Re: Update from WABUG (Western Area BPCS User Group) Meeting

Bill,

In a message dated 98-08-12 15:05:04 EDT, you write:

(BTW, your mention of BPCS-L must have helped -- we've had about 20 people
enroll this week!)
<<snip>>
> I personally chuckled as Bob boasted that they were aggressively cutting
costs 
> and "frivolous" expenditures.  He pointed out the discontinuation of the San
> Francisco Offices.  Of course he was saying these things from the podium of
the 
> Ritz Carlton
>  Laguna Beach where the rooms were $240 a night and I had to re-mortgage my 
> house to buy a drink.

Perhaps they'll move out of the CitiCorp building and take a few thousand
square feet less in, say, the Hancock or Sears towers ;-)?

>  I followed up someone else's comment regarding the CD product, that if they
drop
>  support for it in 2002 and do not also enhance the capabilities of this
offering that
>  they will lose customers.  Bob in his most eloquent manner said "NO WE
WON'T.
>   I refuse to believe that anyone will leave!"  He also added that he
refuses to 
> develop the product along the two lines, the hidden -and not so hidden -
message 
> remains, "We are giving you CD only so you can later go to V6".

Perhaps Bob "ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer" after all.  While support
through 2002 is quite generous given that the product will be five years old
at that point, the shift in the business process is the biggest problem with
V6.  Add to the latter the fact that SSA continues to cling to proprietary
development tools in an era in which knowledgeable technical personnel (all of
which don't want to be stuck with a "one trick pony" of a tool) are at a
premium, and Bob's statement is ludicrous.  The training alone is enough of a
reason for large businesses to consider other packages, ODW is just icing on
the cake.

Performance is really a moot point, although it is a _BIG_ problem now for V4
and lower users.  SQL is the least of your problems if your box is "maxed
out", the bloated CASE-generated code can do you in by itself.  A _WELL_
written (and BPCS doesn't fall into this category in many instances) AS/Set
program is 2.5 times larger than an equivalent native RPG program.  IBM keeps
speeding up the boxes and SQL performance, and knowing a few simple techniques
can fix what SSA didn't see when they tested performance against the infamous
education database (Can you say PENS?  I knew you could!).  Finding developers
to work with a development tool that cannot be used for anything but BPCS is
the problem.  Personally, I didn't have much problem with AS/Set because other
packages were written in it and it was marketed to the public at large when I
first started out on it.  Now, AS/Set is available only to those that already
have it and to new BPCS customers -- ODW is reported to have that same
availability.  No appreciable changes have been made to AS/Set in over four
years.

While BPCS has been "berry, berry" good to me, why should _I_ continue to work
in it when the skills don't translate?  Especially given SSA's recent
financial viability?  If a consultant is questioning his commitment to BPCS,
why should corporations (that will switch entire IS infrastructures based upon
an ad the CEO saw in an airline magazine) do any less?  Manufacturing is
manufacturing is manufacturing (split along process and durable goods lines)
-- software development is defined along clearly defined tool choices that can
_USUSALLY_ be used for _ANY_ manufacturing software.

>  I was commended by numerous people after the opening session about speaking
> up regarding this issue.  In talking with an SSA employee later, who had not
> heard this exchange, it was confided in me that "they" can't get through to
the 
> head guys that people just don't want to go to V6.  I had also recounted to
this 
> person the  lack of value I received from the conference due to it's
overwhelming 
> focus on V6, I was interested in CD - V6 just doesn't apply here.

Too bad, given the blasts SSA has taken in the trade press over the fact that
their new product is just too big a paridigm shift for most earlier users to
jump to without intensive analysis.  I'm not surprised by the V6 focus.
That's where SSA is making their money, and you just don't have nearly as many
problems with CD, do you?

>  So, if anyone would like to pass this note onto Bill or Bob here is my
feelings on
>  the V6 scenario and I would guess it is other's as well.  I WILL NEVER GO
TO 
> V6 AS LONG AS IT IS WRITTEN PARALLEL TO UNIX CODE.  This was the 
> downfall to the organization and the product and you now have two poorly
> performing product lines: AS/400 and UNIX.  You need to immediately change
the 
> way you write AS/400 code.  The code needs to be written to DB2/400 and
RPG's
> strengths and not the common denominator.

I hope that someone does pass your note on, and mine as well.  Unfortunately,
you will probably never go to V6.  IBM is improving OS/400 SQL performance too
quickly to make it a viable business decision for SSA to retrofit V6 just for
the AS/400.  V4 is old already, and SSA has too big a lock on ADK/ODW
programmers for service income to make a V4 enhancement profitable.  Besides,
it took them three releases to get the "500" programs into AS/Set and/or ODW!
Like it or not, your going to have to "love it" (V6+) or "leave it" (BPCS).  

>  I welcome your comments.

There they are...

Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-Mail:  DAsmussen@aol.com

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Rush
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---