not sure all i got was that the original firm will not return any calls or letters from either the department. we are suppose to quote "fixing" it and the sad part is that due to budget issues and the fact that they spent all of there grant money on this system it is currently looking like the cheapest route will be to remove all the crestron gear. as in order to reprogram you would first need wiring diagrams for each room to be developed as they have no paperwork on the system. and from my brief look last night no two rooms are wired the same way.

they love the way it works, and the fact that any faculty member can operate it, but can't even make simple changes even for a fee.

i think part of it has to do with the fact that there was no "technology consultant" brought in and what the teaching faculty asked for was not conveyed correctly in the bid form and what they got is not what they need.

ie they have a simulation room with 5 stations that they need to be able to remotly monitor and record audio from each station. what they got is an 8 chan dvr with one viewing monitor and 2 general mics. the zoom level is no where near what they need for detail and they needed a mic for each station with seperate recording ability of each stations video / audio

or there main conference room where there is a flip up crestron screen and inputs in the middle of the table and a rackmounted pc / amp / mic / dvd. in order to play the rack mounted pc which they use most often, they have to run a cable from the rack to the center of the table, no wall input. So i said that's an easy fix couple hundred bucks for a wall plate and a cable, oh no we have to reprogram crestron to have the second input as an option

That is a world of pretend.. Where did Alan ever say the first job was T&M? Programming these systems is rarely 20hrs. The typical scenario is that you estimate that the programming of the job will take 65 hours. The usual outcome is that the programming takes twice as long due to issues with equipment, installation, clients whims of asking for minor changes and so on. As Alan said the client rarely ever pays for the actual time that has been put into the programming of their system.


Now you are throwing in the quoted price thing when it would have been a quoted price on the first job, however that wouldn't support your argument so that is inconvenient so we will just imagine that it is the case anyway.


The reality is that I do base my AMX quotes on past projects I have done to get a feel for the amount of time I expect yet on almost every job I get screwed by something like Xperinet or the flaky network the installing company has installed and end up eating hours of time dealing with crap.

I'm tired of people saying that my programming that I have developed over the years that allows me to provide a very reasonable price to the people I program for is worth nothing and that every ass hat competitor that can't program anything other than an IR controlled device should have access to my code at anyone's whim. I provide a high level of service and continue to progress my programming knowledge, skill and proficiency on a monthly basis. Each time I use my own modules I make them even better than the last which allows me to produce a consistent product in an extremely timely manner. It is not fair to me to have some guy fresh out of training with a company that has just picked up AMX walk into an existing home that someone has just purchased and have access to what is unarguably my intellectual property.

All of that being said, so far I have made my code available to the clients that ask for it, so far the only people that have asked for the code are the systems that I have reprogrammed because the previous company never got the system working in the first place and is now out of business.

That also being said I have been back to 2 of the 4 people that have asked for a disc to make updates and when I ask them for the disc so I can write the updated files to it they can't remember what they did to it..


All of my programs have a large statement in the header of the code stating that the code is to only be used between myself and the address where the system is installed. Hopefully in the future if I do have an issue with someone else getting a hold of my code one way or another I have a legal avenue to persue..

That right there is probably the issue, no one on the client side knew how to tell the installer what they wanted. No one knew what to look for before the installing company fished the job. The client was probably a nightmare client, there are probably a ton of issues and interactions that were left out of what they told you, The installation company may not have been paid all that they were due..

Unless you were there you really have no way of knowing what really transpired.

That being said, the installation company could just be a bunch of money grubbing idiots that have no morals and will not support their own installations.. After all the consumer is allways right.

Alan, all you are saying here is that there is something terribly wrong with the business model of ultra-customized home systems.

Unless an integrator is completely forthright, how can you really blame a client for not understanding the intricacies of a custom job? How can you blame them for thinking YOU will foot the bill to troubleshoot a system when the TV starts blanking out -- after all, you're the one that installed their $150k system.

I can educate a few, but the burden is on the integrator to set the rules and the expectations -- before a deal is signed. You can complain all day about losing money on custom jobs but in the end it's the dealer's responsibility to educate the customer and create a process that allows your company to make a profit.

I always advise -- and will continue to advise -- that the lowest bid won't necessarily come out to be the cheapest after considering extra charges for x, y and z, which are inevitable. So, ask the dealer what the procedure is if you need changes to this or that.

And what are you bitching about anyway? I believe the consensus here is yours: make code available in escrow for certain conditions and available for purchase for others.

I am bitching about the continued misapprehension that the client has purchased the code just becuase there is a line item called programming. I am bitching about the fact that few residiential clients understand the time it takes to do this work and balk when a real line item for the real costs are placed in the budget.

In commercial there is a programming line item and it more closely reflects the costs of programming. But in residential there is not. The public needs to be educated.

Alan

Alan,

I've read your responses to myself and others on this. In my opinion, they lack logic. The logic they lack is this: You say the market won't allow you to pass the full cost of programming to customers, as prices for equipment have declined. Therfore in your "logic" customers should be happy if they get a working system, and never run into the need for the code. If things fail, they need to realize they just paid the true cost. (I can't even type that without shaking my head in disbelief.)

What you have, if what you say is true, is a failed business model. If you can't get what your skills are "worth", then go apply them elsewhere. This is a free market economy. There is no requirement that you perform any specific job.

Personally, my guess is that like many professions, that the value per hour, for the skills discussed is being over-estimated. Customers pay for the benefit they get. If the majority of the market will do the job for half of what you will, you can argue you are worth twice as much, but it is only an argument, as the market decides value.

It's been pointed out to me so many times in this forum, that "Pro's" don't want to provide line item quotes, so in effect customers don't know what the cost of line items are. So the true value to customers is hidden in what you pay for the equipment, as opposed to what a big box retailer turning 1000's of units would pay, your time to wire, program, and troubleshoot. So now you want to complain that they undervalue your programming. Yet, you won't accurately bill them for this, and attempt to share the true cost/value with them.

Seems the choice is clear. Let the values stand on their own, by pricing "all items" accurately for customers. Let them go buy TV's elsewhere if they can get them cheaper. Why should you care? (And don't give me the "What if it breaks?" argument, we all know the solution is to tell them up front that a line item to install is present. Another item to remove and reinstall is required if what they bought if faulty.) Per your own and others admissions here, the margin's on them are paper thin, as you're not buying 1000's at a time. Then you price your other tasks at their real value, and can determine if there is money in this industry, or it is time to look elsewhere to apply your programming talents.

Every day I'm pushed to do my job cheaper and better. Equipment to produce semiconductors is priced in the millions of dollars, yet an IC that contains a microcontroller and an arsenal of A/D and D/A converters may sell for only $1 in the millions per year. If this industry doesn't think it is making enough money, we should be ready to go and start making injection molded light switches. This is the way of capitalism. It's a tough road, but I think it works if given a chance.

Perhaps you are undertaking a "ponzi scheme". Note those are your words, not mine. The inability to account for the true cost of doing business would be your problem, not your customers.

I still believe Julie's arguments are the ones that "ring-true". They address real issues, and attempt to achieve some level of protection for customers. No customer knowledgeable about what can happen will argue that they don't want access to the code. In real life, S%#& Happens! CI's go bankrupt, they move, they change jobs, fires occur, hard drives crash. These things are real. This is the reality I think customers need to protect themselves from.

Damn, Julie, you're a good writer!

Everybody else: a bit touchy, aren't we?

In reference to the time it takes to do a job and how that relates to repeat jobs: I do not believe that the first client to have something programmed will every pay what it took to program it. And if the SAME system is done again, the charge to that client will be higher than what it took to do it the second time by basically copying. This is correct. Maybe if the programmer does ten identical systems, those later systems, with lower cost for only some parts, but prices as high as the first one, will end up paying the programmer. As Alan implies, though, probably not.

That said, it's truly sad how seldom it is that different systems resemble one another. The client also needs to be educated to the fact that EVERY system is unique. We've tried a few times to develop today's cookie-cutter system and the client never goes for it.

It's always something.

Then stop bitching and bill for it. If you don't you are the issue not the client. If you don't feel you can bill for it then your going to need to evaluate your business model and billing/programming practices. This has nothing to with the client. If I make a module I damm will be using it over and over and over. The first client may take some but not all of my R&D but that is my decision and I know I will make it up in longer run. Also I don't create new stuff on a daily basis and do share with others in my staff. If We can get jobs done quicker and do more of them then why not... Like I said business model.

All of the things Alan stated are facts on just about every large project.
The biggest fact is that if presented with the real costs the client would balk.
That tells me these systems are better suited for the commercial market. Untill reliable modules and equipment are being used in residential systems, labour and programming charges are mearly a number to hopfully recoup some of the costs.
With lower margins of the equipment it really looks like a loosing business model.

Of course thats not true.

If Alan is out there troubleshooting issues that are wire related then someone (not the client) is wasting his time. My tech's have drawings, these outline every detail of how I expect everything to be connected. They MUST also test systems once connected to ensure they work. All networking issues must be resolved (Escient or other items that need an IP etc).
That way the programmer can come in with the bulk of his work done ahead of time and in the perfect world he should only have to work on smaller issues that may come up. There are always other things, but if the back end (installation) was done to your companies specification these other things should be minimal. Not adding 5 more unpaid days onto your programming time.
Equipment should be staged ahead of time, this way you don't find out on site about Sony and any HDMI issues. Not always easy to do, and once again, technical crew should be the ones finding these problems not the $150 hr programmer.

I have spent hours trying to make a multi video system work only to find that the techs' didn't test their custom made cables. And of course it was the first monitor I was working on so I end up spending too long looking at the RS232 codes and ports this or that, checking for Null ect, only in the end to find out it was their cables that were bad. Never again... they come back on their own time to fix stupid issues like this, so now they know, test test test.

This thread keeps going into other aspects of large projects, and I think the main topic was answered a long time ago. If an article is going to be written about being an informed consumer when it comes to programmed automated systems, it should also remind clients to find a dealer they feel very comfortable with, as the dealer or CI will be in their home long after all other trades have left. Plus something about how to be a good customer of a CI firm, it goes both ways.

Alan,

I won't weigh in on the who-owns-what software argument here, but after reading several of your posts it's clear that you need to modify your business model and accounting methods.

You need to be paid for everything you do - all of it - or you will go out of business.

The time that you spent, in the past, building modules and designing GUIs etc. needs to be part of your Overhead Costs. You then can break this figure down into the number of hours you bill for an entire year, divide it out, and add it to your labor rate. Just like you should be doing for all of your Overhead Costs.

The time you spend programming an individual client's system becomes a line item cost (either hidden or visible to the client - your decision) for that individual proposal.

If you've ever been billed by an attorney, you may have seen line item costs for making copies on a fax machine or for the postage for mail the attorney sent.

It's also why, if you're in the hospital, the final bill may have a line item for, say, Tylenol - at $25 a tablet! That pricing helps cover the hospitals costs of caring for the uninsured.

You are not hearing what Alan has said.

Oh! I have been following Alan and this whole debate for many many many years..

I quoted the above only to let you know I got your joke. :)

I never programmed code Alan, so maybe my opinion doesn't mean anything. All I can say is, as my skills and experience progressed two things happened. I could do my job better, and faster. This would obviously mean I would lose labour $$$ on any job I took on, however with my increased abilities my wage also grew.

If you feel your skills and/or time are not being compensated, I will have to agree with others here that your business model has failed. Either adjust what how you bill, or come to terms that maybe what you do isn't worth what you think it is. For it simply doesn't matter if you feel a project is worth X if you can only get paid the amount of Y.

If you can't wrap your head around the concept of hypothetical situation for sake of discussion, I will not waste my time debating with you. I had enough of your apparent kind in my last attempt at conversation in the Harmony forum.

Any one ever deal with a commercial network with multiple Vlans? Rare is it that these are not being installed at the same time I'm installing my system. Rare is it that I don't lose considerable time to making that network work, even if there is a professional IT involved. These networks are complicated to set up.

In so far as the business model is concerned I agree. But since we are not selling equipment priced at 1 dollar or 10 dollars per unit we have to deal with sticker shock.
Moreover, this business model has been grafted on to an older "salon" business model and as control systems became the sole remaining profit center it has continued. The great audiophile salons saw custom installation as an other form of box moving.

It is not that I cannot charge my hourly rate it is that I cannot bill for the real time it takes to install and program a system, unless I am willing to lower the cost of other parts of the proposal. I am not writing anything anyone else in this industry does not know. Since you are not in the industry you deductively reason that it cannot be accurate. As in the case where you called the rationalist philosopher Descartes an existentialist you are unfortunately wrong here. I am charging what the market will bare and I am funding the job out of the entire job, not merely a single line item. I am continuing to function on a net profitability of 12 per cent which is typical of most small businesses. The client does not pay for the software but for the job. Rare is it that labor and programming costs are accurately reflected in a contract. Since the client has not paid for the software but for the job to be completed he ought not to get said software without paying for it. The client has not paid for the software. He has not paid for the installation. He has paid for the entire job as a whole, including wire, materials, equipment, engineering, project management, documentation, labor and programming. I make my profit from the entire job. Labor, from which programming is a part, is a loss leader. The point is that becuase it is not paid for directly the client has no intrinsic right to its ownership but a right to use it on the job I installed for him

I don't wish to derail this thread any more with side issues such as managerial professionalism but the fact is most of us in this industry are not MBAs and cannot afford to add professional management to our business model. I do not have the control that lots of other businesses have nor do I have the budgets. The equipment we install requires more sophisticated data networks but we, unlike business, do not always get to dictate all functional requirements or have full time staff on site.

I am sorry you don't see it but it doesn't make it less true. I have salespukes who do not know how many serial ports are contained on the processors they sell. They do not know and I suspect they are proud of not knowing that a Graphik Eye requires a switch leg to have its neutral in that electrical box. I have customers who have no clue what it takes to install these systems but they have finite budget limitations.

My choice is to leave the business and that is not an acceptable choice. So I, as does every CI funds under funded aspects of a job from equipment sales. And if a client continues not to pay for my service calls I don't make any more calls. But you'd tell me I am holding the code hostage.

What does happen on occasion is that a CI firm will send the client a bill for 100k in labor and programming. It then gets negotiated down to 5 or 10 cents on the dollar. Commercial and residential jobs are very different. Corporate jobs have budgets but they are still other people's money. Perhaps you have paid attention to the recent news about Citibank and its expenditures, bonuses and executive compensation. But once you work in residential you are being paid with after tax dollars and there is no consultant to persuade the client that programming is a crucial line item that really does have the cost contained in the proposal. Don't take this to mean that commercial jobs do not have their own issues or that consultants are a great innovation.

You may wish to half my hourly rate but the rate is specified. You have never heard a client say " if I have to pay 21,000 for programming then I don't want the system."

Do I want to lose a sale or find a way to pay for that time in other ways?

I am not suggesting there are no competing economic pressures from other businesses. I am suggesting that I do not have an economy of scale. I am suggesting that selling big ticket issues places a limitation on what I can charge, irrespective of the profitability of that item. I am suggesting that the CI business is indeed predicated upon a business model that is no longer valid. These issues come to view most critically on mid to large jobs, where installation time is at a premium, but they are present on every job. If my contact says clearly that I am responsible only to program and install the items enumerated in the contract I will have a fight with the client about not installing or programming displays they bought which are not present in the contract. I will either have to chose to install them without cost, negotiate some reduced rate, or forgo my final payment. I cannot resort to the courts as a. I am a corporation and can be a pro see litigant, the matter is too large for small claims and to small for a lawyer.

Again, you bring up smoking guns that have no relation to reality. If you are in jail or about to get a divorce you have little choice but to pay a lawyer his retainer. There is always someone who will do the job cheaper and there is never the fear or time factor to alter the power relationship. Not till we get to an argument about the code does the balance of power shift ever so slightly. You are correct to shake your head but it doesn't change the business realities nor the fact that the contractual price for labor and programming never reflect the full costs of what it takes.

If I let you purchase it I still have to control it I am in purgatory. I am aware of it. Others in this board have said as much. You don't know. You cannot believe. You call it illogical but, pray, please point out where I have been illogical. You cannot believe that the business model is irrational. Fine. But the fact is this is the business model and the client does not pay directly for the labor and installation of just about any system installed does not suggest that this is not the underlying business model of just about every firm.

I am for education and sunlight finding its way to all matters. But if Julie is going to add this fear to all of the others she might also do the CI ( and client ) a favor an illuminate this unreal reality. Clients never pay in full for the labor and programing it takes to install their job. They pay for a part of it and the rest comes out of profit on other parts of the job.

Alan