[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# RE: Result Client Modification

- To: <rcr@dieboldes.com>
- Subject: RE: Result Client Modification
- From: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:17:40 -0500
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <005101bfcf5e$3e6a69e0$ea011a3f@oemcomputer>

> Hamilton County would not approve a $20,000 program enhancement,

Not unexpected.

> but would probably approve a $2,000 to $2,500 charge.

$2000 is the kind of sum we want to be thinking about as an exploratory retainer. $2k projects (day or two) tend to just get done. This isn't one of those projects.

> If we advertise the enhancement or module is available

I think you mean could be available. If this were already a GEMS feature, there would be no reason for them to pay $2k or any other figure.

> I would doubt that we would not have several counties desiring such for a charge of $2,000 to $2,500.

I am sure you are right, and I think this one of the lessons here. If we can find six or eight counties willing to pay $2.5k for this, it would certainly be worth doing as a priority.
I have to say though, $2.5k times eight sounds like a hard way to make a buck. It would be better to concentrate on $30k times two projects instead I think.

> (enhancements if applicable to all users are normally not charged for)

This is true as a statement, but incomplete. These enhancements are neither charged for, nor obliged.
It is worth keeping prospective here though. The suggestion is a good one, and it is now on the development plate. I have no doubt that this request will one day find its way into GEMS and JResults. Just not Aug 3.
Ken

- References:
  - Re: JResult Client Modification
    - From: "Barry Herron" <bhglobal@earthlink.net>

- Prev by Date: Re: JResult Client Modification
- Next by Date: new report with ballot text
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread