bunny slippers – Page 6 – Cooper Mann Consulting

March 10, 2015

EMV and Retail – Your Trusted Advisor Should Be Advising You about This

EMVChipCard There is ‘big change a comin’ for retailers, merchants and any business that accepts credit cards for payments, and there are a great many businesses that are completely unprepared for it. The change, what is being referred to as the “Payment Networks’ Liability Shift”, goes in to effect in October 2015 and places the burden of liability for fraud squarely on the shoulders of the merchants and card issuers who are not compliant with certain payment system security standards. Accounting professionals and Trusted Advisors – here’s one of those things you should be helping your clients with. Help them get informed, trained, and prepared. Help them to understand the risk and decide on a course of action. This is part of what makes a trusted advisor: they got your back.

The way things generally work in the US today, a fraudulent charge on a credit card is likely to end up being covered by the credit card company (the issuer). Starting in October, retailers are supposed to be able to accept payment cards with EMV chips (named for the founders of the standard: Europay, MasterCard and Visa), and must process those cards using the compliant technology that takes advantage of what the chip processing and security offers. If these conditions aren’t met – like having a POS or payment terminal not capable of reading the EMV chip – the merchant is on the hook for the fraudulent transaction. Given the volume of credit card and payments fraud in the country you’d think that most merchants would already be ready for this, but replacing all the POS and terminal equipment could be pretty costly. It may take a bit of analysis to understand the real risk and compare that to the cost of compliance. Certainly it makes sense to always be in compliance, but there are always factors which influence how quickly (or how completely) compliance may be met.

The liability shift is part of the influence being leveraged to get businesses to adopt newer and more secure models of electronic payment acceptance and processing. It is simply the case that the magnetic strip on a credit card isn’t good enough any longer. The new EMV Chip reading payment terminals require that the card be inserted and processed by the terminal rather than simply swiping the magstrip across a reader. Over 40 years of using the magstrip approach has helped to earn the United States a top spot on the leaderboard for credit card and financial fraud, and we seem to be lagging behind in adoption and implementation of the EMV technology even though it has been shown to seriously curtail fraud even as payment card usage increases. The EMV chip process, which encrypts information about the card so that even the local POS system doesn’t get access to it, is far more secure and is being widely adopted and used in Europe, Canada, Latin America and the Asia/Pacific regions. Now the clock is ticking for US businesses to get ready to either update their systems or accept the liability for not doing so.

The shift in how payment cards are made and processed is simply one of many changes which will continue to occur as technology and human ingenuity continue to be applied in both good and not-so-good ways. Recognizing that the pace of change is increasing, businesses must find ways to remain informed and prepare for those changes which will impact the business operation and sustainability. This is among the essential roles the trusted advisor plays, and the current imperative simply underscores the growing need for such advisors by business large and small.

jmbunnyfeet Make Sense?

February 17, 2015

Confusing Value Propositions: Cloud Platforms and Hosted Applications

When a service provider is in the business of selling computing resources – like bandwidth, processors and memory, and disk storage – it makes a lot of sense to also leverage the value of software products and systems which drive consumption of computing resources. In short, they market and sell software that runs on the platform in order to get folks to buy the platform, no different from selling desktop and server software in order to sell the hardware to run it. It’s just that these days the hardware and networking components are often referred to as the “platform” or maybe “the cloud”.

Let’s face it… cloud computing platforms are just no fun if there’s nothing to run on them, and a hard drive has little value when there isn’t anything stored on it. Once there is something there – an application, data… something – then the part has actual value in terms of driving revenue. This is the difficulty and the basis for confusing value propositions when it comes to offering and delivering services in the form of a hosting platform. Once again: platforms are just no fun if there’s nothing to run on them. Is the value is really about the applications, not the platform? Or is the value in the platform, because it’s necessary for running the applications?

The truth is that both are essential parts of the entire “solution”, and the value of how the solution is packaged and offered is purely up to the purchaser to determine in terms of applicability to the business. When it comes to hosted application offerings for businesses, there isn’t a single one-size-fits-all approach that will work. Sometimes people want to purchase from different vendors and put their own solutions together, and sometimes folks want turnkey delivery of whatever they need. Even channel partners and value-added resellers are finding that, with diminishing margins and aggressive competition prevalent in the market, removing the time-consuming aspects of solution delivery becomes paramount to achieving some level of profitability on the work.

What this means is that providers are looking for ways to increase the overall value and usability of their solutions, and when it comes to platform services there are only two directions to look: automation to support self-service, and application software delivery to drive consumption and usage on the hosting platform.

So now we’re back to the applications again. There’s no way to avoid them, but there’s no great way for platform companies to engage with them, either. Working with business application software is sometimes complicated, often annoying, and can be exceptionally time-consuming and resource intensive. And there are few licensing models which make it really easy for hosts and ISVs (Independent Software Vendors) to work together. Then, of course, there is the desire for exclusivity on one side or the other.

Software companies don’t generally want to select a single platform provider for their software for a very simple reason: they don’t want to limit their potential user base. Now that Windows platform is available just about anywhere – on local computers, on mobile devices, from platform and infrastructure hosting providers – how does the ISV make a decision on a single delivery channel or model or provider?

Some lean towards working with hosting providers to create branded, point-deliveries of the application. Too often, however, this approach removes the ability for customers to benefit from other applications or integrations, eliminating some of the value of the solution and certainly curtailing benefits for integrating partners of the ISV.

Host it themselves? The last thing most software developers want is to be responsible for hosting and maintaining some other guys’ software products; they have enough to worry about with their own offerings. If the solution is standalone, maybe this approach works. But there are few solutions made for the desktop which don’t have some strange integration point with MS Office apps, Adobe reader, Internet browsers or other things prevalent on the user desktop.

There isn’t any proven or easy path for software developers, IT suppliers or small business customers looking to create mobility and managed subscription service around desktop and server applications, and there is likely never going to be a single story line that all will follow. This is among the reasons for the popularity of the “hybrid” cloud approach and growing importance of managed application hosting and ISV-authorized delivery models. Yet even key providers in those areas have a tough time really communicating what they do in a way that is meaningful to the buyer. Are they selling a platform, applications, or both? Folks in the industry know the jargon and how to use it, and are often skilled at adjusting their language in order to obfuscate or confuse certain sticky issues regarding software licensing in the cloud and other similar aspects of hosting. It’s no wonder that many customers remain confused as to what, exactly, they’re being asked to buy, and where the lines of flexibility and responsibility are drawn.

The applications justify the platform, and there are possibly multiple platform approaches to delivering the app. It is a confusing situation for business buyers of IT as well as for their resellers and suppliers, and the increasing number of options for how businesses approach purchasing and using information technology makes it unlikely that the process will become as simple as some suggest.

jmbunnyfeet Make Sense?

January 22, 2015

State of the Union: The Irrelevance of Good Accounting?

finance I’m a little concerned, and any professional in accounting and finance who works with small businesses should be just a little concerned, too. Why? Because there is a belief out there that some nifty software and Internet Of Things (IoT) approach to finance will ultimately eliminate the need for a small business to work with skilled, trained accounting professionals. Remember the marketing slogan introduced by Intuit with QuickBooks – the one that suggested that, “if you can write a check, you can do your own books”? Most accountants will tell you that it is not true, and the ability to operate a product like QuickBooks does not magically turn poor accounting and bookkeeping information into good business data. In fact, it most frequently enables bad information to turn into bad business decisions – quickly.

DIY bookkeeping solutions have been around for a while, so why the distress about it now? Up until this point, it hadn’t been so overtly stated to small business owners that having less-than-great accounting data is very much OK, and that the role accounting professionals play in small business finances is more of a burden than benefit. Consider the statement made by President Obama in his recent State of the Union address:

“Let’s simplify the system and let a small business owner file based on her actual bank statement, instead of the number of accountants she can afford”

If I’m an accounting professional, I am pretty steamed up about that statement because I know how screwy business accounting data gets when the work is done by folks without the proper training. Incorrect or improper accounting treatment can make a big difference when it comes to filing those taxes mentioned…. and not in a good way. That transaction on the bank statement… Is it a cost of goods sold or a regular business expense? Is it an asset or supply item? Is it a reimbursement or revenue? Is the payroll deduction before or after taxes? Is that even a viable payroll deduction item? These questions and more arise frequently in a small business, and the treatment for these items is improper as often as not.

There is a big value in what a trained accounting professional can offer a small business owner, and the value often translates to eliminating unnecessary tax burdens and the delivery of accurate reporting – both of which are really important when it comes to actually trying to grow a healthy and sustainable business.

Small businesses are often considered to be the fuel powering our economy. Doesn’t it make sense for us all to recognize that smarter businesses are likely to be more successful, and that more successful small businesses means growth in the economy? The importance of good fiscal and financial management and reporting – in business and in government – is not something to minimize, and suggesting that it takes no intervention or skill to do the job properly reflects poorly not only on the person saying it, but on the entire establishment.

jmbunnyfeet Make Sense?

November 18, 2014December 2, 2014

Courier or Messenger as Contractor or Employee? Compliance with Department of Labor

When it comes to dealing with the Department of Labor, there is only one prudent approach: keep meticulous records and self-audit regularly. It’s not that the DOL is a particularly frightening group, but increasingly public conflicts suggesting wage theft and avoidance of employer responsibilities continue to shine a bright light on the gravely imperative nature of keeping the right records and operating within the proper constraints. It is the DOL’s persistence in the auditing of independent contractor relationships which has put a tremendous amount of pressure on businesses which operate with primarily contracted workers.

The issue is not exclusive to any particular industry, but it seems that there are numerous rich targets in the area of logistics, as recent decisions impacting FedEx and UPS reflect. Described in an MSNBC article quoting David Weil’s book “The Fissured Workplace”, the decisions supporting the DOL in the 9th Circuit “further undermine the “devolution of the proletariat” — corporate America’s ongoing effort to shed front-line, often low-wage employees through independent contracting, subcontracting, and franchising arrangements”. The two federal appellate decisions disputed FedEx’s contention that its drivers in California and Oregon were properly classified as independent contractors. While there are many situations where the argument supports fair treatment for workers who operate more as employees than contracted workers, there is an equally substantial base of business where the performers are contracted and independent and should remain free to operate as such.

One of the industries directly in the crosshairs of the Wage and Hour Division of DOL is the courier and messenger industry. Couriers and messengers pick up and deliver messages, documents, packages, and other items – generally between offices or departments within a business, or directly to other businesses or individuals – and do this while traveling by foot, bicycle, motorcycle, public transportation or private vehicle. The Bureau of Labor statistics in 2012 indicated that almost 25% of those classified as couriers and messengers were local messengers and delivery providers, and that the highest concentration of these providers is in New York.

So what’s the deal with DOL versus courier/messenger services and their clients as it relates to the “contractor independence” issue? Well, the initial approach by the DOL is often to consider the hiring authority (the client) as a Professional Employer Organization or simply as an employer. This approach is often forwarded regardless of the provider’s owner/operator status, and may be due to a lack of supporting evidence that the courier was actively soliciting additional business from other sources (which is generally not the problem of the client, but in this case could be). There is a requirement to substantiate not only the client’s position that he is not the employer, but to satisfy recordkeeping for the courier or messenger, as well, proving independence and having the necessary paperwork and proof to support the claim.

In a business where people are frequently on the move, scheduling jobs between pickups and deliveries, there isn’t a lot of time to spend filling out paperwork and getting written agreements. These folks are working even as they’re scheduling more work, and a lot of this activity is done via text or telephone while riding a bicycle. The circumstances of how this industry works makes compliance a particularly difficult task, and the DOL doesn’t have to schedule audits and compliance visits – they can approach a business at any time and request to review records, observe activities, and more.

Given the frequency of such investigations and audits, every business in the industry should be looking for a simple and foolproof solution to keeping the right paperwork and records that will support the business operator claim of independence and protect them from unnecessary cost or litigation. This is where an accounting professional or consultant may provide assistance, identifying the tools and developing the processes to ensure proper reporting and compliance with regulations on both sides of the transaction. Without the proper documentation and evidence supporting the position of the client as well as the provider (the courier/messenger), both parties may end up finding themselves in an unintentional and costly relationship.

jmbunnyfeet Make Sense?

November 4, 2014

Retaining Productivity while Empowering the Remote and Mobile Workforce

http://wp.me/p2hGOJ-J7

A lot of the marketing and discussion around why businesses should use the cloud for IT service is focusing on creating anytime, anywhere access to business data and improving overall IT performance. By deploying applications to remote desktops and hosted systems, business owners are recognizing the benefits of outsourcing IT service management to professionals who can spend their time actually managing IT. Focus is able to remain on the business operation and not the technology supporting it; the main office and remote locations are able to work with the same systems and information, and users are able to access information while at home or on the road. Bringing workers together with the same applications and data means new levels of productivity can be achieved regardless of where the work gets done.

Yet the perceived value of “working in the cloud” and the reality remain somewhat disconnected for many mobile business users. The confusion and frustration many users experience with connected, online working models has quite a lot to do with the realization that they don’t simply need remote access or virtual office solutions to bring them together. Users want solutions that help them get their work done even when they aren’t working on a traditional computer. When a computer is available, that’s great. But users want to be able to work from their tablets and smartphones, too. Have you ever tried to login to a remote desktop from your phone, or to see a full screen of data when the keyboard takes up more than half of the view? It may technically function, but there’s no way to get anything useful done with that little teeny weeny screen, and that’s a problem.

It is this new multi-mode working environment which is testing the boundaries of usability for software developers and service providers alike. No longer may the assumption be that users will perform their job functions using a desktop or laptop computer, just as it is no longer assumed that a mobile phone will be used just for phone calls. Users want (and sometimes need) to be able to get their work done using their smartphones, iPads, Kindles, or other types of tablet, pad or surface computers. Applications designed to run on full size screens and desktop computers often don’t work well for users accessing them with other types of devices, even when the device is connecting to a remote desktop service.

Mobile device users are starting to face these usability barriers somewhat less frequently when visiting various websites. If you look at many reasonably modern business websites, you’ll find there is a “mobile” counterpart. The mobile website is often somewhat less functional than the full website, providing only essential information for the mobile viewer rather than the expanded content and functionality available on the full site. Yet the mobile site delivers a more pleasant and usable resource for the mobile device user, encouraging the user to visit the site more often.

Application software development can be approached in a similar manner, where essential functionality is presented for mobile users in a format usable by mobile devices, and where the full functionality and rich feature set might be available only in the full application interface. Even where legacy applications are concerned – those firmly tied to the desktop and network – there are likely options for extending some manner of functionality and access to remote and mobile devices, perhaps by using 3rd party integrated or connected solutions.

Many commercial software developers are successfully viewing this “web and mobile enabled” approach as a means to capture Software-as-a-Service buyers by providing some web-based and mobile functionality with attachments back to the data and applications residing on the LAN or hosting platform. This hybrid approach may actually present better and more options for businesses, as it embraces the concepts of mobility and device independence while at the same time retaining the features, functionality and productivity-enhancing working mode that only desktop applications have to-date fully proven… and the businesses can keep their own data to take with them and not be relegated to list-only extractions if they wish to change solutions.

This idea is not really new – the idea of providing users with the specific functionality they need (and not more) to accomplish their tasks and get their jobs done. The concept of Service Oriented Architecture has always spoken to this philosophy, advocating that the right approach to software is the one which orients the application, functionality and view specifically and directly towards the user and their role.

The new twist on SOA is that the orientation of the application should be based not only on roles and functionality. Modern business applications must also address device and modality, not assuming a particular form factor or platform of access, and having an understanding of the particular mode in which the solution exists or is experienced by the user. Mobile users want a useful experience on their mobile devices, and remote and local desktop users want the features, functionality and performance of desktop applications.

Website designers have figured out that visitors may access the website using any variety of computing devices, including smartphones, tablets, laptops and desktops. Understanding that each device has a different capability in terms of displaying and interacting with content, site developers have begun to include mobile site designs as a standard offering with business website services. Users accessing the site with smartphones and tablets are able to effectively navigate and view information on the site because it’s been formatted to fit the screen, and navigation and other action options are accessible from smart menus that are sized and placed for touch screen access. This approach is now finding its way in many business applications now that the applications are also “living” on the web.

The growing number of web and SaaS products on the market clearly demonstrate that mobility is a big consideration in modern application design. Unfortunately, productivity losses due to sluggish interfaces or complicated operating processes often offset the benefits of the solution, even though it may be both desktop and mobile “friendly”. Software companies rolling out new SaaS models to their existing desktop product user bases are finding that the desirability of the subscription model web-based solution may be somewhat less than expected. This may be attributed to the fact that users have become not simply accustomed to how they can make the desktop software work for them – they’ve become reliant upon that ability. Initial experiences with transitioning from desktop applications to SaaS has left many businesses with frustrations founded in overall productivity loss. I’ve even heard the term “productivity-sucking”, which I don’t think describes either a feature or a benefit.

There must be a balance found, where productivity is enhanced for both desktop and mobile users and where critical functionality is not sacrificed in order to facilitate a mobile capability. The goal is to empower the remote and mobile user to be as productive as the non-mobile user, and to do it without forcing changes which may impede rather than improve productivity of the overall organization.

Make Sense?

Following the Rules: Users and Licensing for Hosted QuickBooks

I have said many times before that the licensing for QuickBooks desktop editions appears to be a bit complicated, and a lot of that may have to do with the fact that so many people use QuickBooks in so many different ways. With a solution like QuickBooks (or Microsoft Office or other really popular and widely used software products) there is a tendency for folks to want the flexibility of accessing their software regardless of what computer they are using. Also, especially in businesses, there is the habit of installing software on a computer and then allowing anyone sitting at the computer to use the software. In some cases these approaches are okay with the software vendors, but in most cases they’re not. Yet too often, the small business owner doesn’t find out what the actual rules of using the product are until they try to deploy the software with a hosting service provider (because nobody ever actually reads the EULA, do they?). If the provider has any credibility at all, they will enforce the licensing rules of the software, but that doesn’t always sit well with the customer.

picture-hostedQB This situation rears its ugly head quite frequently in the QuickBooks hosting world. Perhaps it is because there are a lot of possible working models involving QuickBooks users, or maybe it’s simply a matter of people not seeing the value of paying for what they want to accomplish. Either way, service providers find themselves being challenged every day in trying to explain to a customer why they need to have more than one license for QuickBooks and more than one service account if they want more than one person to access the hosted solution.

Different people at different times: The Concurrent User approach

One of the arguments people make for not having licenses for all of their users is that they don’t actually need everyone in the system at the same time. The belief is that there should be licenses enough only for the number of concurrent, or simultaneous, users that will access the system, yet each individual human being/user should have a login to the system with the software available (for convenience, of course). A QuickBooks 3-user license, they believe, should be able to be used by any number of business users as long as no more than 3 of them are in QuickBooks at any given time.

While the customer may be making a reasonable argument, it all falls down when you consider the license agreement for QuickBooks. Each user of the product is supposed to have a specific license. A business with a 3-user license (or 3 single-user licenses) for QuickBooks has the rights to allow 3 people (unique human beings) to use the software, not any combination of people as long as they number no more than 3 at a time. There is to be no sharing of licenses, and there is no “concurrent” licensing model: each person/user/human being is supposed to have their own license for the product no matter how often they access it.

Look but don’t touch: The Read-Only User approach

Another of the arguments people make for not licensing all of their users is that there is somehow a belief that if you don’t actually enter information, then you aren’t really using the software. This often comes up in situations where an accounting professional works with their client, or when business owners want to occasionally see what’s going on in the company. The approach centers on the concept of what a “user” is and suggests that users are the people entering or changing the data, and people only viewing that information aren’t really “users” at all. When the bookkeeper opens QuickBooks and enters an invoice, the bookkeeper is recognized to be a user. But when the business owner opens QuickBooks to view the financial statement or see the bank account balance, isn’t the business owner also a user? Yup, they sure are. Any person that actually opens the program on the computer is a user, regardless of what they do when the program is open. Just looking around at the data still requires that the program be open, and opening the program requires a license.

Two Fer: But the other hosting company lets me…

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should. So, just because a different hosting provider might let you get away with things that aren’t right (but perhaps are convenient or cost saving in the short-term) doesn’t mean you should expect a different host to allow the same thing. If your current host says things like “as long as you don’t tell us…”, you should be concerned. This often comes up in a hosting scenario where there is an outside accounting or outsourced back-office professional working with a hosted client business. The outsourcer will want to access the client books, so they will want to have a login and access to QuickBooks software on the host system.

The trouble starts when the outsource professional doesn’t want to have to pay for their own service or licensing, yet they want to be able to login to the system and run QB just like the client does. Falling sometimes under that attempt to leverage a concurrent user approach (see above), these outsourcers just aren’t realizing that the benefits of accessing their client information and working in real-time with that data is often valuable enough to support the cost of a hosted account and license. Instead, they want their access to be free of charge and not be bound by silly rules of licensing, often because their client won’t want to pay for the accountant service in addition to their own.

This is when the “if you don’t tell us” stuff comes in – where the service provider may suggest to the accountant or outsourcer that they can simply login as the client and nobody would be the wiser. I’ll fess up and say I have even entertained this idea with clients a few times but always shy away from discussing it in-depth. While it is basically true that the service provider doesn’t generally know which exact human being is sitting at the other end of that remote desktop connection, that doesn’t mean that it is okay to leverage it into an abuse of services or licensing.

Two or more people sharing a single login just isn’t good ju ju, and it’s usually against a whole bunch of licensing rules and rights of use. The funny thing is that many customers who initially leverage their service in this manner end up finding it was a really bad idea. I saw a scenario a few years ago where a business allowed their outside auditors to share the logins of regular employees in the finance department. When an employee tried to login to their remote desktop, they opened the session the auditor had open – exposing the employee to a lot of data that was not theirs to see but which the auditor user in QB had access to. The company called it a security breach and it was on their part – and it was allowed to happen because they shared their remote desktops with the auditors rather than giving the auditors their own accounts with their own security profiles. What seemed like a good, cheap approach on one day rapidly turned into a big issue the next, and the service provider had no power to prevent it from happening.

The moral of this story is simply that following the rules is the right thing to do and most reputable hosting service providers will try, even if they don’t end up doing it really well. There are always going to be those who figure that the risks don’t measure up to the potential rewards, so they will do what they choose to do. I’m always left wondering about those guys; if they have no problems breaking these rules, I wonder what other rules (or confidences) they are willing to break. Hmmm.

Make sense?

EMV and Retail – Your Trusted Advisor Should Be Advising You about This

Share this:

Confusing Value Propositions: Cloud Platforms and Hosted Applications

Share this:

State of the Union: The Irrelevance of Good Accounting?

Share this:

Courier or Messenger as Contractor or Employee? Compliance with Department of Labor

Share this:

Retaining Productivity while Empowering the Remote and Mobile Workforce

Share this:

Following the Rules: Users and Licensing for Hosted QuickBooks

Share this: