Re: Boot Hill Web Site
From: The Family (lgvwalk_at_swbell.net)
Date: 01/26/05
- Next message: Thane: "Re: Cobol's having a social event..."
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: OT (Maybe): ERPs"
- In reply to: steve.t: "Re: Boot Hill Web Site"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:32:43 GMT
What can I say, I agree.....
I've always found it very interesting, that even with semi-like arch-
itectures, these conversions can be very troublesome. In my exp-
eriences, it's always amazed me how the functionality of the orig-
inal system(s) will seem to disappear as the bleeding begins.
Eventually, one is only "very" lucky to achieve the original func-
tionality on the newer platform, as overlooked issues are cast
aside to adhere to an overly optimistic schedule.
Often, in addition to pure conversions costs, maintenance and
enhancement costs rise to overcome these discarded options.
Users become disappointed/unruly, sometimes original functions
are discovered missing, that were even unknown. The oversight
and be endless.
It's usually about this time, that the architects of this debacle
begin to gain scrutiny, followed by a stream of post-conversion
meetings. If the result(s) cannot be corrected quickly, this is
usually followed by a trip out the door. This appears to be the
case with your experience. The lies start rolling, and CYA tactics
abound. These conditions are the meat from which cliché's are
formed.
Sound familiar?
But, it can be done, with detailed planning, and someone that
is willing/able to deliver the "not so rosy" forecast. Unfortunately,
I've not seen anyone yet of this caliber.
Have no fear, yours will not be the last experience of this nature.
Thanks,
Gary Walker
"steve.t" <sthompson@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1106760223.795942.232500@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I think I did already. What I originally posted will be much more than
> what will get posted on the ReBoot Hill site.
>
> It is interesting that I got accused of being a mainframe bigot when I
> got the numbers and showed them that no matter what they did, they
> would fail.
>
> Let me just cut to the chase here. In too many instances, upper
> management of a company wants to be doing "best practices". They refuse
> to listen to any people that know architecture. The I/O (bandwidth)
> required by the non-mainframe systems to implement CRM (and the like)
> is incredible. Had the systems been designed from day one with that new
> language on that new platform, they might have had a chance. But the
> problem is, they are trying to re-design a system and compete against
> the most efficient I/O design (memory centric v. bus centric).
>
> And so, upper management may declare the new system to be a success
> when the users are astonished at how much functionality they have lost,
> call center managers are appaulled at how many more seats they have to
> have to process the call volumes (and not have an increase in dropped
> calls).
>
> Or, it becomes so obvious that the new system is being crushed under
> its own weight that they have to abandon it.
>
> And if any of you think I'm kidding, start looking at what a brand new
> _____ (open systems machine, CPU, RAID, etc.) sells for, and then what
> it is worth on the used market 60 days later. There is a reason why the
> used market is glutted with RAID devices and "Open Systems" boxes.
>
> But everyone will tell you that COBOL is dead or will be shortly
> (colleges are pushing the new fad languages).
>
> Maybe that's why I do software development with COBOL because with a
> few changes it runs across so many platforms. And it is so easy for the
> newbies to learn!
>
> Later,
> Steve.T
>
- Next message: Thane: "Re: Cobol's having a social event..."
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: OT (Maybe): ERPs"
- In reply to: steve.t: "Re: Boot Hill Web Site"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
