Re: The MySQL/PHP pair

From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:56:58 -0500
Message-ID: <rpf962-mee.ln1@pluto.downsfam.net>

"Bill H" <wphaskettatTHISISMUNGEDadvantosdotnet> wrote:

>
> "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:lrCdnVwok8DxDwzcRVn-ug_at_comcast.com...

>>
>> If you you are
>> simply referring to Dawn's concern with total cost of ownership,  my
>> reaction is:  "Well, Duh!"
>>
>> What makes you think there is anyone in this forum that doesn't get the

> idea

>> of holding costs down???

>
> Several reasons, really. Many of the IT departments I've been involved
> with, and do business with, between the PHBs and the DBAs, don't operate
> in
> an environment designed for them to know the true costs of their work. By
> definition, they're a department and operate under department guidelines.
> In a smaller business the owner is responsible for everything. Each
> mistake
> costs the owner directly (e.g. cash out of their pocket). This is not the
> model of a large company department. We can discuss the similarities and
> differences but I only want to answer your immediate question.
>
> I don't presume to know the extent of business ownership experience in
> this
> forum. But since it is an IT forum, I'd postulate the members of the
> department set outnumber the members of direct business owners set. :-)
> However, I could be incorrect in this assumption.

This agrees with my experience. As soon as a company exceeds the size where a sole owner can track all costs (20? 50 people?) the employees begin to shift into empire-building mode. I've seen this everywhere.

In a small company the owner is travelling close to the road, he feels every bump. Something that doesn't pay he doesn't buy. The exceptions tend towards a few toys he may pick up here and there.

In a larger company the employees are often competing against one another for favor from the PHB's, up to the top PHB.

It seems, and this is only my impression, that top mgmt in larger organizations seems to believe that the power structure gives them the same control of a company as the direct contact gives the smaller owner. This is true in only the most blunt sense, in that if they can inspire fear and dread in the big guys, those guys pass it down, and so on, and the company makes money by having the folks at the bottom give up first their evenings, then their weekends, then the holidays, and finally vacations.

This btw is a strong argument for being part of a small ISV, instead of going "inside". You get to spend more time on the technology, and the customers are much closer to you.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me

Received on Wed Nov 10 2004 - 06:56:58 CST