A good design is valuable, and this applies to business processes as well.
How would you design the user experience of constructing a submarine?
Good design IS technological superiority.
The people making purchasing decisions at this level aren't the ones using it and don't care one whit about UX.
That isn't to say that it isn't valuable, but it's basically a non-factor. The technology itself is a non-factor. Everything is about connections, buzz words and pretty slide decks.
Randos don't become general managers.
But I'm unsure why you feel that my response pointing out that a product's user interface is typically a more important factor in success than the product's underlying technologies was discounting the value of user experience?
> Good design IS technological superiority.
Hmm, I was attempting to respond to someone who wrote "It feels like a big pile of nothing... Big fat database schemas with big fat CRUD atop and layers of snazzy sparklines" which seemed to dramatically undervalue good schemas, CRUD implementations, or sparklines as "nothing". So to contrast those I used "technical superiority" as a catchall for the sort of challenging technical implementations that some developers lionize. Does that make sense? Is there a different term you'd suggest for that? For now I've changed to "(non-UX) technological superiority".
Have you ever used jira? They are very much not selling that thing on the basis of UX.