- E-Commerce (5)
- NetSuite and NetSuite Consulting (23)
- SaaS (28)
- Technology for the Small to Medium Enterprise (38)
- Uncategorized (6)
Suffice it to say that a lot of enterprise software analsysts have been very cool to the idea of the social enterprise. This is unfortunate because it suggests a lot of confusion on all sides. The advocates of social sometimes seem to beat a drum about either the tools of social networking or they have a quasi political slant. In either case, the effort to muddle through to some reasonable view seems too great and people throw their hands up and say, Non Mas. I can’t blame them.
In fact the keynote address had some elements of this, as well. The social contact is an idea in a lot of CRM systems offer now, and there’s nothing particulary wrong with it, but I doubt it adds a lot of value. I can only imagine what a company looking at my social profile might determine from the wisecracks I make to nephews and siblings on Facebook, or the rather mundane tech slant of my Twitter account. LinkedIn might be slightly more interesting in a high stakes B2B sale, but hardly worth the effort.
When we move from the social contact to the social employee, though, the view finally starts to clear up. We begin to see the outlines of something damned interesting. The SF tool, Chatter, has been considerably improved and SF has started to learn how their customers want to use it. (By the way, you have to give them, sf.com, a lot of credit for taking this ‘learn by experience’ route as there are a lot of software companies their size or larger that would never have the courage to admit in public that they don’t have all the answers. Witness the current melodrama playing out at HP. Ugh.)
The result of their learning and experimentation is a social tool with the potential to make the user’s company and processes better over time, and to make the software better as well. I guess I’m taking a bit of a leap here, but after a lifetime of watching software’s futile attempt to model our ungovernable lives, I have a real soft spot for a ‘simple’ little tool like Chatter that can help us manage the 20% of transactions that somehow veer away from the prosaic norm.
Think about the small manufacturing company that makes 5 assemblies from 200 items or subassemblies, each of which can be purchased from at least two vendors. What’s the problem, right? Well, normally it’s not a big deal, but there’s a little bump in sales and a lost purchase order and now you’re scrambling to get orders out. If you have BIG ERP there are ways of altering the manufacturing plan. Will take months to setup, train and then days to perform, but it can be done. But with Chatter, these types of snafus are remediated through a collaboration of your operations manager, your vendors and your sales manager. People spend their time solving problems, not working the software plan. You can see that you don’t have to have nearly the same amount of complexity in your ERP system, when you depend on collaboration to solve the one offs, instead of layering solutions in the software code.
On the other hand, a lot of Chatter can driver users nuts, but hopefully we’ll get to the point where we have the right people working to solve the right problem with just the chatter it requires, and little more. There may be hope for enterprise software yet.
To answer the first question we must ask another: What drives complexity?
Vendors tell you that they respond to customers, and it’s true that many customers demand that software meets their highly idiosyncratic requirements, that’s true, and requirements drive complexity. But is it also true that vendors for many reasons welcome their customer’s desire for more complexity, even encourage it. But why?
Would the question be easier to answer if we replace ‘vendor’ with ‘employees working under the same flag’? You probably see where I am going with this. The way many employees think about their employment reminds me of the story about economist Milton Friedman who was taken to see a government construction project in a third world country. Why, Friedman wondered, are the men digging a canal with shovels instead of earth moving equipment? He was told that using shovels created more jobs, to which Friedman replied, “Then why not use spoons?”
Many employees who work under the same flag understand that adding complexity is in fact the equivalent of digging a canal with spoons. But, you might ask, management exists to make sure that employees don’t put their own needs before the customer’s, right? Well, management also understands that complexity helps to increase their software’s economy. As complexity grows, professionals and experts show up to help manage it. The more professionals and experts who show up the more cachet the software wins in the marketplace.
Complexity is also a prime driver of customer tie in. After you spend 10 times the license fee to implement SAP or Oracle applications, the probability of your changing applications in the mid-term, or even long term, future approaches zero. Or consider desktop office applications. You not only purchased the licenses but then you trained several hundred or several thousand users. The probability you are going to move to free OpenOffice applications much less on-demand versions of spreadsheet or word processing apps is nearly nil. By the way, have you seen anyone providing training for the free OpenOffice apps? Some probably exist, but you don’t see them around very often.
Recently Microsoft started offering its office apps online, calling it Office 365. I’m not sure how many users they will find for their service, but they have provided plenty of material for the blogosphere. So far, commentators who have tried the service, or tried signing up for it, have a single word to describe the experience – ‘complexity’.
The thing that stood out to me as I read the articles is that the business thinking that motivates so much of what Microsoft does sits in the middle of Office 365. They tied in as many of their applications as possible, for example. Outlook you can understand, but Silverlight? They are also offering a complex pricing plan that encourages users to sign up now for as much of the service as they can afford, since if you decide to change later you cannot migrate your documents.
With the complexity of the interface and the difficulty of installing and using it, it’s only a matter of time before there are training courses devoted to Office 365. You can see legions of corporate users marching into training centers eventually.
Meanwhile I have also caught up on reading some of my favorite online writers, and one of them, Brian Sommers wrote a great article about SAP and Workday; the old on premise ERP giant SAP vs the young SaaS Workday. The question Sommers asks is do legacy ERP vendors have what it takes to build applications for the future requirements of business? It’s one thing to address social, cloud and mobility; these are important notes Sommers. But perhaps even more important Sommers states:
The big changes that businesses are facing are centered around: extraordinarily rapid, curvilinear innovation and changes impacting regulation, competition, finance, etc. The speed of business is not just increasing; it is growing at a skyrocketing pace while the ability of ERP solutions to change is approaching an asymptotic path. The gap between the speed of business and the speed of ERP is expanding not contracting at many firms.
Our question here is do legacy ERP vendors have the ability to innovate in their core apps, or are they outmatched by the complexity they have built in over time. Go back to mobility for a moment. NetSuite order management module is fairly straightforward, and putting an app on a tablet or phone that allows for order entry is a challenge, but one that has already been met. Putting Oracle’s order management system on a phone and making it usable for a saleperson is an order of magnitude more difficult. It can be done, but it’s complex, and takes a lot of cash and time.
In another good read we came across Bob Warfield’s post on a new payment service for mobile called Square. They just raised 100 million in venture capital. This is where the economy is growing and going in many ways. How long will it take NetSuite to integrate Square? Will SAP or Oracle even bother?
We have heard more than once that SaaS software is not ready for the big leagues, that it cannot manage the complexity of real business. Our question is can complex legacy software meet the exigencies of their client’s marketplace today? Or is legacy code buried under a mass of complexity and tangled spaghetti that prevents the old on-premise ERP vendors from quickly adapting to the market’s requirements? The key to survival is not the rote hunting of the slowest mammals, but adaptation. Only those who are able to adapt to a changing environment are going to make it, and adaptation requires quickness, agility, flexibility – all attributes that are the antithesis of complexity.
Recent Comments