That reminds me of a response I got once.
Back in early 2003, I co-authored a report to the partners of Kitchen & Associates that said that their CAD software, Arris, was badly outdated. Its feature set was severely lacking and its interface was so archaic it was difficult to learn. To give you an idea, my own in-house development over a one-year period had more new features in it than their Version 8 did (Arris came with much of its source code, allowing for really serious modifications).
I outlined major benefits of Microstation Triforma, Revit, and Archicad, including feature sets, operating systems, user bases, and training availability.
When work got to the CEO of Sigma Design (maker of Arris) that a major client was going to leave them, he asked for a chance to write a rebuttal to the report.
What I expected was a well-thought out reponse, including a development road map that would assure us of better future development.
Instead, the response was an attack against me and the other co-author, saying we did not know Arris well enough, were not using it right, and that for a hefty fee, they would come and educate the company. He questioned why we were so attached to these other programs and what features they could ever offer over his dear product.
His response enraged the partners so much that any doubts they had about whether Sigma would improve their development went right out the window.
Sometimes I wonder if the higher management of companies like that have a hard time understanding why anyone else would ever choose their competition over them. To me, I would think such understanding would be a top priority.
Tom Waltz
