Organizations always want “the most bang for the buck” to maximize available dollars for a particular item and/or project. So, they solicit bids. This seems like a responsible way to prove to the financial stakeholders that their interests are being well served. But is this really true?
If you build a home, do you solicit bids and then simply award the work to the lowest bidder? It may seem like a good idea in the short term, but what about a few years from now? To keep bids low;
Of course we don’t want to overpay and award work to the highest bidder, so what do we really want? Aren't we really looking for the best value for our dollar giving us the lowest long term cost of ownership? This means the work is done to a quality standard so that repairs are down the road and the functionality is well above average. But how do we determine the best value and lowest long term cost of ownership?
How does this apply to IMS? Let’s take mobile computing carts as an example. If the purchase of mobile computing carts goes out for bid, often the cart with the lowest purchase price is selected. In a true market economy, this translates to lower quality. Nevermind the so-called intangible or soft dollar components that add value to the device and tangibly increase the life span along with improving the end user’s experience.
Innovative Medical Systems has always intended to bring the most long term value to customers. For mobile computing carts/WOWs/workstations on wheels, this means IMS has always provided:
Additionally, management software is available to proactively identify potential problems, troubleshoot remotely, and accurately understand usage to identify under and over-utilized assets to replace items when they actually need it rather than based only on age. In other words, a tool to provide objective data to maximize the usefulness of the fleet.
The low bid product looks good for the current budget but is it really the best decision for the long term?