Consider this a rant.

Everyone is talking about savings these days. Personal savings that we have lost and savings that we have to find at work. I see more and more articles that promote "simple" solutions. And as we know, for every problem there is always at least one simple, straightforward and easy to comprehend solution that doesn’t work. So, my question is: what can "CIO Magazine" offer its readers on the topic of "Cost Savings"? I mean, besides sentiments like "Drop Microsoft and I can almost guarantee that you will have significant savings" that one can consider irresponsible at best? As if getting rid of "all Microsoft" is a virtue in itself. Indeed, it looks like some of the authors at "CIO Magazine" are on their personal hunt for Bill Gates' head. Guys, grow up, chances are Bill is out of your reach. You carry the "Expert" title, so be one and check your personal preferences at the door. Do you think that slamming Microsoft raises your profile as experts? To me, it is exactly opposite. If you suggest that going "all Open Source" will give you savings equal to MS's licensing cost that you are paying, then at least put "re-training across the board" into the equation. Add long term support and sustainability and a few other things from real life, then we may have something to compare. Talk to people responsible for the sustainment of your company, they may help you deal with some of your illusions regarding "zero cost" of Open Source solutions. CIOs know that this is far from being true.

So, it’s time to get back to reality and offer something positive and constructive. Better planning. Saving by investing into your staff. Shutting down failing projects. Delivering solutions together with your client. Defying the old saying “There is never enough time to do it right, but there is always plenty of time to do it over”. These would be real savings. But changing your enterprise architecture? I would need a bit more appealing reasons for this than poorly calculated “cost savings”.