Re: another failed attempt at database independence
From: Daniel Fink <daniel.fink_at_optimaldba.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 15:27:17 -0600
Message-ID: <48221EB5.7010301@optimaldba.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 15:27:17 -0600
Message-ID: <48221EB5.7010301@optimaldba.com>
I don't think this is a "government low bid" issue as I have seen this
occur quite often in the private sector (it's just that the private
sector can keep these issues quiet). Poor design and development,
inadequate testing and problematic support are far too common. IT is
still a very immature industry/discipline (and seems to be getting
worse) and management looks upon products/projects like a new version of
Office...not realizing the tens/hundreds of thousands (millions?) of
hours that went into it. There has to be a fundamental shift in IT with
management/business support....but I won't be holding my breath waiting
for it to happen.
Daniel Fink
-- Daniel Fink Oracle Performance, Diagnosis, Data Recovery and Training OptimalDBA http://www.optimaldba.com Oracle Blog http://optimaldba.blogspot.com Lost Data? http://www.ora600.nl/introduction.htm Andrew Kerber wrote:Received on Wed May 07 2008 - 16:27:17 CDT
> Well, before you go and blame the DoD, blame the process that congress
> stuck them with. Its amazing to me that anything works considering
> how much of it has to be done by the low bidder. The rule that always
> gets me is the one that requires them to sit back and wait for bids,
> instead of going out and shop around for the best price/performance.
> Its entirely possible in this instance, that someone thought they
> could save software licensing fees, and instead of going out and
> looking around and pricing things out to see if that was indeed the
> case, they had to write it into the contract and have it bid that way,
> without knowing if it was a good decision to begin with.
>
> The DoD is stuck with the rules that congress made for them, and just
> keeping track of them can be a full time job.
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Rick Ricky <ricks12345_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:ricks12345_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Here is a newer article, but it does not have any money numbers in
> it. I checked on it. I belive the $600 million + includes the DoD
> total costs, which include their user acceptance testing, their
> requirements, and project management, plus they pay many millions
> of dollars to a third party testing group to test the applications
> functionality. I think that is where the higher number comes from.
>
> http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3486872
>
> here is another old one:
> http://www.fcw.com/print/12_26/news/95360-1.html
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew W. Kerber
>
> 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1419 - Release Date: 5/7/2008 7:46 AM
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l