Re: Are Oracle DBAs trivialized?

In message <1113867950.762534.143180_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Joel Garry <joel-garry_at_home.com> writes
>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.
>

It may be implicit in the paragraph, but it is always part of any argument when making proposals.

Things seem to be better now, but the number of sites I have seen in the past who are happy to upgrade to the latest version of VB or VC++ at the drop of the hat, but wouldn't spend a penny on DBMS or OS upgrades. Actually, they did spend on the support agreements, but never allocated the time.
>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."

The difficulty with this is that part of it is the costing of risk which is always difficult. Working in banks( in the UK), it has always been an absolute no-no to run unsupported software, and this would be reinforced by auditors[1] and regulators which helped the argument.

>So
>Jim, all those businesses you've been in, have you seen such a report?
Not as a general report, but most have recognised the problem and had a budget for upgrade activities, although it is often among the first budget to get squeezed.

More companies are aware of TCO concepts now.

>Should you have, under your own "needs management approval" definition?
>

Yes. I should also have got more money, but you can't have everything in life.

>It's tough for management to delegate to DBA's these sorts of
>decisions, especially since "business decisions" are too often framed
Some, some not. But most have had a budget for upgrade activities, although it is often among the first budget to get squeezed.
>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+us
>e/2100-1012_3-5675172.html?tag=nefd.top
>
>.
>

-- 
Jim Smith
Because of their persistent net abuse, I ignore mail from
these domains (among others) .yahoo.com .hotmail.com .kr .cn .tw
For an explanation see <http://www.jimsmith.demon.co.uk/spam>