In a strange sequence of events over the past week, I was asked to put together a proposal to support Microsoft's OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) technology for a web-based tool set. For those of you wondering what OLE is used for, it is the enabling technology that allows you to copy and paste bits of content from one application to another while still being able to use that content from the original application. For example when you copy/paste a graph from Excel into a Word document but you can still edit the graph in Excel (it isn't just a picture), either "in-place" (i.e. - use the Excel interface while you are still in Word) or "out of place" (i.e. - use the Excel interface in its own window but when you close Excel your updates magically appear in the original Word document). All of that happens using OLE. And there is a lot going on behind the scenes to keep track of it all.
It's an area in which I have a significant amount of practical expertise so it wasn't that much of a surprise that I was asked about it, but as I did the research on what would be needed to put it all together, I started to think (again) about why this difficult infrastructure is still in use. With .Net and all of the other technologies that Microsoft has rolled out as their next generation platform, OLE persists and is becoming more and more difficult to support as C++ continues its steep decline as a language of choice.
In my opinion, the key point that will eventually force Microsoft to support OLE into the future is the user experience. When implemented properly OLE is an absolutely fantastic user experience. You can embed all sorts of content from all sorts of specialized applications into your daily productivity tools, generally Word, Excel and PowerPoint, and it all "just works" when you click on it, putting you in the best environment for the job of editing the content in question. And Windows users have come to expect their programs to work that way. Taking this piece of workflow optimization that has become such a key part of how people work is not going to be easy.
Most of the documentation that is written by Microsoft on this suggests that the AxHost object can be used to host ActiveX controls as a workaround to writing C++ code to support OLE, because OLE is not supported in any .Net language (C#, VB, etc.) but AxHost is incredibly buggy and there are all sorts of issues with window focus and other minutiae. Basically, it's a non-starter in terms of a solution and the best example of this is that the OLE support in the Office apps is all still written in C++.
So I think OLE will persist because users will demand it and software developers will be pressed to continue to find ways of supporting it. It certainly seems like I will be refreshing my knowledge on the subject. I'd be interested to hear what other developers/architects/etc. think of this. And if you need some help with OLE.. just let me know.
09 January 2011
30 September 2010
On-demand IT Channel Expertise with CTX Resources
The web site and formal business launch of CTX Resources happens this week. As a CTX Associate, I am part of a team of consultants who specialize in building Marketing and Sales Partner Channels in the IT industry. As anyone who has started a new business, or tried to quickly grow an existing one will tell you, partner channels give your business and your product visibility and broad market exposure more quickly, and with more credibility, than a big marketing budget will ever get you. Particularly if you work with a strong, established partner and the channel is set up and operationalized correctly.
That is exactly, and exclusively, what CTX Resources was set up to do. While my independent practice will continue to be the backbone of what I do and how I work with my direct clients, I am excited to take part in some new projects through CTX Resources, with a new group of loosely-affiliated colleagues. Setting up strategic partnerships is really what I enjoy most and what I do best, so the more of those projects I am involved in the better my skills, and the results my clients see, will be.
That is exactly, and exclusively, what CTX Resources was set up to do. While my independent practice will continue to be the backbone of what I do and how I work with my direct clients, I am excited to take part in some new projects through CTX Resources, with a new group of loosely-affiliated colleagues. Setting up strategic partnerships is really what I enjoy most and what I do best, so the more of those projects I am involved in the better my skills, and the results my clients see, will be.
29 September 2010
Challenges in Software Design - And Business Models
Software in the cloud, Software as a Service (SaaS), hosted applications... whatever you like to call them, these new software delivery models are far easier for users than any of the alternatives. The restrictions that plagued the model early on, like performance, minimal functionality and concerns about security have mostly been addressed. And you really only need to point to Google Docs when somebody tells you a fully-functional software application can't be deployed across the web.
But for all of the burden that is taken off the user community in terms of installation, upgrades, etc. the work is simply shifted to the provider of the service. And that fact alone presents some serious challenges to software designers as the cloud emerges as a revenue stream for enterprise software services.
I think it all boils down to this: Until recently the business model of most software companies was that they sold programs. For all intents and purposes, they sold CDs or DVDs. And if it was an enterprise software package, then they sold consulting too. But their business model was collecting money in exchange for software.
The SaaS model totally changes that, though. What you are selling is really a service, not a product. And the issue compounds itself when you realize that if you make changes to the "product" without carefully considering them, you may be directly impacting your revenue model because, in the cloud, they are one and the same. Of course, if you are just setting up a centralized instance of a product that was designed for a fixed install and pushing the client installer over the web, then you still have the convenience of a clean break between product and revenue.
This became very clear to me today when I met with one of my clients. We are designing, implementing and rolling out a web-based application available exclusively in the cloud. In our last meeting we "finished" the software design and by the time we met this week, the implementation was essentially complete. The only component that still needed to be implemented was the piece that will calculate service charges based on user activity. So we sat down this morning to review the design of that piece and realized that it ran counter to how the software was actually working.
So we had this great work flow designed and implemented and then realized that how we thought we were going to generate revenue through it wasn't actually going to work given the way we had written the code. Well, it would have worked, but it would have been clunky and therefore defeated the whole premise of cloud software: getting something valuable that works great and doesn't cost much. As it turns out, once we had reconciled all of the differences between the two models, all that was required to make it work were some permission changes in the existing software.
There are a couple of things to learn from all this. Firstly, when working in the cloud, business managers and techies have to spend a whole lot more time in the room together at design time. Secondly, if you keep a high hiring bar and find talented software designers, even when they don't implement exactly what you asked for, they design software flexibly enough so that you won't be backed into a corner when you need to make some structural changes.
I'd love to hear about your challenges with software design in the cloud, revenue modeling in the cloud, and most interestingly, the intersection of the two!
But for all of the burden that is taken off the user community in terms of installation, upgrades, etc. the work is simply shifted to the provider of the service. And that fact alone presents some serious challenges to software designers as the cloud emerges as a revenue stream for enterprise software services.
I think it all boils down to this: Until recently the business model of most software companies was that they sold programs. For all intents and purposes, they sold CDs or DVDs. And if it was an enterprise software package, then they sold consulting too. But their business model was collecting money in exchange for software.
The SaaS model totally changes that, though. What you are selling is really a service, not a product. And the issue compounds itself when you realize that if you make changes to the "product" without carefully considering them, you may be directly impacting your revenue model because, in the cloud, they are one and the same. Of course, if you are just setting up a centralized instance of a product that was designed for a fixed install and pushing the client installer over the web, then you still have the convenience of a clean break between product and revenue.
This became very clear to me today when I met with one of my clients. We are designing, implementing and rolling out a web-based application available exclusively in the cloud. In our last meeting we "finished" the software design and by the time we met this week, the implementation was essentially complete. The only component that still needed to be implemented was the piece that will calculate service charges based on user activity. So we sat down this morning to review the design of that piece and realized that it ran counter to how the software was actually working.
So we had this great work flow designed and implemented and then realized that how we thought we were going to generate revenue through it wasn't actually going to work given the way we had written the code. Well, it would have worked, but it would have been clunky and therefore defeated the whole premise of cloud software: getting something valuable that works great and doesn't cost much. As it turns out, once we had reconciled all of the differences between the two models, all that was required to make it work were some permission changes in the existing software.
There are a couple of things to learn from all this. Firstly, when working in the cloud, business managers and techies have to spend a whole lot more time in the room together at design time. Secondly, if you keep a high hiring bar and find talented software designers, even when they don't implement exactly what you asked for, they design software flexibly enough so that you won't be backed into a corner when you need to make some structural changes.
I'd love to hear about your challenges with software design in the cloud, revenue modeling in the cloud, and most interestingly, the intersection of the two!
26 September 2010
Does Your New Business Really Need Funding?
I work closely with entrepreneurs across the country. This past week I met with a colleague in Los Angeles and we were discussing a common client and how to help them get funding to grow the business. The client already has a positive cash flow and a solid business model, but is in need of funding to enable rapid growth. We had divergent points of view, but both were interesting and merited additional discussion.
The key question: What is best for the business owner? I will lay out the two sides of the argument, please comment and let me know your thoughts.
What it all really comes down to for a new business is Marketing. And indeed what most of the invested funds are going to be primarily used for in this case was Marketing activities. The owner, with the help of a consultant, has taken the business relatively far down the road of obtaining Angel funding and they are being considered by a few different Angel groups.
I had been asked to put together a direct sales plan as part of the growth strategy and after looking at the business asked if they had considered the possibility that no funding was needed. To me the fact that the current Marketing plan was working didn't mean that it was working as well as it should be. I recommended that the marketing mix be diversified without increasing total spend and that some Partner Channels be identified and built at low cost. My analysis indicated that this alone could achieve their growth objectives.
I can put together a team of very experienced people who will plan and execute the needed changes to the Marketing activities in return for a 15-20% equity position in the company. When you compare that with the 40-50% equity position that is on the table for Angel capital, how could that not be considered? Furthermore, the consulting team would definitely be invested in the client's objectives since they would be compensated only with equity.
My colleague looks at it a little differently. To be clear, it isn't that we disagree on the strategy itself, it's that we disagree on where the real value is relative to where the perceived value is.
To me, the owner retains far more equity and operational control using my strategy while meeting objectives with a team-based approach that can be iteratively optimized. This stands in contrast to parting with significant equity, quite possibly giving up a controlling interest in the company to obtain Angel funding.
To my colleague, I am selling intellectual capital in return for equity which is a very hard sell as opposed to operating capital in return for equity. His argument is that it is far easier for an owner to part with equity in return for cash than it is to part with equity in return for ideas.
What do you think?
The key question: What is best for the business owner? I will lay out the two sides of the argument, please comment and let me know your thoughts.
What it all really comes down to for a new business is Marketing. And indeed what most of the invested funds are going to be primarily used for in this case was Marketing activities. The owner, with the help of a consultant, has taken the business relatively far down the road of obtaining Angel funding and they are being considered by a few different Angel groups.
I had been asked to put together a direct sales plan as part of the growth strategy and after looking at the business asked if they had considered the possibility that no funding was needed. To me the fact that the current Marketing plan was working didn't mean that it was working as well as it should be. I recommended that the marketing mix be diversified without increasing total spend and that some Partner Channels be identified and built at low cost. My analysis indicated that this alone could achieve their growth objectives.
I can put together a team of very experienced people who will plan and execute the needed changes to the Marketing activities in return for a 15-20% equity position in the company. When you compare that with the 40-50% equity position that is on the table for Angel capital, how could that not be considered? Furthermore, the consulting team would definitely be invested in the client's objectives since they would be compensated only with equity.
My colleague looks at it a little differently. To be clear, it isn't that we disagree on the strategy itself, it's that we disagree on where the real value is relative to where the perceived value is.
To me, the owner retains far more equity and operational control using my strategy while meeting objectives with a team-based approach that can be iteratively optimized. This stands in contrast to parting with significant equity, quite possibly giving up a controlling interest in the company to obtain Angel funding.
To my colleague, I am selling intellectual capital in return for equity which is a very hard sell as opposed to operating capital in return for equity. His argument is that it is far easier for an owner to part with equity in return for cash than it is to part with equity in return for ideas.
What do you think?
12 September 2010
New Technology for One U.S. Hospital
One of my most active clients right now is Meaningful Use Technologies (MUST). The core mission of MUST is to bring Hyundai Arcron's established Electronic Health Record (EHR) product to market here in the U.S. MUST is well-positioned because they have an exclusive right to market and sell the product in the States and because they have the sales force to get the job done.
Even still, it is not very easy to get attention in a multi-billion dollar market unless you get creative, particularly when prospects need to fly to Asia or the Middle East to inspect a reference site. Now having said that, myself and the principals of MUST have personally been to several of Hyundai Arcron's reference hospitals, and they are big (2000+ bed in some cases), extremely modern healthcare facilities that have been operating in an entirely paperless work environment for over a decade. So the issue isn't that the product isn't up to the task of serving as the information backbone of a hospital here at home, it's more that references are easier to check when they are on the same continent!
So MUST has created a "reference site program" that will be rolled out in a series of webinars this week. MUST will choose one hospital to receive a significant financial incentive to be the first U.S. installation of the Hyundai Arcron HIS system and serve as a local reference site. We think that this will be a great way of introducing the American hospital community to the great Hyundai Arcron product, and to the benefits and advantages that it has over current offerings.
If you are interested, join one of our webinars this week or apply for the reference site program.
Even still, it is not very easy to get attention in a multi-billion dollar market unless you get creative, particularly when prospects need to fly to Asia or the Middle East to inspect a reference site. Now having said that, myself and the principals of MUST have personally been to several of Hyundai Arcron's reference hospitals, and they are big (2000+ bed in some cases), extremely modern healthcare facilities that have been operating in an entirely paperless work environment for over a decade. So the issue isn't that the product isn't up to the task of serving as the information backbone of a hospital here at home, it's more that references are easier to check when they are on the same continent!
So MUST has created a "reference site program" that will be rolled out in a series of webinars this week. MUST will choose one hospital to receive a significant financial incentive to be the first U.S. installation of the Hyundai Arcron HIS system and serve as a local reference site. We think that this will be a great way of introducing the American hospital community to the great Hyundai Arcron product, and to the benefits and advantages that it has over current offerings.
If you are interested, join one of our webinars this week or apply for the reference site program.
02 September 2010
Hyundai Arcron begins EHR webinar series in US market
Meaningful Use Technologies is excited to announce our partnership with Hyundai's Arcron division to introduce our U.S. EHR and Health IT products. Additional information about this partnership and the Hyundai Arcron HIS products may be found at http://www.hyundaimedis.com/htm/au/mp.asp or directly at our website http://www.MeaningfulUseTech.com
We would like to invite you to a 1 HOUR informational Webinar to introduce you to this ground breaking system that has been fully deployed and operational in Asia and other parts of the globe for over 15 years.
This system is currently being used in:
Samsung Medical Center in Dubai
Samsung Medical Center Kangbuk in South Korea
Chosun University Hospital in South Korea
The Armed Forces Medical Command in South Korea (Implemented in 1999)
As well as dozens of others worldwide.
During this informational webinar you will learn about:
1 The current status of the product in the U.S.
2. How Hyundai Arcron and MUST can help your organization meet it's goals for EHR, meaningful use criteria and capitalize on the subsidy requirements
3. Certification process and status
4. Benefits of working with Hyundai Arcron and MUST over others in the competitive landscape
5. Future landscape and next steps: Invitations to overseas EHR FAM tour, Establishment of Regional Partners/Consultants, Collaboration and Integration
6. Questions and Answers with other professionals
For those interested in attending one of the 1 HOUR INFORMATIONAL WEBINARS, please simply contact Ms. Shannon Mason as per below and she will disseminate the web log in instructions and toll-free audio conference call information. Space is limited so we are asking if you could kindly express your interest in participating in this webinar by September 9.
If you are not able to participate in either of the webinar dates and would like to schedule a private conference, please feel free to contact Ms. Mason directly so she may send the presentation material and schedule an alternate date.
Best Regards,
Shannon Mason, MBA
SVP, Sales and Marketing
Meaningful Use Technologies, LLC
800-262-8839 X703
Shannon@Must-LLC.com
www.MeaningfulUseTech.com
We would like to invite you to a 1 HOUR informational Webinar to introduce you to this ground breaking system that has been fully deployed and operational in Asia and other parts of the globe for over 15 years.
Tuesday, September 14 at 11:00am Eastern Standard Time
OR
Wednesday, September 15 at 3:30pm Eastern Standard Time
OR
Wednesday, September 15 at 3:30pm Eastern Standard Time
This system is currently being used in:
Samsung Medical Center in Dubai
Samsung Medical Center Kangbuk in South Korea
Chosun University Hospital in South Korea
The Armed Forces Medical Command in South Korea (Implemented in 1999)
As well as dozens of others worldwide.
During this informational webinar you will learn about:
1 The current status of the product in the U.S.
2. How Hyundai Arcron and MUST can help your organization meet it's goals for EHR, meaningful use criteria and capitalize on the subsidy requirements
3. Certification process and status
4. Benefits of working with Hyundai Arcron and MUST over others in the competitive landscape
5. Future landscape and next steps: Invitations to overseas EHR FAM tour, Establishment of Regional Partners/Consultants, Collaboration and Integration
6. Questions and Answers with other professionals
For those interested in attending one of the 1 HOUR INFORMATIONAL WEBINARS, please simply contact Ms. Shannon Mason as per below and she will disseminate the web log in instructions and toll-free audio conference call information. Space is limited so we are asking if you could kindly express your interest in participating in this webinar by September 9.
If you are not able to participate in either of the webinar dates and would like to schedule a private conference, please feel free to contact Ms. Mason directly so she may send the presentation material and schedule an alternate date.
Best Regards,
Shannon Mason, MBA
SVP, Sales and Marketing
Meaningful Use Technologies, LLC
800-262-8839 X703
Shannon@Must-LLC.com
www.MeaningfulUseTech.com
19 August 2010
What Matters Most
I'm keeping very busy this week, but you really, *really* need to read this article. Great stuff for any business trying to get anywhere: http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/2010/06/win-web-metrics-line-sight-net-income.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)