[Info-vax] OT: Is Software Management Obsolete?

[Neil Rieck]

On Oct 13, 9:00 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a... at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> Neil Rieck wrote:
> > Now I can tell you that the "project managers" working at my
> > employer's company know very little about computer hardware or
> > computer software. They certainly do not appear passionate about
> > anything other than going to lunch or attending a litany of conference
> > calls where nothing is ever accomplished because these people are out
> > of their area of expertise. On the flip side, government people
> > working at NASA knew "something about space flight" and "working with
> > defense contractors" when they managed/coordinated contractors
> > involved in a manned moon mission.
>
> A good manager in software development does not need to be a good
> programmer himself.
>
> It is not his job to write code.
>
> It is his job to ensure that:
> - you have the hardware and tools you need to develop your software
> - you have reasonable time to do so
> - you have decent requirements
> - that your design is approved by corporate architecture team
> - that those other parts of the project you depend on get done in time
> - that QA is ready to test when you deliver
> etc.
>
> That is his job.
>
> Substitute his with hers if it is a female manager.
>
> > Last year, my employer canceled a development project were 450 were
> > let go with nothing to show for their effort. It makes you wonder
> > whether Thomas Edison or Henry Ford would have been able to invent
> > anything with (mostly) 450 project managers holding them back. How did
> > things get so bad? I think post-industrial western society has lost
> > its way.
>
> An interesting question is: would the Apollo missions get of the
> ground if it had been today.
>
> Maybe, but I am pretty sure that it would have taken a lot
> longer and costed a lot more money today.
>
> Middle management is no longer "let us do it" but "I will cover
> my ass so no one can blame me".
>
> It makes everything move slower.
>
> Arne

I guess the main point of my original post was this:

When selling Windows etc, Microsoft charges individual customers the
full amount. But they offer really steep discounts (usually under
blanket contracts) to large companies.

When it comes to HP providing OpenVMS quotes, it is the other way
around. They quote much higher to large companies and lower to others.

Bean-counters at my company are always mentioning to us that moving
from OpenVMS to Windows will save us a ton of money (BTW, these people
have no clue about total-cost-of-ownership etc. They are only involved
in today's expenditures. Maintenance comes out of another budget)

So if HP continues to send higher quotes to large companies (their
primary customers) they will kill OpenVMS. This will result in the
demise of their "OpenVMS sales group" as well as "OpenVMS
engineering".

However, if HP is going to force me to deal with third-party vendors
who can offer 75% discounts, and others do the same, then this will
result in the demise of only their "OpenVMS sales group". If they do
not intend to kill OpenVMS, they should just publish the MSRP the way
that Microsoft does. Then they could still offer discounts to larger
customers.

NSR