> while ignoring the fact that X's 10000 customers seem to do fine with the default configuration.
Do they?
If you've seen the pattern you describe almost everywhere, and the key second steps (well, “customize out of the gate to fit your business processes”) are exactly what the vendor markets heavily, what makes you think there huge numbers of customers who are both not customizing and doing just fine?
I've seen and heard of a few cases where customers use software of that kind and minimize customization of the software and instead try to adapt their business processes to the software. And usually those are at least as much horror stories as any heavy customizers.
Really, as much as it's not in the vendor’s interests, big bang implementation of this kind of software that becomes immediately central to a wide array of business processes is probably a bad idea for the same reason that big bang software system replacements usually are, even when there is no existing software system being replaced. Incremental, iterative improvements to business processes and supporting tools are probably a better idea. But big-bang, notionally close-ended projects are more succinct “achievements” on manager/executive CVs resumes, and no one is courting buyers and giving out swag for continuous improvement.
Do they?
If you've seen the pattern you describe almost everywhere, and the key second steps (well, “customize out of the gate to fit your business processes”) are exactly what the vendor markets heavily, what makes you think there huge numbers of customers who are both not customizing and doing just fine?
I've seen and heard of a few cases where customers use software of that kind and minimize customization of the software and instead try to adapt their business processes to the software. And usually those are at least as much horror stories as any heavy customizers.
Really, as much as it's not in the vendor’s interests, big bang implementation of this kind of software that becomes immediately central to a wide array of business processes is probably a bad idea for the same reason that big bang software system replacements usually are, even when there is no existing software system being replaced. Incremental, iterative improvements to business processes and supporting tools are probably a better idea. But big-bang, notionally close-ended projects are more succinct “achievements” on manager/executive CVs resumes, and no one is courting buyers and giving out swag for continuous improvement.