Decisions (was Re: Java and the AS/400)

Chris,

In a message dated 97-11-27 18:26:14 EST, you write:

> > Yes, but IBM services tends to get involved only after the hardware is in
>  > place.  If they were to offer a truly universal service, IBM should be
able
>  > to help with both DEC and HP without stopping at MQSeries
implementations.
>  >  IMHO, IBM services _DOES NOT_ help sell hardware -- they only
(sometimes)
>  > make an after-the-fact purchase work.
>  
>  But isn't that exactly what the ads (you don't like) are trying to change?
>  IBM services offers support for NT, Unix, OS/400, etc. 

Oh no!  If the IBM ad's purveyed _THIS_, I'd be happy.  What I don't like
about the current advertisements is that they purvey _NOTHING_.  As stated
earlier, the "what" is missing from the "e-business" campaign.  A healthy "we
can come in and 'e-ize' your shop regardless of platform" would be nice.
Unfortunately, any of us that has dealt with them knows that they usually
cannot even effectively implement _their own_ platforms.  Contact a couple of
IBM sales rep's (say, an IR or two and your local) and see if you don't get
conflicting answers regarding what you need to implement "e-business".

>  If the ads are intended to sell a solution, maybe they don't care if the
site
>  is one with hardware or just an idea. It could be a guy trying to sell
>  artwork out of his garage or GM trying to create a customer channel for
>  replacement parts ordering. 
>  
>  IBM services DOES support a lot of non IBM stuff. Of course, that includes
>  NT. How far it goes, I don't know because I don't use them. 

Well, I cannot speak to this either.  All I know is that in the (count 'em)
eight installations that I've been a "co-partner" with IBM, the expertise
level provided by IBM (in a leadership role) has been less that that provided
by the two employers that were in a subordinate role.  Your mileage may
vary...

>  I think we are all most familiar with using IBM Global Services as an
>  implementation service for IBM gear, since that is usually when an IBM
>  customer is likely to see them. But IBM has expanded their service
offering.
>  Perhaps this will allow them to open more doors and just maybe ship more
>  400s.

Perhaps.

>  > Agreed, but what business wants to base its future upon a company that
has
>  > "done something similar"?  NOT IBM!  One of my former employers bid on
>  > running IBM's warehouse here in Research Triangle Park.  They lost out
>  > because they hadn't managed a warehouse of the same size and volume.
>  >  "Actually doing that sort of thing" didn't count with IBM, so why should
>  > their customers feel any better about it?
>  
>  Is there a typo in there somewhere? It looks like it says your former
>  employer lost the contract because it was something they hadn't done
before,
>  but then it says that IBM doesn't care if the company has done it before.

Nope, no typo.  They (the former employer) had run warehouses before (and
received a trade write-up for it).  Because IBM's implementation wasn't the
"exact same product, with the exact same volume", IBM wasn't interested.

>  Aside from that, there could be a million reasons why the contract was
lost,
>  but none of them is valid in considering the value of the ads. If what you
>  are saying is that you feel like companies (buyers) don't care if their
>  vendor has ever done this sort of thing before, say so. 

I don't believe that I was equating this loss of contract to advertisement.
If I did, I apologize.  What I intended to do was rebut your "we've done
something similar" statement that was in defense of IBM's "e-business" ads.

>  > Indeed.  To paraphrase what Wayne Madden stated at our LUG last month --
"I
>  > asked our (now former) MIS Director what all of this equipment bought
over
>  > the last year had done to improve the business, when he couldn't answer I
>  > canned him."
>  
>  But the buck don't stop there. Over the last decade many new MIS
>  professionals have been introduced into the marketplace. Probably a
>  significant percentage of those people are of the Microsoft work force.
That
>  would be people who work on Windows based machines and pretty much are
>  used to rebooting on a regular basis and are not bothered when the vendor
of 
>  their software announces it today and sells you a bug ridden beta version
three
>  years from now. 
>  
>  It's easy to say these guys are stupid, but I think it's really that this
is
>  the reality they have "grown up" with. Anyway, this is the same group of
guys
>  that would see a product announcement and think, "With that, we could do x
or
>  y." They could download an alpha or beta off the internet and put together
>  some examples. Now that they are thrilled, they start to make plans with
this
>  product as part of their future direction. 
>  
>  The CEO will hear about the amazing new plans and exciting new features,
and
>  will probably brag about them (you know how upper management likes to brag
>  that they are the best in the business). 
>  
>  But it will be years before the announced product is actually ready for
use.
>  MIS guys who are trapped by their own big mouths may be stuck trying to
>  implement the beta (like, say, NT 3.11) or waste thousands of man hours
>  trying to come up with some other solution. 
>  
>  These are the guys that I think give upper management the idea that MIS
>  people really don't know what they are doing. 

But this is the _EXACT_ same thing that I was decrying earlier that you said
didn't exist!  More heinous, you specify IS people instead of management.  On
the contrary, I think that it's the IS people making the good decisions while
management specifies the "language/platform du jour".

>  > But the point is, who knows what they're talking about when they say
>  > e-business?
>  
>  That is exactly the point. It is the point of the ad! Very few people
really
>  know what eBusiness means to them. The don't know what it is or how it will
>  affect them or what it's potential is. All they know is that the Wall
Street
>  Journal makes a big fuss over it, and they should learn about it in case it
>  isn't just a fad.

But the "what", "when", and "why" remains etherial.  Personally, I wouldn't
invite the Dennis Leary portrayed in these ads into my house, let alone my
business.  Give me a freakin' break -- are you saying that non-technical
persons know to what this ad campaign speaks?  _WRONG_!  The "Wall Street
Journal" doesn't speak to e-business, it speaks of the InterNet.  Per my
earlier gripe, "e-business" is just another IBM catchprase that the rest of
the industry _DOES NOT_ use, like "NetWork centric".

>  > As we've seen here, IBM does this -- with old technology.  If only we
could
>  > get them to donate the new stuff, there might not be such a shortage of
>  > talent...
>  
>  Not completely true. IBM also has a philanthropy effort where they give or
>  match dollars spent on implementing computing changes. I posted the URL
where
>  they talk about this, I also got an email the other day that they awarded
>  another round. 
>  
>  Now, this isn't much, just a few millions I think. But it's better than
>  nothing. 
>  
>  I would like to see them provide hardware to school systems. But I think
what
>  I would really like to see them do is provide an internet connection for
>  schools that accesses Advantis so that they can have a direct connect to
>  AS/400s that are maintained by IBM. IBM could upgrade the systems as they
see
>  fit and use them for other purposes (public web sites, sales demos,
>  whatever). My guess is that there are a lot of CPU cycles sitting around
>  waiting for a demo or whatever that could be used. 

Why?  Internet connections are transparent.  I don't know if I'm connected to
an AS/400 or a Burroughs Posting Machine when I'm on the Internet.  David uses
a PC with Linux as the operating system.  Do you know the difference?

>  It doesn't add much to my overhead if I add a machine to my data center and
I
>  already have all the experience on how to manage it sitting around handling
>  my other machines. In comparison, it adds a lot to my overhead if I don't
>  have existing AS/400 talent and I want to implement one for training
students
>  with. 
>  
>  Even people with a lot of AS/400 experience may have little or no knowledge
>  of Java or Notes or the AS/400 firewall. IBM has to keep people on staff
who
>  are familiar with these topics anyway. If the Java guy is in England, it
>  doesn't make any different to him that the machine he is maintaining is in
>  Japan, or the US, he just logs on and does his thing. 
>  
>  So maybe there is a way for IBM to structure donating Java workstations to
>  universities and hooking them to Advantis and then giving them use of some
>  subset of internal machines. 

Lost me here...

>  Probably for a couple of million IBM could get some guys in house to figure
>  out a way to make this work. When done, this would not only get AS/400
>  education into the school system, but would be a living, breathing model of
>  the type of infrastructure IBM wants the world to adopt. Of course,
>  successful trainees on such a network would have a lot of good ideas to
>  implement when they entered the workforce. 

Agreed,

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

"The two hardest things to handle in life are failure and success." -- Unknown
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "JAVA400-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to JAVA400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---