| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3744.1 | Having to keep saying this just gets me more upsett | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Thu Mar 16 1995 15:30 | 25 |
|
Yes, and the problem.
Yes to focus on the customer by utilizing *their* primary source
of product acquisition.
The problem is our internal systems are so poor that we are forcing
the customer to purchase the way we can account for that item being
purchased.
Again the age old problem at Digital. We insist that *you* do it
our way. Until that thinking is purged, we will continue to struggle,
miss opportunities, reorganize, and downsize.
In short, Digital is becoming a HBS case study of the first order.
And we are all still waiting for the internal systems to be worth
a sh!*, and have been for over ten years. Meanwhile we have not ONE
single product that holds a top three position in its respective
marketplace, not one.
Think about it...
the Greyhawk
|
| 3744.3 | ? | MKOTS3::DQUINN | | Thu Mar 16 1995 15:41 | 2 |
| In which Market ?
|
| 3744.5 | Does Foest Gump do Notes, too? | GLDOA::WERNER | | Fri Mar 17 1995 16:18 | 20 |
| Never has a potentially meaningful thread been so quickly and so
trivially rat-holed. Maybe we should fire everyone else and ride this
DECmessageQ pony to the fame, glory and riches which it seems so
destined to bring. Maybe someone else can name an even more trivial
product in an even more backwater edge of our industry as proof
positive of Digital's leadership position in the industry.
Folks we are drowning in red ink, pulled down by the red tape of our
own failed internal systems. As someone else said (in Note 3745, I
believe), we are constantly reinventing ourselves into mush. It doesn't
much matter how good the product is technically if you can't quote it
accurately, can't accept and process the order in a timely fashion,
can't deliver with any predictability and can't fix it if it breaks. All
of the internal systems that support those processes are broken it some
degree in Digital today. But, as Denis Miller says...that's just my
opinion, I may be wrong.
-OFWAMI-
|
| 3744.6 | Systems get fixed then what? | MAIL1::HARRISON | | Fri Mar 17 1995 17:05 | 9 |
|
OK Assume the systems are finally fixed....SAP R/3 solves all our
problems.
What will Digital look like in 1 year, 2 years or 5 years?
Any guesses?
BH
|
| 3744.7 | I also picked Maryland to win the NCAAs... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Fri Mar 17 1995 18:15 | 8 |
|
Let's see. R/3 has 800 modules which must all be "custom" fitted to
make a whole system (O/E, FIN, MFG, LOG, etc.). It takes us about 1
year to implement a module. My mind now boggles...you do the math.
My bet is I'm retired before SAP and our IM&T delievers anything
useable by a field DECie.
the Greyhawk
|
| 3744.8 | Digital Bell? | MSDOA::MCLEOD | | Sat Mar 18 1995 07:47 | 10 |
| What will Digital look line in 1-5 years he asked.
Well, I just finished a course on MCI Smart Dialer installations and
we learned a lot about how the telephone system works and how to
install lines, punch down blocks, etc., and how to use that strange
looking BUTT phone that hangs on the telephones mans belt.
Maybe this is an indication, glimpse, omen, vision(?). Am I now
a Multivendor Customer Service Engineer or what?
|
| 3744.9 | Whirlpool and Maytag may be next! ;-) | DPDMAI::HARDMAN | Sucker for what the cowgirls do... | Sat Mar 18 1995 10:22 | 11 |
| Naw, we won't be _truly_ Multivendor until we also start repairing
microwave ovens, TV's, etc. ;-)
We already have service agreements on cash registers, gas pump
controllers and robotic systems that keep track of all the keys at
large auto dealerships. (None of which have ANY Digital brand
components) Like I tell my customers... We'll do ANYTHING
for money!
Harry
|
| 3744.10 | | SNOFS1::POOLE | Over the Rainbow | Sun Mar 19 1995 22:10 | 14 |
| Re: We'll do anything for money . . .
Years ago we bid on a Cane Toad Eradication Program in Queensland,
Australia. I know because I was earmarked to be the PM. This was part
of the DCSS era.
Fortunately, we were booted from the tender process as not having any
track record.
Perhaps we should re-submit ;-)
Later,
Bill
|
| 3744.11 | | PAMSRC::PHILLIPS | | Mon Mar 20 1995 09:04 | 10 |
| Replies .2 and .4 were deleted by me (their author).
Reply .2 described an example which countered the statement in .1 that
Digital doesn't have a single leadership product in any market. Reply
.4 responded to a request by the base author for more information.
Possibly this information did not fit into the "bitch and moan" mentality
so much in demand by certain noters. So rather than keep such a disdainful
pair of notes around to further annoy the sensibilities of other noters, I
figured it would be much better to delete them.
|
| 3744.12 | | ATLANT::SCHMIDT | E&RT -- Embedded and RealTime Engineering | Mon Mar 20 1995 09:37 | 25 |
| PAMSRC::PHILLIPS
I enjoyed your notes about DECmessageQ, but you've got to understand
the point that the others were making: A $13B company should have at
least a few "leadership" products that aren't in a very tiny niche.
After all, I'm probably the world's best BLISS-speaking software
engineer between the ages of 39.xxx and 39.xxx+0.001. See what I
mean? The niche is too tiny to be meaningful.
A company that used to tout that it was "the number two" in the
computer business ought to have the leadership position in some-
thing like:
o "Hardware", or
o "Software".
And if not one of those very broad categories, then "processors"
or "memory" or "storage" or "networks" or "busses", or "operating
systems" or "applications programs" or "data bases" or maybe
"middleware" (a a whole).
Atlant
|
| 3744.13 | View from the trenches. | PAMSRC::CLASS7::SKELDING | | Mon Mar 20 1995 10:26 | 80 |
| < Maybe we should fire everyone else and ride this
< DECmessageQ pony to the fame, glory and riches which it seems so
< destined to bring. Maybe someone else can name an even more trivial
You are clearly trying to make a point. I'll be charitable and attempt
to address the real problems from my point of view. (That of the
DECmessageQ Architect.)
Now, DECmessageQ has been, and still is, a black-sheep operation.
We run almost an independant business inside
and in spite of DIGITAL and we make serious money at it, for
the size of our operation.
As such we form a model of what Digital SHOULD be doing with
software, or anything else it sells. (You see, making money
is GOOD, if you are in a business.)
Right now, we are a small pony --- the actual revenue we bring
in thru license sales - 20 million or so, is round off error
to the company. However for such a small pony, we have
significant presence in big accounts. We actually DO leverage
hardware sales, and can prove it with case histories.
But so what? Your initial gripe was that we were not a market
leader in anything. DECmessageQ is a market leader in a growing
market that is conservatively expected to expand to 200 million or
so shortly. Instead of whining about the lack of presence, lets
duplicate the model and make some more ponys, right?
DIGITAL, it seems, is trying its best to get out of the software
business. (Software exists, apparently, only to leverage hardware.)
In my opinion, this is a way to guarantee that our software will
NEVER leverage anything. If truely adopted, Digital winds up
a second tier chip manufacturer. If we are strictly in the "commodity"
hardware business,the company has to shrink by another order of
magnitude. This is what is occuring naturally, right?
< destined to bring. Maybe someone else can name an even more trivial
< product in an even more backwater edge of our industry as proof
< positive of Digital's leadership position in the industry.
You are completely mistaken if you think that large scale distributed
systems integration is a backwater edge of the industry.
Now, the company is attempting to make it VERY hard to stay in
this business. The US consulting organization, which drove
lots of DECmessageQ sales was vaporized. Customer Service,
which is a key component in keeping customers happy, is
being taken down to a skeleton crew. The establishment
of third party partnerships, which is the wonderful approach
that is supposed to make up the difference, is slower and
less reliable than touted.
<
< Folks we are drowning in red ink, pulled down by the red tape of our
< own failed internal systems. As someone else said (in Note 3745, I
< believe), we are constantly reinventing ourselves into mush. It doesn't
< much matter how good the product is technically if you can't quote it
< accurately, can't accept and process the order in a timely fashion,
< can't deliver with any predictability and can't fix it if it breaks. All
Here I am in complete agreement with you. We have had so many
organizational changes, my head spins. We spend a LOT of our time
selling to the new boss, and just about when we start to make
progress in mindshare, we get a newer boss and have to start again.
Our packaging strategy is a disaster, and takes a LOT of product
management time to keep it from getting worse.
Sales incentives for software are non existant. And we are still
practicing "stealth marketing"... our marketing is WAY understaffed
and underfunded.
The planners who are "streamlining business process" have succeeded in
making every internal process so slow and un-reliable that
it hardly makes sense to continue. BUT - and this is where we
probably differ, we are too angry and stubborn to accept this
as meaning that we are defeated.
|
| 3744.14 | It is still Digital politics as usual... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Mon Mar 20 1995 10:53 | 23 |
|
re: .13
You probably couldn't be more right, or more in the wrong place...
Being angry, or stubborn, or anything these days is a problem
we are all facing. Our CMC (or whatever they are calling it this
week) is still struggling with both a corporate vision that is
executable, and a business plan that fits the *real* world.
We are just passengers on this boat until the officers sink it,
or make it move forward at flank speed. We do have many excellent
point products (LinkWorks also comes to mind), but they wallow
in the swells of corporate politics, directionless tactics (as
opposed to a focused strategy), and a product de jure marketing
mentality.
I wish you and your group the best. Keep it up. And pray while
you work your buns off...because work alone, right now, ain't
enough.
the Greyhawk
|
| 3744.15 | let the light shine through | KAOOA::JAMES | InfiniDim Enterprises | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:24 | 17 |
| Please restore .2 and .4 immediately.
I am a field systems integration person with a background in both
enterprise messaging (X.400) and transaction processing (ACMS) and an
instinctive understanding that DECmessageQ was important.
The reply in .4 was the most succint elaboration of why it was
important, to the integrator, marketeer, and customer that I have read
for a long time. Thankyou... I understand now. I wish I understood
as well how each and every DEC product adds value for customers.
Re: this general thread. DECies are still searching hopelessly for the
one solution, one silver bullet that will fix all of DEC. There isn't
one!!! Corporate success will come when DECmessageQ, Alpha
Manufacturing, and Intel systems distribution all work and are held
accountable. Clearly the solutions in these 3 cases are totally
different, tho the management discipline for success may be common.
|
| 3744.16 | | PAMSRC::PHILLIPS | | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:28 | 81 |
| My deletion of .2 and .4 was quite honestly a knee-jerk to which I
apologize.
In response to .15 and other off-line requests, below are the extracted
copies of the notes.
-- Kevin
================================================================================
Note 3744.2 Quinn...The Capitalist 2 of 5
PAMSRC::PHILLIPS 12 lines 16-MAR-1995 15:37
-< We have (at least) one... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: -1
Not to derail the topic at hand, but DECmessageQ has been and is
currently THE market leader for message-oriented middleware software.
If my stats are correct, we currently own 20% of the MOM market. IBM
currently has 12%.
This may not last, but we have at least one product which holds the
market lead position.
-- Kevin Phillips (now in DmQ Engineering).
================================================================================
Note 3744.3 Quinn...The Capitalist 3 of 5
MKOTS3::DQUINN 2 lines 16-MAR-1995 15:41
-< ? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In which Market ?
================================================================================
Note 3744.4 Quinn...The Capitalist 4 of 5
PAMSRC::PHILLIPS 44 lines 16-MAR-1995 17:40
-< Since you asked... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The space where DECmessageQ plays in can be called "message oriented
middleware" (MOM) and is horizontally distributed over many market
segments.
A significant number of fortune-500 companies have mission-critical
applications built upon DECmessageQ. Industries include semi-conductor mfg,
steel fabrication, aircraft mfg, transportation, banking, defense (
command/control, logistics ), chemical, real-time process control ...
DECmessageQ currently runs on a zillion versions of Unix,
OpenVMS, MS-DOS, Windows, Windows-NT, Mac and to IBM platforms
via LU6.2.
Middleware is software which reduces the complexity of client/server
applications by freeing a client and server from having to communicate at the
network protocol level.
Middleware has been implemented with different technical approaches.
One widely known approach is via Remote Procedure Calls (RPC). RPC
has the disadvantage of requiring a tight point to point connection between
client and server. Commercial RPC's have difficulties with complexity,
scalability and performance. Standards boards, however, love RPC's.
Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) is a subset of the Middleware
software market. It allows clients and servers to communicate via messages.
With the addition of queueing capability, messages can be "dropped off" for
later processing by the client. This flexibility has proved to be a major
differentiator when selling against straight point to point messaging and RPC.
Store and forward applications naturally fit into a message queueing scheme,
with disk queues inserted in the flow of a message from sender to target.
The MOM market is an emerging and growing market. DECmessageQ started as a
customer project in the mid-80's and was sold as a "packaged application
service". It became a corporate product in 1991, is the only "mature" product
in the MOM market and is the market leader (in $'s, # of customers and # of
installations) . Others in the MOM market include IBM (MQSeries), Covia
Technologies (Communications Integrator), Teknekron and PeerLogic (Pipes
Platform).
Publications such as Client Server Today can give good info about the market
(CST devoted it's Nov. 94 issue to MOM).
Hope this answers your question.
-- Kevin
|
| 3744.17 | | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:15 | 41 |
|
No flames please...
Having come from competitor, I would have listed the following as
Digital's competitive offerings that I know HP, for example, has been
trying for years to engineer and still fails. Let's not make
honest-to-goodness products/technologies that have competitive
advantages the scapegoats of ineffective marketing,
turkey's-head-in-the-sand senior management or any other
stupid self-inflicted things we do to ourselves.
--- Notes - think about it - #1 - this is pure many-to-many conferencing
tool that showcases our ability to network globally.
#2 - Just think of the contents - some conferences are
simply content-rich, almost encyclopedic in quality.
Could these be scrubbed clean and offered as a
knowledge hub via WEB? Notes put America Online,
Compuserve etc to shame!
--- VTX - this is a wonderful (if done properly, of course)
one-to-many broadcasting tool. HP tried to do the same
via HPDeskmgr programming - no way!
--- Clustering or rather distributed lock mgr
- Seriously who else can TRULY cluster today? By that
who can provide these benefits (simultaneously,
sometimes): high reliability, tailored and therefore
planned scalability, load balancing, etc.
HP tried and still trying!
--- Networking be it Ethernet or TCP-IP, or whatever. Check around.
Ask you HP friend if s/he has immediate access to Internet, can you send
your friend an Internet message, ask for an internet address. You'd
be quite surprised! Ask them to FTP humongous files from anywhere to
anywhere. Not so easy for them!
--- WEB technology - Digital is quite advance in implementing it,
it probably can sell WEB services, but I haven't heard about the
Internet/WEB business unit activities lately. Has anyone?
Oh boy, it saddens me to think about opportunities lost.
|
| 3744.18 | How to fail in business without even trying... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:21 | 13 |
|
-1
It does all of us. We seem to have made it a management speciality.
Find an emerging market, ignore it until it has two very major players.
Spend two years reading a first generation product. Go to market. Get
creamed. Blame it on somebody else internally. Ignore market again.
Repeat do loop two years later with single incremental counters.
If it wasn't so sad, it would be very funny....
the Greyhawk
|
| 3744.19 | almost too late -- again | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8) | Mon Mar 20 1995 22:37 | 22 |
| re Note 3744.17 by SX4GTO::WANNOOR:
> --- WEB technology - Digital is quite advance in implementing it,
> it probably can sell WEB services, but I haven't heard about the
> Internet/WEB business unit activities lately. Has anyone?
I think Greyhawk expressed in .-1 very generally what I'm
about to say in particular about this:
We have an edge in some aspects of this technology today,
and the market for Web technology is still forming, so the
leadership positions aren't already taken.
However, our (Digital's) approach to this seems halting and
tentative: entire software strategy talks are given,
including distribution frameworks and client/server, and yet
the Web is never mentioned.
We are very close to the point of it being too late to matter
-- once again.
Bob
|
| 3744.20 | | ULYSSE::FINKA | | Tue Mar 21 1995 04:09 | 46 |
| Products mentioned in these notes are DecMessageQ and SAP R/3. They are
good indications of what the right direction is.
Simple standardization of interfaces and access to components to achieve
reusability and give access of powerful services developed by IS experts to
ordinary users.
DecMessageQ and SAP R/3 both allow to achieve a required dynamic API in a
heterogeneous distributed environment.
I have already quoted that the future is an extension of SQL or DBI to be able
to invoke services not only data access services.
Apparently out management does not give any clear message on our software
strategy. I can't figure out any other reason than lack of competence or
serious work on the matter !
Consequences are disastrous when SI groups have to decide the right
architectures to put in place.
If I were an IT manager I would for instance force programmers to use IMS today.
Information Management Services has the following features :
Connection to DecMessageQ
All features of DecMessageQ are available
* Exchange of self-describing ASN.1 encoded messages
* Message tolerances (performances increased for large volumes)
Asynchronous and synchronous invocation
* Unlimited message size
High performance
* Memory management. Automatic memory allocation.
* Product insulation
* Built-in server management
* Easy to use API
* Dynamic style binding API
Multi-language support (C, C++, Pascal, Basic, VB, Cobol, Fortran)
* Server management (start, stop, list, etc.)
* Namespace independence (DNS, CDS, File)
* Backup servers
* Failure modes (Autostart, Restart, Notify)
* Application monitoring
* Security services
* are advantages of IMS over DecMessageQ
Regards,
Jean
|
| 3744.21 | Well - lets stir up another hornets nest. | PAMSRC::CLASS7::SKELDING | | Tue Mar 21 1995 09:16 | 47 |
| >If I were an IT manager I would for instance force programmers to use IMS today.
>Information Management Services has the following features :
> Connection to DecMessageQ
...
WHOOPS - bad idea. The correct way to dominate a market is to have some
tool/widget/product that is so easy to use that it becomes a standard
because everybody wants it. IMS has the potential to do this,
if nurtured properly, but thinking about "forcing" programmers to use
a product will kill it as fast as anything I know.
The most important thing to say about IMS at the present time
is that it provides easy to manage, tailor, and use interfaces
and is very useful in providing distributed access to
big monolithic business packages like SAP/R3.
IMS can be the glue that ties big business systems together --- and
what is best about it is that the tool can be "slid" into place on
an existing system. It does not require a hugh RISKY re-engineering
effort to adopt it. The business potential of this should not be lost
in technical features wars.
The features listed are all natural extentions of a messaging system
and technically make a great deal of sense. But of MUCH MUCH greater
importance is what can be DONE with the technology.
Now, since we are on this sidetrack, I'll mention that messaging,
DECmessageQ and IMS are natural ways to slip customers into and
promote object oriented technology. After all, the way objects
interact is by sending "messages" to one another. Most of what
I know about the proper design of messaging systems can be
IMMEDIATELY grasped and spoken about with the new O-O terms
promoted by Rumbaugh, and Booch.
The reason I bring this up, is that the internal politics of
promoting the benefits of various technologies is causing
us to miss the synergy we can develop between them.
And THAT is something that is killing our engineering. It is ultimately
far worse than clumsy internal business practices.
|
| 3744.22 | Discipline - proven results | MKOTS3::DQUINN | | Tue Mar 21 1995 16:43 | 34 |
|
Today I received an Annual Report from Newell Company -
On the inside cover Newell answers "who we are" in two sentences with
four additional bullets, categorically as follows: Newell is...,
Our Basic Strategy is..., Our Financial objectives are....
on page one: Net Sales - Growth Rates: 5 yr. 11% , 10 yr. 20%
Net Income - Growth Rates: 5 yr. 13% , 10 yr. 27%
On page two: "what we think"
"Central to our performance has been a very tight strategic
focus." with "Focused !" highlighted as a note.
Annual growth rates in the core product lines range from 5% to 57%
Annual growth rates in the markets that Newell serves 15% to 26%
How we grow: : "...In place of slogans, there is discipline. And in
place of excuses, there are results...results like exceptional sales,
earnings and internal growth. Newell's growth strategy provides a solid
foundation that focuses on performance, profitability and the best
interests of its stockholders."
Reading further, the report outlines a growth strategy through
aquisition of underperforming companies. Newell then applies their
model and corporate discipline and positions the companies to serve
specific markets in which it can be profitable.
Return to investors: 4 - 2 for 1 stock splits since 1983.
|
| 3744.23 | Comparisons, etc... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Tue Mar 21 1995 17:07 | 28 |
|
Discipline has always been a particular problem here. Probably from the
parochial nature of Uncle Ken's Excellent Adventure. Focus, however, is
a different issue. Some parts of Digital are focused quite well, other
parts haven't got a clue, and still others are somewhere in between.
Focus as a corporate tactic is kind of like motherhood. Everybody is
for it; but only one segment of the population actually does it. But
everybody talks about it, and is an "expert" on the topic.
Of more concern would be the parallel between Newell (which is a very
well run manufacturer of home hardware right here in Rockford,
Illinois) and Digital in the take-over of badly run firms and then
made better. You can almost directly trace many of our current
difficulties from the Olivetti, Kinzle, and Mannesmann debacles,
especially as it affected our European operations.
We then have withdrawn from being an acquirer, and are most probably
the worst off for it. I can easily see where a judicious acquisition
here and there coupled with several of our existing product sets could
make us a market leader (the Middleware marketplace, for example). But
we stub a toe, and then are scared to put our foot anywhere near that
spot again.
Oh well, at least Michael Jordan is back in a BULLS uniform....and all
is well with the world in Chicago.
the Greyhawk
|