|
|
|
|
ADVANTAGE
|
|
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTIC
|
SINGLE-VENDOR
|
MULTI-VENDOR
|
S-V
|
M-V
|
| INDUSTRY
TREND |
Declining |
Accelerating |
|
X
|
|
COST
EFECTIVENESS
|
Extremely
expensive. Price comparison not possible |
Very
competitive and price-sensitive. Best-of-Budget |
|
X
|
|
DRIVING FORCE
|
Historical
hardware vendors such as IBM, DEC, Unisys |
Cost-conscious
customers requiring functionality |
|
X
|
|
EASE OF THIRD PARTY MODULE INTEGRATION
|
None.
Not a design criteria. Buy from same vendor |
Easy.
Design criteria built in. |
|
X
|
|
USER ABILITY
TO REPLACE
MODULES
|
None.
This is not a design criteria |
Easy.
Software modules can be replaced at any time. |
|
X
|
|
COST TO
INTERFACE A
THIRD PARTY
MODULE
|
Horrendous!
(quotes of $60K for CPI to O/R scheduling are known). |
Miniscule
compared to the benefits ($2K to $6K) |
|
X
|
|
SOFTWARE SUPPLIERS
|
Being
forced to rewrite all modules and change philosophy to survive
in the future |
Massive
market for software products without O/S restriction |
|
X
|
|
OPERATING
SYSTEMS
|
Pick,
OS/2, AIX, MVS, Magic, QNX, etc. "Proprietary" O/Ss |
Unix,
Windows NT. These are "open" O/Ss. |
|
X
|
|
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
|
Easier.
All with one legal entity |
Multiple
contracts with multiple vendors |
X
|
|
|
SOFTWARE FUNCTIONALITY
|
Limited.
No user choice. Take it or leave it. |
The end
user can select as required to meet needs. |
|
X
|
|
TECHNICAL
SUPPORT
|
Easier.
One vendor to call. More expensive |
Deal
with individual vendors. Less expensive. |
X
|
|
|
FUTURE
SOFTWARE
MODULES
NEEDED
|
Problematic.
No guarantee such modules will be provided. |
Always
a large choice of software modules |
|
X
|
|
IMPLEMENTATION
OF INITIAL
SYSTEM
|
Challenging.
Must be done at once to replace all old systems. |
Much
easier. Can be spaced out over many months or even years. |
|
X
|