Feature Request: Synchronizing Processing/Pending Transactions

2»

Comments

  • mshigginsmshiggins SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 22

    I have to admit that I do not fully understand the point of arguing against a feature request, especially if it is an optional feature, especially when it is antagonistic; if you want to use it, use it, if not, don't. 

    Ultimately, the choice to implement a feature is a business decision that mostly would be based on a cost/benefit analysis (CBA) vs implementing something else, to which none of us are privy to. These decisions are also weighed against other business needs, such as mitigating business risks or planning for future developments (e.g. split from Intuit, migration off Intuit servers, building infrastructure needed for future feature developments like budget syncing via the Mobile app). The CBA includes determining if this feature would help increase or retain customers.

    Presenting alternatives to achieving the same or similar results makes sense and would be meaningful, as the alternative may be good enough for some or many, naturally dissuading them from needing to vote for a feature, and serves to assist in the CBA.

    Presenting issues that would contribute to the cost might make sense to raise awareness to Quicken (no real benefit to other users) of issues they may not have considered, though most issues are typically obvious enough that Quicken probably does not need assistance in that regard.

    But arguing that a request for feature A would take away resources from working on feature B or how much resource would need to be allocated to implement a feature does not seem an effective way to influence business decisions, especially since again none of us are truly privy to all the factors involved.

    After all, if there is enough interest in feature A over feature B, no arguing against feature A is going to dissuade its implementation if the CBA makes sense (again especially if it is an optional feature). And arguing against feature A in the hopes that this will keep the votes down seems meaningless because if someone wants a feature, they will still vote for it. Instead, the better approach is to influence and increase the demand for feature B to be greater than feature A. Anything else is just presenting opinions that won't weigh in much IMO... that is what votes are for.

    Also note that the number of votes is not the only criterion used to make business decisions. Even low demand features get implemented because they make sense from a UX perspective or other reason. 

    So I think it would be far more beneficial to maintain a positive atmosphere in the conversations, not taking away from still pointing out any of the meaningful issues mentioned above, as is fitting. 

    Anyway, just my 5¢ worth (no pennies in Canada, aye).

    "Personally I rather have a program that has solid working features than one that has everything, but none of it is reliable."


    Agreed!
    Quicken user since Q1999. Currently using QW2017.
    Questions? Check out the  Quicken Windows FAQ list
  • Quicken_TykaQuicken_Tyka Moderator ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 12
    Hey Steagl3,

    Thank you for taking the time to come to the Community and share your Idea and elaborate on how you use Quicken and what you would like to see!

    Your Idea was well written and you offered several valid points, I don't make the decisions on implementation but wanted to take a moment to thank you for expressing what you would find useful and creating a good discussion on the topic.

    -Quicken Tyka
    -Quicken Tyka
Sign In or Register to comment.