Ok - its 3 weeks to HPWorld and its time to rev up those
discussions on funding models for the 3k again.

Background
----------
It was proposed that 3k customer's pay an additional amount on
their support contracts each year. This additional money would
go into a fund for 3k development at csy. Then those cool projects
we want can get done.

A Snapshot History
------------------
1. Most on this list liked the idea. Good spirited dialog ensued.

2. It was suggested that if HP didn't have the will to get this done
   then maybe Interex could be the vehicle.

3. It was suggested that #2 would be ok as long as the Interex admin
   costs were kept low so the money wasn't siphoned off into overhead.

4. This topic was brought up at IPROF where Harry Sterling was given
   the opportunity to respond.

5. Basically Harry didn't like the idea. He had 2 basic problems with this
   idea. First, HP doesn't have a business model that fits what was proposed.
   Second, he was concerned about the cost of ownership for the 3k
   installed base increasing. He didn't want HP to compare unfavorably
   against the competition in the "total ownership cost" equation.
   He was more interested in a model where customers could fund a special
   project that csy would contract out to one or more of the competent
   system software houses.

Is This Idea Dead?
-----------------
I hope not. I think we should give it another shot, but with a little twist.

How about we craft something considering the following facts/issues:

1. Using support contracts as the payment vehicle will not work with HP.
   This money doesn't usually go to csy directly and they say getting
   it to them is a big hassle. Lets take HP on their word and back off
   from this.

2. Make the payment optional. This alleviates HP's concern about the
   cost of ownership issue.

3. Create a concept where organizations that contribute can have a direct
   voice in the application of the dollars as far as what projects are
   funded and in what priority order.

4. Consider using Interex as the funding vehicle. If this is not
   possible then consider creating a separate organization just for
   this purpose.

5. As the user community we have more power than we sometimes think.
   If enough organizations band together to push this issue and there is
   real money on the table then HP will need some real good reasons to
   not accept the money.

6. That HP started this themselves by using SIGs as a vehicle to
   prioritize and synthesize the enhancements the installed base
   is interested in obtaining. We just want to spice it up a little by
   kicking in some dollars so the number of projects worked on can be
   increased.

An Idea
-------
How about creating a new class of SIG membership. This would be a
paying/voting member. There could be an annual membership fee for
each SIG (maybe discounts for multiple SIGs?) that would give you a
direct voice/vote in the enhancements and priorities. Maybe each vote
could be worth a certain amount and organizations could buy extra
votes by paying the appropriate multiple.

This money would be funneled through Interex and made available to csy
for funding the projects. If csy thought it was better to contract out
the development, then so be it. If they wanted to add staff then that
would be ok as well.

Can this work? Well, a variation of this model has been at work with
our installed base for over 7 years and it works pretty good. In our case
the customers pool their resources to fund positions at QSS that work on
projects selected by the user's group. They have a technical monitor to
make sure the specifications are being followed and adequate progress is
being made.

As always, I look forward to any discussion this might generate.

Duane Percox ([log in to unmask]  v/650.306.1608 f/650.365.2706)
http://www.qss.com/          http://qwebs.qss.com/qwebs
http://qwebs.qss.com/faq3k