N
neal
The BCM project serves as important lesson on how a program must serve the
needs of the user, not the other way around. I don’t see BCM as a ‘free
add-in’; it’s advertised as an integral part of a suite of office software,
with all the related development costs factored in.
I regularly import csv files with batches of 50-100 leads. I can tell
Outlook 03 to import the files into a field customized folder that can later
be merged or deleted. After 10+ years of customizing contact fields, it’s
quite doable. I can’t do any of that in BCM. I can’t even create a basic
folder of any kind. I know, yes, categories are the way of the future, but
let us be practical. Information has to be segregated in order to be useful.
BCM 1 looked so promising when I tried it two years ago. The stability of
V1 was like alpha software. V2 worked at the expense of stripping the program
to a feature subset that resembles a ‘demo’: if you are one of the <1% of
all business users for whom this program works, congratulations. I’ve tried
to read your posts. I was disappointed to discover that the_most basic_
info, e.g. sales status, source of lead, subfolders-are simply not
customizable, and likely never will be in an OL2003 version. However, if I
can figure out how to edit the PickLIstsMasterList as well as the relevant
forms as Max has described, it may work. If I need to then resort the leads
by field, I hope they continue to display as that is my whole reason for
using fields in Outlook. Information has to be accessible to be useful.
I can only imagine how many deployment hours have been invested by end-users
who later discovered that the program had been eviscerated into irrelevancy.
The end effect is one of a cruel joke passed upstairs by PMs with little
regard for the value of the end user’s time or product needs. Steve Sinofsky
seems like a nice and competent manager, but he did no favors by approving
RTM. It reflects a culture within Microsoft that promotes features over
functionality, and like the trainwreck that is Vista, promises far more than
it delivers.
I’ll try again with 3.0, but the lessons seem clear. Don’t cut the baby in
two by forcing the use of two databases. I do like the idea of sharing
contacts with another local peer user in my office, and I shouldn’t have to
sacrifice compatibility with the rest of Outlook to do it. And make every
aspect of BCM as configurable as the corresponding Outlook. Features are
only valuable when they get real world usage.
It’s so close to being a relevant product. Hey BCM PM’s, can you walk the
extra mile to make a version 2.5 that works with your existing base of
MILLIONS of users? Thank you.
Neal
needs of the user, not the other way around. I don’t see BCM as a ‘free
add-in’; it’s advertised as an integral part of a suite of office software,
with all the related development costs factored in.
I regularly import csv files with batches of 50-100 leads. I can tell
Outlook 03 to import the files into a field customized folder that can later
be merged or deleted. After 10+ years of customizing contact fields, it’s
quite doable. I can’t do any of that in BCM. I can’t even create a basic
folder of any kind. I know, yes, categories are the way of the future, but
let us be practical. Information has to be segregated in order to be useful.
BCM 1 looked so promising when I tried it two years ago. The stability of
V1 was like alpha software. V2 worked at the expense of stripping the program
to a feature subset that resembles a ‘demo’: if you are one of the <1% of
all business users for whom this program works, congratulations. I’ve tried
to read your posts. I was disappointed to discover that the_most basic_
info, e.g. sales status, source of lead, subfolders-are simply not
customizable, and likely never will be in an OL2003 version. However, if I
can figure out how to edit the PickLIstsMasterList as well as the relevant
forms as Max has described, it may work. If I need to then resort the leads
by field, I hope they continue to display as that is my whole reason for
using fields in Outlook. Information has to be accessible to be useful.
I can only imagine how many deployment hours have been invested by end-users
who later discovered that the program had been eviscerated into irrelevancy.
The end effect is one of a cruel joke passed upstairs by PMs with little
regard for the value of the end user’s time or product needs. Steve Sinofsky
seems like a nice and competent manager, but he did no favors by approving
RTM. It reflects a culture within Microsoft that promotes features over
functionality, and like the trainwreck that is Vista, promises far more than
it delivers.
I’ll try again with 3.0, but the lessons seem clear. Don’t cut the baby in
two by forcing the use of two databases. I do like the idea of sharing
contacts with another local peer user in my office, and I shouldn’t have to
sacrifice compatibility with the rest of Outlook to do it. And make every
aspect of BCM as configurable as the corresponding Outlook. Features are
only valuable when they get real world usage.
It’s so close to being a relevant product. Hey BCM PM’s, can you walk the
extra mile to make a version 2.5 that works with your existing base of
MILLIONS of users? Thank you.
Neal
