Other post's good points notwithstanding, I would think the risks are
political, not technical. Yes, you can go 'unsupported'. All that really
means is any required support will be more expensive. You would, for
example, pay a per hour rate for IBM assistance if you run into a
problem no one else has encountered.
Most vendors will happily continue to collect licensing fees on
'unsupported' products. If you don't pay, many will stop working at the
end of the current license period. And, as others posted, it may be
costly to get reinstated.
About the only metric I can think of to quantify the risk is to get
quotes from your vendors for ad hoc (hourly) support.
Pragmatically, there is a pretty good business case for halting the 1.9
project. The costs become an issue if, and only if, the project fails,
runs over schedule, or turns out to be only partially successful. And
that's not going to happen by definition ;-)
Then there is the scenario where a thoughtful, risk adverse management
would seek to hedge bets. Somewhere between 0 and 1. Looking for ways to
facilitate that may cost you a little in the short term but may pay off
big time in the long run. Being a team player sometimes pays off in
unexpected ways.
HTH
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peggy Andrews
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Going unsupported - time to fold?
Management has decided that it is time for the mainframe to go. They've
got
a project manager looking at a mainframe decommissioning project (feel
my
pain?). We are current now on z/os 1.7 and had ordered the 1.9
ServerPac
and are in the beginning stages of that. Suddenly this project manager
has
decided that the majority of our applications will be moved off of the
mainframe by the end of the year. Along with that, they have my
supervisor
asking for a risk assessment of NOT doing (completing) the 1.9 upgrade.
I would like to answer intelligently - not emotionally. Of course, I
know that
EOS for 1.7 on September 30, means that we will be "unsupported". As
far as
I know, I could still look for existing fixes, but could not expect
phone support
or new fixes.
Is this correct?
Also, this is a limited view of the operating system alone... what about
third
party software that goes EOS - for instance, some of our CA products
will "sunset" in the September and December time frames, so if I felt it
were
important to keep them supported, then don't I run the risk of: 1) not
getting
an IBM fix for some new "discovery" with new CA software; 2) not
actually
being supported by CA because my operating system is unsupported??
Any answers and suggestions of sound rationale for this "risk
assessment" is
much appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Peggy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are
intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message,
together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged
information.
Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or
distribution
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
