A Munich kick in the Desktops for Linux

[Ed P]

The Penguinistas are up in arms. It seems like the much-vaunted move to Linux for the city of Munich may be reverted back to M$ Windows! El Reg Report

If you delve through the reader comments you will find this. My technical German isn’t good enough for me to make a quick precis, but what it appears to me is a classic interface problem. SAP (a  table-driven German integrated business system, used by many International Corporations) sits on top of everything in the Munich system, and everything has to interface with it in a two-way process.

It isn’t just the dire state of Linux infrastructure (Mozilla T’Bird and Firefox), or that most school kids are trained to use Windows products. It’s the goolie-cracking problem of writing translation interfaces for all the thousands of bits of infrastructure data that must integrate seamlessly with SAP. Having struggled through the pains of setting up some International SAP systems I can state that such interfaces are a non-trivial problem. Worse – the longer your SAP system is in operation the harder it is to change as SAP itself evolves as the IT group writes ABAPs to meet the demands of the business.

• This topic was modified 2 years, 7 months ago by RSB.

[The Duke]

I thought this happened, or at least started to, about 6months into the swap to Linux. I recall reading it wasn’t going down to well. Much of been 3 years ago or more. (time is not somthing I good with).

[Dave Rice]

Yes the realisation it wasn’t going to work started a few years ago.

SAP is a monster and is definitely the tail that wags the dog.

[Jason]

I pity the poor saps who had to try doing it.

[Bob Williams]

Echoing laughter from Redmond…..

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Richard]

First rule of contracting the supply of something, make sure it will integrate with what you have or need.

If you break the golden rule prepare for some heavy work to put things right.

Second rule; never rely on the word of a USA company Granny Shifter (salesperson to those who don’t know) that company X will supply an interface to adapt their product to your needs -they generally won’t.

There are other ‘rules’ about training and integration costs that should not be ignored.

[Ed P]

Richard I suspect that most of the people involved did not really appreciate the complexity of the Munich Business System.From memory the original IT manager who drove the change did not have a lot of business experience. His focus was entirely on Office Systems (the relatively easy bit to change).

In contrast, it used to take us about 30–50 man-months to go through an entire affiliate business system and document the existing business system (paper/info/decision plus usual cash/inventory/purchase flows and audit check loops) It then took a big team of ‘users’ plus IT and Audit under a dedicated senior line manager to define what was necessary in the new system, what business changes were required to accommodate the package and what package changes (ABAPs) could be cost justified. We spent a LOT of money before generating one line of code. I think Munich did the whole process on the fly and probably ruined a number of careers in the process.

[Richard]

Ed, I think we agree the back of an envelope is not the way to do business. I do not know quite what Munich council covers, but most such bodies have a range of interactions that have grown up and while they should be defined many are rarely if ever properly documented. Producing the pre-contract/project launch definitions and scope of works is almost always an iterative process. As this is the foundation a successful project, every shortcoming here will cripple the possible achievement. Were you ever surprised at how many ‘working practices’ came out of the woodwork during those early development stages? Many grew up to solve issues that never should have existed in the first place and should be solved by better business systems and methods.

[Dave Rice]

This is a tale of free software still not being cheap and TANSTAFL.

I’ve always argued that in the total cost of ownership Windows and Office costs are not that significant. It’s line of business software, and especially it’s customization, where the huge costs lie. SAP, Autocad, Photoshop etc.

That’s not to say that management of your Office (and other) licences isn’t prudent, if only to make sure you’re complying with the numbers you’ve agreed with the likes of MS. The “fines” can be eye watering.

Then there’s the skills of the IT Dept. OK there’s plenty of Linux knowledge in the server dept. but the desktop really is the Wild West compared to that highly controlled area.

I’m afraid there never will be a year of the Linux desktop.

[Jason]

The music stopped a long, long time ago. The only surprise is that there are still people banging a drum.

[Ed P]

Richard, we learned a number of lessons as the process evolved over a number of years.

a) The initial  ‘back of an envelope’ project justification was only used to justify manpower investment investment in a detailed evaluation. (normally 3 month) and to earmark funding should that outcome look viable.

b) It was absolutely essential that the team was business led by someone with clout who could work and get things done across a wide range of  business groups.(large IT projects rarely if ever affect just one silo). As the process evolved the senior manager was assigned to stay right through the whole system implementation and subsequent post Audit i.e HE/SHE carried the can!. Without full business commitment to a project IT are wasting their time.

c) With packages it is essential to be able to change business practices right across the company to meet the package wherever possible. This in turn means questioning and justifying information needs (eliminate nice to haves). We also questioned and in most cases simplified the “metric management monster”, and the VERY expensive auditing that goes with it. (Normally this process justified the whole scoping project pre-investment). This is a lesson that our NHS, Police and Schools could well learn! We eliminated many paper-pushing layers of our own ‘Civil Service’ through this process.

c) It was vital to have an Audit representative on the team to advise what Audit checks were required and how (where possible) each part of the system should be self checking and produce meaningful traffic-light management reports (burying managers under reams of audit outputs is self-defeating). Of all the changes this was the hardest to implement as Corporate Audit used to take great delight in being wise after the event!

d) 95% of our IT projects were finished on-time, under budget and produced the designed cost savings.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Anyone ever hear the term best practice review ? It makes me shudder.

 

[Dave Rice]

All the Corporate bollocks I put up with for 30 years makes me shudder.

You realise it’s a load of crap whilst you’re there and may even indulge in a bit of “if you can’t beat them join them” until you realise you’ve gone as far up the greasy pole as you’re going to. Then you just wish they’d leave you alone until the inevitable mid 50’s thank you now bugger off “reorganisation”.

The Annual Review was always a total waste of time and designed to keep your pay down whilst pretending to offer you “improvement opportunities” with implausible targets and non-existent training courses.

I approached redundancy with dread, I now think it’s probably the best thing that could have happened. A view I find shared by a lot of people.

[Ed P]

Actually Munich may have been better advised to look at dumping SAP to save money. While the complete background to the Court case is obscure, SAP’s claim for £54.5++ million from a Brewery Company in back licence fees for ANYTHING INDIRECTLY connected to their SAP system appears to verge on the obscenely greedy! El Reg link

If I interpret this to the absurd limits implied by this case then the Brewery should be stumping up SAP licence fees and maintenance for my PC every time I use it to  place an order on them.! Frankly absurd!

I can think of at least one multinational that will read this and start thinking about migrating away from SAP!

[Richard]

SAP, = Software As Parasite?

That sounds about the right description.

[Ed P]

It is actually a very good software package, but I think that their lawyers and licensing group have let greed go to their heads. As ElReg points out they won their case,  but the associated losses in terms of future and existing customers may turn this into a Pyrrhic Victory.

[Richard]

That is a bit like the old medical trainee joke; ‘Great operation, first class work, shame the patient died’.

[Author]

Posts