Re: Oracle Taking Control

Comments embedded.
dbaplusplus_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> I hope you are not making assumption like HR folks or whoever does
> screening based on keywords/sterotypes that person cannot be a good
> developer and a good DBA at same time.

It appears you are the one making assumptions, not Mladen.

> I know several people of such
> background who were in software development groups - did C, PRO*C, C++,
> PL/SQL and JDBC programing, yet same time know how to create schema,
> write triggers, stored procedures, create database, do performance
> tuning, do backup/recovery.

As do I, and I'm one of them, along with Nuno Souto, Mladen, Daniel Morgan, Connor MacDonald and others in this newsgroup. Your assumption is Mladen's comment was made to indicate no such people exist. Quite the contrary, such people DO exist, but, in like manner, people meeting the quasi-DBA and 'duh'-veloper 'specification' also exist, and their presence bodes poorly for those who are good at what they do as both DBA and developer. I'd take aim before I fired.

> However, I find people have tendency to
> label others in some narrow role as a developer, DBA, quasi-DBA.
> production DBA, application DBA.

Usually such distinctions reflect differences in job responsibilities, NOT in the qualifications of the candidate. Yes, some people tend to centralise their knowledge around a given area of expertise, dictated in some respect by job demands. Others get the opportunity to work in several areas and thus have a more rounded, less specific knowledge base. Having one over the other is neither good nor bad, but a function of what one is required to do in the position one holds.

> With constant downsizing, offshoring,
> reduction of permanent position, increase in no of short term temporay
> hires .our industry forces people to some narrow specialization.

It isn't the industry, it's the CEOs and CFOs of some companies trying to scrape more profit off of the earnings to make the shareholders, and their personal accountants, happy. Unfortunately such people can't see the forest for the trees until it's too late to undo any damage. The greater the number of horror stories U.S. industry endures due to outsourcing simply to save money the less likely outsourcing will remain a viable alternative to hiring competent, qualified people. The 'Almighty Dollar' influences much in the U.S. and, unfortunately, labor is sometimes a loser in the battle for funds. Certainly it looks attractive to pay a firm overseas to manage all of your databases for the same cost, or less, as a single in-house DBA, however the expertise is usually missing, as is the level of experience in real-world situations. Yes, we also have DBAs working who should seriously consider something else as a career, but for the most part the legion of DBMS professionals who have worked for years in the industry have knowledge and experience far superior to any overseas company offering database administration services at less than one-third the cost of a full-time employee. And it is a shame the leaders of some companies only see the immediate bottom line, and don't understand that bottom line can disappear through the mismanagement of dbms systems due to inexperienced personnel herded into outsourcing firms simply to fulfill a head count. Until, of course, it's too late.

The short term 'hires' aren't really hires, it is, simply put, a contract situation. Using similar mentality to the 'let's outsource this task overseas and pay pennies on the dollar'. contract labor is usually around long enough to fix or patch the current problem and then sent packing to the next issue in line. Long-term solutions are not considered, as they are not considered cost-effective, which baffles me. How can it not be cost-effective to tune and maintain an application over its life? The overall cost is less as exhorbitant contracting fees needn't be paid at sporadic intervals, fees which likely add up to far more than the cost of a full-time employee when time lost due to performance degradation and/or data loss is factored into the equation. American industry is notoriously myopic, which is probably one reason so many startups fail in the first few years. I'm afraid the situation will worsen before it improves, as it will take more and more fiscal disasters before the business leaders take serious note and re-direct their efforts toward making businesses thrive due to quality people than to keep on the course they have currently set, to see profits skyrocket immediately because labor costs have decreased dramatically. Labor cost is far more than the dollar figure HR attaches to a position. Unfortunately the penny-pinching leaders of 'big business' in the United States put profit first, instead of quality and longevity. And, just as unfortunately, this could be the straw which breaks the camel's back.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Tue Nov 08 2005 - 13:08:44 CST