back to article Application Lifecycle Management: The movers and shakers

Old applications never die; they just stick around sucking up valuable computing resources and helpdesk time. If your business faces that problem, then it’s time to take application lifecycle management seriously. Code is alive. Applications are living, breathing things that are supposed to change as the business changes, and …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Exercise for you:

    Try this again, only now without the incessant buzzword-laden pr-soundbites.

    Stopped reading halfway through because I'm not that interested in hearing what series of oversized high-margin-making companies can sell me a bundle of software and/or service contracts I didn't know I needed. What concept is it that you're advocating? How will this buzzword-y thing magically make better that big pile of oozing "temporary" software that keeps on out-living the spendy stuff that comes with a salesforce army and a marketing navy?

    Do an in-depth piece on that, and you can follow-up with a comprehensive round-up of your fave sponsors' offerings. But do put some value in your pieces that'll appeal to your readers, there's a good lad.

  2. Bob Vistakin

    What a choice - IBM or Microsoft

    Forget it then - the back of an envelope will have to do.

  3. MrT

    So, we're back to upgrade for upgrade's sake...

    ... except now we can have a series of tools to track plan and manage the process.

    All well and good, but this doesn't explain why companies still use older tools or software. It assumes that people will upgrade at the appropriate moment in their 3 or 5 or whatever-year cycle. Companies still use older software and apps because they do the job well enough for the purposes required.

    What's more, the commercial arguments for continual upgrades always seem to ignore the cost benefit of not upgrading. If the software continues to bring in more than it costs to maintain, it's difficult to justify the upgrade. If it relies on older formats of hardware, it's not unheard of for companies to buy up spares to extend the service life. This might explain the continued use of XP. Most companies will only upgrade if they run out of options to wring more out of what they already have. And at that point, the planning and testing pays off even more so.

  4. Gen. Apathy


    If you could ignore the "IT" bumfff (technical word that) from this article what it actualy means is knowing what information your organisation needs to perform its functions.

    THis simply requires the application of an information asset register that doesn't need to be bought from IBM or Microsoft - it's just a list or if needs be a dashboard that tells you what information you need to meet your business need, and what dependencies there are on technology.

    Which is a far easier than milling about counting what bits of technology you own and then working out if you need them... by easier I mean cheaper and more likely to reduce costs - try asking the information management team in your organisation... alternatively do a search for Digital Continuity Service.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021