Essays

Best Practice Software Cont'd...

I was thinking about that previous Viagra For Business post this morning whilst averaging about 20mph on the M1 motorway heading to yet another monthly board meeting where I'd go on to delicately negotiate the terms of my not being fired for another month, and I thought to myself; how is the concept of building best practice business processes and models into software applications any different - in conceptual terms -from building a spell checker into a word processor? No different really, I replied in a familiar tone.

More complex, certainly, but the concept for guiding users in certain, pre-defined and rule based directions seems to have hit a brick wall at spelling and grammar checking. Or am missing other examples of this?

PS. I wish Blogger would help me become a better blogger by giving me some editorial feedback before I post.

Viagra For Business

Since the age of twenty (I'm thirty-five next month) I've been involved in the business of business software. The kind of software that doesn't get talked about very often, the type of software that isn't allowed to share the limelight with the more glamorous business apps like the world-famous word processor or spreadsheet, and that decadent rockstar johnny-come-lately app, the enterprise email system.

No, the business software I'm involved with anonymously goes about it's day printing your security pay-slips, balancing your books, making sure your stock lines remain fulfilled and keeping an eye on your budgets.

The first generation business apps were pretty simple, archaic affairs and largely designed to automate existing manual processes. And they only just about managed to do that. But ever since version 1.0, down the various iterations and re-designs, those apps have become gradually cleverer and smarter, they can now do things that no manual process could hope to replicate today. In other words they have evolved, it's the name of the game in a competitive market.

And it's not unreasonable to expect that this process of evolution will continue and customers will upgrade from one version to the next to gain benefit from the latest business-focused technological advancement. But most business apps are not designed by academics or Harvard grads. Mostly they're designed by software guys, not

just

software guys I should add, but software guys who understand business pretty well. And also, whilst most contemporary business apps are pretty good at what they do, ultimately it's how they're used that determines the overall success or failure of the business that's using them. Garbage in, garbage out as they used to say.

However, I can see a time in the future when business applications will become state-of-the-art in a true business sense. In a sense that some applications will eventually evolve to incorporate best-practice business design. The world's best business brains will be recruited at huge expense to help develop and design killer business management strategies into the apps themselves, they'll no longer just be dumb but comprehensive calculators. They'll prescribe the best day-to-day business decisions, your business performance and success will be almost clinically guaranteed.

Then it'll be a case of which killer set of Harvard-strength business processes will be incorporated into your apps. "Are you on version 1.5 Harvard Killer Business Model or the newer 1.6 edition? I heard that version 1.5 had a major bug which manifested itself in the form of random overspending on your overseas recruitment budget every other quarter". If you're very lucky - or just rich enough to be able to afford it - your system will come with the latest iteration of the world-class process model, licenced by the London School of Economics and based upon the Barnes & McDonald Theory of Wholesale Inventory Forecast Management that's been academically proven to reduce and maintain your stock-holding to previously unfeasibly low levels whilst still maintaining 100% customer supply efficiencies.

Your business will no longer rely upon its local, human, dysfunctional and under-educated management team to plot your course on a day-to-day, quarter by quarter basis. It'll be like Viagra for business.

Jerry Seinfeld And The Web

Last night I typed up a massive post which I then lost when my PC crashed, about how US websites like Yahoo! when transposed and localised for non-english speaking countries are similar in some or many respects to re-dubbing episodes of Seinfeld or Frasier into those same foreign languages. The raw content is conveyed but the cultural references, humour and more subtle nuanced meanings are either lost in the translation process or just don't make sense to non US viewers.

Anyway, if I find the time and inclination I'll re-write it again - if I can remember it all. In a word processor, not in a fragile browser application that flicks you the finger whenever you hit a glitch. Here's the draft of the first part that I did manage to save, if you'd like me to re-write the rest of it then leave your votes in Comments or send me an encouraging email. Or discouraging, I'm up for both.

The bleeding edge of the Web, or to abuse another metaphor - the front of the train of the Web - is naturally in the United States for at least some of the reasons I gave last week. And so it follows that the majority of the tech market leaders and players are US based companies such as the likes of Microsoft, Yahoo!, Amazon, Google, AOL and Apple.

All of these companies have been pioneers on the Web to greater or lesser extents. Mostly greater. They have established conventions and ways of using the Web that have been adopted and accepted the world over. For example, Yahoo! is available in over thirty regional and international flavours, each in it's own language but all with that same familiar Yahoo! branding and layout, many of the same basic features and all organised in a very similar way to the main, US Yahoo.com site.

On the surface, regardless of which version of Yahoo! you're looking at, it's a boilerplate design, and who can blame Yahoo! for that since it works perfectly in the US which, to-date, just happens to be the largest and most demanding Web market in the world, so why bother fiddling with a winning brand formula? It should be said that there is, of course, more to Yahoo! Taiwan than just Yahoo.com content translated into Taiwanese, there's plenty in the way of localised content such as news, local resources and many Taiwanese websites that don't appear in Yahoo.com's indexes. But despite that, the look and feel of Yahoo! Taiwan is unquestionably based upon the main US site design.

The same for Amazon, Google, Microsoft and so on. I suspect that this has more to do with marketing departments desire to control their precious brands as much as it is to re-utilise proven design concepts.

The United States has been a test bed for those companies, it's allowed them to launch, fine-tune and evolve some of the most successful websites on the planet and they have used their domestic success to roll out their business enterprises globally with classic first mover advantage. For example, it will come as no surprise to find that the biggest online retailer of Amazon type products in the UK is Amazon.co.uk, not a domestic ground-up business.

This isn't intentional hegemony and it's not a part of some insidious plan to Americanize or assimilate the world but nonetheless, the after-effects may be somewhat similar.

Seinfeld is on record as having been biggest sit-com of it's era in the United States right up 'til it finished in 1998 and, along with countless other successful US sitcoms, has been translated into many different languages for syndication accross the world.

Bloody Windows Me flake-o-matic operating system.