Conference 7.286::digital

    Rick,
    
    I am seeing the same problems.  For example, we had a recent critical
    order for the Dept of Defence (Intelligence) that instead of being
    shipped to the Air Base in New York, was shipped to Goddard Space
    Center near Washington, D.C.  No reason for it was ever given, it just
    occurred, and has been added to the list of other blunders we have had
    recently.  This one  caused repercussions, though, since together with
    the time delay on rerouting the shipment (which wasn't caught until we
    had a trace but on the shipment, by the way), Digital also shipped the
    wrong SCSI cables for hooking up the disk drives.  The customer sent a
    hail of hatemail out across the wire (e.g. "I'll never buy anything
    from Digital again", "If I don't have the right cables by tomorrow I'm
    calling Bob Palmer", and so on.)  Not a pretty picture.
    
    To rectify the above I had to drive to a remote Digital office at
    midnight to retrieve the cables from a friend of mine, catch a few
    hours sleep, and drop the cables off an hour from my house at 0500
    hours.  I was shot for that day.  And while the customer was
    appreciative of my efforts, and sent following on mail saying he was
    satisfied, damage has been done.
    
    As for the issue of Field Service support, I have always been a large
    proponent of the people who work in the field, and talk regularly with
    a number of them.  They are as upset as the rest of us in Sales
    regarding the customer perceptions of their deteriorating service.  It
    has been brought on by a number of factors, including headcount
    reductions, lowered sparing levels in the field, and the
    ever-increasing push to put more products, Digital and non-Digital,
    under maintenance.  There is no easy answer to this dilemma.
    
    The bottom line, Rick, is that you and your fellow Ford account team
    members are not alone in this.  Management, insulated by
    individuals who have a "they'll shoot the messenger" attitude,
    oftentimes is caught unawares by such stories.  We need to help them
    wherever possible by being honest about the current situations, and let
    them fix it.  Since these files are read by a number of people of all
    levels, perhaps your memo will help in this regard.  Hang in there.
    
    Chuck 

I'm sorry to say that I am still in the middle of trying to manage my way out
of several similar problems for a major London Bank.

Two AlphaServer Systems were ordered on 28th September with a '4 week' lead
time.  The delivery dates skipped to first 6th November then the 9th November.  

The first of the two systems actually 'arrived' on the 13th November.  It came
with no software (the feed between the US and Europe 'failed') - this included
the Windows/NT operating system, with one component slightly damaged (bent
metalwork) and the monitor 'missing'.  Later in the day the monitor was found
in a warehosue about 100 miles away - it had been dropped and was no longer
functional.

I was given an airway bill number for the second system last Friday 10th, and
told it would ship over the weekend and should be delivered to the customer by
Tuesday 14th.  When trying to confirm the location of the system on Monday it
could 'not be found'.  Eventually late on the 14th the system was found still
in the US waiting to get on a plane!!  This morning it was still in customs in
Scotland but I very much hope it is now in a truck for the 400 mile journey to
London for delivery to the customer tomorrow morining.

Because the software feed failed Software Manufacturing can not deliver the
software in time so I have had to go outside the company to buy it.  This has
cost the project real money and impacted the, already tight, margin.

This has all caused me major problems with my customer who has a key member of
staff going on an extended period of absence this weekend.  Originally we had
nearly three weeks between system arrival and this critical date - we are now
down to less than 24 hours.

We won this business in a very close fight with HP - the customer expressed his
concerns to me yesterday if they had made the right decision to buy Digital. 
It is going to make it very difficult to sell to them in the future.

It is also costing Digital a lot - I and my, very helpful, administrators have
spent many days effort trying to sort all this out.  There is other work we
should be doing to maintain the satifaction of this and other customers.

Gary Harding
Project Manager
London, England

    
    	I'm absolutely sure every one of us in the field have a horror
    story on "the meaning of service" vis-a-vis Digital and our best
    customers.
    
    	I, for one, am saddened by the snail's pace being taken to resolve
    these broken processes and procedures. It appears that speed is not of
    the essecence here.
    
    	My suggestion would be fix the processes, even if it must be done
    manually, today...but my gut tells me people in the plants, on the
    order desks, and in the logistics organizations are just plain
    burnt out. And that bothers me much, much more...
    
    	Hello, Sid. Time to make your presence felt...
    
    
    			the Greyhawk

    I am a field service tech and the sad reality is there is not enough
    people to meet our commitments.It seems if we hire the right amount of
    people we wont make enough money.The service issues listed here are
    everywhere and in evry facet of what we do.No one has offered a 
    satisfactory answer ,but frequently we are asked how we can improve
    surveyys,.the answer is obvious,but no one wants to deal with it

    As an internal customer (are our shipments handled by the same people?)
    we often see long slips in ship dates, but haven't experienced any
    problems with mis-directed or damaged shipments.
    

    Maybe we should hire another Vice President to solve this problem!!
    
    This is what happens when you keep on laying off the worker bees
    and continue to hire more Queen Bee's.
    
      This is my own opion,But as a Technical Support rep working on
    our 800 line I fine myself falling on the Digital sword more and more
    each day,with no end insight??????????????

    
    And this time the rathole IS the note...
    
    What has become of the 'World renowned Field Service Arm of DEC' is
    that the 'beancounters' (don't jump yet, hear me out :-) have taken
    over the company, everything has to be quantified to a "number". There
    is so much concern over the "numbers" that the real issues are very
    often clouded. We judge Field (oops) MultVendor C.S types on the
    customer satisfaction survey, yet we cannot rate our management in any
    way. Judge me by the reaction of customers who only remember the
    bad-? We have lots of fixin' to do, and it ain't hardware that's broke.
    
    Every talks 'concern for the customer', but if that concern costs any
    money, it will not happen. The "Aging x-terminal" from a few replies
    ago is a fine example. I'd bet that if there is a kit for it, it's not
    in Michigan, and the parts are big-bucks. We took their money for the
    contract, but actually SPEND some it? Right.
    
    I hesitate to say that everthing was grand when the 'engineers' ran the
    place, but I've installed acres of Digital products that came thru
    clean and complete, and actually worked when I turned them on. I can't
    say that anymore. We are still waiting on parts for several installs
    that should have come with it, because it does not work without them.
    (Can you say "No disk controllers"?)
    
    "and that's all I have to say about that."
    
    .mike.

    Last spring, back when we were still doing our own PC selling (before
    it got transferred to PCs Compleat) I ordered a Digital PC.  There were
    a few glitches in the order that took a while to straighten out.  I
    told a friend of mine about it.  He's been working in the field or in
    some kind of customer support role for Digital for something like the
    last 25 years.  He said he's *never* seen Digital ship a customer's
    order 100% correctly.  Even allowing for possible overstatement, it's
    an indicator of pretty pathetic performance.
    
    Why can't we get this right?  

    	Sounds like the underlying theme involves making a shift from 
    "Whatever it takes" to "We get it right the FIRST time". 
    
    	Ray

    I'm working in UNIX Software support and you know what: this is all
    true and it is so everywhere all over the World. 
    
    If we have an important installation, we let the single pieces pour
    into an empty floor of our building (I tell you later why this floor
    is empty ..) and preassemble the HW + SW there when most of the parts
    finally arrived. Only this way we can keep the customer away of the
    embarassment of our devlivery situation; not without having to return,
    exchange, order, organize, steal and deal cables, terminators, disks,
    interfaces together. 
    
    Of course we only do that when a couple of TurboLasers or other 
    complex installations are in sight. All the others have the bad luck of
    discovering our unprofessional and humiliating way of delivering our
    products in a poor contidition and seldom on time.
    
    But sure enough a few month ago we did away with local preinstallation
    recently as we said this were the job of manufacturing and this way
    we save another couple of employees. 
    
    I do know Digital has it's strength (Technology is one of them) but I
    never will understand:
    
    	* Why on Earth can't somebody in this company be held responsible
    	  for it's commitments? 
    
    We should now adapt to the way our Customers want to do business with 
    their suppliers otherwise Digital will go away... :-(
    
    Regards, 
    
    Arnold Sutter, Digital UNIX Support @RLE, Zurich, Switzerland. DTN
    760-2714
    P.S.: I owe you the story about the empty floor in our building: some
    genious of Manager thought he could save some bucks if he seals of the
    floor altogether so this room won't show up on the local subsidiary 
    expenses but some organisation higher up the chain would have to pay
    it!! Can you belive this: you just cramp everybody together and charge
    the free space to the Area!!! -- Obviously it somehow didn't quite
    work; that's how we have our own preinst. floor now. 

    re:The erector set syndrome
    
    	Once upon a time, we used to do FA&T (Final Assy. & Test) in
    manufacturing. It got too expensive and we couldn't compete, so we went
    to POM (Point Of Manufacture) type testing. This started out being done
    by someone independant of the shipping/delivery process, (SIE) Systems
    Integration Engineering.
    
    	That was apparently not efficient enough, so it was pushed back
    into manufacturing. Unfortunately, the few manufacturing plants left
    are getting swamped. As far as I know, they also do not perform a complete 
    "Systems" test (i.e. HW, and SW, and manuals, and Sales Info, and etc...).
    They only test what they are responsible for, and even that seems to
    not be going as well as it could/should (based on what I'm seeing
    here).
    
    	I don't know what the answer is, but I do know of a group (Value-Added 
    Integration Services) that still does FA&T of HW and SW, for a fee. They 
    seem to be doing fairly well for themselves. They have a very good track 
    record of customer satisfaction with most complex systems being installed 
    and operational in less than a week (HW and SW). They usually perform
    the installation themselves (for an additional fee). Hmmmmmmm, maybe this 
    will start a trend ;-)
    
    	Ray

   I received email from the Manufacturing Operations Manager (David Sullivan)
regarding mine and others concerns with customer delivery of equipment.
I'm going to follow-up with his request for DEC #'s on my issues. I want to 
personally thank him for doing this, my only hope is that this doesn't fall on
deaf ears and that something substantive is done to resolve this.


   With Mr. Sullivans permission, I'm posting his response in this note:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - -  -

From:	SALEM::SULLIVAN_D   "DAVID F. SULLIVAN - NIO CUSTOMER SATISFACTION,
285-2717 - "What gets rewarded; Gets done!" 16-NOV-1995 17:45:18.79
To:	JALOPY::CUTLER,NCMAIL::YANUSC,LACV01::CORSON
CC:	USCTR1::DTOOHEY,SULLIVAN_D
Subj:	Note re customer delivery

Folks, I am the Central Region's - Mfg Operations Manager, plus I just left the
job of customer satisfaction for the Salem Mfg plan.  I am extreamly concerned 
about your comments.  We need to hear about situations like these when they 
occur, with DEC # information.  We in Manufacturing are 110% committed to 
Customer Satisfaction.  We have focused dedicated resources to this effort.
Everyone in Manufacturing and Distribution is measured to predictibility and
quality goals. In fact, there is considerable resources working to improve the
processes to support you and the customer. 

I believe I recall the wrong delivery location to Ford.  We worked that one back
to the freight line that we contracted.  I can assure you that the Salem plant
assembles all orders as ordered - that said, I would like to know the DEC # you
are referring to so I can verify how the system was ordered.  I have found some
orders that were ordered by distributors piece meal and arrived at the customer
site requiring "FA&T".  

We need the feedback with details to fix/improve our processes. Please feel
free to send me a note or call me if you have any more of these type of issues.
I will either work them or send them to our Mfg. Customer Satisfaction group.


I have to admit I do not have a notes account (yet) - feel free to enter this 
reply into notes.


   Regards, David Sullivan


  

    RE: .11 Ah, righ, FA&T. Westminster, I believe. Looked like a good
    idea to give it up and save money. But not for long. I know one Country
    that put it's own FA&T in place (without too much fanfare) and a plant
    (big one too) that did the same thing for high-end systems. 
    
    Also know a person that ordered 2 PC's from Digital and got hobby kits,
    as he called them. Got one to work, not the other. This is a competent
    person.
    
    Re: .12. The impression that is raised in this thread is: Take *any*
    DEC#. Do we get it right sometimes? Might be nice to hear some succes
    stories and get a balanced view. A second thought don't bother. Who is
    interested in stories where nothing happened?
    
    Al
    
    PS: Please support .12. Nothing worse than everyone agreeing you're 
    worthless without telling you how to make a succes of yourself
       

    Look at the latest edition of Digital Age (Formerly DEC Professional).
    Multi-page story about how one of the editors ordered products from
    Digital and the horror story the resulted.  We continue to be our
    toughest competitor.
    
    Mark
    

Mark,

   Is there a chance you could summarize the issues they were having?

Rick

re: .12


>   With Mr. Sullivans permission, I'm posting his response in this note:

.....

>I have to admit I do not have a notes account (yet) - feel free to enter this 
>reply into notes.


>   Regards, David Sullivan



I tried, and no need for 'notes account' to enter this notesfile ;-)


Regards,
Edwin

RE: .13

	RE: "Take any DEC #"

	That's not particularly fair to .12. I know that the impression
	is there that there is a problem, but without specific DEC #'s,
	.12 can't help. It's really all "hearsay" at without them.

							mike

    But if we cared about quality as a company, somebody would already
    "take any DEC#" and pro-actively (yuk) phone a random selection of
    customers to see just how pleased they were with our service. Gee, if
    we really cared, we might have somebody at Head Office do this every
    now and again as well. Just to make sure. (Maybe this is already
    happening, but if it is, it doesn't seem to be fixing the problems).
    
    There are lots of individuals in this company who care A LOT about
    quality. But the results customers see are often only as good as the
    weakest link, unless you go to great extremes (such as pre-staging).
    
    Many of our manufacturing sites are ISO9000 certified, but it doesn't
    actually seem to have helped The Customer much.
    
    I wish I knew what the answer was.
    
    regards
    john

    ISO9000 Certified only means that they can reliably reproduce
    screw-ups and have documented procedures for doing so. :-(
    
    						Steve

    Ill go back to the 'any dec #', but with a twist. Someone find ONE
    example of an order shipped correctly, the first time, on time, with
    the right parts arriving. In short one example of a completely correct
    order.
    
    Ive been asking this around our district for a few years and have never
    yet found the example.
    
    If we could at least find ONE we could know it was possible.

    re: .20
    
    I was a customer when the 8600 first came out and we ordered one.  When
    it showed up, we moved it to the computer room, uncrated it, hooked
    everything up, called our DEC FE who came out, turned on the power, and
    it booted into the cluster on the first try.
    
    I just don't remember if we got it on time.
    
    Bob

    
     With the ever increasing percentage of Digital products now 
     processed/shipped by large distributers/VARS etc. , has this been a 
     good or bad in terms of shipment completeness /due dates etc.  for 
     our customers ?
    
     Just wondering if the conversion to large distributers has somehow been
     a factor in recent years ?
                                                                      

    re:12
    
    	Dave Sullivan was one of the managers when SIE existed. I know
    because I worked for him. If there's anyone who knows how things are
    supposed to work and why, it would be Dave.
    
    	Next time I'm over in Salem I'll look him up and show him how to
    get in here. Couldn't hurt, especially if people in here have any first
    hand knowledge of these problems that can be passed on to Dave.
    
    	As with any continuous improvement process, there must be a
    feedback mechanism. In the tail end of POM in SIE, there was little to
    nothing in the way of customer feedback unless something went *real*
    bad.
    
    	As another plug for VIS, they provide their own feedback because
    they typically install the equipment they set-up and tested. They have
    immediate first hand feedback, and a system of direct accountability.
    Both are key items if you want to pay more than lip service to customer
    satisfaction.
    
    	Ray

    re: the reference to hobby kits.
    
    The implication here (and maybe I'm being thin skinned) is that
    everything is either manufacturings fault or some combination of the
    source plant and the consolodation point. Customers/sales can create
    their own problems too. For example the "hobby kits". If you order
    complete PC packages they are completely assembled, configured, FISed
    and tested before shipment. On the other hand if you fill out an IPR
    for a "package" that has no memory, hard drive or video; and add
    selected options for each - you might get a surprise. If all the parts
    get sourced to KAO they will get integrated by default, but if someone
    along the way decides that the disk part can be sourced elsewhere,
    it will arrive in its own packaging. The video might be available on
    DIAL and it will arrive again on its own. All KAO might be source for is
    a bare bones box with a mother board, a floppy drive and power
    supply.
    Don't ask me about that part of the process.
          
    We sometimes have problems where the customer curses us for a serial number
    that was ordered from us bare bones and shipped to a distributor (this
    is where FA&T lives now folks - and there's money in it too) and
    wrongly configured there.
    
    Rob Wall
    Who used to calibrate LAB gear on LPA11's when KAO had FA&T.
                                         

    Re: hobby kits
    
    My XL pc, which I ordered thru 1-800-PCBYDEC when I wasn't a Dec
    employee, and which was shipped from Dec directly, was supposed
    be shipped completely put together, but arrived with the modem in
    a separate box and the software for the sound card not installed.
    

    We still wouldn't do the software for an optional sound card as we have
    enough of a logistical nightmare dealing with the OS tokens without
    getting involved with option "bits". The modem card really should have
    (IMHO) been installed.
    
    Rob Wall
    

    re: .26 we still wouldn't do the software for an optional sound card
    
    Excuse me :-)  The system was advertised as an "you select the options,
    Dec puts them all together" system.
    

Well, I guess companies like Gateway 2000 make money partly by solving
"logistical nightmare"s then...

    I recently ordered a Starion through PCsCompleat. It's due to reach me
    by the end of the month. It includes a couple of extra options which 
    they are supposed to be installing for me.
    
    Thus far, I've been very pleased with the way that PCsCompleat and the 
    individual I worked with on the order have treated me. I'm looking
    forward to seeing how well the next stage goes - I'll let you know.
    
    - Richard.

    One of the reasons that customer orders get messed up is that
    they are built and delivered correctly, but improperly configured
    (missing DSSI cables, no cabinet kit for controllers, etc.)
    I plead guilty to having left such items off quotes which ultimately
    caused a customer satisfaction situation ("hey, I have a monitor and
    no graphics card").  While everyone makes mistakes, I sense that
    I and other are making *more* mistakes because the information we
    need to have on-hand to properly configure them is less and less
    available.
    
    Configuring an AlphaServer is, for instance, not a difficult task,
    but the AlphaServers my customer buy are the ones that we're going
    to announce in a week, or are new and do not appear in the Systems and
    Options catalog, the primo documento for sales support doing this
    kind of task.  Draft version in VTX IR are sometimes not there either
    or are subject to change.  SOCs used to be shipped to the office, but
    that all got cut out except by ordering them yourself.
    
    I rely on the Tech Edit people to go through my quotes more often now,
    but even they are shooting in the dark (eg., "assuming this is for a 
    cluster, add XX-XXXX-XX; assuming they have an SW800, add XXXX").
    And, in light of Mr. Copperman's push for Turbolaser training,
    even configuring a technically correct system may still produce
    a system that won't run well for the customer.
    
    In the 1970s and 1980s we could configure systems, perhaps from memory
    and with some prodding by documentation.  By the 1990s I began to
    notice that systems started coming out fast and furious, and with
    Alpha, in pairs.  Plus we started the whole PC thing (seriously) and
    took to being the answer source for any piece of hardware and software
    under the sun.
    
    When that happened, we shifted from being able to remember it all, to
    getting good at looking up the information somewhere.  And we relied
    on that tried and true "ask someone" methodology.
    
    By the mid-1990s we seem to have let go alot of the people who knew
    things, even the people who could tell you where to find things;
    documentation such as the SOC, sales update and Network Buyer's guide
    were cut back or made online to be "more accessible".  Nodes holding
    invaluable notes files moved away with their TSFOed owners, requiring
    that annoying one-extra-step to find them again.
    
    So here I sit ready to try and configure a system that the customer is
    ready to buy from us, only if I can answer the question, "Does Digital
    sell an IBM-connectivy channel card for an Alpha running Windows NT
    and will that Alpha support Epoch's HSM?"  
    
    Shying not from the minimal quantity of Digital products in this order,
    here I go into COMET to begin finding some answers.  How I could do
    my job without this great tool, I do not know.
    
    Dan

    <Not quite a flame, but still rather warm ...>
    
    Reading my prior entry (4184.0), I believe that configuration
    difficulties may be related to overall loss of expertise *AND*
    the focus on making stovepipes profitable while not looking at the
    overall picture.
    
    I work in ABU space, and am currently spending lots of time with SAP
    configurations.  Since March'95 I have helped to configure 2 separate
    major ($2M Cdn) installations involving both 8200's and multiple
    2100's.  Some problems have been:
    
    - Wrong license packs shipped with an order (specified Digital UNIX,
      received OpenVMS)
    - Inability to get CSS to configure 8200's in the standard cabinet,
      because it was not their own "custom" configuration
    - Watching while local MCS received a large pile of boxes and had to
      spend lots of time and effort turning them into an assembled 
      configuration.  This was necessary because of speed issues, where 
      neither manufacturing nor CSS had the time and/or resources to do
      the builds to meet the customer deadlines.
    - Problems with AQS where parts were being changed, and system had
      not kept up with manufacturing (specifically the switch for cab
      mounted 2100's to have a universal power supply).
    - Serious issues about what works with what from a cable and controller
      standpoint.
    - Folks in the middle yelling at us to get this stuff into Q1, but
      other folks in the middle seemingly unable to send us an invoice
      without excessive begging and pleading from a number of sources.
    - Technical problems with delivery of specific parts (HSZ40's, RZ28's,
      power supplies for the DEChub 900's, as several examples); all
      the evidence points to enough engineering to design and manufacture
      parts, but perhaps not enough to test them under actual working 
      conditions.
    
    I could go on, but I would instead like to say we got the work done as
    a team: ABU & ABU Sales Support (yours truly), MCS onsite, MCS regional
    expertise, CSS, Operations, SI, and RSS.  I am VERY HAPPY that Systems
    has now put in place the resources needed to help configure
    turbolasers; it's a little late, but I am still doing more of this, and
    need all the help I can get.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    But back to the top - What we did as a team was CROSS-STOVEPIPE, so
    too much of this is liable to get us a good repremand.;^)   Moreover, 
    THE EXPERTISE WE HAVE BUILT IN DOING THIS WORK CANNOT BE SHARED
    WITH THE MANY OTHERS THAT NEED IT AS WELL.  I have whined about the
    root problem here with local co-workers and management, but the real
    answer is to fix this AT A HIGH LEVEL.  WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT???
    
    
    Simple: infrastructure ...
    
    It is my personal observation that a lot of time and effort is going
    into fixing systems to help us MANUFACTURE products (SAP) and SELL
    products (SNAP & the NEW SALES WORKBENCH), *BUT* *NOT* TO DELIVER
    WORKING SOLUTIONS!!!!  I believe that this is fundamentally the
    reason why there is now so much evidence of errors in executing 
    the delivery properly; this is also something that is made more chronic
    as those people that have been doing this for a number of years leave
    the company without being replaced by other people or even other
    computer-based procedures that address the post-sale deliver issues.
    
    The answer therefore may be for SBU, ABU, and PCBU senior managment to
    now focus on our effectiveness in delivering COMPLETE solutions, and
    not "solution-construction kits".  This requires a major shift in 
    attitude, because as near as I can tell, everybody is mostly interested
    in making their numbers, and not in following through on what those
    numbers represent to the customer  (yes, this is somewhat unfair, but
    remember, I include myself as part of that process as well).
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The kind of infrastructure I am talking about would allow for
    cross-functional work to be done more easily, and would be able to drive
    delivery within a proper workgroup framework.  It might still be 
    a combination of manual and automated systems and proceedures, but 
    that's fine, so long as it is designed to correct the base problem.
    
    One thought I had on this revolves around a new configuration tool.
    I know that Digital has tried this on a grand scale before (the AI
    config tool) and even recently (the ALPHA config tool currently on my
    laptop), but I want something more strategic:
    -	The tool would be primarily GUI based / run on PC's tied to
    	a server where the real tough work is done.
    -	It would be quasi-CAD in nature, allowing sales support
    	to put together configurations via the use of an "exploded
    	diagram"  technique; you could pick systems from a set of
    	symbols, and could configure one by adding parts to it from
    	a list of component symbols; one could also have templates
    	for specific situations (SAP, data warehouses, internet firewalls).
    -	It would have enough smarts in the background so that if something
    	was left out, or was not correct, it could be flagged right then,
    	and not later by someone else auditing your work (i.e., DIRTFT).
    -	It could also have built-in help, so that it could be used
    	to interactively build up a system (i.e., configuration "wizards").  
    -	When you were done, it could then build a file that would be a 
    	list of components needed to put the system together.  This file
    	would then be the primary input to AQS (or whatever) to permit
    	generation of the quote.  IT WOULD ALSO PRODUCE A DIAGRAM OF
    	THE CONFIGURED SYSTEM, which could then accompany the list of
    	materials to manufacturing and/or CSS for their work.  This would
    	as well provide the customer with better documentation of what was
    	being purchased, without my having to do more diagrams in
        PowerPoint  for the same purpose.
    
    Who would maintain such a wonderful tool, you say?  Well, MUCH OF THIS
    ALREADY EXISTS.  Don't we have engineering building equipment from 
    design drawings and materials lists?  Don't we have the ability to
    implement CAD-like S/W where the objects in the drawing are tied to a
    database for a list of materials (already used in the oil and
    contstruction industries, just to name a few, right?)?  Don't current
    workflow solutions handle drawings and compound documents?  Maintenance 
    could therefore be broken down by component groups:
    
    -	Diagrams and component objects from engineering, who need them anyway
    -	Material part numbers and descriptions from SAP, where they 
    	already exist in the master tables
    -	Links to other systems like SAP and AQS, so that information could
        be only in one place, and then transferred without manual file
        exchanges or rekeying
    -	Engineering and manufacturing could also provide the inputs to the 
    	rules needed for configuration; this will keep me from having
    	to have a set of notes about what works and what doesn't today
    	(example - 8200 memory limitations, FWD SCSI issues, etc.).
    -	the basic tool would need to be maintained, as well as the
    	linkages; this would fall under the heading of funding a
    	"Configuration Workbench" that could be used both by ABU pre-sales
    	and by our partners for SBU pre-sales.
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Perhaps such a grand scheme would not work today; but I believe it will
    be achievable either now or in the near future.  LET'S GET SERIOUS
    ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO DELIVER THE SOLUTIONS WE SELL TO
    CUSTOMERS!  Otherwise, I believe the best engineering, manufacturing,
    and even marketing will not keep Digital in business IF WE CAN'T GET
    A VALUED CUSTOMER WHAT HE/SHE WANTS as a product solution, without
    delays, aggrevation, excessive cost, and misc. other confusion.
    
    Thanks for reading ...  Charles
     

    There was a time that "big" systems would be staged, powered up, booted
    into a manufacturing cluster, taken down, packed into boxes till there
    was nothing left on the floor, put in a (single) container and shipped.
    The responsible Field Engineer might run the test himself. 
    
    Surprise was when it would *not* run first time around.
    
    Could not do it with a PC I suppose. Perhaps infrastrucure is the answer,
    but nothing will work unless someone feels responsible for the
    whole thing at lower than VP level (and not the sales person either).

    Al
      
    PS

    I wonder how MCS handles this. Do we charge an additional fee for
    putting together systems that remind one of his childhood and Humpty
    Dumpty? Or is it all "Warrenty" and MCS has become, in essence, a free
    FA&T service for Manufacturing? 

    re .31
    
    Does not look like SI was part of your team. That must be where the
    problem lies. I suggest you look up your local/region/geography based
    SI SAP specialist/generalist and include him/her/them on your next
    effort. Of course a PO would help.
    
    -Mike Z.
    Systems Integration WorkGroup Consulting, or Messaging Consulting but
    not SAP consulting, that might be out of another office. I think. '^)

    re 32
    
    agree. I (literally) carry my Golden Eggs in my case every day. 
    
    Anyone who is trying to sell/configure any system without a copy of
    Golden Eggs must be nuts.
    
    Oh, and 'the Eggs' were put together by a volunteer. Who ain't even a
    VP. 
    
    no panacea, just damn useful.
    
    
    
    AW

    Whatever happened to XCON, Digital's leading example of configuration
    management using AI techniques?  Just as well the USAF/RAF doesn't use 
    our methods to configure their aircraft.  
    
    dave_P

    
    re:last few

    	The idea behind POM was that you test a representative cross-section 
    of configurations, find, report, and fix the problems. Then you can
    simply pull the various bits together and ship them to the customer.
    This is a more cost effective solution than FA&T.

    	Mechanisms supposedly exist to determine what parts of an order are
    configured, and what parts are shipped as spares (i.e. extra memory for
    an already on-site system). Inter-cab and external to cab connections
    will obviously need to be made, but MCS shouldn't have to install
    configured options into cabs. David Sullivan needs to know when and
    where that's happening so he can fix the process that allowed that to
    happen.

    	Unfortunately, the cross-section used by POM obviously does not test 
    all possible permutations of the possible hardware configurations. Some
    things will slip through the cracks. FA&T is a solution to this, but it
    has been deemed too expensive. 

    	As I said before, VIS will do all this, but they charge an additional 
    fee to cover the costs. This means the "erector set" shows up on a
    manufacturing floor rather than a customer site. It also means the tech
    assigned to the order has full access to internal support mechanisms
    (i.e. APPIX, Notesfiles, CSC support, etc.). 

    	Using this service means the system arrives on site, configured and
    tested as a system (HW & SW). An optional configuration control document
    detailing the whole configuration is also available. All cables are in
    place and have point-to-point labels. Cables are tie-wrapped and coiled
    up into the cab containing the most connections, so they only need to
    be connected on one end in the field.

    	The tech/s working on the order typically go out in the field to
    install the system (again for an additional fee). I have participated
    in the process first hand, by virtue of being on loan to this group
    for a quarter. I don't work for them now, but as you can tell, remain
    impressed by them. Perhaps my old FA&T days in TELCO are showing ;-)

    	Ray

    Ray,
    Thanks for the reference.
    
    For further information on VIS's factory integration, installation
    and custom documentation capability, call me, Bob Hoban @ 508 467-3733,
    Paul Serra @ 603 894-2039 or Heinz Brinkhaus @ 603 884-0510.
    
    Regards,
    Bob 
    

    re: Note 4280.36 by CHEFS::PARRYD "Aromatherapy stinks"
    
    XCON was de-funded this year (it's last release being at the end of
    June). One reason is Digital has decided developing configuration tools
    is not one of its core competancies. There is an effort underway which
    is evaluating third party configuration solutions (Trilogy and
    Concentra being the two finalists). In the meantime there have been
    a few efforts to fill the void until a third party tool is deployed...
    ACU (Alpha Configuration Utility) by the SBU, Liberator by the ABU 
    (recently cancelled), and the MEX tools by manufacturing.
    
    Ken....
     

           <<< Note 4280.36 by CHEFS::PARRYD "Aromatherapy stinks" >>>
                           -< Damn! Crashed again. >-

   > Whatever happened to XCON, Digital's leading example of configuration
   > management using AI techniques? 
    
    Still being used here in Salem ABU. Soon to be replaced but 
    CSS has acquired it and will continue to use it for REG and low 
    volume.

    I'm currently the lead of the SPI(Standard Process Integration)/
    ATO (Assemble to Order) Delivery Team here in Salem, (ABU, CSS Ops, 
    whatever it is these days). We can and do deliver Rackmounted Sables 
    and Mikasas in 15 working days or less (when memory or towers or 
    drives or whatever isn't short) from the day we receive the order. 
    We do review each order for technical cleanliness. It's interesting to 
    see the comments in this string. I see the other side of the picture. 
    Calls to the field for corrections or clarification that go unanswered. 
    
    Attitudes like: 
    
    "You've ordered a 2100 cpu with added lines of drives, 
     storms, tapes etc. These items can't be configured as requested. 
     Does the customer have a cab on site or did we mistakely leave it 
     off the order? There's nothing in the notes."

    "Just ship it"

    "But..."

    "Just ship it."

    The day it arrives, we get a call from an angry customer 
    wanting to know why they received 42 boxes of material and a Heath Kit.

    Cables are so routinely left off orders that we throw them in 
    for free rather than waste our time calling in every order 
    and delaying customer delivery.

    We are committed to shipping complete, correctly configured 
    systems, but it isn't always easy....
    
    We shipped over 400 DEC#'s through this team (5 of us) last qtr.
    Want a clean one that shipped on time and a satified 
    customer? Pick one, any one. 

    Not a flame folks, just the other side of the story.
   
    Regards,
    Daryll

    re: Note 4280.37 by FOUNDR::DODIER
    
    One of the major factors that allowed the corporation to go from
    the FA+T to the POM process was the existance of XCON.
    
    Ken....
    

    re: .39
    
    I question the wisdom of defunding one tool until its replacement is
    available.  It sure looks like another case of, "Do what makes my
    bottom line look good and ignore the consequences for the rest of the
    corporation."
    
    To make matters worse, the various business units can choose different
    tools.  MCS has apparently chosen Trilogy as I'll be at Trilogy for
    training next week.
    
    Bob

    RE:.41
    I worked in a group called POM Engineering, I've got the mug to prove
    it, and XCON was not a major factor.  Another artificial system called
    CDS, ( configuration driven sourcing ) was suppose to be the POM tool.
    
    As it turned out all three of the AMCs ( Area Manufacturing Centers )
    hired people to tech edit their orders.  I know because I hired the
    people for WACS and MASS, Western and Centeral States, and Mid-Atlantic
    and Southern States.  Someone else hired people to Tech Edit orders for
    NEAS, Noth East States.
    
    The way orders were configured was; everything that could be installed,
    was unless noted as spare.  Marketing also determines a lot of times
    what can and cannot be imbedded, such as Packaged Systems had to have
    all other line items spared ( not installed ).
    
    With POM the material was suppose to move to the orders, but as time
    went by the orders began to get split to move to where the material
    was; big problem.
    
    Dave

    Try these 2 internal orders:  {Note the multiple ship dates}
    Order Date: 25-Sep-95
    Item   Status    Part #     QTY         Original  Revised
                             Open  Ship      Commit    Commit   Shipped
    001    Comple    RZ28M-VA       10      09-Oct-95 09-Oct-95 10-Oct-95
    002    Active    SEAVB-DA 1             08-Feb-96 08-Feb-96
    
    Order Date: 09-Oct-95
    001    Comple    SW800-FA           1   20-Nov-95 20-Nov-95 16-Oct-95
    002    Comple    BA350-MB           1   23-Oct-95 23-Oct-95 23-Oct-95
    003    Comple    BA350-JA           5   23-Oct-95 23-Oct-95 13-Oct-95
    004    Active    HSJ42-AF    1          05-Jan-96 05-Jan-96
    005    Comple    RZ28M-VA           6   23-Oct-95 23-Oct-95 13-Oct-95
    006    Comple    RZ29B-VA          20   23-Oct-95 23-Oct-95 13-Oct-95
    007    Comple    TZ877-AE           1   06-Nov-95 06-Nov-95 12-Oct-95
    008    Comple    BA35X-HC           6   23-Oct-95 23-Oct-95 13-Oct-95
    009    Comple    BNCIA-10           1   06-Nov-95 06-Nov-95 09-Oct-95
    
    

    A while back, for another company which has since struck gold for many
    years running, THREE field employees were RESPONSIBLE for quotation
    accuracy and subsequently the order itself. They were the SALES REP,
    the CUSTOMER ENGINEER and the SYSTEMS/SOFTWARE engineer. Not only were
    ALL the piece components accounted for, we all three had to factor in
    bus loading, electrical loading etc, then this blueprint document,
    called the Installation Support Plan, had to be signed off by all three
    (so you KNOW your competence and reputation were on the line). These
    were in the days before this company had "tech edits' or "xcon" etc,
    which Digital already had, but still did not work.
    
    The same document is "carried" forth to implementation. Everybody
    read off the same page, so to speak.
    
    BTW, carelessness that resulted in missing cables or shipping the wrong
    ones (which I see often enough here) was considered a TOTAL
    embarrassment; nobody wanted to end up being embarrassed! In fact, if
    certain sales reps had that reputation then his/her ISP got done over
    multiple times! I really believe it is the corporate attitude and
    culture at play here. That company strives on quality and doing it 
    right the first time. Too expensive to do it over.
    
    
    That company does NOT treat customer sites as the final assembly floor!
    I agree Charles Wardlaw (.31) - if there is a need for SIMPLIFIED
    and EFFECTIVE infrastructure, this is it!
    
    I've seen big 8400 installations come to a dead halt because one cable
    is missing or the wrong one shipped! Then it became almost impossible
    to haev it corrected RAPIDLY.
     
                                                      

    
    	Boy, do I agree with .45 completely. Can't help but wonder if I
    worked for this company in the early 80s too; or they just copied
    a very sound operational process.
    
    	Solving problems is not a science (sorry MBA-types, but common
    sense is not an elective); it is an art. The art of practicality
    applied to people, processes, and problems.  "Trip threes", I was
    taught, "solve each of them as a link in a chain, and you will have
    an unbreakable solution".
    
    	Now all those VPs out there reading NOTES religiously (;-)); just
    explain to us dummies why we cannot do .45. Inquiring minds would
    like to know....
    
    
    		the Greyhawk 

    I wonder just for the sake of argument, whether Digital has ever
    considered researching the true cost of depending on overseas suppliers
    such as in Singapore, Tawian, Malaysia, etc., for our critical parts?
    
    FWIW, I think Digital should be looking for new suppliers closer to
    home and working with these suppliers to create processes which would
    overcome the wage advantages enjoyed by these countries. Indeed,
    American ingenuity has overcome many obstacles over the centuries, and
    I have full faith we CAN be very competitive again if only we could all
    put our collective efforts togeather. 
    
    I feel a we are taking a risk on depending on timely arrivals of
    critical parts from 15,000 mile away. Too many things can happen,
    strikes, storms, sinkings, theft, customs, political unstability,
    fires, taxes, you name it. From that far away, you lose a lot of control 
    and flexibility to change with changing market conditions and products.
    
    As I see it, closer to home gives you more flexibility and resources
    to draw on. The only advantage I see in doing business overseas is
    labor costs are less. 
    
    Am I just dreaming folks?     
                  

re .47:

Closer to home?  What, you mean Basingstoke or somewhere?

Nick

    Speaking of cables, these tend to get left off the quote because
    "the quote" is in reality 6 or 7 revisions of two or three quotes.
    The sales call today seems to go like this:
    
    "Which AlphaServer were you looking at for this project?"
    
    "Depends.  How much do they cost?"
    
    "Well, how much do you have budgetted to spend?"
    
    "We don't have a budget, but I'm confident we can push this purchase
    through management if I can see some benchmarks and cost savings
    comparisons on a couple of your different systems."
    
    [Ed note:  Do you see how this just exploded into several "rough
    pass quotes" for pricing?  If we took the time to get all the widgets
    correct on say, 4 quotes, at least three of those would be wasted
    effort best case.]
    
    Eventually we can get them down to, say, an AlphaServer 2100 4/275
    and get Tech Edit to verify the cables, etc (they do a great job)
    but then the customer at the last minute changes his or her mind
    and says:
    
    "Well, I just read that you support SCSI clusters, and can I see
    the price differential between this configuration with RZ28s vs RZ29s?"
    
    Again, more cabinet changes, cables changes.  The final pass usually
    happens on the phone with the customer in the boardroom saying
    "We got approval, but only if we cluster it into our existing system
    and we need the quote in 45 minutes or the deal is off!"
    
    The lessons I have learned from this modern way customers like to do
    business with us are:
    
    1)  When they want info, don't give them a quote.  Give them numbers
    off VTX or the price book.  When they are ready to BUY, start
    generating quotes and have them tech editted.
    
    2)  I like the idea we had in our office of a slush fund for cables,
    such that when an engineer onsite discovered a cable was missing,
    it was taken out of that fund, saving all kinds of re-ordering and
    delays.  When all the tech editting is done, it is usually a cable
    variant or length that holds up the show.

    .47
    
    Closer to home?  We are an international company, 60+% of revenues come
    from outside the US.  To remain competitive we have to take advantage
    of whatever each country can offer.
    
    Axel

Re .49

Very good description.

As it happens, the Alpha Configuration Utility is PERFECT for this type of 
activity, i.e. "rough cut" configurations and costs. Also, since it is at 
list price, both final configs and any commercial negotiations are easily 
deferred, making the process a good qualification activity.

A cable "slush fund"...what a great idea!!! Cabling for StorageWorks 
continues to be beyond me...

SteveS

    
    .47
    
    but I don't believe obtaining parts from wide-flung locales should be
    a problem if the system integration is done properly at regionally-
    central site, close to the drop-ship address. Why not for example
    have an assembly hub?
    
    I mean, we are not the only company having global manufacturing.
    It would be a worthwhile investment to understand how the best in
    class (similar characteristics, outside the industry even) lick this
    problem, if that is a problem in the first place.
    
    I don't have the stats, and I don't think this company tracks the costs of
    fixing mistakes, but if it does, it would be staggering!
    
    Are our offerings so incredibly complex that it would literally
    impossible to get it right? Or are we losing the fundamental product
    knowledge? Are we too over-specialized that no-one really know how
    the whole thing should be put together, but can discuss the pin
    details of each component?
    

    Re 0.
    Yes it's happening here too.
    
    I wouyld like to blame a process (Or lack of it) rather than a
    person. 
    
    Our problem seems to be due to a lack of guidance or experience. This
    is when a policy would have helped (Not fixed it just helped)
    
    I have personally received a copy of a fax which was sent to a
    shipping/delivery company to 
     Collect equipment from a Digital/Burlington Wharehouse and
     deliver all boxes with DECnumber xyz to company A and all boxes marked
     DECnumber pqr to company B 
    
    Naturally the unix software laned up at the wrong clients and Lics that
    were lying loose on top of a box found there way to the floor of the
    truck. 
    
    Not all boxes had a DECnumber on and quite frankly how on earth is a
    delivery company, That does not REGULARLY deliver, know what a 
    DECnumber is. 
    
    What I exspect is to see Labels printed, Also all parts to be
    consolidated unless the client requires bit shipments. AND much closer
    co-op between Client-Shipper-Digital.
    
    Ivan

    
    Re .47 Closer to home.
    
    I hope that our customers don't get the same idea or we might only get
    to make money in New England and (Old) Scotland. :-)
    
    Mike.

    
    Re: .47
    
    So you want Digital to shut down all non-US sales? I wonder if that 
    wouldn't have some affect on US employees too... 
    
    /Kjell

    re: .47
    
    >    I feel a we are taking a risk on depending on timely arrivals of
    >    critical parts from 15,000 mile away. Too many things can happen,
    >    strikes, storms, sinkings, theft, customs, political unstability,
    >    fires, taxes, you name it.
    
    Heck, I can't even depend on the other side of the country I live in!
    The last product I worked on was bedeviled and delayed by riots, flash
    fires, mudslides and an earthquake, not to mention the usual slips,
    goofs and tie-ups. 

    Re a few back. XCON was canned because it was costing tens of millions
    of dollars to maintain and still wasn't giving the level of service
    that was required for the rate of change of the business. I wonder if
    it is still quoted in AI classes as an example?
    
    As for manufacturing sourcing decisions. Many were taken on the cost of
    the product alone, without consideration to the risks involved with
    transporting equipment thousands of miles and the long pipeline
    involved. This is now being addressed.
    
    Fraser_B

    re: Note 4280.58 by IRNBRU::BRIDGEFORD
    
    > XCON was canned because it was costing tens of millions of dollars to
    > maintain
    
    While it cost this amount over its entire lifespan (not annually) of
    approximately 14 years, it saved the corporation approximately 50
    million annually. I'd say it was money well spent.
    
    
    > I wonder if it is still quoted in AI classes as an example?
    
    I hope so!
    
    Ken....
    (ex-XCON engineer)

re .29
>>> I'm looking forward to seeing how well the next stage goes - 
>>> I'll let you know.
    
did you receive your machine?

    Re: .0
    Wish I was still reading notes when this one was posted.  About the
    same time, we had orders going to our Customer too in a million pieces. 
    It turns out there was a system sourcing problem when storage
    integration was required.  Cables sourced as spares while all the other
    storage components sourced to Colorado.  Colorado could not integrate
    without cables, so drives, controllers etc shipped separate with an
    empty cabinet.  The problem was identified and a permanent fix was
    being worked on.  In the short term, Tech Edit was to try to catch the
    orders which included storage and manually resource the cables.
    
    Today, however I've had another issue that I believe is a sourcing
    problem as well.  We shipped two battery kits ($2K each) which were
    integrated and two battery kits ($2K each) separately.  The order
    called for a total of two.  Two came from Colorado and two from Salem. 
    We charged for two.  It's good we have an honest Customer who asked us
    to pick up the duplicate shipment.
    
    We have to fix the system.  Throwing people at the problem is not the
    answer.  Measurements drive behaviors and if Customer Satisfaction is
    not in everyone's measurement, it won't happen.  If all we have to do
    is make the numbers (certed or off the dock or invoiced...), we soon
    won't have any numbers to make.  We must be profitable and we must have
    satisfied Customers to stay in business.  One without the other just
    doesn't cut it, there must be a balance.
    
    What's this charge for setup and testing business?  You want a car? 
    Would you like it to run when you get it?  Oh well then there will be
    an extra charge to custom design and test it...
    
    ISO9000 means we can repeat what we've done.  ISO9000 has no provisions
    for improvement.  There is no requirement in ISO9000 certification to
    get any better than the plants current performance.
    
    Buying closer to home isn't the answer.  We are a global corporation. 
    We need either alternate sources for our purchased products or a
    contract with a penalty clause which is sufficiently painful to any
    supplier who does not perform to our needs as specified.
    
    ABU has begun a survey process asking Customers about their recent
    purchase.  I think this will help us get on the right track as it will
    have a lot of visibility and will track categories of issues.
    
    Sue