Continuing from the previous entry

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
In the last entry I told you about the wondrously awful expense system that I was lumbered with in days gone past. Being an uppety sort of bloke, I decided to ask the head of HR why they had spent so long selecting a system that was worse than the one we had before - which seemed a reasonable question to me? (Tact and diplomacy have never been high on my list of skills).

Anyway, the answer was that the bean counters liked it. Oh good, I cried, it is so much more important that a bunch of (low cost) people in a previous outpost of our Empire should be happy, whereas hundreds / thousands of (high-cost) employees should have to waste hours working with a system they hate. 

He wasn't British, so my irony and sarcasm was a bit lost on him. 

OK, I am exaggerating to make a point, but how many people actually look at the true cost of systems? How many systems have you had stuck down your throat with some fatuous excuse, when it is blindingly obvious that no-one has ever actually tried to use them? As one customer sweetly said to me the other day, "relational databases would never have survived if we had wanted performance."

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL:

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Peter Armstrong published on September 22, 2010 11:53 AM.

Oracle's $10M Bet was the previous entry in this blog.

Chevron CIO on how to increase maturity of BSM is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.