LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  November 1996

TEAM-ADA November 1996

Subject:

COTS, business case, vendor maintained, etc. (long, probably too long!)

From:

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Matthew S. Whiting

Date:

Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:46:40 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (99 lines)

I've read the greatly increased number of messages the last 48 hours with
some interest.  I work for a Fortune 500 company that, until recently,
developed virtually all of its manufacturing systems (real-time process,
machine and motion control; plant floor information systems, etc.)
in-house using 3rd generation languages and tools.  As the leader of a
group that develops real-time control systems, I've been trying for 10
years to introduce Ada into the solution set as a replacement for Fortran
and now C.  I don't have great expertise in Ada, but I DO have some
expertise in software engineering and some of the topics discussed here
the past couple of days.

Regarding COTS (buy) vs. custom (build), I'm not yet a big fan of COTS in
a broad sense.  My experience is that COTS solutions are invariably slow
and inflexible if used in any way outside the exact design target for the
software (which is virtually any use as all).  My employer recently went
through the most recent management fad known as re-engineering (aka
downsizing) and at the same time jumped whole hog on the COTS bandwagon.
 Two years into it, we're now starting to take on water heavily and are
running short of buckets with which to bail.  Many of our best software
people left the company when they saw that their most likely career path
was little more than a glorified assembly job (albeit software assembly)
and the rest became COTS package configurers (is that a word?) and are
rapidly losing any real software engineering skills.  Sounds good, right?
 Buy some packages at what seem like bargain basement prices and then
plug them together and go.  Trouble is, most software companies don't
work well together and there is much "glue" required to hold the pieces
in place.  Guess what skills are required to write the glue code?  The
same ones formerly used to develop custom software systems!  Guess what,
those skills disappear quickly when management makes it clear that
software development is no longer valued activity.
And the skills required to troubleshoot the glued up COTS solutions are
also the same skills formerly required to develop software.  Guess what,
people whose only skills are configuring packaged software, aren't worth
a plug nickel when it comes to debugging complex networked systems of
packaged software from myriad vendors.  And, guess what else, the vendors
aren't real interested in solving your "system" problems, only in proving
to you that the problem belongs to the "other guy."  Before you tell me
that the answer is "system integrators", I'll simply say, "been there,
done that."

As for making a business case for virtually any decision in corporate
America, this is basically a euphemism for making the "lowest initial
cost" decision or the "everybody else does it this way" decision.  We
switched from Fortran to C, based almost entirely on the rationale that
"everybody else uses it."  We've paid for that decision many times over
in our custom control systems.  Every financial calculation has myriad
assumptions behind it, and, IMHO, the biases of the financial types who
are decidedly short-term oriented.  Sometimes you have to do what is
right simply because your experience ("gut feel") tells you it is right.
Almost no new product or technology was developed because there was a
"business case" for it.  It was developed because someone had a vision
and knew it was the right thing to pursue.  Everything from the light
bulb to the Apple II...

Lastly, I've seen some intimation that software maintained by a
commercial vendor who sells to the commercial market will somehow be
magically maintained indefinitely at low cost.  Not true!  Software and
hardware products companies only maintain a product while it makes
"business" sense to do so.  Having had two generations of hardware and
operating systems obsoleted by the vendor (a major computer company with
ties to an old textile mill :-) ) with virtually no advance warning, let
me tell you that the only thing more costly than maintaining a product of
your own design and construction, is doing an emergency port of your
system from one vendors solution to another's!  And this was in the case
of owning the source code.  If you are using a commercial software system
that is obsoleted, you don't have the option of a code port, but must
re-implement from the requirements level.  Trouble is, when people start
assembling systems from purchased components and software packages,
especially if they are "visual programming" environments, they get sloppy
and often don't write requirements specs.  After all, it doesn't take any
"real" engineering to assemble the system so why apply any engineering
rigor.  Trouble is, reverse engineering an assembled system "developed"
by many people, often contract labor who leave at project's end, and then
re-implenting on another COTS system is IMO MUCH more difficult than
porting 3GL code to a new operating system.

Sorry for rambling on and I don't like $500 DOD hammers any more than the
next taxpayer, but when I see comments hinting that life will be cheap,
simple and good when the DOD starts emulating the commercial work, I get
nervous ... very nervous.  I've worked 14 years in the commercial world,
am just now seeing the full ramifications of moving to packaged solutions
everywhere from control systems to general ledger.  It isn't a pretty
picture.  I'll predict that this fad too will pass, but only after some
very large companies get suitably burned.  Keep in mind that virtually
every Fortune 1000 corporation in American went through re-engineering
within the last 10 years.  My company was somewhat late in the cycle and
about mid-course some of the data from the early adopters became
available suggesting that 87% of those re-engineered companies were worse
off than before!!  I remember when our CEO was asked about this data at a
communication meeting.  After a long silence, he said "well, we'll be
part of the 13%."  Well, we're now unable to hire the skilled engineers
and technicians we need to take advantage of market opportunities.  $500
hammers look pretty attractive to me when I think about a DOD that begins
to follow the commercial model.  That will be TRULY frightening!  Almost
as bad as universities that now try to follow every whim of their
marketplace...

Matt

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager