As member of a mini-micro-company, I will also add my 2 cents. [...] > From the standpoint of an organization looking for a provider, size may also > be important, a larger company > typically has a better financial footing (mandatory in certain types of > contracts), and possibly a more diversified experience > among its ranks. Also, it might happen that the customer is looking for a > certain experience with the provider > (e.g, matching or getting closer to its own size, or looking for the more > industrial vs the more "boutique" > approach). > So... what about reporting the size of the company among the other > information, even if it is > not the primary classifier? The size could be reported as classes to lessen > the chore of maintaing such > information (e.g, "1-5", "5-20", "20-50", "50+", just thinking out loud > here)
I agree with Andrea. I do not feel alienated due to the size of my company. In fact many times the size is a choice and it might even be a positive factor for certain scenarios. I like the classes approach proposed here. Cheers, Andrea _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
