Conference 7.286::digital

    I'll take a stab at it.
    
    According to TAHD, a stovepipe is "a pipe used to conduct smoke from a
    stove into a chimney flue."  I believe the analogy goes something like
    this.  If you want to observe how the fire is burning in a stove you
    can open up the stove and stick your hand in.  But, sticking your hand
    in would mean that you might get burned.  Another way is to observe the
    smoke coming out of the chimney.  If it is black, white or clear, you
    can get some idea of how the fire is doing.  More, you can do more
    careful analysis of the gases to see how efficiently the fire is
    burning.  There is little heat in the smoke that comes out as the heat
    was pretty much lost in the stovepipe, which is good because you don't 
    want to burn yourself.  But, you will be gathering information that
    only indirectly tells you how much heat is being produced since the smoke 
    coming out is relatively cool.  It is possible that the smoke
    you get indicates that the heat output is fine, when in reality the
    fire could be out or the house could be burning down.
    
    Now, instead of a stove, think of a field operation.  Instead of fire,
    think of business in the field.  Instead of smoke, think of reports.
    Instead of a stovepipe, think of the hands that a report needs to go
    through.  Instead of it being you that's watching the smoke as it comes
    out of the chimney, think of upper management.  Instead of a house,
    think of the business as a whole.  In other words, with "stovepiping"
    upper-management can think that all is going well when in reality the 
    business is dying, the company is feeding on itself or whatever because
    the indicators are being messed with on the way to the top.  The fault
    lies both with those who along the way remove the heat from the reports
    and with upper-management that does not want to get close to the heat.
    
    Just my opinion.
    
    Steve
         

re: .1,

	Thanks for the stab - that clears up the terminology pretty well
    for me.  I suppose you could even add that relying on the look of the
    smoke alone is additonally hampered by the various pollution [damage]
    control filters through which the smoke must travel before it is visible
    to a stovepipe manager.

	My only remaining confusion with this metaphore is to wonder
    what will happen when the stove pipes are removed (i.e. what is to
    prevent the workers who stoke the fires and funnel the smoke from
    suddenly axphixiating on all the smoke which no longer has a way out?).

	I think that in addition to merely removing stovepipes, maybe
    we also ought to be razing the roof entirely!  Either that, or switch
    to solar energy.

				    -davo

	A directory/tit=stovepipe *.* also yielded the following notes:

        DLOACT::RESENDEP     13-MAR-1989  749.12  Abolish the stovepipes!!!
         SCARY::M_DAVIS      13-OCT-1989  818.250  STOVEPIPES
        SDSVAX::SWEENEY      13-OCT-1989  818.251  Stovepipe, defined
         SVBEV::VECRUMBA     20-AUG-1990  1160.9  stovepipe = don't work together
        COUNT0::WELSH        22-NOV-1990  1273.18  Product stovepipes
          CALS::DIMANCESCO    1-MAR-1991  1377.45  Remove the Stovepipe
        DENVER::GRAY         11-MAR-1991  1377.53  STOVEPIPE

				    -davo

    
    Interesting. In reading this note and replies, plus the bibliography
    thoughtfully provided in .4, I come up with five definitions of the
    term "stovepipe" that vary in differing degrees:
    
    o  a process of filtering information to the point where it is
       content-free
    
    o  an organization that is functioning at cross purpose to another
       organization
    
    o  an organization that does not cooperate with other organizations,
       except at the highest levels
    
    o  an organization that does not see the internal workings of other
       organizations
    
    o  products (specifically software) that have negative impact on other
       products
    
    
    The question then becomes, which is the right definition? Are they
    all correct in their respective environments (definitive stovepipes)?
    And more importantly, when a high ranking member of a corporation
    demands the elimination of stovepipes -- what's supposed to happen?
    

    
    Stovepipes are for those who would blow smoke up their own chimneys.
    

Here's an example of the 'stovepipe' effect when different groups march
to different drummers- sales wanting to put new superior products into
customer hands and the SPS group wants to maintain old ways because
they are more profitable.

In a stovepipe world each group maintains its narrow view of what is best
for itself with little regard of what is really best for the customer and
makes them happy.

Stovepipes are indeed a contributor to what is ailing within our
corporation.

Lee

                <<< WYNDE::PUBLIC$DISK:[PUBLIC]CONDIST.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Consolidated Software Distribution on CD >-
================================================================================
Note 50.12              FEB91 AD CONDIST in "jewel boxes"               12 of 14
KYOA::KOCH "It never hurts to ask..."                12 lines  18-MAR-1991 21:11
                   -< Trying to sell CDROMs with no help... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I created a memo to the local SPS organization to give me access to
    the database for all contracts. I suggested we sell every customer an
    Infoserver 100, a VT1300, and CDROM for docs and distributions. 
    
    Boy, did I catch an earful. I was told this is impossible because of
    the revenue generated by the sale of hardcopy documentation and tapes.
    
    I was told it would seriously damage the revenue stream of the SPS 
    organization and in no uncertain terms would they make the database 
    available. So much for the environment...

    I have always thought of stovepipes as any vertical cut of an
    organization chart. All 5 of the definitions in the previous note
    would hold in one or more circumstances. 
    
    There are inherently 2 problems with "stovepipes"/Org charts:
    
    	1) The customer is nowhere represented!
    
    	2) Work doesn't get accomplished vertically, but rather
    	horizontally!
    
    If the stovepipes were removed, self-interest should decrease and
    horizontal teaming should increase.  The purpose of each organizational
    structure in Digital should be to enhance the environment in which
    work is done, not to measure its own goodness to the exclusion     
    of all other organizations.

Think of a stove pipe as a pipe that goes from the bottom floor of a
building to the roof with no openings (inputs or outputs) anywhere along
the way.  Now think of multiple pipes running from top to bottom.  They
are completely seperate from each other with no integration between them.

In the field I see these stovepipes as our different organizations.  Sales, 
EIS, DCCs, Administration, etc.  These are separate organizations.  The local
office EIS specialists report to the EIS manager.  The EIS manager reports to
the EIS District manager who reports to EIS VP at the top of the EIS empire.

The same is true for the other organizations.  Now at the local office level
it is apparent that there is no formal integration of these organizations.
They have their own goals, metrics, career paths, terminology, ways of 
thinking and some animosity toward other organizations.  

So, each stovepipe ends up doing their own thing and can even work at cross
purposes of what the other stovepipes (organizations) are doing.  When there 
is a conflict how does it get resolved?  Since there is no common managment
across the organizations until the very top (roof) conflicts are very difficult
to resolve.  Cross organizational activities are extremely difficult to 
coordinate.  Much relies on informal relationships and other things.

How can you eliminate this?  Stop the pipe at the ground floor.  Put one 
manager in charge of a local office.  EIS, Sales, Sales Support, DCC, 
Adminstration all report to this one manager.  This manager is responsible
for results in all areas.  Now each organization has goals that cause them
to work together.  Conflicts are easily resolved at the local level.  
Coordination is easy to achieve because there is a common manager that
wants to make it happen.  With integration of offerings and customer service
becoming critical to survival, we can't afford to continue to have stovepipe
organizations with responsibilities, metrics and goals that are unrelated to 
Digital's success.

Of course there would no longer be a need for so many managers of separate 
organizations or the extra overhead of the different empires.  Because of this
don't expect it any time soon :^).

Just my opinion,

Steve Farlow   

re: .9,

> In the field I see these stovepipes as our different organizations.  Sales, 
> EIS, DCCs, Administration, etc.  These are separate organizations.  The local
> office EIS specialists report to the EIS manager.  The EIS manager reports to
> the EIS District manager who reports to EIS VP at the top of the EIS empire.

    	Ok, so we "stomp out" the Sales, EIS, DCC, and Administration
    stovepipes (to name only a few) and instead force reports to be
    funneled through a regional (as opposed to a functional) management
    chain but then what?  Don't you simply end up with a different stovepipe
    configuration?  Sounds like yet another rattling of the birdcage to me...
    especially since the notion of eliminating empires also seems to directly
    contradict the move to return to Digital's product lines.

    	People complain that there is no common vision in this company,
    that there is no coordination amongst organizations, that there is
    too much self-interest and not enough cooperation.  Yet, we are also
    emerging from one of the most coordinated, cooperative, and centrally
    focussed periods in Digital's history!  Recall that the past decade
    has included the notion of "one company, one system", where for years
    everything was extremely VAX-focussed.  The 80's replaced the older
    product lines business structure with a single, centralized, coordinated
    and cooperative product focus.

    	Now that Digital is returning to the product lines business
    structure, you can expect that the level of cooperation and coordination
    between the various organizations within Digital (assuming there ever
    was such a thing) will be reduced - not enhanced!  Organizations are
    now once again being pitted against each other in direct competition
    - as opposed to cooperation.  Is this bad?  Not necessarily.  Is the
    movement in Eastern Europe and Asia from that of centrally-planned
    economies to free market economies bad?  Again, not necessarily.
    	
    	Maybe Digital is too large of a corporation to try to coordinate
    everything from a central committee.  Perhaps a free market internal
    structure is precisely what can save Digital.  The problem always
    revolves around exactly how such an intra-corporate free market system
    might be designed.  There need to be enough hooks to allow intra-
    corporate entrepeneurs (intrapreneurs) the freedom to start their
    own make-it-or-break-it businesses within the corporation.  There
    would need to be a real monetary system to replace the current
    "funny money".  There would need to be a means of taxing such intra-
    preneurs to support the corporate body (much like the federal
    government is supported by federal tax money).

    	There would need to be many such changes in order for such an
    internal free market system to work, but one advantage Digital 
    has in its favor is a desparate need to change coupled with state
    of the art computing resources with which to implement such a change.
    Instead of stomping out stovepipes, I think the real message should
    be one of building a new factory.

    				    -davo

p.s.	One such proposal for how such a free market might be implemented
    	on-line is outlined in the note #1024 discussion.

    RE: .7
    In North Carolina I have been in a number of meetings that have had 
    Digital Customer Service Account people recommend that a customer buy an
    Infoserver 100, VT1300, and CDROM just as your note mentioned.  This
    provides not only cheaper media but puts it where the customer needs
    it.
    
    I think there are good Digital citizens around who do care about the
    Customer and I take my hat off to them!  Sorry about the Rat Hole but
    good news can be hard to find.

	... in that the old product lines ALSO controlled their Sales forces. 
Not so with NMS (saw a video yesterday with TLA for New Management System!), 
and the Sales force is cut free of the product or services groups.  They sink 
or swim by their business savvy, smart purchasing and pricing choices, and 
selling skills. Product and services groups succeed by efficient production,
added value, and pricing that is competitive with LIKE UNITS in the industry.

	So, IMHO, the successful product groups, ie the ones still in business 
by FY93, will have developed cooperative tendencies simply because they did a 
lot of similar things that made them successful and gravitated toward each 
other.

RE: .11 - I read a similar story in this or another conference about a Sales 
person trying to get a list of SPS customers from CS in order to pitch a deal 
like that, and was flat told to shove it - too much profit in the old way!  
That yours, too.?

    re: .10 The only evidence that "product lines" are returning is that
    people are talking about product lines returning.  The clock is not
    turning back to 1980 in any case.

    "Stovepipes" are not abstractions.  They are the visible teams of 25
    second basemen that, when you need a second baseman, you negotiate with
    the second baseman manager.  Groups in the field in Digital has always
    had vertical functional management.  Stovepipes mean a sales rep spends
    14 days of a 21 day period for preparing a proposal, locating and
    begging for technical resources.  Stovepipes are costing us sales
    and destroying accountability.  Failure gets blamed on the
    _understandable_ lack of resources.

    What are needed are real teams with each position filled by someone
    with the rights skills, discipline, and focus.

    The fantasy management we've been hearing about for so long was going
    to take measures of profitability down to the customer level and
    empower sales teams. Real power and real accountability.

    The fantasy management we've been hearing about for so long was going to
    make the business units show a profit or go out of business.

    So do you sales reps out there feel new empowerment?

    Have any BU's been so unprofitable that they have been shut down? No? 
    Great, I'll look forward to seeing that all the BU's are profitable in
    the Q3 earnings.

    1980-era product lines back in headquarters _thought_ they controlled
    the sales force.  The sales force for several years was not managed:
    essentially entrepenurial and chaotic.  But that didn't matter because
    there was sufficient growth and a basically simple product set to take
    orders for. Technical support from many product lines was good and from
    others non-existent.  "Sales management" then was simply a matter
    making sure that sales calls were being made and paperwork was in
    order.

    Only after the end of the product line period and the company
    repositioned itself away from competing with Data General, Prime, and
    Wang and competing with IBM did the idea of a professionally managed
    sales force providing a full range of products and services.

>     <<< Note 1429.9 by STOHUB::DSCGLF::FARLOW "Software Sells Hardware" >>>
>              -< Stovepipes as I See Them From the Ground Floor >-

>How can you eliminate this?  Stop the pipe at the ground floor.  Put one 
>manager in charge of a local office.  EIS, Sales, Sales Support, DCC, 
>Adminstration all report to this one manager.  This manager is responsible
>for results in all areas.  Now each organization has goals that cause them
>to work together.  Conflicts are easily resolved at the local level.  

I don't get it...  DCC's are not a local resource, they are a resource
supporting an industry composing many accounts all over the country. How would
having a manager looking after local results help me do my job?  I support
accounts all over the country...  A local manager would make decisions based on
his locality and would not see the forest for the trees...  I think I
understand what your getting at, but I think you also need to understand that
all resources are not tied to a geography or to an account. 

/mlm

    Stovepipes will always exist within Digital as long as:
    
    - Creativity is stifled and not rewarded
    - Turf Protection supercedes customer measurments
    - Managers hire in their own image
    - Measurments between organizations are skewed
    
    Despite talk to the contrary, 'Bird Cage Management' must continue to
    exist by definition. As long as added value cannot be easily
    quantified, shaking the cage only changes the perches, and not the
    birds. Forever will the rift between ABUs, IBUs and the Field exist,
    and as long as that rift is present, we will continue to do the wrong
    things time and time again. Believe it or not, I am an optimist. But
    the cold, icy spectre of reality can quash optimism every time.