Running Quickbooks is like....
-
@BRRABill said:
@art_of_shred said:
@BRRABill IT??? Biased??? No way!!!
But that's my point. We can't even decide on a TV brand here. LOL.
For everyone who says Sharp is the best, people chime in and say they blow.
Ask three IT people a question and you get 10 answers.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
There really is no IT without business (e.g. owner) perspective. The two are one and the same.
Strongly disagree.
Actually I do agree with him. Because either the owner is making the decisions or IT is... Rarely both. In SMB more often owner...
But rarely do either actually take the time to find the right product for the best solution.
In most cases they are picking from things they have heard about. And QB does a ton of advertising.
If Zero and others advertised, they would probably be picked up more.
Just like my office.... They don't think IT belongs in the decision making process so we don't even hear about it until it is purchased.
-
@BRRABill said:
And I feel as IT we might even be biased.
Sure PRODUCT XYZ sucks. But does it really? It anyone else really looking at it the way we do?
In the successfully enterprise space, yes, absolutely. This is how the business works.
Only in the SMB do you find any real incidence of business owners who actively don't think about their own business and how to assist it as much as the IT department typically does.
But everything we are talking about here is basic business, not really IT. Yes, it is a computer application so it is IT, too. But every issue we are discussing is about the business needs, business factors and why it is bad for the business.
QuickBooks is good for IT, it creates jobs and makes us far more necessary. If we look at this purely from an IT benefits standpoint, bring on the QB. It pays the bills.
-
@Dashrender said:
Just like my office.... They don't think IT belongs in the decision making process so we don't even hear about it until it is purchased.
Which, for the most part, just ends up turning them into IT.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
The fact that you assess it completely from the other side shows a "how it looks from the IT side" perspective.
What IT perspective am I bringing at all? It's purely a business discussion. It's only because we are talking about an application that the aspect of the business happens to be IT. But the ideas of functionality, risk, cost, profit, efficiency are purely business ones and not IT ones.
But you just got done saying that they are one and the same...
IT is part of the business. It is not something on its own. The owner might not want to listen or take advice or whatever, but he's just becoming IT at that point. He can't "do without technology" but if he uses technology for business, someone is handling the IT. It's not that IT isn't making decisions, it's that someone else might be performing the role of IT rather than who we were expecting (or hoping.)
Well, now you really have a pitching deck if we just assign "roles" to random people who do things related to a function. So if IT is not being done by the IT people and anyone can put the IT hat on for a moment when a decision is made, then it's all relative, and I have no idea what we're talking about at all. And you still keep avoiding that one basic point, that a bad decision doesn't cause instant death. I don't think anyone is arguing that bad decisions should be avoided. We should probably start a thread about how important it is to not eat silica gel packets when opening packages.
-
@art_of_shred said:
Well, now you really have a pitching deck if we just assign "roles" to random people who do things related to a function.
Well if there is food and it has been cooked, the person who cooked it is the cook. The person who works works on the car is the mechanic. The person who sweeps up is the janitor. Even if it is the CEO doing those things, they are still acting as the janitor.
If we base it by title and not task, then we have anarchy.
-
@art_of_shred said:
And you still keep avoiding that one basic point, that a bad decision doesn't cause instant death.
I'm avoiding it because I didn't realize that it was a point and have no idea what it has to do with the discussion. Why does it matter than a bad decision doesn't cause instant death? Isn't good decision making and business improvement good for their own sakes? Does something have to cause instant death to be worthy of avoiding?
-
@art_of_shred said:
We should probably start a thread about how important it is to not eat silica gel packets when opening packages.
are you suggesting that Intuit's customers are in a high risk pool for eating those?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Can't always change things. The important thing, IMHO, is making sure that they understand that IT does not approve and that we see it as them not taking their business seriously. It's one thing to support what we are told to support, it is another to empower bad decision making by making it "seem acceptable."
This is where the "OMG we're all gonna die if we use QB" started to creep in. Before this post, I agreed with your point about not condoning bad decisions. At this point is where it began to turn and just become silly.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Can't always change things. The important thing, IMHO, is making sure that they understand that IT does not approve and that we see it as them not taking their business seriously. It's one thing to support what we are told to support, it is another to empower bad decision making by making it "seem acceptable."
This is where the "OMG we're all gonna die if we use QB" started to creep in. Before this post, I agreed with your point about not condoning bad decisions. At this point is where it began to turn and just become silly.
That's my take here.
Is QB really THAT BAD? Or rather THAT DAMAGING to business profit?
-
@BRRABill said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Can't always change things. The important thing, IMHO, is making sure that they understand that IT does not approve and that we see it as them not taking their business seriously. It's one thing to support what we are told to support, it is another to empower bad decision making by making it "seem acceptable."
This is where the "OMG we're all gonna die if we use QB" started to creep in. Before this post, I agreed with your point about not condoning bad decisions. At this point is where it began to turn and just become silly.
That's my take here.
Is QB really THAT BAD? Or rather THAT DAMAGING to business profit?
Exactly, the point of the OP got lost in this "anyone who uses QB might as well just walk into the office with a gas can and a lighter" direction.
-
@BRRABill said:
That's my take here.
Is QB really THAT BAD? Or rather THAT DAMAGING to business profit?
Is it damaging and bad? Then it is bad enough. How bad do you need it to be before it's a concern? Why isn't the fact that it is bad not all that it takes?
Why would we ever worry about something being "that bad"? We need to look for good solutions, best options. Not try to see what we can not bother fixing. Sure, in triage, we have to decide where to focus efforts. But we should strive for "good" for the sake of itself.
-
Using RAID 5 isn't "all that bad" for most things. What makes it crazy on spinning rust is that it is "always worse than another option." There is never a time that it makes sense. That makes it extra bad just because there is no legitimate reason for it to get considered in the first place. Once you know something is bad for your business, move on.
-
In a world where QB was the only option, things would be very different. If it was the best of breed and everything else was worse or more expensive... well then, it would be "fine." But in the real world, it's an expensive, poor product made by a vendor that puts their customers at risk unnecessarily. It's a real world full of great competitor products with higher quality, better support, better vendors, lower cost, more features, etc.
-
Remember, ignorance and/or apathy says "this might possibly hurt something, but I'm not motivated enough to do anything special to avoid that." Sabotage says "what can I do to really screw stuff up?" The two are distinct. There is NO overlap in the motive, only the possible outcomes. But, you can't simply judge all ignorance or apathy with motive to sabotage. They are NOT intentionally malicious.
-
@art_of_shred said:
Remember, ignorance and/or apathy says "this might possibly hurt something, but I'm not motivated enough to do anything special to avoid that." Sabotage says "what can I do to really screw stuff up?" The two are distinct. There is NO overlap in the motive, only the possible outcomes. But, you can't simply judge all ignorance or apathy with motive to sabotage. They are NOT intentionally malicious.
I don't believe that anyone suggested that the two were the same. However being intentionally malicious is not part of the definition of sabotage. Apathy is certainly, technically a cause of sabotage. I'm just arguing the point - I don't believe that I saw anyone state this until now. There are two usages of it, the second has no intent, any undermining qualifies. Apathy certainly is a cause of undermining of business.
noun
1.
any underhand interference with production, work, etc., in a plant, factory, etc., as by enemy agents during wartime or by employees during a trade dispute.
2.
any undermining of a cause. -
So, can we come back to the point where we all agree that using less-than-optimal products/infrastructure is not the best thing to do, and therefore we should always avoid such things for the sake of the business and the benefit of all involved in the effects of such a decision, whenever the opportunity to avoid them is available? If so, I think that's where it ends.
-
@art_of_shred said:
So, can we come back to the point where we all agree that using less-than-optimal products/infrastructure is not the best thing to do, and therefore we should always avoid such things for the sake of the business and the benefit of all involved in the effects of such a decision, whenever the opportunity to avoid them is available? If so, I think that's where it ends.
As long as we all agree on the list of less-than-optimal products/infrastructure.
-
@BRRABill said:
@art_of_shred said:
So, can we come back to the point where we all agree that using less-than-optimal products/infrastructure is not the best thing to do, and therefore we should always avoid such things for the sake of the business and the benefit of all involved in the effects of such a decision, whenever the opportunity to avoid them is available? If so, I think that's where it ends.
As long as we all agree on the list of less-than-optimal products/infrastructure.
Then I guess we are screwed
-
LOL, indeed.
