Appearances can be deceiving. Using graphical elements from the late 90s or early 2000s isn't indicative of poor quality or stagnant design. As some mentioned,

Appearances can be deceiving. Using graphical elements from the late 90s or early 2000s isn't indicative of poor quality or stagnant design. As some mentioned, modern design trends can actually be much worse. Software that looks (and is) new is more of a risk in these areas because reliability and consistency are important. New software comes with new bugs. It often starts by oversimplifying and requires kludgy additions to fill in the gaps. On the other hand, a lot of ERP is poorly designed regardless of its appearances. Most look like forms directly tied to an SAP system or SQL database. Field requirements are unnecessarily strict, from limited minimum and maximum length for names and need for single word first and last names, to making all fields required, to having some fields only allow selecting one of a handful of values. These interfaces are thin veneers over a table in a database whose requirements are built on a set of management reporting functions rather than on how the front line staff collect and use the data. Digital forms and databases offer a lot of benefits. Digital data can be copied and transmitted instantly. It can be replicated and backed up with ease. It takes up far less space. It can be searched and retrieved instantaneously. It doesn't degrade over time. It's not subject to the quality of one's writing skills or pen. And it allows for easy batch processing and reporting. But current system designs throw away what paper forms and filing systems used to give us. Paper forms have few limitations on when and how the data is filled in. You can leave fields blank, cross them out, write in the margins or even attach arbitrary other papers to it. It can be stamped, stapled, and clipped to other stuff. You can put them on desks, in boxes, in folders, or fold them up and put them in your pocket. Current digital designs lack all of this flexibility, instead insisting on rigid requirements, workflows, and compartmentalization. We can have the best of both worlds. You can suggest that data be entered with specific categories while letting users put in whatever makes sense to them. You can let fields be left blank. You can allow changes to be made in any order at any time. You can allow room for notes and attachments. You can remove arbitrary limits on length and format. What makes humans so good at using tools is our ability to adapt them to any situation. A sharp rock can be a knife or a scraper or a hammer. A spear can be used to stab but it can also be a make shift flag pole, lever, a spit, or a way to pull things out of a narrow hole. We can turn them over and play with them to see what they can do and how we might use them. Most modern software and digital systems don't allow for this kind of exploration and adaptation. But they could. There are many industries in industrial design that deal with making machines that are intuitive, safe, flexible, and repairable. They also streamline common processes but account for the need to bypass process sometimes. The software industry could learn a lot from them. A lot of the issues with our current software systems are because of optimizing for the wrong people and the wrong needs while ignoring or forgetting existing design knowledge. We can fix this, but we need to think differently about who and what we are designing these systems for.