Conference 7.286::digital

Reading through the DECWorld '88 presentation on "Digital's Enterprise Services"
just now, I found a good deal of common sense and sound marketing ideas. Mixed,
sadly, with an excessive proportion of "technobabble" in the worst sense - i.e.
pseudo-technical jargon used with little or no understanding of its meaning,
but purely for the sake of its baroque splendour. Here's a fine specimen:

  "Digital's design capabilities demonstrate our commitment to integrated
   management and information technology consulting in the areas of business
   process, information technology architecture and information requirements
   analysis."

But what does it MEAN? Here's my best guess:

  "Digital is ready and willing to work with both the managers and technical
   people in any organisation. We do this by helping them plan how to
   use computers and telecommunications in collecting and understanding the
   information they need to improve their business."

Am I in the right ball park? Who can tell? Here's a definition, for a change:

  "An 'architecture' is a style of design and a method of construction."

My dictionary offers:

  "Architecture(n): the art or science of building; structure."

The VAX Architecture Handbook, which I guess has to bear a lot of responsibility
for the outbreak of architectures of recent years, starts oout with:

  "We define architecture as the collection of attributes common to
   all VAX processors - attributes that guarantee that all software
   developed on a VAX processor runs without change on all VAX processors."

Well, "attribute" isn't all that clear. But at least the sense of that
definition comes across: it says that "architecture" defines the things
that you can rely on not to change. What has that got to do with

  "...a style of design and a method of construction."?

(And does that mean one of each, in tandem? Or two ways of describing the same
thing? Or...)

It seems to me that a lot of this verbiage doesn't really mean much at all.
Now we've all seen it piling up, ever since the first buzz-phrase generator
and before. The Digital Philosophy says:

  "We want all aspects of Digital to be clear and simple and we want simple
   products, proposals, organization, literature that is easy to read and
   understand, and advertisements that have a simple, obvious message."

So what I'd like to do if I were Ken Olsen, is to prohibit anyone from using
a certain list of words in documents for public consumption or wide internal
distribution. That list would include:

	"System"
	"Architecture"
	"Commitment"
	"Integrated"
	"Information Technology"
	"Technology"
	"Infrastructure"
	"Solution"
	"Package"
	"Management"
	"Consultancy"
	"Paradigm"
	"Interface"
	"Structured"
	"Enterprise"

and quite a few others. (To avoid unecessary suffering, a dispensation might
be made for anyone who could demonstrate that they understood exactly what
the term meant, AND were using it in that sense.)

The benefit? Quite simply, everyone who set out to convey a message would have
to find the words to explain what he or she meant, rather than firing off a
jargon shotgun and blasting out a barrage of long, technical-sounding words.
One effect might be that quite a lot of people would find that they didn't
really have much to say at all.

--Tom

Here's an idea which I seriously feel has great potential. But it might be
hard to implement, since a lot of the people whose buy-in would be needed
stand to lose from it.

How many times to we declare that "our people are our greatest asset". And
in many ways, Digital lives up to that by providing a very good deal for
employees, and by giving most of us excellent chances to make the most of
our abilities.

But it seems to me the company is short-changing itself in a way. The problem
lies in measurements that are too "local" - they encourage a small group or
geographical area to do the best for itself, without considering the effect
on the rest of the company. Equally, they encourage individuals to "hit and
run" by doing things that make them look very good in the short term, but
causes serious trouble for the company in the long term. This could be seen
as a form of corporate "asset-stripping". Here are a few examples:

  (1) A support group does not look very good in terms of the numerical
      measurements by which it is assessed. It takes action to improve
      those measurements, but the effect on customers is negative. Probably
      that manager will be promoted and long gone before the customer
      satisfaction level is perceived as a serious problem and traced back
      to the source. (AT&T have this problem too - they are on record as
      having a policy of firing operators who spend too much time helping
      individual customers).

  (2) A bright young manager takes over a projects group. During the next
      three years that group delivers 60% more man-days than comparable
      groups, and 50% more than during the previous year. The numbers are
      great, the man is recognised as driving, purposeful and committed -
      he gets promoted to Regional Manager or something. During the next
      two years, half the group leaves and the productivity is halved. Why?
      Simple! During those brilliantly successful three years, nobody got
      any training, there were few promotions (and those of careerists, rather
      than on merit), and everything was sacrificed to getting in revenue.

  (3) A local office decides to undertake a project for a major customer.
      In the specification stage, it is clear that some requirements cannot
      be met. But the office has a real technical guru. He offers to write
      some changes to the terminal driver, and the project is on again.
      A year later, it's delivered - Digital gets $500,000 and everyone is
      happy. Two years later, a new major release of the operating system
      comes out and the customer gets to choose between the application
      he bought and having his operating system upgraded. Engineering junp
      in and sort things out :-) No, seriously, Engineering say (quite
      rightly) "it's your own fault, you fix it". But what's this? The poor
      guy who's stuck with this can of worms is NOT the guy who caused it.
      HE is in charge of the committee which blasts the current incumbent's
      promotion chances.

(Of course, none of these instances resemble any real situation, and nothing
 will make me say otherwise).

So here's the suggestion:

  Let's measure everyone on a career basis, not year-by-year or
  quarter-by-quarter. A person should retain a measure of responsibility
  for everything that person has been involved in - in principle.

--Tom

If I were Ken Olsen for a day, I'd spend the first couple of hours lost in
the Mill trying to find my office...

But seriously, I don't think someone could change very much by being president
for a day. Running a company is a continuing process, not a series of isolated
decisions.  (Of course, a fair question would be "How would you know?")

If there was one thing I could change in my day in Ken's office, it might be
to drop the hiring freeze long enough so we could steal some high-powered
talent from our competitors.  Chances are, though, that my one decision would
turn out to be a mistake!

Re: .1  Tom Welsh

>So what I'd like to do if I were Ken Olsen, is to prohibit anyone from using
>a certain list of words in documents for public consumption or wide internal
>distribution.

Sounds like a nightmare, unless you also tell people what words they should
use instead.  (If I looked at some examples of the kinds of literature you're
complaining about, though, I'd probably end up agreeing with you.)

>  Let's measure everyone on a career basis, not year-by-year or
>  quarter-by-quarter. A person should retain a measure of responsibility
>  for everything that person has been involved in - in principle.

Hopefully you don't mean that once you make a mistake on a project you might
as well leave because your career here is over.  Instead, evaluations
should be designed to encourage people to do what's in the long term interest
of the whole company.  Some mistakes are inevitable, but they should be
balanced by a lot of good decisions.

				-- Bob

    If I were Ken....
    
    In one broad stroke I'd establish a policy that change the way Sales
    Support individuals work...
    
    I would make it part of standard procedure that when a new Sales
    Support Individual is hired, within a few days a VAXstation ???
    arrives in their office.  It contains all the system, cables, keyboard,
    Network software, Operating System etc.  It also contains some
    information on how to request a new node address for Easynet, locations
    of software products on the network, some suggested software
    configurations for specific types of jobs, and some basic instructions
    on installation of network-copied software.  Part of their job would
    be to unpack the equipment, assemble it, understand it, use it,
    and be able to talk about it to customers.  What a novel idea...we
    use what we sell.
    
    Cost would be about $4-6 million to give every US sales support
    individual a workstation.  (To replace their vt100, if they have
    one).
    

    I know it can't be done in a day (my father was general manager and
    majority stockholder of a medium-sized company) but here is what I
    would *want* to do if I were Ken Olsen for a day:
    
    Provide a way for employees to broaden their experience base, without
    risking their chances of advancement if they find that they aren't
    interested in something they are investigating.  A good way to do this,
    I think, would be with an internship program.  Let an engineer who has
    spent his last 10 years designing power supplies work in a software
    development organization for a few months.  He'd be a junior
    programmer, which might be a bit hard on his ego, but he'd have the
    chance to learn something about software.  If he decides to change
    careers, the opportunity has clearly benefited him.  Even if he decides
    that he'd rather go back to the job he is good at, he will likely have
    learned something about how the "other half" thinks, and the kinds of
    problems they must overcome---quite different from his, but still
    respectable.
    
    Here's an example closer to my heart: let hardware and software
    engineers work in the field for a few months, as trainees.  Some will
    find that they like the environment, and stay.  Others will prefer to
    return to the safety of the ivory tower, but they will have learned
    something about customer's concerns, and how to deal with them.  Such
    experience may help them whey they design their next product.
    
    Bring field people into Central Engineering.  Let them deal with design
    reviews, cross-product dependencies, tracking down bugs, thinking up
    tests for the regression test system, and the joy of producing
    something that other people need and use.  Even if they don't stay, the
    experience will do them good.
    
    It's a dream, I know.  No manager will willingly let his best people go
    for a few months just to "broaden their experience", particularly when
    he might not get them back.  But if I were KO for a day I'd want to
    institute such a system.
        John Sauter

    re .5
    
    That's a very good idea.
    
    
    Scooter

                As an adder to .5 - Every engineer should work for a
        while as either a technician or in manufacturing (not quite
        interchangable, but I didn't dare ask for both!) before they are
        allowed to design anything.
                
                /s/     Bob
                
                (An engineer who has both technician and some very
        limited manufacturing behind him.)

* Immediate 10% reduction in the number of employees... either thru layoffs
  or early retirement incentives.
* Full payment for all remaining employee's medical and dental coverage
* Abolish the Home Purchase Program {a benefit to a miniscule % of employees}
* Establish a REAL employee purchase program... Workstations at cost to all
  who want one... DEC Software at media prices...
* Ask Marketing to show what value they are adding... If the answer is not
  good enough, trim budget by 50%.

<lunch>

    1) Authorize a dividend payment.
    
    2) Authorize a program of sabbatical leaves for professionals in the
       organization.
    
    3) Abolish rewards for time to market goals which are inconsistent with 
       quality goals.
    
    Marge

I'd start by calling a half-dozen customers at random to find out what's
really happening.

Then, John suggested, I'd initiate a rotation program, where engineers spend
a month or two as software (or f.s.) specialists, answering real calls
from real customers, and going on real sales calls.

I'd also rotate field folks through engineering, so they learn the
problems on this side of the table.

I.e., it should be a *requirement* for "principal engineers" and above
to have spent enough time in all of the technical parts of the company
to understand the issues from other points of view; since they are the
ones who have to balance "ship it" against "not until the bugs are out."

I'd stop nickel-and-dime'ing the field to death: telling them to do the
right thing by the customer and worry about the budget some other time:
the worst customer we have is the one who only buys one system from Dec.
The worst support person we have is the one who can't use the same software
in the office.  I.e., to quote "Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers,"
"It's the stingy person who pays the most."

Martin.

If I were Ken Olsen for a day, I'd take steps to bring the different field
organizations within Digital together, get them to start communicating, and 
try to end this "stovepipe" perspective that seems to be so prevalent 
today.  How would I do that?  Well, I certainly would need some advance 
notice to formulate a plan.  I'd start by looking at two big things:  
metrics and business practices.  I'd make changes in both that would 
incorporate the interests of sales, software services, and field service, 
and I'd get *rid* of each individual organization's policies, replacing them 
with *DIGITAL* policies.

Easier said than done?  Yep, but I believe it's the one thing the field 
needs more than anything else right now.

							Pat

>I.e., it should be a *requirement* for "principal engineers" and above
>to have spent enough time in all of the technical parts of the company
>to understand the issues from other points of view; since they are the
>ones who have to balance "ship it" against "not until the bugs are out."

Let's say that I like writing code and fixing bugs, and I hate doing things
like writing specs, testing, and dealing with customer complaints.  Under
your system, my choices are:

	1. Do what I like doing, knowing that I'll have no chance of ever
	   becoming a principal engineer.

	2. Serving my time in these other areas, even though it means that
	   I'll no longer like my job.

	3. Working for someone else.

Maybe it's unreasonable to think that I can be a principal engineer and like
my job at the same time -- sort of like having your cake and eating it too!

				-- Bob

    If you don't like writing specs, you'll never like being a
    principal!
    			-John

    Re .13, .14:
    
    The scheme might be that you have to spend _some_ time doing those
    other things, not a lot.  I could tolerate that.  And you wouldn't have
    to be good at them.
    
    I don't like writing specifications either.  For that matter, I don't
    like the increasing scope of higher engineering positions.  I want to
    CODE; I've got an intuition for algorithms that beats all hell.  But
    now I'm given assignments to write specifications, figure out how long
    a project will take, et cetera.
    
    If somebody's good at something, give them more of it to do -- don't
    give them something else.  That's not a promotion; it's a transfer. I
    think Digital's missing out in lumping all engineers under a single
    line of job descriptions.  People who have the desire and skill for
    planning ought to do that; people who can write short, fast, efficient
    code ought to do that.            
    
    
    				-- edp 

re: previous re: the role of a principal engineer.

This is becoming a rathole: I'll start a separate note.

    re: .15
    
    People who can do a given set of tasks better than others should
    be rewarded with better performance evaluations, not promotions.
    With a promotion comes an increase in responsibilities, not simply
    a requirement for "more of the same".
    
    Al
    

    If I were Ken Olsen for a day...
    
    I'd stay the hell out of the way and hope I didn't screw anything up. 
    Sorta like having all the power in the universe and deciding to turn
    the Sahara into arable land.  The water came from somewhere and
    somebody was probably relying on it.  Now I've messed up two ecologies.
    There is a reason for the advancement process from one grade to the
    next, after all.
    
    Would you put a 10 year old behind the wheel of a car and let him go
    driving around New York city?
    
John

1) Do something about the destructive political infighting which takes
   place between certain groups and which does the company no good at all

2) Remove incompetent managers quickly, at all levels of the organisation
   (this isn't meant to be a dig at anyone in my group I hasten to add)
   Sideways promotions sometimes aren't a big enough hint, and even
   less than average people can get average rises.

3) Open out the organisation to entrepreneurs at all levels, at the moment 
   even the best have to plod through the organisation level by level,
   year by year.

4) Give genuine pay for performance at all levels. At the moment, it simply
   doesn't exist at lower levels. The pay bands are far too narrow and
   everyone seems to get the maximum regardless.

5) Abolish as much paperwork and bureaucracy as possible. Looking around,   
   you would hardly think this was the model for the paper free office.

6) Watch out for putting the best engineers on the critical path for too
   long. Not only are training opportunities difficult, but the schedules
   they're trying to keep to are near impossible too.

7) Encourage 'ideas boxes' such as this topic. A lot of good has come of
   channels like this to voice ideas, and we are better placed than
   most to set up such a facility and make it work. Some organisations
   even have one off rewards for employees that have good ideas on how
   to improve the way the company works.

8) Let people know better how the other parts of the organisation they
   deal with work. This has been dealt with in previous replies, but
   I recall a story from the Ultimate Entrepreneur which mentions a time
   a bunch of high managers were sent to a production plant, with interesting
   results.

9) Try and prevent the inexcusable mistakes which occur. Like inviting
   Lord Young to start building work on the new UK headquarters before
   planning permission had been obtained, for example.

10) REALLY listen to what the customers have to say about us and our
    products

11) Avoid canning far-advancing new products before they come to market.
    This is not the time to cancel a project, the decision should have
    been taken at the start, if at all.

	Craig

I would take the day off and read "The Ultimate Entrepreneur" very carefully.

Dileep

    	1 I would call my broker and sell 1 million shares of stock.
    
    	2 Call my Realtor and buy a small hotel in Bermuda(10-15 beds).
    
    	3 Plant some flowers and get down. 

Re. those who would do things like "cut staffing by 10%,"
"get rid of deadwood," "fire the incompetents," etc...

Presumably you aren't included in that category (:-).

Re .-1
  
 If I was good enough to be doing Ken Olsen's job, I wouldn't put
 myself in the 'deadwood' or 'incompetent' categories. Unless of
 course, you think otherwise....

	Craig.

	Place metrics and goals on maximising revenues out of Targetted Accounts
	rather than spending time and effort worrying which internal "stovepipe"
	was going to get the "paper" money.

	Put a big map on the wall to remember that Digital exists outside the USA

    I'd restructure the basis for reviewing manufacturing managers so that
    quality of product produced was the top item on the list and would
    account for most of the review. I believe that quality is on the list
    somewhere now but it needs to be on top. Once you make top
    manufacturing managers believe in their wallets that quality is
    *that* important the rest of the organization will follow.

    Field software support will start getting additional funding for
    hardware and training. Every manager will be required to find time
    and money for no less then two weeks of training for every person in
    their group *every* year. Any pre-sales person required to support a 
    workstation product will have a workstation. Let's get serious as this 
    is a minimum requirement for doing that job.

    Every non-sales VP will be required to follow, directly or through
    staff supplied summaries, the DIGITAL conference and any major
    conferences associated with their organization. Unless they can
    demonstrate that they have a better way of gauging the pulse and
    problems of their lowest level contributor that does not depend on
    things filtering up though managers. As Grace Hopper says communication
    has to go bottom up as well as top down. I think we're missing out
    on a lot of bottom up communication these days.

    Those are the big things.

    		Alfred

    I would:
    
      o  abolish TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) - Not only do people
         have trouble understanding what they mean, there are now duplicate
         acronyms with different meanings!!
         
      o  measure every manager's performance as to the level of support
         they provide for the education and development of their employees
    
      o  require "team" training to all people involved in major projects
    
      o  reduce the health insurance cost burden placed on Digital
    employees
    
      o  require a productivity increase of 20% from all DEC employees
         (some have already done this, too many need to!)
    
      o  ensure that all DEC training organizations provide an education
         curricilum that is directly tied into the business needs of
         the organization/corporation and eliminate the unnecessary
         courses that are held for the sake of being held!
    
    I'm sure I'll come up with a few more....... 

    as 'Ken', I'd revamp the field sales metrics to encourage thinking
    beyond the end of next quarter.  I'd eliminate any incentives 
    (read: allowances) to rob the sales pipeline in order to have a 
    good-LOOKING quarter/year.  If a sales rep pulls off a miracle,
    I'd stop the system requiring them to do it again, plus 30%, next
    year.  I'd revamp the Customer Satisfaction Survey system by NOT
    measuring Sales management on 'the number', and instead encourage
    customers to (are you sitting down?) tell the TRUTH.
    
    .. and I'm in SOFTWARE !
    
    karl

    re: .26
    
>      o  require a productivity increase of 20% from all DEC employees
    
    Lessee...
    
    We (in SWS) are expected to bill 36 hours per week now, so you want
    us to bill 43 hours per week, right?
    
    Boy, am I glad *you* aren't KO!
    
    8^}
    
    -- Russ

Re: .26  Killing TLA's

If you do this, you would kill the original TLA- "D.E.C."

Lee  ;^)

    KO wants "DEC" killed. Use "Digital" instead.

       
       
       	If I was Ken I'm make Alfred my right-hand man and together we'd
       	clear up the problems he mentioned.  In addition to that, I'd
       	make it mandatory for every V.P. to spend one day a week going to
       	lunch in the cafe with his/her fellow employees, discussing the
        day to day operation of his/her organization and ways to make
        things work better.  If there is no cafe (like for those people
       	on residency) then I'd like to see this V.P. spend 1-2 lunch hours
       	a month with these people.
       
       	I'd make available to employees the option of including their
       	parents on their medical insurance, the same way you include your
       	kids.  The baby-boomers are growing up and their parents and
       	themselves are now getting older.. It's time to take care of them.
       
       	All workstation support people get workstations. No questions.
       
       	Put more DEC systems in the educational market.
        
       Work closer with the communities DEC lives in to bolster the
       educational programs in these communities. This would be the 
       job of the plant manager with help from a central group. More than
       2 plants in a community (Marlboro for instance) would pool
       resources.  This would include seminars by employees. Classes
       taught by employees. Hardware and software assistance. Etc...
       Lets face it, more kids are going into management than engineering.
       We as a country and as a corporation are gonna be hurting in the
       near future.  
       
       					mike

>>>>>  	I'd make available to employees the option of including their
>>>>>  	parents on their medical insurance, the same way you include your
>>>>>  	kids.  The baby-boomers are growing up and their parents and
>>>>>  	themselves are now getting older.. It's time to take care of them.
    

    At last a sensible idea.  Since my father lives with us and is a
    100% dependent, I have always wondered why the above is not the
    case.  Getting separate Blue Cross insurance for him is about to
    bankrupt us, but parents are like children, they should always come
    first.  Thanks for the great idea, Mike.
    
    ........ Suchindran

    re: .26
    
    > We (in SWS) are expected to bill 36 hours per week now, so you want
    > us to bill 43 hours per week, right?

    36 hours per week?  I believe I'm expected to bill 40.
    
    Bob
    

    re: .33
    
    I believe the metric in our area is 36 hrs/wk.  This would be an
    average over some period of time.  If you came into your performance
    appraisal with a billing average of less than 36 hrs/wk, you can
    expect "lower marks".
    
    40 hrs/wk is optimal, but asking a bit much for weeks with District
    meetings, etc.
    
    We can move this part of the discussion (if there is a need to keep
    it going) to the SOFTWARE_SERVICES conference.
    
    -- Russ

		Get rid of Tobins whereever they are.

		Like reply .21 sell 1 million shares and head
		to a warm island.

    re:28
    
    Apparently you did not read my message carefully.  I stated that
    DEC employees need to be about 20% more productive; some are ALREADY
    DOING THIS, MANY NEED TO!
    
    When you look at the number of people DEC has in certain organizations,
    well it's overwhelming to say the least.  If I were KO for 1 day,
    I would require it (20% more productivity), at least for the sake
    of survival.  Granted, some organizations (SW being one) are
    being driven.  But other organizations throw more people at the
    problems rather than trying to work smarter.  Attitudes need to
    change.
    
    So if I were KO for a day, .28, I would require it! 
    
    BTW, Ken made this statement at a recent PMG (marketing) meeting
    in February; "Major corporate goal: hire no people, grow 20% per
    year and cut prices 30% over the next 3 years".
    
    I support Ken!

    ......... re.28
    
    .....and, it doesn't mean working more hours.  As one Quality Guru
    says, "Work smarter, not harder!"
    
    Increased productivity is the result of:
    
      o  eliminating waste and duplication
      o  focusing on what matters
      o  being better organized
      o  breaking down barriers between people and organization
      o  development of interpersonal skills
      o  understanding your job
      o  understanding the business we are in
      o  better tools and the efficient use of one's resources
                                                              
    
    

    re: .36
    
    I really don't want to start down yet another rathole, but since you're
    so kind to invite me in, well...    ;^)
    
>    Apparently you did not read my message carefully.  I stated that
>    DEC employees need to be about 20% more productive; some are ALREADY
>    DOING THIS, MANY NEED TO!
    
    So SWS increased it's productivity 20%?  That means we were goaled
    at about 30 hrs/wk at one point?  When was that???
    
    re: .37
    
    Er, when you're working a Time and Materials contract, productivity
    equals hours billed.  Period.  I could eat lunch on the company
    every day (fat chance!!!) and I _still_ wouldn't touch the net effect
    of upping my billable time by one hour per week!
    
    Now, if you're talking about _EFFICIENCY_, well that's something
    else.  I'd agree, there's room for improvement in SWS, as I'm sure
    there is in other branches.
    
    But if my billable hours should _drop_ because I'm working "smarter
    not harder", my productivity has _fallen_.  In fact, for T&M work,
    the sad fact is that increased efficiency yields _less revenue_
    for the company in the short term.  In the long term, it could increase
    revenue (as we give the customer a more timely and cost-effective
    solution to the problem at hand).  But, sadly, long-term benefits
    seem to be a poor second place to quarterly/annual goals.
    
    Now, if we could increase our number of fixed-priced projects, greater
    efficiency would _increase_ profitability.  We are trying to go
    this way (or so I understand), but I can't think of too many bodies
    currently assigned to this sort of task.
    
    Essentially, I believe that we are in a violent state of agreement
    (once the terminology is put behind us).  Do we need to work smarter
    around here, reduce waste, etc?  Sure!  Unfortunately, the bulk
    of our current business _discourages_ just that by being T&M.
    
    -- Russ (still smilin'  8^)

From:	NAME: Ken Olsen                     
	FUNC: Administration          
	TEL: 223-2301             <OLSEN.KEN AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE>
Date:	23-Feb-1989
Posted-date: 23-Feb-1989
Precedence: 1
Subject: 1990 BUDGET
To:	See Below
CC:	See Below




TO:     ALL FIELD PERSONNEL

FROM:   KEN OLSEN, JACK SHIELDS, DAVE GRAINGER


We've committed for the 1990 budget to make field operations much 
more efficient and much more satisfying.  We promise to eliminate 
the time-consuming steps in preparing quotes and processing 
orders.  We've committed to have districts make their own budgets 
and allocate resources to make things more efficient.  We're 
confident that we will have a system that eliminates the 
time-consuming negotiations between services in the field and 
between districts and the major account managers.

With the efficiencies that should come from these improvements, 
we think that selling will be much more efficient, and we should 
get a lot more orders per man.  However, we want to remind 
everyone that we are not making major organizational changes but 
simply changing the way we are doing our budgeting.  People 
shouldn't expect instant changes, particularly when the budget 
period doesn't start until this July.

We'd also like to remind people that, even though we expect great 
new efficiencies in the future, we must today get a significant 
number of orders before July.  We expect everyone to continue to 
work as hard as ever even though the new efficiencies won't be 
seen for awhile.

Before and during the summer and during the fall, we'll have a 
large number of very exciting product announcements.  We'll have 
the very large, fast VAX computer that so many customers have 
been enthusiastically waiting for, and we'll have a VAX that's 
between the 8700 and the 6300 in price and speed.   We'll also 
continue improvements in the smaller VAX and UNIX machines.  We 
are promising a very exciting year, and we will all have to work 
to make sure these efficiencies really work out the way we 
promised. 

With best wishes.

Sincerely yours,


KHO:lt
KO:2703

 

To Distribution List:

CHUCK PICKLE @OHF,
FRANK BOWDEN @SCA,
AL HALL @MEL,
RON HEVEY @NYO,
LARRY GOODWIN @WRO,
DICK DOERR @IVO,
RON EISENHAUER @ACI,
HARRY EISENGREIN @RHQ,
BILL MCHALE @UFO

CC Distribution List:

NAME: Dave Grainger <GRAINGER.DAVE AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE>,
NAME: Jack Shields <SHIELDS.JACK AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE>

>      <<< Note 749.39 by DINSCO::FUSCI "DEC has it (on backorder) NOW!" >>>

>From:	NAME: Ken Olsen                     
>	FUNC: Administration          
>	TEL: 223-2301             <OLSEN.KEN AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE>

Interesting to note that Ken classes himself as 'Administration' rather than
'Management' or, even better, 'Engineering' :-)

	Craig.

    Back to the subject.....
    
    If I were KO, I would start a Mentoring Program for all new DEC
    professionals especially outside the US, ensure adherance to the
    Phase Review Process (for what it's worth), change our attitudes
    on how we approach our jobs and at the same time preserve those
    DEC cultural characteristics that make DEC what it is .... and 
    finally, continue to press for a 20% productivity increase!!!! 
    (couldn't resist it, Russ! :-])

    
    
<    If I were KO, I would start a Mentoring Program for all new DEC
<    professionals especially outside the US, ensure adherance to the
    
    
    Why *especially* outside the US?
    
    LaDonna
    

    The idea of raising productivity in SWS is by doing things smarter not
    by working harder.  Long term budget projections for SWS show     
    traditional T&M work budgets staying flat.  Growth will be coming from 
    a "new" focus in projects, assets, and packaged services.  The idea is
    to sell the deliverable not the time it takes to do it.  Traditional
    T&M is man power intensive, and there is a limit to the amount of
    margin you can achieve.  The only ways to increase margin are toraise
    the price to the customer (we aren't cheap now) or lower the internal
    expense of the manpower to Digital (are any of us getting payed as much
    as we want). 
    
    So the smart ($$$$) work is going to be in these "new" areas of
    business.  However, we still need to stay in our "old" line of work. 
    Very few things sell Digital better that a SWS person on a customer's
    site.
    
    The thing to remember is that SWS is measured on two things, $$$'s and
    the satisfaction of our customers.  We are a profit making
    organization.  Our productivity could be measure in $$$'s per person. 
    So the only two ways to increase this "productivity"are for the people
    to work more hours (doesn't make the people happy), or ultimately get
    the customer to pay more for each hour of work.
    
    Rob (who still earns his money the "old" fashioned way)
    expnsive we are 

    re: .38
    
    A rather large chunk of DEC's growth is occuring in Europe and other
    non-US parts of the world.  It is expected that in just a few years,
    Digital will have more employees working outside the US than in
    the US (See Harris Sussman's report).  This growth and change in
    Digital's demographics certainly has some implications.  
    
    The mentoring approach would help provide an approach to better
    acclimating new professionals into the company, world-wide.  It
    sort of compliments my controversial "increase productivity by 20%"
    statement made a few notes back......
    
    Time-to-Market is one (if not the biggest) challenge facing Digital
    today.  Design Engineering, Product Marketing, Manufacturing, to
    name a few functions, are already feeling the impact of this challenge.
    For example, the Engineering Process Technology Group, part of the Low 
    End Systems Business, has a goal to "impact corporate productivity". 
    "Design for X", "Simultaneous Development Process", simulation tools,
    design tools, etc.. are designed for improved efficiency and
    productivity.  I look at " increased productivity" as producing
    more value, items, output, etc., in a given period of time as a
    result of effeciency.....   

If I were K.O. for a day...

I'd try to figure out which parts of Digital had too many idle employees and
try to give them some meaningful work to do.

Vicki Meagher

    I'd rid DIGITAL of some management.. Mainly the real BRAINS that
    keep telling us in the field "That we're lucky to have a JOB and
    that We'll be replaced by people with no or little computer
    backgrounds". Yup that's what we were told a while back... 
    
    Joe

    If I were KO for a day.....
    
    	I would put a stop to the wholesale hiring of outside people
    	into field management positions.  I would require that a person
    	have at least 5 years of time with Digital and have worked in
    	at least the organization he would manage plus one other
    	organization within Digital.  This would bring back some of
    	the Digital philosophys which our customers have come to expect
    	and have grown comfortable with.  After all, the customer is
    	really the only person who matters.
    

    	To be KO for a day...
        
    	* Mandate *
    	(At ALL levels throughout the Corp)    
    
    	Honesty        - Look at yourself (and your work) as critically (if
    			 not moreso) than you might others.
    
	Integrity      - State the truth; not just when it's convenient, even 
    		         when it's not to your advantage.  

 
      
    	Who knows, maybe it would help....   

    
    If I were K.O. for a day, I would
    
    1.
    
    Create and moderate my own "Ken Olsen" VAXnotes conference where any
    employee could input anything on anything, with no reprecussions,
    knowing that I would be reading every response, acting and responding
    accordingly.
    
    2.
    
    Scrap "CERTS" measurement metrics and the emphasis in the field on
    getting revenue.  I would install the new emphasis on "getting accounts
    and solid customer relationships with decision-makers who make buying
    decisions with the goal that Digital "get", as the result of these
    successful relationships, the vast majority of computing dollars being
    spent each year, because the customer believes we best satisfy his
    wants with our services, products and technology.  The metrics, from
    bottom upward would be, "what are you doing and what are you doing
    THAT'S NEW that is enhancing Digital's effectiveness in winning and
    retaining accounts and customer decision-maker relationships, where the
    by-product is the customer's naturally inclination to buy from us at
    our desired prices and margins. 
    
    3.
    
    Optimize the brainpower in all my employees plus all my customer users.
    I would create a paper suggestion box plus a telephone suggestion box
    (1 800 DEC-IDEA) where either could send suggestions on anything and
    everything.  I would pay a monetary reward for all suggestions or ideas
    implemented by Digital.  To motivate everyone, I would award $100,000
    every year for the best employee suggestion implemented plus another
    $100,000 every year for the best customer suggestion implemented. 
    
    4.
    
    Set systems in place to eliminate bureaucracy, feudal systems and
    empire building.  I would change the compensation system to a two-tier
    system where one receive's a bonus for achieving yearly goals and where
    one achieves salary increases ONLY when new knowledge and skills are
    added to one's repertoire via changing positions.  I would make it
    mandatory that all managers below VP would rotate every two years into
    a non-management position. 
    
    5.
    
    Change the mode of thinking to that of constant change.  To justify
    what changes should take place, I would install a system for achieving
    universal customer feedback, thinking and intelligence which "suggests"
    strongly what changes should take place to make Digital more effective
    at making money -- namely through REAL customer satisfaction via
    satisfying customer wants, as they define them, thereby more
    effectively matching Digital technology and communications to customer
    thinking and expectations.  I would ensure, through more effective
    internal training, that everyone understood that ALL MONEY comes
    from customer decision-makers who decide to give it to Digital in
    exchange for Digital satisfying THEIR wants; and that subsequently,
    everyone's job and activity has an impact on every customer's
    perceptions on how well Digital will or does satisfy customers. 
    I would scrap the existing customer quatitative satisfaction surveys
    and substitute "qualitative" customer satisfaction surveys where
    feedback is obtained via open-ended questions, such as "what are
    your likes, what are your dislikes, what are your wants, what are
    your suggestions" and where measurement is taken on how well those
    in Digital who are affected by such feedback, act on feedback,
    especially when "justified" by a LOT of customers saying the same
    thing.
    
    6.
    
    Make "employee relations" a separate organization from personnel.
    Employee relations would ONLY represent the interests and viewpoint
    of employees, and would help expedite change from the bottom up
    on what employees felt should be changed in order to increase their
    efficiency and effectiveness in the jobs, and in Digital.
    
    7.
    
    Reinstate and strengthen the philosophy of "dong what's right" via
    increased training, especially with managers, on what ethics is all
    about, and why being ethical in how one acts towards others has a
    direct impact on Digital growth and success.
    
    8.
    
    Establish systems to encourage and nurture more "skunkworks" within
    Digital, both in engineering as well as in all other parts of Digital,
    especially the field.  I would do more pilots, especially in the area
    of how Digital develops long-term customer relationships with the end
    result of Digital winning and retaining, year in and year out, nearly
    all the computing business from a customer account. I would scrap the
    matrix management system at the field level. I would install Area
    general managers who totally owned the customers within those areas,
    allowing him or her more latitude in how he or she would utilize
    budgets and personnel to win and retain the number one asset of the
    company, customers who give us money.  I would create a direct line
    chain from a given customer where ONE person owned the entire
    responsibility for winning and maintaining successful long-term
    relationships with decision-makers and influences within a given
    account where Digital gets nearly all the business -- this person, and
    so on up the chain, would own the responsibility of directing ALL
    Digital resources into the account and in communicating all products
    and services as applicable to educate the customer and to satisfy all
    current and emerging customer wants.  Everyone (within Digital) would
    again follow the same philosophy -- all activity is to get customers,
    and keep customers, for THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM! 
    
    9.
    
    Promote people into management (where one actually manages many people)
    solely on the criteria of a person's ability to lead and inspire
    people to higher levels of excellence.
    
    10.
    
    Make it mandatory that ALL managers spend one day a month (at a
    minimum) visiting a customer site(s), spending at least 50% of the time
    with END-USERS (not just buying decision-makers or influencers).
    
    11.
    
    Make a major metric of managers be "how many, and exactly what,
    changes have you made that will lend itself to increasing Digital's
    effectiveness, however remotely, in winning and keeping customer
    accounts and successful customer contact relationships to the extent
    that they buy nearly all their computing requirements from Digital?"
    
    That would be my "to do list" for the first day. 8-)
     

    Ref: .50
    
    At last some fresh and great ideas.  I loved every suggestion,
    particularly item 1.  Methinks if these ideas can get publicized
    we may get somewhere.  Thanks, David.
    
    ......... Suchindran

    
    If I were Ken Olsen for a day I would....
    
       Make the establishment of an efficient and effective Admimistrative
    System the highest priority for Field Service.  Everyone has known
    for years that our current system has not kept up with the business
    and is extremely labor intensive.  Whenever the system bogs down
    or "paper" does not get processed in a timely manner the answer
    is to throw more bodies at the problem.
    
       Every year the current system is shown to be insufficient for
    the needs of the Field.  The cost to correct the problem grows
    higher every year and no one seems willing to bite the bullet on
    the expense side.  We, Digital, need to spend more time focusing
    on the cost savings of a new system and not the expense involved
    to make the change.
    
       I would hire an outside consulting firm to completely audit our
    administrative process for quoting, issuing contracts and billing
    for services.  Part of the problem has been that some people in
    places of responsibility have been too close to the existing system.
    It has been patched so many times that it no longer resembles anything
    designed with the needs of the Field in mind.  Field Service doesn't
    like it and our customers constantly complain about inaccurate quotes,
    long delays in processing and the work load it places on them. 
    The current system can best be described as layers of patches on
    an outdated system that was designed to meet the needs of a District
    years ago.  It's like putting a new bandage over a dirty one on
    an amputation instead of putting a clean one on the wound.
    
       An outside consultant with expertise in the field of administrative
    systems would look at our systems with an objective eye and make
    recommendations to suit our business needs.  Digital could then
    make the decision to farm out the job to an outside group or do
    it internally.  I would be willing to bet my annual salary that
    the expense to do the study and implement a new system would pay
    for itself within two years.  Several million dollars in lost billings,
    customer dissatisfaction, and manpower occur every year yet we only
    worry about the cost of designing and implementing a new system.
    
      The existing system's deficiencies have been hidden for years
    by our rapidly growing business.  It's time to admit the problems
    we have with the systems and start reducing waste.  
    
      That's what I would do if I were Ken Olsen for a day.
     
                                                                   

    Two small things:
    
        1] Fire everybody IBM fired; and
    
        2] Enact a policy that employees are responsible for the results
           of their actions - even after they've changed jobs.  This
           would get most of the things requested here to happen.  Today's
           difficulties lie in people, particularly managers, viewing
           the challenge of their positions as "get to the next step" rather
           than "do the job well".  (I will admit that this ethical
           dilemma is not unique to Digital.)
           
    Then I'd invite my good buddy Don in Calgary to go golfing.

Re: .52, FS Admin Systems

100% agreement. As a FS 'System Administrator' for a few years I can certainly
testify to what your are saying. Most of the code is still warmed-over
RSTS Basic using a homebrew database system. Maybe that was OK in 1980 on
an 11/70 running RSTS but it just doesn't cut it today. And is such a behemoth
that it takes forever to get the application modified to match the business.
As a result, the admin staff is REQUIRED to perform all kinds of difficult
and time-wasting workarounds and make-do's becuase the system doesn't support
the ever-changing business.

If I were Ken I'd to see to reworking this entire monster.

Lee

    Ref: .53
    
>>>>    2] Enact a policy that employees are responsible for the results
>>>>       of their actions - even after they've changed jobs.    

    
    ****** Multiple amens to the above, and hear hear........

                  TROUBLES ARE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITIES

                                 OR

                         HAVE FUN & BE LAZY


Be thankful for the troubles of your Job. They provide about half of
your income. Because if it were not for the things that go wrong, the
difficult people you have to deal with and the problems and
unpleasantness of your working day someone could be found to handle
your job for far half of what you are being paid.

It takes intelligence, resourcefulness, patience, tact and courage to
meet the troubles of any job. That is why you hold down your present
job. And it may be the reason you aren't holding down an even bigger
one.

If all of us would start to look for more troubles and learn to handle
them cheerfully and with good judgement as opportunities rather than
irritations, we would find ourselves getting ahead at a surprising
rate. For it is a fact that there are plenty of big jobs waiting for
men or women who aren't afraid of the troubles connected with them.


					Author unknown

This should be part of our philosophy in DEC and will be largely
responsible for the success of our people and DEC.

    
    	I would bring a cross-section of people from each plant/
    	organization together, or, better yet, hop in the corporate
    	transportation, and VISIT each plant/group, and get a feel
    	for what's REALLY going on in DEC. The ultimate in MBWA
    	(Management By Walking Around).
    
    	Bill

re: 749.57

You'd have to be careful of the acronym.  There might be another way to 
interpret "MBFA", which might be all too descriptive of some management 
styles.

Ray ("But not mine!", he hastens to add 8^) )

    re: .59
    
    As I said earlier, this is an AVERAGE figure.  It includes training
    time, district meetings, unit meetings, etc. which aren't billable
    (vacation too, I think).  If you want to pursue this further, drop
    a line in SOFTWARE_SERVICES.
    
    -- Russ

    I think it's important to clarify the number, since at first glance
    it looks like you aren't being expected to work a full week.
    
    The targeted billable hours is a number averaged out over the entire
    length of service, usually 6 - 12 months.  It must take into account:
    
    training time
    all meetings, and travel time to and from them
    vacation time
    sick days
    any personal time off (like to go home and meet the plumber)
    admin time (doing monthly reports, expenses, SBS, etc.)
    
    If you total all that up over a year, it's a significant amount
    of non-billable time.
    
    						Pat_who_used_to_do_residencies

    Once again we've converged nicely on a rathole.
    
    Might I ask -- what do billable hours, sick days, ... contribute
    to your being issued a magic wand that empowers you to be Ken Olsen
    for a day ... don't think nits -- be bold, aggressive, ...
    
    Maybe an example would help -- Compare the "changes" and their "agents"
    now occuring in --
    
                     USSR, Baltic states, Eastern Airlines, Bush
                     Administration, War on Smoking, War on Drug's
                     Constant unrest in Northern Ireland, Alaska's
                     Oil spill, 1992, 1997, ...
    
    Digital's problems are similar, of lesser or comparable, magnitude.
    
    How if you were Ken Olsen, the captain of the Digital ship of state,
    ...
    
    Regards,
    Joe

    Re: .62
    
    I still stand by the serious 1/3 of my original response...
    
        Make 'it' such that people were responsible for their actions
        even after they left the position in which the actions were
        taken.
    
    I'd expand the horizons of that one to encompass most of the situations
    mentioned.  Using a position solely as a stepping stone to the next
    with no regard for 'doing the right thing' or anything like trying
    to get ahead by doing the job right is a malaise which is by no
    means confined to Digital alone.
    
    To be realistic about the final action of the day, I guess if I
    were KO, I'd prefer fishing to golf, so...
    
    
    Don
    

    If I were K. O.
    
    	1. Begin a company wide suggestion box. Any one could send
    suggestions to any one. Many employees that work in the trenches
    (seeing customers,etc.) have great ideas and have no way to bring the
    idea up.
    
    	2. Look at all the jobs created in the last five years. It seems
    many are place holders. Check out the value of these positions. I would
    probably get rid of at least 2/3rds of them.
    
    	3. Cancel all meetings. Require adaquate justification before the
    next meeting is held. Do as much correspondence as possible over the
    phone or the next time you see them in the smoking room.
    
    
    It seems most employees should be seeing and talking to  customers on a
     regular basis.   (Customers pay for everything.) 
    
    A few employees are needed to gather data and supply stats and make sure 
    bills are paid and customers pay us on time. 
    
    And fewer (still) employees are needed to manage all the others. Seems like
    we have our pyramid upside down.
    
    	4. And then I would take the afternoon off. No need to break a
    sweat the first day.
    
    ken rains
    

re Note 749.64 by WINERY::RAINS:

>     	3. Cancel all meetings. Require adequate justification before the
>     next meeting is held. Do as much correspondence as possible over the
>     phone or the next time you see them in the smoking room.
  
        Yes.  When we schedule a meeting, we are expending a lot of a
        valuable corporate asset:  employee's time.  We need to
        justify spending a few dollars, yet no justification needs to
        be given for a dozen hours of staff time.

        Bob

    For starters,I would immediately cancel all company originated
    publications.(especially newsletters) Any requests to publish
    *anything* would have to be approved by the operations committee.This
    would insure that only publications that are truly needed are costing
    us dollars. I'm really sick and tired of being bombarded with stupid
    publications and what really irks me is that this is costing us
    lots of money.
    Maybe this should be in soapbox.

    SoftStuff and DECStuff were just cancelled, Julywill be their last
    isse.

    It seems that there are all sorts of ideas out there concerning what
    DEC's problems are.  What I would propose is to use this note for
    people to list what they would do, if they were in charge of the whole
    shebang.

    
    1) Instruct the author of the current vision statement to create
       another one, in 50 words or less, without ambiguity, that will carry
       us through at least the next ten years. Give it three days.
    
    2) During those three days, find 100 people throughout the company, from
       all groups and all levels, in proportions roughly equal to the size of
       those groups and levels.
    
    3) Have those people review the vision statement. Specifically ask if
       they can determine whether their work is supporting that vision, or
       if they understand how they should refocus their work to support
       that vision. Give this one week.
    
    4) Have vision author incorporate feedback from above. Two days. Still
       50 words or less.
    
    5) Post the resulting vision statement at the entrance to each
       building, in every working area, every break area, bathroom stalls,
       whatever. Mail electronically to every employee. Encourage everyone
       at least monthly to push back when they see activities that conflict
       with the vision.
    
    In two weeks, everyone will know exactly what business we're in. In
    six months, anyone who cannot explain how their work supports that
    business should be looking for another career.
    

    step 1: first define the problem(s), this will define where you stand in
    the scheme of things, ie. your current state.

    step 2: outline clearly where you want to be, i.e  your future state.

    step 3: define time interval you want to be in your target state.

    step 4: find the deriving policy that will take you from your current
    state to your target state, call it u, you want an optimal, an optimal
    policy is the one that will minimize the cost of taking you from you
    current state to your target state over the time period. The cost function
    is a function of resources, cost of deriving policy itself, and cost on
    deviation from you final target.

    step 5: take the optimal policy found by solving step 4 and implement it.
    
    problem solved.
    
    /nasser

    Sometimes I think we get too involved in details to see the overall
    prcture.  Basically, I think that there are two things business has to
    do:  1) Makin' it, and  2) Sellin' it.  If at the end of a week or two
    you cannot summarize how you helped the company achieve number 1 or
    number 2 then you probably are not helping the company.  A few notes
    ago there was some talk about deadwood in the organization and what
    should be done to eliminate it.  1 & 2 might be one way of defining
    what is meant by deadwood.  I feel that we have a lot of "support"
    people who really just mitigate progress by making business far more
    complex than it needs to be.
    
    Dave Russell

    
    1) No more worry over lay-offs hanging over the people. In order to
       remain competitive and still retain my workforce I would go to
       a 32 hour week. All people will retain their benefits but lose 8
       hours of pay per week until DEC is turning a profit. Advantage will
       be DEC's when times are better, example; DEC will be able to tool-up
       to demand quicker than our competitor giving DEC the edge.
    
    
    2) Seek out other alternatives of payroll reduction rather than the
       old fashion only choice is lay-off. (Reminds me of our Govt., only
       way to fix things is to raise income tax.) There are always options!
    
    
    3) Remove politics from DEC we're all in this together.
    
    4) make people accountable, is the only way to yeild results.
    
    5) Customers want and only care about 3 things, Price, Quality, Speed
       of Delivery!!! Focus on those 3. All internal processes would be
       Customer driven.
    
    6) All plants, work, are measured and are interdependent on each other
       if one fails then we all fail.
    
    7) Our Vendors will be treated as an extension of DEC.
    
    8) E.D.I. will bring us together.
    
    9) One World-wide ordering and delivery process of hardware, software,
       and service offerings.
    
    10) Design Eng for manufactability.
    
    
    There's plenty more but I'm thru brainstorming for the moment.
    
    Rick
    
    
    3)

    If an action doesn't yeild an ROI, then don't do it ... starting with
    KO all the way down to the grounds crew ...
    
    Jerry

    "Bring dynamite/and a crane
     Blow it up/start all over again"
    
    "Tobbacco Road", Nashville Teens 1966

    Ok, I'll play KO for a few minutes.
    
    Here's my version of the parking lot exercise.
    
    1) Define the core businesses.
    
    	a) hardware products
    	b) software products
    	c) services
    
    2) Define the common infrastructure needed to let each of these
    businesses profit by its association with the others.  This is all the
    corporate overhead that there can be.
    
    3) Divisionalize the key businesses so that they have no constraints
    other than the minimal common infrastructure (especially financial
    results accounting).  Get the BOD to select the Division Presidents.
    
    4) Let the Division Presidents bid on the current employee base.
    
    5) Give a TFSO package to everyone not chosen.
    
    6) Retire, because the Digital I built no longer exists and I don't want
    to be the head of a holding company.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick
    
    
    

Here are a few more ideas, broken down into 3 catagories:

OVERALL CORPORATION: - Flatten the hierarchy
		     - Limit the number of VPs to only those who have an
		       entire organization reporting to them (ie: mfg, sales, etc)
		     - Fill management positions with only those people who
		       REALLY have management ability.  Being a good engineer or
		       sales rep does not mean you will be a good manager.
		     - Eliminate unnecessary perks like corporate jets.  We 
		       can't afford them anymore.
		       Eliminate the release/FRS of products before they are
		       fully debugged and READY to volume ship.  Releasing the
		       product only to recall, place on hold, or delay shipment
		       only frustrates the customer and puts us in bad light.
		     - Develop a REAL ability to fully support 3rd party products.
		       Don't say it if you can't do it.
		     - Install DVN capability in ALL offices.  Currently, many
		       employees don't get the benefit of DVN broadcasts because
		       the nearest DVN site is hours away.


MANUFACTURING/ENGINEERING:  - Rotate design engineers into manufacturing 
			      engineering jobs and visa-vera on a "Product-
       			      Based" schedule.  Currently, we have many DEs that
			      don't/won't consider the manufacturing 
			      ramifications to their design decisions.  Knowing
			      that you will be the ME for the product has a
			      tendency to motive you to ensure the design can
			      be easily manufactured.


SALES:  - Put sales reps on a meager commision with generous commisions,
	  and replace the gimmicky sales incentives (COE, etc.) with cash bonuses.
	- Randomly audit ALL remote offices to ensure they are being managed
	  in accordance with DEC philosophy, policies, and management technique.
	  Replace those managers who fail to manage per DEC culture.
	- Mandate that all Account Group Managers visit their remote sites at 
	  least once a quarter to take a pulse of the office.  They should not
	  let the sugar they get from the remote managers be their only source
	  of information "All's well down here, Sir!".

    Implement the real reorganization as outlined in 1852 and discussed by
    serveral people.
    
    Pat

           1. Move middle mgt. people into the positions of their
    underlings 1 month out of every year. I've always felt you can't 
    manage what you don't understand.
    
           2. Keep the tools of design & mfg at the leading edge. If an
    Engineer needs the power of a VAX5000at his fingertips he should get it. 
    
           3. Give sales people the same as #3. If they're expected to sell
    XXXX they should be using a variant of XXXX as much as possible. 
    
           4. Allow project teams to give performance reviews. Too often 
    mgt is too far removed to know the pain associated with projects. #1 
    over time would help to get mgt more problem literate as they'd 
    experience the same pain.
    
           5. Use outside market research to see which direction we should
    be going. Sorry KO I love ya but no one person knows which direction we
    should be going for future growth. (my brother in law works in market
    research and hated DEC for it's know it all attitude. They'd make
    suggestions and DEC would usually go in a completely different
    direction)
    
           6. Allow plants like GSO ,ESD you name the group to compete 
    for outside business. We've got some wonderful technology. Why not 
    allow a you name the company to come in and have us design and build 
    boards systems ?? for them.
    
           7. Do more DFM design for manufacturability. On my current project
    (one of the ALPHA MEMORIES) we were closely linked to Galway the MFG
    site from day #1. Granted everything is a compromise but we've designed
    something with manufacturability in mind. This is better than passing a
    completed design off to a site and having many surprises for them.
          
    
    
           
        

It's real simple...move all of management back into revenue producing positions.

That way they won't be in the way of any real progress, and those people that
have real leadership talent will emerge to bring order to the chaos.  The real
leadership talent should then be promoted into technical leadership positions
to run the business.

Those managers that can't handle the change, will leave voluntarily.  Those that
are worth their salt, will emerge as real leaders, but will have more power to
actually do something, as opposed to sitting around in meetings wasting time 
and money.

This of course would mean that we would need to figure out what businesses we
want to be in so that we know what we're trying to accomplish, but that brings
us back to the discussion on vision...

This would also have the benefit of reducing the management overhead that is
most likely the cause of our current problems....

Rob

P.S. Even though this isn't what's being discussed here, it's just a related
thought (ie small rathole)...if we can generally agree that one *major* problem
at DEC is a "top heavy" (too much worthless management) organisation, it would
be interesting to know how many of these managers are getting "shown the door".
Statistics showing the ratio between "frontliners" and "overhead" could be very
interesting...

.74>"Bring dynamite/and a crane
.74> Blow it up/start all over again"
.74>    
.74>"Tobbacco Road", Nashville Teens 1966

Some additonal lyrics from the same song:

"But it's home.... the only one I've ever known"

     
    I would joining industry trend toward leaner management, i.e
    laying off or eliminating one layer of senior or middle management.
    For example, Sheraton announced laying off 400 mgr and save $500 million
    a year while improving communication between headquarters and the
    front lines.
    
    Plus, I will not take one day pay worth for the above actions. This
    will prove to my employee how firm mind top mgt to turn around the
    company.
    
    Michael..  
    
    P.S this is how much I can do within a day. :-) Pretty good record
        when you compare to Richard Miller of Wang...