post

SAP’s Vision on the Changing Role of CIO’s

(Updated)
SAP is not a technology company, it’s the world’s leading business process company – says Shai Agassi, President of SAP’s Product and Technology Group.

Niel Robertson, one of the SAPPHIRE bloggers (or the Brotherhood as we’re often referred to) thinks through the consequences in an excellent article, The New Corporate World Order. It’s a very deep, thoughtful post, simply too good to summarize, please just read it. I was trying to find where I heard Shai express similar thoughts, and I realized it wasn’t at SAPPHIRE 2006, but at Software 2006, just a few weeks earlier. Here’s the relevant slide:

The entire presentation, titled Business Process Co-Innovation; “Enterprise 3.0” is available in PDF format here.

Update (5/23): Niel’s original posts created quite a debate, so he reposted the comments here. Wow, comments take over.. this is the real conversation!

post

S-type at SAPPHIRE 2006

No, this is not my car…but there is a reason why it’s here .. hold on tight … for the news ..


Update:  Since the news is out, the Jaguar S-type was obviously a reference to SAP’s announcement of CRM 2006s-release – of which I’ll write more soon.

Tags: , ,, , ,

post

SAP’s New On-Demand SRM Offering through Acquisition of Frictionless Commerce

Quick news from the press conference at SAPPHIRE 2006: Shai Agassi has just announced the all-cash acquistion of Frictionless Commerce, a leading Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) software provider. As a result of the acquistion, On-Demand SRM will be the second SaaS offering by SAP, following the recent introduction of On-Demand CRM. Second, but certainly not last, as Leo Apotheker clarified during the Press Conference, over time all SAP’s offering will be made available in the “hybrid” model.

Update: See initial analysis by AMR Research.

Related posts:

post

TiEcon 2006: Software Luminaries Panel : The Software Richter Scale: 1, 3 or 7?

Liveblogging the Software Luminaries Panel at TiEcon 2006.  (Note: I am obviously publishing this, as well as other TiEcon posts after the Conference, but will only do very basic editing, and some linking, essentially posting my original notes.   I’ve also deviated from the role of passive note-taker here, as this is a subject where I am somewhat competent, and can’t help but insert my own comments here and there – you will see those in italics.  I invite Panelist, participants to feel free and correct / add to my notes in the form of blog comments. Thanks).

There were parallel sessions run with industry luminaries in ballrooms next to each other. Moderator  M.R. Rangaswami opened on the humorous side: the audience picked the right session, as he peeked into the next room where the Semiconductor luminaries session would take place, and saw a sign there saying “semi-luminaries” 🙂   M.R. is Co-Founder of the Sand Hill Group and host of the recent Software 2006 conference (an annual event).  .

As introduction he uses his Software 2006 slides about  Software’s quiet revolution. Three major realities:

  1. Changes represented by SaaS , Open Source, while CIO’s indicate increased spending on software.
  2. Real business is in the Enterprise (but consumer technologies find their way into the Enterprise)
  3. Thriving ecosystem critical

Panelist(s)

  • Larry Augustin , Angel Investor, Founder VA Linux, SourceForge …etc.
  • Amit Chatterjee , VP Strategy SAP
  • Mark Gorenberg , Partner Hummer Winblad Venture Partners
  • Jason Maynard , Research Analyst Credit Suisse
  • Zach Nelson , President and CEO Netsuite
  • Sanjay Parthasarathy , Corporate Vice President Microsoft Corp. (Chief Evangelist of Microsoft Church)

Starting with a few canned questions for warmup, then taking audience questions.

Question:  Will there be a billion-dollar software company in SaaS? 

Jason:  Yes, Salesforce, NetSuite to begin with.. Client-server, on-premise screwed customers, overpromised, underdelivered. SaaS will be huge, it has barely  scratched the surface so far. 

Mark: Agrees.  Hummer Winblad did 12 pure-play SaaS investments. SaaS is most disruptive.  Siebel was the uncontested market leader and the appearence of Salersforce.com killed it. (I can’t help but insert my own opinion here: Sure, Salesforce squeezed Siebel from the bottom up, but two other factor were just as significant in their demise: the “overpromise, underdeliver” syndrome, i.e. customer dissatisfaction after expensive and lengthy projects; and the fact that SAP that already owns the Enterprise market significantly improved their own CRM  offering, and the integrated approach offers a better value proposition to their customers then the standalone Siebel CRM-only solution).  

Sanjay: We’ve already seen billion-dollar  SaaS companies:  eBay and  Google, just not in Enterprise.

Amit:  SaaS by itself is not a business model… for larger organizations hybrid models work better …with increasing process complexity and integration requirements there is a need for a mix of  on-demand and on-premise solutions.

Question specifically to Zach: Larry Ellison (Oracle CEO, owns over 50% of NetSuite, which is expected to pull off a billion-dollar IPO this year) stated that SaaS is only for SMB’s not for large corporations. Is that so?

 Zach: He is generally trying to avoid speaking for Larry. (They clearly have an interesting relationship, Larry has to be somewhat anti-SaaS, and Zach can’t really get into a public debate with his absolute majority owner. It seems to me that Larry is betting on two horses at the same time)  Nobody will switch software because they want to, or because SaaS ismore fashionable. First and foremost customers have a functionality challenge, which the software company has to meet.. Functionality is the primary consideration, and the delivery model supports it.

Sanjay:  We shouldn’t be talking about software as a service, it’s actually software + service.

Mark: A number of companies are selling to both small and large organizations. What’s exciting is that this is the very first time when medium sized companies can get the same functionality as the large guys! ( I tend to think the same is true for small businesses, in fact that may be an even more radical change, and it’s a mistake that analysts often only think of the midsize market when they speak SMB )

Jason: Disagrees with SAP’s Amit on the notion of need for hybrid.  Software needs to become a utility.  There is no room for innovation in most corporate  IT budgets, 80% of which is spent on running the infrastructure.  Let go of thee server!  I know it’s hard …it’s your baby … you may get visitation rights at your SaaS provider:-) (huge laughter at audience)

MR  makes a comment/question on recent high-profile outages in the industry, largely at salesforce.com but elsewhere, too.

Zach: Not all delivery models are created equal.  Sforce runs on “big iron”, (find article here) while Netsuite opted for a grid-like system based on cheap boxes. When a salesforce.com server goes down, it effects the majority of customers,  when NetSuite loses a box, a maximum of 50 customers are effected. This setup  also helps rolling out new versions smoothly, in a phased fashion,  while  Salesforce.com has to do it in “big bang” style.   Zach predicts Salesforce moving to a grid-like environment soon.

Larry: It’s about ease of adoption.  Software has become a lot easier to create, it’s acquisition is a painful process, and that’s the part that SaaS improves.

Sanjay: Service orientation helps picking best-of-breed solutions, mix and mach. The current trend of consolidation in the industry is actually contrary to it.

Amit: SOA is critical, some services in the cloud, others in the enterprise. 

Zach: Picking composite applications to mix and match is difficult, especially as business processes get more complex.. Composite transactional  applications are a fantasy –  far to difficult to synchronize.  Example: Microsoft CRM and Great Plains are hard to synchronize, even though MS owns the code for both.  Integrated transactional systems are unbeatable – that’s why SAP owns the Enterprise.

Question:  Consolidation, Oracle acquisitions .. getting bigger and bigger – is there room left for innovation?

Larry: Oracle is buying since it’s not doing a great job of innovation itself.  Startups have the benefit of new distribution mechanisms, SaaS, Open Source, user base helps them.

Amit: Lot of room for innovation by partners id they participate in verticals.  He “only” has 6000 developers, cant cover the whole world.(audience laughter)  Larry interrupts: I’d like that problem, I have 12. With 6000 how can you NOT cover the world? (even bigger laughter). Amit: Citibank has more developers then SAP.

Question about data privacy, Security. 

Zach: Especially for small, midsized businesses NetSuite’s security is better than running on local server next to coffee machine. 

Larry: Security is still a huge  unsolved issue.

Sanjay: The real data challenge is mashing structured and unstructured data. 80% of corprate data is unstructured  without business processes: xml is the glue. 

Larry: Html amplified the problem of huge amount of unstructured data, the future will be to move to have data in xml and html is just the presentation.

Question: Are there profitable SaaS companies?.  Sforce is barely profitable.

Mark: Salesforce.com is barely profitable, .Rigthnow is making decent profit,  employees (?_) is largely profitable.

Jason: Many are profitable,  SaaS lowers the cost of distribution – there is price elasticity in the market.  SaaS also helps reducing R&D, support costs – salesforce only needs to support one version, SAP, Oracle multiple ones.

Zach: When he joined NetSuite their sales model was direct. Now with success ecosystem develops.  Typically start with direct, build customer base, then ecosystem develops.

MR‘s comment/question: Software 2006 had a panel: Open Source: money machine or money pit? 

Larry: Open Source is a young model, there can not be a lot of profitable companies yet,  Red Hat beng an outstanding example.  On $10M in R&D Salesforce.com spends 100M in Sales & Marketing..  It’s cheaper to create software then sell it > Open Source helps eliminating the huge sales costs.

Jason concurs,  sales is 80% of cost.  Enterprise Software companies don’t make a lot of profit on software sales, their profit comes from maintenance.  Smart Open Source companies jump out of this expensive sales cycle and focus on support only.  They will increase botttom line while reducing top line.

Larry:  There is also a culture change: people did not understand software, they had to be educated and had to pay for that education.  Now everyone is computerized, carries a PDA, cellphone ..etc.  This means the  education need is reduced, good opportunity for Open Source’s pull model.

Question: SAP , MSFT will you be giving away your products free? 

Sanjay: Fuzzy answer on giving away software and promoting distribution. 

Amit: Support, explore Open Source, but not fully embrace.  SAP does not have the distribution channel that MS has. SAP needs to build ecosystem.

Question:  Will MS look into buying SAP?  Tried. Jason: pragmatic approach: it won’t happen, if for no other reason, the fight with the  EU..

Question: What Open Source opp’s exist? 

Mark: Recently made two investments into companies that develop applications for the lamp stack.  Issue: IP ownership, integration.  Sales issue: agree with the Open Source effect on lead generation, but how to close sales?  What happens when you move to markets that people don’t understand?

Question: any Open Source  companies to go public?  

Jason:  Potentially MySQL.  Markets pay 10-times sales, 30-times cashflow. Fewer, but better , more sustainable companies.

Question (more a remark) on SAP’s new compensation plan. Hasso Plattner recently  announced he is aiming at doubling the market, if they achieve that, the top 100 execs will make 100’s of millions.  Is that a realistic objective? 

Amit: The announcement certainly helps: -) but the true driver for growth  is product innovation.  

MR askes the panelists for their final remark

Mark: We’re in the greatest disruptive times. Hummer Winblad invested more in the past few years than in the previous 17..

Sanjay: Software industry does not spend enough time with users. 

Larry: Fantastic time to be a software entrepreneur.  Small team , little $, reach to market – not possible 10 years ago

Zach: It’s a great time to start a software company, when you do it, remember  you need a great application to run the business. (audience laughter; good plug for NetSuite …possibly the last one before going into pre-IPO silent period?)

Amit: Customers matter. SAP needs to focus more on the ecosystem.

Jason: MS announced spending additional $2B on emerging areas. Look at areas they are spending… go in those “white spaces”, since  they are good in seeing the  opportunities, but can’t exploit them properly.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

post

Enterprise SaaS Startups from an Investor’s Point of View

(Updated)
“It takes 70% to 100% more capital to fund a SaaS company to break-even than a traditional perpetual license company. It also takes 2 to 3 times longer to get there.” said Michael Skok of North Bridge Venture Partners at a Mass Technology Leadership Council session yesterday.  Don Dodge reports  in a detailed post, which is well worth reading in full.

  • SaaS companies need an average of $35M in VC capital, versus $20M for a similar perpetual license company.
  • It takes 6 to 7 years to get to break even
  • Public equity markets pay a 10% to 20% premium for predictable revenue streams
  • SaaS companies move faster than big companies. They can introduce new features instantly versus waiting for the next major release. Think years.
  • SaaS requires an architecture that supports end user customization
  • Industry standards are critical for interoperability
  • Steady state business models require 15-18% for engineering and 30-35% for Sales and Marketing.

Obviously this comparison is about Enterprise Software, Consumer applications are faster to develop, startups often don’t even take VC investment and get to market or get acquired after limited Angel investment – if any at all.

The above points are fact-based, learned from NBVP’s investment in 8 SaaS companies.  Yet I feel comparing enterprise software startups with the SaaS (Software as a Service) model vs.  the traditional perpetual license model is an academic exercise, since it does not represent a real choice.  I’m meeting VC Partners weekly at various SVASE and other events, and I’m hearing a consensus: no software VC in the Valley invest in the traditional enterprise license model.  
There are estimates that about 10% of all software sold is SaaS today, but investors have look out years ahead, and the writing is clearly on the wall: only SaaS gets funded today.

Related posts:

Update (5/23):  Hello “On Demand” hype machine by SiliconBeat’s Matt Marshall list some of the lates On-demand investments, at ever-increasing valuations.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

post

Using AdWords to “Badmouth” the Competition

Espen talks about how Google’s AdWords is used against 24SevenOffice. Here’s one of the ads displayed for the keyword “24SevenOffice” :

24SevenOffice – Great system for doctors, quick service, low costs!

The only problem is, 24SevenOffice does not do any of it. It’s a CRM+ERP+Communication+ .. + SaaS provider.

Whoever put up the ad, will likely pay very little, as few who specifically search for the company will click through. They manage, however, to clobber their competitor’s image, confuse and drive away potential customers, or disappoint the few who actually might be looking for a doctors’s solution, click through and feel “bait and switched”.

(somewhat) related post:


post

Software 2006: Questioning the McKinsey Study

(Updated)
McKinsey and Company in collaboration with the Sand Hill Group, organizer of the Software 2006 Conference released their Industry Study (pdf) that I have to take issue with. (yes, I know, who am I to disagree with McKinsey?)

“Business Model Discontinuity: Software as a Service (SaaS) and Open Source. Two major business models are vying for an growing share of software spend: Software as a Service and Open Source. …SaaS has already gained traction in number of application areas – such as payroll, human capital management, CRM, conferencing, procurement, logistics, information services, and e-commerce) – and should make gains across a much broader cross-section of applications over the next 3 years. Out of 34 application areas we have examined, only nine are unlikely to see some SaaS adoption over through 2008”

Apparently McKinsey tells us that Financial Applications are the back-office function most unlikely to see SaaS adoption for years to come. Hm … I know the trendy app now is CRM, but there were widely-used web-based packages long before CRM. Intuit, NetSuite (originally NetLedger), Intacct, 24SevenOffice, WinWeb ..just to name a few.

Perhaps these companies can jump in here, and tell us what they think of McKinsey’s prediction that SaaS will not take off for financial apps?

Update (4/7): Dennis Howlett has a really good point bringing up Document Management, the other “unlikely” area per McKinsey. As to confidentiality concerns: the numbers in the financial apps are the result of real business activity that may very well have been in other hosted systems, e.g. CRM, Procurement..etc. Document Management? Oh, well, our external interaction is often on hosted platforms (email), sales contracts are largely in hosted systems (CRM)… I could go on.
Interestingly enough businesses lost more confidential data stored “safely” inside the firewall due to disgruntled ex-employees than due to “exposure” to SaaS providers.

But the point I made about Accounting systems, that this isn’t subject to predictions, it’s already happening, or has happened largely: accounting was available On-Demand before CRM was “born”.

Update (5/31): New McKinsey paper bullish about SaaS model. (hat tip: Nick Carr. Free registration required to read).

Update (8/17): Dennis points us at Gartner’s Hype Cycle for Software as a Service.

On-Demand Financial Management Applications and On-Demand Sales Force Automation are said to be at the peak.”

Interesting. McKinsey says it’s not coming for years, Gartner says it’s already at the peak. Go figure …

Related posts:


post

Software 2006: from 1.0 to 2.0

In my previous post I complained about the lack of  interaction at some of the Software 2006 sessions. Well, the last two sessions I attended (actually running back and forth between the two) were definitely more participatory.

The panel discussion on Blogs and Web 2.0 in Marketing Communications was lively, and finally (!!!) they took a lot of customer questions. There we go, participation!

Greg Gianforte’s presentation on “SaaS – successful go-to-market strategies” was more a traditional one, but there is something in his presence and style that made it very interesting. Of course it’s not just the presentation, but the success story behind it: while his company is not as super-hyped as Salesforce.com, RightNow is definitely a significant player, with Fortune 1000 customers and over $100M in revenue.

Some of Greg’s key points: One-size-fits-all is OK for the typical SMB customer, but large corporations will demand choice in a number of areas:

  • Deployment choice: on-premise and hosted. They have to offer both, even tough 90% of business is now SaaS. Often the large corporate customer insists on on-premise, but their own IT gives them 12 month timeline, so they go live with the hosted version “temporarily” – then they get a taste of it and never move on-premise.
  • Payment choice: a common misunderstanding is to equate On-demand to pay-as-you-go. Payment terms have nothing to do with deployment methods, so they offer monthly term, term net thirty, and perpetual licence+maintenance for both on-demand and on-premise. Interestingly enough, monthly payment (which comes at a premium) is often not chosen by small businesses, but large companies who want to “hide” the cost in the operating budget vs capital.
  • Upgrade choice: Forced upgrades are unacceptable, they have an automated system that allows customers to pick their upgrade schedule in a multi-tenant environment.
  • Integration choice: They’ve done hundreds of integrations, web services making it easier.
  • Customization choice: meeting 80% of the requirements is not enough. High configurability, customization for the rest. Need architecture that supports customization even in the multi-tenant architecture.

Summing it up, these two sessions were informative, lively – but I need to stop now, the wine I smuggled out of the reception area is starting …. to … take …… ef….f….e…c….t.

Related posts:

Tags: , , , , , , ,

post

Software 2006: “Tacit Interaction” is the New Buzzword

I’m sitting (actually standing in front of a workstation typing this away…) at the Software 2006 Conference, which started off with a really good keynote. Before walking up to the workstation, I already knew I “lost the race”- having seen Ross sit close to a power outlet with his Mac in his lap, I knew everything that could be said is already said Jeff also covered the Welcome Address in detail.

Real-time update: these guys are posting faster then I can read: full coverage of Ray Lane’s keynote by Jeff and Ross. Again, I can’t really add anything (other than congrat’s to Ross, Ray did a good plug for the wiki). Ray’s session was followed by Vanessa Colella from McKinsey, and I *swear* I heard the term Tacit Interactions more often then Web 2.0, SaaS, Ajax, Collaborative and Social all lumped together at a TechCrunch party. Too bad Tacit is a private company, I’d run to buy the stock before it gets hyped up. OK, I am not being fair, the fact is, it’s pretty hard to deliver a speech immediately after Ray Lane spoke.

Back with a cup of coffee now … oh, well, considering my poor typing skills, I’m actually glad these guys posted all the facts, so all that’s left to me are a few observations.

For all the “Web 2.0” talk I feel we’re sitting in a “1.0” type conference. Sitting, rather than participating. None of the speakers took any questions, and while it’s OK for the keynote, one would expect the Pundit Panel to end with a Q&A.

Never mind, off we go to the Software Showcase. Well, not much of a showcase, we’re getting Powerpoint-supported presentations of CollabNet, Compiere, Digium and Ingres. Again, no Q&A in the end. Finally, Zimbra saves the day, we’re actually getting an impressive live presentation, the audience wakes up, and in the end, we’re offered free beer. Free, as in Open Source. Opening the bottle is $1, as in support for Open Source.  Beer or not, I can’t wait to get out of Microsoft-prison and start using Zimbra.

All in all, it’s a good conference, interesting topics, good networking, but it’s a bit “old-fashioned”:  “They” present, “we” listen passively, missing all the “Tacit Interaction” we’ve just talked about. Perhaps I’ve attended too many “unconferences” recently, I can’t expect a regular corporate-type conference to be TechCrunch or Techdirt-style 🙂

Related posts:

Tags: , , , ,

post

Ellison’s Double Dip: a Conflict of Interest? No.

Netsuite LogoMatt Marshall at SiliconBeat is wondering whether Oracle CEO Larry Ellisons 60% ownership (*) in NetSuite, preparing for a $2B IPO represents a conflict of interest.

I don’t think so.  Oracle dipped into the On-Demand market before,  it did not quite work, so Ellison decided to tackle it differently, through his investments.  He is a Warlord battling in different theaters and maintaining two separate, not directly interchangeable armies.   This is still true, even though Oracle’s second attempt in the SaaS space will likely be successful, especially after absorbing Siebel.

The issue isn’t so much On-Premise vs. On-Demand anymore,  but the market segment they go after: NetSuite is still mostly an SMB player, although more the “M” than the “S” piece.   The SMB market requires a totally different Sales and Marketing approach, amongst others, and Oracle with it’s current “legacy” salesforce can’t reach this market profitably.  It’s the Business Model, not only the technology, that requires a separate “army”.

For the above reasons I’ve long been advocating that SAP also should invest in it’s own NetSuite-equivalent (or better, and I happen to know who ) to tackle the SMB market.

Back to the Ellison factor, Jason  still contends that â€śNetSuite could get scooped up by Oracle before it ever sees the light of the public markets.”

* (I think it’s actually less than 60%, but more than 50% – but that’s irrelevant here.)

Update (4/2)Vinnie agrees:I have always believed if Larry had invested in every one of Oracle’s alums, he would be a far richer man than Bill Gates…. Maybe Larry should similarly invest in Open Source, Third Party

Maintenance, BPO, Search, Web services start-ups. They represent the

growth and the innovation in the market, not the company he founded.”

Sramana Mitra‘s post is also worth reading.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,