Post #75,362
1/18/03 9:03:08 AM
|
Analysis
We are currently looking for a Business Objects person.
We spent the last 'x' years gathering data. Now the client wants to use it. And since they use Business Objects in house, we have to provide them models.
Know anyobody who knows it?
[link|http://www.businessobjects.com/|http://www.businessobjects.com/]
|
Post #75,368
1/18/03 10:44:33 AM
|
BO is like SAP
I worked with an overpaid SAP weenie at Unigroup. He was more or less interchangable with the BO weenie from Mastercard.
Data warehousing - when will this fad expire?
-drl
|
Post #75,440
1/18/03 5:51:17 PM
|
Answer: ___Arthur C. Clarke + Stephen Baxter's [Review] (new thread)
Created as new thread #75439 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=75439|Answer: ___Arthur C. Clarke + Stephen Baxter's [Review]]
Marketing: more addictive than heroin, but without the sense of peaceful wellbeing. This we settle for and call.. satisfiction.
The Nintendo-Britney Eloi
|
Post #75,484
1/19/03 1:22:17 AM
|
Fad? Expire?
CRM was a fad. Gabillions invested in realtime reaction. Needed to totally change your business model to use it.
SAP was a fad. Need to reengineer your operations and then you found out (if you got it right) you were exactly as efficient as your competitors, never any better.
Marketing data warehousing is NOT a fad. It merely speeds up and automates a large portion of what the marketers and bean counters were already doing. Figure out who is buying what, and correlate it to what amount of what type of advertising drove them to it. The cost is trivial compared to the other two, and the payback is easily matched against the marketing dollars saved by NOT going after the low responders.
Big brother IS watching. You may not like it, but at least I'm only trying to sell you stuff, not have you registered by the police. And if you really don't want it, and I have information to that effect, there is LESS a chance of my clients bothering you.
BO is just a tool. To be used well, the person should have a lot of knowledge on math and stats, plus some industry info, plus some general business experience.
Hmmm.
Who here knows stats, math, and will be free in a month or 2? Hmmm.
|
Post #75,485
1/19/03 1:31:32 AM
|
you dont need a guru but a gruntyou
like he oracle at delphi some person to look at accumulated data and grunt out indecipherable fubar. Works as good as data mining if you have enough stats. Would do it it for grins with raw data supplied to establish track record. Yer biz prolly doesnt work that way :-(
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
|
Post #75,490
1/19/03 7:43:04 AM
8/21/07 6:26:49 AM
|
How hard can it be?
I did SAS a loooooong time ago. I found it to be kind of OK for making graphs - but the kinds of graphs I needed took a lot of SAS code and took a long time to render. If your graph closely matches one of the existing canned ones - it can be reasonably swift.
Business Objects? They're huge here in France. My landlady is a tech writer for them and I've got a friend in international sales (she's a Chinese American from San Francisco working in Paris, but I think she's transferring to China soon).
I've been asked about it before, surfing the website I can't get a clue what the product actually *does* or what it looks like to the user.
But how hard can it be? Its either YAPI, or YA ad hoc graphing tool or something.
Honestly, this over specialization in requirements in the industry is driving me nuts. A good developer will figure something out quickly and use it and a bad one will make a mess of everything - even in his core incompetency.
I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customer got shafted every now and then, and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. What you know about computing other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful computing is only in your hands. What's in your hands, I think and hope, is intelligence: the ability to see the machine as more than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it more.
--Alan Perlis
|
Post #75,499
1/19/03 10:29:24 AM
|
Well now, that was a concise statement there Todd...
Honestly, this over specialization in requirements in the industry is driving me nuts. A good developer will figure something out quickly and use it and a bad one will make a mess of everything - even in his core incompetency. That is what is driving me nuts in this industry too... it can and does apply to the "Administration" end of the industry too... A good system admin can figure out any system very quickly and settle in the groove relatively quickly and make it run better/smoother/faster, while even a "paper" MCSE can screw-up a set of Microsoft systems without much effort.
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberstrategy-draft.html|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints. |
|
Post #75,518
1/19/03 1:25:39 PM
|
Yep, it was well said.
Alex
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain
|
Post #75,507
1/19/03 11:33:28 AM
|
Very
A BO person is much more a business analyst than a programmers. And I have met very few programmers that would make a good business analyst.
I believe that the only other product that competes with BO is Cognos. Certainly not SAS, at least in it's "SAS Base/Graph/Stat" programming form.
This is a not overspecialization. This is a different world. The goal is not to duplicate current graphs. The goal is to be a major portion of the marketing department as they analyze the trends, create new reports, and deal with the VP every day as he asks new questions.
Would you say the same thing about a high level database programmer (hmm, Smalltalk / Oracle maybe?) going for a realtime robotic TonyTib type of job?
|
Post #75,508
1/19/03 11:48:14 AM
|
Disagree somewhat an analyst analyses
You send me to analyse a business I will review how they get things done and suggest improvements if any. The same thing with marketing trends, the past may indicate what the future brings. A good analyst can do business reviews, crime scene forensics and systems administration.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
|
Post #75,515
1/19/03 1:18:03 PM
|
No way
Analysis implies domain specific knowledge and experience to be able to compare what worked before. You've stepped into PHB territory.
|
Post #75,526
1/19/03 2:43:33 PM
|
And that is a key point
There are many different specialities out there in programming. Most of the time it is relatively easy to substitute one for the other. However occasionally there is a line which is not trivial to cross. If you have no idea where they are, it is easier to just accept fragmentation of specialties.
I mean, how many PHBs are really equipped to understand why it is more appropriate to hire a good Java or C++ programmer for a Perl programming position than a sysadmin who did a bunch of Perl scripting? After a couple bad experiences, and knowing that you lack the expertise to make a good decision, wouldn't you feel the temptation to make the safe one?
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #75,535
1/19/03 3:42:28 PM
8/21/07 6:27:45 AM
|
Not
Would you say the same thing about a high level database programmer (hmm, Smalltalk / Oracle maybe?) going for a realtime robotic TonyTib type of job?
I can do either. I'm equally good at low level C as high level Smalltalk. Sadly, I don't have enough low level C *work* on my resume and I'm sick of doing web apps - but thats all I'm getting offers on. I'd welcome a TonyTib type gig. I need a change of pace.
RE: Business Analyst - its just a system, right? Its the same job. I'd also point out that my usual role is architect - which means I already did the analysis to get you your database in the first place - so I'd guess I could figure out a new one with about the same effort (unless its completely wacked - which happens).
What was your point again?
I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customer got shafted every now and then, and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. What you know about computing other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful computing is only in your hands. What's in your hands, I think and hope, is intelligence: the ability to see the machine as more than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it more.
--Alan Perlis
|
Post #75,561
1/19/03 6:01:06 PM
|
Well, it still depends on the person's abilities
My statement for custom machines / robotic programming:
I'd rather hire ME or EE who is interested in automation & teach them how to program than hire a CS guy who is interested in programming only. In fact, I've already seen one ME become a successful embedded programmer (in Perl and C/C++).
OTOH, if you are a good programming, such as Todd, and do have the interest in the end result, then you should do quite well.
For factory automation, another requirement is the ability to deal with the vendors' favorite programming languages, which vary from horrible (PLC code done wrong, Animatics, Galil, & most other motion control vendors) to OK (PLC done right -- and the Euro standard (IEC 61131) is a big improvement) to decent (e.g. Adept, C, VB). Fortunately, I get to spend a lot of time writing Python code.
Frankly, having experience with more dynamic languages (e.g. Smalltalk, Python) is a big plus; I know after using Python I'll program in C/C++ better.
My understanding is that in the overall embedded marked (e.g. stuff using RTOS or on small, memory limited systems) C & C++ are the dominant languages.
We hopefully will be hiring one programmer this quarter, but not yet (and to be honest, people with a strong connection to the current employees have an edge).
In any case, good luck.
Tony
|
Post #75,592
1/19/03 9:20:07 PM
|
Just a system?
Heart lung.
Steam engine.
Economic.
Nuclear pressure release.
Transaction processing database.
Heavily regulated, state by state,
county by county, city by city, mortgage
marketing that is dependent on interest
rates, economic outlook, debt load,
political situation, and the phase of
the moon.
I'm hiring for the last one. For some
reason it seems that as technical people
we deem it our area if certain software
expertise is required. If the expertise
crosses into some light programming, even
more so. A BO person is not a programmer.
Programming is a side effort, like a
spreadsheet jockey who grows to writing
macros.
Industry and regulatory knowledge is
probably more important than the software
aspect. But the BO knowledge will get them
in the door.
|
Post #75,611
1/20/03 4:28:59 AM
8/21/07 6:29:24 AM
|
Yep
Look, I see sort of what you are saying.
But if I follow your logic, then I'm not qualified to build your enterprise systems either. Nor is anyone else who designs software rather than pushes paper.
Thats just not true.
For stuff like this, you often have to pair people. I have built systems that take customer order entry for both residential, and business and government phone service orders (totally different domains), managed network inventory, automated provisioning of service, created a marketplace for language translation services with timing constraints, managed repair personnel and maintenance cycles, created web based questionaires, provided career lifecycle tracking in Europe, and automated a truck rental business (to name a few).
For most of these I designed the database schemas, the business objects, chunks of the UI, and the deployment structure of the system. What did I know about all of these domains going in?
Not a mother fucking thing. So I get me a SME (you need a SME - Subject Matter Expert) and I interrogate him/her until I do understand the constraints - regulatory, legal, business, financial, whatever. Its still not that hard - just time consuming.
This is different from building business software and doing data analysis for your company how?
I don't buy it. You said "We are currently looking for a Business Objects person."
If you really think you need a domain expert that happens to know Business Objects, you ought to put it that way. But thats not what you said. So far, I don't even know what domain your business is but you've mentioned the key skill is Busineess Objects. If what you say is true, then a Business Objects person isn't going to cut it either - they have to be a Business Objects person IN YOUR DOMAIN (which you still haven't mentioned).
See the disconnect? Its overly fussy. A good architect would do you if paired with a SME, or a good analyst in your domain could be paired with a decent developer. But to me its no surprise you're not finding what you want as you're not asking for what you need.
I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customer got shafted every now and then, and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. What you know about computing other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful computing is only in your hands. What's in your hands, I think and hope, is intelligence: the ability to see the machine as more than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it more.
--Alan Perlis
|
Post #75,614
1/20/03 5:31:36 AM
|
Yep
The BO person I sort of knew never talked about business issues - he was always directly invovled with the DBA - this sounds more like a computer person.
He was very sharply dressed and fastidious.
-drl
|
Post #75,773
1/20/03 7:26:24 PM
|
OK, time to take my beating
You are right.
I am really looking for a person with domain experience if possible, who knows stats, and who has BO experience.
The combination of the stats and the BO would get you through the door, since the BO is really a tool to apply the stats knowledge, while the domain experience (mortgage) would be nice but is certainly not a requirement.
Is this clear enough?
|
Post #75,801
1/20/03 8:56:47 PM
8/21/07 6:33:52 AM
|
Cool
Now if we could just get the headhunters to behave accordingly we might all get a chance at food on the table.
I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customer got shafted every now and then, and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. What you know about computing other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful computing is only in your hands. What's in your hands, I think and hope, is intelligence: the ability to see the machine as more than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it more.
--Alan Perlis
|
Post #76,446
1/23/03 4:39:31 PM
|
Re: OK, time to take my beating
I'm Confused.
You talk about BO and transaction processing in the same sentence as if you want to run those on the same box.
It's possible to do BO ( Data Warehouse ) and TP on the same box, but both kind of get compromised.
If you're serious TP (like me), then some things don't work well from the data warehouse world, like ROLLUPS and CUBES. At least you can't run them with your TP load. You have to run data warehouse stuff outside your prime TP processing window (eg. at night ). My take is that BO, Cognos, and MicroStrategy allow a business analyst to make data warehouse-like queries ( ROLLUPS and CUBES ) on a system.
So, if you're not careful, you're TP workload goes to hell in a handbasket as your business analyst is doing table scans to look at all the records for the summaries the VP wants, in the middle of the afternoon.
Maybe, if you have a big enough box, you don't care. But for our applications, the TP stuff has to add less than 1/2 second to our response time, and running data-warehouse queries puts us into 10-15 second response times very quickly.
Glen Austin
|
