The market inhibitor for scheduling software/app is usually the mixed needs factor.
Offices have very little requirements for scheduling and the product would have to so much "better" than stubby pencil or excel that it is hard to drive usage.
On the other hand service industries with volume concerns are so in depth with regards to scheduling that the product must integrate projections and production demands. The problem being that what those two words mean to each company is different. How each company employs the basics of volume projections are not standard.
I have spent a decade vetting software and products to make scheduling easier but in the end the main inhibitor to adoption is ease of use. If it isn’t substantially easier to use and just as accurate and communicative as the original practice then adoption is a negative.
Comments
The market inhibitor for scheduling software/app is usually the mixed needs factor.
Offices have very little requirements for scheduling and the product would have to so much "better" than stubby pencil or excel that it is hard to drive usage.
On the other hand service industries with volume concerns are so in depth with regards to scheduling that the product must integrate projections and production demands. The problem being that what those two words mean to each company is different. How each company employs the basics of volume projections are not standard.
I have spent a decade vetting software and products to make scheduling easier but in the end the main inhibitor to adoption is ease of use. If it isn’t substantially easier to use and just as accurate and communicative as the original practice then adoption is a negative.
Sorry for any typos.