When doing something the "right" way is wrong

Francis had an interesting post earlier this week: Not using OpenSpan? You could be losing millions. His basic premise is that if you're not using OpenSpan, you're losing millions of dollars. The funny thing is that he's right. This isn't just hyperbole. Our customers really do save millions of dollars. So why isn't the world beating a path to our door? Simply put, it's because the technology community thinks we are the "wrong" way of solving problems.

Are your users having to cut and paste and toggle between too many applications? An OpenSpan developer can develop a solution to that problem in minutes and deploy it in days. But the "right" way of solving that problem is to integrate the applications on the back-end and provide a new user interface. How long is that going to take? I bet it's longer than a few days.

Are your users having to navigate between too many screens to complete a task? An OpenSpan developer can develop a solution to that problem in minute and deploy it in days. But the "right" way of solving that problem is to rewrite the application and provide a better user interface. How long is that going to take? I bet it's longer than a few days.

I could keep going, but I think you get the picture. Of course, the real question is what is "right"? If "right" is defined as the most elegant solution that will be most extensible in the future, then OpenSpan is the wrong solution. If "right" is defined as the most cost-effective and rapid solution that will provide value to the business, then OpenSpan is the "right" solution.

Ultimately, the "right" answer it to do both. Solve the business problems in the short term with OpenSpan and in the long term with your strategic architecture. Most IT organizations have backlogs that contain thousands of feature requests. Usability issues, unless they are absolutely horrendous, almost always get pushed below strategic features. And with the resources available and the time alloted, that's the right decision. Many of those big features will save hundreds of millions of dollars. While those pesky little features are only worth tens of millions of dollars.

But why waste those tens of millions of dollars when you could implement them quickly and cheaply with OpenSpan? Just today, we had a deal killed by a CTO who said, "Don't worry about that, we're reimplementing that application anyway. It's a waste of money." Really? It's a waste of money to buy a product where the ROI is typically delivered in less than three months? Whose cost of ownership is a tenth of the savings it delivers? That enables a team of less than five developers to save a company millions?

I try not to criticize the organizations we sell to, but it's incredible the narrow attitudes that prevail in our industry. Real agile practitioners know that you get the best results by delivering value rapidly. Every day, I tell my team to ask themselves "What's the value of what I'm doing? Is there anyway I can deliver the same value better or faster?" Although agile is on the rise, it seems clear that the core principles behind agile have yet to filter up to the decision makers within organizations.

Here's the bottom line: If you're not using OpenSpan, you're not delivering the value you should deliver. You're wasting money and you're hurting your business.