bytevolc...@safe-mail.net wrote:
>
> Think about this. You change the toolset they've been used to for
> years, with something radically different. Whether or not you like it,
> OpenOffice/Libreoffice/OpenBSD/Linux is radically different from a MS
> Office/Windows setup. Now instead of coming to work and just doing the
> job they were assigned to, they now have to learn new bits of software,
> and you "don't understand the problem."
There's not necessarily any technical problem, at least not one that
cannot be solved (luser education has been mentioned).
But of course there's still a problem. If I'm not too mistaken, that's
why Rupert asked for advice.
> Doesn't matter. It appears he just forced his users to use radically
> different software to do the same task, without understanding what they
> face, or justifying his reason for the change to the users.
Yeah well, going by his wording, I divine that he was sceptical himself
and it was decided higher up the food chain.
I don't approve of it (and that's putting it mildly), but in some
organizations that's just how it works.
> It won't help the case if you come across as unsympathetic/unwilling to
> understand your users, and it won't help if you don't try to work with
> them to resolve the issues.
Well, if the root issue is the command from up high, then it's either
obey or quit. A nasty dilemma, to say the least.
> This is the key to solving the "like" factor, as Rupert calls it. The
> users rightfully want a justification for the change, and they won't
> understand "oh this software is open source, so we're not locked in to
> proprietary closed Microsoft software." They won't care either, they
> just want to do the job and go home.
Again, if it's you as a sysadmin that makes the decisions, that *can*
fly as well in practice as it does in theory.
But often you find yourself just obeying 'corporate policy', and it can
take a true BOFH to sabotage it effectively.
> I don't do this kind of thing anymore, but whenever I had to change the
> system around, some retraining was in order and I would provide the
> user with a comparison on how they did something in the old system vs
> how they do it in the new system.
When some hyped geek sells it to the CEO, or (more likely) the higher
regions fall for the $$$ argument, and they have declared it "not
needed", well, what are you going to do?
Say that the shareholders can stuff the extra dividends up their asses?
Again, not everyone is a BOFH.
--schaafuit.
