Re: More IBM firings

Neil,

I do have to admit that I was thinking of OS/2 when I said strategic doesn't guarantee success :) And I certainly agree that the term is often times over used by both marketing and development, but I still can't think of any term I would rather have applied by an IBM executive in a formal communication (as opposed, for instance, to a redbook which gets very limited review).

Bruce

Neil Palmer <neilpalmer400mr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bruce,

Well, it may be stretching things a little, but at one time OS/2 was strategic (1987):
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_tenyears.html
(Wasn't SAA - also mentioned at the above link - also "strategic" at one point?)

OS/2 was called a "strategic network platform" as late as 1997 (page 3 below):
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg242009.pdf

In this 1995 publication at
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/books/sh126402.pdf
on page 62:
"Systems Application Architecture (SAA). Pertaining
to an architecture defining a set of rules for designing a
common user interface, programming interface,
application programs, and communications support for
strategic operating systems such as the OS/2, OS/400,
VM/370, and MVS/370 operating systems."


Lotus Domino ("another strategic application for e-business") while not dead yet certainly doesn't seem to be getting a great deal of promotion (like another product we could name):
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&supplier=897&appname=IBMLinkRedirect&letternum=ENUS200-145


There are other examples of IBM's (over) use of the word "strategic" over recent history.
Microchannel Bus, OV/400, Token Ring, Smalltalk.
If you go back far enough wasn't twinax once "strategic" ?


Neil Palmer, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

(This account not monitored for personal mail,
remove the last two letters before @ for that)


--- On Wed, 11/12/08, Bruce Vining wrote:

From: Bruce Vining
Subject: Re: More IBM firings
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion"
Received: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 1:17 PM
Hi, Neil

I'm having a difficult time with the attached
paragraph. To the best of my knowledge
"strategic" is much better than "not
strategic" (which I have heard in reference to other
products in the past). What word do you associate with a
product that IBM is planning to keep around for the
forseeable future?

The two terms I have historically associated with 'oh
oh' are "mature" and "tactical". I
readily agree that "strategic" doesn't
guarantee success, but I've never seen strategic mean
dead.

Bruce (who also readily admits I generally don't pay
much attention to this type of communication from IBM
anyway)

Neil Palmer wrote:
...

Ross Mauri's recent letter included a very unfortunate
word in describing "i". He called it
"strategic". Today being November 11th I hope you
all remember your history lessons, including what that
designation means to IBM products and initiatives.


Neil Palmer