Least common denominator x one size fits all

In a residential real estate context, when a "one size fits all" creature mates with a "least common denominator" beast the offspring will be neat, clean and consistent, but will they define the best interests of the public they purport to represent by offering stellar service?

MLS applications consistently confront the "least common denominator" beast. Most agents use only a fraction of the capabilities of their MLS system--EVER. They get in a rut and keep using it according to their comfort pattern, regardless of what the true capabilities are. After the last vendor conversion of the regional I used to chair, I conducted classes for a few years, but finally quit for lack of interest. Most agents don't  really want to learn the application in any depth. That suggests some important options. One approach is to "dumb it down" so the application is so easy to use that MOST agents use a majority of the available features. That's a very narrow and winding road. How dumb can you go? What about the agents who can and would use more power in an MLS application? What about the public that would benefit if their agent used that power or if the public themselves had access to more power through a public portal of the MLS? Who is the dog and who is the tail that does the wagging. Does it even matter when the state association is holding the dog's leash?

The headroom necessary to allow extraordinary agents to do amazing work with MLS data is often absent in today's systems. The new RPR application opens some small areas of new landscape for exploration, but the technology is out there to provide access to whole new continents of technological territory. Unfortunately, the exploration of new ways to assist Buyers and Sellers in their quest for the RIGHT HOUSE and the RIGHT BUYER is limited by least common denominator/one size fits all thinking. Many agents don't want headroom, as much as they want comfort, commission checks and a minimal learning curve. MLS vendors want accounts, meaning their least common denominator engine needs to purr just a little more sweetly than the engine used by their competitors. Don't wait for a ROARING LION to dash over the hill heralding a totally new approach to data organization (see my photo/tag based MLS data idea in an earlier blog).

When the state association decided to enter the MLS vendor business some naive individuals held slim hopes that they would strive to build the best MLS system ever devised. They had sufficient resources--financial and intellectual--AND the opportunity was there at the beginning (and may still be there). I was among the naive--silly me! I thought if you were starting from scratch and were the 800 lb gorilla in the real estate jungle, why would you build anything less than the very best? BTW, I did believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny longer than many children. My years as the chairperson and sys/ad of a regional MLS, left me convinced real estate data technology was poised for a quantum leap in technology and user interface development. I figured the state association could make that leap--if they chose to.

Unfortunately, it turns out there are a number of reasons favoring creation of a less than cutting edge application--involving control and power. At this point, nearly two years down the road, the application is so NOT cutting edge there's still some doubt that it has long term viability, regardless of the political prowess employed in coercing adoption. What is cutting edge is that the new statewide MLS enjoys a corporate platform that places it essentially beyond conventional concepts of accountability and responsiveness, not to mention financial performance. It doesn't need to make money to achieve success--at least that's what the initial period indicates. System performance is also not a huge requisite. There is still no public portal, the IDX is primitive and the CMA remains outsourced. Could a conventional MLS vendor sell a system that was so incomplete?

What about headroom within the basic statewide MLS application? Early on there was a plan to encourage outside developers to create a diversity of "front end applications" for use on the statewide data container. Various sophisticated or even simpler applications could be purchase by agents for nominal amounts, sorta like apps for iPhones. Franchises or independents could commission their own MLS apps for their agents and even their clients. Problem was that with so few users there was no incentive for anyone to spend time on development of alternative applications. That might change after the merger, but there's that front end from the vendor representing the OTHER part of the merger to consider. How will the existing vendor feel about fronting a data container open to a variety of front end applications, some of which may be more robust than its current offering?

We'll know more when the merger is actually complete--which it still is not --- as I understand it. What seemed to be a ready to sign arrangement is dragging out with legal fine tuning--for weeks and weeks.