• Lynn Pettis (12/11/2013)


    Eric M Russell (12/11/2013)


    jim.drewe (12/11/2013)


    Eric ... I would heartily agree. Unfortunately, executives in publicly held companies listen to Wall Street, not the common sense from subordinates. If Wall Street says a particular metric is too low (or too high), the CEO sets the goals and barks out orders. You might at the higher levels get to ask questions for clarification, but you generally don't get to challenge the decision (I mean, you can, but that will last as long as you stepping in front of a train).

    What it will take is for a calamity of the highest order to hit a major corporation before the investment bankers will include it on their checklist. Just as I used DR as an example in my previous post, there are plenty of companies which did not survive the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (the prelude to the 9-11 attack). Law enforcement wouldn't let people back in to their offices and there some small firms went out of business as a result of having no DR plan. After that, DR became a big deal and DR validation tests were mandated in many companies. After 9-11, some firms still were hit hard with poor DR planning. This same financial services company I worked for at time (located in lower Manhattan) went into insanity mode because of all the non-IT business departments in a location near Ground Zero had their own SQL Server database systems. They had offsite backup tapes, but no real DR plan. The insanity lasted for about a month restoring SQL Server databases (that we in IT didn't manage) in alternative locations.

    Would top management have eventually seen the light without these disasters? Yeah, eventually, but not with the same urgency or sense of need. But to go back to your comment, I would agree that there are some IT functions that are too critical to outsource.

    What it will take is for a calamity of the highest order to hit a major corporation before the investment bankers will include it on their checklist. Just as I used DR as an example in my previous post, there are plenty of companies which did not survive the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (the prelude to the 9-11 attack).

    If we need a calamity to use as an example for why database administrators should not be outsourced, I'd present as evidence Edward Snowden. This guy was not even a federal employee of the NSA, he as a contractor hired to manage the SharePoint website and file share network where the NSA held classified documents.

    I take exception to your statement above. Do not cast all of us contractors to Edward Snowden. That was a failure in the vetting process and lack of ethics on the part of Edward Snowden.

    Certainly there can be a role for consultants and contractors, when it comes to the design, development and troubleshooting of databases. Often times it makes sense to outsource all of that.

    However, I totally don't see why an organization or government agency with a large IT department would outsource a full time administrative or operational position. I also don't see why a contractor would even be interested in doing admin stuff for a client full time, not when there are so many other more creative and lucrative gigs available out there. Here again, I'm distinguishing administration and operations as somthing different from architecture and development.

    "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho