>I think we've all been down this road, Bill. Unfortunately, I think it's part of the nature of the business.
>
Yep, I agree and I'm not trying to be a general complainer. :-) But since they pay me to help them accomplish their tasks thru software I would appreciate it if they would cooperate sufficiently to enable me to do that for them. :-)

>In my case, it's a very complex application that use to be done manually. Doing ti that way took about an hour. When I wrote the application, the first users understood what the system could and couldn't do and knew that the intent of the application was never to be able to cover all possible contigencies. Since thy knew what had to happen in order for the system to work, when a message came up saying that the necessary information to make the desired calculations couldn't be located, they knew that the data wasn't either beyond the scope of the printed guidelines and that data would have to be added. Since that time, however, the original users are no longer the current ones, and have to idea how to process the information manually. I've pointed out on several ocassions that, as a backup, worst case scenario, the users should be able to process the information manually, but this has fallen on deaf ears.
>
>BTW, the application can process 200+ requests per day where before the maximum was 8.
>
I hear ya. And this displays another problem I've seen in the limitations inherent in a given application/platform. When the requirements are set and the application developed under the acknowledged and agreed upon limitations and then later on it's "Oh BTW, we need this and ...". Well, they generally don't want to hear that the platform doesn't really support that.

I trust that you are able to open their ears that they might hear. :-)