I responded to the Computerworld piece: Are you nuts? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
1. "creaking technologies" give me a break. Do you have any idea that today's mainframes can run all the classic applications _and_ you can run UNIX on the mainframe at the same time? Do you know that todays mainframes support ASCII, Unicode, XML, and Java? That they come with an included HTTP server, and support FTP, SMTP, TCP/IP and more? Do you even know what those terms mean? 2. Follow the money; look where this guy's company gets its income. [Disclosure: I get my income teaching mainframe computer programmers; it's my job to stay current.] 3. Why "should" IT dollars be spent on new systems? The company took many years to get it working just right for its business needs. It is an investment that keeps on paying back day after day, running the company, returning continuing value. Enhancing it regularly (perhaps a better term for most "maintenance") provides additional benefit at a fraction of the cost of buying new products. 4. What kind of outlook is embedded in phrases like "more experienced workers who have higher salaries 'and are less likely to work longer than 40 hours per week'"? Think about it: he's saying only people who work over 40 hours a week have value. Let's see, just because a worker has learned how to work smarter makes him less valuable? How many of the younger workers do you see who understand any business, much less their company's business? And surveys today show that younger workers start out with an attitude of not giving too much time to the job. 5. "the baby boomer bomb could blow up and destroy a few companies in the near future." Yeah, well, if you don't train new employees in how the business runs, that will happen. Why would I go to work for a guy who publicly says to young workers "Join us now, cause we will pay you low wages for 10-20 years then we will let you go because you will have gotten too expensive for us by then." Why would anyone get into IT with a promise like that? You certainly won't find that attitude at Computerworld's "100 Best Companies to Work For". Or will you? The biggest problem today is IT management who do not understand how IT works in their business. These people are easily led by facile, unknowing, unthinking columnists like you. "Go for the newest: it's gotta' be better because it's newer!" Hogwash! Really good IT departments in really good companies employee a continum of workers from new hires through veterans of varying length. Everyone is regularly updated / trained on all the technologies being used in the business. Every new and existing technology is evaluated regularly, seeking to match the right platform for each application. If I am an experienced IT guy or gal, if managment disparages my work, does not give me merit raises when deserved, does not provide me with the opportunity to learn new technologies, then tells me my performance appraisal will include my training my [outsourced, offshored] replacement, then I am likely to have a bit of an attitude problem. If, on the other hand, management tries to get the most benefit from my experience by having me lead projects that test new approaches to existing applications, I am likely to have a new enthusiasm about work and my company; my productivity will far outshine those of cheaper, younger workers because I understand how it all works already. The cost may be higher, but the benefits way outpace the cost, relative to newbies; and, I am including them in these projects so we train newcomers and give them some solid real world business experience. We will all be better off if "writers" stop echoing the hype from companies and do the hard work of understanding the way things work today. Stop being so shallow. Try and think for yourself. -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. -------------------------------------------------- Someone from their editorial department actually followed up, asking for (and receiving) permission to print all or part of my response, but nothing has shown up that I've seen. But got me thinking: What about a regular column in one of the trade papers, "The Ol' Curmudgeon" or some such? it would be serious look at new hyped technologies from a non-hype perspective: is this really new? is there some real benefit? can it really work? what are the upsides / what are the downsides? maybe ending with a Thumbs Up or a Thumbs Down or a Too Soon To Tell. Anyone intereseted in helping me out on producing such a column, if I can convince a publication to run it? Let me know. Kind regards, -Steve Comstock ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
