C
Curt Wuollet
Hi Dave
On July 20, 2003, Dave wrote:
> Alright, time to reply..................
>
> No, in the real world most of us have to focus (and I hate to use
> brainless buzzwords) on our CORE COMPETENCIES..........our companies
> cannot and will not any longer in this tough business cycle, support
> a "software development staff", and a "Check writing staff" and
> unfortunately in a lot of cases an "IT staff", in this quarter to
> quarter world we live in, those are outsourced to people who focus on
> them as their Core Competencies..........sorry that is the way it is,
> I have to focus in my case on making paper......using my skills and
> tools (yes tools) that are available.....Could I write a better HMI
> program after all these years...Probably, but what would it cost my
> company for the development time, support staff, support time,
> modifications when new OP systems came out (even Linux changes)
> etc........
Again, that bipolar thinking. It's either buy it or build it all yourself. Not the practical area in between. If you have a dozen companies or entities or more cooperating, these arguments are altered significantly.
> CWW - Hello Mr. Engineer
>
> CWW - I agree that packaged systems are often best for those with
> compensation and turnover problems CWW - (most employers), but that
> doesn't justify such sweeping generalizations.
>
> process engineer wrote:
>
>> It is better to use one of the commercially available packages
>> unless
>
>> you want to be in the software development business. Many companies
>> have tried to develop in house packages but always revert back to
>> buying one available after they fail in-house.
>
> Yes that is why most companies have turned to "canned" packages like
> SAP, BAAN , Maximo, etc vs. "home grown" packages which eventually
> failed when people left, software changed etc........and yes there
> are places where people actually retire from versus leave due to "as
> you put it, poor compensation, etc."
>
> CWW - Failure in this occurs at about the same rate as failure in
> their line of business projects, and CWW - for the same reasons.
>
>
>> Bottom line is that a Company can't fund a staff to keep a package
>> current with feature sets and technology and usually the person who
>> wrote it leaves and then there is no support.
>
> Whaaaat ???
>
> CWW - That's one of the reasons. This is usually a management problem
> related to cluelessness more than CWW - funding. These guys seldom
> get a fabulous increase to work somewhere else. They just want to
> work CWW - for someone else.
>
>
>> Companies like Wonderware spend 20 million plus each year on
>> development. Why not take advantage of that investment.
>
> If you are in the software business............I have to justify my
> decisions on "business cases" and they do not assume "cost of
> purchase" and anyone who does is an idiot.........they must take in
> "total cost of ownership" and by the time I staff up a support team
> and pay them (yes they want to get paid) and then pay their benefits
> (funny, they actually want them also) and then I manage them (yes,
> they seam to wander aimlessly without some coaxing), the $5000
> initial investment and $250/year per package (being generous) ends up
> slightly cheaper.....(some costs actually left out, before you jump
> on that one)
But if you only have to fund a small fraction of the whole, or perhaps none at all, your TCO could very well be more attractive than commercial offerings. Just as dividing the cost between many customers makes shrinkwrap software work, sharing the development between many "customers" makes OSS work. And the end result is lower TCO, better fit and more supportable software with much less ongoing expense. I'm not a starry eyed idealist, I'm doing this because of the way the numbers work. There's a lot of work out there that simply won't happen with current pricing structures and profit distibution.
> CWW - Because they fund that development with an upgrade and support
> mill that makes the initial purchase only part of the cost. At some
> number of installations the total cost for in-house development may
> very well cross over. A great many of these packages began that way,
> so it's silly to suggest that it can't be done. It probably won't be
> done as a part of the job with VB, but that doesn't mean that a
> general class solution is always better than custom work. Or that
> software companies have some special magic that makes them more
> competent. Most software companies rely on a very few really good
> people. Those people could do the same anyplace that supports and
> respects them. And for that matter, they can do the same without any
> company if they so desire. Or on their own time for an OSS project,
> for example. The folks at the software companies are probably ROTFL
> at your awe and reverence for their image.
>
> And that is why you find reputable companies and take the risk that
> they will be around, if you go to "flavor of the week" companies then
> yes that risk is greater (there are no guarantees) but if you stick
> with companies like Microsoft (Please Curt, I am well aware of your
> opinion on this one), Cisco, Rockwell (ditto last anti-spam comment),
> Emerson, GE and any of the other "BIG" players, then your odds go up
> significantly...........
And if you own and can control your solutions, it almost completely eliminates the risk, not only will what you need will be around, but you won't get unpleasnt and costly surprises.
>> The prices of these packages are always less than the total cost of
>> developing and supporting an in-house developed package.
>
> CWW - Yeah, right. Until they simply stop supporting the product and
> you eat the cost to upgrade or reimplement. Or you have a few nagging
> problems that they ignore, or any of the legion of chronic complaints
> that cross these pages. It's curious how folks can copy the mail here
> and come to the conclusion that the status quo is the one true way.
> Even people with second degree burns get back in line again and
> encourage others.
>
> CWW - Why can't there be a better way?
>
> Yes I understand all of your comments/arguments but you can write all
> day on this list and you are not going to convince some of us that it
> is "cheaper" in the long run...........while you are off building
> tools, I am actually out there using them to make better
> widgets............which is what they actually pay me for, making
> better widgets.....(Unless you just want to be a tool builder in
> which case, "Have at it"), but most of us (I hate to generalize, so
> no spam please) are TOOL USERS..............
Most of the better tools are invented by tool users, not necesarily by tool companies. You have a very, very, substantial investment in these tools before they are of any use to you. In fact, I dare say that users have a far greater investment in packaged tools than the tool companies. Shouldn't you get more in return? And how many times should you have to pay for the same tool and yet never own it?
> Everyone can go to Home Depot and buy a hammer, doesn't make them a
> Craftsman, everyone can go to the art supply store and buy paint ,
> doesn't make them Artists...........It's just a hammer for gosh
> sakes..................
I'm afraid the simplistic comparison breaks down around here. You can pick up any hammer and use it immediately. It doesn't cost you a mint to switch from Stanley to Plumb, You don't have to keep paying so your hammer keeps working. No one throws away your favorite hammer and makes you buy a new one with all kinds of sharp edges on the handle so you bleed every day. And you don't have to buy all the rest of your tools fron the same company as your hammer. And surely, no one would put up with this kind of crap, for a hammer :^) or anything but automation equipment.
So, it must not be just a hammer.
> Old line.........What is the difference between an Artist and a
> Painter..............One paints houses.........
>
> As Dick Morley says "Manufacturing jobs left 10 years ago, Assembly
> jobs are leaving now, and Intellectual Property jobs (Engineering)
> are right behind them"
>
> While we are all busy arguing about the tools to use, others in this
> world are busy making better products, focusing on "tool usage",
> Engineering and R&D and we (US) are all busy worried about our ego's
> and what kind of software is best..........Lets actually make better
> products and focus our attention on the process, not the hammer
............
Somehow, I don't think maintaining the status quo and falling further and further behind is going to cure this. I don't care how hard you work with a file, the guy with a mill is going to beat you. Yeah, it's an OK file, and you know how to use it, and it's simple enough, but I'd advise learning to use better technology.
> My 2 cents............
>
> Your Friend:
>
> Dave
And yours
cww
On July 20, 2003, Dave wrote:
> Alright, time to reply..................
>
> No, in the real world most of us have to focus (and I hate to use
> brainless buzzwords) on our CORE COMPETENCIES..........our companies
> cannot and will not any longer in this tough business cycle, support
> a "software development staff", and a "Check writing staff" and
> unfortunately in a lot of cases an "IT staff", in this quarter to
> quarter world we live in, those are outsourced to people who focus on
> them as their Core Competencies..........sorry that is the way it is,
> I have to focus in my case on making paper......using my skills and
> tools (yes tools) that are available.....Could I write a better HMI
> program after all these years...Probably, but what would it cost my
> company for the development time, support staff, support time,
> modifications when new OP systems came out (even Linux changes)
> etc........
Again, that bipolar thinking. It's either buy it or build it all yourself. Not the practical area in between. If you have a dozen companies or entities or more cooperating, these arguments are altered significantly.
> CWW - Hello Mr. Engineer
>
> CWW - I agree that packaged systems are often best for those with
> compensation and turnover problems CWW - (most employers), but that
> doesn't justify such sweeping generalizations.
>
> process engineer wrote:
>
>> It is better to use one of the commercially available packages
>> unless
>
>> you want to be in the software development business. Many companies
>> have tried to develop in house packages but always revert back to
>> buying one available after they fail in-house.
>
> Yes that is why most companies have turned to "canned" packages like
> SAP, BAAN , Maximo, etc vs. "home grown" packages which eventually
> failed when people left, software changed etc........and yes there
> are places where people actually retire from versus leave due to "as
> you put it, poor compensation, etc."
>
> CWW - Failure in this occurs at about the same rate as failure in
> their line of business projects, and CWW - for the same reasons.
>
>
>> Bottom line is that a Company can't fund a staff to keep a package
>> current with feature sets and technology and usually the person who
>> wrote it leaves and then there is no support.
>
> Whaaaat ???
>
> CWW - That's one of the reasons. This is usually a management problem
> related to cluelessness more than CWW - funding. These guys seldom
> get a fabulous increase to work somewhere else. They just want to
> work CWW - for someone else.
>
>
>> Companies like Wonderware spend 20 million plus each year on
>> development. Why not take advantage of that investment.
>
> If you are in the software business............I have to justify my
> decisions on "business cases" and they do not assume "cost of
> purchase" and anyone who does is an idiot.........they must take in
> "total cost of ownership" and by the time I staff up a support team
> and pay them (yes they want to get paid) and then pay their benefits
> (funny, they actually want them also) and then I manage them (yes,
> they seam to wander aimlessly without some coaxing), the $5000
> initial investment and $250/year per package (being generous) ends up
> slightly cheaper.....(some costs actually left out, before you jump
> on that one)
But if you only have to fund a small fraction of the whole, or perhaps none at all, your TCO could very well be more attractive than commercial offerings. Just as dividing the cost between many customers makes shrinkwrap software work, sharing the development between many "customers" makes OSS work. And the end result is lower TCO, better fit and more supportable software with much less ongoing expense. I'm not a starry eyed idealist, I'm doing this because of the way the numbers work. There's a lot of work out there that simply won't happen with current pricing structures and profit distibution.
> CWW - Because they fund that development with an upgrade and support
> mill that makes the initial purchase only part of the cost. At some
> number of installations the total cost for in-house development may
> very well cross over. A great many of these packages began that way,
> so it's silly to suggest that it can't be done. It probably won't be
> done as a part of the job with VB, but that doesn't mean that a
> general class solution is always better than custom work. Or that
> software companies have some special magic that makes them more
> competent. Most software companies rely on a very few really good
> people. Those people could do the same anyplace that supports and
> respects them. And for that matter, they can do the same without any
> company if they so desire. Or on their own time for an OSS project,
> for example. The folks at the software companies are probably ROTFL
> at your awe and reverence for their image.
>
> And that is why you find reputable companies and take the risk that
> they will be around, if you go to "flavor of the week" companies then
> yes that risk is greater (there are no guarantees) but if you stick
> with companies like Microsoft (Please Curt, I am well aware of your
> opinion on this one), Cisco, Rockwell (ditto last anti-spam comment),
> Emerson, GE and any of the other "BIG" players, then your odds go up
> significantly...........
And if you own and can control your solutions, it almost completely eliminates the risk, not only will what you need will be around, but you won't get unpleasnt and costly surprises.
>> The prices of these packages are always less than the total cost of
>> developing and supporting an in-house developed package.
>
> CWW - Yeah, right. Until they simply stop supporting the product and
> you eat the cost to upgrade or reimplement. Or you have a few nagging
> problems that they ignore, or any of the legion of chronic complaints
> that cross these pages. It's curious how folks can copy the mail here
> and come to the conclusion that the status quo is the one true way.
> Even people with second degree burns get back in line again and
> encourage others.
>
> CWW - Why can't there be a better way?
>
> Yes I understand all of your comments/arguments but you can write all
> day on this list and you are not going to convince some of us that it
> is "cheaper" in the long run...........while you are off building
> tools, I am actually out there using them to make better
> widgets............which is what they actually pay me for, making
> better widgets.....(Unless you just want to be a tool builder in
> which case, "Have at it"), but most of us (I hate to generalize, so
> no spam please) are TOOL USERS..............
Most of the better tools are invented by tool users, not necesarily by tool companies. You have a very, very, substantial investment in these tools before they are of any use to you. In fact, I dare say that users have a far greater investment in packaged tools than the tool companies. Shouldn't you get more in return? And how many times should you have to pay for the same tool and yet never own it?
> Everyone can go to Home Depot and buy a hammer, doesn't make them a
> Craftsman, everyone can go to the art supply store and buy paint ,
> doesn't make them Artists...........It's just a hammer for gosh
> sakes..................
I'm afraid the simplistic comparison breaks down around here. You can pick up any hammer and use it immediately. It doesn't cost you a mint to switch from Stanley to Plumb, You don't have to keep paying so your hammer keeps working. No one throws away your favorite hammer and makes you buy a new one with all kinds of sharp edges on the handle so you bleed every day. And you don't have to buy all the rest of your tools fron the same company as your hammer. And surely, no one would put up with this kind of crap, for a hammer :^) or anything but automation equipment.
So, it must not be just a hammer.
> Old line.........What is the difference between an Artist and a
> Painter..............One paints houses.........
>
> As Dick Morley says "Manufacturing jobs left 10 years ago, Assembly
> jobs are leaving now, and Intellectual Property jobs (Engineering)
> are right behind them"
>
> While we are all busy arguing about the tools to use, others in this
> world are busy making better products, focusing on "tool usage",
> Engineering and R&D and we (US) are all busy worried about our ego's
> and what kind of software is best..........Lets actually make better
> products and focus our attention on the process, not the hammer
............
Somehow, I don't think maintaining the status quo and falling further and further behind is going to cure this. I don't care how hard you work with a file, the guy with a mill is going to beat you. Yeah, it's an OK file, and you know how to use it, and it's simple enough, but I'd advise learning to use better technology.
> My 2 cents............
>
> Your Friend:
>
> Dave
And yours
cww