How to work with a “fanboy”?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
60
down vote

favorite
12












As an IT Professional, part of what I do when assigned larger projects from management is to meet either formally or informally with the stakeholders, work to establish a scope and a set of requirements and then compare different solutions in an effort to find the "best" one for this particular situation. Part of this means choosing a software or hardware vendor and committing the company to the implementation and that vendor for at least the life of the project.



Occasionally I will come across a co-worker who is an IT Professional in my team or a stakeholder (either a user or someone in another department's management team) that is for lack of a better term a "fanboy" or "fangirl". Every solution that they suggest or advocate is a particular vendor or operating system regardless of how well it fits the project's business needs. It often seems to come from a personal preference that they bring into the business, generally without a complete understanding of the existing solutions and infrastructure.



For example: Person A will advocate Apple laptops because they like and use Apple laptops at home but don't consider the difficulty in integrating them with an existing Microsoft environment.



I generally try to build a rational fact-based argument that is "solution neutral" but in my experience "fanboys" are motivated by their emotional attachment to a particular solution and get defensive when presented with rational arguments. If reason and logic ruled the day the business world would look very different.



How can I work with people that are always committed to one vendor or company? How can I non-confrontationally make sure we end up with the "best" solution instead of a middle manager's new favorite "shiny toy"?



EDIT:



I love how the comments remind me of implementation meetings I have been in.




A stake holder should not be dictating architecture or software.




You underestimate the power of middle-management and the dysfunction of many work places. Ideally yes, the stake holders should just supply requirements but often they meddle in the implementation choice.




You need a person respected by the whole team to make a decision about what to use, and then the whole team must respect that decision. Who would that be in your organization?




This is tough. A lot of the time I am working with different stakeholders from heavily silo-ed workgroups so it is hard to find someone who fits this description. I have a feeling an appeal to authority would be inappropriate in the sense that the VP would wonder why we are bothering her with such "nuts and bolts" problems and why we cannot get it worked out among ourselves. But I see where you are going with this and I think in different work environment I could see a lead business analyst or a technical lead fulfilling this role successfully.




What is your definition of a confrontation?




People arguing from an emotional standpoint often have an emotional reaction when stymied — they either close up and become silent (not useful) or become recalcitrant and defensive (also not useful).




team project-management teamwork




share|improve this question


















  • 8




    A stake holder should not be dictating architecture or software. If they state an Apple client is required at a business level then let that stand. Provide cost estimate of an Apple client versus Microsoft in your environment and let them justify the cost to the business.
    – paparazzo
    Jan 9 '15 at 18:55







  • 1




    The bigger the organization, the more likely you have to accept that you'll rarely be building the best solution. Live with compromise or go insane. :)
    – DA.
    Jan 10 '15 at 2:55






  • 3




    Comments removed. Remember to be nice, and please don't feed the trolls.
    – Monica Cellio♦
    Jan 11 '15 at 4:00






  • 3




    @kce I just want to suggest to you that you really need to do some introspection and validate that you yourself have no emotional bias or ties to particular approaches or technologies. Be objective with yourself first, before you decide to be objective about others opinions.
    – maple_shaft
    Jan 12 '15 at 12:54






  • 2




    I agree with @maple_shaft, "solution neutral" shows you have a bias. If you disagree with a fanboy, the best thing you can do is show them where their solution fails, or costs to much to implement. If you cannot, than their solution is valid.
    – Keltari
    Jan 12 '15 at 18:06
















up vote
60
down vote

favorite
12












As an IT Professional, part of what I do when assigned larger projects from management is to meet either formally or informally with the stakeholders, work to establish a scope and a set of requirements and then compare different solutions in an effort to find the "best" one for this particular situation. Part of this means choosing a software or hardware vendor and committing the company to the implementation and that vendor for at least the life of the project.



Occasionally I will come across a co-worker who is an IT Professional in my team or a stakeholder (either a user or someone in another department's management team) that is for lack of a better term a "fanboy" or "fangirl". Every solution that they suggest or advocate is a particular vendor or operating system regardless of how well it fits the project's business needs. It often seems to come from a personal preference that they bring into the business, generally without a complete understanding of the existing solutions and infrastructure.



For example: Person A will advocate Apple laptops because they like and use Apple laptops at home but don't consider the difficulty in integrating them with an existing Microsoft environment.



I generally try to build a rational fact-based argument that is "solution neutral" but in my experience "fanboys" are motivated by their emotional attachment to a particular solution and get defensive when presented with rational arguments. If reason and logic ruled the day the business world would look very different.



How can I work with people that are always committed to one vendor or company? How can I non-confrontationally make sure we end up with the "best" solution instead of a middle manager's new favorite "shiny toy"?



EDIT:



I love how the comments remind me of implementation meetings I have been in.




A stake holder should not be dictating architecture or software.




You underestimate the power of middle-management and the dysfunction of many work places. Ideally yes, the stake holders should just supply requirements but often they meddle in the implementation choice.




You need a person respected by the whole team to make a decision about what to use, and then the whole team must respect that decision. Who would that be in your organization?




This is tough. A lot of the time I am working with different stakeholders from heavily silo-ed workgroups so it is hard to find someone who fits this description. I have a feeling an appeal to authority would be inappropriate in the sense that the VP would wonder why we are bothering her with such "nuts and bolts" problems and why we cannot get it worked out among ourselves. But I see where you are going with this and I think in different work environment I could see a lead business analyst or a technical lead fulfilling this role successfully.




What is your definition of a confrontation?




People arguing from an emotional standpoint often have an emotional reaction when stymied — they either close up and become silent (not useful) or become recalcitrant and defensive (also not useful).




team project-management teamwork




share|improve this question


















  • 8




    A stake holder should not be dictating architecture or software. If they state an Apple client is required at a business level then let that stand. Provide cost estimate of an Apple client versus Microsoft in your environment and let them justify the cost to the business.
    – paparazzo
    Jan 9 '15 at 18:55







  • 1




    The bigger the organization, the more likely you have to accept that you'll rarely be building the best solution. Live with compromise or go insane. :)
    – DA.
    Jan 10 '15 at 2:55






  • 3




    Comments removed. Remember to be nice, and please don't feed the trolls.
    – Monica Cellio♦
    Jan 11 '15 at 4:00






  • 3




    @kce I just want to suggest to you that you really need to do some introspection and validate that you yourself have no emotional bias or ties to particular approaches or technologies. Be objective with yourself first, before you decide to be objective about others opinions.
    – maple_shaft
    Jan 12 '15 at 12:54






  • 2




    I agree with @maple_shaft, "solution neutral" shows you have a bias. If you disagree with a fanboy, the best thing you can do is show them where their solution fails, or costs to much to implement. If you cannot, than their solution is valid.
    – Keltari
    Jan 12 '15 at 18:06












up vote
60
down vote

favorite
12









up vote
60
down vote

favorite
12






12





As an IT Professional, part of what I do when assigned larger projects from management is to meet either formally or informally with the stakeholders, work to establish a scope and a set of requirements and then compare different solutions in an effort to find the "best" one for this particular situation. Part of this means choosing a software or hardware vendor and committing the company to the implementation and that vendor for at least the life of the project.



Occasionally I will come across a co-worker who is an IT Professional in my team or a stakeholder (either a user or someone in another department's management team) that is for lack of a better term a "fanboy" or "fangirl". Every solution that they suggest or advocate is a particular vendor or operating system regardless of how well it fits the project's business needs. It often seems to come from a personal preference that they bring into the business, generally without a complete understanding of the existing solutions and infrastructure.



For example: Person A will advocate Apple laptops because they like and use Apple laptops at home but don't consider the difficulty in integrating them with an existing Microsoft environment.



I generally try to build a rational fact-based argument that is "solution neutral" but in my experience "fanboys" are motivated by their emotional attachment to a particular solution and get defensive when presented with rational arguments. If reason and logic ruled the day the business world would look very different.



How can I work with people that are always committed to one vendor or company? How can I non-confrontationally make sure we end up with the "best" solution instead of a middle manager's new favorite "shiny toy"?



EDIT:



I love how the comments remind me of implementation meetings I have been in.




A stake holder should not be dictating architecture or software.




You underestimate the power of middle-management and the dysfunction of many work places. Ideally yes, the stake holders should just supply requirements but often they meddle in the implementation choice.




You need a person respected by the whole team to make a decision about what to use, and then the whole team must respect that decision. Who would that be in your organization?




This is tough. A lot of the time I am working with different stakeholders from heavily silo-ed workgroups so it is hard to find someone who fits this description. I have a feeling an appeal to authority would be inappropriate in the sense that the VP would wonder why we are bothering her with such "nuts and bolts" problems and why we cannot get it worked out among ourselves. But I see where you are going with this and I think in different work environment I could see a lead business analyst or a technical lead fulfilling this role successfully.




What is your definition of a confrontation?




People arguing from an emotional standpoint often have an emotional reaction when stymied — they either close up and become silent (not useful) or become recalcitrant and defensive (also not useful).




team project-management teamwork




share|improve this question














As an IT Professional, part of what I do when assigned larger projects from management is to meet either formally or informally with the stakeholders, work to establish a scope and a set of requirements and then compare different solutions in an effort to find the "best" one for this particular situation. Part of this means choosing a software or hardware vendor and committing the company to the implementation and that vendor for at least the life of the project.



Occasionally I will come across a co-worker who is an IT Professional in my team or a stakeholder (either a user or someone in another department's management team) that is for lack of a better term a "fanboy" or "fangirl". Every solution that they suggest or advocate is a particular vendor or operating system regardless of how well it fits the project's business needs. It often seems to come from a personal preference that they bring into the business, generally without a complete understanding of the existing solutions and infrastructure.



For example: Person A will advocate Apple laptops because they like and use Apple laptops at home but don't consider the difficulty in integrating them with an existing Microsoft environment.



I generally try to build a rational fact-based argument that is "solution neutral" but in my experience "fanboys" are motivated by their emotional attachment to a particular solution and get defensive when presented with rational arguments. If reason and logic ruled the day the business world would look very different.



How can I work with people that are always committed to one vendor or company? How can I non-confrontationally make sure we end up with the "best" solution instead of a middle manager's new favorite "shiny toy"?



EDIT:



I love how the comments remind me of implementation meetings I have been in.




A stake holder should not be dictating architecture or software.




You underestimate the power of middle-management and the dysfunction of many work places. Ideally yes, the stake holders should just supply requirements but often they meddle in the implementation choice.




You need a person respected by the whole team to make a decision about what to use, and then the whole team must respect that decision. Who would that be in your organization?




This is tough. A lot of the time I am working with different stakeholders from heavily silo-ed workgroups so it is hard to find someone who fits this description. I have a feeling an appeal to authority would be inappropriate in the sense that the VP would wonder why we are bothering her with such "nuts and bolts" problems and why we cannot get it worked out among ourselves. But I see where you are going with this and I think in different work environment I could see a lead business analyst or a technical lead fulfilling this role successfully.




What is your definition of a confrontation?




People arguing from an emotional standpoint often have an emotional reaction when stymied — they either close up and become silent (not useful) or become recalcitrant and defensive (also not useful).





team project-management teamwork





share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jan 11 '15 at 20:54









Community♦

1




1










asked Jan 9 '15 at 18:12









kce

1,1491214




1,1491214







  • 8




    A stake holder should not be dictating architecture or software. If they state an Apple client is required at a business level then let that stand. Provide cost estimate of an Apple client versus Microsoft in your environment and let them justify the cost to the business.
    – paparazzo
    Jan 9 '15 at 18:55







  • 1




    The bigger the organization, the more likely you have to accept that you'll rarely be building the best solution. Live with compromise or go insane. :)
    – DA.
    Jan 10 '15 at 2:55






  • 3




    Comments removed. Remember to be nice, and please don't feed the trolls.
    – Monica Cellio♦
    Jan 11 '15 at 4:00






  • 3




    @kce I just want to suggest to you that you really need to do some introspection and validate that you yourself have no emotional bias or ties to particular approaches or technologies. Be objective with yourself first, before you decide to be objective about others opinions.
    – maple_shaft
    Jan 12 '15 at 12:54






  • 2




    I agree with @maple_shaft, "solution neutral" shows you have a bias. If you disagree with a fanboy, the best thing you can do is show them where their solution fails, or costs to much to implement. If you cannot, than their solution is valid.
    – Keltari
    Jan 12 '15 at 18:06












  • 8




    A stake holder should not be dictating architecture or software. If they state an Apple client is required at a business level then let that stand. Provide cost estimate of an Apple client versus Microsoft in your environment and let them justify the cost to the business.
    – paparazzo
    Jan 9 '15 at 18:55







  • 1




    The bigger the organization, the more likely you have to accept that you'll rarely be building the best solution. Live with compromise or go insane. :)
    – DA.
    Jan 10 '15 at 2:55






  • 3




    Comments removed. Remember to be nice, and please don't feed the trolls.
    – Monica Cellio♦
    Jan 11 '15 at 4:00






  • 3




    @kce I just want to suggest to you that you really need to do some introspection and validate that you yourself have no emotional bias or ties to particular approaches or technologies. Be objective with yourself first, before you decide to be objective about others opinions.
    – maple_shaft
    Jan 12 '15 at 12:54






  • 2




    I agree with @maple_shaft, "solution neutral" shows you have a bias. If you disagree with a fanboy, the best thing you can do is show them where their solution fails, or costs to much to implement. If you cannot, than their solution is valid.
    – Keltari
    Jan 12 '15 at 18:06







8




8




A stake holder should not be dictating architecture or software. If they state an Apple client is required at a business level then let that stand. Provide cost estimate of an Apple client versus Microsoft in your environment and let them justify the cost to the business.
– paparazzo
Jan 9 '15 at 18:55





A stake holder should not be dictating architecture or software. If they state an Apple client is required at a business level then let that stand. Provide cost estimate of an Apple client versus Microsoft in your environment and let them justify the cost to the business.
– paparazzo
Jan 9 '15 at 18:55





1




1




The bigger the organization, the more likely you have to accept that you'll rarely be building the best solution. Live with compromise or go insane. :)
– DA.
Jan 10 '15 at 2:55




The bigger the organization, the more likely you have to accept that you'll rarely be building the best solution. Live with compromise or go insane. :)
– DA.
Jan 10 '15 at 2:55




3




3




Comments removed. Remember to be nice, and please don't feed the trolls.
– Monica Cellio♦
Jan 11 '15 at 4:00




Comments removed. Remember to be nice, and please don't feed the trolls.
– Monica Cellio♦
Jan 11 '15 at 4:00




3




3




@kce I just want to suggest to you that you really need to do some introspection and validate that you yourself have no emotional bias or ties to particular approaches or technologies. Be objective with yourself first, before you decide to be objective about others opinions.
– maple_shaft
Jan 12 '15 at 12:54




@kce I just want to suggest to you that you really need to do some introspection and validate that you yourself have no emotional bias or ties to particular approaches or technologies. Be objective with yourself first, before you decide to be objective about others opinions.
– maple_shaft
Jan 12 '15 at 12:54




2




2




I agree with @maple_shaft, "solution neutral" shows you have a bias. If you disagree with a fanboy, the best thing you can do is show them where their solution fails, or costs to much to implement. If you cannot, than their solution is valid.
– Keltari
Jan 12 '15 at 18:06




I agree with @maple_shaft, "solution neutral" shows you have a bias. If you disagree with a fanboy, the best thing you can do is show them where their solution fails, or costs to much to implement. If you cannot, than their solution is valid.
– Keltari
Jan 12 '15 at 18:06










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
80
down vote



accepted










You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally. When I took debate class I learned that an emotional argument will trump a rational one every time and my almost 60 years of life experience tells me this is true. But the best argument of all is an emotional argument disguised as a rational argument because people want to appear to be rational. (This is why debate class turned out to be the single most useful thing I took in college.)



So what you really need to do is to find out what emotions are important to the stakeholders and couch your argument in terms of what they are emotionally attached to. Note this isn't necessarily emotions like jealousy or love but what factors make them want Apple vs Microsoft. Listen to the reasons they give and look for the emotional bias behind them. Then couch your argument back so that what looks like the rational choice also seems to meet their emotional need.



For instance, some of those people really love Apple because it is what the "cool kids" use, so make them understnd that in your world the cool kids prefer Microsoft or Unix or whatever you are trying to sell to them. Part of doing that is acknowledging that yes Apple products are great for what they use them for (validating their choices because if they use it to be cool, they want others to see them as cool) but for this purpose, the big guys in the industry (name dropping is key for these people) prefer...Then give the rational reasons why (making it an emotional and rational argument, the one that trumps everything.



The trick is listening to them long enough to understand the emotional attachment they have to their choice, validating that in some circumstances this is the best choice and then attaching the same emotional argument to your preferred choice, then following up with the rational arguments so they can look good telling this to their superiors.



The example I gave is a common emotion attached to the fanboy mind set, but it not the only one. That is why you really have to get to know them and understand why they like what they like before you can effectively drive a change. It might be a motivation to keep their boss happy and they know he loves his iPad. It might be they had a bad experience with the brand you like 20 years ago. It might be they are afraid of how hard it would be to learn something new or a hundreds of other reasons. Fear is an especially powerful emotion, so really look for that one.






share|improve this answer


















  • 4




    Just want to point out that "the big guys in the industry prefer ..." is a flawed argument as well. There's no guarantee that the 'big guys' made a rational choice either.
    – jcm
    Jan 10 '15 at 3:12






  • 23




    @jcm The answerer actually agrees with you that the "big guy" argument is irrational. Indeed, the answerer advocates an emotional response, disguised as a rational response.
    – Heisenberg
    Jan 10 '15 at 7:09






  • 10




    Hmm, maybe I should take a debate class as well...
    – Paul Manta
    Jan 10 '15 at 12:53










  • @Heisenberg yes you are correct, I missed that. But I'm not sure I agree with such a strategy.
    – jcm
    Jan 10 '15 at 12:57






  • 6




    "You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally." Well that is depressing. I suspect that is the root of my problem. I am trying to make a case using facts and rational discussion which is probably a waste of time. Reason apparently never wins the day.
    – kce
    Jan 11 '15 at 1:03


















up vote
14
down vote













Fanboys / Fangirls have been around for a long long time. Back in ancient times (aka 1980s) the common saying was "Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Turning back the clock further to prehistoric times, I could cite Westinghouse vs Edison and the marketing that went into that "fanboy war"... but even that wasn't the beginning.



Marketing works everywhere, even in that supposed bastion of logical thinking: IT. More than that, when someone is happy with the tools that they use, they will gladly try to make sure those tools are used by everyone.



This isn't really a workplace issue but rather one of how you approach brand recognition and customer loyalty in all walks of life. That said, I'll leave you with 3 fun facts:



Fun fact 1: One of the perks of being a decision maker is that you get to impose your worldview on those around you.



Fun fact 2: Everyone who knows that there is only ONE TRUE PATH is kidding themselves. The world is far grayer than that and is more than capable of supporting the mess.



Fun fact 3: "Best" is defined by the person using the word, is incredibly ambiguous, subject to change on a whim, and few people can agree on what qualifies.



My advice: present your arguments for why you want to go a certain path and let the decision makers do the decision making. Then use your talents to make the best of it that you can.






share|improve this answer


















  • 5




    I don't like this answer because it looks like the person asking the question is the decision maker. His problem isn't convincing others to make the best decisions, but rather making sure the people he's making decisions on behalf of are on board with the decisions he makes.
    – Kevin
    Jan 10 '15 at 3:27






  • 2




    @Kevin - Chris is closer than he knows. I am in charge of the implementation but I am not the decision maker. I have not been granted that flexibility and discretion - I have to clear my choices with the stakeholders. It is a weird line to walk. Why the business owners care whether my team and I decide Veeam is the best choice over Microsoft's SCDPM is hard for me to understand but I think it really just comes down to what is the cheapest.
    – kce
    Jan 11 '15 at 1:10

















up vote
2
down vote













It all comes down to cost vs. rewards.



@HLGEM has provided an excellent answer which demonstrates that your fanboys may be over-estimating the rewards from implementing their solution, which, in their minds, justifies the cost. Doing as he suggests helps lower the perceived rewards (or raise the perceived rewards from the actual best solution) so that the extra cost may not be justifiable any more.



You sound like this isn't the case, but just to be complete I feel I should add that it is also possible, depending on the actual product you are creating, and the user-base who will be using it, that you are actually brushing up against additional possible business requirements that need to be addressed, or costs, to the business as a whole, that you hadn't thought of.



For the additional business requirement:
perhaps the project needs to be accessible from as wide a variety of platforms as possible. This is often the case in web development, where you want to be able to support as many clients as possible, and can't really control their hardware.



As an example of costs that the business will incur as a whole:
maybe your entire user-base is already very familiar with Apple laptops. The extra cost you haven't included in your own solution is the cost of retraining everybody to use Microsoft.



In the end, have your fanboys try to explain the gains to you. They will either be legitimate (though possibly too costly - the cost for their gains should be clearly communicated), or they will not provide value according to your requirements (and you should be able to explain why) - but always keep your mind open for requirements that aren't being explicitly stated.






share|improve this answer





























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    That's a classic workplace psychology question, best answered by Dale Carnegie in "How to win friends". Basically speaking, you need to let people save face while giving rational arguments; If you critisize, start with message of admiration to their achievements and ideas. It's likely a psychological, not a technical problem.






    share|improve this answer
















    • 1




      Care to expand your answer for those who have not read "How to Win Friends..."? An executive summary would make this a much better answer.
      – kce
      Jan 11 '15 at 1:14










    • +1 for Dale Carnegie, I'll fill @kce in later, but it's essentially a great training/guide for customer service and working with difficult people
      – MDMoore313
      Jan 11 '15 at 1:42

















    up vote
    2
    down vote













    First and beforehand: Do not dismiss automatically these requests, but investigate them. Maybe an stakeholder wants you to put your HR systems "in the cloud", but when questioned it may just mean that he wants to access the system from home. People may want to use it on Apple because they find the TimeMachine useful, maybe it is worth adding a versioning/undo functionality. Put those as additional requests (to be approved based in cost/benefits ratio).



    After that, treat to reason. Person A of your example is right when he desires to use the Mac he is used to. Make it clear to him that there are more aspects involved that just that convenience, and explain that to them. If he is rational, that should end the issue.



    What is left would be the real fanboys, who do not care about features and or cost, but just about being cool. Luckily in my experience is that those usually worry more about the "peripherics" (v.g. to be able to access the system from their iPhone), than the real essence of the project.



    My approach is to send the message that such issues are not theirs to decide upon. Not with those words, I usually just leave it in the air:



    • "we still have not decided which technology will be better suited, once we completed getting the requirements we will study that" (at the initial phases). Note that we (IT), not you (stakeholder), will do the study and decide.


    • "in this phase we have started the development using X, so we deal with technologies we are more familiar with (and we have already or our desktops, so we need no purchases). Later on, we can see about supporting Y with a little extra effort" (at the middle phases).


    • "in this final phase we are already delayed so there is no time left to add integration with Y, we need more development/testing/etc."


    Of course, inertia is always a friend at any stage. I even allows for some empathy, you would use Y if you could, but you are not allowed to:



    • "yes, it would be good to run the product on Y, but since we use X and we cannot afford to change all of the infrastructure to Y. And we cannot afford to produce and maintain two versions of it".


    • "yes, you and I see how much nicer our IT would be if we relied on Y, but the average user knows only about X and would pretty confused if we changed the system overnight".


    • "I would like/I would not mind using Y, but IT policies do not support it" (if they indeed don't).






    share|improve this answer






















      Your Answer







      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "423"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: false,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );








       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40196%2fhow-to-work-with-a-fanboy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest












      StackExchange.ready(function ()
      $("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
      var showEditor = function()
      $("#show-editor-button").hide();
      $("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
      StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
      ;

      var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
      if(useFancy == 'True')
      var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
      var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
      var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');

      $(this).loadPopup(
      url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
      loaded: function(popup)
      var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
      var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
      var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');

      pTitle.text(popupTitle);
      pBody.html(popupBody);
      pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);

      )
      else
      var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
      if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
      showEditor();


      );
      );






      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      80
      down vote



      accepted










      You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally. When I took debate class I learned that an emotional argument will trump a rational one every time and my almost 60 years of life experience tells me this is true. But the best argument of all is an emotional argument disguised as a rational argument because people want to appear to be rational. (This is why debate class turned out to be the single most useful thing I took in college.)



      So what you really need to do is to find out what emotions are important to the stakeholders and couch your argument in terms of what they are emotionally attached to. Note this isn't necessarily emotions like jealousy or love but what factors make them want Apple vs Microsoft. Listen to the reasons they give and look for the emotional bias behind them. Then couch your argument back so that what looks like the rational choice also seems to meet their emotional need.



      For instance, some of those people really love Apple because it is what the "cool kids" use, so make them understnd that in your world the cool kids prefer Microsoft or Unix or whatever you are trying to sell to them. Part of doing that is acknowledging that yes Apple products are great for what they use them for (validating their choices because if they use it to be cool, they want others to see them as cool) but for this purpose, the big guys in the industry (name dropping is key for these people) prefer...Then give the rational reasons why (making it an emotional and rational argument, the one that trumps everything.



      The trick is listening to them long enough to understand the emotional attachment they have to their choice, validating that in some circumstances this is the best choice and then attaching the same emotional argument to your preferred choice, then following up with the rational arguments so they can look good telling this to their superiors.



      The example I gave is a common emotion attached to the fanboy mind set, but it not the only one. That is why you really have to get to know them and understand why they like what they like before you can effectively drive a change. It might be a motivation to keep their boss happy and they know he loves his iPad. It might be they had a bad experience with the brand you like 20 years ago. It might be they are afraid of how hard it would be to learn something new or a hundreds of other reasons. Fear is an especially powerful emotion, so really look for that one.






      share|improve this answer


















      • 4




        Just want to point out that "the big guys in the industry prefer ..." is a flawed argument as well. There's no guarantee that the 'big guys' made a rational choice either.
        – jcm
        Jan 10 '15 at 3:12






      • 23




        @jcm The answerer actually agrees with you that the "big guy" argument is irrational. Indeed, the answerer advocates an emotional response, disguised as a rational response.
        – Heisenberg
        Jan 10 '15 at 7:09






      • 10




        Hmm, maybe I should take a debate class as well...
        – Paul Manta
        Jan 10 '15 at 12:53










      • @Heisenberg yes you are correct, I missed that. But I'm not sure I agree with such a strategy.
        – jcm
        Jan 10 '15 at 12:57






      • 6




        "You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally." Well that is depressing. I suspect that is the root of my problem. I am trying to make a case using facts and rational discussion which is probably a waste of time. Reason apparently never wins the day.
        – kce
        Jan 11 '15 at 1:03















      up vote
      80
      down vote



      accepted










      You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally. When I took debate class I learned that an emotional argument will trump a rational one every time and my almost 60 years of life experience tells me this is true. But the best argument of all is an emotional argument disguised as a rational argument because people want to appear to be rational. (This is why debate class turned out to be the single most useful thing I took in college.)



      So what you really need to do is to find out what emotions are important to the stakeholders and couch your argument in terms of what they are emotionally attached to. Note this isn't necessarily emotions like jealousy or love but what factors make them want Apple vs Microsoft. Listen to the reasons they give and look for the emotional bias behind them. Then couch your argument back so that what looks like the rational choice also seems to meet their emotional need.



      For instance, some of those people really love Apple because it is what the "cool kids" use, so make them understnd that in your world the cool kids prefer Microsoft or Unix or whatever you are trying to sell to them. Part of doing that is acknowledging that yes Apple products are great for what they use them for (validating their choices because if they use it to be cool, they want others to see them as cool) but for this purpose, the big guys in the industry (name dropping is key for these people) prefer...Then give the rational reasons why (making it an emotional and rational argument, the one that trumps everything.



      The trick is listening to them long enough to understand the emotional attachment they have to their choice, validating that in some circumstances this is the best choice and then attaching the same emotional argument to your preferred choice, then following up with the rational arguments so they can look good telling this to their superiors.



      The example I gave is a common emotion attached to the fanboy mind set, but it not the only one. That is why you really have to get to know them and understand why they like what they like before you can effectively drive a change. It might be a motivation to keep their boss happy and they know he loves his iPad. It might be they had a bad experience with the brand you like 20 years ago. It might be they are afraid of how hard it would be to learn something new or a hundreds of other reasons. Fear is an especially powerful emotion, so really look for that one.






      share|improve this answer


















      • 4




        Just want to point out that "the big guys in the industry prefer ..." is a flawed argument as well. There's no guarantee that the 'big guys' made a rational choice either.
        – jcm
        Jan 10 '15 at 3:12






      • 23




        @jcm The answerer actually agrees with you that the "big guy" argument is irrational. Indeed, the answerer advocates an emotional response, disguised as a rational response.
        – Heisenberg
        Jan 10 '15 at 7:09






      • 10




        Hmm, maybe I should take a debate class as well...
        – Paul Manta
        Jan 10 '15 at 12:53










      • @Heisenberg yes you are correct, I missed that. But I'm not sure I agree with such a strategy.
        – jcm
        Jan 10 '15 at 12:57






      • 6




        "You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally." Well that is depressing. I suspect that is the root of my problem. I am trying to make a case using facts and rational discussion which is probably a waste of time. Reason apparently never wins the day.
        – kce
        Jan 11 '15 at 1:03













      up vote
      80
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      80
      down vote



      accepted






      You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally. When I took debate class I learned that an emotional argument will trump a rational one every time and my almost 60 years of life experience tells me this is true. But the best argument of all is an emotional argument disguised as a rational argument because people want to appear to be rational. (This is why debate class turned out to be the single most useful thing I took in college.)



      So what you really need to do is to find out what emotions are important to the stakeholders and couch your argument in terms of what they are emotionally attached to. Note this isn't necessarily emotions like jealousy or love but what factors make them want Apple vs Microsoft. Listen to the reasons they give and look for the emotional bias behind them. Then couch your argument back so that what looks like the rational choice also seems to meet their emotional need.



      For instance, some of those people really love Apple because it is what the "cool kids" use, so make them understnd that in your world the cool kids prefer Microsoft or Unix or whatever you are trying to sell to them. Part of doing that is acknowledging that yes Apple products are great for what they use them for (validating their choices because if they use it to be cool, they want others to see them as cool) but for this purpose, the big guys in the industry (name dropping is key for these people) prefer...Then give the rational reasons why (making it an emotional and rational argument, the one that trumps everything.



      The trick is listening to them long enough to understand the emotional attachment they have to their choice, validating that in some circumstances this is the best choice and then attaching the same emotional argument to your preferred choice, then following up with the rational arguments so they can look good telling this to their superiors.



      The example I gave is a common emotion attached to the fanboy mind set, but it not the only one. That is why you really have to get to know them and understand why they like what they like before you can effectively drive a change. It might be a motivation to keep their boss happy and they know he loves his iPad. It might be they had a bad experience with the brand you like 20 years ago. It might be they are afraid of how hard it would be to learn something new or a hundreds of other reasons. Fear is an especially powerful emotion, so really look for that one.






      share|improve this answer














      You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally. When I took debate class I learned that an emotional argument will trump a rational one every time and my almost 60 years of life experience tells me this is true. But the best argument of all is an emotional argument disguised as a rational argument because people want to appear to be rational. (This is why debate class turned out to be the single most useful thing I took in college.)



      So what you really need to do is to find out what emotions are important to the stakeholders and couch your argument in terms of what they are emotionally attached to. Note this isn't necessarily emotions like jealousy or love but what factors make them want Apple vs Microsoft. Listen to the reasons they give and look for the emotional bias behind them. Then couch your argument back so that what looks like the rational choice also seems to meet their emotional need.



      For instance, some of those people really love Apple because it is what the "cool kids" use, so make them understnd that in your world the cool kids prefer Microsoft or Unix or whatever you are trying to sell to them. Part of doing that is acknowledging that yes Apple products are great for what they use them for (validating their choices because if they use it to be cool, they want others to see them as cool) but for this purpose, the big guys in the industry (name dropping is key for these people) prefer...Then give the rational reasons why (making it an emotional and rational argument, the one that trumps everything.



      The trick is listening to them long enough to understand the emotional attachment they have to their choice, validating that in some circumstances this is the best choice and then attaching the same emotional argument to your preferred choice, then following up with the rational arguments so they can look good telling this to their superiors.



      The example I gave is a common emotion attached to the fanboy mind set, but it not the only one. That is why you really have to get to know them and understand why they like what they like before you can effectively drive a change. It might be a motivation to keep their boss happy and they know he loves his iPad. It might be they had a bad experience with the brand you like 20 years ago. It might be they are afraid of how hard it would be to learn something new or a hundreds of other reasons. Fear is an especially powerful emotion, so really look for that one.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Jan 9 '15 at 21:36









      Ronnie W.

      3,60061937




      3,60061937










      answered Jan 9 '15 at 20:44









      HLGEM

      133k25226489




      133k25226489







      • 4




        Just want to point out that "the big guys in the industry prefer ..." is a flawed argument as well. There's no guarantee that the 'big guys' made a rational choice either.
        – jcm
        Jan 10 '15 at 3:12






      • 23




        @jcm The answerer actually agrees with you that the "big guy" argument is irrational. Indeed, the answerer advocates an emotional response, disguised as a rational response.
        – Heisenberg
        Jan 10 '15 at 7:09






      • 10




        Hmm, maybe I should take a debate class as well...
        – Paul Manta
        Jan 10 '15 at 12:53










      • @Heisenberg yes you are correct, I missed that. But I'm not sure I agree with such a strategy.
        – jcm
        Jan 10 '15 at 12:57






      • 6




        "You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally." Well that is depressing. I suspect that is the root of my problem. I am trying to make a case using facts and rational discussion which is probably a waste of time. Reason apparently never wins the day.
        – kce
        Jan 11 '15 at 1:03













      • 4




        Just want to point out that "the big guys in the industry prefer ..." is a flawed argument as well. There's no guarantee that the 'big guys' made a rational choice either.
        – jcm
        Jan 10 '15 at 3:12






      • 23




        @jcm The answerer actually agrees with you that the "big guy" argument is irrational. Indeed, the answerer advocates an emotional response, disguised as a rational response.
        – Heisenberg
        Jan 10 '15 at 7:09






      • 10




        Hmm, maybe I should take a debate class as well...
        – Paul Manta
        Jan 10 '15 at 12:53










      • @Heisenberg yes you are correct, I missed that. But I'm not sure I agree with such a strategy.
        – jcm
        Jan 10 '15 at 12:57






      • 6




        "You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally." Well that is depressing. I suspect that is the root of my problem. I am trying to make a case using facts and rational discussion which is probably a waste of time. Reason apparently never wins the day.
        – kce
        Jan 11 '15 at 1:03








      4




      4




      Just want to point out that "the big guys in the industry prefer ..." is a flawed argument as well. There's no guarantee that the 'big guys' made a rational choice either.
      – jcm
      Jan 10 '15 at 3:12




      Just want to point out that "the big guys in the industry prefer ..." is a flawed argument as well. There's no guarantee that the 'big guys' made a rational choice either.
      – jcm
      Jan 10 '15 at 3:12




      23




      23




      @jcm The answerer actually agrees with you that the "big guy" argument is irrational. Indeed, the answerer advocates an emotional response, disguised as a rational response.
      – Heisenberg
      Jan 10 '15 at 7:09




      @jcm The answerer actually agrees with you that the "big guy" argument is irrational. Indeed, the answerer advocates an emotional response, disguised as a rational response.
      – Heisenberg
      Jan 10 '15 at 7:09




      10




      10




      Hmm, maybe I should take a debate class as well...
      – Paul Manta
      Jan 10 '15 at 12:53




      Hmm, maybe I should take a debate class as well...
      – Paul Manta
      Jan 10 '15 at 12:53












      @Heisenberg yes you are correct, I missed that. But I'm not sure I agree with such a strategy.
      – jcm
      Jan 10 '15 at 12:57




      @Heisenberg yes you are correct, I missed that. But I'm not sure I agree with such a strategy.
      – jcm
      Jan 10 '15 at 12:57




      6




      6




      "You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally." Well that is depressing. I suspect that is the root of my problem. I am trying to make a case using facts and rational discussion which is probably a waste of time. Reason apparently never wins the day.
      – kce
      Jan 11 '15 at 1:03





      "You can never win a dispute by arguing rationally." Well that is depressing. I suspect that is the root of my problem. I am trying to make a case using facts and rational discussion which is probably a waste of time. Reason apparently never wins the day.
      – kce
      Jan 11 '15 at 1:03













      up vote
      14
      down vote













      Fanboys / Fangirls have been around for a long long time. Back in ancient times (aka 1980s) the common saying was "Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Turning back the clock further to prehistoric times, I could cite Westinghouse vs Edison and the marketing that went into that "fanboy war"... but even that wasn't the beginning.



      Marketing works everywhere, even in that supposed bastion of logical thinking: IT. More than that, when someone is happy with the tools that they use, they will gladly try to make sure those tools are used by everyone.



      This isn't really a workplace issue but rather one of how you approach brand recognition and customer loyalty in all walks of life. That said, I'll leave you with 3 fun facts:



      Fun fact 1: One of the perks of being a decision maker is that you get to impose your worldview on those around you.



      Fun fact 2: Everyone who knows that there is only ONE TRUE PATH is kidding themselves. The world is far grayer than that and is more than capable of supporting the mess.



      Fun fact 3: "Best" is defined by the person using the word, is incredibly ambiguous, subject to change on a whim, and few people can agree on what qualifies.



      My advice: present your arguments for why you want to go a certain path and let the decision makers do the decision making. Then use your talents to make the best of it that you can.






      share|improve this answer


















      • 5




        I don't like this answer because it looks like the person asking the question is the decision maker. His problem isn't convincing others to make the best decisions, but rather making sure the people he's making decisions on behalf of are on board with the decisions he makes.
        – Kevin
        Jan 10 '15 at 3:27






      • 2




        @Kevin - Chris is closer than he knows. I am in charge of the implementation but I am not the decision maker. I have not been granted that flexibility and discretion - I have to clear my choices with the stakeholders. It is a weird line to walk. Why the business owners care whether my team and I decide Veeam is the best choice over Microsoft's SCDPM is hard for me to understand but I think it really just comes down to what is the cheapest.
        – kce
        Jan 11 '15 at 1:10














      up vote
      14
      down vote













      Fanboys / Fangirls have been around for a long long time. Back in ancient times (aka 1980s) the common saying was "Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Turning back the clock further to prehistoric times, I could cite Westinghouse vs Edison and the marketing that went into that "fanboy war"... but even that wasn't the beginning.



      Marketing works everywhere, even in that supposed bastion of logical thinking: IT. More than that, when someone is happy with the tools that they use, they will gladly try to make sure those tools are used by everyone.



      This isn't really a workplace issue but rather one of how you approach brand recognition and customer loyalty in all walks of life. That said, I'll leave you with 3 fun facts:



      Fun fact 1: One of the perks of being a decision maker is that you get to impose your worldview on those around you.



      Fun fact 2: Everyone who knows that there is only ONE TRUE PATH is kidding themselves. The world is far grayer than that and is more than capable of supporting the mess.



      Fun fact 3: "Best" is defined by the person using the word, is incredibly ambiguous, subject to change on a whim, and few people can agree on what qualifies.



      My advice: present your arguments for why you want to go a certain path and let the decision makers do the decision making. Then use your talents to make the best of it that you can.






      share|improve this answer


















      • 5




        I don't like this answer because it looks like the person asking the question is the decision maker. His problem isn't convincing others to make the best decisions, but rather making sure the people he's making decisions on behalf of are on board with the decisions he makes.
        – Kevin
        Jan 10 '15 at 3:27






      • 2




        @Kevin - Chris is closer than he knows. I am in charge of the implementation but I am not the decision maker. I have not been granted that flexibility and discretion - I have to clear my choices with the stakeholders. It is a weird line to walk. Why the business owners care whether my team and I decide Veeam is the best choice over Microsoft's SCDPM is hard for me to understand but I think it really just comes down to what is the cheapest.
        – kce
        Jan 11 '15 at 1:10












      up vote
      14
      down vote










      up vote
      14
      down vote









      Fanboys / Fangirls have been around for a long long time. Back in ancient times (aka 1980s) the common saying was "Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Turning back the clock further to prehistoric times, I could cite Westinghouse vs Edison and the marketing that went into that "fanboy war"... but even that wasn't the beginning.



      Marketing works everywhere, even in that supposed bastion of logical thinking: IT. More than that, when someone is happy with the tools that they use, they will gladly try to make sure those tools are used by everyone.



      This isn't really a workplace issue but rather one of how you approach brand recognition and customer loyalty in all walks of life. That said, I'll leave you with 3 fun facts:



      Fun fact 1: One of the perks of being a decision maker is that you get to impose your worldview on those around you.



      Fun fact 2: Everyone who knows that there is only ONE TRUE PATH is kidding themselves. The world is far grayer than that and is more than capable of supporting the mess.



      Fun fact 3: "Best" is defined by the person using the word, is incredibly ambiguous, subject to change on a whim, and few people can agree on what qualifies.



      My advice: present your arguments for why you want to go a certain path and let the decision makers do the decision making. Then use your talents to make the best of it that you can.






      share|improve this answer














      Fanboys / Fangirls have been around for a long long time. Back in ancient times (aka 1980s) the common saying was "Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Turning back the clock further to prehistoric times, I could cite Westinghouse vs Edison and the marketing that went into that "fanboy war"... but even that wasn't the beginning.



      Marketing works everywhere, even in that supposed bastion of logical thinking: IT. More than that, when someone is happy with the tools that they use, they will gladly try to make sure those tools are used by everyone.



      This isn't really a workplace issue but rather one of how you approach brand recognition and customer loyalty in all walks of life. That said, I'll leave you with 3 fun facts:



      Fun fact 1: One of the perks of being a decision maker is that you get to impose your worldview on those around you.



      Fun fact 2: Everyone who knows that there is only ONE TRUE PATH is kidding themselves. The world is far grayer than that and is more than capable of supporting the mess.



      Fun fact 3: "Best" is defined by the person using the word, is incredibly ambiguous, subject to change on a whim, and few people can agree on what qualifies.



      My advice: present your arguments for why you want to go a certain path and let the decision makers do the decision making. Then use your talents to make the best of it that you can.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Jan 10 '15 at 22:17









      Scimonster

      313410




      313410










      answered Jan 9 '15 at 18:48









      NotMe

      20.9k55695




      20.9k55695







      • 5




        I don't like this answer because it looks like the person asking the question is the decision maker. His problem isn't convincing others to make the best decisions, but rather making sure the people he's making decisions on behalf of are on board with the decisions he makes.
        – Kevin
        Jan 10 '15 at 3:27






      • 2




        @Kevin - Chris is closer than he knows. I am in charge of the implementation but I am not the decision maker. I have not been granted that flexibility and discretion - I have to clear my choices with the stakeholders. It is a weird line to walk. Why the business owners care whether my team and I decide Veeam is the best choice over Microsoft's SCDPM is hard for me to understand but I think it really just comes down to what is the cheapest.
        – kce
        Jan 11 '15 at 1:10












      • 5




        I don't like this answer because it looks like the person asking the question is the decision maker. His problem isn't convincing others to make the best decisions, but rather making sure the people he's making decisions on behalf of are on board with the decisions he makes.
        – Kevin
        Jan 10 '15 at 3:27






      • 2




        @Kevin - Chris is closer than he knows. I am in charge of the implementation but I am not the decision maker. I have not been granted that flexibility and discretion - I have to clear my choices with the stakeholders. It is a weird line to walk. Why the business owners care whether my team and I decide Veeam is the best choice over Microsoft's SCDPM is hard for me to understand but I think it really just comes down to what is the cheapest.
        – kce
        Jan 11 '15 at 1:10







      5




      5




      I don't like this answer because it looks like the person asking the question is the decision maker. His problem isn't convincing others to make the best decisions, but rather making sure the people he's making decisions on behalf of are on board with the decisions he makes.
      – Kevin
      Jan 10 '15 at 3:27




      I don't like this answer because it looks like the person asking the question is the decision maker. His problem isn't convincing others to make the best decisions, but rather making sure the people he's making decisions on behalf of are on board with the decisions he makes.
      – Kevin
      Jan 10 '15 at 3:27




      2




      2




      @Kevin - Chris is closer than he knows. I am in charge of the implementation but I am not the decision maker. I have not been granted that flexibility and discretion - I have to clear my choices with the stakeholders. It is a weird line to walk. Why the business owners care whether my team and I decide Veeam is the best choice over Microsoft's SCDPM is hard for me to understand but I think it really just comes down to what is the cheapest.
      – kce
      Jan 11 '15 at 1:10




      @Kevin - Chris is closer than he knows. I am in charge of the implementation but I am not the decision maker. I have not been granted that flexibility and discretion - I have to clear my choices with the stakeholders. It is a weird line to walk. Why the business owners care whether my team and I decide Veeam is the best choice over Microsoft's SCDPM is hard for me to understand but I think it really just comes down to what is the cheapest.
      – kce
      Jan 11 '15 at 1:10










      up vote
      2
      down vote













      It all comes down to cost vs. rewards.



      @HLGEM has provided an excellent answer which demonstrates that your fanboys may be over-estimating the rewards from implementing their solution, which, in their minds, justifies the cost. Doing as he suggests helps lower the perceived rewards (or raise the perceived rewards from the actual best solution) so that the extra cost may not be justifiable any more.



      You sound like this isn't the case, but just to be complete I feel I should add that it is also possible, depending on the actual product you are creating, and the user-base who will be using it, that you are actually brushing up against additional possible business requirements that need to be addressed, or costs, to the business as a whole, that you hadn't thought of.



      For the additional business requirement:
      perhaps the project needs to be accessible from as wide a variety of platforms as possible. This is often the case in web development, where you want to be able to support as many clients as possible, and can't really control their hardware.



      As an example of costs that the business will incur as a whole:
      maybe your entire user-base is already very familiar with Apple laptops. The extra cost you haven't included in your own solution is the cost of retraining everybody to use Microsoft.



      In the end, have your fanboys try to explain the gains to you. They will either be legitimate (though possibly too costly - the cost for their gains should be clearly communicated), or they will not provide value according to your requirements (and you should be able to explain why) - but always keep your mind open for requirements that aren't being explicitly stated.






      share|improve this answer


























        up vote
        2
        down vote













        It all comes down to cost vs. rewards.



        @HLGEM has provided an excellent answer which demonstrates that your fanboys may be over-estimating the rewards from implementing their solution, which, in their minds, justifies the cost. Doing as he suggests helps lower the perceived rewards (or raise the perceived rewards from the actual best solution) so that the extra cost may not be justifiable any more.



        You sound like this isn't the case, but just to be complete I feel I should add that it is also possible, depending on the actual product you are creating, and the user-base who will be using it, that you are actually brushing up against additional possible business requirements that need to be addressed, or costs, to the business as a whole, that you hadn't thought of.



        For the additional business requirement:
        perhaps the project needs to be accessible from as wide a variety of platforms as possible. This is often the case in web development, where you want to be able to support as many clients as possible, and can't really control their hardware.



        As an example of costs that the business will incur as a whole:
        maybe your entire user-base is already very familiar with Apple laptops. The extra cost you haven't included in your own solution is the cost of retraining everybody to use Microsoft.



        In the end, have your fanboys try to explain the gains to you. They will either be legitimate (though possibly too costly - the cost for their gains should be clearly communicated), or they will not provide value according to your requirements (and you should be able to explain why) - but always keep your mind open for requirements that aren't being explicitly stated.






        share|improve this answer
























          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          It all comes down to cost vs. rewards.



          @HLGEM has provided an excellent answer which demonstrates that your fanboys may be over-estimating the rewards from implementing their solution, which, in their minds, justifies the cost. Doing as he suggests helps lower the perceived rewards (or raise the perceived rewards from the actual best solution) so that the extra cost may not be justifiable any more.



          You sound like this isn't the case, but just to be complete I feel I should add that it is also possible, depending on the actual product you are creating, and the user-base who will be using it, that you are actually brushing up against additional possible business requirements that need to be addressed, or costs, to the business as a whole, that you hadn't thought of.



          For the additional business requirement:
          perhaps the project needs to be accessible from as wide a variety of platforms as possible. This is often the case in web development, where you want to be able to support as many clients as possible, and can't really control their hardware.



          As an example of costs that the business will incur as a whole:
          maybe your entire user-base is already very familiar with Apple laptops. The extra cost you haven't included in your own solution is the cost of retraining everybody to use Microsoft.



          In the end, have your fanboys try to explain the gains to you. They will either be legitimate (though possibly too costly - the cost for their gains should be clearly communicated), or they will not provide value according to your requirements (and you should be able to explain why) - but always keep your mind open for requirements that aren't being explicitly stated.






          share|improve this answer














          It all comes down to cost vs. rewards.



          @HLGEM has provided an excellent answer which demonstrates that your fanboys may be over-estimating the rewards from implementing their solution, which, in their minds, justifies the cost. Doing as he suggests helps lower the perceived rewards (or raise the perceived rewards from the actual best solution) so that the extra cost may not be justifiable any more.



          You sound like this isn't the case, but just to be complete I feel I should add that it is also possible, depending on the actual product you are creating, and the user-base who will be using it, that you are actually brushing up against additional possible business requirements that need to be addressed, or costs, to the business as a whole, that you hadn't thought of.



          For the additional business requirement:
          perhaps the project needs to be accessible from as wide a variety of platforms as possible. This is often the case in web development, where you want to be able to support as many clients as possible, and can't really control their hardware.



          As an example of costs that the business will incur as a whole:
          maybe your entire user-base is already very familiar with Apple laptops. The extra cost you haven't included in your own solution is the cost of retraining everybody to use Microsoft.



          In the end, have your fanboys try to explain the gains to you. They will either be legitimate (though possibly too costly - the cost for their gains should be clearly communicated), or they will not provide value according to your requirements (and you should be able to explain why) - but always keep your mind open for requirements that aren't being explicitly stated.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48









          Community♦

          1




          1










          answered Jan 9 '15 at 21:28









          DoubleDouble

          1,354615




          1,354615




















              up vote
              2
              down vote













              That's a classic workplace psychology question, best answered by Dale Carnegie in "How to win friends". Basically speaking, you need to let people save face while giving rational arguments; If you critisize, start with message of admiration to their achievements and ideas. It's likely a psychological, not a technical problem.






              share|improve this answer
















              • 1




                Care to expand your answer for those who have not read "How to Win Friends..."? An executive summary would make this a much better answer.
                – kce
                Jan 11 '15 at 1:14










              • +1 for Dale Carnegie, I'll fill @kce in later, but it's essentially a great training/guide for customer service and working with difficult people
                – MDMoore313
                Jan 11 '15 at 1:42














              up vote
              2
              down vote













              That's a classic workplace psychology question, best answered by Dale Carnegie in "How to win friends". Basically speaking, you need to let people save face while giving rational arguments; If you critisize, start with message of admiration to their achievements and ideas. It's likely a psychological, not a technical problem.






              share|improve this answer
















              • 1




                Care to expand your answer for those who have not read "How to Win Friends..."? An executive summary would make this a much better answer.
                – kce
                Jan 11 '15 at 1:14










              • +1 for Dale Carnegie, I'll fill @kce in later, but it's essentially a great training/guide for customer service and working with difficult people
                – MDMoore313
                Jan 11 '15 at 1:42












              up vote
              2
              down vote










              up vote
              2
              down vote









              That's a classic workplace psychology question, best answered by Dale Carnegie in "How to win friends". Basically speaking, you need to let people save face while giving rational arguments; If you critisize, start with message of admiration to their achievements and ideas. It's likely a psychological, not a technical problem.






              share|improve this answer












              That's a classic workplace psychology question, best answered by Dale Carnegie in "How to win friends". Basically speaking, you need to let people save face while giving rational arguments; If you critisize, start with message of admiration to their achievements and ideas. It's likely a psychological, not a technical problem.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Jan 10 '15 at 20:01









              John Green

              371




              371







              • 1




                Care to expand your answer for those who have not read "How to Win Friends..."? An executive summary would make this a much better answer.
                – kce
                Jan 11 '15 at 1:14










              • +1 for Dale Carnegie, I'll fill @kce in later, but it's essentially a great training/guide for customer service and working with difficult people
                – MDMoore313
                Jan 11 '15 at 1:42












              • 1




                Care to expand your answer for those who have not read "How to Win Friends..."? An executive summary would make this a much better answer.
                – kce
                Jan 11 '15 at 1:14










              • +1 for Dale Carnegie, I'll fill @kce in later, but it's essentially a great training/guide for customer service and working with difficult people
                – MDMoore313
                Jan 11 '15 at 1:42







              1




              1




              Care to expand your answer for those who have not read "How to Win Friends..."? An executive summary would make this a much better answer.
              – kce
              Jan 11 '15 at 1:14




              Care to expand your answer for those who have not read "How to Win Friends..."? An executive summary would make this a much better answer.
              – kce
              Jan 11 '15 at 1:14












              +1 for Dale Carnegie, I'll fill @kce in later, but it's essentially a great training/guide for customer service and working with difficult people
              – MDMoore313
              Jan 11 '15 at 1:42




              +1 for Dale Carnegie, I'll fill @kce in later, but it's essentially a great training/guide for customer service and working with difficult people
              – MDMoore313
              Jan 11 '15 at 1:42










              up vote
              2
              down vote













              First and beforehand: Do not dismiss automatically these requests, but investigate them. Maybe an stakeholder wants you to put your HR systems "in the cloud", but when questioned it may just mean that he wants to access the system from home. People may want to use it on Apple because they find the TimeMachine useful, maybe it is worth adding a versioning/undo functionality. Put those as additional requests (to be approved based in cost/benefits ratio).



              After that, treat to reason. Person A of your example is right when he desires to use the Mac he is used to. Make it clear to him that there are more aspects involved that just that convenience, and explain that to them. If he is rational, that should end the issue.



              What is left would be the real fanboys, who do not care about features and or cost, but just about being cool. Luckily in my experience is that those usually worry more about the "peripherics" (v.g. to be able to access the system from their iPhone), than the real essence of the project.



              My approach is to send the message that such issues are not theirs to decide upon. Not with those words, I usually just leave it in the air:



              • "we still have not decided which technology will be better suited, once we completed getting the requirements we will study that" (at the initial phases). Note that we (IT), not you (stakeholder), will do the study and decide.


              • "in this phase we have started the development using X, so we deal with technologies we are more familiar with (and we have already or our desktops, so we need no purchases). Later on, we can see about supporting Y with a little extra effort" (at the middle phases).


              • "in this final phase we are already delayed so there is no time left to add integration with Y, we need more development/testing/etc."


              Of course, inertia is always a friend at any stage. I even allows for some empathy, you would use Y if you could, but you are not allowed to:



              • "yes, it would be good to run the product on Y, but since we use X and we cannot afford to change all of the infrastructure to Y. And we cannot afford to produce and maintain two versions of it".


              • "yes, you and I see how much nicer our IT would be if we relied on Y, but the average user knows only about X and would pretty confused if we changed the system overnight".


              • "I would like/I would not mind using Y, but IT policies do not support it" (if they indeed don't).






              share|improve this answer


























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                First and beforehand: Do not dismiss automatically these requests, but investigate them. Maybe an stakeholder wants you to put your HR systems "in the cloud", but when questioned it may just mean that he wants to access the system from home. People may want to use it on Apple because they find the TimeMachine useful, maybe it is worth adding a versioning/undo functionality. Put those as additional requests (to be approved based in cost/benefits ratio).



                After that, treat to reason. Person A of your example is right when he desires to use the Mac he is used to. Make it clear to him that there are more aspects involved that just that convenience, and explain that to them. If he is rational, that should end the issue.



                What is left would be the real fanboys, who do not care about features and or cost, but just about being cool. Luckily in my experience is that those usually worry more about the "peripherics" (v.g. to be able to access the system from their iPhone), than the real essence of the project.



                My approach is to send the message that such issues are not theirs to decide upon. Not with those words, I usually just leave it in the air:



                • "we still have not decided which technology will be better suited, once we completed getting the requirements we will study that" (at the initial phases). Note that we (IT), not you (stakeholder), will do the study and decide.


                • "in this phase we have started the development using X, so we deal with technologies we are more familiar with (and we have already or our desktops, so we need no purchases). Later on, we can see about supporting Y with a little extra effort" (at the middle phases).


                • "in this final phase we are already delayed so there is no time left to add integration with Y, we need more development/testing/etc."


                Of course, inertia is always a friend at any stage. I even allows for some empathy, you would use Y if you could, but you are not allowed to:



                • "yes, it would be good to run the product on Y, but since we use X and we cannot afford to change all of the infrastructure to Y. And we cannot afford to produce and maintain two versions of it".


                • "yes, you and I see how much nicer our IT would be if we relied on Y, but the average user knows only about X and would pretty confused if we changed the system overnight".


                • "I would like/I would not mind using Y, but IT policies do not support it" (if they indeed don't).






                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  First and beforehand: Do not dismiss automatically these requests, but investigate them. Maybe an stakeholder wants you to put your HR systems "in the cloud", but when questioned it may just mean that he wants to access the system from home. People may want to use it on Apple because they find the TimeMachine useful, maybe it is worth adding a versioning/undo functionality. Put those as additional requests (to be approved based in cost/benefits ratio).



                  After that, treat to reason. Person A of your example is right when he desires to use the Mac he is used to. Make it clear to him that there are more aspects involved that just that convenience, and explain that to them. If he is rational, that should end the issue.



                  What is left would be the real fanboys, who do not care about features and or cost, but just about being cool. Luckily in my experience is that those usually worry more about the "peripherics" (v.g. to be able to access the system from their iPhone), than the real essence of the project.



                  My approach is to send the message that such issues are not theirs to decide upon. Not with those words, I usually just leave it in the air:



                  • "we still have not decided which technology will be better suited, once we completed getting the requirements we will study that" (at the initial phases). Note that we (IT), not you (stakeholder), will do the study and decide.


                  • "in this phase we have started the development using X, so we deal with technologies we are more familiar with (and we have already or our desktops, so we need no purchases). Later on, we can see about supporting Y with a little extra effort" (at the middle phases).


                  • "in this final phase we are already delayed so there is no time left to add integration with Y, we need more development/testing/etc."


                  Of course, inertia is always a friend at any stage. I even allows for some empathy, you would use Y if you could, but you are not allowed to:



                  • "yes, it would be good to run the product on Y, but since we use X and we cannot afford to change all of the infrastructure to Y. And we cannot afford to produce and maintain two versions of it".


                  • "yes, you and I see how much nicer our IT would be if we relied on Y, but the average user knows only about X and would pretty confused if we changed the system overnight".


                  • "I would like/I would not mind using Y, but IT policies do not support it" (if they indeed don't).






                  share|improve this answer














                  First and beforehand: Do not dismiss automatically these requests, but investigate them. Maybe an stakeholder wants you to put your HR systems "in the cloud", but when questioned it may just mean that he wants to access the system from home. People may want to use it on Apple because they find the TimeMachine useful, maybe it is worth adding a versioning/undo functionality. Put those as additional requests (to be approved based in cost/benefits ratio).



                  After that, treat to reason. Person A of your example is right when he desires to use the Mac he is used to. Make it clear to him that there are more aspects involved that just that convenience, and explain that to them. If he is rational, that should end the issue.



                  What is left would be the real fanboys, who do not care about features and or cost, but just about being cool. Luckily in my experience is that those usually worry more about the "peripherics" (v.g. to be able to access the system from their iPhone), than the real essence of the project.



                  My approach is to send the message that such issues are not theirs to decide upon. Not with those words, I usually just leave it in the air:



                  • "we still have not decided which technology will be better suited, once we completed getting the requirements we will study that" (at the initial phases). Note that we (IT), not you (stakeholder), will do the study and decide.


                  • "in this phase we have started the development using X, so we deal with technologies we are more familiar with (and we have already or our desktops, so we need no purchases). Later on, we can see about supporting Y with a little extra effort" (at the middle phases).


                  • "in this final phase we are already delayed so there is no time left to add integration with Y, we need more development/testing/etc."


                  Of course, inertia is always a friend at any stage. I even allows for some empathy, you would use Y if you could, but you are not allowed to:



                  • "yes, it would be good to run the product on Y, but since we use X and we cannot afford to change all of the infrastructure to Y. And we cannot afford to produce and maintain two versions of it".


                  • "yes, you and I see how much nicer our IT would be if we relied on Y, but the average user knows only about X and would pretty confused if we changed the system overnight".


                  • "I would like/I would not mind using Y, but IT policies do not support it" (if they indeed don't).







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Jan 10 '15 at 23:44

























                  answered Jan 10 '15 at 23:33









                  SJuan76

                  2,247913




                  2,247913






















                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


























                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40196%2fhow-to-work-with-a-fanboy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest




































































                      Comments

                      Post a Comment

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What does second last employer means? [closed]

                      Image
                      Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
                      Read more

                      List of Gilmore Girls characters

                      Image
                      The season three cast—(Back row): Lane, Michel, Paris, Emily, Richard, Sookie, Miss Patty, Kirk; Front row: Jess, Luke, Lorelai, Rory, Dean This is a list of characters for the comedy-drama television series Gilmore Girls . Contents 1 Main characters 1.1 Lorelai Gilmore 1.2 Rory Gilmore 1.3 Sookie St. James 1.4 Lane Kim 1.5 Michel Gerard 1.6 Luke Danes 1.7 Emily Gilmore 1.8 Richard Gilmore 1.9 Paris Geller 1.10 Dean Forester 1.11 Jess Mariano 1.12 Kirk Gleason 1.13 Jason Stiles 1.14 Logan Huntzberger 2 Major recurring characters 2.1 Christopher Hayden 2.2 Jackson Belleville 2.3 Mrs. Kim 2.4 Tristin DuGray 2.5 Max Medina 2.6 Taylor Doose 2.7 Dave Rygalski 2.8 Marty 3 Recurring characters 3.1 Stars Hollow 3.2 Chilton 3.3 Yale 3.4 Other 4 Notable guest stars 5 Unseen characters 6 Notes 7 References Main characters Actor Character Appearances Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 Season 6 Season 7 A Year in the Life Lauren Graham Lorelai Gilmore...
                      Read more

                      Confectionery

                      Image
                      Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of ...
                      Read more