That's one of the most untrue statements I've read in a very long time. Have you ever been to a military base or NASA? Are their systems "user friendly"? These systems don't have any need for pretty and "friendly" interfaces. They need to get the job done.
I'm not gonna argue. It seems you're bitter for some reason against SAP. I just want to know if Ibanez is using it or not.
Actually I have.
Trust me on this: If you are working at NASA, are a summa cum laude PhD from MIT, some programs may be userfriendly to you, that others could not understand.
Also trust me on this: I have implemented several SAP, Oracle, Siebel and JD Edwards Systems.
Business Men and women (who are often the main users of an ERP system) were very very thankful if the system becomes more userfriendly. As they give a rats a** if the system gets the job done, when they lack the means to tell the system how it gets the job done.
Now don't get me wrong: From my experience SAP R/3 is a very good system at the core. But most of the time it crashes or becomes unusable be the simple people using it, simply through over customization, wrong usage and silly ideas of SAP consultants.
Now I do not say that the other systems are much better, but especially the new Oracle systems from my experience where much easier to implement and the users got it right much faster, through user friendly GUIs.
So I do not agree with you on this. I would say even the folks at NASA, although they have learned to live with this programs are very thankful for improved user friendlyness. We can see how much dollars are wasted from simple computer error on the first mars rover, they crashed, as the program did not output the measurements right... (they would only have needed to hit a few keys to see the right measurement though...). Can you say millions of dollars wasted due to a non userfriendly program?
So I would say: Userfriendlyness counts every bit.