Pat, I absolutely agree with your first statement below. I'm not sure I agree with the second half. My point was that there would most likely have been much less programming effort if they had decided to just make the required changes to the application to fulfill the law changes, leaving the application where it was, since they had a non-negotiable deadline. Then once the system was working, they could have had a second effort to migrate the system to the alternate platform, giving them the ability to fall back if they had problems of the magnitude they are having.
Rex -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick O'Keefe Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:27 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: South Dakota migrates off mainframe; chaos ensues >... decided to use this law change as the reason to migrate the >application off the mainframe. So, they had no fall-back ability in >case of problems - >... To be fair, this problem had less to do with "off the mainframe" than "onto a new application" and "no fallback". If the same project managers were involved, the migration would probably have gone no better if it had been to another application on the mainframe. Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
