ibp magic

During yesterday's meetings I had an opportunity to read through the IBP on the new statewide proposal. Of course it has the usual disclaimer that it is for study only and has not been approved by SPF, Exec, Boards, yada, yada. It is an artful piece of work, tripping lightly through the history--semi avoiding direct confrontation with the fact that lots of people spent lots of time over the last 18+ months out there selling a system that, even now, is not fully developed. Don't know what book on tech start-ups they read, but it's often better to finish the product before you sell it.

The vendor is pushed under the train raising the question--if that vendor was an obstacle on the path to the grand consolidation plan why wait until October to become concerned and late in the year to take action? Interestingly, few knew of that action, including those using the systems that were launched.

Now we know ANOTHER team of "highly experienced outside developers" was engaged to carry on. Oh, they're anonymous, but they're doing a great job, "The software has become increasingly stable and robust". So what was it before and why did it take 18 months to make the change?

The IBP then goes into 4+ pages of detail that few will read. Most is about governance, a favorite topic focused on which of the faithful will get appointed to which slots in the new organization. That's very important for those climbing the organizational ladder. I won't delve into those details--lots drawn from the Connecticut model and the odd mix of the mergor and mergee power people. Plus a whole category of membership for the state association--and rightly so. It is not an MLS.

More interesting is a section regarding the new vendor, called MLS Vendor Co. for now. It doesn't say if this anonymous group is the same anonymous group that's running the system now.

The odd thing is the IBP states that the statewide will retain ownership of the application, but a few lines later it states that the MLS Vendor Co will own the software. Will try to get some clarification there. Can't be both ways.

As a sidelight, I'd suggest a new wordsmith be located. This IBP is not well written, if the intent is to lucidly explain past events and future plans, but maybe that wasn't the intent.

There is much work left to do integrating databases, finishing development on features (still no client portal). The IBP doesn't say what entity is going to do this work--presumably the mystery MLS Vendor Co., but it's not clear. The Mergor's present vendor is going to have some role. It seems MLS Vendor Co is also working on version of their windfall application to sell to other clients around the US and will pay royalties to new statewide MLS. Wonder if those clients will know the identity of MLS Vendor Co.? We'd better hope MLS Vendor Co has better luck selling the system than the statewide MLS board did or there will be few royalties. There is an agreement in place between the statewide and MLS Vendor Co that is contingent up approval at Sat. Board of Directors meeting. Who's seen it? Not those voting.

The new statewide (or Holding Company) will pay the state organization back as soon as 13000 users are on the new MLS system. That could be awhile.

End of the day, what do the agents see when they enter their password? We don't know. IBP doesn't address. What will the public see when they enter the client portal that doesn't exist yet. We don't know. How will the numbers work in terms of profitability for the new statewide? We don't know. What could go wrong and what's being done to mitigate that possibility or eliminate it altogether? We don't know.

If there were less than optimal business decisions made in the development of the old statewide system (the IBP makes it sound like there weren't--just circumstances beyond control and an iffy vendor), what's being done in terms of leadership and administrative changes to improve the chances the new statewide will be a better experience? We don't know (but I'm betting a lot of familiar faces will be running the show again).

There are a lot of other "we don't know's), but the directors are confronted with no real choice when the vote comes. A yes vote opens a path toward huge uncertainty and challenge with most of the upside benefits being reaped by the state association. Voting no is not an option. There's a system up for 1000 or so users. Millions of dollars have been spent, tens of thousands of volunteer hours have been invested. The outcome of the vote, albeit carefully orchestrated, is certain.

Another, perhaps better, approach would be a yes vote with conditions, but the only people with knowledge sufficient to create those condition are those who don't want them. The directors certainly don't have the ability to tweak the plan.

Groupthink once again. Can it work in a competitive technology arena? It doesn't work as well in tech environments as in politics. In tech, at the end of the day, performance counts.

Final note. I like to pretend that members of the public could witness what's going on in these meetings. How would they feel if they knew what was going into to this new statewide MLS stew that will have a large impact on their ability to find the RIGHT house to buy or the RIGHT buyer to sell to? They might loose their appetite.