NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/software/5150

Text File | 1992-12-24 | 2.5 KB | 59 lines

Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!sugar!claird
From: [e-mail] (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: On CM and programmer productivity
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- [phone]
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:33:36 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 48

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>I note that in the "When do we inspect" articles that conversation has
>migrated to the issue of CM systems and the overhead they introduce.
            .
            .
>Perhaps this is appropriate in a community that values the internals
>over the external cognitive and organizational psychology factors, and
>which would gladly accept a more limited model  over a better
>commercial alternative because the limited model was free.  I know
"free"--that's a thread that I intended to
spawn a couple of weeks ago, but neglected.
            .
            .
>I'm sorry I can't say a lot more about this, as this is a matter of
>proprietary  advantage to clients, partners and investors.  Perhaps,
>when we have a shrinkwrapped product readers will be able to see if my
>predictions are correct in a set of head to head tests.  But I wanted
>to challenge other people to question the way CM is done today.
>Perhaps once they do so they will contribute to great improvements as well.
I'm always happy to see these issues discussed,
of course.

One of the things I've learned over the last few
years is how important it is for us (us as vendors,
say) to be prepared to meet customers where they
are.  One example, which I've lived over and over
again:  we talk with prospects about leading-edge
analytic reductions, only-just commercial visuali-
zation modes, abstract toolsets, and so on, and
then make a sale because the customer finally be-
lieves that we'll save him at least some small
amount of data-management headache.  The same
companies that talk about AI, OO, NL, ES, ...,
can be wrenchingly behind on implementing automa-
tions that were first begun in the '60s.  I like
Agent models of operation, and your Anticipatory
Agents in particular, but there are a LOT of organ-
izations where periodic backups are still a struggle.
Do you plan to market to them, too--or principally?
The answer isn't obvious to me.
            .
            .
            .
--

Cameron Laird
[e-mail] ([e-mail])    [phone]
[e-mail] ([e-mail])      [phone]