No simple answers

Which is the better deal: a 9-inch pizza for $9 or a 12-inch pizza for $14?

The gut-reaction answer is the 9-inch pizza. But that answer is incorrect.

The correct answer is the 12-inch pizza.

Assuming that the pizzas are round, the 9-inch pizza has an area of (almost) 64 square inches and a cost of $0.14 per square inch. The 12-inch pizza has an area of 113 square inches and a cost of $0.12 per square inch.

Why is it easy to pick the wrong answer? Because the two options were presented in terms of diameter, but the value is measured in area. To get the proper answer, you must convert the presented information into the form used for the calculation of value.

Or, in another view, the information presented was 'features' (a 9-inch pizza) and not 'benefits' (total area of pizza). Features are not (necessarily) benefits. Features are attributes of the product. Benefits are things that provide value. They are not the same. One can be converted to the other, provided you know the formula. For pizza, this is an easy conversion. For other items (like software) the conversion can be harder to define.

You knew I was going to get to software at some point, right?

When selecting software, it is easy to pick the one with the most features, on the assumption that it is better than the others. Or at least it will do everything that the other packages will do.

Or it is easy to pick the one with the lowest cost, on the assumption that the possible selections are roughly the same.

Both methods are easy.

And both methods rely on assumptions. Which means they may provide a good result, or may not, depending on the truth to the assumptions.

If you are selecting software, you must understand how the software will be used and how it provides value. You must know the benefits of the software, not merely the features. Only then can you select the best software for your needs.

Knowing how you will use the software is a hard task. It means understanding how people use the software today. It means predicting future use of the software.

It's much easier to simply pick the package with the lowest price. Or the most features.

But the the best solution may not have the lowest price may, nor the most features. Even when they coincide. As an example, consider air travel. If I had to travel from the East coast to the West coast, and were presented with two options: Continental for $299 and Southwest for $349, with departure and arrive times about the same, and Continental offering a free movie and meal on board, I would pick the Southwest flight. (Southwest offers no in-flight movie and provides at most peanuts.)

"Why?", I hear people ask. The Continental flight has a lower cost *and* more features (and other aspects are equal). The cost is better and the feature list is better. In this case isn't Continental the better choice?

The answer is that Southwest is the better choice, because it provides more value. Remember, features are not directly equivalent to value. The features that Continental provides have no value for me: I've eaten their in-flight meals and I find that a sandwich and piece of fruit from the local shop is better.

I've also seen their arrangements for in-flight movies and find it has negative value. Continental uses little flip-down screens that show the movie in multiple locations on there planes; there is no escape from it. A good movie is tolerable but a bad movie is torture. On average, the movie is a disincentive to use Continental. The extra $50 for the Southwest flight is worth it to *not* have a movie inflicted upon me.

There are no simple answers. It's all about the benefits, and identifying the meaningful benefits is work. The simple answers are often wrong.

Which means that the 9-inch pizza might be the better deal, when you are not that hungry.