From: John Underhill (stepnwlf@magma.ca)
Date: Sun Jun 20 2004 - 19:09:47 GMT-3
'The history of all hitherto existing society, is the history of class
struggles'..
(..anyone running carnivore?)
Howard,
I think loyalties within corporate partnerships are becoming more strained
and less relevant with the growing tendancy towards outsourcing. The only
people left in my company that are actually employees, are sales reps,
secretaries, and of course, managers.. none of whom have the slightest
interest in becoming a CCIE, and further, rely solely on the opinions of an
outsourced IT staff as it regards purchasing decisions. Policies evolve to
suit necessity, and given the 'Walmart' archetype being adopted as the
current corporate model, I think it is going to become ever the more
necessary to consider the individuals needs alongside their corporate
partners, as fewer people fall under the umbrella of these corporate
agreements, so collectively, the body of displaced engineers will
increasingly represent the greater potential revenue. Now I understand that
it would not be as simple a thing as adding a link to a page and putting a
few racks online, and there are probably complexities that extend far beyond
my simple understanding of their internal politics, but it all begins as
'will and idea', and if enough people give a voice to this particular idea,
I fully expect that we could make changes that affect the greater good..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Cisco IOU
> At 4:07 PM -0400 6/20/04, John Underhill wrote:
> >Witness: this is what is known as a 'clear cut case of irony'.
> >By deciding to respond to the group address, you realize of course, that
you
> >have violated that same policy? All kidding aside..
> >I have always felt that it would serve the best interests of your company
to
> >make more resources available to CCIE candidates. Say, some subset of the
> >learning tools that are available to channel partners, could also be
> >available to those that have passed the qualification exam. You have to
look
> >at it in terms of investing company resources in those that are so
clearly
> >committed to investing in you. This is a symbiotic relationship, many of
the
> >engineers that are committed to learning the nuances of your products,
are
> >also the same people who effect purchasing decisions within their
respective
> >companies, and by better facilitating the learning process, you are in
turn
> >both insuring product loyalty, and nurturing a culture of qualified
> >engineers.
>
> I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's a more than two way
> symbiosis. Cisco has a symbiosis with various types of partners,
> which it protects, sometimes to the detriment of individuals.
>
> For example, there is the restriction that certifications become
> associated with a particular channel partner and can't be transferred
> without consent of first partner to register that person as part of
> their qualification. Apparently, it doesn't make a difference there
> if the person or the partner paid for the certification.
>
> In like manner, instructor certifications are completely tied to the
> learning partner. It's a little different procedure (unless it's
> changed) than for the VAR partnerships. An instructor can go to
> another partner, but that partner has to pay the full, non-prorated
> instructor registration fee before they can use that instructor
> full-time. That being said, it's not at all unheard of for learning
> partner B to "rent" an instructor for some course from partner "A",
> but "B" has to have "A's" permission on a per-course basis -- and
> often would pay "A" a consulting fee.
>
> Cisco Academy is also set up on a multiple-semester basis and cannot
> offer courses in less time, to avoid competition with Learning
> Partners that, in principle, are the places you go to when you want
> quick training.
>
> Like it or not, it appears Cisco has a corporate policy of valuing
> partner relations over individual relations. From their business
> point of view, that's not a completely illogical decision, if they
> see their revenue stream depending on partners rather than
> individuals.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:45 GMT-3