Irving Wladawsky-Berger quoted an article in The Economist, and The Economist wrote this:
"Costs should tumble as branches are shut, creaking mainframe systems retired and bureaucracy culled." I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the author agrees with every nuance in what he's quoting from another source. That said, I suggest that *creaking* systems of all sorts -- as in, applications and services that are not adequately serving current business needs -- ought not be tolerated, which is probably a fair interpretation here. There are indeed some "creaking" mainframes (and other systems) that cry out for prompt attention and investment. I help fix, improve, modernize, update, rationalize, rejuvenate, reinvigorate, streamline, and/or transform them. As an example from moments ago (in my other post), should systems (mainframes or otherwise) *always* be consuming trees via paper-based printing? Trees often literally creak, and I'd prefer that more trees creak in more forests, not as paper pulled through creaking printers. So I suggested straightforward, easily executed ways to take paper out of the loop, at least in the first instance. If I were the author or editor of that article I would have struck the word mainframe. It's misleading. "Creaking systems retired" still isn't quite right either, so how about this: "Costs should tumble as branches are shut, systems transformed and bureaucracy culled." Clark, have you sent your comments to Mr. Wladawsky-Berger and/or to The Economist? You're certainly free to do that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Sipples IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
