X-no-Archive:yes
I think that one of the things that we have seen happen as data processing /
MIS / IT has continued to grow, is that we expect more from ever more
capable systems. Some of what was once pie-in-the-sky theory has become
daily reality. We once saved bytes by using two digit years. Now, some
systems use four digit years, where it makes little sense to do so, just
because they can, and it's probably not worth the cost of analysis. RDBMSs
started off as a nice series of papers by a couple of researchers. Data that
was once archived to tape is now stored in a data warehouse, or a data mart.
Shoot, production data that was once stored on serial tape is now stored on
disk. And the first implementations of each of these are hard to use and
hard to understand and trouble prone and expensive and high maintenance. But
they also offer something not readily available otherwise.

While I am in the camp of those who feel betrayed by a product strategy that
seems to have proven fatal, I * think * I understand the problem that CSY
had on its hands, or at least some of it anyway. How do you sell the new and
unknown to someone whose existing solution seems to meet the business need?
I don't think it was part of the HP Way to sell the fear that if you aren't
using this technology to gain this competitive advantage, your competition
is, and they will leave you behind.

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *