Feasbility study, 50 years ago, unchanged?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

I was browsing bitsavers and found a 1957 report on how to do a
feasibility study:

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/trw/papers/Dean_A_Practical_Feasibility_Study_For_Electronic_Data_Processing_Apr57.pdf

I took a glance at it, and IMHO, most of it would still apply today;
only the references to specific machine types and word counts would
change.

Or am I missing something in modern feasibility studies?

[public replies, please]

[Quadibloc]

On Nov 18, 1:43 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> I took a glance at it, and IMHO, most of it would still apply today;
> only the references to specific machine types and word counts would
> change.
>
> Or am I missing something in modern feasibility studies?

"Some day most of the companies represented here will be using
electronic data processing equipment. The question, of course, is--
when?"

That certainly has changed. Now, some companies no longer use
typewriters, but they all use computers.

Of course, the basics don't change. If one is implementing a system to
handle a business process with computer assistance, it remains true
that the benefits must exceed the cost, and it remains true that the
people who interact with the system must know how to use it.

What has changed is that some computer applications, like word
processing or spreadsheets, are as much taken for granted as the use
of ball-point pens by one's employees.

John Savard

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article
<51bd84c8-c96c-43eb...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) writes:

> Of course, the basics don't change. If one is implementing a system to
> handle a business process with computer assistance, it remains true
> that the benefits must exceed the cost, and it remains true that the
> people who interact with the system must know how to use it.

"If you automate chaos, all you get is faster chaos."

--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!