In my role as a former SIG leader involved in the initial formulation
of IPROF and also as HPWorld committee member responsible for the MPE
track both last year and this upcoming conference I've some comments I
would like to make in response to this thread:
(Sorry for the length....)
At 04:56 PM 11/18/1999 -0800, Bill Lancaster wrote:
>At 02:46 PM 11/18/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >While I understand the time pressures and frustrations associated with the
> >IPROF of the last few years (basically too much in too little time), how
> >does splitting things up into two conferences covering an 8 day period help?
>
>The reasons for the split aren't simply "too much in too little time".
>Rather, the reasons center around classic IPROF trying to accomplish too
>many diverse goals. The goals of advocacy, lab contact with SIG's and
>end-user education aren't easily accomplished in one setting and have
>resulted in a very mixed understanding of what IPROF was intended to be, in
>the beginning.
>
>IPROF over the last few years (maybe even four or five) wasn't a
>particularly satisfying experience for me personally, and for many others
>with whom I have spoken. The lack of very specific focus caused, in my
>opinion, a drastic drop in attendance (40-80 last year depending on who you
>listen to). The split is intended to facilitate that focus.
IPROF originated from the successful partnership a few SIGs achieved in
working with HP Labs to identify key user needs and work together to
develop a cost-effective solution. This formula was successful because
a relative small group of dedicated HP3000 users took the time to sit
together with HP lab folks and help them understand the issues and
together work-out possible solutions that both felt comfortable with.
This type of process is best accomplished in small groups and not the mass
of individuals, like at HPWorld conferences. The large thing get, the
more challenging it is to effective manage the meeting from an interaction
perspective.
Unfortunately I felt some SIG meetings at IPROF were primarily composed
of one-way type presentations and not a lot of interaction between
attendees and product engineers. And in some cases there were talks from
vendors about their products. While informative, these sessions didn't
really have the interaction with HP engineers, which was the original
intent of the forum.
Early on it was recognized that IPROF was not going to be, nor should be
very large. An attendee count in the area of 100-140 was felt to be
manageable and productive. There was concern about the meeting getting
too large, and losing some of the interaction which made it beneficial
to all. So I don't have a problem with an attendee count in the neighborhood
of 100 or so. Interex's count and includes paid-attendees, which is
always going to be lower because SIG Leaders and others who are extended
free or reduced registrations are also a part of this same community that
interacts with the labs. So I'm not sure using the paid-attendance
figure is a good measure of success in terms of the original intent of
this forum. Clearly its meaningful to Interex from a loss/break-even/make
money perspective.
> >It certainly does not encourage participation, especially in the SIGs. In
> >order to attend both, people coming from any distance (in addition to
> >airfare and ground transportation) are staring at 9 nights in a hotel ($1500
> >including taxes) plus meals and as many as 8 days out of the office. This in
> >addition to the $595 for the SS and who knows how much for the "new" IPROF.
> >We were already having problems getting people to IPROF, what is going to
> >happen now if people feel they have to choose?
>Many of the people with whom I have communicated have said that if they are
>interested in the SIG meetings, they aren't necessarily interested in the
>Solutions Symposium and vice versa, though this certainly isn't true for
>everyone.
I tend to agree with these comments. All together both are too long and
represents too much time out of the office or away from personnel lives for
the attendees, as well as possible cost. It also poses a high-degree of risk
that both are competing for the same size pool of attendees and as such, will
cause these folks to choose one over the other. This will result in overall
lower participation for each.
>Additionally, I'm hoping we draw completely new blood to the Solutions
>Symposium. Having been one of the driving forces behind this new
>conference, my overt goal, stated publically many times, is to help create
>a larger middle class of HP 3000 technologists. We have an inverse bell
>curve regarding these folks. I'm constantly travelling throughout the US,
>going from HP 3000 site to HP 3000 site and, while this may be different in
>the rest of the world, I'm seeing a consistent theme in these sites of not
>having strongly competent MPE'ers or not being able to find more of them.
While I agree and wholly support Bill's goal, practically I tend to feel that
these meetings will not draw a lot of new MPE'ers. Trying not to show bias,
I believe that all the other activities, etc. at the annual conference does
more
to attract attendees than the SS. Furthermore, all the data that has been
collected over the last several years shows that the number of MPE-only shops
continues to decline, and most conference attendees have a mixture of
technology.
And while this does not diminish the need for MPE education, it does becomes
more cost effective for the employer to send folks to conferences which
provide
more options in terms of technology exposure when looking towards their
business needs.
>The current speaker list (from memory, so I'll probably miss a few) is:
/snip
Not including HP managers, 8 HP speakers, 5 vendors, 2 users/consultants.
>As far as this being part of HP World, I personally don't think that makes
>much sense. HP World is increasingly attended by managers and while the
>technical content is often good, it's also often very vendor-oriented.
I'm not sure I understand what is meant by vendor-oriented. Perhaps its
because the HPWorld conference includes a vendor show and vendor-sponsorship
of various events whereby SS is not currently offering a vendor show. Some
may interpret a vendor show as a conference being vendor-oriented. And while
I don't disagree with this interpretation, a vendor show is also a part of
educating users on the products/etc. that are available for the MPE market,
especially new, MPE-challenged users, which is a shared goal between SS and
HPWorld. Many times I've seen new users learn about tools/products at vendor
shows which help them meet a business need (and I'm speaking as an observer,
not a vendor)
>What we've tried to do with the Solutions Symposium is to create a
>tremendous amount of very meaty training and education not currently done,
>in toto, anywhere else.
I have to strongly disagree with this claim that this is not currently done
or available anywhere else.
The MPE track at HPWorld'99 consisted of 10 presentations by HP and 17
presentations by others. This does not include the special sessions provided
by HP or presentations in other tracks (e.g. High-Availability, etc.) which
also included or were MPE oriented. Of the non-HP talks, 6 were given by
vendors in the HP community on subjects which they can offer some expertise.
And while as track chairperson I cannot strictly guarantee the vendors won't
mention products, those which I visited did an excellent job of clearly being
sensitive to this and staying away from any specific products with the
exception of 1 talk which was advertised as including comments from 2 vendors
as a part of the talk. Out of all the MPE talks, HPWorld at 22% (6/27) given
by vendors whereas the proposal for SS has 33% (5/15) provided by vendors.
And this does not include all the concurrent SIG activities, BOF's or
roundtables/panels and HP product mgmt talks that are available to attendees
at HPWorld.
I do agree with Bill, in terms of needing more MPE-based education. This
is partly why there has been and will continue to be a MPE program as a
part of the training seminar's prior to HPWorld. Last year's program
drew a large number of new MPE users and the feedback was very supportive
of the program. This same issue is also why part of the MPE track at HPWorld
last year included a series of non-competing, basic educational tutorials
and presentations over 2 and 1/2 days (e.g. the 'cooking' series). This
was in addition to more technical presentations offered at the same time for
the more experienced MPE attendee.
However, I fully disagree with the claim that the SS conference offers more
training and education that available anywhere else. While my comment is not
intended to downplay the efforts and goals of SS, it is simply a matter
of observation and logistics.
I firmly believe that the dedicated committee working IPROF and SS are working
very hard to develop a program to meet the needs of the MPE
community. However,
from a practical sense I don't feel this community can successfully support
the
2 different programs that are proposed. It's simply not clear that they
can both
be independently successful competing in today's market for attendee
participation
on top of what is offered by the annual conference.
I will definitely support the new SS along with IPROF, along with working hard
myself to provide a program for HPWorld'00 which attracts and meets the
needs of our
diverse user community. I want all these MPE-focused programs to be
benefitial
for the MPE community and highly successful so they continue. I know how much
work is involved and applaud the dedication and efforts of all those
involved.
/jf
_\\///_
(' o-o ')
___________________________ooOo_( )_OOoo____________________________________
Monday, November 22nd
Today in 1963 - President John F. Kennedy was assassinated
in Dallas, Texas.
___________________________________Oooo_____________________________________
oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)
|
