Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

Gene:

I think this is the classic debate between business and IT. SAP and other "very" large ERP packages require the business to make (some) changes to the way they do business in order to obtain the benefits of their applications. After hundreds of millions of dollars (and I'm not joking) many business are back to functioning again. But there is a strong opinion that ROI is _nothing_ near as advertised.

Small to Medium businesses (SMBs) don't have this luxury, so the concept of altering their business practices to accomodate the rigidities of the application design is not practical.

The ultimate judge of this relationship is the business owner, since they take the risks. Therefore, it stands to reason that the relationship between business and IT should be driven by business, not the other way around.

Bill

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_mail.ocis.net> wrote in message news:p04mn0t9pa5ggst3c1h0d3788oen8safgn_at_4ax.com...
>
> "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >There is one thing that comes through clear as a bell, in the
descriptions
> >you have given previously. And it isn't in the above list. It's the
fact
> >that the Pick people in your favorable experiences started with a
thorough
> >understanding of the subject matter, and of the real needs of the people
> >that would end up being users.
>
> Having an SME (Subject Matter Expert) is great, but there is more
> than one subject here.
>
> >They then learned enough IT to implement what their understanding told
them
> >was the "right thing".
>
> >By contrast, most "IT professionals" spend years learning implementation,
a
> >few months learning modeling and design, and a few weeks learning the
> >subject matter. As a consequence, their analysis is terribly
superficial,
> >their design is somewhat stronger, and their implementation is truly
> >impressive. But that's like the foolish man who built his house on a
> >foundation of sand, in the parable. It doesn't matter how well built the
> >house is, if the foundation is weak.
>
> Apply this to the paragraph before. What if they did not learn
> enough, period? I have had occasion to examine the code of people who
> are not professional programmers. Most of the time, it is horrid.
> Errors that could occur are not trapped, there are arbitrary limits,
> etc. It is not that professional programmers can not do similarly,
> but that the non-PP often are not even slightly aware of the problems.
> And they want you to improve the code so it <does more>. Often, a
> rewrite is the only sensible option.
>
> If you are going to program, you need a programming SME.
>
> >The foundation of a successful application is the subject matter.
>
> The subject matter of a program is both the area that the program
> deals with and programming. You need a subject area SME and a
> programming SME.
>
> >I can't prove it to you, (of course!), but I deeply believe that, at
the
> >end of the day, that's the conclusion you'll come to.
>
> I like this. I say it, too.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
> Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
> I have preferences.
> You have biases.
> He/She has prejudices.
Received on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 23:53:48 CEST