RE: Did we have another name change?

[Michael Jacobsen <MJacobsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John!

I agree with you, but had a question.  At what point is there a business 
case to start using subprocedures (or other "new" technology)?  Most of us 
agree they provide more benefits over routines, but yet we can get along 
fine without them (at least here).  I guess what I'm saying is, isn't 
keeping up with technology itself a business case? 

I understand not wanting to spend the money for outside training; that's 
understandable and would require justification.  But people who refuse to 
learn anything new and are afraid of change, that's entirely different and 
is what I thought Eric was getting at.  One low training-cost example is 
file operation bifs (%found, %eof, etc.)  I'm the only one here using 
them.  Others have seen my code, so they know how, yet they still use 
indicators.  There seems to be no business case except for staying current 
with technology.

-Mike


> That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned about adopting new
> technologies.  We should be.  But there has to be a business case to
> change otherwise it is simply wasting company resources.
> 
> John A. Jones, CISSP
> Americas Information Security Officer
> Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc.
> V: +1-630-455-2787 F: +1-312-601-1782
> john.jones@xxxxxxxxxx