I agree with Dave. G
David de Bhál wrote:
The difference is in the approach.
Horst sees a piece of software as an item such as an item of service like a
consultation.
Mario sees it as a service and an ongoing relationship. Neither is right nor
wrong.
It is just perception. I feel that if MYOB does a service like updating the
information, then they are entitled to a fee for this and when the EULA was
signed it was most certainly in there. No point in quibbling if you did not
read and understand before you started using it.
There is a huge conflict with the medical model because it is a
relationship-based model(used to be and can be in isolated areas but not in
cities where 90% of us practice) with episodic fees whereas the other to him
is a once-off service.
Horst's patients, for example, are a captive audience and have a
geographical lock-in which is the real feature he portends to hate, and in
the cities we have the transactional model which fragments care but is a
model we have to live with.
But the conflict comes from the approach. One is "here it is - do what you
will with it" the other is "we can help you manage it". The Corporations
approach also comes into it because they need to make money and usually for
a defined period and as with the "Bowls club" approach to trying to get
consensus - you just cannot do it. Whoever started MYOB, or, indeed, Medical
Director, had a different approach and after it got too big or outgrew its
original purpose, some corporation took it over to milk it and changed
course. This is Business. Most Doctors try, one way or another, to have
lock-in. Just look at Dermatologists with closed books. You cannot get up
from one cardiologist and take your bat and your ball and your angiograms
and go and see another. This situation should not arise.
The problem with the open source model is that very few people can look
after and manage it and even the people on this list who can actually do
this properly are few and far between just as with cars - very few people
have the expertise and effort to do every part of the car's maintenance.
So the problem is the difference between a transactional model and a
relational model.
When you get to a relationship model with transactional billing, you might
just have it right - which is where Horst is with his medicine but not with
his IT.
Horses for courses.
David de Bhál
www.v-practice.com
________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Mario Ruiz
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 7:48 PM
To: General Practice Computing Group Talk
Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] 5 important things
You do not seem to place any value on the knowledge component. For example,
"it cost nothing to adjust the screw, but is $100 to know which screw to
adjust".
Your approach clearly ignores the investment in training, education and
attending seminars, work experience, etc, etc. You surely would argue and
defend this same points as a practicing GP to justify the charge of a
standard Item 23, would you not?.
Mario
Horst Herb wrote:
I don't see get rich quick schemes as sustainable business model. A
honest sustainable business will charge according to time and
resources invested, and will value customer relations enough not to
bother customers with peanuts.
Horst
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
