Conference 7.286::digital

    Since I was also present at the meeting referred to in -1, I can verify
    that it is 100% true.
    
    Mike

	Re .0, clearification concerning Valbonne.

	The Valbonne campus WILL NOT close down.

	There are almost all all functions represented in Valbonne,
	Customer Services, Engineering, Marketing, EIS, Manufacturing,
	Telecomms etc.

	Yesterday we were all informed that 93 jobs in manufacturing
	will disappear. (I think around 75 people remains in mfg here).

	/Ake                                                           

    I heard on the channel 5 news this morning that there will
    be "lay offs" in the closing of the PNO plant.  

    As is the case with most news stories in the Phoenix area the local
    TV and News paper like to create the news not report it.  Note.1
    tells it as it is today, you can read in to it what ever you want
    but repeating you thoughts only creates more rumors with nothing to
    back them up.
    
    

    I was struck by the comments in Note 310.0 in the DELTA_IDEAS notes
    conference about some of the apparent attitudes at PNO among its
    managers.  The author talks about "engineers not needed in mfg" (my
    paraphrase), progressively less knowledgable managers over the years,
    and some of the other ills that we have been seeing around the company.
    If these perceptions were shared at higher levels, there may be
    evidence that sensible decisions are being made.
    
    I believe that plants are closed when managers make bad/dumb/costly
    mistakes.  The employees that suffer the consequences of those mistakes
    are (almost) innocent victims.  The 'almost' is because of the general
    reluctance to challenge the system.  If I found myself laid-off when I
    had serious misgivings about management decisions and had kept silent,
    I would feel that I owned part of the problem.  The purpose of this
    comment is not to make people at PNO feel bad, but to suggest that
    failure to use the Open Door policy when it is warranted may be bad for
    our economic health.
    
    For our own sakes, we can't tolerate mis-management in our
    organizations!
    
    Regards,
    
    Dick

    Are they offering Relocation to the Plant personnel?
    
    
    Regards
    
    
    Bob
    
    

    In the Seattle Times of 11-22-90.
    
    "Digital to close Arizona plant; layoffs likely"
    
    "off the Boston Globe.
    Boston.  In a painful break with a 33 year tradition, Digital Equipt.
    corp. will for the first time close a production plant.  And the cost-
    cutting move likely will lead to Digital's first-ever lay-offs.
    	The Maynard, Mass., computer maker said this week that it will
    close its plant in Phoenix, Ariz., affecting 476 workers.  The company
    expects the shutdown to occur sometime next year, though no timetable
    has been set.
    	Jeff Gibson, a Digital spokesman, said the company will try to
    relocate Phoenix employees to other Digital sites.
    	Digital, hurt by a slumping economy and a falloff in mini-computer
    sales, has been slashing costs for more than a year, but it had avoided
    plant closings and layoffs."
    
    the above was from page h2 of the Seattle Times.  H2 is buried deep
    in this paper.  
    the above was entered without permission from the Boston Globe.
    

Well said Mr. Heiser..Your bedtime fairy tale turned into a Nightmare. 

Mike

Re: .9

PRISM was cancelled, true.  It has not been "resurrected under a new name".
However, it is inappropriate to discuss such things in this forum.

			Steve

        We received an update this afternoon on the progress of the PNO
        Plant closure.  The update was performed by each functional
        manager to their groups, from a script prepared and provided by
        Ed Petrazzolo, the PNO Plant Manager.
        
        The information given was that a Plant closure plan was still
        being worked by a group back east (consisting of Personnel folks,
        Lawyers and others), but there would be no finalization until the
        week of January 7, 1991.  At that time we will be given more
        information.  Jobs that the business' need will have been
        identified and be made known; but, req's will not be posted for
        those jobs.  (Indicates a selection process?)
        
        The following business transfers will occur -
        
                The LPS20 will return to ABO.
                The LN03 will EOL (End Of Life) here in PNO.
                The RFVT320 will go to NIO.
                The PC integration business will go to SPO.
                The Fonts and Calyx (DECmp 433) will go to BOO.
                System Integration will go to ABO.
                Customer Service spares location is not known.
                Customer Service Repair will go to TFO.

        Distribution for the above will be the responsibility of the
        receiving locations.  It is also the responsibility of the
        receiving locations to pull the business and determine the
        timing as well as any headcount necessary to support the
        business.
        
        The following is the status of the business' -
        
                WABC (Western Aquistion Business Center) will go to TFO.
                WD  (Western Distribution) will be split up and migrated
                    to various places, with a small group - regional
                    adminstration (paperwork), going to TFO.
                Property Disposal will be moved to DOO.
                Business Recovery Center - a disaster recovery area, no
                    people, will go to TFO.
                SWFMC (Southwest Financial Management Center) will go to
                    TFO.
                INFS (In House Field Service) will go to TFO.
                Custom Training Service will go to multiple sites.
                Lab Services and ASIC Aquistion is not known.
                MCAMs and SAMs will go to TFO.
                Account Support groups is not known.
        
        The status of Administration - Finance, Facilities, IM,
        Personnel, etc. is not known at this time.
        
        It was stated that DEC will be helping the employees find other
        jobs both inside and/or outside DEC.  
        
        (Which they are doing.  earlier this week individuals from ABO
        were over interviewing people here for jobs as diverse as -
        Manufacture II to Principal Information Specialist.  It is my
        understanding that we will have Honeywell in for a job fair along
        with other companies here in the valley.)
        
        Closure date of the plant will be determined by the business
        transfer schedule.
        
        The financial package will be determined by Q2 results.
        
        There are also regulations (unspecified) that must be followed
        that will play into this.
        
        Talking with several different folks afterwardsd was interesting
        as the general consensus was that we weren't told anything.
        
        One person made the comment that - this was to give the folks on
        the floor some information, a carrot, but that they should
        prepare for the worst.        

        Bob

    Wondering about this: What happens to the plant manager and other top
    level people when a plant closes? Do they automatically get new
    positions at DEC or do they have to look for jobs like everyone else?
    
    Ken

        
                P H O E N I X   P L A N T   C L O S I N G
        
                      O F F I C I A L   N O T I C E
                
        To paraphrase Lou Gaviglia, U.S.  Manufacturing Manager -  We
        could use load balancing, but we've found that it doesn't work.
        All that you would have is jobs, not careers.  We're doing this
        for you...
        
        We were given our notice today and had to sign for the four pages
        of paper summarizing the closing of the PNO facility.  This is
        required by the WARN law, enacted last year.
        
        The Plant will close on 29 March 1991.
        
        Excluded organizations from the closing process - they are
        expected to begin working at the Tempe facility on or before 1
        April 1991, these organizations are -
        
                . Financial Management Center.
                . Corporate In-House Educational Services.
                . Customer Services.
                . Customer Account Management.
                . Competitive Sales Team.
        
        All other employees must have elected to terminate service with
        Digital or have accepted a job elsewhere within Digital by 29
        March 1991.
        
        A financial package will be made available to all regular
        employees that will be terminated.
        
        Employees of businesses that are transferring locally have ten
        working days from 21 January, 1991, to decide if they will
        transfer or elect to leave Digital.  If they elect to leave,
        their jobs will be posted in the Phoenix facility and all
        eligible candidates may apply.
        
        Employees that find jobs elsewhere within Digital will have their
        relocation paid for out of Phoenix.
        
        All employees, regardless of whether they are currently active
        or not, e.g. Leaves of Absence or disability, are affected by the
        closing and subject to the same rules and processes.
        
        Employees cannot leave Digital until after the business transfer
        date set for their organization.  This date will be communicated
        on 18 January, 1991.
        
        Eligibility for re-employment (I assume this to mean either as a
        contract worker or full time) prior to the end of the period
        represented by the lump sum payment under the financial package.
        
                             Financial Package Summary
        
        1. Lump Sum     Years of Continuous Service      # of Weeks
        
                        0 - 2                           13
                        
                        3 - 10                          13, plus 3 for
                                                        every year
                                                        between 3 and 10
                                   
                        11 - 20                         37, plus 4 for
                                                        every year
                                                        between 11 and 20
        
                        21+                             77 maximum
        
        2. Insurance    A continuation of current medical, Dental and
                        Life insurance coverage for a number of weeks
                        equal to the number of weeks used to calculate
                        the lump sum per the table above, not to exceed
                        52 weeks.
        
        3. Restricted Stock  An opportunity for holders of restricted
                        stock grants under the restricted stock option
                        plan to participate in a five year acceleration
                        of those options which may be exercised without
                        restrictions on sale, during a five year period
                        commencing upon termination.
        
        4. Outplacement Employees may use the services of Mainstream
                        Access Inc. for job search for a period of six
                        months after their termination.
        
        In addition to the above, a Career center will be opened in the
        east lobby on Thursday, manned by Digital personnel and companies
        from around the area.
        
        Outplacement workshops will begin next week and time will be made
        for all employees to participate in these workshops.
        
        It is the intention of the company to market the Phoenix
        facility, either through a direct sale or a lease-option plan.
        
        Ironically, one of the plants that we are transistioning
        businesses too, has refused to pick up product because - "We
        don't have the space."
        
        Another curious thing was that at no time did I hear any manager
        admit that this was or say the word - "Layoff."
        
        Wish the approximately 400 of us that will be leaving Digital
        luck as we go to find "careers."
        
        Bob

re: .16

>        All employees, regardless of whether they are currently active
>        or not, e.g. Leaves of Absence or disability, are affected by the
>        closing and subject to the same rules and processes.

Does anyone have any clarification as to what this means? Does that mean
PNO employees who are on LTD whose jobs/businesses have been terminated
are no longer on LTD, i.e. SOL?

-Jack

        I don't know at the moment, but will enter the information when I
        find out - (I'll be visiting one of the ltd folks in a couple of
        weeks).
        
        But from reading the summary paper we received (and signed for),
        I'd make a guess the yes, they are SOL.
        
        Bob

    re. LTD
    
    Since LTD is an insurance matter and not an employment matter, I
    would strongly hesitate to describe the person as being SOL.  Unless
    Arizona has unusually strange laws, the person would remain on STD
    or LTD until their were able to return to work at which point since
    there was no work they would be terminated for lack of employment.
    
    Whether at that point in time, Digital would still be providing them
    TFSO funding or some other opportunity to return to work at another
    facility would almost certainly have to be answered at that point
    in time.  I would assume Digital plans to inform all personnel on
    STD and LTD as to what is happening at the facility and how it will
    affect them should they return prior to March 29th when the place
    closes shop.
    
    Any other speculation is seriously damaging to people on disability
    who might not react very well to the news.  Hopefully they have all
    been contacted by personnel to describe what actions they need to
    undertake because of the facility closing.
    
    		Paul N.
    

It seems the little "fable" I posted in here months ago has been making the
rounds on the network.  I was never asked permission by anyone to do this,
which is against DEC policy.  See below:

    PROPER USE OF DIGITAL COMPUTERS, SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS

NOTES FILES/CONFERENCES

MESSAGES MAILED OR POSTED OVER THE DIGITAL NETWORK ARE THE 
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR.  POSTING MATERIALS IN A 
NOTES FILE/CONFERENCE WITHOUT THE EXPLICIT PERMISSION OF THE 
AUTHOR IS PROHIBITED AND IS A VIOLATION OF THIS POLICY.

WHEN FORWARDING MESSAGES OR POSTING THEM TO CONFERENCES, 
REMOVAL OR FALSIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE HEADER (WHICH 
INDICATES THE AUTHOR) IS PROHIBITED.


POLICY VIOLATIONS

MANAGERS WHO SUSPECT SYSTEMS ARE BEING USED IMPROPERLY SHOULD 
DISCUSS THE PROBLEM WITH THE EMPLOYEE IN QUESTION AND, IF 
APPROPRIATE, INVOLVE SECURITY.  IN CASES WHERE IMPROPER USE HAS 
BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED, THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND DISCIPLINARY POLICY 
(6.21).

REFERENCES

PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL; POLICY 6.03, 
HARASSMENT POLICY; POLICY 6.06, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; POLICY 
6.18, EMPLOYEE PRIVACY; POLICY 6.21, CORRECTIVE ACTION AND 
DISCIPLINE; AND POLICY 6.24, EMPLOYEE CONDUCT. 

    Does the cited policy apply to extractions FROM notesfiles? It
    seems like a gray area. I beleive the INTENT of the policy was to
    control unauthorized posting of mail into notes conferences.
    
    Lee

    re: the intent
    
       Try not to analyze too much here... the 2nd paragraph of 1278.20
    states forwarding without the originating authors ID is prohibited.
    Extracting from the notesfile usually ends up as a forwarded something
    (mail/entry).
    
    Sense and courtesy dictate a "Do unto others" attitude here... when
    looking at some mail/entry, if it was you that wrote it, would you want
    it forwarded without your permission??  Naturally, your sense of
    professionalism is called upon to limit at appropriate times those
    notes entries or e-mail that you might otherwise have sent on.
    
    So far (thank you everyone!) this professionalism and attitude *is*
    working for all of us! Not only do we get information we need, when we
    need it, but we also do *not* get what we do not need.
    
    Bruce Evans

    Wait a minute -- if you've posted something in a public notesfile,
    it is already available to anyone who cares to read it.  So why should
    it matter if it gets MAILed around?  One could just as well send a 
    message saying "see note X in file Y".
    
    

    Re .-1
    
    I say that that is the readers problem. Whenever I extract and mail
    notes out of 'open' notesfiles I make sure that I include the notes
    header so that recipients can go and read the surrounding notes if they
    so wish.
    
    If you post a note in a non-restricted notesfile you should assume that
    it could be read by any Digital employee. Because that is the
    definition of a non-restricted notesfile.
    
    Dave

    
    re: .25
    
    It doesn't matter if you leave the author's node/name stamp on it,
    you must obtain the original author's permission. 
    
    /prc

RE: .24, .25, .27, .28

Policy 6.54 only places posting and forwarding restrictions on electronic mail
messages.  It says that you cannot forward a mail message without retaining
the original mail header and that you cannot post a mail message in a NOTES
conference without the original author's prior permission, and even then, the
original mail header must still be preserved (forwardings may be removed).

The policy does not say anything about forwarding, mailing, or extracting and
cross-posting notes from unrestricted NOTES conferences.  In my opinion, it
is a matter of common courtesy to treat these as one would MAIL messages and
obtain prior permission before forwarding.  However, policy does not require
that one do so.

--PSW

re .29

I don't understand why this policy is so hard to understand.

Even otherwise intelligent people like Paul Winalski seem to get it wrong.

In .29 he says (incorrectly) "The policy does not say anything about ...
cross-posting notes from unrestricted NOTES conferences."

He is wrong.  The policy clearly states that materials "mailed or posted"
over our network may not be posted in notesfiles without the permission of
the author.

Paul correctly states that the only restriction on forwarding messages
(regardless of source) is that the original author's name be preserved.

/john

    Sheesh!  I look in here for news re: the PNO plant closing, and find an
    endless diatribe over the finer points of policy 6.54.  Is there a more
    appropriate forum for that discussion?  I'd really like to know more
    about the fate of PNO.

The policy clearly says "mailed or posted".  If it just meant "mailed" it
wouldn't say "posted".

Dick Seltzer in Employee Communications, who has hosted meetings to discuss
Policy 6.54, has said that it does apply to cross-posting.

/john

>The policy clearly says "mailed or posted".  If it just meant "mailed" it
>wouldn't say "posted".

As I recall from the meeting where that phrase was added to the policy the
meaning was unclear then but was aimed more at restricted conferences then
otherwise. That has always been my understanding.

>Dick Seltzer in Employee Communications, who has hosted meetings to discuss
>Policy 6.54, has said that it does apply to cross-posting.

Richard's (I've never heard him called Dick in the time I've know him) 
recollection may of course be different from mine.

			Alfred

I believe this policy is:

	Well intentioned but ...

		Poorly disseminiated

		Misunderstood

		Contrary to business as usual

		Wrong

It's always ironic that when a dozen people are debating the meaning
of something, that someone insists that the meaning is clear and simple.

- greg

    Mr. Moderator, could you please tell me where the PNO closure note has
    moved to?
    
    Thanks,
    Mike

OK, I just imagined all those conferences whose moderators have been requiring
original author permission for cross-posting.

Doesn't sound like there's a whole lot of info on the PNO plant closing.

RE: .30

I stand corrected.  I was tripped up by the use of the word "posted", which
is ambiguous.  In normal (non-computer) usage, it is synonymous with "mailed".
When the policy said "mailed or posted over the network" I assumed it was
referring to the two categories of mail messages "mailed by paper mail" and
"mailed (posted) via electronic mail".  If the policy means "mailed by
electronic mail or posted to NOTES conferences" it should say just that, to
avoid this sort of confusion.

--PSW

    I'm with Paul on this one.  Notes and replies are _written_ into VAX
    Notes Conferences and clients read from them.  "Post" means to erect a
    notice or mail.

    There's no reason to believe that the policy in this case should
    refer to VAX VTX, VAX Notes, USENET news groups, or continuous news
    wire servers.

    The policy is ambiguous.

    A notesfile is like a bulletin board. "Post" is pretty self-evidently
    applicable to entries in notesfiles.
    
    The OED, curiously enough, doesn't mention VAX NOTES anywhere,
    but it does say
    
    	Post, v. 
    
    		To fix to a post or in a prominent position; to
    		stick up in a public place.
    
    
    Signed, your local language pedant.

    
    I Find it amazing that the same people who have written the last
    
    few replys are EXACTLY the same people who are so quick to jump
    
    on others for replying about other than the basenote topic!!
    
    	Some should practice what they preach.....
    
    
    

    The policy was revised in December, and the following was added:
    
 | This policy covers all messages addressed to individuals and
 | organizations.  It is not intended to restrict the distribution of
 | general announcements, course listings, etc., or messages originally
 | posted on external bulletin boards such as Usenet news groups.
    
    Posting someting in an open NOTES conference is a form of general
    announcement, not a means of addressing a message to a single
    individual or organization.
    
    Steve

    (1) The revision doesn't define "post".  Ah-ha!
    
    (2) It seems clear to me at least, that there is no policy requiring
    the original author's permission to extract and write a note into
    another conference.  The only inhibition from doing so is courtesy.

	I thought post was what the Americans called mail.

	We post letters, we have post boxes.........just as well we don't have
	a 6.54 in our PP+P's - it would have to be translated to English first!

	Heather

	

6.54 specifically states that it is worldwide in scope.

>	I thought post was what the Americans called mail.
    
    Yes, In general, Americans "mail" things by putting them into "mail"
    boxes and "post" things by hanging them on walls or other vertical
    surfaces.  
    
    A sign reading "POST NO BILLS" means "don't attach any notices the this
    wall", not "don't send any demands for payment through the U.S. Mail".
    
    Steve 

    
>    A sign reading "POST NO BILLS" means "don't attach any notices the this
>    wall", not "don't send any demands for payment through the U.S. Mail".
    
 	:-)

    So, are you people about done?
    
    What's happening at PNO?

    Many people are preparing for their transfer to the Tempe site.  The
    rest are looking for jobs.  Deadline is still March 29th.
    
    Mike

Subj:	A Rose By Any Name Is Still A Rose "ALPHA/PRISM" - Good Reading

 Digital - William S. Demmer: Changing the face of Digital
	{The Boston Globe, 5-Mar-91, p. 37}
	{This is the entire article - TT}
   Sixteen years ago, a handful of Digital Equipment Corp.'s top engineers
 dreamed up one of the most successful computer designs ever created, the VAX.
   Today the venerable Digital product line, which has made billions for the 
 company, is being outdone by a new generation of computers that deliver more
 bang for the buck. Digital is again betting the company on a new computer,
 code-named "Alpha," which is scheduled to debut in 1992.
   The man assigned to kill off the old computer design and bring the new one
 to life is the same man who built Digital's first VAX computer - a tall,
 soft-spoken engineering manager named Bill Demmer.
   Pulling the plug on a product that generates 90 percent of Digital's $13
 billion in annual revenue is a huge risk. But those who know him say that if
 anyone can manage the change, it's Demmer. "He's probably made more money for
 Digital than anyone," says C. Gordon Bell, former vice president of
 engineering at Digital and the technical genius behind its flagship computer
 line.
   Others wonder if Demmer can steer a Digital product transition that critics
 say is three to five years late. "He's suddenly being asked to do a
 businessman's job," says John Logan, an analyst at Aberdeen Group in Boston.
   William S. Demmer's name may not appear on the "A" list at Silicon Valley
 cocktail parties, but he has played a key role in the computer industry and in
 Digital's success.
   In 1974 Demmer lobbied hard for Digital to break from its popular line of
 computers, known as the PDP series, and start fresh with a new design. Demmer
 managed the team that built the first VAX computer, the model 780, which is
 still used as reference in the industry to measure computer performance.
   Bell christened Digital's new hardware line, but it was Demmer who named
 VMS, the software that makes Digital's computers work; Demmer led the VMS
 development team. He also built the model 750, the second member of Digital's
 new line, and a huge success in its own right. In the '80s, Demmer shifted his
 attention to making Digital's computers communicate on networks, a feature
 that boosted sales and let Digital's president, Kenneth H. Olsen, brag that
 "Digital Has It Now."
   Last year, Digital rewarded Demmer, a vice president since 1981, by placing
 him in charge of the entire VAX line, from desktop to mainframe. Officially,
 Demmer, 57, is vice president of Digital's VMS systems and servers group.
   The title carries with it an awesome responsibility: Demmer's job is to
 gradually replace Digital's old computer architecture without rupturing
 Digital's revenue stream. Starting next year, Digital will begin to introduce
 Alpha, a new computer design that uses faster microprocessors known as RISC,
 or reduced instruction set computing, a design that speeds processing by
 simplifying complex computer instructions. Demmer says Digital hasn't yet
 decided whether to rename the new line, which is designed to run both
 Digital's proprietary VMS systems software, and a version of Unix, the widely
 used system software developed by American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
   Demmer is approaching his latest challenge in typical fashion: with great
 calm. People who know Demmer say his imperturbability is a hallmark that sets
 him apart in the fast-paced world of computer design. It makes him easy to
 approach with problems, they say, and injects stability into an otherwise
 hectic environment. "It's always good to have a guy like him to use as a
 guidepost," says Richard Fiorentino, a former Digital engineer, who is now
 chief executive officer of Wavetracer Inc., a computer startup in Acton.
   Demmer's fans say he is among the best, if not the best, engineering manager
 at Digital. He knows how to get the best work from his engineers, they say, by
 giving them latitude and shielding them from company politics. "Bill kept the
 flak from raining too heavily on the people doing the work," says David
 Rodgers, a former Digital engineer who is now a vice president at Sequent
 Computer Systems Inc., in Bellevue, Wash.
   When Demmer joined Digital in 1973, he thought he was equally talented as an
 engineer and as a manager. But after sizing up the engineering talent at
 Digital, Demmer says, he opted to focus on managing engineers. It was a
 prescient decision. "Management wasn't really the watchword of the day in 1974
 in engineering," says Fiorentino."We were busy building computers and having
 fun."
   Fiorentino says that Demmer was "good at keeping groups satisfied and held
 in line." Bell agrees: "Demmer had wonderful engineer talent working for him.
 But if you have wonderful engineering talent without a boss who supports you
 and knows what to do, you can wander off and get into a hell of a lot of
 trouble."
   Before joining Digital, Demmer worked 15 years for International Business
 Machines Corp., where he was a product manager on another bet-the-company
 line, the IBM System/360. Frustrated by growing red tape, Demmer quit IBM and
 joined a startup, Telex Corp., in Tulsa, Okla. When Demmer arrived at Digital,
 he felt somewhat lost in the unstructured environment. "It was amazing to me
 that the company made any money," he recalls.
   But Demmer quickly adjusted and warmed to a company that allowed him to
 practice his style of management. "My philosophy is to give the people who
 work for me the opportunity to manage me," he says, adding: "I'm not known as
 an authoritarian." (Indeed, one former engineer complains that Demmer's
 meetings "tend to wander.")
   Though usually a study in tranquility, Demmer's calm occasionally erupts.
 "He's a big guy, and you realize just how big he is when he's exploding," says
 Donald McInnis, a former Digital vice president who now heads a unit of the
 Computervision division of Prime Computer Inc. "I sometimes lose it," Demmer
 confesses. Demmer's outbursts are usually directed at people who don't
 listen, he says.
   Sometimes Demmer's easy-going personality can irritate those who work for
 him. More than one engineer complains that Demmer's biggest fault is that he
 tries too hard to make everyone agree. "If Demmer has a fault, it's probably
 wanting too much approval and maybe not taking enough risks sometimes," says
 Bell.
   Demmer offers no apology. "I sometimes don't make decisions as fast as some
 people would like," he says. "I'm a great believer in leaving your options
 open as long as you can." A systematic plodder, Demmer believes that 90
 percent of the time, the "right" way to proceed becomes evident in time to
 make an informed decision. Only 10 percent of the time, he says, "do you end
 up having to make gut decisions that someone wishes you'd made before."
   Demmer admits he is "more of a problem avoider than a problem solver." But
 he denies that he is risk averse. "I was willing to bet the company on VAX,"
 he blurts. And then he adds, tellingly: "The fine line since then has been
 carrying the major revenue of the company."
   Ask Demmer what his is most proud of in his career and the answer is "VAX."
 It's easy to understand why. "VAX built Digital," says George Colony, of
 Forrester Research, a market research firm in Cambridge.
   But Digital's devotion to its one-size-fits-all architecture caused the
 company to miss early opportunities in personal computers and workstations.
 Blinded by the VAX's success, Digital also failed to see the fundamental
 changes taking place in the market, away from proprietary systems to open
 systems, which allow people to use different computer brands.
   Former colleagues say that Demmer, who managed Digital's midrange computer
 business throughout the 1980s, can't be blamed for Digital's big miss on the
 desktop. But there was one instance where Demmer might have made a difference
 if he had argued forcefully, former Digital engineers say.
   Demmer was in charge of a project started in 1985 called "Prism." A group of
 Digital engineers based on the West Coast and lead by David Cutler, worked to
 design a set of RISC chips that would power a new Digital workstation. But
 after three years, the project was canceled. Instead of developing its own
 RISC chip, Digital decided to go with a design marketed by Mips Computer
 Systems Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif.
   Cutler quit his job in disgust. Today he recalls being deeply disappointed
 that Demmer did not back him up harder in his effort to save Prism. Cutler is
 convinced that if work on Prism had continued, Digital could have shipped a
 RISC workstation last year that would have supported Digital's VMS software as
 well as Unix. In other words, Cutler believes Digital could have shipped
 "Alpha" a year ago, instead of in 1992.
   Demmer declines to discuss the Prism project at any length. He concedes that
 Alpha is using much of the knowledge gained from research on Prism. But he
 says Alpha's technology is fundamentally new. Digital canceled Prism, Demmer
 says, after deciding it could get a broader product line to market faster by
 using chips purchased from Mips.
   Despite Cutler's disappointment that Demmer didn't fight harder for Prism,
 he respects Demmer's ability as a manager and thinks Demmer is the "right guy"
 to manage Digital's changeover. "He certainly has the most experience building
 VAXs, and the products his organization has built have been successful," says
 Cutler.
   Still, Bell thinks Digital is going to have a tough time making Alpha a
 success in the marketplace. The competition is intense, and it's not yet clear
 how Digital's new architecture will integrate the all-important personal
 computer.
   Demmer is unfazed. He's confident the transition will succeed in time. "The
 old VAX will fade out," he say. "I just don't know if it will fade out in this
 century or the next century."

    The package we received here has some interesting clauses in it.  A
    real humorous one is that by signing it, you waive your civil right to
    file a lawsuit against DEC.
    
    I wonder how many people here believe they can actually do that.
    
    Mike

    Re All
    
    Best of luck to all of you, folks I've never met and will probably
    never meet
    
    Philippe (from Paris, France)

    PNO is still alive and kickin, but with a population of about 100
    employees.
    
    Now that everyone is gone, rumor has it that the appropriate VPs are
    discussing selling TFO1 instead and keeping PNO open.  

    I've heard that, too (I'm in TFO1). Also heard TFO2 would
    also be sold. I hope we go to PNO....that facility is soooo
    much nicer looking.....and we're looking to move to
    New River anyways :-)
    
    p

    The following note has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






    It's been over a year since this decision was made.  Here's an update
    on the wierdness that DEC is practicing in the southwest.

    * It has been confirmed that no financial analysis was performed to
      support the decision to close PNO.
    * The building has been officially listed on the real estate market since 
      last September.
    * For those that have never seen it: the building is constructed of 
      red brick, total square footage is over 545,000, and sits at a prime 
      north Phoenix location.  PNO (including land) was supposedly appraised 
      for $67M.  It was listed for $27M and DEC's property management team
      is currently entertaining offers from Honeywell in the $17M-$22M
      range.  Rumor has it the sale is just an environmental inspection
      away.

    Twenty-five miles down the interstate in Tempe, DEC has 2 sites in the 
    heart of an industrial park that are less than ~150,000 sq. ft. apiece.  
    Both are lesser quality stucco compared to the brick of PNO.  

    Makes you wonder why DEC would do this when the smaller buildings could
    have been sold faster and all of DEC-Arizona could have migrated to a
    better quality environment.  Because of the poor condition of the TFO
    sites, the sales & field support groups are considering leasing space
    in the city that would be more attractive to invite customers to.

    The most interesting thing about the previous note was in regard to the
    plant being appraised for $67M, being offered at $27M, and probably
    being sold for $17-22M.  How much was the plant being carried for on
    DEC's books?  $67M?  
    
    When people start talking about the book value of DEC's stock (I've
    heard numbers like $45 - $50 per share.) are they talking about
    overvaluing real estate and other assets by a factor of three or four? 
    Is $12 per share more real??
    
    
    Curious_in_Vermont

....and.... what have we been paying taxes on? a 67M$ building or a
lower-priced one?

    
    
    	Assessed value doesn't always mean market value....

Re: Note 1278.57          -< Anonymous reply >-

>    Makes you wonder why DEC would do this when the smaller buildings could
>    have been sold faster and all of DEC-Arizona could have migrated to a
>    better quality environment.  Because of the poor condition of the TFO
>    sites, the sales & field support groups are considering leasing space
>    in the city that would be more attractive to invite customers to.

Have you factored in the cost of the move?  As I recall, the other sites
include the manufacturing lines of thin film media (and heads?) for our (and
others') disk storage products.  They are very highly specialized manufacturing
lines which would probably cost so much to relocate, not to mention lost
revenues due to downtime, that a financial analysis of your suggestion may well
have shown why the decision was made the way it was. 

-  David

    The book value of  assets such as buildings and equipment is the
    historical cost of such assets less depreciation. The normal situation
    that arrises is that the results of inflation and appreciation are not
    reflected in the balance sheet. Some companies, very few since it is no
    longer required, produce financial statements that have adjusted such
    assets and materials inventory for the cpi. but those statements are
    usually not available anymore because inflation negatively affects net
    income. 
    	On the books therefore, the value of the assets is seriously
    understated so the book value of the company is probably a lot more
    than what the balance sheet says. The real value of allthis stuff is
    the market value anyway, and that is not defined until the asset is
    sold.
    
    John

>           I think DEC is just going consolidation crazy!  Just like we
>           went expansion crazy when things were booming.
    Speaking of which, the NQO residents (DecDirect Order Fulfillment)
    and those part of that business located in DDD, are moving to
    Westminister. I'm part of that, and although the move falls in line
    with DEC's distribution plans, moving IS, Finance, Materials and
    Purchasing seems like overkill. Since when do buyers, FA'a, etc,
    need to be in close proximity to the material they deal with?
    An unnesessary expense, imo.
    
    John

   Re:      <<< Note 1278.65 by BUNYIP::QUODLING "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy..." >>>

>The problem is we aren't selling enough computers. (and services). The
>relationship of this to the number of people we have in our workforce
>is tenuous at best.

   Selling rates is ONE of the problems.  Another, and one which
   downsizing does address, is the cost of selling anything.  I
   hope that after all the comments we have read here, that no
   body would doubt that our internal bureaucracy is excessive.
   It hurts us in three ways.
   
   1) Necessary tasks take too long to complete.  This affects
      our reflexes, our ability to think on our feet, our
      ability to compete by being first.
      
   2) Our products and services cost too much for the value
      received.  So our ability to compete with price is also 
      reduced.
      
   3) We have embarked on a number of peripheral activities
      which are not critical to be done in house.  We are going
      to stop those activities.  If we can buy a product or
      service cheaper than we can make it, we will do so.
      
   Every person in Digital adds cost to its products.  If every
   one of us also added value, everything would be fine.  But we
   don't and it isn't.  We have to understand that we only add
   value the first time we do an essential operation.  Every bit
   of rework, on the product, on the service, in the
   bureaucracy, adds cost only.  Mistakes and/or errors are
   worse, they remove value.
   
   Since we can't get anyone to plan for administrative
   efficiency, top management has come to the conclusion that
   the only solution is to reduce the available resources
   (people, physical space, post-its, and whatever) to oblige
   middle management to invent more efficient ways of operating.
   
   Thus downsizing is intended to force us into a "lean and mean
   corset" since we have demonstrated no ability to "go on a
   diet".
   
I don't know enough to make the choices as to what manufacturing
plants, administrative and support services should be cut, but I
do know enough to know that it is essential, and I support it!

Dick

    I noticed on this facility the other day these huge banners stating
    "Best of '93 Plants - 'Industry Week' Magazine."  I'm not sure what the
    criteria was, but I'd be interested to see it if anyone subscribes to
    this magazine.  BTW - Honeywell's Industrial Division now owns it.
    
    thanks,
    Mike