I've got a serious political problem...

[Knothead]

Hi, Cadd, just got here.

Okay, reason #3 is compelling...you cannot get out of THAT one alive.

For this reason, your boss is going to have to bite the bullet and tell the client of your company's refusal to use this prog.

If it a matter of annoyance, I would say to suck it in and work with the crappy program..but this sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

You (and whoever you can round up,) are just going to have to sit the boss down and persuade him. Just IMHO.

Todd

[DVNT1]

I would tell them something like.. "This package has real daunting limitations, is expensive, subjects us to extra work for no obvious return in our enviroment, and can hold us accountable for things beyond our control." That way they it could still be considered "good" for them but truthfully explains your situation.
Perhaps continue along the lines of...we would like to continue business with you but we will not be able to submit via Architectural Desktop for that reason. Then it is up to them to reconsider their "supplier/vendor" requirements or part business.

I wouldn't try to tell them what is good for their enviroment though. There are always things you won't fully understand about their enviroment as an "outsider".

[Sanman]

If we explain our reluctance to their management, their middle management is "exposed" by the fact that they have really been shining their bosses on about the efficacy and performance of their system and the performance of their staff.

So why would you take a loss for their ignorance. It is their problem to work out. Especially if it is going to make your job harder and risk a loss of millions.
It could even gain you more trust with the upper management if you are making their end more efficient in the process.

[caddmannq]

Well, Surreal really hit it on the head with that "shoot the messenger" thing.

If we cozy up to their principals and burn the middlemen, we may continue to get jobs, but we may well turn out to be such personna non grata with the actual project staff that our position becomes untenable. If we shine-on their management, we will endear ourselves to the staff, but also become complicit in a charade that will haunt us daily.

Frankly, we've always been very selective in who we consult for because of the risks involved with tying yourself to someone, inefficient, unprofessional, unreasonable, or unknowledgeable; but a lot of money (and potential business) is at stake here. Due to that, I'm finding it touchy to convince our principals that we're joining a slowly sinking ship. It's the Titanic, for sure; but when it goes down survival will be a scramble. I don't want to get caught in that wake.

Fortunately, my bosses almost always defer to me on such technical maters; but I wish there was a clean way to bring this client around. These clients, though well-heeled, have certainly started down a path from which graceful retreat will not be an option; either for themselves, or (should we acquiesse) for us.

(edit...boy, I really miss the old spelling checker. I don't have the foggiest idea how to spell acquiesse!)
(edit...OK, I meant acquiesce!)

[Knothead]

Well, Cadd, then that's what it boils down to:
a) The client acquiesces, or
b) They go somewhere else.

It's like a question put to one's own integrity; you give up a little, and it'll surely snowball from there.

Forgive me if I'm making this sound simplistic...it's always much easier for those on the "outside"...

The hell of it is, wherezat nice "clean" way to implement this policy...we're right back to square one!

[MegalosSkylaki]

Dopey question from a newbie Dept.,

But can you use creative "double-entry bookeeping" , use their dopey SW for "show" and do your work on the side ?

What do they care how what you use in your office (or even on "the other file" on your lappy ?)

Or are you being askes to design something in that Sw where you absolutely can't avoid using it, even in the dark recesses of Uncle Dilbert's Cubie ?

[ Iget a consltants fee pYABLE TO MY cAYMAN iSLAND ACCOUNT IF THIS IS THE RIGHT SOLUTION --Err...sorry caps lock on midget bd. has no light.]

daDOOOOOOG

[Warthog]

Doog - nice to see you around more

Cadd - can't really say much of course...my experience as a 17 (nearly 18) year old doesn't lend me much wisdom in this situation...best of luck though, I'm sure you'll pull through

[Orbiter]

It is unfortunate that these situations come up at all. It sounds like you know what the ethical thing to do is, and that is the way you would prefer to go.

If you are worried that the messenger who might get killed is you. I would document all of your concerns and recomendations, and officially submit them to your boss, so that in the event that things take a turn for the worse you have some proof that you had warned them (after all, crap always rolls downhill).

Now if you are worried that the company is the messenger that might killed, that is a much tougher situation to deal with, but one that it seems is ultimately out of your hands. I would continue to voice my opinion that things need to change. If they continually defer to you on the judgement of technical matters, they obviously value your opinion highly. You might do well to remind them of that. Other than that you have little recourse.

Many times in industry the lure of money can make for difficult decisions. It is easy for me to say "Do the ethical thing" because I am not involved in the decisions nor in the consequences.

If you feel that your company is in a strong position, and that they will not take the work elsewhere, DVNT1's suggestion is a good one. Attempt to get them to conform to your prefered method of working. Show the customer how easy it would be to do it your way. They might just agree with you.

Orb

P.S. I feel your pain. AutoDesk's add-on software is definately bloated and inefficient. Although I haven't had the pleasure of trying Architectural Desktop I have had my fair share of struggle with the 3-D world of Mechanical Desktop. Not Fun, Not Fun at all. Out of curiousity, what would you prefer to use?

[sharder8]

I hate to say it Cadd, but I think you'd better get used to using and supporting the new software!

In my Engineering experience, there's two types of Middle Management, Butt Kissers, and Brown Nosers. (Depth perception is the differentiating key.) I was involved with testing the "new" Non-Conformance Tag software at Boeing and no matter how bad it was, no matter how many million $ were spent trying to fix it, it was still adopted. BTW, the old "Supreq" system called them Rejection Tags, the name was the driving force behind the replacement.

The messenger won't be shot, he'll be made to repair/work around/institute the procedures to back the full implimentation of the problem software. (Cadd, start to work on it!)

The key to your decision will require you to look forward to the end result of the implementation requirement for your company. If your management feels safe in the financial survival of your company with/without the account, and the retention of good people, they will find a way to let the other company's management know and understand their reasoning if they accept of backout gracefully. If your management sees this step as the maiden voyage of the Titanic, they will also let the other company's management know their reasoning and why.

Harder

I don't seem to be making a lot of sense in the last paragraph, so let me summarize --

Your management is paid to make the decisions based on the information that is given them. Be honest and up front with them and let them do their job.

[brandon184]

I think I'm about to say pretty much what surreal said (although, I could be wrong interpreting what she said.. ).

Lay it out on the table, plain and SIMPLE. On top of that, take a non-chalant approach to it. Tell them what you know their software & databases are capable of, and that unless they want to make the job harder for everyone - they should make the appropriate modifications.

"If you don't believe me, go on to the next firm. You'll hear the exact same thing, if they're being truthful."

You don't necessarily have to take a "harsh" approach to it, but explain that it would be far more productive and cost-efficient to do it your way. Provide tried & true, proven facts and be able to answer any questions they'll have.

Of course, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. Just another option for you to consider, I guess. Tough situation.

- Brandon
------------