by Morris Panner, OpenAir

One of the most popular trends in healthy living has been the “eat local” campaign.
Global and processed food solutions make today’s food economists worry – there are massive trade-offs in quality for the benefits in cost and convenience.

Oddly enough, there is a similar debate raging in the services world of today.

Thomas Friedman (author, The World is Flat) captured one side of the debate best when he wrote of a world where ubiquitous access to Internet and computing skills meant that companies could outsource anything to the cheapest markets.

Increasingly though, companies have started to see the other side of the debate. Books such as The World is Curved have started to explore the notion that “local competencies and skills” make a big difference.

That said, let me propose something of a hybrid theory – which is what I think is actually happening in the world today.

On the one hand, certain commodity services – standard and repeatable coding tasks connected with product enablement or other back office tasks that don’t require customer interaction - truly are moving offshore and should do so. In the old days, there was immense frustration from clients – and great benefit to the system integrators – when they had to pay exorbitant rates for routine services. Moving these commodity services offshore is virtuous. There is little contact with the customer and there truly is no reason for it to be performed on site.

On the other hand, there is another set of services that truly starts to get at the core relationship between company and customer, where the culture of the company and its commitment to its customers is most truly expressed. These interactions are true gold for the company as you can learn valuable things from your customers about how they use your product and how they want to use the product. Mastering these interactions is core to an effective retention strategy and are outsourced at great peril.

Years ago, David Brooks, the renowned New York Times columnist, referred to the services teams in companies as “the camels of innovation.” These individuals would travel anywhere to bring the distinctive human element to the deployment of a company’s technology. Over the past several years, we have seen these services teams become more and more important and we have watched technology product companies revolutionize their views of value added services on their core offerings, transforming them into a must have on a global scale.

It began with IBM, but has continued with HP, Dell, Xerox and Fujitsu, as these technology product companies have seen the need for services teams to help customers see the truly special value of their products. Today, it is not just the behemoths that have services teams to help deploy technology. Almost every technology firm of any size sees the strategic need for a services team to aid deployment and gain the all important customer loyalty, not to mention adding valuable revenue in a challenging economy.

At a recent Technology Services Industry Association (www.tsia.com) conference I attended, JB Wood and Thomas Lah, leaders of the association, elegantly made the point that the technology business – both hardware and software – has become a services business. Here is some data they created and presented at the conference reflecting the share of services revenue as a percentage of total revenue of the leading software and hardware companies.

*source: TPSA, JB Wood, Complexity Avalanche, 2009

The notion that our economy is becoming more and more dominated by services is not new, but the way in which this development is expressing itself surely is. The human element is becoming the most important element in a company’s presentation to its customers. It is becoming very hard to differentiate on a product alone – rather, it is the way the customer experiences it that has become the dominant factor. Human talent, rather than being devalued in a highly mechanized world, is being elevated.

The implications of this are profound for how the modern enterprise must manage itself today. Gone are the days when Enterprise Resource Planning systems ruled the roost and the key competence was effective manufacture and delivery of products. In those bygone days, services were an afterthought.

SAP made its name by understanding that the global supply chain revolution in production required a whole new way for companies to interact with supply chains and inventory. Now, we are seeing the need for a whole new approach to managing the global enterprise.

New Services Resource Planning systems are required. Simply put, people cannot be treated as a collection of interchangeable parts. The global coordination of a services business requires a discipline even more subtle and intense than ERP. It involves not only managing a roster of professionals with varying skills, but forecasting when you’ll need those skills and where and for how long. It means managing projects on time and on budget, and billing for and recognizing the revenue they bring in the most efficient manner. It means catering to the road warriors that make up that same services business so that they can be most effective, no matter where they are in the world.

Finally, a new system of managing people is required. Communication across the enterprise means that collaboration will replace top-down, command and control directives. In one address, Cisco CEO John Chambers noted that he was awfully good at the command and control part of managing a business, but it was the collaboration and distributed management that required constant innovation and work.

In today’s world, the core challenge facing all of us who run a business that includes services – which is increasingly all of us – is to develop those core competencies and systems which will allow us to provide highly localized services in a global economy.

Talent matters and customers recognize the difference on-site services make as they navigate the difficult waters of product installation and deployment. It is no surprise that the most dynamic area of tech M&A is driven by product-focused companies acquiring services businesses – look for that dynamic to continue.

The implications in systems, training and management are only just beginning.

If you’re into Marketing, you’ve got to watch the user conferences of HOT software vendors. At those events, you’ll find lots of smaller firms deploying low cost but effective marketing methods. They’ll use the draw and concentrated prospect base of a large, popular vendor to get their message out.

The fun is watching how they do it, how they get away with it and how little it can cost. In a perverse way, I like to see how the big dog reacts to it, too.

This week at Salesforce.com’s Dreamforce conference, I looked around at the guerilla marketing materials that were handed to me on the street, slid under my hotel room door, etc. The winner, in my opinion, was SugarCRM.

SugarCRM was handing out books with a size, artwork and cover color scheme that resembled Benioff’s latest book on the cloud. SugarCRM competes with Salesforce.com’s CRM product. SugarCRM had people handing out copies of their ‘book’ at the various intersections leading to the Moscone Center – the site of Dreamforce.

Can You Pick the REAL CRM/Cloud Book?

Look at the covers of these two books. Where Benioff used a blurb from Michael Dell, SugarCRM quotes Kim Jong II. You gotta love it. This takes the phrase “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” to a whole new level.

As it turns out, their ‘book’ has a few bits of SugarCRM editorial and content in the first few pages with the rest of the book available for one to take notes. Personally, I thought it was a great gimmick.

Salesforce.com announced its Chatter capability today. In essence, they’ve married instant communication services like Twitter, social networks like Facebook and data/events from corporate IT systems like SAP, Oracle and Salesforce.com into one integrated application/platform.

Users of Salesforce’s applications will find Chatter a native capability soon. I’ve got a slew of opinions re: this service and here are the positives:

- It’s great to see an application vendor innovate. The fact that people are enthused, engaged and pondering the possibilities of such a solution is something I wish we saw more of in other vendor’s conferences. Dennis Howlett tells me Epicor has created something similar and SAP may have experimented in this area, too.

- Chatter can bring to a business person’s attention all manner of important business events. The ability of the software to pass along key business events emanating out of application systems and databases is particularly welcome. Proponents of REA (Realtime Event Accounting model) will be especially delighted to see this time of technology become available.

On the concern’s side, I worry about these issues:

- Data Overload and Worker Productivity – I’m just not convinced that every worker needs or would benefit from this fountain of information streaming at them non-stop. Sometimes, my best work comes when I step away from all of the distractions and interruptions and concentrate on the task at hand. I don’t want truck drivers reading Facebook updates while on the road. I’m also not convinced that all posts/feeds are valuable. The challenge for the Salesforce.com team will be to develop sophisticated filtering and prioritization tools to make chatter smarter. If Chatter doesn’t improve worker productivity and create value for the enterprise, it could end up getting blocked on corporate networks like some social networking technologies.

- Synthesis – Speaking for myself, I’ve come to loathe certain bulletin boards, IM users, etc. because they do not write effectively. They incorrectly assume that I can somehow read their mind and determine the context of their messages. Equally frustrating is their self-centered view that I have read everything they’ve ever written and remember it. Their communications assume so much context is already present that their newest missives are incomprehensible. I need context and I need someone or a program to structure and synthesize dozens or hundreds of communications to something short, succinct and relevant.

- Conversation vs. Knowledge – Conversation is a luxury. It’s something I do with close colleagues, friends, family and clients. Knowledge is what I need to do my job well. Chatter certainly fills the conversation component well but businesses may need something that converts, filters and/or structures conversation into knowledge. That’s the real challenge and opportunity this kind of technology could bring in time.

- Quality of content - Not all content that is presented to a user of Chatter will be valuable or will be something that the receiver can assist. Yes, users can choose which people they want to Chatter with but still the quality issue will remain. What we’re willing to read in our own time is not what we should be reading during work hours.

Let’s return to the idea of events for a moment. Events in business systems can be internal or external occurrences or data points that warrant a worker’s/executive’s attention. Here are some examples:

- the Federal Reserve moves up the Fed Funds Rate by a full percentage point. This may mean that a company’s cost of capital is going to go up real soon. If it does, a company would want to re-examine its capital expenditure plans, its inventory levels, etc.

- the price of key commodity (e.g., wheat, copper, etc.) goes up/down by 20% in one day’s trading. Should someone in Purchasing, Procurement, Sales, etc. be notified as the company may want to lock in lower prices now or raise prices of finished goods?

- A key customer or supplier has just announced they are in financial difficulty or getting acquired.

- The engineer in your firm with 116 patents to her name has just notified HR that she’s going to go part-time and then go on early retirement.

Business people make decisions based on a number of internal and external events. When certain (not all) changes occur in one’s business environment, some reactions are necessary. Some events create strategic opportunities for the firm but only when they can be acted upon quickly and decisively. This, I believe, is the real opportunity for Chatter. Chatter can turn a moribund, middle-of-the-road firm into a real competitive juggernaut. When Chatter gets event processing fully incorporated into its solution, businesses and management science are in for a real change. For the first time, we could start to see companies managed in real-time.

Charles Dickens began his famous book “A Tale of Two Cities” with this opening statement:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going to direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way, “

This week, I’m in Silicon Valley. Yesterday, a colleague, Dr. Katherine Jones, and I visited with executives from WorkDay, Taleo, Ariba and Financial Force (the Salesforce.com and Unit4/Agresso joint venture). Today, I’m at Salesforce.com’s Dreamforce event. These visits have confirmed for me what CIOs have already indicated to me: SaaS (software as a service) has really moved mainstream. Big ERP (enterprise resource planning) vendors that cannot, will not or are unable to offer these solutions are in trouble. Yet, to hear it from the old school crowd, these firms are:

- still vetting the SaaS space as they aren’t sure it’s for real
- saying that their customers aren’t asking for SaaS
- having trouble retro-fitting their old-premise solution to a SaaS environment
- do not know how to make a solution multi-tenant despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development
- etc.

LET THEM EAT CAKE

Or in this case “let them pay 25% maintenance that generates 90+% margin for us”. The arrogance, indifference or lack of empathy old school vendors have for their customers is appalling. They behave with the imperious attitude of the royalists of yore. But, like the old royalists, they did not recognize that the world around them was changing. Instead, the royalists found themselves increasingly on the other end of a pitchfork, ax or guillotine. The end of an era is coming and vendors can choose to embrace or fight it. But will the fighters win?

In the executive meetings yesterday, Katherine and I heard, consistently, these sentiments:

- Interest in SaaS products is growing rapidly. Vendors find they are challenged by internal concerns (e.g., how to accommodate their sales professionals’ commission problems as these companies are shifting from on-premise to SaaS sales) not market acceptance. Nonetheless, the smart firms don’t let their internal issues impede what their customers want. These vendors are sorting out the issues and moving forward.

- Marketing SaaS products is not a problem for SaaS vendors but successfully implementing the customers they are winning is. SaaS vendors are almost universally focused on building solid customer references as they know that reputation really matters in a space where a few minutes of service disruption could kill one’s brand.
- Market interest in SaaS products is expanding. Once, where customers would entertain some HR or CRM apps running on the cloud, Finance applications are now being seen as very viable solutions to use.

Katherine and I asked these vendors about the software products they are replacing. No surprise here: they are uninstalling old school products – many of the products being replaced were implemented to alleviate Y2K (year 2000) issues. Those aging products, many of which were implemented in the mid-to-late 1990s, are the ones being booted to the curb. More on this in a subsequent post.

Why are the old products falling away? Vendors told us that their customers and prospects are looking to SaaS as:

- The TCO of existing solutions is out of whack. Ever higher maintenance costs were frequently identified as major customer pain point and a driver of SaaS sales.

- Customers don’t like being stuck on older releases because they can’t justify the commitment of funds, time, third parties, etc. to implement upgrades.

- They have run out of time waiting for their old ERP, HR, or Finance software vendor to get on the SaaS bandwagon or deliver long-promised SaaS products.

One SaaS vendor executive described the ‘transition points’ that trigger the initial contact with their firm. These include, but are not limited to:

- The prior old school vendor requires a re-implementation of the product to utilize a new release.
- The old school vendor requires its customers to re-license an application as it is being re-platformed or re-badged.
- The customer is experiencing declining fortunes yet the old school vendor’s license fees and maintenance amounts will not change to reflect the new economic reality.
- The customer is outgrowing the old solution. The number of customers that are now global is huge and growing yet some solutions do not scale in size, functionality or global reach.
- Etc.

CIOs are adding to the market interest as they are choosing to use SaaS applications whenever some of their servers are due for retirement/replacement. CIOs realize that they would like to avoid new capital expenditures, want to have software that always remains current, use software that doesn’t cost them anything to upgrade, use software that frees up their IT staff to work on more strategic matters, etc.

Vendor after vendor reaffirmed for Katherine and me that customers are realizing 50% TCO savings over older on-premise products. (Salesforce did so this morning, too).

Now look at what’s going on at Salesforce.com’s Dreamforce event. 19,000 people registered for this event. The main auditorium of 10,000 was filled and an overflow room of 3,000 people was filled, too. In this economy, such a large number of people don’t go to a show, miss work and incur travel costs unless they’re serious about the subject.

A crowd of 19,000 people is a lot. Maybe only two or three application software vendors could deliver that kind of crowd. And some of those are struggling to do so as the lack of innovation, the lack of timely delivery of product, the high cost of these passé solutions, etc. makes market interest in these products fade.

Will SaaS displace on-premise solutions? Not entirely. But significant market share losses could start showing up in the next 24 months. Latecomers to SaaS will find their existing customers and new prospects to be especially leery of their solutions. Why? It’s taken Salesforce.com a decade to perfect their platform, their reliability, their sandboxes, etc. Untested SaaS environments will be viewed as risky propositions. CFOs, Controllers, CEOs, etc. will prefer to go with solutions from vendors with a solid track record and credentials in SaaS and the cloud. Newbies will have a really tough time.

Dickens opened his book with the best/worst dichotomies not just to get a reader’s attention but to point out that everyone in France at that time, royalists and peasant, had starkly different opinions of the current situation. Some royalists thought good times were still ahead while others correctly saw the sea change coming. Ditto for the peasants.

Survivors are the ones who correctly assess the market situation. Casualties are the ones who live in denial or in some unrealistic but idealized view of the world. Old school, on-premise vendors are in trouble. Of that I have no doubt. What amazes me is the level of denial still present in some of those firms. Pain is coming to those firms soon.

James Neal wrote the book “Effective Phrases for Performance Appraisals” many years ago. Today, it’s in its twelfth edition and has sold more than a million copies. BusinessWeek even noted this event.

As much as I enjoy praising the virtues of great employees, it’s the less than stellar ones I, and I suspect many of you, struggle with mightily. We rack our brains looking for those exact, precise, clear-cut and definitive words that basically tell them “You screwed up and you’ll be gone soon unless you do a 180”. But what are those words? Why isn’t there a book for these gems?

Well, I think it’s time we start collecting the phraseology for the underperforming or malcontents under our supervision. Herewith are some starter phrases that might be a tad bit too strong for that next annual review you conduct. And of course, make sure your HR team signs off on any of these before you use them.

1. “Couldn’t find a successful path to complete this project even if we gave him a GPS”

2. “Wanting and getting a raise/promotion are two different things”

3. “Approaching his deliverables is like approaching an outhouse – you just know they’re going to stink”

4. “He talks to himself – a lot – because he likes the sound of his voice better than mine or the client’s”

5. “If I wrote a performance review as poorly as he writes, it would say ‘UR GRAMR SUKS”

6. “Has set a new standard in work performance – unfortunately it’s not good one”

7. “Employee wants the firm to sponsor his attendance in a foreign language class. I suggested he learn some English phrases first like ‘on-time’, ‘on-budget’ and ‘performance plan’”

8. “Asking out our married CEO on a date was not a good career move”

9. “He set a department record for the most dead relatives, sick pets and 24-hour bugs in one year”

10. “Thinks we don’t know that he catches 40+ daytime baseball games a year. Even customers complain that their calls can’t be understood over all of the stadium noise”

11. “Single-handedly parked more porn on a company laptop than anyone in the history of the firm”

12. “Could have tattoos all over his arms but we’ll never know as he hasn’t rolled up his sleeves and gotten his hands dirty in years”

13. “Actually thinks Facebook is a business application”

So what phrase have you been itching to use? Got a favorite that speaks volumes about poor performance? Send it along and share it with us.

I’ve spent a lot of money on travel. Over one 10-year period, I went through $2.5 million just on airline travel alone. I think I understand travel well.

I always look through the annual Business Travel News top 100 travel spending report. Companies are ranked by the amount of air travel spend they incur annually in the U.S.

In reviewing the latest issue, I was pleased to see several systems integrators, software companies, hardware vendors and other technology related firms have instituted some great practices in recent years. I even compared this year’s report with data in a prior year (see graphic).

Where the Money Goes

Now, some firms are spending more on air travel and total T&E (travel and entertainment). Why? Well, last year’s fuel costs drove air fares up demonstrably and that got reflected in higher travel costs. Some firms grew organically and some took on substantial acquisitions (e.g., SAP buying Business Objects, HP buying EDS, etc.). Growth should trigger higher travel costs as more headcount usually translates to more travel cost.

But, buyers of services need to look a bit deeper and question potential service providers as to the measures they are taking to ensure that the money they spend on travel and T&E is worthwhile and cost-effective.

Here are some areas to probe:
- Are training trips booked with 21-day advance purchase fares?
- Do employees use the lesser of the integrator or the client’s negotiated rates with carriers, hotels, rental car companies, etc.?
- Do employees car pool/share rental cars on long-term out of town engagements?
- Do employees stay in apartments or extended stay facilities in lieu of hotels for long-term engagements?
- Do employees use 7-day advance (or longer) fares for internal meetings?
- Are internal meetings scheduled for days when employees would normally be in their home office location (e.g., Friday)?
- Does the integrator/software firm aggregate travel spend globally to maximize its pricing power?
- Do the integrators/software firms utilize closer-in personnel so as to avoid air travel altogether?
- What percentage of trips are booked for travel that will not be chargeable/billable? How can this number be reduced further?
- What class of travel is being booked for short-haul, long-haul and international travel?
- Are service workers allowed to choose the carrier? How can a client be assured that the lowest fares are being selected?
- Does the service firm discipline employees who violate travel policies? Does the client have to pay for these excesses?

Beyond airfare, the size of the T&E numbers is what really gets my attention. Admittedly, I’m surprised when my rental car bill or my hotel bill exceeds my airfare. It happens more frequently these days as rental car rates have shot up in many markets. You’ll really see it when you stay more than a day in a given market (I rarely get that luxury).

I’ve seen service people charge in some whoppers on their time reports. Usually, they get nailed for it. You know what I’m talking about. Staffers taking clients out for mega-expensive dinners and charging it in. Lazy staff who don’t book travel until the last second. Staffers who insist on staying in resort hotels, use valet parking, etc. I have a name for those folks: ex-employees.

I once had a boss who insisted on only staying in the absolute finest hotels and dining in restaurants that only the most well-heeled gourmet could afford. And, of course, he only flew first class.This person was an empirious cad without empathy. This ultimate narcissist was hell to work for and a major expense control problem for his clients.

I spend a lot of time in software and service negotiations outlining the rules of the road, so to speak, on how service providers will operate when engaged with my clients. Trust me, if you don’t have these conversations, you will lose a lot of money.

So, what are the most egregious T&E sins of service providers you’ve seen?

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.

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.

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.

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.