Luther,
I have never stated that BCM is "broken." It was always very stable and
reliable for me when I used it. As opposed to obfuscation, I could not be
any more clear with my consistent comments. Based upon my own normal, day-to-
day experience of using BCM to meet the standard real-world needs of my
business, I have concluded that BCM is NOT broken but rather, it is just
needlessly LIMITED in its designed functionality.
You are correct that BCM really is indeed a business contact manager and a
CRM tool. There is no denying that for any reason regardless of what it
specifically does or does not do. What it is designed to do, it consistently
does very well. I would merely like to see its intended design be expanded
so that it can better meet the most BASIC of needs for more its potential
users. Why argue in favor of defending more limits vs. less? If other
similar entry CRM products can easily do certain things then BCM can too.
There is no need to make excuses and apologize for what it lacks. If there
were more incentive, certain improvements could have been readily
incorporated by now after so many years. I have been playing around with the
online demo of the 2007 release and the next v.3.0 BCM is very pretty. It
has some nicely improved features. What has me sounding the alert however is
that there are still some glaring oversights that eliminate a LOT of common
users who would like to incorporate it.
I believe it is a false choice to say this is a trade off between complexity
and simplicity. We all agree that simplicity is good. My car would be much
more "simple" I guess if it did not have a steerng wheel or if it had a
transmission that lacked reverse. It is just easier to drive when it has
these features that enable me to do what I basically need to do in order to
effectively drive the car. We are not talking about feature options such as
power windows or leather upholstery here!
BCM does enable you to organize people into the organizations that they work
for. That is a good thing. However, there is only 1 very limited way to do
this in BCM and that is within a 1 (organization) to many (contacts)
relationship. With BCM, once you link a contact to 1 organization only, you
are then locked in to limiting that contact from being able to be linked to
any other organization and that simply is not the way many business
relationships operate in the real world. Even more limiting is the overly
"simple" Opportunity Record that does let you link the opportunity to either
1 Contact or 1 Account record but once it is linked to only 1 record, no
other record is allowed to be linked to that Opportunity. Most opportunities
in the REAL WORLD do not develop in such a limited vacuum!
Again, based upon my own fairly common and mainstream business needs
experience, I am incredulous to believe the statement that BCM deliberately
organizes data in this manner because that is what works for many small
businesses. Call me rare and odd if you must but I beg to differ in my
assessment of what "works" for many small businesses.
I guess it all comes down to how high or low of a level of expectation one
places upon basic design and common function.
Maybe I have it all wrong with my analysis here and MOST people indeed do not
really "need" to have a steering wheel or a reverse gear in their cars.
Maybe that really does work just fine for their "requirements."
-THP
The matter at hand is not loyalty to a product, but correctness as
such. And that instead of helping users understand the product you are
deliberately misleading them through obfuscation.
If your argument was that the product is not really a business contact
manager or a CRM tool because it doesn't do such and such, then you
would have a valid line of criticism. You would also be correct if you
pointing out what is supposed to work, but is broken.
But to say that BCM is "broken" because it organizes people into the
organizations they work for, and that instead it should allow (and in
effect require) users to enter relationships between people and
organization, is plain wrong.
Microsoft intentionaly chose a very common design pattern that many
others also use. It's a tradeoff between simplicity and complexity.
Many businesses sell things to companies and they have to communicate
with employees of those companies.
Look at this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.outlook.bcm/browse_thread/thread/484a85baa521e658
The question is if BCM organizes contacts by company, and response is
that's the only feature the responder uses.
BCM deliberately organizes data in this manner because that is what
works for many small businesses. It is not broken because you have
different requirements.
[Some businesses need tractors and others need utility vans. Why spend
years hanging around the van dealership whining that their vans weren't
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
(