Conference 7.286::digital

    I think Ray Davies of the Kinks said it best.
    
    Paranoia the destroyer.
    
    Ed

    Just think of how rich and mature our networking must be to support
    such sophisticated, perverse forms of communication.
    
    MATT

re: .0

Well put.
- g

    re: .0
    
    What's new about (a)-(d)?  These problems, especially (a) and (d),
    have existed for the six years I've been working for Digital.
    Before Notes became popular the rumors and memos were spread
    via electronic mail.
    
    	- Jerry

re:  .0, and "taking leave of one's senses"

You're seriously wondering WHY people are interested in the rumors?  Well,
beyond discussions of human nature (rumors, gossip, etc.)....But I think
your point is more that this behavior is becoming self-destructive, which
is something altogether different.  If that is the case...


and in a light vein...

We are the shock troops of the information age.  We suffer without floods
of incoming information to process.  And many of us wind up taking our
jobs home with us at the end of the day, so we think about Digital all
night, too!

(Hmmm.  My father didn't do that.  He worked in the post office.  He left
it there, at 5:00.  How about yours?)


in a more serious vein....

In a matrix-managed organization of over 120,000, with so many with so
few years in Digital, where it appears to take d_____ near forever to
decide *anything*, and whatever gets decided sounds like pap by the time
it gets to the bottom, rumors are traded like hard currency.

(How long have you been waiting to see where you stand with JEC?  I have
a friend who just had a conference with his management concerning his
position, and it included a memo dated months ago.  Doesn't it make sense
that that should bother people?  Whether "necessary" or not?)


in a REAL serious vein...

If I knew where the company was going, beyond those platitudinous, empty
official "statements" we get periodically, maybe I wouldn't be so interested
in the rumors (especially when I know that what little they say doesn't
address the problems, thus match the reality of what I hear from folks in
the field, facing our customers)?

If I knew where I stood in the company, vis-a-vis those platitudinous state-
ments and (at least my perception of) that reality, maybe I wouldn't be so
interested in the rumors?


Executive summary (but at the bottom)

If I'm losing my senses, believe me, it's not by choice!  (So pass me the
rumors, I'm tired of asking for things official and getting NOTHING.)


	bill linn


P.S.  Of course we're all graduates of the Watergate generation, and know
      now that sometimes the White House will selectively "leak" information
      to the press, just so it can run around complaining about leaks, and
      get all self-righteous and patriotic about it.

      Maybe some of us believe that we have such an active rumor mill because
      at least some of management believes that is the only way to attempt to
      get real information out to us who are interested (or need to know).

      It's just a thought....

    RE: What's the difference between now and 6 years ago. 

    Several. First off there are a lot more people reachable via
    the net. Heck even DIS uses e-mail now. :-) So the size of
    the mailing lists has mushroomed. VNS has gone from a few hundreds
    to thousands in the last several years just to give one example.
    The number of people using Notes has soared through the roof
    as well. Not only have the shear numbers of people involved
    changed but who those numbers include has changed. I've seen
    some VP level people reading and writing Notes. I know first 
    hand of people being called by "the office of the President"
    in regards to Notes that have been posted. Did you see that
    level of awareness 6 years ago? I didn't.

    A side risk with all the numbers of people spreading rumors
    BTW is that more of them leak to the Press and customers.
    Some of them can cause the company serious pain. This is
    one reason why posting wild rumors in conferences like this is
    not a particularly good idea.

    RE: Rumors as a result of "official channel" inadequacies.
    I agree with this idea. Digital has not done a good job of
    communicating to the employees what the employees want (and
    in some cases need to do their jobs) to know. Lots of messages
    do get communicated through LIVEWIRE and MGMT MEMO. Unfortunately
    things like how the executive committee makes decisions
    are often less interesting to employees then what those decisions
    are. These decisions are often not communicated in a timely
    way either. 1000s of people read about the wage freeze in the
    news paper before they read it in Notes or were told it by their
    management. I'm sure I'm not the only one who heard it in Notes
    days before their manager told them about it. When the medical
    benefits were changed I know all about it *months* before I
    heard it from my manager. That shows a serious communication
    problem.

    The second part of this is that communication is going only one
    way. Grace Hopper is always talking about communication going
    both bottom up and top down. Top down is broken and I'm not
    sure bottom up ever worked that well. The open door works but
    it takes a lot of guts and commitment to use it. I believe that
    lots of people are trying to use Notes and e-mail to force
    management to respond to rumors and thereby give people the
    information they want/need. I believe this is not only not
    working but counter productive and many in management seem to
    have the reaction that the answer to the problem is less
    communication between employees rather that more communication
    with employees. This is an almost natural reaction to seeing
    potentially harmful rumors spread with the speed of light to the
    far corners of the company. 

    			Alfred

Let me add to the list of things that have changed, because we can only
make good judgements about this subject if we appraise it objectively.

1950s --- rumors spread by verbal exchange
1960s --- the copy machine appears
1970s --- electronic mail appears
1980s --- electronic bulletin boards appear

In each case some people argued, "nothing has changed ... it'd be
just the same if we did things like we did before".  But, if that
were true, why'd we spend so much time inventing these things and
singing their praises?  And, why would we worry about any of them
going away?

The truth is that each of the technologies radically changed the
way information is exchanged and in several dimensions: bandwidth,
speed of propagation, and ease of geographical "reach".  At the
same time the audience exploded, increasing the size of management,
and the number of decisions "it" makes as well.

Then there's the natural tendency to believe that information gained
from rumours is more accurate than it really is.  A rumour states
that "A" will happen, then it does, and many believe they knew it would
happen in advance.  Often this is not true; the predicted event may
not really have been decided when the rumour escaped; often it is under
consideration, or just a proposal, or even provisional (subject to
change before fully implemented).  Just because those things didn't
happen doesn't make the original rumour "true", it just includes it
in the subset of rumours that turn out to be accurate post facto.

If a manager "sits" on a memo they are often presumed to be with-
holding information, but this is a hasty judgement.  They may have
been told, "don't circulate --- such-n-such is "on hold", or "we're
working on some problems and that may change".  I know this happened
several times, for example, with JEC.

We also tend to selectively remember "accurate" rumours and forget
the ones that never happened, or were blatantly false.  This causes
people to give undue credence to rumours, generating reactionary
behavior and unnecessary pain and worry.

I think that what Pat was saying in .0, or at least the way I see
it, is not that all rumours are bad, or that every excursion outside
formal channels should be quashed;  all formal systems are flawed
and a certain _degree_ of leakage and workarounds is _goodness_.

But, like anything else, it can go too far, or be misused or abused.
If we insist on treating notes by the same rules and judgements
that we treat hallway conversations, then we are likely to experience
these pitfalls.  Conversely, used wisely electronic conferencing
can be one of DEC's best competitive advantages, and also enhance
the general workplace in a number of ways.

- greg

    Re:.0
    
    Pat -- very topical issue.  I know from reading your notes in the
    past how communications, especially organizational communications
    are important to you.  I tend to agree, and as tempting as it might
    be to take a perhaps well-deserved shot at management, I must refrain.
    I don't think everybody's lost their marbles.
    
    You could look at it as a Toffler-esque issue -- technology sciences
    outstripping management sciences.  Or you could just look at it
    as Digital's adolescence -- too many levels of management strangling
    the life out of organizational communications.  I suspect both.
    Then again, I don't think 'management science' is clearly understood
    by anyone but Peter Drucker.
    
    Does anybody out there know the ratio of managers to non-managers
    in DEC?  That would be a very interesting number, provided of course
    it came from a reliable source.
    
    Great topic, though!
    

    Re topic:
    
    >Throughout Digital there is now a crisis in electronic communications:
    
    No, it's more on the order of a "crisis mentality."
    
    One thing generally overlooked so far is that Digital doesn't exist
    in a vacuum.  There are many tensions throughout the world, regionally,
    nationally, and internationally.
    
    Item: In the Northeast, the economy is changing, and in some areas,
          visibly cooling.  This has a direct effect on Digital, as
          it might result in sluggish sales.  Indirectly, it can affect
          family and friends, leading to a greater feeling of tension.
    
    Item: Internationally, there are items such as the recent unrest
          in China, the tensions in the NATO-related countries, and
          the continuation of terrorism.  These, too, lead to greater
          tensions.
    
    Item: The United States Congress has just undergone some trauma,
          with scandals surfacing about established members.  This,
          certainly within the United States, leads to a feeling of
          uneasiness, by at least a portion of the citizens, about
          at least some of their leaders.
    
    In short, there's a lot of tension abroad.  All of these items together
    may cumulatively lead to a feeling of frustration that in part may
    be assuaged by participating in the rumor business.
    
    Does that make it right?  Of course not.  Does that make it
    understandable?  I believe so.
    
    If we all chill out, these things will subside.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    Why is Personnel taking employees on leave off their census?
    
    

    
    I agree with Andy in .7. I've been here for the last 14 years, so
    i have some perspective on rumours - folks, we've always had 'em,
    they have always spread fast, and they always spread to all levels.
    We are now a bigger company and we have the means to distribute
    things very efficiently, but even as a smaller company, with much
    less technology, rumours circulated at breathtaking speed. 
    
    Some were true, some were not. Dictated but not read distributions
    from the top guy have been around for years. What is different is
    the rather bloated levels of mid-management who try and block or
    hide information. These folks can usually be identified by their
    old world view that the masses (their employees) can somehow be
    kept ignorant, or will not question unreasonable decisions, or
    someother fool hardy notion that they somehow have a trick up their
    sleeve.  By and large, this is a company of some rather smart
    folks. Trying to somehow trick these folks is going to result in
    anger - and, with the tools available to disseminate information,
    will welcome abuse.
    
    The folks at the top, whenever I have had an opportunity to listen
    or ask a question have always been real direct in what they expect
    their employees to do.  I suspect they pretty much operate the
    same today. It always amazed me though as to how messages get lost,
    softened or ignored as they decend into overhead-land. And so,
    despite the real threats all this open communication may present
    to the company, in the long run, it is sometimes the ONLY way
    needed messages get heard.
    
    bs

re .0
    
>    Throughout Digital there is now a crisis in electronic communications:
     It's not clear to me that this should be labeled a crisis.  Those are 
     the kind of statements that do lead to bad rumors.  What we have are 
     examples of the ways electronic communication will be used when other
     means of communication are lacking.
    
>    (a) rumors
     Yep, rumors have been with since people could talk.  They just spread
     faster now.  Appropriate information communication usually reduces
     them to the noise level.
    
>    (b) hoaxes (memos attributed to people who didn't write them)
     Guess I'm not paying attention, is this really widespread?  How many
     of these have happened?  Seems like when it has occurred it's been
     found out quickly enough.
    
>    (c) memos on important topics written by people who spoke to people who
>        heard a VP say something
     Again, when a vacuum occurred we had a sudden information surge.  This
     is how most information travels.  Instead of being verbal it was written
     down.  Did this improve its accuracy and traceability?
    
>    (d) memos which are authentic that have been distributed far beyond the
>        original intent of the author
     Has this caused problems?  It happens without electronic communication.
    
>    (e) memos that assume employee interest conferences are not in
>        conformance with existing corporate policy
     A completely different subject which may or may not be addressing the
     above.
        
>    Have the employees of Digital taken leave of their senses?
     Ah contraire (sp?), I think the employees of Digital are acting in 
     quite a  normal way.  We just happen to have a more sophisticated form 
     of communication than many companies.
    
     My question would be:  Considering that the activities outlined in a)
     through d) take place more rapidly in an electronic information age --
     are there any methods or procedures that NEED to (or could) be put in 
     place to  augment (negative or positive) such information flow?
    
     For guidance, one might think about the world before there was radio
     or before there was TV.
    
     Will there be a "communication shock" syndrome?  Is .0 a first look at
     it?

    Strong support for the sentiments expressed by Mr. Thompson & Mr. Linn
    in .6 and .5.
    
    The problem is more than a question of what we chose to communicate. 
    It's *why* we're communicating.  Some of the pain which we, as
    employees of Digital, feel is real and palpable.  Witness some of the
    phrases which we append to our E-Mail names.  .6 and .5 are not alone
    in this but reflect, perhaps unintentionally, the attitudes which
    afflict so many of us:  "Protect the guilty, punish the innocent," and
    "Another chalk mark in the rain."
    
    There may be many who feel the skills they bring to the
    corporate mix are unappreciated or unrewarded.  Or unnoticed.
    
    For the corporate good, I hope things improve.  soon.
    
    jim

    Perhaps this is a symptom of larger problems, such as:
    
    1).  Management has lost the ability to directly communicate to
         the employee masses...the org size, structure & geographic
         disperson has virtually eliminated the ability for person to
         person communication...there is no good way to get a message
         directly down or up the chain, but horizontally works real
         well in a matrixed, networked structure.
    
    2).  There are still people in DEC who believe that information is
         power, and the more they know & you don't, the more power they
         have over you.  I worked in such an environment, and those
         managers are still here in the company (making someone 
         else's life difficult).  There are still those who believe
         their job is to be a "perfect filter".
    
    3).  Things change, communication vehicles are developed to help
         survive in this change (notes, etc), and we need to find ways
         to leverage these vehicles.  Poor communication processes will
         not add value (just like automating a business or a mfg plant
         which has poor business practices will not make things right..
         just poorer faster) to faster vehicles.
                                               
    Mark
    

    
    	I do my part by not forwarding anything I receive that does
    	not pertain to the work I do. In other words, news from China 
    	or jokes, etc, I do not forward.
    
    	The buck stops here.
    
	I think an attitude of thinking before posting or forwarding
    	is a good one.    	

    	/prc

    Great Topic!!.....I too am concerned about the incredible scope
    of the electronic rumour mills, but I do feel that at least in part
    they are a direct function of the "deny and delay" tactics presently
    used by higher management.  The need for communication processes
    within the company which are truthful, regular, and timely is urgent,
    but until such time as we can get rid of the existing pap sheets
    like DTW the situation will continue to deteriorate.
                                                 
    I do see a silver lining to the situation though......rumours get
    developed, discussed and die a natural death much more quickly using
    electronic media than before.  I suppose that's good.

    RE: rumours; electronic or verbal......
    
    	Rumours only flourish in the absence of fact.
    
    
    	Has anyone noticed the relationship between increasing security 
    	paranoia and decreasing fact?    I don't think this is an
    	electronic crisis so much as it is a truth vacuum being filled
    	automagically.	

    
    I just watched a news comment on the "Rumors in CHINA about people
    being killed in T. square, The govt. quickly gave an offical 
    answer to stop the rumors.... 'You see no one was killed, it was
    just a rumor'"

    Rumors have their place. They seem to be dispelled if they are either
    wrong or are correct but make the folks in power look bad.  Enter
    SPIN-Control.
    
    Jon
    

    re: rumors from China
    
    Politics is supposed to be adverserial.  People are supposed to be able
    to influence society in all directions in terms of human freedom. 
    Television's access to China allowed the truth to make rumors
    irrelevant.
    
    Digital's employees are supposed to work cooperatively.  The advesaries
    of Digital are IBM, Sun, HP, etc. NOT EACH OTHER.  Television doesn't
    have access to Digital's Executive Committee.  Rumors retain their
    importance until they are not confirmed or denied.
    
    I would wager that there are more disk blocks in Digital right now
    retaining rumors that there are direct communications from Digital's
    Executive Committee.
    
    A REAL PROBLEM SUMBITTED FOR YOU CONSIDERATION
    
    Digital's measurment year starting in just 9 business days.  We have a
    unprecedented symbiosis between a vacuum of hard information and a
    flood of rumors.
    
    With what sort of enthusiasm will the new year start when in weeks or
    months (?), ones personal metrics will abruptly change?

Seems like we're talking about several types of rumors:
	1.  rumors filling an information vacuum when management is
		not doing its job of communicating
	2.  rumors floated by someone (possibly in upper management)
		with an axe to grind
	3.  rumors spread by someone with mischief or malice in mind
		("disinformation viruses"--very often concerning high
		paranoia subjects such as security)
	4.  standard wild rumors (spontaneous mutations of benign
		information viruses)

With regard to the first type, one problem is that management does not
use the same vehicles for communication that normal Digital employees
use.  Many managers (even at middle or low levels) don't even know how
to use NOTES.  Many would not consider using MAIL to quash an incipient
rumor before it spreads (although they would pass on without any vestige
of critical thought a rumor of types 2, 3 or 4 that originated from some
other source).  And how many employees ever see Management Memo?

If there's an information vacuum, the responsibility for rumors lies
equally upon the shoulders of the rumor-mongers and those in positions
of authority who are holding back information to preserve an illusion of
control (q.v. China).

Rumors of types 2, 3 and 4 can be stopped pretty easily if people think
twice before forwarding MAIL messages or duplicating NOTES.  In my
experience the lowest level of management (to which i belong, in case
you're wondering) is the most guilty of forwarding on outrageous rumors,
in part out of conformity and partly as a means of self-promotion.  No
one wants to appear to not be "in the know".  There are some pretty
common-sensical rules you could apply to this type of indiscriminate
rumor forwarding that would shut off a lot of it (such as: everyone is
accountable for what they forward, back to the name of the originator
of a memo; everyone must verify that what they are forwarding comes from
an "authoritative source"--e.g., no new corporate security policies coming
from junior programmers in the East Armpit, NJ, sales office; etc.).

							paul

re: .21

> With regard to the first type, one problem is that management does not
> use the same vehicles for communication that normal Digital employees
> use.

There is a large subset of Digital employees who do not have convenient
access to notes, and, for many, even electronic mail.  Of course, it is
difficult for them to dispel the above "rumour" (rumours often begin
with speculation or misinformation) because they don't even know this is
posted here.

Two of the most frequent naive arrogances of email and notes:

	1.  This is "just among us insiders"

	2.  Everyone in the company can (and should) see this
	    mail/posting.

Neither extreme is true.  Both are potentially dangerous assumptions.

- greg

ps: "lack of information" is being offered repeatedly as both
    defense and explanation of rumour mongering.  The right
    response is to complain about a lack of information; not
    to spread rumours.  We all already know what people "naturally"
    do; that is, many of us have taken psychology 101 at a
    university or in life.  But what people tend to do is not
    automatically "the right thing".

Besides, the problem isn't that management isn't communicating
their decisions.  The problem is that management isn't making
those decisions, compounded by a widespread belief that there
are serious decisions on the table.

My response to this has been simple:

	1.  Spend a few minutes thinking

	2.  Communicate to my boss my suggestions should any
	    of the speculated areas actually be under review

	3.  Go on with my job and just wait --- it's only the
	    nth time at the nth company I've seen this kind of
	    thing.  It all sorts itself out eventually.

Out of Sight, Not Out of Mind
     
     Office formula: Departure from the norm + lack of information = a lot
     of gossip. 

     At Digital Equipment Corp., the formula worked when Jack Shields
     didn't show up for a recent "state of the company" meeting for top
     managers. 

     A senior vice president, Mr. Shields is sometimes mentioned as the
     likely successor to President Kenneth Olsen.  But a new organization
     chart of U.S. field operations didn't include Mr. Shields.  And, at the
     meeting, Mr. Olsen vaguely responded when asked where Mr. Shields was. 

     Rumors that Mr. Shields has resigned of had been fired by Mr. Olsen
     started moving through the sales force and outside the company.  When
     the gossip got to Wall Street, raising questions about executive
     succession at Digital, the stock fell more than a point. 

     Then the media got wind of the story and called Digital for comment.
     The company denied the resignation rumors.  But a television show
     misread a wire story of the denial and reported that Jack Shields
     resigned.  Then an electronic bulletin board on Digital's in house
     computer network repeated the TV report. 

     All that finally got to Mr. Shields.  To prove his still in place, he
     invited a reported to his office.  His main message: He remains firmly
     entrenched at Digital and has no plans to resign or indication he is
     expected to. 

     Mr. Shields says he missed Digital's top-management meeting because he
     was attending the annual meeting of a company whose board he serves on.
     As for the organization chart without his name, he say it simply didn't
     go up to the level of the executive committee where he sits. 

     Says Mr. Shields: "I wanted to show you that my pulse rate is OK-I'm
     going to be around here." 

     Mr. Olsen couldn't be reached for comment. 

Wall Street Journal, b1 June 20, 1989, William M. Bulkeley

    One feature of VAXmail that drives me to distraction, effects this
    topic.......  When you get a message as a result of a .DIS list
    you have no way to know who else is on that list.   At this point
    you have two choices;  assume your subordinates/contacts are on it, 
    or assume they are not on it.   With the first assumption (you don't 
    forward) the danger is that you stop information unwittingly.   With the
    second assumption (you do forward) the danger is that you are
    proliferating junk mail.   This may not be a big issue but I'm sure
    it's a contributor and should be fixed like the higher level mail
    systems where the distribution list is included.
    
    On another point entirely......  A key feature of any management
    structure is that it is (in the best sense of the term) an information
    filter.  i.e. management adds value to trickle down communication
    by making it relevant to the particular target audience.  Junk data
    is removed and new data is added to give it local meaning.
    
    Electronic communication has made it possible to bypass the
    traditional path so; no more value added, no more filter.
    Managers have to find a way to restore the value added or give it
    up entirely.  They just look foolish if they have held back a
    communique.  I sometimes get the feeling that some of them don't
    really do well with email.  Either they spend so much time in meetings
    that they don't get to it in a timely way or the technology just
    throws them.
    
    In the final analysis I think this is really a 'Future Shock'
    phenomenom where the technology has created a problem that our social
    skills haven't caught up to yet.

>    One feature of VAXmail that drives me to distraction, effects this
>    topic.......  When you get a message as a result of a .DIS list
>    you have no way to know who else is on that list. 

	  Having been given the name of every person on the
	distribution list for a certain course announcement (see the
	"Waste Watch" note), I'll take the anonymous distribution
	lists. It would be nice for the person who *receives* the
	mail to be able to decide whether he wants the distribution
	list or not, but I doubt that's possible.

	  You point about bypassing information filters is a good
	one, though. I can't begin to count the number of times I've
	received messages that I had no reason to get - a result of
	the "shotgun" method of information dissemination.

	Roy

    re: .21
    
> And how many employees ever see Management Memo?
    
    This may be a (very) dumb question, but are employees _supposed_
    to see Management Memo?  I was allowed to read a copy of this once
    -- about 2 years ago.  Is this supposed to be used as a conduit
    of official information to non-managers?  Are managers supposed
    to pass along certain tidbits of information contained therein?
    If so, it doesn't appear that this is happening (from where I sit,
    anyway).
    
    Could anyone kindly clarify the mandate of MGMT MEMO and how it
    is (or is not) to be used to pass information to individual
    contributors?  How is it/could it/should it be used to dispel rumors
    and deliver official information?
    
    -- Russ

    What follows is my interpretation - I have no connection (apart from
    being a recipient) with the Management Memo editorial team.
    
    Management Memo is a conduit of information distributed to managers in
    the corporation. The intention is that the articles contained therein
    act as briefings for managers to 'spread the word' to their reports.
    
    There are many mechanisms to achieve this and I have seen it done in
    several ways. For example, the manager having group meetings and giving
    the messages as presentations, possibly with support from personel,
    finance, management sciences etc etc. Or, by simply distributing the
    publication around the group (this is the lazy way).
    
    I'll admit that I have most often used the lazy way.
    
    Jon

Re: .26

    The information  in  MGMT  MEMO  is supposed to be shared with the
    manager's  direct  reports.  It  says  so  right  on the cover. My
    manager passes it around the group. He could also give us a digest
    of  it,  but he has better things to spend his time on, and we can
    read  and  digest  it  ourselves.  The  only  problem is that when
    someone  is  busy  it can sit on his desk for quite a while before
    it finishes making the rounds.

--David

I'm the editor of MGMT MEMO. 

****************************

The overall objective of MGMT MEMO is to keep Digital managers and supervisors 
informed about company-wide business issues and concerns.  Managers, in turn, 
are encouraged to share this information with their employees.

Goals:
To enhance managers' abilitiy to communicate with their employees by providing 
key information about the company.  This information includes strategies and 
trends in the business, organizational changes and policies.

To provide a means for senior managers to communicate key messages.

To meet the known information needs of managers and supervisors.

Strategies:
In the articles we write, we seek to highlight themese that are currently 
important to the company.

In addition to repsonding to immediate information needs, we seek out articles 
that emphasize key themes.

In special issues, we provide complete summaries of State of the Company 
Meetings.

FY89 Themes:
Heighten awareness of Digital as an international company.

Clarify the company's values.

Explain major product strategies/future plans.

Emphasize competitive importance of quality, customer satisfaction, teamwork 
and productivity.

******************

I hope this answers your questions.


Richard Seltzer
CFO2-3/K23
DTN 251-1305

    re: .27, .28, .29
    
    Thank you for the explanation (especially Richard Seltzer's
    authoritative definition of MGMT MEMO)!  Very helpful.
    
    Unfortunately, when you have a unit of PSS-types spread out over
    a sizable geography, passing the copy around is frequently unworkable.
    Unit meetings tend to be rather scarce (can't eat too much billable
    time, you know...), so much information can be forgotten by the
    UM before he/she ever sees "the troops" in an appropriate setting
    for giving out information.  And, as previously noted, some managers
    seem to have too much to do to boil-down the information and feed
    it along via MAIL.
    
    Maybe there should be some general highlights of pertainent MGMT MEMO
    articles available on VTX, with instructions to "see your manager for
    further details"?  Maybe then folks could get official information,
    without having to sit and wait for information that never arrives.
    Just a suggestion, FWIW...
    
    -- Russ

    Why not create create a MGMT MEMO conference? Then ALL managers,
    supervisors and their direct reports can have equal and TIMELY access
    to the information. No effort on the manager's part to re-distribute
    the info, no problem with the MGMT MEMO newsletter sitting on someones
    desk, saves paper, cuts production costs ........ you know the rest! 

    Along the same idea, groups should consider setting up private
    conferences to distribute FYI types of memos from their mamagement.
    Rather then forwarding a memo down to the next level of supervisors
    who then forword down to their direct reports, now EVERYONE has a copy
    of this memo in their mail directory and they wonder where all the
    disk space is going :-) 

    Charly

>    VTX, as a one-to-many communication medium, would be far more
>    appropriate than Notes.
    
    I agree, in theory. By definition VTX is the one-to-many communication 
    medium, BUT, as used here in Digital, VTX seems to lack a certain...
    ...um.... freshness shall we say. 

    As an example, Read notes 844.0 and 844.1.

    Charly

    re: .33
    
    I think the "freshness" of the VTX infobase has to do with the nature
    of the information being communicated in your example.
    
    A VTX infobase will be as "fresh" as the maintainer desires it to
    be.  Should some kind of VTX MGMT MEMO be instituted, I would expect
    it to be as up-to-date as its maintainer desires it to be.
    
    I see VOGON News and Employee Purchase Program as infobases which
    appear to be successfully updated on a regular basis (daily and weekly,
    respectively).
    
    -- Russ

RE:                    <<< Note 842.22 by STAR::ROBERT >>>
         -< Meanwhile, our customers hope we're still doing our jobs >-
    
    > Besides, the problem isn't that management isn't communicating their 
    > decisions.  The problem is that management isn't making those
    > decisions, compounded by a widespread belief that there are serious
    > decisions on the table.
    
    That might be the case once in a while.  But far more often the
    decisions that *are* made simply aren't communicated to the rank and
    file.  And some managers appear to get upset that employees have our
    own network, VAX Notes, to find out at least a little of what's going
    on.  Do they see our knowledge as a threat?
    
    For example:  A note entered in this file today contains the text of a
    newspaper article outlining Digital's confirmation of plans to
    re-deploy 4,000 manufacturing people into sales and service.  How many
    of you saw that announcement in Livewire?  How many of you heard it
    from your manager?  How many of you saw it in a mail memo?  And how
    many of you saw it in Vax Notes?
    
    Another example:  The Area Sales VP's went to New England on 6/13 and
    6/14 to iron out this reorg stuff and to find out who gets what job,
    etc.  That's not rumor.  Have you seen an announcement of the decisions
    made in that meeting?  Do you expect to?  Our new fiscal year starts in
    11 days, and no one seems to be in any hurry to tell us what we'll be
    doing next year, or who we'll be working for, or what we'll be measured
    on.
    
    OK, I know, Senior Management's comeback to all this is "It shouldn't
    matter.  Just do your job."  Well, they can say it till the cows come
    home.  But the fact is:  it DOES matter, if not to every one of us then
    certainly to most of us.  It matters a lot.  And saying it doesn't
    won't change anything.  It DOES matter.
    
    As far as the validity of Digital's rumor mill, in the 11 years I've
    been here I've found it to be AMAZINGLY accurate.  Not the nitty
    details, mind you, but the jist of what's going on is almost always on
    the money.  The only two major exceptions I can thing of are (1) that
    we were being bought by AT&T (and there *was* some smoke there, it just
    never ignited into a fire), and (2) the early retirement plan (which
    was never announced, but may very well have been or still be under
    consideration).  No, I don't make career decisions based on the rumor
    mill, but you better believe I listen 'cause it may not be perfect, but
    it's often the only avenue I have to find out what's going on in this
    company!
    
    Whew I feel better now!  (^:
    
    							Pat

    
    re. -1
    
    EXCELLENT Pat. My thoughts exactly. 
    
    Mark
    

Much of the crisis is caused by people simply not reading properly,
misinterpreting, adding their own misinterpretations to something, and
sending it to someone else for action.

As an example, European Security contacted DEC Israel IS to investigate
the following note I had posted -- wondering how Amos Shapir had managed
to get access to our computers.  There was, of course, no reason whatsoever
to get DEC Israel involved -- the note did not concern DEC Israel in any way!

I think it's reasonably clear that the messages came from RISKS-DIGEST!

				<<TRUCKS::EF89>>
================================================================================
Note 217.3    Extremists may treat our statements as DEC statements       3 of 3
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      36 lines  12-JUN-1989 19:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 89 10:46:25 GMT
From: amos@taux01.UUCP (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: Big Brother is watching your posting in RISKS

I have just received an anonymous threat to notify my company of my posting in
comp.risks (``Big Brother is watching your magnetic card'', RISKS-8.77).  Let
me clarify two points:

-  My article was just a summary of what has been published in the local
 press, and does not necessarily reflect my opinions of the matter.

- My opinions are my own, and in no way represent a policy and/or stand
 of National Semiconductor Corporation or National Semiconductor (IC) Ltd.

        Amos Shapir                             amos@nsc.com
National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel

                                     [Another Risks of RISKS item!  PGN]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was his original message:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 89 14:37:41 GMT
From: amos@taux01.UUCP (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Big Brother is watching your magnetic card

Remember all those articles in RISKS about governments and institutions being
able to track people using data about their magnetic ATM or credit cards?
Well, the nightmare has come true: a system specifically designed to track
people will be in use shortly.  The military government of Israel's occupied
territories announced that all residents wishing to work in Israel will be
given magnetic-striped work permit cards.  An electronic turnstyle will keep
track of their movements across the border at all entry points.

Amos Shapir, National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
Tel. +972 52 522261  TWX: 33691, fax: +972-52-558322

    re:  making & communicating decisions:
    
    As I remember, in the book "In Search Of Excellence", Digital was
    highly touted as one of those examples of an excellent company (how
    things change!!8^))  The ability to make decisions, communicate
    and execute were attributes highly regarded.  Noted was a Sales
    reorganization effort that went something like this:
    
    On Friday, all the Sales Management team packed themselves up and
    headed out to Colorado.   There they were to decide how the field
    would be reorganized.  The decisions were made, and when they came
    back on Monday, the reorg began and was communicated. 
    
    Can we still decide, implement & communicate this effectively?
    
    Mark
    

    re: .38
    
    1).  I don't have any routed info in my office, and have only seen
         1 such package in the past year...our group does not utilize
         this communication vehicle
    
    2).  I received a memo on Tom's new role 3-4 weeks before DTW hit
         the streets (DTW does not get distributed up here in Nashua
         anyway)
    
    3).  I was informed of the mfg reskilling efforts 3-4 weeks prior
         to it hitting the streets, in unofficial form, of course 8^)
    
    One person's view fwiw
    Mark
    

re: .38

I would be shocked if a routing slip showed up on my desk.  I don't think I ever
seen one in the two years I've been here.

DTW.  Hmmm. What's that?   Some Maynard local something or something that we in
the field aren't allowed to see?  Or is similar to the complete waste of time
that we get at home called something like "U.S. Field News"?

re: Pat

Another one of your typical accurate replies...Let's keep setting everyone
straight.

Bob

    re DTW Maybe our problem is too much *non* -electronic
    communication. Howe many people are involved in DTW ?
    Editing, typesetting, printing, distribution, etc...
    
    For a company that prides itself on State-of-the-Art
    electronic communictions to support such an old-
    fashioned effort is ludicrous. 
    
    Put DTW on the tube, get *EVERY* employee a VAX account
    and some rudimentary training. (I'm continually amazed
    at how many of my co-workers are *baffled* by LIVEWIRE
    and VAX-mail)

    re .41:

	DTW is "Digital This Week," a bi-weekly publication (!)
	distributed in the Greater Maynard Area (GMA).  You're not
	missing much.

	Could somebody define the GMA?  For some obscure reason,
	DTW is available at ZKO but not at other NH sites
	(even TTB, which is a short walk away).

re: < Note 842.43 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >

>	Could somebody define the GMA?  For some obscure reason,
>	DTW is available at ZKO but not at other NH sites
>	(even TTB, which is a short walk away).

	DTW is available at BXO (Boston) irregularly - monthly on average.
	The classies are the only useful part.

    I would have never known about DTW if not for attending a training
    class at MRO3 earlier this year.  I think that most of the folks
    west of the GMA have probably never ever seen one (or probably heard
    of it until now).
    
    Sometimes the information can be interesting.  Are there any volunteers
    to perhaps enter some of the more interesting articles for those
    of us who can't get it (I'd be happy to if someone would Interoffice
    to me)?
    
    Jim (-Jp) @CWO

    Re.23
    A slight digression, but it just whacked me in the head
    
    Jack Sheilds says that he could not attend the state of the company
    meeting because he was at a board meeting of another company??????
    
    What's wrong with this picture....sales slowing down, margins going
    down, organizations in turmoil/reconstruction, 4-6 thousand employees
    being considered for reskilling, The Field under enormous pressure
    to produce & reorg at the same time, this is our annual meeting
    where all senior execs deliver the messages of the current & future
    prospects, etc., etc., & a senior VP takes the day off to sit on
    the board of another company?????  I guess this is one way to enhance
    ones income, & not have to answer any tough questions.  I can just
    see it now...sorry boss, I can't go to your important meeting because
    I am attending my uncle's board meeting. Right!!!!!
    Does anyone know which important company this was?
    

    re: .46  .47
    
    Many of the top executives of the Fortune 500 are board members
    of more than one company (although Jack Shields isn't on DEC's
    BoD).  For instance, Ken is on the Board of Directors of Ford
    Motor Co.  While this practice sometimes sounds a little bit
    incestuous, it is really a way to give executives a broader
    perpective of the business world, and valuable experience.
    
    Most directors of large corporations receive relatively little
    compensation for being a board member, but they usually have
    stock, options, or other interests tied to that company.  And
    in my limited experience with some smaller corporations, the
    full Boards meet rather infreqently, so it's not an onerous
    duty under most circumstances.  And given KO's reputation for
    demanding 100% from his direct reports, I doubt that Jack would
    be spending lots of time away from DEC on these other activities.
    
    Geoff
    
    

    	Re: .42
    
       	   Boy, isn't that the truth!  Being still fairly new to Digital
    	I am constantly AMAZED at the amounts of paper we generate!!  We
    	do make computers and all sorts of neat things like databases and
    	such .... so why don't we utilize them better?
    
    	   Databases don't HAVE to take up tons of disk space.  They can be
    	used to get information out in a accurate and timely manner.  Our
    	organization has been using a restricted notes conference for 
    	discussions of issues, what's going on, etc.  It's working rather
    	well, too.
    
    	   And as far as electronic mail, why don't people add to the 
    	message they have recieved before forwarding it on?  It's really
    	not hard to do.  And it would make these types of memos so much
    	more valuable if they were "personalized" to each group they were
    	going to.  I want to know how things are going to effect me and my
    	environment.  I don't understand the difficulity of doing this.
    
    	   Vicki

    If anyone missed the memo attributed to K.O., check out Matco's
    column in today's Digital Review...
    
    How to these things get out?

    Digital people  LOVE to TALK!

    "The company [Digital] has examined phone records of some employees to
    identify those who have talked to reporters.  A spokesman said the
    investigation was undertaken 'to find out who was leaking proprietary
    information.'"

    Wall Street Journal, John R. Wilke, September 14, 1989, (Eastern Ed.)
    A4:1

    Hmmm.  Well, it does make sense up to a point; but I have to wonder
    how far they can take any disciplinary action.  Certainly the door
    is open for not only honest mistakes, but also for abuse.  I'm sure
    it wouldn't take long for disgruntled employees to figure out how
    they could take advantage of the "investigation" to set people up ...
    
    Still, there are serious implications around *who* leaks information
    to the press, and for what purpose.  When it's just regular employees
    doing it, that's bad enough, but if corporate officials are doing it
    then there are Federal and SEC regulations that kick in and that could
    make the situation really bad for the company, not just the employee.
    
    Management has the right (and the obligation) to periodically examine
    *all* phone calls made on the company's tab, because the amounts of
    money involved are considerable, and the potential for abuse is great.
    It ranges everywhere from people calling "900" numbers to calling their
    friends all over the country every week, just to "stay in touch".
    Since most of us never see the bill, we really don't have any feeling
    how much money is being spent on phone calls, so we aren't as careful
    as we might be if the money were coming out of our own pockets.
    
    Geoff

Gag!

And so if I return a phone call from a Boston Globe reporter working on a
story about smoking at Logan Airport (no discussion here, see NEWS::NO_SMOKING),
I am under suspicion of leaking confidential material.

Moral:  Use the payphone.

/john

    Re .54 (John):
    
>And so if I return a phone call from a Boston Globe reporter working on a
>story about smoking at Logan Airport (no discussion here, see NEWS::NO_SMOKING),
>I am under suspicion of leaking confidential material.
 
    Not necessarily, in my opinion, though why a reporter would call
    you at work (I haven't time to check yet another conference) on
    that matter is puzzling to me.  However, I suspect if there showed
    a record of many calls to the editorial staffs of, say, a computer
    magazine or tabloid, and the caller was not an official spokesperson,
    itv would lead to some legitimate questtions.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.   

     RE: .52 & .54
     
     Now I understand why the DEC "Gestapo" stormed through another group
     in the Mill.   There are some groups where they get phone calls from
     the Press about technical  and health issues with our products (some
     of these folks "sit" on  committees that publish external Standards,
     give testimony to legislatures & courts,  etc.), so now they have to
     defend themselves to the DEC "Gestapo". Just great!!
     
     You  haven't  "lived"  until  you have been  interrogated  by  DEC's
     "Gestapo" (Corp.  Investigations)!!  A lot of  years  ago now, I had
     the displeasure (for those that remember WPS-80) and it is something
     I will never forget.  They are great psychologists and can trick you
     into  admitting  wrong-doing  even  if  you  have done nothing wrong
     (questions like "Do you still beat your Wife?" "No?, Oh when did you
     stop?").
     
     Glad I don't have any friends in the Press any more!
     
    

    Re .56 (Len):
    
    >............. There are some groups where they get phone calls from
    >the Press about technical  and health issues with our products (some
    >of these folks "sit" on  committees that publish external Standards,
    >give testimony to legislatures & courts,  etc.), so now they have to
    >defend themselves to the DEC "Gestapo". Just great!!
     
    Small point: All dealings with the Press, by policies, is supposed
    to be done through or in conjunction with a Public Relations 
    representative.  This is to protect both the corporation and the
    person being interviewed (a good reporter can steer questions into
    potentially awkward areas).  Technical issues that are product-
    or market-specific can utilize the services of the Public Relations
    specialist associated with the group; health/safety issues are
    the responsibility of Corporate Public Relations (which can also
    act as backup on product-related interviews).  It is the job (with
    attendant risks) of the P.R. specialist to represent the corporate
    perspective of an issue, and thus is an official spokesperson.
    
    Don't want to sound too stuffy about it, but that's the reason P.R.
    people were hired.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

     RE: .56 & .57

     
    >............. There are some groups where they get phone calls from
    >the Press about technical  and health issues with our products (some
    >of these folks "sit" on  committees that publish external Standards,
    >give testimony to legislatures & courts,  etc.), so now they have to
    >defend themselves to the DEC "Gestapo". Just great!!
     
>    Small point: All dealings with the Press, by policies, is supposed
>    to be done through or in conjunction with a Public Relations 
>    representative.  

     Agreed,  but  the  Press  regularly  monitor  legislative  and court
     testimony  and  attribute    quotations    (or    interpretations  &
     mis-quotes).  I doubt that P.R.  gives testimony for out "experts"!!
     
>    It is the job (with
>    attendant risks) of the P.R. specialist to represent the corporate
>    perspective of an issue, and thus is an official spokesperson.
    
     This gives me a  great  idea, since I (and others in our group) have
     fielded  phone  calls  and MAIL  requests  for  information  on  our
     products (e.g.  VDT radiation levels,  requests  for  safety  agency
     reports, etc.), mostly by DEC sales personnel  for RFQ's, customers,
     etc.   From now on, instead of referring  them  to  Corp.    Product
     Safety, I'll refer them to Corp. P.R. ~/~

    Does this mean that since I called a columnist for Digital Review to
    express a quibble about something he wrote about "my" operating system,
    I should expect a visit (Quick, where are the cyanide pills?)
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    Re: .52:
    
    Pat Sweeney entered a quote from the Wall Street Journal.  How did the
    reporter Wilkes learn of our [alleged] internal investigation?  Through
    Corporate PR, hopefully...  Does a journalist's use of the term
    "spokesman" automatically connote "Corporate official representative"?
    
    Re: reviewing bills - There are many sound business reasons to review
    telephone usage bills, in all forms.  I remember being shown a Credit
    Card Report which detailed the use of a Company Credit Card number
    which had been activated at the same minute, hour and day from four
    burroughs in Manhattan.  One of the calls had been to Colombia.
    
    The (then) Telecom Manager said that people (criminal types) know many 
    easy ways of obtaining useful information, such as credit card numbers 
    and PINS that are "helpful" in their trades :-).
    
    The Credit Card Number was de-activated, and its holder assigned a new
    one.
    
    This isn't a tremendously big deal which would require "gestapo"
    tactics; it's the result of taking care of the cost of doing business,
    and providing employees with the tools with which to do their jobs.  It
    makes good sense to routinely insure that we are not paying more than 
    we have to for those tools.
    
    Pat MilliganAbber

    Re .58 (Len):
    
>>    Small point: All dealings with the Press, by policies, is supposed
>>    to be done through or in conjunction with a Public Relations 
>>    representative.  
>
>     Agreed,  but  the  Press  regularly  monitor  legislative  and court
>     testimony  and  attribute    quotations    (or    interpretations  &
>     mis-quotes).  I doubt that P.R.  gives testimony for out "experts"!!
 
    Please recall that the original observation was with regards to
    returning _incoming_ calls from reporters.  Reporters know full
    well that on matters of corporate policy or items concerning corporate
    products, they should work through Public Relations; however, by
    doing an end-run, they might be able to find a more sensational
    story.  For instance, suppose we're developing a new product, the
    "PDP-13."  Now further suppose there are a few rumors on this product,
    but it hasn't been announced.  A clever reporter might manage to
    call an engineer and ask him or her about RFI/EMI problems on our
    machines, and then slip in something like, "Is that the approach
    you'll take on the PDP-13?"  Unless the engineer is quick on the
    feet, she or he might either answer, "yes," or worse, "no, we're
    using a different scheme."  The reporter then has verification that
    the PDP-13 is under development, which might do harm to the
    introduction strategy.
    
    An interview with a P.R. specialist on the line would result in
    the reporter being told that no such product has been announced.
    This is _not_ to belitttle the engineer in question, but to point
    out that a _good_ reporter can piece things together that could
    impact the corporation's products adversely.
    
    >This gives me a  great  idea, since I (and others in our group) have
    >fielded  phone  calls  and MAIL  requests  for  information  on  our
    >products (e.g.  VDT radiation levels,  requests  for  safety  agency
    >reports, etc.), mostly by DEC sales personnel  for RFQ's, customers,
    >etc.   From now on, instead of referring  them  to  Corp.    Product
    >Safety, I'll refer them to Corp. P.R. ~/~
     
    What's told to Digital's Sales personnel's internal; what's told
    to the Press is public.
            
    Re .59 (Jim):
    
    >Does this mean that since I called a columnist for Digital Review to
    >express a quibble about something he wrote about "my" operating system,
    >I should expect a visit (Quick, where are the cyanide pills?)
     
    No, but it means that you should have worked through the appropriate
    P.R. person for base-level software (if VMS, Judy Finman).  If it
    were for MicroVAX hardware, it should have been through me.
                 
    Re .60 (pat:
    
    >...Corporate PR, hopefully...  Does a journalist's use of the term
    >"spokesman" automatically connote "Corporate official representative"?
     
    "Spokesman," otherwise unidentified, usually means a Public Relations
    person.  "Official" generally means senior management, usually vice
    presidential.   A few journalists are fast and loose with terms,
    but the vast majority stick to this convention.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

       So Steve, let's say that 'Joe' who sits down the aisle from you
    is one of the people who has been informing the press. Now 'Joe'
    being of sound mind, realizes that the company keeps records of
    caals, so he says to himself: "I'll just walk down the aisle and
    use a phone in an unoccupied office." That 'office' just happens
    to be YOURS! What is your defense? There's the evidense in B&W.
    Would you still be so gung-ho?
                                        Denny

    Re .62 (Denny):
    
    I'm a bad example, since I _am_ an authorized spokesperson. :-)
    
    However, on the general question, I doubt that a single call on
    a record would do it, but if a pattern emerged, then, that's something
    else.  "Joe" would have to work long and hard to be able to use
    the same office each time he wanted to spill beans; in fact, if
    "Joe" had to spread his calls out among different telephones, a
    way to see who he was would be to start with the phones in the
    vicinity over which calls _hadn't_ been made.
    
    >Would you still be so gung-ho?
     
    I'm "gung-ho" about ensuring that people protect themselves, their
    products, and the corporation.  Suppose I was a product person who
    was called by a reporter for a computer tabloid.  I could return
    the call directly, or I could contact the appropriate P.R. person
    and say, "Bill Schablotnik of the _Computer Enquirer_ called me
    up with a question about RFI emissions from the PDP-13."  The P.R.
    person could either return the call to get particulars, or could
    initiate a three-way call, monitoring what was going on, so that
    _if necessary_ he or she could step in and say, "Sorry, we can't
    discuss unannounced products," or "We'd like to give you those shipping
    figures, but I'm sure you understand that they are marketing-sensitive."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Whats all this about the PDP-13?  We stopped making those years ago.  :)

Many years ago my boss came to ask me what this $100 phone call made on
my office phone was for.  He brought along the itemized call printout that
he got from the telephone group.  Lucky for me, it had all the information
that a regular long-distance bill has, including the time of the call.

I pointed out to him that it was unlikely that I could have placed a
call at 10 pm from my office, considering the office was in Maynard, MA
and I lived in Nashua, NH and rode in a car pool.  We decided it was one
of the cleaning crew.

I was glad they kept those detailed records.  The boss said he only looked
into the details when the bottom line got too big.

    not to mention when my bill showed me making calls from my desk and
    boston while I was in Mexico....
    
    (easily explained- the biling program merged the calls from several
    credit cards in the cost center and put them all under my card)
    
    B
    

    re the demise of the PDP-11
    
    For those of you who have been around for a while, you probably
    remember that when the PDP-11 was announced we were selling more PDP-8s
    than we ever had been. I believe this continued for many years.
    This was also true for the PDP-11; for many years after the VAX line
    was announced, the PDP-11 continued to sell more that it ever had
    before.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, this is also true of the PDP-13. Last
    fiscal year was the best fiscal year the PDP-13 ever had.

    
    PDP-13?  Was there another name for this because I don't remember any
    PDP-13. Was it a controller or some other thing?
    
    ed

    It is a figment of my imagination
    

    I believe the machine that would have been the PDP-13 was taken to
    another company and marketed under a different name: Nova.
        John Sauter

    Surprised you got than one wrong, John.  The original PDP-X design
    was a 16-bit version of the then popular PDP-8.  That design became the
    Nova.
    
    It was the radically new instruction set that became the real PDP-11.
    
    See LDPSCI::DEC_HISTORY (note 86) for more info.  There never was a
    PDP-13 even as proposal.

    
    
    Oh, wow, someone else remembers the PDP-X. It became the Nova because
    DEC didn't want to build it on large form factor boards I believe.
    
    ed

    It also did not become the NOVA.  The NOVA was different from the
    PDP-X proposal
    
    -kevin
    

	As previously mentioned there is a conference for Digital's history
	and related stuff. Can we move the PDP-X/Nova type questions and
	answers to LDPSCI::DEC_HISTORY except for parts of it that relate
	to we do things now? In the later case would someone start a new
	topic so this one can get back to it's other issue already in
	progress?

			Alfred

    The specifics of Notes policy are discussed in 934 and the
    reorganizations are discussed in 935 and 828.  This is for the
    meta-discussion of the flow of information in Digital.

    What's going on here?

    A memo that is "effective immediately" is taking weeks to reach the
    thousands of people affected by it.  In my case, it'll take one "SEND"
    and five "FORWARDS" to reach me, using one technique.  For other
    employees, it'll be as many as six or seven "FORWARDS".

    In black and white it is written, Digital's culture is based on
    openness and peer-to-peer communication.  Obviously, everyone in Dave
    Grainger's organization is affected.  In fact, everyone with regular
    contact with a US Field employee ought to know the details of the US
    Field organization, ipso facto, every employee.  So based on "openness"
    and "peer-to-peer communication" why can't we get the word out?

    Well, for one thing Dave Grainger didn't indicate whether or not the
    distribution of his memo was to the many or to the few.  For another,
    Dave didn't want to see this on the front page of the Boston Globe the
    next morning.  Let's face it - the informal network of which
    contributors to the DIGITAL VAX Notes conference are a part of isn't
    trusted anymore with these "hot" memos.

    Count me among those happy to have gotten a copy within hours of Dave
    Grainger's "SEND" command, and among those confused that as a peer of
    the thousands in the US field organization I'm sanctioned from sharing
    that information with the people, who like me, are affected by it. 

    These sort of memos are written with such ambiguity, that one doesn't
    know what they mean.  For each "FORWARD" there's a phone call to the
    "FROM" person to ask "Yeah, but what does this mean?".  In many case,
    the plain meaning of the memo is totally absent, rather it is the cover
    memo or the phone call that generates the plain meaning.  In fact, in
    many cases, there's plain laziness, and the "FORWARD"'s never, ever,
    happen.  (Too bad our MAIL technology can't AUDIT messages, and report
    back to Dave Grainger, "yes, all xx,000 of your employees have read
    this message)  It's obvious the bias is towards not communicating.

    This is evidence in Digital of the new "chain of command" philosophy
    that will eventually doom us: compartmentalization of information, a
    bias against sharing ideas, inter-cost center competition, singular
    mind-set on personal career metrics, and every nightmare you ever had
    about Digital.  Don't worry, Digital won't adopt the IBM culture, we'll
    adopt the culture of the Pennsylvania Railroad.

    
    
      While reading this note, the note about the Sales re-org and also
    remembering the note on "rumors", there seems to be something here
    that scares the he#% out of me.  There are valid points with all
    arguments.   The fact that there is an argument at all in our DEC
    culture bothers me to no end.  
    
      Rick.  _12_years_and_never_seen_the_likes_of_this_
    
    

    It's fascinating watching as the 'culture' tries to adapt to the
    rapidly changing environment. Social conditioning as to 'correct'
    and 'incorrect' behaviour is not keeping pace with what technology
    is allowing the individual to do. With differant people using differant
    "models" of how various systems work (communications, for example),
    stress in the group results due to differing expectations.
    
    Electronic mail and conferencing are relatively new systems. People
    operating with a model of communications being 'slow' [Paper passed
    hand to hand, tacked on bulletin boards etc] and controlled [Formal 
    announcements through structured channels] are upset at the current 
    realities. People operating with a model of communications being 
    'fast' [Electronic mail forwarded to a wide audience at the touch of 
    a button] and open [Conferencing allowing anyone access to widely
    ranging information and audiences] are upset by perceived constraints.
    
    In the first case, the impact of 'wrong' behaviour was minimized
    by the very nature of the systems; any damage was containable due
    to the propogation rate. Since the impact was limited in scope and
    cost, the response was limited as well. In the second, the individuals 
    making up the group *must* operate with a common set of rules (learned 
    through observation and positive/negative reinforcement) to avoid any 
    errors in the first place, since containment is basically impossible 
    due to the rapid propogation rate.

    Since no single common behaviour system exists, attempts are made
    to formalize what is believed to be 'correct' behaviour, resulting
    in further conflict. Eventually, out of this conflict, evolves the
    common understanding of good/bad behaviour. Unfortunately, today 
    new elements  are added to the envirnonment faster than the social 
    systems can adjust to their real and potential impacts. This produces 
    further fragmentation of the group, and additional stresses.
    
    Our "Crisis in Communication" is just one element of a problem being 
    experienced throughout society. Solution??? Beats me. I just hope
    it happens before all our systems (business, technological, ecological,
    social, biological, family) shatter from the stress.
    
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Explicit permission is hereby granted for the preceding material to 
    be reposted to any conference residing on systems which are members 
    of Digital's "Easynet" network, and/or forwarded via electronic or 
    other means to any employees of Digital Equipment Corporation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is from the Feb 1990 MGMT MEMO and clearly addresses
    the use of electronic communication in Digital. It's the strongestly 
    worded statement of support for the use of electronic communication
    I've seen yet.

    			Alfred
*********************************************************
                    DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY
from MGMT MEMO Feb. 1990, pp. 14-16
posted to notes file with permission from Win's office

*************************************************************
USING TECHNOLOGY TO ADVANTAGE --
DIGITAL'S NETWORK AND THE FREE FLOW OF IDEAS 
by Win Hindle, senior vice president, Corporate Operations

Digital's network of computers connects all of our employees and 
our managers.  It not only gives them an easy way of passing 
information and requests back and forth, it can also help 
stimulate ideas and allow the best ones to surface.  

I believe the best model for establishing priorities, and 
identifying and acting on the best ideas is found in our 
Engineering organization.  It's magnificent.  Ideas are suggested 
throughout the organization, by whoever has the idea.  

Engineering ideas rattle around inside the network all of the 
time.  If an idea lasts in the system and the person backing it 
is persistent, the idea becomes a proposal, asking for funding or 
other decisions. Then the idea is taken more seriously and gets 
bombarded even more by opinions from throughout Engineering.  
Finally, it gets approved or not approved. 

Over time, that process has resulted in Digital having a set of 
standards, products and practices which are the best in the 
industry.

How did we get the best product line in the industry from such a 
seemingly chaotic process?  It's the free flow of ideas.  Good 
ideas move ahead based on their merit, and they rise to the top 
of the pile.  Top level engineering managers did not impose these 
ideas.  

The ideas can come from anywhere, even from outside the groups 
that normally deal with such products and technology.  But, out 
of that intense interaction, and with the advantage of our 
internal network, comes a strategy and a set of standards and an 
implementation that are the best in the industry.

We need to replicate these interactive processes and transfer 
them to the rest of the company.

Of course, the system isn't perfect.  There are a lot of 
frustrated people in Engineering.  Every engineer does not feel 
that his or her idea has gotten the attention it deserves.  And 
probably, for one reason or another, some ideas have been shot 
down that shouldn't have been.  But, on balance, we have come out 
with an excellent strategy.

To me, this interaction is one of the most exciting parts of our 
company.  Out of this very tumultuous engineering effort, we 
created the most disciplined product line in the industry.

Now, the use of network communications is spreading throughout 
the company, in particular to the Field.  This is necessary as we 
try to reduce costs and make closer links between customers and 
the people who design and build our products.  Our network and 
information management products allow direct communication and 
enable us to do away with much of the filtering we have depended 
on in the past.  It will take us awhile to get used to this new 
working environment, but the results should be exciting and 
valuable. 

As we extend these capabilities and this working style, we will 
be putting account managers in closer touch with product 
developers.  The ideas of people in the Field and of customers 
will be added to this free-flowing process that helps generate 
our products and strategies.

The development organization is familiar with the networked 
environment.  To the Field it is still new and they aren't using 
it as as much as they could.  The change will take time, but it 
will happen, and it will be very important for our future.  
Connecting customers' ideas directly into our development 
organization should have a profound effect on our strategy.

*********************************************************

    re .77
    
    set sarcastic:  fits right in with the ban on posting memos doesn't it!?

|*********************************************************
|                    DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY
|from MGMT MEMO Feb. 1990, pp. 14-16
|posted to notes file with permission from Win's office
|
    
    
|DIGITAL'S NETWORK AND THE FREE FLOW OF IDEAS 
|by Win Hindle, senior vice president, Corporate Operations
    
    There's a certain marvellous irony in having an article about "free
    flow of ideas" require the permission of a VP to be disseminated 
    across the network.
    
    					Nigel
    

    By what perverse interpretation of policy do we have people calling Win
    Hindles office for permission to reproduce an artice which clearly
    was intended for broad distribution??!!  Mgmt memo is distributed to all
    managers and, at the bottom of the page, right below the words DIGITAL
    INTERNAL USE ONLY is the statement:
    
    		(Please share this information with your employees)
    
    Given that all employees have managers, seems to me like the intent is 
    pretty obvious.  
    
    Al
    

>    By what perverse interpretation of policy do we have people calling Win
>    Hindles office for permission to reproduce an artice which clearly
>    was intended for broad distribution??!!

	Not for reasons of policy but of courtesy. Also because not all managers
	are familiar with this conference. Telling them about it in advance
	helps prevent future misunderstandings. Also posting a note with
	explicit permission makes a statement that says, to my way of thinking,
	that the manager knows about the posting and that no one went behind
	their back to post it. To me it is a re enforcement of openness.

				Alfred

>   Not for reasons of policy but of courtesy. Also because not all managers
>   are familiar with this conference. Telling them about it in advance
>   helps prevent future misunderstandings. Also posting a note with
>   ...

    It seems to me there are a lot of people who follow this conference and
    who contribute to it who care a lot about Digital. I think _ALL_
    managers should be aware of this conference. Isn't that what Win is
    saying? :-)

    Maybe employee involvement should just get a daily extract.

    I'm sorry, but I do see "process" tip-toeing about, but I appreciate
    the predicament.

    /Peters

    RE .last several especially .77
    
    Sounds to me that the policy about not posting mail messages has now
    been thrown by the wayside. Great. Next time I receive a mail message
    that I consider suitable for posting here I'll do so. If I get any
    heat it'll be an interesting debate to see how real .77 is in practice.
    
    Dave

    I think previous replies have been unfair to Alfred and to Win Hindle.
    You might also want to review the basenote about the "crisis" and the
    circumstances regarding it.
    
    The policy regarding the posting of mail in conferences obligating the
    "poster" to obtain the permission of the author is a policy that
    reinforces courtesy.
    
    I was a victim of having my mail manipulated and placed out of context in
    a conference to "prove" a point that had nothing to do with the
    content of my original message.
    
    Let me state that some protection of the privacy of my mail
    communication from arbitrary posting in VAX Notes conference does far
    more to facilitate the free flow of _my_ ideas that it does to hinder
    them.
                                            

    re .84 (Sweeney)
    
    It seems much more efficient to make a rule that allows memos to state
    that they can not be forwarded and/or posted without permission, than
    to state that no memo can be posted without permission.  This allows
    the originator to indicate up front their intentions.  In a company
    that is supposedly advocating the free flow of ideas, this makes more
    sense.  If it is found that all memos suddenly have the "do not ..."
    message, then one would have to review whether we indeed do have an
    environment that promotes the free flow of ideas and information.
    
    In the case where your memo was used out of context, if that is true
    then it certainly reduces the credability of the person who did it, and
    you should be able to show that.  Many of us, I'm sure, have said
    things (or written them) in the heat of the battle, that we'd like to
    retract.  Sometimes you gotta eat a little crow and it doesn't taste
    good.  If I have to go through a Q&A everytime I want to post one of
    your good thoughts (or horrors, bad ones) I'm not going to be doing it
    very often, and that cuts down (shuts down) the free flow of ideas and
    information.
    
    IMO, the current policy is a negative reaction, not a positive one.

	At the risk of getting things on the track of responding to the
	Win Hindle article I'm going to make a few comments on it myself.

>I believe the best model for establishing priorities, and 
>identifying and acting on the best ideas is found in our 
>Engineering organization.  It's magnificent.  Ideas are suggested 
>throughout the organization, by whoever has the idea.  

	Is this how it is? Do other engineering people see a lot of ideas
	suggested? I know I do. Watching the development of a number of
	products over the last few years has shown this in action. Notes,
	from Notes-11 to the current product, has benefited from ideas
	suggested by people all over the world. I believe this has resulted
	in Notes being as good a product as it is today. 

	This is true of other products as well. Everything from Language
	compiler to the documentation that explains them. Also product
	requirements, architecture reviews and any number of other items
	that lead to products have benefited from reviews and ideas that
	could not have been acquired any other way then electronically.
 
>How did we get the best product line in the industry from such a 
>seemingly chaotic process?  It's the free flow of ideas.  Good 
>ideas move ahead based on their merit, and they rise to the top 
>of the pile.  Top level engineering managers did not impose these 
>ideas.  

	Personally I am convinced that electronic communication, which almost
	forces people to evaluate ideas based on merit rather than rank,
	has made a large contribution to our products. I key in on the
	words "seemingly chaotic". To an outsider I'm sure our process
	does appear chaotic. In other companies many people who are listened
	to electronically would never get a chance to be heard. This appears
	as anarchy and chaos to those used to strict lines of communication.


>We need to replicate these interactive processes and transfer 
>them to the rest of the company.

	Do we really? I think we do. Can we? I'm not so sure. It's nice to
	see a Senior VP speak up for open communication but I'm not so
	sure everyone feels it's a good idea. I haven't worked for one
	myself but I keep hearing stories of managers who regard information
	as a power tool and the transition of information as something to
	risky for anyone but a manager to control. 

>To me, this interaction is one of the most exciting parts of our 
>company.  
	
	Personally network interaction is not only exciting to me but
	one of the things that keeps me here.

>Now, the use of network communications is spreading throughout 
>the company, in particular to the Field.  

	About 6 years ago I visited a rather large field office (there is
	both a District and Regional office there). I asked if I could
	SET HOST over to my home system. I was told there was no network
	link. Stunned I asked why not. Answer: The District team didn't see
	any need for one. Needless to say things have changed and I'm seeing
	a lot more signs of field people on the net these days.

>This is necessary as we 
>try to reduce costs and make closer links between customers and 
>the people who design and build our products.  Our network and 
>information management products allow direct communication and 
>enable us to do away with much of the filtering we have depended 
>on in the past.  

	Years ago when I was in the field we could only talk to Home Office
	Software Support (since replaced after a number of generations by
	the CSCs). HOSS could talk to development; though they were not
	always welcome. Development talked, as the saying went, only to
	God. :-) Now through Notes and mail field people can often make
	customer needs and wants known directly to development. 

>It will take us awhile to get used to this new 
>working environment, but the results should be exciting and 
>valuable. 

	That's for sure! I can't help but think that the critical path
	is getting more managers to get used to this environment.

>The development organization is familiar with the networked 
>environment.  To the Field it is still new and they aren't using 
>it as as much as they could.  The change will take time, but it 
>will happen, and it will be very important for our future.  

	Any suggestions about this? Is the problem one of access or
	knowledge? 

				Alfred

    I'm somewhat surprised to see so little comment of the MGMT MEMO
    article itself. I expected to hear at least someone say that their
    management will not accept ideas a) from outsiders or b) electronically.

    I was also struck by the article pointing to engineering as being
    an open (to new ideas) organization. There are many that do seem
    to be open but the not invented here (as in THIS GROUP) syndrome
    does appear to still exist in some places. It was nice to have a Sr
    VP say in effect "hey you guys, listen to people".

    The IS groups I've worked with didn't appear to be too interested
    in electronic communication in the past. Is that changing? Do people
    think that IS and other management will read this article and see
    that there is high level support for more electronic and more open
    communication or will it be business as usual?


    ~Cliff

re: .87,

	I think that despite the call by Win Hindle for more utilization
    of on-line information distribution of ideas such as that of using
    notesfiles, etc., that ultimately, unless there is some sort of
    motivating factor to drive this issue, that things will remain [bad]
    business as usual.

	Let's face it, the people who spend their valuable time providing
    information in the notefiles for others to use are in the minority.
    Neither is there any indication that the subset of DECcies who do go
    out of their way in providing information is growing much larger (notice
    how it is typically the same people over and over who answer questions
    in the notesfiles?).

	I personally know quite a few extremely knowledgable engineers
    (people who could easily use VAXnotes if they wanted to), who purposely
    avoid the extra work involved in providing information via notesfiles.
    My entire organization generally avoids notesfiles especially since it
    directly conflicts with our business of providing information for a price
    (call me a renegade who bucks the trend here).  Even at the individual
    level, in certain circumstances, employees actually feel threatened by
    providing too much information in the notesfiles since knowledge is
    power and the process of giving away knowledge (for free anyway) is akin
    to giving away power (or their technical niche anyway).

	Until such time that a value is placed on technical information, and
    the time-consuming process of providing quality information can be justly
    rewarded in some equitable fashion, then the subset of those who currently
    provide valuable information in the notesfiles (and elsewhere) will remain
    limited to the existing subset of selfless individuals who are currently
    taken for granted.

	Of course, there is a solution to this problem (you knew I was
    leading up to this didn't you? ;^).  See note #1024 for a discussion
    on ways to promote the distribution of quality information across
    organizational boundaries on-line.

				    -davo

    A part of -.1 gets close to a pet pet peeve of mine; nothing to do with
    electronic comm however.
    
    I have had several experiences within Digital over the past 10 years
    where I was asked for information and a solution to the problem was
    freely given.  I asked what it was needed for.  "Oh, a problem I've
    been trying to solve."   The solution was implemented, lets say, right
    down the hall.  Later (like months) I found out it actually was the
    same customer I was working with.  Somewhat the same scene has happened
    more than once.
    
    I am a teacher type.  I love to tell people about things I think are
    neat.  So what they don't think so sometimes.  I do not think I
    withhold information intentionally - so that I can use it personally to
    the exclusion of others - at least I hope not.  I resent folks who
    intentionally withhold info so it can be used competitively - within
    our own company.
    
    Too naive Fred

Don't forget those groups for one reason or another don't make company produced 
software available over the network for internal use ...

Maybe its our rewards systems that need to be reexamined.  Maybe the competition
is skewed toward unnecessary and unproductive (for the company at least)
attitudes.

Jack

re .90 and Kits

I know the Rdb group doesn't make their kit available because they had
expremely sever problem with field people installing net kits, some not even
regular release, at customer sites, often without a loan of products or valid
license. They fought so many fires which resulted from half-assed installations
that they were forced to pull the kit to preserve our legal rights to the
software -- and to preserve their own sanity.

I wouldn't shout too much in this direction. I've actually never had any
problems getting non-net kits when I contacted the group directly and explained
my need. (But that's only 3 or 4 requests in over 5 years.)

I think the rewards system should be broadened so that people who should be
rewarded can be. Here, in the field, unless an organization jumps through all
the various metric hoops [our district one missed a revenue hoop by a $40,000
error we caught too late and could have made up on a _$5,000,000+_ target] they
get to send virtually no one to the current award ceremonies.

/Peters

    Re .91
    
    Rdb does make kits available. You have to request the kit and provide
    a directory. The kits are then sent during off-peak times.

    How important are the Jack Smith memos?
    
    How many employees got exactly one copy within 24 hours of its
    creation?
    
    How many employees have never seen them?
    
    How many employees have gotten 5 or 6 copies of each?

    I'll bet that less than 25% of employees EVER see them. 
    
    They are only important inasmuch as they demonstrate that our  most
    Senior VP has very little real grasp as to why DEC is failing to market
    or sell products that are produced by excellent engineering.
    
    
    /andy/

	re .93:

>>>    How important are the Jack Smith memos?
    
>>>    How many employees got exactly one copy within 24 hours of its
>>>    creation?
    
>>>    How many employees have never seen them?
    
>>>    How many employees have gotten 5 or 6 copies of each?

	Communication in Digital is seriously out of control. On the
	positive side, Mail, Notes, and VTX, in addition to paper
	mail, newsletters, and management briefings, give us access
	to an enormous wealth of information.

	But it's raw! The combination of flexible goals, empowerment,
	and unlimited information can lead towards disorientation,
	discouragement, and utter confusion.

	Another thing. Last week a colleague confided in me that he
	had started reading Notes as a valuable supplement to his
	knowledge, but was now "hooked". The reason? Without Notes
	he wouldn't know half of what is going on.

	We see all sorts of things through Notes. Sometimes the same
	memos come filtering through management channels (mail) days,
	weeks or even months later. More often, they don't.

	Who's in charge of corporate internal communication? They've
	got a problem!

	/Tom

    Has anyone received a memo from Ken Olsen, Jack Smith, or Don Zereski
    regarding the real crisis this company faces (except for the pro-forma
    stuff on DECWORLD, and the postponement of the state of the company
    meeting)?
    
    It seems to me that we are in a crisis and we need real communication
    and real demonstrations that it is no longer "business as usual" and
    that Digital is on the way back to profitability and growth.
    
    The silence actually says a lot.  Just when we need to be led and
    inspired, there's nothing.

    ref .-1

    I dont know what group you work with, but we in VMS engineering do get 
    mail messages from top people, actually we got mail that originated from 
    David Stone himself today. 

    I know also that NaC organization got updates from their top management 
    too about what is going on. 

    offcourse, it is your right to ask for more input from the highest levels.

    /nasser
    

    I have to say that David Stone (TNSG) and Mike Thurk (NaC) are doing a
    SUPERB job of keeping the troops updated on what's going on
    budget-wise.  Best communication (and it keeps coming) that I've seen
    from Sr. Mgt in years.
    
    -Ken

    re: .97
    
>    I dont know what group you work with, but we in VMS engineering do get 
>    mail messages from top people, actually we got mail that originated from 
>    David Stone himself today. 
    
    That's just swell.  Problem is, we (VMS Engineering) don't work for
    David Stone.
    

    
    
    	Hmmm... I thought Stone headed up all of software engineering...
    
    	Is VMS separate and if so who heads it up ?
    
    					Mike
    					----

    I work in the field and through the generous support of friends in
    engineering, I received quite a few of the memos of Dave Stone.
    
    Bob Hughes who has left Digital made the greatest commitment to
    communication.  Since we had those meetings, you know, the one where
    the $250 bonus was announced, in addition to Hughes' departure, in my
    industry, our industry sales VP was re-assigned, then his replacement
    resigned, and his replacement hasn't been announced.

    
    Re: .100
    
    Stone has functional responsibility for all of Digital
    software engineering, but organizationally he does not head
    all the groups that fall under his functional umbrella.
    
    Steve
    

    Well with all the endless, weekly, reorgs we have around here I'd be
    reluctant to start shoving info down the pipe if I was in the upper
    echelons.......
    
    
    Gregg

    re: .100, .102
    
    The last organizational memo I saw had Stone responsible for all
    software engineering except VMS Engineering, which is (was?) still
    under Demmer/Harbert.

    re .97:
    
   > I dont know what group you work with, but we in VMS engineering do get 
   > mail messages from top people
    
    What a surprise.  I wonder if UEG (or whatever name they have this
    week) gets the same attention.
    
    karl, UNIX* Partner

    Actually, this month's "mgmt memo" also known as MANAGEMENT MEMO also
    known as VTX infobase entery MM is pretty good.
    
    Ken Olsen "Thoughts on Digital's Core Values" "Ken Answers Frequently
    Asked Questions"
    
    John Sims "Beyond SERP"
    
    Although Ken does not answer my frequently asked question "What is the
    plan to restore Digital to profitability and growth?" he answers a few
    others. It's no surprise to me that he reinforces the "business as usual"
    concept.

    VMS Engineering is headed by Bill Demmer/Frank McCabe.  

    re .-1
    
    This week.

.105>   > I dont know what group you work with, but we in VMS engineering do get 
.105>	> mail messages from top people
.105>    What a surprise.  I wonder if UEG (or whatever name they have this
.105>    week) gets the same attention.
    
    We do.