Re: Accounting Vendors

No harm Tom and certainly no foul, trust me when I say that 1. I have more 
than enough stress these days to worry about what someone may say :) and 2. 
I have looked at this six ways from Sunday and everytime have come back to 
the business model that we are currently using.

That said, what I do not want to do is pay for something we are not prepared 
to, willing to, or plan to use for some time.  Does that mean we will not 
consider it later on down the road? Certainly not, we are always looking at 
ways to improve our processes....Sat units are an example....never used them 
before, until now - we are planning on installing them on all unit this next 
year.  Of course tying it to the iSeries is not a cheap prop either....but 
we choce it not because it was the "easiest" system or "cheapest" but rather 
because it fits our business model.

Take care and have a pleasant evening.

Douglas


On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:26:59 -0800, Tom Jedrzejewicz wrote
> On 12/2/05, Douglas W. Palme <dpalme@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It is not just stubbornness Tom, it has a lot to do with how our business
> > operates, what our goals are and what is the most cost effective way to
> > reach them.
> 
> Poor word choice ("stubborn").. my apologies Doug.  I chose it based
> on the apparent opposition to even having web-based access available
> at all.
> 
> > Most of the web / graphical products I have seen require
> > webshpere development studio which I personally consider a bloated hog of
> > resources.
> 
> Assume that a company has to spend an extra $2000 per programmer per
> year to make WDSc function properly.  The productivity improvements
> from these tools are undeniable.  Given the salary of programmers, 
> the ROI is tremendous; it would be a bargain at 10x the cost.
> 
> > Our business (internally) is one that does not require fancy screens, 
mouse
> > moves, popup windows, etc..  Our experience has also been that when you 
give
> > such options to most (notice I did not say all) users they will 
invariably
> > waste 15% of their computing time moving the mouse around, etc.  Yes, I 
am
> > well aware that one can programmatically allow the user to use the tab 
key
> > or field exit to move from field to field but I know from personal
> > experience watching end users they will grab that mouse and waste time.  
It
> > is a distraction in my opinion.
> 
> For "heads-down" tasks, many web interfaces are terrible, although
> AJAX has the capability to help change that.  But in a business
> setting, only a few clerks are doing heads down data entry, while the
> rest are running reports or going through several defined steps.  And
> generally, those more complex functions are easier to use, easier to
> train, and less prone to error when the interface is easy to navigate.
> 
> I disagree with the 15% less productive assertion. Would you be 15%
> more productive with your email if it were a green screen app?  If
> someone knows exactly what they are doing, then the green screen can
> be faster.  But if the person is deciding as they go, graphical is
> almost always more productive.
> 
> Why not have a good green screen order-entry screen for the order 
> desk people, but have a good gui for the accounting analysts,
>  customer service reps, and managers?
> 
> One last point .. gui interfaces are getting better.  Green screens
> are stuck.  There has been a ton of usability research, and the
> results are applied to Windows and X all the time, and they trickle
> down quickly to the apps on those platforms.    There is lots of room
> to improve green screen apps, even without the mouse.  But how many
> RPG programmers read usability books .. as was noted here we can't
> even get them to use productivity improvement tools for RPG coding.
> 
> > Of course you are free to formulate your own opinion and even disagree 
with
> > me, or anyone else for that matter, this is just one man's opinion.
> > Stubbornness? I would politely disagree, it is what fits our business 
needs.
> 
> Again, my apologies.  I should have made my point without the
> pejorative language.
> 
> --
> Tom Jedrzejewicz
> tomjedrz@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> -- 
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) 
> mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To 
> subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: 
> http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l or email: 
> MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment 
> to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.


If you bought it, it was hauled by a truck - somewhere, sometime.