J.P. Morgan 3

HAMLET
Let me see.

(Takes the skull)

Alas, poor Ian! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen? Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come; make her laugh at that. Prithee, Horatio, tell me one thing.

HORATIO
What's that, my lord?

HAMLET
Dost thou think Alexander looked o' this fashion i' the earth?

HORATIO
E'en so.

HAMLET
And smelt so? pah!

(Puts down the skull)

HORATIO
E'en so, my lord.

HAMLET
To what base uses we may return, Horatio! Why may not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander, till he find it stopping a bung-hole?

HORATIO
'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so.

HAMLET
No, faith, not a jot; but to follow him thither with modesty enough, and likelihood to lead it: as thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth into dust; the dust is earth; of earth we make loam; and why of that loam, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel? Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay, Might stop a hole to keep the wind away: O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe, Should patch a wall to expel the winter flaw!

Alas, alas! Soon a second hole in a wall would find its patch.

I have mentioned BCL, that software libary from Icon Solutions that was not fit to stop a bung-hole. Like a ghost, BCL had reappeared. It was here -- at Morgan! Several projects were using it; others were considering adopting it; and people looked to me for technical advice.

I was busy with many things. One of my initiatives was to set up an electronic discussion forum at Morgan for PowerBuilder issues. After a seminar I'd conducted, I posted a point-form summary of the meeting, excerpted below. You may want to ready the kleenex. The ambition it reflects to address problems squarely and bring genuine reforms is quite poignant:

Are general problems of software industry present at Pinnacle as well?

• Violating well-known good practices:
  • programming without specifications
  • decisions made without input from knowledgeable people
  • lack of openness
  • fixing symptoms, not underlying problem
• Low morale, conviction by technical people that activities irrational.
• Frequent project failures.

If so, can we do better?

• Problems hindering success must be
  1. articulated
  2. effectively communicated to decision-makers.
• Input more effective if we have consensus.
• Can raise issues in this meeting, also Notes PB Infobase (good forum for issue debate/resolution)
• Organization benefits + we personally benefit.

There was also a teeny mention of "3'rd party products":

PFC / BCL: Uriel doesn't recommend either. Some agree, some disagree. Resolution: Since consensus unlikely, let individual teams make own decisions.

Alas! This was the beginning of the end.

Let me provide some context. Pinnacle had taken over many of Morgan's software applications, but there was a category of applications that Morgan continued to work on directly, without using Pinnacle.

There was a "BCL group" of 4 PowerBuilder consultants working directly for Morgan, not Pinnacle. They had a tech leadership role at Morgan parallel to mine at Pinnacle. They had been there for years; they had the ardent support of a Morgan Vice President; and they were passionate about BCL, which in some murky way made a lot of money for them, as suggested by the dollar figures in the following inscrutable message from the BCL group leader, Bill Green:

To: pbbcl-users @ jpmorgan.com @ SMTP
From: green_william @ jpmorgan.com ("William Green") @ SMTP
Sent: Wed 11/19/97 03:23:06 PM
Subject: BCL v6, and other 1998 stuff

Even though we stated earlier in the year that we would not support BCL past v5 of PowerBuilder, we have had a significant lack of demand to convert existing BCL applications to EBPFC. This being the case, I'd like to get a feel for how many project teams feel they will migrate their BCL applications to PowerBuilder 6 next year. (BCL for PB6 is not on our 1998 plans, and we're at a significant budgetary deadline, so I need responses really quickly). Also, if you will, your managers, Project Managers and SPM's will be reviewing a budget proposal from the BCL team for 1998 where they can choose between funding 2.0, 2.4 or 3.0 FTE's for 1998. Please be proactive in discussing this with them and letting them know what level of support you feel is warranted. Payment for the BCL library will be done at the business unit level next year, and the variance for the business unit is $100,000 to $150,000 per year for business units with more than 2 BCL projects. ($100,000 for 2 FTE's, $150,000 for 3 FTE's). This charge will vary if you have 2 projects or less.

The BCL group had somehow or other inherited BCL from Icon and they spent much of their time at Morgan further developing it.

They discovered my forum post about a week after it appeared. Steve Katz, one of the BCL team members, posted the query: "Can you explain why it is that you do not support the use of BCL or PFC?"

I replied:

Hi Steve,

Developers here fall short of potential success because of ineffective communication. That's what I'd like this infobase to address.

There are problems that are perfectly well-known to developers ....... but are secrets as far as management is concerned. The problems aren't expressed, or are insufficiently emphasized. How else to explain developers working under Win 3.1?

That's the kind of issue we need to home in on; issues where virtually everyone with technical insight can agree.

Clear consensus from technically knowledgeable players can be conveyed to management and lead to action and improvement. Then, win-win: the org benefits and we all benefit.

We know in advance we won't reach consensus on BCL / PFC, so debating that topic doesn't present the same potential. But I'd be happy to discuss it in person.

This attempt to obviate discussion did not work. I had blasphemed, and I soon had four BCL fundamentalists snapping at my heels.

I have ruthlessly sheared the exchange below, in the realization that my personal fondness for such diversions is highly abnormal.

From: Steve Katz
PostedDate: 11/21/97 09:09:15 AM

I would also be happy to discuss this with your further, but since you made the statement here in a globally accessible forum, I thought it would only benefit everyone to discuss this in a globally accessible forum.

---

From: Millard Brown
PostedDate: 11/21/97 09:46:00 AM

>>PFC / BCL: Uriel doesn't recommend either. Some agree, some disagree. Resolution: Since consensus unlikely, <<

Does this mean "Uriel recommends against using these bank standards to promote reuse," or is it simply a statement that having no experience with the products, he is abstaining?

---

From: Uriel Wittenberg
PostedDate: 11/21/97 02:34:21 PM

Are PFC / BCL JPM standards in the sense that all PB systems are supposed to use them? If so I should be aware of it, and I'm not.

I do have experience with BCL. From what I've seen it increases programming time and effort, rather than reducing it.

I'm not abstaining, my opinion is it should not be used.

---

From: Millard Brown
PostedDate: 11/21/97 04:31:42 PM

Hi, Uriel,

>>Are PFC / BCL JPM standards<<

These are not requirements. They are standards. JPM spent time and money developing the BCL (and now the EB4PFC) reusable libraries for use in PowerBuilder projects. The projects decide whether or not to use the reusable libraries on a per-project basis. Up until now, the effort has been to encourage reuse, rather than discourage it.

---

From: William Green
PostedDate: 11/21/97 04:39:36 PM

Millard,

The libraries are not a standard at the bank, but a recommended strategic technology. Standards have to go through a stringent TAP process, and PowerBuilder just barely made it through as the 4GL standard.

---

From: William Green
PostedDate: 11/21/97 04:37:45 PM

Uriel,

Your view is based on your use of BCL where?

Most certainly not here in JP Morgan. 23 projects are using the BCL or EBPFC and the commentary on it's usage has most certainly not indicated increased time and effort. Also, you lump the PFC as a library you have had experience with and do not recommend. Could you please elaborate on your experience and your position. As someone with some influence among the Pinnacle AD PowerBuilder area, your opinions carry weight among the development teams, so I want to be very clear as to why you recommend against a Bank Strategy (Reuse and the Use of Libraries is a Bank Strategy). Are you generally against all PowerBuilder libraries, or do you recommend an alternative to the BCL and/or PFC/EBPFC?

Your position and visibility are elements of great concern to me when you make blanket statements like this. The firm is comitted to reuse as a strategy with several libraries in use. The PowerBuilder library has been one of the more successful at the bank, and is still a "buy" technology internally. ALL PowerBuilder project teams are urged to look very closely at whether they should use the library or not. If not, we STRONGLY urge that they use a library, possibly the PFC. In my opinion, after being here for 3.5 years, is that MOST PowerBuilder applications use a library, and about half use the official Bank library (BCL or EBPFC).

---

From: Uriel Wittenberg
PostedDate: 11/24/97 11:56:49 AM

Dear Millard and Bill,

This is my final message on this topic for the time being. I have consistently promoted the freedom of project teams to choose for themselves whether or not to use BCL (or PFC); and I have explained why an argument between BCL partisans and others would not be the way to achieve the constructive benefits I envision for this discussion database.

Unfortunately, freedom to choose does not satisfy you, and you also want uniformity of opinion on the issue. I am finding some of your protestations rather aggressive. Various sins have been attributed to me, including recommending against "Bank Strategies" and discouraging "reuse".

Well, we have established that a project team is not in violation of "Bank Strategy" when it declines to use BCL. We've also established that negative comments re BCL do not tend to get directed towards its authors. The aggressiveness noted above may provide partial explanation. You may wish to arrange for an independent, anonymous survey of BCL users at some point if you would like objective feedback.

---

From: William E Rompala
PostedDate: 11/25/97 08:18:56 AM

>This is my final message on this topic for the time being.

I surely hope not. I think there is some unfinished business here.

By not placing your reasons on why not to use the EBPFC (or the old BCL), then you are depriving those that use this discussion database to share information the ability to make an informed decision.

If that is your wish, then it seems that "freedom to choose" is not on your agenda.

Since I'd stopped participating in the public discussion, they then began assailing me by private email. I outlined my position:

From: Uriel Wittenberg
To: William Green
PostedDate: 11/24/97 05:12:29 PM

It's already pretty plain that anything I say about BCL will be lustily attacked by BCL experts who are immersed in it as a full-time occupation. I am not backing down from a discussion. I'm saying that for me to spell out a detailed and supported argument against using BCL would be a significant task. And it's not within my broad mandate at Pinnacle. I.e., no one's paying me to do this.

If you can't accept this, I suggest you present me with a formal request to undertake an evaluation of BCL and produce a report with recommendations as to its use. I can promise that I would consult you in the course of such an evaluation. If you want to make this request I will discuss it with the responsible people at this end and we will determine if this is a project we want to pursue.

Discussion subsided. For 5 months. Then I saw Steve Katz promoting the false view again, on the electronic forum I'd set up, about BCL being a bank "standard." My response produced a cataclysm:

From: Uriel Wittenberg
PostedDate: 04/15/98

Steve Katz writes:

>>EB/PFC is one of the 2 standard, supported, and encouraged base class libraries here at JPM for both JPM and Pinnacle projects.<<

I'm the Global Technology PowerBuilder specialist supporting the use of PowerBuilder at Pinnacle AD. I do not encourage Pinnacle developers to use EB/PFC. An earlier version of this product I have worked with was not just bug-ridden and undocumented, but utterly misconceived, in that it multiplied the effort required to produce a given application.

As Steve is aware, I am open to developers here examining this product, reaching their own conclusions, and using it as they see fit. I am opposed to the BCL team's persistent efforts to apply pressure and suggest that J.P. Morgan and/or Pinnacle define the product as a "standard" and promote its use.

Steve says EB/PFC is "encouraged". This use of the passive voice does not indicate just who is doing the encouraging. I think it's time BCL's promoters fully identified themselves and disclosed their involvement and financial interests in the product.

Marc O. Becker, the Morgan VP backing the BCL team, wanted my head immediately. My boss Bob resisted this, but I was obliged to post an assurance that "I did not intend to personally attack or call into question the BCL team's integrity."

Six weeks later Bob told me it'd been discovered that there was simply no more demand for PowerBuilder services from our group. He consented to a longer notice than he'd committed to, a month, and I sent a departure announcement to everybody:

To: AC-ALL NY, AC-AD-BPM-DEL, AC-AD-BPM-NY, AC-AD-CNTR-DEL, AC-AD-CNTR-NY, AC-AD-CONS-DEL, AC-AD-CONS-NY, AC-MDS-BPM-NY, AC-MDS-CNTR-NY, AC-MDS-CONS-NY, AC-MW-BPM-NY, AC-MW-CNTR-NY, AC-MW-CONS-NY, AC-NS-BPM-DEL, AC-NS-BPM-NY, AC-NS-CNTR-DEL, AC-NS-CNTR-NY, AC-NS-CONS-DEL, AC-NS-CONS-NY, AC-Europe, AC-Europe-Con, AC-London, AC-London-Con, AC-AD-GLT Team, Application Architect Forum
Subject: Goodbye And Best Wishes

It has recently come to light that Global Technology faces no new demand for PowerBuilder services. I have therefore arranged, in consultation with Andersen management, to complete my consulting engagement with Pinnacle on July 10.

It is probably no secret that I believe much should be done quite differently at Pinnacle, if the goal is to serve J.P. Morgan better. Although I've helped people with some specific problems, I regret having had little success in influencing the way things are generally done. Luckily, I have not been impeded in my own tasks by some of the constraints affecting others. I am grateful to my enlightened boss, Bob Zolkiewicz, for understanding that results count and granting me the freedom to work efficiently.

We all know that software development, here and elsewhere, is plagued by many problems. I am proud that my deliverables were among those produced at Pinnacle that functioned correctly and were delivered on time, within budget, and to specifications.

I hope my commitment to quality has been evident throughout the year I've served Pinnacle. My advice occasionally diverged from what people wanted to hear ... but any consultant can tell you what you want to hear. I have also striven to disseminate useful knowledge and make others self-sufficient.

I've enjoyed serving you all. Goodbye and best wishes.

Uriel

People, do not be so downhearted. The ending to this story is actually kind of upbeat.

I had a month to go. As well as wrapping up various other things, Bob gave me one final assignment: evaluate BCL.

(To be continued ....)