Efficiency vs. Maturation
Efficiency versus maturation
Some people point out that if this right-sized application is successful, that it will need to be rebuilt, usually from the ground up. While this is mostly true, it's relevant to restate that having a working prototype does reduce the risk (risk=time+money) in starting a new application.
So, would it be more efficient to build the enterprise-ready version of the application first? The assumption there is that you are going to get the application right the first time or that the application will be used for a period of time to recover its return on investment. But aren't those two very big assumptions? Furthermore, aren't those two very expensive assumptions?
Also, it's relevant to say that enterprise software endeavors are never guaranteed successes. We all know the high rate of failure for traditional development, whether it is done using an agile or waterfall approach. Approximately 50 percent of all features are either never used or rarely used. Why not develop those features inexpensively first and then decide what needs to be in your final application? These are the types of benefits Microsoft's Visual Studio LightSwitch can provide, making it something to consider moving forward.
Patrick Emmons is Director of Professional Services at Adage Technologies. Patrick is an accomplished technical architect with more than 15 years of programming and Web development experience. He is also a Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer (MCSD). Prior to his position at Adage, Patrick was a principle for another Web development firm and also worked as a developer and consultant for Ameritech, Motorola and Baker Robbins. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.