Conference 7.286::digital

In 12+ years of working at DIGITAL I would cast all my votes for:

    2.  Ignore it, because the "system will take care of itself"?

Perhaps getting older aand grayer I have mellowed.  I cannot think of a
situation that has remained awful forever.  Do yourself and Digital a
big favor by being the best for your own career (and be glad you are
clear of that particular situation).  Bill G....

    re .-1: but wouldn't the hypothetical Bill Ferry look at the letter
    (or rather, "novel" if all were told that is to be told) about this
    hypothetical sws district and think "what does this guy have to
    gain by doing this?"  Any group, sws or not, that has around for
    awhile probably has a few pieces of dirty laundry to air.  It might
    almost take a complete novel (which could be done in this hypothetical
    case) to point out that this district in particular does obviously
    not believe in laudrymats.
    
    FACTS are easy, even verification of those facts would be fairly
    easy, assuming that the "verifier" would not be overly paranoid
    about retribution in some fashion; ie, it is not as easy for some
    to relocate within Digital as it is for others due to family
    considerations, etc.
    
    Jon

Ahhh Gi'day...

    I would  watch  out  for  the  "If you don't like the message, kill the
    messenger"  syndrome.  As  people have said to me in the past, pick the
    political  battles that you can win, and I don't think you can win this
    one,  unless  you  can  find  someone  to  have  an  informal  chat to.
    Unfortunately, this means it won't attract the attention it deserves.

			  {dennis{{{ -- Messenger.

    The most effective thing you could do would be to back up & support the
    people *still in that organization* who decide to speak up.  If people
    still in that hypothetical organization don't see anything wrong (= the
    problems in their group aren't important enough for them to protest),
    then I would hypothetically not say anything. 
    
    If you can convince people still in that group to work to change
    it, fine, but otherwise, you hypothetically have left so it isn't
    any of you hypothetical business anymore.

    (I don't know anything about how sws operates, but I have to admit
    that the story skeleton sounds fishy to me.  Do you really think
    that the anger of >=3 Fortune 100 companies has been covered up? 
    Or that the employee turnover, if as serious as you intimate, is
    somehow being glossed over by some internal conspiracy?)

    I love windmill battles more than more people, and I disagree
    completely with an earlier reply which advocated never ever rocking the
    boat.  But given this scenario, a "supporting actor" is how I'd play
    it.

    I became involved in a similar situation, though not involving SWS
    or customers, a few years ago.  I marshalled my concerns and started
    running them up the management chain until I was assured that the
    manager common to my group and the group I was unhappy with was
    aware of the problem.  It may have been coincidence, but the problem
    was fixed within a few months.
        John Sauter

    re .4: a "dump job" or "genuine corporate concern"?  Based on the
    facts in this hypothetical case and what the listener/reader wants
    to hear (or doesn't want to hear, as mentioned in .5), this could
    probably be construed either way, which is one of my reasons for
    being somewhat unwilling to even bring up the hypothetical case.
    Yea, it might look like a "dump job" on the surface, but on the
    other hand, the facts will stand for themselves, and if the shoe
    fits...
                                                          
    re .7: the unfortunate part in this hypothetical case is that many
    of the persons involved are no longer with the company, having taken
    the brunt of much hypothetical abuse & deciding that "if this is
    DEC, I want no part of it".  Would hypothetical testimony from *former*
    employees be considered as valid, or would it be looked upon as
    input from people with an ax to grind?  (Keeping in mind that in
    real life, *sometimes* ax's are in need of being ground.)
    
    re .6: Fishy?  I could say more.  Has the ire of 3+ Fortune 100
    companies been successfully covered up?  Depends on how you define
    "coverup" I suppose.  The mgmt in this hypothetical district is
    well aware of the attitude of those companies; what reason would
    they have to advertise that fact to greater Maynard mgmt?  An "internal
    conspiracy"?  No comment on that, but the black-balling of a good
    employee after he has turned in his resignation certainly smells
    at least of gross unprofessionalism.
    
    re: "the system will take care of itself".  Are there any kind of
    "checks & balances" in place that would point out things like high
    turnover or some of the points outlined in 117?
    
    Jon
    
    

    CURIE::ARNOLD,
    
    There are no safe answers.  Even in the best of organizations, danger
    exists anytime you complain about something.  We can talk for hours
    about how such danger is less in DEC than in most other companies, but
    it is still there nonetheless.  The only 100% safe course for you would
    be to shut up and sit back.  If you believe that you are right, then
    marshalling FACTS and gathering statements from others (whether still
    employees or not) is the only sensible way to proceed while limiting
    the danger to your job security.  But while you limit danger to
    1% or 2%, you cannot make it zero. 

    I think alot of people in large organizations tend to overestimate how
    bad things might get, while they underestimate their job security.  If
    you are a "good guy" in your group, your management should support you.
    If not... 

    Whether by design or by accident, the system *will* take care of
    itself.
    
    Obviously, in the situation you describe, the managers are all
    short-term goal oriented (the heck with next quarter, we need that
    revenue THIS quarter).  That only works so long.
    
    After awhile, someone will figure out that the numbers will take
    care of themselves if the customers (and maybe more importantly,
    the specialists) are taken care of first.  
    
    I work for a district that (a few years ago) had a reputation for
    being somewhat short-term oriented (no repeat business, high turnover,
    low morale).  Somewhere along the line managers (and specialists)
    started to realize that customer satisfaction meant repeat business.
    In other words, doing The Right Thing meant Making Budget:
     
    a) If the customer is satisfied, he comes back.  
    b) If customers keep coming back, budgets are met.
    
    Treating the specialists right usually helped a) and b) above. 
    It doesn't take a Havard MBA to figure these things out.
    
    

    I think you should do nothing.  Not because you should fear the
    consequences, but because your analysis adds nothing to things that
    are already known.  When it comes to acting on the problems, frankly,
    you shouldn't expect them to come to you for advice.
    
    Let's look at the problems:
    
    (1) Turnover: District/Area/Country/Corporate staff people get the
    numbers and look at them.
    
    (2) Customers' Declaration: There _must_ have been some spectacular
    incidents or series of incidents to reach this point.  Surely the
    exact nature and what conclusions the customers have come to regarding
    {Professional Software Services, Application Products, Software
    Product Services, Computer Services, ...} are known to at least
    the responsible District Team.
    
    (3) Customer Satisfaction Survey: District/Area/Country/Corporate staff
    people get the numbers and look at them.  This also is part of the
    managers job performance goals. 
    
    (4) Improper Employee Reference: This is something that the former
    employee can take to a District/Area personnel manager to for
    resolution.  Besides being unethical, it is potentially legally
    actionable slander.
    
    The person you bring this platter to won't thank you. After all, you've
    assumed that the chain of managers on up are asleep at the wheel. Most
    likely you'll bear the mark of the complainer or malcontent.  It's
    a label I've lived with for years.

    "Most likely you'll bear the mark of the complainer or malcontent.
    It's a label I've lived with for years."  So have I.  I sometimes
    wonder if it's worth it.  Beware.
        John Sauter

    In less drastic, yet similar deals in the past I have done nothing.  In
    future situations I will probably do nothing, also. As has been stated
    before, things have a way of working themselves out over time.  
    
    I do, however, have to live with the knowledge that I might have
    allowed a lot of human suffering come to pass because I didn't "do the
    (morally) right thing". 
    
    -joet

    Thanks for the replies.  I think the guts of the problem is stated
    in .-1 in trying to determine "what is the right thing".  "Right"
    is this case is subjective.  Although I am no longer working in
    that hypothetical sws district, I am no longer affected by what
    happens there except in a "corporate Digital" sense.  And if things
    continue to go the way they are headed there, they will indeed "work
    themselves out", out of necessity if nothing else, without me bringing
    it to the attention of higher powers.  On the other hand, I no longer
    have the fear or retribution for "tattling" since I no longer work
    in that area.  But then again, if it continues to go downhill, why
    should I fight the battle for the folks still there....
    
    Thanks,
    Jon

RE: .8

If you do take the hypothetical concerns to hypothetical upper management,
the hypothetical response is more likely to be positive if the concerns are
presented along with suggested, positive solutions.  If the concerns are
presented in a way that says clearly "we have a problem here--let's all work
to fix it", as truly constructive criticism and not a "dump job", it is
likely to be received well by management.

--PSW

    My only thoughts on the subject are to wonder why the 3 companies
    couldn't be encouraged to write nasty letter to Ken Olsen, stating
    that they'll never buy DEC again. That's about the only way you
    will see a quick response. Otherwise, the *system* will work it
    out, to the detriment of Digital's reputation. 

    
    My experience has been that high turnover never sorts itself out,
    the management concerned usually adapts to the situation
    and starts compensating recruitment campaigns. 
    
    Unfortunately, I think this situation is rather common in DEC. At
    least this is what a friend of mine tells me. He runs a small
    software consultancy (~20 engineers) and provides support services
    to customers who find DEC just too much to deal with. One of
    his services is purchasing DEC equipment!
    
    Getting the customers to write to Ken is a very good idea.
    
    Mark

    In markets where we have to compete for software consulting, our
    average software specialist has far less experience that the
    competition's consultant.
    
    When we talk of "experience" in Software Services, we talk of
    organizational experience, of projects initiated and completed by
    software specialists who are now software engineers or managers
    elsewhere within Digital or those who have left DEC. 

It is not hypothetical to assume less experience on the part of Digital 
employees. It is very rare (although not as bad as two years ago) to find 
someone that is in the same job for three years. Being in the same 
applications' field for three years was a sign of inability to grasp new 
concepts and grow.

It seems that now, even more so than 4 years ago, the career path is into 
management, not technical depth. I realize this topic has been covered in 
other times and places.

We need concrete examples of technical tenure (length of time in 
applications or product area) winning the business for DEC or losing it to 
a more savvy competitor. The bottom line of higher paid employees evaluated 
as a Return On Investment is the only way to convince our management.

Regards, Ira Grollman (GSG Systems Engineering)

Ahh Gi'day...


.19>	      It is very rare (although not as bad as two years ago) to find 
.19> someone that is in the same job for three years. Being in the same 
.19> applications' field for three years was a sign of inability to grasp new 
.19> concepts and grow.


    You still  believe this? Where I am, it's a sign of lack of other areas
    into which to migrate.

    
		   {dennis{{{ -- Been here nearly 4 years.

        Hear, hear. Dennis. In remote areas like Australia, people that 
        want to move are considered rebels.  I have a Unique Background 
        here,  in  that  I  have  worked  for  Field  Service, Software 
        Services, and  Marketing/Business  Management.    I  am,  as is 
        Dennis,  at  a Dead-end in terms of Career advancement short of 
        relocating to the U.S.  and that is treated around here  like a 
        threat  that  you  will go work for IBM.  The half dozen people 
        that have managed transfers to  the  U.S.    have  found  it so 
        traumatic that they don't particularly want to come back.
        
        q
        

                         Maybe they just like it here..
        
                                       Tom

        Possibly, I would be interested in experiencing half  the  year 
        with  snow on the ground, and a few other of the culture shocks 
        associated with life in New England.  But unless the incentives 
        and  opportunities  were  appropriate,  I would look forward to 
        coming back to God's Own Country. :-)
        
        q
        

    If life is that bad for your former colleagues, encourage them to
    join you in 'greener pastures'.   Most of the hiring I have seen
    has been through personal recommendation.   If you are a good egg,
    talk to your management friends about hiring some of your old
    colleagues.    Most management types I know are always on the lookout
    for good talent.
    
    The best thing I can do for the company is to do my best.   That
    means I need to be in a place where I can do my job without alot
    of distraction.   Battling management counts as a distraction.
    
    	KC

    re .15: it's not that those 3 hypothetical companies won't buy DEC
    anymore.  They clearly realize that DEC hardware is the best for
    their applications, and will continue to buy hardware, which possibly
    explains the success of a hypothetical coverup of that situation.
    But by the same token, these 3 companies refuse to *EVER* have a
    DEC software person on their premises again.  The basic scenario
    is that they buy a sws person at level 3 or 4 rates, the sws person
    assigned to the account is greener than a freshly mowed lawn, after
    a few months the sws person becomes somewhat competant, and then
    is sent to a "hotter" account, being replaced by someone of the
    green variety again.
    
    As far as our competition (not necessarily IBM, DG, etc, but the
    software houses like Compuware, RPI, etc), they are having a real
    field day with this situation.  They send out their high-level top
    notch guru sws types at $45-$55/hour, while this hypothetical sws
    district (and maybe other hypothetical districts as well?) are charging
    $90-$110/hour for Digital "gurus" who can't find the "GOLD" key
    on a WPS LK201 keyboard???
    
    Given the idea of suggesting that the customer write a KO letter,
    one of the 3 has done this.  The resolution: a "one-time fix" of
    providing a couple weeks of "free" consulting.  For the others,
    how can one tactfully suggest to a customer that he write a letter
    to KO complaining about the problem?  If the hypothetically concerned
    DEC employee makes local mgmt aware of the problem, how can DEC
    save face when the problem is still not resolved at that level?
    
    Making upper mgmt aware of the problem (factually, not emotionally)
    is the easy part.  HOW to do that is tough, WHY should one do it
    who is no longer working in that organization is tougher.  And any
    proposed solution (at least from me, hypothetically) is going to
    be frowned upon because the very first place to start is to adequately
    TRAIN the sws folks BEFORE they're onsite, & that costs $$$.
    

    Considering this as a "case study" and not as an individual complaint
    might be informative too.  For example, High Turnover rates of
    employees is extreemly expensive (what does it cost DIGITAL to hire
    an employee given all overhead expenses and disregarding the hire's
    salary?  $20,000?).  That alone is a problem that needs to be fixed.
    
    Second, notice that the 3 customer threatened to not use SWS.  They
    would appear to be loyal "DEC Customers" insofar as hardware and
    software products.  So the problem can be isolated.  Maybe they
    should write to a VP?
    
    Finally, what's the real problem? Supervisors that try to beat-it
    out-of-the-employees  or  need for more job training or variety
    or Better Sources of Information for SWS people?  
    
    	Rick
    	Merrill
                   

    I need to correct your second comment: these 3+ major customers
    have not "threatened" not to use Digital sws, they have stated quite
    emphatically (ie; almost corporate policy) that they will not use
    Digital sws.  This can be argued two ways: if that district is still
    meeting their budget sws-wise, maybe there's not a problem.  But
    you could also argue that since these are Fortune 100 (2 of them
    are Fortune 50) companies, maybe it's not good for Digital in general
    to have them take this attitude.
    
    Why have KO letters or letters to a VP not been written?  I got
    some more hypothetical info on this last week.  Allegedly a bribe
    in the sense of "please be happy, feel free to not use Digital sws
    again if that's your decision, to make amends [and keep those letters
    from being written] we'll give (ie, free) you copies of whatever
    software you want".  It's no hypothetical secret in this hypothetical
    district that this has been happening for a number of years in an
    attempt to make amends for unhappy customers.
    
    Jon

    If this hypothetical district is now giving away software
    that other customers (mainly the Federal Government) has to buy,
    they could possibly be subjecting Digital to big lawsuits.  It's
    my understanding that we must give the Government our "best pric".
    If they could show that we were giving software away to some and
    making the Gov't pay, couldn't they sue?  That would mean *real*
    big bucks...
    
    					Billie (no lawyer by any means!)
    

    Must give the gov't the best price?  Is that true?  I've never heard
    that one before.  I know some of the major companies (ie, GM) get
    enough of a price break on certain items that it's better than the
    employee purchase price.
    
    Don't know about the lawsuit possibility either, as that could probably
    (?) be written off as a "sales good-will gesture" or something like
    that (as recalled from Accounting 101 courses).  But my understanding
    of the problem (besides the hypothetical "bribe" factor) is that
    I *think* that giving away software in this manner destroys or at
    least violates any copyrights that Digital has on the software.
    
    Any lawyers out there to shed some light?
    
    Jon

The law is that the Government must be able to purchase anything we sell
at the lowest possible price for the sames terms and conditions.  Thus
we can sell to other customers under a quantity discount agreement with
Ts&Cs negotiated for that QDA at a lower price than we sell to the government.

This used to be extremely hard to make DuPont Savannah River Plant
understand:  They wanted DuPont's QDA price and the Government's Ts&Cs.
Not possible.

As far as giving software away invalidating our copyright (licensing
capability, actually) this is not the case unless we give the software
away without getting the customer to sign a license.  If you give a
copy of VMS away for free with no license, you have just put it into
the public domain.

This effectively means that when you give something away, the normal
order processing paperwork still has to be signed so that the customer
obtains the software under the normal license.

/john

    Thanks for clarifying that, John.
    
    As far as putting the software in the public domain....  If this
    "hypothetical" district is giving away the software to begin with,
    I seriously doubt that anyone is going to the trouble of issuing
    software license.  Wouldn't you agree?  I don't know about y'all,
    but that sorta frightens me.
    
    		Billie

    re .31: yea, it kinda frightens me also, and because of that reason
    and the others mentioned in this note, this is the reason that I
    bring up this whole hypothetical situation.  Something is rotten
    there, and because of the hypothetical success of the hypothetical
    coverup of what's really going on, I'm concerned about the hypothetical
    potential for tarnish on the whole company.
    
    Jon

    The "crisis" in Software Services is that all is well except the
    quality of the people we put in front of the customer.
    
    Software per se, Software Product Services per se, Software Specialists
    acting as the technical sidekicks to Sales Reps, for the most part
    are all performing to the satisfaction of the customer.
    
    But these are all discrete products or narrow areas where the customer
    is only the "customer" indirectly.
    
    When we put our $115.00 per hour person directly in front of the
    customer, is that person better in the eyes of the customer than their
    own in-house software people or consultants that are as near as your
    telephone directory? 
    
    No. But the customer doesn't care why.  What matters to the customer is
    Digital can't provide the experience, competence, and depth that's
    needed to do the job.  There's nothing personal about it.

    re .33

>   The "crisis" in Software Services is that all is well except the
>   quality of the people we put in front of the customer.
    
    Sorry, have to disagree from personal experience.  All is *not* well
    within sws.  We do indeed have some good sws folks to put in front 
    of customers, but all too often the "rookie" is thrown into a
    situation where he is *expected* to perform like a heavyweight.
    I've seen it happen too many times.  Is it the green sws's fault?
    Or is it the fault of sws mgmt who take a highly visible project,
    sell that customer a sws "guru" on product xxx, then assigns the
    green sws to that project, who can't even spell the name of
    product xxx?   Draw your own conclusions here, but please don't
    try to tell me there isn't a problem.

>   Software per se, Software Product Services per se, Software Specialists
>   acting as the technical sidekicks to Sales Reps, for the most part
>   are all performing to the satisfaction of the customer.

    Sorry to disagree again, but I do ... somewhat.  By "technical
    sidekicks to Sales Reps", can I assume you are referring to the
    sws folks acting in a "pre-sales" mode?  Generally I think these
    folks do a real good job.  But when they get in front of a customer
    who "knows exactly what he wants" or is himself very technically
    competent, these folks fall apart.  But: not their fault, since a
    pre-sales sws person is not expected to be a technical giant, and
    the Sales Rep should have gotten resources accordingly.

>   But these are all discrete products or narrow areas where the customer
>   is only the "customer" indirectly.
    
    Huh?

    Why should a customer spend $115/hr for a green sws person just
    because he works for Digital, especially when he can get at least
    twice the talent at at least half the price from a software house?
    The reason I've heard sws managers & sales people state many times
    is "because you're not just buying a person, you're buying the whole
    of Digital".  Agreed to an extent, but does that justify a customer
    paying for training of a specialist because: (1) his/her sws mgmt
    didn't have time to train the specialist, or (2) his/her sws mgmt
    didn't want to spend the time (read: dollars) to get that specialist
    trained properly?

    I also think that much of the customer dissatisfaction (refer to
    earlier replies to this note) comes from the fact that "somebody"
    (sales rep, sws mgmt, project leader?) did not take the time to
    correctly set the expectations of the customer.  If I were a
    customer & was told *up front* that the sws person coming out to
    perform miracles on my system was green & would probably be learning
    a few things on the way, I could accept it, rather than being told
    that I'm getting a guru and later finding out I got a rookie.

    But then again, I would then expect that the rate be adjusted back
    from that $115/hr figure, which is reserved for "gurus".  (And 
    maybe this last sentence explains why it's not done that way.)
 
    Hypothetically, of course...
    Jon

    Jon, we appear to be violently agreeing.
    
    Parts of my note were written to explain why, according to traditional
    Digital metrics, SWS seems to be A-OK to people looking in from the
    outside, like many software engineers who might be reading this.
    I'm not arguing that case, I'm explaining it.
    
    To use the language managers use, it when software specialists are
    "on site for revenue" that represents the area where customers have
    the biggest gripe.
    
    It's a gross oversimplification to say that $115 per hour is too
    much for the level of talent we deliver, or that for $115 per hour
    we ought to be delivering consultants of such caliber that if they
    were not working for DEC they'd be earning six figures.
    
    The problem falls under that complex area called "attracting and
    retaining top talent".

    It must have been a long day yesterday, in re-reading your note
    I think we might be in agreement.  But we're straying from the topic
    of this note, although perhaps another note on what can be done
    to retain top talent might be in order here.
    
    Retaining top talent is certainly relevant to the topic of this
    note, but more than that I wanted to get input on what other folks
    thought of how a phypothetical sws district (and perhaps this is
    real, and perhaps more than just one) is handling business.  This
    clearly reflects on talent retention, but that's another issue.
    Are the "standard business practices" hypothetically outlined in
    previous replies to this note "right"?  Are they isolated or is
    this now the way sws normally does business?  Or perhaps equally
    plausible, am I being paranoid and over-reacting to a situation
    that I'm hypothetically aware of?
                              
    Jon

    Jon,
    
    I can't vouch for other districts, but I assure you that at least
    one district *does not* operate the way you've described
    (hypothetically :-) ).  Also, I don't believe you are over-reacting -
    you are showing that you care and I think caring people are what
    have made Digital what it is today.  Gosh, that certainly sounds
    like "Ra Ra Digital"...  this company has its faults, but it is
    the best place I've ever worked...
    
    				BJ
    

WHY should you do anything?  You still work for DEC.

WHAT should you do?  Let what ever level of management you think is unaware of 
the problem know about it.  From what you seem to be describing, that might be 
the area (formerly regional) level.  You don't have to go in swinging, just 
let them know what the problem is, the extent of it, and any ideas you have to 
correct it (I assume you already did this at the district level while in the 
district).  They may or may not be aware of it, so don't assume it is news to 
them; on the other hand, you might have a different perspective on the problem 
that is valuable even if the problem is known.  Try to be positive, discussing 
things in terms of solutions to a situation; don't blame individuals.  If you 
do it right, you will give the impression "this person is trying to be 
helpful", not "this person is out to get someone".

Discuss the situation with your current manager, who might have ideas on who 
to direct your concerns to.

Steve

    Jon, Jon, Jon,
    
    I come here to give you the epilogue on your hypothetical  district
    (use shorter adjectives will ya!). First I want to address Pat Sweeny.
    
    Pat,
    	I have known people from your district and have heard of some
    problems. OK, NY has been maligned, but for different reasons. The
    company does not like low budget districts, that's not your fault,
    if you got more corporate support, you may be able to increase your
    market. Face it, NY is IBM country. I think you guys have done{a
    terrific job, all things considered. By the by Paul Giardina says
    hi to you and carlos (Paul is a ex-DECie who got a good recommendation)
    
    Jon,
    
    	The reason cur{tomers were pissed at the hypothetocal district
    was because we were trying to do too much. We did multi milion $
    fixed price projects without any experience. We were trying to be
    a mini-Bechtel, and we blew it.
    	The 115$/hr guys are senior and principal, and those hypothetical
    customers you mentioned can't get enough of them. What pisses off
    these hypothetical fortune 500 corps, is our defaulting on a promise.
    	The F-500 companies are now big SWS customers and past grudegs
    are mostly forgotten.
    	The hypothetical district is not another watergate. For the
    last 2 years customer and employee satisfaction has been JOB 1 
    (to coin a phrase). 
    	The hypothetical guys you mentioned who were balck-balled, always
    insulted digital on customer site and would often disappear for
    weeks at a time. They were a problem to manage. As a former project
    leader, I can tell you that nothing is worse for a SWS team on customer
    site than senior guys demoralizing the project.
    	I dont want to sound like joe-DEC, but the hypothetical management
    team was and is working on the problems at hand. We threw away .5
    mega $ fixing a problem at a hypothetical f-500 company and the
    results were very good. 
    	There were no less than five letters to K.O. from hypothetical
    f-500 customers in the hypothetical district. He took action on
    at least one occaison. Many DEC VP's have worked on problems at
    the hypothetical district and things have improved.
    	Bottom line is, Sales often sets customer expectations incorrectly,
    because they lack the tech-knowledg. SWS is most visible later in
    the project and is often the goat. But JON, we ran our own estimating
    sessions, we had the power to make an impact. Many of us did. 
    	I did not like being in  SWS because of the immense responsibility,
    but when customers knew I was involved in the project, we always
    beat RPI,Compu{are and all the other body shops.
    	We had the freedom to fix the the hypothetical problems, and
    most of us did. So why bellyache about it now, there are good people
    in the hypothetical district, and they are working things out. For
    your info the  hypothetical customer satisfaction rating was near
    the top last year for the hypothetical district.
    	I think you and I should be proud of the things we did in the
    field in the "dawn of computing". We changed an entire smokestack
    industry from punched cards to VAXen with the works. You did a good
    job there, so did many other people. Most hypothetical complaints
    have been answered.
    	In the early days, we were still learning as we went, so did
   {the hypothetical customers. TBU was always a joke, but there were
    manuals and notes files to read. 
    
    			Epilogue not{an Epitaph
    			Amr HAfez
    
    
    
    
   
    

    Amr,
    
    I found your comments on my district, the New York Financial District,
    to be condescending and almost incomprehensible.  My district, its
    budget, its ability to compete with IBM are irrelevant to this note.

    Hi, I'm back from a few days' vacation.
    
    I feel that this discussion is getting personal, and I don't think
    that that's constructive.  Also I "suspect" that we aren't talking
    about hypothetical situations here.  If it's not safe to talk about
    real situations, then perhaps it's better not to talk about them
    at all.  
    
    This topic has run free for a while without intervention.  Are there
    really more points to be made that haven't been made already?  (That
    is, other than citing "hypothetical" examples?)
    
  --Simon