Some people prefer Dear Abby, others Ann Landers. I’m an Ann kind of guy — too often, Abby’s advice lacks specifics and substance, whereas Ann’s advice is always practical and specific.

One of Ann’s better pieces of advice goes to “the other woman”. “If he cheated on his wife with you,” Ann regularly points out, “he’ll cheat on you, too.”

Unfamiliarity with Ann’s analysis is just one of the many flaws in a new Gartner Group report titled, “The Cost of Migrating COBOL Developers to Java,” by J. Feiman and R. Flatau-Reynoso (mentioned to me by IS Survivalist Joe Kruger who also pointed out some of its flaws). If you’re the kind of person who likes to look at the aftermath of train wrecks and traffic accidents, you might want to read the report yourself — you’ll find it at http://gartner5.gartnerweb.com/public/static/hotc/00092702.html.

The report begins, “Gartner has warned IS organizations that migrating their mainframe COBOL developers to Internet and Java development would be a painful experience. Here, we measure in dollars just how painful this process would be.” What’s painful is reading the report. It totes up every imaginable cost associated with retraining COBOL programmers in Java, compares it with just one of the costs of new Java programmers (their compensation), and concludes the Java recruits cost about $20,000 less.

It’s pretty hard to take seriously an analysis that ignores recruiting costs and hiring bonuses. These obvious omissions are less astounding, though, than the report’s assumption that Java developers will be available and productive the day the company starts recruiting.

Last I heard, the average lag time for hiring a skilled Java developer was about three months, but there’s no estimate of the business impact from a three month recruiting-generated project delay.

Nor is there any recognition of the ramp-up time any new developer needs to get accustomed to a new company, corporate culture, and IT environment. If the standard tools used by their new employer are different from those they already know, that will cause additional delays. Usually, new developers also find it pretty handy to understand the legacy environment they’re going to be dealing with. That learning isn’t instantaneous either.

New developers are never productive their first day of employment, and in fact are rarely productive the first month. Significantly, most of the process they go through to become productive requires the involvement of currently productive programmers, whose productivity suffers a bit from the time needed to get the newbies up to speed.

And then there’s the Ann Landers effect. A company that replaces long-time employees rather than retraining them will do the same thing again for the next bunch. I’m guessing most Java recruits will be familiar with Ann’s advice, which means the chance they’ll be loyal to their new employer is exactly bupkis. The next good offer they get and they’re gone, and why not? The report ignores this factor, but ironically it does comment on the risk of retrained COBOL programmers either demanding a raise or leaving. Maybe it’s assuming the Java recruits will all be here on H1b visas, where they can’t change employers.

When Ann Landers gives bad advice, she accepts 50 lashes with a wet noodle. Perhaps we should all mail some noodles to the Gartner Group and see what it does with them.

I have good news, great news, bad news, and good news.

The American Cocoa Research Institute (ACRI) recently reported research on (what else?) the health benefits of cocoa and chocolate.

The good news: The ACRI exists. Something this important deserves a research institute. The great news is that cocoa and chocolate are chock-full of flavonoids. Flavonoids are naturally occurring anti-oxidents, which means they help clean up nasty stuff inside you. According to the ACRI’s research, the flavonoids in cocoa and chocolate are more potent than those in red wine, and in fact are more potent than Vitamin C.

While the current marketplace for flavonoid detectors is only $10 million annually, the Froschbosch Group predicts that by 2005, it will grow to over $2 billion. This prediction is neither more nor less reliable than any of the other triple-digit-growth-rate market predictions you read about every week in this and other IT industry publications.

Have you ever taken a close look at these puppies? They’re all identical. They’re exponential growth curves — not one is S-shaped, none have plateaus, interruptions, or inflection points in their smooth takeoffs to glory. They all start with sales statistically indistinguishable from zero, and end a zillion times bigger. Add together a complete set and the 2005 total is 37 times the current US gross national product.

That’s a lot of economic growth … which, if it meant anything, would be great news.

Sadly, it doesn’t. That’s the bad news. These market forecasts are almost perfectly unreliable.

The statistics themselves are fine. I’m confident that the samples are big enough, stratified enough, stationary enough, and unbiased enough, and the computations are handled with precision. But they’re based on surveys.

So. The Froschbosch Group calls a CIO and asks, “Are you currently using XML to define workflow metadata?” The CIO answers that he is not with confidence.

“Are you actively investigating its potential?” The CIO doesn’t want to look like an incompetent bowb, so “Yes,” he responds, with no real understanding of what workflow metadata is.

“Will it be in production by 2002?” The CIO just said his organization is actively investigating this mystery cure, and two years is a long time. “Yes.” Heck, for all he knows, he will.

But probably, he won’t. He hasn’t even started the internal selling needed to get funding approved. In the unlikely event that he sells it and the business buys it, about three of every four IT projects fails, which means XML-based workflow metadata never will go into production in his company.

Okay, let’s give our survey respondent a break. Maybe the question is about the future of object/relational databases, and the CIO understands the subject. Every RDBM vendor has announced object/relational extensions, and his policy is to stay current on releases. Will he have object/relational database technology in production by 2003? “Yes,” he answers, and the survey company announces exponential growth for the object/relational marketplace.

The bad news is that most of these market forecasts don’t mean very much. What’s the good news?

The good news is that none of them matter to you. Amazing market growth doesn’t mean a technology is important to you, any more than a more modest market growth rate means it’s not.

All that matters is whether your business can benefit from a technology. No growth curve can tell you that. Market growth matters only to venture capitalists and Wall Street analysts, not CIOs and CTOs.