On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
>I would like to intitiate a dialogue on why it would be beneficial for a
>prospective healthcare client or an organization to agree to going open
>source. More specifically, to release the code that have paid to have
>developed.
Interoperability will improve, first of all when other organizations they want
to network with can easily try out the code and ether replace their stuff with
it (presumably after suitable modifications and merging) or just use the
communication routines so that their communications with your database are as
flawless as your own. Secondly, a bigger user base is a good source for
feedback on improving the product and often also a good source of support
people and knowlegeable users--the people you open the product up to may
encounter and solve a problem before you do.
Secondly, if the opened code does catch on, that lets you distribute further
development work across the resources of all the organizations using it, not
just yours. Just because you paid for it doesn't mean that you have to pay for
all it will be, and it doesn't mean that other organizations should have to pay
all over again to develop the same software you already have.
I wouldn't recommend pitching Open Source as a road to profits; Open Source is
new enough as a way of getting things done, and as a business model I feel it's
still genuinely unproven. Definitely don't pitch it that way to a hospital.
But to a health software company, you can say that all the software in the
world is useless without knowlege about how to install, configure, and support
it...and that hospitals and clinics generally want solutions, not pieces they'd
have to hire people just to figure out what to do with...and that ongoing
revenue from support can be nicer than one-time sale revenue, especially in the
months after your sales department has a lean quarter...
Keith
--
Keith Rohrer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Software Developer at Health Network Ventures (http://www.hnv.com)
