6 ms·

Great story however I think the author is missing a link in the communication chain. Computer systems are not always used as the developers suppose. I would h

by Peroni 15y ago

Great story however I think the author is missing a link in the communication chain. Computer systems are not always used as the developers suppose. I would happily bet good money that the developers built what they believed to be a useful and efficient system that the thoroughly tested. A view that I will guarantee was shared by the restaurant owner who purchased the system and implemented it into his restaurant and spent valuable time teaching the staff how to use it. A couple of busy nights later and the staff are struggling to remember the sequence they are meant to follow and instead of familiarising themselves and becoming more efficient with the system over time they implement a very basic system that takes less effort to remember. This is less of a case of a poor system and more a case of poor management mainly because the staff obviously weren't trained and sold on the system properly and no follow-up checks have taken place to ensure the system is being used correctly.

binarymax 15y ago
So you're blaming the staff for an impractical UI? You do realize that software should meet the business needs - not the business meeting the software needs?
- Peroni 15y ago
  No, as I clearly said, I'm blaming the management for not clearly communicating to the staff why the new system will prove to be more efficient in the long run.
  - binarymax 15y ago
    But it isn't efficient. Its so inefficient that the staff have been reduced to using a marker on the screen. Its not a failure of management communication or proper training. It's a failure of the product.
    - jonknee 15y ago
      That could be the case or it could also be the case that the head waiter never took the time to learn and has refused to change his ways. Hard to say from just one data point. The same system could be successfully used in thousands of other restaurants.
  - rudasn 15y ago
    You have no facts to prove your claim. You don't know whether or not a) the management clearly communicated to the staff; b) the new system is actually more efficient; c) the headwaiter isn't actually the manager that put the system there in the first place; d) this event happened "in the long run", after working with the system as it should after which stakeholders decided that it's actually not efficient, etc etc. You can blame management and bad communication all you want but the fact is that what seems rational and efficient for some people (management) is irrational and inefficient for others (the person actually doing the work).
- ht_th 15y ago
  But in the end it probably does both. I often find that when developing some system we end up with a less than optimal result due to all kinds of constraints. Sometimes there just isn't enough money to finish the project the way I wanted, or the existing ICT infrastructure isn't under my control and I and my clients have to make ends meet. Then the organisation starts growing around the solution like a leukocyte encapsulating a non-own-body cell and it becomes part of the organisation.
  - nazar 15y ago
    Tho offtopic, non-own-body encapsulated by leukocytes never becomes a part of organization(organism)
- vacri 15y ago
  That's a throwaway slogan that implies that businesses shouldn't ever have to change their processes.
  - alextgordon 15y ago
    It's just reality. Software is easier to change than people. People forget things, get into bad habits, have non-perfect understandings, ulterior motives, and all sorts of other flaws. If your software relies on fixing flaws in humans, it's probably going to fail.
    - sneak 15y ago
      Actually, it directly depends on how many people. Good software is expensive, and if your staff is below a certain number, it may be cheaper to just use the stick. I think this is why hospital software systems are so abysmally bad. They have people who are accustomed to complex training, and software that costs a small fortune to deploy.
      - vacri 15y ago
        Part of the reason why hospital software is bad is because of the intense politics involved, complete with fiefdoms and sales reps with shiny toys. A friend of mine used to be in Quality management at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, here are two (of many) stories The hospital patient management process is somewhat paralysed because every department has its own custom system for managing patients. He was involved in trying to get a hospital-wide system in, but the CEO was more interested in "making her mark" than managing the hospital, which would require forcing the point with the department heads. So quite frequently patients moving between departments would not have their receiving department ready or even aware of their arrival. Generally the issue was that either department heads liked the shiny toys brought by sales rep -foo- (doctors get a lot through sales rep gifts) and didn't want to change because they'd stop getting them; or that the doctor was stonewalling because they didn't want to learn a new system. Classic case of everyone saying "something must be done... by someone else!". The kicker is that no matter how persuasive your argument might be, the doc would have the last word with "children will die if I can't use this software" and the argument would end. The other story is much shorter: at one bigwig's meeting, one of the senior specialists - a 27-year veteran - shot down a new doctor's comments saying that he wasn't familiar with how things work here. The new doctor's reply? "I've been here 17 years..." I've had a microcosm of this experience as well. While installing monitoring gear for one of the departments, the department chief went ballistic because the new computers had power cables that were touching the desk: "It's written into the quote that the power cables will not touch the desk!". Nonsense, of course, but it's how she gets things to her liking - she was the poster girl for post-contract feature changes. I would have called her on it to try and forestall the next few things that were 'in the contract', but my company was spineless and would never have backed me up. I guess the short form is: a large part of the reason why software is terrible in hospitals is because not many people that have a say are actually evaluating the software properly.
leftnode 15y ago
Unless the management bought a general scheduling system and not one specifically made for the restaurant business, then this is the fault of the software developers for building a system without doing the appropriate market research first.
- 3ch0 15y ago
  I do believe this is a general restaurant booking system. By looking at the URL in the image you can see that this is a online based restaurant booking system. Usually these smaller swedish restaurants doesn't have any management and the owner is usually the headwaiter.
- SyneRyder 15y ago
  It was made specifically for the restaurant business. Look closely at the last screenshot. You can see that it's a web app running in Chrome. The URL is visible, and the website is a "reservation service for restaurants". Also of interest: the company uses a freemium model.
  - robocat 15y ago
    Perhaps the payment model for the web app is "pay €1 for each ticked booking" rather than "pay €1 for each booking made". That would explain the use of felt pen as a financial incentive, rather than as a UI fault...
crististm 15y ago
What do you say about the shitty interface the mp3 player in my phone has? At first I thought I'm so dumb that I'm not able to adapt; then I adapted and realized the interface _was_ indeed shit. The tons of frustration with idiotic interfaces still keeps me away for the "smart" in smartphones - sigh...

by Peroni 15y ago

binarymax 15y ago

So you're blaming the staff for an impractical UI? You do realize that software should meet the business needs - not the business meeting the software needs?

Peroni 15y ago
No, as I clearly said, I'm blaming the management for not clearly communicating to the staff why the new system will prove to be more efficient in the long run.
- binarymax 15y ago
  But it isn't efficient. Its so inefficient that the staff have been reduced to using a marker on the screen. Its not a failure of management communication or proper training. It's a failure of the product.
  - jonknee 15y ago
    That could be the case or it could also be the case that the head waiter never took the time to learn and has refused to change his ways. Hard to say from just one data point. The same system could be successfully used in thousands of other restaurants.
- rudasn 15y ago
  You have no facts to prove your claim. You don't know whether or not a) the management clearly communicated to the staff; b) the new system is actually more efficient; c) the headwaiter isn't actually the manager that put the system there in the first place; d) this event happened "in the long run", after working with the system as it should after which stakeholders decided that it's actually not efficient, etc etc. You can blame management and bad communication all you want but the fact is that what seems rational and efficient for some people (management) is irrational and inefficient for others (the person actually doing the work).
ht_th 15y ago
But in the end it probably does both. I often find that when developing some system we end up with a less than optimal result due to all kinds of constraints. Sometimes there just isn't enough money to finish the project the way I wanted, or the existing ICT infrastructure isn't under my control and I and my clients have to make ends meet. Then the organisation starts growing around the solution like a leukocyte encapsulating a non-own-body cell and it becomes part of the organisation.
- nazar 15y ago
  Tho offtopic, non-own-body encapsulated by leukocytes never becomes a part of organization(organism)
vacri 15y ago
That's a throwaway slogan that implies that businesses shouldn't ever have to change their processes.
- alextgordon 15y ago
  It's just reality. Software is easier to change than people. People forget things, get into bad habits, have non-perfect understandings, ulterior motives, and all sorts of other flaws. If your software relies on fixing flaws in humans, it's probably going to fail.
  - sneak 15y ago
    Actually, it directly depends on how many people. Good software is expensive, and if your staff is below a certain number, it may be cheaper to just use the stick. I think this is why hospital software systems are so abysmally bad. They have people who are accustomed to complex training, and software that costs a small fortune to deploy.
    - vacri 15y ago
      Part of the reason why hospital software is bad is because of the intense politics involved, complete with fiefdoms and sales reps with shiny toys. A friend of mine used to be in Quality management at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, here are two (of many) stories The hospital patient management process is somewhat paralysed because every department has its own custom system for managing patients. He was involved in trying to get a hospital-wide system in, but the CEO was more interested in "making her mark" than managing the hospital, which would require forcing the point with the department heads. So quite frequently patients moving between departments would not have their receiving department ready or even aware of their arrival. Generally the issue was that either department heads liked the shiny toys brought by sales rep -foo- (doctors get a lot through sales rep gifts) and didn't want to change because they'd stop getting them; or that the doctor was stonewalling because they didn't want to learn a new system. Classic case of everyone saying "something must be done... by someone else!". The kicker is that no matter how persuasive your argument might be, the doc would have the last word with "children will die if I can't use this software" and the argument would end. The other story is much shorter: at one bigwig's meeting, one of the senior specialists - a 27-year veteran - shot down a new doctor's comments saying that he wasn't familiar with how things work here. The new doctor's reply? "I've been here 17 years..." I've had a microcosm of this experience as well. While installing monitoring gear for one of the departments, the department chief went ballistic because the new computers had power cables that were touching the desk: "It's written into the quote that the power cables will not touch the desk!". Nonsense, of course, but it's how she gets things to her liking - she was the poster girl for post-contract feature changes. I would have called her on it to try and forestall the next few things that were 'in the contract', but my company was spineless and would never have backed me up. I guess the short form is: a large part of the reason why software is terrible in hospitals is because not many people that have a say are actually evaluating the software properly.

leftnode 15y ago

Unless the management bought a general scheduling system and not one specifically made for the restaurant business, then this is the fault of the software developers for building a system without doing the appropriate market research first.

3ch0 15y ago
I do believe this is a general restaurant booking system. By looking at the URL in the image you can see that this is a online based restaurant booking system. Usually these smaller swedish restaurants doesn't have any management and the owner is usually the headwaiter.
SyneRyder 15y ago
It was made specifically for the restaurant business. Look closely at the last screenshot. You can see that it's a web app running in Chrome. The URL is visible, and the website is a "reservation service for restaurants". Also of interest: the company uses a freemium model.
- robocat 15y ago
  Perhaps the payment model for the web app is "pay €1 for each ticked booking" rather than "pay €1 for each booking made". That would explain the use of felt pen as a financial incentive, rather than as a UI fault...

crististm 15y ago

What do you say about the shitty interface the mp3 player in my phone has? At first I thought I'm so dumb that I'm not able to adapt; then I adapted and realized the interface _was_ indeed shit. The tons of frustration with idiotic interfaces still keeps me away for the "smart" in smartphones - sigh...