Wow! You people getting passionately annoyed with each other is really
beginning to annoy me! Let's get back to the issue.
In helping clients for many years select software I have run into this
situation all too often:
1) There is a software with specs that meet the requirements very closely,
while others seem to be also-rans
2) But, the specs are from a recently released version
3) The vendor (therefore) has few to no installations and (therefore) has
few to no references to provide
4) Selecting anything else causes the selection team heartburn
What do you do? Well, it is NOT unusual for a vendor to have "few to no"
references for new software, because:
1) No one has wanted to be the first customer installation
2) Anyone currently installing it does not want interference from someone
else's "Curiosity Teams"
3) Anyone actually having already installed it does not want notoriety and
the resulting - interference from someone else's "Curiosity Teams"
I see two things becoming common. There are instances where references to
new version installations are provided privately in confidence by the
vendor. These have to be private, because - they MUST get permission from
references - to be respectful of their current customers. These will not be
posted to public discussion groups for obvious reasons. If you can get into
these discussion groups, they are a great resource.
Second, and VERY important. If you are about to take on a new version of a
software for which the vendor has few or no references, that vendor should
consider making you a business partner through a contract (with
non-disclosure agreements) that allows you to PARTICIPATE in confidential
internal briefings about the status of their software - development and
implementations. Then you can benefit from their own lessons learned. After
all, unless the vendor perceives that you are somehow desperate for their
software (a possibility), then they need to give you some reason to take on
a business/technology risk. And, of course, how much money are you spending
on them? What is it worth to them?
There is a posting in this thread by Bill Manago (CA) offering assistance,
and I think it is a great opportunity, as I know him reasonably well. Jump
on it.
John
****************************
John Phillips
Information Technology Decisions
www.infotechdecisions.com
865-966-9413
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Angie Fares
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CA Records Manager version 12.5
I did break the rules on posting an individual offer of assistance. I
sent the request for the teleconference to the listserv because I wanted
CA and the other vendors who constantly monitor this list for
information that involves their respective companies, clients, or
projects that I was offering to help and that the matter was being
referred to another group. It was important for me to convey that
information to the persons concerned and the fastest way to get to
everyone quickly was to do it in the forum in which the controversy
occurred. It worked. Whether or not it annoyed you or Peter didn't
really concern me at that point (and it still doesn't).
I did weigh in on the fact that it might annoy some listserv users, but
I'm quite sure that, given the circumstances, a majority of the
listserve members would overlook the conferencing offer posting, except
you and Peter. In fact, the amount of congratulatory mail following my
postings on this particular subject would "seem" to indicate that my
postings were far less offensive than yours. I support your right to be
passionate about your stand on this issue even though it means crossing
some CA Records Managers users off of your potential future client list.
However, I am equally passionate about the fact that Steve deserved
better treatment. He has been referred to more capable pairs of hands
than yours and I am sure that we will both sleep easy at night knowing
that each of us did the right thing.
Regarding the CA Records Management user group, Steve's client belongs
to a formal CA group sponsored by the vendor, however, just like ARMA,
there are many informal groups that gather to discuss certain
adaptations of the product. Even CA is not aware of all of the
"officially unofficial" user groups. We like to be independent of CA to
encourage open and honest communication about the product and how each
of us has configured it for our organizations. Unlike ARMA, CA is not
particularly threatened by special industry user groups and does not
discourage their existence. That is probably why their product has been
making impressive quantum leaps in terms of improvement, but it makes
configuration decisions more critical. Steve probably thought he would
get more vendor-independent responses from the listserv instead of going
through a vendor sponsored group. Bet he won't make THAT mistake again.
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Larry Medina
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CA Records Manager version 12.5
I think the only people who have issues with Steve's post are the ones
> who responded too quickly before checking the facts or asking for more
> information in order to form an intelligent, thoughtful response.
No KIDDING! What were THEY thinking? When someone posts a question
that is completely unclear, I think it should be incumbent upon everyone
on this Listserv to 'check the facts' from the poster before providing
an answer or suggestion, such as that they should check with the
provider of the application for assistance.
...and without all doubt, all responses should be thoughtful... sort of
like when you want to ask 2 people to participate in a teleconference,
to send that 'thoughtful response' to the entire list.
> It was a simple request for information and, within minutes, it was
> implied that the client and/or Steve hadn't done due diligence or was
> using the wrong approach. If I had been in Steve's shoes, I'd be
> really insulted by now.
Actually, there was no implication that they hadn't done due diligence,
but it would certainly seem as if they had, they wouldn't be asking this
question through a consultant they hired now... OOPS... my bad, they
didn't ask it... the guy that you're insinuating should be really
insulted did!
> If there are any future CA Records Managers users out there, feel free
> to contact me off line and I'll be happy to introduce you to members
> of the CA Records manager group.
Which would have probably been a good course for advice early on... and
if this client had bee running earlier versions of CA, as we were later
informed, it's surprising they weren't aware this group existed.
We have highly intelligent, constructive,
> energetic conversations about lots of business processes and we don't
> ask you questions about your client's due diligence that are none of
> our business.
Man, what a great group of folks. Sounds like something some of the
wise asses around here should get involved in that hip-shoot when
answering questions as they were asked instead of 'checking the facts'
first.
puuuuuhhhhhhleeeeeeaaaaassssseeeee.....
--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance To unsubscribe
from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place
UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present,
place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
