Leslie,
What we must realize is that we are both correct. Obviously, I am better at some of the things on that list I gave you than others. However, I am proficient on all those items nonetheless. But then again, I know nothing of physics, podiatry, chemistry, or politics. So from that standpoint, what you say holds true.
What we have here is a pendulum. Swung to far one way, people will probably know one and only one thing. Swung the other way, people must be experts in all things. Both extremes, in my opinion, are equally unacceptable. One can't know it all, but at the same time one must be adaptable in this economy. Someone who is proficient in SharePoint should also pick up a secondary skill, such as SQL Server, and perhaps branch out into Buisiness Intelligence. The beauty is that all three work together. You can, for example, publish reports made in SQL Server Reporting Services through SharePoint.
Refering to your quotes, you are correct in that I did say those things. The problem is that most IT guys do specialize in one and only one thing. Heck, most of them don't even keep up with new developments in their area of expertise. This is why most of the IT guys I knew back in 2005 aren't around any more. How many new guys have you seen in your area and how many of the old guys have you not heard from in a while?
I agree, you can't know it all. But one cannot overly limit one's self, either. Agility must be maintained.
By the way, I can run wires.
Regarding Amazing Charts branching out and becoming less useful, this is the natural evolution of software. Consider your post:
Previous versions of AC were perfect for the small to medium-sized office. Just enough bells and whistles to make it useful and intuitive. But as time has gone on, it appears the push to compete with the Microsofts of the industry, the need to be the everything to everybody, has lessened the usefulness of the program and, I believe, will drive away those for whom it used to be perfect.
For one thing, this is your opinion. You cannot speak for the entire user base. The addition of new features was the result of:
1. User requests.
2. Making an effort to be innovative. Who wants to pay yearly tech-support for a program that hasn't seen a new release in a long time? Lack of user requests is not an excuse. People expect to see new versions of software every so often to get a feeling of getting their money's worth.
3. To attract new customers.
Do not underestimate number 3. New customers are a must. After purchasing Amazing Charts, how many people do you honestly think renew their tech-support every year? Far less than you may think, I would wager. The average provider I work with is around 2 - 3 years behind on tech-support for their EMR and/or PM system. In their minds, they haven't had to call tech-support in a while, so why should they pay it? The latest version doesn't have any new features they want, so again, why pay it? So, the last resort of trying to keep some semblance of decent cash flow is to get more clients - bigger clients - to further ensure a steady revenue stream of not only sales but tech-support dollars.
Amazing Charts has no choice but to go after bigger fish as it simply cannot rely on the little Leslies and Berts of the world to pay the bills. True, they may lose a few of you on the way, but from a purely economic standpoint that is an acceptable loss if they just signed up that 5 doctor podiatry clinic. I realize that sounds dismal, but economics is the Dismal Science.
What would you do if you were Amazing Charts?
JamesNT
.png "ACUF Donor I")
