For six years I worked in a SaaS startup that built an applicant tracking system (a tool to manage recruitment efforts in big/mid-sized companies) tailored for the local market of the country we lived in. My experience tells me that our main value was in forcing them to rethink their recruitment processes, not adapting to their existing ones that were usually all over the place.

As much as I want to believe the opposite to be true as a “power user”, good tools often force you to adopt better practices, not the other way around.

> good tools often force you to adopt better practices

Just wanted to highlight this excellent statement. It's like having a strict type system that enforces certain rules are always met. It provides consistency and predictability.

> rethink their recruitment processes

This context is relevant to the kind of software system that was needed. To improve their processes, it was necessary to impose an explicit top-down order to the existing mess.

Malleable software, on the other hand, feels more suited for personal computing, greenfield projects, or small teams with members working independently as well as collaboratively. Particularly in the early stages of product R&D, strict rules can be a source of friction in the creative process.

Strict better practices and well-designed tools are discovered and developed through open and flexible explorations, as a kind of distillation of knowledge and experience.

I worked for a company that provided a mobile friendly job application form that integrated with major applicant tracking systems (back when they didn’t provide mobile friendly forms).

Our biggest value was getting customers to remove all the extra questions on their applications that had built up over years of management changes that no one had any idea why they were even asking.

The problem here is in definition. Context is quite diverse and better practice for team A is an absolute disaster for team B.