At a round table discussion hosted by Brainstorm recently, the eternal question of whether it is better to build or buy software came up again in passing. The table had no corners, but the room did have opposite ends. nFold sat squarely in the "packaged software" corner, arguing that if packaged software meets 60-80% of your needs and can be configured, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. In the "bespoke software" corner, sat Malcolm Rabson from Dariel Solutions, whose experience has been that customers don't want to pay for 100% when all they need is 5% of the functionality that comes off the shelf. He has a point. Although the packaged software response is to modularise or tier the software to different groups of requirements.
Dariel & nFold both agreed on one thing: regardless of whether the software is packaged or bespoke, a mature approach is needed to ensure the success of your project. Contrary to popular belief, it IS possible to deliver software projects in time on budget and according to specifications. Usually, that means spending more time up front, following the old adage that if you fail to plan you are planning to fail.
Another eternal question (or is it an excuse) came up in the discussion, namely the IT skills shortage; a convenient reason to buy rather than build. The word on the street is that software development environments and standards are evolving so rapidly that we now need a new kind of specialist. To make matters worse, the curriculum at higher institutions of learning has allegedly not kept up with market demands. When will our industry demand the levels of professionalism & skills accreditation already adopted in countries such as the UK?
I eagerly await the article Paul Furber has written in Brainstorm to see his take on these matters and the broader subject of Independent Software Vendors; and of course to see my name in quotes and the - no doubt - unflattering photo.
