>I have not read the referenced article. From the words below I infer that the >primary reason for failure is 'choosing the technology based on the skills of >the developers'.
>Frankly, I would like to know how this was determined...

That's not what I or the article said, it was cited as one of the primary reasons. There were four common reasons given.

>I feel that most shops plan all of their development based on the set(s) of >tools/skills they have on hand and if they determine that the objective cannot >be accomplished with those then they either can the project or plan to >acquire/grow the necessary skills. It would be a sad shop indeed that got very >far along with a project only to 'learn' that their chosen tool(s) were not up >to the job (I hear it happens but that is clearly bad management).

I see this happen all the time. A lot of our consulting work is project rescue and more often than not it's determined that the fastest way to rescue the project is to can it and start over. Cccording to statistics, 75% of all software projects fail, perhaps because of the large number of database projects that are being attempted in VB. :-)

>On the other hand, planning on "having developers aquire skills in the right >technology..." suggests that they would be 'learning' the tool/skill as the >project moved along.

You might infer that, I certainly don't, however virtually all developers learn the tool they are working with as they develop an application. But the article doesn't suggest you go buy tool x and start building your apps. It suggest you learn tool x and then build the app or hire people that know tool x to build the app.

On the other hand, not "having developers aquire skills in the right technology," which I guess you're making a case for, suggests that once developers learn a single tool they are set for life and need not further their skills any more.

> I don't know how people conduct studies along these lines. It looks to me to > be a part of that vast right-wing conspiracy to convince all DEVELOPERS that > they must be proficient in several languages in order to be successful in the > future.

Oh, I forgot, everything is a conspiracy. The article is actually about how the lack of requirements gathering or poor requirements gathering causes most project failures. Choosing the wrong development tool is just mentioned as an also ran.

>My contention is that in fact only a handful of developers can retain high >proficiency in more than one language at a time - as you delve more deeply >into one any prior ones lose ground.

You have to remember the audience that Intelligent Enterprise is written for. It's written for IS manager of large corporations. They aren't trying to tell independent developers to master all technologies. They're telling IS managers that if Java or VFP is the best choice for a project, get some Java or VFP skills on your staff (or contract for them) instead of developing the app in COBOL just because that's where the expertise of your staff lies.

>"The right tool for the job" is being blown way out of proportion, in my >humble opinion, and when it is applicable then a far wiser choice to me is to >buy/rent the skills of people HIGHLY qualified in the particular area. To >expect existing staff to learn them on the job can only result in an inferior >application, as I see it.

This is mentioned as an option in the article.

>Computers and programming offered something that no other business tool could -> the ability to be shaped and moulded to meet the DIFFERENT needs of any >business. Any serious and genuine programming language aimed at the business >environment (I'm not so sure that VB is aimed there) has these capabilities.

Yes, and the degree to which each of the tools addresses different business needs varies greatly. If you really think they are all equally or closely suited to the same tasks, then write a web application in COBOL.

>We should not be so quick to accept some popular "wisdom" (in this case, "The >right tool for the job") and apply it to our own PERSONAL choices. Doing so >will, I feel strongly, just water down the quality of the products we are >capable of producing.

Well, you started out attempting to base this on business reasons but now, in the end, it's all coming down to your PERSONAL choices and feelings, which are hardly sound reasons for business decisions.