Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
It actually has been a while since I posted a forum post and some of you may be wondering why I haven't been visibly active on the forums.
As you may be aware I have been a part of the OpenVPMS landscape for quite some time and many of you are using OpenVPMS in your practices because I introduced you to the project, convinced you of the benefits of moving from your existing Practice Management Systems, and helped you implement OpenVPMS. I saw this as a very important part of getting the OpenVPMS project to a point where it was self sustaining and the installed base would drive the project further and attract new users, new ideas and new sources of funding to develop new features.
Some time back I pulled back from active participation in the OpenVPMS community to in essence give space to other users to participate and to test how the community would progress. In the background I have continued to promote OpenVPMS , work with the core development team on new features and to source funding and new markets for the project. I have been pleased to see new users take up the reins and continue to push the project from an development, documentation and ongoing community support perspective and special thanks go to those who continue to contribute, especially Tim A., Tim G. and Ben who have contributed huge advances to the project. Thank You.
On the down side I am disappointed to see that the funding of projects is consistently being left to a very small number of contributers even though every practice who uses OpenVPMS will automatically benefit greatly from these new features. One just needs to look at the number of amazing new features in the latest 1.8 release and the huge productivity gains these will generate in any practice and then see that by far the majority of these were funded by a handful of practices and other industry contributers. Calls for funding support are generally ignored but when the new release is available everyone wants the new features and is keen to get the release installed. I must admit I expected the standard 80/20 rule might apply as in 20% of the installed base would be active and contribute in some way and the rest would not participate and just take spoils. It is very disappointing to see the real figure of active participants being more like 5%. This is a very sad reflection on the industry.
Even more concerning is hearing and knowing that some OpenVPMS users are also either ignoring requests to pay their subscription fees or have never subscribed !
Subscriptions suppport critical functions in the OpenVPMS community and given their level and their structure are an incredibly small financial imposte on any practice. We have resisted putting locking features in place to manage subscriptions and have opted for "friendly" reminders to encourage practices to pay these small fees. Still we continue to see volunteer administrators having to continually chase up subscriptions and wonder how many active users out there have never paid a subscription. If you use OpenVPMS in your Practice and your version says "This is a Trial version .. " on the login screen maybe you are one of these Practices ?
So this forum post is just a call to all those practices who have gained huge financial and other benefits from the switch to OpenVPMS to step up and contribute to the project by chipping in funds to projects and also to do the right thing by their industry and the project by paying their subscription fees. The OpenVPMS community needs your support.
Kind Regards
Tony
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Hi Tony,
Thanks for this reminder. I totally agree with this sentiment and it is typical of our industry that we are slack in this regard. We have some incredibly talented people that have the best of intentions to make this a great product. This is a unique project that aims to benefit the end user. I fear that some users will only realise how valuable this is when it is too late - ie OpenVPMS becomes unsustainable and practices need to user software with a different subscription model.
Please show the industry and your colleagues respect by paying what is due and supporting the advances of this fantastic project.
Sam
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Hi Tony and Sam,
I must admit that I inherited OVPMS as a system. I have come to like it, however the funding model has troubled me from the start. While I like the ability to fund and push projects that are worthwhile to us and I am happy to contribute to the community it gets disheartening at times when multiple people post and make suggestions for a project only to not stump up when the time comes.
In total there are about $88,000 worth of projects looking for funding currently. At least $10,000 of this has already been pledged. So, $78000 worth of projects left to fund. What are we at? 200 clinics? Only 19 of which contributed to the latest release. So for roughly $400 per clinic every single project currently looking for funding would be a reality. Everyone would gain far far more than $400 worth of value. If clinics cannot or are not putting in this sort of money then we have a serious problem.
Personally I suspect the model is not sustainable. At the very least the subscription should be enforced. I guarantee once people look at the price of the competition (I just did and there are competitors that would charge you this $400 PER MONTH) the subscription will be gladly paid.
I like the idea of a base fee per clinic per year that goes towards projects... $400 and then the subscription fee... In the first year all current projects looking for pledges would be funded. In the second year all those "under discussion" pie in the sky projects would be funded and completed. By the third year you would have software that exceeds almost everything on the market and still at less than 10% of the cost of competing systems.
So, I ask.... Why not at a minimum make the subscription compulsory? Or the reminder least far more intrusive? A pop up box asking users to subscribe after to logging in and a 10 second timer before you can use the software I think would do the trick...
Here endth the rant....
Sorry if this offends sensibilities or is against the concept of OVPMS. However I think OVPMS has some serious catch up to do in some departments and without a review of the funding model either this won't happen or it will be done privately for the benefit of some, not all.
Adrian
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Thanks Tony for the post. And I totally agree with Adrian as I worry the current model is not going to be sustainable too. OpenVPMS is an unique and excellent project but since it is users driven, support from users is vital to its long term survival and development.
I don't think all users will have time to read forum posts and certainly only a small proportion will be moved to made an effort to contribute regularly. We are a very small clinic that started up in 2011 and while we don't have large budget, we want to chip in at least 1 to 2 projects each year.
So I'll support Adrian's suggestions above. I don't have a problem with a clinic base fee on top of the annual subscription fee. I know it may be in contrary to the open source programming concept that was OpenVPMS' foundation but as Tony pointed out, it is very sad there are people not respecting even the basic voluntary subscription commitment.
I am not a programmer and please correct me if I am wrong, many apps and programs these days have free version and paid 'pro' version available. People can use the free version as a trial but will have to live with advertisements on screen for example. Would this be a possible inclusion for the future??
Kind regards,
Anthony (ActiVet)
Kind regards,
Anthony (ActiVet)
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Thanks Tony for the provocative comments re financial contribution. I suspect many users do not even read these posts, and so to a large degree, you are speaking to the converted. I too agree with Adrian and Anthony that the subscription model needs some serious tweaking. I believe no one is entitled to a free ride, and therefore non subscribers should be locked out after a reasonable trial period of say two months, or whatever. New projects should be paid by everyone, and would suggest that an additional $500 per clinic per annum for development of new releases on an annual basis is entirely reasonable and would ensure the continuing development of a first rate veterinary software system.
Regards,
Paul Martin
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Paul - a couple of comments:
a) "new projects should be paid by everyone" - though I understand the sentiment behind this (why should I pay 100% of a feature that I know will be useful to others), there is a very real problem that some features are of no use to everyone. Two examples: the HL7 stuff in 1.8 which is useless to EIAH Hong Kong; the product price rounding that we have mostly funded - which is of very limited use to those who do not operate in a low value currency environment (ie not to Australia practices).
b) "an additional $500 per clinic per annum" - here we have the problem that while this is functionally peanuts for reasonable sized operations, it is not for small scale 1-2 vet operations. In taxation terms, this is a regressive measure - hurts the poor, not the rich. One way to handle this is to do it like the EFT Vet count based subscription cost. Push the $250/EFT Vet annual cost up to something higher and present it as a subscription of $250 and a development contribion of (say) $150 per EFT Vet.
An alternative approach is to have a 'development contribution' fee (again EFT vet based). You pay this either by funding projects or as general contribution. In this way a practice can steer its contribution to some facility they want, of if they cannot see a specific, then as general contribution.
What concerns me about the above approach is that we have put a lot of work in automating the subscription purchase/renewal system and the last thing we need is a development funding mechanism that requires significant manual work to calculate what a practice should pay. In the regards, the simplest approach would be to just increase the subscription charge.
c) I have much sympathy for the 'system stops/really nags' if your subscription has expired for more than x months, or if no subscription, more than x months after the date of the first invoice. 'really nags' could be as intrusive as every time you finalise an invoice you get a 'You do not have a current subscription' message.
Regards, Tim G
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Hi,
Sorry, I tried to hold myself back, really.
a) Fair enough. But then as we have seen the funding model is not working as people are not putting money into projects they actually want to see developed and love when they have!
b) I would submit $500 is a small price no matter what the practice size. Compared to the computer the person is using the software on this, as is the subscription fee, is functionally not a large cost in any vet clinic size I can envisage. Most users are in Australia, USA and Canada. Even a 1 man traveling vet should be able to absorb this cost for what is as necessary part of running a vet practice as your stethascope!. I am just as a agreeable to push the subscription cost up... as long as this is PAID!
Your suggestion of a Development Contribution Fee is a good one. The DCF (see, it already has a snappy acronym!) as you describe (where people select where it goes) is good in that it retains the "spirit" of people contributing to what they want to and driving the development process. But at least they are contributing and development can actually take place....
c) We will have achieved our aim as long as any system nag is severe enough that the software becomes more irritating and harder to use than it is to just log on and pay the subscription! My issue with the invoice screen nag is that the person paying the subscription (owner/practice manager) is not often going to be the person finalising the invoice! So not hitting the person who matters!
I guess my question as well is.... So, we have a few people suggesting changes to how the model is funded. How does this progress from being a "me too" session where we all bemoan the system to actual decisions and change?
Adrian
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion. As the voluntary administrator who gets to look the finances of OpenVPMS in the eye week in/week out I have been nevertheless been reluctant to raise the issue of funding for fear of being accused of some sort of self-interest as I also have to care for the practitioners who provided the (substantial) seed-funding for the OpenVPMS project.
I think a lot of relevant issues have been raised and the important ones for me are:
The disappointment of seeing members of our profession baulk at paying an annual fee that is less than they would pay their drug wholesaler for one day's supply for a brilliant piece of clinic management software that is pivotal to their enterprise's day-to-day operation. It was for this reason that we developed the gentle reminder process of having to get an annual "key" to eliminate the subscription pop-up. Would it be getting too far away from our original charter to make the key utility a more aggressive process with a lock-out provision? Note that the $250/fte/yr subscription model was set 10 years ago so this may have to be updated as well.
The poor level of support by the user community for features that will benefit many of us. Perhaps we will have to include a funding levy into the annual fee as you all suggest. Initially I thought that such a levy would kill off the voluntary funding ethos that has driven our development so far but I sense that those 5% of active contributors would welcome the change.
The observation that this thread will only be read by a small proportion of the user community. This is not a criticism of the user community, in fact it might very well be interpreted as a gong for OpenVPMS as they are happy consumers of our product however we need to get these messages out to the community as a whole to keep everyone aware of these conversations. It looks as though I will have to generate another newsletter to put out a summary of this discussion.....
The funding model has been discussed and I am inclined to lean towards Tim G's model of funding - that the funding support be proportional to the size of the clinic as there are definitely some start-up clinics who might feel the cost disproportionately. In very rough terms the average subscriber clinic is around 2 FTE's so we could budget for our needs and set the levy on this basis. The first matter is to rank the "seeking funding" projects to see that there is merit in proceeding with all or just some of them as I don't think it would be right for us to be accumulating funds that aren't likely to be used in the year that they are received. So will we try to strike an average annual levy that will clear the development list over a couple of years as well as cover new needs as they are proposed or will we have to set the funding level each year to match our needs? What about charging the levy from the second year of subscription to allow start-ups to find their feet?
If all of you following this thread agree with this principle then once we have sorted some of the details I will put together a proposal that will eventually go out to all registered users as a newsletter.
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
I agree that the present funding model needs some tweaking that provides a means to update the program on a regular annual basis. In addition, I particularly object to users being able to use OpenVPMS without having paid the subscription, and I strongly implore a means by which non payers are locked out after 1 month of use. In a totally demographic world, development would be funded, as finances within the community allow, by a vote by subscribers to rank their priorities. But I believe the annual subscription should include a development levy.
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Thanks Peter for putting together a member survey for this! Hopefully you can get a good response rate.
Kind regards,
Anthony (ActiVet)
Kind regards,
Anthony (ActiVet)
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Hi Tony.
I totally agree with much of your sentiment. I think the funding program struggles for a number of reasons. I am only drawn to the website when I have a problem like the one I will try and post later. Secondly, WHY would I want to donate to this project....
1. Overview
This project will add support for HL7 general order messages.
It will enable OpenVPMS to:
Orders will be submitted whenever an investigation is created that has an investigation type that specifies:
I have no idea what is being discussed here. This needs to be explained in vet-people speak and not computer-jargon-people speak.
I agree with the model of increasing the costs on a FTE basis. But overall, I flicked down the list of projects and am clueless about their value to our practice. There seems to be an obsession with SMS reminders, when the research I presented at the AVA conference shows that clients want email reminders and therefore I have NO interest in that concept, so why would I support that.
Fuel, fire....I hope not, but...
G
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Good discussion.
I agree with Garry - I thought I was reasonably IT savvy - till I started reading some of the contributions here. I am trying to participate, and trying to help with suggestions etc and yes it is partially out of self-interest but I am also aware that there are reasons I hesitate to recommend OVPMS to colleagues and ongoing improvements will help the product's appeal to a larger section of the veterinary community. For example, the reporting is still too complicated and limiting for the average veterinary user.
And this leads me to another point. Most of us are quite good veterinarians, average IT users and terrible programmers. Most of us want to buy a program, and use it. Most of us like OVPMS because it is cheap, stable and it does what we need it to do. Please do not mess with that basic strengths of the program. I suspect many don't contribute because they are happy with what they have and have little or no interest in developing it further. I wonder how many vets still have an earlier version running?
I do think though that many would happily contribute to ongoing development - especially if there were some affordable "one-click" options offered to them. I don't really care what it is based on, but somewhere around $500 a year would be very affordable and a nice place to start as the "recommended entry-level DFC". Before we start labeling people as free-loaders, I think it would be better investing some time in creating some creative ways to encourage more voluntary contributions.
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Turramurra Vet has contributed to various projects over the years and are happy to pay more annually. It is amazing that there has not been a price increase for years, even to allow for inflation.
I have not problem with lockable software if that is what it takes to make users pay.
Re Tony's comment about "This is a Trial version" appearing if subscription not up to date - this seems to happen to us even though our subs are up to date - have we done something wrong in set up ?
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
You should have received a subscription key when you paid your subscription.
The "This is a trial version" message will be replaced with the subscription details when you upload the key via the Subscription tab on the Practice.
If you don't have a subscription key, see http://www.openvpms.org/documentation/csh/1.8/topics/installing-openvpms... for instructions on getting a new one sent out.
Regards,
-Tim
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
I am a bit mystified that we have never been told we should have a subscription key over 8 years despite being up to date with subs the whole time (as far as I am aware). I found out via forums virtually by a fluke ! Have I been missing something ?
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
While I will admit the historical manual process of key generation after recieving a payment might have had a few glitches to be fair: if you didnt have a sub key EVERY single time you login to OpenVPMS the bottom of the login page contains your subscription information.
It would display either:
It has always been the case that we have relied on user honesty to pay subs rather than using any sort of software lock to prevent access if they havent. That being said the new key generation process should ensure that you receive your key almost instantly if paid via paypal.
So hopefully this will no longer be an issue.
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Jim - OpenVPMS version 1.5 and prior did not use a subscription key. From 1.6 onwards the code checks to see whether you have a valid key - if not there is a small nag message at the bottom of the login screen.
Regards, Tim G
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Goodness me!
I do agree with Gary and Paul in that I do struggle with the technicalities of some of the comments about Open - there is so much on the Forum that goes over my head. I can understand the reluctance to pay for something that you do not understand or need.... Reminders are tricky - people want different things - some mail, some email and some sms - so it is important that OPEN can deliver all options for us then to be able to cater to the individual. I suppose we need to see OPEn as a package then it is up to the individual clinic to use what we want - whether it be SMS or emails ..
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
A retraction of sorts.
I have been working off site with Tim G on my comments regarding reporting. Firstly, what an amazing resource Tim G is! He clearly has the sort of benevolent attitude that we could all learn a bit from. And he is bilingual! (he speaks IT AND English!)
But the real point of this is that as yet we have not moved across to 1.8, and my goodness I am very keen to get cracking as Tim has been giving me a personal guided tour of the best bits - and I am very pleasantly surprised at the significant improvements to reporting in the new edition. Well done on all those involved, and thank you for the patience and persistence of those who speak IT as you tolerate the amateurish blunderings of the rest of us who do not.
Jim's post above also makes me wonder if anyone knows how many Open users there are, and more importantly, how many of them are running 1.8? I think we may all be very surprised to know how many are happy with the first incarnation of Open (whatever they loaded initially) and have not bothered to update. Perhaps it may be worth putting in some time trying to get them to update and remain current so at least they can be kept as part of the community and shown the value of ongoing development (and contributing something financially towards it)
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
I just don't understand why someone hasn't taken the bull by the horns and offered a red-hot add on service of integrating the hell out of OpenVPMS.
I wasted 2 hours trying to implement something which someone who knows what they are doing, could apply considerable knowledge and a small amount of time to do for me. And I am sure the fee would be acceptable. But I don't see service providers banging the door down to sell themselves.
I think that is what we need.
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
I would also like the kind of service Garry describes and would pay
Re: Supporting OpenVPMS Projects
Sorry that previous post is mine, Cath was logged in from my work computer when here for support.
As stated I am not computer literate and would like someone to offer training in new features and implementation. Cath and Vertical Connect do this very well. One thing I would like would be webinars.