78 / 322
GAZ E T TE
APRIL. 1984
asked to provide a more detailed specification. All of the
four are essentially United Kingdom in origin, and their
limited support presence in this country considerably
reduced their appeal.
All four of the suppliers corresponded in considerable
detail to the more rigorous final specification. Two were
judged bv the Committee to be less attractive than the
remaining two. One was rejected because it was not quite
so attractive or easy to use as the remaining systems and
was running on somewhat old-fashioned hardware. The
second was rejected on the grounds of considerable
uncertainty regarding the c ommi tme nt of the supplier to
the legal profession, cost and, finally, because the
hardware came from a great variety of sources. The latter
point gave rise to concern that it would be difficult to
provide effective service for the system and that only the
software house itself could maintain the unique amalgam
of hardware.
The final two systems ran " n e c k - a nd - n e c k ". One had
the advantage of a number of impressive sales in this
country and considerable customer satisfaction, but
appeared less flexible and was initially reluctant to
commit itself to providing fulltime service b a c kup based
in this country. The other, whilst havinga very impressive
U.K. sales record, had no existing customers in this
country but was prepared to commit itself to set up a
service base in Dublin and seemed to be in a better
position to react to hardware developments and
expansion in the customer's volume of work.
Following the completion of this stage of its work, a
meeting of all the contributors to the funds of the
Committee was convened. It was decided that a majority
of the original party involved wished to purchase systems.
The Committee, with the assistance of Systems
Dynamics, was asked to enter final negotiations with the
two " f r o nt r unn e r s" with a view to making a final
assessment of their capabilities and of also ascertaining
the costs for an office midway in size between the two
original specimen offices. Either of the two remaining
suppliers was in a position to meet the criteria required by
the Committee. However, following these further
negotiations, a majority of the subscribers decided to
proceed with the Comp a ny which had first offered to set
up service facility in Dublin. Certain reductions were
negotiated for a g r oup purchase and a number of medium
sized firms have decided to enter a co-ordinated purchase
deal.
Copies of the report are still available. They should still
be useful for anybody considering embarking on an
investigation of the market-place. Any firm may purchase
same in return for a contribution to its size as detailed
above.
Lessons Learned
During the work of the Commi t t ee each member
learned a numb er of valuable lessons f r om his exposure to
the market, of which the more useful ones are summarised
below:—
1. Having originally set its brief to avoid a considera-
tion of word-processing, the Committee came to the
conclusion that for the smaller office computerised
accounts and word-processing should be considered
together. In most cases, the expense of a word-
W E ' R E W O R T H
A C L O S E R L O
A bank that pays up to 13% on deposits
is worth looking into.
Come in and talk to our managers:
Barry McGann, Dublin.
Sarsfield Smith, Cork.
Jack Hennessy, Limerick.
Deposits with the First Southern Bank
are an Authorised Trustee investment
and have the approval of the Incorporated
Law Society.
FIRST
25 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2. Telephone 01-609222. Telex 90658
86 South Mall, Cork. Telephone 021-962544. Telex 75450.
67 O'Connell SL, Limerick. Telephone 061-316277. Telex 26910.
70