Discussion on:
View:
Show:
In the article the disadvantages of a gradual replacement of older Windows versions seem to outweigh by far the advantages. His conclusion therefore seems a bit strange. I would recommend a far shorter migration path because of the needed continued effort versus a well defined and limited project.
I agree with the article. The problem comes from the users, mostly upper management. They always want the best system. Therefore not only are you replacing 1/3 of the computers every year, but you have to rebuild 1/3 of the old systems and then re-deploy them as well. The idea is good and even great, I have tried to set up my purchases this way, but when it comes down to it, I purchase all new computes every three to three-half years and spend about six to eight months getting the systems out. Not the ideal way but I hear no complaining about who gets the new computers. Doing it this way reduces many of the ?Why don?t I have?? and ?How come he has?? questions.
"I'm only one person and to replace yours means that every time I replace yours I have to move 3 more." I had that issue at my last location. Instead of just a couple of days to replace a few machines it turned into a week and a half. Basically, the solution was to 'notify' upper management of the process. When they figured out how much time and therefore money was being spent, my solution was suddenly 'very satisfactory'. Noone will listen to you, but if you write a memo EVERYONE hears/knows about it.
A 1/3 a year in a 3 year cycle is the way to go. If you're replacing a box and someone else asks why they're not getting a new one, it's simply a case of letting them know you're replacing the oldest machines (or out of warranty) - and their's isn't.
If you get hit up, just put a positive spin on it, like: "Look at it this way, you may have to wait another 12 months for yours, but when you do get it, it'll be even better than this one. Just be thankul you don't have the box I'm replacing now!"
If they really have an issue, just tell them to submit an IT&T request with their business justification. Our intranet based form contains a field for 'justification' which helps weed out these sorts of requests - "Because Bob got one" is not a valid business justification and it'll get bounced by their department head whhich also takes the heat off IT.
If you get hit up, just put a positive spin on it, like: "Look at it this way, you may have to wait another 12 months for yours, but when you do get it, it'll be even better than this one. Just be thankul you don't have the box I'm replacing now!"
If they really have an issue, just tell them to submit an IT&T request with their business justification. Our intranet based form contains a field for 'justification' which helps weed out these sorts of requests - "Because Bob got one" is not a valid business justification and it'll get bounced by their department head whhich also takes the heat off IT.
I would agree, but ONLY IF I absolutely knew without doubt that there wouldn't be any problems with the delivery. Unfortunately, I have never had a perfect delivery when it comes to software upgrades. If there really are Win3x, 9x and NT
Sorry about that, wouldn't you know I clicked the wrong button. 
Anyway...
I would agree, but ONLY IF I knew absolutely without doubt that there wouldn't be any problems with the delivery. Unfortunately, I have never had a perfect delivery when it comes to software upgrades. If there really are Win3x, 9x and NT systems still in use, I wouldn't expect that data compatibility would be an issue, at least internal to the company. I've done both and gradual replacement saves on medical costs (Aspirin, Tylenol and "Sick Days"). I'm also a little biased as I am a member of a "Help Desk of 2" for 450 users.
Anyway...I would agree, but ONLY IF I knew absolutely without doubt that there wouldn't be any problems with the delivery. Unfortunately, I have never had a perfect delivery when it comes to software upgrades. If there really are Win3x, 9x and NT systems still in use, I wouldn't expect that data compatibility would be an issue, at least internal to the company. I've done both and gradual replacement saves on medical costs (Aspirin, Tylenol and "Sick Days"). I'm also a little biased as I am a member of a "Help Desk of 2" for 450 users.
In the article the disadvantages of a gradual replacement of older Windows versions seem to outweigh by far the advantages. His conclusion therefore seems a bit strange. I would recommend a far shorter migration path because of the needed continued effort versus a well defined and limited project.
I very much agree that a staged deployment of XP is probably the proper choice under most circumstances.
I very much agree that a staged deployment of XP is probably the proper choice under most circumstances.
An "all at once" deployment is the option that best serves IT, but, realistically, the staged method is more in alignment with what the IT department is all about - service.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
An "all at once" deployment is the option that best serves IT, but, realistically, the staged method is more in alignment with what the IT department is all about - service.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
An "all at once" deployment is the option that best serves IT, but, realistically, the staged method is more in alignment with what the IT department is all about - service.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
An "all at once" deployment is the option that best serves IT, but, realistically, the staged method is more in alignment with what the IT department is all about - service.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
An "all at once" deployment is the option that best serves IT, but, realistically, the staged method is more in alignment with what the IT department is all about - service.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
An "all at once" deployment is the option that best serves IT, but, realistically, the staged method is more in alignment with what the IT department is all about - service.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
I agree with the concept of staged deployments of XP, or any significant upgrade, within the context of a large organization. The logistics of doing an upgrade en masse are enormous for organizations with large end-user groups, especially if there are remote offices, mobile users, and multiple languages to consider.
I would only suggest en masse upgrades for smaller organizations where access to machines and users is more easily achieved, thus, less costly.
I would only suggest en masse upgrades for smaller organizations where access to machines and users is more easily achieved, thus, less costly.
I agree with the concept of staged deployments of XP, or any significant upgrade, within the context of a large organization. The logistics of doing an upgrade en masse are enormous for organizations with large end-user groups, especially if there are remote offices, mobile users, and multiple languages to consider.
I would only suggest en masse upgrades for smaller organizations where access to machines and users is more easily achieved, thus, less costly.
I would only suggest en masse upgrades for smaller organizations where access to machines and users is more easily achieved, thus, less costly.
An "all at once" deployment is the option that best serves IT, but, realistically, the staged method is more in alignment with what the IT department is all about - service.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
Factoring in the loss of productivity due to the software change alone, rolling out more than a few users or a single department at a time simply isn't smart unless your company is quite small. And you should also consider user training - moving to XP might be a no-brainer for us, but blue-haired secretaries are much less adept and far more intimidated about such a move. Even your more savvy users will need a little coaching and some adjustment time.
I do advocate migrating work groups or departments in single shots, however, so that those who routinely work closely together can be learning the same new stuff at the same time.
And you've got to "phrase" the migration in terms that make it appealing to the users, despite the fact that your primary motivation may well be to make life easier for IT.
The problem with propagating a monoculture (one OS, or one anything)in IT, is that over time your flexibility and your options decrease. You end up going wherever your vendor is going, not necessarily where your company should go. Part of any upgrade should include planning for alternatives and options. That includes other operating systems in this case. I have used Microsoft products sucessfully for many years, but I never assume I am Microsoft's number one priority. It is essential to always be doing research on solutions from other vendors. Make time to do it. When your preferred vendor zigs and you need to zag, you will be a hero for having a plan and having done your homework. I am always trying to put my clients in a position where they are not beholden to any single vendor.
Dear all
I agree with the article and the personal preference of the author, but for a totally different reason.
I presume that also the servers are upgraded towards either Windows2000 or .Net servers. Otherwise I don’t think there are any advantages to upgrade towards XP.
This article is simple academic, in real life there is only one criteria that count and that’s the budget.
If the company is small enough to support the cost off the hardware replacement, software licenses, and the rollout all at once then they can consider doing a masse upgrade, and in fact that’s the only manner off upgrade they should consider.
In a large company as the one I work in (+1.200users and about 45 Servers) is the upgrade towards XP not a simple thing to perform, and they choose for the staged deployment, because they can spread the total cost of the upgrade over two or three years (in this company the total cost is estimated at about $1.500.000, -.)
There is an additional advantage, it gives the (internal third line) support staff the chance to assimilate the new problems related to this new OS, and /or to know where they have to look for the settings and so on.
In most cases large company’s have a external support service, these persons are well trained in this new OS, but for the internal staff is this not always the case because of the high costs off these courses, or is the policy of “the trained train the others” at work.
I would recommend 4GBof disk space (Don’t forget the swap file and hiber file).
The best way to perform an upgrade is (in my opinion) to upgrade first the servers of the different sites, once this has been done and the servers are communicating at a proper manner, can the workstation be replaced and/or upgraded.
The advantages and disadvantages stays as mentioned in the article, but they are reduced to a few and with careful planning they
I agree with the article and the personal preference of the author, but for a totally different reason.
I presume that also the servers are upgraded towards either Windows2000 or .Net servers. Otherwise I don’t think there are any advantages to upgrade towards XP.
This article is simple academic, in real life there is only one criteria that count and that’s the budget.
If the company is small enough to support the cost off the hardware replacement, software licenses, and the rollout all at once then they can consider doing a masse upgrade, and in fact that’s the only manner off upgrade they should consider.
In a large company as the one I work in (+1.200users and about 45 Servers) is the upgrade towards XP not a simple thing to perform, and they choose for the staged deployment, because they can spread the total cost of the upgrade over two or three years (in this company the total cost is estimated at about $1.500.000, -.)
There is an additional advantage, it gives the (internal third line) support staff the chance to assimilate the new problems related to this new OS, and /or to know where they have to look for the settings and so on.
In most cases large company’s have a external support service, these persons are well trained in this new OS, but for the internal staff is this not always the case because of the high costs off these courses, or is the policy of “the trained train the others” at work.
I would recommend 4GBof disk space (Don’t forget the swap file and hiber file).
The best way to perform an upgrade is (in my opinion) to upgrade first the servers of the different sites, once this has been done and the servers are communicating at a proper manner, can the workstation be replaced and/or upgraded.
The advantages and disadvantages stays as mentioned in the article, but they are reduced to a few and with careful planning they
Dear all
I agree with the article and the personal preference of the author, but for a totally different reason.
I presume that also the servers are upgraded towards either Windows2000 or .Net servers. Otherwise I don’t think there are any advantages to upgrade towards XP.
This article is simple academic, in real life there is only one criteria that count and that’s the budget.
If the company is small enough to support the cost off the hardware replacement, software licenses, and the rollout all at once then they can consider doing a masse upgrade, and in fact that’s the only manner off upgrade they should consider.
In a large company as the one I work in (+1.200users and about 45 Servers) is the upgrade towards XP not a simple thing to perform, and they choose for the staged deployment, because they can spread the total cost of the upgrade over two or three years (in this company the total cost is estimated at about $1.500.000, -.)
There is an additional advantage, it gives the (internal third line) support staff the chance to assimilate the new problems related to this new OS, and /or to know where they have to look for the settings and so on.
In most cases large company’s have a external support service, these persons are well trained in this new OS, but for the internal staff is this not always the case because of the high costs off these courses, or is the policy of “the trained train the others” at work.
I would recommend 4GBof disk space (Don’t forget the swap file and hiber file).
The best way to perform an upgrade is (in my opinion) to upgrade first the servers of the different sites, once this has been done and the servers are communicating at a proper manner, can the workstation be replaced and/or upgraded.
The advantages and disadvantages stays as mentioned in the article, but they are reduced to a few and with careful planning they
I agree with the article and the personal preference of the author, but for a totally different reason.
I presume that also the servers are upgraded towards either Windows2000 or .Net servers. Otherwise I don’t think there are any advantages to upgrade towards XP.
This article is simple academic, in real life there is only one criteria that count and that’s the budget.
If the company is small enough to support the cost off the hardware replacement, software licenses, and the rollout all at once then they can consider doing a masse upgrade, and in fact that’s the only manner off upgrade they should consider.
In a large company as the one I work in (+1.200users and about 45 Servers) is the upgrade towards XP not a simple thing to perform, and they choose for the staged deployment, because they can spread the total cost of the upgrade over two or three years (in this company the total cost is estimated at about $1.500.000, -.)
There is an additional advantage, it gives the (internal third line) support staff the chance to assimilate the new problems related to this new OS, and /or to know where they have to look for the settings and so on.
In most cases large company’s have a external support service, these persons are well trained in this new OS, but for the internal staff is this not always the case because of the high costs off these courses, or is the policy of “the trained train the others” at work.
I would recommend 4GBof disk space (Don’t forget the swap file and hiber file).
The best way to perform an upgrade is (in my opinion) to upgrade first the servers of the different sites, once this has been done and the servers are communicating at a proper manner, can the workstation be replaced and/or upgraded.
The advantages and disadvantages stays as mentioned in the article, but they are reduced to a few and with careful planning they
The upgrade of Servers, although essential as well, is an entirely separate project. In our case the Server project is best served by an en masse upgrade. However, our offices are relocating and this project is being put on hold until then. At that time it will be reviewed, and hopefully the next version of Windows Server will also have been released.
Great comments!
How true about the $1.5M for 1200 clients. I was involved in an almost identical deployment of W2K Pro for 1200 PC and the cost was in exactly the same range! I don't that people estimate the true effort and costs of upgrading (before they begin).
How true about the $1.5M for 1200 clients. I was involved in an almost identical deployment of W2K Pro for 1200 PC and the cost was in exactly the same range! I don't that people estimate the true effort and costs of upgrading (before they begin).
Great comments!
How true about the $1.5M for 1200 clients. I was involved in an almost identical deployment of W2K Pro for 1200 PC and the cost was in exactly the same range! I don't that people estimate the true effort and costs of upgrading (before they begin).
How true about the $1.5M for 1200 clients. I was involved in an almost identical deployment of W2K Pro for 1200 PC and the cost was in exactly the same range! I don't that people estimate the true effort and costs of upgrading (before they begin).
Great comments!
How true about the $1.5M for 1200 clients. I was involved in an almost identical deployment of W2K Pro for 1200 PC and the cost was in exactly the same range! I don't that people estimate the true effort and costs of upgrading (before they begin).
How true about the $1.5M for 1200 clients. I was involved in an almost identical deployment of W2K Pro for 1200 PC and the cost was in exactly the same range! I don't that people estimate the true effort and costs of upgrading (before they begin).
Great comments!
How true about the $1.5M for 1200 clients. I was involved in an almost identical deployment of W2K Pro for 1200 PC and the cost was in exactly the same range! I don't that people estimate the true effort and costs of upgrading (before they begin).
How true about the $1.5M for 1200 clients. I was involved in an almost identical deployment of W2K Pro for 1200 PC and the cost was in exactly the same range! I don't that people estimate the true effort and costs of upgrading (before they begin).
I agree with the choice of a staged rollout. However our reasons for choosing this path have far more to do with deferring the costs than any of the reasons stated by the author. Part of our IT function is to sell the idea of such a project to management, and Lord knows they hate to part with money. We even give them the choice of both options so they can feel they made the final decision.
Hello,
As with nearly all things, each case has to be calculated individually.
There are still companies out there (and some of them are quite large companies) that still use antiquated DOS based systems or something similar. This is entirely because the IT decision of the day was based purely on a 'let's keep the costs down' mentality.
We can discuss 'real world' issues till we turn blue, but the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Having said that: It is my experience that a single roll out should be implemented. In theory, organisations are already depreciating costs of hardware, and therefore the business case for upgrading is made on the balance sheet (I love using that on Finance Controllers).
With solidplanning and a good team, a company up to 600 should be able to roll out in 6 months (not including at least three months of planning before hand!!). I was part of a team that performed a complete SAP R3 & NT 4.0 migration of approximately 1300 workstations over 30 sites within the calendar year.
I am sure there are instances where the phased roll out is required or preferred, as long as there is a plan for the roll out and a plan for the next upgrade, that's the important thing. Most firms plan for the upgrade they are paid for with reckless abandonment for the next upgrade - as a consultant one has to ask "Is it my job?" but we must remember the customer.
I'm rambling, so I'll stop.
Regards,
David Thomson
As with nearly all things, each case has to be calculated individually.
There are still companies out there (and some of them are quite large companies) that still use antiquated DOS based systems or something similar. This is entirely because the IT decision of the day was based purely on a 'let's keep the costs down' mentality.
We can discuss 'real world' issues till we turn blue, but the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Having said that: It is my experience that a single roll out should be implemented. In theory, organisations are already depreciating costs of hardware, and therefore the business case for upgrading is made on the balance sheet (I love using that on Finance Controllers).
With solidplanning and a good team, a company up to 600 should be able to roll out in 6 months (not including at least three months of planning before hand!!). I was part of a team that performed a complete SAP R3 & NT 4.0 migration of approximately 1300 workstations over 30 sites within the calendar year.
I am sure there are instances where the phased roll out is required or preferred, as long as there is a plan for the roll out and a plan for the next upgrade, that's the important thing. Most firms plan for the upgrade they are paid for with reckless abandonment for the next upgrade - as a consultant one has to ask "Is it my job?" but we must remember the customer.
I'm rambling, so I'll stop.
Regards,
David Thomson
Hello,
As with nearly all things, each case has to be calculated individually.
There are still companies out there (and some of them are quite large companies) that still use antiquated DOS based systems or something similar. This is entirely because the IT decision of the day was based purely on a 'let's keep the costs down' mentality.
We can discuss 'real world' issues till we turn blue, but the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Having said that: It is my experience that a single roll out should be implemented. In theory, organisations are already depreciating costs of hardware, and therefore the business case for upgrading is made on the balance sheet (I love using that on Finance Controllers).
With solidplanning and a good team, a company up to 600 should be able to roll out in 6 months (not including at least three months of planning before hand!!). I was part of a team that performed a complete SAP R3 & NT 4.0 migration of approximately 1300 workstations over 30 sites within the calendar year.
I am sure there are instances where the phased roll out is required or preferred, as long as there is a plan for the roll out and a plan for the next upgrade, that's the important thing. Most firms plan for the upgrade they are paid for with reckless abandonment for the next upgrade - as a consultant one has to ask "Is it my job?" but we must remember the customer.
I'm rambling, so I'll stop.
Regards,
David Thomson
As with nearly all things, each case has to be calculated individually.
There are still companies out there (and some of them are quite large companies) that still use antiquated DOS based systems or something similar. This is entirely because the IT decision of the day was based purely on a 'let's keep the costs down' mentality.
We can discuss 'real world' issues till we turn blue, but the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Having said that: It is my experience that a single roll out should be implemented. In theory, organisations are already depreciating costs of hardware, and therefore the business case for upgrading is made on the balance sheet (I love using that on Finance Controllers).
With solidplanning and a good team, a company up to 600 should be able to roll out in 6 months (not including at least three months of planning before hand!!). I was part of a team that performed a complete SAP R3 & NT 4.0 migration of approximately 1300 workstations over 30 sites within the calendar year.
I am sure there are instances where the phased roll out is required or preferred, as long as there is a plan for the roll out and a plan for the next upgrade, that's the important thing. Most firms plan for the upgrade they are paid for with reckless abandonment for the next upgrade - as a consultant one has to ask "Is it my job?" but we must remember the customer.
I'm rambling, so I'll stop.
Regards,
David Thomson
Hello,
As with nearly all things, each case has to be calculated individually.
There are still companies out there (and some of them are quite large companies) that still use antiquated DOS based systems or something similar. This is entirely because the IT decision of the day was based purely on a 'let's keep the costs down' mentality.
We can discuss 'real world' issues till we turn blue, but the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Having said that: It is my experience that a single roll out should be implemented. In theory, organisations are already depreciating costs of hardware, and therefore the business case for upgrading is made on the balance sheet (I love using that on Finance Controllers).
With solidplanning and a good team, a company up to 600 should be able to roll out in 6 months (not including at least three months of planning before hand!!). I was part of a team that performed a complete SAP R3 & NT 4.0 migration of approximately 1300 workstations over 30 sites within the calendar year.
I am sure there are instances where the phased roll out is required or preferred, as long as there is a plan for the roll out and a plan for the next upgrade, that's the important thing. Most firms plan for the upgrade they are paid for with reckless abandonment for the next upgrade - as a consultant one has to ask "Is it my job?" but we must remember the customer.
I'm rambling, so I'll stop.
Regards,
David Thomson
As with nearly all things, each case has to be calculated individually.
There are still companies out there (and some of them are quite large companies) that still use antiquated DOS based systems or something similar. This is entirely because the IT decision of the day was based purely on a 'let's keep the costs down' mentality.
We can discuss 'real world' issues till we turn blue, but the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Having said that: It is my experience that a single roll out should be implemented. In theory, organisations are already depreciating costs of hardware, and therefore the business case for upgrading is made on the balance sheet (I love using that on Finance Controllers).
With solidplanning and a good team, a company up to 600 should be able to roll out in 6 months (not including at least three months of planning before hand!!). I was part of a team that performed a complete SAP R3 & NT 4.0 migration of approximately 1300 workstations over 30 sites within the calendar year.
I am sure there are instances where the phased roll out is required or preferred, as long as there is a plan for the roll out and a plan for the next upgrade, that's the important thing. Most firms plan for the upgrade they are paid for with reckless abandonment for the next upgrade - as a consultant one has to ask "Is it my job?" but we must remember the customer.
I'm rambling, so I'll stop.
Regards,
David Thomson
Hello,
As with nearly all things, each case has to be calculated individually.
There are still companies out there (and some of them are quite large companies) that still use antiquated DOS based systems or something similar. This is entirely because the IT decision of the day was based purely on a 'let's keep the costs down' mentality.
We can discuss 'real world' issues till we turn blue, but the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Having said that: It is my experience that a single roll out should be implemented. In theory, organisations are already depreciating costs of hardware, and therefore the business case for upgrading is made on the balance sheet (I love using that on Finance Controllers).
With solidplanning and a good team, a company up to 600 should be able to roll out in 6 months (not including at least three months of planning before hand!!). I was part of a team that performed a complete SAP R3 & NT 4.0 migration of approximately 1300 workstations over 30 sites within the calendar year.
I am sure there are instances where the phased roll out is required or preferred, as long as there is a plan for the roll out and a plan for the next upgrade, that's the important thing. Most firms plan for the upgrade they are paid for with reckless abandonment for the next upgrade - as a consultant one has to ask "Is it my job?" but we must remember the customer.
I'm rambling, so I'll stop.
Regards,
David Thomson
As with nearly all things, each case has to be calculated individually.
There are still companies out there (and some of them are quite large companies) that still use antiquated DOS based systems or something similar. This is entirely because the IT decision of the day was based purely on a 'let's keep the costs down' mentality.
We can discuss 'real world' issues till we turn blue, but the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Having said that: It is my experience that a single roll out should be implemented. In theory, organisations are already depreciating costs of hardware, and therefore the business case for upgrading is made on the balance sheet (I love using that on Finance Controllers).
With solidplanning and a good team, a company up to 600 should be able to roll out in 6 months (not including at least three months of planning before hand!!). I was part of a team that performed a complete SAP R3 & NT 4.0 migration of approximately 1300 workstations over 30 sites within the calendar year.
I am sure there are instances where the phased roll out is required or preferred, as long as there is a plan for the roll out and a plan for the next upgrade, that's the important thing. Most firms plan for the upgrade they are paid for with reckless abandonment for the next upgrade - as a consultant one has to ask "Is it my job?" but we must remember the customer.
I'm rambling, so I'll stop.
Regards,
David Thomson
My analogy for choosing a migration methodology is making the choice to remove a bandaid. You can slowly peel it back and not feel the pain as much, but for a much longer time. Or, you can rip it off, hurt a lot all at once, and then get on with your life. I've done it both ways.
As pointed out by the author, I've found the critical decision point was the amount of collaboration on files within the enterprise. High collaboration across business units means a faster migration is necessary to avoid data corruption.
As pointed out by the author, I've found the critical decision point was the amount of collaboration on files within the enterprise. High collaboration across business units means a faster migration is necessary to avoid data corruption.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
