In the recent TechEd Conference (South East Asia), one Microsoft MVP says that most users uses only 10% of MSOffice capability.
He also argued that “Behind every feature is a benefit”, and that “Businesses are losing out because they are paying the full price but not getting the full return-on-investment”. I am not sure what he said is true.
First up, it can be counterproductive if I use a feature if none of my collaborators know how to use it or modify it. I’m stuck with the highest possible set of common knowledge which is, 10% of Office, and I can hardly do anything to improve it. Even assuming everyone knows how to use a feature, there are times when activating/using them is itself counterproductive.
As for not getting “full return-on-investment”, it is true. However, it is a double-edge sword. He used it to argue for more skills in Office Application, but I could easily turn the arguement around and ask did I over-paid? In fact, I will use it to argue for incremental payment scheme where you only pay for the feature you need and use. It is actually more difficult to argue for more skills. I should know as I failed constantly to argue for better command line skills among researchers here who depends very heavily on command line for daily work. All they know is to transfer command line we gave them from email to the command line window, mostly by retyping, not cut-and-paste ;(