Conference 7.286::digital

re.0:

Isn't this the same as topic 7.* or do you intend a different line of 
discussion?

Dave.

   re .1
   
   7.* talks about how to beat IBM. I think Simon's point is ... "Is being
   number two behind IBM our main goal"
   
   I feel too much stress has been put on confronting IBM here in Digital. 
   We have Sun, HP and Apple nipping at our heels. There are a number of
   Vendors (Wang, UNisys etc) who are currently in an unhealthy state. 
   
   I feel we should concentrate more on picking up business from those who are
   suffering, covering our tail from those that are coming up behind us, and
   then prepare for the onslaught on the Big One.
   
   q
   

	I'm not at all sure that being number 1 is all that healthy a
	(primary) goal. I think this tends to reduce all planning to
	"how will this make us bigger". Anther better, IMHO, goal is
	to make the best computers on the market. This implies things
	like meeting the customers needs and building the highest quality
	product on the market. If we things like that then other good
	things, like market share, better margins, profits, etc will
	all fall out naturally. 

				Alfred

    
    Well, Alfred beat me to it, but my thought was the same...
    
    We shouldn't be concentrating on kicking the companies that are down,
    or protecting our butts from the companies that are up, or comparing
    our size against anyone else.
    
    We should concentrate on providing the best products and services in
    the industry. All goodness (profits, growth, salary continuation) will
    follow naturally. Ken has said that countless times.
    

    
    I believe if we concentrated on satisfying our customers' wants, as
    they define them and their satisfaction, better than anyone else, then
    the revenues, profits and being number one will follow automatically.
    

    Satisfying out customers' _wants_ is important, no doubt about that. 
    Coming up with products that anticipate, and satisfy, their _needs_ is
    the key to success.
    
    The real "killer" products are those that simultaneously identify and
    solve a previously unnoticed problem.  Think about VisiCalc.
    
    -dave

    I tend to agree with the .2,.3,.4 responses. We seem to be going to
    some kind of circle too, between here and some recent notes in the
    Marketing notes file.
    
    I think in the computer business, being #1 has been synonymous with
    being IBM, having that kind of clout. What kind of clout you say?
    Many times it is the ability to dictate to the customer what they
    should buy. Well I for one do not want to be part of any organization
    that dictates anything to customers. I want to be part of an
    organization whose products are so differentiated, so superior, so
    elegant that discerning customers see the alternatives clearly and pick
    ours after all. Often times I think a product which is not superior
    is chosen for emotional or political reasons by customers, propelling
    that product's maker into the top rank. Well those customers deserve
    what they get, for they have not made a truly rational decision.
    Therefore I see a lot of honor in being a number two, or a number
    three in the marketplace. Also there is the bite, the hunger that comes
    from being an underdog. It makes it that much more satisfying when you
    do win, for it means you have triumphed over an incumbant's golfing
    relationship with a CEO.
    
    It brings us to the burning issue of 'When is a decision made to garner
    market-share not a good decision for meeting the customer's needs and
    wants?'
    
    We have this duality within our society, that says monopolies are bad
    and yet a dominant market share is all that many corporations seem to 
    strive for.
    
    I have long thought that Digital stood more for great products than
    killer marketing. It would be nice if great products brought us the #1
    position but somehow I don't think that's how it works these days.
    
    erik

    Yes, I agree with ALL the notes that says "better is more important
    than bigger", Ken has said it countless times, and I sincerely believe
    it myself.
    
    However, when you are in front of a customer (very high level
    management) the ability to say that "We are #2", "We are Fortune 27",
    "We have $x Billion in the bank", "We have the largest private
    electronic network, 50000+ systems, 100000+ users"...
    
    ie "Mr customer, the solution we're going to sell you now, is the same
    that we use to run a 125000 persons, $13B Fortune 27 corporation that
    is the #2 computer vendor WORLDWIDE. You will be successful with our
    support"
    
    believe me, the "comfort feeling" is tremendous.
               
    HW

>    believe me, the "comfort feeling" is tremendous.

	Sure it's great but it's not that big a deal. I was in the field
	twice myself (a few years for DEC and a few years for someone
	else) so I know a little about it. Being big helps get in the door
	but companies a lot smaller then us beat us all the time. Being
	big isn't enough to win.

				Alfred

    
    Research sort of indicates that there is a correlation between market
    share and profitability.  The bigger you are, the more market share 
    you can get, and vv.  The more profitable you are, the more you can be 
    expected to grow.  The better the expectations for growth, the more 
    investors will invest in you.  The more investment and profit you have, 
    the more capital you have to fund expansion.  The better you can fund 
    expansion, the better you can do engineering and apply new techology.  
    The more you can afford these things, the better the degree of quality 
    you can put into them.
    
    The owners of companies like quality products, but they like growth
    better.  High-technology products are expensive to produce and sell.
    Bigness can help insure that you can be viable and sell a quality 
    product.  I'd rather be big, viable, and selling a quality product
    than just selling a quality product.
    
    	Dave

    Some market analysts are predicting that HP will be No 2 in about two
    years.  (They are bigger than DEC now but about 30% of their revenue is
    from other than computers.)
    
    Instead of worrying about being No. 1, we'd better be working harder
    and smarter just to stay No. 2.
    
    Williams

    .11 reflects my thinking well, we want to be good first and foremost,
    and as a result of that, we would naturally become big. However, once
    we're big, we need to stay BIG, if not get BIGGER. All this while, we
    have to keep up being GOOD.
    
    hw

    Isn't the challenge once you are BIG to be able to still be extremely
    responsive to market changes/conditions? The emphasis on being big
    tends to mask the innate tendency of large insitutions to bog down in
    their own bureaucracy. At what point does an organization become
    impossible to control by one person?
    
    erik

    
    True, being big does make an organization extremely complex.  Once an
    organization reaches a certain size, bureaucracy is inevitable.  And
    bureaucracy isn't necessarily bad, unless it begins to exist just for
    its own sake.  
    
    At what point does an organization become bureaucratic, and out of
    control of a single person?  Perhaps a hundred people; maybe even
    three hundred.  Certainly by a thousand the complexities and
    relationships are more than any one person can control.
    
    Any major, other than niche, player in today's hardware market is
    already big.  The other big guys want to get bigger at your expense.
    You don't want to get smaller, and they don't want to let you stay
    the same.  So you have to try to be bigger, too.
    
    	Dave

    Re: .15 <At what point does an organization...>
    
    At the point when the 'one person' no longer WANTS to understand
    it or care about it.
    
    Proof:  Mr. Gorbachev is in charge of a slightly larger organization
            than our own.  He is intent on remaking that organization
            in his own vision, and he is having an awesome impact.
    
    In our case:  Judge for yourself!
                                                      
    IBM:    Akers is so impressed with the *idea* of being President,
            he has nothing left to put into the job.
                      
    
    Don

    I used to work for the Number Two computer company.  We even called
    ourselves "The Other Computer Company."  Then we slipped to #3, then
    #4, then...  In all that time, I don't think we ever thought we'd be
    Number One.  Maybe that has something to do with what happened.
    
    Being Number One does have its advantages.  It's possible for a
    customer to evaluate Number One and Number X, discover that Number X
    provides a better solution at a better price with better service, and
    go with Number One anyway, because it's Number One.
    
    On the other hand, one can have the largest market share in a declining
    market.  In 1939, Poland had the best horse cavalry in the world.  On a
    less somber note, Digital has been the dominant player in the
    minicomputer market.  At some point, being Number One ceases to be an
    advantage.
    
    I'd be happy striving to be the best in our market, and letting someone
    who's paid far more than I decide what new market we're going to
    compete in from time to time.  If being the best gives up the dominant
    share, that's great!

"Number 1" in what aspect?  If you intend to compete, you must know the 
criteria for 'the win'.  That needs definition before spend we Digital 
resources convincing others to start crying about 'our' failure at being 
"Number 1".

Bruce

    be nice if we were #2 about now.