Conference 7.286::digital

    I've noticed that in say, ZKO, your status and how you're treated is
    calculated by how many levels you are down from the nearest VP.  In
    manufacturing, it's how many levels up you are from the people who
    sweep the floors.
    
    Just another small thing, but I think it's rather telling.
    
    -joet

    I just spent almost 12 years in the Greenville PWB manufacturing plant.
    Most of it was fun and challenging.  We built a lot of boards for
    Digital and to be honest had to correct a lot of designs that were either
    not designed for manufacturability or just bad.  We tried to be a good
    partner with our Engineering counterparts but we never got any real
    credit for our work.  Now Digital has decided that it can not afford to
    build any of its boards inside the company.  All of our boards will be
    purchased from outside board shops.  I hope that the plan works.
    
    My point in all of this is that I agree that Manufacturing at Digital
    seems to fall at the bottom of the ladder.  It's also true for a lot
    of other American companies.  When is the last time that you heard a
    top graduate say that he/she wanted to go into the working world and
    be a manufacturing engineer or any other manufacturing capacity ?  This
    time it's not Digital but the American culture of recent times that has
    caused this problem.
    
    Remember a service economy does not create wealth, only manufacturing
    or mining or agriculture creates wealth.
    
    
                                        Lee Stogner   

    'been down so long it loooks like up to me.

    
    	What .0 describes seems to be a truism. Us folk in Manufacturing
    do seem to be looked upon by some of our 'support' folks as pond
    scum, and an annoyance to boot.
    
    	I can't say that I dwell on it though... work in manufacturing is
    demanding and pressure packed, but there is a great deal of opportunity
    to learn something new daily. 
    
    	I wouldn't want to trade it (right now anyway) to 'fly a desk'
    somewhere else...
    	
    	/john

    
    Re: .2
             
    It's unfortunate for the manufacturing industry in this country, 
    computer manufacturing fall into the same destiny as auto, steel,
    textile manufacturing etc. Labor cost, union, lack of manufacturing 
    automation is the main killer.
    
    Instead, this country rely more into service industry in every sectors.
    Gone with it is the better pay job in manufacturing sector.
    
    I still believe that manufacturing is volume business.If we can't get
    the volume like PC market share, then we can't afford to manufacture
    it.
    
    From company point of view, I would think everyone will pay their
    respect to our manufacturing counterpart. It's whole team work to reach
    the stage DEC stand now.
    
    So long and good luck for you folks leaving DEC...
    
    Michael..
    

    I'm looking at this from a GSO perspective, and it may not reflect
    DEC's overall view, BUT ...
    
    I used to work in Manufacturing here, for 6+ years.  I was dedicated
    (in spurts ...), I made numerous suggestions, etc.  But I always got
    the feeling that since I was in mfg that it carried very little weight.
    The people that actually lay hands on the product ARE the specialists,
    but it's often overlooked. 
    
    The mfg community isn't empowered to make any changes.  There
    have been situations where an operator would *know* the process wasn't
    going to yield the desired results, but their advice to engineering/mgmt
    feel upon deaf ears.  After a while, operators will quit making
    suggestions, and DEC will lose a vital link to success.
    
    From my experiences in manufacturing, I find that there is very little
    room to grow.  And it's a shame too, because there are a LOT of very
    sharp people in those ranks, capable of a LOT more than what they're
    doing.  But, since extra duties or education are rarely rewarded,
    there's little incentive to try and better yourself.
    
    This subject is a real hot button for me.  Since I moved out of mfg, I
    can see a BIG difference in how managers view employees.  There
    shouldn't be double standards, but believe me, they're there.
    
    I better hush before I get too excited and fall off this soapbox ...8^)
    
    
    Jerry (... with roots)
    

        Re: .0

>       It seems like a small thing, but in the manufacturing building here
>    the restrooms say MEN and WOMEN. In the NON manufacturing building next
>    door it says LADIES  and GENTLEMEN. 

        Were the buildings built (or redone) at the same time by the
        same contractor?  If not, I would call this a coincidence.

        Here in LKG (non-manufacturing) the bathrooms don't have words
        on the door, just the standard man-in-pants/woman-in-skirt
        icons.  I'm not sure if I should be upset that they don't expect
        engineers to be able to read, or pleased that they expect
        engineers to be able to recognize standard cultural icons.

        					B.J.

    Re: Note 1899.6 by RAVEN1::JERRYWHITE

    Right on the nose 8*] Jerry!
    
>   The mfg community isn't empowered to make any changes.  There
>   have been situations where an operator would *know* the process wasn't
>   going to yield the desired results, but their advice to engineering/mgmt
>   feel upon deaf ears.  After a while, operators will quit making
>   suggestions, and DEC will lose a vital link to success.
    
    I brought this up in an AMO3 meeting today. A contract, without the
    benefit of training, was assigned to inspect boards on an Orbot. The
    contract, basically, wasted 8 hours. It all had to be redone. We don't
    have enough trained people, so supervision (who, in most cases, do not
    know enough about the area they manage) put anybody on operations. If
    they'd only let another operator step in and say, "Well, we could use
    this contract feeding the other line and I'll take care of this."
    
    Management and supervision seem almost embarrased by the thought that
    an operator might have a better idea. In the very literal "trenches"
    where I work we once had 6 operators across three shifts. Two had
    M.A.'s, one had a A.A. and a B.A., and another an A.A. - but, heh, heh,
    what does an "operator" know? One quit, one was hired in finance. 
    Nothing rewarding down here unless, of course, you *like* hard work
    and few rewards. I'm not just talking about "RAP" either. RAP tells 
    me managements' conscience bothers them about the inequities down here.
    
>   From my experiences in manufacturing, I find that there is very little
>   room to grow.  And it's a shame too, because there are a LOT of very
>   sharp people in those ranks, capable of a LOT more than what they're
>   doing.  But, since extra duties or education are rarely rewarded,
>   there's little incentive to try and better yourself.
    
    Absolutely. That's why we are burned. We put in a lot of unlogged hours
    working on projects that make others look good. "Here," says training,
    "Put together some documentation on this process." Here's Joe operator
    writing detailed specifications on a process he is *married* to for 40+
    hours a week and somebody up there thinks training is doing a super
    job. Baloney. Operators, as a result, are either making the desk
    jockies look good or getting called down when they take the initiative and
    *write programs* or something similarly spectacular for their supposed 
    "wage class."
    
    Remind you of anything Jerry? Don't feel bad, Ken Scheer wrote a few in
    the ATC that saved DEC *loads* of $. He was supposed to get something
    for it - never happened.

>   This subject is a real hot button for me.  Since I moved out of mfg, I
>   can see a BIG difference in how managers view employees.  There
>   shouldn't be double standards, but believe me, they're there.
    
    From my perspective you've got to *prove* yourself to mgmt. before
    you're "accepted" as worth their time. But that is a long, hard and
    *expensive* road for both of us. And, I suppose, that's the saddest
    part of all. 

    Until we get rid of the emphasis on wage *class* and the incredible
    waste of people and money created by such nonsense as AA/EEO DEC 
    manufacturing is going to continue to stagnate.
    
    John 

    There are 2 reasons why folks don't move much in manufacturing:
    
    1 - a person does not perform well on a given job, so they stay there
        until they finally certify.  Then they are unable to move UP
        due to poor performance.  They stay where they're at.
    2 - a person does very well on a given job, so they are "baited" into
        staying on this job, by promises of better things to come.  They
        where they're at.
    
    Jerry

     Re: .9
    
    I beg to differ. This is not only happen in Manufacturing alone, it's
    also in SW/HW/Mkt/Sales also.
    
    It's the same phenomenon that swamp our country/industry. It was called
    life time job security before foreign competition cut into our throat
    and layoff started, then worker begin to wake up.
    
    Any individual owe themselves their future career, not their boss, not
    their company if noone take care for you.
    
    Michael..

           Yeah, mfg always gets the brunt of the criticism for not
           "making the numbers", so who wants to be associated with that
           kind of criticism all the time?  The other thing (IMO) that's
           a big part of mfg's demise is that too many people want to be
           "chiefs", not enough want to be the workers.  And, the
           "chiefs" really aren't providing any leadership.  Everybody's
           just tryin' to protect their butts now-a-days!
           
           Steve

    I've been at GSO and at San German circuit board facilities and
    actually I see better leadership at San German, the shops that are
    being closed.  Being here on short term international assignment has
    basically cost me my job.  The last time I was in Greenville I was told
    that the company has no obilgation, other than to bring me back to
    Greenville.  There is no job, no opportunity, niche, etc.  So if you
    are on international assignment DEC can use that to dump you.
    
    As far as I'm concerned with DEC manufacturing---It's not whether the
    glass is half full or half empty; it's half cracked!
    
    Dave Russell

    Last I heard DEC's getting out of manufacturing. Anybody got info on
    that?
    
    John

    Not likely.
    
    We plan to build hundreds of thousands of PCs in Taiwan.
    
    Mark.

    And Digital has just begun to build a $400-600M semiconductor fab.

  Re last two: The real question is, is DEC getting out of DOMESTIC mfg, other
than IC's? IC mfg is quite different from any other mfg operation I can think
of in DEC, and it's here to stay. 
  If DEC does stay in regular mfg, we will have to do something to work the
issues discussed in this topic. Based on what I have read here and elsewhere,
it appears that GE has a much better environment for mfg workers than DEC does.

   Re: .17
   
   The "college degree" disease has spread to the U.S. of A. as well.  I
   have worked with Digital for 12.5 years now without a degree.  At one
   time over half our office (about 20 specialist) did not have degrees. 
   When I hired on I was told degrees were not an important item at
   Digital.  Getting results was what was wanted.
   
   Getting results doesn't seem to count for much anymore in Digital.  I
   (and every other non-degree person in our unit) has been told we are
   no longer promotable.  Only degreed people will have a shot at a
   promotion.  So, to get a promotion I have to get a 4-year degree.
   
   What pisses me off beyond belief is that my boss doesn't care what
   the degree is in.  As far as he is concerned, I could get a degree in
   Old English Linguistics.  As long as it's a four-year program he is
   happy.  

RE: Degrees and Manufacturing

One of the best industrial engineers I ever met did not have a degree.  I
went to an Ivy League school and his partner went to MIT.  Both of our
degrees said that we were Engineers but we still didn't have the talent
and ability displayed by this exceptional person.  He got his training
but doing, reading, and trying as a young man so that when he started his own
company, he had the experience to KNOW what to do to produce a product.

That person was my father.  When he was growing up during the Depression,
survival was the main issue, not degrees.  So he went to work in the local
textile mill.  It took him a long time to get to the point where he was
running a manufacturing operation and then a little longer before he started
his company.

How does this relate?  Well I have seen more than one high tech company put
little or no value on experience.  The general criteria used to hire and
promote is based on degrees not ability.  If you do not have a mixture of
both, you will end up repeating the mistakes that experience teaches or you
will have few new ideas that new people bring into the company.

Quality people come from all over.  If we pre-judge others by any criteria 
before they show what they can do, we are short-changing ourselves and our
company.

FWIW,
Lee G.

    re -.1
    
>How does this relate?  Well I have seen more than one high tech company put
>little or no value on experience.  The general criteria used to hire and
>promote is based on degrees not ability.  If you do not have a mixture of
>both, you will end up repeating the mistakes that experience teaches or you
>will have few new ideas that new people bring into the company.
    
    This can happen in two ways.  
    
    1) Hiring decisions made by little people with nothing but a degree
    after their name and no understanding of business.
    
    2) Hiring decisions made by good people without degrees who are
    overimpressed by the people who have them.
    
    I've seen them both in Digital, but 2) is the saddest because of the
    implied lack of self-esteem.
    
    The fact is that we've lost the common sense of two decades ago. 
    That's the saddest fact of all.
    
    Dick

    
    re: degrees
    
    	Maybe this should go in the 'Old Dec' note, but the old DEC never
    placed a lot of emphasis on a degree.  When I started 15 years ago
    here in manufacturing, degrees were at a minimum.  DEC used to have
    a program (don't know if it still exists) where they took a tech's
    practical experience from work and after a time of moving through the
    ranks would elevate him/her to the 'rank' of engineer.  I used to see
    this happen all the time back then, but I haven't seen it happen in at 
    least 5 years.  In fact, I knew of one plant manager that said that 
    this program was worthless.  He would not promote anyone to engineer
    by the 'experience' program.  You had to have graduated with that
    sheepskin to merit.  And to make matters worse, it didn't count if you
    went to school and earned that degree while still working fulltime.
    
    	I am constantly reminded of that old commercial featuring Abe
    Lincoln trying to get a job at an agency and the director asks Abe if
    he has a degree.  Abe replies that, "I've done a lot of reading and
    studying on my own." whereby the director repeats, " You ain't going
    nowhere without that sheepshin."  I guess that's pretty much how DEC
    views many of its employees with years of experience now.
    
    	DEC used to take a great deal of pride in people with a lot of
    experience within MFG., but I've seen them place a lot more emphasis
    on that education in recent years.  In many manufacturing sites, they
    will reguard the newly hired college grad's opinion higher than the
    floor worker with 10-20 years of experience.  That's not to say that
    education or continuing education isn't important, but somewhere we
    still need to count 'experience' as something more than just a piece
    of paper on a wall that thanks us for 'x' years of service.
    
    				
    								bill..g.
    

Re degrees:

Degrees are slowly becoming the white-collar equivalent of a union card.  This
is unfortunate two ways:

1)  Degrees, per se, merely show that a person has been able to survive school
    for 4 (or 2) years.  Many schools' courses aren't necessarily applicable
    for thwe job desired (nor is the employer always that concerned about what
    a candidate picked up in school [as long as it isn't communicable :-D]); and

2)  Many innovators didn't have a formal degree.  Perhaps the ultimate example
    of that was Thomas A. Edison.

Don't misunderstand: I'm not against degrees (I have one myself); I'm against 
their existence being used as a major criterion for employment.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

As a postscript, some schools' courses are years behind the curve, even if in the
correct discipline.  Sometimes it's as easy to start fresh as to have to relearn
things.

    Re: degrees
    
    I think it's more important to look for people who have a track history
    of success rather than degrees or 'x' years of experience.  If you've
    got a degree you do have a "leg up" because you come out of the
    university with some proof of success.  I've seen fossils with and
    without college who were given advancement after they failed; the
    company hoping that they would do less damage as they were moved up. 
    Successful people realize their own shortcommings and will not hesitate
    to solicit help when faced with problems which are better handled by
    another successful person with different talents.  One of the problems
    I see here is that there are enough unsuccessful people in authority
    that those whose ideas we should be adopting are not in the majority. 
    Consequently, we are given the average of 20 wrong answers and pray
    that this average is the right answer.  In all probability that answer
    isn't the worst alternative, but nowhere near the best.  As we downsize
    shouldn't we be keeping the success stories, weeding out the failures,
    and adding outsiders who have a history of success?  It's not a matter
    of degrees, it's a matter of survival.
    
    DAR

    
    Good lord folks - you're asking the modern manager to employ a sense of
    judgement. That's just not professional you know!   Professional's have
    idiot cards they can check off on.  Much like public education - we
    don't measure people, we count pedegree's.
    
    geez....

    I started work in England in 1973, as a operator on a Honeywell 120.
    Back in those days, a Computer Science degree was almost unheard of.
    Employers used Aptitude Tests as a means of deciding whether or not a
    person was suitable for computer-related work. In order to take such a
    test there was a minimum requirement of some 'O' Levels, (a series of
    exams in discrete subjects such as Maths, English (Language and
    Literature), French etc, taken at about 16). On the basis of this, and
    a further selection on individual characteristics, I was launched into
    the world of Computing. So were many others, selected purely on raw
    ability and interest.
    
    How many of our Computing degree-holders in this day-and-age can say
    that? Too many I know have the qualifications, but lack any real
    talent.
    
    Half the problem of course, is that fact that a manager devalues his
    own degree if he does not insist those around him have to also have one
    to be of worth.
    
    Laurie$No_Degree.

    IMHO, a manager who dictates a four year degree as an unqualified
    preresquisite for promotion, is probably lazy or not very bright, or
    both.  Purging themselves of this arbitrary bias should be a
    prerequisite for THEIR further promotion, or for that matter, for their
    further employment by Digital.
    
    There are some jobs that, by law, require a degree.  My physician, for
    example.  That's not what I'm talking about.  Anyone who excels
    sufficiently at their current position as to be capable of fulfilling
    the additional responsibilities of a promotion, should be promoted.
    
    Ask some of our most Senior V.P.'s  I believe we still have a few with
    no four year degrees.  Apparently K.O. has no such prejudice.
    
    tim

>    The following is a redraft of 1899.17 "suggesting" that I delete any
>    references that infer a difference in the respective environments
>    in Manufacturing and elsewhere in the organisation.......

    Well, we'll see if things work any differently in the US. 

    I'm part of an engineering organization located in a manufacturing
    facility. We're here mainly because we needed the room and power for
    our lab. Also because at the time we moved in there was CPU building
    going on here and we did some of our testing on rotational inventory.

    In any case, about 8 years ago we moved in. The manufacturing people
    had desks out on the floor. Many without cubical walls at all. It was
    noisy and dirty. Engineering management built a very nice space walled
    off from most of the plant with a state of the art lab. We got cubicles
    with walls nicer then the walls of the cubicles of the people in
    manufacturing who had cubicles. We put in carpeting and built nice
    conference rooms. The manufacturing people called our area the Pink
    Palace."

    When asked why we got such relatively plush quarters the answer was
    simple - our management was willing to pay for it. Now a days more
    and more of the plant has been converted to offices. And the offices
    that manufacturing people have are pretty much the same as what the
    engineering people have. It was never a matter of manufacturing v.
    non-manufacturing in my opinion. It was always a matter of management
    being willing or unwilling to provide a good working environment.

    Managers  of different groups have different priorities and goals. They
    are going to spend their money in ways to meet those goals. Managers 
    depend on making their people productive. In some cases that means
    spending money of things that make the work easier. In manufacturing
    that often means equipment rather then environment. In engineering
    there are often fewer tools needed so management is freer to spend
    money on making the environment better.

    		Alfred

    Trying to draw some parallel between the subject of the title of this
    note and the degree theme, I think, perhaps, we need to stand up,
    stretch, wipe the crust from our eyes and take a look at manufacturing
    as it stands today. Look at manufacturing in DEC and then look at
    manufacturing in Japan (or Japanese style manufacturing).
    
    The traditional American manufacturing style has been dictated by cost
    rather than quality, by upper level management decisions over
    production line logic and, in many cases, by people who learned the
    wrong methods from the wrong textbooks.
    
    Contrast this with the Japanese method where total input is required;
    from janitors to VP's, from inspectors to managers. Everyone's input is
    valued.
    
    As one who has gone through the program Bill alluded to a few back, I
    have seen manufacturing in DEC go down the tubes in too many plants. I
    have seen managers staff departments with degrees as a prerequisite and
    other managers who try to hire based on experience and potential. I
    have worked with some great engineers who have a degree and I have also
    worked with some degree'd engineers who have been the most closed
    minded, arrogant people I have ever met. 
    
    In defense of the degree, in order to obtain a BS, one must learn the
    methodology of going about solving problems. They are exposed to many,
    many tools. If used properly, they can be a very valuable asset in good
    industrial or manufacturing engineering.
    
    However, if the proper attitude is not present, all the Muther
    methodologies in the world won't yield good results. 
    
    I don't have a degree. I have been discriminated against by one
    supervisor for this fact. I have also been rewarded richly based on my
    results by other supervisors. Attitude is everything. The degree should
    not be a deciding gate for qualified people to get assignments or be
    granted promotions. I think it was Steve who said that the degree has
    become white-collar's equivalent to the union card. I fear this trend
    is becoming more and more wide-spread and that our culture is slowly
    slipping away.
    
    I need look no further than the state of mfg in DEC today to see we are
    headed in the wrong direction. If we want to know how to build things
    better and cheaper, ask anyone on a production line. You'll get an
    earful. Some feedback is useful, other feedback may not be. But the
    imagination is there. It exists. It is a resource that too many
    engineers, managers and others refuse to acknowledge because of a
    perceived superiority complex.
    
    Rich
     

    I'm a manufacturing sales rep. and am very interested in the Graduate
    Education for Manufacturing (G.E.M.) program that Digital offers.  I'd
    like to speak with people who have gone through the program - their
    expectations and thoughts before, during and after the program. I can
    be reached at DTN 553-3390 or 303-649-3390.
    
    Thanks to all in advance,
    
    Karen

    	I came here five years ago with no degree, and have worked my way
    up from peon to almost not a peon...which is from Production to Eng.

    	I have yet to get a degree in anything...if a degree means so much,
    what would happen if I got my degree in Under-water basket weaving? 
    Would I make full fledge Eng?  I should hope not...

    	I do know of a person who got an office job because He/She had a
    degree in Geography...guess they knew where to send everything.

    Oh well...back to school!

    B.A. 

    To put a slightly different slant on this discussion, there are programs
    to help employees get degrees.  In particular, if you have made your way
    to an engineering track, or if you are interested in an engineering track,
    and you have a B.S. in some engineering field, look up the GEEP program.
    It's a fantastic way to get an M.S. in engineering.

    If you don't have a B.S. yet, there are also programs to obtain that,
    but I don't think they are quite as wonderful as GEEP.

    Regarding degrees being a basis for promotion, ask any GEEPer who has been
    back for a while, and see what they have to say.  The concensus is that
    the "slip of paper" does absolutely nothing, but if the slip of paper makes
    you perform better, you'll do better in the long run...

    Obtaining a degree as a step toward career advancement at DEC is (as it
    should be) only useful as far as it equips you to do the job you want to
    do better.

    On another thread of this discussion:  I look forward to the day when
    competence at a job or good ideas are recognized and acted on, whether
    the competence/ideas are the result of a degree or the result of healthy
    horse sense.  We need more exchange of ideas and less politics...

    re .33
       > If you don't have a B.S. yet, there are also programs to obtain that,
       > but I don't think they are quite as wonderful as GEEP.
    
    Which programs are you referring to? Do you have a name of a contact?
    I've been looking for such a program(s) for a while now, and was told
    (by Human Resources) that nothing exists.
    

    
    Tuition re-imbursement.... I use it myself.
    
    
    		fred deady
    		wbc::deady

    
    
    
    	I believe you can only make use of GEEP if you're already
    	an engineer....
    
    	Personally, it's not worth the 12-18 month forced separation from 
    	my family...
    
    	But if your single, hardworker and an engineer that can get
    	accepted to the program and the school it's a great opportunity.
    
    						Mike
    						----

    
    >   I believe you can only make use of GEEP if you're already
    >	an engineer....
    
        I believe it is (at least it was 2 years ago) open to any tech job
    including 16 and 52 codes.