Re: Are Oracle DBAs trivialized?

Jim Smith wrote:

>Any activity which costs money and introduces risk
>above a certain level needs management approval
>in every business I've ever worked in. Perhaps
>you have unlimited budgets?

The mistake implicit here is that management has costed deferred maintenance. I haven't seen a case yet where they've fallen way behind in technology and accounted for that. The usual case is they costed the project when it was new, depreciated as it went through its life cycle, and thought they were reducing costs by not keeping it up to date.

Really, a failure of strategic planning more than cost accounting, since the costs were kept down. But incorrect costing in real terms (as opposed to accounting fiction), since management didn't get a report that says "these are the deferred costs that are adding up." So Jim, all those businesses you've been in, have you seen such a report? Should you have, under your own "needs management approval" definition?

It's tough for management to delegate to DBA's these sorts of decisions, especially since "business decisions" are too often framed in terms of accounting, and it is difficult to include non-accounting concepts like keeping workers happy and evaluating how critical technology is to a business. So all we can do is throw around buzzwords like... well, you know, the stuff they read in CIO magazine or whatall, and hope that can be called business analysis and that we can slip in the right stuff when nobody is looking.

Certainly, situations like Noons describes can in no way be considered good business planning. Management doesn't even know it is bad (well, hopefully Noons is dealing with that). As always, we can all blame the previous DBA! :-)

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.  "A lot in there to chew on"?  Sounds like dead
meat to me:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+license+test+software+for+real-world+use/2100-1012_3-5675172.html?tag=nefd.top

.