Correspondence from P. Freiberg

Dear Mr. Gibby:

I am writing to let you know the outcome of my review of the matter of your suggestion No. 921420144 which you submitted under the IBM Suggestion Plan.

Your suggestion was to "establish a centralized 'PURCHASING' TOOLS disk that will provide a single company-wide repository for sharing PURCHASING information, such as presentation materials..., 'best-of-class' specifications/SOWs/processes ..., procedures..., and miscellaneous (FORUM)".

Yow suggested this b-- done by establishing or, renaming an existing FORUM/TOOLS disk, announcing its creation via certain communication vehicles, and disseminating -information on "how to obtain a TOOLS PACKAGE of -instructions for submitting to and receiving files from the QUALITY TOOLS repository", modeled after the TOOLS instructions used by the MKTTOOLS FORUM owner. You suggested that, as an incentive to people to submit files to the repository, "nights-on-the-town" awards be given to "the contributors of the 5 most. actively requested files over some given time period."

You stated this would enable information to be disseminated electronically (eliminating printing, mailing, and document inventory costs), and on a "much more ... world-wide basis". And you stated that the "GET" and "REQUEST" commands that would be involved would make it user friendly to obtain electronic documents.

I have reviewed Mr. Skip Karl's voluminous file as we'll as the letters you sent to me and other IBM lawyers, and have spoken at -length with you and with a number of individuals in purchasing, in the suggestion department and elsewhere, about the relevant facts and circumstances. I have especially looked into the activity which occurred, from the date the suggestion was received (May 21, 1992), through its expiration date (May 20. 1994), with respect to PROCURE and with respect to IPSWOW.

My conclusion is that you are not entitled to receive an award from IBM with respect to your suggestion. The reasons are essentially as set forth by Mr. J. R. Lynch in his letter, to you of November 17. 1994. (In addition, you should also note the provision, on p, 14 of "Your, Ideas Have Value", that: "Your suggestion must be timely, practical and adoptable based on ... conditions at the time of submission. In addition, IBM must have the ability to make the suggested change without having to solve safe other, problem first.")

I shall address in particular several of the points which you have raised concerns about.

Insofar as your suggestion was that purchasing information be distributed electronically, it was predated by a number of actions that pi-ec-3ded your submission of your suggestion, Such as the electronic distribution of purchasing information by the northeast U.S. region using a TOOLS disk plus WOW. by the southern U.S. region using GPINDEX, by the western U.S. region using EE, and by CHQ using CORPDIR, BCG, PROFS e-mail notes, PROFS e-mail documents, SCRIPT electronic files, etc. (As for the INFOVIEW proposal Ann McGovern's lack of documentation for it does not disqualify it from preempting your, suggestion, since, in the absence of documentary evidence, other, satisfactory evidence of predating may be accepted by the Suggestion Department.)

Insofar as you r suggestion was that the dissemination of the purchasing information be done on a company-wide or world-wide basis from a single centralized repository, this was not implemented. For example, Production Procurement was served from by different sources and systems than General Procurement and Integrated Procurement Solutions were.

As for, PROCURE, it was a TOOLS disk that enabled personnel to obtain, using "GET" and "REQUEST" commands, various organization and procedures documents issued by CHQ General Procurement. But it did not allow the members of its target audience to share information among themselves by electronically posting files on the disk. It did not include a FORUM. Nor did it, as you suggested, contain "presentation materials (i.e., purchasing QUALITY, target bidding, contract types, financial analysis, vendor selection, negotiation tools and techniques. cost/price analysis etc.) 'best-of-class' specifications/SOWs/processes (i.e., cafeteria services, guard services. third party software acquisition, audit readiness, vendor qualification surveys)", "supplier debarred list", or "IBM Equity Partner List".

IPSWOW contained a greater variety of material than PROCURE. But it had a user interface (WOW) which was different and much more user friendly then the one you suggested (which would have required users to type TOOLS, "GET" and "REQUEST" commands, for example). And it did not, during the relevant period, contain a forum.

Likewise, IBM also did not implement your suggestion that it offer, "nights-on-the-town" awards be given to "the contributors of the 5 most actively requested files over some given time period."

The question of how best to communicate in the Procurement community was indeed one which was "periodically reexamined by management", as the evolution in its use of various paper and then electronic modes of communication shows.

Furthermore, communications within Integrated Procurement Solutions (IPS) were "in the maturing process" from around the time that that business unit was established (by consolidation of the five General Procurement regional structures) until at least the target date for, rollout of IPSWOW. A Communications Task Force was established early in the life of IPS and charged with changing the way communications had been conducted during the era of the "regions", to arrive at an informational system suited to the increased communications need that resulted from the integration of the largely autonomous regions into a single business unit.

The IBM Suggestion Plan specifies (on p. 16 of "Your, Ideas Have Value") that in the case of subjects in the maturing process, management reserves the opportunity to apply known technology and make obvious improvements. Only in situations where management determines that an action was taken solely as are result of a suggestion can an award be granted under the Plan. "Management has not determined, and the evidence does not indicate, that the IPSWOW was established solely -- or even partially -- as a result of your suggestion. In fact, the individuals who conceived IPSWOW as an answer to IPS's communications needs were not even aware of your- suggestion at the time. They were applying technology which had long been known to IBM, and the benefit of which was obvious to them because of the prior experience that Endicott's purchasing region had had with WOW.

You have alluded to a sentence on Page 1 of 4 in Index 02-24 of the IBM Manager's Manual (5/30/86 ed.), which stated that "A suggestion will remain eligible for an award even though the idea in the suggestion is implemented without the knowledge of the existence of the suggestion." But this does not mean that such a suggestion is entitled to an award, only that an award may be granted. In such a situation, if a "maturing process" were involved no award would be granted, since the Plan provisions exclude it. Also, it should be noted that the text in the Manager's Manual comprises internal administrative guidelines, not Plan provisions. They are therefore not to be relied upon by suggesters. Although IBM may, for its own administrative convenience, frequently give suggesters the benefit of the doubt on one point or another, that does not obligate the company to do so every time the point arises.

In the file I reviewed, there were various indications of disagreements between you and IBM not only as to whether, you had a right to receive an award, but also as to what were the underlying facts of what actually happened. If you have any correspondence, documents, or other information which you believe refutes my understanding of the facts as related above, you are free to submit them for my review. IBM does not, however, agree to waive or toll the statute of limitations in connection with any IBM review of your claim or otherwise.

As for the interpretation and application of the terms of the Suggestion Plan, I reiterate, as Mr. Lynch pointed out, that in submitting your suggestion under the Plan, you accepted the condition that:

Although I have not attempted to include in this letter everything that could be said about your claim's merit or lack of merit, I trust it provides you with sufficient understanding of why IBM's determination is well-founded.

Very truly yours,