I was recently told that a new roving employee on a client’s site had specifically requested a [Proprietary Brand Name Deleted] instead of any other Smartphone, because it was what they used in their previous job whilst on the road.

There’s nothing wrong with that, as it stands in isolation. Using what you’re used to can be efficient. However, smart thinking would ask whether it is wise to simply acquiesce to personal preferences when mobile devices are increasingly important to a company’s infrastructure.

If there’s no dependence upon sharing live data through mobile devices, fine.

If the I.T. department is being asked to improve the way remote workers keep in touch and have access to in-house systems and data, giving the choice of device to the end user is a huge mistake. The next step is inevitably to ask I.T. to ensure that all the disparate chosen devices will talk to the office and to each other, as if I.T. can work some kind of integration miracle for which the world at large doesn’t provide the tools.

When the final result is in, and it is clear that the business won’t be able to use the software they want to use because the star sales rep insists upon using a device that doesn’t talk to it, someone is going to be very unhappy. The tail is wagging the dog, in a big way.

Personal preferences need to be ignored unless they form part of a total solution that will work for the business. Usually, though, the user’s good experience in a previous environment was down to the fact that they were forced to use the tool they now love… because it worked with all the other infrastructure to provide them with a good experience. Their insistence upon using the same tool in a new situation is rather like taking the wheels and seat from a beloved old car and insisting upon fitting them to their new car because they liked the ride. The fact the bolt-holes don’t match, the seat is too low and the road-holding is now rubbish will eventually cause a nasty problem.