You do not know the specifics of their situation so I am not sure why you are so certain that the project was severly underscoped and underbid. Rushed, yes. Underscoped and underbid, no. The scope is to get them from GroupWise 6.5 to Exchange 2000 and that is what is being delivered. Underbid, again no. I can get a client of this size and much larger migrated with only spending 5 days or less on sight. I bring all my own software and tools, set them up, configure them and train them on their use. I can actually install all the software and have all the processes up and running in about a day. Once you've done as many email migrations as I have, you tend to get your process worked out pretty thoroughly. So no, I would not characterize this project as underscoped or underbid. It's a public school system and so yes, they are concerned about costs, but I can deliver everything they need, cover my costs with an acceptable profit and they get everything they asked for, so it has been scoped and bid correctly.
As for the rest. Yes, everything that I say is my opinion. And no, I do not say that everyone that is an MVP is unethical. What I say is that the act of being an MVP is accepting compensation from a vendor and hence not something that professional IT people should engage in. MCSE? First, I am not an MCSE and would not advertise that fact if I were one. Yes, I do hold certain vendor certifications. The difference is that I PAY for these certifications. I PAY Microsoft to take the test and then I PAY Microsoft to get their software. It is at a discount, but I still have to pay for it. With the MVP, you are not doing any PAYING. Microsoft is PAYING you with a title and gifts, not the other way around. I fail to see how you can miss this obvious distinction, but hey, whatever man. Yes, we disagree on this point. I am not sure why you feel that I am being closed-minded. I am close-minded because you cannot convince me to believe in your point of view? No, I have my point of view and I am quite open-minded enough to understand your point of view. I do not have any "bile" towards vendors although I do believe that they CAN have a corrupting influence. That's why the AMA is concerned over vendors (drug companies) paying for clinical studies, etc. The AMA does not want doctors being paid to recommend particular prescriptions because it is a conflict of interest. The doctor is supposed to be looking out for the patient's best interests, not their own or the interests of a drug company that is paying them. This is all basic stuff. What I cannot understand is why people keep bringing this up. My position on this subject is well known and not likely to change. I have given this issue a lot of thought and this is my position on it. And we all know the positions involved and all know who thinks what and all of this conversation is simply a rehash of the six or seven other times this subject has come up. So why keep bringing it up? Seems odd to me that a bunch of people would continually bring up the subject and then get mad at ME and blame ME for bringing it up. My position on this is well known and hasn't changed in 8 years. We disagree, great. No big thang. Let it go. > If $1200 is 25% of a GW-Ex migration for 700 people then the project was > severely underscoped and underbid. It seems like the customer has > chosen cost over quality. C'est la vie. > > As for your positions, they are your opinion. Not fact. Not an opinion > that many people agree with either. There are folks on these lists with > medical and jurisprudence and engineering and MBA degrees who have been > through all the "professional" certification processes and few if any > have come to your defense here. The ones I know agree with me. =20 > > I don't think I've mischaracterized your position at all. You say that > we are all unethical solely because of the vendor relationship and > without respect to any other facts. You say you got an MCSE to get > cheaper software. That's a recognition from the vendor with monetary > value. I really don't see the difference. > > I've given a lot of thought to your arguments over the years and I > respectfully disagree. IT is not the same as building roads. Within > the areas you call "professions" there are specializations. Within IT > there are specializations too. It just so happens that those areas of > /deep/ technical knowledge are sometimes on a particular product in > addition to the specializations on generic process. There really is no > precedent stating that there is ipso facto unprofessionalism or an issue > with ethics. > > You say you got an MCSE to get cheaper software. That's a recognition > from the vendor with monetary value. I really don't see the difference. > > I wish you could stop being so closed minded about this one particular > issue. The venom and bile with which you say the word "vendor" is also > really puzzling. When you go to a chiropractor, everything is a > chiropractic problem with a chiropractic solution. When you go to a > heart surgeon, everything is a coronary problem with a coronary > solution. Different you say? Not really. If they act responsibly, > they'll refer you somewhere else if what they have to offer isn't what > you need. In the IT space, if what you need is not what I have to > offer, I'll refer you somewhere else. Saying that I'm more likely to > lie to you and try to mislead you than any random doctor with a > specialty is absurd. On the other hand, if you want a specialist, > getting one that has /deep/ technical knowledge is not a bad idea and if > they've been recognized by other experts and their peers for that, all > the better. > > Now you know my opinion on this subject. It's that you are every bit as > wrong on this topic as you think I am. Let's move on. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:02 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Day 2 Lessons Learned: GW6.5 to Exchange 2000 > > Well, if you're big enough to look past my views on MVP, I think I can > let > it slide. Many thanks for your response. And, BTW, $1200 is 25% of the > budget for this project, that's a big chunk of change. > > P.S. And because I have been heckled to death on this issue, I feel the > need to clarify because I believe you have mis-characterized my position > on this. Regardless of whether or not MVP is the greatest thing since > sliced bread and never, ever, in a million years caused anyone to every > act unethically or fail to think for themselves, it is still > compensation > from a vendor and hence something that IT professionals should not > engage > in. It is a slippery slope and if IT is to ever achieve the status of a > profession, something that will eventually have to be addressed. > > > Andy > >=20 > > Ps - please add appropriate grains of salt to the validity and > > intellectual honesty of this answer. I have been accused of being an > > MVP, which may have compromised my ethics and ability to think for > > myself. > >=20 > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchange&text_mode=3D= > & > lang=3Denglish > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
