<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How I&#8217;m planning to package user services</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dbms2.com/2010/07/14/how-im-planning-to-package-user-services/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2010/07/14/how-im-planning-to-package-user-services/</link>
	<description>Choices in data management and analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:57:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Curt Monash</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2010/07/14/how-im-planning-to-package-user-services/#comment-215279</link>
		<dc:creator>Curt Monash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:56:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/?p=2543#comment-215279</guid>
		<description>For vendors, I do not meter time, for reasons akin to those you stated. And it works well. We have 20+ subscription customers to http://www.monash.com/advantage.html, minimum price $10K/year. 

But it&#039;s not obvious to me that most users WANT retainer-style services. For one thing, the benefit seems to occur more in well-attended &quot;let&#039;s get on the same page&quot; meetings (commonly on the phone) than in 1-on-1 conversations. At least, it would if I did I better job of explaining how people should do the self-assessment to understand their own issues ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For vendors, I do not meter time, for reasons akin to those you stated. And it works well. We have 20+ subscription customers to <a href="http://www.monash.com/advantage.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.monash.com/advantage.html</a>, minimum price $10K/year. </p>
<p>But it&#8217;s not obvious to me that most users WANT retainer-style services. For one thing, the benefit seems to occur more in well-attended &#8220;let&#8217;s get on the same page&#8221; meetings (commonly on the phone) than in 1-on-1 conversations. At least, it would if I did I better job of explaining how people should do the self-assessment to understand their own issues &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josephmartins</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2010/07/14/how-im-planning-to-package-user-services/#comment-215253</link>
		<dc:creator>josephmartins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:26:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/?p=2543#comment-215253</guid>
		<description>Perhaps we&#039;re thinking along the same lines. We  only engage in well-defined projects, lest we begin to conduct ourselves like attorneys and nickel and dime clients with every call, email and request. 

For example, a conversation that happens to occur during a planned briefing, or the occasional brief inquiry, is never &quot;on the meter&quot;.  In contrast, a scheduled two hour engagement for the purpose of discussing go-to-market is covered by the retainer. If it exceeds the allotted time slightly we don&#039;t care. There&#039;s no running meter. 

Over the years our clients have expressed how easy it is to engage us. We&#039;re always open to the adoption of a better model, but we haven&#039;t found one yet.

Regarding services for users, I see nothing wrong with a &quot;rent me for X hours&quot; approach. Their projects tend to be significantly more involved than a typical vendor engagement and not as well-defined. Frankly, given our limited bandwidth, we avoid the poorly-defined or potentially lengthy (month plus) open-ended end user projects.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps we&#8217;re thinking along the same lines. We  only engage in well-defined projects, lest we begin to conduct ourselves like attorneys and nickel and dime clients with every call, email and request. </p>
<p>For example, a conversation that happens to occur during a planned briefing, or the occasional brief inquiry, is never &#8220;on the meter&#8221;.  In contrast, a scheduled two hour engagement for the purpose of discussing go-to-market is covered by the retainer. If it exceeds the allotted time slightly we don&#8217;t care. There&#8217;s no running meter. </p>
<p>Over the years our clients have expressed how easy it is to engage us. We&#8217;re always open to the adoption of a better model, but we haven&#8217;t found one yet.</p>
<p>Regarding services for users, I see nothing wrong with a &#8220;rent me for X hours&#8221; approach. Their projects tend to be significantly more involved than a typical vendor engagement and not as well-defined. Frankly, given our limited bandwidth, we avoid the poorly-defined or potentially lengthy (month plus) open-ended end user projects.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Curt Monash</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2010/07/14/how-im-planning-to-package-user-services/#comment-215153</link>
		<dc:creator>Curt Monash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:25:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/?p=2543#comment-215153</guid>
		<description>Thanks!

I am indeed looking to simplify. The problem is that I like to be both simple AND unmetered, and there&#039;s a certain conflict between the two.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>I am indeed looking to simplify. The problem is that I like to be both simple AND unmetered, and there&#8217;s a certain conflict between the two.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josephmartins</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2010/07/14/how-im-planning-to-package-user-services/#comment-215145</link>
		<dc:creator>josephmartins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:22:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/?p=2543#comment-215145</guid>
		<description>Correction...8 hour blocks (not 4). I didn&#039;t pick up on the error until after I submitted the comment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correction&#8230;8 hour blocks (not 4). I didn&#8217;t pick up on the error until after I submitted the comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josephmartins</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2010/07/14/how-im-planning-to-package-user-services/#comment-215143</link>
		<dc:creator>josephmartins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/?p=2543#comment-215143</guid>
		<description>This just seems more complicated than it needs to be. 

If your minimum project size is 2 service units and the price per unit is $5k, you can simplify your offering by providing a base retainer package for $10k. After all, that&#039;s what you&#039;re telling them. 

The time can be applied toward X, Y and Z. Additional units are available for $5k each. Though it is unclear exactly how many hours of your time are included in an individual unit. 

This is virtually identical to the way we&#039;ve been doing business since we started in 2002. We offer $4k &quot;4 hour blocks of time&quot; that can be applied toward any type of project, and a $6K starter package. Large companies buy several blocks in advance in anticipation of doing business throughout the year (similar to having a subscription/retainer), while smaller companies and those who prefer to do business on a project-by-project basis purchase blocks of time on an as-needed basis. If a project increases in scope, they engage us for additional blocks of time.

Clean, simple, easy to understand and it has served us well for nearly a decade.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This just seems more complicated than it needs to be. </p>
<p>If your minimum project size is 2 service units and the price per unit is $5k, you can simplify your offering by providing a base retainer package for $10k. After all, that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re telling them. </p>
<p>The time can be applied toward X, Y and Z. Additional units are available for $5k each. Though it is unclear exactly how many hours of your time are included in an individual unit. </p>
<p>This is virtually identical to the way we&#8217;ve been doing business since we started in 2002. We offer $4k &#8220;4 hour blocks of time&#8221; that can be applied toward any type of project, and a $6K starter package. Large companies buy several blocks in advance in anticipation of doing business throughout the year (similar to having a subscription/retainer), while smaller companies and those who prefer to do business on a project-by-project basis purchase blocks of time on an as-needed basis. If a project increases in scope, they engage us for additional blocks of time.</p>
<p>Clean, simple, easy to understand and it has served us well for nearly a decade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: So what is an analyst anyway? &#124; Strategic Messaging</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2010/07/14/how-im-planning-to-package-user-services/#comment-177584</link>
		<dc:creator>So what is an analyst anyway? &#124; Strategic Messaging</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 04:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/?p=2543#comment-177584</guid>
		<description>[...] out how to offer quasi-subscription retainer vendor services even so, but find it easier to sell user services on a project [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] out how to offer quasi-subscription retainer vendor services even so, but find it easier to sell user services on a project [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

