My tireless research of sourcing and vendor management technologies has brought me to Barcelona, for Emptoris’ EMEA customer conference. I’d like to assure my colleagues in Boston, still cold and still "0 and . . .", that I’m not writing this while sitting in the sunshine at an open air café, sipping a cold cervesa and watching the lightly clad señoritas walk by. I’d like to assure them that, but I can’t, because this is exactly what I am doing. Hopefully you’ll also be able to experience Barcelona if you attend our IT Forum here in June: http://www.forrester.com/events/eventdetail/0,9179,2510,00.html
I saw some very good presentations by customers about their implementations of Emptoris’ sourcing site. As a fearless analyst, I asked the question about the elephant that, while not actually in the room here in Barcelona, is certainly present in the customers' IT environment, namely SAP. All the speakers were procurement professionals in supposedly SAP-shops, so why had they chosen Emptoris over SAP’s sourcing and CLM products?
As promised in a previous blog post: Which Software Licensing Policy Is The Unfairest Of Them All? , we've launched a survey to find out what sourcing and vendor management professionals think about some common software licensing policies. This isn't about bashing powerful software companies, but about building a consensus behind a campaign to bring software licensing rules up to date - i.e. protection of innocent buyers, rather than regime change. I've narrowed an initial list of 30 questionable policies down to this Foul Fifteen of candidates for the (un)coveted "Unfairest" award:
1. Double charging for external users
2. Prohibiting or overcharging for anonymous users
3. Maintenance on shelfware
4. Counting cores instead of processors
5. Counting all processors in a server, even if partitioned
6. Upfront license purchase only, not phased in line with project milestones
7. Maintenance repricing
8. Insisting on purchase of all licenses before implementation starts
9. Product enhancements packaged as new SKU’s
10. Licensing by deployment, even if unused
11. Charging for use of modules that customers cannot control or track
12. Retaining right to change licensing policies at any time
13. Multiplexing – definition is unclear or too wide
It’s a beautiful sunny day here in England, the first snowdrops have appeared in my garden and at least one of my pet hens has restarted laying – yes, Spring is on the way. Meanwhile, in the US the main harbinger of the changing season is the migration of baseball teams to Florida and Arizona for their annual pre-season ritual known as ‘Spring Training’. In the software sourcing world, the rites of Spring often include major negotiations with Oracle and Microsoft ahead of their fiscal year ends of May and June respectively. That’s why this is a perfect time of year to get some spring training of your own, at one of our ever-popular Microsoft Negotiation workshops.1 Anyone considering a major purchase or renewal with the Redmond Sluggers between now and the World Series should come along to Amsterdam on February 16 or Dallas on March 2 to hear why they may have extra leverage this year, and how to use it to get the best possible deal.
Microsoft had very high sales revenue for its December quarter, particularly the business division, but that didn’t come from the multi-year Enterprise Agreement (EA) and Software Assurance (SA) deals that the direct sales teams need. Microsoft’s revenue boost came from one-off purchases of its just-released Office 2010 product through its retail and small business programs. EA/ SA deals would initially appear in the accounts as unearned revenue in the balance sheet, and that was at the same level as two years earlier.2 So these results are consistent with our research that predicts that Microsoft’s direct sales teams will struggle to meet their tough EA bookings targets this year, and that will strengthen prospective buyers’ negotiating position.
We can’t promise warm weather or adoring fans, but our spring training session will help you with:
Early next year I'm going to ask Sourcing & Vendor Management professionals to vote on which software companies' licensing policies they most resent as Unfair. Fairness is a subjective quality, but it seems to me that some policies penalize customers for circumstances beyond their control that are unrelated to the value they are getting from the software. Others have serious consequences that may not have been apparent to the buyer when he agreed to the contract. Fair software pricing charges some companies more than others, but in a logical, transparent way that is related to value. Jim Hagemann Snabe (SAP's co-CEO) explained software pricing best practice extremely well in this recent interview with Computerweekly.com's Warwick Ashford:
"Q: What is SAP doing to meet user demand for greater clarity on licensing and pricing?"
SAP customers shouldn't worry about the financial hit. SAP can pay the damages without having to rein back R&D. The pain may also stimulate it to greater competition with Oracle, both commercially and technologically, which will be beneficial for IT buyers.
Was the award fair? Well, IANAL, so I can't answer that. But my question is, if the basis of the award was "if you take something from someone and you use it, you have to pay", as the juror said, does that mean SAP gets to keep the licenses for which the court is forcing it to pay?
I attend several software company customer events each year, and I always feel like the only atheist in a room full of religious zealots. However big or small the vendor, whether it consistently delivers competitive advantage or overcharges for mediocre software, the people who come to the events are usually fans — people whose careers depend on their employer continuing to invest in the product they know.
The SAP UK user conference today in Manchester was no different. So when Jim Hageman Snabe stood up to deliver his keynote, this wasn’t the toughest crowd he’s ever faced. Whatever their concerns about product strategies, support costs, court cases, etc., these people are desperate for him to do well, because otherwise they are out of a job.
Nonetheless, even heretics like me would have to admit that JHS delivered a great keynote. Even Ruby Wax, the Anglo-American comedienne compere was moved to say “you could sell anything.” Here are some of the things that particularly impressed me:
· Likeability. From linking his speech to Ruby’s opening routine, to funny and pertinent family stories, JHS showed what sort of person he is. This is very different from his predecessors and competitors. When he says he wants SAP to be more customer-focused, it’s clear that he means it.
· Clarity. JHS set out simply and effectively where he wants SAP to focus its development. He set out six themes: quality first, stabilize the core, reduce TCO, innovate without disruption, improve usability, give customers predictability. Then he explained succinctly how SAP is addressing each one, in parallel with its vision for in-memory computing, on demand availability, and mobile device usability. Even if you disagree with his vision, you’re in no doubt what it is.
No, I’m not wasting Forrester’s blog space for yet more coverage of the royal engagement. I think Ariba’s proposed acquisition of Quadrem, that it announced today, is much more interesting. http://ht.ly/3bPei
Forrester has been predicting, and advocating, consolidation in the procure-to-pay market for a while:
While I’m unqualified to comment on whose investors do better from the $150m purchase price for a company with about $50m revenue, I do believe the merger is good news for both sets of customers and suppliers. Firstly, Ariba reinforces its place as one of the four or five large supplier networks that will eventually dominate the market. Its customers now get access to a wider stable of suppliers. Quadrem originated as a marketplace for mining companies, so it is particularly strong in MRO categories and in natural-resource-rich regions such as Africa and Latin America where Ariba is under-represented.
Some of you may recognize the guy at the front as Fireman Sam, the eponymous "hero next door" of the BBC children’s program set in the fictional Welsh town of Pontypandy. What does he have to do with software licensing?
Yesterday I spoke about software licensing trends to a group of customers, prospects, and partners of licensing optimization vendor Flexera. One of my key messages was that software asset managers (SAMs) must move on from reactive firefighting via fire prevention (both of which I call "Fireman SAM") to a more proactive management of license needs (which I call "license optimization"). Fireman Sam uses traditional asset inventory and hard disk discovery tools to try to measure software usage, compare it with license entitlement, and rectify any shortfalls. Fireman Sam’s arch enemy is License Audit Bill.
In contrast, a more mature process adds analysis of what licenses you really need to the data on usage and ownership. This information enables software sourcing managers to cut expenditure on excess licenses and over-specified versions. For example, Flexera’s product for SAP enables customers to put users in the right categories, thereby minimizing the purchase of more expensive "full user" licenses.
Best Software License Management Considers Three Questions
Analysts suffer get the benefit of dozens of briefings per year from hopeful vendors trying to convince us that they are the next big thing. Here’s a typical example of marketing-speak messaging that is an amalgam of all the mistakes that will ensure a vendor goes on our "not with a barge pole" list.
“Exvezium is a leading provider of Purchasing and Supply Optimization (PSO) solutions, focused on the automotive, retail, financial services, and government sectors. Customers such as Mutt Publishing, Shania Entertainment, and the Steiner Wig Corporation have chosen Exvezium for its very unique requisition automation, online tendering and award optimization capabilities. Leading analyst firm Milometer classed Exvezium as a Strong Challenger in its Sourcery Square 2009 evaluation.
"The four best practices for implementing PSO are getting executive buy-in, choosing a configurable solution, supporting constraint-based awarding, and maximizing event activity," said CEO, President and Founder Mark Ettingbabble. "Exvezium supports these through our combination of cutting-edge technology and best-in-class services."
What’s wrong with this? Here are my dirty dozen analyst pet hates:
Vendor managers in companies with Oracle applications may have heard a lot of talk about its next-generation applications over the last five years. Well, the news from Oracle’s customer event in San Francisco is that Fusion is almost here. Oracle is extensively demonstrating the product here at the event, early adopter customers are already in the implementation process, and Oracle intends to generally release it in the first quarter of next year.
Oracle hasn’t announced final pricing yet, but Steve Miranda, SVP of Oracle Application Development, confirmed that customers on maintenance will get a 1:1 exchange when they swap the product they own now for the Fusion equivalent. That is good news, although to be fair, my Oracle contacts had indicated this, off the record, all along.
The packaging into SKUs will mimic that of the current product set, to make the swap easier. I.e., the price list for HR will look like the PeopleSoft price list, CRM like Siebel, and so on. That makes some sense, but I wish Oracle had taken the opportunity to simplify the pricing so that there are fewer SKUs. For instance, Siebel's price list is over 20 pages long, and there's no clear link between the the items in the price list and the functionality you want to use. As a result, some customers buy modules by mistake, while others fail to buy ones they really need. Hopefully Fusion will provide a clearer audit trail between functionality and SKU.