>>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.
>
>Like everyone else, I've been there too. The rule is that once the specifications are agreed upon, if changes (beyond maintenance) are required, the project goes to the back of the que. This does tend to help.
>
>>I trust that you are able to open their ears that they might hear. :-)
>
>I've been trying for years with limited success. Here are some of the typical things I get all the time.
>
>Me: The Efficiency Systems are product management tools not personnel.
>
>Them: We need a modification to the Efficiency Systems to help manage personnel.
>
>The answer, of course, is always no. I've the backing of the Director of Operations on this one, BTW.
>
>Me: If a problem is suspected with a calculation, please provide me with the evidence (formula, variables used).
>
>Them: This calculation is wrong.
>
>This invariably leads me to track down the problem, which, of course, is data related. The last time this happened, I told them that they had supplied me with insufficient and ambiguous information. They couldn't understand this. GIGO.
>
>The most recent one that really got me going happened last Friday. I've a system that transfers data from one plant to one or more of four others. Below is, unaltered except for the messages that led to it, the email I got.
>
>"CAN YOU TELL ME WHY THE EXPORT IMPORT SYSTEM IS NOT PICKING UP ALL OUR
>INFORMATION? THIS WAS SENT AROUND THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY."
>
>Had the user bothered to look at what was being sent and where it was being sent to, they would've noticed that the plant asking the question, wasn't the target for the information. It was, properly, sent to another plant.
>
Ed's ear wax problem. :-)

>As I said last week (I think). The only way to idiot proof a system is to not let idiots use it.
>
Well, in some cases there might not be a lot os users. :-) In many of these cases it seems they just aren't willing to recognize that a computer is a machine, an irrational one that does what you tell it. Therefore it is necessary to spend some time in learning how to use it and the application(s) on it ... but I symapthize with your feelings here.

>Maybe I need to sic Ed on them.:-)

Oh my ... you are serious ... a fate worse than death. :-) ( Just kidding Ed. :-) )