On 5 Oct 2009 09:49:08 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote: >>I don't think so - as much as management would like to get rid of the >>mainframe, they know that change is expensive. The budget to replace >>everything is huge in the short term, and the short term is very important to >>them. > >I think you need to re-think that. >Ask Eric Bielefield (if I mis-spelled that, Eric, I appologise), me, and a few >others that have been down-sized due to M/F re-engineering (euphemism) >projects. > >Regardless of the 'high' cost, it does happen. >Remember, politics can/does trump budgeting!
It does. Always. But I disagree that the poor economy is to blame for this "down-sizing", and I expect that when the economy gets better, the process will accelerate. Note that I have "down-sizing" in quotes. The new downsized IS that I've seen are bigger than what they replaced. They are more spread out though, with different budgets, and a lot more people in security and infrastructure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
