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.

Jeff Carter | jeff@cartercp.com
Principal, Carter Consulting Partners

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.

Jeff Carter | jeff@cartercp.com
Principal, Carter Consulting Partners

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!

Jeff Carter | jeff@cartercp.com
Principal, Carter Consulting Partners

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?

Jeff Carter | jeff@cartercp.com
Principal, Carter Consulting Partners

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.

Jeff Carter | jeff@cartercp.com
Principal, Carter Consulting Partners

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

Jeff Carter | jeff@cartercp.com
Principal, Carter Consulting Partners

Jeff Carter | jeff@cartercp.com
Principal, Carter Consulting Partners

Carter Consulting Partners was able to leverage its global network of contacts to identify Hyundai Medis as the right strategic partner for MUST.

Jeff Carter | jeff@cartercp.com
Principal, Carter Consulting Partners

[The following is a transcript of the video above.]

Hi I’m Jeff Carter, Principal and Founder of Carter Consulting Partners. Today I wanted to talk a little bit about a new organization that I have formed with some of my well-respected colleagues called Pay It Forward Advisors which is a not-for-profit advisory service for small businesses.

So you might ask how is that different from what we do at Carter Consulting Partners now. Well, our main goal in terms of what we do at Carter Consulting Partners is to work with businesses to identify a long-term set of objectives and an action plan to meet those objectives without really increasing existing budgets so fitting inside your current budget and really optimizing your business’ performance.

With Pay It Forward Advisors it’s a little different. There are a lot of businesses out there that are looking for funding and either don’t get it or don’t need it. Our objective with Pay It Forward Advisors is to work with business owners who currently have a round of funding or more as part of their business plan and either help them position their business to get that funding within our network of contacts, or help them reposition their business so that they can meet their objectives without needing funding.

I think it is going to be a very successful and really fun venture to work on with all of my partners. So if you are interested in learning more about Pay It Forward Advisors or learning more about Carter Consulting Partners and how we might be able to help you please feel free to contact by writing me at jeff@cartercp.com.

Thank you.

I have been working closely with them to develop a detailed business plan that risks capital only once certain milestones have been met and that sets very objective criteria for determining success. In the course of this activity it has become clear that a significant amount of capital, and an enormous amount of work, will be needed to operationalize this business beyond 2010. Bad news, right? Well, not exactly, but it makes you think about a number of different factors and it is these subjective decisions that get early-stage business owners into trouble because they become emotionally attached to a decision that should be made objectively. Let’s look at a few examples of the issues that my client and I are trying to get clarity on to create a path forward:

• As stated, the capital investment needed would be significant. We can go to the market for that, and this business would certainly get funded. But is that the direction in which the owner wants to go? Getting funding generally entails selling a significant equity position, particularly when your business is small and there aren’t lots of other options. If you’re in business to make your own decisions and be your own boss, this is unlikely to be a good option unless you can find investors that you really want to bring in as partners.
• The operational component of the business, which is in this case very nicely distinct from the intellectual property component, could be taken on through some sort of partnership or joint venture where the partner has the assets to bring the operation online. There are significant profit implications to this approach, and not in a way that is good for the current owners, especially when viewed against the pro-forma numbers we would generate if we did everything ourselves.
• A sale of the intellectual property itself is definitely something to consider in this case, though it is very difficult to fight through the feeling of “ownership” that business owners have in these types of situations. However it is the fastest way to generate a fixed ROI that can be easily calculated. No forecasting needed. If there is no emotional attachment to the business, just an opportunity cost, and there is a solid ROI, then my recommendation will be to make the sale and use the proceeds to fund the next idea.

There are many subjective factors that come into play when making a decision like this and there is a huge risk of leaving money on the table so a thorough analysis is always needed. In this case, the crux of the entire decision is whether, for this owner, the additional profit that will be realized by executing the business plan is worth the time and energy that it will take to build the business.

The bottom line is that even if it seems like your small business is running into insurmountable obstacles, it is very likely that there are ways to monetize what you have done. Feel free to contact me for a full analysis of your business, and your options.