Conference 7.286::digital

    Well... I've heard the term being bounced around for some time now...
    
    Now I'm seeing notebooks being passed around, Full job classification
    questionaires being sent out, and I've got nothing BUT questions.
    
    I "borrowed" one of these "notebooks" from someone at work, and read
    through it tonight, so at least I know there is "something" going
    on, and will be all done by May 1988.
    
    What I do know is that ALL WC4 in the US are being reclassified,
    and re-leveled... So that your job code WILL change and your level
    probably will too... your salary will stay the same, but your new
    range might/might not affect future raises.
    
    Here are some of the questions I have.... I thought of asking my
    boss, but he is really too busy to ask right now, and I know many
    managers read this conference, plus I "thought", If I had the questions
    maybe someone else did too...
    
    Question number 1.  I am an individual contributor by choice. However,
    my level is higher than some supervisors that are managers.  Why
    did they get the notebook explaining everything, and I didn't?...
    Were they passed out by levels, by job code, by if they have to
    write reviews? (I know one who got it that ONLY has WC2's under
    him, so it wouldn't effect his people). What determined WHO got
    them?
    
    Question number 2. If I happen to fall into the high range (as in
    over the range), in a level for salary, am I REALLY not supposed
    to expect a raise for X number of years?  What is that going to
    do to people's performance? If they know they won't get a raise
    for maybe 3 years, won't morale go down? If people know they won't
    get a raise for X years, yet cost of living in MASS continues to
    skyrocket, won't we run the risk of losing good people to other
    companies?
    
    Question number 3. When will I get to have input?.. It "seemed"
    to me that my manager was JUST going to assign me my new everything,
    then have me fill out some form, and hope that we agree.  If I don't
    agree I can 1) take it to my manager [who was the one who did it
    in the first place], and 2) if no agreement take it to his/her manager
    [won't they support their people?] and personnel...  If "I" am
    responsible for my own career, isn't this sorta taking it out of
    my hands for awhile?
    
    Question number 4.  All this is supposed to be all set and done
    and ready by May 1988.  Salary planning starts in April (???)...
    if I am to have a review/with possible pay increase in June, what
    does that do to that?... How can my manager plan if this is all
    going on now?

    I realize this all has to do with change, and that with change,
    you run a whole range of feelings, but why are they being so selective
    and secretive?...  Why aren't we ALL being told so we know WHAT
    to expect? I think people deal with change better if people are upfront 
    first with the change that is happening/going to happen (personal 
    opinion here.)
    
    Well, thats it for now.... 
    Gale
        

    
I can attempt to answer some of your  questions.
    
    	The notbook was written for managers to explain the process,
    their part in it andhow to implement it in their group.  Managers
    of WC2 people got it because WC2 people have a right to know what
    is going on too.
    
    	The new slaary ranges will be extremely broad and should not
    present problems.  Unless someone is performing a level much lower
    than his/her salary indicates.
    
    	Managers will reclassify each employee but each employee will
    be filling out one if not two questionaires.  The employees will
    be able to negotiate and new job descriptions will be developed
    for people whose duties don't fit into the benchmark job descriptions.
    
    Finally it is my understanding that salary planning will be in May
    1988.
    
    Hope this helped.
    
    Pierce.
    

    
    What happens if you invest 20 years in becoming a professional in
    one field, but then, because of a Digital reorganization, you end
    up in another field for the time being, where it may take years
    to get back into your chosen field where you are an expert?
    
    Will you be classified according to your profession or where you
    happen to end up through no fault of your own?
    
    In addition, if your level drops because of a new classification in
    this new field, how will this affect your ability to secure a new
    position within Digital in your chosen profession when the personnel
    policy states you cannot jump up several levels and dollars, even if
    you are qualified for the new position, and because of this policy,
    hiring managers decide it's less hassle just to go outside the company
    and to bring in someone new, at the budgeted level and salary? 
    
    Lastly, will JEC correct the current situation where your current
    salary and level is the prime consideration for a new position rather
    than talent, skill, education and experience?  I know of several
    internal Digital people, qualified for new positions, who were
    eliminated as candidates because their current level and salary were
    "too low" in relation to the level and salary budget of the new
    position.
     
    

    re .1
    
    It looks as though Salary Planning is rolling to a fiscal year
    (finally!)this coming year anyway.
    
    

    Re .1
    
    Question 1: I believe that the lists of employees who would receive the
    JEC notebook was submitted by the manager of the group. It was not done
    by job level.
    
    Question 2: If a person falls out of the range on the high end,
    then that person will (we are told) have low or no raises. Yes,
    I can imagine serious morale and performance problems if that was
    to happen. I don't know if that's fair or not. I also know of group
    morale problems when a person is overpaid for a certain position.
    If we're truly risking losing people because of salary levels, then
    that has to be addressed at the corporate compensation level. 
    
    Question 3: As noted in other replies, you'll have input with the
    questionnaire(s) and follow-up meetings. The grievance procedure is
    as good as the ``Open Door'' process, because it's just about the
    same thing. The level of trust in that process varies a lot. I've
    not had to use it, nor has it been used on me. So, untested, I believe
    in it.
    
    Question 4: Salary planning will start after this has been
    substantially completed. For a while, there will be dual job
    codes/titles on the paperwork.
    
    
    It seems that the major reason that we aren't being told more is
    that so much of change will be dictated by those blessed
    questionnaires. We won't know about our new jobs (or levels or
    salary ranges) until we describe in considerable detail what it
    is that we do all day. 
    
    

    One part of the JEC plan is to communicate the whole process to the
    employees who are participating.  Once your manager has gone to JEC
    training, they are supposed to get their reports together for a meeting
    to explain the process to them and to answer some of these questions
    and concerns.  In fact, part of the book that the managers get contains
    a section with overheads included. If that isn't happening, then my
    suggestion is to talk to your manager.  I hate to be blunt but "My
    manager is too busy" sounds inexcusable.  This has got to be the
    most important US-wide undertaking this year.  It sounds like someone's
    priorities are out of synch.

    Also, please remember that some groups are going through the JEC
    process now as a part of a pilot.  The rest of the company will
    go through at a later time.  
    
    My group is a part of the pilot so we have explained it all to the
    whole department.  If you haven't had it explained to you yet it
    may be because you aren't in the pilot and your manager hasn't even
    been trained yet.  Of course that doesn't stop you from being a
    member of the rumor mill!
    
    

    After sitting through the JEC meeting held at our site because the
    wage class 4 people are also pilot program testers this is my
    understanding of the process.
    
    You sit down and describe what your job consists of and what you
    do not only on a day to day basis but things that pop up often but
    not scheduled.  Also it asks you to define what skills you use.
    
    Then you sit down with your manager and discuss what you have written.
     Just because you worte something doesn't mean he may agreewith
    it but most managers have been agreeing saying yes that is what my
    person is doing.  
    
    This information is going to be utilized in two ways.  It will be
    pumped into a large data base where it will match people with so
    many matching skills.  A panel will decide if these jobs are similar
    enough to create a job code and what it should be if it is not already
    created or keeping it the same.  It will reclassify people by the
    way their job is performed.  Someone may be doing the job of a higher
    caliber person in their level but be a lower level they would be
    appropriately moved up the scale.  
    
    The other way is to reorganize how we judge performnce.  If you
    look at the job descriptions now they are cut and dry with little
    to no flexibility.  What this will enable people to do is add some
    of that flexibilty to the way they evaluate a job and the performer
    of the job.
    

>    Lastly, will JEC correct the current situation where your current
>    salary and level is the prime consideration for a new position rather
>    than talent, skill, education and experience?  

	This is one of the main reasons JEC was implemented.

As a manager, with one of those notebooks in front of me, I will try
and answer some of the other questions that were raised, to the 
best of my understanding.

	1.  The people who got notebooks are those who have direct 
	reports.

	2.  All WC-4 employees will be filling out a form called a JOQ --
	Job Overview Questionnaire.

	3.  Some (approx 20%) WC-4 employees will also fill out a JPQ --
	Job Profile Questionnaire.

	4.  The program is being implemented in two phases.  Some 
	organizations are test organizations.  Those organizations have 
	today, 12/11/87, as the deadline for filling out JOQ forms
	and JPQ forms.  The organizations were cut different ways.  
	The phase I organizations are:

		CSS, regardless of location
		GIA Headquarters
		Ed Services, regardless of location
		Mid-Atlantic Area, regardless of function
		Colorado Springs CSC
		Salem, NH plant
		Mid-range Systems Engineering
		Law Dept.
		Virginia Road site
		Personnel

	Other parts of the company will do this in January-March.

	5. All managers have been or will be attending a 1-day
	training session.  Until your manager has attended such
	a session, she/he will probably not be able to answer many
	of your questions.  Phase II management training is just
	starting.

	6.  The current salary planning "year" is April 1987 through 
	June, 1988, so JEC will not affect salary reviews due before 
	July.

	7.  Sometime in the May to July timeframe, you will be notified
	by your manager of your new job code.  The appeal process
	is intended to work just as someone described in an earlier note.

	8.  JEC is not (or should not be) a secret --- the confusion
	has come in because some employees are a lot further along
	in the process than others and rumors get started.  If you
	perceive that your manager is being secretive, it may be because
	she/he has not been trained and doesn't know much or anything 
	about it.   (I only heard of JEC one week before I attended the
	training).
	
	Hope this info clears up some things.

Frank

	For those who prefer to use computer-based word processing
instead of pen and paper, here is a template:


                         JEC JOB PROFILE QUESTIONNAIRE
    
    
    POSITION IDENTIFICATION
    
    This section of the response form requests basic information 
    identifying you, your supervisor, and the job you hold.  It will allow 
    for follow-up with you and your supervisor, if necessary.
    
    Your local personnel contact will complete part "A".  Your supervisor 
    will complete part "C".  You should complete part "B" by clearly 
    printing the information requested.
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    A.  Local Personnel Contact:                         DTN:
        (name)
    
        Personnel Contact's Electronic Mail:
        (e.g., for DEC mail:"Jones@MLO"; for Vax mail:"Celia::Jones")
    
    B.  Your Name:                                       DTN:
    
        Job Title:                                       Badge #:
    
        Your Job Code:                                   CC:
    
        Last 4 Digits of Your Social Security Number:
    
    C.  Supervisor's Name:                 DTN:          Job Code:
    
        Supervisor's Electronic Mail:
        (e.g., for DEC mail:"Jones@MLO"; for Vax mail:"Celia::Jones")
    
    
    JOB OVERVIEW
    
    This section of the response form captures descriptive information 
    about your job's tasks and responsibilities.  Describing your job will 
    help you to respond to other parts of the questionnaire where you are 
    asked to think about types of problems encountered, decisions you 
    participate in, skills required, etc.  This information may be used to 
    develop a job description, so please try to be specific.
    
    1.  List up to six major job responsibilities starting with the most 
    important activity.  Use statements that start with action verbs, such 
    as "directs", "develops", "analyzes", or "plans".  For example, a 
    typical responsibility statement for a Programmer/Analyst would be:  
    "Develops detailed design specifications for data processing systems".  
    See your manager for a listing of suggested action verbs.
    
    Next to each activity, estimate the percentage of time spent on it in a 
    typical month.  Time spent for any responsibility should be at least
    5%.  The total percentage should account for at least 80% to 90% of 
    your time but does not necessarily need to total to 100%.
    
    2.  Briefly describe a few of the business decisions that you are 
    required to participate in* when conducting job responsibilities.
    *Decision-making participation includes providing information, making 
    recommendations or actually making decisions, either as an individual 
    or in a group.
    
    3.  Referring to the major tasks and responsibilities of the job, 
    briefly describe some of the problems typically encountered.
    
    
    EMPLOYEE COMMENTS
    
    Describe any aspects of your job that are not covered by the 
    questionnaire.

Did I read .9 to say that everyone with direct reports will be going 
to JEC training (i.e., 1st-level supervisors), or only the managers of 
these supervisors?)

        Re .9 (hi, Frank!) and
        
>     	1.  The people who got notebooks are those who have direct 
>	reports.
        
        This is true in most cases.  However, my title is "Project
        Manager", and while I have no reports, I got the notebook.
        I also started getting a variety of other "management"
        type mail (updates to the P&P manual, "Mgmt Memo", and
        so on) when I became a "manager".  Sort of like being on
        a "junk mail" list, except it is a "manager mail" list.
        
Jim Stratton
        

    The notebooks were distributed to folks with manager or supervisor
    in their job title. Folks with direct reports but without the
    title have to be added to the list by their manager.
    
    Personnel has to agree with the manager's classification of
    their folks. This is the purpose of the JOQ that every WC4 will
    be filling out. Part of the JEC training, was for everybody to
    read two JOQs and come up with a classification based on the
    job descriptions provided. Everyone needs to be aware of the
    apparent method that personnel uses to classify folks IE mumbleI,
    mumble II, Sr mumble. THEY USE BUZZWORDS! By that i mean things
    like usually/sometimes, has/may have, simple/complex etc. Your
    use of these types of phrases can determine your classification!
    
    Anyone that is at the max or over the max salary for their job
    class, needs to be reclassified. This is nothing new, I have
    been aware of this phenomenon for the last 15 yrs. Folks that
    don't progress, on purpose or not, will reach the top of their
    salary range eventually. Once you do that, you can only expect
    to receive whatever the range moves by, each year. If you're
    over the top of the range, you can't expect an increase until
    the range catches up. Look for a new job classification. Some
    small engineering groups have to face this prospect occasionally.
    Can I justify having all Sr Engineers? Do I need Project Engs?
    Will it push my overhead outa sight? This is what managers get
    paid for.
    
    Bob Mc

>> Did I read .9 to say that everyone with direct reports will be going 
>> to JEC training (i.e., 1st-level supervisors), or only the managers of 
>> these supervisors?)

	My understanding is that anyone who has one or more WC-4 
	people reporting to them should be attending the training.

Frank

    Does "only wage class 4", also mean no wage class 3's are involved.
    I get conflicting answers everytime I ask.

re: 428.15

>    Does "only wage class 4", also mean no wage class 3's are involved.
>    I get conflicting answers everytime I ask.

"Some" WC3's are involved.  Specifically, those with a current job type of 
"D".  The list handed out at JEC Training is:

	F84	Marketing Specialist I
	K26	A/V Producer/Director I
	K3D	Writer/Course Developer I
	K3E	Instructor I
	R13	Software Specialist I
	R1B	Software Trainee
	R2B	District Software Services Administrator
	R39	SW Product Administration Specialist
	R40	Customer Support Rep I
	R41	Customer Support Rep II
	R48	Field Test Admin Specialist I
	S30	Sales Trainee
	T2C	Inventory Control Planner I
	T2P	Project Specialist I
	T3L	Branch Logistics Coordinator
	T4P	Project Specialist II

Most of these WC3 jobs are the bottom ends of families of WC4 jobs.  It 
wouldn't make sense to me if those were not included.

Ray

    RE .12:  Once you reach Level 12 job codes (whether an individual
    contributor or manager job code) you receive things such as Mgmt.
    Memo.  That may be part of the criteria used to send the JEC manuals
    out.
    
    

    Friday I received in my interoffice a list of action verbs with
    their definitions to be used in job description writing.  Is this
    JEC exercise turning into a word game where the people who can use
    the most juicy words to paint a rosy picture of themselves get the
    better job code?  Wonder if some of these words are worth more than
    others?
    
    
    accept
account
achieve
acquire
act
adapt
adjust
administer
adopt
advise
allot
alter
amend
analyze
answer
anticipate
apply
appoint
appraise
approve
arrange
assemble
assign
assist
assume
assure
attain
attend
audit
authorize
award
budget
build
calculate
call
check
circulate
clear
close
code
collaborate
collect
communicate
compare
compile
complete
compute
concur
condense
conduct
confer
confirm
consolidate
construct
consult
contact
control
convert
coordinate
copy
correct
correlate
correspond
counsel
create
decide
delegate
deliver
demonstrate
describe
design
determine
develop
devise
direct
discipline
discuss
display
dispose
disseminate
distribute
divert
draft
elaborate
elect
eliminate
employ
encourage
endorse
engage
enlist
ensure
establish
estimate
evaluate
examine
exchange
exclude
execute
exercise
expedite
extract
facilitate
feed
file
finalize
find
followup
formulate
foster
furnish
gather
generate
govern
guarantee
help
hire
identify
implement
import
improve
inform
initiate
innovate
inspect
install
institute
instruct
interpret
interview
invent
inventory
investigate
issue
join
justify
lead
lend
let
list
load
maintain
make
manage
map
market
match
mediate
modify
monitor
move
name
negate
negotiate
neutralize
notify
nullify
obtain
occupy
omit
open
operate
oppose
originate
oversee
participate
perform
permit
persuade
pinpoint
place
plan
practice
predict
prepare
present
preserve
prevent
proceed
process
procure
produce
program
project
prompt
propose
provide
purchase
qualify
quantity
question
read
receive
recommend
reconcile
reconstruct
record
reduce
refer
refine
reinforce
reject
release
remove
render
represent
report
rescind
research
respond
restrict
retrieve
revise
salvage
satisfy
schedule
secure
select
sell
send
serve
sign
simplify
solve
specify
spend
standardize
stimulate
study
submit
supervise
supplement
survey
synthesize
tabulate
take
tend
tender
test
total
trade
train
transact
transcribe
translate
transmit
turn
uncover
understand
update
utilize
verify
weigh
withhold
withstand
write

    I wish to know what happens to the people that have more skills
    acquired through various jobs but only use 3/4 of them at the new
    job? What happens to the salary that is already very low and should
    be moved up to the new level. Do we get a giant hike?
    

>< Note 428.18 by HPSCAD::FORTMILLER "Ed Fortmiller, MRO1-1, 297-4160" >
>                                -< Word Game? >-
>
>    Friday I received in my interoffice a list of action verbs with
>    their definitions to be used in job description writing.  Is this
>    JEC exercise turning into a word game where the people who can use
>    the most juicy words to paint a rosy picture of themselves get the
>    better job code?  Wonder if some of these words are worth more than
>    others?
>    


                We just had the presentation from our boss and were
        given a list of action verbs which we should use. Our list was
        MUCH shorter. 41 in total where yours was 256 in total (I wonder
        why 256??? Is it too much of a co-incidence??) 
                
                I have marked the 41 I have in the longer list here
        (rearranged to take less lines). If the word in the following
        list has an * after it, it was on my list also. 
                
                The word Document appears on my list and not on the one
        from .-2. Also, the word Design does NOT appear on my list and I
        work in a Design Engineering group! 
                
                Are we all working to the same standards on this thing?
        I sure doesn't look that way!
                
                Something that isn't said in the .-2 note, my list has
        definitions on it, does yours?
                
                /s/     Bob
                     
                
                
accept               create            interpret        receive *          
account              decide            interview        recommend *        
achieve              delegate          invent           reconcile         
acquire              deliver           inventory        reconstruct       
act                  demonstrate       investigate      record            
adapt                describe          issue *          reduce            
adjust               design            join             refer *            
administer *         determine *       justify          refine            
adopt                develop *         lead             reinforce         
advise *             devise            lend             reject            
allot                direct *          let              release           
alter                discipline        list             remove            
amend                discuss           load             render            
analyze *            display           maintain *       represent         
answer               dispose           make             report            
anticipate           disseminate       manage *         rescind           
apply                distribute *      map              research *         
appoint              divert            market           respond           
appraise             draft *           match            restrict          
approve *            elaborate         mediate          retrieve          
arrange *            elect             modify           revise            
assemble *           eliminate         monitor          salvage           
assign               employ            move             satisfy           
assist               encourage         name             schedule          
assume               endorse           negate           secure *           
assure *             engage            negotiate        select *           
attain               enlist            neutralize       sell              
attend               ensure            notify           send              
audit                establish         nullify          serve             
authorize            estimate          obtain           sign              
award                evaluate *        occupy           simplify          
budget               examine           omit             solve             
build                exchange          open             specify           
calculate            exclude           operate          spend             
call                 execute           oppose           standardize       
check                exercise          originate        stimulate         
circulate *          expedite          oversee          study             
clear                extract           participate      submit            
close                facilitate *      perform *        supervise *        
code                 feed              permit           supplement        
collaborate          file              persuade         survey *           
collect *            finalize          pinpoint         synthesize        
communicate          find              place            tabulate          
compare              followup          plan *           take              
compile *            formulate *       practice         tend              
complete             foster            predict          tender            
compute              furnish *         prepare *        test              
concur               gather            present          total             
condense             generate          preserve         trade             
conduct *            govern            prevent          train             
confer               guarantee         proceed          transact          
confirm              help              process *        transcribe        
consolidate          hire              procure          translate         
construct            identify          produce          transmit          
consult              implement *       program          turn              
contact              import            project          uncover           
control              improve           prompt           understand        
convert              inform *          propose *        update            
coordinate *         initiate *        provide *        utilize           
copy                 innovate          purchase         verify *           
correct              inspect           qualify          weigh             
correlate            install           quantity         withhold          
correspond           institute         question         withstand         
counsel              instruct          read             write *            
                                                        

    I attended the JEC training last week, and found it very interesting.
    Why did I go?  Beats me!  My husband carries the same job code as
    me, but he wasn't included.  Not only was I INVITED, I was told
    it was MANDATORY!  Why?  Your guess is as good as mine.  The whole
    thing was geared totally toward managers who have direct reports.
    
    I think many of the fears I've heard (read) in this note are
    un-founded.  Your own manager is the one who will be assigning job
    codes.  Doesn't s/he ALREADY have a pretty good idea of what you
    do, as compared to what your peers do?  I'm not a manager now, but
    when I was I certainly could have described the jobs of my people
    well enough to classify them!  Maybe that's because I did the same
    jobs before becoming a manager, but I believe any good manager should
    have a pretty clear idea of what his people's jobs are!
    
    If your salary range changes and you're suddenly above the maximum, you
    WILL NOT get a pay cut.  In fact, we were told that doesn't even mean
    you can't get a raise (no guarantee you will either though)!  It DOES
    mean your raises, if any, would be somewhat smaller than for a
    comparable performer at the lower end of the scale.  If your new range
    leaves you below the minimum, you will receive an increase to bring you
    to minimum within 3 months. I believe the pay impact of JEC is about as
    fair as they could have made it. 
    
    If you feel you were treated unfairly, you can request a review
    of the data with your manager's manager present.  The three of you
    (plus a Personnel representative if you so desire) will review the
    information together and decide whether it's fair or not.
    
    The only thing I heard that made me uncomfortable is that there's
    really no recourse past the first-line escalation.  That is, if
    your manager's manager doesn't resolve the issue, you can keep
    escalating it via the ODP, but it was very clearly stated in the
    training that no matter how high you escalate, the decision made
    at the first level of escalation (paragraph above) will stand. 
    
    While I don't expect this will be a real problem in the JEC process (am
    I being too naive?), it seems to me to pretty clearly violate the
    spirit if not the letter of the ODP. 
    
    							Pat Resende

        The short list of action verbs with definitions came from the
        glossary of JEC Manager's Guide.  Where did the longer list
        come from?  Management here knows nothing of the longer list.
        
       _Mike

    "followup," which appears originally on the list in .18, is
    nonstandard. The accepted usage is "follow up" (verb phrase) or
    "follow-up" (noun form).

    As soon as some of us here saw our manager's copy of the list of
    "action verbs", which he passed around laughingly at a group meeting
    (not being the type of manager who has much use for buzzwords),
    we thought "oh, no! Personnel buzzwords!" - it is like the recruiter
    here who told us that he screens resumes to send to our group (yes,
    we STILL have some critical unfilled reqs. - see the JOBS notesfile)
    by looking for particular keywords - so if you describe your experience
    correctly but don't use the magic words, we'll never see your resume
    here at all unless you managed to send it directly to a hiring manager.
    The recruiter is not knowledgeable in our area of engineering, so
    in all fairness, this is about all you can expect for a screening
    process.
    
    So, we were all very sceptical of the JEC list of "action verbs"
    -- looks too much like "pick the right words, and you will find
    yourself classified into the bottom salary range of a much-higher
    job title, with the attendant big catch-up raises for several years".
    Pick the wrong ones, and... 
    
    Boy, do I ever hope we are wrong...

>>    So, we were all very sceptical of the JEC list of "action verbs"
>>    -- looks too much like "pick the right words, and you will find
>>    yourself classified into the bottom salary range of a much-higher
>>    job title, with the attendant big catch-up raises for several years".
>>    Pick the wrong ones, and... 
  
    No!!! In fact, the job descriptions I have seen (within the same job
    class) have basically all the same verbs; it's the *objects* that
    differ.  For instance, a mumble I might 'process foo', while a mumble
    II might 'process several foos simultaneously' and a senior mumble
    might 'process large batches of foo'.  Similarly, while all positions
    have responsibility for decisions, it is the scope and impact of those
    decisions which make a difference. 
    
    However, I will admit that since this process is administered (one
    of the 'approved words' :-) by managers and supervisors, it is possible
    that unscrupulous managers may not do 'the right thing'.
    
    Bruce (in the middle of administering JEC for my group)

Here's a new list of action verbs and expressions that you might
consider more realistic and representative for use as keywords
in the DECJEC word games:

drive consensus
evaluate headsets
beat up on
languish in woods meetings
synergize resources (oi!)
embrace high-visibility issues
work old issues
address current issues
revisit dead issues
file mail
mail files
find mail
can live with that
clean someone else's house
jam printers
tread water
seek mentors
get real
humor commitments
commit humor
report conditions
condition direct reports
synthesize goals
massage facts
accomplish inflation
inflate accomplishments
deflate egos
bungle projects
add entry
rattle skeletons
point fingers
lose resumes
program computers
compute programmers
reinvent wheel
change screen colors
change corporate colors
pound tables
berate underlings
rebate overlings
slip schedules
shed slippages
hide agendas
throttle personnel
block transfers
miss meetings
redefine job codes
exercise head games
freeze everything
usurp authority
abuse authority
question authority
bust budgets
bust budgetbusters
just plain bust
observe clocks
do lunch
extend lunch
extend belts
overpromote deliverables
underpromote employees
find LK201 escape key
bind variables
vary bindings
reconnect to reluctant LAT
reinterpret Personnel Policies & Procedures
recall/all
recall the good old days at DEC
install customers
stall customers
violate access
speculate specs
fake it
push mice
answer machines
book cruise ships
change face
save face
face the music
squander manpower
panic at Wall St. nonsense

Well, you get the idea...
Good Luck and May the Right Words Be with You!

Chris

For those of you who would rather do engineering then paper pushing
here is an example of what someone suggested putting in the JOQ.


				EMPLOYEE COMMENTS

Describe any aspects of your job that are not covered by the questionnaire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
	Some of my time is spent filling out stupid forms. This one
	is a fine example of that. This is an engineering company,
	yet Personnel seems to feel they have to do something more.
	They think up solutions to problems that don't exist, and
	force EVERYONE to waste time and no doubt a great deal of money
	changing the system.  If problems do exist, fix those problems,
	but don't drag the rest of us into this hole. This form is
	not going to change anything in Engineering, and we've got
	much better things to do with our time, like get products
	out the door. It disturbs me greatly that we are getting away
	from the original objectives of this company, and are wallowing
	around fitting people into labelled boxes. If I had wanted that,
	I could have worked for IBM.

    Re: .27: suggested employee comment
    
    While I would never put such on my own JEC, I certainly empathize
    with the sentiments expressed.  I wonder if there is a way to
    communicate this to management without offending anyone.
    
    I appreciate that a lot of effort went into the development of the JEC,
    but (choice of words aside) certain points raised by the person who
    originally wrote the comments in .27 are dead on.

    A word of warning:  Everything you put on the JOQ will be placed
    in your personnel file for perusal by future managers, etc.
    
    I too had some strong words in my comment section until I discovered
    they might have the wrong effect on my future. Just a thought.
    
    							Warren
    

    We were told that part 4 was NOT to be used for general comments on
    the corporation, your work environment, or the Ministry of Silly
    Forms.  It is to give a better perspective on YOUR JOB and what it
    is you do.  Of course, you want to present yourself in the best
    possible light while remaining truthful.  In many ways, it is
    like a resume.
    
    I honestly don't know what the purpose of JEC is, at least as it
    pertains to Engineering.  From what I can tell, the effects on us,
    short term and maybe even long term, are close to nil.  But maybe
    there are other organizations where it will buy something.  I dunno.
    
    My biggest puzzlement over this is why it is on paper.  We were told
    to write ours on-line, print it out and tape it in the form book!
    
    					Steve

At the training seminars, we were told that DEC is one of the very few
large companies (indeed, the ONLY large engineering company) without a
job evaluation and classification Program.  We were told that, for
WC4s, there are some significant inequities in pay across the system,
that corporate felt needed to be fixed.  We were also told that, in
DEC fashion, they are giving everyone a chance to be involved, as
opposed to it being another "personnel project". 

	And that, Charlie Brown, is the meaning of JEC.   ;-)

    
    
    
    My Impression of JEC, is that it is designed to reduce the number
    of senior employees by adjusting the salary ranges to push the senior
    employees above the current salary range that they are currently
    in. This tactic has been used by other companies to reduce the
    retirement obligation on the company.  I think they hope that this
    move will convince fifteen + year employees to depart. That will
    drop the overall salary burden on the corporation so they will show
    a greater profit to the stock holders. 
    
    A crporation does not spend time and money (on a project like this)
    to spend more money. It spends it to save money.
    
    I have read my boss's book on JEC and I expect to be pushed through
    the roof of my current salary range. I do not expect a raise for
    at least five years. If that happens I will have to look for another
    job within the company.
    
    The best thing that could happen to me and my peers is the JEC process
    will denote us as WC3 employees.
    
    I work in the field product support organization and often work
    60 to 100 hours a week. I sometimes get a $100.00 call-out and
    seldom get some comp-time for my efforts to create customer
    satisfaction which is the goal of field service. I usually work
    after five pm. The person I am supporting is getting overtime and
    more often than not rubs it in that he/she will get an enormous
    paycheck next week while I can only notice my vacation hours
    increasing.
    
    Bottom line.
    
    They, "DIGITAL" want to reduce it's salary burden however painful to
    their "VALUED" employees. JEC, I think, is designed to accomplsh
    this task.
    
    
    
    

	RE: .27

	Didn't I read (just recently) that IBM is also undergoing a
	restructuring of some type?

	    

    I'd rather work for a company that takes the time and money to check
    the validity of the existing structure, job classifications, etc.,
    than one that just let it be "as it always has been".   Presumably,
    fine-tuning job classifications is going to help the company, and
    by definition, then, help us.  (We are the company, remember.)
    
    Companys grow and evolve, and any company that tried to ignore that
    is just irresponsible, to itself, its people, and its shareholders.
    Job definitions *should* reflect the real job, for ascertaining
    equity both in the company and in the market.
    
    And it doesn't seem to be a real hard concept that taking a little
    time to fill out a form to give real information to the process
    *is* a worthwhile activity.  Seeing the importance of the longer-term
    even in the face of a short-term deadline is just one of those things
    that professionals gotta do.
    
    	MKV
    

    After watching a process similar to JEC occur at Du Pont shortly 
    before their "Early Retirement" program a couple of years ago,
    I have to agree with .33 to wit:
    
    I wouldn't doubt that DEC is deeply concerned with "controlling"
    personnel costs, and a good way to do it is to revise the pay
    ranges and job levels.  It's not an old concept, politicians have
    been using this method for years to control the popular vote.  The
    technique even has a formal name: gerrymandering.  It involves
    re-drawing precinct boundaries such that voters of one type get
    out-numbered by those more sympathetic to the ruling party.  It
    requires no leap of the imagination to see how salary ranges can
    be tailored to freeze out those who have risen through the years
    to senior-level (read "high-paying") line positions while giving
    the lower-level positions a minor boost for "balance", reducing
    the Corporate payroll of any "top-heavy" people by attrition.
    
    In response to the argument that this is just a method to allow
    for greater input from the field, just consider how many people
    would participate if they called it "Salary Evaluation" instead
    of "Job Evaluation" ...
    
    Geoff

>    out-numbered by those more sympathetic to the ruling party.  It
>    requires no leap of the imagination to see how salary ranges can
>    be tailored to freeze out those who have risen through the years
>    to senior-level (read "high-paying") line positions while giving
>    the lower-level positions a minor boost for "balance", reducing
>    the Corporate payroll of any "top-heavy" people by attrition.

    This fits in pretty well with my own paranoia.  I'm trying to believe that
    filling all this "stuff" out will get me a higher rating and more money,
    but there's this little voice inside...
    
>    for greater input from the field, just consider how many people
>    would participate if they called it "Salary Evaluation" instead
>    of "Job Evaluation" ...

    It doesn't MATTER what they called it in the field.  IT WASN'T OPTIONAL!
    NOBODY said "Hi, specialists, would you LIKE to fill out a JEC form?"
    All you could do was try to make your job sound as tough as possible and
    hope your manager would do a decent job at rating.  

Re: .34
  
Yes, IBM did announce a very major reorganization.  See today's VNSnews
for details.

    RE:.33,.36
    
    I have been watching the business attitudes at many companies recently
    and unfortunatly I must agree with .33 and .36.  Let's see what
    JEC really means, hmmm...
    
    Justify Extra Compensation, Job Extortion Commission, Junk Engineers
    Compensation, Juggle Everyones Compensation... I'm sure you can
    think of more.
    
    No JEC will not decrease your pay, just like the tax reform was
    not a tax increase (true if your taxable income is in excess of
    $149,000 per year).
    
    The rich will get richer, the poor will still be poor, and the middle
    class will support the WORLD!
    
    	/s/	Roger
    

    What disturbs me about JEC is the lack of focus on qualitative issues.

    I'm a technical writer.  Maybe I'm out of synch with the rest of the
    company and hopelessly old-fashioned, but I'd like to think that while
    entry-level, mid-level, and top-level writers WRITE (action verb) and
    all three might even WRITE MULTIPLE MANUALS concurrently, that
    placement in the entry-level, mid-level, or high-level position
    involves analysis of the qualitative improvement and refinement of
    skills. 
    
    Of course we all know how untrue this can be in real life and how
    unfair rankings sometimes are, but don't we think it SHOULD be TRUE?
    Now that they're rewriting job descriptions, shouldn't the content of a
    contribution and not just its type or quantity be considered?
    
    Just to pick an example:
    
    Entry-level writer should write grammatically and clearly.
    Mid-level writer should write very clearly and precisely.
    High-level writer should write elegantly.
    
    I'm using broad adjectives so people in other areas can see what I
    mean.  Really, there are specific writing qualities that could easily
    amplify and make more objective what "clearly" or "grammatically" or
    "elegant" mean.  
    
    Am I the only one who feels this way? I sometimes think people get more
    caught up in the process of doing something than in actually
    focussing on doing the thing and doing it well.

    Nina

    This message is very long! Please skip, if this topic is not
    a burning issue with you.
    
    
    In wandering through this note, I am amazed at how much skepticism
    and disbelief there is over the reasons DEC is imlementing the JEC
    process. Many of you are looking for angles to show why DEC is "out
    to get us" with this process. I, for one, believe this is a good
    process that "yes" will benefit DEC as a company, but will also
    benefit it's employess as well.
    
    From the comments, it would appear that different groups are getting
    different messages on JEC or some people are reading the manual
    without the benefit of having had an explanation in the JEC Meetings
    and are making assumptions. It has been noted here that only certain
    groups are part of the pilot effort and this may be part of the
    problem. I am part of that pilot effort and have attended the meetings
    and filled out the forms so I feel I am in an informed position to
    respond to some of the replies.
    
    There are many replies I would like to comment on, but will zero
    in on those that I felt were inaccurate or in need of clarification.
    
    RE 428.1	JEC will create new job levels with a reduction in the
    	overall number. The ranges associated with these new levels
    	will be broader than they are now. If you are in a level now
    	(before JEC) that is higher than what is required for the work
    	you are actually doing, you will be releveled appropriately
    	into the level that represents the work you do. If that puts
    	your current salary above the MAX of the new range, you will
    	NOT have your current salary reduced. This will affect future
    	increases, however, as noted elsewhere in this file. In effect,
    	you will be paid appropriately for the work you actually do
    	regardless of how long you have been doing it. This is called
    	pay for perfarmance.
    
    RE 428.21	This process is mandatory because each and every WC4
    	will be affected. How would we like it if we had no opportunity
    	to influence the process. Being involved is the DEC way!
    
    RE 428.25	Managers may not do "the right thing" as you see it,
    	but you imply that they will misuse the system to their own
    	end or to the detriment of the employee. I won't say that can't
    	happen, but that exists now and this is an attempt to tighten
    	up the salck as it were. All JEC paperwork including the new
    	classification process is being closely monitored by Personnel
    	and upper management. I seriously doubt that a manger will 
    	be able to do something totally out of line without it being
    	caught in one of the review mechanisms. As noted earlier, you
    	also have the means in the process to push back through the
    	appeal process.
    
    RE 428.27 <FLAME ON> I AM SO SICK OF HEARING HOW ENGINEERING IS
    	DIFFERENT THAN EVERYONE ELSE. WHO ANNOINTED YOU AS GODS AND
    	ABOVE THE REST? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PROCESS THAN PROPERLY
    	POSITIONS EACH EMPOLOYEE FOR THE WORK THEY DO. WHY IS THAT
    	IMPOSSIBLE IN ENGINEERING? MAYBE IT IS ABOUT TIME WE DEAL
    	WITH THIS ATTITUDE AND REALIZE THAT IT TAKES ALL EMPLOYEES
    	IN ALL FUNCTIONS TO MAKE DEC SUCCESSFUL NOT JUST ENGINEERING
    	<FLAME OFF>
    
    	Engineering will change because KEN is an engineer at heart
    	and he, along with the Executive Committee have endorsed this
    	process and support it.
    
    	You call the forms stupid. Why, because you don't like them,
    	because they take time to fill out or because you don't like
    	the process. I had to fill out all of them and while they
    	took time and effort, I found much of what came out of this
    	effort and the subsequent discussion with my manager to be
    	interesting, enlightening, and valuable. My manager and I
    	now have a much better idea of what I do each day.
    
    RE 428.29	Where did you get the information that this JOQ will
    	go into your Personnel File? No where, in all the meetings I
    	attended or in the literature I received, did it say that 
    	the JOQ will go into a Personnel File. I assume a copy will
    	be kept for your manager's working file on you and why not
    	I have a copy in my file that I keep too!
    
    RE 428.30	The payback for DEC is that all WC4 employess will be
    	properly leveled and this will make it easier to do salary planning
    	and to ultimately pay everyone appropriately for the job they
    	do. If that happens, DEc will be better off financially in the
    	end result.
    
    RE 428.33	I happen to be a 15+year employee in DEC and I do not
    	in any way see this as an attempt to position me finacially
    	for my departure. I am 100% vested and what I will receive at
    	retirement is based on what I am making yearly at retirement
    	or what I am earning when and if I ever leave DEC. Unless,
    	my salry is reduced, this will not affect this. I could have
    	future earnings impacted if I am leveled lower than I am now,
    	but that is only reasonable. If I am earning more than the
    	job I am doing is worth, that it is as it should be and it is
    	up to me to get a position that requires more skills etc and
    	therefore carries a higher salary. I have NO problem with that
    	idea. You see everyone else is in the same boat!
    
    	Your example of overtime is not a JEC issue unless your job
    	level changes to WC2, which is very unlikely. Other than that
    	example, it is the government regulations that determine who
    	is WC4 dependent upon job content. If your job is a WC4 job,
    	then you get no evertime, period. Also, compensatory time off
    	is against DEC policy.
    
    
    
    		Well, I have gone on very long with this note, but I
    	hope it helps to clarify some points made earlier. I understand
    	that some issues are a matter of opinion and respect those
    	differences where they occur. However, a fact is a fact and
    	does not change just because we may not agree with it.	

    
    Lets put it this way........
    
    Before JEC I am a Sr. supervisor controling 2 cost centers.
    
    After JEC I will be classified as a "supervisor"...still controling
    2 cost centers. I am told that there will now be only one level
    of supervisor. 

    Well, after our management had our JEC meeting with us all to explain
    this process more fully, I am both reassured and still suspicious!
    (I guess I should say that I am a software engineer.)
    
    I am reassured in that a person's new job title (which in our case
    will look a good deal like the old set of job titles; our managers
    apparently weren't crazy about calling everyone Software Enginner
    I, S.E. II, ..., S. E. 5 - can't blame 'em!) will be ultimately
    chosen by their management.  This is reassuring because it means
    that, for example, a newly-promoted person who has not finished
    "growing into" the new job won't find him/herself back in the old
    job title, with the resulting probably very low raises until the
    engineer is "re-promoted".
    
    On the other hand, our management specifically said that they didn't
    think that the process, as expensive as it is, would mean many changes
    for our cost center.  They did mention that it would "flatten out"
    the meaning of job titles; they said that there are certain other
    departments in the company whose engineers sometimes try to transfer
    into our group who have much higher job titles than we do for doing
    the same work.  The result in those cases is that we can never take
    on those people as internal transfers because their "principal software
    engineer" can only do what our "software engineer II" can do, etc.
    Also, they mentionned that the average salary for a particular job
    code in our organization is below the median for the range for that
    job code in nearly all cases, but that this is not true in some
    other areas (different ones, at least in some instances, from the
    specifc cost center with the highly-titled engineers), with the
    result that the average pricipal software engineer in those cost
    centers, for example, makes about 15% more than the average one
    in our own cost center, even though our management believes that
    we do comparable jobs.  I take this to mean that these sets of
    principal engineers will end up with the same new job title, and
    the same (different) salaries.
    
    So now I don't know what to think!  Except that I had beeter finish
    filling out the form...I took it with me over the weekend, thinking
    to do it after I finished the taxes, but I didn't even finish the
    taxes...                                                 

    re .41:
    
    AMEN!  This was a very informative response, one that is consistent
    with the implementation of JEQ and the intent of the program as
    it is communicated to us in in Tewksbury, Mass (TWO).
    
    I also find it amusing that the majority of concern is focused at
    how DEC is out to screw us.  Some of us should try working for another
    company (and I have) that would implement a program like this behind
    the scenes, only to communicate it the change to the workforce after
    it is cast in stone. 
    
    Re .42:
    
    Could this possibly be an opportunity for you work towards a position
    as Cost Center Manager?  Without assuming some of the work inherent
    to a position higher than the one you currently hold, it would be
    very difficult to gain the knowledge, skills and experience necessary
    to be promoted to a higher level.  Don't get me wrong, I agree that
    many people will be re-classified while remaining responsible for the same
    work that his or her old position required.  However, it give many
    people an opportunity to have a wider salary range for a given position
    as well.  
    
    I believe that many people doing the same work, for similar
    organizations within the company have different job titles and
    therefore, different salary ranges.  Also, it is becoming difficult
    for people to move to/from DEC from/to other companies because of variances
    in the definition and work content of similar positions.
    
    The JEC, in my opinion, is a necessary means of bringing equity
    to the classification and work content of positions within the company.
    
    As is the case with any change in one's situation, there is bound
    to be apprehension.  However, I feel that all the skepticism on
    how the company is out to screw us is totally unwarranted.  
    
    Maybe we should place the same trust in the system as the system places
    in us. 

    My $.02 worth.
    
    Mark.

    Re: .41
    
    I was told by one of my managers during the SECOND review of my
    JOQ that a copy would appear in my personnel file. Since presumably
    the managers have the inside story better than I, I took them at
    their word.
    
    I even changed some wording in my JOQ at their advice.
    
    							Warren

    RE: .45
    
    Your manager may have received incorrect information and passed
    this information on to you. I have heard no reference to this practice
    other than your comments. My suggestion is for you to ask your
    Personnel Representative/Consultant. It may be too early to check
    since the process is still going on, but you have the RIGHT to go
    through your file. You can verify it's existence there on not.
    
    Recommendations for changes in the JOQ by your manager are fine
    if they more accurately portray your job functions. If, however,
    these canges were made only in consideration of who may see it in
    your file I have concerns about that. The JOQ should clearly
    reflect the duties you perform in your current position. 
    
    						Art
    

    RE: .42
    
    	I may be wrong of course, but I thought that Cost Center Managers
    	were just that; managers not supervisors. Have I missed something?
    	Of course, I don't know exactly what you mean by "still controlling
    	2 cost centers"?
    
    	I would expect that in one level of supervisor, the more
    	resposibility one has the higher in the range you would go.
    	I think the key will be in how the new job description reads.
    	Why do you assume you will still be classified as a supervisor
    	after JEC? Were you told this and if so by whom? I don't think
    	all the job descriptions/levels have been firmed up or even
    	completely developed yet. You might be pleased with the outcome
    	in the end if your "responsibilities remain intact.
    
    						Art
    

    
    
    re .47
    
    depends on how you look at it.
    
    I have 2 differnent cost centers, and budget for both, plan manpower
    for both, EEO planning for both...............etc
                                      
    
    I don't have any supervisors under me, only Work Coordinators.
    After JEC, I still will be rated a Supervisor the same job, I thought
    I got promoted out of some years back.
    I'm  called a Sr. Supervisor today     
    
    Not complaining, won't help anyway, just stating a fact that
    "supposedly" will happen.

The objection from engineering employees is not about the new job definitions.
It is nothing new for them, because the JEC job-ranking areas (impact on
company bottom line, influencing decisions, etc) are the ones that have
been used in engineering for years.  I have been told in the briefing that
I got that for hardware and software engineers, the new job descriptions
are pretty much identical to the old job descriptions.

So the objection is that for the vast majority of engineers the JEC process is
a waste of time because they are already categorized in the new system.

The only saving grace is that I know a few engineers who should have been
promoted a year or two ago and were not.  Maybe JEC will recategorize them
at the proper level.  And I know of a few people who got promotions who
shouldn't have (especially in comparison to those deserving sould who were
passed over).

Too bad the process does not apply to consulting engineers. 

       I've known about JEC since November of 1987, and have internalized
    my fair share of skepticism and paranoia about the 'hidden' goals/
    objectives/agenda of the JEC process! I'm presenting this "Case
    Study" as a hypothesis that DEC might have received some Goverment/
    Industry pressure in the 1985 time frame that 'spawned' JEC.
    
       Case Study: (haven't done one of these since Grad school)
    
          My wife is gainfully employed (part time) by the State
    (that's the Commwealth of Taxachusetts), and she participated
    in a mandatory 'JEC' process in 1985. Without any prior notice,
    everybody in her Office (about 70 people) had their Supervisor
    hand them a 'JEC' Questionnaire. Everybody dutifully (reluctantly)
    described the major aspects of their respective Job, and returned
    the Questionnaire to their Supervisor. The Supervisors then spent
    the next few days correcting (Editing with "Red" ink) the 'JEC'
    Questionnaires, and then made their respective employees re-write
    the Questionnaires using the official verbage ('Action' words, etc.)
    The Supervisors then submitted any/all 'JEC' Questionnaires to
    Headquarters (Boston, MA), and about a month later everybody got
    a new (slightly 'modified') Job title. note: my wife's title got
    'modified' from Senior Clerk Typist to Clerk Senior Typist. The
    net effect to most/all of her colleagues was simply a 'modified'
    Job title, and it didn't seem to have any effect noticeable effect
    upon wages, promotions, demotions, etc.
    
    
    						Happy JOQ'in,
    								Bob
    
    them

    RE: .49
    
    	You mentioned consulting engineers aren't affected, could you
    - or anyone - please explain this, why?
    
    		Mike

    Consulting engineers and above aren't being asked to participate in
    JEC.  Why, I dunno.
    
    				Steve

    Largely, I think, Steve, because one cannot reach those grades via
    the normal promotion process, and therefore the JEC can have no
    effect on the people holding those grades now.
    
    						=maggie

    Only too true, Maggie, only too true....
    
    				Steve

    the consulting engineers in our organization each had to fill out
    a joq - 1 had to d a jpq
    
    
    
    hmmmmmmm
    
    m

    justify
    equal
    creation

                                             
    I saw the video on JEC last friday, and made one obsevation:
    
    all the people sitting in conference rooms making decisions on JEC
    were white males.
    
    all the people sitting in conference rooms getting JEC'ed seemed
    to be minorities and women.
    
    
    
    I wouldn't be posting this but someone else had mentioned the same
    observation to me after viewing the tape.
   
    Rob

    According to the phamplet JOB EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION - IN
    PERSPECTIVE:
    
    	"All exempt employees are participating in the process by filling
         out a questionnaire to provide job content information"
    
    If consultants are exempt then the booklet is not telling the entire
    truth.  If consulants are really exempt are some organizations just
    having their consultants fill out the JOQ which is destined for
    the bit bucket so that it looks like everyone is doing it in order
    to not upset the troups?  Maybe we're becoming like the military
    where there are the enlisted folks and the officers. 

    My understanding of the relationship between consulting engineer
    job classifications and the JEC process is that the JEC process
    will not move an engineer to a consulting engineer classification
    (even if he / she deserves it on a basis of the JOQ?) and that the
    "promotion board" business will still exist.
    
    I wonder if that means that those that "JOQ" into this exalted range
    will be given the equivalent of the "MTS" job code that was used
    to hold hired "consultant class persons" whilst they tried to pass
    the board?
    
    /s/ Jim Williams (who is real interested in this question)

No only will JEC not move somebody into a consulting engineer position
(even if he/she deserves it), it will not move a consulting engineer to
a lower grade (even if he/she deserves it).

To get approved as a consulting engineer, you have to have additional
qualifications beyond what is covered by the JEC.  Like you have to have
two existing members of the club *oops* I mean consulting engineers
vouch for you.

Actually, I don't care what they call me as long as they pay me what I think
I am worth and do not use my job title as an indicator of how worthwhile
my ideas are.  Some SWE-II's have had some pretty good ideas.  The new salary
range scheme, with widening bands at the higher grades, will help.

    The way it was explained to me is that there was a conscious decision 
    to leave the the Corporate Review Committee process in place.  Both 
    engineers of non-consulting grade and engineers of consulting grade 
    will be going through the JEC process.  Apparently it is possible as 
    a result of the JEC process for someone to be recommended for review 
    by a Corporate Review Committee.  It is also in theory possible for 
    someone of consulting grade to be recommended for review to have there 
    consulting status removed.  

   -Bob

< Note 428.0 by BUSY::KLEINBERGER "Have a MAXCIMum Day!" >


Rumor has it that not all wage class 4 exempt employees are going through 
the JEC process. I hear that sales personnel and fs unit/district managers
do not have to go through the process. Is JEC doing everyone or is it 
truly selective - if selective about wage class 4, how come we are seeing
a discriminate selectiom?
  

Also another rumor indicates that JEC is encountering 
software bugs that may prevent it from being used for fy89 budgeting and 
implementation. IS this true?

al

    Although I am not in Sales myself (I am in Sales Support), I do
    know that the Sales Reps that I support are going through JEC at
    this time

    Both ALL the individual contributors, and the unit managers in our
    software services group in Manalapan NJ have/are going through the
    JEC process.
    
    

From:	HAVOC::CROCKER "Cathy Crocker 223-4432  23-Mar-1988 0837" 23-MAR-1988 08:40
Subj:	USCBC/PMC MEMO ON JEC

Attached is the communication from USCBC and PMC regarding the extension of 
JEC implementation.  It is being sent to all Group Personnel Managers and 
implementation point people in M/E/M.  Please distribute this document to 
your personnel people and to all line managers within your organization as 
soon as possible.



TO:	Personnel/Managers	DATE:	22 March 1988
				FROM:  	Harvey Weiss
					Dick Walsh
				DEPT:	USCBC/PMC
				
SUBJ:	EXTENSION OF JEC IMPLEMENTATION


The Job Evaluation and Classification project represents a
major investment on the part of Digital.  It was undertaken
to ensure that we have the tools and systems in place to
consistently and equitably evaluate work and classify
employees to maintain our competitive position in the
marketplace and ensure internal equity. The ongoing USCBC/PMC
review of the status of JEC indicates that additional time
is needed for completion of the project to ensure the same
high quality results that have been produced thus far in
job descriptions, systems and tools.

Therefore, the USCBC and PMC have decided to extend the
JEC implementation schedule to allow sufficient time for a
thorough integration of benchmark and non-benchmark jobs,
employee classification and organization and functional
reviews.

The extension of JEC implementation does not affect the
timing or scope of this year's salary planning process,
which will occur as scheduled.

Following are questions, with suggested responses, which 
managers should anticipate receiving from affected employees. 
Managers should inform all employees about the JEC
implementation extension as soon as possible.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Q:	WHY HAS JEC IMPLEMENTATION BEEN EXTENDED?

A:	The completion of the job hierarchy for each function
	is a critical milestone in the completion of the JEC
	project. The work requires a thorough understanding
	of how each job relates to the external market, other
	jobs within the function and jobs cross-functionally.
	To date, all benchmark jobs have been evaluated and
	the process of integrating the non-benchmark jobs
	into the functional hierarchies has begun. The final
	integration of all jobs, which includes an assessment 
	of external market relationships and internal 
	cross-functional relationships, is not yet complete.
	To maintain the quality of the final product, the
	decision was made to extend the completion of JEC
	implementation.

Q:	WHAT IMPACT WILL THE JEC EXTENSION HAVE ON SALARY 
	PLANNING?

A:	The salary planning process will be conducted as 
	scheduled during Q4.  Exempt employees will be planned 
	in their current, non-JEC, job codes against current
	salary ranges which will be updated to reflect the
	competitive market position.

Q:	WHAT IS THE NEW JEC IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE?

A:	During the next several weeks, the JEC project team,
	the USCBC and PMC will assess the remaining work and time
	required to complete JEC. Examples of this work include: 
	completion of benchmark and non-benchmark job integration; 
	creation of the final job hierarchy; employee classification;
	organization and functional reviews; and, impact analysis.
	Once the assessment is complete, a revised JEC
	implementation schedule will be issued.

Q:	WHAT HAPPENS TO OTHER JOB STUDIES WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD
	PENDING THE RESULTS OF JEC?

A:	There are no approved job studies other than JEC. The
	JEC process should be used to identify any work which
	has materially changed over time or new work which
	requires evaluation, creation of job descriptions and
	placement into the new hierarchy.

Q:	WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE WORK ALREADY COMPLETED, i.e.,
	JOQ's, AND ECIF's?

A:	Managers should retain documents such as JOQ's and
	ECIF's until employee classification resumes. At that
	time, managers will review the documents for accuracy, 
	taking into account changes in employees' work which 
	may have occured in the interim. Such changes may 
	require new JOQ's and/or ECIF's at that time.

Q:	SHOULD EMPLOYEES CONTINUE TO COMPLETE JOQ's?

A:	When classification resumes, JOQ's will be required.
	Managers have the option of continuing the JOQ process
	now or waiting until the revised implementation
	schedule is released.  However, if an employee changes
	jobs before classification resumes, a new JOQ will be
	required.

Q:	SHOULD MANAGERS CONTINUE TO SUBMIT ECIF's AND CLASSIFY
	EXEMPT EMPLOYEES ON ECS?

A:	Managers should stop submitting ECIF's (Employee
	Classification Input Form) until a revised implementation
	schedule is released.  The ECS (Employee Classification
	System) will freeze records on all employees who have
	been classified into new JEC job codes to date.  These
	classification decisions should be reviewed once the
	classification process is reactivated, and any appropriate
	changes made at that time.

Q:	WILL JIS BE ACCESSIBLE DURING THE EXTENSION?

A:	Yes, JIS will be accessible and new non-benchmark job 
	descriptions will be added as they are completed. However, 
	job descriptions on JIS will be subject to review and 
	editing until classification resumes. Managers should 
	use the extension period to become familiar with the job 
	descriptions, make suggestions about desired content 
	and/or wording changes to the descriptions and indicate
	cases where work content has not yet been added to JIS.

They could've saved me reading a lot of lines if they'd have just said

	"JEC is slipping."

It's not like we've never slipped a ship date :^)

    re: JEC for individuals
    
    JEC puts pressure on middle managers: they win only if all their
    people in are the "right" classifications. If someone is
    underclassified then the 2and level managers ought to have provided
    more opportunity for the person's talents to be put to use or to
    have recognized that their work deserved a higher classification.
    If some is overclassified then the middle management also failed.
    Since JEC is essentially done BY middle managers, there will be
    a tendency towards concluding that all is right. 
    
    On the other hand, modification of the classifications themselves
    to uniform sets of expectations and definitions should be workable.
    
    	Rick
    	Merrill
    

    re: .67
    
>   JEC puts pressure on middle managers: they win only if all their
>   people in are the "right" classifications. If someone is

    I think you have hit the nail on the head here.  When I asked my
    manager during JEC review if anyone was changing levels because
    of JEC, the answer was "no".  Another manager from our district
    made mention that all of the managers had gotten together and had
    pretty much done all the classifications before any of the booklets
    had even been returned.  Status quo, and DEC out a few million bucks.
    
    I wouldn't doubt that most of the middle managers have taken some
    steps to see that JEC doesn't turn out to be a big embarrasment
    to them.  Some of those steps could have been beneficial;  I know
    a small flurry of promotions in our district went through before
    the JEC reviews.  Most of those promotions went to people who in
    my opinion were overdue for them.  I also heard of a little coaching
    done for people in the higher ranks so that they wouldn't lose those
    higher ranks by putting the wrong "action verbs" in their booklets,
    but that's another story ...
    
    I guess we have at least been fortunate in that nobody I know of
    has been reduced in rank because of JEC so far.
    
    Geoff

    428.69 was a entry error.  Please disregard.  
    
    This is my 13th year with Digital.  The majority of which has been
    in Field Personnel.  The last year I have been heavily involved
    with the implementation of JEC in the Field.
    
    I have monitored the notes on this subject over the last few
    weeks...since I learned how to get into it.  My intent has been
    to to try to understand the perceptions of JEC by the employees.
    Hopefully, better understanding of the perceptions will enable us
    to focus our commuinications on what is needed.
    
    The objectives of JEC are straight forward.  We want a process that
    will:                                                        
    A - Consistently and fairly evaluate jobs, ie, value our work
    B - Consistently and fairly classify employees, ie, place employees
        in job codes and titles which truly reflect their work.
    Without this it is extremely difficult to compare the work and pay
    of our employees to the market place.  We need this comparison to
    insure competitive compensation.
    
    JEC is not aimed at reducing cost.  This is obvious from the fact
    we have spet a great amount of money and time to develop JEC.  It
    is further proven from the position we have taken to not reduce
    current salaries for those employees who may be over the maximum
    of their new salary ranges.  If we wanted to reduce costs it would
    be much easier to simply reduce the size of next year's salary spend
    plan.
    
    Many of our employees' career paths take them across functions and
    organizations.  It is imperative that we have a consistent method
    of evaluating work.  Equally important is a consistent method of
    classifying/placing employees.  Otherwise we spend useless time 
    and energy competing against ourselves.
    
    

    I'd like to thank the author of .69 for the most cogent explanation
    of the process thus far!        :-)
    
    

.72>>                   -< re .71:  I think you mean .70 >-

I think he meant .69, which originally said 

Z

Which is a pretty good description of JEC... vague, totally non-standard,
and subject to any interpretation you care to give it.

Add to that the fact that managers are simply looking at the JOQ and saying,
"Yup your a 'Z', and this makes you a 'Z'"

I see no way for managers across the country to make competant, uniform 
decisions about a particular position based on the information gathered
via the JOQ.  I can write my job down on two forms, using different "action
verbs", include all responsibilities truthfully, and have my position come
out to be anything from a Spec II to a Consultant III!

Useless...  May as well be described as 

Z

    The completion of the JOQ by the employee is only the first step
    in the classification process.  After completion of the form, the
    employee and the manager meet to discuss, and hopefully agree on,
    what the work content of the job actually is.  The JOQ is simply
    a source document to support the discussion.  Next, the manager
    matches the work content of the job to a job description.  The
    job descriptions fairly specific.  The description contains:
    a - A summary statement of the job
    b - Most of the tasks performed in the job
    c - Specific definitions of what differentiates the particular job
        in the areas of:
        o Qualifications required to perform the job
        o Problem solving complexity of the job
        o Management and/or influence of people required by the job
        o Effect on financial results 
        o Participation in decision making
    
    People who actually do the work, and managers who manage the work,
    participated in the development and approval of these job descriptions.
    Therefore, they should be pretty accurate.
    
    If the employee and manager do a good job of describing the work,
    be it the JOQ process or something else, the matching of that work
    to a job description (classification of the employee) should be
    realatively easy.  If you leap to the assumption that most folks
    are honest as to how they describe their work, and most managers
    will take the time to read the appropriate job descriptions, there
    should be consistency across functions, organizations and geographies.
    To further insure that consistency has been achieved there will
    be a thorough review of all classifications by multiple levels of
    managers before we finalize the classification process.
    
    This process doesn't seem vague to me.
    
    As far as being non-standard....The only standard which exists today
    for classification of employees is the judgement and discretion
    of over 6,000 managers.  Every manager in the U.S. should have attended
    a training session, and received a reference manual, to assist them
    in actualizing this classification process.  Every manager has access
    to the approved job descriptions via VTX.  Therefore, they are all
    working from the same "base".  It seems to me we are setting the
    standard for proper classification with JEC.~

>>    The completion of the JOQ by the employee is only the first step
>>    in the classification process.  After completion of the form, the
>>    employee and the manager meet to discuss, and hopefully agree on,
>>    what the work content of the job actually is.  The JOQ is simply
>>    a source document to support the discussion.  Next, the manager
>>    matches the work content of the job to a job description.

>>    To further insure that consistency has been achieved there will
>>    be a thorough review of all classifications by multiple levels of
>>    managers before we finalize the classification process.


  So, tell me... when this "consistency assurance" is being "achieved,"
  what document are these "mutiple levels of managers" going to use if
  its not the "vague" JOQ?

  I think consistant job classifications are a must, and I agree totally
  with the concept of JEC.  However, for a project that is taking so much
  of Digitals resources in terms of time and money,  the basic document
  on which all of this classification is based should have been much more
  specific and detailed.   

  I've worked with the form, and I stand by my original assertion that the
  JOQ is vague at best, and for the most part, useless.

  The bottom line is that the current process is not working, and if Digital
  is really serious about this re-classification (and they SHOULD be).. then
  we're just going to have to do it over again!  (sigh!)


>>    This process doesn't seem vague to me.

  I suggest you look again.   Of course, the JOQ probably works very well for
  the people who assembled it.  I wonder why that is....?

    Re: .74
    
>						  Every manager has access
>    to the approved job descriptions via VTX.  Therefore, they are all
>    working from the same "base".
    
    Except that they're not all on-line yet...
    
    -  David

    Each classification requires the approval of your immediate manager,
    their manager and a personnel representative.  The logic supporting
    this approval process is that these are the people most familiar
    with your work, therefore, most capable of making the correct choice.
    What they will be reviewing is the JOQ, the job description and a 
    Employee Classification Input Form (ECIF). The ECIF contains 
    identification information, ie, name, badge #, cost center, current 
    job code and the proposed job code. 
    
    Perhaps, as a developer, I am a bit bias about the comprehensiveness 
    of the JOQ. However, it does require you to prioritize your major
    responsibilities and the time allotted to each.  It asks you to
    describe the descisions you are required to participate in.  It
    asks you to describe the types, and complexities of, of problems
    you encounter.  As well, it encourages you to describe aspects of
    your job that haven't been covered in other parts of the questionnaire.
    This information coupled with the conversation with your manager
    should capture your work well enough to make an intelligent match
    to a well written job description.  If you don't think it's enough,
    supply other documents such as  your job plan or performance appraisal.
    
    There are currently over 700 exempt job codes/titles used in the
    company.  I'm not sure it would be possible to develop a questionnaire
    which would precisely capture every component of ever job.  No it's
    not "rocket scientist" technology, but, it's a lot better than         
    what exists currently.      
    
    To be as precise and consistent as possible would require removing
    all management judgement and discretion from the classification
    process.  In other words, you would complete a questionnaire, your
    manager would review and approve it, the questionnaire would be
    checked and scored by a computer, your responses would be evaluated
    against the common factors (described in .74) and you would be
    automatically classified.  This option was considered when we initally
    developed JEC.  The overwhelming response was if we don't allow
    participatiion, controlled discretion and judgement it will never
    work at DEC.  That's how we got to where we are. 
    

    180 have been up since mid Dec. 87.  200 more were added two weeks
    ago.  50 more are being written now.  As additional work is identified,
    the descriptions will be written and added to the Job Information
    System (JIS).
    
    

    Not sure if this reply will last or not
    if it isn't appropriate please delete it mr mod.
    
    I was one of the lucky ones to fill out the jpq
    
    - the long form :^) -
    
    It said it should take about 2 hrs to do it, wrong I spent
    2 weeks doing it.
    
    My group had problems because we are an internal group.
    We don't make anything the real world buys. And the long
    form was written in such a way that it assumes you have direct
    effect on company profits.
    
    Well I finally got it done and then they tell me someone messed
    up and no one who filled out the long form will have it sent
    to corporate. 
    
    I have since been reclassified and I can see where all the questions
    lead to from the long form.
    
    long form question:
    how do you effect company profits
    a 0-100000
    b 100001-whatever
    
    
    the new description
     a ******** should have $$$$$$ on company profit.
    
    I guess engineering wasn't really effected 
    I just mark it up to frustration
    mike

    I think the descriptions in .80 suffer from the "higher, faster,
    deeper" syndrome.  If consultants have to supervise 25-200 people,
    they can't hope to remain technically competent.  
    
    
    MATT

    For those of you who missed it, reply .80 contained a number of
    the NEW JEC related job descriptions. This information is not
    intended to be widely distributed. If you are a manager or other
    member of the access list to the restricted database where they
    are stored then you can get to them. They should not be posted
    here. Please do not post them here.
    
    		Alfred Thompson
    		co-moderator HUMAN::DIGITAL

    The stuff came to me via mail and there was no mention that it was
    restricted data.  Now the question is why are the new descriptions
    restricted?

The story as I understand it is that the data is temporarily restricted in
order to prevent knowledge of the positions from affecting the questionnaire
period.

After JEC implementation, all job and salary information (except individual
salaries) will be accessible to all via VTX.

/john

    The job descriptions are not finalized yet.  The intent is to give
    all employees access to the job descriptions after the implementation
    of JEC.  The reasons for after are:
    a - more descriptions are being as "unknown" work is identified
    b - some of the existing descriptions are being enhanced as feedback
        is received as to their accuracy and comprehensiveness
    c - during implementation over 6,000 managers and 1,200 personnel
        employees will be using the system (JIS) heavily.  We don't
        want to bog the system down.
    
    Salary range iformation will not be put on the job descriptions.
    Logic:  The classification decision is based upon matching the work
            performed to a job description.  Salary range information
            is not relevant to this decision.

    I've heard some VERY negative comments about JEC recently. The
    consensus appears to be that this process will never really be
    implemented because the powers that be were finding too many people
    were being paid LESS than they were worth which would require massive
    readjustments to salaries across the board.
    
    Can anyone provide information to the contrary? Any case histories
    that can be reported here?
    
    							Warren
    

        Since JEC has not yet been implemented, I don't see how anyone
        could relate case histories. 
        
        However, some updates on the implementation schedule would be more
        than welcome. 
        
        Tom

	Moved by moderator.
    
================================================================================
Note XXX.0                          *JEC* ???                         No replies
EFUDD::PAI                                           14 lines   5-JUL-1988 15:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    What's happening with JEC ?
    
    I am close to wrapping up my third year at DEC, and when I first
    heard about the program, I was skeptical about something of such
    scope being pulled off successfully in the projected time frames.
    A lot of us went through time-consuming exercises of filling out
    forms, etc.
    
    I have now "heard" that nothing is expected to come out of it for
    "some time atleast". 
        
    Can someone shed some light on this ?  

                   I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                   I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                         Date:      27-May-1988 11:00am EDT
                                         From:      DICK WALSH 
                                                    WALSH.DICK AT A1 AT PRYDE AT OGO 
                                         Dept:      SSMI PERSONNEL
                                         Tel No:    276-9904

TO: See Below

Subject: JEC IMPLEMENTATION




      ***THIS MESSAGE IS FROM THE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE***
      ROB AYRES, CAROL BURKE, DICK FARRAHAR, JOHN SIMS & DICK WALSH


This March a decision was made by the United States Compensation and 
Benefits Committee and the Personnel Management Committee to extend the 
implementation of the Job Evaluation and Classification (JEC) project.  
The decision was made to ensure the continuation of a high-quality 
program.  During the extension, as a result of feedback from managers and 
employees, enhancements have been made to the program to facilitate 
implementation.

During the next few months, the Job Evaluation phase of JEC will be 
completed.  Job Evaluation will result in adding job descriptions to the 
Job Information System (JIS), insuring that relationships between jobs 
are appropriate and placing jobs in the new salary/job structure.

Upon completion of the Evaluation phase of JEC, exempt employees will be 
classified into appropriate JEC job codes, beginning with a small 
representative group to insure that classification tools and resources 
are performing well.  Managers will complete the majority of exempt 
employees classification during Q2.

The JEC project team will provide additional implementation information, 
including the project plan and schedule, in the near future.

Once again, we wish to thank you for your continued support of this 
critical program.  Our challenge is to provide the program management 
leadership necessary to make JEC a success.

Please distribute this message throughout your organization.
                                    


    

    According to our group manager at our recent cost-center meeting,
    JEC evaluations resulted in two of our managers getting promotions.
    Take that for what it's worth.
    
    				Steve

In the August 15 issue of MISweek, page 9, there is an article headlined:
    
    "DEC May Ask Up To 10000 To Take Early Retirement"

    In the article, a Digital spokesman is quoted as denying the rumors.
    Further into the article, JEC is discussed, saying that this early
    retirement "may be the first results of the JEC program".
    
    Perhaps this is why there's been so much silence lately around a program
    that caused so much noise back in April and May??!!
    
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=gary=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    Robert Randolph has based his conclusion entirely on the the obvious
    recent increase in cost of sales.  Randolph ties this into the usual
    DEC-bashing stuff, for example "fighting IBM has diluted efforts in the
    field to maintain strong account control in the technical computing
    base." 
    
    Bill Dooley then drags in JEC as a front for an early retirement
    program.  Since JEC was suspended, the most sinister meaning to
    that must be attached.
    
    I though the consensus on JEC was that it was just too big a meal
    of data to digest.

    Are there really 10,000 people in DEC within say, 5 years of
    retirement?
    
    I do not know even one person who would qualify.
    
    Other than manufacturing and Upper, upper management, I find it
    hard to believe that ANY part of Digital has a near-retirement
    population of around 8%.
    
    --  Barry

    Re: .94
    
    Even though the story may be ***WAY*** off base (or even true),
    why don't we see Public relations getting to these people and
    
    1. straighten them out,
    2. establish future channels of communication to stop more occurances,
    3. get a retraction printed.
    
    This DEC bashing stuff is really getting ridiculous, and causing
    our stock to really slump (off another 2 1/2 to 95!)
    
    Why isn't Jim Osterhoff concerned about the non-truths as well as
    cutting costs?  I don't have much respect for people who don't do
    everything in their power to correct a perception.  Why don't we
    announce to the world the cost cutting measures like the demise
    of Plan A?  At least we could get some positive PR about a negative!
    

    re: < Note 428.95 by POBOX::RJAMES "PSS - Professional's Sell Solutions!" >

>                                                        Why don't we
>    announce to the world the cost cutting measures like the demise
>    of Plan A?  At least we could get some positive PR about a negative!

    Maybe someone did.  Five different headhunters from Dallas to Phoenix
    called me up the week after I got my letter, and *they* all knew ...

    JEC is still alive and well and clogging up toilets everywhere,
    according to local management.  I had heard a rumor that a review
    of total JC changes in the first pass basically showed little total
    change in the overall structure, and that several people at the top
    were aghast at the amount of money we've spent for so few results.
    It certainly is beginning to look like another "exercise" to me.
    
    Geoff

re .95:
    >>	This DEC bashing stuff is really getting ridiculous, and causing
    >>	our stock to really slump (off another 2 1/2 to 95!)
  
    I believe the 2.5 drop yesterday is more attributable to the WSJ
    "Heard on the Street" comment than anything in MIS Week.
    
    Marge
    

                              VNS COMPUTER NEWS
                       Tracy Talcott, VNS Computer Desk
                               Nashua, NH, USA

                              Wednesday's Market

      Quote     Change     Dow Jones    Change     85% of FMV 31-May-88

 DEC   95       -2 7/8     2025.96      + 4.45     $87.25 (85% of $102.437)
 IBM  114 5/8   -1 1/8

 DEC - Signs of slower growth prompt a few analysts to lower estimates

 As the Federal Reserve applies the brakes to the economy, one stock
 that seems to be responding is DEC. DEC shares hit a two-year low of
 97 and, despite an uptick Tuesday, remain 51% below last summer's peak
 of 199 1/2.

 With the glory days of their great growth behind them, giant computer
 companies such as DEC and IBM have become highly cyclical, their
 performance dependent on how the rest of the economy fares.

 Although DEC reported earnings that equaled expectation for the fourth
 quarter of fiscal 1988, ended July 2, it has begun signaling that its
 revenue growth, 22% last year, will slow down. That prompted a few
 analysts to scale back their earnings estimates.

 "They have started preparing people for rougher times ahead," said
 Susie Peterson Case, who follows makers of mid-size computers, known
 as minicomputers, at First Boston. She recently lowered her earnings
 estimate for fiscal 19889 to $10 a share from $10.90, and rates the
 stock a hold. "The order picture is not good. The revenue line is
 slowing and the expenses aren't."

 At a time when IBM has been trying to cut costs and trim its work
 force, DEC has geared up to battle IBM by massive hiring. DEC added
 11,000 people last year to a work force that now totals 121,500. Those
 new costs help squeeze margins. In the latest quarter, profit rose
 only 6% on a 25% pickup in revenue.

 Barry William, who follows minicomputers at Sanford C. Bernstein, cut
 his fiscal 1989 earnings estimate to $10.25 from $11.65. One reason is
 that he had expected DEC to announce a new high-end computer system in
 that year, but now doesn't expect this until fiscal 1990.

 Another analyst, John Levinson of Goldman Sachs, said he expects the
 entire minicomputer industry to "slow down significantly over the next
 six months or so." He says the rising dollar will hurt export sales,
 and decelerating U.S. corporate profit growth will hurt domestic
 orders.

 A spokesman for DEC confirms that the company has become more
 "conservative" in its expected revenue growth after recently falling
 short of its own "aggressive" goals. However, DEC says the stronger
 dollar hasn't yet hurt overseas sales measurably.

 Some holders seem discouraged. David Linehan, who follows computer
 stocks at Kemper Financial services, says, "My viewpoint is that the
 psychology is going to remain fairly negative. There is no large
 company with a dramatic product cycle to lead the whole technology
 group." Kemper owned 942,000 DEC shares at the end of March.

 Where is the bottom?

 Mr. Levinson, who recommended sale of DEC in the spring of 1987 at
 about 165, says that even at these levels, he remains "uninterested."
 He says it's still "premature" to buy DEC. While it may look cheap to
 some at half its peak 1987 price, he notes that it still trades at 80%
 of the market price-earnings ratio based on the past 12 months'
 earnings, as it did a year ago.

 Jay Stevens of Dean Witter Reynolds notes that six times in the past
 10 years, DEC stock has bottomed at 1.5 times book value. With book
 value currently just below $60 a share, that would be encouraging - if
 it weren't for the fact that on four occasions the stock hit a low
 within 10% of book value. "A lot of people know that and they're
 scared to death," he says.

 Mr. Stevens says it doesn't help that earnings in the four quarters of
 calendar 1988 could well fall below the four quarters of 1987. He
 remains neutral on the stock.

 But Carol Muratore of Morgan Stanley says, "It really is undervalued.
 If you've got a time horizon of 12 months, you should be buying it
 here. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people with shorter horizons
 who would rather be buying it at 120 with some earnings momentum." She
 doesn't expect earnings momentum from DEC for another six months.

 One of the big questions about DEC is how much growth remains in big,
 expensive computers compared with smaller workstations and personal
 computers. While DEC is one of the largest vendors of workstations,
 other companies like Compaq Computer and Sun Microsystems are more
 focused on that fast-growing segment.

 However, Mr. William of Sanford C. Bernstein believes DEC, more than
 some other minicomputer makers, stands to gain from the proliferation
 of high-performance workstations being networked and connected to
 mainframes and high-performance computer services.

 As a result, he recommends DEC stock - but only in the long run. For
 the short term, like so many others, he remains "cautious over the
 next couple of quarters."

 {The Wall Street Journal, Heard on the Street column, 17-Aug-88, p.43}

    re: .94
>        Are there really 10,000 people in DEC within say, 5 years of
>    retirement?

    I started 15 years ago, and my badge # is in the low 26000's. I
    was told then that there were 20000 Digital employees.
    Extrapolating, that means that there are a maximum of some 24000
    possible 15 year employees company wide.
    What's the attrition rate after 15 years? I'd bet it's in the 50%
    to 75% range. That means perhaps 6k to 12k people around. 
    Now, most of them will be in their early to middle 40's...no time
    to retire. 
    I really think there are very few, say 3k to 4k people approaching
    55 or older, with the requisite 10 or more years, who would be
    candidates for such a move.  
    Is my logic right?
    
    =-=-=-=-=-g=-=-=-=-=

    Lets look at this a little differently.  DuPont offered early
    retirement incentives twice a few years ago.  They trimmed a HUGE
    number of people from their payroll.  In the neighborhood of 30,000
    people in two "purges".(although I can't remember because I didn't
    care very much)  We are now doing it a little differently...I like
    to call it the musical chairs approach to manpower depletion.  We
    go through these massive reorganizations and our people are so caught
    up in learning their new jobs and meeting their new workmates that
    they don't notice that some of the people stayed behind.  Some of
    the people moved over.  Some of them moved away.  And some were
    told to get a job!  

    
    "Early retirement" doesn't have to be something you offer to
    folks within n years of age 65. It can be a term for offering
    selected employees a deal that looks good for them in the short
    term and good for the company in the longer term... ie. "how
    about we give you $xx,xxx in a lump sum today and you go find
    a job at some other company in exchange". The key attributes 
    here are selecting the people, selecting the incentive, and playing
    your cards right with the employees you'd like to keep.
    
       jc
    

TO:    ALL SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS
FROM:              
SUBJ:  JEC ANNOUNCEMENT

                             JEC LIVES!!!                            
 
This is to announce the restart of the Job Evaluation/Classification (JEC)
program.

This memo includes some information on the tools available to you for 
implementation, some brief observations on the work already completed for
this project, an announcement re training for NEW MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS,
and the Storage/MEM timetable of JEC events.

                *******************************
                * Please read the entire memo.*
                *******************************

TOOLS

Job Overview Questionnaires  (JOQs)

JOQ Addendums  (A longer questionnaire to be used only to clarify and facilitate
                a decision on proper classification)

Job Information System (JIS) This VTX system now contains 475 job descriptions
                             covering 80% of the US exempt employees.

Reference Tables   Shows where the work of current jobs was evaluated and
                   classified in the new JEC codes.

Functional Notes    Provides pertinent notes from the line committee that
                    evaluated the jobs in a certain function 
                             
Job Structures      Shows hierarchy of jobs by function

OBSERVATIONS

JEC applies to all U.S. Exempt employees including: 
        Active, Short/Long Term Disability, Leave of Absence,
        Worker's Compensation.

The only U.S. Exempt employees who DO NOT have to fill out a JOQ are:
        ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS AND MEMBERS OF TECHNICAL STAFF (MTS)

Team Leaders or Group Managers should still have the completed JOQs and
ECIFs from the initial phase of Jec.

Only new employees to your organization, and employees whose work has 
substantially changed need fill out JOQs.

If the employee's work has NOT changed and he or she filled out a JOQ
last spring, another JOQ will NOT be needed.

The new tools and processes have been tested a various sites.  Springfield
was the test site for Storage.

Your Personnel Client Managers will be working with you to plan how JEC
will get implemented in your organizations.

                         ACTION ITEM!                       

If you are a NEW SUPERVISOR or NEW MANAGER and have never had JEC training
or if you have new supervisors/managers in your group:

         A ONE TIME TRAINING SESSION ON JEC WILL BE HELD ON 
                       MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1988
                       SHREWSBURY AMPHITHEATER
                       1:00 TO 4:00 PM
        ------------------------------------------------------

JEC instructions and Manuals will be handed out by your client managers when
you meet to plan your organizations' implementation.

TIMETABLE

October 10 - October 21              Personnel Education by JEC Implementation
                                     Managers

October - November                   Line Education by Personnel

November - December                  General Classification
                                     and Individual Review. 2 levels of approval

December - January                   Plant/Business/Functional Individual
                                     Comparative Reviews

January - April                      Pay Program Development

February                             Functional Organizational Review
                                             (Summary Data)
                                      
March                                Manufacturing Staff Review
                                     Engineering Staff Review
                                     Product Marketing Staff Review

April                                Jack Smith Staff Review

May 1 - May 15                       Communication of Final Classification
                                     Decisions to Employees.  (NOTE: this
                                     communication takes place AFTER MEM review
                                     and approval sessions)

May 1 - May 31                       Executive Committee Review (USCBC, PMC)

May 16 - July 31                     ER Problem Resolution                

May 5  - June 30                     Salary and Stock Planning

July l                               JEC Completed


More JEC information and announcements will come out over the next few days.  I
will keep you updated.

Lucy Marshall











    

Any more word on this... it's been 4 months since the last note...

Thanks-

Lee

    Re:< Note 428.103 by SMOOT::ROTH "A fiend in need is a fiend indeed." >

    No other word other  than  JEC  is  alive.  I was asked last month to
    fill again my JEC evaluation because I  changed  jobs since I did one
    last year.
    
    Octavio

    Do you think we'll hear any results in the 20th century??  (^;
    
    							Pat

    Supposedly, by July, all reclassification should be done and new
    salary ranges/levels/titles will be used for the next Salary Planning
    session. 
    
    But my supervisor still won't let me see the job descriptions !
    
    Joan G.
    

re: 428.106

>    But my supervisor still won't let me see the job descriptions !

You may be interested to know that every manager can look up every job 
description in the VTX system.  Don't you know any other managers?

Ray

    re .107
    
    You may be interested to know that every manager was told by personnel
    that those descriptions were not for general distribution until the
    new system went on-line. At that time, every employee would be abl
    to access the descriptions via VTX.
    
    Bob Mc

re: 428.108            -< subject to change w/o notice >-

The deadline in my organization for re-classifying everyone was in 
December.  This re-classification was done based on the job descriptions on 
file, which have been signed off on by practically everyone.

In my opinion, significantly changing a job description *now* would require 
everyone coded against it to be looked at again.  I don't see this 
happening.

In my opinion, showing someone one job description (their own), is not the 
same thing as "general distribution".

Ray

    Latest news in my group...JEC comes alive in April and we'll get
    to see the job descriptions. For Tech Writers, the job descriptions
    underwent some great changes since they first appeared in JEC Part
    I. I think they were waiting for everything to be in place (job
    descriptions approved and job reclassifications approved) before
    releasing the info. to the general public. 
    
    No word if they'll share the salary ranges in April, though. 
    
    joan g.
    

    Will the salary changes be implemented all at once at some point in
    time, or will each person affected get the appropriate change at their
    next annual review? 

	Salary "adjustments" will follow the review cycle, based on my last 
briefing on JEC.  If your current salary is near or over the top of your new
range, bye-bye increases for a while, until the ranges catches up, or you
change jobs. 

	If you are below up new range, I think the next increase must put you 
in the range, and from then on, it's business as usual.

    Policy at DEC has been that if the salary range for the job
    you are in changes in a way that drops you below minimum then
    your manager has three months to move you up to minimum. Even if
    you're not up for a raise in those three months. I got one such
    raise once.

    			Alfred

RE: .-1

	I believe that is a MANAGEMENT option, not a requirement.  Remember
the "party" line - "Promotions and raises are two different things".

	However, doing the right thing usually sees at least a raise to a 
minimum point in a new salary range on the few cases that happen each year.
What will be the attitude towards many THOUSANDS of cases that could arise 
out of JEC?  Financial health of the company will prevail, I'm sure!

        RE: .113 & .144 -- It's policy, not an option.  The relevant
        information is on page 5-10 of Digital's "SALARY MANAGEMENT
        MANUAL", which says
        
        Digital's policy is to raise salaries that are below the minimum
        of the range within three months of the beginning of the salary
        planning year.  Those employees below the minimum of the salary
        range of a job into which they are being promoted must have their
        salary raised to at least the minimum of the new range according
        to guidelines provided in the promotional increase section of this
        manual. 
        
        This is stated again on page 5-12, in BOLD FACE TYPE for emphasis.
        
        The "promotional increase" section states a variety of guidelines,
        all of which include the statement that the salary must be
        increased to *at least* the minimum of the range *at the time of
        promotion*, and allow for an even greater increase at the
        discretion of management.  Given the breadth of many of the salary
        ranges, it's possible to get a promotion without being below
        minimum, but if you're below the minimum of the range for the new
        position, your manager *must* increase your salary at the time of
        promotion.  This is covered in pages 5-13 and 5-14.
        
        If someone wishes to dispute this, please point me to the section
        in the manual that says that a "below minimum" increase is at the
        discretion of the manager. 
        
        Your manager should have a copy of the manual, which was printed
        and distributed for use in FY89 salary planning.  The introduction
        clearly states that the information in the document is available
        to any Digital employee, so your manager should be willing to let
        you read his or her copy. 
        
        RE: .114's assertion that an outcome of JEC is that there will be
        "many THOUSANDS of cases" is interesting; while it's possible that
        there *could* be many cases, I suspect that an outcome of JEC will
        be fewer job classes, with broader salary ranges.  I don't know
        this for a fact -- it is purely speculation on my part.  I trust
        that if there are people who are below "minimum" for their new
        ranges after reclassification, that their salaries will be
        adjusted within three months of the time the new classification
        takes effect, if not immediately.
        
        Tom

Re: -1

Has this 'policy' been in effect for a long time or is this a recent event?

Lee

	RE: .116 I remember having this policy explained to me almost 10
	years ago.

				Alfred

    re: 3 month policy
    
    My memory is a bit sketchy, but it seems to me that a friend of
    mine once told me how he had been promoted w/o the required increase
    to minimum pay levels within the three month time-frame.
    
    After the personnel people became aware of this situation, his manager
    was _informed_ that the increase _would_ occur.  He received a check
    for the difference in pay retroactive to some prior point (don't
    recall when exactly).
    
    All this transpired three or four years ago, as I recall.
    
    -- Russ

        In other words, it has been the policy for a *long* time. But, as
        is clear, not every manager responsible for implementing the
        policy is aware of the policy.  When in doubt, ask to see the
        policy, in writing.  If necessary, ask to take it home over a
        weekend so that you can study it.  It's not supposed to be a
        secret, either from you or from your manager.
        
        Tom

    As a manager, my personal experience with JEC has NOT been positive.
    This is a rough transcript of a conversation which actually took
    place:
    
    P>  You can't classify this person as a XJC1!
    
    Me> Why not?
    
    P>  Why, that's a 'n' level increase in their position!
    
    Me> So?
    
    P>  So?! (Flipping through the pages of the Salary & Levels Book)
    	... that means you're telling me that this person is at the
        same level as a Mumbleraz II from sales? or a Blidjump II from
    	Software Services? Surely you can't be serious!
    
    Me> No, I'm not telling you that at all. In fact, I have no 
    	knowledge of what that equates to in other organizations. Nor
    	do I care. 
    
    P>  Well, we certainly have a problem here ... this'll never pass
    	the "sore thumb test".
    
    Me> The What??
    
    P>  The "sore thumb test"! You know ... the fact that we're taking
    	a person from level 'n' and bringing them up to level 'n + 3'
    	will stick out like a sore thumb on the reports to Country.
    	That will naturally put us in a position of having to JUSTIFY
    	why we're doing that, and I'm sure you don't want to get into
    	that now, do you?
    
    Me> I don't want to hear about sore thumbs and what that equates
    	to in your #(@$* book. Let's get back to what the assignment
    	was. I was told to sit down with the employee and try to get
    	an accurate represenation of what the employee did for a job.
    
    	Then, I was supposed to go to the Job Descriptions and find
    	a good match. We did that. This is the Job Description we picked
    	that is a very accurate picture in my mind and the employee's
    	mind of what they do.
    
    P>	But that position bumps them up 3 levels!!
    
    Me> So WHAT? Did it ever occur to you that just MAYBE this person
    	is doing a job that is far beyond what the company is paying
    	them for? And that just maybe JEC is doing a fine job of pointing
    	that out to us and giving us the opportunity to fix the situation?
    
    P>  Harumph, harumph ... mumble, mumble ... (and out came the Salary
    	& Levels book again! with further discussions on what a big
   	jump this was and more on the "sore thumb" theory of management).
    
    
    In the long run, I absolutely refused to alter my selection of the
    job classification. I heard at one point that Personnel may have
    done me the favor of making the change for me, but I haven't been
    able to verify this yet. I intend to ask for a listing of all the
    new classifications for my organization. If anything has been changed
    without my approval I'll be a VERY unhappy camper and will proably
    post another reply to that effect.
    
    /se
    
                           
    Me> 

	That story is great.  If it wasn't JEC you were talking about, I'd swear
you made it up!  I frankly think the "sore thumb" test is what has caused JEC to 
slip.

    Most of the resondents to this note appearently think that they
    and most other people as grossly underpaid.
    
    What if the reason for the delays is that the company hasn't come
    up with a good way of telling many people that they are overpaid
    and will have to take a big cut, find a job that warrants the pay,
    or find a job elsewhere?

    It's true that it cuts both ways (no pun intended), but:
    
    An explicit promise of JEC was that no one's salary would be reduced
    because of re-classification (although there's the chance that you
    might not get a raise for a *long* time), and:
    
    Considering that management already puts in a fair amount of time
    to assure that no employee is *grossly* overpaid,
    
    I would assume that the JEC implementors won't be faced with telling
    any employee that his wages are being cut.  Rules have been known to
    change, but word *would* get out, and the decline in employee morale
    and trust *wouldn't* be worth it.

    On the other hand, I can see line managers attempting to right some
    old inequities through JEC.  Given the "trickle-down" salary planning
    system that we have, line managers usually can't do much for employees
    who have rapidly developed, or who have been maltreated by previous
    managers, or were hired in at the wrong level, or whatever.  After
    all, isn't that what JEC was originally supposed to accomplish?
    
    Geoff

    I lost all faith in ANY sort of job evaluation about 15 years ago.
    At that time, I was in a corporate MIS department working on a new
    Human Resource system.  In the course of doing so, I needed to develop
    an understanding of the compensation management function and so
    spent several days with one of their analysts learning to do job
    evaluations.
    
    The company was using the Hay Associates system which attempts to
    quantify a job's value in terms of "points" in several categories.
    Tables are provided to help the analyst quantify the various factors,
    and everything looks quite "scientific".  We'd been at it for several
    hours when I realized that certain factors were being plucked out of
    the air.  When I questioned this, the analyst explained that the job we
    were working on was "about a 900 point job" and so he'd chosen the
    critical factors to make it come out "right"! 

    As a result, my expectations for any job classification and/or
    evaluation scheme are minimal.
    
    -dave

Ummm... has anybody heard anything about the new job classifications being
finally done and being put into effect in May?

Thanks-

Lee

    It's definitely July for my group ...although we're still waiting
    to see the job descriptions we were promised for April.
    
    Joan G.
    

    
    What will be the effect to Software Engineers?
    
    /prc

    All salary planning this year will be based on JEC job codes, so
    it's here.

        RE: .127 -- Peter, there's no simply answer to your question.
        If you really want to understand the possibilities, I suggest
        you talk to your supervisor or manager, as well as the person
        from Personnel in your group who's responsible for helping
        to implement JEC.
        
	Tom

    Do they still plan to implement JEC for WC2's ?

    What they told us in the salary planning presentation was that it
    is planned for WC2s, but they want the exempt process to settle
    down before attempting non-exempt.
    
    Bob Mc

            U.S. Field News                   LIVE WIRE

     Job Evaluation and Classification (JEC) project draws to a close

  Initiated three years ago to ensure that Digital had a consistent way to
  evaluate U.S. exempt work and accurately classify exempt employees based
  upon the work performed, the Job Evaluation and Classification (JEC)
  project is nearing completion.

  Some of the project outcomes are:  new job descriptions were created for
  all U.S. exempt jobs; managers have reclassified all U.S. exempt employees
  based on the actual work performed matched to the appropriate job
  description; and Digital has ensured it can match our positions to those in
  other companies to assess the competitiveness of our compensation program.

  Beginning this month, managers will start communicating classification
  decisions to employees, such as the new job codes and the job description.
  July 1, all job codes, both exempt and non-exempt, will changed to four 
  characters.  Non-exempt changes are only to accommodate systems requirements.

I'm going to make some inquiries to see if the new job descriptions are
available online via VTX. I heard a rumor long ago that this would be
happening...

Lee

        From "MGMT MEMO" Vol. 8 # 3 , with the permission and assistance
        of Richard Seltzer, the MGMT MEMO editor.  You should discuss the
        deadlines (July 1 for informing you about your new job code) with
        your supervisor or manager, who SHOULD have received this by now.
        Feel free to extract this note and print it out for your manager
        or supervisor if he or she doesn't seem to know about MGMT MEMO or
        JEC. 
        
        Tom

JEC PROJECT NEARS COMPLETION
     
The Job Evaluation and Classification (JEC) project which started 
three years ago is now nearing completion.  Its purpose is to 
ensure that Digital has a consistent methodology to evaluate U.S. 
exempt work and accurately classify exempt employees based upon 
the actual work they perform.

To date, the project has:
o  evaluated and described over 500 jobs; 
o  developed and implemented the Job Information System (JIS) as 
   a source for on-line job descriptions; 
o  developed a new job structure; 
o  classified over 43,000 employees (based on information they 
   provided on Job Overview Questionnaires); and, 
o  reviewed classification results.

The final step will be communicating classification results to 
employees.  A short document, entitled "Communicating 
Classification Decisions to Employees" has been prepared for 
distribution to all managers. This document is intended to be 
used as a supplement to the JEC Binder and "Employee 
Classification Guidelines for Managers" which were distributed 
previously. It will be given to managers by Personnel during 
salary planning training, along with new salary ranges and salary 
planning guidelines.  

All job codes, both exempt and non-exempt, will change to four 
characters effective July 1.  Non-exempt codes will be changed 
solely to accommodate systems requirements in order to fit on the 
new Job Table. No changes to non-exempt job content, descriptions 
or salary ranges have been made.

All new job codes (both exempt and non-exempt) will be available 
on the Salary Management System (SMS) for salary planning in May. 
Since these new job codes will appear on employee paycheck 
stubs in the second week in July, it is essential that managers 
communicate changes in job codes to employees before July 1.
                                                 
While the project phase of job evaluation and employee 
classification is coming to an end, the systems and tools which 
have been developed should help Digital to effectively manage 
these activities in the future.
 

    Has anyone out there gotten their new JEC job code yet?
    
    P@

  A am now a 52AF, whatever the heck that means.

Here's a small tidbit:

During the JEC process managers have been logging into somthing called
the 'JIS - Job Information System' to view template jobs. It is reachable
via the 'JIS' keyword in VTX.

For grins, I fired it up a few moments ago and noticed the following text
as part of the login screen:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Job Information System   |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|

"On July 11, 1989, this JIS login screen will be removed.
JIS will become a non-restricted infobase."

[normal text deleted]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


It would appear that (maybe) the new job descriptions will be viewable
via VTX then.

Lee

    RE: 52AF
    
    A 52AF is a Software Consultant  Job Type E  FLSA Status: Exempt
    Goverment Code 02
    
    Hope that helps...
    
    Gale

    re:.139
    
    What? The guvmint is influencing our job codes? GOOD GRIEF!

    RE: 140
    
    Every new code in the JEC you will see after the 11th of July has
    a Goverment Code with it.  Don't know why, but they are there in
    every job I just randomly checked...
    
    Gale

    Probably the 'wage class' code. Exempt or non-exempt.

    RE: 142
    Nope, the exempt or non-exempt code comes from the FLSA rating....
    
    

    The government code, as in "government code 02" stands for, in this
    case "professional"  
    
    There are a list of codes, 01 thru 09, which translate as follows:
    
    01 - supervisors/managers
    02 - professionals
    
    01 & 02 are Exempt, Wage Class 4 positions.
    
    03 - technicians
    
    04 - sales
    
    05 - Clerical
    
    06 - Crafts persons 
    
    07 - Operatives
    
    08 - Laborer
    
    09 - Service Worker
                       
    These government codes have jobs that are non-exempt.  They are
    used when preparing affirmative action plans or when providing
    EEO information to the government.
                                      
    Regards,
    
    Carla
    

    Government have always been there...the previous lists of old JC's
    had them but it was not spelled out  just GC...no one even knew
    what it was there for! :-)
    /tb/
    
    
    

   So, is a really creative engineer/programmer a "Crafts person", while perhaps
a "brute force" programmer is a "laborer"?  (That's meant half-serious,
half-:-)


					-mjg

Re: .138

The JIS infobase on VTX seems to be accessable now....

$ VTX JIS  may do the trick for you...

It offers various keyword lookups and you can mail job descriptions
to yourself.

Lee

        Well, JEC has proved itself worthless.   It seems that managers
        were discouraged from assigning job codes outside the norms of
        the organization.  The tasks for my job code don't match my
        responsibilities, yet there is a perfectly good "Engineering"
        code that has tasks which define my responsibilities perfectly.
        
        _Mike (SWS/E and still with a "SWS" job code)

    re .148:
    
    If you truly feel that way and can find a description on VTX that
    appropriately describes your work, I'd encourage you to use the formal
    escalation process that is part of the JEC changeover.
    
    Marge

        JEC changed my job description from one that was mostly
        wrong to one that is mostly right.

    Hmmmm...  $ VTX JIS doesn't seem to work for me.  I still get a message
    saying that JIS is available only to managers and personnel.  It must
    vary, depending on location.

I just tried it and it worked.

The response following this one contains the main JIS screen; it is FILTHY with
escape sequences.

When the next note comes up, type EXTRACT TT: at the notes prompt to view
it on your tube.

(If the moderators dislike a note with all of that mush in it then just delete
 please.)

Lee

)0#6lqwqwqwqwqwqwqk
#6 Job Information System xdxixgxixtxaxlx
#6mqvqvqvqvqvqvqj
For Internal Use Only

  View Job Descriptions                  About the Job Information System, JIS
  qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
     1   Grouped by Job Function 6   News Bulletin
update 05-JUL-1989
     2   Alphabetized by Job Title
 7   Overview of JIS Content
     3   By entering a Job Code
 8   Policies and Procedures
     4   By entering a word from                   for classifying employees
the Job Title
System Features
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
  Mail Job Descriptions  9   How to Return to JIS Main Menu
  qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq 10   How to Print or Mail
     5   By entering one or more 11   How to Use VTX
Job Codes 12   Your Feedback
 qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
 Type the number of your selection and press  RETURN   To exit, press  PF1  . 

    
    	     I too was skeptical about JEC but can happily say I am
    now correctly classified. I did push back on the initial selection
    and after re-evaluation was upgraded one level.
    
    One thing that made a BIG difference in my case is that *supposedly*
    you only need a minimum of 50% of a match with the various job
    descriptions. While I did not meet 100% of the final selection I
    did meet well over 50%.
    
    							Warren
    

If I do a VTX JEC, I get a message saying it is open only to managers and
personnel reps.

Bob

I am assuming you are typing 'VTX JIS' not 'VTX JEC' as you said.

There are basically two flavors of 'standardized' VTX menu/keyword bases in the
company.  Each menu has a specific look and set of keywords. 'JIS' is probably a
keyword in both, however each base probably has that keyword pointing to a
different page within VTX, so some people get the 'normal' page and some get the
message that you got. It may take a few more days for your system to get the
updated set of pointers so you get to the correct spot in JIS.

Lee

Yep, I meant 'JIS'.  When I tried it yesterday, I got the 'you can't get in'
message.  I just tried it and now I have the real menu.  Thanks,

Bob

                       JEC project concludes successfully
    
  The Job Evaluation and Classification (JEC) project has come to a successful 
  conclusion.

  Initiated in 1986, JEC was created to ensure that Digital has a consistent 
  methodology to evaluate U.S. exempt work and accurately classify exempt 
  employees based upon the actual work they perform. 

  Employees and managers have participated in both the development and 
  delivery of the JEC project. Several thousand employees completed 
  questionnaires describing the work content of their jobs. Selected 
  managers, with the help of Personnel, reviewed these questionnaires to 
  develop up-to-date job descriptions.

  Some of the outcomes of the effort over the last three years are:

    o 	New job descriptions have been developed for all U.S. exempt 
    	jobs. They are available through the Job Information System 
      	(JIS), a database which all employees can access in Q1 FY90 via 
      	VTX. JIS is available now. 

    o 	Managers have classified 46,000 U.S. exempt employees based on 
      	the actual work being performed matched to the appropriate job 
      	description.

    o 	Our confidence in matching positions in other companies to 
      	assess the competitiveness of our compensation program has 
      	increased.

    o   We have a consistent process across Digital in the U.S. 
        for evaluating exempt work and classifying employees.

    Since May, managers have been communicating classification decisions 
    to their exempt employees.  This has included what their new job code 
    is, the job description and why managers believe the classification is 
    appropriate.

    All job codes, both exempt and non-exempt, changed to four characters 
    effective July 1.  Non-exempt codes are changing solely to accommodate 
    Personnel systems requirements. No changes have been made to non-exempt 
    job content, descriptions or salary ranges.

    While the project phase of job evaluation and employee classification is 
    at an end, the systems and tools that have been developed and are now in 
    place provide Digital with the ability to effectively manage these 
    important activities into the future.

    The JEC Project Team wishes to thank all employees and managers 
    who participated in the project for their valuable work.  

    Employees who have questions about their new job classification, 
    job code or job description should speak to their managers.


                  Job Information System now available on VTX

  One of the major outcomes of the Job Evaluation and Classification (JEC) 
  Project is the Job Information System (JIS).  JIS is now available to all 
  Digital employees on the Corporate and U.S. area VTX networks.

  JIS is an on-line catalog of over 400 current job descriptions for exempt 
  positions in the U.S.  These descriptions conform to consistent standards 
  and include a brief summary of the job, individual task statements, and a 
  clear description of any special requirements or skills needed.  During the 
  JEC project, managers used JIS as a tool to classify employees into the new 
  job structure.  

  JIS is also a career development tool for employees.  By identifying specific 
  skills required and tasks performed, employees can target potential career 
  paths and/or training requirements for future career opportunities.  
 
  The JIS menu offers various ways to access job descriptions, and on-line 
  help is available as well.  You can also order the JIS VTX Subscriber's 
  card, a quick reference guide to help you get started, from Northboro 
  Distribution.  Request part number EJ-30916-87.

    From my perspective, the JEC doesn't seem to have meant much.  My job
    code changed from three characters to four, but there are still four
    categories of "ordinary" engineers, and as far as I know everyone is
    still in the same relative position as before.
    
    It seems like a lot of effort just to renumber the jobs.  Has the
    exercise made more difference elsewhere?
        John Sauter

Well, now those four categories of "ordinary" engineers are exactly
equivalent to the four categories of software specialists and also
the same as technical marketing specialists.

Similarly, so I'm told, management jobs are now aligned across job codes
and organizations.

Beats me if it really made a difference, but at least a person can figure
out what an equivalent job is when moving to another organization.

K.

       
       
       	I dunno, I just don't get the feeling it accomplished all that it
       should have.. Especially after reading my job description and all
       the other jobs that fall under it..  I just hope it has fixed
       situations where people were in Job XYZ and paid at XYZ when they
       should be at ABC and paid like ABC (ie: more).  If it hasn't, then
       it was a waste.
       
       						mike

Someone may want to check this out, but I have been told that the job
descriptions for specialist positions are almost unchanged except for
punctuation and grammar fixes.

It seems clear that JEC was a TOTAL and COMPLETE waste of time and
money.  Someone ought to ask at the next shareholders' meeting what the
final cost of JEC was.

In my opinion, the Software Specialist job desriptions are very
poorly written.  There are two distinct Specialist functions: sales
support and delivery.  The jobs descriptions are a jumble of both
functions.  The tasks for Principle Specialist are listed below.  Note
that the specific tasks for delivery people do not even warrant a
complete item. 

   1.   Manages the relationships with one or more accounts.  Develops and
        recommends strategic account plans, coordinates service delivery,
        collaborates with other account team members, identifies new or
        expanded business opportunities, promotes new business ventures,
        and participates in negotiation of terms and conditions.

   2.   Provides support as an individual or as a project leader for
        complex, multisystem installations, systems installations with
        complex applications, or large systems installations with complex
        software business and management considerations.  Performs
        extensive evaluations of customer's current system, and presents
        formal proposals recommending the best hardware and software
        configurations to meet customer's current and long-term needs.

   3.   Assumes principal technical role in sales presentations or
        demonstrations. Furnishes technical expertise, and addresses
        customer questions about hardware or software.

   4.   As project leader, writes and presents project proposals.
        Establishes and meets goals and schedules; develops time and cost
        estimates.  Provides software consulting services for customers.
        Identifies needs; develops, influences, and implements proposals.
        Develops and writes customer support plans for complex systems and
        major accounts.  Delegates assignments to project members for
        implementation, and monitors assignments to ensure that all
        commitments are met.

   5.   Coordinates other software personnel in order to resolve complex or
        specialized problems.

   6.   Provides expert input to manager in the form of evaluations in such
        areas as interviewing job candidates and planning.

   7.   In accordance with procedures, performs administrative tasks such
        as writing activity and expense reports or keeping records.


John

    In SWS the only visible effect is a 4 digit job code and lower/
    higher salary brackets for the same old positions.
    
    BTW, we have a rule that one can't get promoted to 'principle'
    specialist until he/she can spell it.
    
    karl

.160>    o 	Our confidence in matching positions in other companies to 
.160>      	assess the competitiveness of our compensation program has 
.160>      	increased.

Does anyone know if there exists an 'industry standard' template for
various jobs in the computer industry? One could make that assumtion
based on the above statement.

Lee

Here's another example of the failure of JEC... My old job code D26,
"Principal Programmer Analyst", has been replaced by 16BD, "Principal
Information Systems Specialist".  Fine.   But now if I go into the 
VTX JOBS BOOK to see what positions are available, instead of the 20
or so of a month ago, there are now nearly 50.  Oooh, more opportunities???
Nope... now the 16BD job code covers jobs that span then range of job skills
from System Manager to Business System Analyst to Programmer... 

At least I knew before that a D26 job code would require some programming....

I imagine it's the same across all D series codes.

    Bottom line...........

    The people that JEC helped think it was great, the people that it
    didn't, think it was a waste of time.


    If some managers simply took a cross reference check, and said 
    you were a XX before, and the chart says an XX now should be called
    a 3333............then it could be a waste of time and effort.


    If you had someone that checked thru the different codes and 
    descriptions and found one that more truly fit your duties and
    responsibilities, then it may have been a help.
    
    I was fortunate enough to work for a manager that took the time and
    effort to go thru all his WC 4's and find the correct title for his
    people.............it wasn't easy for him.........it took a great deal
    of time and effort on his part...........but in our case, most of us
    feel JEC was worth it.
    
    
    However if my manager had done a straight the chart says this and this
    is what you will be,................I would have been one very unhappy
    camper.
    
    
    Lou

.166> .160>    o 	Our confidence in matching positions in other companies to 
.166> .160>      	assess the competitiveness of our compensation program has 
.166> .160>      	increased.
.166> 
.166> Does anyone know if there exists an 'industry standard' template for
.166> various jobs in the computer industry? One could make that assumtion
.166> based on the above statement.

I reviewed the new job descriptions that came out during the process,
and submitted a critique to our personnel rep on the committee dealing 
with them.  I suggested that there was no need to differentiate
engineers by the prefix "software," "electrical," "mechanical," and such.
An engineer is an engineer, I argued.  While the details of the job
vary among disciplines, there is at least as much variability within
a discipline (analog servo electrical engineer vs. digital system
design electrical engineer, for example) so that the prefix provides
only limited guidance to job selection.
"Well argued," they said, "but we need to keep the prefixes so outside people
looking at our job offerings can recognize the categories."

That may be all there is to "competitive assessment."

- tom]

    Has anybody gone through JEC appeal process?  Would you kindly
    share your experiences?  Those who are unhappy with their JEC
    classification have they tried this option?

    JEC has had an impact on documentation land.  Now technical writers have
    job titles corresponding to those of engineers, whereas before we had
    a whole different set (and I think more of them, too).  I believe the
    salary ranges also correspond more closely to those of engineers, also.
    
    I think a lot more writers than engineers (and others?) were affected
    by JEC; whether for better or worse, I can't say.  Writers who had the
    title "Principal Writer" before JEC might have ended up with the title
    "Senior Writer" afterwards, but Senior Writer under JEC encompasses more
    than Principal Writer did before.  Such a case isn't meant to be a
    demotion, since there are now fewer job categories for writers than there
    were, but I bet that writers who worked hard to become Principal under the
    old scheme and ended up as Senior under JEC feel a little like they've
    been demoted, though technically they haven't been (theoretically).

							-- Nina

    
    Re: .171
    
    Nina, you're absolutely right. I was promoted to Principal SW
    Writer in March... I fought long & hard for that position. I am 
    now a Technical Senior Writer, along with just about everyone I knew
    who held the title of Principal before JEC. 
    
    To paraphrase another former_Principal_now_Senior colleague,
    we have to strive for the elusive Principal title once again.
    
    My unit manager (who's now formally a "supervisor" -- she wasn't too
    thrilled about that, either...) tried to explain that comparing the
    old Principal to the new Senior is like mixing apples and oranges.
    I do understand that 17 levels have been reduced to 12, and all that.
    I have been asked not to put so much emphasis on the title, and I
    think deep down I know she's right, but it still feels like I've
    been demoted...
    
    A minor (well maybe not so minor...) nit about our new titles --
    writers are now classifed in the following manner:
    
    Technical Writer I
    Technical Writer II
    Technical Senior Writer
    Technical Principal Writer
    
    Seems inconsistent to me, to start with numbers, then change to
    titles. I remember years ago, in US Area SWS, software specialists
    were: Assoc. SW Spec, SW Spec, Sr. SW Spec, Principal SW Spec, etc.
    Then, I believe, it changes to SW Spec I through IV. Why couldn't
    they have been more consistent with the actual names of our titles.
    And what the heck is a Technical Senior Writer. Why isn't it
    Senior Technical Writer? What a silly new title I have.....
    
    /donna
    

  Re: .170

>>    Has anybody gone through JEC appeal process?  Would you kindly
>>    share your experiences?  Those who are unhappy with their JEC
>>    classification have they tried this option?

	I appealed the classification chosen for me. Our department
	was given access to all the JEC codes we would be eligible
	for several months in advance. I started at the bottom of 
	these and worked my way up until I reached a balance between 
	what I actually did and what I did not yet have responsibility
	for. I did this several months before the actual selections
	were made. 

	Once the selections were made I discovered that the job code
	selected for me was one level lower than what I had selected.
	Realizing that we tend to over-estimate our own self-worth, I
	went back and did an in-depth comparison between what I had
	selected and what was selected for me. When I still ended
	up fitting the majority of the job code descriptions I
	had selected I went to my manager and explained my findings.

	My manager did not want to even see my work which was at first
	disquieting but in retrospect I realize was good in that
	there was no pre-biasing before my manager had a chance to
	review the two job codes. After reviewing the two job codes
	my manager stated that PERHAPS I had a valid issue. He
	suggested I re-write the JOQ I had previously written to
	more carefully go over the points I had obviously missed
	which led to the selection of the lower job code.

	I did this, submitted the new JOQ, then waited on pins and
	needles for the results. After whatever review process
	re-occurred I was informed that it had been decided that
	I did qualify for the next level job code even though I
	did not meet 100% of the eligibility descriptions.

	I don't know just how eligible I was in THEIR eyes, but
	I can assure you that more than 3/4 of the job descriptions
	for the job code I had selected applied to me at one time
	or another.

	This was all more important to me than usual since I have
	been in the wrong job code for 8 years. I have been trying
	to work the issue for the last 3 years without much success
	so I was happy when JEC came into being. Your mileage may
	vary.

						Warren

    Re:  "completion" of JEC
    
    More importantly than the job descriptions...have the salary ranges
    which correspond to the new job codes been finalaized and released?
     Has anyone seen the new salary ranges?  I know the freeze is on
    but I would sure like to know what my new salary range is, and where
    I fit.

>    More importantly than the job descriptions...have the salary ranges
>    which correspond to the new job codes been finalaized and released?
>     Has anyone seen the new salary ranges?  I know the freeze is on
>    but I would sure like to know what my new salary range is, and where
>    I fit.

	Yes, they have been released.  Yes, I have seen them.  Your manager
	should have that information and should share with you the range
	of your current job and the next one up the ladder.  (And, in fact,	
	should have told you your new range at the same time you learned your
	new job code).

Frank

    I was excited about JEC until I saw the new Salary Ranges.
    Digital never wanted to be in the top range for salaries. Jec was
    supposed to make our job more competitive to the industries. I pulled
    a report from USA today and compared it to our ranges for IS jobs
    and we ranked very low. 
     Anyway to make a long story short our ranges were decrease 4 to
    5 thousand dollars.  my old range started at 27,xxx it is now
    24,xxxx. I am glad I came in the company when I did or I would be
    making peanuts. What it really means
    is that you now can get promoted and not recieve in pay increase
    due to your range shifted downwards. I am sure corp know exactly
    what they were doing.
                   
    my 2 cents!
    

    re .176:  I suggest you look at the top end of your range as compared
    to previous... I think you'll find it's higher than your previous
    range.
    
    In general, the ranges broadened, up and down.  Fewer promotions; more
    room for growth within your given code.
    
    Marge

    
    I went from a 55% penetration in the range "selected" for me to
    an 18% penetration in the range I belonged in. No raise, true,
    but future ones are much more likely at 18% than at 55%.
    
    							Warren
    

    To a large extent, ranges were combined when they were collapsed.
    Depending on which range you were in before, you either wound up
    in a range with more-or-less the same bottom and a higher top, or
    more-or-less the same top with a lower bottom. JEC was an exercise
    in attempting to insure that "equivalent" jobs (skill required, range
    of responsibility, etc.) across organizations were in the same job
    range, not an excuse to pay everyone more.

    I wound up in a range with a lower bottom :-(
    and the same job title I had when I joined DEC almost 5 years ago :-(((

    /Peters

    	As I see it the big problem with the JEC is the downward movment
    of pay ranges. Ok, may be the top end did go up a little but the
    bottom end droped to the poverty line. Unless Digital changes the
    way they do salary planning every one I know of will not get ANY
    pay increase for many years. DEC has been trying to make every ones
    pay around the mid point of the range. Plus or minus a few percent
    depending on performance, if the mid point for the range drops 1-5k
    every one is now above mid piont, just where they should be for a
    2-3 performer. Unless they change this we don't need a pay freeze
    just JEC.               
    	Since what DEC feels my job is worth has droped (as measured
    by midpoint on the range) my position must not be as valued as it
    was before. OK, if my position is not as valuable what positions
    are becomming more valuable? Did any pay range go up (as measured
    by midpoint)?????
    	

Re: .180 

>        As I see it the big problem with the JEC is the downward movment
>    of pay ranges. Ok, may be the top end did go up a little but the
>    bottom end droped to the poverty line. Unless Digital changes the
>    way they do salary planning every one I know of will not get ANY
>    pay increase for many years. DEC has been trying to make every ones
>    pay around the mid point of the range. Plus or minus a few percent
>    depending on performance, if the mid point for the range drops 1-5k
>    every one is now above mid piont, just where they should be for a
>    2-3 performer. Unless they change this we don't need a pay freeze
>    just JEC.               
>        Since what DEC feels my job is worth has droped (as measured
>    by midpoint on the range) my position must not be as valued as it
>    was before. OK, if my position is not as valuable what positions
>    are becomming more valuable? Did any pay range go up (as measured
>    by midpoint)?????

I believe that the use of the midpoint as a target is no longer valid, under
the post-JEC world view.  That's what my PSA tells me.

Steve

    It really never was the mid point (sum of end points divided by two),
    was it?  I always thought it was the median of the range which is
    established by market analysis for a given position.  So if in the
    market an independent company did the statistical analysis and came
    up with the figure that an average position XXX made YYY dollars then
    YYY dollars would be the median for the equivalent XXX position in DEC.
    If that is the case then as long as the medians are based on the latest
    market conditions what happens to the range is just book keeping and
    could only affect the promotional progress, wouldn't it?

    For what it's worth, the midpoint is no longer listed in the salary
    ranges.  There used to be three figures, bottom end, top end, and
    midpoint.  Now the bottom end and top end are the only ones listed.
    
    Marge

    So, which end is the goal?
    

    I've been gone for nearly three months and therefore have not read
    the previous 184 notes...but...as for JEC....it has "done me in".
    
    It really made my day when I found out that I was *overpaid* by
    $2,500/year!!!  What are my alternatives?  I guess that I'll have
    to leave the job that I'm in, that I love doing, and, feel as though
    I'm making a significant contribution to this company.....
    
    Not a good warm fuzzy feeling after 13 years with MotherDEC....
    
    I will not respond to any questions about my organization, etc...in
    this notes file...that must be done off-line....I'm sure you can
    understand...
    
    Jerry

Amid the recent surge in notes on the Digital bureaucracy, what has been
striking to me is that the greatest managerial boondoggle I've seen in
this company,  J.E.C., has yet to be mentioned!  Even at the time, how
many people who filled out the JOQ (Pronounced "JOKE") questioneers
believed that in doing so they were actually contributing to the future
of Digital or how many managers could give the JEC presentation with a
straight face? I had a manager who put it well back then:  "JEC is
nothing more than Personel welfare."

It's been over three years since the base note on this topic was
created.  Since then JEC has sort of faded into oblivion.  Given the
current environment it would be interesting to get an epilogue to the
JEC story.

We know the net value of to DEC:  Zero 

I was wondering if we could fill in -

Number of Job Descriptions that changed by more than 5%:  ?
Cost of Materials (Forms, training materials, etc.):  ?
Cost of Promotional Material (Videos, posters, etc.):  ?
Cost for Digital Staff:  ?
Cost for outside Consultants:  ?
Estimated Cost for total time wasted by every employee in the company: ?
Peek number of full-time JEC Employees:  ?
Where are they now (What are the people who created and led JEC doing):  ?

>  <<< Note 428.186 by KYOA::MIANO "John - NY Retail Banking Resource Cntr" >>>
>                            -< Where are they now? >-

>Estimated Cost for total time wasted by every employee in the company: ?

Just to ensure that the answers replied are accurate, please replace 
the words 'the company' with 'Digital US' in the above sentence.

Craig (who also works for "the company" but has no idea what JEC is)

    I guess I and a few others (including Miano) didn't realize that JEC
    was only a US thing. Anyway,it was a mis-guided attempt to put all WC4
    employees into niches according to what job they did. Yes,it turned out
    to be welfare for personnel.
    
    Ken

    Me thinks JEC was an attempt to correct the problem many of us observed
    over the past 6 years at Digital.  The reality is nothing has changed.
    
    In a cost control move, the company initiated the restrictive salary
    plan now in effect.  In order to allow us to stay competative and
    recruit quality people something had to give.  That area is the 
    job clasification range.  Being in Software, I've seen it like this.
    
    1984 - Specialist I or Engineer I - College recruit or 3 < years
           experience.
    
    	   Experienced Software Specialist or Engineer was hired as a
    	   Specialist II or Engineer II.
    
    	   Senior Specialists/Engineers were promoted because of 
    	   ability.
    
    	   Principal Specialists/Engineers were damn good.
    
    	   Consultants  (Level I)   - Talked to God
    
    	   Consultants  (Level II)  - Walked on Water
    
    	   Consultants  (Level III) - Knew Ken Olsen Personally
    
    
    1990 -  Senior Specialist/Engineer - New hire
    
    	    Principal -  New Hire in a competative market such as 
    		   California or New York City.
    
    	    Consultant I - New Hire with Industry Experience	
          
    
    	Please do not interpert the past matrix to quatify our the people
    in these levels or those with less time in the company.  In most
    instances, most of the people I've seen come into the company make
    significant contribution.  Nor is it sour grapes.  The problem
    has been the traditional job slots have been changed to compensate
    for the shortsighted limitations of a "plan".  The effect has been
    that compensation and recognition for existing contributors hasn't 
    kept pace with with the market.  The end result is we are losing a lot
    of damn good people because the company could only give them raises
    averaging 4% annually since 1985.

    My job description has been and probably will always be a moving
    target.  It seemed to me that JEC tried to nail down what our jobs
    were.  But, the most successful of us seem to me to be those of us who 
    are always learning, improving and redefining our jobs - core ideas to 
    improving quality and remaining competitive.  Obviously there is
    conflict.  I never really understood why we were doing it except that 
    the goal was to establish salary levels that were in line with what other 
    companies were paying.  It attempted to add stability to the employment 
    market.
    
    Reminded me of the real estate market.  You can pay someone to appraise
    your property and they'll do this according to lots of metrics.  The
    state pays someone to come along and assess the value of the property
    for tax purposes.  And, real estate agents list properties at a price
    having to do with the market (or whatever) in return for maximum
    commissions.  Loan officers are paid to use their own methods to estimate 
    how much "equity" is built up in order to establish limits for home equity 
    loans.  But, none of it matters.  The value of the property is whatever 
    price is agreed upon by the buyer and seller.  And, this price may or may 
    not have anything to do with any of the values set by those who were paid 
    to set values.
    
    I figure property and those paid to evaluate it are like what was
    attempted with JEC.  It tried to add stability, but such formulas
    don't always work that well in the real world.
    
    Steve

    it seems to me the company (probably including GIA and the rest of the
    world) is or has been in such a state of flux for the last 4-5 years
    that JEC could NEVER have made much difference... and I'm still not
    sure what difference it was trying to make.
    
    there have been so many re-organizations that i have given up all hope
    of trying to remember who does what to or for whom.
    
    tony
    

Re:<<< Note 428.186 by KYOA::MIANO "John - NY Retail Banking Resource Cntr" >>>

>Where are they now (What are the people who created and led JEC doing):  ?

Perhaps they've been promoted to VP's?  :-)

- David