Is this ethical or not?

[NuclearNed]

My company has a software package that I'm trying to implement. This package cost big big bucks, and so far has been a real pain to implement.

A few weeks ago I got to meet the software vendor's rep who handles our account. During conversation, I was very vocal about how bad their installation documentation is. After a while, he finally admitted that they intentionally write poor documentation so that their customers will have to hire their professional services to do the implementation for them.

Is that wrong, or just standard practice nowadays?

 

[torpid]

I don't think it's standard to write poor documentation, but it is definitely standard to sell software with the idea that no one can configure it except experts that you have to hire. Peoplesoft comes to mind. Usually it's because the software is complex and not that the documentation is crap. I would say this particular method is highly unethical.

 

[TwiceOver]

Sounds like something Sage Software would do. Ohh wait, their stuff comes with little to absolutely NO documentation at all!

 

[kranky]

Yeah, something like Peoplesoft or SAP is so huge you could never read all the doc required to make it a self-service install. But it's not real smart to make the doc intentionally unusable.

Very expensive software doesn't have a large market, so the vendors need to sell services as well. I figure if the software is that costly, it's worth it to have an expert get it running. I try to negotiate some amount of install support to be included with the deal as it's very cheap for them to supply compared to what they charge you.

Example: The software is $80,000 and they want $1,000 a day for on-site assistance. I will try to get a discount on the software and once that's settled, I'll try to get one week free on-site assistance if I buy one week.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: kranky
Yeah, something like Peoplesoft or SAP is so huge you could never read all the doc required to make it a self-service install. But it's not real smart to make the doc intentionally unusable.

Very expensive software doesn't have a large market, so the vendors need to sell services as well. I figure if the software is that costly, it's worth it to have an expert get it running. I try to negotiate some amount of install support to be included with the deal as it's very cheap for them to supply compared to what they charge you.

Example: The software is $80,000 and they want $1,000 a day for on-site assistance. I will try to get a discount on the software and once that's settled, I'll try to get one week free on-site assistance if I buy one week.

Not ethical, but why does that surprise you?

There are hundreds of examples of unethical companies in our history. What's the big deal for another one?

 

[spidey07]

Sounds like standard practice to increase sales. I don't see anything unethical about it...just business.

 

[Vehemence]

Unethical and unsurprising.

 

[SpunkyJones]

Originally posted by: dNor
Unethical and unsurprising.

 

[Descartes]

Sounds like some idiot salesman was running their mouth. I highly, highly doubt they have direct knowledge of this practice. I also highly doubt that any company would go to efforts to actually reduce the quality of the documentation as some sort of a strategic effort to increase services revenue.

I think what others said is true: Any non-trivial system is almost impossible to describe entirely with documentation. There will inevitably be questions, and it only makes sense to expedite the answers by hiring someone that already knows them.

 

[elektrolokomotive]

What a very stupid salesman. That being said; your purchasing department should have put together a deal for the software, and negotiated some discounted support as part of the purchase.

 

[SpiderWiz]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
My company has a software package that I'm trying to implement. This package cost big big bucks, and so far has been a real pain to implement.

A few weeks ago I got to meet the software vendor's rep who handles our account. During conversation, I was very vocal about how bad their installation documentation is. After a while, he finally admitted that they intentionally write poor documentation so that their customers will have to hire their professional services to do the implementation for them.

Is that wrong, or just standard practice nowadays?

Too me it's wrong. Also, I think its always been standard practice. I wouldn't say today is any worse then years ago.

 

[JS80]

Yup it's standard. It's stupid. This is why Netsuite is growing fast. I think it's like $100/mo and it's all web based.

 

[robphelan]

what software?

 

[Brainonska511]

Sounds kind of like the Agilent documentation when I was trying to fix a Prep-HPLC. The documentation was not clear at all and it implied the following:

Install the Chemstation (controls machine) software first
Then install Bootp program (lets the machine talk with the computer through the network card) and configure.

It was supposed to be the reverse. They didn't even suggest this on the phone when I called them - they just suggested that it was a hardware problem and they would send me a quote for how much it would cost to fix.

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: robphelan
what software?

Minesweeper

 

[Zombie]

nothing new.

 

[mordantmonkey]

it's more likely that documenting software is fucking boring, and the people that could do it most effectively (programmers) find it very boring. Thus you may unintentionally have documentation that isn't as complete as it could be. however depending on how complex the system is, complete documentation may be even worse and more confusing for the client. Obviously the company would prefer you to use their consulting services, and they may very well be justified in doing so. however they could also just be trying to milk you for extra money.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Yeah, that's about as unethical as it gets imo.

 

[spidey07]

Look at it this way. You can spend 10 million a year on producing good documentation every year or you can sell 50 million a year of professional services. Which one is the better business decision?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Look at it this way. You can spend 10 million a year on producing good documentation every year or you can sell 50 million a year of professional services. Which one is the better business decision?

The question was about ethics, not economics. The best decision from a business standpoint is not necessarily the best decision from an ethics standpoint. If a company is intentionally writing poor documentation so that clients are forced to pay extra for expert assistance, it's hard to justify that as an "ethical" practice.

 

[nonameo]

Wow, I think it's just plain stupid business. You could achieve the the same results with better wording.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Would this happen to be a Microsoft product?

 

[Xavier434]

Standard or not, that is not ethical at all. The people are not getting what they are paying for and it is on purpose.

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Would this happen to be a Microsoft product?

no