PinPoint Performance Solutions Blog (Legacy Content)

A reader took me to task on a recent blog post I made where I ranted about how bugs and workarounds shouldn't be acceptable or "a way of life".

Patrick Neeman at Usability Counts made two valid points in his response to my post that resonated with me:

1. Test early and test often
2. We live in a beta test world

These two things, among other strategies, will help mitigate usability issues. 

The best example, currently, of living in a beta test world is Google Chrome.  Companies like Google make no bones about the condition of their applications as they are developing them and preparing them for a final release.  It's clearly in Beta - it even says so on the download page.  I'm even using a beta version of the blogging platform I'm using to write this very post.  Believe me, it's far from perfect.  However, the strategy is to let the users be the testers and give them the opportunity to take a form of ownership in the application's further development.

There's nothing wrong with this strategy and I often encourage it among the people I work with.  My point is if the business conditions allow it, do upfront due diligence to make sure the application you are putting out there has a minimal number of bugs, errors and usability issues.  Having these problems only hurts end user performance, if you are expecting them to use the application right away.  A buggy application only slows people down and keeps them from the work they intend to do leveraging the application.

I appreciate Patrick's feedback and I appreciate his willingness to let me comment to his post.  Lesson learned for me is to not vent and blog at the same time!

Forgive the rant, but I'm speaking from experience.  When it comes to technology in business, I believe do it right or don't do it at all.

Over the years, and especially in recent months, I have encountered many proprietary applications not ready for their debut and falling short of their expectations.  Good intentions are there but the applications rolled out to the end-users with much fanfare, who are expected to use them and leverage them to their advantage in their daily work, fall flat.  Instead of full functionality, speed and efficiency, end-users encounter bugs, slow downs and errors.

Sadly, bugs and inefficiencies in applications get passed off as being acceptable and part of the design, development and deployment process.  It's not fair to make your target audience or end users unknowingly be your beta testers.  They shouldn't have to put up with such frustrations if they are being asked to use what really boils down to be a prototype application to do their work.  They should be able to use the application with minimal or no bugs and it should work the way they expect it to. Applications should support work performance, not be a barrier to work performance.

I understand that it may be nearly impossible to release a flawless application.  However, rather than put the end users through this trouble developers and stakeholders should take the time to conduct user-centered design, do quality assurance and build an objective usability test where beta testers can contribute in a meaningful way to find the bugs that are "show stoppers".

Find he bugs, fix them and release.

In the end when a fully functional, working application free of major bugs is released it will work as intended and boost productivity and performance in the workplace.

Training is a crucial part of successfully implementing technology in the workplace to improve overall performance. It goes without saying, but if people don't know how to use the technology to their advantage it will be treated as an obstacle and ultimately rejected.

Many people I have met in the IT industry are bright and talented when it comes to the technical aspects of their job, but some have admitted to me personally when they need to link the people to the technology they are using - teaching them how to use the technology - it's not one of their strengths.

A Knol has been created on this topic, Building Effective Training in Five Easy Steps. I think it will help those in the industry who have been assigned to conduct training in their workplace and I invite anyone to read it and contribute to it if they have any additional insight on the subject.

Training doesn't have to be a difficult task if you know and understand its fundamentals.

Normally, I stay away from politics on this blog, but this topic is far too important to ignore. It's a very fitting topic since I advocate the use of technology to improve performance.  This applies to the individual, the company and even our country as a whole.

Performance suffers when there are barriers.  Our dependence on foreign sources of energy has become a barrier to the prosperity of our country and it will continue to grow in the years to come.  A solution can be created now, but the more we wait the less options we will have. 

The partnership between business, technology and solid leadership will accomplish great things and lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Please view the video to find out how.



Visit PickensPlan to learn more.

Recently I attended a business networking event where I had the pleasure of meeting a business development director for a staffing agency in Boise.  His job was to create relationships with the area's technology and engineering firms that would place in these companies technical and engineering professionals on short-term and long-term projects as well as on a contract to hire basis.

He lamented how it can be difficult to establish such relationships and place professionals in these companies.  Our conversation reminded me of an article in the Idaho Business Review I read last year about the need for technology professionals to bring more to the table when it comes to seeking jobs in this field.  I mentioned that perhaps this may be a reason as to why he encounters difficulty from time to time.  The article, quoting a couple of the area's more influential technology professionals, suggested that the schools training software and hardware engineers are not doing enough to prepare their graduates for the workforce.  The education is heavily weighted in technical training, but not so much in business and communication training.

The trend we have seen for many years is that these jobs can be and are being outsourced to countries like India and China.  I don't need to go into the reasons or the debate as to why outsourcing is good or bad.  It's simply a fact of life in the today's business climate.  The key to protecting technology jobs in U.S. is for the graduates and current professionals in the field to increase their business acumen and communication skills.

The article explains how the quoted Boise area tech professionals see business and communication skills as a must in order to remain competitive.  From my prospective it's about justifying the means to an end.

Technology, as I've said many times before, is a means to an end.  Technology is what enables people to do their jobs and tasks quickly and efficiently thereby increasing productivity.  It's one thing for a software programmer to create an application that can enable a person to do their job better, but does he or she know why they are creating the application?  What is the business need?  Understanding the need behind the task of developing an application for the programmer will create a different perspective that, I think, will build a more usable product.  Usable products, among their many benefits, create higher returns on investment.

So, if you are one of the people who are the subject of this post, consider bolstering your business accumen along with your communication skills if you feel you are lacking in this area.  You don't have to get an MBA or another BS degree.  Take some classes or read up on current business trends.  By doing this you will do more to protect your career and extend it even further.

On Tuesday night I had the opportunity to attend TechBoise's networking event featuring a guest panel consisting of Chris Blanchard from Pronetos, Ryan Woodings of MetaGeek and former Idaho Statesman reporter Ken Dey, now with St. Luke's. While the gentlemen discussed their respective businesses, work and views on technology in the Boise area, the event turned into an open forum where the guests and panel participants had a healthy debate on the state of technology in the Treasure Valley.

I mostly listened to the discussion and took some mental notes that I decided I would use as source material for the post you are reading now. For the uninitiated: basically, the situation in Idaho and the Boise area is that the tech community is frustrated by the Idaho state government and what is perceived to be a lack of understanding and support for their industry.

Based on the discussion, here are my thoughts (albeit random):

Why Government Involvement Matters
Prior to the meeting, was very opposed to government involvement in Idaho's tech industry. My attitude was simply. "Forget about it, move on. If they don't understand or care about it, the people in the industry are smart enough to figure out a way around them."

What I did learn was it is necessary to have government involvement, but it should be very limited at best. The two things they can do to ensure the tech industry thrives in Idaho are:

1. Provide a solid infrastructure with minimal obstructions to the movement people and exchange of data.
2. Establish sound economic policies that will allow business to thrive.

If government involves themselves in these two areas, and these two areas alone, the rest will work itself out. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved. Talented workers move and are retained in the state, jobs will be created and the tax base will grow.

Defining Technology
Technology or "tech" is very hard to define. It has different meanings to different people and it is often associated to anything having to do with computers. That may have been true 30 or 40 years ago, but today technology is tied to fields like healthcare, environmental science or aerospace.

Because technology is hard to define, its tangible results are even more difficult to show or to demonstrate. The same can be said about innovation, which I understand is the way our tech leaders are trying to position tech as to our state leaders. Innovation is another fuzzy word because it has different meanings and is often intangible.

It's very hard to define tech to a group of people who only think of tech in terms of Micron, HP and call centers.

Software IS the Answer
A guest at the meeting went into a lengthy diatribe (sorry - that's the only way I can describe it) about how software is not the solution to growing our technology industry. He said it's in innovation, but as I just mentioned innovation is an ambiguous term. What does it really mean?

As many in the room agreed, the Treasure Valley is heavy in the hardware side of the tech industry and when those jobs go away, the skills of the worker laid off or downsized tend to be less transferable. Software is different because many of those skills are transferable. In the long term, software is not the answer but in the short term it is. Software, like most technology is a means to an end. It's what will get us to the next generation of tech that are (today) in the furthest reaches of our imagination.

20 years ago, software was king. Today, software is on the decline and with the advent of the Internet and web 2.0 tools the average person can do just fine in their work without ever purchasing a single piece of software. It's because of software we have the innovations (ah, there's that word) in internet technology and web 2.0 applications. Without it, we wouldn't be where we are today therefore we need it in the short term to take us where we want to go in the future.

Education
Education is the key establishing a relationship between the Idaho tech industry and state government. As I learned last night, Idaho has the oldest state legislature in the country. Not to disparage the older generation - I have a lot of respect for them - but tech is something they are not interested in. Each of them have their own reasons as to why. Perhaps they don't understand it because for most of them they were brought up in agriculture or perhaps they don't see how it can be useful. Another reason, possibly, is that their support for endeavors must be apparent to their constituents. Tech, again, is not one of those things that is immediately apparent.

The problem, as I stated before, is that tech and innovation are intangible. The solution is to show the tangible results of technology in order to speak the same language as our state leaders and garner the support we're asking for. If it's bio-tech, show what is produced or what is a result of a recent bio-tech innovation. If it is clean-tech, green-tech or enviro-tech (whatever you want to call it) show how positive change in air or water quality resulted in the recent application of this science. Whatever the technology, show the most recent usable product or usable service result then you can help stretch their imagination to what can be created.

If there is one thing I have learned as a trainer, the more concrete the example, the easier it is for people to learn and understand the concept.

----
The tech community in Boise and the state government can't be friends until there is a clear channel of communication and understanding between the two. Once the barriers to communication are torn down and there is full and complete understanding between the two parties will we see true progress.

I was happy to see a post by Peter Abrahams at IT-Director.com on the Future of Usability Testing. The reason I was pleased to see this post was because it backed up my assertion from what I feel to be a credible source that usability and user-centered design during the conceptual and development phases of software, website and web applications, should be a holistic process.

By holistic process, I mean to say that the usability of the application should be linked to the business need. The business need can mean two things - one for the developer and the other for the customer.

As an advocate for usability, I find that user-centered design and usability applied throughout the development process lowers costs both before and after the application is released. During concept and development, user-centered design and usability under an agile methodology will lead to shorter time frame for the development phase, thus lowering development costs.

If there's one thing businesses love, it's lowered costs!

For the customer, a usable application means less support. Ease of use will allow them to be productive with the application and spend less time trying to train themselves how to do certain tasks. If an end-user can be self-sufficient in their use of the application, acceptance and productivity increases thus making the technology purchase a worthwhile investment. If they are able to complete their tasks quickly and efficiently with the application this can translate into lowered costs for the customer. The same is true for the developer. Money going toward support resources to handle "how-to" questions can be diverted to resources that tackle tough technical issues.

Since launching this blog I have written about this topic extensively. Here are some past posts on this subject:

• Maintaining User-Centered Design in Agile Software Development
• User-Centered Design and Agile: Why Can't We Be Friends?
• User Centered Design, HCI and Agile Development Compatibility

I think it will take some time for business leaders to have a meeting of the minds with developers on the need for usability, as demonstrated by the panel discussion that Abrahams reported on in his article. When that will happen it is hard to say, but the trend appears to be moving in the right direction.

At first I thought it was seeing things. I thought I hadn't had enough coffee when this morning I watched a story on Fox News about a ban on wi-fi hotspots at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

It seems the president of the university, Fred Gilbert, has determined that wi-fi poses a health risk to the student population based on studies that radio transmissions are linked to brain tumors and leukemia. Mind you, these studies are inconclusive and a report from Health Canada will be published later this year establishing that wi-fi networks pose no health risks to humans.

Still, this means little to the Lakehead University who says they are doing this ban as a precaution. It also means very little to Lakehead University that wi-fi operates on radio waves, which are naturally occurring. Food for thought.

You can read more about this issue here and here.

All of this occurred around February of this year and perhaps you are hearing about it for the first time just like me. Knee-jerk reactions similar to what the Lakehead president did are not only ridiculous, they do more harm to the performance of the intended audience than good. Banning or limiting technology and accessibility creates an unnecessary barrier to performance regardless if it happens to students or business professionals in the workplace.

If people don't have the tools to do their job effectively, don't expect them to perform how you want them to. Some might say that wi-fi is not a necessity, but it sure makes work and life a whole lot easier!

OK, I finally get it.

After playing around with Twitter for a couple months and doubting it's value to our society, today I had an epiphany (my favorite word, by the way). I had that "A-Ha" moment were I saw the practical use of this social networking application in business as I followed the "tweets" of George Seybold of Seybold Scientific.

I had the pleasure of meeting George a couple months ago and included him in my social network ala Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. George is attending Idavation, an annual business and technology conference that takes place in Boise once a year. Because of prior commitments I was not able to attend, but George's brief posts to his Twitter account updated me on the keynote speech by Gary Hoover. Interesting content - and I'm sorry I missed it.

A few weeks ago I discussed how SMB's can use social networking applications to enhance their business. I talked about LinkedIn and Facebook. Now add Twitter to that list. I purposely left out Twitter because I still didn't understand how it could be used in a practical manner. For example, microblog a seminar so those who can't attend still are in on the discussion as it is happening.

George was able to make me see the light. Looks like I might have to write an addendum to that post. I know I'm late to the party, but I finally get it.

What is role of Information Technology (IT) in your business? Is it to support business functions or does it take an active role in leveraging technology resources to make business functions efficient and effective?

I read a recent blog post from the TriState CIO Forum written by Michael J. Miller where he reported on the challenges and successes centered on IT discussed by many CEO's and executives from such well known companies as Overstock.com and Six Flags.

What I learned from the post was that IT should play more of a central role in business and do less support.

In most companies, and in my own personal experience, IT tends to be more reactionary than proactive. If IT were to play a more central role in the planning and execution of business plans, it can do more to leverage the technological and human capital a company possesses. Plan and execute accordingly and there is less of a need to throw all of your company's IT resources into support which, when it comes down to it, is more about putting out fires and putting band-aids on problems.

I know I might be provoking a heated debate, but before you comment please read the Miller post and then form your own opinion. I welcome the discussion.

Local technology and entrepreneur advocates, Kickstand, is hosting Idavation on May 29th.

You may remember this event under it's old banner, Kickstart. This year, the event will feature keynote speaker Gary Hoover, one of America's greatest entrepreneurs. Perhaps you heard of Hoover's, the world's largest Internet-based provider of information about enterprises? In 2003, Gary Hoover sold his site to Dunn & Bradstreet for $117 million.

In addition Brian Cummings, Executive Director of Technology Commercialization at University of Utah will give the luncheon keynote address. Aside from these great speakers, Idavation also features a number of seminars on technology and business topics throughout the day.

If you wish to attend this event, tickets need to be purchased as soon as possible. I think you will find no other event in the Boise area that has the potential to bring business, technology and innovation together under one roof.

The lack of posts on this blog have been due to some recent projects taking up most of my time. Because of this, my blogging has suffered. Perhaps I need to heed the advice of this blog post, set up my own blogging regimen and work it into my schedule.

Until I get a regimen developed, my blogging will be more spontaneous. When an opportunity where people can learn about good usability and design techniques presents itself and I can quickly write about it, I should take it!

A current project where I deliver training on a content management application to groups of new end-users presented such and opportunity.

I didn't design the interface of the application - I just train on it. It seems when the application was designed, the developers didn't fully understand the end-user and how they understand the content they manage. The application I teach allows end-users to set up metadata for their document and then upload their document (file or files) to the system. To do this, the button that activates this function is labeled "Add Content".

Sounds easy enough.

If an end-user wishes to upload a new version of the document, the button to activate this feature is "Add Rendition". This has been a source of confusion for many end-users. During the training sessions I deliver, I usually find myself spending more time explaining what the developers meant by the word "rendition" rather than demonstrating the actual functionality.

Note: the functionality of adding content and adding a new version of previously uploaded content is the same.

The reason for the confusion is the naming conventions end-users reference (in their minds) when they wish to work with content. Adding content is easy to understand. They upload a file or files to the system if it has not been added before. Adding a rendition is not so easy to understand. I'm not sure why this is confusion and I need to investigate it further. Rendition must have a completely different meaning to the end-users than the word version. Given the opportunity I will mention to the developers that the labeling of these functions is in need of review. We might have a simple fix on our hands, such as renaming or relabeling a button, that will reduce a great number of support calls and e-mails.

Through my training I have been able to uncover a usability stumbling block and it all stems from improper labeling and lack of understanding the end-users. The lesson learned is that developers need to understand how their end-users think, especially what they call things. Say what you mean, be literal and match what the end-users think.

I never considered myself and early adopter. Everybody seems to have one in their life, either among their circle of friends or within their family, but I'm not one of them.

A little more than a year ago, Microsoft released its Vista operating system. When the product launched I didn't run out right away and install it on my company's PC's. I waited on the sidelines like a lot of other people and stuck to what I knew worked for me, met my needs and what I was familiar with. I didn't want to change to something that was unproven and had little to no guarantee that it will work with my software and other hardware devices.

Late last month, I upgraded one of my computers and chose the Vista OS. Actually, I had no choice with the box I purchased. It was either Vista or nothing. After a year in service, I thought it was time to give the OS a try. To me, the change was inevitable. Eventually I would have to make the change because Microsoft will quit offering XP and will no longer support it in the near future.

A recent PC World article titled Why Users Hate Vista explained how change in an operating system is more emotional (to the end-users) than technical (for the IT personnel). When it comes down to it, any technical change for an end-user is emotional. It's human nature to resist change. Just ask my friend who wrote a recent post on his blog about change. Bottom line: people are creatures of habit and will prefer to keep things status quo. At minimum they will be very selective about the amount of change they are willing endure.

In business and the IT world, change is unavoidable if you want to remain competitive. I don't recommend change for the sake of change, but if it improves your business processes it should be implemented with thought and consideration for the end-user. After all, it is they who will be leveraging the technology to drive the business processes that bring about success.

How does one implement a technology change despite the emotional reaction people will have to it? The answer is Change Management.

Here are some tips and thoughts I have on this subject:

• Focus on the people - consult with the end-users. Include them in the decision making process when making changes to the technology they will be interfacing with. Work with them to identify their needs, the obstacles they wish to overcome and their overall objectives.
• Communicate strategic messages - discuss the reason for the change and solicit feedback. Clarify how everyone will be involved in the change and give them ownership in the implementation strategy.
• Communicate and train - provide ample notice and support for the new technology measure the results. Above all, maintain open lines of communication to allow end-users to ask questions and voice their concerns. Address them promptly.
  

If you take careful consideration into what you are doing and who you are doing it for, you can be confident that the change will be embraced and implemented as it was intended.

Rik Catlow of Rikcat Industries posted to his blog 5 Ways to Make a User Interface Intuitive.

I completely agree with Rik and wish more developers of software, web applications and websites embrace simplicity in the design of user interfaces. I'm sure if you take stock of the applications you use on a daily basis or applications you have used in the past, you'll recall how most of them are confusing leaving you to fumble around just to accomplish a simple task.

Much of this is common sense and when simplicity is chosen over complexity it is not about compromise. It is about being targeted and precise in your intentions and purpose behind your application.

Here are Rik's suggestions on making a user interface intuitive along with some of my own commentary:

1. Eliminate Redundancy: most applications have different ways to accomplish the same task. Reduce the redundancy and simplify the tasks to a select few.
2. Nomenclature & Contextualization: I sum this up as a controlled vocabulary and proper labeling. Don't be cute with titles linking to other pages or sections in your website or web application. If you have a section with a list of links to other websites or links to e-books and presentations, don't call it "The Pit" or "Library". Call it what it is. Call it "Links". This is about knowing your audience and you must speak their language in your application's interface.
3. Consistency: the overall look and navigation of your application must be the same throughout, no matter where a user is in the application.
4. Protect Screen Real Estate: if you work with many people on a project, there is a tendency for others to jockey for position to take up space on the screen for their pet projects or areas of interest. Make it clear that it is about the end-users and what is relevant to them.
5. Testing: make sure you test your application or website with actual end-users. Run a series of tests from paper-based, wire frame prototypes to functioning prototypes. Testing need not be complex, but it must be objective.

Along with these 5 suggestions, here are a few books and a link to a useful web article that will help you create a intuitive user interface:

Books

• Information Architecture for the World Wide Web by Louis Rosenfeld and Peter Morville
• Don't Make Me Think by Steven Krug

Web Articles

• Why You Only Need to Test With 5 Users by Jakob Nielsen

Normally I speak about integrating technology in business processes at an enterprise level, but today I thought I'd speak about startup companies and their acquisition strategy. I'm not necessarily talking about startup companies acquiring other companies or technology. I'm talking about the innovation or product the startup company creates being acquired by a much larger company like a Google or a Microsoft.

PinPoint Performance Solutions primarily focuses on the conceptual stage of product development linking the needs of the end-user to the product being developed. The end result is a usable product meeting their needs and expectations. I met with a colleague this past week who works with clients to identify whether or not their products are viable in the marketplace. In other words, he does the due diligence and research to make sure there is a marketplace for the product. I'll admit some failure on my part. My colleague helped opened my eyes to a crucial compenent of product development.

He told me a story of a client who invested a large sum of money into a custom software application for the construction industry. A well-known software company approached him about acquiring the application, but when the offer came in it was far below what he originally invested in the development of the application. He was in the market to inevitably sell the application, but he never thought he would lose money in the process.

The reason why the offer was low was the software company was unable to purchase the application and market it immediately due to how it was developed. The coding was not compatible with their coding and a lot of back engineering would have to be done in order to make the application compatible with their other applications.

The lesson - if you are in the business to generate revenue off of your work or to potentially sell your application to a larger company, plan for it. I'm not saying that you need to make your product the exactly the same way a potential buyer would make it, but you do need to know what they and the rest of the market will accept and what is valuable to them if the opportunity to sell presents itself. It needs to be usable to them in order for them to find any real value in it.

So, just as you would develop an exit strategy in your business plan you need to prepare for an acquisition strategy in your product's marketing plan to create value in your product when a potential suitor arrives.

Jakob Nielsen recently published his findings on intranet usability and found marked improvement since his last study.

The report is very detailed and worth reading, but as I was reviewing it a few things came to mind:

1. I've had quite a bit of experience with corporate intranets in my career. It's ranged from intranets having very little information and being of little use to intranets with so much information they are disorganized and too difficult to find anything. No two are alike.
   
2. Just because an intranet is only seen by a select group (employees in a company, for example) it doesn't mean web usability guidelines and standards don't apply. People transfer their expectations of what they find on the web and how it functions to the intranet they are using. The only difference is the information on the intranet they are consuming is meant for their eyes only.
3. Finding information on an intranet quickly and efficiently will help increase productivity. Nielsen does an excellent job illustrating the costs (both in terms of lost and gained productivity) associated with intranet usability.

Intranets are a wonderful tool for managing and transferring information in an organization, but don't forget they are subject to the same usability standards we come to expect from the web and applications we use on a daily basis.

In a recent post I talked about integrating Web 2.0 in your organization. One of the statements I made was that when you implement Web 2.0 technologies you should expect to encounter bugs, poor interfaces or poor usability. In other words, beta releases will most likely remain in beta or a work in progress (WIP). It's simply par for he course.

BNET recently published Perfectionists Despair: Digital World “Always in Beta” to their website. It's a nice, quick little article that hits the following points:

• Speed will trump perfection. Time to market is crucial in the digital world and a "not ready for primetime" software or web application won't necessarily be held against you (author's note: BlogRush is a prime example).
• The pace of business is so fast, there's really no way you can release a flawless product if you expect to make any kind of significant impact.
• Consumers (end-users) aren't really consumers any longer. They are now your beta testers or your usability test subjects. Learn from them and engage them in a meaningful conversation. You'll learn more about your product and how it relates to them than you'll ever know.

I for one am glad that the acceptance of betas are in the digital realm. Imagine if betas were acceptable in the cars we drove or the household appliances we used. Life would be more exciting, but much more dangerous than it already is (depending on your lifestyle).

One of my favorite websites, BNET, has put together a feature on Web 2.0 and how it can work for you in your business.

Not only are you able to find out what it is and what specific tools are at your disposal, you can also learn how to put it to use in your company. I encourage you to read this article as well as others in the feature if you are considering using Web 2.0 technologies in your organization.

Here are some highlights from the article and some thoughts I have on this topic:

• Web 2.0 - simple deployment, simple management and lower overall costs. There is typically no software to buy and configure on a network server or desktop. Management and maintenance of the application is often minimal. Somebody else is usually responsible for the "dirty work".
• Implementing Web 2.0 in an organization should be done out of a need to improve performance, productivity and communication. It shouldn't be done for the sake of the technology or just because "everybody else is doing it." The solution the technology provides should be to evolve current processes and practices, not to revolutionize what is currently being done. The key is to have minimal pain and minimal resistance during a time of change. Otherwise, your initiative could be rejected by the end users. Find a champion for your cause that people respect and are willing to follow. It could be you or it could be someone else.
• Some Web 2.0 applications have poor usability or counter-intuitive interfaces. This is a young field and there are bound to be many bugs, glitches and overlooked features that may be important to you. In this day and age, beta is the new "final release". It just comes with the territory.
• Be willing to experiment. Find the root causes to performance problems and identify whether or not a technology solution is the answer. If so, choose an application and see if it works for you. If not, you are out very little due to the nature of the technology. Simple deployment, simple management and low cost make it affordable to try on different hats until you find the one that is the best fit.

I would be very interested in learning what you discover in these articles. Perhaps you'll come to the same conclusions or arrive at your own. Enjoy!

One of the most interesting things about blogging is the mental radar screen that develops when you look for topics to write about. Earlier in the week I wrote about the criteria you should consider when deciding to build a custom software application or going with an off-the-shelf solution. Thinking I would move on to another topic to discuss, I stumbled upon an article in the recent issue of Website Magazine that discussed the same topic.

Here’s what they had to say
If an off-the-shelf solution can handle 80-100% of your business process needs, then you should go with it. Most of the time this is true, but there are some exceptions. Choosing a custom software solution presents several advantages. Chief among them is you get what you want provided, of course, you are thorough and detailed in your expectations out of what you want in terms of functionality and how the application will integrate in your business processes. It is an expensive undertaking, but the more detailed you are with your business and technical requirements through good documentation, the better your chances of receiving a final product meeting your expectations.

Here’s my take
The author of the article did somewhat of a disservice to the readers by not including a crucial component that should be considered when deciding between a custom software solution and an off-the-shelf software solution. That component is the end-user. Who are they? What are their needs? What are the tasks they do that can be simplified through a technology solution? What are the obstacles they are trying to overcome and in what context will they be using the solution? All are important questions that should be answered and documented if the choice is to go with a custom software solution. By answering these questions it will also make the choice between a custom solution and an off-the-shelf solution easier.