1. TRANSACTIONAL PG Defining a better way……. Review Process in Europe Defining a better way……. Review Process in Europe Austin, 12-10-00. Marisa Manheimer & Per Lund TPG Marketing & RAP LAB

2. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 2 n Provide an overview of recent launch mishaps for Dimension and Inspiron launches/reviews n Share recommended improvements to European reviews process in order to generate greater media coverage and increase leads n Get recommendations for action plan Objective This is not the solution to how to fix the review process, but a presentation highlighting areas where we are focusing our effort in order to win more reviews. A detailed plan for each recommendation/problem will follow separately

3. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 3 Summary of Recommendations n Add headcount and improve facilities n Improve RAP Lab Working Conditions n Significantly improve RAP Lab Processes n Deployment and Evangelism of On-line Tools n Product Marketing/COC Awareness from Tops Down

4. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 4 Recent Launch Mishaps n Dimension 8100 Launch l Performance scores not stellar in reviews at launch s Limited benchmark comms with the regional COCs and RAP lab l Limited coverage in regions at time of launch s Components unavailable to meet PR deadlines n Inspiron 4000 & 8000 Launch l Reviews outside US missing or minimal. s Eval units arrived at BU after RTS – Late shipping from US, delay in EMF RAP lab – Had to be sent back to RAP lab for additional work after they arrived in BU s Problems with early units included NIC, damaged screens, color kits and logos missing, e-support button not working and cosmetic errors

5. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 5 Strong Awards = More Calls & Lower CPL Dell Desktops were given ‘outstanding’ rankings in PC World’s Service & Reliability Survey l This issue captured nearly 2X the number of calls and CPL was $10 less than the prior month NOTE: Nov. Cover Calls/CPL data not complete as call curve has not completed.

6. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 6 Overview of the Reviews Process Set Quarterly Communication Goals Map Out Opportunities Check with Product Roadmap Execute! Track & Evaluate Launch or Sustaining? See next page Report Enter published review into web tool Post mortem if negative review Create PR Plan Communicate PR Plan Feed into Marketing Launch Plan Improve! Quarterly improvement meeting The simplistic 5 step model for the review process

7. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 7 State of the Union PG Marketing, Planner, PM RAP Lab Americas/EMEA RAP Team COC, BU PR, RAP Public Relations Owner Pub follow-up Tracking/MetricsCollections/Re-Use Opportunity Identification Identification & Launch Plan On-time System Delivery to RAP Lab for Launch Coverage On-Time System Deliver from RAP Lab to BUs Product Right to Win Reivew? Mix? Action/ Process Point Regional Status Recommended Solutions: 1.Headcount 2.Better working conditions (space and equipment) 3.RAP Lab Process Improvements—Tiger Team 4.Deployment and Evangelism of ‘Tools of the Trade’ 5.Product Marketing/COC Awareness from Tops Down 1, 4& 5 1,2 & 3 1 & 3 1 & 4 1 Solution#

8. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 8 Recommendation #1 n Problem l Missteps in recent launch coverage are due to limited headcount in EMEA Transactional PR & RAP Lab n Symptoms l RAP lab confusion on priorities between BUs and Between LOBs supported s No EMEA Reviews manager to dictate priorities/facilitate communications between PG/COC/LOB/ BU s He/She who screams loudest gets what they want  inefficient l Eval units requests not fulfilled in a timely manner with 100% accuracy s Volume of requests too high for current headcount s RAP lab personnel not able to develop expertise; Team too small to divide between Laptops/Desktops l Management of Product review opportunities is Reactive versus Proactive s No central EMEA Reviews Manager (not PR) – Little regional goal setting for reviews—quarterly planning – No detailed Regional PR Product Launch Plans exist – Regional reviews reporting and analysis of reviews coverage limited – No set meetings between BUs, COC, RAP Lab to coordinate Reviews Management s EMEA RAP Lab Limited headcount – No time to properly evaluate system benchmarks and new technology – No bandwidth to provide configuration recommendations based on performance – Parts are ordered right when needed (takes 10 days) not before needed Add Headcount

9. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 9 Recommendation #1 n Suggestions l In Q1, hire Transactional Product Reviews Manager reporting to Transactional COC and/or EMEA PR l Increase headcount in RAP Lab commiserate with number of units expected to ship per quarter Add Headcount Discrepancy in headcount stems from EMEA RAP Lab handling 4 product lines (OptiPlex, Latitude, Dimension, Inspiron) versus 2 in Americas RAP Lab (Inspiron/Dimension)

10. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 10 Recommendation #2 n Problem l Facilities too small for volume of units being processed in lab l High management turnover has potentially lead to low employee motivation thus poor performance n Symptoms l EMEA volumes 1.25X Americas but lab facilities are ~80% smaller l Lack of documented, well-communicated reviews process l Lab team are sometimes seconded to work in other Engineering areas and feel that their work is not understood within EMF s Communications with Bus/AMF RAP is poor/inconsistent s Little awareness of key partners in COC/PG, after 3 launches partnerships are just now being formed s New relationship building with management, peers, employees. n Suggestions l Add space to EMF lab facilities to provide improved working environment l Ensure consistency in management l Evaluate pay of lab employees and include EMEA RAP Lab in cross-border quarterly recognition Improve Lab Working Conditions

11. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 11 Our recommendations #3 n Problem l No clearly defined, communicated, and executed WW Product Reviews Procedures and Processes resulting in inefficiencies and missed reviews opportunities n Symptoms l No post-mortem analysis performed on product reviews l Lab is assessed on output rather than quality l Poor communication between the RAP LABS (US & EMF) l No benchmarks communicated back to BU l Little investment and no budget available for training or visiting magazine labs - lab members have been refused permission l Many product issues and difficulties escalated to BU to sort out l Processes are often sidestepped in order to meet deadlines RAP Lab Process Improvement

12. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 12 Cont’d--Our recommendations #3 n Suggestions l WW RAP LAB Program Manager hired (Marisa Manheimer) l Redefine roles and responsibilities s Create an Eval Team in EMEA – Include COC, BU Marketing/PR Managers, HSB PR (new), RAP Lab, US PG – Provides closer integration and visibility with COC – Team accountability – Consistent communications s Define specific duties to foster more accountability, buy-in, accuracy, and prevent further inconsistencies with sales plans and marcom messaging. l Share Best Practices s US RAP Lab lead to spend time in EMEA RAP Lab – Coaching of individuals, Review of individual responsibilities and roles/workflow of each individual s Kick-start improvement process by sending US RAP Lab rep for extended period of time in January RAP Lab Process Improvement

13. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 13 Key Teams Core Team Responsible for defining and driving Enhancements to the Reviews Process. Steering Committee Gene Leonard, Euro PG Fiona McKallig, EMF RAP Lab Marisa Manheimer, Americas RAP Lab Per Lund, Transactional Product Group, Inspiron International Business Development Bob Ashenbrenner or Brian Zucker, Transactional Product Group, Americas RAP Lab Eval Team Dedicated to honing press configs/pricing, setting priorities between BUs, conducting reviews post- mortems Marisa WW Project Manager Fiona McKallig EMEA RAP Lab Project Lead Pierre Vigna Dimension COC Mike S. Watson Insprion COC TBD EMEA Transactional Reviews Manager Transactional Reviews Mgr RAP Lab Personnel Product Group Marketing Manager COC Product Managers BU Marketing And/or PR Manager

14. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 14 Our recommendations #4 n Problem l Regions are not equipped with the tools needed to manage planning for reviews and reporting reviews outcomes resulting in chaos. l No way to measure successes & failures n Symptoms l Communication goals, regional deadlines, contingency plans all unknown. No one accountable. l Without tool to help Labs prioritize, no LOB or BU get priority. He who screams loudest receives product. l Limited measuring reviews effectiveness s Little tracking, accountability, visibility, or metrics n Suggestions l Develop, Fund, Deploy, Evangelize “Tools of the Trade” s WW Reviews Plan Template (goal setting, allocation preparation) s Opportunities Web database (eval unit tracking) s Awards & Reviews Reporting Web site (tracking/searchable) Tools of the Trade Current Status on Tools of the Trade

15. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 15 Examples of “Tools of the Trade” Award tracking vs competitors utilizing web tools Opportunity Database; Registers and Tracks Opportunities Editorial Calendars & Launch Plan

16. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 16 BUT……………. n Problem l No IT owner for already launched Awards & Review site (EMF/AMF) s Need owner/funding to deploy to regions l Opportunities Database (EMF/AMF) is not IT-friendly (Linux) s Need ~$75K to make dbase IT-friendly to deploy to regions n Symptoms l Awards & Reviews site and Opportunities Database only 50% deployed. s Regions are bought in to use it but can’t re-engage without owner and money. n Solution l Fund HC for US RAP lab to build the database tools. Timing: Q1 l Scope costs l Get agreement on splitting costs between PR/PG Tools of the Trade Financing Owner:Per Lund Cost: $100K Timing: Starting January (Ongoing)

17. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 17 Our recommendations #5 n Problem l Attrition, lack of expertise, resources (time & money) have contributed greatly to the lack of understanding of the product reviews process resulting in missed or poor reviews, lack of funding for reviews management personnel. n Symptoms l EMEA RAP Lab unaware of issues affecting system performance, what is shipping what’s not, priorities for systems to be shipped from EMEA lab. l No one taking responsibility when a review turns out poorly. l COC, PR, and BU Marketing/PR does not understand their role in the reviews process because the Reviews Process is not well defined and communicated. n Suggestion l Build Awareness-building activities into Reviews process s Monthly/quarterly presentations to execs s Performance Plans for Product Managers, PR l Create awareness with execs by distributing scorecard that highlights awards lost/won on an ongoing basis (3 won – 5 more targeted etc.) Awareness Building

18. TRANSACTIONAL PG Dell Confidential 18 Timeline Contain Current Issues Set Expectations Fix Process for Current Customers Evangelize Improved Process Expand Reach Jan Feb/Mar Mar/Apr Q2 Core Team Eval Team Maria/Fiona Steering Team Core Team PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4