Over the years I've heard something like this said many times:“Well, they want a Cadillac, but they really only need aChevrolet.” This adage obviously goes back to the days when GM wasreally a dominating auto manufacturer. But I don't think it reallyhas as much to do with cars as it does with human nature.

Most everyone I know likes nice things. We like to see them,have them and use them. Anybody who doesn't like nice things wesometimes label as “out there” or “different.”

Even so, there are a lot of nice things that, well, just are notreally necessary-or even useful. Think about it. You bought thatfancy stereo system last year. Before doing so you really dug intothe research to make sure that the one you bought was the absolutebest there is, right?

Not even close. You bought the one that makes the most sense foryou. (OK, you really bought the next one up.) During your research,you learned there are two parameters about nice things. Along onescale there is genuine quality. Some products are just made better,they have higher quality components, they offer better performance,they cost more to manufacture, and they carry a higher pricetag.

The other nice things scale is about features. The more bellsand whistles the better, right? Well, in most everything, you pay ahigher price for the item that offers more features-even if it hasless quality.

After your exhausting stereo system research, you went throughsome kind of mind meld and bought the unit with the best qualityand the most features you could almost afford.

But here's the rub. Have you really used all of the features youso painstakingly agonized over during your stereo research andpurchase? Or-like me and a lot of other folks in the world-did youput the main items to work and there are still a lot of unusedfeatures just sitting there? I'm betting on the latter.

This, my friends, is the difference between “musts” and “wants.”And I know for a fact that I'd have better quality stuff or afatter wallet if I had known this my entire adult life. The bottomline is that many times I have bought more than I could use, onlyto let some of my investment go to waste.

How in the world does this relate to the field of financialtechnology?

In my experience, technology for financial institutions fallsinto exactly the same model.

Providers are continually pushed to add more and more newfeatures. Sometimes because the marketplace demands them andsometimes because they can be done.

When buyers (credit unions) survey the vendor community for aparticular project, the questions are all about the features. Andmore often than not, it is the whiz-bang stuff that gives onevendor the edge because there are more checkboxes filled on thepage.

These phenomena even creep into early price and estimatediscussions, where the conversation usually goes something likethis:

Vendor: “What modules do you want to include?”

Buyer: “Hey, let's throw them all in! We really like all thatgee-gaw!”

The result is that many conversations go no further than thispoint because the vendor just got asked to price the Cadillac,which happens to be way out of the client's price range.

Our experience is that clients underutilize the capabilities ofmost solutions. Regardless of what they purchased, they leave a lotof stones unturned. Looking at it from a different perspective,there could have been some money saved somewhere-probably by bothsides.

My advice is for both sides to think a little differently. Forvendors, focus on features that truly help your clients and sellthe steak, not the sizzle. For credit unions, think about what youwill really put to use. What do you really need? What is theproblem you are trying to solve and what capabilities do you reallyneed to fix it? Once you answer these questions honestly, then lookfor a vendor who meets that need and offers you the flexibility toadapt and expand as your needs change.

If you only need a Chevy….