Three points to identify platform specific inefficiencies on software providers
Posted on 11th May 2016 10:16:48 in Technology
In general, most software providers will set a specific set of requirements where the server side of their products resides. This often is a matter of taste on the server end, and since IT will manage those servers, it does not become much of a situation as long as it is IT approved by the proper channels. However on the client side of the software, there are plenty of factors to consider when implementing a new software platform.
- Does the application client side requires a specific operating system? Unless the application functionality requires specific hardware (or peripheral) access, there is no reason for an application to be operating system specific. If the client side is merely a data entry, posting process, and/or reporting interface, then a web based interface should cover all (or most) OS platforms. Fail to archive this, could cost the customers in exponential way base on the number of users (licenses and IT maintenance).
- Is the “mobile app” just an interface for the user? In many cases I’ve seen mobile apps, that use close to none of the resources and advantages of mobile devices. They are often described as a “web shell” for a web server providing all the data displayed to user. Local storage, access to device specifics are mostly avoided, and are often slow or not responsive to user. This is not only an inconvenience, but if a single field is added to the software, the modification and update process for apps are often delayed and/or ignored at all, falling behind from platform to platform.
- Does provided software interface from many specific platform to achieve the same goal? Unless a transition period is specified where a provider is moving from “platform a” to “platform b”, there should not be multiple platforms to archive the same goal. This reflects lack of direction, and also increase cost of development and maintenance (by having to update multiple platforms to archive the same goal). This limit engagement to new technologies and demonstrate a lack of efficiency to move forward in the industry, ultimately transferring the cost to the customers.