I have to take exception to the view that 'personnel cost for on going maintenance is not important because it is "already paid for"'. It's true that there aren't specific hard dollar outlays for maintenance (unless you're hostage to an outsourcer), but it's the general conundrum of how to make sure everything gets done thoroughly in a timely manner when the bill is 'prepaid'.
When your out-of-warranty car has a problem, you take it to a mechanic, who provides a list of work performed and what each item costs. If you're not happy, you can complain that you didn't get your money's worth. You can waive the bill to make your point. When you're under the weather, your health plan is supposed to get you appropriate treatment. Trouble is, most health plans effectively ration care in one way or another. It's difficult to prove that you're not getting your money's worth. Software maintenance is like health care. There are only so many resources to spread around among the patients. I like RMM because I install maintenance to it in the same process that I install maintenance to every other z/OS component. There are negligible extra costs to take care of RMM beyond JES or TSO or XES. CA-1, regardless how fine a product it is, requires a another maintenance process likely performed by another person. Unfortunately, the patient may suffer even though the bill is prepaid. . . JO.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> 02/08/2007 01:24 PM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> To [email protected] cc Subject Re: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Benik > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RMM to CA-1 or CA-1 to RMM > > > Well, it seems we have two directions we can go with our tape > management > system. We have some systems that run CA-1 and some that run > RMM. At > first we stated that we wanted to go to CA-1. This seems to > be what the > majority of people use. My personnel opinion I like CA-1 > much better, I > would like to get some opinions on what people think is the > best way to > go. I know, (because I've been there), most system programmers will > choose RMM... Which is less expensive? That is the only question that would be asked around here. Factor in the cost of the software and the cost of converting. Personnel cost for on going maintenance is not important because it is "already paid for". -- John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
