Conference 7.286::digital

    nit...
    DEC stock was mid 40's when Ken announced he was stepping down
    (July 16, 1992) and Bob would assume the head role as of October
    1st of that year.  When October rolled around, the stock was about
    where it is now (mid 30's).  So I'm not really sure you can accuse
    Bob of taking the stock lower.  Of course, you can always point out
    that the DOW is up about 70% since then.
    K

    I suggest you put .0 in the 4719 note to maximize the chance
    that BP will see it.
    

    I am not Bob P nor am I KO but at the rate the company was going
    when he (Bob) took the healm from KO WE ALL could have been out 
    of a job by now - DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? 
    
    So on the optimistic side, think of how many jobs have been saved.
    .0 - have you ever been with a company that totally shut its
    doors?   Are you still getting a pay check?  Are you thankful
    or is this just something Digital owes you? 
    
    The BALANCE SHEET and all of the ratios still look pretty good.
    Digital could have came real close to BK if the trends were 
    not reversed.   
    
    I am sure Bob had a hard time cutting jobs - no one likes this
    but that is the nature of the biz - this is a universal truth
    Digital is not in the biz to employee people - we are in the 
    biz to make $
    
    On the P/L - Revenue has grown quarter over quarter hasn't it?   
    .0  If you think Digital could have settled to stay the course
    set by KO and remained a viable company, you would have made a 
    huge mistake.   Something HAD to change.  
    
    I see a much brighter future for Digital now then I did when this
    all started to slide downhill.  
    
    
    
    

Shekhar:

  Thanks for writing that! It's important for Bob to see the
  anecdotal evidence pile up from many different corners of
  the Digital World!

  Two of us have written, do you think we can get the other
  53,996 to write? (I'm discounting you, me, Bob, and C_BENNETT.)

  The part that I don't understand is that analysts (those folks
  who are paid real money to pontificate on such things and who
  can significantly affect the opinion of current and prospective
  customers) are saying *EXACTLY* the same things we're saying:
  Digital continues to fail to grow revenue, continues to scale
  back beyond all reason, we're delivering increasingly worse
  service in many areas of customer contact, and we're looking
  increasing like a company that's got one idea: cut, and cut again,
  and we're going to ride that one idea right into the ground.

  Where's the public (not just Digital-internal, *PUBLIC*) response
  from our leadership that will change people's perceptions?

                                      Atlant

re Note 4752.4 by ATLANT::SCHMIDT:

>   The part that I don't understand is that analysts (those folks
>   who are paid real money to pontificate on such things and who
>   can significantly affect the opinion of current and prospective
>   customers) are saying *EXACTLY* the same things we're saying:

        But I thought they couldn't even run a hamburger stand!

        Bob

    re .0: One of the best written "Dear Bob" letters so far - and right to
    the point.
    
    >I am sure Bob had a hard time cutting jobs - no one likes this
    >but that is the nature of the biz - this is a universal truth
    
    I don't agree it's the nature of the biz... much less that it is the
    "universal truth". If it were, ther would be no 'biz' left.
    

    Wow.. Shekhar, both you and Atlant wrote some mighty fine
    notes...Surely better than I could have wrote...
        
        re .1: You CAN NOT state what would have happened had KEN stayed
    at the helm.. That is unless you can forsee the future....
        
        The differences I see here is, Ken had good people with him at
        the the top.. Bob does not. Ken always got alot out of his employees, 
        Bob does not (fear only works so much...)
        
        joe
                                             

    First of all in reference to .2  I suggest that the original base note
    here stay where it is.  The subject should surely catch Mr. Palmer's
    attention.
    
    I commend the author of the base note.  You ask some tough questions
    that deserve honest answers.
    
    I too am disappointed that senior management continues to downsize the
    average worker bee to continue to generate profits after we have all
    worked hard to contribute to the profits we had over the past six
    quarters.
    
    I've suggested to Mr. Palmer and other VP's that we get this downsizing
    over once and for all.  It has/is destroying morale, employees' health
    and our employees' general well-being.  Digital is lean and mean now,
    too lean as far as I'm concerned.  
    
    Good point too in reference to Enrico P.  The average employee gets
    anywhere from 4 to 12 weeks of pay if downsized.  Enrico gets millions
    of dollars for failing.  Something is wrong with this picture.
    
    This question has been asked many times; why does Digital have over 200
    VP's?
    
    The good-bye memo at the end of the base note from Shekhar should
    strike for to all of us.  

    I think that we need to be realistic.AS long as the rules mean we need
    to turn a profit, the downsizing or alignment of revenue with resources
    ( as Bob so eloquently outs it) is natural event.So asking for it to
    stop is senseless.
    However, the other issues about the number of VPs or the raises given
    to some 'management', are valid causes for concern, nay, outrage.
    What we need is a proper breathing space.It reminds me of the success
    of the Bulgarian economy which, on paper, could only fail.It succeeded
    better than others because the rules changed ONCE in 30 years,not
    thirty times a year.
    We also need to get out of some of the marginal businesses we are still
    in( no names in public please..).
    GEtting the breathing space can be acheived a number of ways.ASSUMING
    we have strategy we intend to stick to, then either take a
    restructuring charge or make a loss on turnover or declare chapter 11
    or whatever.
    The problem is deciding what we want to be when we grow up - in a fast
    moving world, this is hard but they way to NOT go about it is to
    constantly change and bring in 'new blood' to tell us what we already
    know or worse,by buying marketing reports from peddlers of yesterdays
    weather forecast...
    And all this against a background of demand the like of which I have
    never seen.

    A couple of comments:
    
    o  I wish people would stop referring to Ken O.  Ken is not the issue
       or the subject.  He hasn't been for four years.
    
    o  Asking the president and CEO of any company where s/he is/wants to
       lead the company they were hired to manage is a perfectly legitimate
       question.  THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE HIRED TO DO!
    
    o  A lot of corporate managers keep talking about growing the business,
       but their plans seem to only call for more downsizing.
       ???
       Where are the legitimate plans to actually grow our business?
    
    o  Digital has some of the greatest technology and products in the
       industry, but still can't seem to get the message out.  Why???
       Other companies such as Compaq, Sun, HP, are 'eating our lunch.'
    
    o  How come the various business units don't work together, at least
       don't work well together?  Anyone ever try to get something out of
       the PCBU??? No wonder they're failing - they can't get out of their
       own way, and they've got no presence anywhere!  Come on, how are
       you supposed to focus on corporate accounts the way they do
       business???
    
    I could go on.  This discussion is healthy, not destructive.  These are
    real questions that have to be asked AND answered in a constructive
    dialogue, with emotion removed.  WE have to save this company.  It's
    not all Bob's responsibility alone.
                                               

                        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  was rewarded beyond belief by someone telling me to read this notes
    entry . I was also feeling all alone out here with my fears and doubts
    as to where we were headed in digital . I have tried to follow upper
    managements suggestions of taking control of our futures . I find this
    hard to do as your daily work load has continued to increase . I am
    wondering if anyone is listening to our customers . We still have a
    loyal end user who is waiting on us to show them the light . 

    I wish I understood finance.
    
    The results say we are going to spend money buying back our own shares.
    To be specific, up to 10 million shares. Let's assume they'll be bought
    at $30. That means we spend $300M.
    
    Now, if I had an unplanned $300M to spend, I just _might_ spend some of
    it on extra "demand creation" investments. Advertising, trade shows,
    loan equipment, partner seed units, etc. 
    
    Am I just confused ? Does $300M buy a worthwhile number of shares but a
    useless amount of demand creation ?
    
    regards
    john

                      <<< Note 4752.10 by MAIL2::DERISE >>>
>    I could go on.  This discussion is healthy, not destructive.  These are
>    real questions that have to be asked AND answered in a constructive
>    dialogue, with emotion removed.  WE have to save this company.  It's
>    not all Bob's responsibility alone.
    
    Small nit, meant in a not unfriendly manner. It *is* Bob Palmers
    responsibility to turn the company around. It is perfectly true that
    the policies to do this should be inclusive of the employees of the
    corporation, but as CEO, the buck (in this case the policymaking)
    stops with him.
    
    Having been away 4 years, may I also comment that very little has
    changed with the infighting between the various groups. Only the names
    have changed....
    
    /a
    

    In "accounting-speak", that $300M is not being spent.  It is being
    invested.  (OK, that's not necessarily "accounting-speak", it's my
    terms/perspective which might be close).
    
    You might speculate that the board/SLT looked at the cash balance and
    decided that we're so healthy that we have more cash than we need.  So,
    it's used to buy back the stock, which should result in a higher price
    for the stock.  At some later date, they could recoup the cash by
    issuing the same number of shares.  And maybe, just maybe, they'll get
    an appreciably larger amount of $$ if the market and our standing has
    improved in the meanwhile.
    
    But it's interesting to consider what happens to the book value per
    share - if the current stock price is 50% greater than the book value,
    and we buy back 10% of the current shares at that price, then the total
    book value drops by 15% (it took that much cash, and cash is part of
    our book value), but the number of shares only drops by 10%.  So, the
    book value per share actually drops.  But that's just one tiny piece of
    the puzzle about how the stock price might react to a re-purchase.  On
    the other hand, the price/earnings ratio increases, since the earnings
    per share will increase.  And that's probably a greater factor.
    
    \chuck

        Re: .15

>    But it's interesting to consider what happens to the book value per
>    share - if the current stock price is 50% greater than the book value,
>    and we buy back 10% of the current shares at that price, then the total
>    book value drops by 15% (it took that much cash, and cash is part of
>    our book value), but the number of shares only drops by 10%.  So, the
>    book value per share actually drops.  But that's just one tiny piece of
>    the puzzle about how the stock price might react to a re-purchase.  On
>    the other hand, the price/earnings ratio increases, since the earnings
>    per share will increase.  And that's probably a greater factor.


    	I believe you are talking about market value.  If we buy back 10%
    	of our stock, AND the stock price does not change, our market value
    	will decrease by 10%.

    	Book value is based on plant, property, equipment and goodwill.
    	If you buy back 10% of your shares, the number of shares to divide
    	into this value is 10% less, therefore the resultant book value per
    	issued, non treasury share goes up (I think by about 9%).

    	Bill

re: .3

You make a few good points, Chip. Bob Palmer and his lieutenants can
look back with great satisfaction on the major accomplishment of his
tenure, which was to save this company from going out of business and
starting to make a profit. I am indebted to the leadership and so are
those, whose paychecks Digital has paid since September, 1992. If memory
serves me right, Palmer and team have also been suitably rewarded
through their raises and variable compensation.

However, if after four years at the helm you have to lay off 11% of
the work force and your "cost structure is below competitive levels",
I think it is worth asking why, as an employee and shareholder.

The business issue may be, that as the Dataquest analysts say, it is time
for us to change from a mode of "corporate anorexia" to revenue growth.
I am not qualified to judge that, because I am not privy to the detailed
financial picture.

What I am qualified to comment on, is what I have observed management
say and do first hand. That issue relates to employee morale and trust.
It is hard to build up trust, when employees who perform well, according
to the goals that management sets for them, are rewarded with layoffs.
It is difficult to believe the sincerity of those, whose actions belie
the pretty pictures they paint in public statements.

Finally, the object of .0 and 4719.0 are not to assign blame. It is
to influence change. That change can be externally induced, i.e.
Digital going the way of Wang and Prime, or internally directed,
which is what we who love this company want to have happen with the
support of our leadership. That change has to include a shift from
the current dismal climate, which is represented by the black humor
I heard yesterday:

"If networking is a growth industry and the Digital networking group
is doing really well, I suppose that will be the business we get rid
of next."

I believe our leaders have a responsibility to be champions and
practitioners of our core values, much like the leader of a nation
has a responsibility to uphold its laws. Our core values, the details
of which I'll post in a reply to this note are:

Integrity, Respect for the Individual, Excellence, Accountability,
Innovation and Customer Success.

I'd like to know if Bob Palmer feels that these have been upheld during
this last round of layoffs.
    

    
    The value of a share of stock is based on the Price-earnings ratio (PE) and
    earnings-per-share (EPS).
    
    The price-earnings ratio (PE) is a function of:
       the growth rate in EPS
       the confidence of buyers that the growth rate will continue
       the PE ratio of comparable companies
       the PE ratio of the market as a whole
    
    Earnings per share is corporate earnings divided by the number of share
    in the market.
    
    This stock buy-back reduces outstanding shares, thereby increasing EPS.
    It also increases the rate of growth in EPS (assuming continued growth 
    in corporate earnings ). It might increase buyer confidence because it
    says that Digital management is trying to increase DEC share price. 
    Its also a statement that we don't expect to need the money soon for 
    operations, acquisitions or restructuring.
    
    
    
    

Re .13

The 10 million share buyback is to acquire shares for use in the various
ESPP programs.  This means that Digital is buying back the shares in order
to turn around and sell them to employees.

For the last few years, Digital has been simply issuing new stock for ESPP
and pocketing the 85% of fair market value that the employees have been
paying in -- effectively raising cash by letting employees buy new shares
of stock (over 4 million shares in FY96).

Buying stock for the treasury, only to (eventually) reissue those shares 
does cost the corporation a certain amount of money in the long run (less 
if the stock subsequently goes up; more if it goes down), but it also 
prevents further per share earnings dilution.

I know I haven't addressed the primary question, which is whether the
money spent would be better spent elsewhere.  My point is that the money
involved is unlikely to be anything near $300M.

-- Andrew

    re .14
    
    I agree completely - the onus is on the president and CEO of any
    company in terms of ultimate responsibility.  I'm suggesting that Mr.
    Palmer is relying on his direct reports, whom may be part of the
    problem.  If Mr. Palmer does in fact read these notes, as has been
    witnessed, then WE have a great opportunity to tell him what it is
    really like in the trenches and to offer OUR ideas on how to save the
    company.
    
    Instead of using this as yet another gripe session, why not post
    constructive ideas on how we believe the business can be improved?  We
    all agree that senior management - under Bob Palmer - are clueless.  

    I totally agree, that complaining, and nothing but negative notes is
    counterproductive. However, to some degree, it is a form of therapy.
    Employees need to vent, they need to know they are not alone in their
    professional misery, and they need to feel that higher management is
    seeing/hearing their concerns. 
    
    There is one thing where I am rather perplexed. What is REALLY the
    sensitivity of the BOD and Bob Palmer? In other words, do they really
    care what has happened to the layed off employees and their families?
    Do they really care how the current employees feel other than how that
    affects their productivity? Maybe they do, I really don't know. Maybe
    they just don't know what else to do but lay off people when money gets
    tight. The issue of social responsibility versus financial is an
    ongoing debate, but one that can only be answered in sincerity by
    those at the top. 
    
    
    -Bert-

    > Re: .15
    >
    > I believe you are talking about market value.  If we buy back 10%
    > of our stock, AND the stock price does not change, our market value
    > will decrease by 10%.
    >
    > Book value is based on plant, property, equipment and goodwill.
    > If you buy back 10% of your shares, the number of shares to divide
    > into this value is 10% less, therefore the resultant book value per
    > issued, non treasury share goes up (I think by about 9%).
    
    RE: .16
    
    I believe that book value also includes current cash on hand, and so it
    drops when that cash is used to buy back shares.  So, to buy back some
    of the company's outstanding stock, the book value drops due to the
    cash used.  And due to the difference in market value vs. book value,
    the book value per share would then be reduced somewhat.  
    
    But, as .19 discusses, the EPS and PE tend to dictate the stock price
    more than book value (for a somewhat healthy company).
    
    \chuck

    
    	Actual value of your stock is assets - liabilities + stockholders
    equity.  This is why the preferred stock stays at the same level,
    giving a return as a percentage of invested $$, also why the stock went
    to 18 when we wrote off $5B.  The value in excess of this is what the
    investors want to gamble, also the value of intangibles. 

    Re .25:
    
    > Actual value of your stock is assets - liabilities + stockholders
    > equity.
    
    That's book value, or some such term.  The actual _total_ value of a
    corporation is the above plus the present value of all its future cash
    flows.  The stock price is the market's best estimate of that value
    (per share).
    
    Previous responses are correct that the corporation pays for the stock
    it is buying back, so the cash paid offsets the decreased number of
    shares outstanding.  If the corporation bought stock at its actual
    value, the net effect would be a wash, no change.
    
    But a key element is that the corporation _decided_ to buy the stock,
    which means the officers think the purchase is a good bargain, which
    means they think the stock is undervalued.  Since these officers should
    know more than anybody else in the world about the future cash flows of
    the company, the purchase represents new information to the market that
    the stock is worth more than it is currently selling for.
    
    So the price should go up a bit.
    
    
    				-- 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.

    Just to add to the stock repurchase rathole:
    
    - Stock has no definite "value". A share is worth only the price that
      the greater fool will pay for it, once you decide to sell :-)
    
    - Share price may be above or below any of the numbers that analysts
      like to put on them. Shares are either overpriced or undervalued - 
      whatever the criteria - and book value is only one criteria.
    
    - The stock repurchase is sort of a closed loop deal. During recent
      years, the company has sold stock to it's employees via the ESPP and
      has received capital from them. A number of the recipients has
      decided to sell them right away at the open market, others still hold
      them. In any case, the number of shares outstanding has increased
      over the last years. Now the company is using part of the money it
      received through ESPP to buy back the shares it has issued before.
      This is a winning deal for the company, if it can buy back the stock
      at a lower price than they had sold it.
    
    - For the stockholders it's a win situation because almost all those 
      numbers that analysts put on a stock to evaluate its "value" are
      calculated on a per share basis. Less shares outstanding will improve 
      any indicator, be it earnings/share, cash-flow/share,
      book-value/share etc.
    
    Klaus

    
    
    
    
    
    Attached are Digital's core values, which I copied off a poster
    hanging on the wall. I'd be interested in knowing how senior
    management thinks it is doing in its observance of these.
    
Digital's Core Values 
=====================
INTEGRITY: We choose to be honest in all our business transactions and
remain steadfast when challenged.

We are, first and foremost, honest in all our dealings, with one another,
with customers, business partners, investors, suppliers and the communities
in which we operate.

We not only are honest in the technical sense of the word, but also seek
to ensure that the impressions that we leave are accurate.

We hold ourselves to the highest level of ethical conduct and
conscientiously avoid activity that creates even the appearance of any
conflict of interest.
===========

RESPECT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL: We show respect for everyone by what we say
and do and value our diverse global workforce.

We treat one another with mutual respect. Our actions, behavior, and
attitudes consistently demonstrate our respect for the dignity and worth
of each individual.

We maintain a work environment that seeks out and values the insight,
experience, contribution and full participation of all employees.

We are committed to understanding, valuing, and maintaining a diverse
workforce that reflects and responds to the diversity of our customers
and our markets.
===========

EXCELLENCE: We excel at everything we do. We strive aggressively for
the highest standard of quality to achieve superior value for our
customers.

We never compromise in our quest for excellence, customer satisfaction,
and company success. We link excellence with consistently and profitably
delivering value to our customers.

We aim to be the best and excel in every area in which we choose to focus
our attention ... we will settle for nothing less.
===========

ACCOUNTABILITY: We own up to our words and actions. When we commit to
do something, we do it ... decisively, responsibly, and with urgency so that 
others can rely on us consistently.

We exercise care in formulating and meeting our commitments to customers
and to each other.

We understand that others rely on our commitments and expect us to meet
them. When we make commitments to customers, to fellow employees and to
others, we take personal responsibility for fulfilling those commitments.
We immediately inform others, when we are unable to meet a commitment.

We accept the consequences of our own performance, behavior, and words
at all times.
===========

TEAMWORK: We work together ... energized by our collective talent. We
listen to, trust, share with and empower team members. We use data to
move beyond individual opinions to rapid decisions and effective
implementation.

We maintain open, honest dialog at all levels of the company.

We understand vigorous, constructive dialog is an essential element in
building effective work teams and the best way to ensure our ability to
create and deliver high-quality business solutions for our customers.

When a decision is made and a company goal established, we work
collaboratively with others to meet that goal.

We recognize that these company goals are primary and above group or
individual goals.
===========

INNOVATION: We encourage and value creative solutions to customer needs.
We are fearless in expressing new ideas and taking actions that will
generate successful customer solutions.

We value and encourage innovation and creativity.

We make elegant and successful use of existing and new techniques to
create new business solutions, products, and services for our customers'
requirements.

We open up and develop profitable markets where we have leadership.

We are empowered to take intelligent risks after carefully weighing
potential hazards and benefits to the company.

We reward success and expect everyone to learn from those attempts that
are not successful despite our best efforts.
===========

CUSTOMER SUCCESS: We help our customers and business partners achieve
their business goals through information systems knowledge, industry
expertise, networking skills, and consulting. We strive always to
outdistance the competition in customer satisfaction.

We are committed to having the most satisfied customers and business
partners worldwide.

We support and assist our customers to be successful in their own
competitive environment through innovative business solutions, information
systems knowledge, industry expertise, networking skills and consulting.

All of our efforts and decisions are relentlessly focused on maximizing
our ability to understand and respond to customer needs and expectations.

    ref .28
    
    Thanks for taking the time to copy Digital's Core Values into this
    note.
    
    The values sound great, but reality is another thing.

    I'll say it like it is:
    
    The stock buy back is an attempt to raise the stock price because the
    fundamentals of the company haven't been good enough to raise the
    price on their own right.
    
    There are valid reasons for doing a buy back, but Digital's cash
    position is _not_ strong enough to justify this.
    
    Although I have respect for what Mr. Palmer has done to date, he has
    failed to create true double digit growth in an economy where other
    computer firms are achieving this routinely.  This _is_ his
    responsibility.
    
    I am dissapointed in this cheap trick.
    
    Ken Berkun
                   

    On the stock buyback:
    
    Maybe it's being done to counter an Iacocca-like move by Ken Olsen to team
    up with Kirk Kerkorian and buy us out! We do have all that cash...
    
    ;-)
    
    (Better Kerkorian than Kervorkian!)

    re .30
    
    I agree that the stock buy back program is nothing  but a cheap trick.
    Also if one looks at such announcements carefully, one will note that
    there no time limits before which teh buy back must be completed or
    there is no condition on minimum qty to be purchased.
    
    CFO of a software company told me that they announcemd similar program
    a year ago and when I asked him how much they have actually bought back
    since the announcement, he told me less tahn 1% of the amount they said
    they are going to buy back !!
    
    So one question in the next shareholders meeting could be, how much of
    the 10 million shares you have actually bought back and watch them dance
    around the question.
    
    

    Re:  the stock buyback
    
    If a company is presented with an array of things to do with its cash,
    it will choose the thing that will bring the best return on that cash. 
    A stock buyback is good for the share price, as described earlier.  For
    Digital, our management judged that it was a better use of the money to
    spend it on the stock than on hiring people, advertising, investing in
    a given new product or service, etc.
    
    Re stock value, what matters is free cash flows, earnings growth,
    strategic and competitive position.  Not eps or book value.  Those
    things are accounting artifacts and don't influence the market's
    judgement of our shares' worth.

    re. .33
    
    While I agree that book value has little to do with stock prices, EPS
    is important, particularly the "quality" of what makes up those earnings

    Interesting that everyone assumes Mr. Palmer et al are intent on
    maintaining Digital as a company. While the decisions being made might
    be counterproductive to a growing viable company, they are the right
    decisions for a company being sold off.
    Digital is organized now such that it can be sold in pieces. Look at
    the structure we now have. C&P (along with networks), semiconductor,
    MCS, make an offer. 
    I don't know where this is a good or bad thing. I suppose it will
    depend on what your position is. Worker bees usually go along with the
    sale while management types loose out to the management types in the
    company making the purchase.
    If any of the part-time advanced business students that comment are
    watching I would be interested in their opinion. The stock repurchase
    is a good move if you are in the "for sale" mode. What else?

    <-----
    and "Mr. Katz" said in his column in PCWeek that he'd heard that the PC
    business was for sale for the right price. Kinda lends credibility to
    the statement in .-1 eh?
    
    .mike.

    And it sounds (from when I was in Stow this week) that there is a move
    to create a distinct company of the Internet Business Unit.
    
    Our future profits may only be coming from selling off the real estate
    that remains!

    >> from selling off the real estate that remains!
    
    	I think most of what we now occupy is leased, except for MRO1/2
    (sold 3 and 4), PKO, MSO, and HLO.

I think what we're seeing is steady movement to a future where

         Digital designs, manufactures, and sells boxes (i.e., Alpha
         and follow-on)

         Microsoft designs, manufactures, and sells software

         MCI sells networking and service.

It all fits very nicely with the three firms' implicit goals (and
not-so-implicit), and is supported by the evidence.

Just my guess,
Pete

    I recently came to that conclusion too.
    
    Unfortunately, I don't believe that it's gonna work.
    

    >> I recently came to that conclusion too.
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, I don't believe that it's gonna work.
    
    It might work fine for MCI and MS.

It is as good a plan as any other, especially for Digital. It's a
chance to get to a core competency if the plan is well-executed. We
have the best technology. We need to retain, grow, and utilize the
skills that developed it and will develop the breakthroughs in the
future.

If that is the plan, let's get on with it.

    From "The Godfather" on the tube a coupla weeks back...
    
    "Your enemies grow strong on what you leave behind."
    
    We might do well to think about that as we shed our non-core
    competancies.
    
    r
    

    One problem with the 'hardware company' role. That would require good
    support from software companies willing to write their APPLICATIONS for
    our hardware, and we have NEVER been able to get that kind of support.
    It is the major problem with Alpha sales now. And I know the internal
    BS says we have x thousand applications. My customers cant find the
    ones they need.
    
    The reasons for our poor list of software are legion, but mostly come
    down to 'hard to do business with'. Talk to some application vendors
    about the trouble getting support from DEC for a port.  

RE: .44

	That may be fine, but we still need to learn how to grow market
	share and acceptance of our boxes.

	I really don't think it matters what we decide is our core
	business. We just need to learn to create market demand for it.
	That's something we lack today.

							mike

            I don't think there is any future in manufacturing boxes.  Resource
    needs for the design of boxes should remain relatively flat but
    manufacturing will see continued resource tuning through the near
    future years.  I work in 'manufacturing boxes' and from my point of view
    it seems that senior management could out source box manufacturing
    totally without much hassle.

    I see some signs that tell me the future of making boxes is not bright. 
    Rawhide is a very impressive sign.  It is meant to replace many other
    boxes thus reducing product offering complexity.  I would expect to see
    digital making only three non PC systems (little, medium, and big) in
    two years. Another sign is that senior management doesn't seemed very
    concerned about the efficiency of it's present box manufacturing.  It
    seems to me that if I were senior management and I thought box making
    was a core business, I'd get involved with it and help make it
    competitive.  But they have decided to manufacture as if we were in the
    early eighties with extremely fat management structure that is full of
    old ideas.  Technology advances will not be going away in the near
    future either.  Although technology will have less effect as the years
    go on as it has in the past eight years, we will still see a ten
    percent drop in manufacturing resource need due to technology
    advancements in each year to come (IMO).

    re .48 I'd like to see Digital do what Sun has recently done - for
    their Enterprise Servers all the components are interchangeable e.g., 
    CPU's, Memory, I/O modules, etc.  The only thing different is the 
    enclosure. 
    This would mean that we don't need engineers designing Mid-range and 
    High-end systems designers.  One engineering organization SHARING 
    everything, moving more away from competing engineering organization.  
    Cost of manufacturing would be greatly reduced because there's only one
    set of modules and the enclosure is what differentials the mid-range
    from high-end systems.  Our Resellers would have to know less,
    moreover, stock less product.
    
    I'd like to see the AlphaStations and Personal Workstations (Alpha PC)
    group be ONE organization, same box, same motherboard, etc. ONE, ONE, ONE.
    
    
    	Regards,

Bill:

> re .48 I'd like to see Digital do what Sun has recently done - for
> their Enterprise Servers all the components are interchangeable e.g., 
> CPU's, Memory, I/O modules, etc.  The only thing different is the 
> enclosure. ...

  I'd be a little concerned about this only because the underlying
  technology in the truly high-end many-way SMP super-servers is
  substantially different from the technology in low end single-
  processor and 2- and 4-way multiprocessors.

  At the extreme high end, you really need things like very high-
  bandwidth system "busses" (crossbars and the like) to keep
  delays down.

  This is not to say that we couldn't share *A LOT* more than
  we're presently sharing, even to the extent of identical CPU
  daughter cards, RAM DIMs, *ALL* the low- to mid-range I/O
  subsystems, etc. But the backing bus in a high end, many-way
  superserver just isn't going to be the same as the backing
  bus in a desktop system.
                                   Atlant

    As regards "one" of everything: what colour would you like it ? The
    colour we've always sold, or an arbitrarily-introduced incompatible new
    one with no visible customer benefits and lots of "cost of selling"
    disadvantages visible to anyone with common sense, be they Digital
    engineer, field employee or Digital reseller ? Until we have a working
    climate where it becomes worth people's while to argue against things
    like frost-white keyboards, mice, monitors, CD-ROMs, etc, we are
    wasting a lot ofe people's time. There's only so much difference that
    an individual in the field can make, some changes have to come from the
    top too.
    
    regards
    john

    Shekhar,
    
    I heard that Bob called you on your base note ! I am sure we are all
    curious to hear about his reaction ?
    
    

    Re: .52
    
    It seems to me that it would be much better if BP posted an answer
    in here.  There have been a zillion unanswered replies in the
    current BP note, as well as an obvious major communications
    problem about the bonuses.  We West Coast folks in Digital
    Semiconductor have heard nothing but rumors about the latter.  When
    I was making up my list of the company's problems in that thread I
    should have added poor communication between upper management and
    employees.  Back when we had actual HR people, we could walk down
    the hall and ask "What the heck is going on about <x>?" and get
    an answer.
    
    Alternatively. we get all sorts of junk mail via Reader's
    Choice, why not use it for genuine information.
    

    re:.52
    
    Just knowing that Bob called shows a nerve was hit. I'd like to know
    what transpired, but that's just my curiosity.. Maybe he was just
    testing the cell phone in the Porsche... :-))
    
    I wonder if the BOD see's all this "BOB" talk, as a sign of the true
    problems here...
    
    Joe
    

.54>    I wonder if the BOD see's all this "BOB" talk, as a sign of the true
.54>    problems here...
    
    Employee sample size (notes participants in this and the other 'Bob'
    thread) is far too small to be of any significance (statistically).
    
    John.

    
    >               -< where are the other 50000 noters? :) >-
    
    
    	Last I knew they were over in SOAPBOX arguing about abortion.
    

    -< where are the other 50000 noters? :) >-
    
    	I'd say a good percentage are busy polishing and circulating
    	their resumes/CVs.
    
    bob

    re .52:
    
    Yes, Jay, Bob did call. What I admired in his attitude was his
    willingness to acknowledge that as CEO he was responsible for
    the things that were broken. Bob said he was unaware of many of
    the ills that were being perpetrated on the ground. I believe him.
    
    What still has to happen, is some action. Bob said, he'd talk to
    his HR person and I might get a call - no promises. He also said
    that he'd ask Copperman to look into some of the problems I brought
    up about Storage. I don't know if any of that has happened. If
    and when I hear, I will certainly report it.
    
    Regards
    
    Shekhar

    >>Bob said he was unaware of many of the ills that were being perpetrated 
    on the ground.
    
    Why not? It is his job to know what is happening on the ground,
    otherwise he does not know the consequences of the decisions he takes.
    The point has been made in here many times. He has been CEO for 4 years
    now and he needs to know what is going on. In the meantime I have
    watched the his DVN of 11. July. One thing which sticks out is the
    SAP/R3 problem. Here we have a major investment which has gone badly
    wrong, and the CEO tells us he is dissappointed. It is fair to conclude
    that he wasn't watching what was going on, and gets taken by surprise
    when things go wrong. Another example is the loss in the PC business.
    Three months ago we were putting out hurray messages about another
    profitable quarter and the next thing we are making a loss. He needs to
    set up an information system which works, and check it by going
    directly to the trenches and talking to the troops. he needs to talk to
    the train driver and ask him why the train was late, and compare the
    answer with what his VP tells him. 
    
    One method which is favoured in Europe is talking to elected Works'
    Council members. The tend to have a wide knowlege of what is happening
    on the ground, that is why they get elected.  Take one guess on the
    name of a sucessful US-American Computer Company which is following the
    recommendations of the European Parlament by negotiating the procedures
    of its European Works' Council with its employees: Hewlett Packard.
    
    It is no use having brilliant strategies, tough, hard nosed attitudes,
    determination, integrity, talent, energy, if you are living in the
    clouds and don't know what the score is. 
    
    Kevin
         

    >Why not? It is his job to know what is happening on the ground
    >otherwise he does not know the consequences of the decisions he takes.
    
    I expressed the same point in a meeting I had with my manager a few
    weeks ago. I explained that we are not getting enough communication
    flowing from the top to the bottom.
    
    Just as BP and the board need to know what is going on down here, we
    equally need to know what is going on up there. It gives us the feel good
    factor. We do not need to be sheltered from the bad news, because many
    of us are prepared to work harder if the corportaion requires us. The
    problem is we have no idea what is going on in the minds of managemnet.
    
    A little effective communication would go a long way to making the
    "troops" happier. I do not mind being told bad news, because at least I
    am given the chance to hear it from the horses mouth. 
    
    What I do not like is the lack of clear direction. 
    
    I only hope that BP, and the rest of the 200 odd VP's read this
    conference more than they reply to it. This will give them some idea of
    what if happening down here. If they only read it once every six months
    or when someone posts a particulary daring note, then they are missing
    out on a lot of ill feeling. 
    
    I would hazard a guess that most of us here really do like our jobs,
    and really do care what happens, this is why we are prepared to stick
    our necks out and make the kind of statements that I all to frequently
    read in here. 

    The "RENEW" surveys that were done in 94 and 95 (?) showed that
    employees had good confidence in the level of management directly above
    them, but significantly less confidence in corporate management.  The
    things that we have been hearing about lately (reneging on bonuses,
    upper management unaware of BU problems, etc.) will only widen this
    confidence gap between immediate manangement and corporate management.
    
    Rich

    I would like to comment on the viability of our hardware
    side.  Apparently Microsoft will release a 64 bit version
    of Windows NT for version 5.0.  I do not believe that this will
    take long to create since WNT is nearly fully C++ and OO.  The 
    truly interesting aspect of this is how the transition to the
    64 bit look of hardware will occur.  Will a standardized design
    emerge?  Or will the hardware market fracture into a series of
    competing designs based on the ease of porting WindowsNT to new
    if platforms?  Microsoft needs to move away from a reliance
    on Intel and they need to move WindowsNT into the mid range
    market.  They cannot achieve this objective without having
    companies like digital succeed.  Intel of course will not stand
    still and let us run over them, hopefully they will compete
    strongly which should actually further our goals by legitimizing
    the transition to 64 bit computing.
    
    

    
    re : .62
    
    Are you seriously saying Alpha is on a race against Intel, and can win
    it? Even after reading about PowerPC's failure to attain the same goal
    with three major companies backing that chip, or at least saying that
    they were !
    
    IMO in the long run, Intel, with its huge installed base will eventually
    make the most of its stronger financial capacity to outrun any other chip
    manufacturer, but I may be missing something important, and would love to
    discover what it is
    
    Michel.

    Bob 'should' know whats happening at all levels of the company. But be
    realistic- do you think he even knows what all 200 VP's are doing? Let
    alone their direct reports, and theirs, etc. Didnt someone note here
    that there are as many as 9 levels of management in some organizations?
    
    I recall a DVN in the early days of Bobs tenure, where he was asked
    about the numbers of middle manages getting TFSO'd. His answer was
    something like "its amazing how much change occurs between an SLT
    decision and its final implementation".
    
    Sure, the buck stops at the top, but you cant really expcet the top to
    know all the details. And if Bob had a clue how badly screwed up all
    the lower level processes of this company are he would likely be very
    unhappy. Do you suppose the management reports pushed up the line
    report on how BAD things are below?
    
    This is the classic case of lying to ourselves, thinking all is
    well, as the ship slowly sinks under us. 

    Re: .64
    
    > do you think he even knows what all 200 VP's are doing?
    
    Everytime Digital announces a reorganization, the announcement usually
    says...
    
    	blah, blah, blah.....more efficient organization....blah, blah,
    	blah....improved customer service....blah, blah, blah.....
    
    From my simplistic point of view, it would seem that if we have
    roughly half the employees we used to have, then to keep the SAME
    level of productivity we would need roughly half the VPs that we
    used to have.
    
    <in my best Rod Serling voice>
    I don't ever recall having anywhere near 400 VPs.  So I submit, for
    your consideration, that the productivity of VPs (as a group) has
    declined instead of increased.  Or perhaps, it is just a figment of
    my imagination,...in the Management Twilight Zone. 
    <break to Twilight Zone theme>
    
    Paul B.
                                 

Bob,

	All you have to do is go to your VPs and tell them they get
4 (or 3 whatever) layers between them and the worker bee, and give them
30 days to comply, or they get -our- package.

	Middle management is simply not accountable for what is going on
within their organization.  You can damn well bet that if I don't bring
in my consulting revenue goal for the quarter, I will be out the door,
management should have equal risks...

Brad.

ps:  Give me a call at 800-759-8888 , pin 3877918 if you would like to come
	with me to a customer site.  You will be simply amazed at what goes
	on out here...

perhaps BP should spend a day a week wondering around various buildings
asking people how they are doing, what's up, what's the problems, etc.
also, i think Bob should eat lunch with some of us troops down here. KO
used to do it with the troops, why not bob???
and, Bob should ask that his VPs spend a little more time w/ the troops
than they do now...

make yourself present.

    re .64
    >   alone their direct reports, and theirs, etc. Didnt someone note here
    >    that there are as many as 9 levels of management in some
    > organizations?
    According to the local family tree in the UK, there are six managers
    over me that is without the inclusion of the CEO of the UK Territory.
    Then there is the management structure to add in Europe before one
    starts to include Corporate.
     
    

If I remember right, back when digital first started TFSO'ing people, the
statement was made something to the fact that we had too many levels of
management and we where going to reduce that level significantly. It was
something like reducing it down to about 5 levels to the top. Seems that didn't
happen!

>perhaps BP should spend a day a week wondering around various buildings
>asking people how they are doing, what's up, what's the problems, etc.
>also, i think Bob should eat lunch with some of us troops down here. KO
>used to do it with the troops, why not bob???
    
    Why not - as long as it is not too GMA-centric (GMA = Greater 
    Maynard Area). 
    
    In other words (in case you're listening, Bob), I invite you 
    to come and see us here in Finland. The weather's really nice 
    now. ;-) Or at least do drop by next time you're over in Europe.
    
    ...petri

    Some arithmetic...
    
    60,000 employees, 1 CEO, 200 VPs, 5 levels in between me and the top
    gives an average of 3 "units" per "manager" or 16,200 "units" in the
    pyramid above the lowest level.
    
    This MUST be a profitable area in the industry or else...
    
    Guenther

    Speaking of management seeming aloof and out of touch...
    
    I wrote a memo to Bob Palmer back in December 1994 mentioning that as a
    problem, and even naming a few names.  I made the mistake of thinking,
    since I was writing to Bob directly (no CCs), that it was a private
    communication between Bob and I, and that he would appreciate having
    some facts to back up my claims.  I later found out that my memo had
    been the topic of discussion at some VPs meeting in Atlanta (without my
    knowledge, and certainly without my permission, Bob!!).  As it turns
    out the jist of the discussion ended up centering around the European
    managers I named getting bent out of shape.
    
    Bob sent me a very nice memo in answer to mine, and I might even be 
    able to assume that his intentions were good when he shared my memo 
    with all those VPs.  That it ended up being a negative thing for me 
    is not as bad as the fact that, in spite of talking about, nothing 
    changed.
    
    That Bob called the base noter is nice.  What his intentions were, who
    knows?  However, my experience has been, that either Bob is not really
    in charge, ie the VPs under him feel free to reinterpret what Bob says,
    and do pretty much as they please, and they really are not accountable
    to him.  Or, Bob is just dishing up a lot of rhetoric.  He says the
    politically correct thing, but he doesn't mean it.
    
    BTW, I was told that the European managers felt that, since I didn't
    seem to like them, and was talking directly to US management, maybe I
    should work for the US.  As you can see, I listened to them...I just
    wish they'd *listened* to me.
    
    Rob Marshall

Well, the ISBU is fairly flat.
my mgr reports to a VP, who reports to Ilene Lang, who reports to Palmer

    re .63
    
    Yes I am suggesting that digital will be a competitor for
    Intel.  The use of Windows 3.1 and windows95 has granted
    Intel a free ride until now.  IBM PowerPC never effectively
    focused on WindowsNT.  WindowsNT is the future of the Windows
    computing environment.  When it switches to a 64 bit environment
    the competition will truly begin.  Digital is very well placed
    in this competition.  Intel is not invincible. Andy Groves
    favorite saying is "You can never be too paranoid".
    
    Harry

Scene: 

On board the S.S. Dig It Al, which is in the midst of yet another storm as it
makes it's voyage to somewhere across the big ocean of HighTech. Some of the
crew has gathered on the dec, despite the mighty waves which batter the ship,
and have previously washed some former crew members overboard, to discuss the
decisions made by the Captain, and his many first mates. Deep down in the belly
of the ship, a grunt, troubled by both the shouts of his crewmates, and also, by
the apparent direction of the ship, leaves his oar and makes his way up to the 
dec, to address his fellow crew members. He starts waving his arms to get their
attention, and says:

 Yo mateys! Yes, over here! As we all know, the ship is in troubled waters, and
the Captain is very busy steering the ship to avoid the many dangers we all will
encounter here on the HighTech sea. Throwing stones, knives and spears at the
upper dec won't make their job any easier now, will it? And who knows if one of
your weapons will hit the Captain, and cause him to jump overboard himself. He's
not perfect, as he is as human as the rest of us. I'd like to encourage those 
who think he's doing the absolute best he can, for the good of all involved, to
keep on being optimistic. Many are currently sceptical, though, as to why they 
haven't addressed the many concerns of the crew who do their part to keep them 
in their stately cabins. Knowing he has all those first mates at his disposal,
it would be nice if even one of them took the initiative, and came off the 
bridge to speak with us directly. Even if one did, I doubt it would keep the
crew from mounting a mutiny, which is NOT what the Captain needs at this, a very
critical point in the voyage. So calm down, it's NOT abandon ship time just yet.
If you are too angry with things, feel free to go, as no one is forcing you to
stay. Or ride out the storm, and have some faith in the Captain. And those of 
you who pray, keep him in your prayers, as it's not an easy job commanding a 
vessel of this size, with all the holes it had when he took the helm. Remember,
it's lonely at the top, and he needs all the help he can get. So get a grip, and
get back to rowing, or whatever it is that is your duty here. I'm pretty sure 
he's heard all the noise out here on dec and I have a feeling the Captain will 
be addressing the ranks soon. Keep in mind he is STILL the Captain, at least 
for now. There are many who think that he is doing a darn good job, all things 
considered. And I think he knows how it warms our hearts when he comes out and
waves, and says a few words to give us all a view from his perspective. Hang 
in there, as we're coming up on the 40th year of the ship, and some of us would 
like to think the few remaining crew in marketing, will take full advantage of 
this window of opportunity to proclaim to the buying world how we had, have, and
will continue to have the best products on the face of the planet. Thanks for
your time...

The grunt climbs down from the tower, goes back to his post, and resumes rowing,
waiting to see what will happen in the coming days...

.73> Well, the ISBU is fairly flat.
.73> my mgr reports to a VP, who reports to Ilene Lang, who reports to Palmer
    
    Hardly surprising - it's a small organization. About 180 people, I
    hear.
    
    So if Ilene has 5 reports (all VPs), and those VPs have 5 managers
    reporting to them, and those managers have 6 real people reporting to
    them..... you're up to 181 people (150 real people, and 31 overhead).
    
    Hmmm
    
    
    ...colin
    

    Modification to .75
    
    The ship is sailing in dangerous, uncharted waters, and taking on
    water.  The grunts, suffering from scurvey, weak from lack of proper
    feeding, have just delivered a 12 course meal to the Captain in his
    private quarters.  The 1st officers (some 200 or more strong) are
    running around shouting conflicting orders, and occasionally throwing
    a man overboard, or making them walk the plank.
    
    The crew uneasily eyes the shoreline of an unexplored new land
    (unemployment, new jobs).  The men thrown overboard have swam to
    it, and are shouting encouragement to join them.  A few have
    drowned making the swim, some are shark bait.  The new land
    shows promise - water to drink, and food to eat.
    
    I've been on the SS DIGITAL since before it was renamed (from
    the SS DEC).  I didn't jump ship when the last Captain was
    keel-hauled.  I respected that last Captain becuase even
    in the rough times, you'd find him on deck, working harder than
    most of the crew, and when we finished a voyage - the split of
    the profits was fair.  Sometime too generous.  The owners didn't
    like that much, and many of the crew were not too happy that
    the rats were eating well (no matter what we do, the rats just
    move to a new hiding place and we can't get rid of them).
    
    Well.  That was then, and this is now.  The owners of the ship
    removed the last Captain when the seas got rough.    Now I hear
    a rumour that our ration of rum is to be cut.  The officers are
    well lubricated already, and frankly, being a galley slave *I*
    *never* got a rum ration at all.  Still, seems like some of the
    crew (many who eat and drink much better than I do) are starting
    to think about joining the others on the shore.  Others are talking
    Mutiny, but they don't seem to know the "right" course for the ship
    either (some only have one oar in the water).  Of course, a lot of
    the crew we have taken on recently are mercenaries, and they don't
    care much what direction the ship is heading in, or what the rum
    ration is for the crew - they've got theirs.
    
    Me... well, I'm building a nice little dingy, and trying to store
    away some food, and keeping an eye out for a nice little lagoon.
    Can't afford to try to swim to shore, not since I got sick.  My
    wife did though... seems she found a raft with the old Captain on
    it.  She says it's small but they have enough to eat, and the waters
    are safer there.
    

    
    re .75
    	Yea, Just keep cheering as the ship goes down.
    
    ed

    re .77
    
    I like your story better. Seems to me that there is much small raft
    stitching going on between duties.... should be interesting to
    see what happens when most of the rafts are finished! (more than a few
    have already managed to get to shore from our group)
    
    Pz

    Re: the last few notes
    
    After listening to a presentation of the "new, much-improved sales
    compensation system for FY97", I can assure you that two things are
    continuing to take place:
    
    1. The majority of the rum is being kept back from the rowers and
    
    2. The raft stitching, as one noter noted, will be continuing.
    
    IMHO, the individuals putting such programs together do not have a clue
    as to what motivates (or demotivates) the rowers in this company.  Too
    bad - as a long-time employee I had hoped that I would not see the
    aft of the ship as it was going down, but it may be a foregone
    conclusion if things do not change, and quickly.
    
    Chuck 

    
    
    rep .75
    
    I don't think that this scenerio will play out as described.
    
    The headhunters (Coast Guard) are all around the ship, offering up
    % increases if you will let them rescue you.  Your promised food
    rations have been cut.  Lot's of your rowing mates have been thrown
    overboard, and you've been asked to stay the course, row harder,
    and keep those rose colored glasses on!
    
    This just doesn't happen in the 90's, lot's and lot's of people are 
    already going out the door with the proposed reduction of our
    collectively earned "bonus".  The damage has been done, and even
    when we get our "full" well deserved "success sharing" payment, I 
    just don't think lot's of people will feel good about it!
    
    I don't want to have to fight with upper management about something
    that is pretty much "black and white", right and wrong, etc.
    
    Everyone that I've spoken to in NPB feels cheated at the moment.
    Or do we feel like we are in the process of being cheated.
    
    The silence out of "Rome" is a little much for me.  They announced
    this decision a week ago last Thursday.  Every day they wait to 
    reverse their (Can't really tell who's decision it is/was as of yet)
    decision does not bode well for the continued NPB employment of lot's
    and lot's of people.  If the goal is for massive attrition, then
    NPBs parent, Digital Equipment Corp, is steering the right course.
    
    And the band played on...
    
    
    /art

    re: .82
    
    You could be right, and may not end up as I had hoped, but this still
    remains to be seen. My attempt at damage control may not have effect. 
    I even reacted emotionally in .80 (now retracted) as at first glance, 
    I bent towards the sentiment in .77. This could be an indication to
    management that they are being very successfull at destroying any
    loyalty that may remain by their decisions. But do they care? I wonder,
    as if they do live in the mentallity of "we got ours", and do nothing
    but cut the benefits of those who help keep them in their lofty places,
    then the answer is obvious. Too bad if it is, and the raft/lifeboat
    scenerio will be played out more and more. Eventually, they themselves
    will be looking for another ship to plunder (at least the mercenaries).
    
    Will loyalty to a managerial team that renegs, and only looks out for
    themselves be found anywhere? I sincerely doubt it.
    
    Bob 

Well I was thinking of going on a cruise (as a paying passenger). However,
when I visited the travel agent I discovered how expensive that would be!
So I went back to my job as crew in the galley. I know how hard
the rowers work, and I try hard to feed them. That is my job here in the
galley's galley, (AKA the field).

I've realised that my job is dangerous (it is not only the rowers who get
thrown overboard), but I've got my life jacket handy, and I've been working
hard at my "abandon ship" drill, so I know it will work (the coast guard
seemed very confused that each time I went back to the ship).

So maybe it isn't as good as the cruise, because we seem to be sailing in
random directions, not at all like the Aegean Islands, but at least I don't
have to pay! When my Irish sense of humour cuts in, it can even seem kind
of funny watching all the 1st officers yelling and nothing happening.

	My Irish sense of humour makes light of our situation.

	My Irish temper however, is far from calm.

	It's not so much the bonus thing at this point. I've resigned
	myself to not getting one. It's the total and complete lack of
	communication from the top. Show us the numbers. Talk to us
	like adults. As I would say jokingly to a friend: "Man up"

	One of the networks had a program on the other evening on why
	the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I may not have the
	numbers correct, but they stated something like:

	In 1980, the average executive salary was 42 times the average
	workers salary.

	In 1995, that figure was 142 times.

							mike

    But of course there are now many, many fewer executive salaries being
    paid - so many fewer VP's etcetera than there used to be. This is known
    as the positive side of downsizing.
    
    Or not, in some corporations.
    

    re .85: And in US, that ratio is among the highest (if not the
    highest) in the world.
    
    I think Japan has one of the lowest ratios.
    

    re: BP: "I didn't know..."
    
    That reminds me of that amazing Jack Smith memo that went around the
    net a few years ago.  Jack (Senior VP, Heir-Apparent) was complaining
    that KO had walked around talking to Jack's reports, and came up with a
    whole bunch of problems he (Jack) knew nothing about.
    
    Jack's reaction was to whine about everybody not keeping him informed.
    It *wasn't* to get up and "manage by walking around" as KO had done -
    or even to admit that he (Jack) had been derelict in his duty.
    
    The base noter's report seems to suggest that the Jack Smith style of
    management has prevailed.
    
    -Mark

RE:
>	I may not have the
>	numbers correct, but they stated something like:
>
>	In 1980, the average executive salary was 42 times the average
>	workers salary.
>
>	In 1995, that figure was 142 times.

I think  your  numbers  must  be  way  out.  Lets take Bob as your "average"
executive with his cool mil salary.  Are you saying that the worker bees are
getting on average $7K ($1M/142)? And if so how do you define workers?

Chris.

Re: 89

I don't recall the exact figures in the television show, but those published
in the note look about right.  The show did flash up where the figures come
from, but I don't recall where that was.

As a separate source, a story in the Portland Press Herald on April 29, 1996
(isn't AltaVista great!) reports that:

  "Chief executives at large corporations nationally earned 178 times
   as much as lower-level employees in 1995. This ratio of 178-to-1 
   compared to a ratio of 34-to-1 in 1974.

   The ratio also compares to a current CEO-to-worker ratio of 40-to-1 
   in Great Britain and 17-to-1 in  Japan."

    
    
    	re:  .89
    
    	BP is not paid what the average CEO is (for salary). The
    	average CEO makes between $2 and $4 million a year.  Despite
    	everything else that's wrong in this company, Bob doesn't
    	have a huge paycheck in comparison to his peers (this is, of
    	course, not counting stock, etc....... )
    

    For interesting reading regarding downsizing, CEO salaries, etc. check
    out
    
    	http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/JA96/downs.html
    
    
    Paul B.

    Understand that the obscene salaries that the Michael Eisners of the
    world may get in any given year are factored into the equation.  The
    median point is obviously somewhat lower than what was projected.
    
    But the point is well-taken, and shows the state of American business
    ("I'm going to get mine before it's gone.")  Sad, since everyone loses
    in the long run.
    
    Chuck

    
    
    	Hey, if you figure Bill Gates out of the equation, I bet it lowers
    the ratio substantially. ;*)
    
    

    
|    	Hey, if you figure Bill Gates out of the equation, I bet it lowers
|    the ratio substantially. ;*)
    
    
   I have no idea what he pays himself, but I bet his stock fluctuates a
   couple of BP annual salaries per day.

    From the microsoft 1995 proxy statement, Gates was paid $275,000
    in salary and $140,580 in bonuses as ceo. He was not compensated as a
    board member. He received no stock options or grants.
    
    At the time of that proxy, he held 141,159,990 shares of stock. Today,
    he earned about $1,598 and made $105,869,992 in the market.
    
    Several of his senior managers earn quite a bit more than Bill...

    
    well to give you an idea of what Bill gates is worth see below.
    
    Michael Jordan signed a one year $30 million dollar contract with the
    Chicago Bulls.. He also makes about $40 million a year in endorsements.
    Mike would need to pull that down for 270 years to match Bill Gates
    net worth.

        re: .-1 Paper worth...
        
        	Jordan gets legal tender, money, dollars.
        
        	Gates has stock, certificates etc. 
        
        Jordan can use that money to get whatever he wants (more so than
        you or I) whenever he wants it. 
        
        Bill has to sell stock or take out a loan on the stock and tell
        the SEC before hand that he intends to do this. He is worth 14-18
        billion on paper, if he tried to sell the stock would go down
        signficantly. Bill Gates is Microsoft, his retirement, decision to
        take a less active role in the company etc would signficantly
        lower his net worth and the net worth of Microsoft. 
        
        I'd still rather be Bill but he can't get at a lot of his money.
        Then again he does have a few million in the bank and a nice stock
        portfolio..

It seems to me corporate America is about to repeat history. If memory serves,
from 1890's thru 1920's(?) pressure on the American worker grew to explosive
proportions. Abusive work environments, extreme personal suffering required to
maintain employment, lifestyle of company leaders 100's of times better then the
common worker, the concept of equitable unheard of, economy growing and workers
life not improving etc.  As I recall all of these pressures lead to some
very significant revolts by workers that lead to forced changes.  Changes that
American companies benefited from in the long run.

Is corporate America, and especially Digital, creating the same sort of pressure
cooker environment(obviously in different ways but you get the idea) today?

If so how long before these pressures lead to a revolt by workers?

and what form will that revolt take?

I think if a revolt comes it will be in an economic form.  Companies formed
by displaced workers will only do business with companies that treat employees
equitably, companies who's compensation plans do not bloat the few and neglect
the many, etc

Just a few thoughts

Eric

    
    re: .44
    > ... It's a chance to get to a core competency if the plan is 
    > well-executed. 
    
    The question is: WHO's core competency.  Ten years ago we didn't
    have any unusual trouble being a software company.  What happened?
    
    Could it be that B.P.'s _only_ competency is running a chip 
    manufacturing company, and that's where _he_ is headed?
    
    

re: "The question is: WHO's core competency.  Ten years ago we didn't
have any unusual trouble being a software company.  What happened?"

         Ten years went by. 'Proprietary' became a bad word. And we
         weren't *that* good a software (and marketing) company,
         anyway. Service, yes. Chips, yes.
    
re: "Could it be that B.P.'s _only_ competency is running a chip 
manufacturing company, and that's where _he_ is headed?"

         Not sure that's his only competency, but it seems to be one
         of them. We're all entitled to make the same choice, or not.
         I'm staying with service, so if it means that I change "MCS"
         to "MCI", fine.

         Pete

    A WHOLE NEW SET OF GLITCHES FOR DIGITAL'S ROBERT PALMER
    
    Fortune 19 Aug 1996

http://pathfinder.com/@@@bUpPwcAYwwW5A6B/fortune/magazine/1996/960819/fro.html
    

    For the web-impaired, I've extracted the article:
    
A WHOLE NEW SET OF GLITCHES FOR DIGITAL'S ROBERT PALMER

RONALD HENKOFF; ROBERT PALMER
REPORTER ASSOCIATE HILLARY MARGOLIS

Lean, trim, and coolly determined, Robert Palmer, chairman and chief
executive of Digital Equipment, is a devoted runner whose job requires all
the endurance he can muster. Palmer, who logs at least 25 miles per week,
became CEO of the Maynard, Massachusetts, computer company in 1992,
replacing founder Kenneth Olsen. Since then he has laid off nearly half of
Digital's work force, shut factories, and sold businesses. But he has also
invested heavily in developing a new generation of high-speed business
computers, forged a technology-sharing alliance with Microsoft, and labored
mightily to reboot an insular culture long dominated by engineers.

Until recently Palmer appeared to be winning his reengineering marathon.
After four years of heavy losses, Digital posted six straight quarters of
profits. By early summer, however, the Texas-born Palmer was battling his
way up Heartbreak Hill. Digital announced that earnings for its fiscal
fourth quarter would fall "well below" expectations, due largely to
problems in its personal computer business and disappointing sales in
Europe.

The company said it would take a $475 million restructuring charge and
would--once again--eliminate jobs. This time, 7,000 employees will go,
11.5% of the payroll. Digital's stock price, which had hit $76.50 in early
February, sank below $32 in mid-July. Palmer, 55, recently talked with
FORTUNE's Ronald Henkoff about the challenges of turning around a company
as troubled as Digital in an industry as unforgiving as information
technology.

[Photo: Digital's Robert Palmer]
    
    Digital has already cut 65,000 jobs since 1989. Now you're trimming
    another 7,000. Will this be the last sizable layoff?

I certainly hope so. That would be my expectation today. But you don't know
the future. Management has to react as the environment changes.

It's rather remarkable that we now have less than half the employees we had
at our peak and yet our revenues are slightly greater. That's an indication
of how bloated this company had become. You have to wonder just what all
those people were needed for.

How did Digital get so far off track?

We got into trouble because we had the wrong strategies. In the 1980s,
Digital was vertically integrated. We did everything ourselves, built the
central processing unit, the operating system, the applications, the
databases, all the networking protocols, everything. We even went to the
extreme of bending the metal for the cabinets that we put our computers in.

Then the business model changed. First was the emergence of personal
computers, powered by single-chip microprocessors. Then came the emergence
of open operating systems, and Digital failed to anticipate these changes.
Then, once we saw the changes, we failed to adapt to them. Instead we gave
our customers a lecture, told them what they said they wanted to buy wasn't
appropriate.

How can you change a culture that breeds that kind of arrogance?

What was sorely lacking at Digital was a sense of accountability. This was
a company that was run by committee, by consensus. No one actually made a
decision. When things went well, there would be a number of people willing
to take credit. But when things went wrong, it was impossible to fix
responsibility on anyone.

In my model of management, there's very little wiggle room. If you want a
management job, then you have to accept the responsibility and
accountability that goes with it.

I presume Digital's management team has gone through some big changes.

Of the 40 top executives who were here in 1992, only four, including
myself, are still on the list today. One of the most painful and difficult
parts of my job has been to sit here and try to look objectively at each
individual and determine if that executive has the necessary skills to take
us forward.

Have you changed the way you pay people?

I believe in egalitarianism, but we had gone too far in my view. There was
very little differentiation, for example, between the pay of excellent
engineers and the pay of mediocre engineers. That's not my model at all. My
model is very capitalistic; that is, your reward should be proportional to
your ability to support our customers.

Digital was almost unique in the computer industry in that our sales force
didn't get paid commissions. We've corrected that. And we never paid
bonuses to executives. Now we do, and they're tightly tied to the company's
annual performance.

How do you keep employees motivated at the same time that you're
eliminating jobs?

One advantage I had, frankly, was that Digital's problems were so large,
employees knew I had to take action. Many of our employees knew for years
that we needed to change, long before management was willing to admit it.
Employees like to know you've got a process that's fair and that you'll
give them some help in finding a new job.

So now that you've radically restructured this company, how do you change
the focus to make it grow?

The companies we compete with are competent and professional. You have to
recognize that their strategies are superior, they've executed them well,
they're well entrenched. So you need to move the battlefield to a different
area. You need to anticipate where things are going and make investments
that will position you in new markets, because it's too late to catch up.

The decision we made as a management team in the late 1980s was to invest
in Alpha. [Digital spent heavily to develop a line of computing products
based on Alpha, its 64-bit architecture, giving it an edge over rival
systems based on 32-bit chips.] We invested $100 million a year even though
we were losing money and had no market share. But today our Alpha
high-performance Unix business is growing at a rate of 70%, five times
faster than the Unix market as a whole. So these investments are paying
off.

You've also formed a strategic partnership with Microsoft.

The Digital and Microsoft alliance [established last year] was a match made
in heaven. We have a unique relationship. We completely share intellectual
property, we share technology, and we have more Microsoft-certified
engineers than any other company, with the possible exception of Microsoft
itself.

We knew Microsoft had established an unassailable position on the desktop
and that they wanted to move all the way up to the highest levels of the
enterprise. We knew a large part of the business world was going to move to
Windows NT [Microsoft's operating system for enterprise-level computing],
but we knew Microsoft needed a partner that understood enterprise
computing. Now, a lot of Digital's revenue today is coming from Windows NT
business, which has grown more than 100% over the past year.

So what went wrong in your fourth quarter, particularly in the personal
computer business?

It's important to note that we will remain profitable from operations for
the quarter and the fiscal year [which ended June 29, 1996]. But we're not
yet at the levels of profitability of our competitors. We're still working
on our cost structure.

We had a very clear strategy in personal computers, but we did not execute
that strategy successfully. We did not manage the inventory in our
distribution channels appropriately. We did not monitor sales out of the
channels as well as we managed sales into the channels, which is an
egregious mistake, frankly.

Given the hammering Digital's stock has taken lately, does this put any
extra pressure on you to defend your strategies?

I wouldn't say it puts on any extra pressure. The pressure that I'm feeling
today is not as great as what I felt in 1993-94, when the company really
was, by many accounts, in rather dire straits. Three years ago we didn't
have a strategy, and the execution was flawed as well. Today we've been
profitable from operations for two years, we have a very strong balance
sheet, and we've got excellent growth in our products.

Does that mean I'm satisfied? Well, of course not. If you're running a
marathon and you stumble midway, you've got to get up and keep running. I
feel very positive about our products, our people, our customers, and our
opportunities.

    Good interview, puts a very positive spin on things.
    
    I'm not very suprised that we missed on sales out figures and only
    watched sales in figures .... in my turf at least our management was
    measured on sales in to the channel, while the Digital sales force was
    being measured on sales out.  Management was killing their numbers and
    the sales force was barely successful.  Thank goodness that problem is
    behind us as now both are measured on sales out.  If there's anything
    we should know by now is that metrics drive behaviour.

Hi Shekhar,

bravo for this elaborate and concisive post!

I have been with Digital for almost six years now, and during this time the 
quality and overall performance of management as a whole have sunken to
abyssmal levels. I work as a network consultant for the SI Internet Group 
now (which has been reorganized into NSIS recently), but I also did network
management, POLYCENTER consulting and general network consulting.

During none of these different jobs management has stuck to it's promises,
done proper job reviews, enabled me to do my job or helped the company to
achieve it's mission. My main experience with Digital management during this
period has been: if management is involved, you better do it yourself.

I believe in Digital, in it's employees (my (mostly) wonderful colleagues)
and it's ability to produce sophisticated and useful products and concepts,
but show me a Digital manager, and I show you where the problem is.

I know that my critique is blunt and, for a few capable and inspired managers,
unfair. But from my experience, these few are lonely gems in a mass of in-
competence, lazyness and ignorance. I sincerely doubt that if Digital one day
decides to fire half of it's management, anybody would recognize the
difference. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the company will work a lot more
effectively.


Yours sincerely



Joerg Maass
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Bravo again Joerg!
    
     You took the words right out of my fingers about the strike the
    keyboard. You have done well to show the value of notes, something
    that has been overlooked by some of those managers who can't see the
    problem, unless they look in the mirror. Notes are the product, the
    employees seem to be taking the best advantage of. The "lower level"
    employees that is. Are managers employees? Yes, as their checks are
    from the same system that does ours. However there seems to be
    an invisable wall between the elite group, who consider themselves 
    better than those who are not in that class of employee. They can't
    seem to hear us, because they don't want to. It would mean they would
    have to determine themselves as not quite so important as they think
    they are.
    
    But it's been that way for a long long time. It just seems to be
    painfully obvious to some, and non-existent to others at a greater
    scale now. For instance, if a manager doesn't see a problem, then the
    problem doesn't exist? Hardly so! They just are missing a key piece
    in bridging the communication gap.
    
    Bob
    
    Bob
    employee

 The fine art of bean counting. Nothing new, it's been around longer than any
 one of us alive today. There must be at least a 1000 different ways to count 
 them. But there is only one right way to look at HOW the beans are counted. 
 How is that, you might ask? Count them in the open, for all eyes to see. That 
 way, there is no way an extra bean or two could end up in someones pocket who 
 may not necessarily deserve them.

 Take a year end balance sheet for example. All the numbers seem to be right
 there, in front of all, for all eyes to see. However, if you look a little
 deeper, perhaps use a magnifying glass on a certain part of said balance sheet.
 you may discover that the words balance, and sheet, used together in this way,
 could be considered a an oxymoron.

 Let's say there is a column A, and a column B. A represents the hill of beans
 on the right. B represents the hill of beans on the left. Do the hills look 
 the same? No, of course not. Why, the hill on the right is MUCH bigger than 
 the hill on the left. I wish I could see how the beans are distributed in the 
 following light:
 
 % of Y.E. salary/compensation/expenditures/bonuses for A & B, of course, 
 taking into consideration the "value added" factor, and...
 
 % of total collectors of beans That Find Sacrifice Offensive throughout
 history for A & B.

 So to ask the question, ARE the hills alive with the sound of music? I hear
 something, but it doesn't sound harmonious, in fact, it sounds like someone
 is singing out of tune. Might be time they had some vocal lessons. Or maybe
 they should just leave the choir quietly, and when and if that happens, the
 sound of music could turn into the songs of praise.

 Bob

>How can you change a culture that breeds that kind of arrogance?
>
>What was sorely lacking at Digital was a sense of accountability. This was
>a company that was run by committee, by consensus. No one actually made a
>decision. When things went well, there would be a number of people willing
>to take credit. But when things went wrong, it was impossible to fix
>responsibility on anyone.
>
>In my model of management, there's very little wiggle room. If you want a
>management job, then you have to accept the responsibility and
>accountability that goes with it.

    May I relate a true story, that just happened this morning?
    
    I hopped over to a local breakfast place, prior to coming into the
    office. I hadn't been there in a while. The last time I was there, I
    had a wonderful breakfast, and was happy with the service. This
    morning, however, was different.
    
    I ordered a belgian waffle, with 2 eggs, and wheat toast. When the
    brakfast arrived, I explained to the waitress the last time I had
    gotten this very same breakfast here, there were 2 pieces of bacon
    inside the waffle, and 2 pieces of bacon next to the waffle. She
    explained that was their policy, to present the bacon as their
    corporate office dictated. I told her of my much beter breakfast a few
    short months ago, and we joked about how the corporation was giving
    less, and offering the extra bacon as a side order, at an additional
    charge. I told her this did not seem fair, in comparison to the
    breakfast I had gotten a few short months ago. I tried to reaon with
    her, but she stood firm.
    
    I asked if she would get the manager, that I may speak to him about how
    they serve the bacon. She went, and a few minutes later, the manager
    came out and spoke with me. I told him how I didn't believe it was fair
    that the portion of bacon was not sufficient for my appetite, and was
    being offered at an additional charge. I made it clear this was not so,
    just a short while ago, but he avoided the comment, and stated he had
    been hired on as manager very recently. We then joked about how the
    corporation was shorting the customer on the bacon, and eating it
    themselves. Well, even after joking around, he still refused to let me
    have the bacon for what I paid for it earlier this year. So I told him
    I work for a major computer corporation, and would tell of my breakfast
    experience on our notesfile. I then explained how I have internet
    access, and could make a world wide incident of this unfair treatment
    of the managers keeping most of the bacon to themselves. He didn't budge, 
    so I asked for his manager's name, and number. I haven't yet called her, 
    but intend to do such soon.
    
    Is there a moral hidden here in this story? Look a little deeper, you
    might just find one.
    
    Bob

	All that over 2 pieces of bacon? How late were you for work? :-)

    
    Yeah, bacon is important. 8-) I was only 5 minutes late.
    
    Shalom
    Bob

    So I told him
    I work for a major computer corporation, and would tell of my breakfast
    experience on our notesfile. I then explained how I have internet
    access, and could make a world wide incident of this unfair treatment
    of the managers keeping most of the bacon to themselves. 

You should NEVER do this - you are placing Digital at risk of a libel lawsuit.
If you think I am imagining this, think again, as it has happened several
times in the past.  Somewhere I saw a memo from HR on this topic - I'll have
to dig it up.

				Steve

    Thanks for the advice! I did not mention names, and never intended to.
    
    It was a little game I played, and no one got hurt. In fact, I'm so
    happy today, I will probably just forget the whole breakfast thingy,
    and forgive them for their error in judgement. After all, they're
    humans too, just like me. I'm sure they didn't mean to get me peaved.
    
    Thanks again, and fear not.
    
    Bob

    You're overlooking the fact that by shorting you on the bacon they
    were doing you a great favor ... they'd have done you an even
    greater favor by skipping it altogether.

    Is there a lesson about buying tractors in there?
    
    ...tom

No; but there is one about building  a porche

	And here I thought the lesson was to never order something that
	you've had in the past and assume you will get the exact same
	thing you got before.

    Bob!,
    
    I thought you worked for Digital, not a "major computer manufacturing
    company".
    
    oops {blush} sorry ;')

      re .106
    
      Fire half of digital managment?
    
      Isn't this the same thing most of us want to do to the federal
    gov't.?  Is there correlation here or what (-:
    
      Tj

Regarding the number of layers of management in this company and in general
the "where from" questions regarding the announced ~7000 layoffs here, is an 
excerpt from Bob Palmer's Aug 22 DVN in the QA section:

"        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             "


Avinash

    What would be the effect if the corporation, instead of (or in addition
    to) "investing" a half-billion dollars in restructuring and another
    half-billion dollars in jacking up the stock price (via buybacks),
    invested a half-billion dollars in training and rewarding employees
    and upgrading the infrastructure?  Couldn't we also decrease the
    expense-to-revenue ratio by increasing the revenue?
    
    Sure, it would be an additional "one-time" expense.  But so are the
    restructuring charge and, depending on how you look at it, the stock
    buy.  And when it was spent, you'd have something different than when
    you started.  Something modernized, rejuvenated, something ready,
    eager, and prepared to carry the business to new heights.
    
    It seems to me that the current approach says "we can't do any better,
    so we've got to do cheaper".  Awfully fatalistic, isn't it?  Maybe we'd
    do better with leaders who believed in this company.
    
    -Mark

    re -1  better vs cheaper
    
    I think we should realize that we don't have the "name" to be a market
    leader in terms of volume. We should be trying to lead the market in
    terms of quality. Stop the nickel and dime attitude of corroding
    battery holders and oscillators that won't start (not to mention the
    "bid-box" mentality that amounts to "bait and switch" in my book).
    
    We can build a better mousetrap...and save a fortune on service.
    
    My 2 cents.
    Rob Wall
    Kanata Manufacturing.
    

    Sorry, I suppose I didn't tie it all together 8^)
    
    I am convinced that enough of the market will pay an extra $50 or so to
    buy a PC that they percieve as being built better - built to last.
    
    Why else do you suppose that people buy Buick vs. Chevrolet?
    [...or a Porsche for some of us, eh Bob?!? 8^) ]
    
    r
    

> I am convinced that enough of the market will pay an extra $50 or so to
>    buy a PC that they percieve as being built better - built to last.

Tell that to the Rainbow. PCs are built to be obsolete after 6 months. Why
would I pay extra for one that will last 10 years? liesl

I would buy a Compaq or HP over a Packard-Bell or Zenith any day.  They cost
more, but you get what you pay for.  PCs don't obsolete that fast either, my
kids are still using a 386 for Word and games.

Like the same components in a Packard Bell as in my Starion.  I paid more for 
a Starion 2 years ago, only to end up on hold for 54 minutes at a clip, then 
no or an "unsure" answer to my questions when calling the 800 number.  The 
Packard Bell I bought a couple of months ago has an Intel chipset on the 
Motherboard, Cirrus Logic video (ala Starion), NEC 6 speed CD, Maxtor (ala 
Starion) 2 gig hard drive, 24 meg EDO memory, and one year on-site warranty.  
And the sound card/fax modem/speakerphone stuff on the PB works, unlike the 
Starion.

Jay

  I'd try to buy a high-volume product.

  Nowadays, the problems you're likely to encounter are much
  more likely to be designed-in-defects rather than individual
  failures, so knowing that there are 10K or 100K systems out
  there would make me a lot more confident that a fix would be
  forthcoming than knowing that there are 1K systems out there.

  And if the vendor had previously punted the business or some
  significant segment of the business, I wouldn't even consider
  them. Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

                                   Atlant

re 127

	Then why does PB have such a horrible quality reputation?  Why doesn't
business buy PB for production use?  And, PB was in dire money problems just
months ago.

No thanks.
Brad.

And by number of units placed, I've heard PB is the leader in the home PC market. 
So what's the point.  You pay extra for perceived value, whatever your definition 
of value is.  

> PCs are built to be obsolete after 6 months. -liesl

	They may be supplanted by newer models in 6 months but that
	does not make them obsolete.  Very few people consider their
	cars to be obsolete when the next year's models arrive.

	Personal Computers age 12 times as fast as humans.  A 5 year 
	old PC (60 year old human) is nearing retirement and a 10 year 
	old PC (120 year old human) is on its last legs.

>	Personal Computers age 12 times as fast as humans.  A 5 year 
>	old PC (60 year old human) is nearing retirement and a 10 year 
>	old PC (120 year old human) is on its last legs.

    Sounds about right.  But, my "60 year old" PC has had its guts ripped
    out and replaced 3 or 4 times, it's brains operated on about as many
    times, it's disks replaced, it's skin replaced, power supply replaced
    and so forth.  It carries no brand name and runs about 16 times faster
    than it did when I first got it.  Instead of retirement, it keeps
    getting beefier.  It was a bald-faced pup when I first got it.  Now, it
    drags its knuckles on the ground and has hair on its back.  Ar, ar,
    arrr!
    
    I can hardly wait until it turns "120" ...  :)
    
    FrankenSteve

    
    RE: PC age twelve times as fast as humans
    
    
    Not true... working in the PCBU ages humans just as fast.
    My 10th continuous year with PCSG/PCBU is fast approaching.
    I can see clearly now.... my mind is gone.
    
    RAINBO::BEAUDREAU
    

    Re .132:
    
    > Sounds about right.  But, my "60 year old" PC has had its guts ripped
    > out and replaced 3 or 4 times, it's brains operated on about as many
    > times, it's disks replaced, it's skin replaced, power supply replaced
    > and so forth.  It carries no brand name and runs about 16 times faster
    
    Are you sure it's the same PC?  Sounds a little like the old quote
    about reality and perception:
    
    "This is my grandfather's axe.  My father replaced the handle and I
    replaced the blade."
    
    :-)

    As a PC, it's changed a lot over time.
    
    Steve

    Good morning troops,
    
     I had a 45 minute conversation with Ron Glover,amd John D. Murphy to
    discuss among other things, the plan I have submitted called the 7-ates.
    
     I asked if I could mention their names, as it was difficult to continue
    to refer to John, as the "anonymous" person I was talking to.
    
     They told me all of management is doing the best they can to solve
    the problems in the DIGITAL community. They also told me the plan I
    submitted is being looked at, and has much in common with what they are
    working on, in the Employee Re-engagement Inititive, being pushed by
    HR, in order to "stop the bleeding" of the troops, by choice of those 
    disgusted with what they see, and hear.
    
     I tried to press the fact people are polishing their resumes, and
    leaving at a rate that is not pleasing to anyone I know of. I told
    them I am doing the best I can in order to try to encourage those
    I work with, both at IVO, and around the country through notes, to hang
    in there, as they are listening to us. 
    
     I guess how hard they are listening is somewhat dependant on how loud
    your notes are. I could be wrong. I want to believe they ARE doing the
    best they can. I truely do. It's difficult here in the middle, but I 
    know I'm not the only one trying to make a positive difference. Keep
    on doing the best YOU can too. I shall try my best to do the same.
    
     More later, I also have a job I need to do.
    
     Shalom,
    
     Bob
    
     

 Well, I asked in 4795.10 "Question, does the KACIE::SBU offer step 7? Or does 
it show up in your PR? Just curious". Then there was silence. I went into ::SBU,
for a look, and found the answer. "Your suggestions are welcome". :-(

 If I am going to "take a bullet" for things I've said, where in some cases, 
I have been a pain "in the neck", it might as well be while running into the 
battle at hand. Alone, or not. There are times I can relate to David, against 
his nemesis, Goliath. Other times, I can relate to Gideon, in his battle with 
against the Midianites. At other times, as my hair grows back, I feel like 
Sampson, but growing in wisdom, not supernatural physical strength. In all of 
these cases, it was The Lord that gave the victory.

 I am not afraid, perhaps due to circumstances beyond your control, such as 
the need to keep little mouths fed, or the feeling of the need to be politically
correct, you can't speak freely. This is understood completely. So I will lead 
the charge, and whether I battle alone, or whether there are some willing to 
"fight the good fight" with me, that is your decision. I have already made mine.

 What I am going to do next is enter a series of 9 questions in the "Dear Bob"
string. One question for each of the years I have worked for DEC/Digital, start-
ing in 1987, prior to the fall of the stock from 198 to 120, in one day. When I
began my career here, I got my foot in the door through Manpower, as a janitor,
cleaning up the offices and hallways. They called me one day, and told me they
thought I had more potential than being a janitor, and moved me to the kitting
department. Some of you may have seen my picture posted around NIO, as I was
the "wanted man", during an Employee fun day. I met many wonderful people during
the time I spent at NIO.

 It was there I was told of a way to get "badged", via yet another temp agency,
Triad Engineering, in Burlington MA., where they placed me at APO in the clean
room manufacturing area, where I got to wear one of those lovely "bunny suits"
for a little over a year. I then transfered to Shipping/Receiving for a year,
where I met many more wonderful and talented people, not excluding of course
those who I also met in the "bunny suit" timeframe.

 After finding out that APO was to be closed, I looked in VTX jobs, and found
a position I wanted at IVO. So I took all my vacation time, and heeded a call
of old, "Go west young man". At the last possible moment before being forced to
hand in my resignation, I was offered a job there, which I gladly accepted. I
did very well at this opportunity, acheiving 1's on my reviews. I'd like to take
a moment and publically thank Heather Pembroke, Randy Bender, and especially
Steve Georgoulis and my fellow coworkers for their "believing in me", and 
helping me succeed at that job and for helping me acheive the next step in 
my "journey through DEC".

 After having lunch with Steve one day, where we had discussed the possibility 
of furthering my potential, he and Randy helped me to another position, the 
position I now hold as Facility Planner, with my responsibility of assisting 
in the management of sites in the Bay Area. I worked very hard at satisfying 
both the needs of the customer, and also, those who had helped me get to where 
I am now. After cutting off my long hair, I moved up north, where I was given 
an office at WRO. Here I worked for about 12 months before a major mid-life 
crisis (which I caused much of the problem myself due to not being able to
properly communicate, among other things and lost a woman who was very dear 
to me to another man across the seas.) caused me to not care about Digital,
and try to change my own life.

 After 6 months, I left WRO, and drove across the US in 3.5 days, and stayed 
at my sisters house while waiting to contact HR on the following Monday. Well, 
a freeze came, both in the form of a blizzard, and a "job freeze", and asked 
Randy if I could return, but not to WRO, as the memories were still too fresh 
to face the place again, and not having a second income was too much to bear.

 Then my management allowed me to return to IVO, where I felt "at home", with
all the wonderful people I had met prior to the move to WRO. It is here that
I'll stop, but if you desire to see more of my story, see BACK40::SOAPBOX 
389.936 and following replies. (I entered this discussion at 389.450, in an 
effort to share my faith and convictions as a Christian). This conference is 
being used for discussing the business, and the lives of those participating 
in and around the business, of Digital, and I try not to mix the two, unless 
it fits with the context of what needs to be said.

 So as you can see, I've been around the Company, the Country, and the notes
for a long time, listening, and gaining knowledge and experience. The questions
I'm about to post are a compilation of many thoughts and ideas I've heard in
the time I've worked for Digital, some of which are in other places in this
notesfile, and some from others. I'm placing this as a "quiz" for Mr. Palmer,
to see if he IS listening, and also, if he meant the words he spoke in the most
recent DVN, where he said; 

"...but let me say the corporation thanks you, and I thank you personally for
your efforts in '96.  The reward, of course, is a greater quota for '97, but
that's the way life is. (What, unfair? And the gratitude shown isn't quite
what we, the employees, expected)

"That's the way life works. (maybe for you, and those who it doesn't work for
are leaving, either by choice, or by the boot.) Those who achieve get an
opportunity to excel again." (What about financial gratitude? We worked hard,
we think we deserve more than just an opportunity to excel again, especially
with less people to do that with.)

"I want to talk about what does that mean to you as employees worldwide. Well,
first of all, it doesn't feel good. (No kidding!) It doesn't feel good to me.
(You feel our pain, do you?) It doesn't feel good to you, because we had had
a couple of years here where we were making consistent progress, and looked like
we finally had this stuff behind us." (It might have been so, if you had been
listening to US, the employees, who have no choice than to listen to the
complaints of our customers, or EX customers, as the case may be)

"But we had no way to avoid taking that restructuring reserve." (What about
the 2 Billion? If we had used that, Digital might not have looked so bad in
the eyes of the customers, and the employees)

"We know that we're going to have some valued employees who will be leaving our
company over the next year.  We know the number is about 7,000." (Ow! Do you 
have ANY idea how much the continued layoffs hurt us, in our hearts, minds, and
also the Company's ability to effectively deal with the customer?)

"Another thing I wanted to talk about is, when we talked about our Q4 earnings
and we talked about why we had such a disappointment we identified two major
things." (Maybe you missed one, feel free to ask, you'll get loads of answers,
not excuses, from the employees who work FOR you, at least for now.)

"I expect by the end of the second quarter, we'll have this unpleasantness
behind us" (Yes, please, let's us do just that, and get on with business)

"I won't really apologize for the fact that we tried something and it didn't
work." (No? Perhaps you should to those who suffered, and are suffering
for a mistake they did not make)

"And by the way, management is going to try to help me, instead of impede
my progress." (Why give them another chance? They failed you, try us, we
haven't. What was that you said at another time regarding accountability?)

"But I'm talking about worldwide employee engagement, getting everybody to 
feel more a part of how they can be a solution, how they can add to customer 
success, how they can increase customer loyalty. What can they do?  How do we 
rebuild that?" (I have some ideas Mr. Palmer, let's do lunch when you're out
here in Anaheim. I'll be happy to share them with you.)

(Note - Words in "'s are Mr. Palmer's, in ()'s, mine, and maybe others who work 
here, who are not willing or able to express their opinions, which in a sense
is venting some anger and frustration at the way things have been going. I could
enter more from the DVN, which in a way, would call to accountability the words
of the President of our Company. I am prepared to do such, and if necessary,
will do the whole transcript, but I will stop at this point, for now. And I 
sincerely apologize if anything in the above quoting was out of order, or out
of context, I am just using those things there to drive home a point.)

 I am also in the process of writing a book, which I'm not sure what the 
title will be yet. I've narrowed it down to three or four possibilities, 
perhaps you can help me pick one?

1) How a major computer company gratefully accepted help from above...

2) How a once major computer company refused help from above...

3) How a major computer company continued to lay off those who could help...

4) How a major computer rejected the advice of those employees who cared enough
 to risk their jobs to speak out against the mistakes they saw being made... 

Or maybe something not listed here, or thought of yet?

Will a book like that sell? I think it will. Especially with the power of the 
internet to advertize! Would it have an effect, either positive, or negative, 
on the future of the Company? Well, that depends which title I would use, and
how the story inside goes. 

But I'm Shallow, and what do I know? A lot more than I'm telling right now. ;-)
Sort of like management eh? I guess I may have learned some bad skills here, in
addition to all the good things I've learned, which IMHO, outweigh the bad.

Oh, question # 9 is a two-part question. Some might think it is meant to be
a joke, some might just wonder. Let's see how well he scores on a scale of 
1 - 10, seeing there will be 10 parts to the quiz, shall we? You all can grade
his answers as you choose to, either silently within yourself, or by replying,
if, and after Mr. Palmer responds to the questions.

Oh, and I've been wondering what to put in the title string...There are many
verses from The Bible I could use, or even song titles, For instance, "Don't 
mess with a missionary man", or "In the name of love" or "I still haven't 
found what I'm looking for"...Please don't take that out of the context I mean 
it in. I HAVE found what I was looking for, I just haven't found the results 
of what I am doing all this for, since the note from the "oarman", who has 
since promoted himself to tugboat captain. What am I tugging at? 

           *****!!!!!!!!PLEASE STOP THE LAYOFFS NOW!!!!!!!!!!***** 

>     One question for each of the years I have worked for DEC/Digital, start-
> ing in 1987, prior to the fall of the stock from 198 to 120, in one day.
    
    The stock never fell from 198 to 120 in one day.
    
      John

    Bob S.,
    
    I'm aware of the seriousness of the situation, but aren't we getting a
    tad overly dramatic?
    
    Mike

    re: .138
    
     Hello John, 
      
       Well, it seemed like one day. I remember seeing Ken's picture on the
    front of the Globe one day, and it said something like "The man who
    lost $XX.XX in one day". So maybe it was a week or something? Point is,
    or was, it fell like a rock. I would like to see it defy gravity and go
    back up again. Wouldn't you?
    
    re: .139
    
     Hi Mike,
    
       I'm just expressing my opinion in a LOUD silent way. It's better
    than other ways I have seen opinions expressed while venting. I'm doing
    the best I can to make a point, which hasn't been listened to in the
    places that can change things. Or if it has, it's been ignored. How
    many notes in this notesfile alone have said what I'm saying, in one
    way or another? My comments are only based on my knowledge of what I
    have gathered, and/or what we have been told. That is why I apologized
    for saying anything "out of order". It's still a free country, and a
    free notesfile.
    
     If you think I'm being overly dramatic, maybe that's true. Others
    think I have done well, and I have made them laugh. It's ok if people
    laugh, at me, or at what I write. It doesn't bother me at all. Years
    ago, I tried the Hollywood thing, and it didn't work out as I planned,
    although I had a 5 or 6 second spot on a ABC TV movie of the week,
    called "Cracked up". I played a crack smoking dude in an alley. Maybe
    I like the attention, not that I'm getting, but that the problems here
    are getting. Remember, all the world's a stage, and we're just the
    players. So I'm playing a part, hopefully in making people smile,
    laugh, and at the same time, driving home a serious problem, that
    doesn't appear to be getting the necessary attention. People ARE still
    getting TFSO'd. That hurts me, as many of them are my friends. There
    are a whole lot worse things I could do to make a point, but violence
    isn't part of my character.
    
     Perhaps the TFSO's, which many see as hurting the long term vision of
    the Company, are necessary? I have considered that. But we've not yet
    been comforted by a visit from Mr. Palmer in a while, and many here
    would like to know beyond a shadow of a doubt what the BIG plan is.
    
     Maybe all this is because I care. And I don't believe the saying "one
    man can't make a difference". I kinda like the slogan "Whatever it
    takes". Dramatic, maybe. If it does something to stop the bleeding, or
    gets someone from "Rome" to let the community know WHY things are as
    they are, then I have accomplished something. 99% of my notes are done
    on my own time, at home, or when I can't sleep because I think I can
    make a difference with the Company I've worked for for 9 years. For me,
    it's my personal record. Someday, maybe I'll write a song about the
    time spent here. For too long, the potential title has been: Just
    another day in the Digital Dungeon." It's time to break the ball and
    chain mentallity. For me anyways.
    
     Thanks for asking. I think I needed to say that.
    
    Bob

    Hubris alert.
    
    Replace 2 with E
    
    

>       I'm just expressing my opinion in a LOUD silent way. It's better
>    than other ways I have seen opinions expressed while venting. I'm doing
>    the best I can to make a point, which hasn't been listened to in the
>    places that can change things. 
    
    Thanks for trying.  Unfortunately, this is not one of those "places
    that can change things", either.  Too bad.
    
    -Mark

    Hi Mark, 
    
     Please, don't take any offence at this, but I disagree with you. 
    You might be surprised at who reads these notes, and to quote a phrase
    from a rock opera (one I am not fond of, but if the shoe fits...),
    "what's the buzz, tell me what's happening" may be going on in the ears
    that need to hear this, and so much more that is "talked" about in
    this, and many other notesfiles throughout the cooperation. Ooops, 
    I meant Corporation. 
    
    More later, I have a lot of work to do...
    
    Bob

    > Please, don't take any offence at this, but I disagree with you.
    
    No offense taken.  Sometimes I disagree with myself, the next day.
    
    
    > You might be surprised at who reads these notes...
    
    My .142 did not mean to imply that decision makers never read these
    notes -- just that they don't pay much attention to them.
    
    "Read" rhymes with "heed", but the former certainly doesn't imply
    the latter.  Does that strip away all the subtlety?
    
    -Mark

    Err, I've been accused of being obtuse....
    
    >N2DEEP::SHALLOW "Subtract L, invert W"       13 lines   5-SEP-1996 11:58
   
    I said:
    
    "Hubris alert"
    
    "replace 2 with E"
                                              

    Mark -
    You mean "abstruse".
    The complainer may be obtuse, but I certainly can't judge that.
    
    Or were you being as subtle in .145 as you were in .141?
    
    Rich

    Bob S.,
    
    O.K.... You still have your sense of humor.  For a minute there I
    thought you might be going... N2DEEP.
    
    Mike

    Hi Mark,
    
     I look back at some of the notes and wonder -Did I write that?-
    And sometimes I feel the need to reiterate, or redefine what I meant.
    I don't want things to be taken out of context. As I've told others,
    the things I say are only based on the information available, or
    allowed to be disseminated. If I get fed with like a mushroom, I will 
    probably think, and speak (or write) what I learn there. The term
    GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) seems to fit in certain cases. 
    
    That is why I profusely apologize to anyone I offend by what I say or 
    think. If what I say in notes is not the majority view, well I'm sorry 
    for that too. Notes are such a great tool to be able to share information, 
    and learn and grow. I freely admit I have needs to grow in certain areas.
    
    Years ago, I heard all too often, "grow up". Well, as I told them
    then, it takes a lifetime. It's a process. I am doing the best I can
    with what I have, I take correction, and try to learn from it. If you
    don't want to hurt my feelings by correcting me in a public
    notesfile, send me e-mail. So far, I've had a number of very positive
    e-mails about my entries of yesterday. In some of my thinking, I'm
    not in the minority.
    
     Oh, NOW I get it...KNEE-DEEP! Good one, and I didn't accuse, I merely
    inquired.
    
     re: .146
    
     I'm working on it. Not quite there yet. Let me know when I meet your
    expectations of perfection in that, would you please?
    
     I admit freely I am far from perfect. Actually, I'm not sure if I ever
    want to acheive that level. Last person I heard was perfect got nailed
    to a cross. Not my idea of fun.
    
    Hi again Mike,
    
     Please let me know if I lose my sense of humor. Send me a funny joke
    or something, and a line that says "I think you're losing your sense of
    humor." I'll probably not misinterpret that. 8-)
    
    Shalom,
    
    Bob                 

    I was going for the subtle side of this...
    
    Dimwittedness abounds.... in all of us
    
    Gots to watch out .... wouldn't do to creat an alert!
    
    (abstruse ..... hmmm... I like it!)

    Back to "Where is Bob leading us ?"
    
    Bob's presentations to the "analysts" on Digital's strategy, given over
    the last few days, are now available in the Introverted Repository (VTX
    IR) and (presumably) its Web equivalent. Also presentations to the same
    audience from Harry C, John Rando, and 1 or 2 others whose names I've
    already forgotten (sorry, whoever you are!). 
    
    Haven't had time to look at the content yet, but it's there.
    
    regards
    john

    Had a quick look at the content of Bob's and Harry's at the weekend.
    Recommended reading (make sure you get the speaker notes as well as the
    slides; e.g. get the self-executing extractable PPT file, not a PS
    file with just the slides).
    
    Some more have appeared, too: here's the list from VTX IR:
    
    04-Sep-96  Corporate Strategy (Bob Palmer)                      OL00EF
    04-Sep-96  Platform Strategy for Growth (Bill Strecker)         OL00EG
    04-Sep-96  Digital's Go-to-Market Strategy (Harry Copperman)    OL00EH
    04-Sep-96  Digital Services Strategy (John Rando)               OL00EI
    04-Sep-96  Alpha: Volume Player in the Semiconductor Market     OL00EJ
    		(Charlie Christ)
    04-Sep-96  Intel Platform: Key to Digital's Windows NT (Bruce   OL00EK
                       Claflin)
    05-Sep-96  Digital Equipment Corporation Strategic Alliance     OL00EL
    		(Robert Bismuth)
    05-Sep-96  Digital Business Update (Vin Mullarkey)              OL00EM
    05-Sep-96  AltaVista: Digital's Internet Software Business      OL00EN
                       (Ilene Lang)
    
    

Being discussed over in KACIE::SBU as well.

Someone fron Sales/Marketing said there were also a number of break-out
presentations on various 'solution' areas, for example "Mail and Messaging",
that he'd try to get into VTX IR as well.

I did get a chuckle about one item in Palmer's presentation, where he 
referenced the ISBU relative to last years strategy briefing. (Of course
last year, it was 'CSBU' which had a much broader market/message.)

Dave

    re .152
    Those presentations don't seem to be available in the IR?  There
    appears to be a listing but no files available.
    
    	Regards,
    

    It would appear that the IR folks have deliberately removed these
    presentations. They are no longer indexed on VTX and are not accessible
    via DECnet copy. I presume they've also gone from the web site.
    
    How very strange. There was some of the best info I have seen for YEARS
    in there, hence my encouragement for folks to go have a look.
    
    I had copies on my laptop but with < 3MB free disk I got rid of them as
    soon as I had read them. As the info has been in free circulation
    within Digital, I assume it's legitimate for anyone who still has
    copies to post pointers to them (and that no action can be taken
    against anyone so doing :-)
    
    Bob Palmer, if you read this, please help us understand why this
    valuable information was made available and has now been taken away.
    
    regards
    john
    
    ps
    for anyone who doesn't like conspiracy theories: maybe so many people
    were fetching so many megabytes from the IR that they pulled them for
    performance reasons - in which case, a better solution would have been
    to replace them with placeholders and explanatory messages. Never mind.

    
    Word is, the transcripts are being revised to change all "DEC"
    references to "Digital"...   er, "DIGITAL"...
    
    
    (Huh? Oh...)
    
    
    
    Sorry - wrong presentations!
    

    re: last couple...
    
    Yep, they're no longer on Web IR!
    
    Damn, I just emptied my Recycle bin too!
    
    I DO have the .PDF of BP's presentation. It's at:
    
    	SALEM::USER$DISK2:[ADEY.PUBLIC]OL00EFF4.PDF
    
    
    Ken....

    Such skepticism!  :^]
    
    I have no idea why these presentations were pulled, but am attempting
    to find out. I have a call in to the person who requested they be
    pulled to understand what the rationale is. I'll let you know what the
    story is when I find out.
    
    Preliminary indications are that the presentations given to the IR
    staff for posting may not have been the FINAL versions used in Lake
    George, and that they may have been recalled for that reason. 
    
    This seems plausible to me since our executives frequently tweak things
    and make changes right up until the last minute ... something that is
    easy to do when you are doing electronic projection.
    
    /se

    The Lake George presentations were pulled for two reasons:
    
    	1)  The copies sent to the IR staff for posting were not
            final versions
    	2)  The scripts were written with a specific speaker in mind
    	    and in some cases contained only very rough bullets to
    	    jog the speaker's memory on a point they were very
    	    familiar with. That same phrase would be meaningless
    	    to most other people.
    
    As a result a decision was made to pull the old versions on the
    IR, and substitute them with the FINAL slides and a more complete
    script which contained information useful to the masses ... not just
    the original speaker. At the moment the scripts are the problem.
    
    Corporate communcations people are working on the scripts while
    attempting to stay on top of this week's deliverables as well ...
    naturally. They weren't sure when they would be able to repost
    everything, but they seem dedicated to getting it done ASAP.
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    /se
    

    That concurs nicely with the fact that I saw a few slides that had 
    "need more on (whatever) here". I look forward to the final versions.
    Maybe the one error I spotted in Harry's slides was fixed too :-)
    
    regards
    john

From what I saw on the PPT files, I may venture to say that the presentations were 
the final set delivered in the meeting, but that the notes were the notes for the 
actual person who delivered them, i.e. they had plenty of notes and comments for 
that particular presenter, not the kind of notes that are targeted for the general 
audience/presenter. Nothing wrong, just not a polished set.

I liked that I didn't see in them anything dramamtically new, meaning a knee 
reaction to a bad quarter, that we are reinforcing our 3 top strategies (UNIX, NT, 
Internet) by sticking to them and presenting 9 initiatives in support of them.

Data warehousing
Continuous computing 
Enterprise applications
Visual Computing
Windows NT Integration
Mail & Messaging
Intranet
Internet Commerce
Internet Service Providers

The presentations, and it was also good that all of them were following the same 
messages, mention the above repetitively and set a 20% market share as goal in 
most of these areas.

Hope the make them available again, since I also deleted after looking at them.

             <<< HUMANE::DISK$SCSI:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 4752.162            Where are you leading us, Bob?               162 of 162
STOWOA::tavo.ogo.dec.com::ODIAZ "Octavio"            27 lines  10-SEP-1996 13:05
                         -< Good consistent messages >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I saw on the PPT files, I may venture to say that the presentations 
were 
the final set delivered in the meeting, but that the notes were the notes for 
the 
actual person who delivered them, i.e. they had plenty of notes and comments 
for 
that particular presenter, not the kind of notes that are targeted for the 
general 
audience/presenter. Nothing wrong, just not a polished set.

I liked that I didn't see in them anything dramamtically new, meaning a knee 
reaction to a bad quarter, that we are reinforcing our 3 top strategies 
(UNIX, NT, 
Internet) by sticking to them and presenting 9 initiatives in support of them.

Data warehousing
Continuous computing 
Enterprise applications
Visual Computing
Windows NT Integration
Mail & Messaging
Intranet
Internet Commerce
Internet Service Providers

The presentations, and it was also good that all of them were following the 
same 
messages, mention the above repetitively and set a 20% market share as goal in 
most of these areas.

Hope the make them available again, since I also deleted after looking at them.