That's not exactly the direction that I was headed. Maybe I am just venting here a bit, but since it would seem to have both merit and value, so I'll complete my thoughts...
I hadn't mentioned anything about the ITSP suite, the new and improved SLM components, or anything about consultants; much less RACs, RSPs, BAs, ABCs, or XYZs. From my standpoint, some of this stuff that goes with it are useless. Still, you're right on the money (double pun) with the expectation that, if you hire a consultant to do something, that they should be able to do it. Point granted. (I'll respectfully withhold my commentary about consultants that hold the nice, shiny certs, however, but cannot do something as simple as ftp a file, understand what 'ls' does, or come right out of training and yours in one of their first assignments.) My point is, well, I suppose that my point could be better phrased in a question, "What the heck happen to reality?" Did it just fade away somewhere? If you are currently working in a regular staff position, then there are some pretty good odds that you might not have encountered version seven for any number of reasons. Likewise, your access to the components of the ITSP suite, and other associated gizmos and goodies is probably going to be somewhat limited. If you happen to work in government, then you know exactly what I am talking about - unless your management sold valuable parts of their anatomy to get a bigger expense justified. It seems a poor way to exclude some very gifted people who are skilled at doing more - with less - because they did not have HPD tagged on. Why is it that when someone mentions the latest version of the AR System that it seems to always be included with one of the above and some member of the ITSP suite? Now that is a question that I'd really like to see a definative answer to. It's almost like the two product are conjoined at the hip (and they are not). If you know the AR System, but don't know the whatever module itself, then your're screwed. The mind-set is that we're going to save a few grand by not having to train you after we spent tens or hundreds of thousands on the product, regardless of whatever else you might have done. Heck no! We need consultants to do the job because it will be so much less expensive. Now there is logic. (I've seen that game played before. In one of the assignments that I had many moons ago, their staff developer new the application backwards and forwards, yet in the end consultants got brought in because they had the certs, but next to no knowlege of the custom app, so they had to learn. Darwin smiles on the manager lemmings.) I guess that what I am getting at here is that if all positions are written for those that can walk on water, then those of us that have to get in a boat, swim, dog-paddle or use a rubber ducky for flotation are more or less relics from an earlier time when: 1.) development was cool, 2.) you rolled your own smoke, 3.) the IT budget was spent elsewhere, rather than on modules that (in *some* cases) can be written in house. Personally, I blame Dark Helmet (http://www.movievillains.com/archives/2004/04/dark_helmet.html) and his legions of ping-pongs for selling new customers on the concept that the entire suite is necessary for the installation to succeed. I could rant on that for hours alone. The problem is that there has been what would appear to be shift in the way the technology is used. It seems to have gone from what was once a "cool" development environment in to something that is prebuilt, shrink-wrapped and licensed up the yang. Add to it the belief that you need consultants to do the work for you, rather than investing in your own staff, and it becomes obvious that Darwins concepts seem to have found a home. Tue Jun 03 2008 03:12:50 PM CDT from William Rentfrow _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
