Conference 7.286::digital

    
    Here's my thoughts just sent to Ken Olsen/Jack Smith/John Sims.
    
    Subject: Employee Suggestion for Turning Digital Around -- Overnight

    I believe with a single "pivotal" change, Digital could achieve a turn 
    around within six months, with dramatic reductions in wasteful cost 
    and dramatic increases in customers, revenue, margin and profit.

    Real change for increasing Digital efficiency and effectiveness is not 
    taking place on any large scale because a good many managers are 
    risk-averse toward incurring change in order to protect career gains 
    and personal ambition.  The best way of attaining significant salary 
    increases is to move up the corporate management ladder and it has 
    proven to be safer not to make waves, to just get the work done as 
    required, and to cater to the next boss up the line, making him or her 
    "look good" thereby ensuring raises, fringe benefits and promotion 
    higher into the ranks of management.

    The fundamental question is "who should own the power to make Digital 
    a better and more successful company?"  Just managers?  Or ALL 
    employees?

    My suggested pivotal change, quite simply, is to change policy, 
    overnight, decentralizing power.  Give real power to ALL employees to 
    build a better and more successful Digital.  What this could mean, 
    beginning as soon as next week, is every group within Digital, AS A
    GROUP, having full responsibility with full authority.  Thus, a  group
    of direct reports now meets weekly, and 

-   AS A GROUP defines the work needing to be done by the group in 
    order to get the job done efficiency and effectively that WILL 
    impact building a more successful company.

-   AS A GROUP defines the goals for attaining higher levels of 
    accomplishment by all group members, working together.

-   AS A GROUP defines and communicates the work and goals necessary 
    from other groups whose work impacts the group in order for the 
    group to achieve its goals and higher levels of accomplishments in 
    building a more successful Digital.

-   AS A GROUP defines the group's leadership and the measurement of 
    that leadership, and has an equal say on who leads and manages the 
    group, to support and lead the group in achieving its goals and 
    eliminating any obstructions impeding the accomplishment of the 
    group's work, and "change" to build a more successful Digital.

-   AS A GROUP defines problems and creates idea solutions for 
    anything impeding progress to accomplishing the group's work, and 
    to attaining the goals and desired higher levels of achievement, 
    affected either from within the group or from another group.

-   AS A GROUP decides on a group member who presents in-person to 
    another group defined work/goals needed to support their group, 
    identified problems and/or ideas as other groups' work affects 
    their given group.

-   AS A GROUP reviews, analyzes and makes GO or NO GO decisions on 
    all problems and ideas for change coming into and being presented 
    to the group, either generated from within the group or from 
    outside such as from another group, customer, supplier or third 
    party company we do business with.

    Digital employs highly intelligent people, one of the highest paid 
    workforces in the world.  The corporation should capitalize on our 
    intelligence, trusting us by giving power to us, its people, to truly 
    create and drive into reality change, where we AS GROUP TEAMS WITH 
    EACH MEMBER BEING AN EQUAL PARTNER hold authority along with 
    responsibility to achieve a dream, to build a better and more 
    successful Digital, greater than what is.
    

All answers to the question should provide real-life case examples of
Fortune 1000 companies employing 100K+ people globally who have had success
using the techniques described.

Here's my wild idea of empowerment... An accomplished CEO with a number of 
senior level direct reports who set the strategy.   Everyone else carries
out that strategy.   Promote and pay the best, dismiss the worst. 

I know it's radical but it has worked before. 

    Management gets "paid the big bucks", so why aren't managers working to
    make the company successful?  Perhaps it is because most are too
    concerned with their own personal gain, as mentioned in reply .1
    
    If individual contributors were actually empowered, then the work-group
    concept would work.  In reality, individual contributors must always
    report to managers - so it is a case of everyone looking out for
    themselves rather than looking out for the company as a whole.
    
    The "politics" in this company are worse than any other company I have
    worked for.  I would like to see promotions given to those workers who
    really deserve it rather than to those people who are well-connected
    politically.
    
    -Jill-

    Re: .2:
    
> All answers to the question should provide real-life case examples of
> Fortune 1000 companies employing 100K+ people globally who have had success
> using the techniques described.
    
    You mean to exclude trying anything new?

    
     REF: <<< Note 1150.2 by GOOBER::ROSS >>>

    >><<All answers to the question should provide real-life case examples
    of Fortune 1000 companies employing 100K+ people globally who have had
    success using the techniques described.>>
    
    Having to prove something should not replace acting on intuition and
    common sense, making decisions with little to no known facts. 
    Especially when a company is in crisis.
    
    Regarding decentralization of power to groups with all being equal
    partners on the group team, Dr. W. Edwards Deming, recognized father to
    Japan's more effective business operating practices, reports in his OUT
    OF THE CRISIS that most major Japanese corporations operate this way --
    decisions are a group function.
     
    Since Japan has some of THE largest corporations in the world,
    dominating worldwide several industries, many of which were created in
    America, one might deduce that the decentralization of power to groups
    is more effective to change and to building a more successful company
    than power residing solely in the hands of just managers.
    

>> All answers to the question should provide real-life case examples of
>> Fortune 1000 companies employing 100K+ people globally who have had success
>> using the techniques described.
>    
>    You mean to exclude trying anything new?

Certainly not.   But trying to implement "empowerment to the masses" in a 
company as large as Digital would be a total failure.  Maybe it works in
some smaller, less diverse companies, but I just cannot see the powers that be
making a such a radical move.   

I'm in favor of trying something new but not something completely different.
But I think the only major changes we will see are cuts and re-orgs.  

But if you can show me examples of where large corporations have successfully
made a transition to the work-group style, you might change my mind.  The only
cases I ever see are of companies that start small with that style and grow.

    If it fails - it's my (management's) fault
    If it works - we did it together
    If it succeeds beyond all expectations - you (the workers) made 
    								the difference

>    Having to prove something should not replace acting on intuition and
>    common sense, making decisions with little to no known facts. 
>    Especially when a company is in crisis.

	a.  I don't think Ken Olsen would consider this short-term
	    problem a "crisis" and it doesn't help the situation to
	    label it so.    And it's not like the problem is inherent
	    to Digital alone.  It is an industry-wide problem.

	b.  Management can make intuitive decisions that do not rely
	    on changing the entire make-up of the company.  Strategic
	    changes would seem to be less risky and possibly more 
	    beneficial.   For example, making a strong commitment to
	    software development over hardware sales. 

    
>    Since Japan has some of THE largest corporations in the world,
>    dominating worldwide several industries, many of which were created in
>    America, one might deduce that the decentralization of power to groups
>    is more effective to change and to building a more successful company
>    than power residing solely in the hands of just managers.

	Talk to me about very large U.S. companies that have made such a 
	radical change of management style.  The American culture and
	value systems are totally different from the U.S.   You're dreaming
        if you  think a company as large as Digital can, should, or would take
	the extreme measures you suggest. 

    RE.1
    
    Although I can see the good intentions of .1, I think the ultimate
    results of decentralizing power into smaller groups would just lead
    to more anarchy.
    
    Having seen projects stymied because one group could not get the other 
    group to "buy-in" for needed support, I belive a better solution is
    required. 
    
    
    George

    
    	If I remember my readings correctly, the group concept that
    	works so well in Japan does not work in America because of
    	basic cultural and work ethic differences.
    
    	I believe it was Nippocera some years ago who tried opening
    	a plant on the west coast with American workers, but Japanese
    	managers who indoctrinated them in the group concept.
    
    	The plant bombed.  The workers couldn't function under the new
    	methods.  The Japanese plants remained productive and profitable.
    	The American plant fell behind in production levels, quality,
    	and lost a great deal of money in the process.
    
    	PBS did a program on this a few years back showing several
    	companies that tried this group, open, equal, oriental approach
    	to running a business in America and the conclusion was that
    	it doesn't work as long as Americans are involved anywhere in
    	the process.
    
    	I had a neighbor once who got it into her head that cactus would
    	look great in her backyard.  She like the contrast and the texture
    	and the brillant flowers.  And she had friends bring back
    	specimens from the southwest when they traveled and she kept
    	her eye out at the local greenhouse for what looked like hardy
    	prospects.  But try as she might, the plants kept dying.
    
    	One day she asked Frank, a quiet old Maine garderner-type for
    	help.  "Do you have any idea why they keep doing this?," she
    	asked pointing to the lastest crop of dead spiny columns.
    
    	Frank nodded and answered, "Yup, ain't supposed to be here in
    	the first place."
    
    
    	ralph 

re: .10
    
>    	If I remember my readings correctly, the group concept that
>    	works so well in Japan does not work in America because of
>    	basic cultural and work ethic differences.
    
I used to own a Nissan truck that was made at their Smyrna, Tenn., plant.
It seemed like your basic zero-defect Japanese product from what i could see.

								paul

:    
:                         Who should own the power
:          to make Digital a better and more successful company?
    
    
    		Whoever earns it.
    
    
    
    
    You didn't say "authority"; you said "power".  Authority can be given
    or assigned or delegated; power must be earned or created.
    
    Regarding your comment about Japanese companies succeeding with the
    team/group concept:   I suggest you dig deeper and learn more about
    Japanese business and organizational practices.  The Japanese are
    extremely authoritarian in their top management.  Top executives'
    words are LAW.  However, the execs and middle managers know that there
    is a vast amount of knowledge, intuition, and experience to be tapped
    from the workers.  For this reason, they do "empower" their workforce
    to innovate and contribute ideas.  But make no mistake about it; the
    management holds 100% of the power.
    
    Regarding the reply (Sorry for forgetting the name) which stated, in
    effect, "Top management sets directions, goals, and corporate strategy;
    Middle managers execute that strategy by managing the pool of workers":
    
    There is much to said for this healthy dose of sanity.  Creating a
    workforce where all workers have equal "vote" will ensure mediocre
    decisions.  The Digital "tradition" of consensus decision making
    already ensures mediocre AND time-consuming decisions.  Why dilute the
    final decision more?   Anarchy will not drive a multi-billion dollar,
    technology company.  Neither will Socialism.  Neither will Democracy.
    There must be a single leader or small board of leaders to create
    corporate goals and strategy to achieve those goals.  There must be a
    body of executives to execute those strategies through positive, strong
    leadership and, yes, enlightened management.  There must be a body of
    management to turn those strategies into tasks, assignments,
    operations, and responsibilities; and to manage the completion of those
    things.  And, there must be a body of workers to complete the tasks.
    Where appropriate, the body of workers may contribute innovative,
    creative ideas which may help the company operate more efficiently, or
    may help the company exploit competitive advantages.  Enlightened
    management will solicit and value this input.  However, you must
    realize that there are many employees who simply cannot, will not, or
    should not contribute.  "Valuing Differences" has not yet assigned
    value to stupidity or incompetence.  In a company of 120,000 people,
    does anyone REALLY believe that there are NO stupid or incompetent
    people?  Can anyone REALLY believe that soliciting the input to
    business decisions from minds uneducated and/or uninterested in the
    ways of business will somehow INcrease the quality of decision-making?
    
    I sure hope not.
    
    While I too am appalled at the parochialism and ineptitude displayed by
    far too many of Digital's managers; and I see far too many disgraceful
    situations where men and women have attained positions of
    authority and great reward based only on their inclusion in
    certain cliques; and I am well aware of the incredible power in a work
    group turned loose on a goal when there are no political or organizational
    constraints to hold them back; I can still clearly see that a
    corporation made up of thousands of "empowered", equal-voting workers,
    with no clear reporting structure or authoritarian management will only
    end up resembling one of those turtle races, where a whole bunch of
    turtles are turned loose in the middle of a circle, free to race toward
    wherever they choose.  Only each turtle has a different goal, and even
    the fastest turtle takes an eternity to win the race -- which has no
    clear finish line anyway.
    
    -DM-

    Re: .12
    
    Well said. Digital must figure out how to once again promote and
    encourage leadership instead of mere management. Digital grew as it
    did in the past due to great leadership at all of its (few) levels.
    Employees weren't empowered; they were inspired and rewarded.
    Today most simply try to 'stay low, keep moving' and preserve
    themselves.
    
    Lee

	re .3:

>>>    Management gets "paid the big bucks", so why aren't managers working to
>>>    make the company successful? 

	Because they're too busy working to make sure they go on getting
	paid the big bucks. Even I can see that.

	Besides, "money doesn't motivate". I wish I had a $100 for every
	time a manager has told me that when I asked for a raise. Maybe
	they get paid so much they are really unmotivated.

	One reservation - it is only some managers who deserve these
	strictures. There is a whole range of behaviour and performance
	(probably the familiar "bell" curve) in managers, as with everyone
	else. Different things motivate - personal prestige, money, power,
	achievement, respect, etc. On the whole, those who are mainly
	motivated by a desire for achievement and respect are those who
	help the rest of us and the company. Those who are more interested
	in prestige, money and power - for themselves and their friends
	only - tend to behave in ways harmful to the rest of us and the
	company. The trouble is, they take great pains to look good from
	above. To spot them, you need to get "under the camouflage" - the
	only way to do that is to talk to the people who work for them.
	
>>>	The "politics" in this company are worse than any other company I have
>>>     worked for.

	Yes, I'd agree with that. In fact, it reminds me of some of the
	discussions we've had about marketing here and in NODEMO::MARKETING.
	A lot of us have come to the conclusion that Digital, seen from
	outside, doesn't really do marketing at all. Similarly, it strikes
	me that the company doesn't "do" management either. In both cases
	the situation is the same: people are given jobs in "management"
	or "marketing" and left to make what they can of it. Nobody trains
	them, there are no standards or rules, and above all there is no
	review or assessment to decide whether they are doing a good or a
	bad job.

	Life might get a lot better if each manager was held responsible
	for managing well, and measured appropriately (for instance, by
	asking his/her direct reports for feedback and acting on it). At
	the moment, they're measured only by results on given metrics,
	and even then the system has no memory. If a manager seems to
	succeed brilliantly one year, leaving behind a hostile customer
	or a ruined team, nobody ever holds him accountable.

	People who truly succeed and build up effective teams of people who
	cooperate with and trust each other, however, are rarely forgiven.
	I have just been told of one such - one of the most effective
	managers I have ever known - who, after spending seven years building
	up a superbly effective combined sales/support team, has been
	*made redundant*. That is, they are paying him to go away and stop
	showing them up.

	/Tom

    From a recent "little" publication:
    
    "Lee Gammill beams as he tells his story.  'In two days, we designed
     the product that absolutely blew the industry apart.  We had an
     80 percent increase in volume within one year.  We're a big company
     -- even an 8 percent would have been great.'
    
     Frozen pizzas?  Personal computers?  Post-it notes?  Not at all.
     Gammill is an executive vice-president of New York Life Insurance
     Company.  The product he's describing is a totally redesigned whole
     life policy.  In just two years the product boosted New York Life's
     market share by two percentage points, as astonishing increase
     in an industry that most of us think of as huge, entrenched, and
     stagnant."
    
     The publication is "Adhocracy: The Power to Change" by Robert H.
     Waterman, Jr. (coauthor of "In Search of Excellence" -- but not
     as jingoistic as Tom Peters the other author).  It is an interesting
     little book -- only 86 pages.  The chapters are: The Power of
     Adhocracy, The Right Start, Off and Running, Getting Results (a
     MUST READ), and The Context for Vibrant Adhocracy.
    
     Remember -- without friction those simply machines, pulleys, would
     not work.  Also remember the wonder "mechanical advantage" pulleys
     can bring.
    
     Joe

    
     All these replys contain good information, people seem to have a grasp
    at what to do, how to do it..... etc. So what will become of these
    ideas. Will they just sit on a disk on some node in the network. How
    can we solve some of digitals problems today? The real POWER needs
    to get involved with the workers. Perhaps one should forward these
    replys to ones immediate management, sooner or later it will (should)
    filter to the top!
    
    -Mike Z.

    > All answers to the question should provide real-life case examples of
      Fortune 1000 companies employing 100K+ people globally who have had 
      success using the techniques described.
    
      3M Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota.
      Source:  Thriving on Chaos by Tom Peters

     REF: <<1150.8 GOOBER:ROSS>>
     >><<The American culture and value systems are totally different 
     from the U.S.>>

     REF: <<1150.12 HYEND::DMONTGOMERY>>
     >><<Regarding your comment about Japanese companies succeeding 
     with the team/group concept:   I suggest you dig deeper and learn 
     more about Japanese business and organizational practices.>>

     There are many business gurus writing the same story about Japan 
     major corporations -- there is no difference as it applies to 
     business.  Rather than quote many, I will take as gospel whatever 
     Dr. Deming has to say about Japan since Japan recognizes his as 
     the architect of more enlightened business practices that work 
     better in building a successful company (see his book OUT OF THE 
     CRISIS).  I will also rely on Digital's own Japan Mission 
     Studies, which confirm the same story.

     Essentially, the business practices of major Japanese 
     corporations and the business practices of major American 
     corporations are nearly identical.  EXCEPT for a few differences 
     practiced by the Japanese corporations.

     Differences that ARE making the world of difference in 
     determining which corporations will prosper over those that fail 
     to adopt these few differences in operating practices.

     Three that stand out are:

     1.  Satisfying customers is NOT lip service.  It is real and it 
     is the highest priority of the corporation and ALL its members. 
     Continuous customer input and intelligence is sought, and acted 
     on in incurring change to ensure optimum satisfying of customers' 
     wants, as the customers define those wants.  Pure fundamental 
     marketing, whose consequence is more effectively winning and 
     retaining customers, and making money from having those 
     customers.

     2.  Identifying problems and new ideas for change is NOT lip 
     service.  It is real and it is the second highest priority.  
     Using statistical tools, the identification of problems and 
     generation of ideas for change are actively nurtured and 
     solicited from all employees and customers and suppliers, and 
     problems and ideas are pursued with change being accepted and 
     methodically incurred, constanting improving all products, 
     services and all company functions, with the goal of improving 
     qualilty, productivity and the satisfaction of customers' wants.

     3.  Employee involvement is NOT lip service.  It is real where 
     every employee has a sense of ownership in incurring change and 
     building a successful company.  Groups do work as teams where 
     members are equal partners in making GROUP decisions on ideas and 
     change.  Managers of groups are charged with leading, not 
     managing, and are measured on leadership accordingly.

     These three differences are applicable to any business in the 
     world and are universally workable as it relates to winning and 
     retaining customers, and making money with the assets of a 
     company.

     What is impeding their implementation in American companies, and 
     within Digital, revolves around the fundamental issue of power 
     and authority.

     As Dr. Deming points out, the problem is the system and 
     management owns the system; and management will not change a 
     system that protects and rewards personal agenda of upwardly 
     mobile managers who put career gain ahead of the company and its 
     employees.

     To change the system means changing the company culture and my 
     argument is that the only way that is ever going to happen where 
     a quantum leap in corporate efficiency and effectiveness takes 
     place is via the total decentralization of power and authority to 
     where all employees own both the responsibility and 
     power/authority to build a better and more successful Digital via 
     incurring change, including the adaption of the above three 
     differences outlined.

     Comuter competition by IBM and Japanese corporations are not 
     going to stop, waiting on Digital to catch up.  Either Digital 
     starts changing, making some intuitive leaps in philosophy or the 
     handwriting may indeed be on the wall.

     Think not?  Let us count the industries that have been lost (read 
     now dominated by companies in West Germany, Japan, etc) due to 
     archaic American self-centered management philosophies:

     Steel
     Optics
     Ship building
     Consumer electronics
     Automobiles
     Video equipment
     Industrial ceramics
     Factory automation
     High definition television
     Banking
     Computer chips

     We could have a dialogue for days on what managers within the 
     American Savings and Loan industry and regulatory agencies have 
     accomplished for America, taxpayers, stockholders, customers and 
     employees.

     The ageless cliche is: UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL

     Authoritarian dictatorial "what's in it for me and MY career" 
     management over "employees" has simply proven not to be as 
     effective as group teams of employees that are self-managed with 
     all members being "partners" owning full responsibility with full 
     authority, with REAL LEADERSHIP leading the group in its 
     contributions to build a better and more successful company.
     

:     Authoritarian dictatorial "what's in it for me and MY career" 
:     management over "employees" has simply proven not to be as 
:     effective as group teams of employees that are self-managed with 
:     all members being "partners" owning full responsibility with full 
:     authority, with REAL LEADERSHIP leading the group in its 
:     contributions to build a better and more successful company.
    
    
    	"...proven not to be as effective..."?   
    
    		Quote your source.
    
    I undertook to write a master's thesis, hypothesizing that Employee
    Involvement programs indeed have a direct, statistically correlatable
    effect on corporate profits.   I abandoned the effort after six months
    of research, because I came to realize that I could not prove my
    hypothesis.  I could not disprove it either.   While I (and many)
    believe that EI is good;  it simply has not been PROVEN to have a
    direct, positive effect on profit (and profit is, in fact, the only
    true measure of a corporation's success).
    
    Now, in your replies, David, you make some very good points.  But, my
    impression is that you go too far with the
    decentralization/power/authority concepts.   Yes, tapping the
    innovation and creativity of an empowered workforce can be very
    valuable.  But your proposals for corporate utopia seem to go well past
    that and advocate anarchy.  Giving "power" and "authority" to all, as
    equal partners in a corporation cannot work.  There must be central
    authority for corporate strategy and executive decisions.  Your point
    that some of the "managers" in those lofty positions are not fulfilling
    their duties properly is well-taken, but we cannot throw out the baby
    with the bath water!  Yes, remove incompetent people from positions of
    authority.  Yes, solicit ideas from those whom are capable.  Yes,
    reward top performers based on real contribution; not on political
    game-playing.   But don't scrap the entire infrastructure of a
    corporation where leaders lead, executives execute, managers manage,
    and workers work.   "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" is truly a
    desirable state of affairs!   The key is to find, keep, and reward our
    best leaders; find, keep, and reward our best followers; and push aside
    the mediocre, the incompetent, and those for whom personal positioning
    is more important than corporate success.
    
    -Don-

    I have just read a book, which seems to be relevant to this topic.  It
    is authored by David W. Ewing, sponsored by the Harvard Business
    School, titled 'Justice on the Job, resolving grievances in the
    nonunion workplace'.  I found it quite interesting reading.  In the
    book, Mr. Ewing describes 'Corporate due process'.  The book ends with
    a profile of 15 companies which have 'true' grievance handleing
    procedures (IBM's open door was listed, but ours was not).  Here were
    some of the differences a due process procedure can make (in the author
    opinion):
    
    	fewer lawsuits against the corporation
    	supervisory compliance with personnel rules
    	employee trust
    	ability to hold and attract good employees
    
    As the author continues:
    
    'Perhaps all this is another way of saying that due process is more
    than a "nice" approach to have, providing employees with more that a
    "warm feeling".  It contributes in a positive way to employee
    relations, and though it is a link in a subtle chain, it contributes
    distinctly, not invisibly.  Sometimes people say, in effect, "If you
    don't have unions or many lawsuits from employees, that must be because
    of your high pay or participative management, not your nonunion
    grievance procedure."  It is true that one of the companies studied,
    Polaroid, is known for its generous pay levels, and that another,
    General Electric in Columbia [Maryland], for its participative
    management.  But several of the companies in the sample are not known
    for paying better than the competition, and around half are not known
    for participative management.  In all of these cases, however, employee
    relations are good, union threats are not serious or are nonexistent,
    and legal actions from employees alleging unfair dismissal,
    discrimination, and related complaints appear to be low.'
    
    
    The companies sited in the book:
    
    	Bank of America
    	CIGNA
    	IBM
    	NBC
    	Citicorp
    	Control Data
    	Donnelly Corporation
    	Federal Express
    	General Electric (Columbia Md.)
    	Honeywell
    	John Hancock
    	Northrop
    	Polaroid
    	SmithKline
    	TWA
    
    
    As the author points out, we are all human, and so human managers and/or
    employees can make mistakes.  An avenue needs to be available to
    address these errors.  I am tempted to write the author, to ask why DEC
    didn't make his list.  That might spark a very interesting
    conversation here.
    
    Mark

re .10:

A friend who works as a consultant for a Japanese based company,
and has had many years of interaction working with groups in
this company and others, told me that much of what passes for group consensus
building in Japan is really a sort of elaborate social dance in which lower
status employees gradually submit to decisions that higher levels of
management have already made.

He said there is an appearance of disagreement or the working out of
alternatives, but almost invariably the plan presented by the most
senior person in the hierarchy is adopted with no significant modification,
and significant objections are not raised despite being in the environment.
Borrowing a phrase from Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, consent is
'manufactured'; only certain questions are allowed, and the senior people
frame and steer the discussion to ensure that only their preconceived answer can
ultimately pass muster.

He said that he got into quite a bit of trouble when he started
consulting with them before he understood what was going on; his
problem was that he raised serious objections and made cogent arguments
for them !  He found himself dealt out of the 'consensus building' process very
quickly.

The only thing that saved him was the company's dependence on him for
maintaining a critical software product that he had written and only he had
sufficient knowledge of.

He also claims that the proper way to operate in this environment is to publicly
agree to anything senior management says, and then to quietly go off and do
the correct thing.

If this is generally so with Japanese corporations (I don't claim it is),
it is easy to see how a Japanese management team attempting to engage in
'consensus building' with an group of American individual contributors would
encounter serious problems.  The managers expect a ritual of submission, and
the contributors expect to have real input into the what the final outcome is.

This is, of course, just one person's experience (and not mine at that), but
he claims he's seen it in most business meetings he's been in in Japan.

He also had some other interesting observations about Japanese behavior that
I won't share here in detail.  Briefly, he believes that U.S.ers have bought
into a lot of nonsensical mythology about Japanese motivations and operating
styles, and that some of the popular works about Japanese business practice
are way off the mark.  He has a much less complimentary view of a lot of
what goes on there, and feels that American interpreters are misleading
people here because they are only looking at things superficially.

    re: .21
    
       Perhaps Tom Peters did get it wrong about 3M Corporation.  I also
    viewed on PBS TV seminars of Tom Peters and interviews of employees
    at corporations (3M featured) he visited.  Of course, one cannot always
    believe what's seen on the One-eyed Monster.
    
       Sadly, however, the same observation and comments you've made about
    3M have also been directed at me by some of our customers regarding
    DEC.  I've already commented (yes, complained) in this conference with
    my opinions as to how and why DEC has backslidden from 1980 when one 
    Tom Peters ranked Digital as one of the worlds 10 best companies in his
    book "In Search of Excellence".  I apoligize in that I may have
    bitched too often, too loudly.  But it comes from fustration.  I
    believe all the elements for Excellence persist still in this company.
    I believe our "crew" are the best that can be had and that good crew
    are more than capable of making DEC excellent one again.  It is self-
    indulging management that has steered our ship too close to the rocks.
    
      The employees do need more empowerment so that our creativity and 
    innovation may reach it's full potential.  

    Ref: 1150.22
    
    I do not disagree that there is a lot of hierarchy even in major
    corporations in Japan and that "senior" managers still have the "power"
    and my real intention is that Digital NOT emulate Japan but take the
    good points, and then make some quantum leaps, and surpass the best
    operating practices, whether from Japan or the United States.
    
    As per my suggested action in 1150.1, I advocate a quantum leap over
    what ANYONE else is doing worldwide in business.  I base the
    correctness of decentralization of power and authority to groups on the
    fact that from an intuitive and common sense viewpoint a group working
    together as a motivated, self-managed team with group responsibility
    and authority and power, seeking to achieve greater effectiveness and
    build something greater than what is, will ALWAYS outperform any group
    where "someone has to be in charge" to tell the group what to do, how
    to do it, if they are allowed to do it, and when they can do it, all
    while this in charge person is maintaining a selfish attitude that the
    group's members exist to serve the one in charge, to make him or her
    "look good" and to satisfy his or her desires for personal ambition for
    power and monetary gain.
    
    Anarchy will result from decentralization of authority and power?  I
    believe not.  Prove it?  How about testing it.  Ken Olsen can merely
    decentralize power and authority on a targeted, select basis.  He can
    select all the groups, plants, functions, field unit/district/areas and
    countries THAT HAVE BEEN DOING "POORLY" FOR SOMETIME and simply change
    the rules to change their culture on a micro basis and we'll see what
    happens.
    

    re .24
    
    If each group was self managing and empowered, how would decisions be
    made that cross group/organizational boundaries.  Would inter-group
    meetings have to be held, then inter-organizational meetings?
    
    It seems, this way it would take forever to make a decision and
    difficult to enforce that decision.
    
    To give an analogy, a dictatorship is infinitely more efficient than
    a democracy.  The only problem is that, historically, the person
    that secures and retains his/her dictatorship usually has done so
    by evil means.
    
    The best of both worlds is a somewhat republican form, where a person
    is  chosen to make decisions in behalf of a group.  I admit, for this
    to be successful, input from the members of the group is needed and very
    good leaders are needed.  catch-22???
    

    REF:  <<< Note 1150.25 by BAGELS::CARROLL >>>
    
    >><< If each group was self managing and empowered, how would decisions
    be made that cross group/organizational boundaries.  Would inter-group
    meetings have to be held, then inter-organizational meetings? >>
    
    The given group's leader, selected by the group, would represent the
    group at all inter-group, inter-organizational, upward or downward,
    meetings.  The selected group leader would hold that position based on
    committed, leadership skills and actions.  Decisions committing the
    group would require the group's confirmation; the group leader would
    not do so in some "other" meeting unless he or she thoroughly had the
    confidence of the group where he or she knew a confirming decision
    would be forthcoming.
    
    As a sidenote on compensation, I would change the compensation to a
    wage or salary based only on being an individual contributor with
    various levels dependent on breadth of skills attained and depth of
    skill level practiced in actions.  If an individual became a selected
    group leader, he or she would receive, in addition to his or her
    individual contributor wage/salary, a "manager/leader allowance" of so
    many X dollars, depending on level of group management/leadership.  Say
    $10,000-15,000 a year for the lowest and $100,000-150,000 for the
    highest, which would be to that level of manager/leader who report in
    turn to a manager/leader who reports to the president (those executive
    positions that reported directly to the president would be selected by
    the president).  You become a leader in whatever group, you get the
    additional weekly pro-rated "allowance" amount for as long as you are
    the selected manager/leader of that group.  If you revert back to an
    individual contributor job, then your "manager allowance" stops, and
    you receive just your attained regular individual contributor
    wage/salary based on skills attained and level practiced.
    
    With say the additional pivotal change of equal profit sharing for all,
    dependent on making "extra" net operating income ABOVE a desired goal
    (15%? looks good these days) going into the bucket, everyone has an
    incentive to build something greater via working effectively and smart
    via constant change for improvement with attaining of the reward
    interdependly linking all employees/groups in greater cooperation, plus
    there is an extra incentive to lead, but with a more effective check
    and balance, affected via the decentralization of power/authority to
    the bulk of the employees who are responsible for doing the work,
    creating effective change, implementing it, and driving the hundreds of
    thousands of fine-tuning actions necessary to build a far more
    successful Digital, greater than what is now, and of course, to get the
    equal profit sharing dollars at the end of the year ;-)
    
    One total company team, working together, self-managed, motivated.
    

    
    REF: 1150.1
    
    As another sidenote to my idea in 1150.1 around the decentralization of
    power, and authority, it should be noted, that if indeed every group
    had a say in who would lead/manage their groups, it is not
    inconceivable that the present structure of management would remain
    exactly as it is now, most getting a vote of confidence, with but
    nominal changes in leadership among some groups.  The only difference
    then that results overall is a workforce with greater ownership in
    building a more successful Digital since that workforce now has a say
    in making the rules, creating and implementing changes, and selecting
    the right leadership to support their efforts to achieving greater
    success.  The employees are more franchised than disenfranchised.
    

    Interesting topic - POWER.
    
    According to my 2 dictionaries, the primary definition of "power" is
    "1. The ability or capacity to act or perform efficiently."  Under this
    definition, it seems to me that there is really very little power in
    Digital (considering its size and the IQs of its people).
    
    Perhaps the organizational formula for there even being real "power" is
    
    			AUTHORITY + RESPONSIBILITY = POWER.  
    
    [please bear in mind that "bullying" isn't really power - it's actually 
    counterproductive] 
    What I mean here is that until we get the vast majority of our authority 
    resting on the same heads as the responsibility, I don't see how there'll 
    be much real power to own.
    
    For instance, I've been working for 26 years - 12 of which were in an
    Fortune 10 (yes, ten) company where I was professionally respected and
    known by a handful of VPs (not so in DEC .... but that's another
    story).  In the 21 years all together before coming to DEC, I had never
    encountered so much Buck-passing (especially down!) as I did the first 
    6 mos. here.  When I first heard a DEC professional blame his secretary
    for a mistake, I thought he was a oddball - around here he's not!  
    
    Sure there was politics and even self-acknowledged bureaucracies, but
    at least in the majority of cases those who "did good" for business got
    somewhere - not DECimated!  We seem to be so politically bound that it
    is very rare that those who really want to "do good" for business even
    get some authority to do so (we already know where the responsibility
    for failure will land).
    
    In some large areas and levels of our company, it seems we've adopted a
    "No Bad News" policy - which means that we don't acknowledge bad news
    at our own levels and we surely don't pass it up the ladder.  The real
    world has both pluses and minuses.  The major problem this "No Bad News"
    policy causes is that those who DO make decisions end up having an
    unrealistic picture of the environment of that decision.  Therefore,
    those that take the responsibility and DO make decisions are almost
    predestined to failure.  [let's not even talk about risk-avoiding,
    non-decisionmakers ... that's another topic in itself!]
    
    I guess I just came from a world where to be a professional, either a
    manager or an individual contributor, was to be responsible and not be 
    a baby.  But what do I know?!?!?
    
    ... and why do I stay?  Because I still believe we've got what it takes
    - all we have to do is have the guts to get our ducks in order.  From
    all the organizational behavior stuff I've read and heard, although a
    lot of good things can happen from the bottom up, the style and tone of an
    organization's behavior is determined from the top down.
    
    It's never ceases to amaze me how in agreement KO and I are on many
    philosophies.  Something must be happening in between him and me!?!?!

    Seems to me that we are so obsessed with doing something "new" that
    we'd rather do something wrong than FIRST try to learn from what others
    have done.  Too often we do this both organizationally and
    individually.
    
    For instance, in this "down-sizing" our company we're doing we seem to
    be making all the mistakes that other U.S. companies did 10 years ago
    when they were in the same boat.  On top of that, we're added our own
    "flavor" of mistakes.  I can't believe that the results we're seeing
    were the original objectives of "transition."  For example, if morale 
    was a productivity problem 2 years ago, I can't find a word for what it 
    is now.  
    
    Individually, most of us are not much better.  Just 2 hours ago I heard
    (and not for the first time) from a fellow employee a bizarre-but-true
    observation.  It seems that as individuals we do not respect or
    acknowledge any experience one has gotten outside of Digital - or even 
    much of the experience from within Digital.  We tend to highly discount
    anything not homegrown - which seems to me like or business is really
    re-inventing the wheel most of the time.
    
    Is it wise to perpetuate this behavior?  Is wisdom even a cultural
    value?  I sure hope it is at least a cultural hope.

    Re .-1
    
    I'd agree the manager was doing the employee a favour but I don't
    condone the 'TOLD' piece. If you want to hang anything in your cube
    then nobody should stop you. But personally if I see people displaying
    evidence of their prowess, educational or otherwise they've already
    started off one notch down with me. It makes me think. 'Presumably this
    person has to display evidence of their achievements because they feel
    they need to bolster their position with others'.
    
    It makes no difference to me whether it is a qualification I have or
    haven't got.
    
    Dave

    Re .31  "Only wimps display credentials"
    
    A totally uncalled for remark.  An alternative view would be
    that the individual worked hard for and is proud of his or her
    accomplishments. 

	re .28:
	    
>>>    It's never ceases to amaze me how in agreement KO and I are on many
>>>    philosophies.  Something must be happening in between him and me!?!?!

	Carolyn, I think a lot of us feel the same way you do about this.
	I seem to remember Ken being reported as saying something like

	"Tigers at the top, tigers at the bottom... and layers of marshmallow
	in between".

	If he didn't say it, he ought to have! 8-)

	But, in an effort to look at things constructively, I suppose we
	ought to ask "what are the conditions that make a person behave
	like a tiger, or like marshmallow?" "Is it possible a tiger, once
	promoted to management, may feel her sinews softening into something
	sweet and glutinous?"

	The syndrome you describe fits in perfectly with the often-diagnosed
	problem of a culture in which managers "manage up" and hardly ever
	"manage down". I've heard this said by a number of people from
	different functions and different countries, including one of my
	own recent managers (6 in the last 2 years, so don't guess!)

	In "managing up", you put almost all your time, energy and work
	into the interface with your boss and other senior figures - her
	boss, the VP, the "management community". You make presentations,
	"gain visibility". You do some work along the lines of implementing
	one or two parts of the VP's "vision". Managers soon see you as a
	positive team player.

	Meanwhile, anyone who reports to you is starved of attention. You
	don't know or much care what they are doing, and how well they are
	doing it. You spare one or two days a month to check the numbers,
	and that tells you all you need to know. 

	I saw a perfect example of this a few years ago, when I was working
	for Field Service.
	The manager of a support group spent almost all his time in meetings,
	but whenever he met with his direct reports he criticized them
	heavily for their "low productivity". This was odd, since they
	were some of the best people in the UK, and they were coming in
	early, working through lunch, and leaving late. The manager reckoned
	they were only closing 3 calls a day. In fact it was 30. One of
	his employees dealt with the situation in the Digital way: he
	took a day off, found the guy who maintained the software that
	generated the manager's reports, went through the sources with
	him, and pointed out the place where a factor of ten got lost.

	The interesting things about this are:

	1. If the manager had walked out of his office once, and stood
	   watching his people work, he would immediately have seen that
	   his numbers were wrong.

	2. If the engineer had tried to talk the problem out, he would have
	   got nowhere - if he'd pushed it he'd have been labelled a
	   troublemaker.

	/Tom

	re last few:

	Let's respect each other's points of view. I agree with .32,
	sweeping assertions about "wimps" create heat, not light. This
	sort of discussion can benefit us all if those who take Dave
	Garrod's point of view get some insight and sympathy into the
	motives for hanging up qualifications - and if those who take
	it for granted that a framed diploma brings respect begin to
	see that it could have the opposite effect.

	One thing that seems clear is that a qualification is useful
	only in so far as it improves your behaviour or performance.
	I certainly wouldn't automatically respect a person with a framed
	MBA, unless that person commanded my respect for other reasons -
	like being a good manager, a team catalyst, or a high performer.

	On the other hand, there's no reason why a qualification should be
	kept secret, and since it probably won't come up at the coffee
	machine ("Did I mention my MBA?"), why not display the evidence?

	Take another example - suppose you got a certificate for completing
	a half-marathon (I've got one at home). If it gives you satisfaction
	to hang that, why not? Surely even Dave wouldn't think you a wimp.
	It's not bragging - it's an assertion of individuality.

	We don't have a "valuing differences" program in the UK, but this
	seems to be a good example of where it should apply.

	/Tom

    I find it illuminating, Tom Welsh, that your .33 seemed to equate
    "coming in early, working through lunch, and staying late" with
    "productivity".   While this seems to have been true in your example --
    since the real problem was indeed the manager -- it may not always be
    true.  "Work smarter, not harder" is true, and so is making sure that
    management is accountable for harnessing the work toward the proper
    goals.  
    
    If we take the concept of productivity a little bit farther, (and take
    it completely away from your example, Tom, so as to be speaking purely
    theoretically), we see that coming in early, working through lunch, and
    staying late may have some effect on productivity, but ONLY if the
    management has set the proper goals and criteria for success, and only
    if that management actually stays involved in the progress toward those
    goals.  Going 100 MPH in the wrong direction isn't going to get you
    there any faster than going 25 MPH in the right direction.   Or, to
    use the same metaphor:  A group of 10 people are responsible for
    getting from Boston to New York as quickly as possible.  Another
    individual is given the same responsibility.   The group of 10 people
    sets out in earnest -- coming in early, working through lunch, and
    continuing late into the evening.   The individual, all by himself,
    starts late -- perhaps 10 AM instead of 7:30 -- takes a 2-hour lunch
    break, and knocks off early -- maybe 3:30.   Who has more productivity?
    Can't answer that question until you find out that the apparently lazy,
    unproductive individual is driving a car, while the hard-working group
    of 10 is on foot.  The individual, after giving all appearances of
    being unproductive succeeds at the given task in 5 hours, and moves on
    to the next project.  The exhausted group, despite 12 and 14 hour days,
    finally succeeds at the given task in 10 days.   Who was more
    productive?
    
    The point of my parable is that hard work does not necessarily equate
    with productivity.  Ideally, given clear goals, the proper tools, and
    the proper means of measuring success, the hardest working team will
    indeed be the most productive.  But, if management fails to provide any
    of those things, productivity plummets.   And, even worse, if the
    management is out of touch, or blind to reality [back to Tom's
    example], it gets even worse because no one even knows whether the
    organization is productive or not!  Management-by-the-numbers does not
    work -- even when the numbers are correct!
    
    -DM-

    I just sent the following to Ken Olsen/Jack Smith/John Sims.
    
    Subject: Some Proof that Decentralization of Power will Pay Off BIG

    In follow-up to my July 31, 1990 memo (enclosed) suggesting 
    the pivotal change of decentralization of power as the best 
    solution to build a better and more successful Digital in the 
    least amount of time, I offer the following as some evidence 
    that this will work, and HAS WORKED.  The article below just 
    appeared in yesterday's issue of USA TODAY, Wednesday, August 
    8, 1990.

    KODAK DEVELOPS NEW WAY OF MANAGING
    by John Hillkirk
    USA TODAY
    
    ROCHESTER, N.Y. - Eastman Kodak Co. has discovered a novel 
    way to turn an ailing manufacturing operation around: Put the 
    hourly workers in charge.

    Ralph Olney, a Kodak division manager, did just that in "13 
    Room" - a Kodak operation that manufacturers professional 
    films, including Kodachrome and 70mm movie film.  Olney, a 
    12-year Kodak veteran, eliminated five levels of management 
    between him and the 95 people working on the shop floor.  He 
    gave hourly workers the power to make purchasing decisions, 
    start or stop the assembly lines and design equipment to suit 
    their needs, not management's.

    "Now the managers ask you questions instead of telling you 
    what to do," says Bob Bryant, a 13 Room veteran.

    The payoffs quickly hit the bottom line.  In 1988, 13 Room 
    ran about $1 million over its $30 million annual budget.  In 
    1989, with workers in charge, the unit came in $1.5 million 
    UNDER budget.  And, so far this year, 13 Room is running 
    $600,000 below target [budget].  Quality and productivity 
    also soared.  The percentage of finished films with zero 
    defects jumped from 75% to 99%.

    To boost morale, Olney and his supervisors created a unique 
    award system.  Employees who make good suggestions to improve 
    quallity or cut costs get a handful of red power chips worth 
    $1 each in Kodak's company store.

    Reports about 13 Room's success have begun to ripple 
    throughout Kodak.  The photography giant has been searching 
    for ways to slash costs and improve quality to keep pace with 
    relentless Japanese rivals such as Fuji Photo and 
    Konishiroku.  And 13 Room's success is a blueprint for the 
    rest of the company to follow.

    "We must improve quality...and you can't do that without 
    empowering your people," says Kay Whitmore, Kodak CEO.  "You 
    have to get rid of the managerial infrastruture that 
    historically was put in to control people."

    The methods employed at 13 Room aren't widespread yet.  
    Whitmore says about 10% of Kodak's divisions are heavily 
    involved, and another 30% to 40% are starting to mimic 
    Olney's handiwork.

    But it's not always easy going.  Line workers who have spent 
    20 or 30 years doing things a certain way, with managers 
    making the tough decisions, aren't champing at the bit to be 
    retrained, given new responsibilities and being urged to 
    speak out.  "Not everyone wants to work in this kind of 
    environment," says Whitmore.  "They think it's beyond their 
    ability."

    About 15% of the hourly workers -- and two of the five 
    front-line supervisors -- in 13 Room simply refused to 
    cooperate with Olney's effort to push decision-making down.  
    Those who objected were immediately transferred to another 
    Kodak operation.  Those who stayed are first in line for pay 
    hikes and promotions, as well as stuffing the suggestion box.

    "Our hourly guys didn't used to do a lot of thinking," says 
    Olney.  "Now they use their brains, and it's paying off."
    
    (attachment, posted already in 1150.1, removed)

    This is all very interesting but I believe the this problem was
    originally identified by Plato in his "Republic". I don't believe he
    had a solution. In fact I do not believe it has ever been solved.
    
    I think after 2 + millenia we could conclude that power and
    enlightenment are opposites. At least in a republic you can your
    disenlightened leader.
    
    
    
    
     

    addendum to .37 
    
    insert whatever word you like between you can and your disenlightened
    in the last sentence
    

    Re: .37 and .38
    
    Gee, I thought "can" was the complete transitive verb.

    I changed the title of my note in .31 because subsequent replies seemed
    to be concentrating on the title rather than the content. The current
    title more accurately reflects my feelings and fits in better with the
    content of the note.
    
    Also amusingly enough there was a reply to my note that the author
    subsequently must have deleted (a kind person mailed it to me)
    who seemed to believe that those of us who are put off by the display
    of credentials have some sort of inferiority complex!
    
    Maybe it is just a cultural differerence. I'm English and I must admit
    that I've noticed that Americans seem to do far more 'show and tell'
    than the English so I guess it is more the norm to display your
    credentials in America.
    
    Dave
    
    Dave

    re .28 et al

    I agree totally, including on why I stick around. And I'd add one more
    thing to

    >	AUTHORITY + RESPONSIBILITY = POWER.

    and that is

    	AUTHORITY + RESPONSIBILITY + ACCOUNTABILITY = RESULTS.

    I definitely see a lot of marshmallow (it does sound like something K.O.
    would say). I still think back to Marge H.'s note about how everyone in
    management between her and Ken changed -- her job and Ken's job remained
    the same. If Marge's ability to do her job wasn't impacted, then it's
    guaranteed there's a fair amount of white fluffy stuff in-between.

    About moving decision making down the the shop floor...it's like self-
    industrial-engineering. The problem is that in the services part of our
    company or software development part, where we're not producing widgets
    in a structured environment, this whole idea breaks down. Instead of
    doing something better (one group does one thing better), you wind up
    doing that one thing differently all over the place (many groups do the
    same thing "better" according to their own judgement -- making it much
    more difficult to share anything).

    About diplomas...I don't have any hanging, and I'll be honest enough to
    say that where it comes to getting something done, I'm from the "Show Me"
    state. I chuckle when I see Ed Services certificates (both at DEC and at
    customer sites), and I'm curious when I see diplomas -- they _do_ say
    something about the person and often improve your perspective on "where
    they're coming from." But I must also admit that we have a cultural
    bias to value education much less than experience.

    /Peters

    SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS MONDAY, APRIL 30, 1990 TOM PETERS
    
    In the '80s, the world's chemical giants got roughly the same idea at 
    roughly the same time, shifting for commodity products to low-volume, 
    specialty chemicals.  The predictable result: Overcrowding and
    paper-thin  margins.  Special (as in specialty chemicals) turned out to
    be not so  special after all.
 
    Likewise, each of the major players in the computer industry, including 
    IBM, is now promoting open-system (anyone's product can be connected to 
    anyone else's), network-based, close-to-the-customer problem-solving as 
    their "special" vision. And recent feature stories in Fortune and
    Business  Week described the implementation of identical strategies at
    Procter &  Gamble, United Technologies and AT&T.  Each is blasting out
    excessive  layers of management, scrunching people together in
    multifunction teams  (design, operations, finance, etc.), sliding up to
    the market to provide  fast, specialized solutions to customer's needs.
 
    I should shed tears of joy.  After all this was the message that "In
    Search of Excellence" sprung on unsuspecting executives nearly 10 years
    ago.  Now people are responding. All at the same time.  All at the same
    speed.  "Hey, wait a minute," as football commentator John Madden might
    say.  Is there a problem here?
 
    I'm not willing to recant those earlier ideas.  But when all the
    flattening out, multifunction grouping, speeding up and customer
    cuddling is complete, each company should worry about what will have
    made its approach unique.  How will Du Pont's specialty chemicals binge
    be noticeably different from BASF's and Monsanto's ?  How will NCR's
    open-systems, customized-solution approach be noticeably different from
    DEC's and AT&T's? There are no easy answers.  On the one hand, speedy
    now processes are called for.  Even in pharmaceuticals, let  alone
    computers, semiconductors, software or chemicals, it's becoming next to
    impossible to maintain a proprietary edge for long.  Legal copycats
    with swift product development systems now cut the ground out from
    under most any leader's "proprietary" position in a matter of months. 
    On the other hand, everyone's mindless emulation of everyone else's
    strategies is unlikely to get you far, either. 
 
    I'm surely not suggesting that a Monsanto, which has slashed its 
    bulk-chemical business form about 70 percent of sales to just a couple
    of  percent in the last 10 years, should revert to commodity
    production. Nor am  I urging IBM to revert to the arm-twisting
    arrogance that accompanied its proprietary schemes in the past. 
 
    I am proposing (1) that special must indeed be SPECIAL and (2) that the
    big  winners - companies like Fed Ex, Wal-Mart, Turner Broadcasting,
    Apple -  will continue to be those who change the rules and create new
    games,  redefining whole industries it the process.
 
    Special vs. SPECIAL.  It is not enough (though it is certainly no mean 
    feat) to trim now-product development cycles from three years to one
    year  or less and install close-to-the-customer, multifunctional teams.
    Beyond  that, must be able to clearly articulate what it is about your
    process (for  example, the way you listen to customers) that is the
    basis for a  sustainable difference.  The architects and engineers of
    CRS Sirrine of  Houston, for instance, developed intensive
    client-listening protocols that  are truly unique.  Moreover, CRS
    Sirrine refines its routine with each  passing month.  Only this sort
    of difference stands even a chance of  staying the course. 
 
    Changing the rules. Companies that redefine their industries are
    invariably  upstarts that benefited from the
    "I-didn't-know-you-could-do-it-that-way" advantage that seldom visits
    the established firm.  In the rare instances  when mature firms do
    rewrite the rules, it's usually the result of granting  astounding
    independence to business units and maintaining a high degree of 
    disorganization.
 
    My concern about trendy but predictable strategies jelled upon hearing
    a  consultant applaud Apple's time-based product development process
    (another  new business buzz phrase).  He says it allows the company to
    know exactly  what products will be released through 1995.  For Apple's
    sake, I hope he's  wrong.
 
    Consider the birth of the Macintosh computer: Company co-founder Steve
    Jobs got restless, stripped most of the stars form his "bet the
    business" Lisa  computer project, carted them off to a little building,
    hoisted a pirate  flag and got down to work on the Mac.  Make no
    mistake, the  PC/work-station/etc. breakthrough is likely to emerge in
    a similar,  convoluted fashion.  The question Will it emerge from some
    cranny in IBM,  Apple, Compaq, Hewlett Packard or Sun - or, at least as
    likely, from some  outfit we haven't heard of ?
 
    Perhaps my concern with copycat strategies is a premature alarm.  You 
    decide.  In any case, as you turn to the imperative task of creating
    those  speedy, close to-the-customer, multifunction product-development
    teams,  you'll do yourself a big favor by asking, "How is my process
    going to be  demonstrably different from that of all of my many
    competitors, sitting in  similar conference rooms, attempting to do the
    same thing ?"
    

    re .1
    David, has Ken Olsen, Jack Smith or John Sims gotten back
    to you on this proposal or any other proposals you have 
    submitted?  
    
    thanks
    

    REF: <<< Note 1150.43 by WFOV12::KULIG >>>
          -< Any replys from Ken or VP's >-

    >><<David, has Ken Olsen, Jack Smith or John Sims gotten back
    to you on this proposal or any other proposals you have 
    submitted?>>
    
    I submitted the following to Jim Johnson @PKO for the DVN quarterly but
    it no mail in questions were answered during the 90 minutes.

    	Subject: Question for Ken Olsen at DVN broadcast

    	What does the Executive Committee think of the idea of 
    decentralizing authority to the bottom where all groups as  groups are
    truly empowered with responsibility PLUS full  authority, as has proven
    successful in building a more  successful company, evidenced by two
    Fortune 500 companies  that have tried it: Miliken and Kodak (see
    attached)[previous  suggestion memos on Kodak, decentralization and
    Miliken].

    	And his reply:

    	Thanks for your question. We will make every effort to 
    utilize it during the telecast.

    To date, I have received no feedback from any member of the Executive
    Committee or any sr vp on any suggestion made affecting the entire
    corporation, which includes all 25+ submitted through the Employee
    Involvement Program, most now posted in the DELTA Ideas VAXnotes
    conference, most submitted over the last 8 months.
    
    I was informed about a month ago from DELTA that the U.S. steering
    committee reviewing ideas affecting the entire U.S. on behalf of Dave
    Grainger were shortly going to discuss four of those earlier memo
    suggestions, which are part of the group sent to DELTA.
    
    The two memos in this topic went direct and did not go through DELTA.
    
    While there is evidence that NO radical changes are being considered in
    how Digital operates at this time, I did hear repeatedly throughout the
    DVN 90 minutes this afternoon that any employee who feels strongly
    about a suggested change is welcome and couraged to send a proposal
    directly to anyone, including as applicable, Ken Olsen, Jack Smith, or
    John Sims.  While they said they would not guarantee answering, they
    indicated it would be reviewed by someone.
    
    Regarding my specific suggestions, most are very different, very
    radical.  They are not going to be replied to quickly and may have to
    be considered, or allowed to percolate, over months, if not years. 
    Yet, their is evidence that others see some of these ideas as being a
    better approach to building a better and more successful company,
    evidenced by being tried in fact in the "real world"  in Kodak,
    Milliken, and in Japan.  Ken Olsen said however in the DVN that while
    Digital does look at what other major corporations are doing
    differently, that Digital is unique in what it is trying to do
    worldwide.  The implication from his comment was that major changes in
    how we work, especially ones with risk, will not be done unless first
    very carefully considered, and no doubt, justified by need.
    
    My getting a response is not necessary; the only desire is to simply
    see the ideas implemented, personally believing they would
    significantly lead to Digital growing more successfully.  The
    responsibility to carefully review and weigh the merits of any ideas
    lies with those having the resources, responsibility and authority to
    implement changes of such magnitude.