Re: Just one more anecdote

On 26 Jul 2005 20:21:23 -0700, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On 25 Jul 2005 19:24:48 -0700, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm sure there are numerous factors playing into the fact that the
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I suggest a general one below.
>>
>> >system touted in this MS Word document
>> >http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/ShowFile.asp?FileResourceID=1611
>> >
>> >has been discontinued and written off to the tune of $67 million in s/w
>> >development as seen at
>> >http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050721/clth018.html?.v=16
>> >
>> >This is yet another instance where a legacy system written with a PICK
>> >(in this case), MUMPS, IMS, or other pre-relational database product
>> >didn't successfully make the jump to a SQL-RDBMS.
>>
>> Probably irrelevant.
>
>You certainly could be right -- are you basing this opinion on some
>particular experience you have had or just a general opinion without
>having developed systems in both environments or converted from one to
>the other?

     General opinion. In particular, I am considering the Second System Effect.

>One reason why I'll stick to my partial explanation (definitely not the
>whole of it) is that I've been involved in many migrations/conversions
>over the past quarter of a century starting with conversions from card
>systems to oltp and including conversions from one source code language
>to another and one OS to another. None has been so huge and difficult
>as the move to a SQL-DBMS environment from a very similar environment
>to what this vendor had. I can feel this one in my bones, brother.

     I wonder if this is also an application of the Second System Effect.

>> >It is very likely that the conceptual data model and surely the
>> >subsequent logical data model from which the original system was
>> >developed would not play to the strengths of the SQL-DBMS. As much as
>> >we might want to think otherwise, even the design of a conceptual data
>> >model is influenced by the designer's knowledge of the target dbms. A
>> >redesign of the data model for a SQL-DBMS is likely to both bump
>> >features and increase complexity -- a harsh one-two punch.
>>
>> Brook's Second System Effect
>> (<http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/second-system-effect.html>) seems
>> a likely culprit.
>
>definitely not to be discounted
>
>> >My conjecture is that downgrading, I mean moving, from a graph data
>> >model to a relational data model and from a PICK dbms to the SQL-DBMS
>> >were significant factors in this project failure. I could be wrong, of
>> >course.
>>
>> I think you are wrong or missing the biggest point, but not
>> because of the PICK-SQL argument. Here is my take:
>>
>> How many software projects fail? I think we agree that the
>> percentage is all too high.
>
>Yup and I've read many treatices on such, none of which have implicated
>the SQL-DBMS. I don't know if I am the first to do so, but that is
>precisely what I'm doing.

     SQL definitely is not the panacea it is sometimes presented as. I like the cleanness of the RM.

>> Original System was around for a while. It had made it over the
>> hump. It was a successful system. That made it one of the elite. It
>> may have been flawed, limited, whatever. No matter. It was a
>> success, enough of a success to be used for some time.
>>
>> New System had not yet run the gantlet. It still had the
>> opportunity to fail. (With the Second System Effect, it had an even
>> bigger opportunity to fail.) It failed.
>>
>> You are comparing a successful system to a failed system. Apples
>> and oranges.
>
>Definitely two different systems, one of which was successful, but
>still worthy of comparison. In case you ever get a chance to choose

     Quite.

>between them, apples are often red and keep the doctor away while
>oranges are orange with vitamin C.

     And keep the herbalist away?

>> I think that this hurdle would apply to any new system replacing
>> an old one. I believe Machiavelli had something to say about new
>> systems replacing old ones vs. a new system when there is no old
>> system.
>
>Yes, and I've used that quotation more than once, along with the old
>joke that God was able to create the world in 6 days because he didn't
>have an installed base.

     I like that one.

>However, you can refer to any system as a "first system". Why don't
>you point to the paper files that were replaced by the computer system
>as the first system, so that the one that the .NET/SQL Server app was
>supposed to replace would be the third. This new one would have been
>the first relational database application.

     Hey! I mentioned Machiavelli. That is not old enough? <EG> My answer is because of the context of this group. I think your point of manual to computer being an application of Second System Effect is valid.

>Again, there might be something to this line of argument, but it is not
>the entire picture either.
>
>> In the first case, you have a conflict with those who like
>> the old system that you do not have in the second case. (An example
>> of this is the Pick vs. RM argument.)
>
>Yes, I'm guessing there was some of that. However, I'm sure there were
>folks who liked doing everything on paper and not by computer when the
>first of these systems was implemented, likely many moons ago.

     Oh, yes. I remember going around to cash register sales companies when computerised cash registers were first starting to really get going. Most of the company managers/owners (of mainly small companies) I spoke to were terrified of computers. Never mind that I was offering help. They were very scared.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Wed Jul 27 2005 - 18:45:25 CEST