Conference 7.286::digital

    Well, ummm, not to either invite a deluge of applications (I'm not a
    hiring mgr) or to dispute the claim or pain of .0, but Digital *did*
    just start the Internet Software Business Unit, and recruited Ilene
    Lang (former Sr. VP at Lotus Development) to report to Palmer & run
    it...
    

    Well, we in the languages division of the "Core Technologies Group" are
    doing quite well, even hiring.  But we don't do all languages,
    primarily Fortran and C/C++ (plus underlying technologies.)  However, I
    wouldn't say even that operating systems are safe - we could come into
    work on Monday and find that the company decided that we'd let
    Microsoft handle such things and sell off UNIX and VMS development to
    some third party.  More ridiculous things have already happened.
    
    We're still doing software, and good engineers who are willing to
    stretch their minds around something different than they've been doing
    are still in demand.  But that's this week's long-term strategy...
    
    				Steve

    (-: Bang!!! :-)
    

  I don't believe you can point to *ANY* place in Digital's product
  line and say "Yes, absolutely, Digital will be in this business
  five years from now". I don't even believe this of Alpha CPU
  Systems Hardware, although I think that's most likely to remain
  our real "core competency".

 (On the other hand, there are some product lines you can point
  to and be almost certain that Digital will bail out within a
  year or two.)

  So there's no job title that I think is truly safe in this
  corporation.

  (On the other hand, there are clearly titles and product areas
  where you might as well paint a big bull's eye on yourself and
  say "TFSO ME!")

  The best you can do is remain flexible, and keep your eye on
  skills that are marketable, both within Digital and without
  Digital. Don't get trapped as someone who knows, for example,
  everything about "ObscureMail" or "OpenOS" or "DECwrong" but
  wouldn't recognize a Pentium Pro if it fell on your head.

  And read "Dilbert" religiously.

                                   Atlant

RE: .4

	There is ONE job title that is truly safe in Digital.

	Vice President

	There always seems to be new openings.

							mike

The title of VP may stay around (in ever-increasing numbers), but 
individual VPs don't tend to have long lifespans at Digital.

				Steve

    
    vp=vacated position
    
    

    Digital is a hardware company and always has been.  The sooner we
    understand this and start working with it the better off we will be. 
    We are a chip manufactuer and a good one.  Lets start selling this chip
     

Can't sell the chip if nothing runs on it.

			Steve

    
    
    
    Sun was a hardware company. They now have Java. Do you think they'll
    get rid of it because it aint core competency?
    
    IBM was a mainframe company. They also spent 3.2 billion dollars
    acquiring Lotus. Perhaps someone ought to remind them that it aint core
    business, so they can get rid of it.
    
    Microsoft should just do DOS, or better still, stick to writing BASIC...
    
    Simplistic characterisations of large, diverse, organisations do nobody
    any favours. They blind you to opportunity and allow you to delude
    yourself when the business changes to something else. We do some hardware 
    very well, other things have been unmitigated disasters 
    (ask a former VAX9000 customer about reliability
    one day)or soemtone who has had to FCO terminal server roms 3 or 4
    times for the same machine. We also, currently do, and have in the past 
    done, some of the finest software the world has seen.
    
    Our mail and directory service products are the most robust in the
    market, well conceptualised, fast.
    Linkworks works.
    We have fine distributed middleware: Objectbroker, DecMessageQ and our
    DCE products are also excellent.
    Polycenter Netview on NT
    We have had some good compiler product.
    Out internet software seems to be attracting attention.
    
    We have often failed to exploit key abilities due to a lack of
    marketing savvy (EVER SEEN AN AD FOR DIGITAL SOFTWARE?????????) and a
    lack of real knowledge within the corporation of what capability we
    really do have.
    
    However, this is a situation that is changeable.
    
    If you wander back through this notesfile to the days when we signed up
    with Tandy for our PCs you'll see the same garbage as we see spouted for
    software today : "digital cant do PCs", "we are not in the PC business"...
    Basically, all that was lacking was:
    1. committment to the business
    2. marketing investment
    3. individuals who understood the business
    4. no focus on concetrating on removing the barriers to success
    
    For a long time our networks business went into the same malaise. Its
    separation and relative autonomy has seen it come back somewhat. The
    parallels are there for anyone who understands Digital.
    
    By way of example, lets pull a software product from the pile, DECmessageQ.
    For a long time DMQ was conceptualised as good, simple software
    primarily for the manufacturing space. Marketing dollars are scant and
    its considered something that is just kind of there, and has been for
    years. We also have the best product on the market, by any
    estimation. We had client/server announcements last year and it didnt
    even get mentioned. 
    
    Yet the message oriented middleware market is projected to grow by a huge 
    amount in the coming few years, largely because the paradigm suits
    certain things that businesses do well. 
    
    Enter IBM with their MQSeries product. It is less capable, less robust, 
    less featureful and has less platform coverage. Yet, they are committed to it.
    There is promotional material.They seek out the main customers, application
     developers. They sign agreements with key accounts. They actually do 
    amazing things and integrate the middleware into their own office and 
    Internet products.
    
    No concern that someone else (Digital), was the dominant vendor in this
    product space. They have a strategy. They aim to take message oriented
    middleware into the business mainstream, where a huge potential
    market is. 
    
    I can see another parallel with the "accidental" success of the
    altavista software. I guess we should not exploit this because it isnt
    hardware? Hang on, doesnt it sell hardware and services ? Wasnt All-in-1 
    also responsible for a lot of Vax sales over the years? I guess this is 
    the fourth element of success, opportunism and the ability to move quickly 
    on circumstances that lend themselves to that. If anything, the
    calcification of some of the software product base has stopped our
    ability to adapt and also our ability to jump on a good thing and ride
    it for what its worth with committment and enthusiasm. Altavista as a
    product will succeed because of a new enthusiasm and committment to
    success more than the product per-se. 
    
    These same fundamentals are missing from the senior management today.
    The hiring of the ex-Lotus VP is a good thing. We need to put people in
    who understand the space. We also need people who know how to make a
    business that should be a success work instead of giving up. Mostly, we 
    need sensible positioning of product where it fits and we need solid 
    committment to make the necessary investment to play in the chosen 
    product space. We have to know what is good business to be in and commit 
    to that business. You can win with good hardware, you can win hugely if you
    do software right, and you dont have to invest billions of dollars up
    front in fabrication plants (some investment, however, would be nice.)
    
    We did go through a phase of trying to be all things to all people. That
    had to stop. But we cant afford to abandon software capability
    completely. In fact, where we do things well, we should be able to
    invest and commit to ensure we now succeed.
    
    Much of Microsoft's success is not do to the quality of the product nor
    its technical excellence. Its due to the unmitigated enthusiasm and
    sense of committment people see. When Microsoft committed to the
    wordprocessing market, the first few products were complete duds. Yet
    they persevered. They showed committment. Their mail products have gone
    through similar experiences. Many of the people who use our mail
    products know the quality that is there. What they dont like is an
    organisation that cannot show its committment to be in the product
    space.
    
    It has become increasingly hard to see that sense of committment in Digital
    , even with our best wares. For a period prior to Alpha, the same tiredness
    came in the messages about VAX and in our weatherbeaten communications 
    lineup. But Alpha and Gigaswitch re-affirmed our belief in our abilities 
    at hardware excellence. A change in commitment to promote hardware has
    also helped.
    It will take a "singular success" to do the same to our belief as a 
    producer of great software. I remember how hang-dog Lotus was with
    1-2-3 as a declining product, improv dying a death and no solid product
    foundation. Then came Lotus Notes. 
    
    Our software strategy most recently has been a capitulation, not a 
    strategy for success. We need to replace those who have failed with 
    people who know what to do. This change should go right to the top of
    the software business to ensure we get real committment.
    
    - John
    
    

>    We have often failed to exploit key abilities due to a lack of
>    marketing savvy (EVER SEEN AN AD FOR DIGITAL SOFTWARE?????????) and a
>    lack of real knowledge within the corporation of what capability we
>    really do have.

Yes! For DEC/EDI Software in March 1996 EDI World Page 5.


I know that's a very specialized publication. I would imagine other Software
Groups are advertizing as well?


We do a good job at Software that has synergy with our hardware and 
Consulting strategies. 

Out biggest failure is that we don't seem to participate in the primary
software market (i.e. wintel platforms). We have some offerings in that
space but they usually still support our other strategies (e.g. Management
Stations for OpenVMS and DECnet etc.). 

Do we have any "shrink wrap" Software softare for the wintel platforms 
(that is a product in its own right and not a part of some other product)?

Mark

        re. -1
    
    We could have! LinkWorks. It could have been marketed as a shrink
    wrapped product. You can use it in small groups without much hassle.
    But you cannot buy it in a shop. We sell it primarily through SI.
    We do so as an indication that it is a "complicated piece of s/w",
    which it is not. We tell customers how wonderful it is, but also
    inform them that it can only be installed in a project type activity
    because of the 20 CSF's and heavy impact on their organization.
    
    Our friends from MS have a slightly different approach. They sell
    (sold) Windows for Workgroups as a shrink wrapped, simple to install,
    implement and use product. They never talked about organizational
    impact! They never warned for a potential severe negative impact on 
    group productivity.
    Same approach with the directory services in Exchange. We point at the
    many organizational (naming) impacts when installing/using X.500.
    MS simply instructs them to copy the company's telephone directory.
    Simple, and only half true,... as usual.
    
    So maybe it is not only a matter of commitment (re. -2?), but also a
    matter of being more focussed on the direct benefits for the prospect.
    Highlight not only the good level of functionality, but even "the ease 
    and fun of use".
    Stop acting like whimps, driven by guilt!
    Act like selling winning/killer products! Which, by the way, ours are!

    On a corporate level, we don't advertise specific software products.
    Individual development groups can, and have, paid for advertising from
    their own budget.  We advertised DEC Fortran 90 this way in a
    specialized publication.
    
    It's a shame, really.  The software pulls the hardware.  I got mail
    yesterday from a university in Australia which said that the primary
    reason they decided to buy Alpha systems was the quality of DEC Fortran
    90 compared to its competition (on other platforms.)
    
    				Steve

    sounds like "marketing" is the word ...

    DECmessageQ is experiencing a reviving PR effort.  Last week's press
    release on v3.2 (including the new MVS client and the MQSeries
    Connection (DmQ to MQS message bridging)) was the source of articles in
    at least four "mainstream" trade rags, including PC Week and
    Information Week.  I gather that a homepage off the Digital page is in
    the works (I hope soon, to counter the nifty MQSeries homepage).

    ... and if I may continue to pluck on the same harp I did earlier in .1
    about ISBU -- I'm told we have a sigNIFicant marketing budget, I've met
    some really forward-thinking marketeers here, and our VP (while surely
    technically savvy & an inhabitant of cyberspace) is of the marketing-
    side persuasion too.  So SOMEbody realizes that w/o marketing clout,
    any/all good SW ideas are for naught.
    

re: .10

> ...core competency ... large, diverse organisations

The opening of reply .10 seemed to be inferring that there was some sort of
objective logic applied to determination of "core competency".  Naaaa.  It's
just management-speak.

Whatever they decide to fund is core competency, whatever they decide to ax
isn't.  A thing they kill may be losing money, or it may take resources
they want to apply to a "more important" thing (for which they can't hire
more people or acquire more funds), or it may be a cash cow perceived to be
"short-term" that they want to peddle while it has value to get funds to
finance "long-term" projects, or the boss of the killed project may have
ticked off his boss, or ...

--------

That introduction aside, the rest of your treatise is right on: it takes
commitment.  Digital is certainly not committed to being a software house
(were they ever?), but they do recognize that certain software bits sell
systems, and if you can't point the customer to a vendor that has the right
software bits, you may (grudgingly) have to do them yourself.

Within those software groups there may be excellent software designers and
developers, and maybe even people who know how to peddle that particular
software, who are given a chance to do it.

But if Microsoft/CA/Borland/SAS/Oracle/... provided equivalent software on
our platforms, chances are awfully slim our software guys would be allowed
to continue.

One may argue about the wisdom of that on a case-by-case basis, but that's
been the corporate behavior for years now, "feel-good" memos
notwithstanding.  One could envision a different company operating
differently -- but that's the way this one operates, and "they" have made
it pretty clear where "they" want to take this company -- not by
pronouncement, but by action.  Perhaps sad, but true.

__Mark

A little late to the discusssion, since I've been out having my brain trained.

I would say "Yes!". It just depends on what your definition of "software" is. If
it's "commercial end-user applications to be shrink-wrapped and sold at
CompUSA", you are limiting your thinking. If that is the kind of work you want
to do, this may not be the place. On the other hand, with a broader definition
(and the field of software engineering is pretty darn broad), there is plenty of
work, and lots of places where software engineering skills are valued. Look up
at my personal name field on this note to see one.

While Digital builds a lot of hardware, a lot of software is required to make
that hardware do anything more than consume power. In our organization, we have
a whole raft of software engineers whose job it is to make network hub boxes
talk to each other and to management apps. These are all embedded systems that
may not be much to look at (just a couple of blinkin' LEDs), but need a lot of
firmware. The same is true of most intelligent devices. The job is not nearly
done when the hardware guys have finished products in their hot little hands.
There are plenty of challenging problems to be solved with good algorithms and
good designs. Bad firmware can turn perfectly good hardware into a worthless
product, so there is plenty of incentive for the organization to respect its
software people.

Don't limit yourself. Most of the hardware products Digital makes have some sort
of software component. There is plenty of work for software engineers in a
hardware company.

    -1:
    
    Wow.  Your words will be sitting there as crow.  At some point, money
    is, you'll be eating!  :-)

    re: .18
    
    I suspect that the kind of software that .0 refers to are
    those that are best developed/marketed irrespect of the
    hardware platform they run on. This certainly does not
    include firmware or device drivers.