There are many reasons why a program brought out of hibernation could incur costs:
1. The hardware environment has changed.
2. The system software environment has changed.
3. The size or format of the data has changed.
4. The human environment has changed.
5. Some part of the program or its supporting material has been lost or damaged.
So it does cost to rerun an "unchanged" program, and the longer the period of hibernation, the greater the cost. But you already knew this—we all know this. Then why, oh why, do we keep tumbling into the same trap?
I believe the answer lies in our unwillingness or inability to feed-back the true costs of programming and program maintenance to our users. Among our service bureau clients, the problem seems to have been brought to manageable proportions by the following steps:
1. When a program is commissioned, the lifespan and the number of executions must be specified.
2. If there is uncertainty about either of these ﬁgures, contingent prices are given, reﬂecting the differing costs.
3. The contract is written stating that the program will be destroyed after a certain time and/or number of runs, whichever comes ﬁrst.
4. The program remains the property of the service bureau, unless the customer takes ownership—in which case a much higher cost is placed on the job, in order to pay for preparing the program to be taken over by other than the original programmers.
5. The customer is notified when the program is about to be destroyed, and is given the option (at a substantial and realistic price) of having the program rebuilt for further use.
6. If the program is a "one-time" program, no notification is given, but the program is destroyed—literally—as soon as the customer agrees to accept the results.
When working with inexperienced users, it is not difficult to get these terms accepted. Neither is it difficult with very experienced users, who know quite well the realities of "one-time" programs that turn out to be "N-time" programs. Only the in between users have difficulty accepting these conditions, for they believe they understand about programming, but actually have no solid basis for understanding.
After a few costly lessons, they are more than willing to sit down in advance and decide whether they want to invest in an N-time program or merely in a disposable program that will actually be disposed of.
In internal data processing situations, especially where there is no true chargeback for programming or program maintenance, these lessons are difficult to teach. There is no cost to the users of specifying a one-time program and then asking that it be run N times. Without cost, there is no motivation to learn.
Where there is chargeback, it is possible to do what good, professional service bureaus do. Without chargeback, you can sometimes achieve some relief by manipulating the one parameter you have available—time. You request the user to specify a one-time or N-time program and then give different time estimates for each. The one-time estimate is shorter, but carefully spells out the procedure that will be followed in destroying the program after its ﬁrst use.
At ﬁrst, users will not believe this procedure will be enforced. After a few lessons, they will begin to understand and devote some energy to the decision. Of course, some users will simply attack the computing center manager, or the programmer, with an axe, literal or ﬁgurative. Such are the perils of our profession. Besides, even an axe in the forehead is better than the pain in some lower anatomy caused by an immortal one-time program.
“Floyd 5.136″ by S. F. Chapman
6 hours ago