Conference 7.286::digital

    I hate to sound negative, but this situation isn't uncommon. Having
    done a couple of projects involving city and state governments, there
    is always the possibility that when a project has trouble it will be
    immediately high-profile news. These customers always have bully
    pulpits (Council meetings, legislative sessions) that allow them to
    heap negative publicity on a recalcitrant vendor. You need to take that
    under consideration when you go for the business in the first place.
    
    Digital isn't alone in this boat; Andersen, EDS, and other systems
    integrators have the risks and problems. In their cases, they seem to
    have a lot more developed strategy for damage control that Digital.
    We have a reputation for waiting until things get really stinky before
    embarking on corrective measures.
    
    I don't know what the situation is on the project you name, but give
    them some benefit of the doubt:  nobody gets into that kind of jam
    without lots of customer help, and nobody ever voluntarily offers up
    *good* publicity at a council meeting.
    
    Geoff

    This was written up a few weeks ago as an editorial in the 
    Worcester (MA) Telegram, the local newspaper. It outlined the
    poor performance of Digital, identified the monthly fees we were
    paying for not getting the systems up on time, and recommended the
    city leaders lean hard and heavy on Digital to fix the problem.
    
    Mark
    
    

    
    One of my friends that used to work at DEC (and has a brother
    in Worcester politics) alerted someone to this problem over a 
    year ago.  
    
    Jon
    

    The city has a new city manager, Mr. Hoover (not VAX), who pledged to
    play hardball in business dealings such as with Digital.  I'm sure that
    he's trying hard to close on this with Digital, but the newspaper only
    reports that it's not done.
    
    Worcester also recently had a developer back out of a deal to build
    a new convention center.  Lots of weeping and knashing of teeth over
    that, too.
    
    Mark

    
    
    however.... the more general issue is...
    
    should there be a report of customer dissatisfaction such as this,
    isn't there ONE place to call, like an ombudsman's office or
    something??
    
    Us volleying back and forth about who knows what, history of the acct
    how city gov't bellyaches , etc does not do squat to solve/understand
     the problem, don't you agree?
    
    I've heard of a Neil Davis being one of the people in this kinda
    ombudsman's role - I hope I'm too far off the mark here!
    
    

  If you (or any customer) call Bob Palmer's office, you'll be
  routed to the Corporate Customer Satisfaction Manager. (If
  that's not the title, it's close.)

    Common Name:   BOB PALMER
    Search Surname:  PALMER  Search Given Name:  BOB,  ROBERT,  ROBERT B
    DTN:  223-6600,  223-7100  Telephone:  (508)493-6600,  (508)493-7100
    Intrnl Mail Addr:  MSO2-2/B7  Location:  MSO  Username:  BOB PALMER
    Org Unit:  OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,  SECRETARY: JUDY WILCOX 223-9647
    Position:  PRESIDENT AND CEO

                                   Atlant

  $VTX TEL also reveals:

     CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
     General Information                  MRO3-2/A8       297-5534


  Perhaps this is the place those calls end up.

                                   Atlant

And (via the A-Z guide to resources):

  Customer Relations
  (as of 4/17/95)
   * System and Account Business Units
  - U.S. Customer Relations  will respond to all business issues that have been
    escalated from Customers and U.S. Field personnel.
    External Customer Hotline                                    800 344-4825#1
    The MRC is Digital's  INTERNAL help hotline for the field organization.

 Contact                                                    External
 Title                             Location       DTN       Phone
    Bob Duffield, Manager        MKO2-2/D15      264 8126        603 884 8126
    -->FAX #                                     264 4692        603 884 4692
    Dave Sacra,Am.Mfg Cust Sat.Mgr NIO           285 2875        603 894 2875
    Dave Mentzer                   NIO           285 3300        603 894 3300
  * PC Business Unit
  - Rick Maxwell, WW Quality     AKO             244-7885        508 264-7885
  - Deb Skyten, US issues        MKO             264-1511        603 884 1511
  * Multivendor Customer Services - See  "MCS Customer Satisfaction
  - Americas - Call the Exception Center         592-4580        719 592-4580
  - John Earnshaw,Worldwide      MKO2-2          264-0919        603 884-0919
  * Components Division, Worldwide
  - Virginia Moody               SHR             237-5745        508 841-5745
  * Purchasing, Worldwide
  - Jane Roche                   MSO2-1/F22      223-7112        508 493-7112
  * Software Supply Business (SSB), Worldwide
  - Mary Hines, Manager          NQO             264-2447        603 884-2447
  *  Semiconductor, WW
  - Rich Ricker                  HLO             225-6827        508 568-6827
  * Advanced Technology Group (Engineering)
  - Bill Koteff                  MLO             226-2400        508 493-2400
 

                                   Atlant

    You may want to try to reach Linda Baines.  Her DTN used to be
    264-2359, but she's moved from this part of the bldg.
    
    Saw her last month and she mentioned that she's working customer sat
    issues for Bob's office.

    re .5
    
    Neil Davies is the Quality/Customer Satisfaction Manager here in the
    UNIX Business Segment.  If the problem is related to the Digital
    UNIX O/S, Neil & his group will be contacted thru the formal
    escalation processes.
    
    Mark
    

    The following entry 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






    Hi,
    
    I'm pretty sure the contractor they are having problems with
    is called PAMET, from Acton MA. They were awarded a contract
    about a year or more ago to install a system called Police Server
    and Fire Server into the Police Station and Fire Station.  Police
    Departments and Fire Departments are there specialities. They
    use Digital Hardware  with a VMS operating system. 
    
    I've seen this company get into a bind before and then blame it
    on Digital. It's boils down to they bite  off more than they can
    chew. 
    

    But it's not the Police/Fire systems they are having problems with,
    it's the finance system...

    This sort of thing works in our favour sometimes, when other companies
    bite off more than they can chew and fail. In the UK a competitor
    provided a computer system and promised operational software for
    Nottinghamshire Police - some time in the 80's. The software never
    materialised. When the systems came up for renewal in 1993, the police
    were suspicious about ANYBODY's ability to deliver. We won eventually -
    and delivered what we promised on time.
    
    

    i heard another report on this subject.
    thought i'd see someone say somthing,
    
    Tuesday morning OCT-17, on my way into work, 
    on am radio news, 580 wtag worcester. 
    
    it was mentioned that the city did NOT want to take us into a legal
    battle,
    (i wouldn't either, given the reputation of our legal eagles) :-)
    but would rather "just get their system fixed".
    seems like there using the PR approach to kicking us where it hurts.
    
    and it does, to hear this in your own back yard !!!
    
    seems like when it is fixed that we try to get the
    city/reporters/whomever to print/report some retraction to this
    subject..
    
    and if its not our problem, due to third party whatever,
     why do they keep on mentioning digital of maynard seems to 
    be at fault ??? !!!
    
    jim

re .14

I also caught part of the WTAG report; they had a sound bite of a city
government mucky-muck (sounded like Jordan Levy) saying that instead
of making a legal case of it, he was going to start telling his
friends in other city and state government circles how unhappy the
city is with Digital...

/harley

    The Sunday newspaper and Tuesday's edition (T&G) detail the city's side
    of the story.  It appears that Digital has lived up to its part, but
    the system is not totally operational (the Honeywell Bull system it
    replaces continues to do the financials) and a 3rd party is being blamed
    for not providing extra, on-site personnel.
    
    No response from Digital is printed, if there is one.  And, of course,
    there's a city election coming up...
    
    Mark

    
    
    Don't forget its an election year!!!
    

This was the lead editorial in the Telegram again today (and much as i
dislike the paper, their Sunday editorial section is better than either
of the two Boston papers at this point).  Digital was roundly castigated.

They describe the software house (Pentamation?) as a sub-contractor to
Digital/DEC (both names are used about equally).  So this would sound
like an SI deal (do we still have people doing SI?).

The sad part of this is that even though Worcester is in the backyard
of Digital HQ, it's primarily an IBM (AS/400) town.  Other than this
city government deal, Allegro, and a couple of the healthcare firms
running MUMPS/IDX on VAX systems, almost all the other businesses are
running on IBM gear.  This kind of publicity makes it likely to stay
that way.

- paul

    >Digital was roundly castigated.
    
    SEE !! i get tired of hearing this stuff...
    cant someone help stop this kind of junk !!!
    
    si/sub-contractor/who cares. give them a hand if they need it...
    

    RE .-1
    
    Sure, someone can help. *YOU* could help, but the everlasting bottom
    line in this, as well as any other situation is: "Who's gonna pay?".
    
    Apparently there aren't enough managers with 1) enough interest or 2)
    enough budget, to go knock on some doors and ask some questions. If the
    current party line of "Whatever it takes" were in fact, real, then this
    would already have happened. 
    
    And in reality, the Field Service (ooops MCS) manager for that area
    should have hopped into his company-provided vehicle and hot-footed it
    over to "Woosta" and started asking questions.
    
    So, I guess it's "Assignment America" time again, would the MCSD
    Manager for the Woosta area sign in? What's going on? Inquiring Minds
    Want To Know.
    
    .mike.

    I almost dont want to put my name anywhere near this topic, but I do
    know a bit about the deal.
    
    DEC is prime contractor for the entire City of Worcester deal- fondly
    known as the COW to those on the project. I assure you a good number of
    DEC people, at many levels from worker to manager, are very well aware of
    all the details of this. You might say they are right up to their
    necks in COW stuff. But since its is a complicated deal, and there are
    obviously problems, they are not going to be talking about them in even
    a forum like this.
    
    So, take it on faith- those that need to know the details of this are
    working it very hard, and the rest of the curious on-lookers should
    just stay behind the ropes and watch.

    > So, take it on faith- those that need to know the details of this are
    >    working it very hard, and the rest of the curious on-lookers should
    >    just stay behind the ropes and watch.
    
    OK ron. we'll take your word on this one !! :-)
    

     It's kind of interesting that we hear the negative tidbits, but not
    the details of what's really the problem. Or if there really IS a
    problem, or just a perception issue. (or just another loud-mouthed
    politician)
    
    "Stand aside you curious onlookers, let us real men put out this fire"
    is the message I get, and I figure it to be slightly (if not more so)
    condescending in tone.
    
    I would like to hear the outcome.
    
    .mike.

.mike.:

> "Stand aside you curious onlookers, let us real men put out this fire"
> is the message I get, and I figure it to be slightly (if not more so)
> condescending in tone.
> 
> I would like to hear the outcome.

  Let's hope it's not a bunch of ashes.

                                   Atlant

Re: .24,

>   "Stand aside you curious onlookers, let us real men put out this fire"
>    is the message I get, and I figure it to be slightly (if not more so)
>    condescending in tone.
    
Well, that is one way you could read Ron's note.  Another way is:
"Look, I've obviously got my hands full here.  I can either spend my time
 talking to you about what color the flames are, what model of nozzle I
 plan to use, where the water is pumped from, etc. etc. etc., or I could be
 working on putting out the fire.  which would you prefer?"

Having worked with Ron Ginger on other customer situations before, I'd
bet on the latter interpretation.  Cut the guy some slack.

Kevin Farlee

FWIW, I forwarded the string a few days ago to a high level person in the 
New England MCS organization as a courtesy.  (I've known that individual 
for longer than either of us would care to admit as it dates us both).

Anyways, I received an answer that they are aware of the situation and were 
already working the issue.

From the top down, Corporate is aware of what's going on and is working to 
resolve the issue.

What happens in the press from now on may or may not be accurate or up to 
date, depending on the source of the information.  Only those actually 
working the issue really know what's happening.  (the OEM, the Customer, 
and MCS).  Everyone else is speculating including, I would imagine, some 
city "officials".

    I realize that "putting out fires" is a major concern, and the one's
    that get "air-time" are (or can be) very damaging, but my concern was
    that we (digital) are getting bad press and the overall tone seemed to
    me not very aggressive in fixing the issues. Having been involved in
    a few "damage control" kinds on incidents I realize that 'perception'
    is very often the problem, rather than anything 'real'.
    
    I just don't want to see this not taken care of. I realize that most
    MCS managers have loads of stuff to do, and was hoping that the one
    involved here (Ron Ginger?) was aware of it. Sometimes priority does
    not get applied where it should.
    
    .mike.

Senior level management may or may not have been aware of the issues 
OUTSIDE of the hardware issues i.e. the bad press.

Rest assured, they know about it now.  If there is still a perception in 
this conference that they are only addressing the MCS issues and not the 
bad publicity, it is an erroneous perception.

The one thing the MCS folks CAN'T do is shut up the lunatic fringe that's 
still running to the press.  Every community has their radical do-gooder 
press hounds.  Most of these folks are way behind in understanding the 
issues and are, probably, two or three "resolved issues" behind in their 
data collection.   ....and they'll keep babbling to the press.

We can't do anything about that but we can fix the "problem" and it's being 
worked on at the CEO level.

    Today's Telegram and Gazette says that the Worcester City Council
    wants the city manager to place an ad in the Wall Street Journal
    castigating Digital for not resolving the problems that have
    delayed full implemenation of the new computer system.  The deadline
    is tomorrow.
    
    This is reported by Nick Kotsopoulos in "City Hall Notebook", Page B3.
    
    The column says the main headline in the ad copy reads:
    
         "Hey, Digital...it's still not working."
    
    These people seem pretty annoyed.
    

    First off, I know nothing about the situation or who is at fault (if
    anybody...)
    
    But resorting to "name calling" in a newspaper isn't very becoming.  If
    Worcester has hit a deadend with working with Digital, they should get
    a lawyer, not an advertising exec...
    
    So if they want to spend good money on ruining their reputation as
    a customer that can be worked with, then let 'em.  See what kind
    of chilly reponse they'll get in the future with another vendor who
    doesn't want to go down the same rough road as us.
    
    				-John

    Re: .31
    
    IMHO, that's exactly the wrong response.  If I were a
    potential Digital customer and I saw that ad, I'd flee to another
    vendor.  Who's managing that situation, anyway?
    

    Re .31:
    
    > But resorting to "name calling" in a newspaper isn't very becoming.
    
    Customers should always share experiences with each other, good and
    bad.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Re .31:

Unbelievable!  "Now be a good customer or else we won't let you buy any 
more of our HW or our SW.  You'll have to try and buy it from our 
competition and of course when they hear that we've passed you up, well
everyone knows they won't want to sell to you either."

Brad

Shaking head, walking away

    All I was saying is that if Worcester is not getting satisfied by
    Digital that print ads in the newspaper probably won't get it fixed any
    faster.  They need to work the problem with Digital directly not in the
    press.  At some point if they don't feel they are getting what they
    deserve or paid for, then go to court.
    
    I think its disgusting that this situation has gotten so bad that they
    have even considered taking it to the press to get it solved!  
    
    				-John

How incredibly arrogant!  You don't work for MCS, do you?

>================================================================================
>Note 4102.31                Digital and Worcester, MA                   31 of 35
>TLE::REAGAN "All of this chaos makes perfect sense"  13 lines  29-APR-1996 12:48
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    So if they want to spend good money on ruining their reputation as
>    a customer that can be worked with, then let 'em.  See what kind
>    of chilly reponse they'll get in the future with another vendor who
>    doesn't want to go down the same rough road as us.
>    
>                                -John

    So, has anyone brought this newspaper thing to the attention of
    whoever is trying to fix this situation?  I see that the .29 reply
    that says it's being worked at the CEO level is dated November,
    and this situation still exists??
    

    According to a recent article in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette,
    either the mayor or city manager sent a letter to Bob Palmer describing
    the current problem.
    
    - George

    RE: .36
    
    No, I'm the project leader for DEC Pascal for the past 13 years
    (actually 11 as project leader, 2 as plain 'ol developer).
    
    Before that I was actually a Digital customer (TOPS-10, RSX and VMS
    systems).  I used Pascal and sent in SPRs to Digital.  My first task
    at Digital was to answer my own SPRs that I sent in as a customer.
    
    I have worked with dozens of customers over the years and make it 
    point to try to satisfy each and every one of them with whatever
    it takes.  I've been sent to Rochester in the winter to make Kodak
    happy and I've been sent to Peoria in the summer to make Catepillar
    happy.
    
    I'm as appalled as everybody else that the situation has deteriorated
    to such a point as to even think of trying to wage a media war.
    
    All I was saying that taking your case to the public has the risk
    of you being labelled a lunatic.  You just have to be careful.
    
    				-John

    Well, the latest info, per today's Telegram, Gazette, Bugle, and Farm
    Report is that Digital has agreed to pick up the $33k/mo. cost of the
    city's old Bull timeshare system through June.  In return, COW has
    agreed to hold off on the PR campaign and legal action until Digital
    has a chance to assess the situation and propose/implement a solution.  

    No details were given on the exact steps being taken by Digital to fix
    the problem, which is centered in the SW used for financial data.

    George (DEC employee and Worcester taxpayer)

I looked in IMPT and couldn't find any cases related to the
City of Worcester. (looked under company_name, company_city, 
vendor_city). IPMT case numbers anyone? It's hard to get a problem 
the attention that it needs if it isn't in the system.

Joe

    much ado about nothing, I say.  According to the paper, Digital and the
    city met last Friday and came to this agreement.  Why did they wait
    until now to tell everyone?  'Cause it's a good story, I think.
    
    Mark

    Re .39:
    
    >     All I was saying that taking your case to the public has the risk
    > of you being labelled a lunatic.  You just have to be careful.
    
    Digital takes its case to the public all the time.  Digital buys big
    ads or television commercials boasting about its products and
    successes.  Is that lunatic behavior?  If a customer advertises a
    Digital failure, that is just adding some balance to the public forum.
    
    A good business takes the blame for a problem like this; it works to
    fix the faulty product and service.  Blaming the customer is a serious
    mistake and will hurt business, and deservedly so.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    RE: .43
    
    I was not blaming the customer.  As I stated I know nothing about
    the details of the problem nor who is at fault (if anybody).
    
    Digital promoting its own products is one thing, if we took out
    ads pointing out the failures of others, it would just turn into
    a mud-slinging ad war.  
    
    Look at political campaigns where this type of ad war is often waged.
    In general the public views these compaigns negatively.  Its the 
    public that might judge one side as lunatics (which is the risk
    you take).
    
    				-John

    Well this is not something that happend overnight. The Project in part
    involved partnering with Greater Media Cable, and other vendors to
    create a network of all the city agencies over Greater Media Cable's 
    Cable TV Network. More so a branch of their cable network. Ie Ethernet 
    over Broadband. 
    
    The Ethernet to Broadband vendor was out of Andover using a box called
    ETV2. The original s/w vendor (For the application the city of
    Worcester was going to use) got fired last year as the City Manager
    got in disagreement with Digital back then on the foot dragging. There 
    were several articles in the Worcester Papers. Software vendor number 
    two, trying to correct what ever it was that s/w vendor number one 
    could not, or did not accomplish. We (Digital) are the vendor of choice, 
    so we are being held responsible for not delivering a service/product 
    on time.  
    
    My involvement was back in Aug 1993. In my other life as a Network 
    Support engineer for MCS. I was called in to provide support for the 
    Broadband cable piece. My involvement lasted a week. I don't know what 
    the committed delivery date was or is. But as you can see by the date, 
    its been almost three years.
    
    (Also a Worcester taxpayer)
    
    Bob
    
  

>    ETV2. The original s/w vendor (For the application the city of
>    Worcester was going to use) got fired last year as the City Manager
>    got in disagreement with Digital back then on the foot dragging. There 
>    were several articles in the Worcester Papers. Software vendor number 
>    two, trying to correct what ever it was that s/w vendor number one 
>    could not, or did not accomplish. 

Sort of like when the greenies got a cease and desist order against the 
contractor putting in the first LKG building.  Something about silt and 
runoff during a heave downpour.  So, what happened?  Since it dragged on 
for months, untold tons of silt washed into the wetlands when the project 
could have been well on it's way to completion and silt-holding grass 
would have been growing already.

Some people don't have a clue.  They just shoot the messenger and 
wonder why the reinforcements haven't arrived yet.

    After many months in the local papers, the story went national in this
    week's edition of COMPUTERWORLD - noted on the front page, and the
    story itself shows a picture of the ad that was going to be run in the
    Wall Street Journal if Digital didn't move o the City's view that it
    is responsible for the program overrun/delay.  The City is to receive
    $33K per month until the work is finished...the story states Digital
    is placing a develoer on site.  Digital officials claim the delay is
    caused by change requests.
    
    Mark
    

    kinda reminds me of the old quote from Jaws......
    
    
    "you are not going to do anything about this 'particular' problem
    until it swims up and BITES you on the ass!"
    
    Well, digital, consider yourself bitten!
    
    chet

Whatever the reason for the Worcester debacle, Digital as prime contractor 
must assume full responsibility for delivering the agreed-upon solution.

IMHO, properly executed contracts, along with an adequate written project plan
and effective communication would have prevented this problem. And the fact
that this dragged on so long without us turning this around and delighting the
customer means we did not do WHATEVER IT TAKES to solve the problem.

Many of us have to deal with difficult customers and difficult situations. If
we executed our role as project manager and prime vendor, it would not be
possible for the customer to make "after-the-fact" changes to the original
specs without assuming responsibility for any delays or revisions to the scope
of the solution. The fact the we let this thing go this far is appalling. 

Jim

Council to review partial payments to Digital - April 4, 1997

By Nick Kotsopoulos
Telegram & Gazette Staff

WORCESTER _ The City Council Municipal Operations Committee yesterday
recommended that Digital Equipment Corp. be paid $140,232 now that the city
is using its new $7.8 million computer system for all its data processing
work.

City Solicitor David M. Moore said Digital, the main contractor of the
computer project, is entitled to that payment as part of a "milestone
agreement' it has with the city.

The first milestone was met when the city disconnected its antiquated
Honeywell Bull computer system Feb. 28. A second milestone will be reached
when the testing period on the new system ends May 1.

The city has withheld payment to Digital for several months because of the
long delay in implementing the new computer system.

Under the original contract, the new system was supposed to be fully
operational in July 1995. Although four of the five major components of the
new system were operational, problems with the financial management
component delayed the full implementation of the system by 20 months.

Those problems made it impossible for the city to print property tax bills
on the new system, and there were also several problems issuing accurate
water bills.

But those problems were subsequently addressed, enabling the city to pull
the plug on its old Honeywell Bull system.

City Treasurer Thomas F. Zidelis said the fourth-quarter real estate tax
bills, which were issued Tuesday, were printed on the new system. He said
the tax bills had an accuracy rate of 97-98 percent.

On Tuesday night, City Manager Thomas R. Hoover asked the council to
transfer $778,256 so the city can make remaining payments to Digital. With
that transfer, no additional funding would be necessary for completion of
the computer contract.

Moore said the money would not be paid to Digital in a lump sum. Instead, he
said, the city would make partial payments once it was satisfied that
certain milestones were met.

But Councilor-at-Large John T. Buell, chairman of the Municipal Operations
Committee, said he would prefer to see the council review and act on each
partial payment, instead on making a single transfer.

"I feel we have an obligation to take a close look at each payment,' Buell
said.

Councilor-at-Large Timothy J. Cooney Jr. and District 4 Councilor Janice L.
Nadeau, the two other committee members, agreed with Buell.

"I feel comfortable with the progress we are making,' Cooney said. "I never
thought we would reach this day. But I still would like to see the council
review each payment as each milestone is met.'

Although the new system is operating, a number of outstanding issues still
need to be resolved. Hoover said he expects they will be addressed in the
coming weeks.

    Anyone know how much money we paid to the city as penalties? 
    
    Debbie