Re: Just one more anecdote
- From: "Frank_Hamersley" <terabite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 06:46:06 GMT
"dawn" <dawnwolthuis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
> I'm sure there are numerous factors playing into the fact that the
> system touted in this MS Word document
>
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/ShowFile.asp?FileResourceID=1611
>
> has been discontinued and written off to the tune of $67 million in s/w
> development as seen at
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050721/clth018.html?.v=16
>
Heh heh ... life expectancy of approx 3 years! Rapid development == rapid
demise?
> This is yet another instance where a legacy system written with a PICK
> (in this case), MUMPS, IMS, or other pre-relational database product
> didn't successfully make the jump to a SQL-RDBMS.
>
> It is very likely that the conceptual data model and surely the
> subsequent logical data model from which the original system was
> developed would not play to the strengths of the SQL-DBMS. As much as
> we might want to think otherwise, even the design of a conceptual data
> model is influenced by the designer's knowledge of the target dbms. A
> redesign of the data model for a SQL-DBMS is likely to both bump
> features and increase complexity -- a harsh one-two punch.
I suspect your inferences are on or close to the money.**
> My conjecture is that downgrading, I mean moving, from a graph data
> model to a relational data model and from a PICK dbms to the SQL-DBMS
> were significant factors in this project failure. I could be wrong, of
> course.
Factors certainly, significant perhaps - I guess "Buzz" Lightyear certainly
won't be telling!
Personally I suspect the "instant gratification" offered by .Net convinced
the project staff that they were hittin' home runs when in fact the
foundations were completely compromised as you speculated above. A simple
"House of Cards" trick!
However I would argue against any reading of your conjecture to suggest that
the RM itself was the problem and that the GDM would have been blameless! I
have observed projects in the GDM space that couldn't reliably compute
simple interest on an "At Call Account" which convinces me it is the
practitioners ineptitude more so than the tool itself that mostly influences
the outcomes.
I suspect RM adherents will claim that the RM model used "properly" would
alleviate some (perhaps all) portion of this risk, and I must declare I am
susceptable to that argument to one degree or another. Whilst not having
used Pick (or variants thereof) first hand my understanding is that it is,
shall we say, "more flexible" than strict RM adherence. Please feel free to
address any apparent misconception I may have picked up on this latter
point.
<humour>
It seems Bill's tangles with the auto industry are doomed to continue. I
always chuckle when I recall his quip that were car prices to match the
decline in software prices then cars would cost only $50....say no more!
</humour>
Cheers,
Frank.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Just one more anecdote
- From: Mark D Powell
- Re: Just one more anecdote
- References:
- Just one more anecdote
- From: dawn
- Just one more anecdote
- Prev by Date: Re: Three Kinds of Logical Trees
- Next by Date: Re: DBKEY Datatype
- Previous by thread: Just one more anecdote
- Next by thread: Re: Just one more anecdote
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
