'Now all this was fine because this was the development database and the intention was in around March '93 we should have ... a rewritten database, perhaps you are aware of this. But because development took longer than we expected..than they expected, they would argue..X071 page 004.01 (tape 02.1.04) Keith Notes/Tape 20/01/95It's interesting in a way, because they'd seen the Q&A database, they'd seen the size of it, they'd seen the forms that had come off it, they'd had it explained to them that we need a renewal, we need a history, because it's live, if you change a record you automatically need a history. Now as regards almost the basic size of that database, it's not very different. The difference actually lies in where you quote perils and extensions. ... If you take that out, there isn't necessarily a great deal more difference. So I would argue that they should have been aware, ... that it was bigger than what we already had. But they maintain that it was actually bigger and of course when you keep changing things, and of course you're going to keep changing things if you're in this development mode because that's the whole point of looking at it and developing it as you go. As a consequence, come March, the system was introduced. But it was introduced on the development database not the rewritten one because they hadn't had time to rewrite the database.' ...
Social influence: | Organisation: Resource issues |
Technical influence: | Process: Methodology |
![]() |
Recording |
![]() |
![]() |
Story |
![]() |
![]() |
Social influence |
![]() |
![]() |
Technical influence |
![]() |
© Clare Tagg 2000