The Ideal Software Package

Do you mean software that is just for material handling, or any subject?

Software in the new Ironman movie that was used to create

the Ironman suit. 3D holographic imaging software that allows

you to make changes "on-the-fly".

UFG

It would be a program which tests other software including:

Usability.

User friendliness.

Compatibility.

Ease of configuration.

Completeness.

That completeness has to be easy to find, but, should not interfere with the simple operation of the package.

No operation should ever result in a screen which says the operation failed without presenting a means for fixing the problem (I hate having to click on OK when it clearly is not OK).

Help should always include a pointer to the reverse operation.

Help should always cross reference synonyms.

Sorry this is becoming a rant.

We are CMMS software developers. In a recent survey, here what our customers answered to the question you asked (and beleive it or not we did it !!! ).

- I would like a software created and built by people who know what they are doing: built by engineers for engineering use, built by maintenance specialists for maintenance management or accountants for accounting software.

- I would like to have a software who can changed and be adapted as my business change.

- I would like to be able to install the software and work with it in few days, have a customized training when I need it (not all at the beginning) and be able to change myself some parameters without help of a 300$/hour consultant firm.

- I would like to have a software with all the function I need in one module... to be able to do what I want when I want it... without having the customer service answering my questiion by "I'm sorry you didn't buy this functions you will have to call the sales departement".

I realise I'm pushing my luck a bit here, but, surely a well written software package should not need any training.

So you mean you already know everything?

If you want to drive a F1 car even if you know cars and you drive one every day, don't you think you will need at least a bit of training to avoid expensive mistakes?

If you have a new born child you, don't ask questions to friends and familly? Don't you read about this special "new thing"?

I think "no training" only means that you are already trained... and unfortunately it is not the case for lot of people. If you have a new software that is different of what you had before, I think you CAN learn it by yourself, but you will lose priceless expertise from other people.

Clearly it depends a lot on what the package is for, previous experience and the persons knowledge of the subject. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a new piece of software should (without any training) provide an immediate productivity improvement, and, should help the person doing the task they're trying to do rather than hinder them. I've come across some pieces of software which actually make things more difficult to achieve even after I've learned to use them.

By the way I couldn't agree more with your signature line "Be Smart... don't pay too much just because others do." This is definitely one of the problems hindering software evolution.

"I've come across some pieces of software which actually make things more difficult to achieve even after I've learned to use them."

I think that's a very important point. I see a reverse tendency in the market right now. Instead of choosing the "big" complicated software… just because others do. Lot of our customers select an ERP "x" because it fits their specific needs, they choose the better CRM "y" for their use, the better financial reporting system "z" and they choose the better CMMS for their needs … because they understand big solutions can't be the best in every area… and by the way they definitively can't be the easiest to install, learn and use.

So to come back at the first question, we can add on the list: "A good software should be easy to link to other systems". (In 2008, I think it's possible to do almost every links required).

The ideal software would do what Windows is supposed to do.

Excel 2000 is the perfect model of the ideal software for much of what I do. Subsequent versions are not. Subsequent versions are slower, have features that are of really limited value which make it very hard to find the features that I really use. The ideal software should decrease the time from problem identification to problem solution. Someone else has pointed out, engineering software should be developed with input from engineers, financial software with inputs from accountants, etc. With the exception of Excel, most of the software I use regularly is very specific, rather than being "general purpose". Some I like especially are SclLAB, a mathcad-type program; AutoSignal (which, unfortunately, I can not afford right now), an old version of TurboCAD, originally built for Windows 95 which I have been able to trick to run on Windows 98 (but not XP). Software should not become dated just because Microsoft has decided I need capabilities I will never need, forcing me to downgrade my operating system to their latest version...