parnership strategy which has shown some gains
    and we have a lead in 64-bit technology. Alright we have blown nearly
    five billion in cash since 1991, but we ain't done yet.
    
    Stop the layoffs ? Yes of course, we have skilled people, we should use
    them. As a rehire myself, I believe this :-) And if this time we have
    skilled people leaving on Friday, and greenhorn contractors sitting at
    their desks on Monday, then we should do something about it....
    
    Is it all Bob's fault ? No I don't think so. A lot of really awful
    decisions, bordering on corrupt, were taken shortly before he took
    over, and you cannot turn round and oil tanker in the dock, it takes
    time. He made some questionable decisions trying to deal with the mess,
    but it was not his mess, and it seems to me he has learned from it, in
    that this round of restructuring is combined with some agressive
    investment. 
    
    Regarding the Board of Directors, well their record is not very
    impressive is it ? Up to 1992 the policy was: Leave it to Ken. Up to
    about 1989 that worked fine, but their was a complete failure to deal with
    the crisis that developed after that. So I would like to see more
    employee control and participation in the company. We know,
    collectively, what makes it tick and what is broken. But that knowlege
    is not used. 
    
    BTW, a mail went round Europe last week asking for questions to the
    DVN, so I think the CEO's office does want to know what we are
    thinking. I expect I was not alone in replying.
    
    Kevin 

>    to point out is that you will *NOT* see Bob Palmer or any other senior
>    executive respond to your note in this topic. I would bet my life
>    on it, I'm that sure. 

     I think you're going to regret those words.

    
    <---- yeah, right. I'll believe it if he responds. Until then, I stand
    by my words.
    
    Mark

    I have read the responses to the "Dear Bob" note and would like to make
    some observations.
    
    Several people suggested that I did not have an opportunity to review
    what is on your mind.  Others suggested that someone occasionally
    prints off what is in the Notesfile, so that I can review when time
    permits.  The latter is most often the case, but the important thing is
    I do get to read your unfiltered comments.
    
    I hope some of you had the opportunity to see the DVN I did from Europe
    discussing many of the issues that were raised in the Notesfile.  I
    plan to find a few minutes tomorrow to add some additional comments.
    
    Regards, 
    Bob                                        

re: .44:
    
|    I was not knocking your note, it was well written. All I was trying
|    to point out is that you will *NOT* see Bob Palmer or any other senior
|    executive respond to your note in this topic. I would bet my life
|    on it, I'm that sure.

	Speaking of Hara-kiri. 6999 to go :-)

    Thank you Bob! It's reassuring to know you check in on us and 
    our frustrations. 
    
    The Digital Notesfile has always been part watercooler, confessional,
    soapbox, local pub, guild-hall, and padded room.
    
    It's good to know we're not alone...
    
    John W.

    re: .49   (ACISS1::BATTIS "Windy City idiot")
    
    I've heard that crow goes down easier with lots of catsup! ;^)

    With a friend in the lobby of one of our competitors there was this
    big poster with company values/goals:
    - easy to do business with
    - profitability
    - teamwork
    - quality
    - people
    
    The first bullet is right on, customers and partners still find Digital
    to difficult to do business with and therefore go to competitors. BTW,
    the competitors name is Sequent (in case you wonder).
    
    Cheers,
    Henny

    Bob,
    
    Are our attrition rates as bad as I and others perceive it to be?
    It is very disheartening to see so many long term employees, the
    bedrock of this company, giving up. After so many years of cuts 
    and belt tightening, with no end in sight (the latest announcement
    was a real blow to morale) I can't say as I blame them. (Take a
    look at the last hundred or so replies to note 3107 in here.)
    
    Is the latest round *really* necessary, or was it the knee-jerk
    reaction it appeared to be to employees and the industry (see the 
    news clips and discussion in notes 4690.93 through .123). I know
    we have great products, but who is going to buy from a company in
    such dire straits that a bad quarter triggers an 11% workforce cut?
    
    No, I didn't see the DVN - I don't have the time; I have to get a 
    product ready to ship (yes, I'm really writing this note at 3:00 AM)
    and the rate at which people are choosing to leave the group I'm in 
    is making this a real challenge (let alone figuring out how in hell
    we're going to deliver on what we've been tasked with in the future).
    
    I find Atlant's letter in .0 very apropros and timely, and hope you 
    will find time to respond to our questions/concerns in some depth.
    
    Regards,

>This is much like the end of a very long marathon, and now we need to
>somehow find the energy to sprint to the line.  Only in this scenario,
>the finish line keeps moving away from us!!

Stephen, it's being pushed away from us.

	mikeP

    ......two teams work hard all year to get to the championship i.e.
    the superbowl....each team is talented in all aspects....one team
    will win...the other will lose....
    
    Why will one team win and the other lose......?
    
    the losing team spent the entire season focused on just getting to
    the superbowl....while the winning team focused on winning the
    superbowl.......
    
    
    regards to you MR. PALMER
    

    
    curious..
    
    how did you work out the figure of 7000 persons who would need to be
    let go ?  Can you show me the math. Thanks. I recall a similarly
    precise number around two years ago, context = ABU Europe I believe.
    "..I have calculated that we need a staff of 10,000..". Yeah, right.
    Then we all Went To Market. And here we are again...
    
    BTW, probably the last thing that needs to happen in the 'troubled'
    European territories right now (France, Germany, maybe Switzerland..?)
    is to wield the axe (again). We are dying in these territories due to
    botched restructurings in the recent past (see paragraph above),
    and customers going away from us since then. Try actually *investing*
    with part of the restructuring charge, to try to grow the business a
    tad, rather than dumping out people in (too much of) a hurry. Or else,
    shut the subsidiaries down, and be done with it.
    
    
    

    Re .59
    
    >>the losing team spent the entire season focused on just getting to
    >>the superbowl....while the winning team focused on winning the
    >>superbowl.......
    
    Translating this internally, it may look like this:
    
    In Digital, the teams, which focus  in getting to the superbowl
    typically win (ie. the teams/individuals, who concentrate on internal
    politics). The teams, which concentrate in winning the superbowl
    (the ones, who try to master, what needs to be done) are often closed
    out as oddities.
    
    That may also be the reason, why Digital is such a difficult business
    partner.
    
    Of course, a true winning team has both qualities ;-).
    
    --Ritva        

The following is an mail extract from my sister.  She is the director
of the Physical Therapy Department at the University of Hartford (Conn.).
UH is almost completely Digital equiped, happily so.  If some of our best
customers are raising these questions....

>I need to order two new computers for new faculty. My assistant asked me if I
>had any preferences so I said I wanted to stick with Digital so they would be
>the same. Her response was "I heard they were going out of business."  I tried
>to snuff out the rumor but I am not sure how much affect I had. 
>
>-
>Susan Glenney
>Email: glenney@uhavax.hartford.edu

    
    .50
    
    um, where would you like me to send the body??
    
    open mouth, insert foot. needs ketchup.
    
    Mark

    And let's not forget the need for BOTH leadership and management.
    
    A leader has the vision, sets the direction, motivates the troops, and
    reflects upon the results of the previous campaign when planning for
    the current campaign.
    
    A manager executes the plan, works the details, provides front line
    consistency, and removes obstacles for the troops.  
    
    We have the former.  We are sorely lacking the latter.  In fact, in all
    my years here at Digital and of all the managers whom I have worked
    with, I would only have hired a handful to come work for me -- if I
    ever had the opportunity to do so.
    
    The sad reality here at DEC is that so many troops know what needs to
    be done and how to do it.  We will know that we are on the real road to
    recovery when our leader asks for our advice and follows it.  
    
    We will churn and burn until that happens.
    
    
    Randy

> A leader has the vision, sets the direction, motivates the troops, and
> reflects upon the results of the previous campaign when planning for
> the current campaign.
> 
> We have the [leadership].

  I disagree. As I mentioned, our customers and prospects
  don't seem to know what our vision is. That could be due
  to a tactical failure to communicate the vision (a manage-
  ment problem) but *I* don't know (anymore) what the vision
  is either. And I've been actively listening to top level
  management (the ostensible leaders) for just such a vision.

  And then there's the question of "motivates the troops".
  Many notes here speak to that far more eloquently than
  I can.
                                   Atlant

    Perhaps the shareholders would be better served if we used some of that
    "one time charge" to get some airplay in the media. We have in the past
    made investements in producing commercials for TV. Let's continue the
    investment and PLAY THEM! Show the world that we are still here.
    
    r
    
    

>  I disagree. As I mentioned, our customers and prospects
>  don't seem to know what our vision is. That could be due
>  to a tactical failure to communicate the vision (a manage-
>  ment problem) but *I* don't know (anymore) what the vision
>  is either. And I've been actively listening to top level
>  management (the ostensible leaders) for just such a vision.
>

If you talk to the Sales Reps, based on what they're being told by the SBU 
about their FY97 goals, our "vision" is to sell server boxes, period. That's 
all they believe they're going to be goaled on. There's talk about bonuses 
for PCs, Services, Workstations, etc., but the main budget appears to be
based on Alpha Servers. 'Course we'll be halfway thru with Q1 before the 
Reps really know what their goals are, so their behavior for the first 6-7
weeks may be different than the second 6-7 weeks. Sales Reps are focusing
(for now) on selling Servers, and if anything else is an "easy sell",
they'll take it. But at least the Reps I deal with are not going out
of their way to sell PCs, SI, Workstations, etc.

This is not any knock on the Reps - they're being pushed into doing 
"whatever it takes" to put food on the table, and right now, it appears that 
the only thing guaranteed to make their goals is selling Alpha Servers.

    RE: .50  Bob Palmer

    Thanks for responding to this topic!!  You still have the most
    impressive Notes personal name ("BOB PALMER") in the Digital
    noting community.  :-)

    Why are the AltaVista SW Marketing folks being cut this week?

    AltaVista is giving Digital a huge 'presence' on the internet, and
    we've always needed MORE 'marketing' (not LESS) in the 14.5 years
    that I've been with Digital.

    Why would any group associated with AltaVista be downsized?

    Thanks,
    Suzanne Conlon / Software Engineer

    I'll second that emotion. To the outside world, Dan Kalikow was an
    impressive representative of Digital.
    
    /andy

    IMHO, we continue to underestimate our leader, Bob. I'm delighted to
    see his response, and trust ('cuz I must) that he's integrating
    our/your views into his database from which to determine what next to
    do. What isn't visible nor apparent is that he "inspects" below his
    direct reports, at least based on my observations of actions as
    contrasted with statements. I.e., we don't walk the talk, and when
    that's the situation, the discrepancy creates FEAR.
    
    Let me explain. 4 years ago, I wrote Bob regarding my observation that
    Digital people were in large measure parallized (sp?) by uncertainty.
    This manifested itself in "do what you're told" behavior among formerly
    "do what's right" people, reduction/elimination of internal challenging
    to directives/suggestions, and other symptoms that suggested the
    traditional "DEC" personality of (albeit internally-focused) debate and
    no-holds-barred discussion regarding management dictates, had been
    replaced by an environment of FEAR (False Events Appearing Real). This
    manifests itsself in hunkering down of non-contributors, political
    activity among fearful managers, and other non-productive behavior
    among otherwise productive employees. I.e., WE bought in to not
    asserting the creativity and other characteristics that made "DEC"
    unique. WE were afraid to tell "the emperor he has no clothes."
                                            
    I wrote Bob just after seeing the DVN with John Donovan regarding CTG,
    where John explained what unsuccessful companies do to repair themselves
    (downsize, and 3 others I don't recall). I had asked my then-current
    manager how Bob could be on the stage with someone who essentially
    "blasted" everything we were doing. She said: "ask Bob." I did. And he
    replied (according to Win Hindle, whom I met 1 week later for career
    guidance, and told me that Bob had "probably" written the reply
    himself, as Win said was his wont, given the "filter" on the many
    mesages he receives each day -- i.e., my email was of sufficient
    interest to warrant a direct review/reply).
    
    Bob did not, in my view, understand the message I was trying to convey.
    It was simply that FEAR is responsible for the under-performance of our 
    people. This is a phenonmenon more acute in the US than AP, where
    I've spent the last 4+ years. We're doing quite well, thank you.
    However, I trust that while my first message to Bob was poorly worded,
    and this one relatively vague, he'll receive at least a summary, and
    consider the essence and review against his actions as our leader, and
    "manager." My sincere hope is that he appreciates what took me some
    time to learn, which is that a manager can "fail" by him/herself, but
    if he/she takes the "risk" of believing that their team will carry them
    to success given leadership and support, anything is possible -- even a
    $100/share stock price. 
    
    Cheers,
    Bill

    Everything seems to be driven by earnings per employee these days. I
    don't see that changing any time soon.

Re: .62

>the same. Her response was "I heard they were going out of business."  I tried
>to snuff out the rumor but I am not sure how much affect I had. 


This week's "Computerworld" has already relegated us to the status of Wang Labs. 
The title on their editorial this week dealt with asking if IBM is going to be 
the next Digital?

Revenue/employee is used to compare various companies within our industry.

As any other metric it must be put in context and understood and is not
an end in itself.

To affect the metric you can, as was stated, increase revenue or decrease
employees or both.

Removing employees in some cases can make the metric look better 
but have a negative effect on other rather important metrics.  Take 
for example a case in which you outsource work currently done in-house 
and it costs more to do it outside.  The profit metric is adversely 
affected.

I believe that today, the financial community is looking for just two 
things:

1: Revenue growth - can you prove that you can grow revenue (at least at 
   the rate of industry growth)

2: Profit growth - As you grow revenue, you better at least grow profits 
   in step with revenue growth.

Example:

Coca Cola just announced quarterly earnings.  Profit up 18% on 8% revenue
growth.  Exactly what the street wants.

The message the financial community sent us was that they simply don't 
believe we can grow revenue at all, and they don't really have any 
confidence in even a stable level of profits.

While news that we are cutting heads used to sound good to Wall St when
we were profusely bleeding red ink, we are in a different stage of our
recovery.

Now it means that we are incapable of growth, perhaps even in a death 
spiral.

Notice how our management never really targets revenue growth or speaks
about it?  We are enamored with Alpha unit growth or some other such metric
that we can twist to imply significant growth.  Growth in Wall St. terms 
has absolutely nothing to do with units or widgets or anything else.  
It is growth in the bottom line... both revenue and profit.

    re.50:
    
    Could the real Bob Palmer please standup...
    
    Guenther

    Re: .71
    
    At least in my geography, most employees which have left, were related
    to revenue generation functions, while overhead functions were not
    affected in the same degree. When i first joined Digital (mid 70's), 3/4
    of our local management comittee were revenue generators, today this
    relation is 1/4 and the number of members doubled. 
    
    Looks like it is a matter of budget. While some functions don't do
    their Revenue Budgets and are accountted for that, others, make their
    Expense Budget and thats 'ok'. Why some, with no responsability on
    revenue, have "the right to spend"?
    
    What we need is to focus in Serving our Customers, as good as possible,
    having the best products, the best cost/benefit ratio, the best
    services (MCS, SI, OMS) and the best group of workers and, of course,
    make the customers believe that we are the best choice.
    
    Jansen.

    The company is at a crossroads right now. If we continue to perpetuate
    the layoffs and poor morale, and don't change the way we do business
    with our customers and partners, we will eventually go down the tubes.
    However, if we make the processes simpler, ensure job stability and
    provide an opportunity for career growth for the employees, we could
    get right back on track. It is now critical that the company institute
    process evaluations by non-senior management and concurrently establish
    a group of individuals that looks at how morale can be improved and
    have those people work directly with Bob Palmer for his decisions.
    Otherwise, tree-hugging, politics and the overwhelming filters of
    other senior management will prevent positive actions from being taken. 
    
    I, for one, would want to help wo k to make this company great again.
    It's now or never.
    
                             
    -Bert-
    

    re .77
    "now" as you put it was a long time ago.  You suggest that the company
    could go down the tubes.  I need to tell you that we are already in the
    tube and going down fast.  This was a great company!  I loved it and
    tried to make it work.  However, management has caused the company to
    lose its greatness.  Local management is only concerned with where in
    the "bird cage" they will land.  Local management does not, repeat,
    does not do much of anything to improve morale, does not do anything to
    help develop business, does not call on customers to help keep
    business.  Managements only activities seem to be in ensuring that they
    have their comfortable jobs.
    
    We could gut the management ranks of many managers that are what I call
    the 'good ol boy network' and be much better off.  I believe that Bob
    has tried, but he has only lifted the cover off the bed.  He has failed
    to lift the sheets and deal with the bed bugs that need exterminated.
    
    My efforts to help maintain the greatness of this organization have
    been to say the least frustrating.  So much so that I leave the
    remnants of this company tomorrow.  Two of my peers are also leaving. 
    We have lost hope.

    Being able to buy a pencil when you need one might improve morale a
    little.

    Re: .78
    
    It is a shame that the company is losing people like you because I can
    only assume that you have worked hard and long to contribute to the
    betterment of the company. The fact that you are leaving is symptomatic
    of what ails this company; the instability, constant fear, lack of
    career and income growth potential, etc.. However, I do not think
    the ship has sunk. It is taking on water but with the right pumps
    and crew teamwork, it can float again and head towards it's destination.
    However, the water is getting deep and the captains better let the
    crew help bail it out before it sinks.
     
    
    -Bert-

    I hear many complaints with "management" stuck in them, but then only
    "Manager" that I know personally is my boss. I have met his boss,
    (once) and that's it. My boss has to cover damn near an entire STATE,
    top to bottom, left to right, as well as report to New England for
    "meetings". I'd like to know how he is expected to go visit customers
    (pro-actively) while putting out the fires (P.O. customers) doing
    appraisals for people he sees once or twice a year and dealing while
    large amounts of email (junk and otherwise).
    
    At this level of "Management" Coverage, there should be 3 layers
    between myself and you (Bob). I would like to see a real live up to
    date org chart of Digital Equipment - I think there would be a few
    surprises there.
    
    If Digital is serious about Customers, existing and otherwise, then the
    bloodletting at the bottom must cease. The people that are left are the
    good ones, keep them - and tell them so. The only one who can inspire
    the troops is the leader, if the Leader is seen only as a despot who
    chops heads as the default when things go bad there will be only fear
    and loathing in the trenches. If the troops see a plan, a vision of
    what will be, they will rally behind the Leader and march on. And kick
    some serious butt.
    
    .mike.
    
     

re: last couple.

I talk to more and more people out in the field, mostly field engineers, that
have their resumes out on the street looking for a new job. So many of them are
looking over their shoulder waiting to be tapped for the next round of layoff's
or the round that will follow. They can't afford to be out of a job, so they
would rather jump ship now and not wait for the tap, even if it never comes,
they are nervous not knowing whats going to happen. Also they are leaving
because of the hours they are working and the personal and professional stress
this is putting on them. If we lose our valuable field engineers, we might as
well close up shop, because customers are not going to buy our equipment if they
can't get it serviced in a timely fashion.

Brad

    Proposal:
    
    	Six month headcount freeze to take effect immediately, no layoffs.
    
        Everyone in the company takes an immediate 10% pay cut. That will
        get EVERYONE's attention and should stop the bull____ting, finger 
        pointing, empire building, backstabbing, blame transferring and . . .
        There are many more than the 7000 that deserve to shoulder the
        burden of this failure than the 10% that are being laid off.
    
        Mandatory minimum 55-60 hour work week. For some 55-60 hours means
        you can start your weekend on Wednesday !
    
        All employees have the opportunity to save theirs or their friends
    	jobs.
    
        E V E R Y O N E get the hell out of the wagon and start pulling !
    
        Don't buy anything that isn't going to contribute directly to
        revenue and  sell everything that isn't tied down.
    
        Management Team can lead, follow or get out of the way. Successful
    	and growth companies have empowered employees that don't have to be
    	pushed towards the work.  We need 60,000 individual contributors
        willing to share the blame and willing to give credit for success to 
        someone else. Chances are pretty good that we currently have 59,800
        that are already in that category if we would just let them go.
    
        If an agressive profit goal is not reached by xx-xx-xxxx then do
        what you have to do.
    
        Hey, Wall Street might even show some sympathy for a company of
        60,000 with "foxhole religion".                
    
        F.J.  
    
        I already have "noter's remourse". Maybe I should just slip this
    	over a transom.
    
                                              

   I wanted to find a few minutes to answer the "Dear Bob" entry in some 
   detail.  First of all, I want to thank you for expressing your opinion.  
   It is understandable that some people you talk to will have a weak 
   perception of Digital.  It is also understandable that the current 
   situation has caused an erosion in confidence among many employees.
   
   However, it is appropriate that we all understand as clearly as possible 
   where we stand, what we have accomplished, and why the long term future 
   of our company is bright.
   
   Let me address your points directly, starting with tactical things we 
   must do.
   
   Number one: "develop a realistic strategy and stick to it".  The fact is 
   we have done that.  It was different two years ago, where it would have 
   been nearly impossible for any employee to stand in front of a customer 
   and articulate our strategy clearly.  Everybody at Digital can do it 
   today.  What matters is that our strategy has the following attributes: 
   it is simple; it has depth; it is directly aligned with where the market 
   is going.  And we have products and services to back it up.  We have the 
   opportunity to attain a leadership position in the industry and obtain a 
   good return for our shareholders - and our employees.  The key is 
   execution, which brings me to your second point.
   
   "Tell people about our strategy".  Yes, you are correct.  We have made 
   progress here but not effective enough.  The issue is not just 
   financial.  It is partly cultural and partly motivated by the fact that 
   a financial turnaround involves serious constraints that you must face 
   and deal with.  We have focused on branding, effectively and within our 
   means.  We have focused on SBU programs, partner campaigns, channel 
   engagement and, above all, coordination across our business units so 
   that Digital is presented as one company with clear messages.  We 
   exercised judgment in choosing our target audience, and the measured 
   return on this investment is high.  Do we stop here?  No.  This is the 
   start of an ongoing phase that will align our marketing effort with our 
   strategy - our three fundamental areas: high performance 64-bit UNIX; 
   Windows NT; and the Internet.  To sum it up, today we have outstanding 
   products and services, and we have begun to tell people about them.
   
   This brings me to your last point: "stop bleeding people".  This, of 
   course, is not the way I refer to the process of aligning resources with 
   revenues, but the result can be interpreted as such.  We have begun to 
   grow, but even if revenues per employee climb quickly, our cost 
   structure is below competitive levels.  We have taken a restructuring 
   provision that is required to address this issue, and I do expect the 
   outcome to have lasting positive results for the corporation.  I 
   understand that shocking headlines in the newspapers are not what you 
   want to talk to your customers about, but more than that I am more 
   concerned with the way in which we handle this difficult step, 
   appreciating that most people are trying hard to make Digital succeed 
   and showing sensitivity to it.  When confronted with the headlines you 
   describe, it is also appropriate that you take a step back and review 
   with your customers the very large number of positive headlines we 
   earned over the last twelve months.
   
   The bottom line to making progress faster is excellence in execution 
   around the strategy we set for the corporation.  Success is being 
   attained in many areas of the corporation. We have achieved six 
   consecutive quarters of profitability, and I expect Q4FY96 to be in the 
   black, from operations, when we announce our results July 30.  We have 
   our Alpha architecture as the highest performance in the industry and 
   have grown our UNIX, storage and network products business 
   significantly.  These are a few examples of our progress; there are many 
   others.
   
   The complexity of the challenges we face will take the energy of many 
   individuals working together so that the team represents much more that 
   the sum of the individuals who make it up.  The Notesfile provides an 
   example of a tool that brings together people across the organization to 
   address and resolve customer needs effectively.  I was particularly 
   pleased to see the number of comments suggesting that we all need a 
   greater focus on our customers.  I could not agree more.  The vision 
   statement adopted by our Asia Pacific employees is an excellent 
   statement that I hope you all will reflect upon:  "We do whatever it 
   takes to ensure every customer engagement is a quality, rewarding, 
   memorable experience."
   
   Finally, let me close with a reference to note entry 4719.6.   What is 
   taking place in Manila is representative of what is taking place in many 
   other areas of the world, including the States:  a winning attitude, 
   focused on leveraging our strengths and demonstrating to our customers 
   that Digital has the right solution and is the right partner to do 
   business with.  Clearly, I look forward to this attitude becoming 
   contagious at a faster rate.  I am confident that we have a bright, 
   long-term future.  My actions are being judged by my Board of Directors.
   
   Regards,
   Bob

    First, thanks for the thoughtful reply, Bob. I may be out in left field
    here, but I must comment with regards to the thought that "Everybody at
    Digital" can articulate our strategy: It doesn't seem that way from
    where I sit. 
    
    I work at the US CSC and wondering what business(es) Digital is going
    to focus on is a common topic of conversation among my peers. We may
    have missed out somewhere along the way, but we really aren't clear on
    where Digital is going in the future.  We'd like to put our paddles in
    the water and help row, but we're not sure what direction to go.
    
    So this is just to let you know that there may be a need to communicate
    your vision of the future strongly and repeatedly within Digital
    until everybody gets it.  

                                 THE COMPANY
 
         Digital Equipment Corporation is the world's leader in open 
         client/server computing solutions from personal computers to 
         integrated worldwide information systems.  Digital's scalable 
         64-bit Alpha platforms, networking, software and services, 
         together with industry-focused solutions from business 
         partners, help organizations compete and win in today's 
         global marketplace.  Digital has built strategic alliances 
         with customers, value-added resellers, independent software 
         vendors, systems integrators, and other computer vendors to 
         address the needs of a rapidly changing marketplace.  Digital 
         is fully invested in and clearly focused on understanding and 
         responding to customer needs in every industry where it can 
         add significant value and where it can offer services and 
         products that help customers succeed.  The corporation does 
         business in 100 countries, developing and manufacturing 
         products in the Americas, Europe, and the Pacific Rim.

    re .84
    
    Any chance of getting some of this in writing so that we can understand
    the messages.  There's been some changes since our last strategies
    messages.  Any chance of getting these and others updated??  I'm not
    sure I can really convey the messages to the customers.  I need some
    documents providing the insight.
    
     1    07-Sep-95  Digital's Corporate Software Strategy           SS0002
     2    07-Sep-95  Digital's Developed Software Product Roadmap    SS0003
     3    07-Sep-95  Digital's Systems Integration Software Strategy SS0017
     4    07-Sep-95  Digital's Connectivity Software Strategy        SS0018
     5    07-Sep-95  Digital's Platform Software Strategy            SS0019
     6    07-Sep-95  Digital's Platform Software Strategy - UNIX     SS0020
     7    07-Sep-95  Digital's Platform Software Strategy - Windows NT SS0021
     8    07-Sep-95  Digital's Platform Software Strategy - OpenVMS  SS0022
    
    
    	Regards,
                                    

    RE: .84  Bob Palmer

    Bob, thanks from me, too, for your reply!  I'm sure you know what a
    morale boost many of us get when you 'Note with the troops' like this.
    It's always great to see you here!!

    > This is the start of an ongoing phase that will align our marketing 
    > effort with our strategy - our three fundamental areas: high performance 
    > 64-bit UNIX; Windows NT; and the Internet.  To sum it up, today we have 
    > outstanding products and services, and we have begun to tell people 
    > about them.
                                                              
    I love seeing Digital's huge presence on the Internet.  Every time
    I use AltaVista and every time I see non-Digital sites and publications 
    talking about AltaVista, I think to myself (as my personal name says), 
    "Damn, we're good!!"  :-)

    It's thrilling to see Digital 'out there' this way!

    I'm still confused about why the AltaVista SW Marketing group is being
    downsized.  Surely we need these folks more than ever right now!

    Is there any way to correct this?  (I know it's impossible to respond
    about specific resource alignments as they happen, but surely this
    one is worth reconsidering.)

    Thanks again for your reply.

    Suzanne Conlon / Software Engineer

    re: .83
    
    A 10% paycut will gain people's attention, alright.  Those in the field
    who haven't floated a resume yet, will.
    
    I don't know an individual contributor in the field who isn't trying to
    do the best for the customers.  Knocking off another 10% of our pay
    will just get people to bail quicker.
    
    It would help if we had a corporate goal that people actually BELIEVED
    in.  The common perception of Digital's corporate mission is:
    
    	We'll sell off 'whatever it takes' to make us profitable.
    
    That doesn't give people too much to hang on to at the day's end,
    regardless of statements to the contrary.
    
    -- Russ

How about putting your money where your mouth is...

Join us field types who give up 30% of our pay
and hope to win it back from IBM, HP and SUN when
and if....we beat them...

Try it.....

re : .83
    
>    	Six month headcount freeze to take effect immediately, no layoffs.
    
There was a six month period where there were very few layoffs taking
place...i think it was before the previous "bad quarter" that got Ed
Lucente bounced out the door.  What was especially bad about it was
that *no one said anything about it*.  If at the beginning of the six
months someone had said "there will be no layoffs for the next six
months", people would've been ecstatic.  I'm sure morale would have
improved.  The fact that no one took advantage of this opportunity to
improve morale suggests either that: (A) we didn't really have a plan
for those six months and the relative absence of layoffs was a random
result of random actions (or inactions), or (B) the issue of morale
was not considered important enough to warrant any pronouncements.

Clearly the only thing that will both improve morale and help the
company's bottom line at this point is revenue growth (er, make that
*profitable* revenue growth as someone before mentioned).  Until we
have revenue growth, the next most assuring thing would probably be
to know what the market segments are that we expect to grow revenue
in and how fast we think we can take off in those segments.  I mean,
if it's 64-bit UNIX and NT servers, where do we see those markets
being a couple of years out, and what share of those markets do we
expect to be taking?

- paul

    Now I'm upset by .84...
    
    
    Bob...
    
    Where is the plan for sustaining and even growing the OpenVMS business?
    
    You continue to stress growth in the WNT, UNIX, and Internet Markets
    but it's the OpenVMS revenues that continue to pay most of the bills.
    
    Is the plan/timeframe to change that?  My customers continue to ask for 
    the retirement timetable for OpenVMS whenever we omit or ignore OpenVMS 
    in our Marketing, Press releases, or vision statements.
    
    Yes we are selling WNT, Unix, and Internet but OpenVMS continues to 
    be the cause of most of the revenues (and profits) that I see. Am I 
    wrong? 
    
    Until we are ready to announce OpenVMS's retirement we should be very VERY 
    sensitive about any communications that appear to give the impression of 
    ignoring our most Profitable, Feature-Rich, Production Systems OS.
    
    General statements about our company's future that do not include 
    OpenVMS sends a strong, negative message to Digital employees and 
    customers alike about OpenVMS's Future as a Digital Product.
    
    We cannot afford to just smother OpenVMS and annoy our loyal customers
    to the point of desertion of Digital.  Economic and Negative
    information is already planting the seeds of doubt in most of our
    customers minds.
    
    I'm sorry to harp on this but I have been continually doing damage 
    control about OpenVMS being discontinued, retired, or sold off... 
    All because of lack of attention, or a loose quote or press release 
    from some "Senior" Digital manager about OpenVMS that's taken in the 
    wrong light...
    
    Thanks for listening,
    
    John Wisniewski
    

    

    I too hope we become more customer focussed, as Bob mentioned in .84. I 
    work in customer support and it seems increasingly more emphasis is 
    placed on making fairly arbitrary numbers (service calls closed etc.). 
    I can see why that might achieve management satisfaction but I don't 
    believe goaling people on absolute numbers rather than on actual 
    productivity and value is going to encourage the kind of teamwork and 
    customer engagement that's required. 
    
    I'd prefer to see us focus on providing the customer with quality service 
    as a cohesive organisation than ending up with people making the numbers 
    look good (potentially at the expense of the customer and each other) for 
    the benefit of internal management.
    
    If the quality of the product and services is good enough, customers will 
    *happily* part with the crisp folding stuff.
    
    Re .92
    
    I'd have to agree with that - it seems like we're almost dropping OpenVMS 
    from the product set. While all the surveys predict it'll drop in market 
    share over the next few years my concern would be whether we'll have a 
    strong enough holding in the other markets to let OpenVMS "slip". Maybe 
    we need to be a bit more sensitive with the customers on the traditional 
    product base and lead them rather than hoping they'll catch up themselves.
    
    I can see we need to focus on market direction, I'm just uncomfortable 
    about customers getting the impression we're abandoning them.

    Dave. 
    (NOT the Director of Marketing Windows NT - just a coincidence.).

Bob:

  But, see, here's another example of the problem I'm talking about:

  In your reply, you identified "the Internet" as one of the areas
  we're focused upon. That's good. Through AltaVista (the real
  AltaVista search engine, not all the products that have just
  inherited the name) we have a very positive presence on the 'net.
  With regard to how Digital is perceived in the outside world at
  large, it's the best thing we've done in a decade!

  But then we read something like this (in another note here in
  this conference):

> Well, not only Dan [Kalikow -- AGS] (the marketing person setting
> up the internal webpage), but the entire engineering/documentation/
> testing team of AltaVista Personal Edition ... of about 12 people
> in Australia have been downsized as part of an ISBU restructure.

  and we find that Digital's tactics are in *DIRECT OPPOSITION*
  to Digital's strategy. And you can bet that this will generate
  more of those "Does Digital have a clue" sorts of headlines.

  What are we to make of actions like this???

                                         Atlant


Note (to any potential nitpickers):

  Yes, I realize that the AltaVista search engine running upon and
  targeting a PC isn't the same as the real AltaVista, and that
  this product really doesn't require the Internet or an intranet
  at all, but I believe that this product will still create a much
  closer tie-in in the customers' minds than the Everything_is_Alta-
  Vista family of products. Afer all, AltaVista on a PC and the real
  Alta Vista do the same thing; only the scale is different.

  And if you still don't like my analogy, then substitute any other
  part of the ISBU that is being decimated.

    
    In my group we're woking on OfficeServer which is a replacement for
    ALL-IN-1.  It has internet capabilities and will run on VMS and UNIX. 
    So it should fit into the fact that UNIX and Internet are important
    markets in the future(as well as the fact that VMS is very important
    today.
    
    So why has our group apparently been asked by our VP Steve Jenkins to
    stop development work and work on CLD's until there are none left.
    (which aren't high anyway)
    How will that help us when *I think* quality isn't a problem (I should
    know I'm a QA engineer!).  How does this benefit the general customer
    base by the fact that we'll slip this and other products by many
    months.  It is important that OfficeServer hits the market ASAP without
    having to fix more CLDs.
    
    Mike
    
    
    

    Bob:  Appreciate the participation
    
    The UNIX market this year will purchase approx. $30B of new systems,
    on top of the approx. $100B of installed base systems running
    in every industry in every market around the world.
    
    Digital Equipment Corp. has built the best UNIX operating system and
    system software products, BAR NONE.
    
    We have the best alliances with the best-in-class suppliers of 
    enabling technology. layered products and end-user applications.
    
    We have the best high-performance platforms for the commercial business
    market as well as the scientific/technical market.
    
    Every time we get to tell out story directly to a customer/prospect,
    they are asmazed at what we have to offer, and wonder why we are
    keeping this all a secret (a direct quote from a MCI attendee at a
    customer visit = your commercial UNIX capability is the industry's
    best kept secret).
    
    While high-performance UNIX solutions in the commercial and technical
    markets is one of Digital's strategies for growth, that strategy is
    not being executed within the corporation, nor is the message
    getting out of the corporation (except for the approx. 500 direct
    customer visits our team will do this year).
    
    Our delivery capability is as poor as our promotion capability. We
    continue to downsize UNIX field support representatives, and those 
    who are left are being deployed in other areas.  We have removed
    Area level UNIX marketing/program resources around the world.  We
    are not allowed to advertise/promote our leadership capabilities.
    We have downsized the UNIX marketing/promotion capability along with
    severe budet reductions.  
    
    In short, the UNIX market has never been larger.  Digital has never
    been in better shape to satsify the needs of this growing market.  Our
    products and alliances have never been better.  The corporation needs
    this revenue more than ever.   Let's unleash the power, creativty and
    energy within the corporation to break through the internally created
    barriers to greater success and market share.  Let's concentrate on
    beating our competitors instead of focusing on our internal political
    and management problems.  Let's advertise/promote our leaderhip
    product and solutions capability to overcome the negative press we
    are getting.  Let's tell the world how good we are.  Let's organize
    for success and customr satisfaction instead of for control and
    political expediency.  Every time a reorganization or restructuring
    is considered, ask the question:  How will this increase customer
    satisfaction and increase profitable revenue?
    
    Thanks for listening and regards,
    
    Mark Silverberg
    

    
    re: 4719.95
    
    The reason that you've been asked to stop development work is because
    we are giving away our installed base of customers using Digital messaging
    products to Microsoft. They can go Exchange or they can go away.
    
    Why else would we change our internal messaging system to Exchange?,
    Why don't we mention any of our messaging products in our marketing?
    Sorry, we do talk about Microsoft's products. 
    Why are we actively encouraging customers to move off of VMS onto 
    NT even when they are quite happy with products/service and are buying 
    Alpha's to run it all on?  
    
    Why would Digital absorb the tremendous cost of moving from
    one messaging platform to another in these difficult financial times?
    With no clear gains to Digital.
    
    Although I strongly suspect that the actual cost will never be known
    as the cost is pushed out from IS and absorbed at the Cost 
    Center and individual contributer level. Initially additional hardware 
    on the desktop and training costs. Then additional storage costs, loss of
    functionality, loss of data, etc.   How important is your mail anyway?
    
    This is a clear message to our customers. What isn't clear is why
    they should continue to be Digital customers or how this is good
    for Digital.
    
    I've heard it looks good on paper though. 
    
    Angela 

    re:94
    
    	Ditto. Actions speak louder than words, and perception is 95% of the
    current battle.
    
    	I always thought that the basic premise of managing people was
    very simple. Keep your people happy, and they will do their best.
    Happy, hard working employees translates into positive outlook and happy 
    customers. This in turn makes management happy. A cycle we can all live 
    with. 
    
    	The proverbial bottom line is, until it's heard from above that the
    layoffs are (finally) over, there will continue to be fear and negative 
    outlook among the troups. This message is a reoccurring theme throughout 
    this note and this notesfile.
    
    	Ray
    
    

re .84, .92:

>... our three fundamental areas: high performance 64-bit UNIX; 
>Windows NT; and the Internet ...

It seems to me OpenVMS is more and more often forgotten despite promises made to
remember it after being reminded of the value it contributes to Digital.

Everyone wants to feel as if their work is valuable and meaningful.  I envy the
people that moved to Oracle to support Rdb.  I envy the Digital employees that
support Digital UNIX and Windows NT.

Won't you please help make me feel as if my support of OpenVMS is valuable and
meaningful?  Perhaps by just keeping promises to remember it when listing
fundamental Digital areas or selling it to a company that will?

re .100:

I suppose alternatively we could official announce that supporting OpenVMS is
not really all that valuable or meaningful and stop all this whining.  Don't
string us along with half-hearted, after-the-fact, patronizing appologies - we
deserve better.  But if we do continue to behave this way then, being the
unexplainably loyal person that I am, I'll just feel badly and struggle to keep
on turning in multi-million dollar deals.

.98>>until it's heard from above that the
    layoffs are (finally) over, there will continue to be fear and negative 
    outlook among the troups <<

This is hogwash.  And I personally am getting sick of listening to all the 
whining about it.  There will never be a point when layoffs are over.  Even
when we get to the point where we may be hiring like crazy in some areas, we 
may still be laying off in others.  Thats the way it should be as the cycles 
of business proceed.  If a product/service/whatever isn't making money, and the 
determination is made to kill it, the folks staffing it are at risk.  If they
don't have skills that can be used elsewhere in the company, for the new areas
of focus for the company, then good bye.  Thats the way it should be.  Think 
about it, does anyone want to work thier tail off trying to be part of 
a successful team, just to see your profits carry some non-producing team.  I
don't.  And if I'm not producing, then I'd expect to be dumped too.  I try to 
concentrate on getting my job done and keeping my skill set current.  Those
are the only things that I can control that can help keep me employed here
at Digital, or somewhere else. 

So as far as this negative outlook amongst the troops, get over it.  Or move on.
Good luck finding somewhere where you won't have similar concerns at some point.

This is not unique to Digital.  All of corporate America is doing it.  They
have to to stay competitive.  The days of carrying employees just because they've
been on board for X number of years are over.  This company (and all others) 
exist to make money.  If you don't contribute to the profits of the company, 
expect to be released.  

I'm not saying I like this situation.  I wish I was born a generation or so 
earlier so I could experience loyalty between employee and employer.  But I
wasn't and here I am.  I accept the current environment and intend to do 
whatever it takes (hmm ;^)) to be successful in it.  I am loyal to getting my
tasks completed.  I expect Digital to be loyal by compensating me for my 
efforts.  End of loyalties.  Sad but true.  But it is workable and it can
be successful.  It has to be.

just my $.02

Brad

I think this is the first time I've ever put a response in the Digital notes
conference, but the Dear Bob note got my attention. Not only because of
what was written, but because Bob took the time to respond personally.

First of all, I won't even BEGIN to pretend I have all of the answers, or
even a few of them. I don't. Everyone should be VERY happy "I'm" not
managing this company. 8^) Fact is, we're in a mess, not of Bob's making,
and it's going to take something of a magician to get us out of it. I also
wouldn't be too quick to jump on Bob for the job he's doing. His task is
monumental to say the least and, in my opinion, he is directly responsible
for Digital still existing as a company today. I think he's done the
impossible, with still more impossible tasks yet to be accomplished.

That said, I do have some opinions that may or may not make sense, as well
as some comments to others that have replied here.

Firstly, do I like the downsizing that is/has been going on????? Of course
not. If I ever get tagged, I will probably be in deep sneakers. But I live
with it. I basically figure that if I come to work in the morning and they
let me in, I'm good for another day. I just don't let it bother me. I can't.
I'd be in a padded room by now if I did. Maybe it's because I'm a Viet Nam
vet, I don't know. But I've been able to develop the attitude that there are
some things that you just can't change, so your just wasting your time and
energy worrying about them. I just do the best I can for the company each
day they let me in and hope for the best.

I think we all need to realize that there are MANY things that drive what
Bob does. He is not only answerable to us as employees, he's also answerable
to the BOD and major stock holders. Like it or not, the major stock holders
are interested in just one thing. Making money. That's why they are MAJOR
stock holders. Do you think they care if 7000 employees are laid off?????
I seriously doubt it. What they ARE interested in is that their investment
is making money. BUT, this is a FACT OF LIFE. It is true for EVERY MAJOR 
COMPANY. Not just Digital. You can accept it or not. Your choice.

What concerns me is that it seems no matter how good our product is, or what
we have to offer, the customer just doesn't seem to be getting it. When 
someone (BP) brings a company from the brink of oblivion to 6 profitable
quarters, why does the customer/potential customer think we are going out
of business when we have ONE bad quarter????? On top of that, the stock
market on the whole has taken a beating the last couple of weeks, and alot
of our loss was due to the market being down in general and had nothing to
do with last quarters earnings or the current downsizing. I sit here thinking
"the customer can figure that out just as easily as I can, so WHY DON'T THEY".
Like I said in the beginning, I don't have a clue. But it's one of the things
that makes our turnaround so difficult. 

"I" think we have a very definite credibility problem......I know...DA...no
kidding. But what I'm getting at is the fact that I don't think we are going
to successfully overcome that problem "just" by announcing our products. Just
by saying "look what we have to offer". I would like us to DIRECTLY address
the "fears" of our customers/potential customers with an add campaign that
basically says "look, I know what you've been hearing about Digital Equipment
Corp., but let me assure you, WERE HERE TO STAY". Then REINFORCE that with 
what we are doing, what products we are developing/have to offer etc. I think
this is what people want to hear. They want to know that WE have confidence
in OURSELVES. If I recall correctly, Lee Iacoca did exactly that when he
took over Chrysler. Chrysler had a credibility problem. People didn't have
any faith in the product, or in the company remaining in existence. He 
immediately went on the offensive with the PRIORITY message being "Chrysler 
is a GOOD company, with a GOOD product, and DEDICATED employees, and if 
you think we are going to close our doors and go away, THINK AGAIN". Then he 
REINFORCED that message with the changes the company was making, and the 
products they had to offer. 

When we announced the latest earnings results and the subsequent downsizing,
the negative press was unbelievable. Like I said earlier, we went from
being the miracle company to going out of business in one quarter. It just
didn't add up, but that generally doesn't make any difference to the press.
Bob had a response, but in my opinion, it was totally in "defense" of what
was happening. This, I believe, gave people the impression that we were
back pedaling, staggering from a right cross that we didn't see coming. I
think it would have been GREAT if Bob had gone on the air and taken the
OFFENSIVE with words like CASH ON HAND, BALANCE SHEETS, STATE OF THE ART
PRODUCTS, and if it were me, TAKE YOUR DOOM AND GLOOM WRITERS AND DOWN SIZE
"THEM". WE'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. 8^) Like I said, be glad "I'm" not
running this company. 8^) 

Again, if I recall, Lee Iacoca made statements like "some of the changes 
will be PAINFUL". "Our turnaround won't be easy" etc. Basically beating the 
negative publicity to the punch. When people heard there was a layoff at 
Chrysler, they just said "oh yea, we knew about that. Lee already said that 
was going to happen". So, instead of being doom and gloom, the press was 
saying "Lee Iacoca is living up to his promise and turning the company 
around". Positive press instead of negative press. Anyway, I think you get 
the picture. The more we can convince people WE are not worried about Digital 
Equipment Corp., the more CUSTOMERS will not worry about Digital.

So what do "I" tell people when they ask me "what the heck is going on with 
DEC". I tell them "don't worry about us", and by the way, this is a GREAT 
time to buy stock. (and hope like hell I just told them the truth). 8^)

Regards,

Steve

Re .103

>>He is not only answerable to us as employees, he's also answerable to the BOD <<

Sorry, he is NOT answerable to us employees.  He answers to the BOD only.

>   - our three fundamental areas: high performance 64-bit UNIX; 
>   Windows NT; and the Internet.  To sum it up, today we have outstanding 
>   products and services, and we have begun to tell people about them.


I, too, must express my dissappointment with the lack of ANY mention of 
OpenVMS in our "fundamental areas".  

I have been invloved in a number Digital Unix sales (Best Western for
example). We have a great Unix story.

I have helped several customers replace their growth-limited Novell
environments with Windows NT on Alpha. We have a great NT strategy.

But I still support loyal, BIG customers like Intel who rely on OpenVMS to 
run their 24x365 production FABs, spending 10s of millions of dollars each 
year with Digital on OpenVMS and related products, and plan on continuing to
do so far into the future. Every time they see a message like the above, it
takes us weeks of "spin control" to convince them that not mentioning the
product that keeps them in business was just a slight oversight on our part,
we're sorry. Without OpenVMS, there are no Pentiums, period !

Please, please, please - ensure that EVERY "corporate strategy" message that 
goes out publicly or privately includes some statement about continuing our 
support for OpenVMS, maybe even a plan to GROW the OpenVMS business. 

Wouldn't it be great if our OpenVMS business, Digital Unix business, and 
Windows NT business were each bringing in the revenue to Digital that 
OpenVMS brings in today ???  We'd be scrambling to hire 7000 people to 
support all the old loyal and NEW customers, and our stock would reflect our 
rightful claim to be "the world's leader in open client/server computing
solutions from personal computers to integrated worldwide information
systems."

Arlan

    Dear Bob and re .102,
    
    While I agree that layoffs are part of corporate life that will never
    go away, simply dumping product groups is NOT the way to do it.  We've
    sent too many excellent people out the door simply because they were in
    the wrong group at the wrong time.   We can not afford to keep doing
    this.  Where's the motivation to achieve greatness when those who have
    achieved it get shown the door when their project gets canceled?
    
    -Steve

    
    -1
    The 1984 Chryco minivan and to some extent their K-cars saved
    Chryco.  
    
    The speeches helped.
    
    

    
    Brad:
    
    Your points are well-taken about the fact that people will always be
    leaving this or any other organization when there's a need to
    consolidate because of strategy or business change. 
    
    As you can obviously appreciate, it's the apparently arbitrary nature
    of recent and current layoffs that disturbs people. 
    "Am I next?"
    "It doesn't matter if you've been a good performer, they're making
    across-the-board cuts."
    
    Two good friends of mine, who reported to me when I was in the Storage
    Business Unit, are leaving today because they are redundant, in the
    estimation of their new management. They are both very capable people,
    but the marcomm cuts that are happening in the organization are coming
    from the absorbed, not the absorbing business. It's not fair, but there
    it is. No one has even considered loyalty in this equation. 
    
    And that's too bad, because the way a company treats its employees is
    quite often emblematic of the way its customers are treated. There's a
    new book by a senior partner at Bain entitled "The Loyalty Factor", and
    its primary thesis is that loyalty to employees, customers, and
    partners is critical to a company's ongoing success. 
    
    It comes back to something I've been talking to people about - this
    'stuff' about purpose. The purpose of mercenaries is to do a job for a
    fee - their loyalty is to the sack of coins they earn for their
    efforts, and possibly to some personal sense of meaning that is
    internal and individual. If one looks around these days, it seems as
    though the business landscape is filled with outsourced guns-for-hire.
    
    But what about the entity that remains? Isn't there allegiance to some
    reason-for-being that motivates the people who have chosen to belong
    to that organization? I remember reading in "The HP Way" that David
    Packard and Bill Hewlett decided that the purpose of their company was
    to advance science, industry and human welfare through technology.
    When I talk to HP folks, past and present, they tell me that purpose
    and values were integral to "the HP way". 
    
    I read another note this morning (4734) about a guy in the midwest who
    believed he had a mission, and did what he had to do to achieve it. I
    wonder if he was thinking about the security of his job while he was
    slogging through the rain and thunder. And I *know* that there are many
    more people like him who remain here at Digital, and who are loyal to a
    sense of purpose that is both personal and connected to this place
    we're involved with for a good portion of our lives. 
    
    Could that include you as well?
    
    
    Gloria 
       

I've worked at both Microsoft and Digital in the 
last 4 years or so.

To me, between the lines of Bob's reply is plea for
us to become more engaged as a team.  The single
biggest difference between MS and DEC is the commitment
to a company wide strategy, and the ability to move as
one committed organization.  Microsoft has it, Digital
just plain does not.

I believe that the answer lies with each individual employee,
and his or her ability to grasp the corporate strategy and
apply this strategy to our every day duties.  Digital's 
culture allows for a lot of freedom and a lot of diversity.  
This is a good thing and we should always value this.

But somehow, we have got to start working together, with 
the focus on customer satisfaction and streamlining our 
processes so that we are much more nimble.  Nimble in our
ability to satisfy our customers, nimble in our ability to 
get software and hardware into the market place, nimble in 
our ability to apply our own technology to ourselves as an 
IT customer, and nimble enough to market our products.

Sitting here reading Mr. Palmer's response and then the 
response of others, I get the feeling that this is kind
of a big problem.  In my own site I see extremely angry 
Engineers, resistent to change, holding on to turf for
dear life.  I also see really sharp people building really
cool stuff and processes, only to horde these tools and 
processes for thier specific group or agenda.

I've noticed in this company that people can be quite rude.
People do not answer phone calls or email.  People quite 
often will let an issue 'rot' because it's not thier baliwick.  
I'm not saying that this is pervasive, but I think we all 
can agree it's out there.

So I believe that there is a lot of room for growth around 
teamwork,and that work really needs to be done.  I would hope 
that middle and upper management would see this need and 
start  initiatives to foster better inter-organizational team 
building, along with a general 'pride in Digital' program.  
We really need to get back to loving this company and frankly, 
loving eachother.

I keep a cut-out from a Digital Today pasted on my office 
window, and I look at this everyay.

Digitals Strategy at a Glance:

To compete in four horizontal businesses:

Client/Server Services
Components
Connectivity Software
Systems Platforms

To focus on three markets for profitable growth:

High Performance 64-bit UNIX platforms
Windows NT across the enterprise
Connectivity winthin and between enterprises

Removing obstacles to growth:

Customer satisfaction
Employee engagement
Speed

****

We really need to get with this program in the worst way.

-Stephen
I

RE: Note 4719.105 by FIREBL::LEEDS

>  -< OpenVMS missing is TOO obvious..... >-

>Wouldn't it be great if our OpenVMS business, Digital Unix business, and 
>Windows NT business were each bringing in the revenue to Digital that 
>OpenVMS brings in today ???

It's scarey but true.

Once a CURRENT customer leaves Digital, there is a 90% chance they will not
come back.  We need to keep people on OpenVMS if it is satisfying their needs,
provide tools to migrate from Unix if OpenVMS satisfies their needs.  All too
often when people leave OpenVMS, they move to someone elses box and O/S.  In
that case we loose all the way around.

OpenVMS is STILL the bread and butter O/S of Digital.  Based on PAST
performance of Unix and NT, it will be for a long time to come.

Do NOT chase away our customers - include OpenVMS.

	- mark

I'd guess from reading this notesfile that Bob has seen the tremendous
willingness we have towards helping each other. Every broken process
eventually bleeds into this file as a request for help that is always
forthcoming. That he can also read about it first hand tells me he has
a better grasp of what is happening than many middle managers might like.

But when we discuss morale and loyalty there is no one thing better than
to see him here and know we are being heard at the top. Our culture is 
one of direct involvement and instant communication. To have a CEO that
understands and appreciates that is a great step forward. liesl

re: .110

>But somehow, we have got to start working together, with 
>the focus on customer satisfaction and streamlining our 
>processes so that we are much more nimble.  

I've noticed that since the Sales Reps I support have gone on the 
"home-alone" program, achieving the above has become much more difficult. 
There are Sales Reps I support that I haven't seen in 3-4 weeks.... they sit 
in their little home offices, their only contact with the rest of us is via 
phone or Email... no more hallway conversations about customer issues, 
product directions... no more "let's go to lunch and talk about Customer A's 
situation".... no more "let's go to the white board for a few minutes and 
sketch out this configuration"..... 

I still have an office, but I think putting the Sales Reps on Home-Alone 
really hurt our ability to work together as a team.

Arlan

    It seems to me that where there is no loyalty, there is no team.  I
    have consistently heard how important it is for Digital to operate as a
    team.  I have also consistently heard that there is no longer loyalty
    between Digital employees and Digital.  This seems to be an enigma.
    
    Personally, I've resolved this by focusing on building trust and
    loyalty between me, my immediate supervisors and my customers.  But,
    I suspect this sidesteps the problem from Digital's point of view.
    
    Steve

>                    <<< Note 4719.102 by PATRLR::MCCUSKER >>>
>                            -< Time to speak up... >-
>
> .98>>until it's heard from above that the
>   layoffs are (finally) over, there will continue to be fear and negative 
>   outlook among the troups <<
>
> This is hogwash.  And I personally am getting sick of listening to all the 
> whining about it.  There will never be a point when layoffs are over.  Even
> when we get to the point where we may be hiring like crazy in some areas, we 
> may still be laying off in others.  Thats the way it should be as the cycles 
> of business proceed.
>   :
> This is not unique to Digital.  All of corporate America is doing it.

  Well, I'm afraid you missed the central point of my .0 . So I'll
  say it again in different words:

  *CUSTOMERS* are very concerned that *DIGITAL* won't survive.
  Their concerns spring from their perception that our only
  response to *ANY* business situation now seems to be cut
  and slash, slash and cut. This concerns them because many
  of their points of contact with the Corporation are now
  broken, due in major part to the fact that the people who
  provided those points of contact have been cut and slashed.

  They want to buy computation, not help us solve our business
  problems. And if we can't sell them computation, there are
  plenty of other vendors who can.

  And, BTW, while cut and slash is currently a very popular way
  to do business in America, there are growing signs that it's
  a recipe for failure.

  *AND* there are also plenty of examples of other corporations
  that see this. HP just closed their entire disk drive manufacturing
  operation (in both Penang (Malaysia) and Colorado (??)). They're
  "releasing" something like 1500 workers. But the press release
  that announced this also stated that these were valuable people
  and HP could find lots of other work for them to do *WITHIN THE
  CORPORATION*. Note bene: While HP and DEC used to be similarly-
  sized corporations, HP is now approximately *THREE TIMES* our
  size as measured by gross revenues.

  So think carefully before you brand all this as "whining hogwash".

                                         Atlant

    Someone mentioned bad press and I believe name recognition usually
    is another problem. I was wondering.....
    
    Are we involved in the Olympics in anyway??? If not why aren't we??? 
    It's only going to be viewed by the WHOLE WORLD! There obviously must
    have been an opportunity to be the Computer Vender of the 96 Olympics?
    
    Actually maybe we are and we'll find out about it when they show our
    new 15 second confusing commercial on Sunday night, July 28th at 9:02
    PM.  After another few million dollars spent on researching TV AD time,
    this was the best slot! We catch the Murder She Wrote Viewers switching
    over to the Olympics after their programs over.  ;) 
                                            
    
    Ted

  The 1996 Olympics is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the IBM Company
  and the Coca-Cola Corporation. And IBM's getting good press out
  of it, although you could debate whether they'll get their money's
  worth.
                                     Atlant

  .92
  
  John, 
  
  In the presentations that I make to customers, analysts, the media, 
  etc., I always emphasize that we are committed to OpenVMS.  When I 
  am discussing our Windows NT through the enterprise strategy, I 
  point out that we are continuing to invest in and enhance OpenVMS, 
  for example in adding 64-bit addressing, and that our most important 
  commitment is to the customers who have already purchased systems 
  based on VMS.  This message is apparently getting through.  The 
  following is taken from the June issue of the Patricia Seybold Group 
  newsletter:
  
       "Digital has found a real market opportunity, using 
       OpenVMS as a way to make Windows NT a safer option for 
       customers, allowing them to use Windows NT programming 
       APIs, but deploying mission critical components on a 
       system that has higher availability, is more manageable, 
       and has higher performance than native Windows NT 
       platforms.  Customers are actually pursuing this strategy, 
       such as Corning Telecommunications, New York Mercantile 
       Exchange, Australian Stock Exchange, and others.  They are 
       developing the distributed components of applications on 
       Windows NT and using OpenVMS as the data management 
       component.  By using native Windows interfaces to tie the 
       applications together, these customers have the 
       flexibility of moving to a complete NT environment if they 
       so choose, or staying with OpenVMS.
  
       Of All the major system vendors, Digital remains the most 
       committed to Windows NT.  This commitment is perhaps most 
       striking in the Open VMS group which has made significant 
       investments in making OpenVMS a useful complement to 
       Windows NT.  Even though Hewlett-Packard and IBM have 
       adopted more Windows NT-friendly strategies, neither has 
       as comprehensive a technical strategy as Digital."
  
  It is my intntion to emphasize OpenVMS as one of our major 
  capabilities in delivering enterprise solutions.  As we work on the 
  materials for our industry analyst meeting in September, I will 
  ensure that a clear representation of the importance and strategic 
  impact of OpenVMS is communicated more promptly.  Thank you for your 
  input. 
  
  
  .90
  
  Rod,
  
  The variable portion of my targeted compensation is between 40 and 
  60 percent.  In fiscal year 1995, the Board was satisfied with my 
  performance, and the variable portion was paid as stated in our 1995 
  proxy.  In FY96, I believe our performance does not justify a full 
  payment of the variable compensation, and I have requested that it 
  not be paid.  Additionally, many of our senior executives also have 
  between 25 and 50 percent variable compensation as part of their 
  competitive pay.  This is consistent with other Fortune 200 
  multinational, public companies.  The purpose of these compensation 
  systems is to ensure that senior management has skin in the game 
  just as shareholders and other employees.
  
  Regards,
  Bob
  

Re .117 - Atlant:  I don't think I missed the point of .0.  I liked it.  My .102 was
not an attempt at saying we should embrace the current environment because its a good
one.  I was simply replying to .98 and in particular that until there are no more 
layoffs the troops will have a negative outlook.  I continue to feel that if you are 
going to be negative simply because Digital won't offer you job security then you 
should maybe think about moving on.

.117>>   And, BTW, while cut and slash is currently a very popular way
  to do business in America, there are growing signs that it's
  a recipe for failure. <<

Yes! Most definitly.  Heck, its even becoming a topic in our presidential races.  I 
don't endorse it.  Just trying to live with it cause I don't feel I have much choice.
And it will likely stick with us until globally speaking, all companies decide to
be more responsible to thier employees.


.115>>You'll not get good performance when people are constantly looking over their 
   shoulder for the axe-man<<

I guess this is what I don't understand.  Why are you looking over your shoulder?  
Are you going to run away from the axe man?  Hey, if he's coming, you won't be able 
to stop it.  I believe therefor that you can try to prevent it by continually doing 
your job but we are all aware that that is not enough.  So then you need to keep your 
skill set current so you can land on your feet.


Please, Don't interpret what I said in .102 as an endorsement of what Digital is 
doing.  I believe the latest round is knee-jerk.  I believe that we do not have a 
clearly defined direction that this whole company is following.  I KNOW that our 
customers have no clue where we are going.  Marketing?  Whats that?  I believe our 
marketing department is stuck in the early 80's when our sales force was not much 
more than order takers.  My .102 did not intend to address those issues.  It was 
simply a response to the folks who say that the threat of layoffs is impacting thier 
performance on the job.

Brad

    re .117
    
    >>> But the press release
      that announced this also stated that these were valuable people
      and HP could find lots of other work for them to do *WITHIN THE
      CORPORATION*  
    
    Well said Atlant. The fact is that Digital is and has been letting
    excellent people go, while at the same time investing big money hiring
    "new blood."  This is extremely expensive and does not always work.
    I have seen some top quality "new blood", but also some duds, and quite
    a lot of fluctuation. Also, curiously, the new "new blood" makes all the 
    same mistakes the old "new blood" made in its time. Buy in quality
    know-how in new areas, by all means, but don't throw away useful people
    who represent an expensive investment. 
    
    It also has a very demoralising effect, watching new people and
    realising that they will need 3 years to get to where fine people we
    are letting go already were. So come down off your Soapbox .102, I'm
    sure we would agree on no ideological questions at all, but many are
    getting sick of the way the dogma you have is destroying company assets
    which we have collectively built up over the years. If HP realise this
    enough to put it in their press release, then you do not need to share
    my political outlook to question the validity of chainsaw style
    restructuring.
                                                         
    Kevin

    I was glad to see the clear, crisp, and short strategy statement
    in Bob's reply.  Although I had read the strategy documents previously
    available, I personally was at sea about our strategy, expecially
    given the recent upheavals.  (However, even as an NT/UNIX person, I
    flinched at the effect on our VMS cutomers if the strategy in that
    form were to be made public.)
    
    It seems to me that Digital has the following major problems:
    
    1. A couple of years ago we had a clear lead in performance because of
    Alpha.  We have nearly lost that lead.  How can this be corrected?
    
    2. A lack of reality in pricing.  Our prices for many of our products
    make them not competitive.
    
    3. Customers find it hard to buy from Digital.  This notes file
    has numerous notes posted by employees who have been told by potential
    customers that they have been unable to find anyone in Digital who will
    sell them a product that they want to buy.
    
    4. Our previously excellent service organization has degenerated to
    a level of poor quality, probably because of understaffing.  A
    reputation for poor service is fatal for a company unless its products
    are of the inexpensive "throw it away when it breaks" variety.
    
    5. Lack of a public presence because of our small amount of and
    intermittent advertising.  Everyone knows Intel, IBM, and HP.
    We have had dynamite products, and few people know it.
    
    6. Employee morale.  I suspect the employees of Malden Mills would
    gladly take a 10% pay cut and work their behinds off for their
    employer, and years ago Digital employees accepted pay freezes and
    worked like demons when the company was in trouble.  At that time,
    however, everyone believed that Digital was committed to its employees'
    well-being.  Now that is not the case.  We have not only a history of
    downsizing, but changed benefits which include health care plans that
    have various horror stories associated with them like inadequate care
    for employees and their children (see Note 4188.33, for example).
    
    Karen Kolling
    

    re:102
    
    	I did not mean to sound like layoffs, in the sense of the following 
    context, will (or should) ever go away.
    
    > If a product/service/whatever isn't making money, and the determination 
    > is made to kill it, the folks staffing it are at risk.
    
    	At least these sorts of layoffs are easily understood. That's not what 
    this was about. People in groups that are making money, are good 
    performers with a current skill set, and plenty of work are being shown 
    the door. 
    
    	Others that are still here don't understand what happened, can't 
    rationalize it against the corporate strategy, and therefore can't even 
    defend themselves (and their company) when approached by customers about 
    it. I can't even say I understood the selection criteria for this last 
    round.
    
    	I don't ever expect to see a "no-layoff" policy like we had years
    ago under KO. I would, however, hope to see a day in DEC (again) where 
    doing all the sorts of things you mentioned, such as working hard and 
    maintaining a current skill set, would essentially eliminate the fear 
    of being layed off. I had always believed this to be the case, but my 
    faith in hard work and skill set maintenance has been shaken a bit from 
    this last round. 
    
    	Ray

    RE: .124  Ray

    > ...but my faith in hard work and skill set maintenance has been shaken 
    > a bit from this last round. 

    This week's TFSO round simply doesn't make sense.

    It's like hearing all your life that the best place to stand in an
    earthquake is in a doorway, and then finding out one day that the
    doorway is really the worst place to be when an earthquake hits.

    
    	RE: .120
    
    	Bob, I believe that Rod's .90 was aimed at a few replies just
    	before his when it was suggested that we all take a 10% pay
    	cut to save some of the jobs that are destined for "the big
    	bit bucket in the sky".
    
    	As far as I can tell it doesn't appear that he was referring
    	to you specifically.  However, it was rather comforting to
    	read that you are bearing some of the brunt of this also.
    
    							Shawn L.
    

    re:121

    > My .102 ... was simply a response to the folks who say that the
    > threat of layoffs is impacting thier performance on the job.

    	As Atlant mentioned again, it's also "off the job" interaction
    coming into play now as well. I don't think people are paralyzed, but 
    by your definition, we do seem to have a lot of clean hogs around here 
    (metaphorically speaking ;-) 

    	Ray
    	

  rep .120

   Bob, 1st and foremost, I'm delighted that you're taking the time
   to read and (I hope) understand the issues facing the (remaining)
   dedicated Digital employees.

>  It is my intntion to emphasize OpenVMS as one of our major 
>  capabilities in delivering enterprise solutions.  As we work on the 
>  materials for our industry analyst meeting in September, I will 
>  ensure that a clear representation of the importance and strategic 
>  impact of OpenVMS is communicated more promptly.  Thank you for your 
>  input. 

   This is great! You've recognized one problem and you're taking
   action. That's one down. (I'm sure John W. will be thrilled)

   See Karen's note (rep .123) for a few more 'key issues'.

   One thing you need to understand: Digital was on a roll. We
   started building momentum. We're making money again. Someone
   even enter a note last year saying that it was "fun" working
   at Digital again. (which you replied too).

   But, with Q4 results looking unfavorable, you single-handedly kill 
   all that momentum, all the optimism by one single press release
   saying that you're laying off another 7000 people.

   Fix the problems Bob - don't mindlessly layoff the people who can
   make this company great again. There's too little talent left.
   Do you understand this ?

   I can go on, but I leave it at that.

   thanks for taking the time and listening,

   Paul Cote


   

 re:119
    
>  The 1996 Olympics is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the IBM Company
>  and the Coca-Cola Corporation. And IBM's getting good press out
>  of it, although you could debate whether they'll get their money's
>  worth.

    Figures.. Some day, someone in upper management is going to realize that
    maybe if they blow the cobwebs out of it's public advertising wallet and
    go all out in a world wide event like the Olympics it will help wash 
    away the bad press and put our name in peoples heads that never heard
    of us. The idea is to beat our name into peoples heads till they finally 
    got a clue!!
    
    The standard answer to why we don't is because it costs too much!!! I'd
    rather take a few hundred million dollar loss to improve our name 
    recognition then keep drowning and spend it on restructing layoffs.
    Lets fight our way back instead of spending all our time trying to
    find someone to hold our hand.
    
    Ted
    
    But obviously someone knows better!
    

                    <<< Note 4719.121 by PATRLR::MCCUSKER >>> 

  Re .117 - Atlant:  I don't think I missed the point of .0.  I liked
  it.  My .102 was not an attempt at saying we should embrace the
  current environment because its a good one.  I was simply replying to
  .98 and in particular that until there are no more layoffs the troops
  will have a negative outlook.  I continue to feel that if you are
  going to be negative simply because Digital won't offer you job
  security then you should maybe think about moving on. 


  .117>>   And, BTW, while cut and slash is currently a very popular
  way to do business in America, there are growing signs that it's
  a recipe for failure. << 

  Yes! Most definitly.  Heck, its even becoming a topic in our
  presidential races.  I don't endorse it.  Just trying to live with it
  cause I don't feel I have much choice. And it will likely stick with
  us until globally speaking, all companies decide to be more
  responsible to thier employees. 


  .115>>You'll not get good performance when people are constantly
  looking over their    shoulder for the axe-man<< 

  I guess this is what I don't understand.  Why are you looking over
  your shoulder? Are you going to run away from the axe man?  Hey, if
  he's coming, you won't be able to stop it.  I believe therefor that
  you can try to prevent it by continually doing your job but we are all
  aware that that is not enough.  So then you need to keep your skill
  set current so you can land on your feet. 

  Please, Don't interpret what I said in .102 as an endorsement of what
  Digital is doing.  I believe the latest round is knee-jerk.  I believe
  that we do not have a clearly defined direction that this whole
  company is following.  I KNOW that our customers have no clue where we
  are going.  Marketing?  Whats that?  I believe our marketing
  department is stuck in the early 80's when our sales force was not
  much more than order takers.  My .102 did not intend to address those
  issues.  It was simply a response to the folks who say that the threat
  of layoffs is impacting thier performance on the job. 

  Brad 

    RE: .120  Bob Palmer
    
    Thanks again for your replies to this topic - as rough as this
    week has been, it's still been great to see you come in here to 
    communicate with 'the troops' like this.
    
    Suzanne Conlon / Software Engineer
    

    re: .99
>>Our internal deployment of Exchange is being driven my many factors, including 
>>the old "use what we sell".  The original implementation of Exchange in 

    We also sell Digital's messaging/internet products. An internal
    environment made up of Digital's products, Microsoft's, Lotus's
    and other vendor's products would be brilliant and would also show 
    that we use what we sell *and* we know how to make them all work together.

>>Digital was driven by a service organisation.  The Alliance with Microsoft 
>>get's a thumb's up on this one.  I personally know of several situations where 
>>Digital is the vendor being used to implement Exchange for our customers, 
>>based on our internal deployment.   Guess what, the "Alliance" did all the 
>>marketing for that, virtually a $0 cost to Digital.

    Perhaps that will make up for the customers that we are losing due to 
    the perception that we are abandoning the products in which they
    have invested and which we have never really marketed. 

>>Electronic mail is unofficially this company's largest production application, 
>>yes it's important.  I have supported all of Digital's mail products and will 
>>gladly debate the "loss of functionality".  I also know that, like 
>>our external customers, we are concerned with cost and technology.  We 
>>eliminate a manually maintained message routing infrastructure and move to an 
>>"Internet" ready/friendly environment.   We will replace costly archaic 
>>vaxclusters and disk drives with newer, efficient technology.  Yes, some of 
    
    None of this is dependent on moving away from Digital'  messaging/internet
    products.  Unless you actually believe Microsoft's marketing hype. 
    Moving the existing infrastructure to current Digital software/hardware 
    technology would be *much* more cost effective. 

>>the disk storage will be distributed to the desktop PC...it's called 
>>client/server. 

    It's also called inefficient and at risk due to the lack of data being 
    backed up. We are at odds with ourselves due to costs. It is more efficient
    /cost effective to keep one copy of a mail message that several users share
    in one accessible place than it is to push that document onto multiple 
    desktops or file shares. But if IS can limit their cost by 'distributing' 
    storage to the users then their numbers look better. 
    The cost to Digital is higher but hidden. 
    
>>In the process we get computer literate employees with very     
>>high powered productivity tools at their disposal.  In this corporation, we 


    Digital will have computer literate employees when we train them to 
    be computer literate.  A lot of employees have 'high powered 
    productivity tools at their disposal' now and they use them to run 
    vt-emulators. 

>>all know "technology" manager's that can't give up their VTxxx and VMSmail, 
>>and that's just plain sad.

    They can't give them up because they use these 'low powered' tools to 
    do their jobs. It isn't sad. If it's the appropriate tool for the job
    you should use it. Use a postit note if it's appropriate. A 10 page,
    colour powerpoint document isn't always necessary.

>>Yes, Digital makes great products, some will be around, some will go away, and 
>>the market will drive alot of those decisions for us.   

    If we kill the products before they go to market it won't.

>>The point is we've got to be able to change with technology and get 
>> behind what will keep all of us around.  

    That's my question, where is the money (for Digital) going to come from 
    with Exchange and will it replace lost revenues from existing/potential
    Digital messaging customers?

>>We can get back to the day's when Digital reputation sell's itself.
    
    I've been with Digital just over 12 years. Working with and supporting
    messaging products for 8 years. As a company we know more about this 
    technology than anyone else. We understand it as a technology and 
    as a business solution for our customers. We have protected our
    customer's investment, taking them from character cell interface to
    client/server to publishing documents from that same file cabinet on 
    to the internet. We built a very good reputation in this area
    why else would Microsoft want to capitalize on it and walk into
    an established customer base that as come to trust Digital?
    
    
    Angela
    

Bob,

   We have many things that are wrong within our corporation, systems that
are broken, business processes/practices that "cost us more" business than 
any of the actions taken by our competitors. Our customers, channels partners
and vars are complaining about "how difficult" it is doing business with 
Digital. Our service/support organization is swimming in a sea of complaints
and "potentially" costing us "new" business. Our internal policies of who 
can sell what to whom --- "off base" vs. "on base" prevent penetration into 
some of our key accounts. Policies dictated by one organization, "stiffle" 
others. Upper management must bear the responsibilty of their actions/policies,
we're one company, only when we "focus" on that fact, will we pull out of this
nosedive. If the only thing we feel that we have going for us, is a "fast 
chip", ---- then we'd better turn out the lights now. Customers don't 
necessarily want performance today, they want solutions, they want "the comfort"
that who they're dealing with is going to be around for a while, they want 
a "global partner" who can service their needs, "support their corporation".

   This announcement of layoffs, definitely has hurt us, both internally and
externally. I'm curious, I've always worked here in the field, how many of 
the people that are making decisions about our business practices, putting
the tools in place to support the sales organization, making decisions 
regarding the customer support organization and field service organization
have actually spent time with customers (and I don't mean a cursory visit or 
two a year as qualifying as "time spent with customers")? 

   I realize that when you took over, you inherited a company that was trying
to be all things to all people. It hasn't been easy, but I don't believe that 
"cutting more heads" will solve our problems. 

Why don't you tap your most valuable assets, your people -- the worker bees,
the engineers, the CSC support folks, people in manufacturing, sales and 
sales support. Organize "working committees", having representation from 
each of the major areas/organization within Digital. 

    --- Sales/Sales Support Organization
    --- Field Service Organization
    --- Manufacturing Organization
    --- Engineering (Hardware/Software)
    --- Customer Support Organization

Teams of 6-7 people, experienced in their job activities/duties, having 
"lived" the Digital work experience, used the tools, worked using the 
processes, seeing the problem areas, capable of elaborating where they see room
for improvements, where we may see benefits, if perhaps certain changes were
made here and there....etc. First order of duty for these committees, is to
report on "their view of the world...their perspective...what they like..
what they don't like...what would help them do their job more effectively,
efficiently,...etc.". Each committee must work representing their Organization,
therefore, they must communicate/solicit data from their peers. They must 
come to a consensus, not dwell on trivial matters and must narrow down and
prioritize any issues they come  up with, let's say they must pick the top
five/ten and report on those. Each committee should have a VP sponser, and
Management (from that Organizaton) participation, all members have equal 
votes, no pressure from Management or VP to "skip that issue". 

It is not the charter of the committees to "point fingers" at
other organizations, "only to look at what they see as problem areas, they are
familiar/experienced with", the committees cannot report on problem areas,
without having "recommendations/suggestions" on how to improve the situation.
If a problem area is related to an area outside of that groups "sphere" of 
influence, then a "cross functional" committee consisting of members from 
both organizations, must work to come to a "consensus" as a team to address the
problem. This all must be completed according to a time-line, results to 
be delivered to all organizations by a certain date. Reports would be 
provided to you and Senior level management, the decisions as to take 
certain recommendations or not, will lie with you and your team of VP's. By
doing this, your eyes will be allowed to see/hear "what is going on",
your most valuable assets "are your people", listen to what they have to 
say.


My 2 cents worth

Rick C.

 >>  But, with Q4 results looking unfavorable, you single-handedly kill 
 >>  all that momentum, all the optimism by one single press release
 >>  saying that you're laying off another 7000 people.

 >>  Fix the problems Bob - don't mindlessly layoff the people who can
 >>  make this company great again. There's too little talent left.
 >>  Do you understand this ?



    I could'nt agree more. Thank-you for reading my mind.


   

Hi Bob,

Thanks for stopping by. I was interested in one of your comments:

>   revenues, but the result can be interpreted as such.  We have begun to 
>   grow, but even if revenues per employee climb quickly, our cost 
>   structure is below competitive levels.  

You speak of growth but I'm having a bit of trouble seeing it. I thought that
perhaps the market was shrinking but after seeing the following, I'm not sure
that's true. Why do we continue to struggle while our competitors grow?


FY		 1995	 1994	 1993	 1992

Digital		13,813	13,451	14,371	13,931
		    86  -2,167	  -251  -2,795
IBM		71,940	64,052	62,716	64.523
		 4,116	 2,937	-8,148	-4,965
H-P		31,519	24,991	20,317	16,410
		 2,422	 1,599	 1,177	   549
Sun		 5,904	 4,690	 4,307	 3,589
		   356	   196	   157	   173
SGI		 2,228	 1,538	 1,133	   907
		   225	   142	    72	   na
Apple		11,062	 9,189	 7,977	 7,086
		   424 	   310	    87	   530
Compaq		14,755	10,866	 7,191	 4,100
		   789	   867	   462	   213

All numbers rounded to nearest $Million
First line is reveune, second line is profit
Data from Morningstar

regards,
tim moffitt

    re: Note 4719.135 by DECIDE::MOFFITT

>I'm missing our growth...


    Tim, I think it depends on how you want to count growth.  In some of 
    our previous quarterly reports, we seem to try and talk about some kind
    of growth after accounting for the parts of the company that have been
    sold off.  
    
    In addition, for FY96, we will see overall growth over FY95.  My guess
    is about 4-6 percent [*not in the same league as our competitors*], based
    on Q1-Q3 + a guess of Q4 revenues being between $3.5B and $3.8B.
    

    -Bruce

Regarding variable compensation:

	I was referring to a 100%(er) who came up with an
	idea to cut everyone's pay 10%. 

	I PREFER variable compsensation. I BELIEVE that I
	will excel. The payback doubles (per percentage
	point) for every 1% over 100% of goals. Triples
	at 120%. In FY95, I got to 128%, in fy96... not
	so hot.


	So betting 30% of my pay is a good bet. Always.

	Because I'm in charge. 

RE: home alone (.113)

	Home alone is the best thing that ever happened to 
	this job (sales)


	Gone is the hallway talks (yea! more productivity)
	Gone is the lunch breaks (You bet! less filling, more work)

	but especially....

	Gone is the 45min commute (both ways)
	Gone is getting into a suit for nothing (office day)
	
	Power up the command center at 6:45am

	Rolling quotes by 7:15am (in the past I was sitting on I294)

	Customers call from 7:30am to 6:00pm, my cordless phone works
	everywhere in the house. Fits in my back pocket when I take out
	the trash or throw a load into the washer....

	Two phone lines, a pager, a realtree fax machine, and the 
	Ultra runned SWB95. A better CUSTOMER-ORIENTED environment
	has never existed. 

	FAE? calls in a heartbeat, anytime, anyday. It works fine.

I like this job.........

    re: .102
    
    Please explain how laying off people who had recently received their
    MSSE certification at great expense to Digital and Microsoft is
    consistent with your opinion expressed in .102.
    
    What Digital considers valuable seems to vary from second to second,
    with no rational reason for the changes.
    
    Bob

This reply is to an earlier question to Bob Palmer asking "What is Digital's 
Strategy?".  The following is from my All-in-1 file cabinet and is a memo from 
BP dated January, 1996.  It articulates Digital's strategy for Growth.

My questions to BP

Has anything changed in the corporate stragety for growth?
Has anything changed in SI (Digital Services) focus areas?
Could you please resend this memo with any changes?
Could you please have Marketing put together a 5 - 10 .ppt slide presentation 
	strategy for growth and Services focus.  If it already exists, please
	provide pointers to all employees.

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Doc. No:  004781
                                        Date:     08-May-1996 06:22am EST
                                        From:     MICHAEL ECK @CYO
                                                  ECK.MICHAEL
                                        Dept:     NT SOLUTION SALES ABU
                                        Tel No:   432-7599 (513-984-)

TO:  Eric Larson @ACI                     ( LARSON.ERIC@ACISS1A1@ACI )


Subject: FWD: Digital's strategy for growth                          

Eric,  this was the high level strategic messages statement from Palmer that I 
was looking for last night.  It might be good for our opening tomorrow:

SI Initiatives have been positioned by Rita Foley:

Internet
Windows NT
Enterprise Messaging
Information Management
Client Server Migration


 


                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     23-Jan-1996 02:57pm EST
                                        From:     Robert B Palmer @MSO
                                                  PRESIDENT@A1@SALES@AKO
                                        Dept:     Chairman, President and CEO
                                        Tel No:    

TO: See Below

Subject: Digital's strategy for growth                               

    We presented Digital's strategy for growth to financial and industry 
    analysts last September.  In conjunction with that presentation and 
    over the following months, we communicated this important information 
    to you in a variety of ways.  Despite numerous efforts to explain 
    Digital's strategy clearly, through a variety of channels, I know that 
    we have not reached everyone.
    
    The analysts, who represent a very important and influential audience 
    for us, have praised our progress.  They now understand our strategic 
    positioning as a leader in the industry, and they have expressed 
    confidence in Digital's capabilities and direction.  However, we will 
    achieve our potential for truly impressive growth and success only 
    through the work and understanding of employees who are aware of and 
    fully engaged in our efforts to successfully execute the strategy.  
    
    As the implementation of our strategy continues, I expect that your 
    managers will be helping you to make the connection between what you do 
    in your job and our strategy for growth.  In the meantime, if you are 
    looking for one brief summary of that strategy that you can clip and 
    save, here is one that I would personally suggest.
    

    
    			STRATEGY FOR GROWTH SUMMARY
    
    
    o	Digital competes in four cross-industry, "horizontal" businesses:
    			
    	--	Client/Server Services
    	--	Connectivity Software
    	--	System Platforms
    	--	Components
    
    o	Digital targets four major growth opportunities:
    
    	--	High-performance enterprise 64-bit UNIX platforms
    	--      High-performance technical computing
        --	Windows NT across the enterprise
    	--	Connectivity within and between enterprises
    
    Connectivity essentially means connecting people to people, people to 
    information and companies to companies.  In Q3 and Q4, you will see 
    increased focus on two of the key components of connectivity:  
    enterprise connectivity software and our Internet business.  We have 
    superior technology, key strategic partnerships and the determination 
    to be the industry leader in connectivity.
    
    The strategy is already having a strong impact in the market, such as:
    
    * The VLM 64 campaign (Very Large Memory, 64-bit database platforms for 
    VLM applications).  The announcement of FX!32 translation software, 
    which BYTE magazine called "revolutionary" -- to attract more business 
    partners to the Alpha platform;
    
    * The announcement of new Internet hardware and software products and 
    services, including the launch of Digital's super spider technology, 
    code-named Alta Vista, which one analyst called, "very impressive, very 
    fast and very comprehensive...a showcase application for Alpha.";
    
    * New Windows NT products and services, including the XL personal 
    workstation product lines for Alpha and Intel based systems;

    
    * Significant wins, such as the Compaq Computer contract for services 
    valued at several hundred million dollars, and the $12 million contract 
    for multiple AlphaServer 8400 systems, together with thousands of PCs, 
    by Best Western International, the world's largest hotel chain.
    
    You are all key to building on our strong momentum.  By understanding 
    the basic elements of our strategy for growth, and by supporting them 
    in your own work, you will add energy to that momentum.  
    
    My thanks for all you have done to make our historic turnaround 
    possible and to position us for industry leadership again.
    
    Regards,
    
    Bob
    

First of all I apologize to the 80 col community for note 121.  I guess my 
window got resized and I didn't realize it.  


re: 139
>>>re: .102
    
    Please explain how laying off people who had recently received their
    MSSE certification at great expense to Digital and Microsoft is
    consistent with your opinion expressed in .102.
<<<

I'm sorry, I can't explain it, there likely is no logical explanation.

I was not addressing mis-management (or the host of other problems I mentioned
in .121).

I was simply addressing this notion that employees will have a negative attitude
until they have job security.  Perhaps they will, I don't think they should.
If you disagree with that, fine, its only an opinion.

Brad

Hi Bob,

Thanks for taking the time to drop by here, it is refreshing to have you
responding to the concerns of those in the front line.

I'd like to comment on "strategy" and to present a case in point about our
capability of communicating our plans to our customers.

Firstly, "strategy" - this is a word which has huge connotations and is often
taken (mistaken) to assume  plans, milestones, commitments, measurands and 
deliverables are all in place to satisfy one.

Customers are not silly, they fail to believe our strategies because we
are not able define our plans to fulfill these strategies efectively enough to
convince them that they ought to back us for the long term.

I enclose the following memo which I sent to our OpenVMS marketing manager here
in Australia as a case in point, I do not wish to get into the perennial
OpenVMS vs the rest debate but merely use this to illustrate the frustration we
have to deal with daily.

I requested a comprehensive directions statement for one of our largest
customers and received a very fluffy "strategy" statement in reply.

This customer is implementing an Over-The-Horizon Radar Network for the
Australian Dept. of Defence, revenue to Digital is approx $25M, comprising 20
Alphaserver 8400s, hundreds of gigabytes of disk, numerous gigaswitches and
DEChub products and 40 AlphaStation 500s as operator consoles.

Thanks for listening.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


--> STEPHEN MANUEL               {Filing: 034200 in JORN-VMS                   }
M/S: ADO                         {Title: RE: I: OpenVMS Commitment text        }
                                 {Printed at 00:39 on 23-Jul-1996, Text Type:W }

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

 Digital Equipment Corporation          Date:     02-Jul-1996 21:31 AES
 (Australia) Pty. Limited               From:     STEPHEN MANUEL
 A.C.N. 000 446 800                               MANUEL STEPHEN
                                        Dept:     SI
                                        Tel No:   235-7232, MOB 0412-815296

TO:  Rolf Jester                          ( JESTER ROLF AT A1@SNOFS1@SNO )

CC:  Alistair Long                        ( LONG ALISTAIR )

Subject: RE: I: OpenVMS Commitment text

	 Hi Rolf,

	 Sorry for the delayed response, Q4 close took over, this reply 
         gets a bit verbose but it is important in order to present my 
         views, please feel free to send this un-altered to Wes Melling 
         if you wish.

	 This statement is not even close to being adequate, we are 
         working with customers who are committing to long term projects 
         of 20 years duration.

	 If the project became locked at a particular VMS and Hardware 
         release and was never expected to be upgraded it would regress 
         over time from a support issue to a "capability of supporting 
         it" issue, this can be managed and we have a contract clause 
         which says we "shall" manage it. 

	 However, I am taking a more pragmatic view and looking at the 
         guidance that I, as the Digital ""expert"", should be giving 
         the customer for the next 5-6 years at least, this covers the 
         remainder of the development phase and the operational set to 
         work phase prior to handover to the RAAF. 

	 If we dump OpenVMS in this period we not only cause the 
         customer significant problems which equate to direct cost 
         impacts, but I (most importantly) and Digital lose credibility 
         by not providing the strategic guidance expected of me/us, this 
         cannot be taken lightly. This will cause irreparable damage to 
         our long term relationship with the customer, the Department of 
         Defence and with whichever Government Departments and Agencies 
         that get caught up in the ripple on effects of such an action.

	 The customer has, for all the right reasons, chosen OpenVMS as 
         his operating system while withstanding significant opposition 
         from a Unix biased contingent within the project, what he 
         really needs is assurance that Digital will continue 
         development of OpenVMS over the above time period, such that 
         when he hands the system over to the RAAF he hands over a state 
         of the art architecture supported by a current operating 
         system.

	 The intention is to track OS releases as closely as 
         configuration control and third party software dependancies 
         allow up to at least the time of deployment, with the option of 
         either stabilising at that version during set to work or 
         tracking the operating system releases if features beneficial 
         to the project are introduced.

	 Beyond the 5 year window it is difficult to project what may 
         happen but there is already an enhancement program in progress 
         and going on past history we can expect hardware upgrades about 
         every 5 years or so, it would be co-incident with a hardware 
         upgrade that change of OS decisions would be taken.

	 Other similar systems which I am involved with seem to stay one 
         or two releases behind our OS releases, this is usually purely 
         a logistical issue in that it takes time to generate and test 
         new s/w baselines and the fact that OS releases never co-incide 
         with system modification or enhancement requirements, as well 
         as this, not all minor releases of OpenVMS (or any OS for that 
         matter) offer such significant enhancements or new features 
         that the generation of a new baseline is economical.

	 Enough of the background, I do not expect Wes to be able to 
         ennunciate a 20 year plan or even commit to OpenVMS being 
         offered in 20 years time but I do expect him to be able to 
         ennunciate the following (under non-disclosure provisions 
         naturally) :-

	 a/ the short term, 2-3 year release schedule and proposed 
         enhancements over this period

	 b/ the medium term plans to 2001 in a broad sense, possible 
         enhancements and new projects being thought about - without any 
         implied commitment

	 c/ the size of the team working on OpenVMS and his staffing 
         projections over the short term projects at least

	 d/ the commitment to track and support Alpha H/w releases over 
         the short to medium term period

	 e/ the commitment of other s/w development groups and programs 
         to maintain OpenVMS as a supported OS for their products in the 
         short to medium term

	 f/ the OpenVMS strategic plan from a corporate positioning 
         perspective relative to our other OS offerings, showing 
         percentage effort/expenditure projections

	 g/ the OpenVMS market segment projections for both server and 
         workstation class Alpha hardware over the next few years

	 h/ the preferred directions that we should be guiding our 
         OpenVMS customers in, stay with OpenVMS for all platforms/ 
         convert workstations to WNT/ adopt client/server Affinity model 
         /go to Unix etc. etc.. 

	 I realise that this may be seen as a tall order but we have 
         access to Digital Semiconductor projections to beyond 2000, yes 
         they get a bit fuzzy out there but we see what the intention 
         is, but we have no such forward projection information on 
         OpenVMS or on any other OS or software products for that 
         matter.

	 It is an interesting aside that looking at an Alpha chip 1992 
         projection chart the other day we are considerably in front of 
         the performance projections and fairly accurate on the release 
         schedule projected.

	 The customer quite rightly has a degree of nervousness with the 
         longevity of OpenVMS because over the life of this project - 4 
         years to date - he has seen us - 

	 -sell off a large chunk of the storage business 
	 -sell off Rdb and associated TP products 
	 -dump NMCC/DECmcc for Netview 
	 -sell off many of the Polycenter products he was intending to 
         use to CA 
	 -fail to support several management tools on OpenVMS Alpha 
	 -drop ADA9X development 
	 -partner with Rational for ADA95/APEX but there is NO OpenVMS 
         version of this being produced - a slight problem for a project 
         involving 1+ Million lines of ADA code which will need to go to 
         ADA95 at some stage in the development - the lack of a GEM 
         based compiler on OpenVMS means that the optimiser will be 
         inferior to the GEM code generator which causes appropriate 
         performance concerns 
	 -drop DEC VUIT and adopt a third party product 
	 
	 With products that continue disappearing from the OpenVMS 
         portfolio IS IT ANY WONDER THAT HE ASKS Digital FOR SOME 
         STATEMENT OF CONTINUING COMMITMENT TO OpenVMS ? - look at this 
         issue from the customer's perspective and provide a 
         comprehensive statement of direction for me to present to my 
         customer. 

	 Regards,

	 Steve Manuel
	 Technical Support
	 JORN Systems Architecture Consultant              
    

    
    re: .141

    > I was simply addressing this notion that employees will have a
    >negative attitude until they have job security.  Perhaps they will, 
    >I don't think they should.

    Excuse me?  You don't think that an employee has the right to know that
    his/her company has a plan/strategy that would allow them employment
    for a quarter or six months at at time?

    Security is a basic human need.  I realize that lifetime employment
    is no longer a guarantee, but continually keeping people on the edge,
    causing a life of doubt and uncertainty is no way to encourage them
    to produce at a high level.  And that is the level Digital needs from
    people.  Don't guarantee lifetime employment, just give some assurance 
    that 
    	1) there is more than a short term strategy to keep this 
           company afloat.  Not words, actions.
    	2) people outside of the greater Maynard area are of value to this
           company.
        3) people at the Corporate VP, President and CEO levl have a clue 
           what is going on at the regional and local level.

    The local sales people were just put through the wringer for what
    appears to be no reason.  X sales people told that they had to apply
    for the X/2 available positions.  Another week of sales activity lost,
    only for it to end up with all people in basically the same jobs.

    If you have a family and a mortgage, how often are you going to put
    up with that, no matter what your loyalty to the Digital?
    
    Sharon

re .143.

Please!  Everyting you said I agree with.  Its common sense!  Unfortuantly it 
responds to my .141 taken out of context.  Go back to .98, and read the thread:

.98>> until it's heard from above that the
      layoffs are (finally) over, there will continue to be fear and negative 
      outlook among the troups. <<

Thats what I commented on.  I do not think we will ever have job securtiy that
says the layoffs are finally over.  And the author of .98 clarified in .124 what 
he meant in .98.  

If you feel the need to comment on what I've said, that is great.  But please
read back through the thread so you understand the context.  

I think we are all pretty much on the same sheet of music, can we please try to 
play now?

Brad

    RE: 119
    
    IBM is also getting bad press out of their Olympic computing.
    
    It seems scores and numbers are not being calculated quick enough. On
    NBC National news this AM, it was told that issues have come up regarding
    IBM's capability to support the Olympics.  Computers/calculations are 
    running too slow and many complaints have been raised to the Olympic 
    Committee who has called on IBM Brass to improve the IBM performance 
    for the rest of the games.
    
    Monty
    
    
    
    

When we talk about our strategy in terms of technoid stuff (like 64-bit
anything or any particular platform), it leaves me feeling nervous on
two counts, as both an employee and smalltime stockholder:

1. it doesn't pass the Elevator Test

Yeah, it may be easy to say "64-bit UNIX" in the 30 seconds i'm in the
elevator with someone...and some of our previous strategies were way
too wordy to do that.  But: who's the target customer, what's the need
that this satisfies from their standpoint, who are we competing against,
and what's the key differentiator that would make our customer want to
buy our offering versus the competition's?  There should be a single
sentence accompanying each of these strategies that any employee could
rattle off to a prospective customer, answering all of these items.

2. it gives no sense of the market we see this strategy targeting

Are we inventing a new market?  Is it already there?  How big is it
now ($$$)?  How big do we see it being next year, in 2 years, 5 years?
What percentage of that market are we realistically aiming to capture
tomorrow, in 2 years, in 5 years, etc.?  If we're talking 33% of 4
niche markets, then maybe we need to be a 25000 employee company and
that's the reality we should look forward to.  If it's 20% of 4
humongous markets, maybe this is the last big layoff and we can see
ourselves growing and adding lots of jobs in the near future.  The
math should make this easy to figure out--if our targets are
realistic and if we pull together and make our targets.  But what
are our targets?

Anybody from Marketing have some insight into this?

- thanks, paul

    In addition to providing job stability (relatively speaking), maybe a
    career path and someday some more income, and currently simplifying
    our processes for our partners and customers, Digital absolutely MUST
    improve the perception of the company. I am not exxagerating when I
    say that wherever I go, if someone asks me where I work and I tell
    them, they say, "Home did you manage to survive?" and "I thought that
    Digital was going out of business!" and "I here it's a really crappy
    place to work, why don't you look elsewhere?" People are amazed when
    I tell them that the company has actually grown (sales) tremendously during
    these times and that less than half the people are doing more. They
    are amazed!
    
    Therefore, it is not we the employees, it is the total public
    perception of Digital that needs to be fixed. First it starts with
    the employees so that we can once again sell the virtues of Digital
    by word-of-mouth. This is accomplished by treating us better, by far.
    Second, upper management must get the message out that Digital is
    doing far better than what is perceived. Then a nice, simple, positive
    message, not technical mumbo-jumbo that nobody understands, that
    states these are our plans and here's how we plan to accomplish them.
    
    
    -Bert-
                                                     

    	What .-1 said might be a bigger problem than people think. There
    was a reply in here about one of the big differences between working at
    Microsoft and working at Digital, and it boiled down to team spirit and
    working together for the good of the company. When Harry Copperman came
    to ZKO to address different engineering groups, he started asking
    people in the audience, "When someone asks you what you do for a
    living, what do you say?" People were responding with, "I'm an
    engineer" or "I'm a programmer" and he kept trying until he got someone
    to answer, "I work for Digital." He said that you can ask *anyone* from
    IBM what they do for a living, and they'll say, "I work for IBM" with
    obvious pride in their voices...that it's not true at Digital...and we
    have to make it true. One reason I, for one, don't respond to the
    question that way is because of what was pointed out in .-1. I used to
    say that I worked for Digital, and the response was always something
    like, "And you still have a job?" or "Are they still in business?" Who
    wants to hear that? So now I just say that I'm an engineer, and if they
    ask where I work, I say Digital. This perception problem must be fixed.
    	It carries over into other parts of our lives as well. I've moved
    around a lot in the past couple of years (still in New England), having
    rented, gotten loans, etc.., and landlords and loan officers become
    noticably uncomfortable when you say you work for Digital. The
    perception is that you may lose your job and be unable to pay...that
    you're high risk. That's bad news for all of us. You don't fix the
    perception problem by *telling* everyone you're a great company. It's
    something you have to demonstrate, and we are not doing it.

Dear Bob,

	There's a few points I personally would like to see addressed in
	this note, if possible.

	o VP's. We are at over 200. It seems we get a new one every other
	  week. I know that most of them are title only, but it's a 
	  demoralizing issue for some. There is a perception in Corporate
	  America that the top folks get richer while the grunts get
	  poorer. VP announcements don't help to disspell that illusion.

	  My Question: Do we really need that many?

	o Marketing. Digital is known, especially internally in the
	  engineering community, for its "Stealth Marketing". I'm tired 
	  of us having the best product that nobody knows about. 

	  My Question: When is Marketing going to be fixed? 

	o Customer Relations. Bob, this is probably the most important
	  question I have. According to many, Digital is too difficult
	  to deal with. This notesfile is rank with stories of customers
	  that buy from us IN SPITE OF US. I can only imagine how many
	  give up in frustration. A fundemental change in how we do
	  business is needed.

	  My Question: Do you agree and if so, how do we fix it?

	That's it for now. I think I've touched on enough sore spots. 
	Thanks for listening and really, thanks for participating here.
	Management by Noting Around is a reasonable substitution for
	Management by Walking Around in a global corporation such as
	ours. I appreciate you spending the time.

						mike foley
				Telephony Partners Engineering Group

   re: .149

   "VPs in name only".  Unfortunately, it's not "name only".  When I've been
   struggling along in this company for 17+ years, do a good job, and am told
   I still can't expect a raise, I can get awfully miffed when some VP gets
   announced into his position making a half-mil a year or so.  THAT is
   demoralizing.  What do those people do?  Prove to me they do something
   that is worth 10 times my salary.

   -- Sam

    
    	Hmmm, I'm only 7 levels away from CEO.
    
    	Look out, Bob, here I come!!  8^)
    

    re .several:
    
    On a recent business trip to MA, the immigration official at Logan
    asked me (as usual) whether I'm on a business trip or a tourist. Honest
    as I am, I said "Business - I work for Digital". The answer: "What? Are
    they still in business?"  This was not with a funny face (though I
    admit, the immigration officials rarely smile).
    
    re levels: At the peak, I had 3 levels between me and the CEO (Ken
    Olsen). I don't even have a slightest idea how many there are now (I
    have a hard time tracking who my manager two or three levels up is).
    

Dear Bob,

Steve here.
Let me tell you about my dream while I was on vacation the last couple weeks.

In this dream...

When I said I worked for DIGITAL, when asked what I did for a living,
I answered it with a great truthful pride, "DIGITAL, I'm in Customer Support".
You'd think I invented the light bulb or Polio vaccine or something.
People all started to gather around, asking various technical questions, which
I nimbly fielded with great aplomb.
I was very humble about it though...brought smiles to everyones faces.
Could they have my card? Could we support their equipment too? On and on they
went, while serving me wine-coolers and hors d'oeuvres, what a good time...

somewhere, later in the week, another night, another dream...
 
I shouted out "can't we slow those Marketing folks down?" "geez, we must be
paying them too well"
I was referring to all the great TV and print ads I saw, from cable TV in my 
hotel room, to the USA TODAY newspaper at my door, constantly telling
the world about 500Mhz chips and all, on every blessed channel and sporting 
event on the planet. God, I can't get away from it, even on vacation! 
Seeing all those flashy commercials, those simple but slick magazine ads, 
that magenta looking DIGITAL logo on everything from race cars to tee-shirts
at the malls. Enough already! the whole world knows us too well!
Fortunately, they ignored me because I was at Busch Gardens, and they couldn't
hear me...

And then I woke up, and read a Wall Street Journal over coffee...
"DIGITAL CUTS 7,000...

Whats going on back there? 
That couldn't be Bob, its not like him these last few months...

Forget it, I'm on vacation.

    I just had another layer added between myself and the guy at the top
    (as part of the realtime -> SBU reorg).
    
    Seems strange: the company is getting smaller, I'm (arguably)
    getting more senior, and I keep getting more distance between myself
    and the top. (this is the furthest I've been in 15 years..) Hm.
    
    Oh, well, back to building beta kits.. hour 13 today..
    
    ...tom 

in re .84:

|   This brings me to your last point: "stop bleeding people".  This, of 
|   course, is not the way I refer to the process of aligning resources with 
|   revenues, but the result can be interpreted as such.  We have begun to 
|   grow, but even if revenues per employee climb quickly, our cost 
|   structure is below competitive levels. 

I agree that we need to align resources with revenue and profit, but I personally
treat bleed to mean undesirable attrition as opposed to things you really want to
happen. You cannot, of course, elliminate it, but you can reduce it by being more
clear in communicating and executing your decisions. I have seen it several times
now where it appears as if senior management is divided and unclear.

I don't mind decisions if they are made and then executed. But what I do object to
is when they are "sort of" made .. as in we have prolongued periods where there is 
significant room for interpretation in either way. Nobody knows for sure and people 
continue to champion their position. And during these periods, productivity goes down 
signficantly, not only breeding discomfort, but also frustrating and disappointing our 
customers. And it is during these periods that you completely trash excellent people
who feel so disgusted by the whole thing that they just pack up and leave, making
an unclear decision into a de-facto decision.

And, while I'm at it, it is almost a joke with more levels of VPs than non-VPs in
this company. Almost like DCU has a 60,000 people MIS department. Can't you do
something about this? Either make everyone a VP or reduce the number to those who
really have the authority to control our destiny. 

Cheers,

>Per

   re: .151  - too many levels of mgmt

    It is not only the problem with a VERY high organization tree,
   many of the middle levels middle management (MLMM), often report
   to more than one manager in turn. It is, in my site, called 
   "the dotted line syndrome".
    And many of the MLMM's are actually proud of the dotted lines.

   I have problem seeing this work in conjuction with the No 
   Excuse mgmt.

   /Jojo

Don't you hate people who exceed 80 columns!!

   <<< Note 4719.156 by MPGS::enzo.zko.dec.com::HAMNQVIST "Video servers" >>>

in re .84:

|   This brings me to your last point: "stop bleeding people".  This, of 
|   course, is not the way I refer to the process of aligning resources with 
|   revenues, but the result can be interpreted as such.  We have begun to 
|   grow, but even if revenues per employee climb quickly, our cost 
|   structure is below competitive levels. 

I agree that we need to align resources with revenue and profit, but I
personally treat bleed to mean undesirable attrition as opposed to things you
really want to happen. You cannot, of course, elliminate it, but you can reduce
it by being more clear in communicating and executing your decisions. I have
seen it several times now where it appears as if senior management is divided
and unclear.

I don't mind decisions if they are made and then executed. But what I do object
to is when they are "sort of" made .. as in we have prolongued periods where
there is  significant room for interpretation in either way. Nobody knows for
sure and people  continue to champion their position. And during these periods,
productivity goes down  signficantly, not only breeding discomfort, but also
frustrating and disappointing our  customers. And it is during these periods
that you completely trash excellent people who feel so disgusted by the whole
thing that they just pack up and leave, making an unclear decision into a
de-facto decision.

And, while I'm at it, it is almost a joke with more levels of VPs than non-VPs
in this company. Almost like DCU has a 60,000 people MIS department. Can't you
do something about this? Either make everyone a VP or reduce the number to those
who really have the authority to control our destiny. 

Cheers,

>Per

    I hear a lot of victims here.  After thinking about the possibility of
    layoffs I reached the conclusion that even if there is an even
    distribution of Bob's 7000 there are 9 chances out of 10 that you, or I
    will not be one of them.  Even if we are, there are fates worse.  After
    all, who knows that the breath they are taking is not their last, or
    how many more they have.
    
    Our company has been bet on 64 bit processing, UNIX and the Internet. 
    If movement into this future continues, 90% of us are in fine shape as
    long as we ride the wave.  If some other future comes to pass, we will
    have had an exiciting ride.
    
    Anybody know Compaq?  Seems like they had to file Chapter 11 before
    they turned around.  Digital is in better shape than that.  If we bet
    on the right future, we still have time to get there.

    
    Re -.1
    
    ...64-bits, UNIX and internet....
    
    What Interent business are we in? Are we still in connectivity? I say
    yes? Internet is such a big thing..... why are we laying "internet"
    people off? We have these well defined nothings in this company. Enough
    gray, grey, areas to make people think we know the walk, talk the talk,
    pass you by, pass that group by, etc. Then when it comes to delivery,
    service and implementation, *those* people are not around any longer.
    
    I see the corporate strategy, I see the implementation to get there.
    Two different and no where near connected paths any time soon, in some
    areas.
    
    -Mike Z.

    
    	I wonder what Bob or any of the 200+ VPs say when asked what is
    	they're occupation?  Do they say "I'm CEO or VP of mumbly-fritz at
    	Digital" or is it just "I'm CEO or VP of a large computer company"
    
    	In my 22 years at Digital, I was proud to say I worked at
    	Digital.  After being TFSO'd in 1994 (after 20 yrs) and being
    	rehired in 1995, I usually tell people I'm a software engineer.
    	I try not to say Digital if I can help it. Digital went from
    	being the premier company to work for in New England to the last
    	one you'd want to be associated with.  This must change..  Digital
    	is still a good company to work for; the products we engineer are
    	second to none.

    It's bloody ridiculous to be EMBARASSED to work for a company. If
    you're that ashamed of working for DIGITAL, go work for a company that
    you like!                            
    
    This kind of negativity cannot help anyone work effectively. 
    
    I worked for Digital from 1983-92 and am now back as a short-term
    contractor and I'm HAPPY to be here. 

    -1:
    
    bloody?  Hubris?

    How could someone be embarassed?
    
    I literally day dreamed about working for DEC for ten years, from 1976
    to 1986.  I have always been impressed with our products, with a few
    notable exceptions.
    
    Now I've been here for 10 years, and have been real happy to have had
    the opportunity.
    
    I still love working here, in spite of the Dilbert-esque episodes that
    come up.  Sometimes something comes up that drives me nuts, and I think
    about looking outside.  I've never even come up with an idea for
    something I'd really prefer to do over contributing to Digital's turn
    around.
    
    I still think we have outstanding technology.  The development pipeline
    seems full of competetive product.  Some reasonably competetive, some
    potentially breath-taking.
     
    I can't find any serious fault with the corporate strategy.  There are
    issues around execution that we are still struggling with.
    
    I'm just out in the field doing sales support, but occasionally attend
    events where the top brass show up and I'm not bashful about trying to
    chat with them.
    
    I think I put in several extra miles for the company, but these guys
    are really putting it all out.  I also think that one of the key
    driving forces for them is a concern for the well being of Digital
    employees.
    
    I would expect that among his peers, Bob Palmer is well respected for
    the progress Digital has made toward stability and growth under his
    leadership.
    
    I too would like to see some "air cover" in advertising.  I'd like to
    see more outside of the trade rags.  It is really hard to get an
    identity for a name like digital.  Personally, I would have prefered we
    put the money into DEC.
    
    JMHO,
    
    Frank

  I'd like to remind folks that .0 really isn't about layoffs,
  per se.

  It's about the customer perceptions that we're soon going
  to be going out of business as a free-standing corporation.
  To me, this is a much larger concern than whether or not
  I'll survive (a hypothetical) next round of layoffs.

  And we've certainly seen enough notes in this conference
  corroborating my story to know that this perception exists
  in many customers' and pospects' minds.

                                   Atlant

    .154's dream note reminded my of my prayer note below.  Note the
    date and the sameness of today's issues.
    
    
             <<< HUMANE::DISK$SCSI:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 2027.0                    A Salesman's Prayer                    11 replies
HOTWTR::THOMPSOKR "Kris with a K"                   101 lines  29-JUL-1992 23:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Lord, help me in these troubling times at my company.  Help me 
see the light and the end of the dark tunnel and help me to remain 
positive in a sea of negativity.

Help me find product information so I can respond to my customer's 
questions quickly, completely, and competently, rather than the 5 phone 
calls and 2 days it typically takes.  Keep me from saying "I don't know 
but I'll get back to you" no more than 3 times a day.  Give me one source 
of product and pricing information, Lord, not 12.

Give me competitive products at a fair price to sell and I'll do the 
rest.  Oh yeah, the products should be easy to understand and sell, too.
Teach management the value of advertising and teach me the proper
response when my customers say, "Digital sure has great products.  You 
know, if you would just advertise more we could buy more because manage-
ment would then feel more comfortable with a decision to buy DEC."

Leave me alone and let me do the job I was hired for.  Put people - heck, 
Lord, make it a culture - in place that ask every day,  "What can we do 
to sell more?" and "What do the customers REALLY want?"  Help other 
Digital functions understand sales as it is at other companies. (I 
realize the word "appreciate" would be too much to ask for, Lord, so I 
would settle for an "understanding" instead.  After all, I work for 
Digital, the company that is embarassed about selling.)

Good God Almighty, please eliminate the systems and the culture that are 
counter-productive, redundant, and inefficient.

Teach me patience and understanding in dealing with DECies that are 
incompetent and lazy.  Show senior management the debilitating effects 
these people have on the morale and motivation of others.  Teach 
management how to discipline - even fire - people who take advantage of 
Digital's laissez-faire culture.  Help management learn how to give a 
real, honest performance reviews.

Help us understand why some people get paid for essentially sitting at 
their desks and do nothing to help generate revenue.  Help those that 
were hired for a job they were not qualified to perform to find work 
outside the company and support them, as it was not their fault they were 
hired.  Stop the departure of the "good" people and expedite the 
departure of the "bad" people.  You know who they are, Lord, just like we 
do.  

We pray to eliminate the bickering and politics that exists and help 
management see the paralyzing effect this has.  If you find management 
still bickering and politicking instead of making business decisions to 
save Digital, eliminate them, too, oh Lord.

Protect others in Sales from going though what I did, including 5 
managers in 18 months and a late-Q3 budget increase of 30%.  Help Digital
sales management learn how to properly recognize and reward people.  Help 
me keep a positive attitude, Lord.

Teach management to make decisions quickly and to communicate with
clarity and vision.  Also, please put a sales guy (someone that actually 
sold) near the top, if not in charge.  Not someone like slick Chick but 
someone like our dear departed Dinucci.  He was a regular Joe.

Forgive those salespeople that talk too much.  Teach them brevity.  

May those in product management and marketing that insist on using 
DECspeak instead of English have their tongues sandblasted.  Teach the 
teachers to speak clearly so we can clearly sell.

I don't need to make a ton of money to be happy, Lord, but please pay me 
the same as my peers in the industry, or help me understand why I make 
60% less than them when they sell fewer products and have an easier time 
doing so.  Shoot, Lord, there are reps at Sun and Oracle and SGI and 
Joe's Computers that aren't as good as me and are making THREE TIMES MORE 
than I am.  Help right that wrong.

Help me motivate myself when management doesn't know how, which, 
unfortunately, is often.

Help Mr. Palmer in his new role and encourage him to move quickly.  We 
need vision.  We need leadership.  We need action.  And we need it now.  
Encourage others to support him or show them the way out.

Please help me fathom a $2.8 billion loss.  And guide management to make 
the necessary cuts, deep enough to be effective and to be the last time.  
Give management the courage and the conviction to eliminate jobs that 
don't have any real productive function.  Provide guidance to management 
to understand that we are running a business and not a socialist state.

Give me tools to help me do my job.  (And while you're at it, Lord, give 
me a quote system that is *actually* productive and whip the AQS 
supporters with Sales Updates until they bloody understand the absolute 
nightmare this system puts us through.)

Please help us develop a measurement system that does not lead to 
conflicting behaviors across functions.

Above all, help us move forward in a positive, collective spirit.

Lastly, Lord, give me a work environment that is positive and challenging 
and filled with bright, motivated people.  Help the rest to leave the 
company.  

Bless the unemployed.  

Amen.
    

    
    	Did you get that guy's permission before posting that here?
    

    re:165
    
    	Atlant,
    
    	When, in the history of notefiles, has any individual note stayed
    relative to the base note after just 60+ replies, much less 160+ ;-)
    
    	Ray

    CEO Snarf

    re: .-1
    
    I must be incredibly dense...
    

    
    
    
    
    The following has been cross-posted in Digital_UNIX notes conference.
    I think it has the same points as note .0 so I want to put here too.
    Besides, I do wish if Bob Palmer or some of his ( also ours) VPs can see 
    this one:
    
    After 10 months, we finally received PO from a startegic customer to
    order two Alpha workstations, one 2100 and nearly half million for
    software development.  Those equipments running with Digital UNIX
    arrived yesterday.
    
    As the opportunity/project manager, today I walked into custom's office
    ( MIS manager with 20 people) welcomed by the following issues:
    
    1.  Customers were encouraged by Digital's promoting sales to buy the 
    	bundled package such as Openview3D and other goodies.  However, the 
    	Openview3D cannot run on Digital UNIX 4.0.  Customer has to use 3.2f
    
    2.  In 3.2f, CDE can not communicate with the C2 level security.  Customer
    	has been told by the hotline support that this is a bug in 3.2f and
    	a patch is needed to correct this.
    
    3.  The color of the Alpha workstation is in dark gray-blue but the moinitor
    	is still the same light color.  When these two put together on
    	customer's walnut desk,  we have difficulty to adjust our feeling
        about this kind of color contrast.
    
    
    Question to ourselves:
    
    1.  Why are we promoting sales of imcompatible software products?
    
    2.  Why are we not putting together all right stuffs of software to
    	send to customer?  Why de we have to wait until customer find out
    	something is wrong then to send a patched file.
    
    3.  Is there any feedback on the color of the Alpha Workstation?
    	maybe I should post this question in other place.
    
    4.  Who is the person I should contact to get real hands-on support 
        to help my customer not just verbal services?
    
    Thanks in advance.

It was also pointed out in the Digital UNIX conference that:

1. Openview3D is not a known product.

2. CDE is not supported on 3.2F, and is explicitly stated in the release notes 
that it doesn't work with C2.

3. Colour is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think the standard beige is 
awful.

Answers to questions:

1. We aren't (not in this case, anyway).

2. If somebody (whether inside or outside Digital) can't read the explicit 
statements about software in the release notes, how can they blame Digital?

3. Alpha workstation product management.

4. Local MCS?

I don't think Mr Palmer need be bothered with this one.

PJDM

    I think it bears noting that there is an intangible cost associated
    with the latest round of bloodletting. The cartoons in the Boston
    Globe that paint management as having layoffs as the knee jerk
    reaction to unsatisfactory financial results unfortunately reflect the
    general sentiment that Digital is a company that only knows one answer
    to poor results- to fire the worker bees. This does have the effect of
    eliminating the costs associated with employing these workers, but
    this is not without cost to the corporation. And that cost is the
    undermining of the belief by our customers and potential customers that 
    this corporation is capable of remaining viable over the long term.
    
     People come up to me all the time to ask me if I'm concerned for my
    job since "Digital's laying off again". I routinely reply "No, because
    my division is making money," which is a condition which may or may not
    continue depending on all kinds of things that are not under my
    control. I also note that calls from headhunters seem to be even more
    frequent than usual following announcements of impending layoffs; our
    competitors are positively gleeful at the prospect of getting talent
    from the Digital farm. Here in networks, we have provided a bounty of
    talent for other companies, talent which is extremely difficult to
    replace in the networking field at this moment in time. This does not
    bode particularly well for the future, to lose talent in this way.
    We've had to cut back on product development and deployment plans as a
    result of too few resources.
    
     There comes a time when we as a company have to suck it up and deal
    with the headcount and mobilize the talent to where it's needed simply
    because to continue to announce layoffs after we are ostensibly back on
    our feet undermines our credibility. My personal opinion is that
    announcing the layoff is more damanging to the stock price than the
    underperformance of the company relative to expectations. But it's not
    the stock price that's my biggest concern, it's the fears of existing
    customers that we might not make it, and of potential customers who
    decide not to take that chance. Those directly affect top line
    revenues, and that's where this company needs to address its efforts.
    It's no longer time to trim the workforce to bring expenses in line
    with revenues, it's time to grow the revenues. We can't do that if we
    don't have the products in place because we let too many people go.
    
     I think that Bob's done a fine job so far, but I'm hoping that we
    aren't going to go to the well (of using layoffs to improve financial
    results) once too often. I was encouraged by Enrico Pesatori's
    resignation, in that it appears that someone other than the worker bees
    is being held accountable for failure to produce. I was decidedly less
    encouraged, however, when I heard he was going to be paid $1.5M anyway.
    Where do _I_ sign to get such a deal?
    
     I do want to express my support and gratitude for "success sharing."
    It's exactly the right thing to do, BUT I don't see any reason to put a
    limit on the amount that people can earn. If the metrics are properly
    set and the group exceeds the metrics by an immense amount, there's no
    reason why the group shouldn't be given an immense reward. For example,
    the max that we in networks could earn as a bonus was 12%, and that
    would be for having an exceptionally good year. I don't understand the
    motivation of a max. Human nature being what it is, people are going to
    be inclined to take their foot off the accelerator after they max out.
    Would it really hurt Digital to pay a bonus equal to 50% of one's
    salary if we had such a wildly successful year that people began to
    question whether the metrics were set high enough? I don't think so.
    And those of us who work hard to provide products worth marketing,
    those of us who market the products, support the products, etc would be
    delighted to get such a fat chunk of change. And we'd deserve it.
    
     Mark Levesque

Re: .173

You actually got "success sharing"?  We in SBU were promised it, and were told
we had exceeded the goal, and then... silence.  Yesterday's mail delivered
a grim note from Harry Copperman, reminding all of us to keep a stiff upper
lip.

I don't like being lied to.

				Steve

    The prayer note (.166) is a very sobering note. It is 4 years old, and
    I could not find one single problem mentioned  in it that was fixed today.
    We have every problem itemized there, plus a few new ones.
    
    We are not making progress. Does anyone in management ever look back at
    old statements to see if we are making progress? Other than the
    financial statement of the last year. 

RE: .174

	I knew I should have saved that copy of "Digital Today" that
	touted we in the SBU would be getting a bonus.

	I too do not appreciate this.

							mike

    re: .174
    
    And I had just heard that it might not be dead, ... yet.
    
    Mark

Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to say exactly *what* the 
metrics were that the SBU was to meet in order to participate in the 
"success sharing", I was told that the SBU did meet its numbers.  My 
understanding was that we would qualify for a 2% year-end bonus.  Does 
anyone have any official statement on SBU "success sharing"?  If we did 
*not* qualify, can anyone state what the goal was and how we did?

Jim

    >My personal opinion is that announcing the layoff is more damanging to
    >the stock price than the underperformance of the company relative to
    >expectations.
    
    So, the question I would ask, is how does our corporate office meet the
    employee's request for HONEST communication regarding the state of the
    company?
    
    In the past the media has told us what Digital was going to do.  And
    most people I work with resented that.   The effect of the "rumor"
    wasn't much different than the effect of the "fact" as viewed from this
    perspective.
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    	    We've all obviously heard the same things.  If I remember
            correctly, we exceeded our goals by 9% or something close to
            it.  And I've been scanning the mail being sent out by
            Harry Copperman and Don Harbert for any kind of an inkling
            as to whether we can still expect to receive the 'bonus' we've
            been promised.  No mention of it, directly, at all.
    
            JJ
    [EOB]

    re:-1
    
    In the Asia Pacific Region (and I believe throughout the SBU) the
    metrics used to determine "success sharing" are:
    
    		Inventory
    		Predictability
    		M&D Survey (Employee Satisfaction)
    		P&L
    		Quality - Short Ship, Mis-ship, DOA
    
    There are sub-sets to all of the above, ie. each AP territory is
    measured as well as stage II manufacturing, etc.
    
    AP is only a piece of the SBU.  I'm not sure if success sharing
    depends on the SBU as a whole or if the individual SBU groups making
    there metrics is enough to qualify.
    
    Ralph

    	A very important piece of corporate ethics is to NOT
    promise something that you cannot deliver.  In the past I've
    seen DEC bend over backwards to "make things right" with
    customers, occasionally losing money (giving away extra
    hardware) rather than allowing a customer to be dissatisfied
    with what we promised to deliver.  This endeared us to a
    great many customers, which was a good part of why we were
    so successful... It's OK to lose money if you do so to
    maintain your reputation - that reputation will be worth far
    more in the long run.
    
    	I will continue to trust that any success sharing promises
    will be honored - for similar reasons.
    
    Cheers!
    Dave Eklund
    

    RE: last few concerning SBU success sharing:

    I forget who presented the SBU success sharing policy in the ZKO cafe.
    However, I do remember him saying that in order to get a bonus, the
    corporation as a whole must also make a profit. This was in addition
    to the SBU making its numbers. So I don't think I've been lied to.

    On the other hand, it does stink that we happen to take a charge
    against earnings, and that charge seems to be big enough to make sure
    the corporation as a whole does not make a profit.

    Will I miss the miss the extra money....probably not...on the other
    hand just today a co-worker informed me that he's leaving Digital.
    The prime reason was more money offered by another company.

    					Ed

I think the SBU will bend over backwards and twist the numbers as much
as is needed to make sure we get at least get the minimum bonus for this first
year of "success sharing".  Otherwise,  who would believe in a bonus program
for the future?  

Garry

Does anyone *know* what these metrics *are* for the SBU?  When Harry Copperman
presented in the ZKO cafe, he wasn't able to say what they are (were?).  As 
for the profitabilty issue, I understood that we will show a profit in Q4, 
but it is not up to some people's expectations - so a $475M write-off is 
being taken to further downsize.  Unlike some others, I am not so willing to
brush off a non-payment of this bonus.  Part of the justification for fewer 
and lower raises is that Digital is going to a variable pay approach.  If the 
SBU made its numbers and the bonus is *not* going to be paid then I don't see
how anyone in Digital management can expect me to buy into the variable 
pay approach.

Jim

    
    I work in the SBU M&D organization and I have been told this week by
    pretty senior management that will receive our goal sharing.  Our plan
    is dependent on Overall SBU Performance and SBU M&D Performance.  The
    biggest single factor is SBU profit/loss performance and I believe we
    met our goal for FY96.  August was the time frame given for annoucement
    of the awards with September the date of delivery.  The money has
    been set aside and all financial accounting includes this expense.
    
    My management certainly believes it will happen. I, always a cynic, will
    believe it when I get the check!                          
    
    Greg
    
      

There was also suppossed to be an ABU bonus (memo attached). I have heard
nothing on this since the end of the year.. did the ABU make it goals ?? 


Arlan 


                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     28-Mar-1996 12:33pm PDT
                                        From:     Kannankote Srikanth
                                                  SRIKANTH.KANNANKOTE@A1@SLSPUB
                                        Dept:     VP, ABU Americas
                                        Tel No:   508 496-8453, DTN:276-8453

TO: See Below
 
Subject: ABU Americas U.S. Employees Eligible for Incentive Plan                

  To:  ABU Americas U.S. Employees Eligible for New Group Incentive Plan
  
  
  I am pleased to inform you of your participation in the ABU "Going for 
  Growth" Group Incentive Plan for FY96.  
  
  This is an annual program, which we are introducing now to provide an 
  additional performance incentive as we move into a very critical Q4.
  
  This plan is based on our belief that each of you, working with the ABU 
  Americas team, can have a significant impact on our success in meeting the 
  Americas FY96 target for operating profit. If we attain our profit goal, 
  you will receive an award of 2% of your base pay. The attached documents 
  give full details.
  
  Our strategy is to base employee compensation on both individual and 
  overall business performance. Our objective is to maintain industry 
  competitive base salaries while adding a variable component linked to 
  business performance.
  
  You can affect our financial success in two major ways: 
  	o By reducing costs
  	o By increasing demand for Digital's products and services
  
  One of the most significant ways to achieve both goals is to streamline 
  our processes and systems so that we can improve the speed, efficiency, 
  and effectiveness of doing business with the ABU. I urge all of you to 
  focus your efforts on this important area.
  
  This new incentive plan recognizes your importance to our overall 
  performance. My expectation is that we will all work together to exceed 
  our aggressive ABU Americas goals for FY96, as we realize our Growing for 
  Growth objectives.
  
  Regards,
  Sri
  
  
  
  



                        Accounts Business Unit
                               Americas
              FY96 Going for Growth Group Incentive Plan
                             Plan Summary

Intent of the ABU Group Incentive Plan

The intent of the ABU Group Incentive Plan is to motivate 
participating employees to achieve and exceed the ABU's profit goal by 
rewarding them for successful attainment.  Because the Plan is 
intended to reward results, participants can expect that awards will 
vary from year to year and across the ABU.  The Plan plays a key role 
in emphasizing our Going for Growth performance-oriented culture.

Participating in the ABU Group Incentive Plan

All exempt and non-exempt ABU employees in positions not participating 
in the Digital Executive Incentive Plan (EIP) or in Sales Incentive 
Plans are participants in the ABU Group Incentive Plan.

Your Award Opportunity

The Americas FY96 ABU Group Incentive Plan is funded based on 
the following performance measures and weightings--
  --75% on Americas ABU Operating Profit
  --25% on the sum of the Operating Profits of all the Business
    Units in the Americas  

Each participant has a 2% of salary incentive opportunity if the 
Operating Profit goals are attained.  

Achieving 100% of the goal results in a payout equal to 2% of salary.  
The funding schedule provides a range of total funding above and below 
the 100% performance level.  The total available funds will be 
adjusted based on this performance.  The Plan funds at 1% of salary if 
achievement is 90%.  The maximum payout under the Plan is 12%.  All 
over-achievement funding and payments under this Plan are subject to 
overall Company affordability as determined in the year-end financial 
review.

Any payouts will be made solely at the discretion of the Account 
Business Unit, subject to Company and Business Unit performance, and 
subject to all other terms and conditions of the plan.  The plan  may 
be revised from time to time at the discretion of the Company and/or 
Business Unit.



General Administrative Guidelines

The following are the general administrative guidelines for the Plan:

1. All Regular Employees must be employed for at least the last three 
   months of the fiscal year (April, May, June 1996) and be employed 
   at the date of award payment to receive an award.

2. Employees who transfer between Business Units will participate in 
   their new Business Unit Plan if they have been employed by that 
   Unit for at least 90 days (the last fiscal year quarter).  
   Otherwise, they will participate in their prior Unit's Plan.

3. All award payments are contingent upon satisfactory individual 
   performance.  Employees on written warning will not participate.

4. Payments will typically be made in Q1FY97 for the fiscal year 
   ending June 1996.

5. Payment will be based on the employee's base salary in effect at 
   the end of FY96, i.e., June 29, 1996.

6. All legally required federal and state taxes will be withheld from 
   the award payments.  Deductions will also be made to SAVE and ESPP.

7. Because this is a group-based incentive plan, all eligible 
   employees will receive the same percentage of their base salaries.

If you have questions about this Plan, discuss them with your manager, 
or your human resource manager.




                NEW STRATEGY LINKS PAY TO PROFITS
    	        Digital Today -  December 15, 1995
    
    Digital is changing its strategy for compensating employees. The new 
    strategy will be implemented gradually, over the next several years. 
    Not all employees will be affected immediately, but eventually all 
    will.
    
    Sarah Sumner is the newly appointed vice president of Compensation, 
    reporting to Worldwide Human Resources Vice President Sid Ferrales. 
    She is responsible for Digital's compensation strategy and 
    development worldwide.
    
    DT: What's the essence of the change in compensation strategy?
    
    Sumner: In the past, Digital paid employees a base salary, and 
    performance was rewarded by annual salary increases. These salary 
    increases were built into base pay and paid in future years 
    regardless of current individual performance. These increases were 
    not necessarily linked to business performance.
        In today's business environment, we need to compensate employees 
    differently. We need to maintain the link between financial rewards 
    and individual performance, and at the same time, create a strong 
    link between these financial rewards and business performance. This 
    is what the new compensation strategy does.
        At the core of the strategy is an industry-competitive base 
    salary to which we add a variable component, which then adds up to a 
    person's target pay. The variable component is a portion of total pay 
    that can vary greatly, depending on the performance of not only the 
    individual, but of the group, the business unit, and perhaps even the 
    company. This component is not automatically paid each year. It is 
    dependent upon performance.
        The economic argument for this type of system is that when 
    business is down, payroll costs are lower, and when business is good, 
    payroll costs are higher. So this variable component aligns with the 
    company's ability to pay its employees. A very business-realistic 
    arrangement.
        It's also a system that is being used more frequently in 
    industry, but it is relatively new to Digital.
    
    DT: How does this system compare with pay at other companies?
    
    Sumner: It compares favorably in many ways. As I explained about the 
    alignment with the company's ability to pay, the variable component 
    will also mean that Digital's average total pay will be greater than 
    the market - that is, our competitors - when our performance is 
    better than our competitors', and our average pay total pay will be 
    less than the market when our performance is worse than our 
    competitors'.
        Our system also reflects the relationship of total pay for 
    individual Digital jobs versus similar jobs in the market. Typically, 
    in many countries, sales positions and higher level management jobs 
    in the market have a higher variable pay portion of their total pay, 
    versus engineers, accountants, administrators.
        Our system will also reflect these differences country by 
    country, which is important for people to understand. Although jobs 
    will have different amounts of variable pay, Digital's philosophy is 
    to keep our average total pay equal to the market's average pay, 
    unless, as I said, Digital's performance is better then average and 
    we will pay more, etc.
    
    DT: When will the change start? And when will it be complete?
    
    Sumner: It began several years ago when the sales force went from 
    base salary to an incentive plan. In the meantime, many countries 
    such as Canada, the U.K. and Australia have been implementing 
    variable compensation programs for several years.
         Asia Pacific was one of the first to implement a variable pay 
    strategy for all of its countries and its success has helped us a lot 
    in developing a global strategy for the company. Europe has also had 
    experience in several countries for a number of years, and we have 
    learned from that area's experience as well.
        The strategy was approved by the Operations Committee in October 
    1994, and since then, we have developed a variable compensation 
    "platform", which is a set of rules and standards that countries and 
    businesses will follow in the development of their programs for FY96.
        In some countries and businesses, the strategy I described has 
    already been implemented and programs are in place.
        Other countries and functions will implement at different times 
    and at a pace that makes the best business sense for them.
        The change will be gradual, but we expect that within the next 
    two years, all Digital organizations will be working within the new 
    strategy.
    
    DT: Are there organizations in the U.S. that are familiar with 
    variable programs?
    
    Sumner: The Storage and Networks Products Business Units had variable 
    programs in FY95. The PC Business Unit had variable programs in FY94 
    and FY95.
    
    DT: What makes an employee eligible for variable pay?
    
    Sumner: All employees, over time, will be eligible for variable pay. 
    The "platform" defines the types of variable programs, along with 
    eligibility of different employee categories. Countries and 
    businesses will be developing specific programs, using the platforms, 
    and after approval they will communicate these programs and 
    eligibility to their employees.
        What is very important to the success of the strategy is having 
    clear goals, either at a company, business unit, group, or individual 
    level, that are communicated and understood. However, we have to be 
    very careful that company and business goals are communicated in a 
    way that let employees understand them, but not our competitors. 
    Therefore not all company and business goals will be communicated, 
    because of this disclosure sensitivity.
        Once employees understand their eligibility, it then becomes 
    important for them to understand their program, how it works, and 
    their individual goals. It's going to be important that employees 
    think hard about ways they can contribute to meeting not only their 
    own goals, but the goals of their business units or functions and the 
    company as a whole.
    
    DT: How do you expect employees will relate to the transition?
    
    Sumner: This change is going to take a little while, and not every 
    organization is changing at the same time or pace. So there will be 
    some of us living differently, compensation-wise, from others for a 
    time. 
        Whatever, the fundamental reality is this: The whole industry - 
    including Digital - must pay excellent compensation for excellent 
    performance, and vice versa. The scaled down companies of the '90s 
    must use their compensation systems as a tool to drive excellence and 
    reward for that achievement.
    
    DT: Do you expect that some employees could interpret this as, "Hey, 
    I'm already working very hard, does this mean I've got to work twice 
    as hard to earn the same?"
    
    Sumner: I imagine that some people may ask that. However, just 
    working hard doesn't necessarily mean the person is working the right 
    way, nor does it guarantee success. But the assumption should be that 
    if you are meeting or exceeding your individual performance goals and 
    your business is doing the same, then you should expect to earn 
    greater rewards.
        This new strategy gives all of us an opportunity to be rewarded 
    for excellent performance, and that excellent performance will drive 
    the company in the same fashion, which then loops back to more 
    rewards, and so on. It's an upward spiral.
    
    DT: Closing comments?
    
    Sumner: Employee compensation is a huge expense line that's critical 
    to the company's profit and growth, to shareholder return, and to the 
    quality of life and well being of employees. We're evolving 
    compensation at Digital through its next logical step, one based upon 
    business and individual performance, and encourages excellence.
        If we pull together to bring Digital back to its place of 
    leadership in the industry, our compensation strategy and programs 
    will provide the rewards to all employees who've made it happen.
 
 Distribution:
 This message was delivered to you utilizing the Readers Choice delivery 
 services.  You received this message because you are in the Americas ABU  
 organization.  If you have questions regarding this message, please 
 contact the author.
 

Re: .188

Copperman has said this in his speeches.  It would seem that neither he nor
others in top Digital management believe it, though.

				Steve

<---

I bet they do believe it, but they just don't know how else to address the 
problems.  

I really think they just don't know what else to do.

And when I say 'they', I refer mostly to BP and his senior managers.

    
    A question for a financial wizard.
    
    If the hypothetical bonus were paid, would the expense be charged
    against Q4 FY96 or against the quarter in which it is paid?  
    
    If it is the second, no one should expect more than nice words until Q2.

    
>    If the hypothetical bonus were paid, would the expense be charged
>    against Q4 FY96 or against the quarter in which it is paid?  
 
    I'm pretty sure for SBU M&D the FY96 bonus is in Q496.
    
    Greg
    

    RE: .191, Financial "wizard" reporting in as requested...  The expenses
    should be accrued in Q4 and paid in Q1.  My understanding (to persons
    removed) was that this was indeed being done, so the fiscal impact
    happens in Q4 FY96 while the cash impact happens in Q1...
    
    I too have heard rumblings about the bonuses not being paid due to the
    weasel words to the effect that it depended on overall company
    financial condition (see ABU memo re: .187).  I'd be surprised if they
    reneged with the SBU, Networks, and any other orgs. that did well in
    FY96.  My understanding is that the ABU did not make its goals (part of
    the reason it's no longer a BU...!) and therefore will make no payout.
    Geez, wouldn't it be nice if folks were told what the goals were so
    they might actually be able to help contribute to making them??  Not to
    mention being told about such things at the BEGINNING of the FY... vs.
    late Q3...
    
    Sigh...

in general, an accounting system trys to assign expenses to the time
period or operation that caused the expense.  the bonus is about fy96
or about q4fy96, or some time period, so that is where it will show up.
there will an entry for bonus expense balanced by bonus's payable.
when it is paid, the entries are to the bonus payable and cash accounts.

if the bonus is for all of fy96, they will restate previous quarters
unless the total amount of the bonus is "not material", meaning
insignificant.  it will not be material, else it would not have 
been offered.

    
    
    
    
    This note, cross-posted in "Where are you leading us, Bob?" seemed
    like some good advice for the times. 
    
    
                        THE PLUS SIDE OF RESISTANCE

  Trying to bulldoze resistance to your ideas is a losing strategy, says
Rick Maurer in "Beyond the Wall of Resistance." Even if you win, you're
left with lots of resentment and little commitment. To avoid that, he says,
you should use the power of resistance to build support. To do so, he
suggests you use what he calls the five touchstones:

  o Maintain a clear focus. Don't let attacks on your ideas make you forget
that your goal is to get support, not to get even. Combine focus--"keeping
your eye on the prize"--with perseverance and patience. This powerful
combination will help you resist the temptation to give in when the going
gets tough. And it will give you the gumption to stick it out for as long 
as it takes.

  o Embrace resistance. The voice of resistance tells you what is wrong. 
But you need to know why people are concerned. To find out, you need 
answers to questions such as: "Who opposes me?" "What do they oppose about 
this idea?" "Do they dislike the idea or just the way I plan to carry it 
out?" Unless you talk to opponents, you can only guess at the answers. And 
even if you guess wrong, you could face even stronger resistance.

  o Respect resisters. You'll rarely lose anything by respecting people.
Two ways to do it: Listen carefully and always tell the truth. Careful
listening means you genuinely want to hear what resisters say and learn 
more about them. You don't need to agree with them, but you do need to 
understand them. Telling the truth should be a given in all your 
interactions. But resistance often melts away just because the person 
responsible for the idea speaks only the truth.

  o Stay relaxed. Relaxing does not mean you should give up. It simply 
means you should stay calm and listen quietly when others attack your 
position. Once they've said all they want to say, you'll still be standing. 
You've done nothing to alienate them. You've just listened. Relaxing also 
means you don't use what you've heard to counterattack. Instead, you use it 
to seek common ground.

  o Join the resistance. This is not a call to shed your uniform and join
the other side. Rather, it means you blend your intentions with theirs. 
To get the most out of this approach, you must find ways to combine the 
answers to two questions: "What's in it for me?" and "What's in it for 
them?" Seek common fears and common interests that you can use to craft a 
common vision. Your goals may differ, but your solutions should include the 
concerns of all parties.

Source:  "communications briefings," an article from "Beyond the Wall of 
          Resistance," by Rick Maurer, Bard Books Inc., 5275 McCormick 
          Mountain Drive, Austin, TX 78734. 

I'll take the silence on the subject to mean that nobody in here knows what 
the specific SBU goals were for the "success sharing" plan.  Now that the 
official quarterly/yearly results have been announced, I would take continued
silence to indicate that there wasn't any "success" to share.

Jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The company used to hand out Restricted Stock Options. Prob'ly still do. To
some degree these options were based on how well the company did. Other
elements of the equation were your own individual performance as well as
good ol' company politics in some cases.

As I recall, these options usually weren't handed out until some time in 
August ... late August, I think.

There seems to be an expectation in this string that the week after the year 
was closed a bunch of checks were going to get mailed out. I'm not sure 
that's a realistic expectation. Nor would I assume that "silence" means the 
plan is dead. I simply think it's a little too soon to be expecting a check. 

Just MHO ...

/se

RE: .197

	I'm not expecting a check, I'm expecting a proper explaination
	of what is going on.
	
								mike

    	I've heard people ask management at different levels a number of
    times about the specifics of the success-sharing program. What are the
    metrics? At what level are they measured? How can we tell if we "met or
    exceeded our numbers?" All you hear in response are vague, hand-waving
    answers. Personally, I now don't believe anything concrete was ever
    established for this or, if it was, only BP and his staff know the
    actual data. They simply planned to give us the minimum bonus from the
    start to give us a taste of success-sharing and variable compensation.

    check out KACIE::SBU.  In it, Tom Vacchiano promises that we will get
    details of the SBU's FY97 program in 30 days.
    
    Mark

    Vin Mullarkey, in his Worldwide teleconference with finance personnel
    this morning, said that the $475M restructuring charge is going to be
    passed back to the Business units BEFORE any "success sharing" is
    calculated.  Therefore, any individual BU numbers you have heard so
    far, and any conclusions on whether we will or won't get the money is
    EXTREMELY premature.
    
    My take, based on this morning...bend over folks, DEC's feelin' frisky
    again....
    

Bob, is what I'm hearing correct?  We worked hard, we made our numbers, the 
company made a profit for the quarter and for the year, but senior management
decided that the profit wasn't big enough so we get hit with a $475M 
restructuring charge that causes us to not participate in "success sharing" 
while the company is so flush with cash that it announces a stock buy-back
plan.  If the SBU made its numbers and there is no payout on the "success
sharing", I don't see how Bob and the rest of senior managment can expect 
"success sharing" to be much motivation in having us work hard to hit the 
next set of numbers.  Maybe it's just "DEC feelin' frisky again...."

Dear Bob,

If .201 and .202 are correct, don't you, or any of your managers ever, ever
again come talking to me about success sharing.  If these past two notes are
true, then I will simply regard success sharing as bull****.  Furthermore, I
will, from here on, have trouble believing anything I ever again hear from 
mangement.  That is sad, because I really, really want to have faith in those
that are leading us.

At a time like this, when you need 120% from each and every employee, and I'll
bet you are getting it from a large number of them, I think its pretty lousey 
to screw them out of something they've earned.  

What has become of this once great company?  

Brad McCusker

    .201 seems to be true.  What's rather absurd about it is that there's
    likely to be little, if any, restructuring done in the businesses that
    are qualifying for success sharing.
    
    This is bad for moral, and the fallout will be felt in the attrition of
    vital people.  There's idle speculation that leadership is worrying
    about how things will look in 2 months, rather than whether we'll be
    able to deliver new products 1 or 2 years from now (which the attrition
    will jeopardize).
    
    \chuck

    To amplify .204, acording to Charlie Christ, Success Sharing company
    wide will be reduced by the same algorithm.  Networks is not being
    singled out.  Both he and Bob Rennick got it loud and clear that folks
    viewed this as the company reneging on a commitment to its employees.
    
    Headhunters have been fairly active up here recently, and I think there
    are lots of folks that were waiting to see how the bonus situation
    worked out.  Now that they know I don't expect things to be pretty.
    
    It was a shame that this news had to come out in Bob's first quarterly
    meeting since he took the reins.  This stuff was out of his control,
    yet he gets to deliver the news and take the heat.  He's been in charge
    all of a week.
    
    Steveg
    
    P.S. I don't think Larry Walker knew about this before he left. 
    There's not much creedence being given to the theory that other
    pastures looked greener to him partly cause he didn't want to break his
    commitments to his troops.

	Does the restructuring charge come into play for vp's and the prez? Or
do they still get the same bonus they would have gotten even if there were no
restructuring charge?


Glen

    >Vin Mullarkey, in his Worldwide teleconference with finance personnel
    >this morning, said that the $475M restructuring charge is going to be
    >passed back to the Business units BEFORE any "success sharing" is
    >calculated. 
    
     If this is in fact true, senior management had better get ready to
    explain to the stockholders why so much of the talent has evaporated
    from the company at the next stockholder meeting, because that's
    precisely the effect this sort of legerdemain is going to have. I don't
    think it's possible to more effectively undermine morale and destroy
    credibility than to promise something and then renege.
    
     As far as I'm concerned, the promise that success sharing represented
    is the same as telling the kid who mows your lawn that if he does an
    extra good job and weedwhacks too that he'll get an extra $10, and then
    after he's done the extra work, telling him that you changed your mind.
    It's unconscionable to anyone with a working set of morals.
    
     The company instituted this program, and the workers responded in good
    faith. And the workers, the people that make the fat bank accounts for
    the few at the top possible, appear to be poised for a good screwing.
    To say that "we the people" are outraged is to underestimate the depths
    of the damage this action will cause. Most of us are under constant
    attack by headhunters who are trying to lure us away to our
    competitors. These companies are offering us increased salaries and
    signing bonuses, especially for those of us in networks and other "hot"
    parts of the industry. There is real competition for the talent that we
    have, and screwing us out of the bonuses THAT WE EARNED is precisely
    the way to push talent out the door. Once you lose that talent, what do
    you think you're going to have to do to attract talent from someone
    else? Gee, I don't think the lure of profit sharing is going to do it.
    You're going to have to pay above market rates for average talent, and
    all because you squandered the talent you have. It is difficult here in
    the trenches to see how anyone can consider this to be a good idea
    _over the long term_. Anybody up there ever consider looking beyond
    Q(n+1)? It's not apparent that such is the case.
    
     From my perspective (and it would appear to be widely shared given the
    focus of virtually every conversation I've had or overheard since
    yesterday), the very idea of apportioning the downsizing charge PRIOR
    to the calculation of "success sharing" is outrageous. It absolutely
    ignores the fact that A) you set the metrics and B) we met them, AND it
    ignores the fact that this restructuring charge was in your control,
    not ours. As far as I'm concerned, the need for Yet Another
    Restructuring Charge is a failure on the part of management, and for
    you to use OUR MONEY to pay for it is morally wrong. Because when we
    get right down to it, that's exactly what you are doing- you are using
    the money we earned to pay for your mistakes. That must be why we got
    the standard "integrity and honesty" speech at the beginning of
    yesterday's "incredible expanding proboscis" speech.
    
     I can see why you call Mr Rennet the "acting" VP of networks. By
    giving him this gem of an announcement to make, you've undermined any
    chance of him starting things off on the right foot (not that many
    expect he'd fill Larry Walker's shoes anyway), and set up his vital
    first impression as a management toady. (No, we're pulling no punches
    today.) In a way I feel for the guy. It's a tough position to be in.
    
     I strongly encourage you to rethink the strategy of screwing the
    workers to make the numbers look a tiny bit better to Wall Street. You
    know damn well the Globe et al are going to catch wind of this and the
    negative publicity from that alone is going to make the process of
    hiring the talent we already need into an uphill battle. And the
    attrition this miscalculation _will_ cause will only amplify the
    problem. This is such a serious mistake that I feel duty bound to
    use the strongest terms to condemn the "strategy". It's hard to imagine
    a greater display of disrespect for the workers than this, it really
    is.
    
     Mark Levesque

>	Does the restructuring charge come into play for vp's and the prez? Or
>do they still get the same bonus they would have gotten even if there were no
>restructuring charge?

According to Charlie Christ, Bob recommended to the board that he (Bob) should
not be awarded a bonus this year.  And we'll have to wait to see if the 
board agrees with Bob's recommendation.

As for the VPs, I dunno.

Dan

            Re .207,

    Mark,
      Do you really think they care that they are pushing the talent out
    the door?  It's all numbers to them, and that includes talent.  They
    figure that they can get anyone just out of college, or just off the
    street with the qualifications and knowledge to do the job.  They have
    no idea what our skills are worth, and are betting the corporation that
    they are right.  THEY DON'T CARE!
      Just so you understand.  I feel exactly the way you do, but I mean
    less than nothing to them, and the same goes for you and everyone else
    not in upper management.  WE ARE ONLY NUMBERS and as such we will be
    ignored.

    Jim Morton  

    
>>	Does the restructuring charge come into play for vp's and the prez? Or
>>do they still get the same bonus they would have gotten even if there were no
>>restructuring charge?
>
>According to Charlie Christ, Bob recommended to the board that he (Bob) should
>not be awarded a bonus this year.  And we'll have to wait to see if the 
>board agrees with Bob's recommendation.
>
>As for the VPs, I dunno.

        This is irrelevant.  We in NPB made our numbers and should have
    gotten the success sharing money as promised.  This money should have
    come from the profits we generated.
    
        I have no way of knowing what Bob's bonuses are based on, but I'm
    sure it has more to do with the overall company than just NPB.
    
        We had a deal.  Digital does not see fit to live up to it's end of
    the deal.  I'm sure that a large number of NPB employees will be
    indicating their thoughts by voting with their feet.
    
        I deal with customers every day.  How am I expected to make
    customers believe that Digital will follow through on it's commitments
    to them, when I know they haven't followed through on their commitments
    to me.  This is a sorry state of affairs.
    
    MDL

    
    So what if BP doesn't and the big boys don't get their bonus, they got
    theirs last year when they got their stock options at a rock-bottom
    price and when by some "miracle" DEC completed its turnaround and the
    stock went up over 70, they all sold!!!  
    
    

    RE: .201
    
    Question:
    
    Can the success sharing program be interpreted as a legally binding
    contract between Digital and it's employees?
    
    Is so:
    
    How long will it be before a class action lawsuit is filed?

There was a article in a magazine recently regarding terminating an employee.
The author indicated that when he first terminated someone he started with
the following:

  After calling the individual into his office he started the conversation
  with:  "This is going to hurt me just as much as you", he then proceeded
  with informing the individual that their employment was no longer needed.

After the conversation, the employee responded with "No this is NOT going to
hurt you as much as me."  As I leave I will NO LONGER have employment or
security and you will.  In ten minutes you will return to your daily
activities and rightfully so as you have a responsibility to your Company.
I have to leave and deal with this demoralizing situation of not having a job
or not being wanted.

The author responded with "You're right."  The author indicated that he no
longer used the phrase "This is going to hurt me just as much as you."  He
now just immediately informs them that their employment is no longer
required and let's me leave.

Do you really think this Company cares about you?  I kind of doubt it.  You're
just a badge # required to perform a task.  If the task is no longer required
you're terminated.  
    
Do you really think they'll take our suggestions?  If so, doesn't that 
indicate that they don't know what they're doing?  And if that's true do you
think their ego's will allow them to admit that??? That someone making PEANUTS
actually understand how and where this company's technologies should be 
directed?

Didn't Chrysler take a group of hourly employees and ask them how cars
should be built and manufactured?  Management and Employees worked together to
determine the Companies VISION?  I'd liked to see Management and a couple of 
the Noter's who wrote those outstanding articulations do this.
    
    	Regards,

    
    re: .207
    
    Here, here!
    
    Well said.

    
    	RE: .214
    
    	We're "empowered", right?  So why SHOULDN'T management listen to
    	us if we think we have something worthwhile to contribute?
    

    Re .216
      You just think you're empowered.
    
    Jim Morton
    

    I don't think the restructuring charge entered into the decision to
    renege on some of the success sharing monies, at least not in the
    Networks space.  I don't think there is much "restructuring" planned
    for Networks.  We might get apportioned some of the "corporate
    overhead" charges, but I would expect that to be apportioned based on
    headcount, total revenue or so some other measure of a group's "size".
    
    The reduction algorithm Charlie and Bob described indicated that we
    would get the base number intact (the one for meeting the goal).  The
    change would be in the "exceeded goal" portion.  If we were due $X for
    that part, we would get roughly half for that part (i.e. we get $base +
    ($X/2) instead of $base + $X).  Exact numbers were to be announced in a
    week or two.
    
    Given that various groups exceed goals by varying degrees, I can't see
    this kind of algorithm being the result of a restructuring charge being
    apportioned.
    
    From this worker-bee's position, it looks like they're applying a
    peanut butter approach (as in "this is how much we will pay overall,
    divide the pain equally for some definition of equal").
    
    Steveg

re               <<< Note 4719.120 by PONDA::PALMER "BOB PALMER" >>>
                                 -< Dear Bob >-

>  multinational, public companies.  The purpose of these compensation 
>  systems is to ensure that senior management has skin in the game 
>  just as shareholders and other employees.
 



Why not engage everyone in the corporation with more variable
compensation based on the performance of our stock?  i'm a principal
engineer, consistent 1 performer, 9 yrs with DEC, and i have never,
ever received stock options.  we lose good engineers to small- and mid-cap
companies (like BAY, Cascade, Fore, etc) because they offer large
option grants as incentive.  i have brought this up to my management and
my managers management and everyone says there are no options to be
had.  yes, i understand issues of diluting the value of of our
earnings by issuing more shares, but if everyone had a significant
amount of options and stood to gain financially from the success of
digital (and upward movement of the stock price), i would think that
the earnings dilution argument is moot.  start by granting options to
the 1 performers and key individuals at ALL levels, not just SRI 40+,
all the way down to the college hire who comes in and distinguishes
him/herself in their first year.

let us share in the success of digital.
engage everyone.
works for you and the other sr. managers, why not us down here
in the trenches?
  

jc

    re .last
    Did you ask your management or manager's management if they got options?  
    I believe they're granted options and could pass them on to you or let 
    the buck stop there.  A number of years back I worked for a manager that 
    received options and they stopped there.  I was informed later that he 
    could have passed them to hi-performers in the group but he never did.  
    He just looked out for himself.
    
    	Regards,
    

|        This is irrelevant.  We in NPB made our numbers and should have
|    gotten the success sharing money as promised.  This money should have
|    come from the profits we generated.
    
You should be lucky you are still in the same organization. Many have been
re-orged over the course of the year to/from nebulous organizations where it
is very hard to define and verify "made the numbers". Unlike percentage of
sales, which is directly linked to what you do, the success-sharing program
is so completely disconnected from what the individual does that you should
either make it a bonus for everyone or nothing at all.

Perhaps we should consider linking the Success sharing directly with the
cost center and its ability to meet a budget. In addition, perhaps we should
consider changing the interval from once a year to once a quarter. And if you
move, or get re-orged, you'd get a pro-rated sharing from your new/previous
CC. Direct reports above could then get a fixed percentage "roll-up" from
the ones below, to divide up amongst their staff. Then let people convert the
success sharing to supplemental ESPP contribution and/or options with 
4year/25% vesting.

All you need is a few percent of the $2B to make it happen.

>Per

    
    
    Stock options used to be passed down to the working troops by some
    of the good managers from times past.  Todays breed are greedy
    short timers who only care about number 1... and their next job.
    It's a sign of the times, boy the 90's s*#%.
    
    Push for cash$$$, stock options aren't that great unless you have inside
    info anyway.
    
    gb.... who did get rewarded once, before the bottom fell out.
      

re: .220

i do not think managers have that kind of discretion on options: either
keep them him/herself or pass them down.  that is a bad situation to impose
on _any_ manager.  

as far as my mgr goes, i asked and he said no, never have received any.
is he telling the truth?  i don't know, all i can assume is yes he is.
my bet is that all VPs get them, at a minimum, and some of the lucky
line mgrs.

re: .222

let's take a look at June '94.
options could have been cut for 18 1/2 a share or so?  that was our
low then?  even today those would be worth 2x and offer and excellent
incentive for someone to keep on working here.  1000 options at 18.5
fully exercisable at 36 or so is worth $18,000. i have never heard of
_anyone_ at my level getting a bonus any where near even $5,000, let alone
$18,000 !!


jc

re: reneging on "success sharing"

Does anybody think this was a decision that was made to be overruled
at the highest levels, so we would all feel extra-grateful to our
Corporate Management Committee or BOD or whomever for showing that
they put "our" interests first?  Or maybe i'm just feeling extra-cynical
today... (But the every-two-week pay decision comes to mind.)

re: stock options

I wouldn't get too het up about getting those.  I got some back in '88
and it'll be a cold day in hell before i can ever cash them in.

- paul

    Greetings Bob,
    
    I hope things are going well for you. I'm doing well, my wife broke her
    elbow recently but it is healing well so we are hoping to soon be 100%
    health-wise. 
    
    I really don't care if Bob reads this I just thought this was the best
    note to whine in. I've even got a proposal. You see as a field service
    person our infrastructure is awful important to me and I think it needs
    help. So, my proposal, as we have 7000 people that we don't need and
    are going to tfso why not:
    
    1. Keep 100 people and make them call answering people. I swear every
    customer I deal with are complaining about hold times when they log
    calls. I was tracking and reporting it to my boss but it got too 
    wearying to hear the complaints. I'd just recommend not laying off a
    bunch and set them up from home to dispatch. Even if they do it wrong
    thats okay as long as someone answers on the second ring would make my
    job easier. 
    
    2. This one could be tougher. I and several other people spent many
    hours this weekend trying to do an upgrade that had at least two
    disasterously wrong instructions in them. So, you might say, what would
    you do about this? Keen another 100 people, make these people's job be
    to try doing what the documentation says it will. 
    
    This should be effortless and it would make all our lives easier. 
    
    Fred 

>    2. This one could be tougher. I and several other people spent many
>    hours this weekend trying to do an upgrade that had at least two
>    disasterously wrong instructions in them. So, you might say, what would
>    you do about this? Keen another 100 people, make these people's job be
>    to try doing what the documentation says it will. 
    
    
    My old group, CSSE, did a lot of this kind of stuff. We tried to do
    Product introductions to Services and amongst our responsibilities was
    to check these procedures out.
    
    Needless to say, CSSE were downsized and renamed and now nolonger do
    this.
    
    (Andy, TFSO'd from CSSE 4 years ago)
 

    I'd like to confirm what others are saying about what's happening here
    at Networks.  Just the day after the fiasco meeting, I got a headhunter
    call.  The headhunters and our competitors know.  This is a dangerous 
    situation here because the folks here are VERY employable outside and 
    most of them are not easy to replace (especially considering any hiring
    freezes).  Some only have to travel less than 5 miles from here to work 
    for competitors, taking their knowledge with them.
    
    I have heard from several sources about the devastating affect of the
    bonus announcement.  The issue is not the bonus.  It is the apparent
    betrayal of trust from a high level.  To engineers, trust is a big deal
    and not something that can be won in a quarter, though it can be lost 
    in an instant.  
    
    Over the past many months here, in addition to working my best, I've 
    been working to encourage a team spirit between the different design 
    groups.  I deal with the survivors of other actions taken in the past
    as well as attrition.  (The biggest problem now for them is the latter, 
    by the way.)  I saw trust in the business and sense of teamwork building 
    over a period of two years with the hallmark being a bonus that was tied 
    to performance that we got last summer.  I saw folks willing to put forth 
    extra effort trusting that if successful we all would benefit with some 
    recognition that was proportional to our success.
    
    The fact that the bonus checks don't come out for a month or so has
    bought Digital a little time over here.  I am afraid that some folks
    are planning to stay just long enough to get whatever bonus comes and
    then hop out.  Personally, I have about 3 contacts I could phone to get
    a job outside in a short time.  And, I think I'm an exception.  I think 
    there are others here with much longer lists of folks they can call.    
    
    By some standards, we may be fools here, working for less than others 
    think we are worth.  But, for engineers there is something inside that
    finds the idea of hopping quickly to the highest bidder to be repugnant 
    and irresponsible behavior.  The engineers I work with typically share 
    a sense of integrity, honor and responsibility.  We expect similar 
    standards from management.
    
    Fortunately for me, my immediate management is very sensitive to what is 
    happening and is trying to address the situation, talking straight and 
    trying to keep communication lines open with the troops.  They are trying 
    to respond in a leadership fashion where those higher up have apparently 
    stumbled.  
    
    Will it be enough?  I don't know.  The bonus is trivial.  In perspective, 
    the amount of the bonus for all of NPB is trivial.  At this point, NPB 
    could reverse the decision on the bonus, but this would not restore the
    trust that has taken more than two years to build.  
    
    The loss of trust really has me concerned.
    
    Steve

    
    re last few,
    
    At the risk of causing offence, IMO, theres something fundamentally
    wrong with paying part of the co. large bonuses, supposedly 9.6%,
    while as a corporation (all BUs together), we've not done enough.
    
    I'm not undermining the effort that those organisations have put
    in over the last year, mine included, but its been said before and
    it'll be said again......we're in this together.
    
    
    Jesus, there's people out there busting a gut for this co. and 
    haven't so much as had a pay rise, not to mention a bonus and yet
    if you "fall" into the right group through whatever reorg etc
    ....your made.
    
    To heck with this internal market place....
    ......my BU done this so,I get that....
    
    If there's to be an incentive scheme, my vote would be....
    
    	1. Firstly, pay people what they deserve.
    
    	2. Secondly, if the corp. makes its numbers, then
    	   pay the bonus across the corp.
    
    
    	   corp.

>    At the risk of causing offence, IMO, theres something fundamentally
>    wrong with paying part of the co. large bonuses, supposedly 9.6%,
>    while as a corporation (all BUs together), we've not done enough.

I'm not sure what's the best way to run an incentive program.  But had they
laid out the stipulation that the payout was, in the end, subject to
corporate profitability (and not just your BU's), then I don't think
people would have been as upset.  But there was no such clause.

As others have said, it's not so much the money as it is the loss of
trust and credibility.

Even if they reinstate the full bonus payout, I for one have been soured
too much by this experience.  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice
shame on me.

See ya,
Dan

re Note 4719.228 by VYGER::MILLERA:

        The failure to award the promised bonuses is exacerbated by
        the fact that certain highly placed individuals have been
        rewarded, and rewarded very well, during the past few years.

        Bob

    re 229
    
    	Dan, thats why I think they got it wrong and you're right,
	all credibility/trust has gone down the tubes.
 
        IMO, if the intention is to promote our company as a total 
    	solutions provider, then we should promote ourselves 
    	internally the same way.

		All BUs are part of that solution. 
    	
    	Its almost feasible (just my opinion), that considering the
    	BU organisation structure and the obsession (?) to have a 
	bonus program "just like the market place", they (mgt) haven't 
	given it a lot of thought, or maybe mgt didn't anticipate goal
	/metric achievement so payment wouldn't be an issue, 
	but then I've just had my cynical implant.
    	
	Cordialments,

	alex
    

    
    It has been stated in previous notes that there was never any
    stipulation that the payout was based on corporate profitability.
    
    I hate to break this news, but I have a copy of the MCS SuccessSharing
    plan (that I happened to be looking at just now) and right under the
    payout schedule, there is a note saying, "All payout percentages
    may be adjusted based upon final Digital performance and approval".
    I would suprise me greatly to find out that other organizations
    didn't have the same wording in their documents.  So I believed they
    are covered, technically/legally.
    
    On the other hand, I've had this documentation for quite a while
    (since Q3), and I'd never noticed this note before.  Back then, the
    idea that the recovery would suddenly stop cold was far from my mind.
    
    Also, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that presentations
    of the plans within some of the groups may have left this clause out
    entirely.
    
    Please don't shoot the messenger,
    Rich

            There was no such stipulation in our "group incentive" plan.  I
    have a copy of Larry Walkers mail from last January (which, of course I
    am not at libery to post) which has no language related to performance
    outside of NPB.  Larry resigned a couple of weeks ago.  No, I don't
    believe in coincidence either.
    
    MDL

    
    
      In Digital Semiconductor's 1996 Group Incentive Plan (GIP) package, there
      is the following fine print, located on the bottom of the page that
      defines the Payment Schedule:
    
      * "The Overachievement provisions of all plans are subject to Company
         affordability as determined in a year-end financial review."
    
      I take this as their "legal out".
    
    
      JAW
                                        

	Of course they covered their butts. Why should it matter if the people
are upset by their doings? They got what they wanted..... this time anyway. I
wonder how many people will fall for it again????

    There is obviously a pattern here. First they lay off over 80,000
    people, they reduce the health benefits while costs go up, they take
    away accrued vacation time, raises are almost non-existent, job
    stability is nowhere to be found.....Now, the possibility of reneging
    on a promise. If it were one or two of the above, most employees could
    live with that. However, the combination of all of these, plus others
    I didn't list, has made things intolerable for many employees. I am 
    not sure, is it incompetence, a series of human mistakes or a plan
    to accelerate attrition?
    
    Now, back somewhere, eons ago, in this notes file, Bob Palmer talked
    about the various systems and technical strategies for the company.
    Those sound like solid, important deliverables. However, very little
    has ever been said or written by senior management concerning
    processes and people. Technology and it's consequential marketing
    strategies is one piece of the management puzzle. What are we going
    to do to make our processes easier, more customer-oriented, more
    partner-compatible? Any finally, if productivity is the only concern
    that Digital's management has for it's employees, that has to be 
    addressed also. You don't get maximum productivity as was exampled
    in the first paragraph above. You get it my instilling pride. Pride
    is achieved by job stability, recognition of your efforts and 
    accomplishments, being able to trust your management, and lastly,
    money. My greatest motivator is pride, then comes money. That is 
    what the company and it's employee's have lost. That's what upper
    management must focus on to get this company going again.
    
    
    
    -Bert-

    >    There is obviously a pattern here. First they lay off over 80,000
    >    people, 

    Not everyone who left Digital over the past five years has been laid
    off. People have left on there own (better offers, afraid of being laid
    off, retired...).  Digital has also sold part of the company and the
    people working in those group went to a different company.

    So I wonder how many people have actually been laid off?  

    RE: .236
    
> they take away accrued vacation time

    Nobody lost any accrued vacation time.
    
    				-John

  Yesterday, I was at the "MacWEEK MVB" (Most Valuable Buyer) event.
  Unfortunately, my badge said "Digital Equipment Corporation" and
  throughout the day, I was subjected to the question:

    "Will they make it?"

  And the people asking were *NOT* referring to Apple.

  And the people asking *HAD* seen the Globe's latest story about
  Digital reneging on the bonuses.

  Many folks followed up their question by reminding me that the
  job market was quite good out there.

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Today, I'll be at "MacWorld", but happily, my badge *WON'T* say
  Digital Equipment Corporation, so maybe I can talk about Apple
  Computer and its products rather than Digital.

                                          Atlant

.238>    RE: .236
.238>    
.238>> they take away accrued vacation time
.238>
.238>    Nobody lost any accrued vacation time.
    
    True, but they did reduce our ability to accrue vacation, and those of
    us who've stuck the longest with this madhouse got shafted the worst.
    

> "Stop Global Whining!" 
    
How about if start by trying to stop the local whining.
    
>  True, but they did reduce our ability to accrue vacation, and those of
>  us who've stuck the longest with this madhouse got shafted the worst.
 
We were all given two years to prepare for this change, I don't see how
anyone was shafted.

-Bruce 
    

    
    re: -.1
    
    Well, that's right. However, if you had 320 hours accrued and then had
    to start taking it, you needed to take between 6-10 per year of
    vacation simply to get down to a point where you could start accruing
    again. Also, you have to make sure that if you're approaching an
    anniversary year, you're below 160 or you lose those hours also. 
    
    Also, if you took too much vacation during the chaos, could you be
    considered expendable? So taking vacation may not have been an option.
    I was lucky I think in this regard. I took nearly 10 weeks of vacation
    in 1995 to get down to about 160 hours before January. 
    
    So, that is how people were shafted. 

    
    	And the original schedule was 1 year. It's not so much that they
    changed the rules, even though that is bad, it's the lack of thought
    put into the idea.
    
    	The plan called for everyone to get below 200 max hours within a
    year. For a lot of people that meant taking significant time off. I
    guess the SLT relaized after all the protests, that it was a dumb idea
    to have so many senior people taking up to 200 hours off within one
    year.
    
    ed

    RE: .242  This note is quite accurate. In some groups and positions,
    the understaffing is so great that is difficult to take more than two
    weeks a year off. I know people who took the extra time to get down to
    the 200 hours, but then were penalized on performance evaluation for 
    not meeting schedule and completing assigned work on time.
    
    The problem is that the corporation(particularly human resources) has
    an ideal model that they want employees to take their vacation time
    to remain healthy. Unfortunately, management just looks at whether the
    work gets done. Two conflicting priorities are set by two different
    groups of people and there is no coordination or resolution. Since
    human resources really has little power, management's priorities are
    really what the employee has to react to.
    
    I just got down to 200 hours and lost over two weeks vacation. However,
    I am now much better off than some people who took their time since I
    have the better performance track record. In some situations there is
    not much choice: it's pay now(with time off) or pay later(with your 
    livelihood).

    It was not my intention to start a rathole concerning lost vacation
    time, lack of raises or career growth, broken promises, instability
    and constant fear; rather to make the point that this is a pattern
    of either incompetence, insensitivity, or a planned extermination.
    
    If it is incompetence or just a whole lot of mistakes, management
    can learn from that and right the ship by re-focussing some of their
    energies. If it is insensitivity or a plan, then the ship is going
    to sink. You cannot sail the Queen Mary with just a captain and no
    crew.
    
    
    -Bert-

    thought for the day:
    
     Lead.
    
     If you cannot lead, manage.
    
     If you cannot manage, reorganize.
    

Surely someone if printing this information and sending it to Bob.  
What I don't understand is why nothing is being said by management
about the reneging on bonuses situation.  I'd appreciate *some* statement 
from management, even if it was the definitive statement that we weren't
going to get anything - at least we'd know where we stood.

Jim

    RE: .247
    
    Jim,
    
    Start with your boss.  Work it up the line in your business unit.
    I really doubt that anything will be gained by responding to "Dear Bob"...
    
    Mark

RE: .248

Mark,

I did start with my boss.  I brought it up to my VP.  I brought it up with 
Harry Copperman.  I will agree that it is doubtful that anything will be 
gained by responding here, but since Enrico isn't here anymore why not 
take it to "Dear Bob"?  I've pretty much given up any hope that the SBU 
will payout any bonuses, but I'd like to see management come forward and 
take the heat for their decision.

Jim

    Nearly as aggravating as the slap in the face that this surprise
    announcement represents is the leadership void that has followed. It's
    simply astounding to me that not a single member of the Army of
    Managers has the sack to stand up and tell us A) what the story is
    and B) the issues facing them so we can understand what the full
    situation was that lead to this highly unpopular and questionable
    decision. As the newly nascent morale continues to be crushed by the
    heel of deceit and broken promises, we are forced to suffer the slings
    and arrows of rumor and innuendo in the silence that has come to
    characterize the wake of such ill conceived management decisions. Where
    is the leadership? This is a situation begging for someone to step up
    to the plate and lay it on the line, yet we hear nothing. We are forced
    to consider various unpalatable possibilities for this leviathan
    silence.
    
     It could be that this is the latest in a series of management gaffes
    in which some fool thinks that a few pennies saved by mistreating
    employees will lead to a stronger, more viable company (let's see,
    examples of this include the vacation fiasco, the mileage reimbursement
    fiasco, tuition reimbursement...) That these decisions were reversed or
    at least tempered provides the optimistic with the thought that perhaps
    management will recognize the folly of this decision and similarly
    amend things in the most morale saving manner. Another possibility is
    that management is simply in over their heads, sees a couple of subpar
    quarters coming and simply doesn't have a better plan than raiding the
    employee cookie jar. In other words, this is an act of desperation,
    portending the demise of the company or at least the end of the current
    management regime. Yuck. A final, and in some ways least savory
    prospect is that management is not responding because they are utterly
    unconcerned about anything but the financial aspects of the company
    that they can see today, right this minute. In other words they just
    don't care about things such as morale, efficiency and productivity.
    They don't care about developing the right products for the market.
    They care about this quarter, and how it will look to Wall St. I'm not
    really sure which of the three scenarios represents reality, but I
    strongly believe that one of them's right on. And that's sad.
    
    Hello, Bob. We need some leadership, and we need it now. Nobody else on
    your staff seems to have it in them to lead. It's up to you, because
    ultimately it's your responsibility. It's time to stand up and show us
    why you deserve to be in charge of a $15B enterprise. Are you there,
    Bob? Do you care, Bob?
    
     The Doctah

    Top management does not have a real plan.  They simply go into the
    "react mode" everytime profits are "not what was expected".   The
    easiest way to cut expenses is to cut people.
    
    At a recent meeting with a VP, he stated that Digital has an employee
    retention problem.  Surprise, surprise.  I don't think this is true for
    VP's however.  I see none of them leaving.
    
      

>>    I don't think this is true for VP's however.  I see none of them leaving.

Huh?  Try these notes:

  4688   INDYX::ram           1-JUL-1996    58  Enrico Pesatori resigns!
  4704   HERON::KAISER        9-JUL-1996    38  Theo Wegbrans resigns?
  4727  netrix.lkg.dec.com:: 16-JUL-1996     7  Larry Walker resigns

    re: .252
    
    I think you will also see that they got pretty healthy golden
    hand shakes too.
    
    That is what really makes me angry. I could spit bricks, management are
    there to ensure we have the tools to do the job. Not to get a fat
    cheque when they leave. 
    
    

    
    11% of our >200 VPs should be well over 22...
    

I agree:


			NO LEADERSHIP

or perhaps:

		INCOMPETENT LEADERSHIP

check this story out.
I was in the ISBU.  about 4 wks ago, we were kicked out and  the ISBU
had a downsizing (good engineers were let go and guess what? we have open
reqs!).  luckily, my team suffered no downsizing.  but, let me start
at the beginning.

earlier this year,a  ton of POLYCENTER products were sold to CA.  my
team, POLYCENTER AssetWORKS was spared and we somehow got into the ISBU.
it was a new beginning.  The motto was "Think and act like a startup".
Boy was that a hoax!  I changed my mail personal name to "Think and act
like Digital"!  anyways, part of the deal was we had to rename AssetWORKS
to AltaVista Manager.  a grunt task, most engineers would agree.  but, we
did it.  it was a one-shot deal;  a new beginning; change the name, release
the product.  so we worked to get it changed. we worked some seriously
long hours to get it changed (i remember one week when i worked past 2 AM
3 nights in a row). right when we were ready
to submit to the SSB, they said you guys have to move from TAY to LJO.
i asked my mgr to push a delay of the move up to our VP
and the answer was nope, you have to move.  this boiled down to having
our product available on Jul 15 instead of the beginning of the FY.  Bad
decision #1.  missed 2 wks of revenue.

now, our mgmt says time for you guys to hit the road.  no more ISBU.  and
oh, by the way, you have to rename the product back.  WHat??? another
grunt/crap task???  furthermore, our product is on hold in the ssb!! we have
something like $1,000,000++ of revenue waiting in the pipe and many PAYING
customers ready to buy, but again the VP decision is NOPE! you cannot release
until the name is changed.  i'm thinking to myself: digital is in the dumper
for revenue, and we have a product that is getting moldy sitting at the SSB,
customers are ready to pay us, and the decision is do not ship!!!  reason
given: no reason. you have to wonder who these people work for.... i just
cannot fathom this decision to hold the product when we have customer
READY TO PAY!! incredible.

ok, so now i (i'm the project leader, incidently) tell the team that we
have to rename.  2 attritions later, we're still renaming.  it is a huge
product (16 platforms supported, 1.2M lines of code) to rename.  our
best bet, most optimistic prediction is an SSB submisison at the end of
this month which will mean FRS mid-Sept.  again, optimistic.  more likely
end-of-sept for FCS.  by that time, July, August and at least HALF of
sept have gone by, all revenue sacrifiuced because a deicsion was made
to hold the product.  and finally, to further illustrate a bad decision, we'll
have to do yet another physical move from LJO to who knows.  we have 100+
systems to move, reconfig the network, etc.  moves really cost some serious
$$$, i would think....

pretty sad state of affairs here.
i'd love to have access to all the #s and add up the cost of all these
decisions.... the cost would probably fund a team of 15 engineers for a year!

RE notes on incentives

Sounds like a communication problem in some BUs/groups. At start of Fy96 we were
told there were plans for an incentive scheme. At a later date we learned what
the targets were and even on progress to date. 

Our group incentive programme is based on three goals at the end of q496:
Cost, Quality, Delivery. We have a table which shows what bonus is trigered for
over/under achievement on each goal. This will then give a bonus in the range of
0 (all underachieve by 10%) to 6% (all overchieve by 10% or more).

Oh, my group: stg2 manufacturing SBU M+D and we are being measured on how we
respond to 'our' customers (Quality and Delivery) and if we are doing it in an
effective way for the bottom line (Cost).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .252
> Huh?  Try these notes:

>  4688   INDYX::ram           1-JUL-1996    58  Enrico Pesatori resigns! ...
>  4727  netrix.lkg.dec.com:: 16-JUL-1996     7  Larry Walker resigns

 re .253
>    I think you will also see that they got pretty healthy golden
>    hand shakes too.
    
  I found the juxtaposition of these two VPs terribly ironic. I would, in
  fact, be suprised to hear that Larry Walker left with a golden handshake.
  My suspision is he left the same way the rest of us would... last paycheck     
  + accrued vacation. There is a sense here in NPB that his resignation was
  due, in part, to a retreat from the independence his business unit had earned. 

  I'm reminded of the last quarterly meeting Larry had with all of us; after
  Q3s numbers were released. After only 3 quarters, we had already exceeded
  our annual goals. He put up slides showing how we had taken market share
  from the likes of 3Com, Bay, Cisco, etc. We were not only growing, but we
  were growing faster than our competitors. Towards the end of the meeting,
  he put up some slides that showed our 'revenue per employee' and 'profit
  per employee'. I don't remember the numbers from that meeting but our 
  numbers for the whole year were:
	revenue per employee = $750K
         profit per employee = $96K   !!!
  At the end of the meeting, he was positively gushing with delight and
  said that "these numbers were 'to die for'". The meeting was like a revival...
 
  I can honestly say that the last few months here in LKG were as good as any
  I can remember in my 24 years at DEC. People were motivated and focused; we
  were hiring; we could actually get the tools we needed to do our job. Life
  was good.     

  What a difference a day makes!

  ...
  Enrico left an organization that lost $200M and left with over a $1M handshake.
  Larry left an organization that put $96M into the companies coffers. Frankly,
  I hope he got a golden handshake, he earned it!

Anybody know what the industry numbers for 
"revenue per employee" and "profit for employee"?

    COMPAQ just did $4b revenue this last quarter with 17,000 full time
    and 7000 contractors.  The PCBU does about 1/6th their business
    with about 1/6th the people, but it had to compete with the ABU
    sales force and Alpha first before competing in the open market
    against COMPAQ, etc.
    Kratz 

re :.258

It seems astonishing that we can take a high performing part of the company,
NPB. One with high productivity, high profits and high morale and turn it into a
wasteland of disgruntled employees that are starting to bail to other companies.
I hope someone one at the top does something fast before it is too late and we
lose those fine individuals. We already lost their valuable VP. I think if
nothing is done about the situation, we will know the future direction of the
NPB, it will be sold. BTW, I don't work for NPB, but I work with them and all
that I have had the pleasure of working with have been great!

    re .260
    
    As an ex-ABU rep, let me say that pointing fingers (which is certainly
    a Digital core-competency) in this manner is neither helpful, nor
    accurate.
    
    Maybe I was just lucky with my customer; their policy is-
    
    desktop		: Intel (Windows 3.1x soon to be NT) 
    file & print	: Intel (Novell soon to be NT)
    Application servers : Alpha (Unix)
    Database servers	: Alpha (Unix)
    
    Last year UK ABU reps were goaled on the total revenue stream into our
    customers, with the exception of service renewal contracts. We were
    most certainly not goaled on what architecture we sold. Was it
    different elsewhere?
    
    John.
    

    One of the big changes is that the sales force (at least here in the
    U.S.) is now everyone is rewarded for selling PCBU wares. 
    
    (See the Q&A session to Palmer in 4690.60; "What are you doing to
    improve the performance of the PC group?").
    
    The UK did absolutely fantastic for the PCBU this last quarter, BTW.
    K

    re -.1
    And interestingly enough, in the UK we've stopped rewarding the sales
    force for selling desktop/laptop PCs.
    
    It's got a nice kind of symmetry hasn't it?
    
    John.

    re .262
    
    Yes it was different here. ABU was "adviced" not to sell PC's and was
    not measured on PC sales. I had an opportunity to sell 2500 PC and was
    informed it will not roll-up to my goal sheet neither I will get a
    bonus :-(            
    
    IBM won it.
    
    wbc

    Re:  Digital desktop PCs
    
    Not a problem now ... since Gartner has advised its readers NOT to buy
    Digital desktop systems (would you buy server systems from them then?). 
    We have managed in just a few short weeks to seriously maim our PC
    division.  Gee now we get credit for Intel servers just as everyone
    believes we're about to abandon the PC marketplace.  Should prove to
    make PC sales a wild success in FY97.
    
    ;^)

An article I saw recently mentioned somewhere areound $350K as the
industry-average revenue per employee. The same article contained
approximately the following quote "...Digital's Storage Business Unit
achieved an enviable $1M revenue per employee..." It may also have
mentioned the $300M profit we achieved. 

    re .262
    >Database servers:         Alpha (Unix)
         
    Should you want to sell Intel servers into this space, we do very
    well.  Here's the *fastest* shipping (400Mhz) Alpha-based server
    against the *slowest* (166Mhz) Pentium Pro-based server:
    
                          		TPC/C     $/tpc
    AlphaServer 5/400 4CPU 64 bit Unix  6056.04   223
    Prioris ZX 6166 4CPU NT             5740      116
    
    ...so by bidding Alpha, your customers are paying 92% more money for
    5% more performance.  COMPAQ, which has similiar numbers (slightly
    slower and slightly higher priced, BTW), typically ends up the eventual
    victor since we don't bid the Prioris.  This bid-Alpha-and-not-Intel-
    and-hand-the-business-to-Compaq strategy has enabled Compaq to blow
    by Digital ($4.0b vs. our $3.7b revenue last quarter).
    .02 K
     

	RE .269

	One minor little nit here. Windows/NT has a 16GB limit on the 
size of the NTFS file system. If your customer needs a database that 
consumes more than 16GB of disk then NT is OUT until NT V5.0 !!

	\Bob Lail

 PS: NT V5.0 is not expected to ship until 1998 !!

I thought the limit on NTFS was 16 *exabytes*, or something more than
16 *billion* gigabytes.

    16GB = 2*10**34 bytes.  Under NTFS a file can be 16EB, which is 2*10**64.
    
    1,024MB = 1GB (Gigabyte)
    1,024GB = 1TB (Terabyte)
    1,024TB = 1PB (Petabyte)
    1,024PB = 1EB (Exabyte)
    
    When do you think we'll see an NT system with a Terabyte file?

>        One minor little nit here. Windows/NT has a 16GB limit on the 
> size of the NTFS file system. If your customer needs a database that 
> consumes more than 16GB of disk then NT is OUT until NT V5.0 !!

Wow.. had better not tell my machine this.. really though, its 16 Exabytes (BIG!)
not 16GB

Cheerz

    I agree, discussion of OS's doesn't really fit here, but:
    
    The earlier comment probably comes from the known limitiation in
    Exchange of 16 Gb for any message store.  I think this is an attribute
    of the database for Exchange, not NTFS.
    
    

Are we price/performance leaders in any OS other than VMS?  How do we
stack up in the UNIX space?  From  my ill-informed vantagepoint, it
seems like there's market share that could be taken from the Suns and
HPs NOW, whereas NT is still a future (i know most people are betting
on it, but i wouldn't be surprised if it took til NT V5.0 to really
come on strong).

The UNIX server market fits the profile of departmental and small
business computing we've sold into successfully in the past.  It's
a natural fit with the burgeoning Internet markets.  If we can't
build volume and be price/performance leaders there, then it may be
a pipedream to expect some future NT market to save us.

And while VMS may gain some market share beyond our current installed
base, i can't see how that would approach the volumes needed to lower
our production costs for Alpha.

And if you're only worried about competing with Intel, you may be
writing off the PowerPC platform a little early.  It may be looking
down at the mouth now because of its dependence on Apple to do the
volume selling, but somehow i think that will change within the
next couple of years at the very latest.

- paul

This morning's Dilbert:

Manager to meeting: If we are to succeed, you must become change masters in an 
ever-changing, change-adaptive environment.

Wally: Let me get this straight... every change seems to increase our workload 
while decreasing our job security and real earnings after inflation, and the 
problem is _our_ lack of flexibility?

Manager: Not entirely. There's also your bad morale.

PJDM

    re .269
    
    Thanks for the input; it looks like a repost of your note in DECHIPS.
    Once my customer changes  their "Unix=Applications" policy, I'm sure
    that we will all enjoy success selling our fine range of PC servers.
    
    As Digital's sales force is primarily goaled on revenue, you can
    imagine how much I look forward to that day :-). 
    
    Regards,
    
    John.

    RE: .276
    
    Here's a Dilbert that was in Saturday's paper.  If this one doesn't
    have Digital written all over it, I'm not sure what does:
    
    Manager to Employees: "You employees are the key to our economic
                          success."
    
                          "Anytime we need a little stock-price boost, we 
                          just fire another batch of you.  It's like 
                          printing money!"
    
                          "In fact, "Incompetence" has become our most
                          profitable product."
    
    Employee to Manager:  "Wow.  It beat out "Lying to Customers."
    
    
    Chuck

Could you be more specific about which magazine you read the
information concerning revenue per employee?  

Thanks

I thought I read that number in Digital News & Review "The Re-org that wouldn't
Die" (Jully 1996, p.18), but in looking up the issue/page, I don't see an
industry-average mentioned.

So I retract my statement with an apology -- either I read it somewhere else or,
after readint the article, asked someone and associated their answer with the
article.  If I get a chance, I'll try and ask someone from research back here.

re :.261

>>It seems astonishing that we can take a high performing part of the company,
>>NPB. One with high productivity, high profits and high morale and turn it 
>>into a wasteland of disgruntled employees that are starting to bail to 
>>other companies. I hope someone one at the top does something fast before 
>>it is too late and we lose those fine individuals. We already lost their 
>>valuable VP. I think if nothing is done about the situation, we will know 
>>the future direction of the NPB, it will be sold. BTW, I don't work for 
>>NPB, but I work with them and all that I have had the pleasure of working 
>>with have been great!

The difference between this and Storage is that manufacturing is going
away. There are no disgruntled employees, just EX-employees.

    |                   -< industry-average revenue per employee >-
    
    this is a deceiving metric.  Our revenue growth is basically flat while
    the blood-letting continues.  It looks good for individual BU's and for
    Digital overall, but we know better.
    
    Mike

    I heard that bonus issue is finally resolved !I also heard that
    Networks group got 10%, Storage got 12% and DS got 6% .. Is it true ?
     

Storage employees have received a written communication 
that the Corporation reconfirmed the decision to fund 
the FY96 GIP to the original PAT goal.  This means
a 12% payout to U.S. Storage employees, promised no 
later than mid-September.

There seems to have been a significant effort by
current and former Storage managers to get DEC
to go the right thing.  Well done, Storage managers!

Mark

 
 I'd like to submit, for your critique, the following idea, which I believe
 could have a very positive financial impact on Digital. This seven step 
 process, if implemented, could help mend the breach in employee/management 
 relations, and provide a viable method for identifying and resolving problem 
 areas.



                              The Repair Process                               
 
1) STIMULATE

 o The employee feels like a number, an expendable item. Stimulate feelings of
   self-worth and Corporate worth by "bridging the gap" between management, and
   the employee, and end the frustrations of the employees who are tired of not 
   being heard, or having their "suggestions" lost in the void. Make available 
   a place where employees feel comfortable to comment, and where they know 
   someone is listening, willing and able to take appropriate action.

2) INVESTIGATE
   
 o Create a notesfile (i.e. HUMAME::FIXIT), an "electronic suggestion box", 
   the sole purpose of which is to have a vehicle to allow the employee, with 
   a hands-on perspective of a particular problem, a designated place for 
   entering a "damage report", or a "process improvement" idea.

3) ELABORATE 

 o Tap into Digital's "gold mine", the most valuable resource available, the 
   minds of Digital's employees. Use the notesfile as an area to "brainstorm" 
   ideas and observations.

4) DELEGATE

  o Assign a managerial task force to ensure the notes are read, and the 
    problem areas are addressed quickly and efficiently. Prioritize the 
    identified problems by severity, and bypass or eliminate current 
    bureaucracy (which often is the cause of the problem), and work the issue.

5) COMMUNICATE

  o Follow through with corrective measures and inform the employees via the
    appropriate notesfile topic. Merge the mindsets of "If it's broke, fix it", 
    and "If it's working, break it". Create and maintain the process of 
    continuous improvement. Work together with the employees, and solicit 
    the comments and ideas of mid-level and upper management.

6) CONCENTRATE

  o Monitor the progress of individual topics and ensure a solution is found 
    and implemented. Accomplish the missions identified and recognized in 3-5.

7) COMPENSATE

 o Encourage employee participation in a Beneficial Suggestion program with 
   incentives, either monetary or shares of stock, based on the financial 
   benefit to the Company. 



 The effect of the above process could eventually correct many of the problems 
 we are faced with as a company, and pull us together as a team. It certainly 
 wouldn't make matters worse. Trust in management would be improved as the 
 contributors are recognized, and rewarded for their extra efforts towards a 
 common goal: a stable company with a promising future. Who knows? Maybe Wall 
 St. would react quite favorably to news of such internal cooperation. The 
 stockholders would rejoice, and customers would take notice of our unity, 
 and our products and services would be sold at a greater volume. 

 Perhaps this has been tried before, and failed? I cannot remember in the 9 
 years I've worked here anything like this. Also, I would hate to see some of 
 the incredibly valuable suggestions and observations that have already been 
 entered in ::DIGITAL, and other various notesfiles get "lost in the piles" 
 of many other notes. This plan, if implemented, would not allow for that to 
 happen, as each topic would have a base note, replies to monitor progress, 
 and hopefully, a final resolution to the problem.

 As not to loose the benefit of those employees who are unfamiliar with notes,
 a mail account could be set up, and those e-mails entered into the notes, as
 either a base note, or a reply to an existing topic. Awareness of the "process"
 would have been communicated via the "chain of command" with e-mails, and maybe
 postings on bulletin boards.

 Your comments are welcome.

 Bob Shallow @IVO

    re: .285
    
    Very nice, but there is a problem.
    
    Your suggestion requires a downward-focussed management structure (i.e.,
    the emphasis is on facilitating the workers on the lowest level to produce
    "product" and hence yield revenue).  This is an EXCELLENT operational
    model which, when properly implemented, often yields high customer and
    employee satisfaction, along with substantial profits.
    
    Unfortunately, Digital seems stuck in an upward-focussed structure
    (i.e., it is an individual's responsibility to waste time sending
    reports up the ladder to the levels above, thus reducing productivity
    by increasing paperwork; in a downward-focussed organization, it is the
    HIGHER level's job to investigate DOWN the chain of command, since his
    job is to facilitate output by solving problems).  I've seen pockets of
    change in the last few years, mostly on the lowest levels, but Digital
    still demands that the individual manage the interaction with his
    manager, rather than managing the interaction with his subordinate.
    
    In a bottom-focussed structure, a manager who is unaware of problems
    below him is fired because he hasn't done his job.  He actually is
    charged with LOOKING for problems and UNDERSTANDING what his
    subordinates are doing.  He doesn't waste oodles of time filling out
    endless reports for his superiors, since it is his superiors' charge to
    understand what he is doing, and so on.
    
    In a bottom-focussed organization, the only real upward reporting
    requirement is the escalation of problems which need to be handled at a
    higher level.  Managers do not have subordinates which serve their
    needs, but rather, individuals have managers which facilitate the
    individual's output.
    
    It is IMPOSSIBLE to have fiefdoms (sp?) and stovepipes in a downward-
    focussed structure.  Management success is measured solely in the
    ability to solve problems and facilitate revenue-producing output.  A
    manager who has something that is "mine, not yours!" has failed, since
    said manager has CREATED a problem instead of fixing them.  Such a
    manager has failed and is dealt with accordingly.
    
    We don't have a bottom-focussed organization.  Until we do, I doubt
    we'll reach the highest goals we hope to achieve in turning this company
    around.
    
    -- Russ

I've been curious about why Digital hasn't always ramped up more production of 
Alpha, popular notebooks, PCs and such.  I've also been curious about why 
Digital sometimes shuts down seemingly profitable products.  I suspect that 
Digital is most comfortable doing low-volume, high-margin products.  

I think that this may be part of the larger problem that showed up as a
squabble over the bonus within Networks.  That is, I think that folks in 
Networks want and expect to compete in a high-volume, low-margin market.  This 
is the market their competitors are facing.  Folks at Networks want to feel 
they are on more or less even footing with their competitors with the bonus 
being tangible evidence.

But, if Digital is more comfortable as a low-volume, high-margin company, it 
may be that Digital wants Networks to come back in line with the rest of 
the company.  This seems more plausible to me in context with some of the 
things that are happening.  


Steve

re: .286

Boy, that one hits exactly on why i gave up on being a manager here!

And you wouldn't even have to be totally purist.  If we had a span of
control of 1:20, i'd be willing to give each second level and higher
manager 3-4 of those 20 reports who would NOT manage other people but
would just deal with the "upward focus" stuff and other troubleshooting
by proxy.

Combining "downward focused" management with an "outside-in"
organization structure would give you a killer company in terms
of REAL competitiveness.  Is there any company that does this??

- paul

    
 re: .286
    
 >>Very nice, but there is a problem.
    
 Yes there is, and there is also a solution. Problems are only a challenge.
 There could be a possible answer to Digital's problem right under our nose.
 The slogan "Whatever it takes" comes to mind. ;-)

 >>Your suggestion requires a downward-focussed management structure (i.e.,
 >>the emphasis is on facilitating the workers on the lowest level to produce
 >>"product" and hence yield revenue).  This is an EXCELLENT operational
 >>model which, when properly implemented, often yields high customer and
 >>employee satisfaction, along with substantial profits.
    
 It seems the upward-focused structure isn't working as well as it should be. 
 If the "7 -ates" are an excellent operational model, and properly implemented,
 CAN cause what you say, who can I send it to besides Mr. Palmer for critique? 
 Would you recommend I send copies to the BOD? I'd really like to see the 
 Company continue the turn-around initiated by Mr. Palmer, and if this does
 have potential for motivating, and maintaining a company wide continuous 
 improvement campaign, then I'm even more motivated to get it rolling off the
 drawing board and to work ASAP.
    
 >>Unfortunately, Digital seems stuck in an upward-focussed structure
 >>(i.e., it is an individual's responsibility to waste time sending
 >>reports up the ladder to the levels above, thus reducing productivity
 >>by increasing paperwork; in a downward-focussed organization, it is the
 >>HIGHER level's job to investigate DOWN the chain of command, since his
 >>job is to facilitate output by solving problems).  I've seen pockets of
 >>change in the last few years, mostly on the lowest levels, but Digital
 >>still demands that the individual manage the interaction with his
 >>manager, rather than managing the interaction with his subordinate.
    
 Yes, I've seen this myself. Doesn't say much for the "open door" policy.
 In fact, the "open door" policy we have seen has cost the Corporation
 many extremely talented people over the past 9 years. If management does
 decide to take into consideration my idea, one of the topics could be:
 "Employees the Co-operation (sp?) need back."
    
 >>In a bottom-focussed structure, a manager who is unaware of problems
 >>below him is fired because he hasn't done his job.  He actually is
 >>charged with LOOKING for problems and UNDERSTANDING what his
 >>subordinates are doing.  He doesn't waste oodles of time filling out
 >>endless reports for his superiors, since it is his superiors' charge to
 >>understand what he is doing, and so on.
    
 Some managers may be too focused on their own agendas to see the problems that
 have existed, and still exist right now. Is it really considered "wasting 
 oodles of time" reporting problems if they ARE brought to managerial attention?
 If that is their mindset, than it could explain where a problem is that needs 
 to be dealt with. Maybe we can somehow compromise on some areas in between the 
 "bottom focused" and "upward focused" mentallity, and think about "customer- 
 focus"? They DO fit in there somewhere, don't they?

 >>In a bottom-focussed organization, the only real upward reporting
 >>requirement is the escalation of problems which need to be handled at a
 >>higher level.  Managers do not have subordinates which serve their
 >>needs, but rather, individuals have managers which facilitate the
 >>individual's output.
    
 This sounds logical. I've seen escalation of many problems over the years,
 especially in emergency situations, and the problems are almost always
 dealt with very quickly. Of course, the degree to which the escalation 
 reaches will have everything to do with how fast it is resolved. So there is
 hope here. They have listened to some things in the past. But apparently
 only in emergencies. Does anyone else besides me consider the morale of many
 of Digital's employees an emergency? I guess some have, and you can read their
 goodbyes in another string. 8*( I guess when the effects of this reaches the
 customer, THEN it will be an emergency? Wait, I remember hearing something
 about customers being on hold for long periods of time trying to get some
 body here to solve THEIR problems... and waiting... and waiting, and waiting...
 for...CALLBACKS! Then, oh, sorry, the people who used to be there for you are 
 no longer working here, we're trying to find someone who knows how to help 
 you, we'll call you back soon. Eventually, the customer will call another 
 vendor who WILL address their concerns as if it were an emergency. 8-( :^( %*(

 >>It is IMPOSSIBLE to have fiefdoms (sp?) and stovepipes in a downward-
 >>focussed structure.  Management success is measured solely in the
 >>ability to solve problems and facilitate revenue-producing output.  A
 >>manager who has something that is "mine, not yours!" has failed, since
 >>said manager has CREATED a problem instead of fixing them.  Such a
 >>manager has failed and is dealt with accordingly.
    
 Is that like Barney Fife-doms? ;-) I'm glad we never hired him as a VP! Or did
 we, but he was using an alias? %^} Explain what you mean by stovepipes, if you 
 would please? That's a new one for me. Is there something WRONG with dealing
 with a manager who has failed? I don't personally know of any who have, or 
 remember hearing of any who HAVE been dealt with. They must all be doing a 
 remarkable job, to have performed so well, that the axe has not found them. 

 >>We don't have a bottom-focussed organization.  Until we do, I doubt
 >>we'll reach the highest goals we hope to achieve in turning this company
 >>around.
 
 Again, Digital should be, and already is in many ways, a "customer-focused" 
 organization. Fix the things that are in the way of that in the areas we, as
 a Company, can recognize as not "customer-focused". I think once the Company 
 accomplishes that, many of the problems we can see will fade away. We would
 find ourselves too busy with business to be playing politics, unless it was
 a revenue-generating reason for doing such. Could this be possible???

 I have heard some talk about a union. I've worked in a union shop before, and
 had to pay initiation fees, and then weekly dues. What we got for our money
 was yet another level of "we'll get this to management" good ol boys, who sat
 around waiting for something to happen to go and negotiate with. Things do
 eventually get fixed but before that happens here, I'd like to see the "unity
 of co-operation"  get a chance. It could cost much less in the long run, for
 all concerned.

 Oh and marketing...marketing... yoo-hoo marketing??? Oh sorry, I thought you
 were sleeping. Here's an idea for you. Get a bunch of the Olympic coverage;
 news articles, commentator clips, WHATEVER you can find that has "IBM isn't
 working right now" and throw it into a commercial that ends with something
 like...

 "That wouldn't have happened if they had been using an Alpha system, from 
 Digital" Then use footage from, perhaps, a Demo Center machine, cranking
 out data at the speed of light, or flashing multiple programs with lots of
 colors blinking at a high rate of speed, or SOMETHING!!! And fade to the
 ending line... Digital - Whatever it takes... to make it work right for YOU!
    
 Hey, Pepsi does it to Coke, Coke does it to Pepsi. And I can hardly tell the
 difference in THEIR products. There is a MAJOR difference in Alpha products,
 compared to "the other brand". Let's make this secret known. Stealth marketing
 isn't working. And word of mouth hasn't sounded good in a while. You got to
 get in their face and tell them what we have! And tell them it's not only good,
 it's Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat! (Sorry Tony ;-) It's ok to brag when you've got
 the best there is. I'm really tired of hearing things like, "Oh, you work
 for Digital eh? On, NOT Western Digital? Do you make those watches?"
    
 Or maybe get Tom Hanks to come over and say: "Life is like a box with Alpha,
 and YOU DO know what you're going to get! Speed, accuracy, no floating point
 decimal errors, AND a commitment to service that you won't find anywhere else".
 But then, we'll have to ask him to not say that why you won't find it anywhere
 else is those companies that don't acknowledge their customers emergencies as
 such aren't around anymore. 

 Ok, maybe that IS a little harsh... I apologize. Those who are left DO try to 
 do the best they can with what they have available (hey can I borrow a pencil 
 to write this customer complaint with please, I can't order any due to the 
 freeze) Oh sorry, we don't need pencils, as we have all these wonderful and
 marvelous systems that you can enter the complaint into, and will take care of
 the problem without any people needed for customer interaction. Oh, we don't?
    
 Well then, perhaps we could get John Cleese for a commercial? He does do
 very interesting Corporate training videos, doesn't he? Then again, maybe
 he wouldn't be interested. Guess we won't find out unless someone asks?
    
 Bob

Well said on the "upward-focused" vs "downward-focused".

I think if the no. of layers of mgmt is bulky then this would have an 
effect. If the no. of layers is flat, then it does not matter much.
Image the following structure: 

  Troops - Func Mgr -- Reg. Mgr/Dir -- Div. Mgr/VP -- CEO 

Because of its flat structure, everyone knows what's happening in the 
company and this allows everyone to focus the outside competition. 
They are agile and respond to the market like a snake. This is the 
model of the companies in 2000, not IBM and HP. Do you know in Sun 6 
directors are sharing an adminstrator. This will never happen in HP, 
IBM or Digital.

There are "big" companies organised like this. An example is 
Sun (7B) and Compaq (14B).
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Re .287 -

> I think that this may be part of the larger problem that showed up as a
> squabble over the bonus within Networks.  That is, I think that folks in 
> Networks want and expect to compete in a high-volume, low-margin market.  This 
> is the market their competitors are facing.  Folks at Networks want to feel 
> they are on more or less even footing with their competitors with the bonus 
> being tangible evidence.

It's really a lot simpler than that, which should have been blindingly obvious
beforehand to whoever made the decision to cut back on the bonus. You promise
people money, they are going to expect it to be paid. Period. It's not even a
question of principles or ethics. You just don't screw around with the money you
have promised to people. There is no simpler way to piss people off.

    Could not have put it better myslef, I second that!!!

re: .290

>Well said on the "upward-focused" vs "downward-focused".
>
>I think if the no. of layers of mgmt is bulky then this would have an 
>effect. If the no. of layers is flat, then it does not matter much.

That's why span of control is important.  With a 1:20 span of control,
even if 4 of those 20 were not people managers (but consultants or
troubleshooters or whatever), you could have an 87000 person company
with only 3 layers of management between the worker bees at the
bottom and the president of the company.  And 5% of the employees
would be people who had other people reporting to them, i.e., managers.
Whereas i think we're closer to 10%.  The Japanese supposedly are
able to do this, so i wonder why we can't.

I always thought flattening the hierarchy and increasing span of
control should have been one of the first options looked at when
we realized we had to downsize and reduce costs.  But then, without
the downward focused management culture, it's easy to see why this
was resisted.  The two sort of go hand in hand.

Having an "outside-in" organization where the customer sees ONE
company and all the product and support groups stack up behind
the outer customer interface layer, mostly invisible to the customer,
also offers a lot of opportunities to reduce redundancy and let
the customer drive your business (without the notion of "business
units" getting in the way of customer satisfaction or becoming an
internal organizing principle that creates anti-customer behaviors
--like pricing models that artificially support uncompetitive
technologies and solutions, and try to force them down the
customer's throat).  And while "everybody does marketing" in an
organization like that (they really MUST to stay employed!), the
marketing that drives overall company behavior is in the outside
layer that deals with customers every day, not in the back room.

- paul

Before this gets deeper, I need to say something. When I wrote the concept
in .285, it was an idea, inspired by a genuine concern for my co-workers, 
with the hope if the "7 -ates" were implemented, it could possibly deter 
management from further cuts of a very valuable resource, some of whom are 
my friends, some of whom I've met, and some, whom I have yet to meet. I had 
no idea at that time of any possible negative repercussions, and was not 
knowingly suggesting a radical change to the existing management structure. 
However, in my defence of it thus far, I see that may be necessary, if indeed 
the plan is considered for implementation. And to me, if that is the only
arguement offered against it, I think of a line from Star Trek's Mr. Spock, 
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Because I believe strongly in the concept, despite the as yet unknown changes 
it could cause, I am prepared to continue to defend it. I'm a reasonable man, 
and if someone can convince me why it won't work, I'll back off. I'm sure there
are many things I don't understand about managerial principles, and because of
that, the unknown isn't factored into my own method of thinking. That is one
of the reasons I have submitted it here in this string, to allow for the more
educated minds than my own to punch holes in it. At present, I am confident
it is "bulletproof". Show me it isn't, then I'll go back to the drawing board.

In defending this, at some point, I may have to stop "pulling punches", get
"down and dirty", and cease alluding, or "beating around the bush" about views
which may come as a result of the arguements given. I don't desire to step on 
anyones toes, nor do I desire to rattle cages. I'm not here to make enemies, 
only to offer something I think could be a benefit to the Company. However, 
if in this defence, things are brought to light, that have been hidden in the 
darkness, and are proven to be wrong, don't expect an apology from me. 

Bob

    re: .289
    
    I don't have time for a full reply, but let me state quickly that I
    think we agree on most issues.  I refrain from using the term
    "customer focused", since it is used largely as a buzzword in certain
    management circles by individuals who clearly have little comprehension
    of the depth of that term.  "Bottom focused" _IS_ truly "customer
    focused" since you are concentrating on producing the goods and services
    that are consumed by customers and the profit that is (or is not)
    created thereby.
    
    My point is that your points are good, but if they are put into
    practice without first creating a "bottom focused" business theory,
    they will likely fail.  Why?  Because the current corporate environment
    is heading the opposite direction.  If we want the 7-ates to succeed,
    it is best to CHANGE THE CORPORATE FOCUS FIRST, thus creating the
    environment where the 7-ates can not only survive, but thrive.
    
    Creating "customer-focused" initiatives in Digital is a bit like trying
    to raise goldfish in the Sahara Desert.  With great care, you might get
    small pockets of fish to survive a little while, but you'd still be
    better off trying to implement the project in a suitable environment
    with abundant freshwater streams and lakes.  So, my suggestion is to
    transform Digital to a truly "bottom focused" organization first, so
    directives like the 7-ates have a chance for REAL success.
    
    -- Russ
    
    BTW, regarding "stovepipes": just ask any of the old goats around the
    office (if any are left, that is).  Stovepipes refer to the excessive
    vertical reporting structure where an individual in group A can't go to
    an individual in group B and get necessary information/equipment/
    assistance/etc. without involving senior VPs and the like.  It's the
    logical conclusion of an upward-focused organization: the organization
    is focused on the desires of the senior manager, rather than the needs
    of the customers, so customer needs are only addressed IFF they serve
    the needs of the senior manager.  A customer issue in group A which
    requires the cooperation of group B is likely to go unanswered since it
    probably does not meet the perceived needs of the management of group B.

    Hi Russ,
    
     I agree with you. This is going to take a bit of time, and I have 
    some ideas that may help, but I still don't know if they want to hear
    anymore from me at this point. Whether it's up, or down focused, to not
    be customer-focused is a mystery to me, if they expect to remain in the 
    arena. Buzzword or not, it's critical to be that way, or else.
    
    Thanks for the definition of stovepipe. 
    
    Bob
     

    	Someone mentioned in another thread that BP didn't know anything
    about the bonus fiasco until after it blew up in managements' faces. He
    may very well be telling the truth, which is sad, and it's a symptom of
    the organizational structure he's created, which makes him at least
    partly responsible.
    	There are about the same number of employees or less now than when
    I started with the company in '82. The number of managers between me
    and the president now is 2-3 times as long as it was back then, with
    about half a dozen VPs in a row. Obviously, many employees find this
    pretty silly and inefficient. It creates other problems as well.
    	What skills does it take to be successful as a middle manager at
    Digital, and what gets you promoted to VP? One skill appears to be the
    ability to manage up while playing a shell game with your budget and
    people below. In other words, it's a talent for justifying your
    ever-increasing budget and employee population as you grow your empire.
    So now we have 2-3 times as many of these experts between the grunts
    and the president of the company. Guess what happens when budgets get
    really tight.
    	The lowest level of manager justifies his people and budget by
    telling his boss what he wants to hear, like, "They're all doing
    maintenance, and we must maintain this product!" He reports to his boss
    that 60% of his people are doing maintenance and the remaining 40% are
    working on new features X, Y, and Z which are part of a commitment in
    our plan of record. And up it goes, and by the time it gets to BP, he's
    hearing that he can't afford to give up any people, that he needs
    millions more for budgets just to sustain the existing products, plus
    money for the bonuses that had been promised, plus money for lots of
    other things you can imagine.
    	His recourse in this confusion is to ask his staff to each go off
    and cut some percentage, and back down it goes to the bottom level
    again, where a manager of 10 people is forced to give up one, even
    though that work could be absolutely critical to the company's success.
    	Meanwhile, BP has been managing "up" as well, by trying to appeal
    to the board, stockholders, the press, and key customers. Until a few
    recent glimpses of him interacting with the employees (like here in
    this NOTEs file), he has been aloof, distant, and appears to be trying
    to run the company from Mount Olympus, casting down lightning bolts
    when things don't turn out the way he'd like.
    	I think the bonus fiasco "troubled him deeply" for a couple of
    reasons. First, because he didn't know about it! Second, because it
    dawned on him just how important employee morale is to turning the
    company around. You will only fail with 60,000 employees who don't give
    a crap.
    	I've heard many people say now that he and the SLT don't care if
    the company succeeds or fails. They'll still jump ship rich beyond the
    wildest dreams of most of us. That's a real morale booster for lots of
    us.
    	I think employees need to see a few things at this point to get
    back on track. We need to see Bob hop down from Mount Olympus and get
    his hands dirty (and his hair mussed). See what's REALLY going on at
    the lowest levels of the company. We need to see him (and the SLT) have
    a larger stake in the success (or failure) of the company by linking
    its performance with theirs, financially.  We need a flatter and less
    hierarchical organizational structure where it's easier for him to see
    what's going on. If the employees are the valuable resource he always
    claims they are in his speeches, it's really about time that they are
    treated that way, with consistency and respect, to rebuild some sense
    of mutual trust which doesn't exist anymore.
    	Most people I know don't even bother going to Bob's DVN broadcasts
    anymore. The prepared speeches have gotten old. With the lack of trust,
    people feel the Q&A's are manipulative and simply propaganda. Without
    some action by BP and his staff which seems driven to make this company
    successful, people will continue to feel that they are only after their
    own personal gains at the expense of the rest of us. And as long as
    that feeling persists, this process of slowly bleeding to death will
    continue as we follow the Wang business model into oblivion.

re .293

Interesting concept.

OK. Each level has 20 reports, of which 16 have further reports.


	Bob

	20 Top VP's
	
	320 VP	(16 Top VP's each with 20 reports)

	5120 MGR (256 VP's each with 20 reports)

	81920 Us (4096 MGR eack with 20 reports)

	87381 total

Well, for starters we don't have enough VP's....8^)	

re .298's response to .293

To be more realistic, start with closer to approximately how many people
Bob has/should have reporting to him.  Then assume the 16/20 reporting 
relationship.  (I personally think a CEO should not have a staff of 20, not
with the BOD and external constituencies to deal with as well).

	    1 BP

	   14 SVPs and other BP direct reports
	
	  200 VPs (10 SVPs each with 20 reports)

	 3200 MGR (160 VP's each with 20 reports)

	51200 Us  (2560 MGR each with 20 reports)

	54615 Total

Let's see...we ended FY96 with between 59-60K employees, less 7K TFSO/Attrits,
add some strategic hires.  We're right on target, even at the VP level.

    I don't detect that .299 is tongue in cheek, so I feel obliged to
    challenge it.  We are hardly right on target, considering that in fact
    we have something like twice as many layers of hierarchical management
    as you depict.
    
    Probably many of us could accept a figure of about 200 VPs, if it
    weren't for the monstrous excess of layers.  It is quite common for
    managment chains to include 4 layers of VPs these days, on top of
    another 4 or so layers of sub-VPs.
    
    Chuck

 After reading through some of the string "What's important to you", it dawned
 on me that perhaps comments should be solicited on another topic, "What's
 important to Digital?" Rather than start another topic, I've decided to put
 some comments in this string, as they are relevant in the employees attempts
 to communicate to upper management, concepts that can "make a difference" in
 the place we are now, if they are willing to listen.

 THE CUSTOMER

 This should be the primary concern to the Company, as the customer pays the
 bills, buys the tools with which to make us effective, and pays the salaries
 of those who use the tools. Basically, without the customer, we would not
 exist. 

 What is the customers perception of Digital at this moment? From what I hear,
 they are worried about whether or not we can hold what structure remains
 together. What does this do to potential customers, or "new business"? If 
 they hear about our products, they are aware "Digital has it now". If they do
 their homework, and they'll find other vendors are catching up in technology,
 and according to some benchmarks, have surpassed us. What is important to
 customers beyond product reliabilty and technological excellence? The track
 record integrity of those backing the product! Do they mean what they say?
 Can we depend on them to live up to their word?

 The press seems to takes much pleasure in telling the public of bad news. It
 is their job, and they work hard at it. Is what the customer hears about us 
 important? You bet it is! With the recent press release of Digital's handling 
 of the bonus problem, the integrity of the Company is really being brought 
 to the forefront. Do they wonder, "If Digital won't be honest and equitable 
 with their own employees, WHAT makes me think they will be with me"?

 THE EMPLOYEE

 This should be the secondary concern to the Company. The employee is front
 line of defence, and attack, in the strategy to remain competitive in the
 market. When potential new business calls the 800 number, who answers the
 phone? When they get through, who is it they will talk to? When they come to
 a Digital office, to "make a deal" who greets them? When they walk past
 the receptionist, who will they meet with? Who are the people that go out and
 try to create business opportunities? When products and services are sold, 
 who is it that will answer the phones in a timely manner, or come out to help 
 them resolve THEIR problems? 
 
 What is the perception to the customer of the employee of Digital? If they
 believe the press (and believe me, they do!), they see a group of people that
 are under a great deal of stress for numerous reaasons, and are frustrated 
 with the very Company they work for. Are these the kind of people the customer 
 needs to see coming into their environment, with a frown, or a scowl, on their
 faces? Does the customer think, "Gee, I wonder if they can do the job I need 
 them to with all their problems? I wonder if Jim will stay around, or if next 
 time, Dave will come out to help us, or will it be a temp?" 
 
 CHANGE

 This is a constant challenge, which management is handling extremely well in
 many areas. Due to lack of proper information, I can't make comments on other
 areas that others see need change, or how many of them are already undergoing
 change by management, unknown to us. The change I seek is management taking
 advantage of the collective intelligence of the community, that believe they 
 can contribute to further progress in the improvement of the Company. 

 In talking with local employees of various levels and skills, I shared with
 them the "7 -ates" for their critique. All whom I have talked with think it is
 a great idea. One manager I spoke with told me the only thing he saw missing
 was I left step 6 open ended, in regard to to a set time frame for closure.
 Rather than repost the entire plan, insert the sentence; If at all possible,
 set a deadline for the problem to be resolved., between the existing two 
 sentences there now.
 
 Another co-worker stated he thought it was a similar model of what HR used to
 be, prior to the now in force PSN, where you can leave a message, and someone
 will get back to you, sometime. No one can hold what remains of HR responsible
 not being sufficiently staffed, but I can suggest they could use the "7 -ates"
 for a tool for effectively communicating problems through the chain of command.
 A tool where accountability is covered on both ends of the spectrum, from start
 to finish. Could add credibility the the term "Human resources". And to the
 motto I have seen on advertising sticky pads, "Answers, not excuses". Or
 seen somewhere else, "Putting imagination to work". Or "Whatever it takes"
    
 Bob                                                      

re: .299

>Let's see...we ended FY96 with between 59-60K employees, less 7K TFSO/Attrits,
>add some strategic hires.  We're right on target, even at the VP level.

It's not clear to me that everyone above the level of my manager needs to
be a VP.  Maybe some of those folks in selected organizations where a
title is needed to wow the customers/government/etc., but realistically
the percentage of those folks who need the title should be no more than at
most  25%-30% of the "middle" managers.  So that would be in the 50-65 VP
range (sounds like more than enough to me;-)).  The next question would be
how many managers do we have--not people who have "manager" in their title
(since that includes a folks with no direct reports but with titles like
"business process manager" or something), but people who have other
people reporting to them.  Only Personnel could tell you for sure (and
they most likely wouldn't), but my guess would be closer to 10% of the
employee population rather than 5%.  Hence the extra levels we see betwen
ourselves at the bottom and Palmer at the top.

I'd have to look around for references, but the 1:20 ratio may even be
conservative for some Japanese companies.  I have no idea how lavish
they are in bestowing the title of VP on middle managers.  It has been
said, though, that the salary multiplier for their highest versus lowest
paid employees is less than what we see in this country.  And we're
both bastions of capitalism (albeit with substantial government collusion
in various markets), so the difference is not one of economic ideologies.

- paul

From:	NAME: Digital Video Network          <DVN@A1@SALES@PKO>
To:     See Below

From:  Jim Johnson @MSO, DTN 223-9230, 223-9319

Digital Chairman, Bob Palmer, will present his quarterly Employee Message
via Digital Video Network, August 21, 1996, at 3:00pm EDT.

The FY'97 Q1 Employee Forum will originate from the Digital site in Greenbelt,
MD.  The program will last approximately 1 hour.  If you have the opportunity
to watch, please fill out the attached questionnaire.

		BOB PALMER's Q1 EMPLOYEE FORUM of August 21st 1996

===========================================================================
Please indicate your organization: 

O Digital Semiconductor	   	O ABU	        O Advanced Technology Group
O Components & Peripherals	O SBU		O CIO, OMS, Quality
O Storage & Subsystems		O MCS		O HRO
O Networks Components		O NBU		O Other
O Communications		O PC BU		  Please specify...........

Please specify your 3 letter Location Code ... ... ...
==========================================================================

Please circle a number:
						Strongly	 Strongly
1. After viewing this broadcast, I am more 	Agree		 Disagree
   confident that senior management has a
   realistic understanding of the company's 
   major problems:			  	  5,  4,  3,  2,  1

2. After Viewing this broadcast, I am more
   confident that senior management is 
   committed to fixing the major problems
   the company faces:				  5,  4,  3,  2,  1 
						
3. After viewing this broadcast, I am more 
   confident that management is committed 
   to rebuilding employee morale & trust:	  5,  4,  3,  2,  1
				
4. After viewing this broadcast, I am more
   confident that management is committed to
   taking the steps needed to improve customer
   satisfaction and loyalty:			  5,  4,  3,  2,  1

5. After viewing this broadcast, I am more
   confident that Digital is positioned
   to return to profitability in FY97:		  5,  4,  3,  2,  1

6. After viewing this broadcast, I am more
   confident that Digital's corporate strategy
   is a solid foundation for sustained growth
   and profitability:				  5,  4,  3,  2,  1

7. What I liked most/least about this program:

8. My overall impression of this broadcast was:

	Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor. Why?............

===========================================================================
Please fax this filled-in form to DTN: 821-4807 
or E-mail to: DVN Feedback @GEO, by August 28th at latest. Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Distribution List:

From the transcript of Bob's Q1 Employee Forum, Bob speaking of himself:

	"[A]ll employees have a friend at the top of the corporation...."

___Pete

    	He didn't say anything about a thousand points of light, did he?
    Looks like we're working for a kinder, gentler Digital now. That's
    nice. I feel so warm and fuzzy, I could just scream! I wonder if my new
    friend would let me borrow a few bucks...I haven't seen my bonus. So
    I'm a little short (and no short jokes!)...

At the taping of the DVN last week, Bob did say "I feel your pain" regarding 
the layoffs.

Jay

    >At the taping of the DVN last week, Bob did say "I feel your pain"
    >regarding the layoffs.
    
    No, he doesn't.  If he did, he might understand why there is no
    trust, faith, or loyalty left in the ranks.  Why nobody down here
    believes that the pain is shared many levels up.
    

>    >At the taping of the DVN last week, Bob did say "I feel your pain"
>    >regarding the layoffs.
>    
>    No, he doesn't.  If he did, he might understand why there is no
>    trust, faith, or loyalty left in the ranks.  Why nobody down here
>    believes that the pain is shared many levels up.

Hmmm, maybe he meant he was feeling the heat from the BOD and ready to 
open his golden parachute ??

	

    I called General Electric's "Answer Center" 800 number this morning. 
    It took about a minute before a human being, knowledgable and
    intelligent, answered.  She could have scheduled a service appointment
    for today, but a few minutes discussion turned up a way around a
    problem I was having and allowed me to postpone the service call
    indefinitely.
    
    From past experience, this is typical.  I believe they even have
    one of nearly all their products right at the Answer Center
    facility(ies?) for the customer rep to refer to.  Additionally if
    a question is beyond his or her expertise, genuine technicians are
    also available there for phone discussions.
    
    This is a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week free service.
    
    Guess which manufacturer's products I buy when my household's
    appliances finally wear out?
    
    A conmparison of GE's and DEC's bottom lines and stock prices are
    of interest.
    
    Unlike when a customer calls Digital, the dreaded words "Your call is
    important to us [please stay on hold for 20 minutes to an hour, or
    work your way thru 3 levels of menus only to find out we're currently
    closed or to leave a message which isn't returned]" are never heard
    when you call the GE Answer Center.
    
    Believe it of not, some of the useless former employees Bob referred to
    in his Fortune interview comments used to provide high quality Digital
    service to customers.
    
    Not to mention the fact that a non-trivial number of those employees
    have been replaced by contract workers.
    
    

    
    I also agree, NO HE DOESN'T.....
    
    But Bob, if you really want to, then GIVE BACK all the hundreds of
    thousands in incremental salaries since you started as CEO, take away
    all your preferred stock options, and DON'T GET A RAISE for four years
    doing all the work you used to do and then some.  
    
    Then you 'might' just be able to feel the pain, a little.
    Don't patronize us in addition to insulting our intellegence. 
    We're NOT STUPID.......Just very patient and some of us even still
    a little loyal. But that's dwindling every day.
    Let's face it, if the trenchies wanted just money, and didn't care
    about loyalty, then you'd be president of the NOTHING EQUIPMENT CORP. 
    
    cw
    

The Question:
        I noticed on your last slide that customer loyalty is a 
        big issue, as well it should be.  The announcement that 
        we had about Q4 had in it one of the biggest customer 
        loyalty-killers I've seen in many years out in the field.  
        The day that the Q4 numbers came out, my customer heard 
        about it.  It took me maybe three minute to allay his 
        fears.  Everything was great.  The next day, he heard 
        about layoffs. He had fear in his eyes.  He was already 
        dismantling plans to buy more Alphas.  I had to work with 
        him probably for a couple of days to get everything back 
        on track again.  The following week, I was at a global 
        tele-medicine conference. A number of customers came up 
        to me there and the only thing they were talking about 
        is, "We can't get the customer service reps out to fix 
        our machines when we need them. We're having a hard time 
        getting through to your telephone support.  We're having 
        a hard time tracking down our sales reps.  And now you're 
        cutting people.  This means pain for us."  And customer 
        loyalty was taking a nose dive like one of the very few 
        times I can think of in the last decade working out in 
        the field.  What are we going to do to prevent the next 
        announcement from deep-sixing things even worse in this 
        regard?
  
Bob's Answer:
       	It's a very good question and I'm glad you raised it for a number 
  of issues.  One is, I couldn't agree more with your observation.  Think 
  about that observation you just made. You can be sure that the last 
  thing the CEO wanted to approve was doing that restructuring reserve.  
  That's the last thing I needed in my life.  The last thing.  As a 
  person who has empathy for human beings -- I have been an employee all 
  of my career.  I started at the bottom.  I did not inherit this job by 
  birthright.  I came up through exactly as you're doing, through the 
  structure.  I feel the pain of these layoffs.  And I am personally 
  bearing that responsibility. I don't like it. If I could have avoided 
  it, I would have found a way to avoid it. 
  
       	On the other hand, the customers also want us to be competitive, 
  and we are not. So, as I said, it's unavoidable. Your question is, what 
  do we do about it? We've got to get it behind us as quickly as 
  possible. We've got to try to make sure that we don't ever have to do 
  it again.
    
       	But even so, we've come so far. The restructurings that we took 
  before were equally as devastating.  You may not remember them, but, 
  boy, I remember 'em.  They were equally as devastating and they were 
  much larger.  When we talked about a downsizing of 20,000 people in one 
  year, that was really hard for you to overcome.  But you did it.  And I 
  congratulate you on staying in there and explaining to the customers 
  how we're going to get beyond it. 
  
       	You also had a part of your question about support for the 
  customer.  Yesterday I became acquainted with the fact that we receive 
  in the United States alone 75,000 to 80,000 phone calls a month from a 
  customer or a partner, which is 70,000 opportunities to irritate the 
  hell out of them, which is largely what we do because we don't have 
  software and technology that enables us to rapidly move that customer 
  with whatever question he or she has, or that partner or that sales 
  executive, to the place to get the answer efficiently.  We don't 
  capture the question, the data, and build a database that is rich with 
  information. But I can tell you, we have been investing for more than 
  nine months to fix it. The rollout of the fix in the United States, the 
  beta test, is scheduled for Oct. 14.  By November, we'll have it 
  de-bugged and flying and it is going to be dynamite.  I've gone through 
  a review of it.  We've spent a lot of money and a lot of energy and I 
  am really excited about what it's going to improve in terms of our 
  ability to handle those calls and distinguish ourselves, differentiate 
  ourselves on service. 
  
       	A very important point that Harry Copperman observed that I 
  wholeheartedly support is that we've been a little bit spoiled in the 
  sense that there's no question anymore anywhere that Alpha has the 
  highest performance, that our platforms are the benchmark, that 
  everybody's trying to see, well, my database would run good too if I 
  could just get it on Alpha.  We've won that. I don't know if that's 
  sustainable or not. In the real world, you've got to expect that 
  eventually the competition is going to close some of those gaps. We 
  have to differentiate ourselves not only on technology but on service.  
  
  	It's a call handling and database collection system.  Then we'll 
  make the data available to you and we can slice and dice and crunch 
  [the numbers].  It's running on two of our 8000 series [machines], two 
  TurboLasers, lots of memory. We're going to log every one of those 
  calls.  We're going to capture all of that data and we're going to be 
  able to analyze the patterns and the buying and the questions. And 
  we're going to use that to drive our marketing and our engineering. 
  
       	This will be a very different Digital when we get that 
  implemented.  It's not 10 years from now, it's October. Shortly 
  thereafter, that system will be rolled out in Europe and Asia Pacific.  
  This is a big deal.  This is one of those areas where I am investing.  
  I'm investing to make your life easier and to work on improving that 
  customer satisfaction and loyalty. 
  
       	The other issue is, we are not having substantial reductions in 
  those support services that you're talking about.  We're looking at 
  substantial reductions in overhead functions in layers of management 
  that may not be there to effectively help you.  We've got to reduce the 
  number of layers in our company.  We've got to increase the span of 
  management.  We have to empower employees so that they don't need as 
  much day-to-day management, that they feel comfortable within some 
  defined boundaries of being self-managing. 
  
       	Empowering employees, reducing the amount of overhead and 
  infrastructure -- that's where the bulk of this seven thousand's got to 
  come from.  So these are the things we're working on to try and solve 
  that problem.  In the meantime, you've got to overcome that. 
  
  Q1 will be 'close'
  
       	Now I know someone's waiting to ask a question, but I want to say 
  one thing, and then I'll get to your question.  We don't need another 
  headache like the one I just gave you. You don't need that.  But I can 
  tell you, we can create one real quick if we have a loss in Q1.  Q1 is 
  tough for us.  It just happens that for whatever reason, we chose to 
  start our fiscal years with the weakest quarter worldwide for the 
  computer information technology business.  It [will] cost me a lot of 
  money to change that and I can't afford it, so we're stuck with our 
  fiscal year starting in July. 
  
       	As many of you know, most of the industrialized world seems to 
  take vacations in July and August.  In particular, the Europeans take a 
  lot of vacation time during that time and [so] a lot of your ability to 
  get orders and to deliver goes away.  So you don't have a true 13-week 
  quarter in Europe or in the United States and in many other areas in 
  the world. Yet our expenses have a 13-week reality. 
  
       	It's going to be tough in Q1.  I can't tell you, standing here, 
  that we'll be in the black.  I can tell you with confidence that we 
  have that opportunity.  It's close.  It depends on you and your 
  colleagues around the world to get the sales and to get the sales for 
  delivery this quarter.  If we can stay in the black -- even two pennies 
  in the black -- you won't have that headache.  You won't have to spend 
  your valuable time overcoming, "Yes, I know we lost money in Q1 but 
  we're gonna fix it in Q2."  That's valuable time that's wasted.  
  
       	It's true, even if happens that we lose money in Q1, we will 
  overcome it in Q2.  But it's a waste of your energy. It's another 
  hurdle.  You don't need that aggravation.  Now I can't fix that one for 
  you. This is out in the field. If there's something I can do to help 
  you close business, let me know. I'll help.  Frequently Jim [O'Neil] 
  does [ask] and I think Jim, if he were standing here, would say I've 
  never turned him down.  I'll help; other executives will help.  But we 
  all know that typically, you know, the big shot walks in and closes the 
  thing with a handshake, [but] you've done all the work.  There's no 
  illusion on my part about that, OK?   So, there's very little I can 
  really do except try to get a structure so you can succeed. 
  
       	We need to make Q1.  Please, please, work as hard as you can 
  individually; make your number.  At the end of the day, the answer to 
  your question is we have to put up good numbers.  Good products, good 
  services, good speeches, good people, if you don't put up good numbers, 
  are not a compelling story.  We've got all of the other.  We need good 
  numbers.  I believe in '97 we can deliver them, but Q1 is clearly going 
  to be the biggest challenge. 
  
       	I'm sorry it's such a long answer to the question. I obviously 
  worked in several other things in mind, but now I can take your 
  question.
 

            Dear Bob,
    
    	How about holding your next DVN Quarterly in ZKO, so we can hear
    you.  The first half of the DVN was muffled and was obliterated each
    time they showed one of your slides.  (Perhaps we TFSOed the audio
    technician?)

    	I'm also sure there are engineers with questions, after all we
    create what they sell in the field.

    RE .311:
    
    In the Q&A session in SHR after the DVN, John Rando told us that the 
    Call Centre described by BP in the DVN is only for pre-sales calls.
    
    He also made comments about how millions had been spent over the 
    last few years on unimplemented systemsto improve our customer
    service... millions he wishes he had now.
    

    Is that the same John Rando who shot the CSC by telling the field that
    there was no support center?  Then he refused to fund the support
    center and that caused the layoffs there, followed by the fact that
    when you, an engineer who calls for support, to have to wait for 20-30
    minutes... and then be told there is no one there to help you?
    
    I think John Rando has "saved" Digital quite enough.  Some folks have
    never heard the old saw, you have to spend money to make money.  
    
    Now the Customers have to wait for up to 50 minutes, that is a lot of 
    listening to music on hold.  Some customers are leaving, the best
    support people have left, when is John Rando leaving.... and how big is
    his "golden parachute"?
    
    Dave
    
    

    Speaking of music while on hold, please, whoever
    runs these telephone support systems, clue into the fact that while
    people are on hold for an hour, they might possibly get some work
    done at the same time if you weren't piping music into their unwilling
    ears.  That music also rules out putting the phone on the speaker
    so that your hands are both free to use your computer, due to the
    disturbance it would cause fellow employees.
                                                 

     >>>>>>clue into the fact that while
     people are on hold for an hour, they might possibly get some work
     done at the same time if you weren't piping music into their
    unwilling ears.
    
    Er, Um, I've got a better idea: lets get the phone answered in under 10
    seconds, or are you teasing us in .315

    
>    Er, Um, I've got a better idea: lets get the phone answered in under 10
>    seconds, or are you teasing us in .315

    Why not just take their number and promise a call back?

    Re: Why not just take their number and promise a call back?
    
    We do that now.  We just don't call back.  That's why people who've
    called more than once know that they have to hang in there on hold ad
    infinitum.
    

    re .316
      Yep some do hold for an hour.  Not many though.
    
    re .317
      That's what we in the Hardware Support group use to do, but
    management said they knew what the customer wanted.  They said that the
    customer wanted to get to an Engineer on the first call, so guess what.
    They have high paid Engineers answering the calls and working the
    issues, and maybe logging the calls if the customer gets the wrong
    expertise.
      So instead of paying $6 to $10 an hour we pay $18 to $30 an hour
    to have an engineer answer the phone up front.  Consequently the
    engineers try and work the call, and the phone lines back up.  Yep!
    for the most part we can take care of 95% of the calls up front, but
    how many do we drop because the customer gets fed up waiting.
    
    Jim Morton

     F.Y.I.,
    
     They are listening, and they are responding. I received a call from 
    someone who told me the "7 -ates" are being looked at. This someone 
    asked to remain anonymous. But the fact is, they are listening, both 
    with their ears, and with their eyes. As in notes. The "unspoken" word, 
    so to speak, or rather, type. ;-) So a word of caution, be careful what 
    you say about anything, or anyone. They might just hear you. %^)
    
     One of the advantages to notes, as opposed to a face to face
    discussion, is you can see the words you are "speaking", before you
    "open your mouth", and give proof to what some may wonder about.
    
     So before the "open mouth, insert foot" syndrome, read what you say,
    before you say it. And if you say something, you have the right as the
    author to delete it.
    
     As someone has said, respect is a part of the problem. A lack of
    respect on both sides. The employee has a hard time respecting those
    who say things, and don't follow through with them. Why the management
    doesn't respect us is a mystery to me. They spend umpteen gazillion
    dollars on outside consulting firms, while they have us at their
    disposal. Hmmmm, maybe that's yet another problem...disposal...
    
    Bob

    Went to a major customer site last night, BECHTEL/EDS, They paid to
    have me do a Stand Alone Backup of their system disk on an Alpha 2150.
    
    4 hours at $230.00 per hour.  Not bad, as they had worked with software
    support from Atlantarado for several hours with no fix.  I found that
    the drives on the internal SCSI controller (DRA0 - system disk) were
    not showing up.  With a bit of stuttering and reading in notes I
    completed the back up in about 1.5 hours.  The customer was really
    pleased as they had to have a backup to do the upgrade to the DECnet.
    
    The support person should have been able to do that in about .5 hours
    and no cost to the customer.
    
    
    Where is the support?
    
    Dave

    >They are listening, and they are responding. I received a call from 
    >someone who told me the "7 -ates" are being looked at. This someone 
    >asked to remain anonymous. But the fact is, they are listening, both 
    >with their ears, and with their eyes. As in notes. The "unspoken" word, 
    >so to speak, or rather, type. ;-) So a word of caution, be careful what 
    >you say about anything, or anyone. They might just hear you. %^)
    >...
    
    What you see here is mostly venting.  And it's good to have a place
    to vent where there is the tiniest possibility that someone will
    actually hear your voice.  Tilting at windmills and all that.
    
    Never say anything you wouldn't say to someone's face.  Good words to
    live by.  I've actually had a few people walk into my office and
    comment on the notesfile activity... mostly positive ;-).  But what
    strikes me is the people who have in person, or by mail sent a note
    saying "boy you got that right", and more -- who won't or can't say
    it themselves out loud, but who lurk in the conference.  I guess out
    of fear that it isn't a career extending move.
    
    Me I figure if someone high enough (which isn't too high) is unhappy
    with what I say, they can reach out and squash me like a bug.  I'm
    pretty low on the food chain (and probably not worth squashing :).
    And now that this brief summer respite (waiting for the shakeout of
    the latest retrenchment) is almost over, and I've got a new job (a
    pretty good one, and still at DEC :) I'll go back to being a mushroom
    (this is a lot of fun, but time to get back to *real* work, I might
    just be getting a 2% bonus... we still don't know :-o).
    I've vented my spleen.  I think everyone should try it.  I feel
    much better now ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
    
    _Fred (I think I am a mushroom...
           They keep me in the dark and feed me ****).
    

    re: -.1
    
    Beware the quiet ones, for they've already resolved a course of 
    action.
    		- Anonymous
    
    For everyone who pipes up in this and other notesfiles, there are
    100s, perhaps 1000s quietly polishing their papers, talking to 
    recruiters and customers, and making their plans...
    
    We don't have the luxury of another year of of stalled Alpha 
    initiatives, political infighting, turf wars,  worried customers, 
    and worried employees trying to move forward...
    
    We have to do something...NOW...THIS YEAR... 
    
    JMHO
    
    John W.

    
    re:                 <<< Note 4719.318 by PADC::KOLLING "Karen" >>>
    ...
    >called more than once know that they have to hang in there on hold ad
    >infinitum.                                                          ^
                                                                         |
    +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
    now *there's* an idea - we have them captive for an hour, let's feed
    them an 'infinity' (so to speak) of ad's ;')
    
    H
    
    p.s. dear Marketing - I am not serious, please don't do this to our
    customers

    
    I could choose to write long stories, use analogies, mataphors, and
    many other things. This may or may not prove anything to anyone. I
    think a different approach can "make the difference" in just how hard 
    they are looking at the plan I have submitted.
    
    After this note, I will write as a new note, the plan in .285, and you
    can choose to let Mr. Palmer, and anyone else who is listening if you
    think the plan deserves attention. A simple yes, or no, will suffice.
    
    If you are a "read only" noter, and know how to reply, then please do
    so. If you know co-workers who are aware of this plan, and don't know
    how to note, help them, would you please? If indeed the plan is accepted,
    it would be valuable for all employees to know how to use the tool we
    have here at our fingertips.
    
    Bob

    re .321
    
    That's happened to me many times when I have been both the software
    support person *and* the eventual on-site resource. I have had calls
    where I spoke to the customer on the phone without being able to resolve
    the problem, then went to site and fixed it quickly because, once on
    site, I could *see* all sorts of things for myself that the customer
    didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't tell me.
    
    Giving software support over the phone is a complex mix of technical
    skill, telephone handling, troubleshooting, and good questioning technique. 
    It's much harder than fixing a problem on site (at least that's my
    opinion and I do both). We are normally very good at it, but I'm sorry
    it failed you this time.
    
    cheers, 
    
    Tony I (from the UK CSC, distant brothers of Atlantarado!)
             

speaking of remote support, has anyone looked into CU-SeeMe for video 
conferences over the internet?  It may not be right for every situation, but
I'll bet there are times if a customers pointed a camera at their screen or
system someone on the other end would get significantly more input than if all
that had to communicate with was a phone.

I'd think this is something some of our more adventurous customers would be 
willing to try out and all it would cost us is a couple hundred dollars for
camera and software.  hell, we'd pay for that with just a single call that 
saved an on-site visit!

-mark

    re .326
    
>   Giving software support over the phone is a complex mix of technical
>   skill, telephone handling, troubleshooting, and good questioning technique. 
    
    Don't forget luck, a good crystal ball, and sympathetic aches in
    one's joints. :-)
    
    In other words, it's a demanding job you guys do, and we folks "back
    home" are grateful you folks do it as well as you do.
    
    -Mark

    From note 4795.5, copied here to hopefully maximize the chance
    that someone who can do something about this will see it:
    
        There is a huge feeling of being completely disconnected
        om upper management.  On some level, people want to know
        what is happening, and why, from the horses mouth.
    
        There is a huge information filter that works in both directions.
        Bad stuff is filtered on the way up, so you end up with a
        "suprised" Bob Palmer.  Information on the way down is doled out...
    
    I think this is one of the major problems currently. If I'd been CEO
    during the bonus mess, I would have at least sent out a Dear
    Fellow Employee memo via Reader's Choice explaining what had
    happened, what was being done to remedy it, and adding some words
    of encouragement.  On the other side of the coin, I would do more
    Management by Walking Around and talking to people in the trenches,
    so that I wasn't totally dependent on what my direct reports told
    me.         
    

We can't do cu-seeme over the net.   Firewall concerns are such that UDP/IP 
packets (which is what cu-seeme uses, rather than TCP/IP) are not going to be 
allowed in.

We could set up something on the outside of the firewall for cu-seeme, but 
that would require 2 machines on a support person's desk, one in the net and 
one outside.  Since that would cost money, forget it.  Even if it would help 
reduce customer frustration, do you honestly think this company would spend 
money to fix a problem?

john

        what about cu-seeme on the digital intranet (oh,,, I mean Enet,
        sorry Eznet, sorry Engineering Network)
        
        

re: CU-SeeMe

couldn't you just do a PPP to a customer's site and run CU-SeeMe over that?
If not, I've gotta believe there is some way to make something like this work
even if it took some extra trickery. 

-mark

>        what about cu-seeme on the digital intranet (oh,,, I mean Enet,
>        sorry Eznet, sorry Engineering Network)
        
no problem.  works fine for me.

-mark        

Yes, you can run cu-seeme on the internal net (great way to do DVN, I would 
think).  You can also use it through the AltaVista Internet Tunnel (another 
virtually unmarketted piece of great Digital engineering).  And you could do 
PPP to a customer site.

But you can't get cu-seeme through the firewall.

john

Software?  Some of us don't even have the hardware for such things...

				Steve

>Software?  Some of us don't even have the hardware for such things...

you don't need any hardware to be a ROV (read-only videoer).  the software is
available off White Pine's web site with a 30 day temporary license if you want
to try it out.  but since it doesn't work across the firewall you need to find
someone inside who can broadcast.  

-mark

RE: .336

	I think Steve meant that he doesn't have PC hardware. Just
	VMS, right Steve?

	Also, we're talking about DVN's here, so no firewalls come into
	play.

	I found some Win95 software that allows me to recieve MBONE
	broadcasts, but now I can't find the server in ZKO that is
	broadcasting them. I can't remember where I read about it. Anyone
	else?

							mike

Re: .336, .337

Right - neither of the two systems I have on my desk will run PC software.

				Steve

   If you would not see it you would not believe it how you side track.

   Please, create a separate topic if you want to discuss about video 
   conferencing (technology, deployment, whatever enjoys your heart).

   Thanks,
   Hubert.

Mr. Palmer,

 It seems you gave an invitation for me to inquire, in your recent DVN;

 "I want to encourage you, as I always do, [to] ask whatever question you 
really have.  Don't be worried about tact or being embarrassed.  Just whatever 
is on your mind, when you get the chance, ask the question.  I'll do my best 
to answer that question."

 Forgive me for taking the liberty as an employee of this Company, to ask you 
one question, for each year I have worked here, since 1987, as I've never asked
you anything in that time period before this. We have only seen each other once,
that I am aware of, at APO, in 1989, and I didn't have the chance (or guts) to 
talk to you at that time.

1) Why is it the "scythe" continues to slice through the fields, cutting off 
 those who work very hard to keep change in both their own, and in your pocket,
 while you keep your "sword" sheathed?  

2) Why not "wield your sword", to "cut the fat" at the levels most unproductive
 to Digital, those who pick Digital's pockets and smile when others are TFSO'd?
 
3) Do you realize the scenario so well put by the author of 4752.77 is still 
 continuing? 

4) Have you read the current scene described so well in 4752.81?

5) How long do you expect those who work hard FOR Digital, to continue doing 
 so while the "many first mates" (see 4762.77) reap the bigger hill of beans
 (see 4752.108, yet hide the truth out of fear for their positions?

6) Are you aware resume polishing is going strong and high quality people
 are leaving in droves as their resumes make contact with a more stable 
 working environment worthy of their talents and skills? 

7) Are you aware that many of these talents and skills mentioned in question 
 number 6, have been gained while working for years for DEC/Digital? 

8) Have you heard the words echoing from the past, "Do the right thing"?

 TWO PART BONUS QUESTION TIME! (For the contractor year)

9) What is it Mr. Clinton has 1 of, and you have approximately 225, AND can you
 name ALL of yours without looking at an org chart? (this is to ask how well do
 you know the men and women who serve you at a VHL (very high level)).

To quote the founder of this Company;

"We must all be intensely customer oriented in all of our dealings. All of us 
must be guided by what is best for our customers, and must make it easy for
them to do business with us." - Ken Olsen

I heard you say in a previous note "My actions are being judged by my Board 
of Directors." My actions are being judged by One much higher than the BOD.

We all look forward with great anticipation to your reply.

Shalom,

Bob

    >"My actions are being judged by my Board of Directors."
        
    Bob (S.), I'm afraid that sums up all the commitment Bob (P.) feels to
    respond to your/our questions.  :-(
        
    -Mark

	Bob.... that bonus question was great! 

    I will be copying below a quote that I found that I do not have
    permission to post; however, it is currently posted in my customer's
    home page and thought, since it's "accessible to the public", permission
    is assumed.  If this line of thinking is incorrect, moderator, feel
    free to delete this note or set hidden (or whatever it's called).
    
    
    From "www.milliken.com"
    
    "Continuous improvement occurs because of the concept of empowerment.
    Milliken Chief Operating Officer Tom Malone says, "We have learned that 
    empowerment without abdication of leadership involves the five Ws and one 
    H. The Ws are leadership functions. The H, a function of empowered 
    associates. The Ws stand for: 
    
         What are you going to do? 
         Where are you going to do it? 
         When are you going to do it? 
         Who is going to do it? 
         Why are you doing it? 
         The H asks, "How are you going to do it?" 
    
    Providing Milliken associates with the challenge to create positive change
    by testing their ideas and implementing the best has set the stage for 
    advances that simply would not be possible without teamwork, leadership 
    and empowerment. 
    
    Milliken consistently works as a partner with its suppliers, customers
    and even competitors to resolve issues and advance concepts that have 
    great potential for the industry, our nation and our
    world. The most pervasive concept throughout Milliken is that of
    leadership in quality - moving ahead as members of teams rather than 
    waiting for "the other guy" to make the first move."
    
    Bob, this, from a multi-million dollar "partner" of Digital's that is
    currently questioning our viability.  What Dr. Malone states sounds 
    logical to me;
    actually, it sounds rather like something that should be a given, but
    it's not, at least at Digital.  I can't tell you how many times in the
    last year I've heard the words "empowered" and "accountability".  I
    believe Dr. Malone knows how to empower and "lets" his people do it.  I
    also know that Milliken holds all their associates totally accountable
    for their actions....TOTALLY.... each and every one of them.
    
    I don't know if you've ever been on a tour of the Milliken Research
    Center in Spartanburg, South Carolina, but I think you would be
    impressed.  The recognition that each associate receives for their
    contributions to Milliken's success are posted ALL OVER this facility,
    from the janitor to the COO.  Milliken has OFI's (opportunity for
    improvements) that each associate is incented to bring forth and is
    "paid" based on how much "improvement" their OFI contributes to the
    bottom line... whether it's productivity enhancing, costs more in the
    short term but saves money over the long haul, or simple cost
    containment ideas or expense reduction ideas.  DUH!!!  Who knows better
    how to save money in an organization than those doing the work? NOT
    those directing/managing, but those leading provide the atmosphere for
    associates to be a part of the corporation and it's profitability.
    
    I thought Dr. Malone's words enlightening, at least for me.  I'd
    forgotten what it's like to be treated like a grown-up.
    
    Sincerely.....JPs
    
    
    

    The difficulty in an empowerment scheme is that it takes careful long
    range planning - just where and when do you have to draw the line
    between democracy and autocracy - and it takes ( to borrow from another
    note) leadership skills rather than skills in administering orders and
    crunching numbers.
    
    Total Quality Management (which includes such empowerment &
    recognition) has a poor track record because it is often implemented as
    a mandate, not a re-vision of the corporate culture.  Given where we
    are today, I suspect retrofitting the Rainbow as an AXP would be easier
    than making empowerment work.
    
    I suspect the closest we'll come to empowerment is still having back
    doors we can all personally use to get our jobs done. 
    
    bk