Richard Seltzer's
home page Publishing home
Articles
about DEC
mgmt memo
.
Volume 5 Number 4_________________________________________________________________
June 1986
Ken
Olsen’s
Address To The New York Society Of Security Analysts
The
Challenges
Of Servicing Today’s Customer
Digital
Adopts
Corporate Process Strategy
Digital's
Office
Strategy by Henry Ancona, manager, Office and Information
Systems
IEEE
Computer
Society Presents Computer Entrepreneur Award To Ken Olsen
Mahendra
Patel
Named Corporate Consulting Engineer
Digital
Adopts
Zip+Four Mailings In U.S.
(On April 28, Ken Olsen addressed the New York
Society of Security Analysts. Ken's speech focused on Digital's
strategies and structure.)
While we were getting ready for lunch, someone
asked me why Digital was so unpopular two or three years ago and
so much loved today. Well, back then, we said we had a dull,
disciplined, organized approach to computing. We didn't see
personal computers as being important except as part of the
overall picture. I said that you didn't need hundreds of personal
computer makers and thousands of general electronic mailboxes that
couldn't talk to each other.
Today we find the same message -- we are still
disciplined, organized, planned, scheduled, maybe dull. But it
pays off better today because cusÂtomers better understand what we
are saying.
Digital is not a company that is picking out
weaknesses in IBM and trying to fill the void before they do. We
do not try to make things cheaper than IBM. We, instead, like to
think we have a mission and a dream. This mission and dreajn mean
years of preparation -- they require tremendous time and patience.
We don't sell the cheapest equipment. In fact,
often ours is the more exÂpensive equipment. But we like to
measure ourselves by the efficiency of the total solution. This
usually means the motivation of the people doing the work, the
efficiency of the workers, the enthusiasm, and then the ease with
which the solutions work.
Motivation of workers in the computer industry
is tremendously critical. Our motivation is to make the work fun,
exciting, interesting and to get the job done. And we think we
offer, with obr computers, the most useful, efficient software
tools.
We used to be criticized for naive attitudes
about marketing. Marketing, in the public's eye, is selling
something that the customer doesn't need or want. Our view of
marketing is to systematically learn what the customer wants,
define the product, and then afterward get the message across. In
computing, this often means selling ideas that are strange to
people.
The mission we had, when we started Digital 28
years ago, was to introduce interactive computing. It was
something we had demonstrated at MIT, and we felt the world needed
it. We did interactive computing with very fast, powerful
computers that were small and relatively inexpensive.
One of the by-products of that work at MIT was
time-sharing. There were two computers in the room that students
could use 24 hours a day. They discovÂered that when one person
was using the computer, another user could use the computer, and
both thought they had a computer full-time. Out of that came
time-sharing. Our mission expanded from single interaction to
computers with many users, each thinking they owned the whole
thing.
In the early '70s, we saw a change coming, that
eventually anybody could make the kind of computers we were
making. We had to have a mission which was bigger, harder and more
challenging. By the late '70s, our strategy was very well defined
and organized.
The first part of the strategy was to lay out a
protocol for a network.
DECnet, our protocol for organizing
communications, became the first product in our grand strategy.
Over the last 14 years, it has become the most popular product of
its type in the world. The discipline involved in a product like
DECnet is tremendous.
The next bit of strategy was to develop our VAX
computer architecture. Each piece, each interface was spelled out.
The first VAX was announced in 1977 and, because of the layers and
interfaces, each piece can be improved over time without upsetting
the whole machine. The VAX was a unique idea and no one else did
it. We’ve spent 12 years on the same VAX architecture, and it's
getting to be good.
The next bit of strategy was to have one
software system on the VAX. The VAX comes in many sizes — from
quite small to very large — but it's the same computer using the
same software system throughout the whole range, from the tiniest
one to the biggest one. You might ask that if the idea is obvious,
why hasn't anyone else done it? Well, it's probably because the
discipline involved is extreme and unusual in our kind of
industry.
The next piece of formal strategy was to decide
on Ethernet as an interÂconnection between large numbers of
computers. Ethernet was first invented by Xerox. It was
technically complex but the problems were defined, and it was
seven years ahead of any other interconnect system. Ethernet is a
simple, elegant way of networking and today we have many thousands
of systems in operation.
The fifth part of our strategy is called
"clustering." I must admit that sometimes our grand strategies are
an excuse for elegant sophistication and this is probably one of
them. We were not about to make it a simple reÂdundant computer,
or a simple parallel computer. We had to take five years to define
everything in one, magnificent piece of clustering. In those five
years, I must admit to no end of frustration, but now most VAX
computers we sell are made to go in a cluster. This way we tie
VAXs together and, in effect, make very large VAXs.
Now what we have to offer to a customer is the
opportunity of tying together a whole organization. There is a
central data-processing system, the large clusters on a backbone,
Ethernet. Each department has its own Ethernet hooked to this
backbone, and in the office, there are a large number of MicroVAXs
tied to that Ethernet. Each one has 16 terminals or a large number
of personal computers. In the factory, MicroVAXs run machines or
transfer lines and in the laboratory, there are MicroVAXs running
the experiments, test equipment, or analyzers. In engineering,
it's the same system. In each case, computation is done by large
VAXs. The workstations are MicroVAXs, and the terminals are run on
MicroVAXs. All are tied to Ethernet, and the whole thing runs
together.
The ability to tie the whole organization
together is a dramatic break with business traditions, which often
encourage holding onto data. Power used to mean holding onto all
of the data. In the modern world, we want everybody working at
peak efficiency. In the factory, orders don't come down from the
top. The factory is fast becoming something interactive where
changes can be made immediately.
The system that we offer -- indeed the system
that almost every company is trying to develop — is a system which
hooks everyone together. Anybody can talk to anybody; it is
democratic in that sense. You can protect some people from some
calls; you can protect some information. But you lay it out that
everybody can talk — that's networking in the modern world of
computing. This is quite different from traditional computing
where you find out in advance who can talk to whom and what he or
she can get. Any change to this approach to networking requires
reprogramming that can take several days. We add about 500 nodes
to our network at Digital each month, and we don't have to
completely shut down the systems.
There is always a conflict in how you organize
the company, just like there's a conflict with children —
discipline and freedom. Let them learn by getting into trouble,
yet keep them safe. There are always the paradoxes and the
conflicts in a company where you are dependent on creativity. We
solved it for a long time by giving people freedom. But, as a
result, a lot of groups followed their own goals. Now we still
give them vast amounts of freedom, but there is one set of goals.
Now, the efficiency we enjoy comes partly because the goals are
understood, and doing "your own thing" isn't as important as
getting the main job done.
We are today a completely different company
than we were a few years ago. We have evolved from dozens of
product lines -- each competitive with the other, each going its
own direction — to one company, with one strategy, one plan and
one set of goals.
(The following are excerpts of the keynote
speech by Dave Grainger, vice president*’, Field Service,
delivered to the CBEMA Service Management Council on May 13.)
Throughout our industry, service managers have
a special role to play in helping their respective companies face
current and future challenges. Over the past year or two, the
growth of our industry has slowed. While there have been some
signs of business improvement recently, I don’t think anyone
expects a quick return to the good old days of the late '70s and
early '80s. I believe this new world is good for all of us because
it creates opporÂtunities. The key is to understand the new
reality, accept it, and aggresÂsively pursue the changed
environment.
We are fortunate to have a group of excellent
teachers — our customers — who will help us understand this new
reality, provided we are willing to listen.
Customers are the true experts of their own
needs. And recently they have been assuming more and more
responsibility for making sure these needs are heard and met. In
the long run, rising levels of customer education, knowÂledge and
expectation are better for both them and us -- providing, of
course, that we take the time to listen, to really hear, and
respond accordÂingly.
Customer trends in distributed data processing,
multi-vendor solutions in most cases, and the demand for
networking define the reality of doing business in today's
computer industry. In the short term, these factors are partially
responsible for the slowdown in computer sales; the marketplace is
looking for a complete solution.
First, that means making our products easy to
connect in networks. We at Digital have accomplished this by
creating a common hardware and software architecture for our
computing systems.
Just as important, however, we have built our
products so they can be networked with other vendors' systems. We
do this by providing gateways between our network architecture and
those of other companies. We also participate in the development
of industry standards for networking, so all vendors' systems can
one day talk to each other.
The issue of standards is a good illustration
of the increasing importance of customer input. A few years ago,
when Digital and some other vendors got together to establish a
standard for local area networks, it was very much a case of
manufacturers taking a leading role.
Today, that standard -- Ethernet -- is well
established, with about 80 percent of the total local area network
market. One of the basic success criteria for Ethernet is the ease
of interconnect for the 100+ authorized manufacturers. It promotes
the multi-vendor environment.
Now, however, customers are taking a pro-active
leadership role in develÂoping standards for networking and
computer integration. As customers link their computers together
in networks, the network itself becomes the system. All areas of
the organization rely on it, so it simply has to work. D.F. Blumberg, a well-known
analyst of the network market, has cited cases where the cost to
customers of network failure has exceeded $1 million per hour of
downtime.
The fact that most networks consist of several
vendors' equipment compliÂcates this service challenge. Analyzing
network faults and coordinating timely and effective service in
this multi-vendor environment is beyond the ability and expertise
of most network users.
This multi-vendor structure requires a service
response which involves much more than just hardware and software
support. We must deal with inter-system data access, data
protection, maintaining the most cost-effective data paths, and
other communication issues.
Today’s environment necessitates three service
dimensions: the first, traditional dimension incorporates planning
and implementation support services for one's own equipment. The
second is the recognition of and response to the mixed-vendor
system. And the third dimension is a response to local and
wide-area interconnects involving a mix of other vendors' systems.
We at Digital have been grappling with the
problems of servicing multivendor systems for quite a while. We
began, like other vendors, by servicing only our own products.
About 14 years ago, mixed-vendor service activity by Digital Field
Service started on an ad-hoc local basis — driven by customer
requests.
In 1982, we made the strategic decision to
formally establish a multi-vendor product service capability for
systems which are part of a Digital system. Today, under this
program, Digital Field Service supports more than 175 products
manufactured by other vendors. Many of these vendors have no
on-site service capabilities. These other vendors' products are
part of systems and networks which represent hundreds of millions
of dollars of Digital-installed equipment.
Network service was driven by customer demands.
Blumberg and other analysts have identified a strong customer
desire for, in his words, "one organÂization to be responsible for
all customer service requirements." Users are looking to their
primary network vendor to provide this "one-stop" network service.
One of Digital's multi-vendor network services,
which we call Netcare, is designed to give customers a single
service contact for all multi-vendor networks which include
Digital systems, regardless of the mixture of hardÂware, vendors,
or technologies involved. Initially, the services offered by
Netcare include fault identification and isolation, vendor
notification and response tracking, and post-service verification,
to insure that each repair is successful and that network
availability has been restored. We are now piloting this package
at a number of customer locations.
Our Customer Support Centers will also play an
enhanced role in network service strategies. In fact, we will
invest over $1 billion throughout the next five years in these
operations in order to meet customer demands.
All of us have made major investments in
people, processes and technology to position our companies'
uniqueness in the marketplace. Through organizations like ADAPSO
and CBEMA, we must protect these investments in diagnostic
systems, software, and proprietary tools, as well as other
intellectual property from unauthorized loss and use.
Additionally, we need to develop service
strategies, policies and procedures that break down barriers
between vendor service organizations and that allow us to
cooperate together in solving the needs of our mutual customers.
Effective, coordinated network service is more
cost-effective for the vendors involved. Multiple responses to a
single problem, unnecessary service calls, and other expensive
duplication of effort can be minimized, helping us all to improve
productivity.
If we, the service management of this industry,
commit to work together to solve multi-vendor environment problems
for our customers, we have the chance to inject new life into the
industry — to be the cornerstone of its recovery.
(Key managers from Engineering and
Manufacturing met in Marlboro in Q3 to refine and ratify the
Corporate Process Strategy. The following excerpts from several of
the introductory presentations provide an overview of this
important new direction for the company.)
"Most people think we need a product strategy
so we can tell people what to do and so people won't change," said
Jack Smith, vice president, Engineering and Manufacturing. "They
look at product strategy as if it were cast in stone. But I look
at product strategy differently. To me, product strategy is put in
place so you can make changes. It's extremely difficult to change
something when you don't understand what it is; when it's not
within a framework that's understandable.
"We're in a very complex environment. We deal
with very complex issues. Anyone who doesn't think that things are
going to change daily is sadly mistaken. So look at product
strategy as a tool for change, not a tool for non-change.
"In the past, the area of 'process' — which
includes cost-saving devices, communication devices, methods of
communicating with one another — was thought of as a set of tools
to help you get your job done. They were useful, but sooner or
later you'd get the job done anyway. Today, the systems we build
are so complex that without process -- not just engineering
process or manufacturing process, but process in general — you're
not goÂing to be able to get your jobs done at all.
"We also have to realize that many of the
processes that we're involved in today are going to have to be
almost perfect," Jack observed. "We can no longer tolerate
processes that allow slippages of even a month. As we all well
know, the windows of market opportunity are becoming very tight.
"Half a dozen years ago if we had a product
slippage of six months, we could still have a viable product.
Today a time-to-market slippage of one or two months can make the
plan completely invalid.
"But our process strategy is running behind
product strategy. The emphasis has been on product because we are
a product-oriented company. But now we have to put equal intensity
and attention on process because we're not going to get the
product without the process; or it's going to be so late that it's
useless."
"Digital has two primary strategies," added
Bill Strecker, vice president, Engineering Product Strategy &
Architecture. "The first talks about what products we wish to
build; and the second, the process strategy, talks about the tools
that we can use to design the desired products and introduce them
to the marketplace.
"The product strategy is addressed toward our
customers, who depend on it. When customers decide to put their
businesses on information systems prodÂucts manufactured by
Digital, they are committing their businesses to our products —-
present and future.
"The process strategy, on the other hand, is
addressed toward our own enÂgineers and manufacturing people. And
they ought to be as concerned with our process strategy as our
customers are with our product strategy.
"Process strategy relates to how we are able to
do our jobs internally," explained Bill. "If we have a good
process strategy hopefully we're willing to commit our business to
that strategy and live by it. If we have a poor process strategy,
that's going to adversely affect our ability to do what we have to
do.
"The strategy states what you want to
accomplish. For instance, you want to avoid obvious overlaps and
duplication. Equally important, you want to identify obvious
holes.
"Also, investments require large amounts of
money over long periods of time clearly require that you
understand where you want to be some number of years out. In the
absence of a strategy, you'll never make those investÂments .
"A strategy also gives you a mechanism to
measure progress. It enables you to periodically review where you
are and whether you're getting where you want to go.
"Process is important for the efficiency and
productivity of Engineering and Manufacturing. And, it relates to
time-to-market in today's competitive enÂvironment. Because of
advances in technology, a delay of a year in a product typically
reduces its competitiveness by 30 to 40%. Time is all-important.
"Having a process strategy should help our
predictability," said Bill. "Digital's overall corporate product
strategy depends on delivering a broad base of integrated product
capability at the time we say. If one of these products doesn't
come out on time, there's a ripple effect which means that the
overall product capability we promised is not deliverable. We are
delivering to the customer a complex set of integrated products.
All of them have to appear when they are supposed to appear if
we're going to deliver this overall set of products.
"Process strategy also promotes quality.
Quality corresponds with customer satisfaction and therefore with
our ability to collect revenue from our customers.
"Quality is an attribute of an entire
organization, not just a single function or a single group. Our
customers don't buy single products -- they buy systems. It
doesn't make sense to deliver a quality CPU and a poor quality
communications device. Everything has to work together. So no
single engineering group can aspire to deliver a quality product.
Quality has to be an attribute of the entire organization.
"Similarly, it would be impossible for an
engineering group to deliver qualÂity products without quality
manufacturing. And even Engineering and ManuÂfacturing together
would not be able to deliver quality products without a quality
service organization.
"In other words, when we talk about attributes
like quality, no single group or single function can deliver it
alone," concluded Bill. "If we want to deliver these attributes,
they have to be broadly agreed to by the entire organization and
supported by a corporate process strategy."
"A strategy is a set of actions, not just a
list of tools," observed John Manzo, manager, Systems Development
Process, and chairman, Corporate Process Task Force. "In
developing a corporate process strategy, we are looking at a set
of actions needed for us to achieve competitive advantage.
"In developing a preliminary or 'pro forma’
strategy we had several basic assumptions and goals in mind.
"First, we had to acknowledge the strength of
many of the tools and methods we already have today. These tools
need to be increasingly integrated so they can communicate and
inter-operate, for efficient use. As new tools are developed they
should be able to be easily added to the existing set. They should
either complement or replace an obsolete tool. We want to keep our
tools up to date without invalidating the use of other tools.
"There must be a streamlined link between
Engineering and Manufacturing. The process needs to facilitate
work across organizational boundaries. If we are really going to
produce total systems in the future, we need to take full
advantage of our strengths and inter-operate one with the other.
"Basically, we need to establish a homogeneous
data medium with an agreed- upon set of interfaces across
Engineering, Manufacturing and Field Service to provide the
ability to integrate and share our current excellent tools as well
as new ones.
"We have to develop technology-independent
design tools and flexible procÂesses, where appropriate, to reduce
the effects of rapidly changing technolÂogy," said John. "Also, we
need to provide an evolutionary pathway for those tools to exploit
future directions of technology. And we need to synchronize the
evolving design of physical technology tools and processes.
"We have to make it easy for tools that have
been developed independently to be incorporated into this total
environment. That includes tools developed by outside vendors and
also tools developed locally that turn out to be very useful over
a wider spectrum of use."
In other words, the increasing complexity and
interdependence of Digital's products and the importance of
time-to-market have made it essential for the company to focus on
"process" -- the methods and tools used to design, build, deliver
and service its products. And the Corporate Process Strategy will
help promote the efficiency and productivity, the cooperation and
teamÂwork needed for continued success.
As a result of the discussion, three points
were added to the Strategy: the call for a Process Architecture
across Engineering, Manufacturing and Customer Service;
identification of a core set of preferred tools (building blocks);
and empowerment of local groups across Digital to develop specific
layered strategies, in the context of their needs, from the
general stratÂegy.
"Although every attempt was made to develop a
strategy that will serve our needs for the foreseeable future,"
concluded John Manzo, "we recognize that rapid changes in
technology and shifts in the competitive climate will reÂquire us
to adjust this strategy. We therefore believe it is important to
view this strategy as a 'living document,' under 'ECO control,'
and enÂcourage suggestions for improvement and refinement over
time."
(Details of this meeting, in the form of a
proceedings, are available from Cathy Ward at DTN 223-9791,
MLO3-2/E84, VAXMAIL MODEL::WARD).
Today, many companies are recognizing the
strategic importance of informaÂtion systems within a corporation
-- that they can be used as competitive weapons and can change the
cost structure with which they do business. So the metrics
companies use to evaluate a computer vendor are changing. They are
looking for a long-term relationship — not just products. And the
corporate director of Information Services (IS) is being given
expanded authority, with influence over most, if not all, computer
purchases.
Historically, information processing fell into
three categories. The part known as IS, MIS or EDP consisted of
custodial systems (payroll, order processing, billing, etc.) — the
automation of mundane, repetitive tasks. Technical computing
consisted of labs, engineering and manufacturing, where the
department that needed equipment bought its own. And the end-user
computing area included office and decision support applications.
IBM owned the MIS area. Digital was very strong in the technical
area and had success with time-sharing in the end-user area and
office automation.
In the last few years, that environment has
changed because more people have recognized the strategic
importance of information. Companies are now doing more planning,
and information generated in one part of the company must be
transported to other parts to help in decision making. So instead
of every department buying whatever computer equipment it thinks
it needs from a variety of vendors, there is a need for
company-wide control and standardÂization. Companies need an
infrastructure that enables information to flow smoothly in the
directions they need it to go. So they create standards within the
company so everybody is using the same definitions of common terms
like "sales call" and "mean time between failure." And they put
together a preferred vendor list, so the equipment they acquire
can all plug together. Typically, the MIS director is given
responsibility for the success of the company's entire computing
strategy.
In the past, Digital sales people never talked
to the corporate director of IS. IS directors were viewed as being
totally committed to IBM. Therefore we sold around them.
Today, about 95% of all networks and 90% of all
office automation decisions are under MIS directors. About 65% of
all manufacturing floor systems are coming under the influence of
the MIS director, about 50-60% of CAD systems, and about 45-50% of
lab systems.
So all of a sudden, to protect Digital's
existing market base, we have to at least educate MIS directors so
when someone from the lab says, "I want to buy a system from
Digital," they don't ask, "Digital who?" So in some cases, we need
a two-pronged sales strategy — selling to the people in the lab
who will use the system and at the same time educating the MIS
director so that when the request comes through for approval, it
gets approved promptly. At the same time, we want to participate
more heavily in the rapidly growing MIS segment of the market.
While the scope of responsibility of MIS
directors has increased, a new kind of person tends to fill that
job. In at least half the Fortune 500 companies today, the person
who is MIS director is not a data processing professional by
trade. Most are general business managers, and many have spent
some time
in manufacturing.
These people are concerned about how technology
can help business, rather than technology for technology's sake.
So we have an audience that is more receptive to a
business-relationship sell.
Our strategy is a "Trojan Horse" augmentation
strategy. If you were to walk into ABC Manufacturing Company and
say, "Let us replace all your IBM equipÂment and run your systems
on Digital," you would have no credibility. They would kick you
out. So rather than go head on, we want to put in a system that
shows off the strength of the Digital product set without being
threatÂening. We have to help them solve their immediate problems.
The biggest problem most MIS directors face is
making corporate data readily available to managers in a timely
fashion without disrupting the order proÂcessing, billing and
other systems that can provide this data as a byproduct of their
normal operation.
We suggest building an infrastructure analogous
to a wholesale distributor -- one that obtains data in bulk from
corporate mainframe machines, checks the quality, and repackages
and delivers information to the consumer. The MIS director can
offer this information service as a utility, separate from the
ongoing production operations. This kind of system is commonly
called an "information center." This is the fastest-growing part
of the MIS market. The information center snapshots data from the
larger machines and applies a level of quality assurance to it —
such as combining data that may have been entered in different but
equivalent ways (such as "VAX-780" instead of "VAX-11/780"). It
also can acquire and distribute external data.
Digital's information center demonstrates our
ability to interconnect with IBM, our networking and the
modularity of our architecture. So after we successfully solve
their problem of getting data to end users, MIS directors are
likely to invite us to help them, as partners, solve other
business problems.
In the U.S., one of our strategies is to hire
former MIS directors to serv^ as resources in the field. We call
these people "MIS consultants." One we hired was a vice president
of IS for an $800 million conglomerate for three years. Another
was vice president of International Technology and InformaÂtion
Systems for a major bank and worked for IBM for 20 years before
that. In other words, these are highly qualified people. Their job
is to go in and open a door, to build a relationship, to educate
IS managers on the Digital style of computing.
In the MIS market, we're dealing with a long
order cycle -- probably six to nine months. The customer is
building an infrastructure to use information strategically.
There's a whole new set of criteria to look at. They have to feel
that as they evolve over time and their needs change, we will be
able to match those needs. And we have to give these accounts the
special attenÂtion needed to establish a long-term relationship.
In support of this effort, U.S. Sales is
putting together Large System Selling Teams to help reduce the
selling cycle of complex projects and to ensure that we win such
projects. Teams will consist of resources that were already in the
Field, organized under a team leader. Teams will include the MIS
consultant, networking people and sales people. Then, based on the
project, experts in such areas as office, CAD, and technical
computing could be added to the team.
Our goal is customer satisfaction. We can't be
hit-and-run. We have to build that long-term relationship.
Remember, customers "buy a relationship and then order products."
When the Office and Information Systems Group
was created in 1982, Digital had been in office automation for a
long time and had had success with the DECmate word processor; but
in this marketplace the company was still an unknown quantity. The
perceived leaders at that time were IBM, Xerox and Wang.
Since then, Digital has made considerable
progress. Now, many industry consultants see us as the leader in
this marketplace. In the office, in terms of product capability,
we are now second to none. From a market-share position, we’re
number two and catching up. IBM is the competitor we deal with
most of the time.
When we began to focus on the office market, we
found that most people wanted to do word processing, electronic
mail and personal computer appliÂcations, such as spread-sheets,
in a single easy-to-use system.
So in 1982 we introduced ALL-IN-1. Today, it
remains a key element in our strategy and according to the latest
Dataquest survey, is the leading inteÂgrated office system on the
market, by any measure — number of licenses, number of users, or
revenue. In fact, according to Dataquest, ALL-IN-1 is used by
almost 40% of the million people in the U.S. who use integrated
office systems.
We also offer specialized ALL-IN-1 systems that
go beyond word processing and electronic mail and other
office-type applications to provide business solutions for
particular departments, such as sales, marketing or finance. In
addition, we are working with the new industry marketing
organizations to provide ALL-IN-1 solutions tailored for specific
industries. These products by their very nature must be capable of
being used in local language around the world. ALL-IN-1 is
available in over 10 languages today.
Digital's strength in networking is probably
the most important factor in making people see Digital as the
leader in office systems. The backbone of any office system is the
network that enables people in offices to communiÂcate with one
another. With Ethernet and our DECconnect wiring scheme, we can
now provide customers with an easy, fully integrated, complete set
of network capabilities to allow them to wire their offices.
Digital is the only vendor to offer electronic mail systems
running on many network nodes which grow from one to many
thousands of users.
Multi-vendor environments is another area of
strength for Digital. Almost all of our customers also have
equipment from at least one other vendor -- usually IBM. So our
strength in interconnection with IBM is important.
We know that our customers have millions of PCs
installed. Therefore, we are making the connection between PCs and
VAXs even tighter. We already offer our WPS-PLUS word processing
not only on all our VAX systems but also on the IBM PC. So
customers that already have IBM PCs can run WPS-PLUS on those
machines, and with Digital networking products can interconnect
those PCs with VAXs, Rainbows, DECmates and Pros, for fully
compatible word processing and document transfer.
We want to make our office network even easier
to use. We'll build systems that can be taken out of the box,
plugged into the network and are ready to go to work. And these
ready-to-run systems will require no systems generaÂtion, no
technical management, and no professional systems management. We
are taking our word processing beyond words and incorporating both
text and graphics to meet the needs of high-growth for the
technical and documentaÂtion market. We are also responding to
market demand for easy-to-use inforÂmation management systems, so
managers can more readily access and manipuÂlate information in
distributed databases.
In the last few years, we have made significant
inroads in the white-collar office. Now roughly half of our office
business is in Digital's traditional areas of strength -
engineering, the lab and manufacturing. The other half is in new
areas — the front office and white-collar business departments.
That's been a very successful, high-growth area for us.
In the past, Digital's strength in technical
applications gave us a path into the white-collar office in basic
industries. Now we're finding that ALL-IN-1 and other office
products help open the doors for sales into new accounts. An
increasing percentage of our office business is now with
first-time customers.
This trend is due, in part, to the fact that
many new markets on which Digital is focusing are in service
industries which don’t have engineering departments or labs or
factories. So, as we increase our penetration ii) government and
service industries, we are increasing our business in office
information systems.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) Computer Society has presented the 1986 Computer
Entrepreneur Award to Ken Olsen.
The award, presented this year for the first
time, was established to "recognize and honor technical managers
whose outstanding leadership deÂveloped the growth of some segment
of the computer industry."
According to the society, Ken was chosen for
"having pioneered the develÂopment of small computers, and for his
foresight in the founding of Digital, which began with three
individuals in 1957 and has grown to become the world's leading
manufacturer of networked computer systems." The presentÂation was
made by Dr. Ming T. Liu, vice president, IEEE Computer Society, at
the International Conference on Distributed Computer Systems, held
May 20 in Cambridge, Mass.
Mahendra Patel has been promoted to the
position of Corporate Consulting Engineer. In this position,
Mahendra reports to Bill (BJ) Johnson, vice president, Distributed
Systems Engineering/Marketing, and is responsible for the
company's advanced development and architecture efforts in
communicaÂtions networks and local area systems.
Mahendra joined Digital in 1982 as Technical
Director, Software Engineering Group, and was soon named Technical
Director, Systems and Communications Engineering Group. It was in
this position that he led the development of a "Digital Standard
Relational Database Interface" for the convergence of two
developments in relational database products, Rdb/VMS and Rdb/ELN.
He then was named Technical Director, Systems and Clusters
Engineering Group, where he led the development of multiprocessing
options for the company. Most recently, Mahendra led the technical
planning and architecture efforts that culminated in Digital's
highly successful networking products.
Prior to joining Digital, Mahendra was employed
by International Computers, Ltd., as chief technical consultant.
He holds a B.S. degree in mathematics from the University of
Manchester, England, and a Ph.D. in electrical enÂgineering from
Cambridge University, England. The author of numerous techÂnical
publications, Mahendra is a member of the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Association for Computing
Machinery.
Robert Horne has joined Digital as Process
Industries Group Manager, reportÂing to Jerry Witmore, vice
president, Basic Industry Marketing. Robert has 25 years’
experience in marketing and general management. During the last
eight years, Robert has held several senior management positions
with Stauffer Chemical Co. of Westport, Conn. Prior to Stauffer,
he had spent 11 years with I.C.I., one of the largest chemical
companies in the world. He holds an M.S. in chemical engineering
from Cambridge University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
Digital can realize substantial savings in
postage and distribution costs by converting its address records
to use the new Zip+Four code developed by the U.S. Postal Service.
The new system is more accurate and
cost-effective than mechanized or manual sorting methods. By using
Zip+Four, postal costs and other postage rates paid by businesses
will be reduced. The additional four digits identify city blocks,
rural routes, post office boxes, individual buildings and, in some
cases, firms and floors within buildings.
The Postal Service processes mail that is
carrying the full nine digits first, then pre-sorted mail, and
five-digit mail. Presently, only two percent of all outgoing First
Class Mail from Digital uses the expanded zip code.
Besides postage discounts of 4.5 cents per
piece, Digital could benefit from:
o identifying incorrect addresses of new
inquiries and/or customers by reducing late and non-delivery
problems and associated costs;
o eliminating inaccurate addresses from
promotional mailings to reduce unnecessary literature
manufacturing, postage and distribution costs;
o pinpointing specific demographic categories
for promotional efforts; and o reducing costs for bulk mailing to
carrier routes.
In addition, if Digital assigns unique Zip+Four
codes to departments such as Accounts Receivable, Customer
Services, Accounts Payable and Purchasing, in-house processing of
incoming mail will be automated and more efficient.