<caveat> All based on my experience and just my opinion, not trying to wage a religious war and wanting to foster vigorous debate </caveat>
An excellent rebuttal. I hope that the OP is reading because this is precisely the debate he asked for and the arguments he will encounter when asking for more money to spend in development. His difficulty is that there is no really justifiable, direct revenue argument for it (unless his current product is in such bad shape that users are asking for their money back - which I hope is not the case) so he is in amongst the intangibles. Imagine that his company was about to go bust and had no money to spend on anything other than salaries and marketing, and the management team weren't actually being paid but they had a killer product (i.e. any organic startup). How important would an IDE upgrade be in that case? If it is that important would the developers agree to paying for it themselves? We don't know whether the OP's company is in this situation or not, but it is a perspective that is worth considering before asking management for money. I hope my comments aren't seen as trying to shut down the debate. I was hoping that a provocative statement from a standpoint other than "developers will spend less time coding therefore save the company money" or "technically, it's just better" would uncover some of the truths about spend on software tools, and it appears to have done just that. I stand by my opinion (see caveat) and further question the intangible cost saving in improved quality. The logic is irrefutable, the promise grand, the reality always a bit disappointing. Arguing for a software upgrade for developers based on TCO of a product in development is not an argument I have ever had any success with, it's just too much promise (why aren't you building the quality anyway? was the question I tended to get asked). Early ship dates can translate into revenue, but normally they mean more features and the same ship date because the rest of the release engine is not able to pull their date forward. Plus presumably you are spending the extra time on building the quality, so the ship date doesn't change at all. My experience is that it is very tenuous to say that an upgraded tool helps any of that, it is all about getting the developers and testers to think and act the right way. The boozy night may well be forgotten (the same night if it goes really well) but the impression the people will have about the company they work for is that they had fun and their tyrannical masters cared not just about them having the right tools with which to slave away, but about the social bonds that made going to work about more than just productivity. Perhaps they weren't so cheap after all. If that stops one person from leaving, or attracts one high calibre person by recommendation, then it is money very well spent and every bit as intangible and valuable as promised quality improvements - and just as good an argument for taking the developers down the pub. The argument nobody has posited yet is to treat it in the same way that you would hardware, i.e. it is a sunk cost of development to keep the tools up to date. That probably means it would come from a different place on the balance sheet than discretionary spend, and as an incremental cost in development would then look small. The old, "sneak it in the budget next to something large so nobody will notice" trick. If the people being convinced are from the finance side of the house this will make total sense to them and may even be a virtue. It's really good to see that this board is not just flex coders but there's some experienced dev heads here too. Speaks volumes about the power of the community. Not sure this is exactly on topic, but definitely part of development life. --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "simonjpalmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 1:18 AM > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Why upgrade to FB3? > > > > Sorry to say it, and please don't be offended, but this is classic > > illogic posing as a rational argument. > > It could also be rational debate dismissed by narrow-minded opinion! > > > Your argument is about saving money. So, do you go home 15 minutes > > early every day and the company stops paying you for those 15 minutes? > > Otherwise how is the company saving money and therefore how can you > > justify it on those grounds? I can clearly see the investment, I > > can't clearly see the return. > > That doesn't mean there isn't one. > > > All the arguments over cost savings are rubbish unless you can > > actually prove that this will reduce the overall cost of the project. > > Given that 50-75% of the project cost will be wages this won't happen > > unless those efficiency gains are turned into fewer working hours. > > That's not true. There may well be an improvement in quality for the > solution. The resulting software may have a reduced maintenance cost for the > same development time, the solution achieved for the same effort may offer > an improved return on the development effort resulting in cost savings over > the life of the software release, either as greater sales of an improved > software solution, or as improved efficiency for the end user. > > There are many ways that efficiency gains can result in an economic return > that isn't equivalent to reduced working hours. > > > If your argument were real then they could upgrade everyone and make a > > developer redundant. That would be the sort of rational argument that > > might persuade them into an upgrade. If you really believe what you > > say is right, then presumably you see the inevitability of that logic > > - whether you agree with it or not? > > There's nothing inevitable about that assesment. > > > Unfortunately this is how the cheap people outside development look at > > it. I'll show my hand, I sit on both sides of the fence, and I pay > > for a lot of development out of my own pocket, and there's nothing > > like shelling out your own beans to make you think carefully about > > what you spend it on. I also spent a lot of my life arguing for > > increasing spend in development, so I know this territory well and > > have been caught out using just this sort of apparent logic. > > > > Tracy's point about making the developers feel better is the only one > > which has any credibility for me (plus those which refer to addressing > > a specific technical need, which the OP has denied)... if it will > > genuinely do that. > > > > Take them all out, that'll make them feel even better. > > And a few months down the line they won't remember their boozy evening, but > every day they'll be reminded that the company they worked for didn't invest > and now the productivity gains and improved solutions made possible by > upgrading is now being experienced by the rest of the community and not > them. That annoying bug which came to light in using Flex 2 which has a > maintenance fix in Flex 3, is something they have to live with. > > > I really think the answer for the original poster's company is wait > > for a while, even if that is not the nicest answer for the poster himself. > > That's certainly a sensible option, but it's not a no-cost option. it's just > an option you can pay for in different ways. > > Simon, you make valid points, but the 'value' of upgrading is not solely > confined to the criteria you have mentioned, so I don't agree with your > assesment. > > Inevitably, the 'value' of upgrading is subject to benefits that are > sometimes tangible (access to improved tools, etc) and sometimes less > tangible, or event open to dispute (improved productivity, quality, etc). > > The cost-benefit of upgrading Flex is little different to many business > decisions made every day and though not always easy to quantify, I suspect > is a more worthwhile benefit that management having an afternoon at the golf > course, deciding future strategy.. ;-) > > Paul > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Hayes" <jim@> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Good points from Tracy there. > >> If it saves you only 15 minutes a day, say 5 hours a month and the > > cost to your company of employing you (wages + a surprising amount of > > extra cost in admin, office space, insurance etc etc) is roughly $50 > > an hour then it pays for itself in only 4 weeks (If the upgrade cost > > is the $250 discussed earlier, you might want to check that). These > > are not unreasonable estimates at all, it's really a no brainer in > > terms of cost. It surely can't take more than 8 weeks to repay the > > cost even if my guesses are out by a factor of two? > >> OK, I'll admit that you might spend 5 hours installing and testing, > > maybe twice that, but if you look at over, say, a year then you should > > show some decent savings. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Tracy Spratt > >> Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 23:12 > >> To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > >> Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Why upgrade to FB3? > >> > >> The improvement in developer attitude from the speed an stability alone > >> is probably worth the cost. > >> > >> > >> > >> You do not need to maigrate your apps immediately, but can continue to > >> compile them under the 2x sdk. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best of both worlds. > >> > >> > >> > >> Tracy > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> Behalf Of simonjpalmer > >> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 5:02 PM > >> To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > >> Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Why upgrade to FB3? > >> > >> > >> > >> Wait. I can understand your company's reticence. It's normally a > >> pretty empty promise to say that developers productivity will be > >> greatly improved by spending money on a new version of an IDE. > >> > >> Even if it were, that rarely translates into either lower costs, > >> faster development times or higher quality; these things come from the > >> right cultural/social environment/attitudes not the latest versions of > >> the tools. > >> > >> And if you take into consideration the cost of migration of your > >> entire codebase from one version to the next and the associated > >> testing effort, then it is not just about the license fees for the > >> developers. I bet the bean counters are looking at that too. > >> > >> I'm not saying don't do it, and I'm sure Flex 3 is a major step > >> forward, I'm just saying you could easily defer the decision for 6 > >> months until it is actually a released product and has had its first > >> couple of patches. From a commercial standpoint you'll lose nothing > >> by staying put, whereas changing has attendant cost and risk. > >> > >> Of course at some point you'll have to upgrade because Adobe will stop > >> supporting some or all of it, but if things are trundling along nicely > >> and you are being successful in development and sales of your product, > >> then it doesn't hurt to wait for a bit and you'll need to come up with > >> a very rational argument to justify the cost. > >> > >> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > >> , "Tracy Spratt" <tspratt@> wrote: > >> > > >> > FB3 is much faster and more stable/predictable than FB2. The UI is > >> > significantly enhanced. > >> > > >> > Tracy > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ________________________________ > >> > > >> > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > >> [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > >> ] On > >> > Behalf Of Mr Greg Murnock > >> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:47 AM > >> > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > >> > Subject: [flexcoders] Why upgrade to FB3? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > For the big discussion of the day/week... > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I have been given the task to give a "strong case" on why we need to > >> > spend the money (proposed pricing schedule) on the upgrade to FB3, > >> when > >> > available. > >> > > >> > Our company does not look to do AIR apps, we do not have a case to use > >> > Advanced Datagrid, we front CF7 with an Oracle DB (irrelevant) so the > >> > FDS is already there. Current F2 apps with charting working great. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I want to upgrade but need more of a reason, for my [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > company - > >> did > >> > I say that outloud, for us to purchase the upgrades. All comments are > >> > accepted. :) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Greg > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ________________________________ > >> > > >> > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! > >> > Search. > >> > > >> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http:/tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearc > >> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http:/tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearc > >> > > >> > h/category.php?category=shopping> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ______________________________________________________________________ > >> This communication is from Primal Pictures Ltd., a company > > registered in England and Wales with registration No. 02622298 and > > registered office: 4th Floor, Tennyson House, 159-165 Great Portland > > Street, London, W1W 5PA, UK. VAT registration No. 648874577. > >> > >> This e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. It may be read, > > copied and used only by the intended recipient. If you have received > > it in error, please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail or > > by telephoning +44(0)20 7637 1010. Please then delete the e-mail and > > do not disclose its contents to any person. > >> This email has been scanned for Primal Pictures by the MessageLabs > > Email Security System. > >> ______________________________________________________________________ > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Flexcoders Mailing List > > FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt > > Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
