Reply to post:

Microsoft boasted it had rebuilt Skype 'from the ground up'. Instead, it should have buried it

Terry 6 Silver badge

Two people downvoted Hollirethevo. But no reply to say why. WTF. This, and AbsolutelyBarking's comments sound perfectly sensible to me - and I've suffered through more than a few "projects" that weren't developed with actual users' actual tasks in mind. Often spending hours and months of my time feeding back the problems, finding work arounds or just calming down irate frontline staff who can no longer do the things their jobs require them to do without spending twice as long as it used to, for half the outcome they used to get.

Come to that, more than once I've suffered having my own, simple functional working tools, such as an A4 checklist ,replaced by specially "tailored" off-the-shelf packages that cost the Earth, were too complicated for ordinary users to use (unless they were employed full time just to manage the one package that ought to only take a few minutes to use!) and were incapable of actually giving the information we needed. And in many of those there had been a "consultation" that came no where near my team. In one case the only people consulted were subordinate colleagues of the person commissioning the work, who all thought like she did and had no concept of how any other users of this supposedly cross-disciplinary package did their work. It was even full of jargon and word meanings that no one outside the coterie understood or used the way they did.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020