On 04/04/2015 04:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi
Im not a performance analyst, Im a CICS & MQ Sys-Prog.
I dont understand this new "paradyne".
<SNIPPAGE>
Did I miss a performance lecture at SHARE ?
.
Can someone explain and rationalize for this new paradyne ?
.
"cheaper to Upgrade the mainfame than to have the application programmers review
their code for performance oppurtunities".
.
Im clueless . ??
<SNIP>
I used to work (contractor/consultant) at a place that had
charge-back. Applications found out how expensive it is/was to
take down the cash maker (CICS) with bad code. The outage was
charged back to their management. So was batch, but those
problems weren't as significant if they did not prevent the CICS
systems from being up when they were supposed to be.
Various employees would have annual review issues depending on
how bad their fixes were.
Different parts of the IT management had bonuses based on
different things.
In this case, Applications management would lose their bonuses
depending on how much business had been lost through outages. No
outages and performance was good, they got an increase in their
bonuses.
This minimizes what their bonuses were based on. From the above,
no changes being made would ensure really good bonuses. But that
is not the behaviour wanted....
One needs to measure the right things and reward behaviour that
is needed. It appears that in your case the wrong things are
being measured and so the wrong behaviour is being rewarded,
along with possibly gaming the system?
Regards,
Steve Thompson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
