Conference 7.286::digital

    Good Stuff!!! 
    
    	Your vision doesn't irritate me at all, but let me work with it
    awhile. However, I believe that your "thesis" clearly articulates some
    points that have been "hitting us over the head" and "going bump in the
    night" for several years. And it is high time that we face them.

    Definitely heading in the right direction.  I've printed out a hardcopy
    so I can read it through again on the train home.

    \dave

    
re: .0  
    
    Your basenote intrigued me.  I also printed it and will read it
    more closely.  The changes we have seen over the past few years
    cry out to be put in some type of context.  I've included an
    essay I wrote over a year ago to help myself try and put some
    of these megatrends in context.  I'll let you judge whether
    its worth anything. (With the readers in this conference, I'm
    sure I'll get brutally honest opinions as well.)  Mods, if you
    think this doesn't apply or add to the discussion, feel free
    to move or delete it. 


         Digital as Information Utility


        Glenn Hamilton




        1.1 Introduction

              I would like to explore the oft-discussed model of Digital
              as Information Utility.[1] We must theorize as to what
              it might mean to be an Information Utility, since there
              is no such enterprise currently in existence (at least
              to my knowledge). This invention necessitates the use of
              analogy so that we have some basis from which to progress.
              Using analogy requires that we take some liberties with
              terminology.

        1.2 The Power Utility as Analog

              We should begin by asking a fundamental question: in a
              power utility (one possible analog), where is the most
              intellectually interesting, high-margin work accomplished?
              At (or near) the generation of the power, rather than
              the delivery grid. Scientists and engineers are gainfully
              employed in hydroelectric or nuclear engineering projects.
              Others devote time and resources toward "alternative", more
              "efficient", less "wasteful" sources of power generation.
              Technological and political debate rages, synergies
              develop, brilliant minds are stretched.

              In contrast, the grid that delivers the power, while
              interesting during its construction, over the long run
              becomes static and uninteresting. Many people (we could
              call them "infrastructure technicians", though this term
              does not really do them justice) are employed in repairing
              and incrementally improving the grid. To repeat, however,
              the most important work and most of the brain power is
              expended at the power source.


              ____________________

              [1]   Jack Smith, Management Memo, Dec.  1991

                                                                        1

 







              Extending the metaphor, during the early days of
              electrification, the design of the user interface (wall
              socket) was challenging, as was the wiring and the delivery
              of power to the home. Later, some of the best minds in the
              world were occupied designing interesting appliances (in
              modern parlance, applications) to take advantage of the
              power delivered by the new (at that time) infrastructure
              and user interface. Now, with admitted exceptions, the user
              interface, the infrastructure grid, and the applications
              are essentially well known, well-traveled paths. Well known
              and well-traveled paths are not those taken by explorers;
              nor are they paths that typically lead to breakthrough
              thinking. Explorers tend to climb the deadfalls and cut
              through the thickets.

        1.3 Infrastructure Technicians, Appliance Makers, Power Engineers

              If we intend to apply the utility metaphor to Digital's
              business, I would argue that we determine as early as
              possible whether we want to be infrastructure technicians,
              appliance makers, or power engineers. Perhaps we wish
              to be all three. More likely, in the coming years we
              will transition between two or perhaps all three of the
              foregoing expertise sets. In all probability, a necessary
              though insufficient condition of continued profitability
              will be such transitions.

              To be infrastructure technicians or appliance makers, we
              should continue to do as we are currently doing: shedding
              costs rapidly to become more efficient at technician-like
              enterprises, and, like the phone companies (the ultimate
              infrastructure technicians), spinning off value-added
              services from our incrementally improving information
              delivery grid.

              Additionally, to be appliance makers we must develop or
              acquire the critical skills needed to design, develop,
              and deliver commodity applications and hardware. In this
              schema, companies like Dell and Zeos (as well as Apple)
              are in the appliance manufacturing business. (I would
              also lump Microsoft in this category, since they have
              won the right to develop the user interface for the new
              appliances.) In addition to the phone companies, Novell,
              3COM, Banyan, et. al., and the CATV companies are all
              infrastructure technicians. The Dow Jones News Retrieval

        2

 







              service, Time-Warner, Paramount Pictures, and a plethora of
              independent developers (producers), magazines, and related
              media companies are the power generation engineers. They
              create the information that is subsequently delivered by
              the infrastructure grid.

              It seems reasonable to suggest that we are in the early
              maturation stage of the development of the information
              delivery grid infrastructure. Evidence of the related
              stasis can be seen in our drive to simplify and focus
              our product set; it can also be seen in the anemic growth
              of high technology companies. At this stage, it is still
              possible to spin off significant revenues from our learning
              of the workings of the infrastructure itself, the user
              interface, and the design of appliances. This will probably
              be true into the early years of the next century. To be a
              viable enterprise well into the next century, however, we
              must move closer to the power source.

              If we wish to be power engineers, we must make risky,
              expensive investments. The shift in capabilities that we
              must undergo is breathtaking. IBM's investment in Time-
              Warner (imminent as I write this) is an example of the leap
              that must be taken; Sony's purchase of a movie company is
              another. Both of these corporate decisions, in my view,
              represent recognition of the need to move closer to the
              power source-that is, the mass generation of information.

        1.4 Effects of the Changing Information Delivery Infrastructure

              The metamorphosis of the delivery infrastructure (not
              unlike a creature in a John Carpenter film) is well
              underway. A multitude of information delivery capabilities
              (satellite, CATV, Internet, and permutations and
              combinations thereof) provide, or in some cases, force
              feed, consumers with massive amounts of information.
              Moreover, the sheer velocity of the information continues
              to distort both the social and business fabric. This has
              been well documented for at least 25 years [2]. Twenty
              years ago, Toffler [3] eloquently restated the problem.
              Since the early 1970s, analysts, futurists, pundits,
              consultants, and science fiction writers have expounded

              ____________________

              [2]   McCluhan, The Medium is the Message, 1967

              [3]   Future Shock, 1972

                                                                        3

 







              on the agony and the ecstasy of the information economy.
              We are alternately treated to Orwellian, technophobic,
              nightmarish views and the equally unlikely "high-tech,
              high-touch" world of Naisbitt and Aberdeen [4]. What are
              we to make of this information assault? Maybe the more
              important question for us is: wherein lies the opportunity?

        1.5 Information Overload

              Part, or maybe most, of the confusion is that our society
              (including the business community) is experiencing
              information overload. The quality of the information we
              receive is generally not good, while the quantity and
              velocity are overwhelming. People have simply not evolved
              fast enough to develop filtering mechanisms. Furthermore,
              in polar opposition to an engineering first principle,
              the form in which we receive information is improving at a
              much faster rate than the content; the information on my TV
              screen seems much more accurate than it likely is. If it's
              in the computer, it is, a priori, true.

              I believe that one of the reasons for the "high-technology
              recession" is that we have not yet learned how to provide
              "context-full" information. Our expertise has been that
              of infrastructure technicians; we can (and do), seemingly
              without end, increase the efficiency with which our grid
              delivers information (measured in MIPS and multi-gigabit
              throughput), but we have not delivered information in a
              context that makes it indispensable, as electrification is
              indispensable, to the lives of our customers. I disagree
              with those who say the future belongs to the people who
              design the perfect user interface; I believe that wealth
              and fame will go to the people who solve the information-
              context dilemma. It is only through the appropriate context
              and filtering mechanisms that information becomes knowledge
              and wisdom. Without the context and filtering, what we get
              is a maelstrom.

              The maelstrom is guarded against in a business context by
              the security blanket of bureaucracy and its inseparable
              companion, "analysis paralysis".

              ____________________

              [4]   Megatrends, 1983,  Megatrends 2000, 1986

        4

 







        1.6 Gutenberg and the Other Information Explosion

              In order to see how a previous information explosion was
              controlled through the provision of context, we need a
              historical perspective. In the years after Gutenberg's
              invention of movable type, humans experienced another
              information explosion. The effect was, as it turned out,
              benign. In fact, it was better than simply benign. On
              balance it was beneficial to humankind, driving as it did
              a love of learning (the Renaissance) on a scale not seen
              since.

              Within 50 years of the invention (c. 1450-1500),
              substantially all of the world's written work was in
              print form and being disseminated. The invention rapidly
              increased the velocity of information (relatively
              speaking). The difference between then and now was that
              the world was able to develop a context within which to
              place the information. This context consisted of three
              phenomena. One was the translation (100 or so years
              prior to Gutenberg's invention) of the classics into the
              vernacular so they were accessible and understandable
              (read: user-friendly) to average people. [5]

              A second phenomenon was to be found in the information
              itself: the books first translated and disseminated
              represented the highest intellectual achievements of
              human history to that point; i.e., they were high quality
              information.

              The third phenomenon was a prevailing "thought-world" [6]
              that helped limit and interpret the information; moreover,
              the institution that provided this "service" (primarily
              the Church), was in its heyday. The institution was trusted
              and respected. My point is not to argue for or against the
              institutional interpretation and limitation of information,
              nor is it to suggest that the institution's interpretations




              ____________________

              [5]   A History of Knowledge, 1992

              [6]   Neil Postman, Technopoly, 1992

                                                                        5

 







              were for the better or worse. The point is to suggest only
              that there was a limitation. [7]

              Contrast the foregoing with the situation we have today.
              The information glut (and, I think, the technological
              nature of much of the information) does not support
              understanding (i.e., it is not, for the most part, user-
              friendly). Also, in a relative sense, the information
              is not of high quality (witness the growth of tabloid
              newspapers and television and their latent effect on the
              mainstream media). In what I believe to be an irony of
              Kafka-esque proportions, the information we need is not
              user-friendly, while the information that distorts our
              lives is eminently accessible.

              Finally, our institutions are suffering; they are generally
              not trusted as they once were to limit and help us
              interpret the information we receive. There is no dominant
              context or "thought-world" within which to place the
              information that we generate and disseminate. In short,
              people are unprepared to filter out the information they
              need from the incessant noise.

              It should be noted that the historical analogy breaks down
              here in the sense that information had a much longer shelf-
              life in the 16th century than it does today. The short life
              cycle of information complicates matters to an unknown,
              but probably significant, degree. Unlike the previous
              information explosion, the cells in this one seem to be
              malformed; one hopes those cells are not malignant. But it
              is only with the perspective of five centuries that we can
              say the previous information explosion was benign.







              ____________________
              [7]   It is interesting to note that educational
                    institutions also began to take root during this
                    period.  Their purpose?  The limitation and focus of

                    the information available in book form.

        6

 







        1.7 Digital's Challenge

              Digital's task, thankfully, will not be to solve society's
              information glut. But it surely must be our task to help
              our customers assimilate the information in their business
              domains. A daunting task indeed, since we also are being
              assaulted by information and are reeling from the effects.
              If we wish to be power engineers, however (or information
              engineers, as it were), we must take responsibility for
              the side-effects of the information we generate. We must
              learn to focus and limit information, just as a nuclear
              power engineer must take into account what will happen
              to the waste by-products of the fission process. We must
              develop, in partnership with our customers, relevant,
              viable "thought-worlds" or contexts within which we and
              they can turn information into knowledge and wisdom. We
              must solve the information-context dilemma. [8]

              If we are to solve the information-context problem, we
              shall have to do so in a stepwise fashion. Since people
              have lost faith in the abilities of large institutions
              to help them adequately manage their lives, it is very
              unlikely that they will allow the overt institutional
              management of information flow. This would, in the eyes of
              most people, be an especially egregious form of censorship.
              Yet, if we return to the utility metaphor, perhaps there is
              still a way to focus the information.

              A power utility typically owns the resources from the power
              generation source all the way to the user interface of the
              appliances in the house. (This may be an arguable point,
              since they don't actually own the wires and wall sockets
              in a house. However, since they have set the standards by
              which a house can accept electrification, they may as well
              own the wires and the interface.) The utility provides, in
              theory, an unlimited supply of electricity to the house;
              it is up to the owner of the appliances within the house to
              determine the usage.

              ____________________
              [8]   Another example of a relevant thought-world that
                    (usually) accomplishes its purpose is American
                    jurisprudence; it is a system that, via a well-
                    defined process, specifically limits and provides
                    a strict context to information (e.g., the rules of

                    evidence).  See Postman, Technopoly, 1992.

                                                                        7

 







              The owner or user of the appliances interacts with
              the utility by deciding how much and when to use the
              electricity. We could say, then, that the utility is not
              pushing power at the appliances, so much as the appliances,
              under control of the user, are pulling exactly the needed
              amount of power for some task they are accomplishing. The
              utility, then, makes available a virtually unlimited amount
              of power to the appliances, but the user determines how
              much to use and when (and more importantly, the economic
              necessity of the task requiring the power).

              This, it seems to me, is a model we need to explore in more
              detail. In the jargon of the economists, the utility would
              be in a demand pull environment, rather than a service
              push environment. How, for example, do energy consumers
              make intelligent choices? After the energy shocks of the
              1970s, businesses were built around the concept of giving
              advice on the wise use of energy. These companies, for
              all intents and purposes, partnered with homeowners to
              determine how much energy they really needed, where they
              could save energy, use less to accomplish the same tasks,
              etc. This partnering resulted in a thought-world. Without
              the help of institutions (the government and, for that
              matter the utilities, were far behind) a thought-world that
              helped focus and limit the use (and need for) power was the
              result.


        1.8 Conclusion

              In sum, we must be prepared (both financially and in terms
              of of skills) to continue to agressively spin off revenues
              from our existing infrastructure. The more important point
              however, is that we must be prepared to invest profit to
              pay for a long term transition to a business that generates
              information.

              If people are, as the evidence suggests, staggered by the
              information onslaught, we need to provide the capability
              for an information demand pull environment[9], as well as a

              ____________________
              [9]   This is, for the most part, a technical problem, and
                    eminently solvable in the infrastructure.  The real
                    problem will be in deciding to what extent we want
                    to be in the information generation business and

        8

 







              partnering capability with our customers that has, as its
              guiding philosophy, the development of a context for our
              customers' information requirements, and a determination of
              how we can get that information to those customers, exactly
              when they want it, in the form they want it, and in the
              measure they want it.

































              ____________________

                    in developing the skills and knowledge necessary to
                    help our customers develop thought-worlds for their

                    business domains.

                                                                        9

    Good vision! However, the world is not ready for Wealth and Freedom
    Associates. How can we create a plan to profitably transition Digital
    from what we are today into Wealth and Freedom Associates. I have a
    feeling that this will not be an easy task, but this is too good not
    to pursue.                   

    Good note, Russ.
    
    A friend who tracks business as a hobby showed me something very
    interesting recently.
    
    Of the top 10 companies in the U.S. in 1929 (in revenues), how many are
    in the top 10 today?
    
    	
    
    
    Nine. (Sorry, I didn't copy the names).
    
    His point is that durable goods manufacturing in basic industries will
    always have a big market. He further showed that the computer companies
    that blossomed, thrived, and are now dying, are simply a blip on the
    scale -- they could not be expected to sustain high profitability over
    more than several decades. Why? Because computers, and the entire
    computer industry, relates to managing information, and this managing
    is just an evolution from writing on paper to whatever comes next.
    Paper is cheap; so are computers, now. But airplanes and trucks and
    drilling for oil are expensive and will remain expensive, ensuring a
    steady, heavy-duty revenue flow for businesses in the Top 10 (at least
    until "transporters" are invented, but that's a long time away).
    
    One excellent ad on TV these days is for Compaq. It shows a small, 
    desktop computer answering the phone for someone. Computers are now 
    something made overseas, packed with software, completely comm capable, 
    that you get at Caldor's next to the toaster ovens, bring home, take out 
    of the box, plug in, and hear: "Hello. Which of my 610 programs would 
    you like to use first?" 

    The DEC ride is quickly coming to a close. In 2 years, DEC will be just
    a memory. What the next boom-to-bust industry is, I don't know.
    
    Who does?
    
    
    

    Re .0, I found the historical perspective on Digital's name very
    enlightening.  Thank you.
    
    I don't really agree with the solution reached, however.
    
    There's nothing wrong with basing a business on selling products to
    customers.  In particular, there's nothing wrong with basing a business
    on selling computer products to customers.  It's also OK to expect
    money in exchange for your products.
    
    I personally buy mostly products.  I'll bet you do too. Not housing
    consultation, but a house. Or a car. Or x number of kilowatt hours.  Or
    a meal. So like our customers, I trade some of my limited supply of
    money for the products that I want or that I believe I need. Sure, my
    motivations are associated with time and wealth (and other things), but
    try to explain that back to me in a 30 second advertisement, or even a
    half hour sales call.  Not possible.  
    
    So in spite of my voiced disregard of materialism, I'm still
    surrounded by material things that I've carefully and energetically
    acquired.
    
    I wish that we were only a profound insight away from making Digital a
    profitable and growing business, but I don't believe that's true. 
    Conditions have changed, requiring us to adapt our methods to survive. 
    It'll take time, money, and hard work, and still we can't know the end
    result until we get there. We still need lots of focus on exactly what 
    our customers will be willing to buy, tomorrow and in the future. But
    the underlying mission statement of providing desirable computer
    products is still valid.  Other companies are succeeding in that
    mission, and we can too.
    
    (Apologies to MCS, DLS, SI and any other groups that don't make or sell
    boxes or software, I didn't mean to slight your contribution.  Our
    services leverage product sales, and our products leverage service
    sales.  So we need desirable products to make the whole thing work.)

 
  >  I personally buy mostly products.  I'll bet you do too. Not housing
   
	Right.  Not only do I buy a "house", but I get really
	pissed off at people who claim that what they're selling
	me is a "home".

	No it isn't.  I make it into a home. 

	I feel the same way about "Wealth and Freedom Associates"

In the end, the new "medium" will always become a commodity, and the information
contained therein will emerge again as the premium product.   It was the same
with libraries.  Until Gutenberg, the medium was scrolls and books that were
handwritten.  The cost was in the process, i.e. hundreds of monks copying
things down.   When the printing press was invented,  the medium was an
expensive but relatively efficient machine that allowed more stuff to be 
copied and spread.  This started the "pay as you go" type libraries in 
Britain and the Magazines/Newspapers like in which Dickens' serials 
were published.  When people like Andrew Carnegie built free libraries
everywhere, and Randolph Hearst published daily newspapers information
was even cheaper.  Then Radio and Television were invented the cost of
the medium was spread to the distributor  and not to the reciever.  With 
computers coming along, information became truly interactive and the distributor
and reciever are now one.   

All that is left is the info and the access to that info.  Eventually access
will also become a commodity, and you are still left with the information.  

Morita saw this at Sony when he bought CBS records and the Columbia Pictures.
As long as he controlled the information people would have to come to him
for access.  The medium is cheap...CD players...VCRs...PCs...Access is the
new premium product.  When access becomes a commodity,  information
dissemination services are the next premium product. 

I think that DEC will probably survive for a while as a commodity distributor.
Dissemination of information is the next big industry.

For example,  you may need to get information about a particular topic.  You
do have specific subtopics you are interested in.   The new product will be
the service of getting the information picking only what you need and delivering
that to you.  In other words, lets take the Real Estate notesfile, and not
just use keywords to pick information, but actually dictate the what and
how the information is to be presented.  I want to know about Lawyers in
Caribou, Maine, that charge less than $200 an hour for services, their last
few successful cases, and a Bar association rating of each.  I also want
to cross reference this data with the judge in the case pending against X,
and show the relative success each of them have had with this judge in getting
a not guily verdict. 

and Voi La the data comes up in document format for perusal at a later date. 


That is what is next.

>	Right.  Not only do I buy a "house", but I get really
>	pissed off at people who claim that what they're selling
>	me is a "home".

>	No it isn't.  I make it into a home. 

  Before condos were invented, a house was a house, period. Now we need to call
a residence a "home" because "house" usually means "single-family house" and it
it too cumbersome to say "privately owned residence". I agree that a dwelling
unit is not really a home until there are people living in it.

  Back to the topic: .0 is an excellent piece of work. I especially like the
comments on the value of time compared to the value of material goods. 

Digital Equipment Corporation is one of the better computer equipment 
providers in the world.  That's not surprising since that's what we've been 
trying to be for 36 years.  And the 90+ thousand people who still work here 
were hired because someone thought that they could contribute in some way 
to that mission.

I'm willing to bet that in five years or ten years, there will still be 
"computer" companies.  One of them will be the biggest, one will be the 
hottest and they will certainly be making money.  Some will be on their way 
up, some on their way down, some won't ever get off of the ground and still 
some will be just a memory.

Based on our past and the inclinations of the majority of our personnel and 
the sheer numbers of people, I think Digital ought to give being the "best" 
computer company a try.  If someone is going to emerge as the hottest, 
biggest, best and most profitable computer company in the next five to ten 
years, why not us?  Or do we think IBM, HP, Sun, Compaq, Microsoft, Novell, 
etc. have some inherent advantage over us that is just too much to overcome
(other than more positive attitudes)?

While I think the organization discussed in .0 shows promise, I think the 
people who have that vision will find a General Doriot of their own and 
bring that vision to life, unencumbered by the inertia of a Fortune 50 
corporation.

Good luck,

Rick C

      Interesting ideas in both .0 and .10; true, equipment is becoming
    less important than what it represents, but it's also true that there
    will continue to be companies that develop, manufacture, and sell
    equipment.
    
      Just one tiny nit... if you're going to rename the company, pick
    something *OTHER* than "Wealth and Freedom Associates"... sounds too
    much like a pseudonym for an Amway downline for my tastes 8-) 8-) 8-)
    

Re: (a few back) about buying products (equipment):

Consider your daily purchases - electricity, telephone usage, gasoline, food,
etc.  For how many of those did you need a consultant for their use?  Probably
none.  Each of these industries represents the commodity marketplace -
competition primarily on price (objective), possibly "quality" and/or "service"
and/or "convenience" (subjective).  All these industries strive to keep
cost of goods sold as low as possible, which translates into low percentages
for R&D, SG&A, etc.  All these industries are very profitable, but none
require 90K (relatively) highly paid employees to deliver 14B US$ of revenue.

Now consider those products where you do use the services of consultants -
this list might include items such as house, car, etc.  Different market -
still driven partly by price, but the subjective aspects are much more
prevalent.

Finally, consider those aspects of your life that are completely dependent
on consultants.  This list might include money management, health management,
spiritual "management", learning (education), etc.  (Yes, I know that some
of you who are reading this are completely self-sufficient even in this
category.  To you, I offer my sincere congratulations - my experience says
that you are a miniscule percentage of the population.)  For the most part,
these "industries" are much less driven by price and margins, and much
more by the subjective (one might even say "emotional") factors.  This is
the segment of the market that "Wealth and Freedom Associates" could
play in.

By the way, I don't claim that I am "right" about any of this; this isn't
even my "opinion" about it or the way I "want it to be".  I'm sure 
many of you have lots of counter-examples.  My intent is simply to raise
additional ideas to consider as we continue the transition from what we
were to what we will be.

/bruce

    re: products vs. services
    
    I'm quite surprised that people believe they buy more products than
    services. Think of the two biggest big-ticket items in many peoples'
    lives: a college education and a home mortgage. Services, not products.
    
    Geoff

    re .13, true, and to bolster the point about education, don't consider
    just college education, since you pay for public education through your
    taxes, whether you actually use the service or not ( I happen to
    beleive that to be a good thing by the way). In any case, if you add up
    what you pay for all 12 or 16 or 18 years of your education, it's a 
    hefty price.
    
    
    Another thought here: Harvard Business Review published an article
    about a year and a half ago called "The Computerless Computer Company,
    the general thrust of which was that there is now enough silicon in the
    world, and the real problem is how to turn all that silicon to the
    useful ( and I suppose profitable) sservice of humankind. The way to so
    that is through applications that turn the inetrgated circuits into
    specifically valuable services that help people get done what they 
    need to get done. MicroSoft was adduced as one such company, whose work
    turned their relatively incomprehensible DOS into something that could
    be easily understood and put to use. Apple was cited as well, though 
    they were zinged as I recall because they did not undertsand that their 
    ability to create wealth lay not in the hardware part of their business, 
    but in the software. For those interested in Russ' ideas, I recommend
    this as a good adjunct text. 
    
    Russ, I *love* the idea. I think it's right on the money. We can work
    on the name as we go.   

There's plenty of valid points discussed on most of these notes. I think as
a company we need to stop trying to impress ourselves all the time with
renaming org's, changing logo's and put our minds to to work for the customers.

Think of the things we as individuals seek. When the car breaks where do you
continue to bring it for service, the place with the right colored sign and
catchy slogan, no, the place I go to is the mechanic I trust and know will 
service the car correctly. Now do all service stations or say restuarants all
have the same name, no some are named after their owners or whatever. But
it's the reputation that keeps them in business. Take the NE Patriots' I know,
but they went 1-15 last year , changed uniform colors and team logo, now they
are still getting the same results. Digital has tried the same and so far what are
reaping... Now on the other hand take the Celtic's, they have lost thier best 
3 players in 2 years, but it's the Celtic Pride and Tradtional that makes the
current players play that much harder. The team colors are not superfitial, they
have meaning.   

Digital needs the same commitment to excellence and stop trying to tell 
ourselves how good we are doing.


Mike

    I'm delighted by the number and depth of responses to this so far.
    
    I especially like the point (.4) that we need a transition plan for
    getting wherever we choose to go.  Someone told me recently that Bob
    Palmer uses the metaphor of changing the engines on a 747--but not
    having the option of landing it first, we have to keep flying.  Right
    on.  And, I like the point (.15) that commitment to excellence for
    customers is vital.
    
    I certainly see Alpha as a great part of what keeps us flying at all.
    We ought to be very grateful for the foresight (I first heard this
    enunciated by Sam Fuller, I think it was at least 10 years ago) to go
    to 64 bits;  we are ahead of a bunch of others, and HP has been
    reported recently to have a catch-Digital effort in response.  And we
    certainly have no option about continued commitment to excellence in
    everything that we do for customers.
    
    My view here was longer range, which of course makes it barely relevant
    to anything in the here and now.  However, if you don't plant an acorn
    you might look around someday and wonder why no oak when it's too late.
    
    
    The information utility paper kind of fascinated me.  Especially the
    remark that of course it fortunately won't be Digital's job to deal
    with anybody's information overload.  I'm kind of sensitized to the
    phrase "of course" which I hear as a marker for switch-off of the
    critical faculty.  Maybe we should turn this over, as actually I
    think the author started to do right in the same paragraph.  What if
    we started from the premise that just as Digital technology is no
    longer scarce and Equipment is fast waning as a measure of human
    weath and well being, information too is getting to be an embarassment
    of riches.  After all, we have all these educated people who can
    think fast and type fast and are connected to us by high bandwidth
    fibers and satellites and phone-cells.  What we used to have a
    librarian specially trained for may soon be pretty much availble
    from any number of $1 a minute consultants over the networks of the
    world, some of whom probably will not have quite finished graduating
    from High School and some of whom probably live in the Equatorial belt
    in relative poverty, keeping the cost per minute really low for their
    information-tailoring services.  After all, I just want my information;
    I don't care if it came by way of Bahia, Brazil.
    
    I like the point about trucks and planes continuing to cost a lot while
    information and communication keep getting cheaper.  I just wish I
    thought we had a natural advantage at Digital in building something
    that is more like trucks and planes than what we actually have
    experience doing.
    
    The one thing we have at Digital that I think might hold its productive
    value well over a long time is--how shall I say this--committed,
    growing people.  At our best, we have kept our people in touch with
    customers and suppliers and each other (at our worst unfortunately,
    we've had people sadly isolated) and in a maelstrom of contending
    ideas we all grow.  And at our best we commit ourselves to promising
    what we can deliver and then stretching as need be to deliver on it.
    
    And in a world where Digital technology and Equipment and even
    Information are all ubiquitous and cheap and getting moreso, we may
    be fairly rare birds if we keep striving toward more excellence in
    the human dimensions.
    
    
    For example:  how did Sam Fuller have the vision so long ago (or
    whoever suggested it to him first....) to move to 64 bits this early?
    How did Gordon Bell and Alan Kotok (I hope my credits are not too far
    off the mark) much earlier see the possiblity for a 12-bit micro-
    controller for core memory testers that could also be sold as an
    independent computer (some say the first RISC machine)?  Both of these
    were kind of "in the tea leaves" but Digital people saw and acted.
    (And to pick a nit with MMarland:  words *are* commitment sometimes.)
    And how did we have enough others so that one or two or a few peoples'
    visionary ideas gathered force quick enough and we got it done?  What
    allowed the team to share the ideas and volunteer as quick as needed?
    
    
    Gordon used to articulate the principle that we should sell what we use
    and use what we sell.  In those days, I think he meant hardware and
    maybe software.  Today, I think the principle still applies that if
    we're doing it for ourselves we'll get good at it and stay good at it,
    and if we aren't we won't.  But today I think the center of gravity is
    shifting away from what I call "stuff" and toward something else that
    we are using and should be selling.  I'm groping here, as I was groping
    in my base note.  Wetware?  Too vague a term and not quite on target.
    Something like:  ad hoc development and learning.
    
    Something like:  muddling through difficult situations without actually
    killing each other or ourselves, and making it come out well despite
    great hazards.  Something like:  living our working lives as creative,
    contributory adventures.  Something like:  cooperating and teaming
    to serve customers and go the extra mile, when we are tempted to find a 
    good excuse and let George do it.  I'm not being articulate I'm afraid.
    
    
    Whatever it is, there was a time not long ago when someone had a few
    bumper stickers printed up that said I love Digital (with a read heart
    for "love") and by popular demand a whole bunch more got printed.  And
    whatever it is, there was a time not long ago when people with a
    college degree would work as a secretary or a Chip Fab technician
    because this was the one company, the one and only company, that the
    person wanted to work in.  To some extent this was the wish to climb
    aboard a winner but I don't think that was all of it.  I think we
    were doing something for customers that made peoples' blood warm up
    a little bit.  We made a difference in customers' lives, and that
    was no accident.  That was what we were committed to doing.  And while
    we were at it we would open plants in inner cities and make sure women
    and minorities had as near a fair shake as we could contrive.  And when
    we considered opening in South Africa Jack (white) took Jim and Bob
    (both black) and looked it over and decided, on the grounds that there
    were strict laws against putting black people in positions of
    authority, that it just wasn't right and we wouldn't do it.
    
    What do you call all this?  I can't seem to quite pin it down.
    
    
    Whatever it is, if it could be bottled and sold we should bottle it
    and sell it.  Since it can't be, we should find out what else we can
    do with it and sell that.  I think it's in the area of "consulting
    services" maybe--but I'm not sure we wouldn't have to change the
    definition of "consulting services" to make whatever-it-is fit.
    
    
    And then yes, of course we need a transition plan that keeps us flying
    as we transition.  But if it comes out of the essence of this company,
    I don't know that the transition has to be awfully slow or tedious.
    If we really became articulate about what the essential greatness of
    the company and our people has been and still is, maybe all we need
    to do is re-state (as an act of committed speaking you see...) who
    we are and what we stand for.  I imagine we can still sell a lot of
    hardware and software and information as accessories to it
    
    								Russ
    

Digital was a place that empowered people.  Young engineers with good 
ideas were given a chance to change the world. We were a company with a 
can do spirit yet we didn't take ourselves too seriously.

  I remember interviewing in 1981 as I was finishing school and being
  drawn to Digital like a magnet.  One of my interviewers explained the
  reason Digital was so successful was that we had software.  It wasn't
  very good, but at least we had it.

We had authenticity and integrity.  Engineers from all over the company 
talked openly with each other and with customers.  We weren't afraid to 
try new things, make mistakes, and learn from them.  We talked about 
them, even argued about them, and learned together.
  
We were decentralized.  Authority was pushed down into the lower ranks 
as far as it would go.  The hierarchy was flexible.  You could have as 
much authority as you convinced other people you had.

We tolerated a lot of chaos and ambiguity.  People could try almost 
anything if they convinced others to go along.  We built a network that 
allowed people from all over the world to work together to solve their 
problems.

  I remember joking the reason competitors couldn't figure out what DEC
  was doing is that we didn't know ourselves.

We valued diversity.  We were egalitarian.  Secretaries could train 
themselves and be promoted to technician or engineer.  We judged each 
other by our ideas and abilities, not our lifestyles or credentials.
We were informal. Engineers could wear blue jeans and sleep till noon and 
still be valued employees.  We respected what each person had to 
contribute.

  I remember meeting Ken with a group of new hires and someone
  asking Ken what they should do if they had an idea for how to do
  something differently.  Ken looked him straight in the eye and
  said: "Scheme,... do everything you can to convince people your
  idea is right.  But don't just have one idea, have ten because
  nine out of ten times you will lose."

This doesn't mean everything was rosy. Digital is a huge decentralized 
bureaucracy and different parts had their own norms. But somehow Digital 
succeeded in bringing out the best in a lot of people.

What went wrong?

There is no simple answer.  Part of it was inevitable and part was due 
to our own inattention. As we became bigger and more successful, it was 
much harder to remain personally connected.  We tried to be more like a 
big company (IBM?!).  We separated engineers from customers.  We tried 
to look more "professional".  We tried to do it all ourselves (locking 
customers in to proprietary versus open solutions).  We made some 
strategic mistakes: misunderstanding the importance of PCs and why 
people would want computers at home; investing in capital intensive 
automation and super computers; over-valuing our software compared to 
the emerging PC market; allowing personal empires to squander precious 
resources.  As our growth slowed, it became harder to remain open and 
flexible.  We had to get better control of our spending and assets, but 
this hurt morale and creativity.

It hurts.  We've lost a lot.  But it's not too late.  The problems are 
much bigger than just us.  The whole economy is suffering.  We can still 
create a healthy future.

What will it take?  I don't claim to have the whole answer,
but would like to offer some ideas for your consideration.

It will require letting go of the past and no more blame.  If you see 
something that isn't right, be gentle on the people but hard on the 
problem.  Propose a constructive alternative.  If you're not sure what 
it is, give it time to emerge.  We are all victims of a system that 
isn't working.  We all need to be supported to help transform it.

It will require courage to face our past mistakes and toughest problems 
squarely.  What is the reality, and how can we respond?  What works, and 
what doesn't?

We need to dream beyond the current limitations to the future we want.

---

Finally, I'd like to share my own vision.  It's up to all of us to
try and see reality clearly so we can respond with what is needed.

As I've written in previous notes (2827.18 and .20), part of our problem
is we are not thinking whole.  In our pursuit of short term gains,
we often undermine our own longer term prosperity.

  We need to think in terms of minimizing waste instead of maximizing
  short term output and minimizing cost.  This is the essence of SIX
  SIGMA and other TQM approaches.  Waste includes any duplicated effort,
  unnecessary steps, or even variability that may require future
  corrective action.  We need to consider waste across the entire
  system including those to whom we deliver our services and those
  who will come after us.  No more shifting-the-burden.
  No more low value differentiation.

In our economy, it is possible to grow more food per acre using 
industrial agriculture practices that sacrifice the top soil and pollute 
the ground water.  Approximately half the top soil of the North American 
continent has been lost to erosion in the last 200 years and the rate is 
increasing.  Food production is starting to decline.

Timber prices are low due to a glut on the market while at the same time
we are running out of old growth forests to cut.

Fish stocks are depleted around the world due to over fishing.  
Fisherman either have to get out, or invest in the latest large scale 
equipment (huge drift nets and sonar) to compete.  But this investment 
depletes global fish stocks even more.

"The waste-heaps, polluted waters, sterile and eroded soils, the forests
devastated by clear-cutting, the toxic chemicals, the radioactive waste,
the thinning ozone layer; we see all this, yet we continue creating 
these chemicals, clear-cutting the forests, polluting the waters, piling 
up enormous waste heaps, destroying wetlands.  Even though the 
industrial bubble is already dissolving, even while the end of the 
petroleum basis of the economy is in sight, even now the commercial-
industrial world insists that this is the only way to survival."
[Thomas Berry]

  My second major point is that we live in a closed interdependent
  system with finite limits, yet our economic and cultural ideas were
  formed in an age when you could cut as many trees as you wanted, catch
  as many fish as you wanted, and burn as much oil as you wanted because
  there was always more where that came from.  When our ancestors came
  here, this was a vast open continent which required a lot of equipment
  to tame and settle.  Today we are running out of the very things which
  are most critical to sustain us.

In many households, both parents must work to make ends meet.  As each
generation takes for granted what was a luxury for their parents. We 
have to work even harder to pay for it all.  Our rural communities are 
designed such that having two cars is often essential.  Telephone 
answering machines, VCRs, dishwashers, day care, they are becoming
the norm.

In the current recession, hundreds of thousands of college educated
professionals are being laid off, part of the most educated work force
ever assembled.  The economists aren't exactly sure what to make of it.
It looks like a recovery, but the job growth isn't there and 
inflationary pressure still looms.  Corporate America is still shedding 
workers.  Many look to consumer spending to lead the recovery.

  "This recession is not simply an economic recession of any one nation
  or even of the entire human community.  It is a recession of the
  entire planet in the most basic aspects of its functioning.  The Earth
  simply cannot sustain the burden imposed upon it.  The air has become
  too polluted to sustain life in its former vigor.  The water of the
  planet is toxic for an indefinite period of time.  The soils of the
  Earth are saturated with chemicals.  The limitless consumption by the
  industrial nations and the increase in population of the non-
  industrial nations have brought us to an impasse for which only a
  drastic remedy can be in any manner effective."
  [Thomas Berry, The New Political Alignment]

Our challenge is not growth, but how to reduce consumption while still
meeting every one's needs?

"While some would claim that the computer is a symbol of what's wrong 
with our technology, our society, and our attitude towards the 
earth,...Most of us will never give up our PCs, much less the rest of 
modern civilization.  Computers are integral to our work, vital to 
managing our complex society, and just too much fun to forego.  The PC 
is am empowering invention, one that gives us new freedoms that, once 
tasted, are difficult to live without.

And there are good reasons to set computers apart from other products of 
high technology.  Unlike cars and nuclear power plants, computers can 
emulate and replace a wide range of other technologies at less cost to 
the environment.  For example, working at home and sending computer 
files by modem to your office is more environmentally benign (as well as 
more healthy and more satisfying) than commuting to work three hours a 
day by car." [Steven Anzovin, The Green PC]

  Can computers really be part of a sustainable future?  I'd like to
  try.  This is my vision.  Digital should lead the revolution toward
  sustainable information technology.  Affordable systems that empower
  ordinary people.  Systems that don't require complex administration
  or learning to operate.  Systems that perform their task well and
  just work, and work, and work.  Systems that serve communities
  instead of alienating people.

We should be pushing the envelope of telecommuting.  Our flexible 
decentralized culture and networking strengths make us a natural.  
Hundreds of Digital employees have begun this already on their own 
initiative.  Employees who work at home need computing and network 
services.  ETV, what are we waiting for!

Reduced working hours?  Absolutely!  Imagine the talent we could attract 
by offering people a 30 hour work week with good benefits.  Enabling
employees to give more to their families and communities while consuming
less is a profound step in the right direction.

We should not be afraid to use other peoples technology when it's the 
best for the job (Macintosh and PCs).  We should build on it to create 
solutions better than it alone can provide.

We already have a leading resource recovery program.  Let's leverage 
this into a corporate asset.  Let's focus our best efforts to build
products that consume less energy, last longer, are manufactured 
responsibly, and are easy to disassemble and recover when their useful 
life is over.

Have you noticed how we are having more trouble maintaining our own 
internal systems?  The printers and copiers seem to be down more often.  
The dial-up lines seem out service more of the time.  Our information 
bases were designed to control and protect information rather than make 
it easy to maintain.  We're supposedly entering the Information Age, but 
the value of information is making the right information available when 
and where it is needed.  Businesses throughout the economy are having 
the same problems we are.  If we could  apply our knowledge of 
distributed systems and network management to address this, we
would truly be leading the information industry.

While I'm not advocating we change our name, the name I would choose
is something like:

   Sustainable Information Technology, Incorporated (SITI ?)

Is this real?  Are we the right people to do it?

We are one of the few complete systems companies with the global reach 
and perspective to do it.  Much of what is needed resonates with the 
best of our past culture.  I think we are hurting for lack of a 
compelling big vision.

I'd like to know what you think.

- Peter


P.S.  Thanks to the previous noters for their stimulus to write this.