RE: IBM's failure to provide AD tools

iProgrammer
(where i=ignorant/innovative/iconoclastic, depending on POV...;-)

I'm not being too iconoclastic, when I suggest the InfoCenter stinks.  (I
told david, privately, that I would not use cuss words, otherwise...;-)
This is off-topic from the issue of the Toronto group.  But it's related in
that the IC is an extreme example of what happens when a company loses touch
with it's market (ie the desires of the customers it serves).  What happens
is that the customers lose the trust in the company.  And lack of trust in a
company eventually /will/ negatively impact profits, one way or the other.


The IC started out all wrong, and although it may be getting a lot better...
It still stinks.  And if authority starts at the top, then responsibility
does too.  I'm not here to embarass the Project Manager of the InfoCenter.
I think responsibility goes higher up than that.  But there is no doubt that
the InfoCenter reflects on the Project Manager, and vice versa.

The problem is...  The skills needed to advance in a large corporation don't
always coincide with the skills needed to successfully carry out the tasks
in the position you rise to.  The Peter Principle...  It's no different than
the fact that the skills needed to win a Presidential election are, in most
respects, the exact opposite skills it takes to actually run a country.  You
have to be a complete ego-maniac, to have the energy to run for President.
But once you get there, the President is supposed to magically flip a
switch.  They're supposed to listen to the advice of those around them.
Because the job of running the country is a little bit bigger than any one
person...  Just a little bit...;-)  Tough enough job, because the President
also has to appear like he HAS all the answers, to those who expect that
kind of leadership...  I wrote earlier today:  people expect too much of
their leaders...

All that to say...  I think I appreciate the fact that it takes a certain
kind of person to rise to a position of leadership in a company like IBM.
Never worked in a company that large.  But think I have some appreciation of
the political infighting that must be involved.  But I know, or I should say
I firmly believe, that people in leadership positions at IBM cannot
successfully respond to the market..  unless they can separate the wheat
from the chaff, and heed the wisdom of the Community of people that use the
products.

That is why I keep coming back to the potential of the iNation, BTW.
Because it holds the promise of formalizing a lines of communication to
allow that to happen.  And it has the potential to improve, and grease the
wheels that power that kind of communication.  If successful, it would
/drastically/ re-shape the form of the follow-on to the iSeries (if any).
These are a whole strings of if.. and if..  Obviously it may never happen...
But this is the vast potential I see, and if successful, would benefit the
*entire computer industry*...  That's the only reason I get frustrated that
few see it being worth any effort at all, and so make no effort.  It
requires the Community volunteering to help IBM, and IBM listening to the
wisdom of the Community.  It ain't gonna just magically happen.  It is far,
far easier to see why it /can't/ possibly work, and therefore why it isn't
worth the effort.  There are no certain benefits to be achieved, and
thousands of different ways it can fail.  I put the worst foot forward here,
but I still recognize that it /could/ benefit the *entire computer industry*
if successful.

The reason I thought the Tiger Tools thread was fascinating is because there
are more than a few people that recognize that IBM deserves to make a
profit.  That reduces the primary barrier to the iNation, which is that if
the iNation ends up being successful, IBM will necessarily make additional
profits.  They go hand in hand, which, not coincentally, is why IBM took
some HUGE risks to establish the iNation in the first place.  There is a
fair amount of altruism involved in the iNation, but that is probably NOT
the motivating factor behind why IBM took these HUGE risks.


The IC works against all the principles of the iNation (although there are
no formal ones defined yet).  This is the only reason I get aggravated at
the Project Manager of the InfoCenter.  It's not really personal, and that's
why I don't refer to her by name.


First off, the delivery mechanism of the InfoCenter stinks.  I think
somebody was buttering up to somebody else, and got funding for the project
by saying "We can force people to use the Net, by putting all the manuals on
it".  Bad decision.  The Net isn't stable enough, and if anybody thinks that
providing manuals and support info is not Mission Critical...  Well.. what
can I say...?

The technology is readily available to provide the bulk of the info on CD,
with each new release.  And then providing updates to the manual over the
Net.  Bandwidth is not plentiful enough, as it is.  Reliability isn't there
yet, either.  But Lotus Notes can replicate better than anybody else.  So
for anyone to say it can't be done...  Well.. what can I say...?

I could go on ad infinitum.


There are a whole host of complaints the Community can, and has, raised.
Some have been addressed.   IMV, most haven't.  There is a vast difference
between IC in it's initial release around V3 and now.  But it started out
completely wrong, so I'm not all that impressed with where it is now.  As
always, its a POV thing.  If you look at where it has come from, there has
been tremendous strides.  But when you look at where it should be...  There
is only one logical conclusion:  to say it stinks is being quite charitable.

To say that people that focus on the progress the IC has made are just IBM
apologists, or even worse, just trying to firm up their contacts in IBM..
well, that'd be uncharitable, too.  So I don't necessarily view it that way.
But I've been told that I have a skill at simplifying things, without
oversimplifying them.  So I will sometimes simplify a problem, not with a
view that it expresses the problem in it's totality..  Not at all...  But
just to provide a point of reference.

So I compare the IC with the Bookmanager that it replaced.  I use that as a
reference point.


There is no comparison...  The IC stinks, when compared to Bookmanager.  So
IMV, Bookmanager must have been run by politically weak unit within IBM.  Or
the person running IC was particularly politically strong.  The reason I say
that is because the IC was given the authority to take books out of the
Bookmanager group.

I understand the need to consolidate documentation under one roof.  No
doubt...  But the first thing the IC folks did was say that 400 programmers
would get NO information other than the IC, in the future.  Pretty bold
move...  Especially considering we're not talking about library books here.
We talking e-books.  There is an advantage to e-books, and that is you can
link to content anywhere.. from anyplace...  But the IC group didn't do
that.  The split the 400 programmer's documentation into two pieces.
Literally split it asunder...  No concern whatsoever to the people whose
livelihoods depend on knowledge.  Either that, or the IC group doesn't
understand the nature of knowledge-workers (and if that's so, what're they
doing running the IC...?)  I lean towards the idea that both fundamental
problems existed in the IC, at the beginning.  They didn't understand how
knowledge-worker's work, and they had little concern for how they're actions
effected their customer-base.  Captive audience, and all...

When the IC came out in it's initial release, they stated that the IC was
going to be THE ONE AND ONLY source of info on the iSeries.  And then they
posted content for a meager dozen or so topics and, by luck or fate, just
happened to pick the dozen topics that most appealed to Unix programmers.
At that stage in the iSeries, before PASE IIRC, these would be the bottom
.00001% of what the customer-base needed.  When I see something /that/
skewed, I have a hard time imagining that was just a coincidence.  I found
out later, in News/400 StreetTalk, that I wasn't the only one who found that
to be true.  I believe the word "apopletic" was used to describe the
attitude of the customer-base.


So the Community immediately built up a huge distrust, **of the entire
iSeries Division**, just because of this one blunder.  It could have been
overlooked, but it made the 400 programmers /that/ mad...  So mad, that I
think it obscured the fact that there was a logical reason WHY this
happened...

It was a combination of the Project Manager being totally uninformed of the
needs of the knowledge-workers who form the customer-base, and being totally
insensitive to their needs.  That's the only way I could see the initial IC
being that way.  It is possible the head of the IC has changed, BTW, because
I don't keep up on that kind of stuff.  But I'm doubtful...

But the IC would never have seen the light of day, in that form, unless it
represented the will of IBM..  Because it sure didn't represent the will of
the Community.  And I've never read this, but I'm sure it's been written:
What the 400 Community most objected to was that the will of IBM was to see
the fundamental nature of the iSeries disappear.

===> But I cannot emphasize this enough:  It was NOT because of any ill-will
towards iSeries customers.  THAT WAS NOT THE REASON, although it appears
like that to me, still, from time to time.

I had one phone call with Mr. Haines about the iNation.  (My purpose isn't
to drop names, BTW, or I wouldn't "brag" about the fact that I talked to
him, in total, less than an hour.)  Mr. Haines and I had such similar views
of the iNation that we did sort-of a "Vulcan Mind-Meld".  It was
interesting, to say the least.  I think he let things slip that he normally
wouldn't, because of that.  I've never written of that call a whole lot, for
fear it would appear I was name-dropping.  But even more, I am fully aware
that I haven't worked with Mr. Haines for years and years, like some of the
people who are reading this.  So it cannot help but appear that I'm awfully
arrogant when I categorically state that I understood what Mr. Haines was
saying far better than some of those who knew him for years.  (Nevertheless,
I do state that...)  Mr. Haines opened my eyes and, in a sense, enlightened
me as to the forces in play, which describe how IBM functions as a business.


One brief point he made, among quite a few, said a lot:  He said that there
are forces, "very powerful forces", that are backing the Open Source
philosophy.  Well, that's not hard to understand.  The whole industry is
backing lame technologies like OSS developement and Java, in reaction to the
M$ legal/ethical/moral monopoly.  There are two fundamental forces in the
industry:  Microsoft.. and everyone else.  So backing "Open" architecture is
the safe game to play, these days.

===> Now, that is diametrically opposed to the iSeries philosophy.  Mr.
Haines explained, which I had never really thought of:  the iSeries is the
ONLY, All-IBM solution that IBM makes.  That was the eye-opener...!

True... true...

===> So I saw that IBM's top execs were NOT against the iSeries...  They
were FOR "Open" architectures.  There is a subtle, but HUGE difference...
Very subtle...  Very HUGE...


Chuck inadvertantly let that slip last February, but I didn't notice the
total significance of the event.  Chuck posted a question to the AAG, and he
slipped up and mailed it to both the list and privately to people on his
distribution list.  So I got the tip, although I was only a member in the
AAG the first couple weeks.

He said a top exec asked his opinion of whether IBM should market a slogan,
along the lines of "IBM Inside" like the "Intel Inside" slogan.  (In
checking, I see it was actually 12/11/00 that he was asked this.)  The
question was whether this would inflame some in the industry to think that
IBM was too intent on "proprietary" solutions.  At the time, he said he was
not at liberty to say who it was, but it was somebody "WAY up", but not Mr.
Gerstner.  I thought it was probably Mr. Zeitler, at the time.  But now I'd
say that it is almost certain that it was Mr. Palmisano, or one of his
staff.  The reason I believe this is that IBM came out with a really slick
new logo for IBM Microelectronics, a few month or so back.  They are trying
to get manufacturers of consumer goods to place this logo on phones, etc,
that use IBM chips.  Really slick logo and really GREAT marketing...!  So
somebody pretty high up was asking a member of the iSeries Community about a
slogan, and apparently that same idea found it's way to products from IBM
Microelectronics.  (BTW, NICE CATCH, Chuck...! :-)


Similarly, the Project Manager of the IC was probably just going with the
predominant view in IBM, rather than sticking it to the iSeries Community,
with that initial release.  Some people will go with whatever way the winds
are blowing, if it can help advance their career.  I'm not going to question
whether this person did that, or whether that's a successful strategy.  But
one way or another, the InfoCenter was a very non-iSeries oriented product.
And it is a core feature of the value-add that iSeries Customers are paying
good money for.

However, again using the Bookmanager as a reference point:  After several
releases, and in spite of the truly vast improvements made on that initial
insult to the Community, the IC still does not offer the full capabilities
and the full functionality that the Bookmanager possessed what? 3 or 4 years
ago.  In areas like searching, organization of the library, ease of use,
yada, yada, yada...  The IC still lags behind what the Bookmanager ALREADY
DID, and they took away the ability to use Bookmanager BEFORE they worried
about any of this.

So my gut-feeling is that the IC Project Manager is still the same person.

I don't NEED to have any contacts in Rochester to know that this person is
PRIMARILY focused on how to FORCE the Community to use her product, rather
than getting it up to the speed of even the now-archaic Bookmanager.  You
still cannot do a word search on the entire contents of the library, within
a few minutes if it's loaded on the harddrive like I did, and see a
reasonable presentation of the search results.  IMV, the IC has improved the
search results presentation a lot.  But it still stinks when compared to
what was available with Bookmanager years ago.  In IT, this is known as
"moonwalking"...  The Michael Jackson dance where he shuffles his feet and
slides backwards.. while moving his legs to make his body appear to be
moving forwards.  Slick dance move...!  Poor IT philosophy, however...

But I don't view it as a slap in the face of the Community, like I once did.
I view it as mis-guided leadership, because I believe that everybody in the
iSeries has a very tough job, and needs to wear two hats:  they need to
balance the needs of the Corporation (ie the Server Group) AND represent the
needs of the customer-base they are servicing.  Tough job, no doubt.  But
everybody in the Server Group has to do this, and some do it better than
others.  IMNSHO, this was (and still is) a case where the balance was not
found, nor anything even close.

The solution is relatively simple, I think.  IBM should just admit that a
mistake was made...  and fix it.  That's all the customer's want to see from
IBM, IMV.  Acknowledge that the thing is royally screwed up, that iSeries
pay a premium for the computer ***for a reason***.  And get the IC parallel
to the Bookmanager in function, ASAP.  The current Project Manager can do
this as well as anybody, if the admit to themselves that they made a mistake
in the first place.  This is not an easy obstacle to overcome, so I don't
minimize the difficulties.  I minimize the technical difficulties, because
if the IC is making progress in a direction that makes sense to the
Community, they can be very patient.  However, and yet another example of
the potential value of the iNation:  IBM needs to find out what the
Community wants out of the IC.  In this case, focus groups won't be
sufficient...  What is critical is not estimating what the Community wants,
by finding out *in great detail* what exactly the Community needs, and what
the Community would like to see down the road.


That's it for tonight, I imagine.  If I write a third installment of this
"article", I will probably offend anyone who I've somehow missed in these
first two.  Because I would address what the Community /has/ done, which are
many good things.  But I'd also address what the Community /could/ do, which
is far, far more...  The kinds of things that could help influence the fate
of the iSeries.  Most people are reluctant to try to do anything at all,
because the best you could hope for is some small influence on the thing.

A prime example of what the Community has done is offered by the things
News/400 has done.  The IC Search site, and more recently, the "Reader's
Roundtable" introduced last Friday.  (And I'm not just saying that because I
might want to ask Duke Publishing for some paying work some day,
either...;-)

There are many others, too...!

But there are also many prime examples of what the Community /could/ do...
So I may take a pass on continuing this...

And if you read all.. or even most, of these two posts...:  Get a life...!
LOL...!

(Actually I thank you for your time, although I "wasted" far more than you
did...;-)


jt


Y'all "Have a GREAT day...!  And a BETTER ONE TOMORROW~~~:-)" (sm)




> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Jon Paris
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:24 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: IBM's failure to provide AD tools
>
>
>  >> Thus, the languages and AD tools come out of Toronto...  Now, these
> days, distance means nothing, in theory.  In actual practice,
> your talking a
> wide gap in mindset.
>
> I have to comment on this, although I should admit up-front that I am an
> ex-Toronto (and ex-Rochester for that matter) developer.
>
> In my opinion - these days I find the Toronto crew have a far better
> understanding of what their customers need/want than do most of the
> Rochester developers I meet.  The majority of the Rochester developers who
> really understood what the 400 was all about are retired, or working for
> BPs.  Those who remain are Unix/Linux folks who happen to work on the 400.
> If Rochester had their way there would probably be no RPG (or at least no
> enhancements) there would be no Code/400, no VARPG, no WebFacing,
> etc. etc.
> The Java Toolbox, C/C++ and Ops-Nav would be about all there was.
>
> Following the infamous hamburger ad, it took Rochester a good two years to
> understand that their RPG users could not afford to dump
> everything and just
> leap into Java (ignoring the fact that it wasn't a good idea
> anyway).  It is
> only in the last 12 months or so that they have realized (in some quarters
> at least) that they need to join the Toronto folks in trying to move
> customers forward incrementally.
>
> Of course there are many in Software Group who neither know nor care about
> the 400 - and because of that the 400 crew don't get the funding
> or support
> they need to really do their job.  I fault Rochester for much of this - as
> the platform owner, if they really care about their RPG users
> they have the
> ways and means to ensure that Software Group fully support them.  The fact
> that they don't should tell you something.  The Toronto group
> working on the
> 400 are as dedicated to the platform as any group you'd find in Rochester.
> I know many who have effectively risked their careers by
> insisting that they
> stay in the 400 arena and not work on AIX or whatever.
>
> As I said - just my opinion, but I do at least have some idea what goes on
> behind the scenes.
>
> Jon Paris
> Partner400