COMPUTER users generally come up against a software problem sooner or later, with the only thing that causes more apprehension being a signal that an update has just been installed.
Updates are always changes, but not always improvements, with their need being a by-product of programmers who must write in a feature to stop old programs being compatible with new ones.
Governments often avoid the planned obsolescence aspect by commissioning companies to write software designed specifically for the task in hand.
A great idea, except history is full of stories about programs that cost hundreds of millions, took too long to finish and then didn't work, making many wonder what was wrong with an off-the-shelf program.
Well, the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) has just gone down the designer path, with reports that the cost of its new system to give it a "greater digital presence" is approaching $2 million.
Apart from the digital presence, the system is designed to "improve communication and advocacy" in its operations as it prepares for "amalgamation with State lobby groups".
Although not revealing the total costs, the NFF said that the expenditure was "in line with budget forecasts", with the books showing that the lobbyist had a deficit of $872,333, up from last year's deficit of $91,253.
It is possible that it will prove to be a wonderful investment that will give the NFF a new lease of life and restore agriculture's fortunes and ensure that history will declare it money well spent.
Or maybe not.
The latter half of NFF's existence has been filled with regular changes to its constitution in an effort to restore the organisation to its glory days.
I fear that the new digital NFF is another episode in that search, but although enhanced communication will make it easier to ascertain what farmers are thinking, the task of achieving change remains.
A friend is involved with the Agribusiness Council of Australia (ACA), a group that includes farmers but aims at all the players in the paddock-to-plate food chain that is called agribusiness.
Farmer numbers are declining, so ACA has targeted the growing agribusiness chain, with its contact list including every State and federal politician in Australia and several other countries.
But the startling difference between the NFF and ACA versions is that the entire cost of setting up the ACA program was about $60,000, leaving my friend somewhat bemused about what could possibly be included in a program costing 30 times as much.
So, what can the $2m version do that the $60k one can't?
Well, who knows, for although the NFF program is new and ACA's is four-years-old, both are "works in progress".
The obvious question is why couldn't the two organisations save money by working together?
A good point, but over the years the NFF continued to rebuff all approaches ACA made to discuss the concept.
Either the ACA or NFF systems could be used to ascertain the wants and wishes of the members, but achieving change involves more than drawing up a wish list.
All the work done by the groups seeking change must still be done, the detailed plans, costings and identifying winners and losers, all tasks that will benefit from the new digital input.
But the real lobbying effort only starts after all that homework is done and that still requires time, money and people.
An enhanced communication medium, even a $2m one, only targets the first step.
