Ted MacNeil writes: >Training existing staff is a one-time cost. I disagree. It ought not be. It isn't for me, and it isn't for my employer.
And I think you make that point later on anyway, that there is indeed the concept of recurring training for current staff, but then you say that that expense doesn't vary between tools. I disagree again. Some tools are easier to use than others on a recurring basis. For example, IBM might argue (with some merit, I think) that RDz/CICS Explorer/zMF integration of tools makes it easier to keep skills current, because a common, graphical user interface between tools is (more) consistent than ISPF. CA makes the same argument with its "Mainframe 2.0" tools. Knowledge fades if unexercised. John McKown reinforces that point in his post when he mentioned that his developers wanted Tool S because they were allegedly familiar with it but then, once they had it, wouldn't use it because they had forgotten how. That's recurring training for existing staff. In college I took a (no doubt) expensive course that taught Pascal programming. I've forgotten most of it. The FAA mandates recurring education for pilots and mechanics, and the amount varies between aircraft types. Quite simply, tools can vary in how often they exercise knowledge, both because of the design of the tool and the role the tool plays. That ought to factor into the business case. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect E-Mail: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
