«

In way you are right ,Business solutons Don't really care about cutting
edge Tech.....
I thought you would se the writing on the walls on this case ...

Real argument is ATO want to implement sytem in cobol and later offshore
the cobol work(Code cutting) There by retaining only the design work in AU
and cutting cost.
This doen't warrant a logical explanation you read in text book
it is just cost cutting ....

"The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere" <.> wrote in message
news:...
> >sorry I mean to say new Tax handling system for ATO is done in COBOL...
>
> The choice of programming language, is a process constraint and should
> NOT deflect from the overall process of solving the business problem.
> Naturally, as a process constraint, this may have an impact on some of
> the non-functional requirements of the system, hence the importance of
> thorough systems analysis to identify such conflicts.
>
> Many new systems are still implemented in Cobol or other procedural
> languages. Typically the process constraints and/or non-functional
> requirements which dictated the choice of Cobol, would be based on
> decisions, such as cost, the availability of in-house expertise,
> cooperation with existing systems (external or internal), delivery
> timescale, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Any company which makes the choice of development tools based on what
> is the latest buzz word and puts this ahead of the business needs,
> deserves the poor quality 'solution' which is often the outcome.
>
> Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

It seems like people often forget that the choice of
language, in and unto itself, says little or nothing about
whether any technology is current or not.

A Computer languages, after all, is merely a lexical
standard, not a technology.

http://www.adtools.com/info/whitepaper/net.html

>-----Original Message-----
>And the 350 Mill tax package for Aus ATO is done in
>Scroll Down to see the answer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>COBOL
>"The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere" <.> wrote in
message
>news.. .
>> >Within the next few years,
>> >the same will be said for C++.
>>
>> They said similar statements about cobol fifteen years
ago.
>>
>> Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
>
>
>.
>

And their prediction was correct. COBOL is now a niche programming language.
In fact, it always was to begin with designed primarily for batch style
business processing.

"The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere" <.> wrote in message
news...
> >Within the next few years,
> >the same will be said for C++.
>
> They said similar statements about cobol fifteen years ago.
>
> Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

350 million dollars? That is an ...exceptional project. A guess the
taxpayers wish they had used an object oriented language and RAD design
tool.

"Disillusioned_01" <> wrote in message
news:#...
> And the 350 Mill tax package for Aus ATO is done in
> Scroll Down to see the answer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> COBOL
> "The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere" <.> wrote in message
> news...
> > >Within the next few years,
> > >the same will be said for C++.
> >
> > They said similar statements about cobol fifteen years ago.
> >
> > Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
>
>

>In way you are right ,Business solutons Don't really care about cutting
>edge Tech.....

Nor should they, software only exists to solve business problems.

>I thought you would se the writing on the walls on this case ...

I can't read.

> Real argument is ATO want to implement sytem in cobol and later offshore
>the cobol work(Code cutting) There by retaining only the design work in AU
>and cutting cost.

Even for coding in Cobol, the costs in terms of money and resources
would be very small. The real cost, as always, are elsewhere.

>This doen't warrant a logical explanation you read in text book
>it is just cost cutting ....

Everything is about getting the best value for money. However with IT,
few companies have any ides how to get the best value out of IT. There
are plenty of texts books which explain how to do this, but it
requires total commitment for all sides of the business. However, it
should not take too long before the benefits start to show through.

Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

>350 million dollars? That is an ...exceptional project. A guess the
>taxpayers wish they had used an object oriented language and RAD design
>tool.

...... Unless it would have cost 450 million.

Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

>And their prediction was correct. COBOL is now a niche programming language.
>In fact, it always was to begin with designed primarily for batch style
>business processing.

....and has evolved (still makes me laugh!).

And has been available in OO flavor for many years, far more years
than the dummies flagship, vb has been.

Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

"The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere" <.> wrote in message
news:...
> >In way you are right ,Business solutons Don't really care about cutting
> >edge Tech.....
>
> Nor should they, software only exists to solve business problems.
>
> >I thought you would se the writing on the walls on this case ...
>
> I can't read.
>
> > Real argument is ATO want to implement sytem in cobol and later
offshore
> >the cobol work(Code cutting) There by retaining only the design work in
AU
> >and cutting cost.
>
> Even for coding in Cobol, the costs in terms of money and resources
> would be very small. The real cost, as always, are elsewhere.

No ... Average cost of development team may be upto 40%
of a project . Youe view is too much simplisic in this case
>
> >This doen't warrant a logical explanation you read in text book
> >it is just cost cutting ....
>
> Everything is about getting the best value for money. However with IT,
> few companies have any ides how to get the best value out of IT. There
> are plenty of texts books which explain how to do this, but it
> requires total commitment for all sides of the business. However, it
> should not take too long before the benefits start to show through.
>
> Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

>No ... Average cost of development team may be upto 40%
>of a project . Youe view is too much simplisic in this case

So, given your figure above - requirements analysis, conceptional &
logical design, physical & implementation design, deployment
(including deployment planning & testing), link testing, integration
testing, system testing/planning, operations acceptance
testing/planning; not to mention team selection, project management
(often absorbed in the overall cost), risk analysis (normal part of
PM). quality assurance (again often absorbed), external costs (such as
building costs, insurance, etc, etc), required training for key
personnel , hardware/software costs (licenses etc) should count for
60% while 'coding' accounts for 40%, I think my view is hardly
simplistic.

Implementation (i.e. coding) should account for no more than 15%
(ideally less than 10% these days) of the over project costs.

You have simply highlighted why so many IT solutions fail to deliver
cost affective solutions to the business.

Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

I don't have any more strength to argue May be last 10 years I have
worked in bad IT projects...(Including the one first introduced mobile
technology to Aus)
"The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere" <.> wrote in message
news:...
> >No ... Average cost of development team may be upto 40%
> >of a project . Youe view is too much simplisic in this case
>
> So, given your figure above - requirements analysis, conceptional &
> logical design, physical & implementation design, deployment
> (including deployment planning & testing), link testing, integration
> testing, system testing/planning, operations acceptance
> testing/planning; not to mention team selection, project management
> (often absorbed in the overall cost), risk analysis (normal part of
> PM). quality assurance (again often absorbed), external costs (such as
> building costs, insurance, etc, etc), required training for key
> personnel , hardware/software costs (licenses etc) should count for
> 60% while 'coding' accounts for 40%, I think my view is hardly
> simplistic.
>
> Implementation (i.e. coding) should account for no more than 15%
> (ideally less than 10% these days) of the over project costs.
>
> You have simply highlighted why so many IT solutions fail to deliver
> cost affective solutions to the business.
>
> Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3