Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!psuvm!uh2
From: UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Information Systems is an Engineering Discipline
Message-ID: <89262.134141UH2@PSUVM.BITNET>
Date: 19 Sep 89 17:41:41 GMT
References: <6429@hubcap.clemson.edu> <10835@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 24

<6043@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> <6198@ficc.uu.net> <15624@duke.cs.duke.edu>

The distinction between a 'producer' and 'director' is a good one.  While
I usually argue in favor of more technical expertise rather than less,
in this case I'll do the opposite.

In this train of argument being discussed here, people have been attacking
the idea of putting a "manager" in charge.  I think the original poster
might have misinterpreted the original case being made.  In the case study
literature, there are many cases of well built, useful systems *failing*
because the people they were built for weren't interested.  There are
even more examples of technical projects *failing* because senior management
didn't care, or know to care, whether the project was successful.

Because of these experiences, the current party line is that advanced
information technology projects should not be funded

                         UNLESS

their is a committed person with funding and decision making powers who
is willing and able to pursue the project to its finish (completion or
cancelation).  This, I think, is the 'Producer'.  This person need not
be technical.  This person must understand the goals, strategy, and "bottom
line" of the enterprise.