Just this morning I read a post by an individual who wrote a utility to overcome a shortcoming in our major competitor. If this were an isolated occurrence that would be one thing, but I see this happening over and over. In this case he wrote an excellent utility, but in other cases it’s convoluted script processes, or exotic uses of regular expressions, or executing third party utilities from inside a script, or implementing challenging third party scheduling tools.
I’m not exactly sure what the phenomenon is here, but in each case it is a resourceful and/or skilled user that is (perhaps justifiably) proud to have overcome a shortcoming in the software. It almost seems like a culture, one where the users are apologists for the company: “The product doesn’t read UTF-8, but here’s a way you can Execute a command to handle it” or “The product won’t find a list of values, but here’s a regular expression that does it”, or “the address data isn’t clean, but here’s a 300 line script you can call that cleans it up”.
What I don’t understand is why would a user want to apologize for the vendor? Why not ask the vendor to add the functionality, or fix the problem? This particular vendor was built on the very philosophy of acting on user needs (I should know), but these days, power users instead seem proud of their ability to compensate for its weaknesses.
Imagine, if you will, that had a vendor that listened to your requests, and acted on them. A vendor focused solely on analytics. One that wouldn’t require work-arounds for common needs. This is what Arbutus has been doing for over a decade. It has resulted in a wealth of both advanced capabilities and ease of use features that set Arbutus Analyzer apart from the competition (while maintaining backward compatibility).
If you want to see what audit analytics can be like, then give Arbutus a try: apologies NOT accepted.
If you have any thoughts on this topic, please feel free to share.