Predicators of the mainframe demise are probably of the same genre as those "experts" (who have probably never opened a science book) who are expounding the dangers of this "global warming" nonsense.
Why is it that "experts" that expound global warming are fools, but "experts" that denounce it are assumed correct? Can I assume that your statement (on global warming) is based on your expertise and that you aren't simply repeating something you've heard?
My point, is that expert opinions are just that .... opinions. The article under discussion is flawed at so many levels, that its difficult to know where to start.
First, there is no mention of the mainframe, its demise, or anything relating to it in the article.
The article suggests that IT (as an organization of individuals) is verging on extinction, but then proceeds to suggest simply that someone else (i.e. non-technical personnel), can fulfill the role, or perhaps outsourcers?
If it's outsourcers, then the argument that "expertise" is no longer needed, simply falls apart, since it is only a transfer of expertise to a different supplier. However, if the argument is that computer technology is becoming simple enough so that anyone can support it, then we have to examine how realistic that position is. I would suggest that more suppliers of "expertise" have surfaced because of smaller systems (i.e. "Geek Squad", etc.). This would suggest that the simplicity of personal systems has failed and that (other than the power user), the home consumer now has a greater need of technical support.
Are we to believe that this situation will suddenly be resolved at the corporate level by those same users?
One of the most serious flaws in the article is to dismiss IT as a "commodity". This is easy to say when systems are in place and functioning, but it does nothing to address the issue of new applications and the infrastructure needed for data management. Are we to assume that systems design, data management, security, communications, etc are also commodities?
The truth is that IT services will not be eliminated, although how they may evolve (or mutate) is certainly beyond most of us. As systems become "simpler" for the end-user, there is a higher degree of expertise required to deal with the complexities that deliver that "simplicity". IT services have always evolved as the technology has changed. Businesses have always tried to save money and sometimes these two entities have collided with harsh consequences.
One point that should be considered, is that much of the article doesn't suggest extinction, but rather a higher degree of competition with outside providers (either software or services). This is certainly going to be the case, so anyone that thinks that IT will, or should, be "business as usual" is in for a rude awakening. The biggest danger to most IT organizations is that they don't realize they're even in a competition and that will certainly cause them to go away in favor of their competitors.
Despite its failings, this article should serve as a wake-up call to anyone thinking that IT is simply a job you can go to for 30 years and then retire.
Anyway ... end rant Adam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
