The question should not read "Should a vendor's newly announced customer be required to attest that they hold no financial interest in the company?" but rather "Should a vendor's newly announced customer be required to *disclose* they hold a financial interest in the company?" I answered "no" to the original question, as I think it perfectly ok to own an interest in a company that you recommend if you fully disclose that prior to making the decision and/or recuse yourself from the decision if there's a sense that this alone is driving your or the company's decision. What if the company was Microsoft and the decision was an enterprise license of their Office product or SQL Server use in your data center? Would you have to sell all your Microsoft stock to make that decision? Same question about owning Apple and then making a decision to standardize on iPhone/iPad/Macbook as a corporate mobile computing/smart phone standard. Where does the exceptions end? Isn't why one buys a product and/or their stock interrelated? Who buys stock in a company whose product is inferior or they wouldn't want to use at their own company?
AC - 7 years ago
Not a well constructed poll in my opinion. First it should have an option other than Yes/No. Second, it should make clear whether any of the entities are public, non-profit, and/or taking any public money. My answer would certainly change depending on the conditions. For example, if they're both private with no public money involved, I don't care so I'll say no. If there is public money or investors involved, my answer would probably change to Yes. Also, not sure to whom they would attest.
Furydelabongo - 7 years ago
Seems reasonable and helpful. Most important to me are arrangements where the vendor and customer have co-development agreements versus those that are straight equity. If Vendor A wants to integrate intellectual property (Decision support, Care Maps, etc.) from Medical Center B that tells me the direction that portion of the application will be taking.
Sure why not? Now let's see how we can implement this new rule?
Provider buys vendor system. Attestation police visit provider. Police interrogate CIO for three hours, threaten to take away his IPhone 10, and erase all his LinkedIn and Twitter accounts. If he is caught lying he must convert back to an old McAuto or SMS system (his choice)!
The question should not read "Should a vendor's newly announced customer be required to attest that they hold no financial interest in the company?" but rather "Should a vendor's newly announced customer be required to *disclose* they hold a financial interest in the company?" I answered "no" to the original question, as I think it perfectly ok to own an interest in a company that you recommend if you fully disclose that prior to making the decision and/or recuse yourself from the decision if there's a sense that this alone is driving your or the company's decision. What if the company was Microsoft and the decision was an enterprise license of their Office product or SQL Server use in your data center? Would you have to sell all your Microsoft stock to make that decision? Same question about owning Apple and then making a decision to standardize on iPhone/iPad/Macbook as a corporate mobile computing/smart phone standard. Where does the exceptions end? Isn't why one buys a product and/or their stock interrelated? Who buys stock in a company whose product is inferior or they wouldn't want to use at their own company?
Not a well constructed poll in my opinion. First it should have an option other than Yes/No. Second, it should make clear whether any of the entities are public, non-profit, and/or taking any public money. My answer would certainly change depending on the conditions. For example, if they're both private with no public money involved, I don't care so I'll say no. If there is public money or investors involved, my answer would probably change to Yes. Also, not sure to whom they would attest.
Seems reasonable and helpful. Most important to me are arrangements where the vendor and customer have co-development agreements versus those that are straight equity. If Vendor A wants to integrate intellectual property (Decision support, Care Maps, etc.) from Medical Center B that tells me the direction that portion of the application will be taking.
Sure why not? Now let's see how we can implement this new rule?
Provider buys vendor system. Attestation police visit provider. Police interrogate CIO for three hours, threaten to take away his IPhone 10, and erase all his LinkedIn and Twitter accounts. If he is caught lying he must convert back to an old McAuto or SMS system (his choice)!
Now that should get and hold their attention!