Radowslaw Skorupka wrote: >Of course I can imagine an answer like "we've been running this job for 15 >years, Frankie said it's important, but he retired 10 years ago, we don't know >who's currently using it, nor what is the name of the application". ;-)
It was my unpleasant task to get rid of an expensive software suite, because *all* are using it for many years and it is that *important*. The same as Radoslaw said. Really? The original person who maintained that software went away for a better pay job overseas. It was troublesome to even think of that removal story, because one of our clients swore high and low they are *really* using it and ALL of its connectors to the various database subsystems. And they said *many* persons are using it. I laid out a nasty trap to satisfy my bosses: I used RACF WARNING and turned off those connectors. Nothing happened. I told my boss what happened, we met up next month with the client. I showed my proof, only ONE person is using it and NOT those connectors. They relented. We then moved that software to a LPAR with 1 CPU allocated. They complained about bad response time, etc. and eventually they used those database own software to collect all the data they needed. Next month my stats showed that NO ONE actually used that expensive software suite. Good. We notified the vendor that we drop them due to costs and no-one is using it. They missed the boat in the sense they tried to persuade us to buy a more EXPENSIVE suite. Tsk, tsk, tsk. I believe many IBM-MAIN persons are sitting in the same boat. Getting rid of ancient legacy (I hate that fancy word!) stuff because of costs and because as one often said 'they're going off the mainframe'. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
