James B. Byrne wrote:
> On 20 Dec 97 at 23:01, Jeff Kell wrote:
> > In the olden days of IT, we often implemented systems on a basis of
> > value to the enterprise, feasibility of implementation, and
> > availability of resources (hardware, software, personnel, support)
> > in the best interest of the enterprise (or in my case, university).
> > Success rates were high as were user satisfaction levels.
>
> The olden days always look better.  In the same way that a rusting
> hulk looks like a ship in a poor light at a distance.

I understand your point (as emphasized later in your post) but I must
stand by my original point; to carry on your ship metaphor, I could
point out the "shiny, new, bright Titanic; the unsinkable ship".  There
is a big gap between the perceptions of the users and that of the
support staff.

> Management has been reading the DP technology trade rags as long as I
> have been around.  Long before Byte went mainstream there was the
> weekly ComputerWorld that every savvy pseudo-techno-manager-wanabe
> had to read so that he could liberally salt his talk with the week's
> latest acronym or buzzword.  Those were the days of the bi-weekly
> corporate wide methodology change.

The key phrase here is "IT Management" - in some institutions they are
computer literate and thus qualified to steer the course of IT in
general; but in [increasingly] other institutions they are merely MBA
grade suit-and-tie managers.  I did not intend to make a blanket
condemnation of *all* management, just trying to draw attention (through
the "good old days" example") that in many institutions there are IT
decisions being made by non-IT literate managers.  Sometimes, not
always.  At least you should have your option for input to the process.

> IT practitioners (it was MIS or DP back then) were worse than bunch
> of sorcerer's apprentices or acolytes of the high priesthood of
> techno-babble.

Yes, the bad ones were just that.  But that was the exception back then
as opposed to the rule as is now (in most cases), although that would
be a nice item for a survey of the perception of IT management.

> The DP/MIS/IT medicine men packed their bags and
> went off to greener pastures and new victims.

When they failed, yes.  More true today than before.  I have no regrets
and no significant failures over 25 years, but now I'm being pressed
into a project that I inherited - and have my reservations.

> VISICALC was the worm in the apple.  It was the virus that ate into
> the heart of MIS and is still eating it out from the inside.  It has
> mutated and given offspring.  Lotus-1-2-3, AMI-PRO, MS-WORD, ACCESS,
> ODBC.  All these creatures owe their existence to their great
> grandfather, VISICALC.

Well, wonderful; I have no problem with trying to "control" what users
get for their own desktop.  I do have a problem when they can't get it
to work and call me to make it work.  I will not claim to know the best
products on the marketplace and make relevant recommendations (though we
do try), but I will not take ownership over a home-grown application
that I have no knowledge of it's operation.

> VISICALC and its first generation offspring, Lotus 123, drove the PC
> revolution.  They gave an entire management class a tool to get
> their jobs done better, faster, more creatively. All without having
> to first have their ideas vetted in committee to see if they were
> worthy of the attention and expense of the assistants to the acolytes
> of the high priests of data processing in the church of the eternal
> MIS.

If you're going to extract data on your own with your own software, then
by God you are ON YOU OWN.  DON'T CALL ME.  This is precisely the
"problem" that I was trying to identify in the original post.

> It was the best thing to happen to mankind since Adam woke up and
> stopped sponging off God.

Well, Adam had a brain and learned fast.

> IT having the upper hand is like having the servant tell the master
> what is good for him.  Too often what is said is what is good for
> the servant, the master be damned.   Information Technology
> departments in a classic business are a service.  They should behave
> like one.

Well, tell me, do you take your Ferrari to a BMW dealer for service?
Does the telephone company service your fax machine?  I don't consider
this a servant/master relationship, both are supposedly going in the
same direction.  The important point is getting there, reliably and on
time.  Don't try playing "master" and blaming your "servants" for your
failures.  If that is your opinion then perhaps IT needs emancipation.

> When you go shopping for a car, a house, or a meal, do you buy from
> the vendor who tells you that this is what you need, that this is
> what you can afford and that this is what you will buy, there is no
> need for you to look at anything else?

I have some ocean-front property in Arizona, are you interested?
You do not make a sale on blind salescritter claims, period.
So who do you trust, their people or yours?  Granted that can go
either way, but in a healthy organization you will get straight
answers from inside.  If you don't have that level of trust, then
check your pension plan, you may well be outsourced.  Update that
resume'.

> "Educating the user" is a fool's task.  It is just an euphemism for
> converting someone to your set of prejudices.

Only if that is your intent.  By "educating" I meant not giving blatant
opinions of the "because I said so" flavor, but rather explaining why
you feel that way.  Fool I may be, but you can't change the status quo
unless you try to do just that.

>  The user doesn't want to be educated in the problems facing IT
> anyway.  He wants a problem solved. He wants it solved sometime soon,
> so that the solution can be of use to him and not his replacement.

And you believe that user's should be able to run whatever they want?
Excuse me but their choice of tools may have been the root cause of the
problem, not yours.  Thus the emphasis on a supported platform.

Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>