Interessante post van iemand op slashdot:
The major fallacy many big companies fall into is that some of these systems have been running flawlessly for years, because they hired a competent IT staff. They look at the price of those paychecks and shiver. Why are we paying so many high priced engineers when we've never had a problem, they think.
So they reduce staff and start to rely on support contracts instead of on-site gurus. The gurus are still there to solve any oh-shit moments. But that back investment in good engineers has produced a stable infrastructure that runs with few problems for years. So they reduce staff more, pay for more support contracts, and eventually the system critical mass is greater than the engineers who can support it. It's no problem until it's a problem.
Eventually something minor goes wrong, but nobody notices or if they do it's not really their field of expertise so they don't understand it's minor now but could escalate. When it does, something else goes wrong, and a cascade effect takes out more and more systems. With a full staff, you have enough guys that when the critical mass is reached, they can start defensive measures and get things back in working order in no time. With support staff only, things are going wrong faster than they can deal with it.
"Call on our support contracts," shout the bosses! So now your on-site staff are all on hold instead of troubleshooting. When they get through to someone, they have to spend the first hour or two describing their infrastructure to the technician on the other end, who starts making random suggestions that maybe help, but probably don't.
Het praktijkvoorbeeld dat hij vervolgens noemt is best wel erg te noemen...