Dave Darnell wrote:
>
> Well, WAY after, since I'm talking about off-the-shelf packages we
> had been using for many years.  Most of them, I was involved in
> coordinating and tracking the Y2K readiness of their software, as
> well as our own.

OK, I'll buy that.  My point was when the Y2K fix budgets were floating
around, many managers were looking at paying $x to fix what they had,
versus $y to replace it with an off-the-shelf solution.  Clearly where
x>y marketing was a no-brainer, and when x<y marketing
concentrated on any weakness or deficiency in your existing package that
they could fix (or exaggerate around to say they did).  What they did
NOT examine (or tell the truth about) was what your in-house package did
that theirs did not (or didn't do as well, or did in a roundabout
fashion).

It was a fairly easy sell to upper management (they never market to IT
people).  We've been there, done that, tried it, had it crammed down our
throat, still couldn't keep it down, and eventually abandoned it
for all but a couple of departments where it fit (one had a 3rd party
package already, the other reaped benefits from the software model by
centralizing student billing).  But otherwise it was a disaster.

I recall actual conversations regarding relocating our programming staff
to functional offices to become their "power users", report writers,
what-have-you.  In actual practice, it took everyone we had,
plus lots of consultants, plus a new position (Hi Richard!) to get
the two departments off the ground and maintained and keep up with
updates.

The bigger and broader a package boasts to be, the more likely it is
doomed to fail.  Highly specialized 3rd party apps still proliferate the
industry, but handing over the bulk of your business operation to
an off-the-shelf package?  I don't think so.

Lemmings, lemmings, lemmings :-)  But our 3000 eats them for lunch.

Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>