Enterprise System Spectator blog: ERP and enterprise system vendor evaluation, selection, and implementation.

The Enterprise System Spectator

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Salesforce.com's credibility suffering from service outages

This week, Salesforce.com--everyone's favorite example of software on-demand--suffered an outage of something like three to six hours, knocking out service for possibly thousands of customers. According to the vendor,
On Tuesday December 20th, some salesforce.com users experienced intermittent access (between approximately 9:30 am and 12:41 pm ET & 2:00 pm and 4:45 pm ET) on one of the companyƂ?s four global nodes. The root cause of the intermittent access was an error in the database cluster. Salesforce.com addressed the issue with the database vendor. By Tuesday afternoon EST, the system was running normally for all users.
What concerns me though, is not this single outage. It's that this is just the worst case incident in what is apparently a less-than-rare occurance for Salesforce.com customers. According to CNet:
Salesforce touts an "uptime" rate of greater than 99 percent. Outages are "a rare occasion," according to [Salesforce.com spokesperson Bruce] Francis. He said Salesforce's systems are as reliable or more reliable than other comparable systems, including the type that companies run on their own servers.

Yet several Salesforce customers that contacted CNET News.com about Tuesday's glitch said outages happen more frequently than they had expected. About once a month, Mission Research experiences Salesforce outages that typically last an hour or so, [Charlie] Crystle, [CEO of Salesforce.com customer Mission Research] said. Another customer, an East Coast consulting firm, has been struck by outages about a half a dozen times over the past year, according to the firm's vice president, who requested anonymity. Frustration levels are rising.

"I'm really, really angry about this because (Salesforce is) out there marketing themselves as something they're just not living up to," Crystle said.
It doesn't need to be this way. A large part of what Google and Yahoo provide is really software on-demand--little applications. When was the last time you went to Google or Yahoo and found service unavailable for more than a few seconds?

Readers of the Spectator know that I'm actually a proponent of the trend toward software on-demand. I like its promise to simplify system implementation and maintenance, especially for small and mid-size businesses, relieving the customer of having to worry about things like backups, recovery, disaster planning, and service level maintenance.

But the trend toward software on-demand is going to be set back several years if on-demand vendors can't maintain the service levels they promise and that customers expect.

Are the problems of Salesforce.com typical of other software on-demand vendors, or is Salesforce.com an anomaly? If you have insights, post a comment to this post or email me.

Update, Dec. 22. There's further discussion going on in the comments section for this post.

Related posts
Software on demand: attacking the cost structure of business systems
Salesforce.com offers development sandbox
Salesforce.com set to strike out with AppExchange?
Salesforce.com looks to hook Siebel staff
Salesforce.com struggling at Cisco

by Frank Scavo, 12/21/2005 05:47:00 PM | permalink | e-mail this!

Subscribe!

Read/post comments!
(3) Links to this post

Monday, December 19, 2005

JDE users want Oracle's Fusion to support IBM technology

A recent survey conducted by Quest, the J.D. Edwards user group, highlights the a strategic problem for Oracle relative to its JDE installed base.

The survey, which polled 300 JDE user companies, indicates that a significant number of them will not take Oracle's Project Fusion upgrade path if that path does not provide support for IBM technologies. The bulk of JDE users--and all of them running JDE's World Software product--are running on IBM's iSeries (formerly AS/400) hardware, and IBM's DB2 database.

According to Computerworld,
Keeping the iSeries as a platform of choice for Fusion was more important than pricing or functionality, Quest said, citing its survey. If support for the server is dropped, 29% of those surveyed wouldn't migrate to the Fusion architecture, while 50% said they weren't sure if they'd upgrade under those conditions. Moreover, 35% of the World customers surveyed said they'd stick with their existing applications. Software could also be a key element -- 85% said they use IBM's DB2 database, and 67% use it exclusively.
The results are not surprising, and it does put Oracle in a difficult position. If it puts iSeries and DB2 support into Project Fusion, it risks not getting the operational efficiencies and simplicity of supporting a single technology stack. It also risks losing the cross-sell of its database and tools. But, as the survey shows, if it does not support IBM technologies, it risks losing a significant number of JDE users for the long run.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest, as I have in the past, that Oracle will and should go with a single technology stack--its own--for Project Fusion. It will continue to provide strong incentives for JDE users to make the migration from IBM technologies. Ultimately, it will then sell off the JDE World product to someone else--maybe SSA, maybe Lawson, maybe even Infor--realizing some value for those customers that refuse to upgrade.

Update, Dec. 23.
Be sure to check the discussion on this post in the Comments.

Related posts
Oracle mulls support for competitor databases
Oracle, IBM, Microsoft battle for technology infrastructure of PeopleSoft customers
IBM is a loser in Oracle/PeopleSoft deal
Oracle to steer new customers away from PeopleSoft products
Oracle: no plan to spin off JDE product lines

by Frank Scavo, 12/19/2005 10:43:00 AM | permalink | e-mail this!

Subscribe!

Read/post comments!
(4) Links to this post

Friday, December 16, 2005

Microsoft lags in offering CRM on-demand

Last week, Microsoft announced delivery of version 3.0 of its Dynamics CRM 3.0. It also announced a change in its licensing to allow partners to offer the CRM package on a hosted subscription basis.

Microsoft's move with CRM is consistent with its recent push into software as a service, but its announcements show how difficult it will be for Microsoft to make the transition to services. Microsoft's whole business model is built around selling software licenses.

The first problem is that Microsoft CRM has not been, to this point, a strong offering. Earlier versions had limited functionality, and Microsoft was slow to enhance the product. Computerworld describes the problems that one company faced with the product:
Door maker Designer Doors Inc. bought and deployed Microsoft CRM several years ago but put the software back on the shelf after running into a host of problems. The most painful were synchronization glitches that kept the software's features from being available to remote workers.

"We had put a lot of effort into making this our centerpiece for sales and marketing," said Michael Kruger, information systems manager at the River Falls, Wis.-based company. "It's been expensive for us to find work-arounds."
Not a great foundation for Microsoft's push into business software delivered as a service.

The second problem is that Microsoft does not host its CRM system, as on-demand leaders Salesforce.com and RightNow do. Consistent with its business model generally, Microsoft depends on partners to sell and host its CRM offering. But its hard to see how Microsoft will be able to scale its on-demand services if it has to depend on partners, most of which are small regional players.

Third, Microsoft's partners appear to be pricing the CRM offering at over $100 per user per month. The last time I checked, Salesforce.com was offering seats for well under $100. On that basis alone, Microsoft's offering is a non-starter.

The reason that Microsoft's offering is not price competitive is that it is built with a single tenant architecture. Each new customer needs a separate installation of the system, on a separate server, with a separate database, adding significantly to the cost. A multi-tenant architecture, as offered by the most successful on-demand providers, has a radically lower cost structure, allowing the vendor to on-board new customers quickly.

Furthermore, its hard to see how a Microsoft partner can afford to sell CRM on-demand to under 10 users, if it has to build a separate server for each sale. Microsoft's natural sweet spot is small businesses. But if partners can't afford to sell to the smallest prospects, how will they be successful? In contrast, Salesforce.com and RightNow can sell a five user deal as cost-effectively as they can sell as 50 or 100 user deal.

Microsoft does plan to rebuild its CRM offering around a multi-tenant architecture, but its projected ship date is sometime in 2007. Microsoft is already late to the software on-demand dance, and its product development schedule shows just how far behind it is.

Computerworld has more.

Related posts
Bill Gates pushing Microsoft toward software-as-a-service
Another false start for Microsoft's business apps
Burgum pushed aside as head of Microsoft Business Solutions
Reorg highlights troubles at Microsoft Business Solutions
Is Microsoft dying?
Microsoft eats more humble pie in enterprise software business
Microsoft: selling enterprise software is a "humbling experience"
Software on demand: attacking the cost structure of business systems

by Frank Scavo, 12/16/2005 05:34:00 PM | permalink | e-mail this!

Subscribe!

Read/post comments!
(0) Links to this post

Monday, December 12, 2005

Salesforce.com offers development sandbox

As part of its AppExchange service, Salesforce.com is now offering users the ability to run test, development, or training copies of their applications, including any custom or third-party applications that the user is running on top of Salesforce.com. CNET has a summary.

Of course, in-house application development organizations have been maintaining testing environments since the early days of corporate computing in the 1950s. But for software on-demand, this is an important step in increasing adoption of hosted applications. Software on-demand is often hamstrung by difficulty in creating custom modifications or generally doing anything outside of running the production environment.

On-demand providers such as Oracle that install a separate instance of the application for each customer can offer multiple environments without much difficulty. But, to my knowledge, Salesforce.com is the first provider operating under a multi-tenant architecture--once system instance supporting multiple customers--to offer such a capability.

If you can read past the marketing fluff, there's more info on the Salesforce.com website.

Related posts
Salesforce.com set to strike out with AppExchange?
Software on demand: attacking the cost structure of business systems

by Frank Scavo, 12/12/2005 02:34:00 PM | permalink | e-mail this!

Subscribe!

Read/post comments!
(0) Links to this post

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

How is your IT compensation shaping up?

We've put up a new quickpoll up on the Computer Economics website.

How will your total IT compensation in 2005
compare with last year?


Hop over to Computer Economics, and take the poll now, in the righthand column. We'll write up our analysis of the results next month, after the poll is closed.

by Frank Scavo, 12/07/2005 08:36:00 AM | permalink | e-mail this!

Subscribe!

Read/post comments!
(1) Links to this post

Sunday, December 04, 2005

SAP responds to Oracle's move into pricing optimization

Retail industry systems have been one of the latest battlegrounds between Oracle and SAP. Earlier this year, Oracle outbid SAP for Retek, a specialist vendor of retail management software. Then in June, Oracle added to its retail functionality by acquiring ProfitLogic, a niche vendor of pricing and profit optimization software. At the time, I predicted that Oracle's bid for ProfitLogic might lead to other acquisitions in this space.

Sure enough, late last month SAP announced its acquisition of Khimetrics, one of the other key vendors generally lumped together with ProfitLogic. The area of pricing, profit, and demand optimization is highly fragmented, with various players focusing on different aspects of the problem, in different industries. For example, ProfitLogic has strength in specialty goods and apparel, whereas Khimetrics has special expertise in grocery and general merchandise and has recently been pushing into financial services.

DemandTec, Manugistics, Spotlight, Connect3, and Vendavo are other vendors offering solutions in this space. Expect further consolidation as Oracle and SAP look to fill out their offerings in this area.

Update, 7:00 p.m. Read Jason Wood's comment on this post, which raises some insightful questions on this deal and why SAP didn't choose DemandTec over Khimetrics. Also, on his own blog, he writes,
Khimetrics is, by most accounts, a fine company [it's my understanding they are running at approximately $30mm annually and growing], but as an investor I have to wonder what this means for DemandTec? DemandTec has been SAP's partner in demand-driven price optimization and its solutions are already integrated into NetWeaver [unlike KhiDEMAND]. Furthermore, DemandTec is considered the market leader both in terms of revenue market share and technology footprint. So what led to SAP acquiring Khimetrics instead? Was DemandTec unwilling to sell? Was their asking price too high? Were there issues with the partnership that are beyond our purview?
I'm thinking maybe the story isn't over yet.

Related posts
Oracle beefs up retail offerings with ProfitLogic bid
SAP walks away from Retek deal
Manugistics V7 seeks to deliver profit optimization in small bites

by Frank Scavo, 12/04/2005 09:13:00 AM | permalink | e-mail this!

Subscribe!

Read/post comments!
(2) Links to this post

Powered by Blogger

(c) 2002-2014, Frank Scavo.

Independent analysis of issues and trends in enterprise applications software and the strengths, weaknesses, advantages, and disadvantages of the vendors that provide them.

About the Enterprise System Spectator.

Frank Scavo Send tips, rumors, gossip, and feedback to Frank Scavo at .

I'm interested in hearing about best practices, lessons learned, horror stories, and case studies of success or failure.

Selecting a new enterprise system can be a difficult decision. My consulting firm, Strativa, offers assistance that is independent and unbiased. For information on how we can help your organization make and carry out these decisions, write to me.

For reprint or distribution rights for content published on the Spectator, please contact me.


Go to latest postings

Custom Search

Join over 1,700 subscribers on the Spectator email list!
Max. 1-2 times/month.
Easy one-click to unsubscribe anytime.

Follow me on Twitter
My RSS feed

AddThis Feed Button


Computer Economics
ERP Support Staffing Ratios
Outsourcing Statistics
IT Spending and Staffing Benchmarks
IT Staffing Ratios
IT Management Best Practices
Worldwide Technology Trends
IT Salary Report
IT Help Desk/Service Desk Management

Get these headlines on your site, free!


Awards

2013 Best ERP Writer - Winner

Alltop. We're kind of a big deal.
 
Constant Contact 2010 All Star Technobabble Top 100 Analyst Blogs


Blog Roll and Favorite Sites
Strativa: ERP software vendor evaluation, selection, and implementation consultants, California
StreetWolf: Digital creative studio specializing in web, mobile and social applications
Vinnie Mirchandani: The Deal Architect
Oliver Marks' Enterprise 2.0 Blog
Si Chen's Open Source Strategies
diginomica
CISO Handbook


Spectator Archives
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
September 2012
October 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
September 2013
October 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
Latest postings