In a message dated 8/21/02 5:11:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> Technically, the migration was successful as for its 6 month implementation
> and it WORKED.  Operationally, I believe it is a failure to go from 3 people
> to 14 people.  I was being somewhat facetious with my statement above.  I am
> sure others will agree with you.
>
>

I'd say that if the company did complete their migration, then it was
'successful' but with an additional ~ $1,000,000? in annual IT expenses, it
may not have been a smart move.  What is nearly impossible to measure is the
benefit provided by a business application system to an organization.  Does
SAP make materials purchasing better and/or more productive than MANMAN?
Does SAP or MANMAN make it easier to schedule work on the factory floor?
Etc. etc. and more etc.

One of the interesting tricks I've seen to implementing a new application
system, is to NOT implement features found in the old application but not
found in the new application.    Instead, just setup a bunch of Excel
spreadsheets or something to make do.... That way not-very-knowledgeable
consultants and management can claim a 'successful' implementation of the new
application system.

Users in the HP-3000 world are faced with application migration not because
of business reasons related to application systems but because of a major
vendor decision.  When migrating to new application software, companies
should very very carefully look at what they are able to do now with their
application software and then look at what any new potential application
system is capable of doing.  SAP should have a lot more non-manufacturing
features than MANMAN but I still suspect that MANMAN will prove to be very
hard to beat in a strictly manufacturing environment.

Wayne Boyer
Cal-Logic

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