Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle Man
From a tech standpoint, yes. However, from an Operational Efficiency perspective, I don't agree. Sure, the system will be stable and do what it was built to do and you're not spending money on repairs and downtime. However, if the old system is so inflexible and can't keep up with current process requirements, you're wasting the money with outside workarounds which lead to costly inefficiencies.
|
That's when it works, but I've seen a number of systems get upgraded for no other reason other than new technology... The processes didn't change and there was no need to invest in something new...
I mean, I work in the newspaper industry... the processes have gone largely unchanged for 30 years or more... We are working on our third circulation management system in 5 years... the old one wasn't broken, but the newer one came with all these promises and turned out to not solve any problems and just became more headaches than it was worth... So we go to the next solution, costing more money, and I'm already hearing rumblings from the properties that have switched that there's additional problems with this...
If we would have just kept the 20 year old system, we would have saved a ton of money and maintained better efficiency...
All I am saying is that new technology isn't always the best solution... In fact, many times, it's the cause of more problems.
10-12-2011, 12:55 PM
Threaded Mode