|Re: Dataset truncate string columns [message #1103472 is a reply to message #1103429]
||Fri, 06 September 2013 20:58
| Alexander Dias
Registered: March 2013
I generate sample to you verify error.
You can test in sample report and post results for me?
My report print only marked text...
Thanks for helping..
The original text is:
From the Business you may hear that "we have no confidence in IT's ability to deliver useful solutions", or "we
have limited visibility of progress, risks and problems", and "we don't know how we should measure the value
of our investments in IT." From IT you may hear that "they (the Business) don't fund the projects adequately",
or "they don't know what they need", or "they don't know what is possible to develop". Each side feels the
other is responsible for the problem. And, you know, both are right.
Over the years many things have been tried to close the gap, from the one extreme to another. Some have
viewed the gap as a soft problem: if only Business and IT could collaborate better and learn from one another
the problem would be solved. Improvements in communication and sensitivity training were tried, but still
the gap grew.
At the other extreme people have tried to apply engineering approaches to the problem, assuming that rigor
would succeed where informal communication has failed. The result was usually a formal business process
model, understandable only by its creators who were typically IT people. This usually made the business
people feel ignorant and annoyed, and the gap grew wider.
So we know what doesn't work - let's try something different! Our view is that the solution lies somewhere in
the middle. Starting with the end in mind, what everyone wants is an executable solution that supports and
improves the ability of the business to succeed. That end is oft-forgotten, but no one wins if it is not achieved.
All of the document sign-offs and hand-offs and other techniques to ensure accountability and transfer responsibility
mean nothing if business results do not improve.
The dominant model in IT to date has been to think of IT as an internal "supplier" to the business, with the business
as the "customer" of IT. This model is at the heart of the problem.
The reality is that IT is not a supplier. If it were a supplier, it would be free to pursue other business if it did not
find the terms the business offered attractive - and in most cases, the terms the business offers are unattractive:
the business typically dictates cost and schedule and features. Or rather it tries to - it usually dictates the cost
and the schedule but lets the features pile on so that the initial cost, usually unachievable, becomes burdened
with extra features ("usually irrelevant") so that the original cost and schedule are guaranteed to be unachievable.
If IT is not a supplier, then neither is the business "the customer". If it were a customer it would be free to source
services from any supplier, and it often tries to do so. The reality is that most suppliers would not accept the
terms that the business imposes on its own IT organization: fixed cost and schedule and thoroughly variable
scope. The Business wants, and has been allowed to believe it is reasonable to demand, the ability to endlessly
change its mind, or at least to be imprecise about what it really needs without bearing the cost.
It should be obvious to anyone familiar with the situation that the current model does not work, and has never
worked. We need to approach the problem in a different way!
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.02664 seconds