<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_28_0617206</id>
	<title>One Expert Pegs Yearly Cost of IT Failure At $6.2 Trillion</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262006280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>blognoggle writes <i>"Roger Sessions, a noted author and expert on complexity, developed a model for calculating the total global cost of IT failure. Roger describes his approach in a white paper titled The IT Complexity Crisis: Danger and Opportunity. He concludes that <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=7627&amp;utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+zdnet\%2Fprojectfailures+(ZDNet+Project+Failures)">IT failure costs the global economy a staggering $6.2 trillion per year</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>blognoggle writes " Roger Sessions , a noted author and expert on complexity , developed a model for calculating the total global cost of IT failure .
Roger describes his approach in a white paper titled The IT Complexity Crisis : Danger and Opportunity .
He concludes that IT failure costs the global economy a staggering $ 6.2 trillion per year .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blognoggle writes "Roger Sessions, a noted author and expert on complexity, developed a model for calculating the total global cost of IT failure.
Roger describes his approach in a white paper titled The IT Complexity Crisis: Danger and Opportunity.
He concludes that IT failure costs the global economy a staggering $6.2 trillion per year.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571048</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1262015580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, this is more likely mostly due to user incompetence. This number has to include the cost of all the extra IT and helpdesk personnel that are required to help PHBs who forget their passwords, download malware onto their work computers, can't figure out how to run a financial report and so on, you can get into the trillions pretty quickly.</p><p>The other big item is probably the industry-standard 20\% of losses on IT projects due to scope creep, cancellations, system defects and projects that shouldn't have been attempted in the first place. Which includes IT incompetence but still has a PHB component.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , this is more likely mostly due to user incompetence .
This number has to include the cost of all the extra IT and helpdesk personnel that are required to help PHBs who forget their passwords , download malware onto their work computers , ca n't figure out how to run a financial report and so on , you can get into the trillions pretty quickly.The other big item is probably the industry-standard 20 \ % of losses on IT projects due to scope creep , cancellations , system defects and projects that should n't have been attempted in the first place .
Which includes IT incompetence but still has a PHB component .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, this is more likely mostly due to user incompetence.
This number has to include the cost of all the extra IT and helpdesk personnel that are required to help PHBs who forget their passwords, download malware onto their work computers, can't figure out how to run a financial report and so on, you can get into the trillions pretty quickly.The other big item is probably the industry-standard 20\% of losses on IT projects due to scope creep, cancellations, system defects and projects that shouldn't have been attempted in the first place.
Which includes IT incompetence but still has a PHB component.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30576772</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1262001060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also think they're underestimating how much people screw you over when you need their services. Out here,Geek Squad charges $150 USD just to come out, even if all they have to do is pull out a memory chip and push it back in. They're like auto mechanics who charge $25 to change lightbulbs. I wonder how much money businesses lose due to automotive failure...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also think they 're underestimating how much people screw you over when you need their services .
Out here,Geek Squad charges $ 150 USD just to come out , even if all they have to do is pull out a memory chip and push it back in .
They 're like auto mechanics who charge $ 25 to change lightbulbs .
I wonder how much money businesses lose due to automotive failure.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also think they're underestimating how much people screw you over when you need their services.
Out here,Geek Squad charges $150 USD just to come out, even if all they have to do is pull out a memory chip and push it back in.
They're like auto mechanics who charge $25 to change lightbulbs.
I wonder how much money businesses lose due to automotive failure...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571090</id>
	<title>It's the platform.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262015880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the good old days, mainframes (IBM big iron) and minicomputers (Unix, AS/400s, HP's MPE, etc) ruled the business world. Purchase of this equipment was hideously expensive, and access to use it was generally limited to highly trained specialists... expensive computer-science-degreed specialists whom management loathes because management cannot stomach the thought that they have to hire expensive people with attitudes who can hold management "over the barrel". These however systems ran like clockwork, rock solid reliability with uptimes usually measured in months to sometimes years before the inevitable hard drive crash halts the system. Component failures were almost always limited to moving parts -- the disk drives and tape drives, and also power supply units. When a new system was bought and installed, the expected useful service life averaged around nine year cycles in between forklift upgrades.</p><p>Then comes along the PC and the Windows operating system. Hardware gets cheap and the O/S initially was cheap too (but arguably not anymore). Systems uptime and reliability goes in the toilet. Forklift upgrades are pushed down to 24 to 36 month cycles, and in some cases, as low as 18 month cycles. Business grows accustomed to a steady diet of PC unreliability, system crashes, sloppily written and buggy commodity software apps become the norm too. Business just shrugs and accepts this new status quo as the way IT works now. Cheap throwaway computers and now cheap throwaway staff to run them. That's where we're at now.</p><p>Basically, IMHO, it's Microsoft's fault.</p><p>(Amazingly, the captcha I have to enter to post this is "cutback". How fitting.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the good old days , mainframes ( IBM big iron ) and minicomputers ( Unix , AS/400s , HP 's MPE , etc ) ruled the business world .
Purchase of this equipment was hideously expensive , and access to use it was generally limited to highly trained specialists... expensive computer-science-degreed specialists whom management loathes because management can not stomach the thought that they have to hire expensive people with attitudes who can hold management " over the barrel " .
These however systems ran like clockwork , rock solid reliability with uptimes usually measured in months to sometimes years before the inevitable hard drive crash halts the system .
Component failures were almost always limited to moving parts -- the disk drives and tape drives , and also power supply units .
When a new system was bought and installed , the expected useful service life averaged around nine year cycles in between forklift upgrades.Then comes along the PC and the Windows operating system .
Hardware gets cheap and the O/S initially was cheap too ( but arguably not anymore ) .
Systems uptime and reliability goes in the toilet .
Forklift upgrades are pushed down to 24 to 36 month cycles , and in some cases , as low as 18 month cycles .
Business grows accustomed to a steady diet of PC unreliability , system crashes , sloppily written and buggy commodity software apps become the norm too .
Business just shrugs and accepts this new status quo as the way IT works now .
Cheap throwaway computers and now cheap throwaway staff to run them .
That 's where we 're at now.Basically , IMHO , it 's Microsoft 's fault .
( Amazingly , the captcha I have to enter to post this is " cutback " .
How fitting .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the good old days, mainframes (IBM big iron) and minicomputers (Unix, AS/400s, HP's MPE, etc) ruled the business world.
Purchase of this equipment was hideously expensive, and access to use it was generally limited to highly trained specialists... expensive computer-science-degreed specialists whom management loathes because management cannot stomach the thought that they have to hire expensive people with attitudes who can hold management "over the barrel".
These however systems ran like clockwork, rock solid reliability with uptimes usually measured in months to sometimes years before the inevitable hard drive crash halts the system.
Component failures were almost always limited to moving parts -- the disk drives and tape drives, and also power supply units.
When a new system was bought and installed, the expected useful service life averaged around nine year cycles in between forklift upgrades.Then comes along the PC and the Windows operating system.
Hardware gets cheap and the O/S initially was cheap too (but arguably not anymore).
Systems uptime and reliability goes in the toilet.
Forklift upgrades are pushed down to 24 to 36 month cycles, and in some cases, as low as 18 month cycles.
Business grows accustomed to a steady diet of PC unreliability, system crashes, sloppily written and buggy commodity software apps become the norm too.
Business just shrugs and accepts this new status quo as the way IT works now.
Cheap throwaway computers and now cheap throwaway staff to run them.
That's where we're at now.Basically, IMHO, it's Microsoft's fault.
(Amazingly, the captcha I have to enter to post this is "cutback".
How fitting.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570814</id>
	<title>In that case...</title>
	<author>djpretzel</author>
	<datestamp>1262014440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm gonna have to try that much harder in 2010... I know that, through my own personal hard work and dedication, I can get that figure down to $6,199,999,900,000...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm gon na have to try that much harder in 2010... I know that , through my own personal hard work and dedication , I can get that figure down to $ 6,199,999,900,000.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm gonna have to try that much harder in 2010... I know that, through my own personal hard work and dedication, I can get that figure down to $6,199,999,900,000...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</id>
	<title>incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262010000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that IT people are generally incompetent? Or is it just the IT managers who are incompetent? Or, just maybe, it's all IT people who don't read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. who are. Hmm..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that IT people are generally incompetent ?
Or is it just the IT managers who are incompetent ?
Or , just maybe , it 's all IT people who do n't read / .
who are .
Hmm. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that IT people are generally incompetent?
Or is it just the IT managers who are incompetent?
Or, just maybe, it's all IT people who don't read /.
who are.
Hmm..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570930</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262015100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No... not incompetent.  The overall complexity of systems is so great that IT is difficult to manage.  I work for a large company with extensive, complex systems.  Failure is not so much the issue ( we generally get to where we want to be and more or less on time/budget )  but we've learned that success is expensive.   Much of our effort in the past 5 or 10 years has been to homogenize and to reduce complexity/differences.   Standards and planning are a big part of success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No... not incompetent .
The overall complexity of systems is so great that IT is difficult to manage .
I work for a large company with extensive , complex systems .
Failure is not so much the issue ( we generally get to where we want to be and more or less on time/budget ) but we 've learned that success is expensive .
Much of our effort in the past 5 or 10 years has been to homogenize and to reduce complexity/differences .
Standards and planning are a big part of success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No... not incompetent.
The overall complexity of systems is so great that IT is difficult to manage.
I work for a large company with extensive, complex systems.
Failure is not so much the issue ( we generally get to where we want to be and more or less on time/budget )  but we've learned that success is expensive.
Much of our effort in the past 5 or 10 years has been to homogenize and to reduce complexity/differences.
Standards and planning are a big part of success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30627490</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Cardhu</author>
	<datestamp>1230899940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are dozens of reasons for program failure, most of which cannot be laid on the shoulders of software engineers.  For examples, just in program management:

  Was the system need clearly defined?

  Was the size of the program's effort accurately estimated?

  Was the program schedule realistic?

  Did the program schedule accurately show the necessary development activities?

  Was the program properly staffed with the right skills and experience in sufficient number to execute the program?

  Were the requirements clearly specified?

  Was the requirements specification complete?

  Was the requirements specification consistent?

  Was the requirements specification baselined?

  Were requirements changes managed by a change board, accurately estimated for development time and cost, and were cost and schedule changes added into the program schedule?


The most common process failure I've seen has been poor requirements specification.  This causes a lot of requirements changes that make the program cost and schedule expand in a Big Bang.  The sysmptom in development is many changes in direction that result in the software developers thrashing to pull something together.  The result on the I&amp;T floor is a dramatic train wreck.  Both software and testing are victims rather than causes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are dozens of reasons for program failure , most of which can not be laid on the shoulders of software engineers .
For examples , just in program management : Was the system need clearly defined ?
Was the size of the program 's effort accurately estimated ?
Was the program schedule realistic ?
Did the program schedule accurately show the necessary development activities ?
Was the program properly staffed with the right skills and experience in sufficient number to execute the program ?
Were the requirements clearly specified ?
Was the requirements specification complete ?
Was the requirements specification consistent ?
Was the requirements specification baselined ?
Were requirements changes managed by a change board , accurately estimated for development time and cost , and were cost and schedule changes added into the program schedule ?
The most common process failure I 've seen has been poor requirements specification .
This causes a lot of requirements changes that make the program cost and schedule expand in a Big Bang .
The sysmptom in development is many changes in direction that result in the software developers thrashing to pull something together .
The result on the I&amp;T floor is a dramatic train wreck .
Both software and testing are victims rather than causes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are dozens of reasons for program failure, most of which cannot be laid on the shoulders of software engineers.
For examples, just in program management:

  Was the system need clearly defined?
Was the size of the program's effort accurately estimated?
Was the program schedule realistic?
Did the program schedule accurately show the necessary development activities?
Was the program properly staffed with the right skills and experience in sufficient number to execute the program?
Were the requirements clearly specified?
Was the requirements specification complete?
Was the requirements specification consistent?
Was the requirements specification baselined?
Were requirements changes managed by a change board, accurately estimated for development time and cost, and were cost and schedule changes added into the program schedule?
The most common process failure I've seen has been poor requirements specification.
This causes a lot of requirements changes that make the program cost and schedule expand in a Big Bang.
The sysmptom in development is many changes in direction that result in the software developers thrashing to pull something together.
The result on the I&amp;T floor is a dramatic train wreck.
Both software and testing are victims rather than causes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30576522</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261999320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good for you? What do you want, a fucking cookie? Arrogant asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good for you ?
What do you want , a fucking cookie ?
Arrogant asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good for you?
What do you want, a fucking cookie?
Arrogant asshole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571608</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1262018640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've had developers work for me that think they know everything there is to know, refuse to listen to any advice, and basically try to write software only in the way they believe it should be done, completely ignoring the needs and requirements of the system lead and the customer. Throw in to the mix some elitism and a complete lack of ability to communicate without insulting an derogatory statements, and you've got a profile of a large percentage of current software developers.  </p></div><p>
I think I know your problem you keep hiring noobs right from college and are giving them large of tasks with little oversight.  If your employees do not follow your direction then either you're and idiot because you don't know where you are going or you're an idiot because you don't know how to manage your personnel.  There are many excellent developers you just have to properly interview candidates so you can weed out the morons there are idiots in every profession and the good managers know how to spot them.  The sheer arrogance of some managers is astounding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had developers work for me that think they know everything there is to know , refuse to listen to any advice , and basically try to write software only in the way they believe it should be done , completely ignoring the needs and requirements of the system lead and the customer .
Throw in to the mix some elitism and a complete lack of ability to communicate without insulting an derogatory statements , and you 've got a profile of a large percentage of current software developers .
I think I know your problem you keep hiring noobs right from college and are giving them large of tasks with little oversight .
If your employees do not follow your direction then either you 're and idiot because you do n't know where you are going or you 're an idiot because you do n't know how to manage your personnel .
There are many excellent developers you just have to properly interview candidates so you can weed out the morons there are idiots in every profession and the good managers know how to spot them .
The sheer arrogance of some managers is astounding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had developers work for me that think they know everything there is to know, refuse to listen to any advice, and basically try to write software only in the way they believe it should be done, completely ignoring the needs and requirements of the system lead and the customer.
Throw in to the mix some elitism and a complete lack of ability to communicate without insulting an derogatory statements, and you've got a profile of a large percentage of current software developers.
I think I know your problem you keep hiring noobs right from college and are giving them large of tasks with little oversight.
If your employees do not follow your direction then either you're and idiot because you don't know where you are going or you're an idiot because you don't know how to manage your personnel.
There are many excellent developers you just have to properly interview candidates so you can weed out the morons there are idiots in every profession and the good managers know how to spot them.
The sheer arrogance of some managers is astounding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570548</id>
	<title>This article is self promotion bate.</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1262012640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen so many of these sorts of articles lately on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>It's really devaluing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>It would be nice to have some mod facility to get these nuked.  It's disappointing that such a long running resource like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is now being infected with self promotion.  One of the best self promotion FAILS was the one about face book switching to some C++ frame work from php in order to save 10s of thousands of servers resources.  I'm still laughing about that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen so many of these sorts of articles lately on /.It 's really devaluing /.It would be nice to have some mod facility to get these nuked .
It 's disappointing that such a long running resource like / .
is now being infected with self promotion .
One of the best self promotion FAILS was the one about face book switching to some C + + frame work from php in order to save 10s of thousands of servers resources .
I 'm still laughing about that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen so many of these sorts of articles lately on /.It's really devaluing /.It would be nice to have some mod facility to get these nuked.
It's disappointing that such a long running resource like /.
is now being infected with self promotion.
One of the best self promotion FAILS was the one about face book switching to some C++ frame work from php in order to save 10s of thousands of servers resources.
I'm still laughing about that one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570848</id>
	<title>Can't argue with the math</title>
	<author>Posting=!Working</author>
	<datestamp>1262014680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"According to the 2009 U.S. Budget [02], 66\% of all Federal IT dollars are invested in projects that are "at risk". I assume this number is representative of the rest of the world."</p><p>"A large number of these will eventually fail. I assume the failure rate of an "at risk" project is between 50\% and 80\%. For this analysis, I'll use the average: 65\%."</p><p>"You can see that indirect costs add up quickly. I will assume that the ratio of indirect to direct costs is between 5:1 and 10:1. For this analysis, I'll take the average: 7.5:1."</p><p>In summary, if you assume Federal IT expenditures have the same rate of being "at risk" (whatever that means) as every business in the world, and multiply it by the average or two numbers I just made up, then further multiply it by the average of two other numbers I also made up and wouldn't even make sense to use if they were real, then multiply that by a semi-legitimate percentage and the GDP, you get A Large SCARY Number!</p><p>You did notice that he's claiming that IT failures cost over 3 times as much as the total spent on IT, right?</p><p>"2.75 \% of GDP is spent on hardware, software, and services." OK, so that's $1.92 trillion for the world total spent on IT.</p><p>"To predict the cost of IT failure on any country, multiply its GDP by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.089" Wait, 8.9\%? $6.21 trillion in costs on $1.92 trillion spent? Is this the accounting from "the Producers"?</p><p>I expected someone would have checked the math before posting this kind of story on Slashdot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" According to the 2009 U.S. Budget [ 02 ] , 66 \ % of all Federal IT dollars are invested in projects that are " at risk " .
I assume this number is representative of the rest of the world .
" " A large number of these will eventually fail .
I assume the failure rate of an " at risk " project is between 50 \ % and 80 \ % .
For this analysis , I 'll use the average : 65 \ % .
" " You can see that indirect costs add up quickly .
I will assume that the ratio of indirect to direct costs is between 5 : 1 and 10 : 1 .
For this analysis , I 'll take the average : 7.5 : 1 .
" In summary , if you assume Federal IT expenditures have the same rate of being " at risk " ( whatever that means ) as every business in the world , and multiply it by the average or two numbers I just made up , then further multiply it by the average of two other numbers I also made up and would n't even make sense to use if they were real , then multiply that by a semi-legitimate percentage and the GDP , you get A Large SCARY Number ! You did notice that he 's claiming that IT failures cost over 3 times as much as the total spent on IT , right ?
" 2.75 \ % of GDP is spent on hardware , software , and services .
" OK , so that 's $ 1.92 trillion for the world total spent on IT .
" To predict the cost of IT failure on any country , multiply its GDP by .089 " Wait , 8.9 \ % ?
$ 6.21 trillion in costs on $ 1.92 trillion spent ?
Is this the accounting from " the Producers " ? I expected someone would have checked the math before posting this kind of story on Slashdot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"According to the 2009 U.S. Budget [02], 66\% of all Federal IT dollars are invested in projects that are "at risk".
I assume this number is representative of the rest of the world.
""A large number of these will eventually fail.
I assume the failure rate of an "at risk" project is between 50\% and 80\%.
For this analysis, I'll use the average: 65\%.
""You can see that indirect costs add up quickly.
I will assume that the ratio of indirect to direct costs is between 5:1 and 10:1.
For this analysis, I'll take the average: 7.5:1.
"In summary, if you assume Federal IT expenditures have the same rate of being "at risk" (whatever that means) as every business in the world, and multiply it by the average or two numbers I just made up, then further multiply it by the average of two other numbers I also made up and wouldn't even make sense to use if they were real, then multiply that by a semi-legitimate percentage and the GDP, you get A Large SCARY Number!You did notice that he's claiming that IT failures cost over 3 times as much as the total spent on IT, right?
"2.75 \% of GDP is spent on hardware, software, and services.
" OK, so that's $1.92 trillion for the world total spent on IT.
"To predict the cost of IT failure on any country, multiply its GDP by .089" Wait, 8.9\%?
$6.21 trillion in costs on $1.92 trillion spent?
Is this the accounting from "the Producers"?I expected someone would have checked the math before posting this kind of story on Slashdot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30577518</id>
	<title>Self-serving Bias</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1262007060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When one does research one seeks to eliminate bias to the greatest extent possible. When one has a vested interest in the subject, it is even more important, as one's reputation rides on it.</p><p>Sessions is not incapable when it comes to business IT and complexity. Unfortunately he is more capable in those areas than in methodology. Although his approach is laudable, his exclusion of bias sources appears approximately nil. TFA clearly states that he makes certain assumptions. That can't be helped. But to make the result reflect real world rather than producing a paper to boost self-importance (even inadvertantly) those assumptions should have been better questioned at the outset. Better late than never:</p><p>His primary source is the World Technology and Services Alliance. They want to appear important to others. Thus they will emphasize data that won't get counted the same way by an outsider. A neutral source would have provided data less likely to be considered biased. The CIA Factbook for instance.</p><p>Rather than assuming a percentage of GDP as primary expendature (the same IT percentage for the US as for Republic of Congo - per capita GDP = US$300), go to a source that has calculated the total (with references so they can be checked or argued). Gartner, not unbiased but industrious towards that end, says "Worldwide IT spending is on pace to total $3.2 trillion in 2009, a 6 percent decline from 2008 spending of $3.4 trillion". And now we're on track for twice as much failure as spending, indicating a problem greater than simple math.</p><p>He lumps all communications technology in with IT. Not what most would do, but at least he says what he's doing. But is he being relevant to IT, from CIO down to help desk answer-droid by making them appear responsible for the cost of a high bandwidth geosynch satellite?</p><p>"66\% of all Federal IT dollars are invested in projects that are &ldquo;at risk&rdquo;". Federal expendatures (in this case, purchases) are well known to have their importance padded so as not to lose funding next cycle. Without a varifiable basis for using this claim, it should simply be dropped. Instead he attempts to estimate failure rate from it. This begs the question, if the purchase was based on at risk, and it was made, did that risk go away? If not, there will be some risk assessment criteria coming down with the next round of budget cuts. Without the white paper, I can't say, but I'm guessing the risk includes new tech to thwart intrusion and so forth, not technology at risk of melting down.</p><p>Finally, he makes the statement that these are estimates and the numbers aren't important, but their sheer magnitude it. Magnitude relates to numbers. You can't justify a statement of magnitude without using some. His result is twice the estimated 2009 spending. Might he have a problem with magnitude? Definitely. Orders of magnitude, probably. Over 20 years ago health care spending passed defense spending as the greatest bite of the US GDP. In 2007, US health care spending was US$2.26 trillion. He claims worldwide IT failure is 2.7 times that. It would seem we don't have a health care crisis, we have an IT crisis that is draining revenue from everything at a rate up to or even greater than the funding that fuels it. We would do better without IT. (This is reduction to absurdity, lest anyone take that seriously).</p><p>A point that may rescue his work somewhat, is the fact that a failure/loss is not a cost. It gets called that if the failure impinges directly on a profit margin. Even then, that's not necessarily accurate. A loss or failure that's replaced with something purchased counts as a cost. Something thrown away, left broken, used in a crippled state, operating at less than capacity/effectiveness or otherwise not giving what was paid for is not a cost. It was a cost when first purchased. It can't cost again because it doesn't act right (unless replaced, as noted, and then the cost is the new one, not the old). When a company has to account for its failures and losses, if these can be made to</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When one does research one seeks to eliminate bias to the greatest extent possible .
When one has a vested interest in the subject , it is even more important , as one 's reputation rides on it.Sessions is not incapable when it comes to business IT and complexity .
Unfortunately he is more capable in those areas than in methodology .
Although his approach is laudable , his exclusion of bias sources appears approximately nil .
TFA clearly states that he makes certain assumptions .
That ca n't be helped .
But to make the result reflect real world rather than producing a paper to boost self-importance ( even inadvertantly ) those assumptions should have been better questioned at the outset .
Better late than never : His primary source is the World Technology and Services Alliance .
They want to appear important to others .
Thus they will emphasize data that wo n't get counted the same way by an outsider .
A neutral source would have provided data less likely to be considered biased .
The CIA Factbook for instance.Rather than assuming a percentage of GDP as primary expendature ( the same IT percentage for the US as for Republic of Congo - per capita GDP = US $ 300 ) , go to a source that has calculated the total ( with references so they can be checked or argued ) .
Gartner , not unbiased but industrious towards that end , says " Worldwide IT spending is on pace to total $ 3.2 trillion in 2009 , a 6 percent decline from 2008 spending of $ 3.4 trillion " .
And now we 're on track for twice as much failure as spending , indicating a problem greater than simple math.He lumps all communications technology in with IT .
Not what most would do , but at least he says what he 's doing .
But is he being relevant to IT , from CIO down to help desk answer-droid by making them appear responsible for the cost of a high bandwidth geosynch satellite ?
" 66 \ % of all Federal IT dollars are invested in projects that are    at risk    " .
Federal expendatures ( in this case , purchases ) are well known to have their importance padded so as not to lose funding next cycle .
Without a varifiable basis for using this claim , it should simply be dropped .
Instead he attempts to estimate failure rate from it .
This begs the question , if the purchase was based on at risk , and it was made , did that risk go away ?
If not , there will be some risk assessment criteria coming down with the next round of budget cuts .
Without the white paper , I ca n't say , but I 'm guessing the risk includes new tech to thwart intrusion and so forth , not technology at risk of melting down.Finally , he makes the statement that these are estimates and the numbers are n't important , but their sheer magnitude it .
Magnitude relates to numbers .
You ca n't justify a statement of magnitude without using some .
His result is twice the estimated 2009 spending .
Might he have a problem with magnitude ?
Definitely. Orders of magnitude , probably .
Over 20 years ago health care spending passed defense spending as the greatest bite of the US GDP .
In 2007 , US health care spending was US $ 2.26 trillion .
He claims worldwide IT failure is 2.7 times that .
It would seem we do n't have a health care crisis , we have an IT crisis that is draining revenue from everything at a rate up to or even greater than the funding that fuels it .
We would do better without IT .
( This is reduction to absurdity , lest anyone take that seriously ) .A point that may rescue his work somewhat , is the fact that a failure/loss is not a cost .
It gets called that if the failure impinges directly on a profit margin .
Even then , that 's not necessarily accurate .
A loss or failure that 's replaced with something purchased counts as a cost .
Something thrown away , left broken , used in a crippled state , operating at less than capacity/effectiveness or otherwise not giving what was paid for is not a cost .
It was a cost when first purchased .
It ca n't cost again because it does n't act right ( unless replaced , as noted , and then the cost is the new one , not the old ) .
When a company has to account for its failures and losses , if these can be made to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When one does research one seeks to eliminate bias to the greatest extent possible.
When one has a vested interest in the subject, it is even more important, as one's reputation rides on it.Sessions is not incapable when it comes to business IT and complexity.
Unfortunately he is more capable in those areas than in methodology.
Although his approach is laudable, his exclusion of bias sources appears approximately nil.
TFA clearly states that he makes certain assumptions.
That can't be helped.
But to make the result reflect real world rather than producing a paper to boost self-importance (even inadvertantly) those assumptions should have been better questioned at the outset.
Better late than never:His primary source is the World Technology and Services Alliance.
They want to appear important to others.
Thus they will emphasize data that won't get counted the same way by an outsider.
A neutral source would have provided data less likely to be considered biased.
The CIA Factbook for instance.Rather than assuming a percentage of GDP as primary expendature (the same IT percentage for the US as for Republic of Congo - per capita GDP = US$300), go to a source that has calculated the total (with references so they can be checked or argued).
Gartner, not unbiased but industrious towards that end, says "Worldwide IT spending is on pace to total $3.2 trillion in 2009, a 6 percent decline from 2008 spending of $3.4 trillion".
And now we're on track for twice as much failure as spending, indicating a problem greater than simple math.He lumps all communications technology in with IT.
Not what most would do, but at least he says what he's doing.
But is he being relevant to IT, from CIO down to help desk answer-droid by making them appear responsible for the cost of a high bandwidth geosynch satellite?
"66\% of all Federal IT dollars are invested in projects that are “at risk”".
Federal expendatures (in this case, purchases) are well known to have their importance padded so as not to lose funding next cycle.
Without a varifiable basis for using this claim, it should simply be dropped.
Instead he attempts to estimate failure rate from it.
This begs the question, if the purchase was based on at risk, and it was made, did that risk go away?
If not, there will be some risk assessment criteria coming down with the next round of budget cuts.
Without the white paper, I can't say, but I'm guessing the risk includes new tech to thwart intrusion and so forth, not technology at risk of melting down.Finally, he makes the statement that these are estimates and the numbers aren't important, but their sheer magnitude it.
Magnitude relates to numbers.
You can't justify a statement of magnitude without using some.
His result is twice the estimated 2009 spending.
Might he have a problem with magnitude?
Definitely. Orders of magnitude, probably.
Over 20 years ago health care spending passed defense spending as the greatest bite of the US GDP.
In 2007, US health care spending was US$2.26 trillion.
He claims worldwide IT failure is 2.7 times that.
It would seem we don't have a health care crisis, we have an IT crisis that is draining revenue from everything at a rate up to or even greater than the funding that fuels it.
We would do better without IT.
(This is reduction to absurdity, lest anyone take that seriously).A point that may rescue his work somewhat, is the fact that a failure/loss is not a cost.
It gets called that if the failure impinges directly on a profit margin.
Even then, that's not necessarily accurate.
A loss or failure that's replaced with something purchased counts as a cost.
Something thrown away, left broken, used in a crippled state, operating at less than capacity/effectiveness or otherwise not giving what was paid for is not a cost.
It was a cost when first purchased.
It can't cost again because it doesn't act right (unless replaced, as noted, and then the cost is the new one, not the old).
When a company has to account for its failures and losses, if these can be made to</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571594</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>jitterman</author>
	<datestamp>1262018580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod this person's comment up to 5 insightful. This was precisely my thought upon reading the summary (no, didn't RTFA). Figure the gross earnings saved/made overall based on tech/IT solutions, then remove loses to reach your net benefit/loss. <br> <br>I wonder how much money companies would lose if suddenly no IT services were available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod this person 's comment up to 5 insightful .
This was precisely my thought upon reading the summary ( no , did n't RTFA ) .
Figure the gross earnings saved/made overall based on tech/IT solutions , then remove loses to reach your net benefit/loss .
I wonder how much money companies would lose if suddenly no IT services were available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod this person's comment up to 5 insightful.
This was precisely my thought upon reading the summary (no, didn't RTFA).
Figure the gross earnings saved/made overall based on tech/IT solutions, then remove loses to reach your net benefit/loss.
I wonder how much money companies would lose if suddenly no IT services were available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571242</id>
	<title>Many causes of failure</title>
	<author>ErichTheRed</author>
	<datestamp>1262016660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"IT failure" is a very broad term and can happen for a lot of reasons:</p><ul><li>Poor requirements definition</li><li>Poor project management (not keeping scope creep in check, not being semi-flexible and delivering a useless piece of software, etc.)</li><li>Execs or IT management desperate to make schedules and forcing release dates</li><li>System failure due to poor planning (no redundancy, poor-quality outsourced hosting, etc.)</li><li>Lack of, or incomplete testing</li><li>Bad code quality</li></ul><p>My take on this is that the main cause of failure is the fact that IT still hasn't settled on a set of engineering principles to deliver projects. Things change way too fast still -- over the life of a 2-year project, your hardware platform may be changed out from under you, for example. PHP,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET or Java may be swapped out for YetAnotherCoolLanguage0.1alpha4. This is made worse by unscrupulous vendors, poorly-trained consultants, and lack of acceptance by the user base of the software.</p><p>I think the author is referring to the direct cost of a failure. Every few months, the technical publications run an article or two about a large company or government agency writing off millions of dollars for a failed SAP/Oracle Financials/similar package deployment. Whenever I see one of these, it's interesting to see what happened. Usually it has something to do with one or more of the causes I listed above. Generally, the more expensive, tranformational and long a project is, the worse the results are. It's not just vendors either - I've seen in-house projects spiral down the same way. The other thing that comes to my mind when I read articles like this is why they didn't see it coming. Don't IT executives talk to each other over golf or something and say, "Yeah, SAP screwed us out of $100M in consulting fees. I'd watch them if I were you..."?</p><p>Other branches of engineering aren't immune to this though. Construction and infrastructure projects often run over time and budget. The difference is that a construction project gets finished one way or another. A software project failure means throwing away two years of work and putting the hardware on eBay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" IT failure " is a very broad term and can happen for a lot of reasons : Poor requirements definitionPoor project management ( not keeping scope creep in check , not being semi-flexible and delivering a useless piece of software , etc .
) Execs or IT management desperate to make schedules and forcing release datesSystem failure due to poor planning ( no redundancy , poor-quality outsourced hosting , etc .
) Lack of , or incomplete testingBad code qualityMy take on this is that the main cause of failure is the fact that IT still has n't settled on a set of engineering principles to deliver projects .
Things change way too fast still -- over the life of a 2-year project , your hardware platform may be changed out from under you , for example .
PHP , .NET or Java may be swapped out for YetAnotherCoolLanguage0.1alpha4 .
This is made worse by unscrupulous vendors , poorly-trained consultants , and lack of acceptance by the user base of the software.I think the author is referring to the direct cost of a failure .
Every few months , the technical publications run an article or two about a large company or government agency writing off millions of dollars for a failed SAP/Oracle Financials/similar package deployment .
Whenever I see one of these , it 's interesting to see what happened .
Usually it has something to do with one or more of the causes I listed above .
Generally , the more expensive , tranformational and long a project is , the worse the results are .
It 's not just vendors either - I 've seen in-house projects spiral down the same way .
The other thing that comes to my mind when I read articles like this is why they did n't see it coming .
Do n't IT executives talk to each other over golf or something and say , " Yeah , SAP screwed us out of $ 100M in consulting fees .
I 'd watch them if I were you... " ? Other branches of engineering are n't immune to this though .
Construction and infrastructure projects often run over time and budget .
The difference is that a construction project gets finished one way or another .
A software project failure means throwing away two years of work and putting the hardware on eBay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"IT failure" is a very broad term and can happen for a lot of reasons:Poor requirements definitionPoor project management (not keeping scope creep in check, not being semi-flexible and delivering a useless piece of software, etc.
)Execs or IT management desperate to make schedules and forcing release datesSystem failure due to poor planning (no redundancy, poor-quality outsourced hosting, etc.
)Lack of, or incomplete testingBad code qualityMy take on this is that the main cause of failure is the fact that IT still hasn't settled on a set of engineering principles to deliver projects.
Things change way too fast still -- over the life of a 2-year project, your hardware platform may be changed out from under you, for example.
PHP, .NET or Java may be swapped out for YetAnotherCoolLanguage0.1alpha4.
This is made worse by unscrupulous vendors, poorly-trained consultants, and lack of acceptance by the user base of the software.I think the author is referring to the direct cost of a failure.
Every few months, the technical publications run an article or two about a large company or government agency writing off millions of dollars for a failed SAP/Oracle Financials/similar package deployment.
Whenever I see one of these, it's interesting to see what happened.
Usually it has something to do with one or more of the causes I listed above.
Generally, the more expensive, tranformational and long a project is, the worse the results are.
It's not just vendors either - I've seen in-house projects spiral down the same way.
The other thing that comes to my mind when I read articles like this is why they didn't see it coming.
Don't IT executives talk to each other over golf or something and say, "Yeah, SAP screwed us out of $100M in consulting fees.
I'd watch them if I were you..."?Other branches of engineering aren't immune to this though.
Construction and infrastructure projects often run over time and budget.
The difference is that a construction project gets finished one way or another.
A software project failure means throwing away two years of work and putting the hardware on eBay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573894</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1262028900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Does this mean that IT people are generally incompetent? Or is it just the IT managers who are incompetent? Or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p>Well, I'd guess it's mostly an example of the old observation that, while a person can be very smart, people are stupid.  Human intelligence isn't additive; it's some inverse function of the number of brains involved.</p><p>Most software is developed by teams, and the more important management thinks a software project is, the more people they assign to it.  This means that the most important products are developed by the stupidest teams.  Also, the bigger the company, the more people they have to assign to a project (or move from project to project, as often happens).  So the bigger companies tend to have the stupidest development methods.</p><p>I've worked on several projects that produced some high-quality products.  In each case, it was done by a small team, and the team found ways to chop up the work into pieces that could each be done by a single person (with well-documented interfaces between the pieces).  So each piece was done by the smartest human team, a single person.  But big companies generally don't permit this approach (though a couple of these projects were for some big companies with a few smart managers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that IT people are generally incompetent ?
Or is it just the IT managers who are incompetent ?
Or ...Well , I 'd guess it 's mostly an example of the old observation that , while a person can be very smart , people are stupid .
Human intelligence is n't additive ; it 's some inverse function of the number of brains involved.Most software is developed by teams , and the more important management thinks a software project is , the more people they assign to it .
This means that the most important products are developed by the stupidest teams .
Also , the bigger the company , the more people they have to assign to a project ( or move from project to project , as often happens ) .
So the bigger companies tend to have the stupidest development methods.I 've worked on several projects that produced some high-quality products .
In each case , it was done by a small team , and the team found ways to chop up the work into pieces that could each be done by a single person ( with well-documented interfaces between the pieces ) .
So each piece was done by the smartest human team , a single person .
But big companies generally do n't permit this approach ( though a couple of these projects were for some big companies with a few smart managers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that IT people are generally incompetent?
Or is it just the IT managers who are incompetent?
Or ...Well, I'd guess it's mostly an example of the old observation that, while a person can be very smart, people are stupid.
Human intelligence isn't additive; it's some inverse function of the number of brains involved.Most software is developed by teams, and the more important management thinks a software project is, the more people they assign to it.
This means that the most important products are developed by the stupidest teams.
Also, the bigger the company, the more people they have to assign to a project (or move from project to project, as often happens).
So the bigger companies tend to have the stupidest development methods.I've worked on several projects that produced some high-quality products.
In each case, it was done by a small team, and the team found ways to chop up the work into pieces that could each be done by a single person (with well-documented interfaces between the pieces).
So each piece was done by the smartest human team, a single person.
But big companies generally don't permit this approach (though a couple of these projects were for some big companies with a few smart managers).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570682</id>
	<title>A few reasons ( in my opinion)</title>
	<author>KDN</author>
	<datestamp>1262013660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>Vendors grossly over selling what they can do.
How many times has your company bet on a future product of a vendor that is the best thing since sliced bread and will be available in 3 months,
and then 3 months after that, and then 6 months after that, and then a year after that, and then 3 months after that, etc.
And when it finally comes out most of the pie in the sky features you were depending on don't really work.
But they say it will work in the next version.
Real Soon Now.</li>
<li>Star Trek style management: Managers who think their crew are Scotty who pulls off a miracle every week.
Its never been done, we don't have time to do it right, but its got to work right the first time given not enough resources.
Sure it works on Star Trek, its in the script.
FYI: I love the Star Trek series, but I also know the difference between fiction and reality.</li>
<li>Changing requirements: tell me, who could build a house if you were changing the design every week?  One week its a ranch, next week its an apartment building, next week its solar power, next week its wind power, next week it has 5 bathrooms instead of one, next week the bathrooms get moved to different areas of the house, next week the water supply gets moved to the other end of the house.  And by the way, we need to cut your budget and move up the deployment date.
Doesn't that sound like what happened to Duke Nukem Forever?</li>
<li>Big Bang deployments.  Designs where a completely new design replaces an old one.  No system wide testing (remember the Hubble?  The system wide test was deleted to save money.).  The old system is torn out, the new system is thrown in, and everything has to work the first time because you can't go back.  And there are no facilities for debugging or diagnostics or changes because of course the programmers got everything right the first shot.</li>
<li>Ignoring your own staff.
Staff does a detailed bakeoff of competing products and chooses the clear winner.  Manager goes with the looser because he owns stock in that company.  Company deploys product, deployment goes badly, manager blames staff.</li>
</ol><p>
Note: these are composite examples from many sources I have gotten over the years.  They are not against any one company.
But I think they are indicative of the industry as a whole.
And that is sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vendors grossly over selling what they can do .
How many times has your company bet on a future product of a vendor that is the best thing since sliced bread and will be available in 3 months , and then 3 months after that , and then 6 months after that , and then a year after that , and then 3 months after that , etc .
And when it finally comes out most of the pie in the sky features you were depending on do n't really work .
But they say it will work in the next version .
Real Soon Now .
Star Trek style management : Managers who think their crew are Scotty who pulls off a miracle every week .
Its never been done , we do n't have time to do it right , but its got to work right the first time given not enough resources .
Sure it works on Star Trek , its in the script .
FYI : I love the Star Trek series , but I also know the difference between fiction and reality .
Changing requirements : tell me , who could build a house if you were changing the design every week ?
One week its a ranch , next week its an apartment building , next week its solar power , next week its wind power , next week it has 5 bathrooms instead of one , next week the bathrooms get moved to different areas of the house , next week the water supply gets moved to the other end of the house .
And by the way , we need to cut your budget and move up the deployment date .
Does n't that sound like what happened to Duke Nukem Forever ?
Big Bang deployments .
Designs where a completely new design replaces an old one .
No system wide testing ( remember the Hubble ?
The system wide test was deleted to save money. ) .
The old system is torn out , the new system is thrown in , and everything has to work the first time because you ca n't go back .
And there are no facilities for debugging or diagnostics or changes because of course the programmers got everything right the first shot .
Ignoring your own staff .
Staff does a detailed bakeoff of competing products and chooses the clear winner .
Manager goes with the looser because he owns stock in that company .
Company deploys product , deployment goes badly , manager blames staff .
Note : these are composite examples from many sources I have gotten over the years .
They are not against any one company .
But I think they are indicative of the industry as a whole .
And that is sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Vendors grossly over selling what they can do.
How many times has your company bet on a future product of a vendor that is the best thing since sliced bread and will be available in 3 months,
and then 3 months after that, and then 6 months after that, and then a year after that, and then 3 months after that, etc.
And when it finally comes out most of the pie in the sky features you were depending on don't really work.
But they say it will work in the next version.
Real Soon Now.
Star Trek style management: Managers who think their crew are Scotty who pulls off a miracle every week.
Its never been done, we don't have time to do it right, but its got to work right the first time given not enough resources.
Sure it works on Star Trek, its in the script.
FYI: I love the Star Trek series, but I also know the difference between fiction and reality.
Changing requirements: tell me, who could build a house if you were changing the design every week?
One week its a ranch, next week its an apartment building, next week its solar power, next week its wind power, next week it has 5 bathrooms instead of one, next week the bathrooms get moved to different areas of the house, next week the water supply gets moved to the other end of the house.
And by the way, we need to cut your budget and move up the deployment date.
Doesn't that sound like what happened to Duke Nukem Forever?
Big Bang deployments.
Designs where a completely new design replaces an old one.
No system wide testing (remember the Hubble?
The system wide test was deleted to save money.).
The old system is torn out, the new system is thrown in, and everything has to work the first time because you can't go back.
And there are no facilities for debugging or diagnostics or changes because of course the programmers got everything right the first shot.
Ignoring your own staff.
Staff does a detailed bakeoff of competing products and chooses the clear winner.
Manager goes with the looser because he owns stock in that company.
Company deploys product, deployment goes badly, manager blames staff.
Note: these are composite examples from many sources I have gotten over the years.
They are not against any one company.
But I think they are indicative of the industry as a whole.
And that is sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30574930</id>
	<title>Re:learning through mistakes</title>
	<author>m1xram</author>
	<datestamp>1261991040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a better way to evaluate costs. Money is not lost if you learn how to implement things better. If the mistakes are repeated then yes the company is wasting its time. Usually, on implementing version 1 of software, we learn basically how not to do it. We take those mistakes and learn how to make version 2 much better. Version 3 further refines the product and development procedures into something that can be used again and again.</p><p>New development processes try to smash the above three versions into a repeating process. Agile development comes to mind. But even this has to be learned and adapted to what fits best for a project. The assumption is that assumptions will be wrong, mistakes will be made, learning will occur, and more correct goals will be set and implemented. </p><p>Effective IT is learning from your mistakes whereas bad IT is repeating them. Certainly some of that $6.2T is the cost of learning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a better way to evaluate costs .
Money is not lost if you learn how to implement things better .
If the mistakes are repeated then yes the company is wasting its time .
Usually , on implementing version 1 of software , we learn basically how not to do it .
We take those mistakes and learn how to make version 2 much better .
Version 3 further refines the product and development procedures into something that can be used again and again.New development processes try to smash the above three versions into a repeating process .
Agile development comes to mind .
But even this has to be learned and adapted to what fits best for a project .
The assumption is that assumptions will be wrong , mistakes will be made , learning will occur , and more correct goals will be set and implemented .
Effective IT is learning from your mistakes whereas bad IT is repeating them .
Certainly some of that $ 6.2T is the cost of learning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a better way to evaluate costs.
Money is not lost if you learn how to implement things better.
If the mistakes are repeated then yes the company is wasting its time.
Usually, on implementing version 1 of software, we learn basically how not to do it.
We take those mistakes and learn how to make version 2 much better.
Version 3 further refines the product and development procedures into something that can be used again and again.New development processes try to smash the above three versions into a repeating process.
Agile development comes to mind.
But even this has to be learned and adapted to what fits best for a project.
The assumption is that assumptions will be wrong, mistakes will be made, learning will occur, and more correct goals will be set and implemented.
Effective IT is learning from your mistakes whereas bad IT is repeating them.
Certainly some of that $6.2T is the cost of learning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30580648</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>rfc1394</author>
	<datestamp>1262087880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Manager: Hmmm. Well, it needs to work by next Tuesday.<br>
Coder: (very quiet expletive)</p></div><p>Code Monkey have boring meeting with boring manager Rob<br>
Rob say Code Monkey very diligent<br>
but his output stink<br>
his code not functional or elegant<br>
what do Code Monkey think<br>
Code Monkey think maybe manager want to write goddamn login page himself<br>
Code Monkey not say it out loud<br>
Code Monkey not crazy just proud<br>
-- Jonathan Coulton</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Manager : Hmmm .
Well , it needs to work by next Tuesday .
Coder : ( very quiet expletive ) Code Monkey have boring meeting with boring manager Rob Rob say Code Monkey very diligent but his output stink his code not functional or elegant what do Code Monkey think Code Monkey think maybe manager want to write goddamn login page himself Code Monkey not say it out loud Code Monkey not crazy just proud -- Jonathan Coulton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manager: Hmmm.
Well, it needs to work by next Tuesday.
Coder: (very quiet expletive)Code Monkey have boring meeting with boring manager Rob
Rob say Code Monkey very diligent
but his output stink
his code not functional or elegant
what do Code Monkey think
Code Monkey think maybe manager want to write goddamn login page himself
Code Monkey not say it out loud
Code Monkey not crazy just proud
-- Jonathan Coulton
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570672</id>
	<title>Who cares as long as some of it comes my way</title>
	<author>tyroneking</author>
	<datestamp>1262013540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously - this is dumb - IT projects, just like life, will often fail. We know they will and we know why. If it was such a problem then clients and project managers would actually do something about it - but they don't. So in that case all I care about is that I get some of the money - and I work in IT - so I do. Hooray!</p><p>Also, failure isn't such a bad thing - my past relationships failed, I didn't regret them (well, ok, I did...) - my latest poem failed to be any good, I didn't regret trying - my last batch of home brew has gone bad (I may still drink it of course) but that's life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - this is dumb - IT projects , just like life , will often fail .
We know they will and we know why .
If it was such a problem then clients and project managers would actually do something about it - but they do n't .
So in that case all I care about is that I get some of the money - and I work in IT - so I do .
Hooray ! Also , failure is n't such a bad thing - my past relationships failed , I did n't regret them ( well , ok , I did... ) - my latest poem failed to be any good , I did n't regret trying - my last batch of home brew has gone bad ( I may still drink it of course ) but that 's life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously - this is dumb - IT projects, just like life, will often fail.
We know they will and we know why.
If it was such a problem then clients and project managers would actually do something about it - but they don't.
So in that case all I care about is that I get some of the money - and I work in IT - so I do.
Hooray!Also, failure isn't such a bad thing - my past relationships failed, I didn't regret them (well, ok, I did...) - my latest poem failed to be any good, I didn't regret trying - my last batch of home brew has gone bad (I may still drink it of course) but that's life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30575842</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Chabil Ha'</author>
	<datestamp>1261995660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or is it just a cost of doing business.  When weighed against using IT, how much productivity is gained, dollars earned, and dollars saved?  Is great to spout out the costs, how about the benefits, too, for a real analysis?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is it just a cost of doing business .
When weighed against using IT , how much productivity is gained , dollars earned , and dollars saved ?
Is great to spout out the costs , how about the benefits , too , for a real analysis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is it just a cost of doing business.
When weighed against using IT, how much productivity is gained, dollars earned, and dollars saved?
Is great to spout out the costs, how about the benefits, too, for a real analysis?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570780</id>
	<title>No, but the work is shifting to those ...</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1262014200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>with far less experience. Much of the successful teams have members with DECADES of experience. That is why IBM was willing to pay money (but not salaries) from employees to move to India and China. They know that they need experience, but do not want to be saddled into the long term costs. In time (1-2 decades), China/India will gain that experience and this will change. In the mean time, a western business is better off hiring from the west where Coding was developed and the experience still resides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>with far less experience .
Much of the successful teams have members with DECADES of experience .
That is why IBM was willing to pay money ( but not salaries ) from employees to move to India and China .
They know that they need experience , but do not want to be saddled into the long term costs .
In time ( 1-2 decades ) , China/India will gain that experience and this will change .
In the mean time , a western business is better off hiring from the west where Coding was developed and the experience still resides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with far less experience.
Much of the successful teams have members with DECADES of experience.
That is why IBM was willing to pay money (but not salaries) from employees to move to India and China.
They know that they need experience, but do not want to be saddled into the long term costs.
In time (1-2 decades), China/India will gain that experience and this will change.
In the mean time, a western business is better off hiring from the west where Coding was developed and the experience still resides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30580064</id>
	<title>The culture of Complexity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262077560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b><br>T H E   C U L T U R E   O F   C O M P L E X I T Y</b></p><p><b>Q - Why each new version of Windows is twice as big (and slow) as the previous?</b></p><p><b>A - It sells new hardware (and new Windows licenses for the new hardware).</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>T H E C U L T U R E O F C O M P L E X I T YQ - Why each new version of Windows is twice as big ( and slow ) as the previous ? A - It sells new hardware ( and new Windows licenses for the new hardware ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>T H E   C U L T U R E   O F   C O M P L E X I T YQ - Why each new version of Windows is twice as big (and slow) as the previous?A - It sells new hardware (and new Windows licenses for the new hardware).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30575778</id>
	<title>Re:Weird statistic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261995420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$11.47. Give or or take a bazillion percent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 11.47 .
Give or or take a bazillion percent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$11.47.
Give or or take a bazillion percent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30576990</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1262002740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that this is going to sound like heresy, but sometime the manager is right.  I happen to work for one of those mythical creatures known as a good manager.  He almost always fully aware of what he is doing when tells us to build on top Feature X which is still buggy.  He understands that reducing users workload today by 50\% is better than reducing it by 60\% in 5 years, particularly when he knows that the code is only going to have a life expectancy of a couple of years.<br> <br>

Which would you rather have, a program that doubles your production but has to be rebooted once a day, or just plod along doing things manually?<br> <br>

Of course, the reason I say 'mythical' is that most people will never see a good manager in real life, so generally your portrayal is entirely accurate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that this is going to sound like heresy , but sometime the manager is right .
I happen to work for one of those mythical creatures known as a good manager .
He almost always fully aware of what he is doing when tells us to build on top Feature X which is still buggy .
He understands that reducing users workload today by 50 \ % is better than reducing it by 60 \ % in 5 years , particularly when he knows that the code is only going to have a life expectancy of a couple of years .
Which would you rather have , a program that doubles your production but has to be rebooted once a day , or just plod along doing things manually ?
Of course , the reason I say 'mythical ' is that most people will never see a good manager in real life , so generally your portrayal is entirely accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that this is going to sound like heresy, but sometime the manager is right.
I happen to work for one of those mythical creatures known as a good manager.
He almost always fully aware of what he is doing when tells us to build on top Feature X which is still buggy.
He understands that reducing users workload today by 50\% is better than reducing it by 60\% in 5 years, particularly when he knows that the code is only going to have a life expectancy of a couple of years.
Which would you rather have, a program that doubles your production but has to be rebooted once a day, or just plod along doing things manually?
Of course, the reason I say 'mythical' is that most people will never see a good manager in real life, so generally your portrayal is entirely accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570510</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1262012340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that IT failure is more like moral evil.<br> <br>

Most people aren't stone-cold psychopaths, or even consistently self-interested egotists. They're just plugging along, mostly trying to get along with one another. And yet, despite the inputs being, on average, good(or at least OK), the system as a whole puts out an unrelenting stream of shit.<br> <br>

In IT, there are certainly some truly impressive morons(and their much more dangerous cousins, the slick frauds); but most people are more or less OK, and some are downright brilliant. Trouble is, we don't really have a good handle on how to make very complex, very interconnected, systems work well when the inputs are "mostly ok, with spots of genius and blotches of pure suck".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that IT failure is more like moral evil .
Most people are n't stone-cold psychopaths , or even consistently self-interested egotists .
They 're just plugging along , mostly trying to get along with one another .
And yet , despite the inputs being , on average , good ( or at least OK ) , the system as a whole puts out an unrelenting stream of shit .
In IT , there are certainly some truly impressive morons ( and their much more dangerous cousins , the slick frauds ) ; but most people are more or less OK , and some are downright brilliant .
Trouble is , we do n't really have a good handle on how to make very complex , very interconnected , systems work well when the inputs are " mostly ok , with spots of genius and blotches of pure suck " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that IT failure is more like moral evil.
Most people aren't stone-cold psychopaths, or even consistently self-interested egotists.
They're just plugging along, mostly trying to get along with one another.
And yet, despite the inputs being, on average, good(or at least OK), the system as a whole puts out an unrelenting stream of shit.
In IT, there are certainly some truly impressive morons(and their much more dangerous cousins, the slick frauds); but most people are more or less OK, and some are downright brilliant.
Trouble is, we don't really have a good handle on how to make very complex, very interconnected, systems work well when the inputs are "mostly ok, with spots of genius and blotches of pure suck".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570592</id>
	<title>Weird statistic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262012940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how much value does IT generate in a year?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how much value does IT generate in a year ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how much value does IT generate in a year?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262010720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of time / effort / money I've lost over the years due to buggy and crashing computer software is staggering.  And I solely blame this on incompetent software developers.  I'm talking of both commercial software (I'm surprised they let some of this crap out the door - do they know what testing is?), and also my own experiences working with development teams.
</p><p>I've had developers work for me that think they know everything there is to know, refuse to listen to any advice, and basically try to write software only in the way they believe it should be done, completely ignoring the needs and requirements of the system lead and the customer. Throw in to the mix some elitism and a complete lack of ability to communicate without insulting an derogatory statements, and you've got a profile of a large percentage of current software developers.   I'm still working to undue to colossal mess of my last ex-software lead that I ended up kicking off the program because he fundamentally didn't know what he was doing (despite thinking he was the best developer on the planet). I've also worked with some amazingly brilliant software developers, but unfortunately they are few and far between.  The sheer arrogance of some software developers is astounding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of time / effort / money I 've lost over the years due to buggy and crashing computer software is staggering .
And I solely blame this on incompetent software developers .
I 'm talking of both commercial software ( I 'm surprised they let some of this crap out the door - do they know what testing is ?
) , and also my own experiences working with development teams .
I 've had developers work for me that think they know everything there is to know , refuse to listen to any advice , and basically try to write software only in the way they believe it should be done , completely ignoring the needs and requirements of the system lead and the customer .
Throw in to the mix some elitism and a complete lack of ability to communicate without insulting an derogatory statements , and you 've got a profile of a large percentage of current software developers .
I 'm still working to undue to colossal mess of my last ex-software lead that I ended up kicking off the program because he fundamentally did n't know what he was doing ( despite thinking he was the best developer on the planet ) .
I 've also worked with some amazingly brilliant software developers , but unfortunately they are few and far between .
The sheer arrogance of some software developers is astounding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of time / effort / money I've lost over the years due to buggy and crashing computer software is staggering.
And I solely blame this on incompetent software developers.
I'm talking of both commercial software (I'm surprised they let some of this crap out the door - do they know what testing is?
), and also my own experiences working with development teams.
I've had developers work for me that think they know everything there is to know, refuse to listen to any advice, and basically try to write software only in the way they believe it should be done, completely ignoring the needs and requirements of the system lead and the customer.
Throw in to the mix some elitism and a complete lack of ability to communicate without insulting an derogatory statements, and you've got a profile of a large percentage of current software developers.
I'm still working to undue to colossal mess of my last ex-software lead that I ended up kicking off the program because he fundamentally didn't know what he was doing (despite thinking he was the best developer on the planet).
I've also worked with some amazingly brilliant software developers, but unfortunately they are few and far between.
The sheer arrogance of some software developers is astounding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570700</id>
	<title>Re:Weird statistic...</title>
	<author>jav1231</author>
	<datestamp>1262013780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly! It's the cost of doing business. It's staggering the amount of productivity that is accomplished despite IT failures. And human idiocy, corporate theft, pinhead bosses...the list goes on  and on and yet profit is still generated. Yes, it's a problem and I won't discount the need to do something about but it's reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
It 's the cost of doing business .
It 's staggering the amount of productivity that is accomplished despite IT failures .
And human idiocy , corporate theft , pinhead bosses...the list goes on and on and yet profit is still generated .
Yes , it 's a problem and I wo n't discount the need to do something about but it 's reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
It's the cost of doing business.
It's staggering the amount of productivity that is accomplished despite IT failures.
And human idiocy, corporate theft, pinhead bosses...the list goes on  and on and yet profit is still generated.
Yes, it's a problem and I won't discount the need to do something about but it's reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570626</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Bucc5062</author>
	<datestamp>1262013180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The amount of time / effort / money I've lost over the years due to buggy and crashing computer software is staggering</p></div><p>The amount of time / effort / money lost over the years due to poor management, bad analysis, and improbable times lines is staggering.</p><p>There, fixed it for you.  You do see that your own statement is about as arrogant and condescending as the programmers you want to insult.  Buggy code, crashing software is not just the responsibility of the programmer, it is the responsibility of the leadership as well.  Why was it buggy?  Bad design specs, no code reviews, tight time lines with large interruptions?  Why did it crash?  Poor QA and review by business owners?  ridiculous deadlines, poor working conditions, low morale?</p><p>There is more there then just "bad programming" as if programming exists in some bubble.  Developing is not assembly line work, it is a complex art and yet over decades management has viewed it from an industrial age mentality.  Work from x to y, produce x lines of code, stop what you are doing and look at something else no matter where you are at.  Certainly there are arrogant programmers, just like there are arrogant managers.  I challenge you though to see that both need each other to reduce the number of bugs, the minimizing of crashes (really "crashing computer software?  Not Abending or exception failures?)  When a positive work environment is set that people tend to work better, with less error.  That is the job of management and yes, even leads.  For the record, I have been in lead and oversight positions.  The best role I played was to get out of the way and let my people do their job.  Along the way I would just ensure that we maintained a high quality of effort and we kept on focus to the requirements provided.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of time / effort / money I 've lost over the years due to buggy and crashing computer software is staggeringThe amount of time / effort / money lost over the years due to poor management , bad analysis , and improbable times lines is staggering.There , fixed it for you .
You do see that your own statement is about as arrogant and condescending as the programmers you want to insult .
Buggy code , crashing software is not just the responsibility of the programmer , it is the responsibility of the leadership as well .
Why was it buggy ?
Bad design specs , no code reviews , tight time lines with large interruptions ?
Why did it crash ?
Poor QA and review by business owners ?
ridiculous deadlines , poor working conditions , low morale ? There is more there then just " bad programming " as if programming exists in some bubble .
Developing is not assembly line work , it is a complex art and yet over decades management has viewed it from an industrial age mentality .
Work from x to y , produce x lines of code , stop what you are doing and look at something else no matter where you are at .
Certainly there are arrogant programmers , just like there are arrogant managers .
I challenge you though to see that both need each other to reduce the number of bugs , the minimizing of crashes ( really " crashing computer software ?
Not Abending or exception failures ?
) When a positive work environment is set that people tend to work better , with less error .
That is the job of management and yes , even leads .
For the record , I have been in lead and oversight positions .
The best role I played was to get out of the way and let my people do their job .
Along the way I would just ensure that we maintained a high quality of effort and we kept on focus to the requirements provided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of time / effort / money I've lost over the years due to buggy and crashing computer software is staggeringThe amount of time / effort / money lost over the years due to poor management, bad analysis, and improbable times lines is staggering.There, fixed it for you.
You do see that your own statement is about as arrogant and condescending as the programmers you want to insult.
Buggy code, crashing software is not just the responsibility of the programmer, it is the responsibility of the leadership as well.
Why was it buggy?
Bad design specs, no code reviews, tight time lines with large interruptions?
Why did it crash?
Poor QA and review by business owners?
ridiculous deadlines, poor working conditions, low morale?There is more there then just "bad programming" as if programming exists in some bubble.
Developing is not assembly line work, it is a complex art and yet over decades management has viewed it from an industrial age mentality.
Work from x to y, produce x lines of code, stop what you are doing and look at something else no matter where you are at.
Certainly there are arrogant programmers, just like there are arrogant managers.
I challenge you though to see that both need each other to reduce the number of bugs, the minimizing of crashes (really "crashing computer software?
Not Abending or exception failures?
)  When a positive work environment is set that people tend to work better, with less error.
That is the job of management and yes, even leads.
For the record, I have been in lead and oversight positions.
The best role I played was to get out of the way and let my people do their job.
Along the way I would just ensure that we maintained a high quality of effort and we kept on focus to the requirements provided.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30574974</id>
	<title>Re:This article is self promotion bate.</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1261991280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm still laughing about that one.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm still laughing at your use of <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bate" title="merriam-webster.com">bate.</a> [merriam-webster.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still laughing about that one.I 'm still laughing at your use of bate .
[ merriam-webster.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still laughing about that one.I'm still laughing at your use of bate.
[merriam-webster.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30577544</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Tynin</author>
	<datestamp>1262007180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah yes, we have a saying around here when things come down from up high with this kind of mandate. I'm unsure from whom it was cited...<br> <br> -<i>"Don't get it done right, get it done right now."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , we have a saying around here when things come down from up high with this kind of mandate .
I 'm unsure from whom it was cited... - " Do n't get it done right , get it done right now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, we have a saying around here when things come down from up high with this kind of mandate.
I'm unsure from whom it was cited...  -"Don't get it done right, get it done right now.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571832</id>
	<title>Wrong Perspective...</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262019720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be:</p><p>"Worldwide productivity gain from IT was $6.2T less than it would have been in the most ideal case imaginable"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be : " Worldwide productivity gain from IT was $ 6.2T less than it would have been in the most ideal case imaginable "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be:"Worldwide productivity gain from IT was $6.2T less than it would have been in the most ideal case imaginable"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571846</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1262019780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, this happens too often:</p><p>Manager: We need to add Feature Y.<br>Coder: But that builds on Feature X, which is still buggy.<br>Manager: I don't care. The customer wants it.<br>---<br>(A month later)<br>Coder: Can we take some time to fix the bugs in Feature X and Y?<br>Manager: No, we have to make Feature Z, which builds on X and Y. We can fix them later.<br>Coder: If we'd known you wanted Feature Z, we would have done X and Y completely differently.<br>Manager: Hmmm. Well, it needs to work by next Tuesday.<br>Coder: (very quiet expletive)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , this happens too often : Manager : We need to add Feature Y.Coder : But that builds on Feature X , which is still buggy.Manager : I do n't care .
The customer wants it.--- ( A month later ) Coder : Can we take some time to fix the bugs in Feature X and Y ? Manager : No , we have to make Feature Z , which builds on X and Y. We can fix them later.Coder : If we 'd known you wanted Feature Z , we would have done X and Y completely differently.Manager : Hmmm .
Well , it needs to work by next Tuesday.Coder : ( very quiet expletive )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, this happens too often:Manager: We need to add Feature Y.Coder: But that builds on Feature X, which is still buggy.Manager: I don't care.
The customer wants it.---(A month later)Coder: Can we take some time to fix the bugs in Feature X and Y?Manager: No, we have to make Feature Z, which builds on X and Y. We can fix them later.Coder: If we'd known you wanted Feature Z, we would have done X and Y completely differently.Manager: Hmmm.
Well, it needs to work by next Tuesday.Coder: (very quiet expletive)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570578</id>
	<title>Not a problem.</title>
	<author>Bazman</author>
	<datestamp>1262012880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can give you perfect IT systems. It will cost you Infinite Dollars. Or I can give you a totally failing IT system for nothing. Somewhere along that line is the break-even point, and if we assume the market is working the way it is supposed to, we are riding that break-even point.</p><p>Live with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can give you perfect IT systems .
It will cost you Infinite Dollars .
Or I can give you a totally failing IT system for nothing .
Somewhere along that line is the break-even point , and if we assume the market is working the way it is supposed to , we are riding that break-even point.Live with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can give you perfect IT systems.
It will cost you Infinite Dollars.
Or I can give you a totally failing IT system for nothing.
Somewhere along that line is the break-even point, and if we assume the market is working the way it is supposed to, we are riding that break-even point.Live with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573694</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262027940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many IT people are incompetent. They are hired by incompetent managers who are more interested in keeping salaries down and maintaining a corporate cube farm than they are in hiring good quality people. Very few understand that the best are 10 times more productive than the run of the mill if you stay out of their way. The problem is exacerbated when management refuses to believe that the assembly line is not at all an appropriate analogy for software development.</p><p>It doesn't help that HR departments are utterly clueless when it comes to hiring IT. They look for matches on bullet points but don't understand those points well enough to recognize which ones are important or even which are possible. That's where we got positions requiring 5 years experience in Java when it had only been out there for 2 years. That's also where we get nit-picking bullet points that don't recognize equivalent experiences.</p><p>Imagine if architects were rejected regardless of other qualifications if they didn't happen to have at least 5 years experience with a particular brand of drafting pencil.</p><p>The result of all of that plus the boom and bust cycle is that during the booms, HR will fill positions with any stuffed shirt and during the bust the layoffs fly indiscriminately. Said stuffed shirts then clog the queues with their resumes and make it hard to find the well qualified candidates. It also depresses salaries for the best while inflating them for the barely adequate.</p><p>If you want to look a bit higher, you'll find that the stock/financial segment has spent decades rewarding the short sighted and punishing "engineer run" corporations that refuse to sell out the future for the sake of a 10\% bump next month. That also contributes to the continued failures in IT. MBAs who happily save a few pennies today by outsourcing to the very lowest bargain basement bidder (who promptly re-assigns their A-team to the next prospect and substitutes with their b-team who just barely know how to turn a PC on) and then suffer losses by the bucket load when it all goes 'mysteriously' wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many IT people are incompetent .
They are hired by incompetent managers who are more interested in keeping salaries down and maintaining a corporate cube farm than they are in hiring good quality people .
Very few understand that the best are 10 times more productive than the run of the mill if you stay out of their way .
The problem is exacerbated when management refuses to believe that the assembly line is not at all an appropriate analogy for software development.It does n't help that HR departments are utterly clueless when it comes to hiring IT .
They look for matches on bullet points but do n't understand those points well enough to recognize which ones are important or even which are possible .
That 's where we got positions requiring 5 years experience in Java when it had only been out there for 2 years .
That 's also where we get nit-picking bullet points that do n't recognize equivalent experiences.Imagine if architects were rejected regardless of other qualifications if they did n't happen to have at least 5 years experience with a particular brand of drafting pencil.The result of all of that plus the boom and bust cycle is that during the booms , HR will fill positions with any stuffed shirt and during the bust the layoffs fly indiscriminately .
Said stuffed shirts then clog the queues with their resumes and make it hard to find the well qualified candidates .
It also depresses salaries for the best while inflating them for the barely adequate.If you want to look a bit higher , you 'll find that the stock/financial segment has spent decades rewarding the short sighted and punishing " engineer run " corporations that refuse to sell out the future for the sake of a 10 \ % bump next month .
That also contributes to the continued failures in IT .
MBAs who happily save a few pennies today by outsourcing to the very lowest bargain basement bidder ( who promptly re-assigns their A-team to the next prospect and substitutes with their b-team who just barely know how to turn a PC on ) and then suffer losses by the bucket load when it all goes 'mysteriously ' wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many IT people are incompetent.
They are hired by incompetent managers who are more interested in keeping salaries down and maintaining a corporate cube farm than they are in hiring good quality people.
Very few understand that the best are 10 times more productive than the run of the mill if you stay out of their way.
The problem is exacerbated when management refuses to believe that the assembly line is not at all an appropriate analogy for software development.It doesn't help that HR departments are utterly clueless when it comes to hiring IT.
They look for matches on bullet points but don't understand those points well enough to recognize which ones are important or even which are possible.
That's where we got positions requiring 5 years experience in Java when it had only been out there for 2 years.
That's also where we get nit-picking bullet points that don't recognize equivalent experiences.Imagine if architects were rejected regardless of other qualifications if they didn't happen to have at least 5 years experience with a particular brand of drafting pencil.The result of all of that plus the boom and bust cycle is that during the booms, HR will fill positions with any stuffed shirt and during the bust the layoffs fly indiscriminately.
Said stuffed shirts then clog the queues with their resumes and make it hard to find the well qualified candidates.
It also depresses salaries for the best while inflating them for the barely adequate.If you want to look a bit higher, you'll find that the stock/financial segment has spent decades rewarding the short sighted and punishing "engineer run" corporations that refuse to sell out the future for the sake of a 10\% bump next month.
That also contributes to the continued failures in IT.
MBAs who happily save a few pennies today by outsourcing to the very lowest bargain basement bidder (who promptly re-assigns their A-team to the next prospect and substitutes with their b-team who just barely know how to turn a PC on) and then suffer losses by the bucket load when it all goes 'mysteriously' wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572772</id>
	<title>Interesting math</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1262023800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I almost didn't read the article, but I'm glad I did. If this is how financial/investment decisions are made, I now understand the financial crisis. Roger's white paper starts with actual data--GDP, annual budget for IT--so far, so good. It then proceeds to make a calculation based on (failure rate of "at risk" projects)... a fact? No. An estimate? No. An assumption? That's right. Actually, a range of an assumption (50\%-80\%), from which an average (65\%) is calculated. I'm sorry, but the average of an assumption with an assumption is not data. In three-valued logic, if you multiply a truth with an unknown you get an unknown.</p><p>The author then proceeds to combine this calculation with a new wild guess--direct to indirect costs of between 5:1 and 10:1 to get an average of 7.5:1.</p><p>The article ends with "The numbers are estimates, of course. The precise numbers are not the point." These numbers aren't even estimates. This might meet the dictionary definition of estimate, but I don't believe it would meet the common knowledge understanding of most people's definition of estimate. An estimate comes from some kind of familiarity with a source that leads you to use your judgment to come up with the estimate. The author claims none of that here.</p><p>One might as well come up with a total so enormous as to draw attention and then determine what inputs would come up with that total. That seems to be what was done here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I almost did n't read the article , but I 'm glad I did .
If this is how financial/investment decisions are made , I now understand the financial crisis .
Roger 's white paper starts with actual data--GDP , annual budget for IT--so far , so good .
It then proceeds to make a calculation based on ( failure rate of " at risk " projects ) ... a fact ?
No. An estimate ?
No. An assumption ?
That 's right .
Actually , a range of an assumption ( 50 \ % -80 \ % ) , from which an average ( 65 \ % ) is calculated .
I 'm sorry , but the average of an assumption with an assumption is not data .
In three-valued logic , if you multiply a truth with an unknown you get an unknown.The author then proceeds to combine this calculation with a new wild guess--direct to indirect costs of between 5 : 1 and 10 : 1 to get an average of 7.5 : 1.The article ends with " The numbers are estimates , of course .
The precise numbers are not the point .
" These numbers are n't even estimates .
This might meet the dictionary definition of estimate , but I do n't believe it would meet the common knowledge understanding of most people 's definition of estimate .
An estimate comes from some kind of familiarity with a source that leads you to use your judgment to come up with the estimate .
The author claims none of that here.One might as well come up with a total so enormous as to draw attention and then determine what inputs would come up with that total .
That seems to be what was done here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I almost didn't read the article, but I'm glad I did.
If this is how financial/investment decisions are made, I now understand the financial crisis.
Roger's white paper starts with actual data--GDP, annual budget for IT--so far, so good.
It then proceeds to make a calculation based on (failure rate of "at risk" projects)... a fact?
No. An estimate?
No. An assumption?
That's right.
Actually, a range of an assumption (50\%-80\%), from which an average (65\%) is calculated.
I'm sorry, but the average of an assumption with an assumption is not data.
In three-valued logic, if you multiply a truth with an unknown you get an unknown.The author then proceeds to combine this calculation with a new wild guess--direct to indirect costs of between 5:1 and 10:1 to get an average of 7.5:1.The article ends with "The numbers are estimates, of course.
The precise numbers are not the point.
" These numbers aren't even estimates.
This might meet the dictionary definition of estimate, but I don't believe it would meet the common knowledge understanding of most people's definition of estimate.
An estimate comes from some kind of familiarity with a source that leads you to use your judgment to come up with the estimate.
The author claims none of that here.One might as well come up with a total so enormous as to draw attention and then determine what inputs would come up with that total.
That seems to be what was done here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570878</id>
	<title>One Expert Pegs Yearly Number of Fake Experts At..</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262014860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...6.2 Million.</p><p>I should try acting all &ldquo;experty&rdquo; and come up with numbers that support the views of my bosses or myself too.<br>According to experts, there&rsquo;s good money in this...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...6.2 Million.I should try acting all    experty    and come up with numbers that support the views of my bosses or myself too.According to experts , there    s good money in this... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...6.2 Million.I should try acting all “experty” and come up with numbers that support the views of my bosses or myself too.According to experts, there’s good money in this... ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262010480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd look at it differently. I would firstly work out exactly how much money is generated through effective IT services and projects, and then I'd work out how much money is saved through effective IT services and projects, and then work out how much is lost through projects that go wrong. I think this sort of analysis would give a more true picture of the benefits and risks of IT projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd look at it differently .
I would firstly work out exactly how much money is generated through effective IT services and projects , and then I 'd work out how much money is saved through effective IT services and projects , and then work out how much is lost through projects that go wrong .
I think this sort of analysis would give a more true picture of the benefits and risks of IT projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd look at it differently.
I would firstly work out exactly how much money is generated through effective IT services and projects, and then I'd work out how much money is saved through effective IT services and projects, and then work out how much is lost through projects that go wrong.
I think this sort of analysis would give a more true picture of the benefits and risks of IT projects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571096</id>
	<title>What's the benefit of tech?</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1262015940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the lost productivity outweighs the costs then we would be better off without it. This is called "cost benefits analysis".</p><p>I don't think this was addressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the lost productivity outweighs the costs then we would be better off without it .
This is called " cost benefits analysis " .I do n't think this was addressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the lost productivity outweighs the costs then we would be better off without it.
This is called "cost benefits analysis".I don't think this was addressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571432</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>A\_Lost\_Frenchman</author>
	<datestamp>1262017680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No ! It just means the guy who wrote the white paper, and the guy who comments on it, are both incompetent.<p><div class="quote"><p>A large number of these will eventually fail. I assume the failure rate of an "at risk" project is between 50\% and 80\%. For this analysis, I'll use the average: 65\%.</p></div><p>Using the same kind of bullshit reasoning here is what I found: A large number of human beings will eventually die. I assume that human beings live between 0 and 100 years. For this analysis, I'll use the average: 50 years. Except that the average life expectancy is not 50 years but actually much higher. Taking the mean of the minimum and the maximum is not at all the same as taking an average, you may as well be pulling the numbers right out of your ass.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To find the predicted cost of annual IT failure, we then multiply these numbers together:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0275 (fraction of GDP on IT) X<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.66 (fraction of IT at risk) X<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.65 (failure rate of at risk projects) X 7.5 (indirect costs) =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.089. To predict the cost of IT failure on any country, multiply its GDP by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.089.</p></div><p>You're trying to introduce a global economic indicator using only 1st grade calculus, that's certainly an interesting approach. So the basic reasoning is that 65\% of all IT projects fail, and when they fail, not only do we lose <b>everything</b> that was invested in this particular project, but because of the indirect costs, we are actually going to lose 7.5 times more money ! There is so much bullshit in this sentence I don't even know where to start ! First of all, is the project a failure because it was delivered late, because it is not completely satisfactory, because there are bugs ? In any case, there is almost no chance that the project is such a failure that we can't get <b>anything</b> out of it. What's more there is no way it is going to cost 7.5 times more money than that, which leads me to all the stupid <i>assumptions</i>.

</p><ol>
<li>explicit assumption: 66\% of all Federal IT dollars are invested in projects that are "at risk". I assume this number is representative of the rest of the world<br>=&gt; It's not. The US is not even remotely representative of the rest of the world</li><li>explicit assumption: I assume the failure rate of an "at risk" project is between 50\% and 80\%.<br>=&gt; Maybe you could have looked up the real number included in the definition of an "at risk" project. For all we know it could be 10\% of 90\%, assuming you know the number when you actually don't doesn't make it right.</li><li>implicit assumption: I assume that the average of the minimum and the maximum is the same thing as the average over all projects.<br>=&gt; It's not, come back when you understand basic statistics.</li><li>explicit assumption: I will assume that the ratio of indirect to direct costs is between 5:1 and 10:1. For this analysis, I'll take the average: 7.5:1<br>=&gt; Same thing as above, you don't actually know the number, it could be anything. Plus you make an average on minimum and maximum values which makes no sense at all.</li></ol><p>

Now the worst part is that Michael Krigsman seems to find the study interesting:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Although not precise, the numbers demonstrate the seriousness of IT failure around the world.</p></div><p>No, they don't ! We don't have a clue how precise they are, which means we don't have a clue how far they are from the truth. All the assumptions are completely wrong, and not just a little.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Michael Krigsman is CEO of Asuret, Inc., a software and consulting company dedicated to reducing software implementation failures.</p></div><p>I propose we make a study on how much money is lost to software and consulting companies dedicated to reducing software implementation failures. Assuming one fifth are incompetent frauds like Krigsman, and the number of projects involving consulting companies is between 20\% and 70\% (we take the "average" 45\%), and making the same dumb assumption as Krigsman himself, the workdwide cost would be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0275 (fraction of GDP on IT) X<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.45 (fraction of projects involving consulting companies) X<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.20 (fraction of frauds among consulting companies) X 7.5 (indirect costs) =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0185

That's a cost of 256 Billions USD for the US alone !! Even though the number is "imprecise", I think it clearly highlights the danger of listening to idiots like Michael Krigsman or Roger Sessions.<br>
--<br>
Thank you for ruining my day with your bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No !
It just means the guy who wrote the white paper , and the guy who comments on it , are both incompetent.A large number of these will eventually fail .
I assume the failure rate of an " at risk " project is between 50 \ % and 80 \ % .
For this analysis , I 'll use the average : 65 \ % .Using the same kind of bullshit reasoning here is what I found : A large number of human beings will eventually die .
I assume that human beings live between 0 and 100 years .
For this analysis , I 'll use the average : 50 years .
Except that the average life expectancy is not 50 years but actually much higher .
Taking the mean of the minimum and the maximum is not at all the same as taking an average , you may as well be pulling the numbers right out of your ass.To find the predicted cost of annual IT failure , we then multiply these numbers together : .0275 ( fraction of GDP on IT ) X .66 ( fraction of IT at risk ) X .65 ( failure rate of at risk projects ) X 7.5 ( indirect costs ) = .089 .
To predict the cost of IT failure on any country , multiply its GDP by .089.You 're trying to introduce a global economic indicator using only 1st grade calculus , that 's certainly an interesting approach .
So the basic reasoning is that 65 \ % of all IT projects fail , and when they fail , not only do we lose everything that was invested in this particular project , but because of the indirect costs , we are actually going to lose 7.5 times more money !
There is so much bullshit in this sentence I do n't even know where to start !
First of all , is the project a failure because it was delivered late , because it is not completely satisfactory , because there are bugs ?
In any case , there is almost no chance that the project is such a failure that we ca n't get anything out of it .
What 's more there is no way it is going to cost 7.5 times more money than that , which leads me to all the stupid assumptions .
explicit assumption : 66 \ % of all Federal IT dollars are invested in projects that are " at risk " .
I assume this number is representative of the rest of the world = &gt; It 's not .
The US is not even remotely representative of the rest of the worldexplicit assumption : I assume the failure rate of an " at risk " project is between 50 \ % and 80 \ % . = &gt; Maybe you could have looked up the real number included in the definition of an " at risk " project .
For all we know it could be 10 \ % of 90 \ % , assuming you know the number when you actually do n't does n't make it right.implicit assumption : I assume that the average of the minimum and the maximum is the same thing as the average over all projects. = &gt; It 's not , come back when you understand basic statistics.explicit assumption : I will assume that the ratio of indirect to direct costs is between 5 : 1 and 10 : 1 .
For this analysis , I 'll take the average : 7.5 : 1 = &gt; Same thing as above , you do n't actually know the number , it could be anything .
Plus you make an average on minimum and maximum values which makes no sense at all .
Now the worst part is that Michael Krigsman seems to find the study interesting : Although not precise , the numbers demonstrate the seriousness of IT failure around the world.No , they do n't !
We do n't have a clue how precise they are , which means we do n't have a clue how far they are from the truth .
All the assumptions are completely wrong , and not just a little.Michael Krigsman is CEO of Asuret , Inc. , a software and consulting company dedicated to reducing software implementation failures.I propose we make a study on how much money is lost to software and consulting companies dedicated to reducing software implementation failures .
Assuming one fifth are incompetent frauds like Krigsman , and the number of projects involving consulting companies is between 20 \ % and 70 \ % ( we take the " average " 45 \ % ) , and making the same dumb assumption as Krigsman himself , the workdwide cost would be .0275 ( fraction of GDP on IT ) X .45 ( fraction of projects involving consulting companies ) X .20 ( fraction of frauds among consulting companies ) X 7.5 ( indirect costs ) = .0185 That 's a cost of 256 Billions USD for the US alone ! !
Even though the number is " imprecise " , I think it clearly highlights the danger of listening to idiots like Michael Krigsman or Roger Sessions .
-- Thank you for ruining my day with your bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No !
It just means the guy who wrote the white paper, and the guy who comments on it, are both incompetent.A large number of these will eventually fail.
I assume the failure rate of an "at risk" project is between 50\% and 80\%.
For this analysis, I'll use the average: 65\%.Using the same kind of bullshit reasoning here is what I found: A large number of human beings will eventually die.
I assume that human beings live between 0 and 100 years.
For this analysis, I'll use the average: 50 years.
Except that the average life expectancy is not 50 years but actually much higher.
Taking the mean of the minimum and the maximum is not at all the same as taking an average, you may as well be pulling the numbers right out of your ass.To find the predicted cost of annual IT failure, we then multiply these numbers together: .0275 (fraction of GDP on IT) X .66 (fraction of IT at risk) X .65 (failure rate of at risk projects) X 7.5 (indirect costs) = .089.
To predict the cost of IT failure on any country, multiply its GDP by .089.You're trying to introduce a global economic indicator using only 1st grade calculus, that's certainly an interesting approach.
So the basic reasoning is that 65\% of all IT projects fail, and when they fail, not only do we lose everything that was invested in this particular project, but because of the indirect costs, we are actually going to lose 7.5 times more money !
There is so much bullshit in this sentence I don't even know where to start !
First of all, is the project a failure because it was delivered late, because it is not completely satisfactory, because there are bugs ?
In any case, there is almost no chance that the project is such a failure that we can't get anything out of it.
What's more there is no way it is going to cost 7.5 times more money than that, which leads me to all the stupid assumptions.
explicit assumption: 66\% of all Federal IT dollars are invested in projects that are "at risk".
I assume this number is representative of the rest of the world=&gt; It's not.
The US is not even remotely representative of the rest of the worldexplicit assumption: I assume the failure rate of an "at risk" project is between 50\% and 80\%.=&gt; Maybe you could have looked up the real number included in the definition of an "at risk" project.
For all we know it could be 10\% of 90\%, assuming you know the number when you actually don't doesn't make it right.implicit assumption: I assume that the average of the minimum and the maximum is the same thing as the average over all projects.=&gt; It's not, come back when you understand basic statistics.explicit assumption: I will assume that the ratio of indirect to direct costs is between 5:1 and 10:1.
For this analysis, I'll take the average: 7.5:1=&gt; Same thing as above, you don't actually know the number, it could be anything.
Plus you make an average on minimum and maximum values which makes no sense at all.
Now the worst part is that Michael Krigsman seems to find the study interesting:Although not precise, the numbers demonstrate the seriousness of IT failure around the world.No, they don't !
We don't have a clue how precise they are, which means we don't have a clue how far they are from the truth.
All the assumptions are completely wrong, and not just a little.Michael Krigsman is CEO of Asuret, Inc., a software and consulting company dedicated to reducing software implementation failures.I propose we make a study on how much money is lost to software and consulting companies dedicated to reducing software implementation failures.
Assuming one fifth are incompetent frauds like Krigsman, and the number of projects involving consulting companies is between 20\% and 70\% (we take the "average" 45\%), and making the same dumb assumption as Krigsman himself, the workdwide cost would be .0275 (fraction of GDP on IT) X .45 (fraction of projects involving consulting companies) X .20 (fraction of frauds among consulting companies) X 7.5 (indirect costs) = .0185

That's a cost of 256 Billions USD for the US alone !!
Even though the number is "imprecise", I think it clearly highlights the danger of listening to idiots like Michael Krigsman or Roger Sessions.
--
Thank you for ruining my day with your bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570332</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262011020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Does this mean that IT people are generally incompetent? </i>
<p>'
No, it means that the monopoly provider of the world's computer desktop software is greedy and takes profits at the expense of progress, interoperability and stability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that IT people are generally incompetent ?
' No , it means that the monopoly provider of the world 's computer desktop software is greedy and takes profits at the expense of progress , interoperability and stability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that IT people are generally incompetent?
'
No, it means that the monopoly provider of the world's computer desktop software is greedy and takes profits at the expense of progress, interoperability and stability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573810</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262028540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...and then I'd work out how much money is saved through effective IT services and projects,</p></div><p>That one is drastically underestimated routinely because so much is taken for granted. Imagine an international mega-corp trying to hire enough file clerks and adding machine jockeys to keep going if every IT function were to be shut down for good next month (or year). Not to mention the costs of constructing their paper archives to handle dead-tree P.O.s and the associated fulfillment documentation.</p><p>That may not look like new development and new projects, but if they DON'T invest in development, those working systems will eventually be crushed under the ever increasing weight of a growing operation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and then I 'd work out how much money is saved through effective IT services and projects,That one is drastically underestimated routinely because so much is taken for granted .
Imagine an international mega-corp trying to hire enough file clerks and adding machine jockeys to keep going if every IT function were to be shut down for good next month ( or year ) .
Not to mention the costs of constructing their paper archives to handle dead-tree P.O.s and the associated fulfillment documentation.That may not look like new development and new projects , but if they DO N'T invest in development , those working systems will eventually be crushed under the ever increasing weight of a growing operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...and then I'd work out how much money is saved through effective IT services and projects,That one is drastically underestimated routinely because so much is taken for granted.
Imagine an international mega-corp trying to hire enough file clerks and adding machine jockeys to keep going if every IT function were to be shut down for good next month (or year).
Not to mention the costs of constructing their paper archives to handle dead-tree P.O.s and the associated fulfillment documentation.That may not look like new development and new projects, but if they DON'T invest in development, those working systems will eventually be crushed under the ever increasing weight of a growing operation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572368</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1262022240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are plenty of incompetent IT and IS people out there, and although it is no excuse, there are plenty of incompetent people in other parts of the work place.<br>
IT may not be to blame for some of the proposed losses, as bosses, money, and other factors contribute to the inability of IT/IS to be able to complete their job correctly.<br>
This years "one server failure" for the FAA flight systems is a key point to my synopsis.  Why no back up?  No money...  and its not just the government that has to deal with this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of incompetent IT and IS people out there , and although it is no excuse , there are plenty of incompetent people in other parts of the work place .
IT may not be to blame for some of the proposed losses , as bosses , money , and other factors contribute to the inability of IT/IS to be able to complete their job correctly .
This years " one server failure " for the FAA flight systems is a key point to my synopsis .
Why no back up ?
No money... and its not just the government that has to deal with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of incompetent IT and IS people out there, and although it is no excuse, there are plenty of incompetent people in other parts of the work place.
IT may not be to blame for some of the proposed losses, as bosses, money, and other factors contribute to the inability of IT/IS to be able to complete their job correctly.
This years "one server failure" for the FAA flight systems is a key point to my synopsis.
Why no back up?
No money...  and its not just the government that has to deal with this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571212</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>zoomshorts</author>
	<datestamp>1262016480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, you need to quantify what you have , before guessing how much you do not have, effects<br>the overall structure. In addition, you need it to be understandable by management types. That<br>may prove to be impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , you need to quantify what you have , before guessing how much you do not have , effectsthe overall structure .
In addition , you need it to be understandable by management types .
Thatmay prove to be impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, you need to quantify what you have , before guessing how much you do not have, effectsthe overall structure.
In addition, you need it to be understandable by management types.
Thatmay prove to be impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571294</id>
	<title>Whatever...</title>
	<author>Wahakalaka</author>
	<datestamp>1262017020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like one of those "America loses 50 zillion dollars a year while employees zone out" studies.  If people were machines we wouldn't need IT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like one of those " America loses 50 zillion dollars a year while employees zone out " studies .
If people were machines we would n't need IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like one of those "America loses 50 zillion dollars a year while employees zone out" studies.
If people were machines we wouldn't need IT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571076</id>
	<title>what about the money being saved?</title>
	<author>Jessta</author>
	<datestamp>1262015820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>does this amount take in to account the massive amounts of money made by ignoring bugs and pushing forward anyway?<br>sure a program might have a bunch of bugs that costs $$ to patch and deal with on a daily basis, but the fact that you now need 90\% less staff or that you can do 1000 times more business is likely to far outweigh the cost. Which of course is why businesses still love IT.</p><p>Sure better and less complex solutions could be created, but they take thinking and planning time and usually then have to deal with the massive mess anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does this amount take in to account the massive amounts of money made by ignoring bugs and pushing forward anyway ? sure a program might have a bunch of bugs that costs $ $ to patch and deal with on a daily basis , but the fact that you now need 90 \ % less staff or that you can do 1000 times more business is likely to far outweigh the cost .
Which of course is why businesses still love IT.Sure better and less complex solutions could be created , but they take thinking and planning time and usually then have to deal with the massive mess anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does this amount take in to account the massive amounts of money made by ignoring bugs and pushing forward anyway?sure a program might have a bunch of bugs that costs $$ to patch and deal with on a daily basis, but the fact that you now need 90\% less staff or that you can do 1000 times more business is likely to far outweigh the cost.
Which of course is why businesses still love IT.Sure better and less complex solutions could be created, but they take thinking and planning time and usually then have to deal with the massive mess anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572442</id>
	<title>Comparison</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1262022600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This would be interesting to compare with, say, the yearly cost of management failure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be interesting to compare with , say , the yearly cost of management failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be interesting to compare with, say, the yearly cost of management failure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30575750</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261995300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where I work, the schedule is determined by the actual developers, and the features are finalized at the beginning of the program.</p></div><p>What color is the sky on the planet you live on?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I work , the schedule is determined by the actual developers , and the features are finalized at the beginning of the program.What color is the sky on the planet you live on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I work, the schedule is determined by the actual developers, and the features are finalized at the beginning of the program.What color is the sky on the planet you live on?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570688</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262013720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, I agree with you. There are some utterly moronic developers out there.</p><p>&gt;I'm surprised they let some of this crap out the door<br>&gt;(...)think they know everything(...)refuse to listen to any advice(...)they believe it should be done(...)ignoring the needs and requirements(...)elitism(...)<br>lack of ability to communicate(...)insuling an derogatory statements(...)colossal mess(...)I ended up kicking off(...)didn't know what he was doing<br>&gt;The sheer arrogance of some software developers is astounding.</p><p>So - you have the power to kick someone out. You are therefore also in charge of at least part of this program you are describing.</p><p>You are a person in power over a program with missing QA, poor communication, where you try to control technology instead of what gets produced, a program you yourself describe as a "colossal mess", and where you are describing those you work with as "arrogant".</p><p>Do you think there may be more problems with your program?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I agree with you .
There are some utterly moronic developers out there. &gt; I 'm surprised they let some of this crap out the door &gt; ( ... ) think they know everything ( ... ) refuse to listen to any advice ( ... ) they believe it should be done ( ... ) ignoring the needs and requirements ( ... ) elitism ( ... ) lack of ability to communicate ( ... ) insuling an derogatory statements ( ... ) colossal mess ( ... ) I ended up kicking off ( ... ) did n't know what he was doing &gt; The sheer arrogance of some software developers is astounding.So - you have the power to kick someone out .
You are therefore also in charge of at least part of this program you are describing.You are a person in power over a program with missing QA , poor communication , where you try to control technology instead of what gets produced , a program you yourself describe as a " colossal mess " , and where you are describing those you work with as " arrogant " .Do you think there may be more problems with your program ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I agree with you.
There are some utterly moronic developers out there.&gt;I'm surprised they let some of this crap out the door&gt;(...)think they know everything(...)refuse to listen to any advice(...)they believe it should be done(...)ignoring the needs and requirements(...)elitism(...)lack of ability to communicate(...)insuling an derogatory statements(...)colossal mess(...)I ended up kicking off(...)didn't know what he was doing&gt;The sheer arrogance of some software developers is astounding.So - you have the power to kick someone out.
You are therefore also in charge of at least part of this program you are describing.You are a person in power over a program with missing QA, poor communication, where you try to control technology instead of what gets produced, a program you yourself describe as a "colossal mess", and where you are describing those you work with as "arrogant".Do you think there may be more problems with your program?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573510</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>Javagator</author>
	<datestamp>1262027160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have seen programs fail or get into trouble for a variety of reasons;  bad programmers, bad managers, unrealistic deadlines, not enough time spent in design, too much time spent in design, third party software that did not live up to expectations, etc.  It's not always Microsoft's fault.  When you think of all the ways a project can go wrong, six trillion is not surprising.  It's just about the cost of a minor war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have seen programs fail or get into trouble for a variety of reasons ; bad programmers , bad managers , unrealistic deadlines , not enough time spent in design , too much time spent in design , third party software that did not live up to expectations , etc .
It 's not always Microsoft 's fault .
When you think of all the ways a project can go wrong , six trillion is not surprising .
It 's just about the cost of a minor war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have seen programs fail or get into trouble for a variety of reasons;  bad programmers, bad managers, unrealistic deadlines, not enough time spent in design, too much time spent in design, third party software that did not live up to expectations, etc.
It's not always Microsoft's fault.
When you think of all the ways a project can go wrong, six trillion is not surprising.
It's just about the cost of a minor war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571366</id>
	<title>Oh Yeah?</title>
	<author>BigBlueOx</author>
	<datestamp>1262017260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well *I* am not only a noted expert on complexity but a specialist in improbability and a noted chaos activist (having a doctorate in activism) and *I* say that IT errors cost TEN QUINZILLION DOLLARS so pay attention to me me me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well * I * am not only a noted expert on complexity but a specialist in improbability and a noted chaos activist ( having a doctorate in activism ) and * I * say that IT errors cost TEN QUINZILLION DOLLARS so pay attention to me me me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well *I* am not only a noted expert on complexity but a specialist in improbability and a noted chaos activist (having a doctorate in activism) and *I* say that IT errors cost TEN QUINZILLION DOLLARS so pay attention to me me me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572528</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>WinterSolstice</author>
	<datestamp>1262022960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Yes<br>2) Yes<br>3) Maybe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p><p>To be blunt, I have noticed a MASSIVE decline in the quality, intelligence, and desire to do a 'good' job in the companies I've been at over the last 5 years. The outsourcing boom chronicled so nicely in Office Space and the like has not done anything to improve the quality of tech work.</p><p>I would say good IT people are probably 1 in 100 or less - the rest are either grossly incompetent, lazy, or completely burned out by carrying 2-3 times the workload that should be expected of them.</p><p>Always-on, always-on-call lifestyles and mentalities have driven many of the good rank and file (those not totally into IT for whatever reason, but still competent and savvy) out into pretty much ANY other field.</p><p>Heck, I know 8 amazing IT people who left last year when they became the 'last one standing' after massive outsourcing or layoffs. They decided that they would rather open barbershops, bookstores, coffeeshops, or go to the business side.</p><p>The people left are just ghastly. (I'm generalizing - there are still some amazing people, it's just that the *ratio* is so bad)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Yes2 ) Yes3 ) Maybe : DTo be blunt , I have noticed a MASSIVE decline in the quality , intelligence , and desire to do a 'good ' job in the companies I 've been at over the last 5 years .
The outsourcing boom chronicled so nicely in Office Space and the like has not done anything to improve the quality of tech work.I would say good IT people are probably 1 in 100 or less - the rest are either grossly incompetent , lazy , or completely burned out by carrying 2-3 times the workload that should be expected of them.Always-on , always-on-call lifestyles and mentalities have driven many of the good rank and file ( those not totally into IT for whatever reason , but still competent and savvy ) out into pretty much ANY other field.Heck , I know 8 amazing IT people who left last year when they became the 'last one standing ' after massive outsourcing or layoffs .
They decided that they would rather open barbershops , bookstores , coffeeshops , or go to the business side.The people left are just ghastly .
( I 'm generalizing - there are still some amazing people , it 's just that the * ratio * is so bad )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Yes2) Yes3) Maybe :DTo be blunt, I have noticed a MASSIVE decline in the quality, intelligence, and desire to do a 'good' job in the companies I've been at over the last 5 years.
The outsourcing boom chronicled so nicely in Office Space and the like has not done anything to improve the quality of tech work.I would say good IT people are probably 1 in 100 or less - the rest are either grossly incompetent, lazy, or completely burned out by carrying 2-3 times the workload that should be expected of them.Always-on, always-on-call lifestyles and mentalities have driven many of the good rank and file (those not totally into IT for whatever reason, but still competent and savvy) out into pretty much ANY other field.Heck, I know 8 amazing IT people who left last year when they became the 'last one standing' after massive outsourcing or layoffs.
They decided that they would rather open barbershops, bookstores, coffeeshops, or go to the business side.The people left are just ghastly.
(I'm generalizing - there are still some amazing people, it's just that the *ratio* is so bad)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570678</id>
	<title>Oh noes!</title>
	<author>yerktoader</author>
	<datestamp>1262013600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alright everyone, this Internet thing has officially become Serious Business!  Someone tell the Internet Police!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright everyone , this Internet thing has officially become Serious Business !
Someone tell the Internet Police !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright everyone, this Internet thing has officially become Serious Business!
Someone tell the Internet Police!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572504</id>
	<title>The Cost of Blundering</title>
	<author>userw014</author>
	<datestamp>1262022840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the "costs" of blundering in other endevors?
<br>
Medical errors in because doctors are too time pressed to make an proper diagnosis? Or because interns are too sleep-deprived to think clearly?
<br>
Highway accidents caused by drivers lacking sleep or drunk?
<br>
Legal errors by lawyers or their aides?
<br>
Political errors caused by politicians and media personalities playing up the wrong aspects of some tragedy?
<br>
Needless barking about the "costs" of mistakes where the methodology is arbitrary and capricious?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the " costs " of blundering in other endevors ?
Medical errors in because doctors are too time pressed to make an proper diagnosis ?
Or because interns are too sleep-deprived to think clearly ?
Highway accidents caused by drivers lacking sleep or drunk ?
Legal errors by lawyers or their aides ?
Political errors caused by politicians and media personalities playing up the wrong aspects of some tragedy ?
Needless barking about the " costs " of mistakes where the methodology is arbitrary and capricious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the "costs" of blundering in other endevors?
Medical errors in because doctors are too time pressed to make an proper diagnosis?
Or because interns are too sleep-deprived to think clearly?
Highway accidents caused by drivers lacking sleep or drunk?
Legal errors by lawyers or their aides?
Political errors caused by politicians and media personalities playing up the wrong aspects of some tragedy?
Needless barking about the "costs" of mistakes where the methodology is arbitrary and capricious?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30577978</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1262010420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I'm still working to undue to colossal mess of my last ex-software lead that I ended up kicking off the program because he fundamentally didn't know what he was doing...[snip]....The sheer arrogance of some software developers is astounding."</i>
<br> <br>
Oh the irony....</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm still working to undue to colossal mess of my last ex-software lead that I ended up kicking off the program because he fundamentally did n't know what he was doing... [ snip ] ....The sheer arrogance of some software developers is astounding .
" Oh the irony... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm still working to undue to colossal mess of my last ex-software lead that I ended up kicking off the program because he fundamentally didn't know what he was doing...[snip]....The sheer arrogance of some software developers is astounding.
"
 
Oh the irony....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572708</id>
	<title>If you're not part of the solution..</title>
	<author>TravisHein</author>
	<datestamp>1262023560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is money to be made being part of the problem.
<br> <br>

*Raises a glass*
<br>
Proudly contributing to losses due to IT failure since 1997.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is money to be made being part of the problem .
* Raises a glass * Proudly contributing to losses due to IT failure since 1997 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is money to be made being part of the problem.
*Raises a glass*

Proudly contributing to losses due to IT failure since 1997.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572366</id>
	<title>Re:Weird statistic...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1262022240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So how much value does IT generate in a year?</p></div><p>All of it.  Take away IT and watch any company larger than a mom 'n pop wither.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how much value does IT generate in a year ? All of it .
Take away IT and watch any company larger than a mom 'n pop wither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how much value does IT generate in a year?All of it.
Take away IT and watch any company larger than a mom 'n pop wither.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571888</id>
	<title>War costs the world 7.2 trillion</title>
	<author>IronSilk</author>
	<datestamp>1262019960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Institute of Economics and Peace reports that the global peace dividend would be $7.2 trillion per year, or about 8.1\% of the global economy.

<a href="http://www.visionofhumanity.org/causes-value-peace/economic-growth.php" title="visionofhumanity.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.visionofhumanity.org/causes-value-peace/economic-growth.php</a> [visionofhumanity.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Institute of Economics and Peace reports that the global peace dividend would be $ 7.2 trillion per year , or about 8.1 \ % of the global economy .
http : //www.visionofhumanity.org/causes-value-peace/economic-growth.php [ visionofhumanity.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Institute of Economics and Peace reports that the global peace dividend would be $7.2 trillion per year, or about 8.1\% of the global economy.
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/causes-value-peace/economic-growth.php [visionofhumanity.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30581210</id>
	<title>Is that all?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262095800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just 6.2 trillion?  They must have left the public sector out of the tally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just 6.2 trillion ?
They must have left the public sector out of the tally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just 6.2 trillion?
They must have left the public sector out of the tally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571012</id>
	<title>An opportunity cost taken way out of context.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262015400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have large numbers of smart people working hard to fix these costs, and by my estimation the pace of reduction far exceeds that of other opportunity costs.  For example, the problem of suburbanization and lagging mass-transit has probably incurred an astronomically higher cost to the U.S. alone, but because the powers that be didn't care to have that cost reduced we have failed to assess it for the last 50 years.  So some journalist decides he'll take a swipe at one of the hardest working segments of the world economy because it cannot continuously maximize its output.  Provide some damn context and put this number in perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have large numbers of smart people working hard to fix these costs , and by my estimation the pace of reduction far exceeds that of other opportunity costs .
For example , the problem of suburbanization and lagging mass-transit has probably incurred an astronomically higher cost to the U.S. alone , but because the powers that be did n't care to have that cost reduced we have failed to assess it for the last 50 years .
So some journalist decides he 'll take a swipe at one of the hardest working segments of the world economy because it can not continuously maximize its output .
Provide some damn context and put this number in perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have large numbers of smart people working hard to fix these costs, and by my estimation the pace of reduction far exceeds that of other opportunity costs.
For example, the problem of suburbanization and lagging mass-transit has probably incurred an astronomically higher cost to the U.S. alone, but because the powers that be didn't care to have that cost reduced we have failed to assess it for the last 50 years.
So some journalist decides he'll take a swipe at one of the hardest working segments of the world economy because it cannot continuously maximize its output.
Provide some damn context and put this number in perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572338</id>
	<title>Re:incompetence</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1262022180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with what you say is an aspect, but you cannot just poor working conditions for bad coding. If software was properly architected from the ground up, then there wouldn't be so many bugs, and the schedule wouldn't be blown.
</p><p>Where I work, the schedule is determined by the actual developers, and the features are finalized at the beginning of the program. If development stays on schedule, then management doesn't interfere (why interfere if there are no problems?). The conditions you state I'm certain exists in many companies, but they are not the case where I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with what you say is an aspect , but you can not just poor working conditions for bad coding .
If software was properly architected from the ground up , then there would n't be so many bugs , and the schedule would n't be blown .
Where I work , the schedule is determined by the actual developers , and the features are finalized at the beginning of the program .
If development stays on schedule , then management does n't interfere ( why interfere if there are no problems ? ) .
The conditions you state I 'm certain exists in many companies , but they are not the case where I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with what you say is an aspect, but you cannot just poor working conditions for bad coding.
If software was properly architected from the ground up, then there wouldn't be so many bugs, and the schedule wouldn't be blown.
Where I work, the schedule is determined by the actual developers, and the features are finalized at the beginning of the program.
If development stays on schedule, then management doesn't interfere (why interfere if there are no problems?).
The conditions you state I'm certain exists in many companies, but they are not the case where I am.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30580604</id>
	<title>It's a spurious number</title>
	<author>rfc1394</author>
	<datestamp>1262087460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when someone gave a figure of something like an estimate of TCO (total cost of ownership) for PCs was something like $10,000 a year or $12,000 a year because it priced out everything at the maximum professional cost for software failures, installation of new software, etc.  Ignoring PCs in non-commercial environments,  I have a PC here at home; It's what I'm using to write this.  My labor costs me nothing and the changes I make to my computer are for my benefit, and thus, while my own labor might have some value to me, it is not costing me anything other than opportunity cost, which again, has actual financial expenditure to me of zero.</p><p>If a team has to spend $10 million to develop an application because they had to do it twice and if they had done it right the first time would have cost $3 million, you can claim that it's a loss of $7 million, or you can - correctly - claim that it's a system that cost $10 million to develop including false starts.  It all depends on how you want to cook the numbers.</p><p>If they are claiming that $6+ trillion represents complete failures I find that a bit unlikely.  But if you count the amounts wasted because the customer didn't know what they wanted, should we then count as failures and expense costs all of the people who take perfectly working bathrooms and kitchens who gut them after a few years because they no longer like the way they look?</p><p>You can create any kind of number by how you count failure, if you include redesigns for performance, redesigns because of desire for increased features, or redesign for maintenance.  You can also count failure as systems needing to be scrapped because they have absolutely no usability for any of the problems needed to be solved.  If that was what was being claimed I would, again, find that number highly suspect.  It all depends on where they get their numbers from.</p><p>Let's also not forget, again, this is an estimate, because most of these numbers are neither published nor available to outsiders to the company that developed the program or system.  The number could be higher, or it could be lower.  It reminds me of the supposed estimate of the losses for pirated software raised to huge numbers by claiming every copy made was a lost sale that would have been at full price without discounting.  Some kid who made a copy of a program where he had to ask someone for a free disc is certainly not going to pay $200 for a copy, but the numbers presumed that the bootleg copy would have resulted in a full-price sale.</p><p>So if someone wants to claim that the total cost of software failures is US$6,200,000,000,000.00 I'd really like to know how they got this number.  Are they pricing out costs in Africa as if the cost of labor is the same in New York City?  Are they pricing labor in Los Angeles the same as in Baton Rouge, Louisiana?  How are they determining costs?</p><p>Paul Robinson &mdash; <a href="mailto:Paul@paul-robinson.us" title="mailto">Paul@paul-robinson.us</a> [mailto] &mdash; <a href="http://paul-robinson.us/" title="paul-robinson.us">My Blog</a> [paul-robinson.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when someone gave a figure of something like an estimate of TCO ( total cost of ownership ) for PCs was something like $ 10,000 a year or $ 12,000 a year because it priced out everything at the maximum professional cost for software failures , installation of new software , etc .
Ignoring PCs in non-commercial environments , I have a PC here at home ; It 's what I 'm using to write this .
My labor costs me nothing and the changes I make to my computer are for my benefit , and thus , while my own labor might have some value to me , it is not costing me anything other than opportunity cost , which again , has actual financial expenditure to me of zero.If a team has to spend $ 10 million to develop an application because they had to do it twice and if they had done it right the first time would have cost $ 3 million , you can claim that it 's a loss of $ 7 million , or you can - correctly - claim that it 's a system that cost $ 10 million to develop including false starts .
It all depends on how you want to cook the numbers.If they are claiming that $ 6 + trillion represents complete failures I find that a bit unlikely .
But if you count the amounts wasted because the customer did n't know what they wanted , should we then count as failures and expense costs all of the people who take perfectly working bathrooms and kitchens who gut them after a few years because they no longer like the way they look ? You can create any kind of number by how you count failure , if you include redesigns for performance , redesigns because of desire for increased features , or redesign for maintenance .
You can also count failure as systems needing to be scrapped because they have absolutely no usability for any of the problems needed to be solved .
If that was what was being claimed I would , again , find that number highly suspect .
It all depends on where they get their numbers from.Let 's also not forget , again , this is an estimate , because most of these numbers are neither published nor available to outsiders to the company that developed the program or system .
The number could be higher , or it could be lower .
It reminds me of the supposed estimate of the losses for pirated software raised to huge numbers by claiming every copy made was a lost sale that would have been at full price without discounting .
Some kid who made a copy of a program where he had to ask someone for a free disc is certainly not going to pay $ 200 for a copy , but the numbers presumed that the bootleg copy would have resulted in a full-price sale.So if someone wants to claim that the total cost of software failures is US $ 6,200,000,000,000.00 I 'd really like to know how they got this number .
Are they pricing out costs in Africa as if the cost of labor is the same in New York City ?
Are they pricing labor in Los Angeles the same as in Baton Rouge , Louisiana ?
How are they determining costs ? Paul Robinson    Paul @ paul-robinson.us [ mailto ]    My Blog [ paul-robinson.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when someone gave a figure of something like an estimate of TCO (total cost of ownership) for PCs was something like $10,000 a year or $12,000 a year because it priced out everything at the maximum professional cost for software failures, installation of new software, etc.
Ignoring PCs in non-commercial environments,  I have a PC here at home; It's what I'm using to write this.
My labor costs me nothing and the changes I make to my computer are for my benefit, and thus, while my own labor might have some value to me, it is not costing me anything other than opportunity cost, which again, has actual financial expenditure to me of zero.If a team has to spend $10 million to develop an application because they had to do it twice and if they had done it right the first time would have cost $3 million, you can claim that it's a loss of $7 million, or you can - correctly - claim that it's a system that cost $10 million to develop including false starts.
It all depends on how you want to cook the numbers.If they are claiming that $6+ trillion represents complete failures I find that a bit unlikely.
But if you count the amounts wasted because the customer didn't know what they wanted, should we then count as failures and expense costs all of the people who take perfectly working bathrooms and kitchens who gut them after a few years because they no longer like the way they look?You can create any kind of number by how you count failure, if you include redesigns for performance, redesigns because of desire for increased features, or redesign for maintenance.
You can also count failure as systems needing to be scrapped because they have absolutely no usability for any of the problems needed to be solved.
If that was what was being claimed I would, again, find that number highly suspect.
It all depends on where they get their numbers from.Let's also not forget, again, this is an estimate, because most of these numbers are neither published nor available to outsiders to the company that developed the program or system.
The number could be higher, or it could be lower.
It reminds me of the supposed estimate of the losses for pirated software raised to huge numbers by claiming every copy made was a lost sale that would have been at full price without discounting.
Some kid who made a copy of a program where he had to ask someone for a free disc is certainly not going to pay $200 for a copy, but the numbers presumed that the bootleg copy would have resulted in a full-price sale.So if someone wants to claim that the total cost of software failures is US$6,200,000,000,000.00 I'd really like to know how they got this number.
Are they pricing out costs in Africa as if the cost of labor is the same in New York City?
Are they pricing labor in Los Angeles the same as in Baton Rouge, Louisiana?
How are they determining costs?Paul Robinson — Paul@paul-robinson.us [mailto] — My Blog [paul-robinson.us]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572486</id>
	<title>Re:A few reasons ( in my opinion)</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1262022780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Star Trek style management: Managers who think their crew are Scotty who pulls off a miracle every week. Its never been done, we don't have time to do it right, but its got to work right the first time given not enough resources. Sure it works on Star Trek, its in the script. FYI: I love the Star Trek series, but I also know the difference between fiction and reality.</p></div><p>Geordi: "Yeah, well, I told the captain I'd have this analysis done in an hour."<br>
Scotty: "How long will it really take?"<br>
Geordi: "An hour."<br>
Scotty: "You didn't tell him how long it would really take, did you?"<br>
Geordi: "Of course I did."<br>
Scotty: "Laddie, you got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek style management : Managers who think their crew are Scotty who pulls off a miracle every week .
Its never been done , we do n't have time to do it right , but its got to work right the first time given not enough resources .
Sure it works on Star Trek , its in the script .
FYI : I love the Star Trek series , but I also know the difference between fiction and reality.Geordi : " Yeah , well , I told the captain I 'd have this analysis done in an hour .
" Scotty : " How long will it really take ?
" Geordi : " An hour .
" Scotty : " You did n't tell him how long it would really take , did you ?
" Geordi : " Of course I did .
" Scotty : " Laddie , you got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek style management: Managers who think their crew are Scotty who pulls off a miracle every week.
Its never been done, we don't have time to do it right, but its got to work right the first time given not enough resources.
Sure it works on Star Trek, its in the script.
FYI: I love the Star Trek series, but I also know the difference between fiction and reality.Geordi: "Yeah, well, I told the captain I'd have this analysis done in an hour.
"
Scotty: "How long will it really take?
"
Geordi: "An hour.
"
Scotty: "You didn't tell him how long it would really take, did you?
"
Geordi: "Of course I did.
"
Scotty: "Laddie, you got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570528</id>
	<title>Authors Review Due ?</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1262012520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>blognoggle writes</i></p><p>Now I'm assuming this is the same "blognoggle" who brought us such gems as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-</p><p>"Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Evil Racebaiter"<br>"Vampires and Bloodsucking Liberals"<br>"Time to Impeach Barack Obama"<br>"Is Your Boss a Vampire? Or, Maybe, a Shapeshifter?"</p><p>Really timothy, perhaps it's time to stop the copypasta from reddit bloggers, before our heads explode ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>blognoggle writesNow I 'm assuming this is the same " blognoggle " who brought us such gems as : - " Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Evil Racebaiter " " Vampires and Bloodsucking Liberals " " Time to Impeach Barack Obama " " Is Your Boss a Vampire ?
Or , Maybe , a Shapeshifter ?
" Really timothy , perhaps it 's time to stop the copypasta from reddit bloggers , before our heads explode ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blognoggle writesNow I'm assuming this is the same "blognoggle" who brought us such gems as :-"Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Evil Racebaiter""Vampires and Bloodsucking Liberals""Time to Impeach Barack Obama""Is Your Boss a Vampire?
Or, Maybe, a Shapeshifter?
"Really timothy, perhaps it's time to stop the copypasta from reddit bloggers, before our heads explode ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30627490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30577544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30575778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30574974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30575842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30577978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30580648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30576990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30576522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30576772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30575750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_0617206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30574930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30627490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30577978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570626
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571846
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30577544
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30576990
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30580648
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572338
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30575750
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30576522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30575842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30576772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30573810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30574930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30575778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30572772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30574974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30570848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_0617206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_0617206.30571242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
