The money is in their pocket but we are expected to justify every peny of it. Thats why our analysts are being asked if incuring $50K is justified before even placing an order. Talk of being pushed against a rock and a hard place! Al David Gale <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message news:F4B1826B1A21D211AEC5006008207AF404377515@dogbert.csillc.com... > Might I ask who's pocket the $50K is coming from? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Al [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 1:36 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: IT Project Implementation > > > Thanks Everyone for their response. The problem we in the IS are facing is > that the functional department has selected a package but not ready to place > the order yet. The third party vendor has been asked to scope the project > and submit an implementation plan and the final documentation to us as to > what the deliverables will be; i.e. a Project Spec. For this we are paying > them for 5-days consultancy fees. But they have insisted to out user > department manager that before they can scope the project we must purchase > all hardware and databases and set the system up so that they can use their > generic software to produce the project spec. This is going to cost us $50K > to set up before we have put the order to purchase the system. The business > manager agrees with the software supplier but our FD has asked us if this > makes sense and we have said NO. This has put us, the IS, in a situation > where our experience tells us this doesn't make sense but the user > department argues otherwise. > Al > > > > Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message > news:F4B1826B1A21D211AEC5006008207AF4043774EE@dogbert.csillc.com... > > David Gale wrote: > > > > > > I think Richard raises a good point. The project is co-founded from > > > the beginning. A marriage of disciplines, both that of your business > > > department, and that of the IS department. > > > > > > I have seen many projects 'managed' by managing the manager. It > > > takes the excellent communications skills that Richard suggests. The > > > point is, who takes ownership of the project? > > > > This is all too true. Third-party packages on a grand scale (ERP, Baan, > > Peoplesoft, Banner, etc) are most often marketed to non-tech > > administrators. The vision is that you buy the software off the > > shelf, they provide maintenance, you can relocate / reassign / outsource > > your IT infrastructure. Save big bucks. > > > > They don't mention the administrative overhead, ignore the probable > > change of platform/DBMS/development tools/utilities, evade the issues > > which are unique to your business policies that they likely don't > > support, and other issues. > > > > IS/IT/whatever technical people need to be involved to point out issues > > that may affect your specific infrastructure. Network demands, > > client platform and minimum requirements, and multiple points of failure > > in a multi-tiered client/server environment need to be addressed. > > Typical management has an ostrich mentality to this, they don't know and > > don't want to know, so they stick their heads in the sand. If the > > project stumbles, in the worst-case scenario the finger is pointed at > > IS/IT incompetence, or unco-operation, or simple resistance to change. > > This can bleed down to the functional areas as > > well. > > > > A brand new implementation with no precedent - sure, you have no metric > > to measure against and blindly follow the vendor like so many lemmings. > > But replacing an existing system has to have proven advantages that make > > business sense. A pretty GUI is worthless if it is unreliable, > > bug-ridden, inefficient, or doesn't meet your business > > needs. Moving to Unix/NT makes no sense for the same reasons plus > > the additional system administration and software maintenance often > > required by such systems. > > > > In the "old days" IS/IT did tend to dictate business practices based on > > what they could produce, which admittedly had it's faults. But > > currently we face a 180 degree shift where non-technical management > > is dictating what IS/IT should do. Neither paradigm works. > > > > Hopefully both sides will see the light and we can come up with a > > solution that satisfies the real business needs for the end-users while > > remaining a solid, reliable platform that IS/IT can support > > and enhance to benefit the enterprise. > > > > Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]> > > >