Conference 7.286::digital

    Well, it's all our responsibility to ensure the right thing is done.
    
    The problem that often arises, however, is defining what the right
    thing actually is and sometimes understanding that the big picture may
    require that there a small picture 'bad thing' may happen.
    
    There is also the conflict of the "good thing" for Digital, your group,
    cost centre or yourself, versus the "good thing" for Digital, your
    group, cost centre or yourself. 
    
    So, in all good faith, we make judgement calls and only experience and
    knowlege can assist the process of deciding precisely HOW to ensure
    that the right thing is done.
    
    	- andy

    Re .0
    
    	Another bash to "personnel" and what "they" should be doing. 
    "Personnel" or Human Resources is another one of those dreaded
    "overhead" functions. In the Mid-Atlantic Southern States Region
    they are in process of "downsizing" along with Facilities and
    other non-revenue producing groups. Be prepared to get less and
    less of support from these organizations in the future. My experience
    has been nothing short of excellent with both of these groups. They
    respond, as do we all, to a cooperative approach as opposed to the
    demand approach.
    
    Another point of view...
    
    -Terry

    re .1
    
    I don't wish to judge what is and what isn't the right thing.  It
    seems to me that on occasion, actions are taken that don't seem
    to be in the best interest of the Corporation, Employee, and/or
    Customer.  It seems to me that an employee should be able to 
    determine the rationale used to justify an action.  That's all.
    
    
    Generally, my point is that 'employees' ought not ask others to do
    what we ourselves ought to be doing.

	re .0:

	Very interesting remarks. I couldn't agree more that our problem
	is too much control - of a certain kind. 

	The philosopher Bertrand Russell once wrote that the flowering
	of culture and civilization in Ancient Greece was "due to the
	relative inefficiency of the police, which allowed a greater
	proportion of decent people to escape" (my words). Granted that
	Russell was indulging some personal bitterness after being
	arrested at an anti-war rally, these words have stayed with me.
	Something about the idea rings true.

	Now there is certainly something special about Digital. Otherwise
	Fortune would hardly have chosen Ken Olsen as the greatest American
	entrepreneur ever... quite an accolade!

	My perception is that Digital has adapted to changing business
	conditions and to global markets - "due to the relative inefficiency
	of the bureaucracy". In other words, all real progress and
	achievement comes about through the efforts of exceptional
	individuals and small teams ("skunkworks"); so the successful
	company will be the one which is least successful in preventing
	these small unofficial efforts. Because of the continual
	disorganization and reorganization, the simmering battle for
	credit and visibility among the executives, Digital seems to
	"thrive on chaos". This is really the free enterprise credo:
	like democracy, it is "absolutely the worst system, except for all
	other systems".

	However, there are different kinds of control. The control which
	many of us would like to see more of is analogous to a forceful
	headmaster who prevents teaching staff and older pupils from
	bullying the younger pupils. It's little consolation to a victim
	of bullying to say "We can't stop the bullies without being
	unacceptably authoritarian."

	There are many small pointers to be seen which together give me
	a big picture: a seething mass of creative work on the part of
	the rank-and-file, assisted by a some of the hierarchy of managers.
	But on top of this, there is an elaborate structure being built
	by other managers, whose real goals seem to have little in common
	with the company's mission. Perhaps an appropriate metaphor would
	be the court of the French kings at Versailles, in contrast to
	the hunger, poverty and wretchedness of everyday life outside.
	Indeed, some managers' attitudes seem remarkably close to Marie
	Antoinette's famous "Let them eat cake". Like Marie Antoinette,
	their dangerous detachment from reality seems to be founded
	more or less equally on ignorance and uncaring.

	Note 1321.20 (documenting the damaging effects of indiscriminate
	headcount freezes on Engineering) among others, shows the sort
	of top-level control that is UNDESIRABLE. However, top management
	acknowledge this. They have emphasized all along that what we
	should have is RIGHTsizing - i.e. dispassionately assessing what
	we can and can't afford to do, and shutting down operations that
	we can't afford, lock stock and barrel. However, because middle
	management seem unable to implement this, we have had DOWNsizing
	instead, with apparently random impact. It's been a bit like the
	"decimation" the Romans used to punish a guilty legion: every
	tenth man was killed. The result is that we have lost some poor,
	a lot of average, and some good performers, and all functions
	have been handicapped. In my view, if some groups that do not
	contribute enought to the business had been disbanded altogether,
	there would be enough resources to STRENGTHEN Engineering groups,
	instead of weakening them.

	When you diet to lose weight, the body gets rid of fat almost
	exclusively. If it reacted like Digital, the dieter would shed
	tissue from the brain, heart, lungs, arteries, nerves, and bones.
	That person would not be my favourite to win either a 100 metre
	sprint or a marathon!

	/Tom

    re. -.1
    
This company is not a country, and that which fosters a healthy country
does not necessarily benefit a private commercial entity.

The best control for a company is that one based on profitability.  Within 
the envelope of overall profitability, unprofitable activities can be 
undertaken as long as they contribute to the overall commercial strategy ie.
profitability through breadth of market share, depth of market share, 
ROI, etc.

The account management structure recently adopted by Digital Europe (it's not 
clear to me that the U.S. CAM organization is the same), seems to be the 
best one to attain the goal of profitability.  With this structure in place, 
a Digital "New Ventures" division could profitably fund the 'unprofitable' 
new ideas.  It would work like the banks and other investors that risk 
'venture capital', which is the fuel of technical innovation.

The 'uncontrolled' activities of the 'old Digital' were profitable (at least
some of them) because the market was receptive, at that time.  It's not 
wise to assume that the market for data processing goods and services will 
always be so.

David Goldblatt - Europe I.M.

    RE: .0
    
    Some very interesting observations, Paul. 
    
    In general, I would like to believe that "the individual", or any group
    of people close to a problem could affect change or "do the right
    thing" for customers or the company. Despite the fact that I see all
    kinds of managerial mouths flapping in the breeze saying "go forth and
    be empowered", they don't really mean it.
    
    Personal experiences lead me to believe that the individual or the
    group close to the problem will recommend a solution, course of action,
    or strategy which will have maximum impact. In the end, the solution or
    course of action which gets adopted is, more often than not, the one
    that appeases politics. This isn't always true, but the fact that it
    happens to the extent I perceive it does does not represent goodness.
    
    In some respects, politics is killing this company. 
    
    We invent metrics based on politics, we make decisions based on
    politics, we make organizational changes based on politics, etc. 
    I suppose this shouldn't surprise me ... all big companies do a lot of
    things based on politics.
    
    Digital's problem is that we compete with a lot of smaller companies in
    some areas (Apollo, Sun, HP, et al.), and that some of the larger
    companies we compete with (specifically IBM) frequently make:
    
    	o  More rational decisions despite politics   OR
    	o  Have less politics to deal with because of their small size   OR
    	o  Allow politics to exist for a while, but then a decision is
    	   made and everyone "snaps to" (IBM's mode of operation)
    
    I guess my point is that ... if politics didn't play such a major role
    in our decision making process, if we made decisions at all levels
    based on customer needs and satisfaction, then it wouldn't matter too
    much if Ken made the decisions or you made the decisions. If both of
    you were dealing with the same pile of information on what was needed,
    I have to think that the solutions you would come up with would be
    pretty similar. And, if they weren't, I have to believe that one of you
    could easily convince the other that your decision was better based on
    some additional work experience that the other did not have.
    
    Of course, the other thing that we're missing is that whoever makes the
    final decision becomes responsible for the outcome.
    
    I guess it's all too much to hope for.
    
    /se
    
    
    

    I've let this sit long enough, as I really didn't expect much arguement
    from my original note, but .6 makes the point, quite well, in my
    opinion.
    
    Doing the right thing is made much easier when the facts are known, when
    discussion can be had, when questions are answered.  In light of the
    assorted comments about the open policy, and the debate as to it's
    effectiveness, I have to ask, 'how hard can any "individual" be
    expected to push back (or forward) on the system'.
    
    The talk, in this conference, of:
    
    	phone calls not returned
    	real or imagined reprisal
    	accountability and lack there of
    	empowerment (?)
    	propose and do
    
    makes it very difficult, if not impossible, in some instances, to
    resolve a conflict.
    
    Speaking for myself, I enjoy eating, I enjoy the prospect of career
    advancement, and most importantly, I enjoy working 'with' Digital.
    
    My interpretations of many of Ken's (and Jack's, and others) comments
    is I should expect nothing less then satifaction when questioning any
    aspect of my career, and maybe even Digital's method of doing business. 
    But in light of many of the comments in this conference, in light of
    many of the discussions I've had with co-workers, and in light of my
    own experiences, I feel an employee may have to accept less then
    satifaction.
    
    I believe I heard Ken state that 1 dedicated employee plus another
    dedicated employee equal much more then 2 employees.
    
    I've recently learned of organizations called partnerships, as they
    relate to many of our products (VMS, Ultrix, Case, etc).  I wonder if a
    Digital Partnership might be an answer to the problem of effective
    employee communication/satifaction/inquiry.
    
    What if, a Digital Partnership, i.e. a committee, became an advocate for
    an employee, ONLY to determine answers to the employees questions. 
    What if this could be done, while protecting the anonymity of the
    employee.  And, what if, this Digital Partnership had the support and
    backing of senior management.
    
    What if...   any thoughts?
    
    Mark