The Round Table Development Model

posted Wed Dec 07 08:37:12 +0000 2005 - permalink

Having custom software built is expensive. There are multiple phases of development to account for, some quality assurance, let alone coming up with an initial specification. But it is, to a large extent, customized to your needs. If the contractor is worth their weight in code, they should be checking in often, making sure your business processes are met, and things are streamlined. And if you have input to how it works, you do save some time and effort in training.

But buying software off the shelf can be expensive too -- licensing, configuration, compatibility, setup, and training. And how quickly do they respond to you when something goes wrong let alone crashes, and how much do you pay for that responsiveness? I say that more options doesn't necessarily mean more functionality because when you look at all the options present in an off-the-shelf piece of software, it may be able to do everything you ask it -- but are you utilizing 100% of those options? How many features did you really buy, and how many are left unknown? Not that I'm saying that off the shelf software can't meet your needs -- it certainly can -- but in my experience there is a real benefit to face time and process analysis for each customer.

So, I have this idea: Software as investment. (Pure realists will now say that this is already how it works. But hear me out.)

Right now the tools exist such that small teams can build and deploy applications quickly. That cuts the cost substantially -- both by negating the Big Consulting Firm overhead but also in keeping the team small. In addition, there are probably others out there who may need the same set of functionality. Why not provide investment rounds in custom applications, allowing the 'investors' input not just in the design and specification phase, but throughout the development and deployment process?

By spreading the cost over several buyers, each gets input into the process of development, and receives the benefits at a reduced cost. This, however, has to be carefully managed, and someone with a proven track record would need to be trusted with assessing the viability of the project, overseeing and assessing the input from the investors, and keeping the entire project moving forward to delivery.

But I've been giving it thought, and I believe I have some additional ideas to overcome the obstacles. If you have ideas or input, I'd love to hear them as well.