From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:3ee44d2a{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>
>>the change over simply because of this. The solution required them to
>>spend a couple of hours moving their appointments over to the new system
>>but they prefered to spend many hours complaining etc instead.
>
>
> do you consider a couple of hours of each employee's time to be part of the
> cost of upgrading? Retraining time as well? That can very quickly add up and
> offset the price difference between products.
>

That wasn't the case. It was a matter of those 2 employees. The rest of the
staff either didn't use computer based scheduling or actually preferred the
web based version because it meant they could do everything like that (web,
mail, scheduling) from within their browser. It also meant that for people
"on the road" they could go to an internet cafe or indeed a
client site machine & tap in.

This was part of the raison d'etre for the project as the cost wanted to
expand this to delivery people etc & most/all cust sites said OK to
allowing the drivers to log their deliveries & comments via the
scheduler via the web. OK so far but suddenly it was as if we were
threatening the sales blokes "right" to have laptops which we
weren't at all. Yes more stuff was going to move to a browser & yes
that meant they could call into a client site & book deliveries etc.

But the vast majority of the problems were down to the single guy who'd
pushed for exchange & the 2nd guy was basically his acolyte.

Like I say it was a corporate macho thing & we by stripping out
exchange were threatening to him in some way.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4