|
Posted by Oilcan on March 24, 2008, 1:16 pm
Please log in for more thread options Heck, in the company I work for it would probably take 6 months to get the
contract through the Legal Department. (no offense to lawyers, we are just
slow)
Oilcan
> Melvin wrote:
>>> Late August -- are they joking ?
>>
>> My two cents -- am I joking? ;)
>>
>> 1. If it's the Inuit (indigenous people from up north) doing the
>> port, then 6 months is probably reasonable.
>> 2. If it's Intuit (makers of the program), then 6 months seems a bit
>> on the long side. Many mid-size companies could implement the SAP
>> R/3 System (www.sap.com) in that time frame, and that's probably a
>> bit more work than what Intuit need to do here.
>
> You're "analysis" doesn't shed any light on this situation.
>
> First of all, who said anything about a "port" (which assumes one is
> simply switching to a system that is already written)? "Moving" to a new
> system is a very generic statement, which says nothing about whether the
> mover is writing new code or or just migrating to an already written
> system. Nor does it say anything about how many other entities are
> involved; and there are probably several non-Intuit companies involved in
> getting quotes and they will have their own interests and create their own
> influence on the course and speed of the process.
>
> Secondly, since you have no idea what is actually involved, why would you
> venture your guess? If you were correct, what reason would you attribute
> to the unwarranted "extra" time? Why would a company take longer than
> economically necessary to complete a project? How does someone without
> any of the underlying facts of the problem, judge how long a project
> should take?
>
> Third, six months is most likely not the correct time frame; I think it's
> actually noticeably longer than that: you're assuming the fix/migration
> just started.
>
> Intuit stated publicly many months ago that their quotes "system" was
> broken. And they made it clear that it was not just a single point of
> failure, but involved many sub-systems. They also said they would fix it,
> but it would take a LONG time to so. That was probably six to 12 months
> ago, so if the new system becomes available in August, it will likely have
> been something on the order of a year, or more, from the time of the
> public acknowledgement of the quote problems.
>
> Quote problems that have occurred since the Intuit acknowledgement are
> basically the same old problems. As far as I know, Intuit has not
> publicly claimed to be doing anything but damage control for those
> problems since the acknowledgement (but implicitly, they were also working
> on the replacement system).
>
> The Intuit message that began this thread is the first I know of to put
> even an estimated completion date on what should be viewed, until proven
> otherwise, as a highly desireable changeover to a brand new quotes system:
> one presumably designed to prevent those problems from recurring. [There
> will be plenty of time to fling insults after the new quotes system is up
> and running, if it does not perform well.]
>
> The length of time to complete a project is only partly controlled by the
> man-hours of work involved. Reality says that for a functioning company,
> there are always more man-hours of work to complete than can be done in
> that same amount of actual time. No software company has only one project
> to work on, so decisions must be made about which projects take priority,
> and how to implement each project in a financially sound manner.
>
> It seems to me that some folks just prefer to complain; reality is too
> hard to deal with.
>
> --
> John Pollard
> First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
> Please reply to newsgroup
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap