December 10, 1998
Dear Everyone:
Still plowing my way through all those
Records
Management software evaluation
video tapes.
It takes an average of four to five hours to view a two-hour
tape. This is because I’m
constantly stopping (or pausing) the tape to type notes into a database.
Yes, they say the product can do such and such, but this is what it actually
looks like when they
demonstrate it.
Also, the criteria are listed alphabetically, but
the presenters tend to jump around in the software, showing different
features and sometimes going on tangents when someone asks a question.
It’s not unusual for a particular criteria to come up three or
more times in various parts of the presentations.
So I’m also noting exactly
where on a tape (to the nearest minute) a criteria gets mentioned.
So, if you’re interested in how a particular application handles
electronic
documents (can’t imagine why you would, but one never knows), it
might come up at 0:05 (introductory remarks), then again at 0:45
(electronic document is found in a search) and once more (with feeling!)
at 1:57 (one last question from the audience).
This is important for two reasons:
First, it will allow us to queue up all four tapes to a
particular function, such as reporting capabilities, and view all four
products one right after another for just that one criteria.
Second, there is a consultant in CITC (Company
Information Technology Company) who needs to look at the products with
an eye towards
electronic document management systems (EDMS) and how the ones at
Company might interact with (or react against) a product; and the
possibility of using one of these products at CITC to manage
email (which is growing
faster than Godzilla).
However, we don’t want to pay her $90 per hour to slog through a
bunch of features that don’t concern her.
So she’ll get the tapes and a list of exact spots to fast forward
to, skipping the rest.
Another advantage to all this dissecting of
products is that I’ll be able to produce a report of criteria,
description, weight (how important is it to us), and notes about how
each of the four products fills that criteria.
Then we can assign weights to the products.
One does it pretty well (gets a 5), one does it, but it’s not
very easy (gets a 3), and one doesn’t do it at all (gets a 1).
Add up the weights and you get the best fit for the job.
It’s much more scientific and objective than
closing your eyes and throwing darts at the wall.
It also takes a heck of a lot longer.
In other news…
Barely two weeks until
Christmas and I’ve
hardly done any
shopping yet. Tried
several times to find a certain something for “Jeannie’s” birthday, but
with little success.
However, in that area, I have a fallback position.
As for the rest, panic probably won’t start to set in until
Sunday.
Finally did get to see
A Bug’s
Life and it’s adorable.
This is the second computer-animated feature this year and the
better of the two. Like
Antz,
it’s peppered with celebrity voices, most of which I missed because I
don’t happen to watch those TV sitcoms.
And it doesn’t matter in the slightest.
A colony of ants are being terrorized by a bunch of
bullying grasshoppers (led by
Kevin Spacey).
A brave individual ant goes in search of “warrior bugs” to come
and fight the grasshoppers.
The “warriors” are reluctant to help, but are won over by the situation
and the one ant’s determination to save his colony.
Not surprisingly, the good guys win.
If it all sounds vaguely familiar, it’s because
you’ve seen it before. This
is Seven
Samurai, also known as The
Magnificent Seven, remade as
Battle Beyond the Stars (ironically,
Robert Vaughn
starred in two out of three of them, a cinematic record, I’m sure).
The only difference here is that no one looks like
Yul Brynner and
there are eight “warrior” bugs (unless you count the pill bugs
individually) instead of seven.
Whatever.
Cute film. Go see for
yourself.
Love, as always,
Pete
| Previous | Next |