IBM COBOL Migration to Windows COBOL [Cobol]

Prev: Modernizing COBOL
Next: How to convert this Vb code to Netcobol Code

From: Pete Dashwood on 5 Jan 2010 06:43

Clark F Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:56:57 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Chuckles55 wrote:
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> Management has again made it very clear (that) they don't want a
>>> major recode until the ultimate target system (not necessarily
>>> Windows), for an individual existing z/OS job (JCL+COBOL+DFSort
>>> code), has been chosen. Thus, management has decided we will
>>> re-host to a cheaper environment as an interim step using a
>>> solution with the least change to existing z/OS code. Management
>>> would then have time to decide upon the appropriate (e.g. non-IBM
>>> COBOL environment or Windows) target system.
>>>
>>> The Alchemy (Fujitsu) option of NetCobol+NeoBatch+NeoSort is looking
>>> like the most attractive option. As we understand it, our JCL,
>>> COBOL, and SORT code would execute largely unchanged within a
>>> NeoBatch environment.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for your ideas, comments, and discussion,
>>
>> For what you have outlined, this is a good solution.
>>
>> However, long term, it doesn't move you forward. Still, it is likely
>> that "Management" are only looking to get off the current platform
>> at this stage, and that is probably the best option for doing it.
>>
>> These are good tools and a good environment.
>>
>> Long term you need to be thinking objects and layers.
>
> The ironic thing is that thinking in objects and layers can be done
> using the z series. There are C/C++ classes for CICS. IBM has been
> preaching layers for at least 20 years. Unfortunately many
> managements refuse to get out the COBOL 74 mindset and then wonder why
> the mainframe is obsolete. The mainframe isn't and they are.

I hadn't thought about it like that, but I'm sure you are right, Clark.

I guess it takes education and persuasion. Pilot projects can be good.

But really, it needs a ground swell of opinion at all levels. That only
comes from recognising the need for change and trying some new approaches.

Once you can actually SEE benefits it is hard to argue against.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

From: Anonymous on 5 Jan 2010 07:59

In article <7qgmuhFc2vU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>Clark F Morris wrote:

[snip]

>> The ironic thing is that thinking in objects and layers can be done
>> using the z series. There are C/C++ classes for CICS. IBM has been
>> preaching layers for at least 20 years. Unfortunately many
>> managements refuse to get out the COBOL 74 mindset and then wonder why
>> the mainframe is obsolete. The mainframe isn't and they are.
>
>I hadn't thought about it like that, but I'm sure you are right, Clark.
>
>I guess it takes education and persuasion. Pilot projects can be good.

Education costs MONEY, Mr Dashwood, and gives employees that horrible
impression that 'I can learn something new so I must be Worth More Pay
than someone who can't'... and pilot projects cost MONEY, as well. What
Manager worth the next quarter's bottom-line would dare spend MONEY on
something that might not work? A few decades ago the buzz-phrase was 'We
Get It Right The First Time'; an experiment, by definition, does not have
a predictable result.

>
>But really, it needs a ground swell of opinion at all levels.

One of the current buzz-phrases is 'Times Are Hard'; if it was difficult
to get someone to spend MONEY when the Times Were Good then I doubt that
it is going to be easier now.

DD

From: Pete Dashwood on 5 Jan 2010 18:52

From: Pete Dashwood on 5 Jan 2010 19:58

docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote:
> In article <7qgmuhFc2vU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> Clark F Morris wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> The ironic thing is that thinking in objects and layers can be done
>>> using the z series. There are C/C++ classes for CICS. IBM has been
>>> preaching layers for at least 20 years. Unfortunately many
>>> managements refuse to get out the COBOL 74 mindset and then wonder
>>> why the mainframe is obsolete. The mainframe isn't and they are.
>>
>> I hadn't thought about it like that, but I'm sure you are right,
>> Clark.
>>
>> I guess it takes education and persuasion. Pilot projects can be
>> good.
>
> Education costs MONEY, Mr Dashwood, and gives employees that horrible
> impression that 'I can learn something new so I must be Worth More Pay
> than someone who can't'... and pilot projects cost MONEY, as well.
> What Manager worth the next quarter's bottom-line would dare spend
> MONEY on something that might not work? A few decades ago the
> buzz-phrase was 'We Get It Right The First Time'; an experiment, by
> definition, does not have a predictable result.

I think it is the perception of MONEY that matters, Doc.

There's plenty of MONEY for people to fly to conferences and meetings in
private corporate jets, for example...

Trying to expand a small business as I currently am, I do appreciate that
MONEY is important. Nevertheless, I make sure that a percentage of our
meagre funds is re-invested back into the business. This year, clients
received a holiday pack from PRIMA just to let them know they are
appreciated. (It's the first time we've been able to afford to do that and
it is a really good feeling... :-))

Personally, I won't hesitate to spend MONEY as long as I know we can afford
it and as long as there is a fighting chance it will return to us at some
point. Investment in improving products and services, and training people is
really a no brainer. I don't have a large enough client base yet to warrant
full time employees but if/when we reach that point, I'll be happy to get
some and ensure they are trained.

I've had conversations with Senior Managers (particularly in the U.K.) where
they worry that they can spend thousands training someone, and then said
"someone" will flit off to a competitor. I pointed out that if they don't
value the training then that is inevitable. (Why spend large sums of money
on courses if the result has no added value?). If the training is valuable,
then recognise that. You should be valuing your employees anyway (why would
you employ people who are of no value to you?), and pay them accordingly. Of
course, "good business" dictates getting as much value as you can for as
little MONEY as possible, and that is the perceived wisdom of most
managers. But just HOW "good" is that model? It certainly isn't good long
term, when you have a company full of demotivated, undervalued, discouraged
employees who hate turning up for work in the morning and are there because
of family responsibility or apathy or until they can get a better offer (and
they won't get a better offer because when they go for an interview there is
a smell of despair about them that communicates to a prospective
employer...). You can hardly expect such a work force to achieve its true
potential... For myself, I think life is too short to work in a miserable
company, for small minded people who wallow in their own meanness. As a taxi
driver in Sri Lanka once told me: "I have two arms, I have two legs, I can
make a living."

If the company simply doesn't have the MONEY and can't afford to pay the
staff what they're worth, that is a different case. Hopefully, that is a
temporary condition and future cash flow will rectify it. My experience is
that it pays to be open and up front with the people who are working for
you. If there is a cash flow problem, tell them, and explain what you are
doing to deal with it. Honesty tends to beget loyalty; people like working
for someone they can trust. And loyalty is an asset beyond rubies.

>
>>
>> But really, it needs a ground swell of opinion at all levels.
>
> One of the current buzz-phrases is 'Times Are Hard'; if it was
> difficult to get someone to spend MONEY when the Times Were Good then
> I doubt that it is going to be easier now.

Definitely not, if you buy in to the "Times Are Hard" bullshit.

Hard work is always hard, irrespective of the "times". Certainly, there are
times when MONEY is more plentiful than other times, but getting people to
part with it has never been "easy" (unless you are offering something
illegal or in high demand, or which the buyer considers essential for life).

How "hard" are the times when someone can stand outside a football (or other
major sports or entertainment) stadium and sell tickets for 20 - 50 times
the price printed on them? The 1930s were "hard" times; our "recession" is
not even in the same league.

(It is quite amazing how travel tends to change your perspective on things.
I always considered our neighbourhood, including our family and our friends
and neighbours, to be "poor" when I was growing up. I started to understand
what "poor" really means when I saw a family living in a packing case and
watching distraugt and helpless as one of their children died of starvation,
in Bangla Desh.)

I was in Melbourne about the time the "recession" was officially announced.
A friend of mine told me that his wife had been parked across the road from
a BMW franchise and there was a steady stream of new cars being purchased
and driven away.

So it isn't really MONEY that is the problem; it is how we deal with MONEY,
and our perception of it.

A very wise friend of mine (now sadly departed this life) used to say:
"Being 'broke' is a state of mind; having no MONEY is a temporary
condition."

He was right.

MONEY needs to flow and get passed around. If you try and hang on to it, you
break the flow and suffer the consequences.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

From: Alistair on 6 Jan 2010 09:33

On Jan 6, 12:58 am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> docdw...(a)panix.com wrote:
> I've had conversations with Senior Managers (particularly in the U.K.) where
> they worry that they can spend thousands training someone, and then said
> "someone" will flit off to a competitor.

Flitting off has always been a response to completing a training
course. There are two ways to making it difficult for an employee to
grab training and running:

1. Make their workplace such an enjoyable environment such that they
are too contented to look elsewhere. Unfortunately, mangement and
their organizations are too tied in to the protestant work ethic to
consider this as a viable option.

2. Require the trainee to re-imburse the company for a proportion of
the training depending upon how long after they receive training
before they leave. (As per EDS).

In my experience, only one person I know of (in 30 years of IT work)
left shortly after receiving training (he was no good at Cobol CICS
programming or anything else for that matter).

Sometimes managers are too in to their narrow viewpoints to recognise
the reality of how awful their workplace can be. I remember the quip
from one manager who said that "it was not true that people were
leaving in droves" (after half of the IT department had walked in the
previous 12 months).

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Modernizing COBOL
Next: How to convert this Vb code to Netcobol Code