3 ms·

I think you are partially right as well. The deeper issue is that because buyers aren't the users, makers of enterprise software have make stupid things like fe

by jkush 19y ago

I think you are partially right as well. The deeper issue is that because buyers aren't the users, makers of enterprise software have make stupid things like feature comparison checklists. Because buyers aren't the users, enterprise software companies must stuff in every possible feature they can. We all know that more features != better system. We're still stuck with the question of why stupid things like comparison charts exist though. It all comes down to accountability. Buyers need to have something to cover their asses if the system doesn't work out. "See, look at this comparison chart - I bought the best system out there. Just look how many more features it has."

DanielBMarkham 19y ago
Yes. These systems gravitate towards comparison charts and cost-per-seat discussions, when they should gravitate towards ROI discussions. But ROI is notoriously difficult to compute on large enterprise systems. And let's not forget that even if you make the buyers the users, even a really small number of users will have conflicting requests for features. You could give everybody in the organization fifty bucks to spend. That would make the buyers the users. But what would happen? Everybody would be happy that they'd solved the 3 or 4 things that were most important to them in the simplest way possible. The remaining situation would be lethal for the larger organization: loss of reporting, command-and-control, re-use of data, standardized products to train newcomers on, etc. In the end, it's a choice. You can make "solve the simple problem" programs and sell them to lots of users who will then create chaos in the organization (because they fix only the perceived immediate needs of a subset of users) or you create feature-rich, bloated software that does everything for everybody and that's hard to use (and possibly impossible to adapt) but is attractive to the larger organization. Companies have been making lots of money on both of those options. Put a different way: users in an organization have immediate, day-to-day needs that only reflect a very small part of the greater needs of the organization. So somebody has to compromise. There's no free lunch.
- jkush 19y ago
  Or, you can get really good at convincing buyers that your simple-to-the-point solution IS what they need. That's so much harder to do though.
  - DanielBMarkham 19y ago
    I think this is one of those big wars that will go on forever. You see great products, like IM, making inroads into the Enterprise Software space. I think you could make a great go at it selling simple software that does simple stuff directly to the users, bypassing the CIO guys. But that's not going to make you a lot of friends. :)
    - jkush 19y ago
      Bah. Friends are overrated anyway! :)

by jkush 19y ago

DanielBMarkham 19y ago

Yes. These systems gravitate towards comparison charts and cost-per-seat discussions, when they should gravitate towards ROI discussions. But ROI is notoriously difficult to compute on large enterprise systems. And let's not forget that even if you make the buyers the users, even a really small number of users will have conflicting requests for features. You could give everybody in the organization fifty bucks to spend. That would make the buyers the users. But what would happen? Everybody would be happy that they'd solved the 3 or 4 things that were most important to them in the simplest way possible. The remaining situation would be lethal for the larger organization: loss of reporting, command-and-control, re-use of data, standardized products to train newcomers on, etc. In the end, it's a choice. You can make "solve the simple problem" programs and sell them to lots of users who will then create chaos in the organization (because they fix only the perceived immediate needs of a subset of users) or you create feature-rich, bloated software that does everything for everybody and that's hard to use (and possibly impossible to adapt) but is attractive to the larger organization. Companies have been making lots of money on both of those options. Put a different way: users in an organization have immediate, day-to-day needs that only reflect a very small part of the greater needs of the organization. So somebody has to compromise. There's no free lunch.

jkush 19y ago
Or, you can get really good at convincing buyers that your simple-to-the-point solution IS what they need. That's so much harder to do though.
- DanielBMarkham 19y ago
  I think this is one of those big wars that will go on forever. You see great products, like IM, making inroads into the Enterprise Software space. I think you could make a great go at it selling simple software that does simple stuff directly to the users, bypassing the CIO guys. But that's not going to make you a lot of friends. :)
  - jkush 19y ago
    Bah. Friends are overrated anyway! :)