Sightings in SaaS

Posts Tagged ‘SaaS’

Over the weekend I met a fellow in a local hardware who was looking for some very unusual screws. We got to talking and I found out that he supplements his retirement pension by re-conditioning dental chairs, of all things. Evidently it’s a decent money maker for him and he enjoys the hobby.

The conversation started me thinking about the current states of software and how this might actually reflect the state of the economy overall, not just in this downturn but in long term fundamental changes in the economy.

Software is in harvest mode, just about everywhere you look. What is harvest mode? When products reach the end of the life cycle they are kept around because they still have some value and market cache. We don’t continue to invest in them because the investment will no longer pay off. So we simply harvest whatever revenues we can while keeping a very close eye on costs.

In the software world, there are actually companies that buy older products and continue to harvest maintenance fees for years, especially true in the software for busines verticals. A friend of mine who works in a local steel service center owns one of these. The company purchased the software 20 years ago to help them manage inventory, processing and scrap. Then about 8 years ago the company that wrote the software sold off to a harvester. They now have a single person who supports the code base, but the product is no longer actively sold. There are after all only so many steel service centers in the world.

But what we are seeing today is something completely different. We have non-vertical, on-premise ERP/CRM software that is being harvested by the company that orginally wrote it, in the case of SAP, or by the companies that purchased it, in the case of Oracle or Sage. One way or the other, it seems that all 3 companies have come to the conclusion that it is useless to invest money in their now graying software products.

SAP’s steady decline went by another hurdle this past weekend when the current CEO left unexpectedly and two guys were promoted into the top spot. You can read extensive apologies here. Oracle has almost 100 acquisitions under it’s belt, making it a software harvester extraordinaire. Sage also has a host of harvest products. In fact in the on-premise space if you aren’t being harvested, you are a harvester.

On the plus side, harvesting means that your on-premise system will continue to run and be supported, more or less, by someone for the foreseeable future. On the down side, this means that you will continue to pay a lot of maintenance fees for the foreseeable future with little if any new features/functions. You have software on life support, basically, and that is both costly and a sorry state of affairs.

Why this is happening is difficult to say because the reasons are nearly as numerous as the underlying products. Sage for example still has some products that are not real time, but instead rely on batch processing. You would think it makes sense for companies using something like this to look around for something new, more useful and modern. There must be two reasons that they are not interested in changing: The newer software does not offer enough value to pay for the investment and trouble to change; the company is no longer making the income it once did and therefore has little to spend and little faith in the future. There’s some truth in both of these, but taken together they really pack a punch.

Think about a company that wholesales/distributes dental supplies, a b2b business. There was a time when the population in their area was surging and dental offices popped up like flowers. They became a strong regional player with a one or a few competitors, and all of them did well. But over the past few years business has changed substantially. First there are fewer new practices opening in their region, and the ones that are there have begun finding better values online. They can deliver next day, but it actually costs them more to hire a driver, a cost that he must pass through to customers, than it costs an internet distributor to send next day air. Huge efficiencies have happened in their market, and all have squeezed their margins.

What does a company in this space do to compete? They could also sell online, but they don’t have the expertise in materials management nor the capital to bring to bear to run an enormous, national brand warehouse. So, like the software companies, they go into lockdown, or harvest mode. They continue to service their region, keeping a very close  eye on costs, but they are unable to afford huge new investments in the business. Including software. So they keep on with their old system and eventually they will run out of reasons to exist altogether. Meanwhile, dentists squeezed by better oral care buy used, re-conditioned chairs instead of new ones. These are also available on the Internet.

In short, the Internet has thrown a wrench into the works of many mainline companies and as a result they have turned off new investments in technology. When I go over my NetSuite client list I can see a lot of companies that we implemented the software service for but only 2 of the more than 90 companies are mainline wholesales/distributors . Interestingly, one of my first clients was an Arizona company called Lifestyle and Leisure Creations, a wholesaler of massage equipment and supplies who sold out to a larger competitor.

That’s probably a strategy that  a lot of businesses need to be looking at. Purchasing competitors, especially at current discounted prices, can be a useful way to expand your customer list and restore some pricing strength. But you still need to gain greater efficiencies and the best way to do that is to think about investing in better technology. If you have a growing company across a large geography, you need to see where you are everyday and at every location. It’s not good enough to just throw together results manually at the end of the month. This is how on-demand software as a service can really help. Your entire company can work off a single account of the software, giving you real time results from all branches, warehouses, etc. And you don’t have to add the very expensive computing infrastructure that used to be necessary.

Again, looking over our client list, I see a dozen brand owners. These are wholesale/distributors who have gone an extra step and now are also manufacturing the products they distribute, using third parties in most cases. Brand ownership is one way of averting the steady decline of growth death spiral.

If your margins are getting hit hard and you’re thinking growth through aquisition or  brand ownership is the only way to continue the company, then you have to consider on-demand software. Like you, it operates unbounded by geography. And while on-premise software continues to struggle, NetSuite’s SaaS ERP/CRM grows and takes their customers.

Every once in a while I write a post that’s crazier than most. These normally happen late at night when my internal defenses have given way to a glass of wine. This post is along those lines. The basic question that I’ll try to answer is “Will the Cloud and SaaS save the current roster of Enterprise Software from the Dinosaur like extinction of its forebears?”

I’ll start by asking what  can you expect if you travel around the world looking for a tasty chicken dinner?

In Vietnam you can buy a live chicken, rest is up to you.
In China you can buy a chicken that’s been killed, you pluck and eviscerate and cook.
In Paris your chicken has been plucked, you eviscerate and cook.
In Des Moines the chicken has been plucked and eviscerated, you cook.
In New York the chicken arrives on your table plated, garnished and sauced

Now it may not seem like the world of software and the world of chickens have a lot in common, dear reader, but don’t give up yet. There is a point that I want to make here. A recent conversation with the Enterprise Irregulars around the difficulty of moving ERP systems forward with the business brought some interesting ideas to the fore. It all got started with an article by the now famous, in these parts, Thomas Wailgum in CIO about a study partly commissioned by CIO and Enterprise analyst IDC concerning this very question. Wailgum’s title says it all “ERP’s Paralysis Problem and the Repercussions for Businesses Everywhere.” The repercussions, as you might have guessed, are not good.

First,the premise, more exactly, is that ERP systems can prevent companies from seizing business opportunities because the systems are lumbering giants not given to flexibility, agility, growth and change. This leads us to conclude that the deeper the functionality of the ERP system the greater the difficulty of meeting business opportunity challenges. ERP in other words suffers from the New York Chicken problem: Once it’s served there is no turning back. You can’t change the recipe or cooking method at that point.

It’s an interesting thought. I am not sure that it is 100% on the mark, but having worked with Oracle ERP software for nine years I can attest from personal experience that there is more than a grain of truth here. Brain Sommer has a good post about some of the real sticking points in ERP systems that make changes and additions so difficult. This one stuck out:

5) Code block insanity – Just because your accounting modules can support a 30 segment code block doesn’t mean most companies should use this. Moreover, what views a company will want in its code block will change over time. Unfortunately, most financial software products (and all the feeder systems that supply accounting transactions to them) make changes to the code block akin to a complete re-install of the software. Nothing brings rigidity to ERP like the code block.

I’ll take the thought one step further – why do we have a code block, this huge accounting nightmare that attempts to pump all possible corporate knowledge about what the company sold and purchased into the general ledger from the subledgers where the transactions take place? When they began to create software for financial transactions they had only a general ledger, so to see as much data as they possibly could they tagged all the transactions in ht GL. Business software became accounting centric, and remains so even after real time relational systems came on board with multiple subledgers that can report out vast quantities of detailed information. Why do you have to update the GL with sales data when it exists in such fabulous detail in your CRM/Order Management system?

So what does a large enterprise do? They run Oracle, SAP, or something similar. Does the enterprise just forgoe new opportunities? I can’t imagine that , especially since the people who run large enterprises normally come out of sales and sales is where most of the new opportunities get their start. These folks are not going to be patient for long. Eventually the line of business, lob, will go ahead and start to do whatever they have to to tackle new business, even, in many cases, if that means writing custom software.

Now, developing custom software may not seem like such an odd pursuit to you and you would be correct – if it was the 1980s or earlier. But when so many large enterprises went to systems like SAP and Oracle they lost their development teams. That was the cost justification of the new ERPs. In the bad old days all large companies employed large teams of developers who built their custom business apps from the ground up on what came to be know derisively as legacy platforms, from IBM, Burroughs, etc. Coding custom software is like the chicken in Vietnam or China. Well, at least now you have more refined tools and platforms, so we will say it is more like China.

Well, apparently the wheel has turned again. Large Enterprises are again back to the custom software job enthusiastically and doing it with the aid of all the modern IT tools, platforms and business models – outsourcing, offshoring, onshoring, LAMP stack, Cloud, Free Open Source Software, you name it. They are coding software at a pretty good clip evidently, again in an effort to meet business opportunities.

Being on the cloud and developed in the SaaS, software as a service, model may help some of the newer entrants to the Enterprise software market avoid the New York chicken problem because the cloud can give a company greater access to partner software add-ons. But that is not a given. They must still walk a tightrope between offering a robust application that includes most basic needs while giving the Enterprise with more complex requirements a path to customize those requirements using the applications itself. Every NetSuite implementation, to be perfectly honest about it, requires a fair amount of explanation of what is not possible. You can run a lot of business processes in the system with no further customization and coding should be rare, but to have a system that truly represents your business today and your meets future opportunities, you will need to customize a quite a bit and code a little. It’s not an easy tightrope to walk obviously, and the balance struck is a subjective proposition.

However, I would also submit that every buyer contemplating the decision to move to one of these new enterprise systems should have a hard discussion about how much they want to customize and code, and how to do it in a way that prevents them from falling into the New York chicken problem themselves. For my part, I suggest that clients hold off on any customization except the most absolutely vital, and wait to add code completely, until you are live for six months. You will be surprised by how much your requirements will change once you know and understand the system.

The myth, not sure if it is still current, that SaaS prevented customization, has largely been itself eviscerated by Netsuite’s Business Operating System and Salesforce.com’s Force.com development platforms. These systems are not only open and customizable, they also encourage customers to make the applications meet business opportunity challenges.

Only time will tell if SaaS Enterprise vendors avoid the same fate as their older brothers like SAP and Oracle, but it is a good time to ask the question. Who would have thought 10 years ago that ERP would end up costing you money?

It is being reported online that Oracle has started a significant RIF (reduction in force) process in their consulting division. ZDnet’s Irregular Enterprise  has a post about it today that brings up some good points. As a former Oracle consultant I wanted to weigh in as I think this is a worthwile subject to understand for folks thinking about on-premise software.

I went through several RIFs while employed with Oracle Consulting. The key thing to understand is that Consulting was told, in no uncertain terms, that it had to meet the same operating margins as software and maintenance, ~40%. Consulting charges $200 – $400 and hour for resources to work on implementation, yet it had a hard time meeting these margin goals.  That gives you some indication of how profitable on premise software and its annual maintenance fees are when a consulting division at these prices cannot keep pace!

Also, fewer and fewer are the organizations willing to spend top dollar for consulting help. In some cases you could hire two consultants for the price of one Oracle consultant and muddle through fine.  This makes it more and more difficult for Oracle to maintain the margins in consulting that it earns in software and support.  But customers have a point here. It’s not like the early days of ERP/CRM suites anymore. There are plenty of resources around now who understand these systems and who have done multiple implementations. Our NetSuite implementations for example average less than 100% of the price of first year licenses.

It’s important to understand, before heading into an on-premise software/implementation/support contract that the inmates have taken over the on-premise asylum and put the visitors, er customers, to work for them.

Salesforce.com on for example, and other SaaS firms, operate at much lower margins, under 10% in salesforce’s case and for NetSuite the operating margin is still negative.  Businesses of all types should expect good operating margins, but does it really make sense to have operating margins approach 40%?  This is a sign that the market is no longer competitive, that in fact a lot of on-premise software companies have locked in their customers and they can extract a pound of flesh as they wish. Not a good position to be in, if you are a customer.

How have they achieved lock in? Customers have spent so dearly to buy, implement and support the software over the years that all the players in the market know that to even suggest changing is waste of time. No one wants to have to bury the investment they have made in Oracle, SAP, Sage, Microsoft, etc.

Meanwhile small and medium enterprises are taking full advantage of less expensive software/implementation/support from a wide variety of SaaS vendors. It’s a real weakspot in the operations of many companies that they continue to escalate their commitments to on-premise software vendors that have done nothing but hustle them year after year.  Oracle’s operating profits may be great news to the buyers and sellers on the stock market, but eventually the customers have to take notice and ask “Why are contributing to our own mugging?”

Last week we talked about the idea of the SaaS to SaaS integration and how this network phenomenon could not be duplicated by on-premise software vendors where the same integration has to be built over and over again.  Today, we turn our attention to application upgrades and updates, bug fixes, additional new functions, both large and small. Is there an inherent difference between on-premise and SaaS in this area? What is it?

I chose The Big Dig in the title, referring of course to the massive construction project in Downtown Boston, because I think that there are interesting political and social questions that impact the discussion of how to improve software applications. Let me explain.

We now have so many touches of technology everyday that we can quickly forget how important it is to our lives – we can take it for granted. Until it doesn’t work, and then we notice immediately how much we lean on technology for our daily lives. In our greater experience, we have come to expect technology to work and we little patience when it does not. We also expect technology to improve, and we yearn for the next thing. The overall effect is to give more and more choice and power to individual consumers.

This power comes as a cost to those who currently hold power. There is not a lot you can do to manage the message when you have a population walking around with i-Phones or one if its competitors. In this environment what’s the best way to move forward? With massive projects that require highly concentrated bureaucracies? Or with smaller projects each of which offers slightly different choices.

Looking at it in this light, forced on-premise software upgrades look big, complex, incomprehensible and, finally, coercive, whether it comes from SAP, Oracle or Sage. As a counterpoint, look at the upgrade process of SaaS software. Most fixes and upgrades happen incrementally, the average user does not know how the software was improved last night while they slept. On a scheduled basis more important functionality rolls out, but in smaller customer batches, including several beta groups, over a period of time. The whole point is to make the roll out as non-intrusive as possible. The point of the on-premise roll out is to force customers onto the latest release so that the vendor doesn’t have to support more than a few releases at a time.

But why do on-premise customers balk at the upgrade process? Because it is very intrusive. It takes up a ton of time and effort, from the actual software updates to testing and testing and more testing. Remember, on-premise customers do all the work for an upgrade and they receive no benefit from the testing of other users.

No only is traditional, on-premise software intrusive to upgrade, but its upgrade process puts it behind the curve of the latest functionality. For example, take, as Anshu Sharma does, the example of Microsoft, just now releasing Windows 7. I am typing this blog on a notebook running XP, I skipped the Vista experience. That means that I have the functionality that Microsoft released 8 years ago. If I want a few new functions I could buy Windows 7, but then it will also be outdated a year from now. Of course, MS will not release improvements until they have enough of them that they can sell me another version of their operating system a few years hence. 

More and more the big, coercive on-premise software upgrade process looks like the massive, messy projects run by big bureaucracies. But in a world of the I-phone, Twitter and the blogosphere, coercion looks very antiquated.

I read this article yesterday about SAP’s recent update to prospects, analysts and press about their new SaaS offering and it took me a bit to digest. How is this possible that you can screw this up so monstrously when you are one of the largest software vendors in the world?

One reason is that SAP was always an application company and what they know really well are business processes, the backbone of business applications. Thousands of the world’s largest companies run on SAP and you cannot this away from them.  But when you are creating a new SaaS service you have to not only think about the applications, but the database and the overall system architecture differently, and for a company that never ran a data center this was apparently a bridge too far.

But it’s not like SAP was the first into this market. Their were literally dozens of SaaS providers by the time that SAP stepped into the fray. But apparently none of them provided any guidance or wisdom to SAP when they made decisions about how to do a SaaS offering.

That they screwed it up royal is not a joke. It’s a sad truth. Nothing would give the SaaS model more credibility than an offering from SAP. NetSuite’s CEO Zach Nelson has often said that he knew a large competitor would announce a SaaS offering and then fail to deliver, validating the market and then not delivering all in the same graceful fall down the stairs. But, as I was kidding a friend the other day, it’s almost like they are doing it on purpose at this point. By not delivering and having as many issues as they have, are they causing the market to question the viability of SaaS?

Well, that’s madness, plain and simple, but what else can you say about a product launch this poor? It’s hard to compute. But I have learned never to underestimate the sheer arrogance of people, especially after having ridden a 20 year wave of success. Is it possible that we could be wrong? You stop asking this question at some point in the ride that SAP enjoyed.

There has long been a discussion of business continuity with regards to the use of software as a service. The question is simply that with both your data and tools of business – read applications and database – running on a cloud infrastructure that belongs to a vendor, how do you plan for disaster or loss of a vendor. After all, in this economic climate it’s not if some vendors will fail, but when.

The question is a good one, let’s be honest. As companies like SF.com and NetSuite move upmarket they are bound to hear more questions of this kind from prospects in all markets. In other words, it’s not unreasonable to ask these questions. On this blog, in its last incarnation, we wrote about this topic often, but with, as I now realize, a bit of a chip on our shoulder.

We always argued that forcing SaaS vendors to answer these questions was unfair because no one ever asks these questions of on-premise software vendors. There is some justification for this defense, but I don’t think it really stacks up, all things considered. If an on-premise vendor ceases to exist, the customer has some ability and time to put together another solution and migrate, etc. But if you lose your SaaS provider you’re in some deep water.

So what is to be done? The question of business continuity came up again when my fellow Enterprise Irregular, Vinnie Mirchandani, questioned a post by Frank Scavo. I respect both of these gentlemen a good deal, especially now that several industry players got involved in a debate on both Frank’s and Vinnie’s posts. Some of the ideas were excellent and should be more widely circulated. Here they are in a nutshell:

• Provide a backup mysql database to the customer (RightNow idea).
• Provide a Trust, setup for and by customers, that in the event of vendor liquidation has the ability to take over operations of the software. This would at least give customers the time needed to migrate to a new solution, and therefore make on-premise and SaaS even in this regard.
• Software Escrow Account
• On-premise vendor managed backup system

The ideas are across the board as you can see, but what finally has to be answered is what works and what is affordable. In my mind this leave the first two option as both workable and affordable, and the last two fall off as unworkable, the escrow idea, or simply not affordable – the on-premise, vendor managed solution.

If I had to choose one idea I would select the Trust. SaaS providers could set aside $5 bucks per year per user into a trust that would pay to continue maintaining the software for a full 6 months in the case of vendor insolvency, or to restore the service in the case of data center emergency, etc. This makes a lot of sense to me and I hope that SaaS providers start thinking along these lines in the near future.  Regardless of what they finally come up with, it’s important to take this whole contingency planning/business continuity issue seriously. In the end, serious businesses are taken seriously.

On the other hand, it’s really discouraging to see some of the on-premise pimps show up on the comments as well. You can tell some of these writers are not technology professionals but simply the pr types/hacks spreading around the FUD. I think in some ways it is the presence of so much FUD that makes SaaS providers avoid this issue. Put that issue aside though and meet the challenge head on. That’s the best way to win in the end.

I thought this was an interesting interview with Zach Nelson, NetSuite’s CEO, in a recent Forbes publication.

The questions were tough and right to the heart of NetSuite’s business and SaaS – software as a service, especially on security.  On several occasions Nelson mentions that the target maket is th 5 million companies in the segment just below the Fortune 500. This might be a ‘bit’ of an exaggeration but we’ll give it to him. These are actually good size companies, most of them. They probably have over 200 employees and several locations, and many of them have of course an employee count in the 1000’s. 

My one question for Nelson, which was not asked, is how NetSuite is going to help to create a SaaS ecosystem in its targeted customer base. For example, if a company is going to use a SaaS ERP and CRM system then you have to expect it is also going to use a SaaS HR System, and a SaaS Supply Chain, etc.. As I wrote recently, NetSuite suffers in my opinion from a lack of competition from other SaaS ERP systems in this market, and helping to create a SaaS ecosystem would be one way to crack this nut.

Of course, it’s a lot easier said than done, as anyone in business knows. There is a lot less collaboration between software firms that have synergistic, as opposed to competitive products, than one would expect. Alliances are difficult to start and often end up creating more problems than they solve. NetSuite has also used some of the proceeds from 2007’s IPO to purchase some products that gave it broader functionality – like OpenAir and QuickArrow, both in the Professional Services Automatoin space. Buy or ally – probably not a question NetSuite or others can answer at this time, and this also makes alliances more difficult. 

At the very least, some of the key SaaS players in various software verticals should really think about creating a unified force. It would be great to see Saleforce.com, SuccessFactors, Taleo, Concur, NetSuite, HelpStream and several others together in a SaaS showplace.

I just read Larry Dignan’s post over on ZDnet about the tipping point for on-demand ERP, and my first reaction is that Larry is correct: There will come a time when on-demand ERP loses that new kid on the block look and becomes the enterprise’s first selection when picking teams. My second reaction is that that there is only 1.5 players right now and unless that changes there will not be a tipping point, not anytime soon. Let me explain.

As Larry clearly delineates in the article there are really only 2 players in the on-demand ERP market at present: NetSuite and SAP’s BusinessByDesign. But SAP has had an awful time trying to bring ByDesign to market and their current strategy leaves one scratching one’s head vigorously. SAP’s biggest issue is that they have not been able to scale the ByDesign applications for new customers, and now they are baking in business intelligence, making the product even more difficult to scale. You wonder if they are killing ByDesign with kindness. At any rate, BBD is not generally available and the current thinking is that it won’t be until some time in 2010.

So where does that leave us? We have NetSuite with a full ERP less manufacturing - though partner RootStock is taking care of that – and a fully integrated CRM and E-commerce engine as well. There is Intaact, very strong on the finance side but less interesting when it comes to operations. Then there is Coda2Go, a financial app built on the SalesForce platform with an interface to the SF CRM apps. But that’s it. There are a few other offerings of simple accounting applications, and some even simpler invoicing applications, on demand. 

But there are not enough competitors out there to create a strong team. My sense is that software buyers, whether they are the business owner or the CIO or whatever, like to look at several strong players before making a choice. Right now, that means looking at a couple of on-demand players lined up alongside of several on-premise players. 

This is NetSuite’s unique dilemma: They are first to market, far out in front of everyone else, so much so that they have not yet been challenged. It must make tech buyers wonder why the field is so sparsely populated? 

Larry commits to a tipping point 2 or 3 years out for on-demand ERP, and that’s probably within reason. But the quicker NetSuite finds some other players in this market, the quicker the tipping point will happen. On-premise ERP really got going when buyers saw Oracle, SAP, Peoplesoft, Lawson and dozens of others in the market. Vendor exuberance for an idea, like integrated enterprise resource planning applications, created excitement in the buyer community and furthered their acceptance of integration over best of breed. In my opinion we will need to see a couple of strong new players in on-demand before buyers sense the excitement of this new idea.

Oktoberfest is the 16 day festival in Bavaria that celebrates the harvest. With amenities like these who can argue with the idea:

beer and beauty

Thinking about the Enterprise Software market recently it dawned on me that we have entered our own Octoberfest Harvest celebration, almost universally. Harvest refers to the last phase of a product’s life when the marketing department comes to the conclusion that there isn’t much left to exploit, so cut all inputs and just harvest whatever value is left in the product. In enterprise software this phase appears to have happened across many vendors and products at roughly the same time. Let’s take a look:

• Microsoft purchased several vendor offerings including Great Plains, Axapta, Navasion and has done little with any of them. There was originally a thought about turning some of these into SaaS offerings, or merging the best of these products into a new MS product, but over the past couple of years there hasn’t been any news in this area. MS is all about consumer products and its operating system. One wonders why they purchased all of the software that they did, unless it was simply because they could. Google ‘microsoft business applications’ and on page one you will find this note from 2005 about MS’s big plans for their latest acquisitions.
• Oracle also went on a buying binge and they were pretty honest about the fact that they believe the market for enterprise software was leaving the growth stage and sliding toward consolidation. However they also said that under their ownership all of these products, JD Edwards, Peoplesoft, Oracle’s own applications, would undergo some serious tuning up, and that there would eventually be a fusion product allowing all of the best functions into a new product. The fusion middleware became a reality earlier this year, and we await the fusion applications. In the end, the innovation is really about supporting fewer products and upselling a new fusion app to currect customers.
• Sage has also acquired several products over the years and they are definitely in harvest mode. Their apologists even offer the idea that Sage is not in the technology/software market so much as the confidence market, as in this software will be around for a while. They, like SAP, have taken a poor swing at a SaaS product but have yet to make contact. Dennis Howlett doesn’t think they are really interested in launching a new SaaS version anyway.
• SAP has a SaaS product that they have been trying hard to keep under wraps for the past few years. Evidently they did not architect it in a way that allows them to scale the service profitably, even though they sell an account with a minimum of 25 users at $149/month/user, $44,700 a year. You would think you could make money at this, but who knows. When your core products attain 40% margins by virtue of their maintenance alone, you have a business model that is going to be very difficult to duplicate in the SaaS model. And what of the core products? Any innovation there or just bloatware additions that add a few more users and maintenance dollars to the annual bill? I haven’t heard of a game changer in a long time, so harvest mode once again. How important is harvest over new sales? The big news for SAP in 2008 was a huge fight with the user community over an uptick in maintenance fees. If the proof is in the pudding then that was an olympic pool of pudding.
• Any big innovators out there other than the SaaS offerings like Workday, NetSuite, Intacct or WorkingPoint?

Vinnie Mirchandani, the deal architect, spent several days at Fortune magazine’s Brainstorm and complains that the event was severly tilted toward consumer technologies. And when the attention does turn to enterprise matters, the topics are usually around other technologies that may use the enterprise transaction processing systems as a platform, but are rarely focused on business process innovation.

As someone who has spent, and continues to spend, a good deal of time on enterprise business process questions, problems and solutions, I wonder why the marketplace has turned as it has? Do  most organizations have the business processes that they need, creating the value that they want? Is it a case, then, of been there, done that and we’re good?

Or have organizations simply lost their enthusiasm for business process design and innovation? And if they have, then why have they? I meet very few enterprise application users who have mastered their processes, yet it appears from the evidence that no one seems too concerned about just moving on to whatever’s next. My question is have enterprise software applications simple sapped the strength of enterprise users? Has the bloatware complexity of products like SAP, Oracle, Sage and Microsoft simply exhausted organizations? And at this point do they just accept the fact they have an expensive business system that has ceased creating value but which it too difficult to move out of the way?

Oktoberfest can be a good time, but the day after can also be a a helluva hangover. Is this the way enterprise software buyers are feeling about their business applications?

Enterprise buyers feel affects of software inebriation