Richard Seltzer's home page Publishing home
Articles about DEC
Volume 8, #8 November, 1989
‘Business Segments’ - Digital’s New Planning & Management Structure by Jack Smith, senior vice president, Manufacturing, Engineering & Product Marketing
Update On Digital Europe by Pier Carlo Falotti, President, Digital Europe
Distributed Computing And The Art Of Managing With Information by Roger Heinen, Corporate Consulting Engineer, and manager, Open Software Group
Enterprise-Wide Information Management At Digital by Mike Kalagher, manager, U.S. Administration
Collaboration With Rockwell International - An Exchange Of Manufacturing Technology by Dinesh Maheshwary, Manufacturing Corporate Account manager for Rockwell
Reflections On Teamwork And ‘The Dream’ by Pier Carlo Falotti, President, Digital Europe
Industry Marketing And Product Marketing Merge
New Program Makes Internal Applications Available To Customers
Worldwide Idle Asset Listing Helps Reduce Business Expenditures
Chuck Thacker And Rich Hollingsworth Named Corporate Consulting Engineers
Desktop Systems Group Renamed
Because we keep growing, we have to look periodically at our organizational structure to make sure it is appropriate for the company now and in the future.
Since 1983. when the company was about a third of its present size, we have managed Digital essentially as a single business with a single point of integration at the top. For the past year and a half, we’ve been reviewing this organizational structure to see if it could carry us into the 1990s. We concluded that it would not give us the insight we need into what is going on throughout the company. More importantly, it would not give us the opportunity to understand where we should invest and where we should get our returns, as we move to the next plateau of growth.
Basically, we needed to identify pieces of the company so we could look at them from the top to the bottom. This was very difficult because so much of what we do is interdependent. Should we segment by applications, by industries, by style of computing, by product price-band or by some combination of criteria?
Finally, we decided on three major product segments and two service segments. This change entails virtually no reorganization. Rather, the change is effected through a redefinition of responsibilities.
From the point of view of style of computing, the product segments are desktop, departmental and high. From the point view of price band, we refer to them as low, medium and high. The price ranges, for now, are approximately $1000-$ 130,000; $130,000 to $700,000; $700,000 and up. These segments are managed by Dom LaCava. Bill Demmer and Bob Glorioso, respectively, and cover the same products as the Low-End, Mid-Range and High Performance engineering organizations. These organizations will remain the same, but their responsibilities will be expanded.
The two major service businesses — Customer Services and Professional Services, run by Don Zereski and Don Busiek — were already looked at as separate businesses; thus they are essentially unchanged, except that we expect greater coordination between the products and services parts of the business, where they intersect.
Segment managers will be responsible for developing the plans that will determine the resource requirements across the company. Based on the segment plans, Manufacturing, Engineering, and the Field will formulate their implementation plans.
Before, we took all the insights from all the functions and brought them together at a single point of integration and then decide where to go from there. In that model, it was not clear who was doing analysis from the point of view of overall investment and return and who was directing what. It was a committee or consensus process, and no individual was responsible.
Now business managers are going to be held responsible for developing the plans of the company. And when we add up all their plans, they will total 100% of the company.
Although segment managers are not expected to manage the functional resources on a day- to-day basis, they are expected to feel accountable that those resources are being put into place, are adequately trained and are delivering a reasonable return on that investment.
If I’m a segment manager and Manufacturing doesn’t deliver, I’m held accountable for that failure as is the manufacturing person. You have to be good enough to be able to manage situations like that. It’s unacceptable for a segment manager to walk in and say, "I didn’t deliver my return on investment because Manufacturing didn’t do something" or "the product was late" or "we didn’t have the right number of sales people or support people in place." You had the plan, and the functions agreed to implement it. If for some reason, they were not able to implement it, they failed; but you also failed. The segment managers are being held responsible for every facet of delivering that plan.
Segment managers’ responsibilities extend throughout the life cycle of products — from the investment phase through the return phase. Because our product segment managers also double as engineering managers, this change should significantly increase Engineering's interest in our selling and servicing functions. For their business segment to be successful, the products must be complete, their advantages clearly described, the sales force adequately educated and trained, and specific sales opportunities fully supported.
The driving force behind this change has been our need to understand and manage the company in a way that helps us make better decisions and to allocate and use resources more effectively in support of our customers.
This approach follows the product line concept that was so important in the early days at Digital. It is based on two main principles:
o you, as manager, will be held accountable although you cannot control the resources; and
o each product line will stand on its own and be accountable on its own for its individual business.
The old product lines ran into trouble because they started to violate both of those principles. They started to become much too involved in the day-to-day operations of the functions at the expense of developing good strategies that helped our selling resources return the planned revenue. They built up overhead and bureaucracy.
At the same time, they started to consolidate. At one time there were as many as 38 product lines that we looked at as 38 individual pieces. Unfortunately, we started consolidating those pieces; so we ended up with five instead of 38, and lost accountability and built up bureaucracy.
We learned from that. Those two principles will not be violated this time.
The main operating units are the businesses that report to Don LaCava, Bill Demmer, Bob Glorioso, Don Zereski and Don Busiek. We used to refer to them as Product Business Units or PBUs.
For example, Dom has five separate businesses. He’s fully responsible for them. But, when it comes to understanding the businesses, it’s the five people who report to him who make the decisions on where we should invest and where we will get our return. Dom doesn’t talk about his group as a homogeneous whole. Rather, he reports on each of his five business segments separately.
That's the principle. We’d like to have as many of these business segments as makes sense. We’re not worried about span of control. If we end up with 56 business segments, and they make sense and can stand on their own and can be managed from the standpoint of investment and return, that will be fine. If we end up with 12, that will be fine too.
We began using this concept with the FY90 budget, before the details were all worked out. The main idea is that the segment managers are now leading the company.
This way of looking at the business is complementary to the Field efforts in planning by account. The Sales unit/account manager is Digital's primary contact with the customer. The segment focus will provide the resources — from products to training and other programs — to ensure these Sales managers are successful in meeting customer needs with Digital solutions.
The business segments, by principle, have to market their products to the Field. For any customer solution, there are usually two or three different approaches. So it is the responsibility of the segment managers to package their products in such a way that it is attractive for particular industries. So there’s a dialogue with the Field to make sure that the product strategies and business plans from the segments line up with what the Field plans to sell.
In large part, the Operations Committee was created to give the segment managers a forum so they can identify and resolve issues quickly and efficiently. Everyone whom they need to work with is on that committee. Together they openly discuss opportunities and problems.
In our rapidly changing business environment, as soon as the ink dries on a plan, it is going to start to change. So, we need to be able to deal with those changes immediately, in real time. The business segment focus and the Operations Committee should enable us to do that.
I am often asked to contrast the US and Europe, in terms of Digital’s markets and organization. Inevitably this results in a discussion about the external environment, which so heavily influences how we are organized and do business in Europe.
There is in fact no single business entity called "Europe." Instead, it’s a grouping of 18 different countries, each with its own language and culture, and having different legal and fiscal structures, overlaid by an increasingly complex matrix of European community laws and processes.
These national differences represent a natural framework of communities, and in each country Digital has strong national and regional management teams who integrate our business cullture with the local environment. The role of the European Management Team is to create overall business goals and the umbrella framework of organization and processes to support achievement of these goals by the countries and functions.
Our diversity is also a strength in business, since we are effectively trading in 18 different markets. Market conditions vary considerably from one country to the next, and at present we see no "saturation" of the computer market in the countries of Europe. On the contrary, the activities preparing for the economic unification of Europe in 1992 are really pushing our customers to innovate to survive and to be more competitive. There are tremendous mergers and consolidations being planned which will allow European companies to acquire the critical size to compete worldwide with American and Japanese companies.
Of course, today there is a tendency to be careful when interest rates are going up. But I believe that with our products and with the quality of the organization that we have in each of our countries, we should continue to grow much faster than any of our competitors. That's what we’ve been doing for a while now. The only limitation I see for us is how many good people can we attract so that we can sell more and cover more. Afterall, our marketshare is still very small. So we have plenty of opportunity.
Fifteen years ago, Digital had a variety of different computer families — PDP-11, DECSYSTEM 10/20 and VAX systems. At first that looked like a disadvantage. But the experience we gained as we developed the networking technology to link those different systems together has turned out to be an important advantage as we now help customers who face similar problems.
Likewise, managing 18 different subsidiaries in Europe has been a difficult task. But what we have learned now gives us an important advantage as our customers try to do similarly in preparation for 1992. We have a fantastic advantage because we have been operating in this way for many years. So customers are looking at how we operate internally and what we have learned in terms of organization and management, as well as the use of computer systems.
After all, information systems are a just tool to help them in the way they want to organize. Systems certainly are a critical success factor in business today, but they should not come first. First you should fix the organizational structures and your business integration and business practices. Then you should determine the system.
In Digital Europe, we have gone through many organizational changes in the last six or seven years. Some have been successful and some less so. You could say that the fact that we have 18 countries is an advantage this means we have 18 different laboratories in which to try different programs and approaches.
When an experiment works, we can make it more standard. If it doesn't work, we learn from the experience.
For instance, we had an international account problem inside Europe, and were forced to find a way to deal with it organizationally. We tried several different solutions. Now the geography manager where the customer’s headquarters is located is responsible for that account worldwide.
Now, for example, Joerg Rieder is responsible for making sure Siemens is happy worldwide. The account plan now comes from the account manager and the rest of the company cooperates to execute that plan. If we disagree, we tell him or her later. First we execute, then we argue (instead of arguing first and never executing, just leaving the customer waiting.) So we are trying to instill the approach that first you think internationally and then you think nationally. We are working very hard on that. We have to succeed in making this cultural switch. It is fundamental to our future.
(The following article is based on the keynote address that Roger delivered on Sept. 27 at the Dataquest Distributed Computing Conference held in Santa Clara, California.)
There are strong business reasons that guarantee customers will make huge financial investments in distributed systems. But the long-range viability of those investments is in genuine doubt unless users of this technology are willing to face the serious social and organizational challenges raised by distributed systems.
In fact, we may look back in ten years and conclude that distributed systems was the "Al of the ’90s" - oversold as the solution to all problems. Just like artificial intelligence in the 1970s, we’ll conclude that the technology was ahead of the customer’s ability to utilize it.
For end users, having a truly distributed system means that all users in an organization can get all the information they need, wherever they need it, from whatever kind of system, whenever they need it, without having to ask anyone’s permission. This is simple to define, but not so easy to implement; hence the excitement and anticipation of users, and the challenge and difficulty for vendors.
Not only is distributed computing cost-effective, and capable of optimizing the system for end users, it reduces the stress on overburdened Information System (IS) departments, and empowers far-flung managers and users with a greater sense of responsibility as they take more ownership for information, data, and communications. We are beyond the point where centralized computing can equal the advantages of an integrated, distributed system. It
is no wonder that so many companies are rushing forward into distributed computing.
But what are they getting themselves into? Will cost savings, by themselves, be enough to take advantage of the possibilities distributed systems create? How much longer can we expect organizations to keep purchasing ultra-powerful, ultra-sophisticated technology when they are still having trouble trying to figure out how to get people to effectively use electronic mail?
The greatest challenge to the successful implementation of distributed systems is not technical — it is social. The technical barriers to distributed systems will be broken. But my worry is that we will be sitting here ten years from now trying to figure out why our huge investment in distributed systems didn't pay off — in productivity gains, faster time-to-market, a more flexible organization and greater competitive advantage. The answer to that question will not be technical. It will lie in the way that we have organized ourselves to absorb and take advantage of the technology. It will lie in a thick tangle of issues surrounding the relationship between the way people and organizations work and the impact of technology.
It is my hope that in raising some of these issues, we can better appreciate the profound social challenges inherent in distributed computing and forge ahead with open eyes. I won’t be offering any easy answers to this challenge, but it is important that we not forget that it will be people, not the technology itself, that determine its ultimate success.
Technology changes the functions, roles, and power of those who use it — quite often with unanticipated consequences. Imagine what the impact of distributed computing can be — a form of technology that has the potential to unleash the flow of information within an organization.
It is this impact, which is social in nature, that has to be successfully managed for distributed systems to result in the kind of gains we are imagining for it. But that is not being done. A whole series of extremely important issues is being ignored.
For example, it is a common assumption that open access to information for individuals in line positions will empower them. More information will give them a better picture of what’s going on, allow them greater input, provide opportunity for the exercise of creativity and innovation. We might call this one of the social benefits of distributed computing.
But can it be realized? If we give our people access to reams of information, will they know what to do with it? Will they be able to analyze it or use it for making decisions? Will they even be able know what information on the computer is significant enough to pull off for further study?
The truth is. most business people are not trained in the art of managing with information. Even those who go to business school are trained only in the very limited school of managing with financial data - looking at elements such as current ratios, quick ratios and debt/equity ratios.
But distributed computing opens the possibility of analyzing sales and marketing data, for example, that have never quite been fractionated before. How many vice presidents of sales have sales analysis systems that allow them to fully understand where the sales effort is being spent, by activity, by type of customer, by sales person, by product? And of the few who might have that information, how many have the control processes in place to surgically insert the proper tool and change the process?
Such systems require skills and modes of thinking that most business people simply haven’t been adequately trained to handle.
One could even suggest that the short-term financial orientation of so much of American industry is simply a result of the fact that we don't teach business students how to manage with anything but financial data.
Even if we properly trained our people to fully maximize the information that distributed computing could deliver to them, would their jobs, as presently constituted, allow them to take advantage of it? Most of the jobs existing today were defined independent of the kind and amount of data that distributed computing can make available.
There’s a real danger here. If information and technology allow people to do new, exciting and unanticipated things, and their job description and the requirements of their managers restrict them from doing it, you substantially undermine the benefits of empowering them in the first place. And you create the possibility of what one organizational analyst calls "corrosive frustration" — a swell of resentment from below that undermines the unanimity and purpose of the whole organization.
Distributed computing not only raises the issue of whether individuals can do their job better with information, and whether their job should be restructured because of information, but whether whole departments, as they now exist, need to change, perhaps combining into new functions. Research, engineering and manufacturing have been moving closer together over the years, and now there is a push to move these functions closer to sales and marketing. At some point, the overlap may be so great that internal functions will have to wind up being completely reconfigured. Certainly distributed computing creates an enabling technology that will allow that to happen.
Implementors of distributed computing are going to have to face three major social issues. First, we are going to have to train people to maximize their use of information. Second, we are going to have to support them as jobs are redefined so they take advantage of all this information. And third, we will have to help each other across the organization in the redefinition of departmental boundaries.
Whether we have the courage and commitment to face honestly the implications of this new technology, and to try to make the changes necessary to maximize our investment in both people and technology, is the great social challenge raised by integrated distributed systems.
It is a social, not technical, challenge, and a very serious one at that. Just trying to get people to allow information to flow in the first place can be a trial. Distributed computing by itself doesn’t make information flow freely. In many organizations, information is power and the control of information has always been one way that managers can maintain a high currency.
It is no wonder managers are so ambivalent about fully implementing distributed computing. Managers will be reluctant to give up information if they see the control of it as their power base — making one’s name by being the only source. Only when a company values and rewards the sharing of information, not its control, will the capabilities of distributed computing come to true fruition.
We often worry about the impact of technology and so rarely are prepared to deal with it. We can change technology a lot faster than we can change human behavior.
Even Digital, renowned for its matrix organization, its worldwide computer network, its commitment to innovation and creativity, and its distributed computing, is not immune. It is not uncommon in Digital for teams on distributed networks to be so far out ahead of the organizational structure, that we find ourselves trying to catch up. We are used to organizational change, and we move very fast - but that doesn’t make that change any less wrenching.
To summarize, first, there are strong pushes to distribute computing away from centralized systems. But, second, to do this without facing the social challenge of absorbing that technology raises doubts about its ultimate viability. This is the greatest challenge to distributed systems in the 1990s.
But the potential is great for empowering people where they work, for opening avenues of innovation and creativity, for creating an organization that plays like a symphony orchestra, for really building upon the power of this special technology.
At times, we operate in what could best be described as an "information bucket brigade." Many people gather data at various steps all the way through the business, and other people in technical jobs assemble that information for users. We need to shorten the distance from the people who have the information to the people who need it.
Our vision is an environment where information flows freely and creates excitement. People are energized by having the real information in timely fashion that has quality. We want managers up and down the organization to know the real product demand, so they can make adjustments in real time. We want plants to see the actual demand as it comes in from customers.
Anyone who uses computers to make business decisions will be touched by the implementation of an enterprise-wide information management architecture within Digital. The objective of this architecture is to make high quality information easily available in a transparent network of data warehouses. The person needing information will no longer need to know where the information is physically located, only what he or she needs. The architecture will establish a secure environment that enables the free flow of information for Digital, its trading partners and others who have an authorized need for Digital’s information.
In the past, information strategies were driven separately by each individual function. A year and half ago, the Systems Steering Committee (SSCom), which acts as a cross-functional advisory board to Digital Information Systems (DIS), decided to create an enterprise-wide focus for information management at Digital. They asked U.S. Administration to lead the development of a strategy that would support the entire enterprise. We appointed Tim Woisin to pull together the Information Management Forum. This Forum consists of senior business and technical representatives across the company. With their guidance, we began developing this architecture.
Digital has a variety of business entities — business segments, functions and geographies — each of which had been pursuing an information architecture of its own. Similarly, we had to identify the few basic principles and standards that everybody should abide by to make sure that the overall system works like an integrated network. For instance, one of our basic principles is that information created within Digital belongs to Digital and not to any one functional unit. Hence, there should never be a cross-charge for information. In addition, we had to set some rules for the connections between these sub-architectures. At the same time, we didn’t want to dictate matters that aren't necessary to make the whole system work together smoothly. We are also balancing ease of access to information with the need to encourage and monitor proper usage of the system.
There is an enormous demand for computerized information that isn’t being met today because we can’t get it together in a timely enough fashion. For instance, information that would be valuable if I could have it at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning is worthless to me if 1 can't have it on time. Thousands of sucli requests go unanswered today.
The difference between what we have today and what we want tomorrow is the difference between "just-in-case" and "just-in-time."
Today, not knowing what the business is going to ask for and knowing we have long lead times to fetch information, we build data bases closer and closer to us, just in case somebody should ask for this information. That drives a huge cost structure. We want a just-in-time network, where the end user pulls the information through when it’s needed.
Of course, there will always be some kinds of information that many people will want on a regular basis. In those cases, there is a push to make the databases available so everybody who needs the information can have access to it.
We need to make the overall system simple enough so business people with a need can take care of 60-70% of their requests themselves, without the help of an expert.
When we say "enterprise," we mean more than just Digital. We also include its trading partners — both vendors and customers.
The feature of this architecture that will allow links with other companies is the ability of the custodian of the information to control who gets access to what portion of it. That’s one of the technical changes we’re working on now.
Business and organizational changes, such as the new "business segment" emphasis and the shift to an account focus, are making it all the more important that we deal promptly with these information management issues.
With the new business segment structure, segment managers will be anxious to get business information they need. They know that this information has already been computerized somewhere in the company, and they don’t want to hear about how complicated it is to access it. This new architecture provides a framework for implementing a solution to this requirement, in a high quality, timely and cost-effective manner.
At the same time, the U.S. Field is being restructured to an account focus. Data bases that were set up with the old organizational model have to be changed so we can do profit and loss statements for accounts, and provide data in new forms. For example, how do you give a district, which now has responsibility for an account that is country-wide, all the information they need? The implications to our existing data bases are enormous.
Right now, we have people busily implementing a solution to those Field-related questions for a January deadline. We’re taking this opportunity to implement some elements of this new architecture. For instance, when we restructure the data for the Field, we can take the organizational connotation out of the data and keep that as a separate reference file, so that future organizational changes won’t require major data restructuring efforts.
Moving forward with implementation of this architecture will require teamwork and trust throughout the company.
Information is powerful, and, to some, it means power. One of the toughest cultural obstacles we have to deal with is the fact that some people who have information today fell compelled to guard it. People need to say "This information belongs to Digital. I'm a caretaker, and have responsibilities to the company."
Our customers are very interested in learning what we do to solve these problems, which they are also facing. This architecture is not only a way to deal with pressing internal Digital needs, it also can become an important marketing tool. As our global customers try to deal with the issues of information management across their enterprises, with our experience, we’ll be in a better position to help and guide them. This way, we can demonstrate the outstanding capability of our products, services and people, showing customers how we run our business.
(A document describing the "Enterprise Information Delivery Environment Architecture" or "E-IDEA" has just been published.
For a copy, contact the Information Management Program Office at DTN 272-7303 or Karyn Primeau @CHM).
In August, Digital signed an agreement with Rockwell International for the exchange of manufacturing technology. As a result, Rockwell will send engineers to learn surface mount technology at Digital’s Augusta, Maine, and Salem, New Hampshire, plants, and Digital will send engineers to Rockwell’s Dallas, Texas, plant to learn a technique for predicting the yield of printed circuit board assembly operations at in-circuit test.
Today, Rockwell does surface mount with circuit lines 50 mils (thousandths of an inch) apart, which is typically the current state of the art. But Digital, using the same production equipment, routinely does surface mount with circuit lines twice as dense as that — 25 mils and less.
In exchange for that technology, Rockwell will provide Digital with a mathematical model and a set of procedures that allow them to predict the yield of new circuit board designs.
This methodology helps pinpoint problems so they can redesign new products to improve the manufacturing yield before introducing new products on the manufacturing line.
With this technique, it is possible to get an estimate of manufacturing yield based on the bill of materials and data on previous experience with the manufacturing process. As the design gets into layout and the components become firmer in the list of materials, the estimates become better refined — typically coming within 5-10% of the actual results of in-circuit testing.
This exchange of manufacturing technology is an example of the mutual benefit that can come from building a close relationship with a major customer. This came about as part of Digital’s Manufacturing Corporate Account Program, which was started about three and a half years ago by Don Hunt.
At that time, Digital Manufacturing had recently made significant gains. Customers were interested in learning from us, and Digital Manufacturing realized that, to maintain its momentum of success, it would need to learn from other major manufacturers. At the same time, the importance of building close working relationships with customers was becoming clearer^ Ultimately;, the trust built from such relationships can lead to major sales and improved marketshare.
This program resembles corporate account programs in Sales, Software Services and Field Service. But in this case, the primary focus is not sales, but rather a balanced and mutually beneficial relationship between two manufacturing organizations.
Building such a relationship is slow because it is so unique. It takes constant interaction with the customer in a variety of situations to establish credibility. Representatives from the manufacturing functions at Rockwell and Digital visited one another's plants on a number of occasions, learned about operations and capabilities, and got to know and trust one another. In particular, Bill Hanson, vice president, Manufacturing Operations, participated in a high-level internal production operations conference at Rockwell. Bill has recently agreed to assume the role of executive partner for that account.
The technology that Digital is receiving under this agreement is important because it can help us establish two-way communication between engineering and manufacturing people, focusing on solving common problems before new products go into production. It can also help design engineers make decisions relating to both time to market and manufacturing cost.
We face the risk that as Digital grows larger, distance grows between management and the people who actually know what is going on. We could lose touch with the fundamental reasons why we like to work together.
People enjoy being part of the same team. A team is a group held together by a passion for a common objective. They understand what they want to do and will make an extra effort to make sure that their objective gets fulfilled. Also, every team has a coach to guide them. This coach is one of them, a member of the team, rather than on top of them.
When I joined Digital 20 years ago, the people who interviewed me gave me the impression that they were really anxious to work together. They inspired in me a desire to join that team.
Do we still inspire that same desire to join when somebody comes in the door?
Clearly, there are plenty of people who want to join us. We have become a presence in the national and economic infrastructure of the countries where we operate. But unless you keep asking this question, you run the risk of not adapting to change.
I believe that we can’t be a team of 7,000 people in the U.K. or 5,000 in Germany or 30,000 in Europe. That’s simply too large.
But I believe it is possible to have many teams of a "human dimension." In football or basketball, the number of a team is fixed. But there is no fixed definition of a team in a company. The team can be as large as it feels it can afford.
When is a team too large to function as a team? I have two benchmarks in Europe. When the boss doesn't know his team players by name, it’s time to split the team. And, when the boss doesn’t know the person who gets in the elevator with him or her, it’s also time to split. Basically, I don’t want any building to be more than 400 people because 1 believe when buildings are larger, it becomes very difficult to make everybody feel a part of the team.
So first, the team should be of a human dimension. Second, the team must have a common passion or a common dream.
I was concerned that we had lost that dream and were running the risk of becoming a "normal" company. So we sat down as a European Management Team and put down into words our dream about the company we want to be. Then we published and distributed this dream to every Digital employee in Europe.
A dream is not reality. It’s something we wish were true. It is so perfect that we can never reach it fully, but it is like a compass that helps us steer our decisions and our behavior in the right direction. This dream is very ambitious. Managers can play a leadership role to make the dream real, but managers cannot do this alone: everyone is needed to discover ways and opportunities in our everyday work to help us get a little closer.
Our dream is a company:
o that attracts the best people— bright, energetic people who are bom team players, who thrive on freedom and challenges, and who are passionate about the quality of their work.
o where managers coach their people to learn from their experiences and actively encourage them to develop their skills and knowledge fully.
o where managers urge their people to take ownership of their work and reward them for their creativity, competence and productivity.
o where the direction and the priorities are clear to everyone and where responsibility and authority is delegated to those closest to the customer.
o whose customers feel part of the family because of our concern for their success, our willingness to serve them and always do that little bit more, and, and our ability to deliver.
o that uses a flexible, dynamic approach to ensure an optimal match between its structure and the evolving needs of its customers.
o that is known as its own best reference site because it uses its superior technology and knowledge effectively in its own organization.
o of global size where people work enthusiastically in small groups that are networked together to take full advantage of the benefits of its large size, and which allows seamless coordination of large scale activities to their own and their customers’ benefit.
o where everyone can make a difference, because people can trust each other and managers empower their people.
o that people are proud of and where they act as if it were their own company.
At the same time, we decentralized business responsibilities from the country in such a way that the team not only has a common passion but also has a common objective.
In addition, we developed a plan to coordinate the efforts of the teams. Our skills have to be integrated and coordinated when we present ourselves in front of the customer or we execute a system or a service or sales in front of the customer. So we created what we call "One Integrated Plan", a set of procedures whereby a team, in any location, defines its objectives as a group and measures its performance.
Of course, each individual has his or her own responsibility. But they also have a responsibility to fulfill common objectives. And they will be measured on both their individual and their team goals.
When we sell a network, for example, there is no one function that can meet all of the customer’s needs. You need a project manager, and you have to put all the various resources together. You have to be integrated as an organization to be successful in providing systems integration.
This organizational integration is everyone’s responsibility. We want people to feel part of the process and not an execution arm of what management decides. In a complex environment like ours, the people are the experts.
So we wanted to restate that we are very serious about having employees participate. In Geneva we call our program "I want to contribute." Some countries use this title, others have different names for their employee involvement programs. What matters is that we are signaling to employees that they are the company.
The role of managers should be to facilitate the performance of the individuals, not to dictate their performance. We represent this viewpoint with an inverted triangle. At the top is the customer and the people who deal directly with the customer. At the bottom is myself. We say that the account manager, the service engineers, the software people, and others who deal with the customer drive the organization, and managers are there to help them.
We use this symbolism to encourage a cultural change — to convert everyone toward helping the account manager to make the customer more satisfied with us and more loyal. We want customers to understand that Digital is the best company for them to buy from.
Employee participation is one way to help maintain and implement our dream. Employees understand the need for integration much better than management because they have to deal with those problems every day. The "one integrated plan" is intended to bring together the various functional responsibilities.
The integrated plan is not temporary. It is intended to last forever. We are going to move it down and improve it and get more integrated where we feel there is a need. So we move now from the country below the country. And next year we will move it further so that eventually, when the organization is ready, which I hope is soon, we will have one integrated plan per account. Then everyone feels part of the same team and has some common objective to win.
We have to help people understand that all the functions and geographies of the company are interdependent in a way that is fundamental to the success of everybody. Given that we work as a team, the priority is that the team has to win. and then everybody wins. It’s much better to be part of a winning team than to be the only one winning on a losing team.
To position marketing resources to link customer needs more closely with Digital’s rich product offerings. Digital is combining the Field Marketing Group, currently reporting to Bob Hughes, and Product Marketing, which reports to Peter Smith. The following groups now report to Peter Smith:
o Consultant & Information Systems Marketing
o Electronics Industry Marketing
o Financial Services Industry Marketing
o General Services Industry Marketing
o Manufacturing Industry Marketing
o Media Industry Marketing
o Process Industry Marketing
o Public Sector Industry Marketing
o Telecommunications Industry Marketing
o U.S. MARCOM
"Combining these organizations provides the opportunity to optimize marketing resources across the company," explain Pete Smith and Bob Hughes. "It also enables Digital to further integrate customer and market information in the development of solutions and products to meet the changing needs of the marketplace. In addition, the marketing groups will continue to work closely with the sales organization to develop new market opportunities across industries. We look forward to the opportunities that joining our marketing organizations will offer."
To manage its business, Digital has developed sophisticated systems and networks and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in applications developed for internal use. Applications in such areas as Order Processing, Manufacturing, Engineering, Finance and Administration have enabled us to support the challenging demands and requirements of the business.
Customers have similar business needs and could benefit from some of these internal applications, technologies and services. Turning these applications into products and bringing them to market would not only help customers, but also generate immediate revenue.
The U.S. Management Committee has established New Venture Sales to help internal groups sell to customers applications that they developed for internal use. This organization will work with the source group and field groups to build a focused plan to bring applications. and the necessary related tools and services to customers. "Our goals are incremental revenue, above average profitability, and customer satisfaction." explains Dick Heaton, New Venture Sales Program manager.
The range of potential internal applications and services that could be sold externally includes consulting services, software applications, tools, hardware products, technology and expertise to meet business needs.
"In many instances, customers visiting Digital have seen these applications at work for us and have expressed interest in purchasing them. I very much support the idea of selling the best of these applications, with appropriate support to selected customers," notes Pete Smith, vice president, Product Marketing.
"As with any other product we offer, we must make sure that the customer’s expectations are met and that we maintain our emphasis on customer satisfaction," adds Win Hindle, senior vice president, Corporate Operations.
The selling of Digital’s internal products represents an opportunity for any group in the corporation to make an additional impact on revenue and receive funding for investments. All groups — including Manufacturing, Field Service, Engineering, Personnel, Finance, Administration and Communications — are potential sources for these products.
The booklet "Guide to Selling Internal Products", developed by New Venture Sales explains how to start a new venture. It begins by discussing the difference between a mass market product and a focused sales product. It provides help in distinguishing the potential roles of Assets Library, Software Service New Ventures, U.S. Software Services?, the Phase Review Process, Computer Special Systems and Customer Services in bringing an idea to market. New Venture Sales can help in working with these existing groups or provide alternative arrangements appropriate to specific opportunities.
(If you want to make an internal application available to customers, or if you know a customer who would benefit from an internal application, tool or service, contact George Roth at DTN 296-4336, ALL-IN-1 @UPO, or VAXMAIL at JAWS::ROTH).
An on-line database known as D.I.A.L. (Digital's Idle Asset Listing) helps groups with unwanted equipment find new users for it, and enables those who need equipment to obtain it at reasonable cost. This system can now be accessed from anywhere in the world.
A real-time, user-frienclly system, D.I.A.L. reduces corporate equipment and inventory expense by redirecting currently owned assets. Based in Andover, Mass., and Nijmegen. Holland, the system features on-line inquiry, updating and reporting capabilities. Users are responsible for their advertisements in accordance with company and group policies and procedures. Users must maintain accurate data and insure that assets meet proper quality standards. All material is physically stored by the advertising plant, and the transfer of material, financially and physically, is also the responsibility of the user.
From FY80 through FY89, the total assets redistributed through D.I.A.L. amounted to $416 million. Retrospectively, this can be looked at as $832 million of savings: the $416 million that wasn’t spent and the $416 million of reserve avoidance. Asset redistribution for FY89 alone was $42 million.
D.I.A.L. is about to enter Phase II of a worldwide database endeavor. By the end of Q2, users will be seeing new screens with all functionality intact (inquiry, update and reporting), Also, with the installation of a client server at local sites, the speed of remote access to the D.I.A.L. system can be greatly enhanced.
D.I.A.L. is a corporate-wide system and reports under Customer Service Logistics and Corporate Manufacturing Operations. The cost of the system is funded by both groups; there is no charge to users. To request a D.I.A.L. account, contact D.I.A.L. Administration at DTN 240-6330. An account will be set up within one working day.
Chuck Thacker of the Systems Research Center, Corporate Research, and Rich Hollingsworth of the Semiconductor and Interconnect Technology (SCIT) organization, have been named Corporate Consulting Engineers in recognition for their contributions to the company and to their respective technical arenas.
Chuck’s contributions range from processor design to the "snoopy" cache protocol to local area networks (LANs). He designed a multi-processor workstation, which was the prototype for the Firefox; and he recently designed a high performance, multi-processor "snoopy" cache bus.
Prior to joining Digital in 1983, Chuck's contributions to the field of computer science included the co-invention of the Ethernet LAN and Alto, the first workstation, for which he invented the bit-mapped display. He shared the 1984 ACM Software Systems Award for the latter work.
Rich Hollingsworth has worked in SCIT since 1979, following eight years at the David Sarnoff Research Center of RCA. He is recognized as the organization’s premier semiconductor process architect.
Seventy-five percent of Digital’s hardware revenue comes from products supported by CMOS-1 and CMOS-2—both results of Rich’s technical leadership. CMOS-3, now in prototype, is expected to repeat this feat of world class performance and manufacturability.
Rich is currently working on processes with features below 1 micron, and managing a collaboration with industrial partners in Europe and the U.S., as well as involvement with a number of universities.
The Desktop Systems Group has been renamed the Video, Image and Printer Systems Group. This name will more adequately portray the product areas and activities that are represented by the group. It will also bring in the expanded activities and interest in imaging products by our customer base.
The group will remain in the Westford Technology Park, Westford, Mass., at sites DSG1 and DSG2.
Kerry Bensman has been named U.S. Imaging Sales Programs manager, reporting to Dick Heaton, U.S. Sales Programs manager. Kerry will be responsible for working with the Imaging Systems Group, Software Services, Industry, Government, Volume, CSS and Engineering groups to implement sales plans for image processing products. He has been with Digital for 20 years, including 13 years in Software Services.
Lyn Benton has been appointed Assistant Corporate Controller.reporting to Bruce Ryan, vice president and Corporate Controller. She has been Low End Systems Controller, reporting to Dorn LaCava, since 1987. She joined Digital in 1979. holding positions as Corporate Manufacturing Business Analysis and Reporting manager. Westminster Plant Controller, and Small Systems Manufacturing Group Controller.
Dan Burkus has been appointed manager of the International Accounts Management office, reporting to Jack MacKeen, vice president, Telecom Industry Marketing and International Programs Office. In this role, Dan will drive plans, programs and strategies designed to meet the needs of 16 international accounts. Dan joined Digital in 1976 as a Sales representative. In 1981, he became the National Account manager for DuPont. In 1986, he became the cluster manager for the Discrete Manufacturing Industries of Automotive, Electronics and Aerospace.
Hans Dirkmann has been named vice president, Customer Services - Europe, effective January 1, 1990. He continues to report to Pier Carlo Falotti, president, Digital Europe, and will report to Don Zereski, vice president, Customer Services. He joined Digital in Sales in Germany, then became manager of European International Accounts and, later, Country manager of Switzerland. Since last year, Hans has been Country Group manager for Switzerland. Holland. Belgium and Austria. He will continue in his role as Country Group vice president for Belgium and Holland, which will provide continuity of management of these two countries.
Ben Fordham has been appointed Program Manager for the new Digital Management Consulting Program, reporting to John O'Donnell, manager, U.S. Enterprise Integration Services. This program will define and establish Digital’s worldwide management, business, organization and technology consulting capabilities for customers. Ben joined Digital in 1977 as Organization Development consultant to the product lines. He later formed the Corporate Organization Consulting Group, which he has managed since its inception in 1983.
Rose Ann Giordano has been named vice president, Eastern States Sales Region, reporting to Dave Grainger, vice president, U.S. Sales and Services. In this position, Rose Ann will be responsible for the end user sales districts in that territory. She also will retain her responsibility as the corporate officer for DECUS. Rose Ann joined Digital in January 1979 as Group Marketing manager for the Technical Group. In 1984, she was appointed a corporate officer and named vice president of Large Systems Marketing. She went on to manage the Information Systems Business Group and the Consultant and Information Systems Marketing organization. Recently, as an added responsibility, she managed the Public Sector, Education and Health Care Industry Marketing groups.
Hope Greenfield has been appointed Product Marketing Group Personnel manager, reporting to Peter Smith, vice president, Product Marketing, and Dick Farrahar, vice president, MEM Personnel. Hope joined Digital in 1979 in the Personnel Group in LSI Manufacturing. Most recently, she has been the Manufacturing Group Personnel manager for the Storage and Information Management Group.
Dick Heaton has been named U.S. Sales Program manager, reporting to Jerry Paxton, vice president, U.S. Sales Operations. In his new position, Dick is responsible for New Ventures in the U.S. He has been with Digital since 1968. In Manufacturing he was on the start up team for several new plants. In Sales, he started up the Authorized Distribution Channel. And in Marketing, he expanded Digital’s use of Indirect Channels.
Henry Keller has been named Country manager Switzerland, reporting to Joerg Rieder. Country Group vice president, Germany, Austria and Switzerland (D.A.CH.). Henry will start his new assignment Jan. 1, 1990. Henry, of Swiss nationality, started with Digital in 1984 as Country manager Belgium and built up that subsidiary’s business to its present size, as the number two computer company in Belgium.
Bob McCauley has been named manager of OSI Migration for the Strategic Technologies Group (STG), reporting to Peter Brown, manager, Strategic Technologies. In his new role, he will be responsible for managing the migration of EASYnet, Digital’s own enterprise-wide network, to the DECnet Phase V products. This will provide an opportunity to test the new products in a large production environment as well as engender knowledge which can be shared with our customers as the plan to migrate their own networks to OSI. Bob has been with Digital for 12 years. Prior to being appointed manager of Digital Telecommunications, he managed Digital’s corporate data network, EASYnet.
Bob Mulkey has been named Corporate Compensation and Benefits manager, reporting to Dick Walsh, vice president, Field/Corporate Personnel. Bob joined Digital in 1985 as Compensation and Benefits manager in the Low End Systems and Technologies organization. Most recently he was Manufacturing, Engineering and Product Marketing Compensation and Benefits manager.
Ron Payne has assumed a new role as Chair of Strategic Resources, reporting to John Sims. vice president. Personnel/Strategic Resources. In addition to his overali responsibilities as Purchasing vice president, Ron will integrate the work of Strategic Resources, insuring strategies provide leverage across major organizations, segments, and areas.
Joerg Rieder has been named Country Group vice president for Austria, Germany and Switzerland, effective Jan. 1. 1990, reporting to Pier Carlo Falotti, president. Digital Europe. Joerg, who is Austrian born, first joined Digital in Germany in 1972. He later served in Geneva as European Field Service vice president, before returning to Germany as Systems Business manager and now as Country manager, a role which he will retain.
Rae Strathdee has been named Canadian Regional Personnel manager, reporting to Ken Copeland, President, Digital Canada, and Jerry LoPorto, GIA Personnel manager. Rae began his Digital career in 1969 and served as Canadian Field Service manager from 1974 to 1977. He then relocated to Geneva, Switzerland, where he managed the General European Field Service Organization and later managed the European Peripheral and Supplies Group. In 1985, he assumed responsibility for managing the Canadian Long Range Planning Process and Market Research activities. Most recently, Rae was the Software Products Business manager for Canada.
Paul Van Per Spiegel has been appointed
Country manager Belgium and Luxembourg, reporting to Hans
Dirkmann, Country Group vice president Belgium and Holland. Paul
will start his new assignment Jan. 1, 1990. He joined Digital a
year ago as the Country Sales manager Belgium and Luxembourg.
Previously, he worked for many years for IBM, where he held
various management positions in Systems Engineering, Sales,
Customer Operations and International Marketing.