Information about Sparx Systems

[Steve_Straley]

Murry,

Again, why should Geoff and crew enter the fray when we're doing a good job supporting their product, their service, and their company.   How many times have you never heard from the head of a company or a government when the message that would be conveyed be done by others.   I know I wouldn't.

Steve

[CJ]

G'day folks,

I can see Murray's point.  There are technologically-inept managers, accountants, purchasing officers, etc., who may have the final say in adopting a product, and who may evaluate a product solely based on the maker's web site.  Sparx systems may be losing out on some extra sales, and some software development folk may have no choice but to work with inferior products because they have no say.

Maybe for Sparx's benefit, and maybe for the benefit of those folk out there who can't convince management to think out of the box a little, it would be worth having a professional, slightly flashy "About" screen.

For an "About" box, I'd say sugar coat it a little with things like "200% increase in sales (or market share) since ..." or a few success stories like "EA used on project XXX for company YYY".

If it ain't too much work to setup and to update once in a while, then it may sway those blockheads who really shouldn't have any say in picking software to start with.

[Steve_Straley]

Jason,

I never said I didn't understand his points, I STRONGLY feel they are strawman issues.   There are inept managers all over the place and no matter what you do or do not, you will loose out on some extra sales.   Frankly, it's none of our business... it's Sparx business if THEY feel it is an issue.  A web site or a HELP ABOUT page or jumping in here does NOTHING to increase sales... a huge sales force taking those "inept" managers out to lunch does MORE to the sale.   BUT, if that is not Sparx business model, then that's THEIR business.

Come on people, let's stick to our business plans and our products and out models, and not try to run or make someone else's.

Steve

[gsparks]

Hi all,

I'll endeavour to get something posted in the "About Sparx" section that is a bit more informative in the next day or two.

Many thanks to all those who have offered support on this thread - much appreciated.

We have indeed experienced excellent growth and market acceptance over the last two years - and with a rapidly expanding user base and continuing good feedback on EA's capabilities and performance it should not be too difficult a task.

Thanks again for the feedback, Ill post again on this thread when the information is available.

Geoff Sparks

[CJ]

Whoa Steve,

Wasn't replying to you personally, and wasn't putting any words in your mouth either, so to speak.

I just thought this was a good philosophical discussion ... an opportunity to ramble on with other folk about some of the crappy realities in our worlds, and an opportunity, as a big-time fan of EA, to theoretically discuss what could facilitate the health and longetivity of EA (or any business in general, for that matter) and to discuss those things that may hamper it.

Of course it's none of our business how Sparx Systems does things (to be honest, I appreciate how they do things), and really how can anyone of us expect that we can push anybody else to do things we want them to do.  But I don't see how censoring (or wanting to end) this thread of discussion is of any benefit to Sparx, and I don't get why anyone should get a little out of sorts with this thread.

Honestly, if you think this thread is futile and pointless, then let the rest of us have our pointless discussion, and for your own sake move on.

Murray, do everything you can to convince whoever to go with EA.  None of you will be disappointed.   There is nothing to lose.  Knowledge is power.

[Steve_Straley]

Whoa back Jason,

I didn't take anything personally, but that's the trouble with 2 dimensional communication.

Information is great and I certainly don't believe in censoring.  I don't know what EVER gave you that idea! I just see this thread similar to those threads on CompuServe and "The Source" back in the 80's.   One of the nice things about CA is that I learned it's about making money and we all individually have to spend alot of time keeping focus on that.  Maybe that's why I stopped writing books and all.

As far as the health on EA, well... personally speaking we're trying to do something about it which I'll outline next week.  I do believe that the discussion on a formal UP process... one that generates LOTS of White Papers and the like... do ALOT more towards ensuring the health of EA than this thread.   For example, companies have bought into the RUP concept (even though they don't follow it OR they give lip service to it only to cut corners when it comes ot RUP implementations, but that's a different issue).   If we could put lots of things like that together, then companies will see those types of things they have become accustomed to as opposed to open discussions.   For example, the tutorial I started to put together... maybe I'm stupid or niave but I felt that that type of effort would go a greater distance to ensuring EA's success then anything else I could do at the time.   Of course, we moved on to testing other things with EAToolkIT and soon, with EA-ReqPro.

The point is I know emotions and passions and believes are strong and hell, I want to see that continue.   But there are concrete things we can do far more effectively than discussions (IMO).

Steve

[CJ]

Yeah, ditto on the two-way communicate thing.

Gotta admit, though, that some no-brainer activities/discussions and blowing off some steam once in a while feels pretty good.  Can't do concrete things all of the time, eh?

[Steve_Straley]

lol... you got that right my friend... that's why I play Monopoly on line or Bridge when I feel like thinking <LOL>...

Yeah, ditto on the two-way communicate thing.

Gotta admit, though, that some no-brainer activities/discussions and blowing off some steam once in a while feels pretty good.  Can't do concrete things all of the time, eh?