Comments (2)
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

1 VikasJain2 commented Permalink

I thought IT where there to support the core business but it seems not.Not only is opinion of the end users irrelevant but the functionality of the software seems to be irrelevant too. All is swept aside for the perceived advantage of the ease of deployment. They have their tick boxes but I wonder if they really know the implications: Must be web (whatever that means), must be .NET (whatever that means) must use MS SQL (no other DBs exist).The list of things that web apps can't do because of sandbox or security issues is the list of the thing my applications do best and the end users want. I don't live in the corporate world so don't see the politics involved. IT is vital to a big company so deserves a place on the board. The board however will consist of people schooled in what the company does and one IT man. Perhaps they are a baffled by his theorems and all just nod and say yes. Who knows, but tail wagging the dog seems to be the correct cliché to use here.<div>&nbsp;</div> Still I suppose it is pointless complaining .As a software tools provider I hope Sybase PowerBuilder-12 has observed this. Going down the WPF route is probably the <br /> best way to go. Making that tool be capable of producing browser based <br /> (XBAP) as well as standalone versions would be wise. Now that Silverlight is <br /> beginning to grow up then supporting that too would mean we could be well on <br /> the way to answering mad IT departments.<div>&nbsp;</div> WPF is horrible to program so just begs for a nice 4GL. PowerBuilder-12 could be what <br /> corporatee IT is looking for!!.

2 VikasJain2 commented Permalink

My point was that these Windows based applications had much more<br /> functionality than their web based competitors. Features that the<br /> business users of the application wanted and needed and yet the IT<br /> department was putting up roadblocks because they were primarily<br /> interested in the cost and ease of deployment. Who is working for who?<br /> It is behavior like this that caused PCs to be introduced in<br /> organizations not through IT but by users who wanted to get something<br /> done and were tired of dealing with the bureaucracy. <div>&nbsp;</div> I don't dispute that web applications are good and their functionality<br /> is getting better and I get it that total cost of ownership is<br /> something any organization has to consider when making decisions but<br /> when the users want product A for its functionality and the IT<br /> department is able to overrule them then I think that is crazy.<div>&nbsp;</div> don't dispute that IT has a role in the decision making process and<br /> definitely those things you pointed out are things that need to be<br /> considered when making a decision. I was talking about situations<br /> where the users had looked at both product A and B, decided that A was<br /> the superior product, that it met their needs, was easier to use, had<br /> more features, etc. and yet IT was able to veto the decision. <div>&nbsp;</div> Yes those vendors need to deliver a web based version of their<br /> application and they are in the process of developing them. But you<br /> can't take years of code (some of these applications are unbelieveably<br /> complex) and turn them into web applications overnight. Appeon has<br /> been shown to be a good solution in some instances. <div>&nbsp;</div> The question isn't whether IT gets to have a say or not, they are<br /> stakeholders as well. The question is whether they should have the<br /> power to force the end users to use a solution that doesn't meet the<br /> end users' needs.