There is More Than One Way to Write an 80/20 Rule
In selecting a new platform for your enterprise healthcare web application, no option is going to be precisely perfect. Every project has a series of idiosyncratic requirements and structures that must be handled with platform configuration (or customization) during implementation. But different platforms take different approaches to covering as many requirements as possible in their standard configuration. And those different approaches can create striking differences.
Which scenario would your enterprise prefer: A software platform that completely addressed 80% of your project's requirements and did not address 20% very well or a solution that addressed 80% of *each* requirement?
I believe the rational choice is the former over the latter.
In modern web applications with thousands of individual (and very specific) functionality requirements, it seems more effective (and efficient) to be able to focus your team's energy on the remaining 20% your platform does not cover natively. That 20%, after all, is normally unique to the content, organization, or field (including such requirements as high-definition videos for surgeons and multiple skin magnification options for dermatopathologists). The 20% are generally features that provide your application with the most "wow" factor and differentiation. Those unique requirements are better addressed with the full focus of the development team rather than have their efforts scattered among the other thousand.
That approach is the philosopy of the Silverchair Content Manager (SCM) platform. The SCM platform team has rigorously tested its major functions (including search, browse, contextual connections using semantics) against the professional healthcare information consumer and refined these features to match their particular use models. We purposefully do not make default platform decisions in areas of great variance -- we prefer to address those specifically as solutions to individual projects.
In contrast, platforms such as Microsoft's SharePoint application and other generic CM platforms are alluring due to their wide breadth of "included" features. But upon examination of each individual feature, it is easy to see that each one has been genericized to the point where it is less than 100% effective. The more specific the needs of your industry (or industry sub-category), the further each feature resides from your use model. In professional healthcare, therefore, each one must be customized to some extent just to match the thought and analysis that is already infused in the SCM platform's core features. It is no coincidence that SharePoint customization is a booming software service industry -- each deployment requires a heavy amount of customization across the board before it comes close to meeting the original requirements and differentiates itself in the market.
--Jake Zarnegar, Silverchair CTO
Which scenario would your enterprise prefer: A software platform that completely addressed 80% of your project's requirements and did not address 20% very well or a solution that addressed 80% of *each* requirement?
I believe the rational choice is the former over the latter.
In modern web applications with thousands of individual (and very specific) functionality requirements, it seems more effective (and efficient) to be able to focus your team's energy on the remaining 20% your platform does not cover natively. That 20%, after all, is normally unique to the content, organization, or field (including such requirements as high-definition videos for surgeons and multiple skin magnification options for dermatopathologists). The 20% are generally features that provide your application with the most "wow" factor and differentiation. Those unique requirements are better addressed with the full focus of the development team rather than have their efforts scattered among the other thousand.
That approach is the philosopy of the Silverchair Content Manager (SCM) platform. The SCM platform team has rigorously tested its major functions (including search, browse, contextual connections using semantics) against the professional healthcare information consumer and refined these features to match their particular use models. We purposefully do not make default platform decisions in areas of great variance -- we prefer to address those specifically as solutions to individual projects.
In contrast, platforms such as Microsoft's SharePoint application and other generic CM platforms are alluring due to their wide breadth of "included" features. But upon examination of each individual feature, it is easy to see that each one has been genericized to the point where it is less than 100% effective. The more specific the needs of your industry (or industry sub-category), the further each feature resides from your use model. In professional healthcare, therefore, each one must be customized to some extent just to match the thought and analysis that is already infused in the SCM platform's core features. It is no coincidence that SharePoint customization is a booming software service industry -- each deployment requires a heavy amount of customization across the board before it comes close to meeting the original requirements and differentiates itself in the market.
--Jake Zarnegar, Silverchair CTO
Labels: portals, software development, technology considerations
posted by Silverchair at
2:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home