When choosing a new ChMS, people often say they need more capability; that their current product just won’t do X, Y, and Z. However, if you look really hard, many of the existing products have feature sets far beyond what most people are using. If the feature exists, but it’s not practical to use it, then I would like to claim that the feature really doesn’t exist. Per an old Apple commercial (that apparently only I remember), slightly adapted, “the most powerful system is the one that actually gets used.” If a feature isn’t used, it might as well not exist. If a feature is too difficult to use, well, that’s the same thing.
If the user who is supposed to perform a task can’t figure out how to do it, then no matter what the spec sheet says, the product doesn’t have that feature (at least for that user). Too harsh? Please disagree. If your users can’t (or even won’t – does it matter?) go through the steps, perhaps painful, to perform a task, then the software has failed to perform the task. Call it user error if you want, but the bottom line is that the task didn’t get done. If software requires exhaustive training, but the training is forgotten, then nothing was accomplished.
When evaluating, instead of saying “does the product enable doing X,” say “Is Bob [or Jane or whomever] readily capable of performing the steps to accomplish X with this product?” If the answer to the second question is ‘no,’ then for all practical purposes, it’s ‘no’ to the first question as well! Using that simple criteria, many product checklists would be reduced to a bunch of empty boxes!
So, who has intuitive, friendly, even “easy” software? Obviously, this isn't just about ChMS.