Rick,
What you say is clearly valid, but there are pitfalls.
Years ago, I was tasked with implementing 'systems management'
applications for a large company. IBM, which owned half the company, had
a major database product specifically for this purpose (info/mgmt). Upon
receiving the assignment - selected because I knew the product - it was
a no-brainer to me that this 'tool' more then satisfied the obvious
requirements for the tasks at hand. After all, I had been using it for
years and for exactly the same reasons that it was needed at this
company.
Lo and behold, the politicians from the partner company, who I was
required to work with, claimed that, as you describe, *we* (meaning
*they*) has a need to analyze the requirements and choose the best tool
for the job. This led to our getting bogged down for months and months
while we went in circles doing this big study that accomplished exactly
nothing. It was a messy, sordid affair with more then enough angst to go
around. And it was also completely unnecessary, because in the end we
used the IBM product. The price to the enterprise was far more then the
monetary value of the time wasted, because sorely needed facilities
weren't available when they needed to be.
But it was never about technology or requirements, it was about politics
and power.
I agree that what you're saying is irrefutable in classroom theory, but
in actual practice the way it really works - or should work - is that
significant enterprises are put together and led by very experienced and
savvy people ('visionaries') who usually have spent careers in the field
and who know what they are doing. They read the WSJ, the trade pubs, and
they talk with their peers. They are anything but ignorant. They know
their mission, what needs to get done, and they know enough about the
major products/tools available to make broad stoke business decisions
for the company. It's their job to make these decisions, and if they
can't or wouldn't, the company is headed for disaster.
So, if one of us works for a company with senior mgmt that is unable to
make these decisions and who relegates them to a committee/study, get
ready for the fight - or change companies.
Perhaps what is really being asked is "what is the best general purpose
database product for future investment?"
Bill
> You forgot to mention some or many of the key requirements. I
> am not saying you are doing this, but this is where most
> strategic consultants make a big mistake in my opinion. Pick
> a language before understanding all/most of the requirements.
> I have worked on too many project recoveries where the
> developer picked a language and development tool set based on
> one requirement: what do I need on my resume. Sickening. I
> have walked into project proposal processes where I was told
> what the tools were before the project was defined. Skipped
> it and watched the failures.
>
> You need to start by collecting the requirements for the
> project. So far you stated two - investment timeframe, and
> maybe a need for 64-bit. If the requirements are done, which
> I would assume is the case based on your question, you have
> to determine the best platform(s) for the job (database
> platform, replication schemes, servers (onsite or hosted),
> workstations vs. dumb terminals vs. portable (could be a
> mix), OS mix, distributed vs. local, etc., etc., etc.)
>
> Language is important, but probably the most insignificant of
> the choices you have before you Nick.
>
> Rick
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
