Is the Cost of a System Worth the Price of Convenience?
Is the cost of a system worth the price of convenience?
This question is something that I've been ruminating on after a brief discussion with one of my close friends.
Scenario: My close friend, let's call her Kitty, has been applying for jobs. One particular company, a small to medium sized company (464 stores with 11,800 employees as of 1 October 2015), allows interested applicants to view open positions online. Kitty found several positions in which she was interested and proceeded to apply.
Now, you would expect, like many systems, that Kitty would be redirected from the company employment website to some sort of under-thought, poorly customized employee application system powered by Oracle (you know, Taleo? Yup..it's Oracle). In this instance, that was not the case: She provided her email address and was then emailed a fillable .PDF application which she was expected the send back electronically to the company email address provided.
Pause: They want Kitty, the very qualified applicant, to download and fill out a form, save it, then email it back? Kitty went ahead and performed these steps, and while it doesn't seem like a lot to ask, you have to consider how many qualified individuals didn't fill out the application because it required extra work on their part. Filling out employment applications is enough of a hassel without having to consider that once you've filled out all the fields in an application that there is still more work to do.
I am a person that is all for convenience, I will pay for convenience. I will search high and low for my own convenience. I'm sure (especially in America) there are several other people like myself - We're human. Why would we want to do something that is MORE difficult that it needs to be? Out of desperation or brute force, perhaps, but under usual circumstances, what is the price of convenience? Price is not always monetary. Although money is a common sacrifice that that is given in exchange for convenience, image what can be lost without having paid for said convenience? Experience? Good impressions? Quality?
In the case of the employee application system (or any system for that matter): An organization may decide against paying for the fancy automated system for the short term benefits or some other circumstance. Maybe the company is small. Or maybe the company is new and doesn't plan to expand. Maybe the company has a low turnover rate and has forever employees. While there may be short term benefits or uncontrollable circumstances, there is always a trade off. Think about how many quality individuals will bypass a company because the application process isn't right. The World Wide Web is usually a good way to give interested stakeholders (customers, prospective employees, etc.) a virtual hand shake. For some, this might be a first handshake and by failing to invest in convenient, efficient systems, companies risk leaving a bad first impression.
To switch sides, systems that are not convenient for the people that have to use them on a regular basis usually end up being used incorrectly or hated to the point of no return. People will often look for short cuts or choose not to use the system at all, which ultimately ends up being a waste of time, money, and other resources. Companies spend A LOT of money on the acquisition, customization, and implementation of a system (regardless of size and scope). It is a seemingly unending cycle once you get into the business of bad systems. Once an organization invests in a bad system, it usually has to run it's life cycle until it dies because it's already paid for. Then you have to pay a group of people to look for a new system. Then usually additional work has to be contracted out because not all companies have the resources on hand that have the expertise of acquiring/maintaining systems. Sometimes, this is the part where an organization makes the right choice: An agile, flexible COTS or custom product, that can grow and develop at the pace of the organization as business strategies and goals change AND (this is important) is user friendly. More often than not, companies make the wrong decisions when looking to purchase and implement replacement systems because the people looking to purchase the system are not the people that will be expected t use the system. Aside from making processes more efficient and convenient, I believe that the another big priority when it comes to systems is that it's used. Why purchase a system if no one can use it?
Systems are supposed to be about user experiences and efficiency. If you fail to pay for the price of convenience, you'll likely wind up with a system that delivers neither. So, back to the original question: Is the cost of a system worth the price of convenience? Short answer: Hell yea, homie.
This question is something that I've been ruminating on after a brief discussion with one of my close friends.
Scenario: My close friend, let's call her Kitty, has been applying for jobs. One particular company, a small to medium sized company (464 stores with 11,800 employees as of 1 October 2015), allows interested applicants to view open positions online. Kitty found several positions in which she was interested and proceeded to apply.
Now, you would expect, like many systems, that Kitty would be redirected from the company employment website to some sort of under-thought, poorly customized employee application system powered by Oracle (you know, Taleo? Yup..it's Oracle). In this instance, that was not the case: She provided her email address and was then emailed a fillable .PDF application which she was expected the send back electronically to the company email address provided.
Pause: They want Kitty, the very qualified applicant, to download and fill out a form, save it, then email it back? Kitty went ahead and performed these steps, and while it doesn't seem like a lot to ask, you have to consider how many qualified individuals didn't fill out the application because it required extra work on their part. Filling out employment applications is enough of a hassel without having to consider that once you've filled out all the fields in an application that there is still more work to do.
I am a person that is all for convenience, I will pay for convenience. I will search high and low for my own convenience. I'm sure (especially in America) there are several other people like myself - We're human. Why would we want to do something that is MORE difficult that it needs to be? Out of desperation or brute force, perhaps, but under usual circumstances, what is the price of convenience? Price is not always monetary. Although money is a common sacrifice that that is given in exchange for convenience, image what can be lost without having paid for said convenience? Experience? Good impressions? Quality?
In the case of the employee application system (or any system for that matter): An organization may decide against paying for the fancy automated system for the short term benefits or some other circumstance. Maybe the company is small. Or maybe the company is new and doesn't plan to expand. Maybe the company has a low turnover rate and has forever employees. While there may be short term benefits or uncontrollable circumstances, there is always a trade off. Think about how many quality individuals will bypass a company because the application process isn't right. The World Wide Web is usually a good way to give interested stakeholders (customers, prospective employees, etc.) a virtual hand shake. For some, this might be a first handshake and by failing to invest in convenient, efficient systems, companies risk leaving a bad first impression.
To switch sides, systems that are not convenient for the people that have to use them on a regular basis usually end up being used incorrectly or hated to the point of no return. People will often look for short cuts or choose not to use the system at all, which ultimately ends up being a waste of time, money, and other resources. Companies spend A LOT of money on the acquisition, customization, and implementation of a system (regardless of size and scope). It is a seemingly unending cycle once you get into the business of bad systems. Once an organization invests in a bad system, it usually has to run it's life cycle until it dies because it's already paid for. Then you have to pay a group of people to look for a new system. Then usually additional work has to be contracted out because not all companies have the resources on hand that have the expertise of acquiring/maintaining systems. Sometimes, this is the part where an organization makes the right choice: An agile, flexible COTS or custom product, that can grow and develop at the pace of the organization as business strategies and goals change AND (this is important) is user friendly. More often than not, companies make the wrong decisions when looking to purchase and implement replacement systems because the people looking to purchase the system are not the people that will be expected t use the system. Aside from making processes more efficient and convenient, I believe that the another big priority when it comes to systems is that it's used. Why purchase a system if no one can use it?
Systems are supposed to be about user experiences and efficiency. If you fail to pay for the price of convenience, you'll likely wind up with a system that delivers neither. So, back to the original question: Is the cost of a system worth the price of convenience? Short answer: Hell yea, homie.
Comments
Post a Comment