This reminds me of the Oklahoma Payroll debacle of the mid-1990's. The primary problem there was the new non-mf system contractors never checked the payroll data being sent to the Treasurer for check printing had the correct formats and data. The state finally went back to the mainframe system. I don't think they ever tried that stunt again.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:10:25 EDT, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >In a message dated 7/10/2008 9:54:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >where somebody might say, "gee, why not spend $c < $a+$b to develop the >software on the new platform?" This question needs to be answered in >"management speak" and not "techie speak". And the only reason that I >can think of would be "risk avoidance". But is "risk avoidance" worth >the cost ($a+$b-$c)? We've done similar things here and been told "go >ahead" despite the risk. Sometimes it has worked fine, other times we >were left with a mess. > > >>> >Isn't this a contract issue? Maybe ought to flush out on John Anderson's >ISVCOSTs list. One of our bright VM'ers has been doing clean-up from a shaky >conversion of one of S.D.'s neighbors for over three years at IBM contract rate. >Loves it except for the sub-zero winters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
