Showing posts with label SAP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAP. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

She Loves Me, She Loves Me Not: SaaS and SAP

From the Department of Irony and Confusion:

See if you can find a common theme. The only one I could find: She loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not,...

I really like the "rejection" of SaaS by customers that are in the middle of SAP implementations or run large SAP implementations.

As Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Update: Dan Druker has a great, thoughtful post on challenges faced by traditional ISVs entitled Different is Hard: SAP - (Not Too Much) Business By Design

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Franchises are for Pizza and Burgers, Not SaaS and Banks

I get a feeling that some mediocre MBA read a case study on franchising and the huge profits it has delivered to companies behind the big pizza and burger brands, and decided to apply it to software. Add the failed ASP model to the inappropriate franchise model borrowed from pizza and burger chains - and you pretty much can figure out the product and go to market strategy of the last generation software vendors when it comes to SaaS.

As a public service, I am providing a maturity model for these companies that aspire to be SaaS winners.

Pizza Pie Maturity Model for Franchising: Pizza and Burgers, Banks and SaaS

by avlxyz (CC)

This is a very simple maturity model. I know big companies like maturity models (see here) rather than straightforward examples. The following are the maturity levels I am proposing for those rushing to market with their half-baked SaaS offerings:

Level 1 - Pizza Delivery:
Yes, pizza delivery is the first step in this hierarchy. In order for you to deliver a pizza consistently and of good quality, you need a set of tools, some training and then hire low cost teenagers - and you get the cheesy goodness of pizza, delivered to your home by a freckled teen. Most franchising opportunities such as laundromats, burger joints function well when you are delivering a simple product or service that is easy to deliver, has minimal security/quality/reliablity constraints and is easy to replicate. I recommend the INSEAD case study referenced in the MIT Sloan Management Review article.

Level 2 - Banking
: As you can guess, delivering banking services is slightly harder. You need to make sure thieves can't steal your customer's money, that you provide certain level of services and if you have online banking - you need to ensure that customer's accounts are not hacked and money stolen. As a customer, you entrust valuable assets (money) to your bank and it is the trust that a bank has earned over years, if not decades that helps you feel safe coupled with certain regulations and assurances from the federal government. Banks do not have franchises - you cannot pay Bank of America $50,000 - get trained and then start operating a bank with their logo, system and processes. The reason is that the trust earned by banks cannot be delegated away nor can the brand be put to risk or diluted.

Level 3 - SaaS: Yes, SaaS is higher on the Pizza Pie Maturity Model for Franchising than banks. As with banks, customers trust valuable assets (data) with the SaaS company. The SaaS provider must earn the trust of the customers one day at a time by providing the right service levels, ensuring security and business continuity. Just as with a bank, the trust embodied in the brand of the SaaS provider is of great value - and this trust cannot be delegated in a simplistic manner. Providing software (and perhaps some training and best practices) to the SaaS Franchisees does not take care of the most critical elements of SaaS:
  • Reliability: How do you ensure that the SaaS Franchisee has architected its end to end systems to provide reliable service?
  • Security: What kind of processes are in place to ensure data is not lost?
  • Performance: How will the brand owner ensure that the SaaS Franchisee provides the right performance?
You may be wondering:
Why is SaaS higher than Banking on the Pizza Pie Maturity Model for Franchising?

I have two good reasons for this:
  1. Data Loss vs. Money Loss: Data is lost when someone performs a successful read operation without your permission. If I read your mental health records, I don't have to steal them. With bits and bytes, reading is stealing. With money, not so much. Just because you know my bank balance, I haven't lost my money. (Yes, there is loss of privacy and trust is eroded but its not the same. You don't call a cop because someone read your bank statement but if I read your critical health data you would have to call the cops.)
  2. No FDIC: A small bank or cooperative can be insured by FDIC and therefore provide sufficient protection to a customer but with SaaS you are relying on the trust earned by the brand. How comfortable do you feel having your data in a Uncle Billy's HealthCare On-Demand App that runs on software from NanoSoft?
Reliable Platform, Trusted Brand: What you need is a reliable platform from a trusted brand in Software as a Service. A multi-tenant platform with customers sharing one single system ensures that all customers and ISVs running their applications and trusting their data with the platform are receiving the same high level of security, reliability, availability and that any issues that are discovered are resolved for all tenants.

The approach taken by some vendors to deliver SaaS without true multi-tenancy or even worse, entrust third-parties with running copies of their software takes the Level 1 Pizza Delivery franchisee approach.

What do you think? Want more debate on SaaS styles?

You may want to consider force.com Platform as a Service from salesforce.com for business applications. (Please read full disclosure at the bottom of the blog. No MBA's were hurt in the writing of this blog.)

Monday, November 12, 2007

Charles Phillips meets with Bloggers and Discusses Fusion, SaaS, SAP and more

Today, Oracle took a significant positive step in blogger relations and reached out to Enterprise Irregulars - arranging a sit down with Oracle President Charles Phillips shortly after his keynote where he announced Oracle VM - Oracle's entry into the multi-billion dollar virtualization market. The blogger meet up was twice as much fun for me since I am proud of my affiliation with both Oracle and Enterprise Irregulars. The meeting lasted 45 minutes as Charles took questions on several topics that included - innovation, Fusion, SaaS, SAP and Cognos.

Irregulars with Charles Phillips

I found the session very interesting - Charles clearly had great command of Oracle's business strategy, the rationale behind acquisitions and posited interesting perspective on issues facing Oracle customers. For example, he emphasized that Oracle has more than 1.8 million users of its SaaS applications - but also took issue with multi-tenancy being narrowly equated with SaaS which he argued was a vendor strategy for keeping costs down and not a customer requirement.

Charles also talked about how he learned from GE's success in acquiring companies and retaining and growing top talent. Oracle keeps acquired software businesses as intact teams creating "business units" allowing the acquired management teams to continue to run the business.

In response to another question, Charles mentioned Oracle has now surpassed SAP to become #1 practice for Deloitte in North America. On the topic of Cognos being acquired by Oracle, Charles said "Not surprising, it would have been hard for Cognos to float around by itself. This is good for us – IBM does not have a good record of retaining talent from acquisitions and SAP is also struggling."

Here are the key posts that resulted from this meeting (which I will update over the next 2-3 days).

Dan Farber (ZDnet Editor-in-Chief and fellow Irregular) posted Oracle’s Charles Phillips: Fusion on track and SaaS for all. Here are some excerpts, I find interesting:
Phillips said he modeled managing different businesses within the Oracle business on GE’s structure. “We give them autonomy and enough authority so they feel like they are running the company,” he said.

...

Oracle has acquired companies large and small over the last several years to fill out is product portfolio. In some sense the strategy is about acquiring innovation, and talented developers, via smaller companies, but it is more directed toward acquiring market share with the larger acquisitions.

...

“We will make sure all of our products are able to run as software-as-a-service,” Phillips said. “We give them choice, and we think we can run it better than customers.” Oracle is looking at providing hosted applications for financial and retail customers with point-of-sale systems.

Jeff Nolan writes Into the Lion’s Den: Oracle OpenWorld. He has an interesting perspective as a former SAP executive and a leading voice in Enterprise 2.0.

Today was a milestone day for me in my professional life. After nearly a decade of SAP, culminating in my stint with the “attack Oracle” team, I ended up at Oracle OpenWorld as their guest sitting across the table from co-president Charles Phillips. BTW, OOW is frickin huge… I thought the Sapphire events were impressive but OOW is much larger and goes for the full week.

...

Phillips echoed sentiments I heard at SAP that customers don’t want end-to-end multi-tenant hosted solutions. In fact, he argued that because Oracle offers a private database option that they are uniquely able to capture government and other accounts that are prohibited from allowing their data to be on hosted datacenters. Quite honestly, I found this hard to believe but was unwilling to argue the point absent of factual data to support my own position.

One comment that he made about subscription pricing caught my attention, he said (to paraphrase) “if you look at the numbers you will find that saas subscription models are more lucrative after 2 1/2 years than perpetual licenses”. I would like to see that data, but tend to agree with him even absent of the data.

...

Karen (Senior Director, Corporate Communications) is definitely not what I expected from someone with Oracle Marcom… no taser strapped to her hip, no brass knuckles at the ready… just a competent hard working professional.


I am looking forward to see what other blogger attendees Michael Krigsman, Brian Sommer, Josh Greenbaum, Sadagopan and Vinnie have to say about this update.

Summary

This was overall an exciting step forward for Oracle in working with the blogger community. Even though the opinions on this meeting will be diverse, there was near unanimity amongst the attendee bloggers that we need more of this - interaction with vendors that our readers (and software customers and users) care about.

Kudos: Special thanks to Irregulars Jeff Nolan and Vinnie Mirchandani that worked with Karen Tillman, Jake and others at Oracle to make this a reality.

(Disclaimer: Please read full disclaimer below. All opinions expressed here are my own personal views.)

Saturday, September 01, 2007

SaaS lovers want it both ways - a short rant

A lot of SaaS proponents take great pride in distinguishing the new Software as a Service era from the hosted applications or ASP model - and insist that there is only one right way of doing SaaS. This is in direct contrast to what I am seeing a lot of ISVs do in real life - which is, adopt a range of delivery model options to fit the customers need and economics of their particular business. But, every time an established software company talks about its success in SaaS by pointing to the wide range of options in the SaaS business, the SaaS purists go up in arms. This would be perfectly fine if their definition of SaaS was consistent when it came to only including shared everything multi-tenant services with its much hyped poster child Salesforce.

The problem is that when they tout the growth and size of SaaS and its wide adoption, they refer to billions of dollars in revenue which includes all variations of SaaS.

So here is my point - either go with a "purist" SaaS definition and accept SaaS as a relatively small niche market today with limited adoption or expand your definition to include different SaaS models. Don't mix and match.

Related posts:

Update:

Mukund makes an excellent point in the comments that multi-tenant model of SaaS delivery is a preferred architecture - and I agree that it is, for many applications. I don't argue in my rant that multi-tenancy is unimportant or irrelevant- in fact, quite the contrary, I am of the opinion that it is the most suitable model for many ISVs and has several architectural and business beneefits. My argument is with the attempt to restrict the definition of SaaS to only one model and yet continue to conveniently include other models when it helps SaaS puritanism proponents make their point.

Update 2:

The post has elicited a series of responses. Phil Wainewright asks "So who exactly is trying to have it both ways?" in his post on ZDNet and argues against my viewpoint - even though I think that he and I agree on a lot of things as I mention in my comment on his blog including the importance of multi-tenancy. Bob Warfield doesn't take sides but points to what he considers the more important issue of economics (than architecture) . Sinclair Schuller follows up with his post asking Are there REALLY multiple strategies for SaaS ISVs?

This is turning out to be pretty interesting conversation. What do you think about the so called purist vs. realist SaaS debate? Do you think that there is only one true blue SaaS architecture that qualifes as SaaS?

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Charles Phillips discusses Oracle SaaS Leadership

Charles Phillips recently emphasized Oracle's SaaS leadership in an interview to Datamonitor:

Always on the look out for growth, Oracle believes the SaaS movement will provide it with two revenue opportunities, one from additional database sales and the other from direct income from services.

As far as databases are concerned, president Charles Phillips believes the very nature of SaaS will drive demand for on-premise databases. "SaaS is very database intensive. Normally people do not want all their data resident on an on-demand product. So if Salesforce.com is hosting data for a large company, they are forcing them to create a replicated database behind the firewall, which means that companies are creating more and more databases," he said.

Charles also discusses the fact that Oracle was early in adopting the On-Demand model and has been doing it successfully for over 9 years. In another interview with AccountingWeb, Charles Phillips brings out Oracle's successes in SaaS and in competing with SAP.

Dennis Howlett of AccmanPro called the claims outrageous leading to a debate on Enterprise Irregulars - and Josh Greenbaum who writes a ZDNet blog, in a rare feat, wrote the following response arguing for the facts in favor of Oracle and I quote him (with permission):

Rising to the defense of Charles in a disagreement with Dennis almost sounds crazy, but here goes:

The only really outrageous statement comes in the first graf:
We're not trying to preserve something from the 1970s like SAP is. As a company, we were in infrastructure first, then we moved into applications.

Correction: SAP is not preserving anything from the 70s (except some of its founders, who ARE relatively well-preserved. And Oracle was NOT an infrastructure company first: they started in database, moved to applications (in 89) and then went into infrastructure.

But the rest of it is actually not too outrageous.

Statement: We could not be reporting those numbers without competing among SAP customers. A significant proportion of our new customers are also SAP customers who we can now add value to.
Fact check. They are competing among SAP customers: The overlap has always been huge, (DBMS), and now it's bigger with PSFT, SEBL and Hyperion on board. If he didn't have SAP customers to sell (DBMS and middleware and appliactions) to he'd be out of business.

Statement: I know for a fact that there are far more SAP customers calling me now than there were three or four years ago.
Fact check: see above. He's just bought into more overlap.

Statement: We have entire sales territories that are now just based on SAP accounts, our salespeople can make a living out of just selling to SAP accounts.
Fact check: Yup on that one too. Guess what, SAP has territories that are all ORCL too.

Statement: SAP doesn't want that co-existence so they haven't made it easy for their customers.
Fact check: I was only one of several analysts who discussed this issue with Henning earlier in the year. Field sales hasn't been open to ceding CRM to SEBL and completing the rest of the sale with SAP, so they've been losing accounts that want SEBL and care less about the rest of the system.

Statement: SaaS is very database intensive," acknowledges Phillips. "Normally people don't want all their data resident on an on-demand product. So if Salesforce.com is hosting data for a large company, they are forcing them to create a replicated database behind the firewall, which means that companies are creating more and more databases."
Fact check: The first part of this doesn't wash with me, though I would love to hear Phil's comments when he gets back. The idea that SaaS generates net greater DBMS sales seems bogus. But the very last statement is true regardless: companies are creating more and more databases.

Statement: Oralce is going to be the on-demand leader, seemingly using the terms on-demand and SaaS interchangeably.
Fact check: until very recently, ORCL and SFDC were the only two companies that stuck with the on-demand market, and, while the numbers were small, ORCL was a leader in number of customers doing OD. If you define leadership by number of users, no way. If you define leadership by vision, ORCL was definitely a leader in OD. As for mixing OD and SaaS, at the risk of annoying the purists, they are interchangeable, except by lexicographers and semanticists intent on splitting hairs.

Statement: We continue to make progress (on fusion).
Fact check: True. Can't say more, or the NDA police will draw and quarter me.

Oracle is not only a leading SaaS provider but is also the database and middleware platform of choice for well known leading SaaS ISVs and several others that are not so well known.

(Note: Cross posted on http://blogs.oracle.com/zen also.)

Monday, June 04, 2007

IBM invests in Kingdee of China (while everyone waits for Google to buy Salesforce)

While a lot of buzz has been generated about some Google-Salesforce announcement including speculations on Google acquiring Salesforce (and dismissals), the important news of the day seems to have been missed - IBM made a significant investment and acquired equity in Kingdee one of the local ERP vendors in China with global ambitions. Under the terms of the agreement, IBM will end up with 3.85% of Kingdee - an equal investment being made by Lehman Brothers.

I have previously written on some of the regional software vendors such as Ufida, Kingdee, Tally etc. and the fact that as India and China grow rapidly, the software consumption in those economies is expected to jump significantly. Gartner has made predictions on rise of atleast one disruptor in ERP from China/India.

So while Google-Salesforce may make for a great copy for industry press, they are missing out on something that may just be the beginning of an emerging trend- software leaders fighting for the future leadership in China/India (BRIC).

Let the real China games begin... ahead of the Olympics next year.

(Please read the disclaimer at the bottom of this page.)

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

New Meme: Software is Free, Service is Not (Book Review)

I recently received a complementary copy of the book, "Software is Free, Service is Not: The Dawn of Service Networks" written by ex-Oracle executives and co-founders of OpenWater - Mike Rocha and Tim Chou. The authors make the argument that most proprietary software used by businesses today is already paid for, and that the open source movement reflects the reality that software is (relatively) free. So, most of the value added by software vendors is in providing service for the software. However, the service business is treated as a poorly run cash cow rather than the core of the business as it should be. The authors drive a lot of their arguments from their experience at Oracle where Tim claims growing the advanced services business by a whopping 61% from 2000 to 2004 while other lines of business shrunk or stayed flat.

The business problem that Tim and Mike set out to solve is as follows: Businesses are spending $2.7 Trillion (yes with a t) per year to support software. And the authors have figured out a way to substantially lower these costs while dramatically improving the service.

The core thesis of the book is that support is run poorly today due to fragmentation of information and people. They envision a world where software support would be as easy to use as consumer oriented services like Google, Ebay and Amazon. The technological breakthrough that they plan to leverage for defragmenting people and information to provide this new level of service is semantic web. The contention is that although semantic web has had limited success in the broader internet, by confining the problem space to software support it would be possible to tag (add metadata to) the existing information currently trapped inside vendor portals, community forums, etc. and then be able to run sophisticated queries that return meaningful results.

The other aspect of the new service networks would be to leverage social computing - think MySpace meets Dell dude (support guy). In addition to tagging the knowledge base, the service network would create comprehensive profile of individuals in the service network. The idea being that you shouldn't have to go through layers of people to get to that one person that already knows the answer to the question.

In all, the book makes for a very compelling read and I recommend you obtain a (complementary) copy by going to their site. The vision of the future they paint seems highly desirable and plausible in not so distant future. The question is how soon can we get there - the challenges are rather significant and I am not sure (semantic) technology can overcome some of these barriers. Here is a few:

  • Lack of incentives for some players: It is not clear what incentive software vendors have in plugging into this new service network. The valuable service that ISVs provide and revenues generated from this source would incent them to improve their service but not necessarily plug into an uber network.
  • Dependency on semantic tagging: I am always skeptical of businesses that require the world out there to be tagged. I do agree with them that this problem is somewhat simplified from the technology perspective due to domain-specific nature. I personally think that they could also leverage a service like the Amazon Mechanical Turk to get human beings to tag what machines cannot.
  • Competing with free: From where I sit, there are two kinds of customers - one that want a single throat to choke, global, around the clock support and are willing to pay for it; and the other that wants free software, is willing to spend time putting it all together and relies on free support (in terms of dollars spent directly) by accessing help forums and search engines. The service network envisioned by Mike Rocha and Tim Chou may end up competing with free rather than enterprise support by established vendors. Yes, that market is probably big (even bigger) but it is hard to compete with free.
All in all- the book makes for a fascinating read and even if you don't believe in a new era of service networks, the facts and anecdotes shared by the authors and their insight into the software and support businesses is worth a read.

The authors have formed a startup(OpenWater) to bring their vision to reality. The fact that they are willing to put their money (or convince someone else of putting their money) where the mouth is makes this an even more interesting book to read. Its not just a theory - we will find out over next few years how right or wrong they are.

What do you think about the upcoming revolution in support? Is it plain old outsourcing with a web2.0 pitch? Is semantic web for real?

(See disclaimer at the bottom of the page).

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Hooking up on the internet

I know what you are thinking. Why is Anshu talking about hooking up on a software blog? Is there yet another certified love finding service to challenge eHarmony? And how does this fit into the enterprise software or web2.0 world? Well, rest assured the world, at least the virtual one, is not about to come apart.

This blog post is about making real applications hook up (dictionary meaning: To assemble or wire) without writing code. Teqlo is a platform for end users to build mashups of web services. It is a bit hard to explain why an end user (non programmer) would want to build a mashup till you think of millions of users today that 'build' applications in Excel by writing formulas and connecting cells and spreadsheets. With the web acting as the source of much of the data (email, pictures, reports, maps), many users are performing tasks that require input from various web sites (technically, we services) and need to be combined in various task flows and computations.

The easiest example to think is of a sales person who wants to call various contacts in his Salesforce (or Siebel On-Demand) CRM contact list using Skype. He either has to cut and paste, or wait for a programmer to create a mashup. Teqlo would allow such users to build their own mashups.

Intercity Mashups using 4 letter APIs (R.O.A.D.)

I was recently invited to a preview demo of Teqlo before its launch by Jeff Nolan (Teqlo). He built a real mashup in less than 15 minutes live during the demo. The best way to picture this is by seeing the Teqlo movie put together by Rod Boothby (also from Teqlo). The tools are not yet pretty- its a small startup focusing on functionality and figuring out complex technical issues (micro-formats) and how to hide them from the average consumer. But they are functional and they are now allowing users to sign up for a beta.

Recently, Yahoo! launched Yahoo! Pipes - and its the closest in its mission to Yahoo! Pipes. However, there are some key differences. Yahoo! Pipes works on (RSS) feeds - essentially allowing you to filter and combine feeds. Teqlo, on the other hand, works with web services such as EBay, Amazon etc.

The value of Teqlo's platform will go up as more and more mashups (Teqlets) are built and shared by users. The challenge for them is to get enough users excited to build out an interesting set of mashups that can then be copied and enhanced by others. Although, the full details are not yet worked out- Jeff did share that Teqlo will look to create a market place of apps for users and share in the profits. It is also investing its own resources in building some apps to get to the critical mass. Salesforce's AppExchange is one model to emulate in this space although Salesforce is constrained by its CRM roots and most of the AppExchange apps are what I would call CRM bug fixes and enhancements. (Yes, you do not have to be a savvy reader to see my bias here.)

Both Yahoo! and Teqlo are focusing on the (extranet) web and not the enterprise. I personally think that the ability to connect enterprise applications with web based applications may be the most interesting place for application of such tools- the reason is that Google Maps+FlickR, or Salesforce+Skype problems are common enough that a developer can write code, post it and make some money (or a name) in the process. Where the end user is left high and dry is when she is trying to hook up the recruitment system (big HR) or enterprise CRM with Skype to call down the list of candidates. Jeff's response is that Teqlo is initially focusing on the extranet initially but he clearly sees value in enterprise mashups too- after all, he did work for SAP for many years and know this space wll.

I am curious to see how this plays out. After all, many end users are not even comfortable or adept at Excel spreadsheet apps. It is the business analyst with some techinical knowledge that builds out spreadsheet apps, reports and small apps (Oracle Application Express/HTML DB) in many companies. A new job function (Business Analyst 2.0) may emerge to meet these needs.

What do you think about mashup tools? Do you think this is too early? Have you ever felt the need to build such an app?

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Organic growth story is now just a story

Organic growth works for human beings and cows. Not so well for large enterprise software companies. After beating up on its competitor for pursuing an acquisition-led growth strategy, SAP failed to meet its numbers this quarter.

Message to Waldorf, Germany- let's leave organic to California's Yoga-loving Hybrid-driving meditation-praciticing vegans. For growth, you need to eat some beef.

On a more serious note, the two areas where SAP showed weakness may also be leading indicators:

North America: Is it possible that SAP is getting beat by its arch-rival Oracle?

Asia (outside Japan): SAP had made claims of making great inroads and betting on the emerging market economies. Here, the issue could be either local software companies or custom built software. In either case, it does not portend well for the SAP strategy.

(Another Infosys, India building: by reidmix)

It is my (very personal) opinion that the large enterprise vendors may have to look into acquiring companies that are focused on mid-market and/or emerging economies. It is nigh impossible to take your first-world overly complex software requiring massive infrastructure and compete with local vendors selling low-priced limited functionality software. In fact, some analysts have predicted that at least one large software vendor will emerge from India/China over the next few years on the global scene. Kingdee is one such aspirant that InfoWorld talks about here in "China's Kingdee wants to take on Oracle/SAP".

Jeff Nolan wrote an excellent piece "SAP, Oracle under the SOA, On-Demand gun" highlighting the issues facing enterprise software leaders. Vinnie Mirchandani (or Microchandani, his tech name) wrote on similar theme in "Oracle and the 29.2 factor". With the coming IPO of NetSuite, the focus will once again be on mid-market and SaaS (Software-as-a-Service).

(Disclaimer: As is the case with all my posts, this reflects my personal views and does not in any way reflect the opinions of my employer or anyone else. See profile for detailed disclaimer.)

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Ever heard of UFIDA, KingDee, Tally?

Well, you may never have heard of these enterprise software vendors but they are the giants from China and India. KingDee and UFIDA are #1 and #3 vendors in China and Tally is the top local vendor in India. Gartner recently predicted that a large vendor will emerge from China and India over the next 5 years. These 3 could well be the favorites for that spot. Tally is the QuickBooks of India with ambitions in mid-market ERP.

These homegrown wonders have the advantage of deep knowledge of the local markets, ability to develop software that fits the unique infrastructure of these countries. For example, connectivity to the Internet is far from ubiquitous in India. These limitations box these vendors allowing them to innovate in a space that is unique and disconnected from the global enterprise software world. And believe it or not, this is actually an advantage (see The Innovation Sandbox by C.K. Prahlad) as it prevents easy co-option by global vendors. We have already seen this play out in the consumer internet world with the success of Baidu.

Race to the top?
(by Bruno Girin)

So while we all look to climb the ladder of features and architecture and race to take advantage of Web2.0 and SOA in the enterprise software universe, we are also increasingly distancing ourselves from a market that cares about simple software that meets the most basic needs, can run in a sometimes connected world and on previous generation computers. And this market at the bottom of the pyramid is probably many times larger than the top we are all running towards. What do you think?

-

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Enterprise 2.0 is same as Web 2.0

I think some of us are over thinking the Enterprise 2.0 and Enterprise Mashups. The key is to learn from history and apply the knowledge to the present. Jeff Nolan has nicely summarized some of the discussion around Enterprise 2.0. Rod Boothby has raised the question of mashups in the context of Enterprise 2.0 I find Vinnie Mrichandani's post to be the best description of issues we need to consider and resolve.

However, the idea of Enterprise 2.0 seems inside-out to me. People from the enterprise world used to large ERP-style applications and deployments thinking in traditional terms with a willingness to tweak the model to incorporate 2.0 from Web 2.0. This will not suffice. The square (pun intended) peg of Enterprise software will not fit into the round hole (no pun intended) of Web 2.0

A lesson in history

The IT departments and software vendors that had significant investments in client-server tried to simply adapt client-server to the web rather than moving to true N-tier architecture. Slapping a portal on top of client-server software helped SI's and vendors make some money but they were no competition for applications designed from the ground up for the web. A lot of companies are now trying to do the same by trying to 'service-orient' their existing applications. I find the tone of discussion on Enterprise 2.0 suffering from the same problem.

Principles of Enterprise 2.0

The real Enterprise 2.0 applications are the SaaS applications (On-demand) from the likes of Salesforce.com, NetSuite, Siebel On-Demand etc. Some key characteristics of Enterprise 2.0 applications will be SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) delivery model, SOA architecture, simple web services based integration, extensiblity and open-ness.

SaaS & Long-tail: I would argue that all Web 2.0 applications are hosting-capable if not entirely hosted. The benefits of the long tail come into effect only when you have large number of users and but for a few very large companies it is hard to see how this effect will play out if the application is not hosted.

SOA, Web Services & Mashups: The Web 2.0 mashups were enabled by open standards-based APIs with many of them using either web services or other standards such as ATOM. In the enterprise, you need similar capabilities to do end-user integration. And SOA & web services help you expose your internal applications for integration. Rod Boothby poses an interesting question on what will Enterprise 2.0 mashups look like. I strongly believe (that's what blogs are meant for, right?) that Enterprise 2.0 mashups will look just like Web2.0 mashups. Just as your internal web apps for email and procurement now look just like Yahoo! and Amazon, in time your internal Enterprise 2.0 apps will look like the Web2.0 apps. Here is an example- you are browsing a catalog in your procurement application. As you mouse over the price, a bubble pops up (AJAX style) to tell you whether this is within your purchasing authority. This is a mashup of procurement and financials.

Why is this so hard?
If Enterprise 2.0 looks, feels and behaves like Web2.0 then why is it so hard. It is not hard, its hard for the existing enterprise applications that will in five years be legacy just as client-server applications became legacy and mainframe apps before that.

Are we done?
No, we are not done with building out Enterprise 2.0. The CRM space has made a good beginning and there are several others in various stages of development. With a new class of Enterprise 2.0, there will be new problems. Rather than looking for how to morph Enterprise 1.0 (did we ever finish 1.0, btw) into Enterprise 2.0, the key is to look at the Enterprise 2.0 and fill gaps. Some of these gaps are in the areas that have been brought up by Jeff Nolan and others. These include:
- Integration 2.0: How will Enterprise 2.0 applications integrate with each other? Will it be a hosted integration model?
- Identity 2.0: How do you enable single sign-on in Enterprise 2.0? Again rather than thinking about simply connecting your existing LDAP to Enterprise 2.0, look to online identity service providers.
- Customization 2.0: (I am as annoyed with having to say 2.0 after every term that applies to this new class of apps but couldn't resist it.) The question is how do I customize the new applications for specific verticals? Again look for the emergence of experts from verticals and regions. A Chinese company that customizes your vanilla Financials system to deal with national regulations. And then yet another company customizing that offering for clothing manufacturers to account for specialized business processes to deal with QR (Quantitative Restrictions) on clothing imports. And so on and so forth. Essentially, you end up with a network of service providers rather than customization by internal IT.

There are other issues of service-level monitoring and guarantees, analytics, bulk upload, security etc. Rather than trying to solve all these problems a priori before we build Enterprise 2.0, these concerns will get sorted out as we build out the services for the 2.0 world. Those of us who fall into the not good enough trap need to go back and re-read Innovator's Dilemma. The barely good enough for some will, in time, with iterative innovation become good enough for most.

I think this is an interesting discussion and I look forward to more exchanges and posts on this topic.

Update: FASTForward Blog's Joe McKendrick has picked up and extensively commented on this post at Fitting the Enterprise 2.0 Square Peg into the Web 2.0 Round Hole

Update: ZDNet's recent post entitled Facebook for Enterprise = Enterprise appears to agree with my viewpoint.

Tags: