Reply to post: Re: "did not include functional specifications"

Infor pays UK construction retailer Travis Perkins £4.2m settlement following cancelled upgrade of 'Sellotape and elastic bands' ERP system

Alan Brown Silver badge

Re: "did not include functional specifications"

> So nobody wants that, instead they want to end up in "somewhere better", without even starting to specifiy that somewhere and that better.

The answer is a couple of lines up. First you identify the system limitations that are being worked around in laborious ways, THEN you work out how you're prefer thing to be done, THEN you go back and see if what you've come up with actually makes sense or if there are other things elsewhere which are causing the entire broken chain you just devised a fix for that could be fixed and make the whole thing redundant.

The road I live on has a traffic problem (massive congestion in peak hours, dangerous speeding in off hours). The residents are clamouring for more pedestrian crossings "to make it safer for people to cross the road". Anyone pointing out that a bypass road was built 40 years ago to get traffic OFF the road, but the intersections around it were never revised to encourage traffic onto that/off the old road, and that the old road is still setup to encourage through traffic gets you looked at like you have a second head. They only look at the issues that are happening right in front of them instead of zooming out a little.

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

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020