June 11, 2009 at 10:23 am
Good subject! ...and right now we are in such a battle. In deference to the SAPs at the company who sold us this software, let me make it Crystal clear that I wont Report what software package we are talking about... but last year we shelled out some fairly big bucks to get a reporting system for our SQL Server data and what we have wound up with is a piece of software that has been around for decades, and yet been owned by more companies than Zsa Zsa Gabor had husbands.
My guys have been howling at me for months about how awful this package is and yet I used to use this same package years ago and it was frankly, very good! However, now involved in the mess I have learned that (#1) the system has been overhauled to some degree and the work done on it is well, sub-par. (#2) This particular system is supported now by third party consultants who get paid by the SAPs who own this package, and support has been fairly awful. In fact, my guys wind up supporting the supporters more than getting any useful help. About a month ago this stuff got critical and I tried contacting someone in the company and (#3) the company has so much going on I don't think anyone there even knows who supports what - resulting in me being unable to talk to anyone but the dealer who sold us the software.
The question of "who is at fault" is to me, fairly simple. If you buy something from a presumed reputable source, that source is who is responsible. I know this is true for us. We support our own commercial systems and if a buyer is truly unhappy, we will bust our backsides to make them happy, and will work out a refund and return if necessary.
I am less concerned with "who is at fault" as I am with "who is responsible" and in my current tribulations with the unnamed product, though I have made it Crystal clear to the dealer, I feel as though the company is like a pack of grifters - they got the money from us, the SAPs, and left town laughing all the way to the bank.
I sure would like to see more stringent laws around this kind of thing because when people choose not to be responsible, only a good lawsuit gets the SAPs attention and makes the issue Crystal clear to them.
June 11, 2009 at 10:27 am
GDI Lord (6/11/2009)
GSquared (6/11/2009)
I dislike the whole concept of fault. I prefer responsibility. It's the responsibility of those who can repair the problem. Fault and blame are usually just attempts to dodge responsibility.Is the local yokel IT repair dude responsible if the operating system decides to kill itself and delete all your family photos? Must he call in the HDD recovery teams to get them back? Is it their responsibility then? Is it your responsibility because you didn't have a backup?
I guess that would depend on whether the "local yokel IT repair dude" is the right person to repair it. I gave a simple concept, but there are quite obviously more factors to it.
To clarify:
If your computer crashes and loses all your data, will it help you in any way to say, "it's my fault because I didn't have backups"? Will it help you in any way to take the computer to a shop that can recover data from crashed hard drives and pay them to do just that? The first is blame, the second is responsibility.
Of course, there's more to even that. What if you didn't make backups because none of the data was worth backing up, and your solution is simply to replace the hard drive, load the OS, and get back to surfing the web or whatever it that the computer is used for? Then that becomes the responsibility that must be taken up and accomplished. Again, blame would accomplish nothing, taking responsibility and handling the situation will.
Blame and fault have a place in criminal jurisprudence and in at-fault job terminations, and don't have a lot of other practical value.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
June 11, 2009 at 11:01 am
bob.willsie (6/11/2009)
So, my question to the group is: What, if any, is an acceptable error rate for data loss or corruption on SQL Server?
Zero.
Corruption is usually due to hardware problems, mainly the IO subsystem.
SQL doesn't arbitrarily delete data or decide that it's not going to run a command.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
June 11, 2009 at 11:32 am
I don't think laws should be changed rather companies should change the software buying process to include technical experts even if it is an outside consultant for 30 to 60 days to test products with business needs and only buy products that can do the job at the least cost. Now software products keeps managers brother inlaw employed or vacation paid and private school admission fees paid.
All software areas comes with experts you can get these for one month or less if that software will cost a lot of money, I can test drive a reporting package at the break fix level laws should protect the innocent buying a package without knowing its uses, limitations and issues does not count as innocent.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
June 11, 2009 at 3:05 pm
A wise boss once told me that he was interested in assigning responsibility rather than blame. By assigning responsibility there was an expectation of some positive action such as fixing the wretched problem.
The blame game is one of defense and denial with no action attached to it other than to suffer a taking down of the trousers.
One of the problems with expensive software is that what you are really paying for is more bugs. Millions of copies of MS Office have been bought so that is millions of people to find bugs. Some SAPs Reporting system might cost thousands so with a smaller market there will be fewer people to thrash out the bugs.
When the founder of a highly respected database leaves a company siting a rushed poor quality release I wonder how difficult it would be to proove liability?
June 11, 2009 at 7:06 pm
In the middle ages, the first gothic cathedrals were relatively simple stone structures, possibly with a couple of wooden doors at the entrances. The chief mason was the person responsible for the entire project.
As the cathedrals got bigger and fancier, they not only used stone, but iron and wood structural members, stained glass windows, tile roofs, etc. Because these elements were each built by different guilds, each carefully guarding their trade secrets, the role of architect developed to coordinate everything and accept the overall responsibility for the project. In exchange for "non-compete" agreements, the architects were allowed to learn some of the secrets of each of the trades, so they could figure out how to coordinate them successfully (hence not completely accurate "achitects don't build").
The architect became the person who was responsible for the "conceptual integrity" of the result--that the completed result was suitable for the building owner's stated and implicit requirements. The architect is also accountable for meeting community standards (zoning, safety, style, etc.).
Nowadays, architects are also engineers. They are expected to use standards, prior practice, and scientific and mathematical techniques (and other "proof of concept" if needed) to demonstrate that their design is sound before making significant investments in construction.
Today, if a building collapses, outside review decides if it was the architect's fault in design, or if its a builder's fault for not following the design, or a supplier's fault for supplying substandard materials.
The term "data architect" has no accepted standard meaning. For some, its synonymous with "ETL expert". However, in other interpretations this is the person responsible for deciding how the data environment should be set up to coordinate networking, databases, applications, ad hoc BI tools, security, etc. This is to satisfy various requirements of efficiency, reliability, confidentiality, disaster recovery and business continuity, accountability, etc.
David Lathrop
DBA
WA Dept of Health
Viewing 6 posts - 16 through 20 (of 20 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply