On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:57:39 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
() wrote:
>In article <t995u3lods5e970rbvqrgnuqr0bl8ucu1i@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Robert <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:36:56 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
() wrote:
>>
>>>In article <12s4u31plmj6csf7fgbji575cq3b3nee9t@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>Robert <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>>Users SHOULD ask for a general purpose query screen that THEY can run
>>>>without running the
>>>>bureaucratic gauntlet every time.
>>>
>>>In my experience, Mr Wagner, people don't always do what they 'SHOULD'
>>>(caps original).
>>>
>>>>If I were working there, I'd sell them
>>>>the idea, then
>>>>write it for them.
>>>
>>>When I started on this contract there was a fellow who expressed a
similar
>>>desire; he was told it would be better to address this after the main
>>>project went live.
>>>
>>>After Go Live a bunch of consultant/contractors/hired guns were given
>>>their walking-papers... he was one of them.
>>
>>This illustrates why software technology in some mainframe shops has not
>>changed in 20
>>years. It's not because workers are lazy or uninformed, nor because
>>op****tunities are
>>absent. It's because management blocks change. They do it to retain
>>hegemony over users.
>
>I might agree with your statements, Mr Norris... but I'd quibble with
>words like 'sotfware technology', 'mainframe' and 'retain hegemony'.
>Let's see... from
><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/12e0303b6b75284f?dmode=source>
>
>--begin quoted text:
>
>I am not sure if this is the cause or it is the difference between 'if it
>ain't broke, don't fix it' and 'let's take it apart to see how it works!'
>
>A buddy o' mine used to be Materials/Inventory Manager for a jewelery
>manufacturer... he could never understand folks who considered inertia to
>be valuable, in and of it'sself. After a meeting where things got a
>bit... heated a VP took him aside and asked, seriously, what the problem
>was... after all, in his (the VP's) department they'd been doing things
>exactly the same way for the past twenty years.
>
>'Where's your passion for work?', asked my buddy, 'Where do you strive to
>do something more, where to you work to make things better?'
>
>'You don't understand', said the VP, 'we've been doing the exact same
>thing for the past twenty years.'
>
>The VP could not understand why anyone would not see this as a Very Good
>Thing.
>
>--end quoted text
I was taught as a lad growing up on the options floor that there is a
somewhat constant
ratio between risk and reward. If a hypothetical stock were flat-lined,
its beta would be
zero and an option on it would return no more than a T-Bill.
In real life, I've noticed people are poor at risk *****sment .. in both
directions. Some
like Enron are reckless, causing catastrophic failure. Many more are
overly risk-averse,
and thereby miss op****tunities. They look for guarantees and investments
that are a sure
thing. The insurance industry, in large part, is fueled by its customers'
poor risk
*****sment.
Mr. Norris lets them compensate by taking vicarious risks.
>>The difference wasn't
>>technology, it was IT
>>management's refusal to change.
>
>It might have something to do with a given organisation's attitude
towards
>risk and reward, Mr Norris. If errors are not tolerated - remember the
>buzz-word phrase a decade or so back of 'We can't afford not to get it
>right the first time'? - then the surest way to keep a job is to not
waste
>money or time on things that might not work.
The surest way to lose an IT job is to use obsolete technology. It may not
bite you this
decade, but it will eventually.
>>Some managers welcome change. After my system went live last month, they
>>extended me six
>>months to improve it. I'm now working on improvements like the above.
>
>I was contracted at my present site in November '03 for a project that
>went live in May '05... I think I posted my Musings After Go-Live here.
>There was, of course, a massive dismissing of consultants... and since
>then there's been a steady leakage of personnel, folks retiring and not
>getting replaced, other folks getting fed up with an eternal heaping-on
of
>More Responsibilities and nobody (as far as I can see) getting hired on.
>Meanwhile, the customer list continues to get larger (up about 25%, we
>started with about 60,000, we're now at a hair under 75,000... and just
>starting go-live on a new phase to bring in another 13,000 or so).
I would think the risk is lack of scalability. 25% isn't much of an
increase. My phase of
the current project added fourteen million active customers. My previous
project for
another company added a similar number. In both cases, the company added a
Big Unix box to
handle the increase.
|
