[OT] Business Requirements Analysis... Sort Of

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:46:05 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:25:23 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> 
>
>I suspect some do it for that reason.
>
>But others do it because their job isn't to make sure technology is
>current.   Their job is to provide support for the business without
>costing too much.

Generally, newer technologies cost less.

>The CEO sees IS as a huge expense.   He grudgingly allows increases in
>non-revenue producing technology to provide security and to meet
>government needs.   But what he really cares about is stuff that gives
>an obvious benefit to his bottom line.

You want to be in a department the CEO regards as a revenue producer, not in
 one he
regards as an expense. There is a huge disconnect between funds allocation a
nd technical
need.

For example, in vertically integrated oil companies, exploration gets all th
e money they
want. Ih the pharmaceutical industry, research and discount calculation get 
lots of money,
because the CEO thinks they are revenue producers. At the other end of the s
cale, customer
service is almost universally perceived to be a money sink.

As a rule of thumb, ask whether management would consider offshoring your jo
b to India. If
the answer is yes, the CEO thinks you're an expense; if the answer is no, yo
u're an asset.

>That might be "giving salesmen an accurate inventory while in a
>customer's office".    But it's not "having the most current
>compiler".

The CEO is an expert at making high-quality widgets or marketing widgets. He
 or she
doesn't know how to manage a computer department. Outsourcing works because 
it brings in
IT professionals who allocate funds more rationally than a widget expert.

>And the CIO needs to make the CEO happy.

What REALLY makes the CEO happy is a 20-40% reduction in cost. Outsourcers c
an deliver
that, an ass kissing CIO cannot.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:23:02 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
 
>
>What REALLY makes the CEO happy is a 20-40% reduction in cost. Outsourcers 
can deliver
>that, an ass kissing CIO cannot.

Outsourcers kiss ass as much if not more than CIOs.   And the salesmen
often don't get paid based upon long term accurate projections of
costs - so they promise whatever the CEOs want.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:40:55 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:23:02 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> 
>
>Outsourcers kiss ass as much if not more than CIOs.   And the salesmen
>often don't get paid based upon long term accurate projections of
>costs - so they promise whatever the CEOs want.

On cost plus contracts they have an incentive to bid low and then run up the
 cost. That's
bad for the client, good for workers.

On fixed price contracts they have an incentive to bid accurately and then m
inimize cost
(by cutting corners, pushing for unpaid overtime, offshoring). That's good f
or the client,
bad for workers.

Most contract workers don't know the terms of the contract they're working u
nder. They
should. If they ask, they're often told it's none of their business, which s
ounds better
than the middle manager admitting he doesn't know either. It is their busine
ss.