The attitude must be one of clear-headed analysis, not favouring one solution over another to avoid bias in assessment. The thing to avoid is what I call the Magic Bullet syndrome - thinking that a given package will solve deep organizational problems, so that it becomes the end in itself instead of a means to an end. See my paper called The Myth of the Magic Bullet for more on this subject. A The short answer, and the long as well, is no. Bad software is expensive software, which means less profitable software.
Bad software results from bad design, bad development, bad testing, and bad implementation.
All of these bad things can be addressed with good practices in terms of a solid software development life cycle. It's not bureaucracy, it's engineering. The pace of the internet world does not excuse the need for good software, but rather intensifies it - you can't afford to screw up because you only get one chance. It's got to work right the first time, because you won't get a chance to fix it later. Koryl and I often had this particular debate.