If you’re a regular reader of this blog, then you know that I find the disconnect between the ITSC’s role and tactics frustrating. Their role, as I understand it, is to advance “…the appropriate application of information technology, which states may adopt, to provide more accurate, efficient, cost effective and timely service to all Unemployment Insurance customers.” Yet, when it comes to AutoCoder, their tactics seem to provide one-sided information in an area where they have an obvious conflict of interest, and where their product has consistently provided fewer features, delivered lower accuracy, and comes at a significantly higher cost than our private-sector alternative.
So, I hope you’ll read the ITSC’s plan for ‘product x’ with a healthy level of skepticism. On paper, almost all new projects sound exciting and promising. Yet in practice, many projects come in late, over budget, with a reduced feature set, and some unmet expectations. And until ‘product x’ can be independently tested, accuracy of the ‘all new’ product is an unknown.
As we learn more about ‘product x’, we’ll post it here. In contrast to the ITSC, we want customers who purchase based on complete information about the market choices.
Keep in mind too that there are no long-term commitments for licensing AutoCoder from RMWC – signup with us for a year, save some money, and keep an eye on the ITSC’s progress. You can always switch once ‘product x’ is no longer vaporware.
Of course, since RMWC competes with the ITSC in the AutoCoder market (check out our v5.1), it’s reasonable for you to be skeptical of my information too. But, I’m hoping you’ll see a big difference in the areas of disclosure and our commitment to accuracy.
¾ On our blog you’ll find a list of our State customers; whereas ITSC does not openly publish their list of AutoCoder customers;
¾ On our blog we openly publish our prices; whereas ITSC does not openly publish their prices;
¾ On our blog you can find current accuracy comparison information; whereas the ITSC publishes accuracy numbers obtained three years ago for a product (produced by RMWC) that no longer ships;
¾ We have a 100% renewal rate for support; whereas the ITSC does not publish their support renewal rate;
¾ We guaranty our accuracy, whereas the ITSC explicitly does not.
Comments