HP today announced plans for a significant transformation of its business, including a $10.3 billion purchase of technology vendor Autonomy. Upon completion, the deal will bring HP strong search and analytics capabilities and a deep and broad portfolio of eDiscovery, archiving, and records management offerings.
While this purchase holds promise, I’m skeptical about how it will translate to near- and mid-term advantage for enterprise customers focused on information risk management. Here’s why:
HP and Autonomy information risk management portfolios have significant overlap. With its TRIM and IAP product lines, HP today offers records management and archiving products. Leveraging a long string of acquisitions, including Meridio, Zantaz, Interwoven, CA Technologies' Information Governance business, and most recently Iron Mountain Digital, Autonomy also sells records management and archiving. Prior to today’s announcement, Autonomy faced some portfolio rationalization challenges. With a broader set of records management and archiving assets after the deal finalizes, HP will face some tough choices in determining which of its product lines will receive corporate investment over the long term. While Autonomy will bring significant new eDiscovery functionality and a rich pool of information risk management specialists with legal expertise, HP and Autonomy records management and archiving customers should be cautious until product direction is clarified.
I need your help. I am conducting research into business intelligence (BI) software prices: averages, differences between license and subscription deals, differences between small and large vendor offerings, etc. In order to help our clients look beyond just the software pricese and consider the fully loaded total cost of ownership, I also want to throw in service and hardware costs (I already have data on annual maintenance and initial training costs). I’ve been in this market long enough to understand that the only correct answer is “It depends” — on the levels of data complexity, data cleanliness, use cases, and many other factors. But, if I could pin you down to a ballpark formula for budgeting and estimation purposes, what would that be? Here are my initial thoughts — based on experience, other relevant research, etc.
Initial hardware as a percentage of software cost = 33% to 50%
Ongoing hardware maintenance = 20% of the initial hardware cost
Initial design, build, implementation of services. Our rule of thumb has always been 300% to 700%, but that obviously varies by deal sizes. So here’s what I came up with:
Less than $100,000 in software = 100% in services
$100,000 to $500,000 in software = 300% in services
$500,000 to $2 million in software = 200% in services
$2 million to $10 million in software = 50% in services
More than $10 million in software = 25% in services
Then 20% of the initial software cost for ongoing maintenance, enhancements, and support
Thoughts? Again, I am not looking for “it depends” answers, but rather for some numbers and ranges based on your experience.
Data management and BI professionals often feel pressure from senior management to propose and start implementing master data management (MDM), data quality, data warehousing, business intelligence (BI), analytics or other data management strategies quickly, without time to perform the necessary due diligence. These “fire drill” strategy sessions may arise as a reaction to a compelling event like a compliance or regulatory action, the need to support better management planning and decision-making during economic struggles, or even by the arrival of a new senior executive (e.g., CEO, CIO, CFO, COO, CMO) looking to make their mark on the organization by driving this strategy.
Unfortunately the program drivers on the hook to deliver these catch-up strategy planning initiatives tend to disregard many best practices in the process. Can you blame them? Many of them have been the organizational evangelists that have fought for months – or even years – to get sponsorship and investment to deliver these solutions. When that support finally arrives, they’d be crazy to turn it away just because the timelines are a bit aggressive, right? Well yes, they should push back if the solution they’re building will not:
Deliver a clear ROI to deliver clear business value with a line of sight to how the capabilities will improve efficiencies, reduce cost, reduce risk, increase revenue, or strategically differentiate your organization. Think that executive sponsor will have your back if you can’t prove the value? Think again.
Scale and offer the flexibility and agility to support the next set of incremental requirements or users that will inevitably come along.
Guarantee end user adoption and acceptance of the new solution that will likely introduce new processes, technologies, and/or organizational changes.
The past three weeks have been quite busy within the enterprise feedback management (EFM) vendor landscape, with two major acquisitions. The first occurred on July 19th between Verint and Vovici; the second was announced today between QuestBack and Globalpark. These mergers make sense and are in line with how I see the EFM vendor landscape evolving over the next five years.
One part of the EFM vendor evolution will be the creation of what my colleague Andrew McInnes calls “comprehensive customer experience solution sets.” The Verint and Vovici merger demonstrates this. Here you have two distinct vendors, each with their own sweet spot within the EFM world. Verint is primarily known as an actionable intelligence solutions vendor that focuses on creating enterprise workforce optimization software and services to evaluate customer communications, especially in the contact center. Vovici is primarily known as an online survey management and enterprise feedback solutions vendor that focuses on helping companies obtain customer feedback from different channels and bring it all together to create a more holistic view of the customer. Essentially, Vovici had what Verint lacked — and Verint had what Vovici lacked. The result is now a more well-rounded and robust EFM offering.