As I wrote before, but may not have come across so clearly is that there
are many factors in the Central Scotland case. However, I still have the
feeling that technological obstacles were not at the bottom of this.
One fact which is certainly an influence is the change of directors during
the course of the project, which John McCreesh mentioned in another
message. However, many IT Directors go for the company with the best
sales pitch without actually going for an independent analysis.
We're still really only getting the MS party line on that and can't do
much more than (unproductive) speculation without info from an insider.
It would help, though to see a copy of the actual report. The article
itself only contains two negative claims, both terribly vague and both
filter through the MS rep.
1) What were the actual reasons for staff not being able to file remotely?
Recalcitrant MCSEs can easily monkey wrench such activities, though there
were probably other factors. Staff with ties to MS win big points for
contributing to a failure of the migration.
2) On what did they base the claims of "disproportionate" support costs?
That runs contrary to everything I have observed since 1998 when I
realized that MS was being a real problem.
To get anything out of the case, it would be necessary to see what really
happened in the report and from the Star Office staff involved. I have
the feeling that technological obstacles were not at the bottom of this.
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Mark Harrison wrote:
This idea that "IT Directors" have a carte blanche to
recommend whoever buys the best dinner is completely out of touch. If
nothing else, every organisation I've ever worked for has a strict policy
that corporate hospitality must be declared, so everyone KNOWS who's been
taking the IT Director out to dinner/rugby/opera/whatever.
Mark, it works on several levels. The IT Director can *recommend* whoever
they want and I stand by my statement.
However, they are not the only link in the chain. It's not necessary to
lay it on too thick on any one level: There is certainly influence, via
*their* contacts with MS, on the IT staff reporting to the IT director.
They're a way to feed ideas and false rumors (e.g. against Novell) so that
when the IT director checks with his staff, they confirm what he heard
from the MS pitch.
Or, if the sales team is not making progress, they can do an end run
around the obstacle and go to his boss or a senior exec in another
department and point out the 'grievous mistake' that is about to be made.
CYA style career middle managers fear this critique and quickly assume the
position. It worked for IBM. It works for MS.
I have seen where IT directors have admitted that MS products are
problematic, fail to perform, cost too much, etc. I have seen them agree
to the metrics and the results. I have seen even their most die-hard MS
fanbois also confirm the data presented. And I have seen both groups
confirm that MS products don't come anywhere meeting the criteria
specified for the activity for which they are used. However, at the end
of the day they put in another order for MS even though they freely admit
that it does not meet the criteria.
Many other places simply have had a core group of MS fans maneuver over
time into key positions and they simply will not even hear of looking at
any sort of non-MS product, be it closed source or open source.
Approaching the whole mess as if it were simply marketing is rather naive
in this day and age. MS operates as a political movement or ideology.
I agree with Charles that it would be useful to get to the bottom of
the Central Scotland. A case study like that would clarify the current
tactics and methods.
-Lars
Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Software patents harm all Net-based business, write your MEP:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
