T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
3434.1 | | MBALDY::LANGSTON | our middle name is 'Equipment' | Tue Oct 11 1994 14:27 | 6 |
| The Western Region (U.S.) sales support organization will be meeting with
Pesatori and Damiani later this week. Any good questions I/we might ask 'em?
I can probably formulate the previous into a query.
Bruce
|
3434.2 | lamentation of the downtrodden | SFC01::GREENE | CASE: No Pain, No Gain! | Tue Oct 11 1994 15:46 | 18 |
| RE: .1
>Any good questions I/we might ask 'em?
Why does it take 1/2 day of my time, plus the time of 3 managers
(including a VP) to buy $150 of software for PC at work, for work???
Even if they say NO, the process to say no costs 20 times more than
it would cost just to buy the software!
<SET MODE DISGUSTED FLAME ON>
Maybe if the company would just do a little bit of employee empowerment
and stop supporting 2 or 3 unnecessary layers of management that do
nothing but create bureaucracies to justify their existence maybe we'd
turn a profit! But I'm sure next week's major reorganization (35th
reorg this quarter) and announcement of 15 new VPs will solve the problem.
For Christ's sake: get out of my way and let me continue to be billed
out at $100-200/hour like I've been doing for the last 10 years.
|
3434.3 | no matrix there | GVPROD::DOIGTE::Chisholm | | Tue Oct 11 1994 15:57 | 7 |
| There is no matrix in the UK situation. The UK SBU manager, reports directly
to the European SBU manager who reports into Corporate. What is different
is that the UK SBU manager does NOT report to the UK Managing Director
except for pay and rations, the same goes for SI, ABU, PC, etc.
That's the theory anyway...
|
3434.4 | no Enrico | MBALDY::LANGSTON | our middle name is 'Equipment' | Tue Oct 11 1994 17:12 | 5 |
| re: .1 "Pesatori and Damiani"
I've been informed that only Damiani will be there, no Enrico.
Bruce
|
3434.5 | | VANGA::KERRELL | DECUS - IT User Group of the Year '94 | Wed Oct 12 1994 06:36 | 9 |
| re.3:
I find it interesting that people refer to the next MD in the UK as a
caretaker. Although a companies liability maybe limited under law, a
director's liability for damages will be unlimited. I imagine the situation
will be similar in other sales subsidiaries. So who would take this job
with all of the responsibility but none of the power?
Dave ;-)
|
3434.6 | Oh! yes there is | CHEFS::PARRYD | Old dogs know all the tricks | Wed Oct 12 1994 06:59 | 11 |
| Re .3
You say there is no matrix then go on to refer to the U.K., European
and Corporate SBU managers! Isn't this a matrix of market (so-called
channels) and geography? Why introduce geography? There needs to be a
geography manager and a market manager. They don't need to be
subordinate one to the other and there doesn't need to be more than one
of either. As it is we'll have another set of U.K. managers for ABU,
for PCBU etc.
dp
|
3434.7 | plan vrs reality! | GVPROD::DOIGTE::Chisholm | | Wed Oct 12 1994 07:40 | 26 |
| re -1.
You only need a geography manager if there is a geography P&L. The plan is
that within a territory there will not be one P&L, but many, one for each
business unit. The territory manager will not be responsible for managing
the resources between the various business units.
This is the business model used by many large multi-nationals. Look at
Unilever in the UK, there is a Unilever, UK Managing Director, but this does
not mean he manages all the UK Unilever companies. The Unilever UK business
unit managers receive budget, headcount and performance reviews from their
respective 'business unit' managers who have European or w/w
responsibilities. The model works for them, they are extremely profitable
and work with paper thin margins.
There is one caveat, for legal reasons there is a country based P&L, board
of directors, fiscal accounting but this different than the operational
management.
|
3434.8 | Thinking inside thge box? | CHEFS::PARRYD | Old dogs know all the tricks | Wed Oct 12 1994 08:40 | 15 |
| .7,
This is interesting. I understand what the intention for the territory
is. I don't understand why you would start organizing a market sector-
based company by geography first. It seems to me part of a first cut
for SBU would be ISVs, VARs, master resellers, distributors and what I
would call generics--people like MicroSoft, Informix and Novell. Some of
these divisions would never need to reflect geography in their structure.
If, for example, your "account" is Oracle, perhaps you can do product
and marketing things at corporate level and market it through their
structure rather than ours.
Just to bang on a bit more. Why START with geography? It smacks to me
of the old Digital mutt not knowing any different: "That's what we
always do, ain'it?"
|
3434.9 | Territory tail, business dog? | RUTILE::DAVIS | | Wed Oct 12 1994 11:40 | 26 |
| Re: .7
<<You only need a geography manager if there is a geography P&L. The plan is
<<that within a territory there will not be one P&L, but many, one for each
<<business unit. The territory manager will not be responsible for managing
<<the resources between the various business units.
Then, what does P&L have to do with the territory? Nothing. If a
business unit wants reps somewhere, fine; if not, also fine. Why should
the "territory" make the decision?
.
.
.
<<There is one caveat, for legal reasons there is a country based P&L, board
<<of directors, fiscal accounting but this different than the operational
<<management.
Exactly. So, how can you justify setting up a "territory" organization
to match the businesses? Sounds like a matrix to me. Not only that,
but it looks like we're again expending the effort to set up a big
organization, rather than on making our customers happy and making profit.
Of course, you have my apologies, if in fact it is the business units
that want the territory management.
- Scott
|
3434.10 | | GVA05::STIFF | Paul Stiff EPSCC, DTN:821-4167 | Wed Oct 12 1994 13:26 | 7 |
| I think you'll find geography an important consideration in places like
Europe, where culture and language can vary a lot with just a border.
Different culture means different business practices and even (wrongly)
different pricing or product specifications.
Paul
|
3434.11 | They all start with "S" [in English]? | RUTILE::DAVIS | | Wed Oct 12 1994 13:53 | 6 |
| re: .10
Which is why we have Sweden, Switzerland and Spain in the same
territory, I suppose? [Or whatever that combination is].
- Scott
|
3434.12 | | GVA05::STIFF | Paul Stiff EPSCC, DTN:821-4167 | Wed Oct 12 1994 15:32 | 5 |
| The territory groups are not always logical...
And were pretty much force fitted IMHO.
Paul
|
3434.13 | | NWD002::31412::Randall_do | Hi | Wed Oct 12 1994 21:53 | 9 |
| We find the same issue in the US. Cultures such as the West Coast and
New York and the South are separate regions due to the large cultural
differences.
Seriously, there isn't matrix management but there is specialization. We
have many specialists throughout the region - software, hardware, network,
etc. Now that we're vertically managed, I've found specialists doing the
same work - creating the same programs, holding similar events, and
duplicating work. Maybe geographical organization makes some sense.
|
3434.14 | plan vrs reality | GVPROD::DOIGTE::Chisholm | | Thu Oct 13 1994 07:51 | 16 |
| re .9
>Exactly. So, how can you justify setting up a "territory" organization
>to match the businesses? Sounds like a matrix to me. Not only that,
>but it looks like we're again expending the effort to set up a big
>organization, rather than on making our customers happy and making profit.
Hopefully the "territory organizations" are being dismantled. If they are
not then the company will continue its death spiral. However I am
pessimistic that this will happen. We have gone through many organizations
(account mgmt, 3*3, CBU and now BU) every time the countries (to be precise)
continue to operate the same way. Even today, people are hinting that
in a country the SBU and ABU managers will be the same person! Arg...
Too bad Palmer doesn't practice what he preaches. Two years ago he said
that it doesn't really matter what organization you have, as long as you
implement it well..
|
3434.15 | Who decides about your salary? | UTROP1::VELT | Ski afficionado in Flat-Land | Thu Oct 13 1994 16:47 | 10 |
| There is this subtle little thing called career management. For
practical reasons employer/employee relationships are managed locally,
or by country (labour laws et al).
Now suppose you are a local BU manager, reporting through the BU layers
and ignoring the country manager. He signs of salary change requests of
everyone in his territory and he is also therefore quite influential in
promotion or job assignment matters.
Guess what this ignoring-the-CM will do to you.
You still wonder why all these BU-manager flock the CM's office?
|
3434.16 | Complexity management | CHEFS::PARRYD | Old dogs know all the tricks | Thu Oct 20 1994 09:08 | 13 |
| I have recently heard a marketeer say, only half-jokingly, "I don't
want to speak to someone in the country management. I'm area." This was
in the context of a situation where they were having desperate difficulty
trying to understand who owns the issue of funding the port by an ISV
in the U.S. of a mail product to OSF/1 initially for a consumer industries
multi-national based in the U.K.
If it wasn't so tragic it would be comic. (And I know that should be a
subjunctive but I speak demotic. Sometimes.)
Incidentally, my answer would be that it ought to be funded by an ISV
investment group, however you organize investment. No crap about
geography or end-user industry.
|
3434.17 | The Digital Salute is alive, and well thankyou | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Thu Oct 20 1994 20:14 | 8 |
|
Tell me about it. Getting someone to "fund" a port is like asking
them to admit they take drugs. I'm supposed to be recruiting these
folks for Digital, and I have a better chance of buying their companies
then getting 'ol Digital to provide *real* porting assistance. Makes
you feel like your in the middle of a Tim Burton movie.
the Greyhawk
|
3434.18 | Let slip the dogs of sales! | CHEFS::PARRYD | Old dogs know all the tricks | Fri Oct 21 1994 06:39 | 14 |
| I agree with your sentiments. I did say, "However you manage
investment." As I understand it you people in sales have difficulty
spending money which goes beyond the current fiscal. All programmes
have to finish on July 31 so that we can be reborn on August 1st.
Whether you realize it or not there are marketeers making these
decisions about which software products to buy onto a Digital platform
and spending money to do it. There are people called "Alpha seed
captains", for example. I cleave to the view that, if OSF/1 is so hot,
we should just sell it to them. And they should be queueing up to buy
it.
I have sent you mail separately. If you can go for the business do it.
Who is Tim Burton, by the way? Any relation to Richard (or even Sir
Richard)? That's more my era.
|
3434.19 | | AXEL::FOLEY | Rebel without a Clue | Fri Oct 21 1994 14:34 | 6 |
| RE: .17
You don't have a fetish for Angora sweaters, do you?
(See "Ed Wood")
mike
|
3434.20 | This is self-explanatory | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Fri Oct 21 1994 18:39 | 25 |
|
I'm not quite sure what is happening here. Probably another
complete disconnect with what people are told, and what they do.
Software houses in the real world get free equipment from Hewlett-
Packard, IBM, SiliGraphics, etc. The bigger ones get free on-site
porting assistance, all the hardware they can use, all the middleware
tools they can learn, and all the time they need to use the stuff,
plus tons of love and kisses.
Since this IS a competitive industry, if you don't match the offer,
you don't get the girl! And her customers. I want my company to provide
me with a level playing field, not 6 forms to fill out and 100
telephone calls later....
Somebody at corporate sends me an A1 saying, "We need more
information, etc." The fact is you put the resources at the point of
attack (remember George Patton) if you want to win, not hold them in
reserve (remember D-Day and the Panzers slept). If you're chartered
with a mission, you're supposed to get the ammo.
Tim Burton is the director of "Nightmare at Christmas" and a known
wired weirdo. I can't stand Angora - it's like wearing spider webs.
I just want the tools to win on my say-so. Not some General's
1000's of miles from the battlefront.
the Greyhawk
|
3434.21 | Correction!!!! | MSDOA::SCRIVEN | | Fri Oct 21 1994 19:12 | 5 |
| re: -.1
Correction: "The Nightmare Before Christmas"...
|
3434.22 | I believe it's called empowerment... | PARVAX::SCHUSTAK | Digital...AndProudOfIt! | Sat Oct 22 1994 12:44 | 9 |
| Frankly, I think that's the *only* thing wrong with Greyhair's note.
This company needs to get the resources needed to support the business
initiatives "on the front lines", supporting our ability to move FAST,
DECISIVELY, and EFFECTIVELY. I see some of this happening, but not
enough. If management (generally, I personally believe my management to
be very supportive with trust in the competence of myself and my peers)
allows the IC's to exercise sound business judgement, with
accountability for the results, I believe we will move down the road of
success much more quickly.
|
3434.23 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Oct 24 1994 18:00 | 32 |
| I think several of the people here only have a partial view of the
situation involved with recruiting and proving engineering support,
marketing support, managing general business relationship issues, etc,
with third party software firms. I've been in the tech support end of
that mess for four years (and the group I've remained in is now on its
fourth name and third major organisation in that same time) and I still
can't fully describe the web of complex responsibilities that go into
handling those kind of relationships. Some third parties won't even
talk to us as engineers if their marketing people and our marketing
people can't agree on what product features need to be engineered into
their products because of customer demand...and do you know how hard it
is to get hold of certain DEC marketing people during the last few
years of reorgs? At least we consolidated the technical support from
nine separate organizations into one 15 months ago, so at least we
don't get some third parties playing two or three different DEC groups
off against each other to get more support.
I DO know that many people have spent a lot of time doing these jobs in
the past, and that several of them are hard at work on defining how we
should do it most intelligently now. Resources cost. We can't buy
every port that every salesperson needs to secure their business. I
think some of the views about 'empowerment' expressed here ignore the
resource costs and acocuntability that we MUST have to ensure that we
don't spin our wheels throwing resources after ports that won't return
the investment. I have hopes that Enrico's stated determination to
have the entire CSD organisation IN PLACE by 1 January means that our
Partnering organization issues are going to be worked out by then, and
we'll all know where to go to make our case for resources. Until then,
I understand the frustrations; I think the picture is bigger than you
realize; and I wish you good luck in coping.
DougO
|
3434.24 | Its a business problem. Period. | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Mon Oct 24 1994 20:16 | 30 |
|
Appreciate your note, Doug, very well said.
The problem is not just any old "port" someone at Digital wants
done to sell a machine. We are talking companies here with huge
install bases (1000-7000 customers), multinational sales forces, and
a very targeted organizational focus.
They see Digital as a "fading star" (this by a SVP of a $200MM
developer on Friday), and question our ability to respond to the ways
the rest of the industry does business. Trust me, it is not complex
for H-P, IBM, SUN, or Siligraphics. Just ask any reseller of those
companies what they think.
This situation is very serious. Over the last three years I have
been recruiting resellers, with a track record extraordinare. I know
Maui real well. This year is terrible. I'm not doing anything
different, Digital is. And our focus is wrong to the market. I'll
get into all this in a topic with a perscription this week. But the
field is struggling right now, and it ain't good news. I do not care
about positive spins, etc. I care about revenue, margins, and the
competition/market share. And at the business level, we are hurting.
I care a great deal about Digital. I damn near love this place.
And I do adore the technology, reliability, and durability of our
products. But that ain't selling today the way it used to. And THAT
is a problem. For all of us.
the Greyhawk
|
3434.25 | Sadly, we're mud | DV780::VIGIL | Williams VIGIL, y que mas? | Mon Oct 24 1994 21:26 | 16 |
| >ain't selling today the way it used to. And THAT
>is a problem. For all of us.
The public mindset is that Digital is closed, old fashioned, obsolete.
Period. Right or wrong, that is the perception. Sun, HP, and other
competitors have, with a lot of help from Digital in the past, inculcated
that image on the computer buying segment of the business world.
It will take extreme differentiation in price, performance and quality over
a sufficient period of time to destroy that erroneous perception.
Its the safme for an individual. Once a person's reputation has been
comprimised, it takes a very long time as well as an outstanding record
to overcome what takes only a little while to destroy.
Ws
|
3434.26 | | CHEFS::PARRYD | Old dogs know all the tricks | Tue Oct 25 1994 08:18 | 36 |
3434.27 | business 101 | GVPROD::DOIGTE::Chisholm | | Tue Oct 25 1994 08:29 | 6 |
| re -1
> Quite apart from removing the industry marketing crap (or
> recognizing that our industries now are ISVs, SIs, VARs etc.) which
> in itself would reduce complexity by one dimension
Ever thought of taking a Business 101 course ?
|
3434.28 | Business 101? | CHEFS::PARRYD | Old dogs know all the tricks | Tue Oct 25 1994 13:11 | 1 |
| Go on. What is Business 101? ... and why would I care?
|
3434.29 | | HDLITE::SCHAFER | Mark Schafer, AXP-developer support | Tue Oct 25 1994 14:05 | 5 |
| enough of the personal jabs. Doug's point is that Enrico sees the
whole picture and is forming a Software Developer Partnering group in
the SBU, to be operational in the second quarter.
Mark
|
3434.30 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Oct 25 1994 15:48 | 47 |
3434.31 | | CHEFS::PARRYD | Old dogs know all the tricks | Wed Oct 26 1994 08:24 | 9 |
| Doug,
I think we have a furious agreement going on here. I recognise the
perspective you bring to these issues.
I come back to my original point: If Enrico is working on the new CSD
organization and will put resellers first, why do we have the
geographies announcing CSD organizations in advance? i.e. why
geographies and why pre-emptively?
|
3434.32 | | BBRDGE::LOVELL | | Wed Oct 26 1994 15:39 | 30 |
|
I'm not quite sure whether you are using "pre-emptively"
advisedly here or whether you mean prematurely. Anyway,
it doesn't matter - I haven't a clue as to the timing.
Regarding your specific question "Why geographies?", I would
have thought that the answer was so fundamental that I am surprised
that no-one has so far mentioned it.
Despite real or virtual organisation(s) and irrespective of
so-called "Business Units" or "Segments", our Corporation is
still financially harnessed to its statutory accounting
policies. REVENUE (magic word) is recognised at a geography
level and the statutory accounts required at these levels
has never made provision for our real or imagined business unit
structure. The upshot of this is that whole business management
structures obligatorily exist at geography level and that
this oft-times "leaks" into the current business structures.
Witness : product lines, CBUs, and now Divisions. Throughout
these generations of organisation, geography based financial
management has led (by and large) to geography based functional
management.
I'm not arguing that this is desirable - simply that it is largely
unavoidable when subsidiary level management continue to insist on
a subsidiary level head on the block for subsidiary level revenue
commitments.
/Chris.
|
3434.33 | Financial straightjacket? | CHEFS::PARRYD | Old dogs know all the tricks | Thu Oct 27 1994 09:43 | 22 |
| Re. .32
I did have second thoughts about "pre-emptively" ... and it
still seemed right to me.
The point about geographies and financial accounts was made,
sort of, by Dave Kerrell in a previous note.
What you are saying is that the business model must always be
either within the financial accounting model or just ornamental to
it. That is the way it has been with CBUs etc. but I hope Enrico
doesn't accept that. After all here in Europe we have units based in
and paid for by one geography doing work for another. It shouldn't
be beyond our wit to make that a business unit rather than a country
to which the transfers are made, e.g. a team in the U.K. looking
after Mentec reporting to an ISV group in Corporate.
Having said which it's my view the only way to change the plan
of accounts of a company is to break it up. And I think I see it
coming, starting with MCS, CSD and CPD(?) splitting up to be
followed swiftly by the PCBU. Separate engineering, manufacturing,
buildings, workforces, services, the lot.
|
3434.34 | | BBRDGE::LOVELL | | Thu Oct 27 1994 10:37 | 13 |
| re .-1
>>Separate engineering, manufacturing, buildings,
>>workforces, services, the lot.
Just a couple more explicit list items ;
balance sheet, statutory accounts, ...
I tend to agree with your analysis. It will be interesting
to see how BP, Enrico et al maintain an overall Digital
"holding structure" whilst divisions are cut free and
encouraged run their own world-wide businesses.
|
3434.35 | Like the name | CHEFS::PARRYD | Old dogs know all the tricks | Thu Oct 27 1994 10:52 | 1 |
| I just got your personal name. Very good. Like "Oh! Calcutta."
|
3434.36 | "DC is dead, long live SI!" | CHEFS::PARRYD | | Fri Nov 25 1994 08:51 | 35 |
| Some of us in the U.K. Digital Consulting (or should that be
Systems Integration?) community have just had a string of mails from
area and corporate (still waiting for the territory one :-/) helping
us to "... understand the role of systems integration ..." Sorry,
that should be "Systems Integration". The corporate one says that we
"focus in ... five (IT) areas." The area one says that we do all of
those plus a) solutions architecture, b) project management and c)
application and data integration! Real smart to go back to hacking
off our customers (Sorry, "partners") by setting ouselves up to
compete with them again, especially when we have so little justification
for doing so.
The area one also says that SI will "... focus on meeting the
needs of ABU accounts." The corporate one says no such thing. What
about all those non-ABU opportunities with partners we could service
through the SBU? Is anyone flying this damn' thing? Or is everyone?
The best we can hope for is that it ends in nothing worse than tears.
Is SI independent of area and territory ABU or not? (Our area
ABU man said it was recently.) Why isn't SI organised globally?
What good do the geography layers do? The best they can do is not to
distort the message; they are bound to delay it. In this case they
have distorted it too. When our team finally comes back onto
the field some of us will be playing gridiron, some soccer, some
rugger, some Ozzie footy, some shinty etc. Do you know the story
about Chinese whispers?
Input: "Send reinforcements, we're going to advance."
Output: "Send three'n'fourpence*, we're going to a dance."
(* Old British money; about $0.25)
Put all those clerks to the sword, Mr. Pesatori, and get a new lot who
can count in dollars worldwide and produce real business unit P&Ls.
|