Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Mar 2009 11:48 UTC, submitted by PLan
Permalink for comment 353776
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
No. I'm not blaming it on Oracle. No matter who the vendor was it would have been a debacle. The problem is the very concept of turn-key.
The reason the system doesn't work is because it's a "turn-key" product that's supposed be everything to everybody. The end result is that it's so big and so complicated that it has bugs out the wazoo, and no lone person can comprehend any more than a minute portion of it at any one time.
You're right, it was bad project management. Here are the reasons for it:
1. desire for a turn-key solution
2. attemp to unify 23 campus using said turn-key solution.