RE: Hypothetical question -- MIDRANGE-L

Booth,

I'm not sure how I received your posting here; I may need to adjust the
settings on my sarcasm filter. :)

I think in your post below you make the point for asking for more
information.  You state that you ". . . believe we can deduce that this
decision is not supported by a rational business decision, but rather is an
emotional decision disguised in smoke and mirrors to diffuse opposition."
The purpose of my request was to find out whether Jeff's company had
experience in running OneWorld on the Sun platform.  Judging from his
response to my post, that is the case.  They may actually have more
experience with that platform using OneWorld than they do with the iSeries.
So it may well be that this is a direction determined by something other
than smoke and mirrors.

I interpreted Jeff's initial question as trying to determine whether this
direction is a bonehead move.  I don't think it is.  Standardizing a global
company on a single software platform is a valid business decision.
OneWorld is a viable solution.  Sun/Oracle and iSeries/DB2 are both viable
choices for database serving.  Arguments about subfile processing have
little validity when discussing a database server in an n-tier client-server
packaged application.  It may well boil down to silly things like facts and
costs.

I'm an AS/400 bigot myself.  I've also been in enough competitive marketing
situations in the JD Edwards market to not want to discount the other
platforms that OneWorld supports.

Have a happy new year.
Regards,
Andy

>  There's nothing left to discuss from a facts point of view.  We can have
> pleasant discussions and wring our hands in consolation but the decision
> is
> made.  There is no choice but to get on board.
> 
> This is a sales issue not a facts issue.  Someone important from IBM has
> got
> to reach the important someone at the hypothetical company and find out
> the
> real issues.  Based upon the suddenness of the decision and the lack of a
> better roadmap I believe we can deduce that this decision is not supported
> by a rational business decision, but rather is an emotional decision
> disguised in smoke and mirrors to diffuse opposition.
> 
> Jeff, keep focused.  Don't allow yourself to be distracted by silly things
> like facts and costs.  Focus on the process and the decision maker.
> 
> By the way, a very good use of "the no of a thousand yes's" is to look for
> more information.  I am guessing that Andy is experienced with the
> technique
> because of his opening comment:  "I'm not sure that you've given enough
> information about your hypothetical situation."  Excellent! Wonderful
> opening gambit, just wonderful.  :)