|
|
Product
|
|
The Macola Product Testing LabFor the past fifteen years, Macola Progression has offered
perhaps the finest low cost manufacturing accounting software solutions in the
industry. However, the product suffered from serious bug issues – too many to
ignore. I can remember in 1996 receiving almost two dozen Macola CDs in the mail
during the year, as the company relentlessly released new versions every other
week in an effort to combat bugs. At following Spring, I had the opportunity to
have dinner with the company’s President – Bruce Hollinger where I callously
remarked “I’ve invented a device that catapults my Macola CDs across the
Chattahoochee River so that I can shoot them with my shotgun – “Pull”,
“Boom”, “Pull”, “Boom”. I thought that I was being funny, but my
comment didn’t raise a single smile, much less a laugh. Two years later, I visited Bruce Hollinger again in Marion,
Ohio. Bruce invited me to take a ride with him where he took me on a tour of a
new office location where Macola had set up a product testing laboratory. Along
the walls were fifty computers busy running 1.5 million lines of test code
against the Macola product. In the offices were twenty personnel whose sole job
it was to read the testing reports, identify problems and bugs, and communicate
those problems back to the programmers. Bruce told me that they had visited the
Microsoft Excel team specifically to ask them how they tested their product.
Then Macola modeled their testing lab after the Microsoft Excel testing lab.
Bruce told me that the testing lab had been one of the most difficult and
expensive things he has ever done, but also one of the most beneficial things as
well. He said, “I used to think that we were shipping pretty clean code, but I
was only fooling myself. With this new testing lab, I now know that we are
shipping good clean code and I can look customers in the eye with a good
conscious. My reply to Bruce was, Great Plains has known this for years, they
have 700 computers running 3,600 test macros around the clock producing 193,400+
electronic reports that are checked electronically each night. Since that time, I can verify that the Macola Progression
product has been much cleaner code. I’ve talked to dozens of Macola
consultants, resellers, and customers who have confirmed that the testing lab
has made a world of difference for Macola. Except for one minor and unconfirmed
complaint I receive in May 2001 concerning Macola’s Warranty Repair module, I
have not heard a single other bug complaint since 1998. My hats off to Macola. Solomon Software Fights Bug IssuesI should note that Solomon has always been a favorite
product of mine, it was the very first product I worked with back in 1985.I like
the people and the product. In 1997, I visited Solomon Software in Findlay, Ohio.
During my visit, the Solomon folks were excited that they had just implemented
procedures to start compiling their product code on a nightly basis, rather than
on a monthly basis as they had done in the past. I did not say so at the time,
but I was rather appalled that they had not been doing this all along. I had
just traveled from Fargo, North Dakota the previous day where I toured the Great
Plains Dynamics testing lab. As I mentioned above, Great Plains had 700
computers running 3,600 test macros around the clock producing 193,400+
electronic reports that are checked electronically each night. Therefore, the
fact that Solomon was just now taking steps to compile code nightly was not very
impressive, compared to Great Plains’ efforts. The following year, Solomon released new product code which
unfortunately, was buggy. Over the course of the year, I encountered seven
separate instances in which an attendee in my audience stood up and complained
bitterly about Solomon bugs. I can vividly recall once such episode as I was
lecturing in Puerto Rico at an AICPA conference. I had just demonstrated the
Solomon product to several hundred participants when the CFO of a
California-based timber company stood up in front of everybody and proceeded to
slam Solomon without mercy. He explained that his company had spent more than
$300,000 on the product, and it never worked. They eventually got their money
back. I too had problems. Working with my colleague at the time - Randy
Johnston, we worked for days in an effort to get Solomon up and running on our
laptop computers – but to no avail. Finally, Randy shipped his laptop off to
Solomon and after several weeks, he was told that they could not get it to work
either. The Grande Finale came in September as I attended a Texas Rangers games
as a guest of ePartners (great seats by the way). During the third inning
ePartner’s management announced to me that they had stopped recommending
Solomon IV. At first I was a little shocked, but then it really sank in as to
just what they were telling me. You see, at the time ePartners was the number
one Solomon reseller in the world. I asked them why and the reply was
“Solomon’s idea of testing their product is to throw it out there to their
customers and let them suffer”. [Please keep in mind that this was not an
official comment from ePartners, it was merely idol conversation over a hotdogs
and beer at the ballpark. EPartners had a huge vested interested in the Solomon
product and I don’t blame them for being frustrated. EPartners is a fine
organization.] [Also - from the rumor department, some internal programmers at
Solomon have suggested to me that the root of the Solomon bug issues are a
direct result of changes that Microsoft made within their database design –
and that the fix for these problems laid in Microsoft’s hands – not
Solomon’s. I have no idea whether this is true, but because we are talking
ancient history here, it is interesting to ponder.] As you can see, there was a fairly decent amount of
evidence that Solomon’s lack of formal testing had finally caught up to them.
Prior to this episode, Solomon had produced some of the most rock solid code in
the marketplace – as if they were immune to bug issues. I am sure that their
decade long success to date help lull them in to a false sense of security.
Solomon Software has since been purchased by Great Plains, who has since been
purchased by Microsoft. He folks at Great Plains made it their first priority to
repair the Solomon code, which was done fairly easily using the Great Plains
testing lab model. Unfortunately the image takes a little longer to repair,
especially with accounting software pundits like me who spout off these old
stories. I am pleased to report that for the past several years, Solomon IV has
enjoyed good, clean, dependable code. I have been recommending Solomon with
complete confidence and continue to do so. Conclusion
I think that these stories speak for themselves. Product
testing is very important. Each accounting software publisher should maintain a
separate group dedicated to solely product testing. Don’t be fooled by
publishers who claim that “our programmers test their work”. Of course they
should review their own work – who doesn’t proof read or review their own
work? However it is a different story to have independent personnel dedicated
specifically to this function. Ask about it. Ask for names. Ask the publisher to
describe their product testing procedures. If the company doesn’t have such
procedures, you will be able to tell. Final Note - I am not sure how the folks at Macola, ePartners, or Solomon will feel about me mentioning their names in these stories above. In the end, this should be a good story for all. Macola and Solomon both implemented superior testing and now have better code than ever before. Also, my hat goes off to ePartners for doing the right thing by not recommending a buggy product to their customers. My purpose in recanting these stories is to help us all learn from past mistakes. |
|
|
|
All rights reserved No part of this web site may be used for commercial purposes of any kind without our express written consent. ______________
Read our Mission Statement Contact the Editor - J. Carlton Collins, CPA
__________________
Click Here If
You Need Help |