Software & Services Safari

October 28th, 2009

Cloud-to-Cloud Integration - Another Big ERP Challenge!

Posted by Brian Sommer @ 11:36 am

Categories: Current Affairs, ERP, Future of Application Software, Implementing Technology, Oracle, PSA - Professional Services Automation, Professional Services, SAP, SaaS and Beyond, Software Vendors, The Applications Market, Think About IT, software. applications

Tags: Solution, NetSuite Inc., ERP, Integration, Maintenance Revenue, Brian Sommer

If Your ERP Provider can’t to multi-tenancy, How can they do this????

This week’s been interesting so far. SAP announced earnings this week and the figures aren’t a cause for celebration. In contrast, NetSuite’s OpenAir group has been conducting their annual user conference in Boston with a pretty good-sized crowd of attendees. The company’s leaders have made a couple of big announcements at the show but one of these announcements has some subtleties that should really rattle old school, on-premise ERP vendors.

OpenAir announced their Open Connect capability. Essentially, this permits their SRP (services resource planning) solution to connect, out of the box, with solutions from Salesforce.com, NetSuite, SAP and Oracle. So what, you may ask. Isn’t that what modern platform products (i.e., products built upon services oriented architectures (SOA)) are supposed to do? Yes, but in this case, the delivery models they are connecting to are both on-premise and cloud based. Also, some of these connections will be to products that are multi-tenant (and hence changing/updating/improving daily) while others are not. Open Connect, therefore, must provide not only 1-time integration between two systems at the time of systems implementation but also continuous integration between systems that get continual updates.

Let’s look at this further. Some of the connections NetSuite is now making are cloud solutions (e.g., Salesforce.com, NetSuite or OpenAir products) connecting to on-premise products. That’s a bit more challenging than the old-fashioned integration of two on-premise applications together. Those static ‘interfaces’ were gold to systems integrators. Those ‘interfaces’ consumed a lot of implementation time and, once set and tested, were hoped to last the life of the application. They rarely did as one application or another would get an upgrade that changed the interface needs.

Those interfaces were expensive to do and subjected a company to a lot of risk if they didn’t perform perfectly. These interfaces are probably the number one reason a lot of companies do not apply upgrades, new releases and enhanced functions of older on-premise products. These product enhancements are too costly to implement given the miniscule benefits they’ll throw off. This then causes software users to defer upgrades and get locked into an older version of the product. The on-premise world begets a world of old apps that users can’t justify upgrading.

Cloud-based applications don’t suffer this problem especially if the applications were designed to be multi-tenant. Multi-tenant apps let a vendor (not the customer) apply upgrades and enhancements simultaneously to all customers. Customers don’t have to pay anything to receive the immediate benefit of the enhanced functionality. Cloud-based apps have this – on-premise apps do not. This is a huge deal for CIOs as they are ones who must get the budget to do application software upgrades. Without an upgrade budget, applications do not get upgrades. Without this extra customer expenditure, on-premise solutions get stuck in time. Customers, logically, decide to defer some of these upgrades and instead rely on a stable, proven, low-risk and unchanging application. On-premise vendors then find themselves knee deep in customers who do not want the latest release or version of the product. These customers then wonder why they are paying maintenance for a product they don’t intend to change. This scenario puts on-premise vendors at risk for income declines as more customers opt to go off maintenance.

Maintenance revenue is a top of mind item for the CEOs of on-premise solutions. It isn’t for cloud solutions vendors. One such cloud provider said that to me just today.

Now, look at what Open Connect is doing. It is not only connecting these very dynamic cloud based apps to on-premise apps, it is also doing cloud-to-cloud connectivity. Imagine your accounting application running on one firm’s cloud environment, interacting with another cloud’s CRM solution that’s also interacting with another services automation solution on a third cloud environment. Then, just to make it more mind-blowing, imagine that all three of those cloud applications are changing, simultaneously and continuously. Each system will need the awareness of the other solution’s changes. Interfaces will become fluid and very dynamic. Finally, consider that the user may be unaware that these background changes are even occurring. Now that’s a big jump in integration. That’s a jump the on-premise vendors can’t complete.

When many on-premise vendors cannot even create a multi-tenant version of their product line (most can only offer hosting services), how can they deliver the level of cloud-to-cloud integration that the market will demand?

Next ERP solution you evaluate, verify that:

- the solution can do on-premise to on-premise, on-premise to cloud, and, cloud-to-cloud integration
- the solution can, independent of end-user interaction, dynamically update interfaces and system-to-system integration
- the solution can update its functionality without IT or end-user assistance, budget or time
- the solutions will always contain the latest functionality, latest process flows, etc.

I still need to see the proof points behind Open Connect and the market will tell us whether it delivers on all aspects of cloud-to-cloud connectivity. Yet, the potential of this capability should be enough to scare the wits out of the number crunchers in the on-premise firms.

October 22nd, 2009

Sustainability: Hard for business, harder for ERP vendors

Posted by Brian Sommer @ 11:08 am

Categories: Current Affairs, ERP, Future of Application Software, Think About IT, software, software. applications

Tags: Sustainability, ERP Vendor, ERP, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Enterprise Software, Software, Brian Sommer

“Everyone, we’’re currently meeting with customers to see what sort of requirements they might have in the sustainability space. With this input, we hope to someday craft a reporting solution to help customers understand what their carbon consumption really is.”

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE

ERP vendors don’t get sustainability. They think it’s about collecting all of a user’s electric and gas bills to determine their carbon footprint. They think it’s a reporting exercise. If they can develop a spreadsheet with more rows and columns than the next ERP vendor, then they have achieved some sort of market leading, product excellence crown of achievement.

NO

Putting sustainability into ERP solutions will be very intrusive, very disruptive and expensive, if it is done correctly. Why? Well, sustainability requires new ways of looking at:

- which products to make
- what the true costs of a product are including costs for carbon offsets
- which production facilities should/should not be used to achieve optimal business, financial and ecologic outcomes
- how product scheduling should be optimized to take advantage of lower emission, lower carbon generating, etc. plants and machinery
- etc.

Let’s examine this further. In an ERP solution today, does a cost accounting module account for carbon offset costs as part of a product’s actual or standard cost? No. Some solutions might allow for a user to add a new cost item for this but can the system automatically drop in the correct cost based on:

- the specific machinery used (some machines use more energy than others)
- the time of day the product was made (i.e., some products may be made at night with hydroelectric power instead of daytime production using natural gas powered electricity)
- the location where the product was made (i.e., some facilities have naturally lower energy consumption or take advantage of solar/wind energy)
- whether recycled or virgin packaging was used
- etc.

Pre-sustainability cost accounting is passé in the new world. Cost accounting needs to be re-worked.

Now look at production scheduling algorithms. These optimization formulas were created to simultaneously solve several variables to produce optimal production schedules. These algorithms try to reduce the amount of machine down time, increase the likelihood of customers receiving promised products on time and meeting the target cost requirements of the products to be made. But these algorithms were not designed to assess the carbon footprint of each product that could be produced. These algorithms will need to be re-worked.

Look at the product quotation module. This functionality lets a product or design engineer build out a product specification, cost it out and price it. It helps companies, especially make-to-order manufacturers, decide what to make and how much to charge for it. As designed, these systems do not explicitly support additional cost concerns that sustainability might introduce. How would a package help a product designer/engineer determine where a product should be built, what machinery should be used, etc. to achieve needed profit levels while also incurring low carbon offset costs, low impact on the environment, etc.? This functionality needs to be re-worked, too.

In all, I believe ERP vendors will need to re-work their fixed assets, order entry, job costing, production scheduling, logistics, transportation management and many more applications if their solutions are to really support sustainability. It might be easier to determine which modules won’t be impacted by sustainability than to identify the ones that are.

When I heard a major ERP representative give a comment like the one at the top of the post, I was apoplectic. This firm was approaching sustainability in manner consistent with adding some minor, bolt-on functionality to the core product. They didn’t realize that these changes will be significant and when new legislation for sustainability (e.g., Cap and Trade) kicks in, their customers will need it (all) immediately. Customers will not have the luxury of time to wait for this ERP vendor to:

- spend a year or two collecting requirements from a few ‘strategic’ customers
- spend another year ‘studying’ these requirements and getting approvals for development work to proceed
- spend two-three more years developing the needed functionality for the initial release
- spend another year hand-holding the alpha/beta version of the product with a limited release group of customers
- then, finally, after seven years or so finally start rolling out a functionally light or insignificant version of the product to the general market.

No, sustainability is not like analytics. It won’t be something you can bolt to the exterior of the ERP suite and add a little something to it every few months. Sustainability functionality will be big, disruptive and important. When it is needed, all of the functionality will be needed at once.

Sustainability is a great example of what’s wrong with innovation in ERP today. Vendors have forgotten how to innovate. The fact that this ERP representative is asking customers and bloggers for ideas and items to put on their development list is appalling. The vendor should already know, by their own assessment, what needs to change in their product line to support sustainability. If they have to ask me, they are doomed.

Innovation is not (and please understand this point) about order-taking but you’d swear that’s how ERP vendors see it. Innovation involves imagination, empathy and the anticipation of future market needs/demands/wants. That’s the part ERP vendors don’t get.

October 22nd, 2009

CEO Interview: Meridian Systems' John Bodrozic on the construction front

Posted by Brian Sommer @ 10:15 am

Categories: CEO Interview, Current Affairs, PPM - Project Portfolio Management, SaaS and Beyond, Software Vendors, software. applications

Tags: Asset, Construction, Meridian, AECOM, Asset Management, Transportation, Software As A Service (SaaS), Operational Planning, Business Operations, Emerging Technologies

I recently had a chance to speak with John Bodrozic, President and co-founder of Meridian Systems. Meridian sells a number of solutions in the project portfolio management and infrastructure lifecycle management space (e.g., Prolog, Proliance, Prolog Converge) . Their products help property owners, property managers, construction firms, architects, engineers, etc.

I asked John specifically about the economy and how it has impacted the construction space. John indicated that some sectors are in dire straits, especially new housing construction. However, there are definite bright spots out there. John talked about all of the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) spending in the United States and the significant amount of public works construction it has spawned. Meridian has made sales of its solutions to organizations like City of Seattle Dept. of Transportation, Miami Dade Water & Sewer Department and the General Services Administrations’ Public Building Services group.

John also indicated that not all parts of the world are being impacted the same way. The World Bank is apparently helping out with infrastructure projects in selected locales.

Meridian is seeing lots of government interest in infrastructure initiatives particularly in areas like transportation, energy and water.

Given that Meridian had a strong private sector customer base (approximately 5000 customers/100,000 users), I asked John if these new governmental customers are any different than private sector customers. The biggest difference that John identified was that governmental customers preferred more on-premise solutions while private sector customers were more interested in their SaaS (software as a service) offerings. However, both groups are interested in looking at assets (e.g., buildings, dams, roads, power plants, etc.) as long-lived assets that need meticulous records maintained on them over the life of the asset and not just during the initial construction phase. John then told me of their shorthand name for this: plan – build – operate.

Meridian has recently added functionality to track project expenditures by fund. This functionality is especially needed for those entities administering or seeking reimbursement from targeted government stimulus funds. John also discussed how firms seeking these stimulus monies must also meet OMB compliance and reporting requirements if they hope to win this work and get compensated for it.

Finally, I asked John about whether they are seeing the overseas market being a big contributor to the company’s growth. He indicated that the Middle East is going strong for them. He singled out one success story: their customer/partner AECOM. AECOM is involved in numerous initiatives in the Middle East and Meridian’s solutions are being used in many of these efforts. AECOM is a program management company that is often hired by a building or property owner to design and engineer the structure, hire contractors to do the work and manage the lifecycle of the asset thereafter.

October 20th, 2009

Demand this from software vendors

Posted by Brian Sommer @ 4:49 pm

Categories: Analytics - Performance Management, ERP, Financial Software, Future of Application Software, Notable Research, SaaS and Beyond, Selling & Marketing Software, Software Vendors, The Applications Market, software. applications

Tags: Vendor, Customer, Sales Strategy, Tools & Techniques, Software As A Service (SaaS), Sales Force Management, Enterprise Software, Sales, Management, Emerging Technologies

I was getting a briefing last week from a software executive. We got to a point in the conversation where the discussion was focusing on existing products. I moved the conversation to a different space, though. If you’re getting a pitch from a vendor, you should move the conversation, too!

Still Market Relevant - When the vendor dialogue is all about existing customers buying more of the old product line, it’s not all that intriguing. Yes, it tells me that the vendor is still relevant to its customer base but these sales are mostly in-fill sales. You remember these sales, don’t you? They’re like those customers who had previously bought most of the ERP suite but now need the CRM (customer relationship management) modules.

Gaining Market Share - When a vendor is getting all-new customers for its existing products, then that’s a bit more newsworthy. This means that the products are appealing to new buyers and these just aren’t the existing customers. That means the products are still fresh and delivering competitive advantage. Alternatively, this market momentum could also signal that the software vendor has a great sales and marketing organization or is buying its way into ever greater market share. Wall Street likes this quadrant but a vendor can’t stay here forever as its products will age and lose their market appeal or luster.

Re-enlistments – These are the customers who are re-affirming their commitment to the vendor. They are choosing to upgrade their applications to the all-new application suite, new platform, etc. These firms are making a major financial commitment and their decision to do so is not trivial. Re-enlistment scenarios often occur with major technology platform changes (e.g., going from client-server architecture to Web 2.0 applications).

Hot Space - The top right quadrant is the really high-interest zone. This is where all-new products are attracting all-new customers. This stuff is red-hot! It’s the kind of software that makes the customers of other software vendors abandon their old products and switch to the new stuff. When you think of this quadrant, don’t just think of replacement technologies. Think about the products you bought for the first time. Think about your first cell phone, spreadsheet program, MP3 player, etc.

I want to hear more Hot Space stories. They are undoubtedly more interesting than the other stories and they are really rare. If a vendor has been around a while and has 1000 customers, probably 900 are in the Still Market Relevant quadrant. The rest are scattered across the three remaining quadrants with fewer than a dozen or two in the Hot Space quadrant.

Over the last few years, the numbers of customers and stories in the Hot Space has been in decline and, worse, as a percentage of total customers, experiencing a very real decline.

Innovation in ERP, for example, has been so bogged down in technical infrastructure changes (e.g., middleware/SOA platform changes) and business model changes (e.g., from on-premise to SaaS (software as a service)) that real value-adding, business-relevant improvements to products are far and few between. Look at the ‘amazing’ value that business analytics hasn’t brought in to date. Analytic applications are still crunching internal transaction data. The lack of imagination and innovation here is an embarrassment to the technology sector.

When a software vendor comes knocking on your firm’s door, ask them to segment their customer base along the lines of the four-quadrant picture above. Then, only ask them to describe the value derived and experience of these all-new customers buying all-new solutions. If they struggle with this exercise, this vendor is selling you yesterday’s technology. Your users will love this old-time solution the vendor is pitching as much as they’d want to buy a newspaper from last week. Even if the vendor has some stories in this quadrant, these may actually reference old technology. Watch out for this. If it doesn’t have sizzle, differentiation and freshness, then it’s old news. Don’t reward vendors for re-packaging an old product in new wrapping. Make them innovate or make them get out of the way.

** UPDATE **
I read the comments many of you post to these blogs. Thanks.
A reader of this post raised a couple of points I’d like to clarify. Were a vendor to approach your firm about an existing product, one that has been on the market for a while, am I suggesting you not consider it? No, I’m not but I would caution you that the product you could be considering may be a bit long in the tooth. I wouldn’t pay too much for old-tech. But also remember that the vendor that has nothing in the top right quadrant is also a vendor with a limited future. This is an area where the vendor’s future sales momentum will occur. Without something to entice new customers into the fold, this firm will be lucky to make in-fill sales to existing customers. So, if you need something now, any product in any quadrant will do. But, if you want a product with a future, find a vendor who is building for the future.

October 16th, 2009

Two Views of the Software Market

Posted by Brian Sommer @ 11:07 am

Categories: Current Affairs, ERP, Future of Application Software, Notable Research, Software Vendors, The Applications Market, software. applications

Tags: ERP, Vishal Sikka, S-curve, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Enterprise Software, Software, Brian Sommer

A Bridge Too Far?

In a blogger briefing this week at SAP’s TechEd, SAP CTO, Vishal Sikka, drew a chart of the application software market and what new areas of technology are of interest to the firm. I’ve tried to reproduce his freehand drawing into the following PowerPoint rendering. I believe I have captured the essence of his points but apologize in advance if I omitted some of the subtleties of his sketch.

Vishal discussed how new technologies, like social networks, are forcing ERP vendors to process new kinds of information (i.e., unstructured data that may exist in great volumes with little organization), understand the explicit and tacit insights within this data and connect it to the decision making processes of modern companies.

I agree that new kinds of information are presenting themselves to businesses. Sadly, most ERP vendors have often ignored new kinds of information and, instead, focused single-mindedly on those transactions that eventually end up in a general ledger.

Now, let’s look at the broader picture. ERP vendors are behind the eight-ball on several data fronts. Here’s my abbreviated list on this subject:

- event data – Businesses make all kinds of decisions based on external (and many internal) events that are never found in an ERP. For example, sourcing personnel make a number of decisions as to how much to buy, what to pay, etc. based on current commodity price movements. If a key commodity your firm needs suddenly jumped up in price, would your ERP system notify a buyer? I doubt it. Other events are triggered by legislators, competitors, regulators, the press, bloggers, employees, etc. Does your ERP monitor and assess the changing market share and business fortunes of your competitors or is it still trying to perfect last year’s financial statements?

- the context behind data – Can your ERP system scan non-structured data, like blog posts, and determine whether your firm (or a competitor) has suddenly got a product reliability or customer service issue? I doubt it. Most ERP’s are still stymied with problems like how to reconcile the company’s headcount in the HR module with the headcount used in the Budgeting module or the headcount figures in the company’s EEO reports. If an ERP can’t understand structured, accounting data, how can it deal (credibly) with data from less structured sources or data from external sources?

- data for non-traditional users – Your ERP probably makes a bunch of accountants, clerks, data entry people, outsourcers and systems integrators happy. But what does it really do for the significant number of other data-hungry people who are constituents of your firm? Does your ERP have dedicated applications for your board of directors? Your suppliers? Your customers? Different regulatory agencies? Your external auditors? The activist shareholders who are watching your management team? ERP products were designed to satisfy an internal, mostly accounting/Finance user group. While lots of vendors tout ‘analytics’, ‘business intelligence’ or ‘data warehouses’ to address some of these new constituencies, these are mostly bolt-on reporting tools that simply re-work existing, internal transaction data. I really doubt any ERP was designed as ‘business operating system’. Recently, I saw a picture of a horse-drawn cart where the owner had so overloaded the cart that it tipped backward and lifted the horse off the ground. That’s ERP today – an overloaded horse cart. We need vendors who will take a fresh perspective at the totality of a business and its information needs. The incremental approaches of late may work for a while but if left unchecked, create a poor long-term solution.

I got the impression that SAP’s leaders are looking at many of the right kinds of data and business questions but their self-imposed need to do so within the context of keeping everything in the original ERP wrapper may be limiting their vision and potential.

Their desire to push everything into the same technology, same business construct, etc. may not be correct. It feels like they are pushing, a la Montgomery’s Operation Market Garden, for a bridge too far. I’m unconvinced that a solution designed for manufacturers and designed to report, process and store internal transaction data is necessarily the best platform for the businesses of today and tomorrow.

Don’t believe me? I give you a couple of things to ponder. When most ERP systems were designed, technology was heavily constrained. Memory, throughput, processor speed, disk storage, etc. were all in short supply and expensive. ERP designers created systems that worked within these constraints. They intentionally constrained their products to have less than a whole, world view of business. Their products cherry-picked a few key computationally intensive or labor intensive internal tasks and automated them. Over time, as computing became less constrained, more function points and process components were automated. But, at its core, these solutions are still constrained as they were designed as internal systems, using internal transaction data that creates backward looking reporting data.

ERP vendors could create better, more relevant solutions now if they’d just envision a technology world without constraints. When you create systems assuming you have unlimited storage, terabytes of in-core memory, etc., you realize that business information doesn’t have to be internally generated data only. You realize that work is not just comprised of internal work processes (just watch how a sourcing professional does their job – they spend much of their time checking prices of suppliers, analyzing the financial statements of suppliers, etc. – they spend just minutes a week actually keying in a purchase order) but a mix of internal and externally facing tasks. When you realize that the old systems’ views of processes were artificially constrained and limited to an internal view of the world, then you understand that the old data model for ERP is just obsolete, irrelevant and desperately in need of a new perspective.

Data isn’t the only sticking point. ERP systems were designed for internal users. They weren’t created to serve other constituents like board members, activist shareholders, customers, regulators, suppliers, external auditors, etc. Many corporate constituents were never part of the original data model of these products and bolt-on efforts to mollify/pacify these non-traditional users are ‘limited’ by design.

Bolting data from social networks, group-think collaborations, web crawling activities, etc. into ERP solutions may tax the ERP data model to the breaking point. Even if these solutions have the technical elasticity to support these new data types, the basic limitations with the inwardly focused old ideas of business, business information, etc. will remain within old ERP solutions. The old ERP design is ready to be replaced with one more relevant for today’s firms.

We need visionary ERP vendors who will take the fresh piece of paper and envision what a new generation of software product should look like. The technology maturity curve for ERP solutions has run its course. The S-curve has hit its apex and has flattened. It’s time for a new kind of product. It’s time for some real innovation and not more of this innovation at the margins.

Vishal’s vision looks good and SAP has the R&D resources to make big things happen. But will we see a vendor brave enough to re-imagine what ERP should really be? Or will we see more stuff bolted to the exterior of the old ERP and business thinking of yesteryear? I’ll keep hoping for the former.

October 14th, 2009

Customer Intimacy wins in SAP SI's and Channel Partners

Posted by Brian Sommer @ 10:25 am

Categories: Current Affairs, ERP, Implementing Technology, India & Services, Professional Services, Selling Professional Services, Service Providers, The Application Software Buyer, The Applications Market, sales

Tags: Customer, SAP AG, Firm, Channel Partner, Business Services, Strategy, Supply Chain, Product Development, Management, Business Operations

Yesterday, several bloggers at the SAP TechEd conference in Phoenix had an opportunity to speak with Zia Yusuf, EVP, Global Ecosystem & Partner Group of SAP.

I asked Zia what characteristics typify the best SAP partners. He rattled off five qualities that the best systems integrators and channel partners possess. These qualities and my comments on each include:

1) Have individuals that are deeply involved/connected with SAP’s product direction. We had a great conversation on this point. It’s obvious that implementers who know where the product roadmap is going are better able to serve customers. What too few implementers may do is the extra step to connect themselves to the product development side of a vendor like SAP. Software buyers need to review potential systems integrators on this point. They should see evidence of the implementer’s presence at venues like TechEd, their participation in forums like SDN, etc.

2) Ensure all their SAP implementation professionals are getting the training and product knowledge they need to be successful. Software buyers should insist that their implementers are certified on the products they install. Better still, see what the implementer’s overall level of certification is for their practice. Those firms who don’t invest in their people probably have a low-cost orientation and/or experience high turnover. Either way, firms with lightly trained individuals can’t possibly deliver the same level of value as one who invests in talent. Who do you want installing your software – people who know the product well or people who want to learn about the product on your dime?

3) Can adapt, quickly and easily, to ever-changing markets and market dynamics. When the marketplace demands a systems integrator possess a global delivery model, can the local, New Jersey firm you’re considering deliver a mixed mode solution? If it can’t, it better have some compelling other reason for your firm to use them (e.g., intimate industry knowledge). Markets move and move frequently. Integrators must move resources to different verticals (e.g., is anyone still selling new work in the Automotive sector?) and different labor markets (e.g., shifting more offshore work from India to China). Adaptability to changing markets is a proxy to illustrate how well a vendor can adapt to changing customer needs, too.

4) Are focused on customer service/value delivery – I’m still surprised at how many firms say words like ‘We deliver outstanding value to clients’ but can’t really prove it. Saying and doing are two different things. Smart services buyers get this difference and will ask for proof.

5) Tie their revenues to the delivery of value to customers – Better firms don’t front-load a lot of costs while value delivery is back-ended. Better implementers can craft plans, cost structures, etc. to align these two concepts. Customers will expect and demand this.

A few years ago, Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema wrote the book The Discipline of Market Leaders. They posited that firms need competency in three key disciplines but they must excel at one of these if they are to be successful. Those disciplines include:

- customer intimacy
- product innovation
- process excellence

In their book, they highlighted companies like Nordstrom as an example of a customer intimate firm. Product innovators would be firms like Intel. Process excellent firms do something better than anyone else in their segment. Those firms could be like Dell and its supply chain or WalMart and its logistics (i.e., cross-dock, low inventory focus) or attention to cost reductions. Quality producers and low cost leaders in a market sector often are process excellence firms.

I pushed Zia to then pick one of these three market disciplines. I wanted to know which one is key for systems integrators/channel partners. Without a moment’s hesitation, he said customer intimacy.

That’s really no surprise as most consultancies sell work and sell follow-on work due to the long-standing relationship they have with their clients. Some firms bend over backwards to place their ex-employees into key clients. If a service provider has ‘customers’ instead of ‘clients’, then they probably aren’t customer service focused.

The best integrators really try to understand their clients. They know what the value drivers will be for a given initiative and will construct an implementation plan that aligns with it. Integrators who take a one-size-fits-all approach to projects lose some deals and don’t delight some of the customers they have.

Customer intimate integrators know the client’s industry, know the personal/career/political/economic agenda and needs of each client executive. These integrators win because of their client knowledge.

Customer intimacy alone will not carry the day. If an integrator is customer intimate but not winning 60+% of their proposals, then they probably aren’t doing enough in the other two disciplines. For example, knowing a client’s needs well won’t be enough if your cost structure is way too high. It also doesn’t help if your firm has nothing new, original or proprietary to add to the standard SAP solution sets. Better integrators bring their own intellectual property into a deal. These added extras are the competitive differentiators implementers must possess.

My view is that implementers need to be something like 40% focused on customer intimacy, 30% focused on product innovation and 30% focused on process excellence. If an integrator is overly skewed in just one discipline, they may be unable to win the work they need to be a sustaining or growing service provider.

October 12th, 2009

What we may/may not hear @ Oracle Open World this week

Posted by Brian Sommer @ 8:11 am

Categories: CRM, Current Affairs, ERP, Mergers & Acquisitions, Oracle, SaaS and Beyond, Software Vendors, software. applications

Tags: Probability, Oracle Corp., MySQL, Sun Microsystems Inc., Oracle Open World, Software As A Service (SaaS), Databases, Managed Hosting, Open Source, Emerging Technologies

Watch for movement on these matters

Last night, Oracle’s annual mega event, Oracle Open World, opened. This event draws some 37,000 people to San Francisco to hear, see and speak all things Oracle. With the keynotes starting in mere minutes, I thought I’d offer up my thoughts on what may or may not get covered at this year’s shindig. With my choice of discussion topics, I’m also offering up my probabilities for the show’s content.

1) The itty-bitty rebuttal – Last week, Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison, apparently referred to Salesforce.com’s CRM application as an itty-bitty application. That comment is especially interesting as Salesforce.com’s CEO, Marc Benioff, is scheduled to speak at Oracle Open World. My prediction is that Larry stays quiet on the matter (probability 0.5) while Marc will definitely speak up on the subject (probability 0.9).

2) Is SaaS (software as a service) for Real? – Recently, Larry took a couple of shots at the cloud and the SaaS applications on it. That’s interesting as the day after I read that missive, I saw that Oracle was ramping up its cloud offerings for the middle-market.

Probability that Larry back pedals on the cloud issue (0.8).
Probability that this point is clarified at Oracle Open World (0.5).

3) Where will the cuts come next? – Oracle reported that it will continue to incur restructuring costs to the tune of $300 million. The company also intends to pump a record level of investment into product develop of the Sun products it hopes to acquire. That begs the question: If overall costs are to decrease but the Sun product line gets a R&D infusion, then won’t the other applications, databases, tools, etc. feel the investment squeeze?

Probability that Oracle discusses this at Oracle Open World (0.01).

4) mySQL, mySQL – wherefore art thou mySQL? – mySQL is a database management software product offered by Sun. It is an inexpensive product built with open source code. It is also a sticking point with the European Union and is holding up Oracle’s acquisition of Sun.

Probability of Sun being discussed at Oracle Open World (0.8)
Probability of mySQL being discussed at Oracle Open World (0.5)

5) Fusion - We should expect an avalanche of information regarding this major application investment program. Even competitors to Oracle are bracing themselves for this. In fact, Fusion should be the most discussed topic at the show. The real interesting aspect re: Fusion will be the customer and prospect reaction to the announcements.

Probability of Fusion taking the show by storm(0.7)
Probability of Fusion being as big as Oracle hopes it will be (0.3)

Well, let’s see what happens the next couple of days. This could be one interesting Open World.

October 9th, 2009

SMART Selling in the SaaS world

Posted by Brian Sommer @ 10:58 am

Categories: HR, Implementing Technology, Marketing, SaaS and Beyond, Selling & Marketing Software, Selling & Marketing Software, Software Marketing, Software Vendors, negotiate, negotiations

Tags: Software-as-a-service, Katherine Jones, Software As A Service (SaaS), Managed Hosting, Cloud Computing, Sales Strategy, Emerging Technologies, Sales, Brian Sommer

What we all could learn from Sonar6

Post #3 from the HR Technology show

SaaS (software as a service) is supposed to cost less. At least that’s what all the vendors tell me. It’s also supposed to be easier to use and easier to implement. I’ve often wondered if these lower cost ideals are really true. Why am I such a Doubting Thomas? Because most SaaS vendors are on-premise converts to SaaS. These firms haven’t really changed anything about their business. They still sell the same way. They still implement software the same way. And so on. If it’s all the same, except for the business model, how can it be cheaper?

I saw the answer last week and I got it from a different kind of vendor. Their lessons are important for all SaaS and SaaS wanna-be firms to study and copy.

So, imagine you’re a software vendor, like Sonar6, trying to sell into the North American market. Now suppose that your firm is based in New Zealand. It’s at least 6,000 miles between Auckland and San Diego and over 8,000 miles from Auckland to NYC. Can you imagine Sonar6’s cost of sales if they need to send over pre-sales personnel for even some of their larger prospects?

Cost of sales for many software firms is one of their largest cost items. I’ve seen old school firms fly in 6-8 product experts, sales people, industry experts, change management specialists, project managers and the ever-present ‘regional/ industry client relationship’ executive. That last person flew the most air miles, spent the night in the most expensive hotel room and won’t remember one of the prospect’s names by nightfall. But, he/she will pay for dinner and breakfast for ‘the team’.

Prospects will make these folks come in at least three times to do product demonstrations. They may need to come back two more times to explain the proposed work plan. Next, there could be three more prospect visits by a negotiating team to try to close the deal.

The cost of sales includes a lot of travel costs, time spent in non-billable activity, time spent responding to RFPs and prepping for demonstrations and more. The opportunity cost, that is service time that could have been billed, is huge, too. It’s expensive and customers pay for it indirectly.

Sonar6 looked at several of these components and changed their way of doing business. Here’s their approach:

- they put their software pricing on their web site. Without the haggling, they can avoid a lot of wasteful and expensive negotiation trips

- they make their product available for free for 30 days. If you like it, you can buy it. If you don’t, that’s okay too as Sonar6 hasn’t spent anything with this sales effort.

- they created their applications to be so logical, so intuitive and so compelling that they sell themselves. Seriously, if you’re going to sell an application that runs on the Internet, it ought to be so obvious and straightforward to use that it doesn’t require a phalanx of trainers and change agents to help explain its myriad eccentricities.

When you do these things, your cost of sales plummets. You don’t need to hand-hold prospects. You don’t need to play time-consuming negotiating games. You don’t need to create expensive work programs. You get the point.

The second big area of change to win in SaaS applications is to achieve true multi-tenancy. Katherine Jones is covering that point in a companion post. Suffice to say, if a vendor can apply upgrades to hundreds of customers simultaneously, then the cost of their operation plummets. An old-school application that is hosted is not multi-tenant and it can’t be operated as cheaply as a SaaS product. SaaS applications need to be cheaper than packages and bespoke software. When they are, SaaS vendors can win. Cost of operations, like cost of sales must be reduced.

Cost of SaaS operations also go down when the vendor is smart about where they run their operations and what they use for hardware. Some of the vendors we met at the HR Technology show use low cost cloud service vendors like Google and Amazon. When it’s all done, I’ll bet these providers may be far less costly than the data centers many SaaS operate themselves.

So, when you’re evaluating a SaaS vendor, see what they’ve done to reduce their cost structure, especially in the cost of sales and cost of service delivery. Yes, look at their SAS 70 compliance efforts but also look inwardly to see if they truly understand how to get their costs, and yours by inference, down to record lows. That’s the smart way to evaluate SaaS vendors. And that’s how your costs will come down, too.

October 8th, 2009

Selling that Technology: Functions, Features & Fools

Posted by Brian Sommer @ 10:07 am

Categories: Fun With Tech, Humor, Marketing, Selling & Marketing Software, Selling & Marketing Software, Software Marketing, sales, software

Tags: Advertisement, Vendor, Sunshine, Data Centers, Sales Strategy, Storage, Hardware, Data Management, Sales, Brian Sommer

Post 2 – What we saw at the HR Technology show

Katherine Jones and I got a lot of pitches from technology companies at the recent HR Technology show in Chicago. Each of us asked vendors “What are the top 3 things we should remember about your firm?” and often we were met with:

(a) blank stares,
(b) a litany of functions and features, or,
(c) that rarest of all, a polished set of messages any analyst or prospect would love.

Since Katherine took the lead in yesterday’s post, here’s my take on what’s wrong with function/feature selling. Does any of this apply to your technology firm?

The Pareto rule usually applies here as 80% of the technology pitches I get aren’t that good. The solutions are derivative, unoriginal or packaged poorly. Sometimes, the presenters are pretty bad, too. But, thankfully, 1 in 5 might actually have a couple of good nuggets within them.

I like vendors that understand who they are, the customers they serve, how their solutions add value and what direction/vision these companies have for the future. Their stories aren’t just interesting, they’re engaging and relevant. Marketers and sales people love these companies as it’s easy to sell something that sells itself. Marry great positioning with talented sales people and you’ve got a potential best seller on your hands.

Technology marketers often sell functions and features. Their copy and presentations are choked with TLAs (three letter acronyms). You’d get a headache reading the stuff if only you could understand it. Here’s the way many of you start your pitch with me:

____________________________________________________________________

Vendor: “Brian, glad you could make the call today. We’re introducing a revolutionary new upgrade to our 37-year old data center management product: B-Zerko. This tape backup and punch card scheduler now has a virtualized human interface that permits remote SOA in a non-SQL platform on quad-core processors. Additionally, we’ve added support for flat-files, virtual tapes and semantic scheduling of off-line paradigms. We think customers are really going to see the value these new capabilities bring to this product.”

Me: “Really? You think customers will go crazy for this?”

Vendor: “Absolutely – We’re even telling our VCs to get the IPO ready! This one is going big time!”

Me: “Does this upgraded product have a new name?”

Vendor: “When it was in our development lab, we called it Project Boring. But, now that we need to sell this baby, we’re calling it the B-Zerko Annihilator!”

Me: “Does it slice, dice and make julienne fries? Does it come with a bamboo wok steamer?”

Vendor: “Better! It now comes with 44% more acronyms. Several of which we’ve invented just for this product. For example, we’re telling customers about IVD – Infinite Value Delivery – that’s the time it will take for customers to get any real value from this solution. We’re also discussing Q-squared. This stands for Questionable Quality. This software is still in pre-Alpha so we’re not sure it’s working yet. However, Q-squared lets our customers take advantage of our most dangerous, unsupported and dubious products as early as possible.”

Me: “I get it that you’re excited about this. But how do you know that customers really need this now?”

Vendor: “Brian, baby, we’ve been collecting user requirements for over 34 years. This new product version incorporates some of the features people have been wanting for over two decades.”

Me: “Such as….”

Vendor: “Like a stable release, like a release that works on the customer’s technical platform. Do you know we sold over 22,000 copies of this to customers with CICS/VSAM environments and our product didn’t support this? Now it does – sorta.”

Me: “So you’re just getting around to honoring commitments made decades ago?”

Vendor: “Hey, it’s not like we lied or anything. Every vendor does it. But, now we can say that we have tested this product for over 30 years. Most of the bugs have got to be out of it by now”

Me: “So what’s next? What’s the future hold?”

Vendor: “Glad you asked. Lately, we’ve been hearing there’s a lot of buzz around two new, emerging technologies. I don’t know if you’ve heard about them but they’re called the Internet and cellular phones.”

Me: “Are you sure they’ve got staying power?”

Vendor: “We’re still on a wait and see status for them and this other thing called Unix. We’ll schedule another briefing when we think they’re gonna pop.”

Me: “Well, be sure and do that then. Oh, look at the time! I’ve got to run to another call”

______________________________________________________________________________

What technology marketers need to do is steal a page from the consumer products marketers. They need to sell the ‘experience’ of using a great technology not its functions and features. They need to cultivate the ‘feeling’ one has once they strap on the industry leading accounting package. That sort of marketing is called ‘experiential’ marketing.

Here’s how it works.

McDonalds did the ultimate function/feature ad years ago. It featured a hamburger’s bill of materials set to music. Who doesn’t remember: “ two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun”? Later, they went experiential. Those ads showed scenes like a dad and his son near the store window, having breakfast. The sunshine is beaming in through the window, the son is thinking about the soccer game he played and the dad is beaming with pride. What McDonald’s isn’t doing is touting the calories in that sausage biscuit the dad is eating. They are trying to connect their product with good memories.

Coca-Cola did the same thing with the young folks on top of a mountain singing “I’d like to teach the world to sing…”. If Coca-Cola was sold using the function/feature approach, we’d get an announcer proudly declaring the percentage of corn fructose syrup, caramel coloring, caffeine and other ingredients found in the 20 oz. polycarbonate container replete with a reusable, plastic screw top fastener. Try and convince me that function/feature advertising for soft drinks sounds appealing. It isn’t for soda pop and it isn’t for technology.

I saw a car ad that simply showed a good looking, 40-ish couple driving a convertible down California’s Pacific Coast Highway in the twilight hours. They were enjoying the drive and the creature comforts of this vehicle. Not a word is spoken during the ad. Only the car maker’s logo appears at the end of the spot. If a technology marketer got to do this pitch, it would be a loud recitation of the function/features of the car’s engine. We’d hear all about the engine’s gaskets, its chrome/moly piston rings, its 4-valves per cylinder, etc. and we’d be bored to tears. Mind you, some of us might want to hear it but most want to live the life of the good-looking guy driving the hot car with the hot babe down that highway.

So, you’re going to call on your next technology sales pigeon/prospect. What’s your approach going to be: function/feature or experiential? I sure hope it’s the latter.

October 7th, 2009

Two Perspectives of the HR Technology show

Posted by Brian Sommer @ 1:46 pm

Categories: Current Affairs, ERP, HR

Tags: Human Resources Inc., Katherine, Herewith, HR Tech, Brian Sommer

Some positive surprises - strong attendance

Last week, Dr. Katherine Jones and I attended the HR Technology show. Katherine is one the best known HR analysts out there and covered the space for Aberdeen Group for a number of years. Together, we sat down with 21 vendors and their top executives. Afterwards, Katherine and I talked about what we saw, what we liked and what we were still hungry to see.

Katherine was kind enough to craft her thoughts on the show. Herewith is our first post regarding the show.

HR Tech is one of the highlights of the HCM technology providers’ fall season and despite chilly weather in the Windy City, vendor enthusiasm and good sized crowds were evident on the McCormick Place’s trade show floor. Attendance matched prior years and this was good to see in the light of recessionary cost cutting that has limited the attendance at other conferences.

Despite Larry Ellison’s recent declaration of cloud computing as “nonsense” and “water vapor,” the Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model still predominated in HR Tech product announcements and demonstrations. Seeing customers as looking for business solutions first and delivery method second, few HR professionals seemed to be seeking replacement on-premise HRIS systems if they had them –but newer solutions were all delivered on-demand, as a service. The mature on-premise applications had some facelifts—new interfaces modernized products that could be considered a tad long in the tooth.

“Down Under” on Top

We saw a good user interface from the New Zealand Sonar6, a company with a interesting sales strategy that can put in it competitive deals with larger, weightier US companies that are deploying pricey sales people rather than apply eCommerce principles to solution marketing and delivery. With posted pricing, a try-buy approach and what should be real ease in learning, Sonar6 brings a fresh light to the employee and team performance management darkness. Australia-born Aruspex demonstrated strategic workforce planning, looking beyond “how many staff do I need next quarter?” to scenario-based “what-if” planning.

The Freshest Breath of Air:

Always looking for something significant that is novel and new, we found it in HR Acuity, Debbie Muller’s company from New Jersey. The Freshest Breath of Air Award goes to this product, launched last May, which is already attracting attention (the on-demand employee relations solution won the Human Resource Executive 2009 Top HR Product of the Year award). Perhaps a first of its kind, the product gives companies a much-needed methodology for documenting employee issues, especially as potentially litigious circumstances such as wrongful termination, or lack of regulatory compliance arise. The application of documentation and process to employee relations has long been overdue.

Redefining HR Marketing

The recession may have affected the growth of applicant tracking and hiring management solution, leading to a rise in acquisitions by companies that are looking at broader talent management solutions. But some single solution providers – such as the UK’s Mr. Ted, changed the playing field with new sales and go-to-market strategies, especially for small-and mid-sized companies (the company added 2500 SMB customers in 9 months without any marketing beyond FaceBook).

Moving Past Basic Recruiting

Another example, Monster has moved passed the job board market to provide communities, career ad networks and a contextual search engine we want to see demonstrated – the concept sounds right on; let’s see the actual results.