S0C4 x'4' abend while reading VSAM KSDS file
in [Cobol]
|
From: Robert on 28 Jun 2008 12:27 On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:28:32 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >"Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >news:vlab645g2aa2idppk6r0n6o3qhsv4nlnk3(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:09:53 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" >> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> >> wrote: >>>> Twenty years ago, the bill rate was the equivalent of $80/hr. Now it's >>>> still $80/hr. >>>> Clients are getting less for the same money; contracting companies are >>>> getting rich. >>> >>>Hmmm... I know personally of a couple of recruitment agencies in the UK >>>that >>>have failed within the last few years. I'm sure there are more. It is a >>>very >>>competitive market place and more and more companies are using preferred >>>supplier lists that will only admit agencies with a markup within 15% (the >>>old cowboy days of agencies using 60% markups are thankfully, virtually >>>gone...) This may not be the case in the USA, of course. >> >> <laugh> Ever since Y2K, 50% is a starting point. Contracting companies >> aspire to get more. >> I've told the story here about one who cried poor because it was making >> only 70 out of 120 >> bill rate. I know for a fact that IBM keeps 160 out of 200 bill rate. >> >> Blended Rate is their favorite phrase. That means you pay the same for >> everyone, from >> bunny to brain. Never mind that there are 50 bunnies for every brain. > >Then it's time this racket was publicly exposed and companies simply refused >to pay outrageous bill rates to middlemen. (It happened in the U.K....) >Sure, companies need contractors, but there are many agencies competing for >the business... Imagine how ONE ethical agency that charged say, 20% markup >and pitched their charge out rate 20% below what the cowboys are charging, >could clean up. They would have no trouble getting contractors or clients. There have been contracting companies based on that idea. They didn't last long. They didn't have a smooth talking, name dropping, acronym dropping salesman. More to their detriment, they didn't have Name Recognition, because they didn't advertise in airports. IBM has the highest bill rate because of name recognition. The Big Five get the second highest. Managers have a consumer mentality; they think brand names are a measure of security. No one ever got fired for choosing IBM. The need for contractors is created by the turbulence of company politics, by internally generated boom and bust cycles. Companies would be better off in the long run by sailing a smooth course, instead of making abrupt turns. >>> (Nothing ever got >>>done quickly using COBOL...) >> >> Actually, it is done quickly. A typical six month project is timelined >> this way. Take away >> planning from the front end, say two months. Take away testing and >> approval signatures >> from the back end, say three months, although 3.5 is better because you >> don't know whether >> the manager will be on vacation. Whatever is left in the middle is >> programming time. >> Typically that's two weeks, although it is common for it to be 2-3 days. >> I've even seen it >> go negative. But programmers are kept around and paid for six months, just >> in case >> something goes wrong. > >Yeah, right... :-) >> >> Management sees the bill and THINKS programming took the whole six months, >> when it >> actually took two weeks. > >Whether they worked or not, they were on site for six months, being charged >to that project. As a Project Manager, I'd be a little perturbed by this You'd be more perturbed if a Major Problem arose and YOU had released the person who knew how to fix it. Managers care about avoiding blame, not saving money. It's not their money, but it's their job at stake.
From: Howard Brazee on 30 Jun 2008 10:52 On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:09:53 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Well, most companies in our part of the world are NOT outsourcing. By >adopting more modern approaches there is no need to. I have friends who >simply laugh at the idea of coding a new system development line by line, in >house OR outsourced. > >Moving to component based approaches rather than line-by-line Procedural >code simply obviates the need to outsource (and also gets systems delivered >in a fraction of the time it would otherwise take...). I believe it is only >the procedural approach that is so labour intensive it needs to be >outsourced. Interesting observation. Outsourcing is useful in manufacturing, but much harder to be cost effective in analysis and design. If we find customizations to be cost effective, we need to do our analysis with our users. If not, we buy our product off the shelf. If our analysis tools and prototyping tools also produce our end product - what manufacturing do we need to outsource? We've seen this process in manufacturing. Now, in today's world, we could outsource that part of the analysis & design which is designed to sell to foreign customers (maybe legal reporting requirements). And we could outsource shift work. DBAs in India might be easier to find than American DBAs who are willing to work graveyard shift.
From: Howard Brazee on 30 Jun 2008 11:06 On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:27:20 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >Every company thinks its BUSINESS problems are unique, but its computer problems are >routine. It's actually the other way around. Programmers think programming problems are unique, salesmen think sales problems are unique, managers think managing problems are unique. Can you provide evidence that your statement is the True interpretation? >The real problem with Waterfall is not waste of time and money; the real problem is that >it prevents us from doing things right. It seems to prefer spending twice as much on >stopgap solutions. It prevents which of us from doing things right? How does it stop us from doing things right? How do you define "right"? I have posted several times my opinion of "Righteous", and how easy it is to decide that since My way is Right, other ways are all Wrong, and subject to the consequences. And as Jesus preferred being good to being right - I believe we should measure business choices by their business results. >Most of the world thinks Americans are dumb. New Zealand is no exception. Cite? >There must be a receptive audience for that idea, because I've been hearing it as long as >I can remember. In the 70s, 4GLs would eliminate programmers by GENERATING all the code. >In the 80s, 'your people' could do it themselves with Lotus or Excel macros, or with >Access. In the 90s, any chimpanzee could drag and drop widgets, VB or VC++ would spit out >the code. > >The words change, but the melody remains the same. It's old wine in new bottles. True. This is a process that didn't go exactly as predicted. How productive are you today compared to how productive you were when you started? ><laugh> Ever since Y2K, 50% is a starting point. Contracting companies aspire to get more. >I've told the story here about one who cried poor because it was making only 70 out of 120 >bill rate. I know for a fact that IBM keeps 160 out of 200 bill rate. > >Blended Rate is their favorite phrase. That means you pay the same for everyone, from >bunny to brain. Never mind that there are 50 bunnies for every brain. Some people I know avoid spending that money by doing the head hunters' work themselves. Most contractors find the money is not worth that kind of work. Supply and demand. >Actually, it is done quickly. A typical six month project is timelined this way. Take away >planning from the front end, say two months. Take away testing and approval signatures >from the back end, say three months, although 3.5 is better because you don't know whether >the manager will be on vacation. Whatever is left in the middle is programming time. >Typically that's two weeks, although it is common for it to be 2-3 days. I've even seen it >go negative. But programmers are kept around and paid for six months, just in case >something goes wrong. > >Management sees the bill and THINKS programming took the whole six months, when it >actually took two weeks. It actually took the whole six months. Coding is the most trivial part of the process of programming. >>Today it is the "Solutions Architect", rather than the Programmer who is >>moving centre stage. > >Programmers used to be called Engineers, until real engineers complained about usurption >of the title. Now it's architects' turn to complain. Contractors such as EDS started the term System Engineer - making it hard for shops to place their programmers into their shop hierarchy.
From: Robert on 30 Jun 2008 20:34 On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:06:04 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:27:20 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: > >>Every company thinks its BUSINESS problems are unique, but its computer problems are >>routine. It's actually the other way around. > >Programmers think programming problems are unique, salesmen think >sales problems are unique, managers think managing problems are >unique. > >Can you provide evidence that your statement is the True >interpretation? The opinion that counts comes from the business manager who makes funding decisions. >>The real problem with Waterfall is not waste of time and money; the real problem is that >>it prevents us from doing things right. It seems to prefer spending twice as much on >>stopgap solutions. > >It prevents which of us from doing things right? >How does it stop us from doing things right? By refusing to fund development projects, while funding support efforts that cost twice as much. >How do you define "right"? Based on the merits of each case, rather than broad brush generalizations. >I have posted several times my opinion of "Righteous", and how easy it >is to decide that since My way is Right, other ways are all Wrong, and >subject to the consequences. > >And as Jesus preferred being good to being right - I believe we should >measure business choices by their business results. Spending twice as much is a bad business result. >>Most of the world thinks Americans are dumb. New Zealand is no exception. > >Cite? Personal experience. Russians are the worst. Foreigners (generally) value higher education more than Americans. A high percentage have advanced degrees, and think it means something. >>There must be a receptive audience for that idea, because I've been hearing it as long as >>I can remember. In the 70s, 4GLs would eliminate programmers by GENERATING all the code. >>In the 80s, 'your people' could do it themselves with Lotus or Excel macros, or with >>Access. In the 90s, any chimpanzee could drag and drop widgets, VB or VC++ would spit out >>the code. >> >>The words change, but the melody remains the same. It's old wine in new bottles. > >True. This is a process that didn't go exactly as predicted. How >productive are you today compared to how productive you were when you >started? I'm somewhat more productive now. What's your point? >><laugh> Ever since Y2K, 50% is a starting point. Contracting companies aspire to get more. >>I've told the story here about one who cried poor because it was making only 70 out of 120 >>bill rate. I know for a fact that IBM keeps 160 out of 200 bill rate. >> >>Blended Rate is their favorite phrase. That means you pay the same for everyone, from >>bunny to brain. Never mind that there are 50 bunnies for every brain. > >Some people I know avoid spending that money by doing the head >hunters' work themselves. Most contractors find the money is not >worth that kind of work. Supply and demand. Contractors who find their own gigs do much better financially AND get better projects. I'd love to do that, but don't have the contacts. It works best when you specialize in one industry. After awhile you get to know many decision makers. >>Actually, it is done quickly. A typical six month project is timelined this way. Take away >>planning from the front end, say two months. Take away testing and approval signatures >>from the back end, say three months, although 3.5 is better because you don't know whether >>the manager will be on vacation. Whatever is left in the middle is programming time. >>Typically that's two weeks, although it is common for it to be 2-3 days. I've even seen it >>go negative. But programmers are kept around and paid for six months, just in case >>something goes wrong. >> >>Management sees the bill and THINKS programming took the whole six months, when it >>actually took two weeks. > >It actually took the whole six months. Coding is the most trivial >part of the process of programming. There is a great desire to trivialize programming ... by replacing programmers with code generators, outsourcing the work to India, calling development an architectural process, hiding code under multiple layers of abstraction, etc. I recent development is using the programmer title for testers, production support and they guy who stocks the Coke machine.
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Jul 2008 09:23
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:34:47 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>>The words change, but the melody remains the same. It's old wine in new bottles. >> >>True. This is a process that didn't go exactly as predicted. How >>productive are you today compared to how productive you were when you >>started? > >I'm somewhat more productive now. What's your point? I've also noticed production rising. Some of this is experience, some of it is new tools that are used. |