SQL Server and Total Economic Impact
November 15, 2009
Wow, “total economic impact”. That sounds like Cold War rhetoric from the Hermann Kahn school of strategic thinking. You can download the paper, written by Forrester (consulting firm) for Microsoft (company in the gun site of Google) from the ZDNet France Web site. (I have a ZDNet France account because I have a tough time locating information across different ZDNet Web sites.) The paper is called “Prepared for Microsoft Corporation September 19, 2008, “Total Economic Impact of SQL Server 2008 Upgrade.” First, I was curious about this “old paper” turning up in my RSS feed. That’s a mystery for sure. Second, the paper is 27 pages long and explains how the calculations for ROI were performed. A first year business school student may find the detail interesting. I was more concerned about the assumptions and the weighting, which were fascinating. I don’t want to quote much from this write up because the present economic vise is squeezing azure chip consulting firms. Some of these outfits have prohibited addled geese from quoting from their thought pieces. To be on the safe side, you can download the paper, read it, and take its conclusions with your regular azure chip consulting firm medicine.
Several observations:
- The fallacy is the assumption that SQL Server and its RDBMS technology is the right solution for a data management job in an organization. This is a pretty big assumption, and in my opinion, it is the core weakness of the paper. Traditional RDBMS methods struggle with some of today’s data flow issues; namely, scaling and updating indexes. Sure, the problems can be “fixed” but the remedial steps are expensive, time consuming, and * essential * to the profitability of the software vendor. In short, the client does not get well. The client gets to keep on spending. Bad approach in today’s economic environment.
- The detail is self serving. Although components are explained – see page five for a fundamental item of detail that is disconnected from the interoperation of the model – the overall flow of the model is one way. The reader is lead to a conclusion that says, “Upgrade.” The cost is the same even with adjustments for risk. This is another fundamental problem. The hockey stick costs come about from the unanticipated failures or problems in a database centric application. In short, the RDBMS looks great on paper, but it doesn’t look so great when the CFO tries to figure out how the IT costs went off the rails… again.
- The sponsorship angle guarantees that the data are shaped. An objective analysis would look at different data management options and their costs. With those omitted from the 27 page paper, the result is a big marketing brochure. That’s okay, but one can’t run a company for its stakeholders on marketing collateral. Well, maybe some companies can.
Read the paper. Make up your own mind. I am waiting for the upgrade cost analysis of SQL Server 10. Hopefully that paper will be available in the next couple of months. Two year old thinking may not fit today’s budget cycle.
Stephen Arnold, November 15, 2009
No one paid me, but I want to make this fact clear to the Federal Financing Bank, an entity with keen interest in transparency, fiscal accountability, and appropriate business methods. I wonder if I can get a loan?
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
