Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Acta Technology Helps Add Business Intelligence Capabilities to Major ERP Vendors

"Montreal, Quebec--December 14, 1999 - Sand Technology Systems International Inc. (NASDAQ: SNDT), a leading provider of business intelligence (BI) solutions, announced today that it is partnering with Acta Technology, Inc. (Acta) to provide guaranteed and cost-effective BI results for users of SAP R/3. Acta is a leading provider of data warehousing solutions for both internal decision support and business-to-business eCommerce. SAP R/3 is the widely implemented ERP (enterprise resource planning) system from SAP (NYSE: SAP). Both Sand and Acta will be featuring the Nucleus RapidMarts as preferred solutions for the increasing numbers of customers seeking effective ways to handle BI applications with SAP. Using the power of Sand Technology's Nucleus Exploration, Acta's RapidMarts,a suite of packaged data marts for analysis in specific business areas, can be quickly implemented without ABAP programmers and without the extensive expertise and hardware typically required for SAP BI implementations. Using Nucleus, RapidMarts also allow for the full integration of decision support applications involving both SAP and non-SAP data. The Nucleus-powered RapidMarts are available for a broad range of SAP applications, including Cost Analysis, Sales Analysis, Human Resources, Inventory Management, and Account Analysis. RapidMarts are powered by ActaWorks, Acta's award-winning extraction, transformation, and loading (ETL) platform (DBMS Magazine: Editor's Choice)."

As customers increasingly realize how difficult it is to extract value from the data in their ERP systems, the need for products that can move this information into integrated, enterprise-wide data warehouses and tighter-focus data marts has become increasingly evident. Acta has specialized in the Extract/Transform/Load (ETL) of data from ERP databases for 5 years, and has active alliances with SAP and PeopleSoft. Acta's SAP BW (Business Information Warehouse) interface has also been certified by SAP. Sand Technology's vertical focus should allow a tight integration between the products.

Customers considering data warehouses or data marts with a tight vertical focus on enterprise resource planning should definitely consider Acta and Sand's technology collaboration on a short list of vendor offerings. The stated lack of need for ABAP (SAP's proprietary fourth-generation language) programmers is also a major positive. Before any decision is made, both vendors should be closely questioned on the level of integration between the products, and how tightly their code bases are aligned. Sand and Acta have stated that they will provide "guaranteed and cost-effective BI results for users of SAP R/3", and should be asked to give this guarantee in writing.

Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP) Market - Dismal 1999, the New Millennium to bring Relief (for Some)

(ERP) software solutions have become synonymous with competitive advantage, particularly throughout the 1990's. ERP systems replace "islands of information" with a single, packaged software solution that integrates all traditional enterprise management functions like financials, human resources, and manufacturing & logistics (See Market Information Sidebar for more details). We also believe that having an ERP system is a prerequisite in most business environments to fully take advantage of the latest business information processing trends, such as e-Business and customer relationship management (CRM).

One could distinguish the following two segments within the ERP market:

  1. Corporate ERP solutions are primarily focused on the consolidated data management, financial and human resources needs of large Fortune 1000 companies. It evolved from accounting and contract management systems in the early 1980s. Human resources and more comprehensive financial planning and control systems were added in the 1990s. Leading vendors of these solutions are SAP, Oracle, and PeopleSoft.

  2. Plant/Operations ERP solutions are primarily focused on the specific needs of mid-range manufacturing plants and distribution sites or the operations level of global companies. This ERP market segment's roots are in the control automation market of the 1960s and 1970s and the manufacturing planning software market of the 1980s. This evolved into the ERP of the 1990s. Leading vendors of these ERP solutions include SAP, Oracle, PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards, Baan, JBA (now a division of Geac Software Corp.), Intentia International, SSA, Lawson Software, QAD, IFS AB, Symix Systems, MAPICS, Navision, and a number of smaller niche ERP players.

In 80's and 90's, businesses have been subject to increasing global competition, resulting in a pressure to lower production costs, improve product performance and quality, increase responsiveness to customers and shorten product development and delivery cycles. Furthermore, globalization has greatly increased the scope and complexity of multinational manufacturing organizations. Therefore, companies have long been urged to develop or purchase and implement software applications to automate their business processes, leverage their transnational data stores in order to make more informed decisions, and ultimately, decrease operating costs. Companies realized the need to be able to react rapidly to change due to increasing competition, deregulation, globalization, and mergers & acquisition activity.

During the second half of the 1990s, the market for ERP systems has experienced strong growth rates in excess of 50% per year, from US$ 5.7B in 1995 to US$ 16.6B in 1998 [Source: AMR Research]. Some of the key drivers, in addition to the above mentioned underlining reasons, were:

  • The transition from custom-designed legacy software (software developed by or for a specific customer) to the implementation of standard systems that can be applied across different types of industries. This was particularly true for the largest companies, who previously thought that they had the resources to develop business solutions under their own steam.

  • In addition to the transition to standard systems, ERP systems have been extended to support an increasing number of business processes in integrated solutions like engineering, customer support, sales support, human resources, etc.

  • The customer base has also expanded from mainly manufacturing, trade, and distribution to the public and financial sectors, transportation, infrastructure, defense, federal and local governments, utilities, etc.

  • In the past three years, Year 2000 (Y2K) and the adoption of the Euro currency have been important driving forces in the development of the market. As a matter of fact, resolving the Y2K problem has, in many instances, led to the installation of a new ERP system.

The worsening plight of most ERP vendors, caused by the market slowdown, which started in the fourth quarter of 1998, continued in full force throughout 1999. During the last 12 months, the 20 largest ERP vendors achieved an estimated average growth of 25% [Source TEC; this figure should not be confused with the absolute ERP market revenue annual growth], which is much less compared to the equivalent growth of over 40% a year earlier. Particularly affected was the license revenue, which is expected to decline more than 10% in 1999 compared to 1998 (See Table 1). The market was dramatically less profitable than in 1998 (down 27.3%), measured in the total raw $ net income (See Table 1).

Table 1
ERP Market Financial Data
1997
1998
1999 (est.)
2000 (est.)
Total Revenue 11.0 16.6 18.5-19.5 25.0-27.0
Total revenue growth of the market 43% 40% 12%-16% 30%-38%
Average Licenses Revenue/Total Revenue Ratio 56.2% 48.2% 39.0% 35%-40%
Total license revenue growth 43% 20% -10% 10%-20%
Net income growth over previous years 74.9% -28.3% -27.3% 5%-25%
Average R&D Investment/License Revenue Ratio 22.0% 28.5% 32.4% 30%-35%
Average R&D Investment/Total Revenue Ratio 12.4% 13.7% 12.6% 13%-15%

We believe that the continued ERP market slowdown in 1999 was primarily attributable to the following factors:

* The historical growth in sales of ERP applications has come from large, Fortune 1000 multinational corporations. This market has been highly penetrated, and new, large-scale back-office implementations in the F1000 customer base have all but stalled.

* Continued focus of companies on Year 2000 (Y2K) remediation brought the purchases of new ERP systems in 1999 to a significant standstill.

* The relatively untapped Small-to-Medium Enterprises (SME) market has been cautious about starting new projects due to the bad publicity of a large number of unsuccessful ERP implementations in the past. This fear has been additionally aggravated by the need to integrate disparate systems, given that currently no single vendor can offer a complete end-to-end solution (from supplier to end customer).

* The technology paradigm shift from Client/Server to the Internet created uncertainty about investing in the traditional Client/Server technology, which is still prevalent among leading ERP players.

* The economic recession in markets outside North America, particularly in Asia.

The market size for 1999, with the 4th quarter yet to be reported, is estimated at $18.5B-$19.5B (12%-16% growth over 1998), with sales expected to top $55B-60B by 2003, for a CAGR of 28%-32%. The market appears to be consolidating. The top 6 ERP vendors, SAP AG, Oracle Corporation, PeopleSoft Inc., Geac Software Corporation (See TEC's News Analysis article: "Geac and JBA Join Forces to Form New ERP Giant" October 6, 1999), J.D. Edwards & Company, and Baan Co., account for ~70% of total ERP revenue. Consolidation, mergers and acquisitions are expected to intensify. Over the last two years, the ERP market became stratified into growing and profitable vendors on one side, and stagnating and non-profitable vendors on the other side (See Market Winners, Market Challengers, and Market Losers). We believe that this will become more accentuated, with customers becoming more vendor viability wary. We expect larger ERP vendors to swallow up their smaller brethren, both in ERP and related markets, such as the recent IFS AB acquisition of Effective Management Systems, Inc., the manufacturing execution systems (MES) vendor, and MAPICS' acquisition of Pivotpoint, the vendor of extended ERP for mid-market companies. We also expect companies with related software products to move into the ERP space through acquisition like Invensys, Plc. with its acquisition of Marcam Solutions.

ERP systems have earned the general perception of being exorbitantly expensive to license and implement, and vendors have recently been trying to change that infamous image with new pricing options in order to keep users' costs down. Users typically pay an up-front per-user (either concurrent or named) license fee and an annual maintenance charge to use ERP systems (typically 12%-20% of the license fee). The per-seat price for ERP varies greatly depending on the number of users, the number of modules to be deployed and what "bells and whistles" are added, and whether the company belongs to the high-end Tier 1 (Fortune 500) or the SME (Tier 2 and 3) market segment. The per-user price range has been from $2,000 to $8,000 (typically higher values for larger companies), with the continual price decline trend owing to fierce competition and the reduced or postponed demand for software. Many vendors offer per-month per-user rental or outsourcing deals as an alternative to traditional up-front licenses. Fixed price, preinstalled, pre-configured ERP is also available and is particularly attractive for the lower-end of market.

Sales cycles vary from months to years depending on the company size, its organizational structure (single or multi-site, international or not), and the functional scope of the project. While the selection phase of software acquisitions will increasingly gain critical importance (due to customers' increased awareness of possibly fatal consequences from selecting a wrong software), the pressure for faster decision-making will mount both from vendors (who want shorter and less fluctuating sales cycles) and users (in order to stay ahead of their competitors). As a rule, every $1 of ERP software sales drives on average another $3-$6 of additional hardware, third party integration and consulting, and resellers revenue, although in some cases additional costs can reach $10-15 for each dollar spent on software.

During the last two years, the functional perimeter of ERP systems began an expansion into its adjacent markets, such as supply chain management (SCM), customer relationship management (CRM), business intelligence, and e-Business. While most traditional ERP software enables the integration and management of critical data within enterprises, companies have increasingly recognized the need to deploy more advanced software systems that manage the global supply chain by enhancing the flow of information to and from customers, suppliers and other business partners outside the enterprise. More recently, the availability and use of the Internet has created a demand for software that operates across the Internet and intranets. This global logistics concept merged with new constraint-based optimization solutions called advanced planning systems (APS) and specialized warehouse management software, resulting in SCM (See TEC's Technology Research Note: "Advanced Planning and Scheduling: A Critical Part of Customer Fulfillment" December 10th, 1999 ). The major ERP players already have offerings or strategies addressing this important need (See TEC's Technology Research Notes: "The Essential Supply Chain" September 16th, 1999, and "SAP APO - Will It Fill the Gap" September 2nd, 1999).

Another important area of functional expansion is in the front office/customer relationship management (CRM) arena. Customers are demanding applications and tools that allow them to link back-office ERP systems with front-office CRM systems. They are also demanding enhanced capabilities for e-Business, especially business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-customer (B2C) electronic commerce. The leading ERP vendors have begun to discern the opportunity these products present and the benefit potential for organizations implementing them. CRM has gone from a vast field of point solutions to suites of customer care applications covering sales force automation, field service, telesales, call center, marketing automation, etc. ERP vendors have explored various routes to penetrate the CRM and e-Commerce markets, such as developing in-house products (SAP, with its telesales module and mySAP.com portal), acquiring point specialists to augment their offering (Oracle through its acquisitions of Versatility for call center, Tinoway for field service, and Concentra for product configurator module), merging full suites (Baan with its acquisition of Aurum in 1997, and PeopleSoft with its acquisition of Vantive in 1999), and partnering with CRM and e-Commerce leaders (J.D. Edwards with Siebel and Ariba, and SAP with Recognition Systems Group for its market campaigns module).

Market Leader/Winners

We generally believe that, in the long run, market winners will be those vendors with an established large customer base and with huge financial and human resources that would make them more responsive to any future challenges such as sudden market trends and/or technology paradigm shifts. Rated according to this metric, the current market leaders, SAP, Oracle, PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards, and Baan would be seen as long-term market winners. However, we would like to make a clear distinction between SAP and Oracle, as undisputed winners on one side, and the latter three as winners/challengers on the other side, owing to their substantially lower market share and dismal results in 1999.

*

SAP is the current market share leader (~32%) after taking global markets by storm with the release of its flagship R/3 client/server product at the beginning of the 1990s.

Strengths: Commanding market position and brand recognition, very sound financial situation, functional breadth of the core R/3 product, attractiveness of mySAP.com portal for its existing large customer base.

Challenges: Lengthy and costly implementations in the past, a complex and rigid product, slower total revenue growth in 1999 (~12%) with an ~5% decline in licenses revenue and an ~23% decline in net income, delayed delivery of CRM and SCM modules.

For more details, see TEC's note on SAP: "SAP AG - ERP Leader with a 'New Dimension'" September 1st, 1999.

* Oracle fortified its position as 2nd largest ERP vendor during 1999 by increasing its ERP market share (up to ~14%) after being the only large vendor to achieve significant growth in both total revenue (~24%), license revenue (~16%) and net income (~59%).

Strengths: Corporate viability, solid reputation of horizontal applications for functionality and scalability, technology infrastructure ownership, strong international professional services, early Internet architecture adoption and entry to CRM market.

Challenges: Product integration issues, delayed delivery of CRM and SCM modules, divided management attention on a wide range of initiatives, inefficient sales execution.

For more details, see TEC's note on Oracle: "Oracle Co. - Internet Paradigm Boosts Applications Growth" September 1st, 1999.

*

PeopleSoft retained its position as 3rd largest ERP vendor, despite sharply sliding license revenue (down ~43%), mostly flat total revenues, the first non-profitable fiscal year, and management upheavals during 1999.

Strengths: Large and loyal HRMS and financial module customer base, corporate viability and culture, user-friendly user interface and development tools (modification feasibility), strong vertical focus for certain non-manufacturing industries.

Challenges: Product integration of acquired Vantive CRM product, market perception of its manufacturing product weakness, no significant number of full ERP reference sites, floundering Internet strategy throughout 1999, low brand awareness outside North American market.

For more details, see TEC's note on PeopleSoft: "PeopleSoft - Are Business Intelligence and e-Commerce Enough?" September 1st, 1999.

*

J.D. Edwards lost its 4th largest ERP vendor position owing to Geac's acquisition of JBA International. Fiscal 1999 was the least successful year in the company's history of public trading, with a dismal total revenue growth (~1%), declined license revenue (down ~19%), and the hefty loss of ~$39M.

Strengths: A well-established leading global position in the mid-market, advanced cross-platform migration strategy, OneWorld's architecture that promotes flexibility and ongoing post-implementation system agility, well-developed affiliate channel.

Challenges: Product integration of acquired Numetrix and Premisys SCM products, bland marketing efforts in the past, OneWorld initial product functionality glitches, lack of own CRM and e-Commerce products and need to rely on a number of partnering agreements.

For more details, see TEC's note on J.D. Edwards: "J.D. Edwards - Creating OneWorld of Mid-sized ERP Users" September 1st, 1999.

* Baan continued its descent on the ERP ladder by dropping to the 6th largest ERP vendor position owing to Geac's acquisition of JBA International. Fiscal 1999 was less disastrous compared to 1998, however still very bleak, with continued declining both license revenue (down ~46%) and total revenues (down ~15%), another non-profitable fiscal year, with significant management upheavals.

Strengths: Discrete manufacturing and project industries functionality, DEM SE concept of rapid implementation and easy reconfiguration, product scalability, potential for offering extended ERP 'one-stop shop' capability.

Challenges: Product complexity, unproven integration of its confederacy of disparate products, prolonged poor financial performance, affiliate channel shake-out, regaining market confidence in the US market.

For more details, see TEC's note on Baan: "Baan Company N.V. - Is the Worst Over?" September 1st, 1999.

While there are a number of successful smaller vendors with exciting product offerings and stellar results in 1999 (e.g. Symix Systems, Great Plains Software, Navision, Fourth Shift Corporation, to name but a few), we will limit our list of market challengers to the four vendors described bellow. They are either already ranked high on the ERP ladder or have exhibited steady growth and expansion in recent years. In addition, they possess attractive product portfolios and innovative technology foundations.

* Geac has snatched the 5th largest ERP vendor position owing to its acquisition of JBA International. Geac is also the largest Canadian software company.

Strengths: Strong history of growth, cross-platform and scalable products, potential for serving a wide range of industries, strong global coverage.

Challenges: Merger growing pains, integration issues and discontinuation of redundant products, lack of a CRM product within the product portfolio, no significant number of full ERP reference sites.

For more details, see TEC's note on JBA International: "JBA: Will it Remain '@ctive Enterprise'?" November 1st, 1999, and News Analysis article: "Geac Metamorphosises JBA Into Gear, but Cuts 20% of Staff" November 17th, 1999. A more detailed TEC's note on Geac Software Corporation is currently in the works and is expected to be published in a due course.

* Intentia is expected to occupy the 7th largest ERP vendor position owing to its revenue growth of ~20% in 1999, while languishing SSA suffered a revenue decrease of ~25% during the same period. Fiscal 1999 was however a challenging year, with declining license revenue (down ~14%) and an expected non-profitable fiscal year.

Strengths: Versatile product functionality (both for discrete and process manufacturing), tight vertical focus, strong track record, corporate culture and viability, heavy R&D investment.

Challenges: Low brand awareness outside the European market, non-uniform global availability of some modules (HR/Payroll, Transportation), dubious future attractiveness of its fully Java-written product due to performance.

For more details, see TEC's note on Intentia: "Intentia: Java Evolution From AS/400" October 1st, 1999.

* Lawson Software is entrenched in the 9th largest ERP vendor position owing to its revenue growth of ~35% in 1999, reaching $270 million in revenues. The company is currently the largest privately held ERP vendor.

Strengths: Innovative product technology (early Web-enablement, interconnectivity, and very intuitive user interface), tight vertical focus, solid track record and viability, heavy R&D investment, cross-platform and open-database product, very high customer retention rate (96%).

Challenges: Low brand awareness outside of the North American market, non-support for manufacturing applications, late development of CRM modules, dubious future attractiveness of its immunity to financial statements disclosure to more conservative CFOs.

A more detailed TEC's note on Lawson Software is currently in the works and will be published in a due course.

* Industrial & Financial Systems, IFS is expected to occupy the 10th largest ERP vendor position within the next 18 moths owing to its revenue growth of 96% in 1998, and expected growth of over 60% in 1999. Fiscal 1999 is however expected to be non-profitable, due to a number of recent acquisitions and worldwide expansion costs.

Strengths: Product technology (component and interconnectivity), expanded ERP product breath, strong track record and current status as the fastest-growing ERP vendor, corporate culture and viability.

Challenges: Maintaining management effectiveness while growing very fast, low brand awareness outside of the European market, integration of recently acquired products, narrow choice of database (only Oracle).

For more details, see TEC's note on IFS: "Industrial & Financial Systems, IFS AB: Thriving on Product Flexibility and Incremental Deployability" January 3rd, 2000.

We predict that more than 50% of current ERP vendors will not survive until 2004 (65% probability). About half of these will transform into system integrators, while either relegating their product to a niche 'bolt-on'or legacy status. The remaining half will be acquired, and those will be vendors with poor financial performance and undervalued market capitalization but with a large customer base and a deep focus and expertise in a certain industry. The following two vendors are case in the point.

*

System Software Associates, SSA continued its free fall on the ERP ladder by dropping to the 8th largest ERP vendor position owing to its prolonged dire situation. Fiscal 1999 was a somewhat less disastrous year compared to 1998, however still very dramatic, with continued declining in both license revenue (down ~51%) and total revenues (down ~25%), another hefty loss of $88.2M, and management upheavals.

Strengths: BPCS functionality breath and industry focus, large customer base and international presence, fast implementations and low total cost of ownership (TCO), cross-platform product.

Challenges: Dire financial situation, BPCS 6.0 quality and performance glitches, installed-base dissatisfaction due to migration glitches, lack of own expanded ERP modules.

For more details, see TEC's note on SSA: "SSA: Evolving Into Systems Integrator To Survive" November 1st, 1999.

* Marcam Solutions continued to struggle in the 1st half of 1999 until being acquired by Wonderware, the factory automation division of Invensys Plc., a global electronics and engineering company with headquarters in London, UK for the price less than a half of its annual revenue ($60 million).

Strengths: Protean, PRISM, and Avantis niche functionality and plant-level features, product flexibility and ongoing post-implementation system agility, tight process manufacturing focus, cross-platform product.

Challenges: Poor financial performance, dubious ERP strategy, confinement to process manufacturing, weak financial and distribution modules, lack of expanded ERP modules.

For more details, see TEC's note on Marcam Solutions: "Marcam Solutions: Shifting its Focus to MES" December 13th, 1999.

We believe that growth rates above 40% will be hard to sustain, however growth will remain the word associated with the ERP market in the 2000's. As mentioned earlier, the market size for 2003 is expected to top $55B-60B [Source: TEC]. In addition to the growth created by the fact that many companies have not yet solved their basic ERP needs, particularly in non-manufacturing sectors, we believe that the following factors will further drive this growth:

*

The great number of companies who were reticent in making their strategic ERP investments before 2000 and resolution of Y2K, will have to make that investment in the foreseeable future in order to meet competitive pressures.

* The emergence of Internet-based system solutions during the next 3 years will lead to a faster flow of information between all members of the logistics chain. Demands on quality, customer-focus and faster deliveries are intensifying at an increasing pace. This will require extensive change and a need for new enhanced ERP systems. The future of ERP lies in improving the supply chain and fostering better collaboration across multiple enterprises. Some ERP vendors have already started creating virtual trading communities consisting of their large existing users and their trading partners, whereby ERP vendors provide all the necessary 'plumbing' work.

* The enhanced functionality offered by ERP vendors will increase the number of end users within the current customer base. Currently, ERP is used by less than 20% of a company's employees, on average. We predict that number to double within the next 3 years (70% probability)..

* The emergence of e-Commerce has as a consequence the rapid increase in the number of new 'dotcom' companies. These companies have the same need for business systems as other trading companies with respect to human resources management, financial management, order management, warehousing and distribution, etc. Moreover, e-commerce will create new paradigms for business that will fuel a new wave of business process re-engineering, and therefore more ERP software sales.

* Some geographic markets outside North America and Western Europe have not been significantly penetrated by ERP systems thus far, and we expect further vendors' expansion there in the future.
* Many sectors, such as telecommunications, utilities and the public sector, are now exposed to increased competition due to deregulation and increased globalization, and are turning to deployment of ERP software in order to remain competitive.

We believe that, within the next two years, ERP will be redefined as a platform for enabling e-business globally. Originally focused on automating internal processes of an enterprise, ERP systems will include customer and supplier-centric processes as well. The conclusive evidence of this redefinition is the move of all major ERP players into CRM and SCM applications. ERP software suites will become universal business applications that will encompass front-office, business intelligence, and e-commerce/supply chain management, and ERP will no longer be the acronym sufficient enough to cover it, so we would like to suggest a new acronym - iERP, meaning inter(net)-enterprise resource planning.

While the concept of best-of-breed will not go away, users will increasingly look for one strategic vendor to fulfill the majority of their business application needs. This is particularly true for the lower end of the market. This trend, bundled with strong vendor competition, will drive increased merger & acquisition activity in the entire business applications market. Smaller ERP vendors and best-of breed CRM or SCM vendors will acquire new functionality and merge to protect themselves. We predict that more than 50% of current ERP vendors will not survive until 2004 (65% probability). About half of these will transform into system integrators, while either relegating their product to a niche 'bolt-on'or legacy status. The remaining half will be acquired. The most likely acquisition candidates will be those vendors with poor financial performance and undervalued market capitalization but with a large customer base and a deep focus and expertise in a certain industry. This should not necessarily be a bad thing for current users of those products. The acquirer will either continue product development and support of the acquired product (40% probability) or offer a relatively attractive migration path to its product (35% probability). However, there is a 25% probability that the acquirer is only interested in milking the maintenance revenue without ongoing product support. These users may find themselves left in the lurch with a legacy product. In addition, we predict some unconventional acquisitions, such as the acquisition of ERP vendors by best-of-breed CRM or SCM vendors, with a view to offer a more comprehensive solution. We believe that, within the next two years, Siebel Systems and i2 Technologies will have to resort to acquiring an ERP vendor (60% probability).

As a result of the above described activities, we predict that within the next three years, over 65% of the license revenue of the SCM market and over 50% of the license revenue of the CRM market will come from current ERP vendors (70% probability). Currently, these figures are estimated to be less than 10%. Furthermore, ongoing merger & acquisitions as well as the need to develop new product features will increase R&D investments in the future, measured as a percentage of total revenue (See Table 1).

Despite the user preference for a single, 'one-stop shop' vendor, componentized software products, interoperability standards and Internet technology will lead to fewer large-scale projects and an ongoing stream of smaller ones. This will force third-party system integrators and consulting companies toward fixed-price, fixed-time implementations. Moreover, vendors will increasingly attempt to conduct system integrating and consulting work themselves, which will further decrease the industry average license revenue/total revenue ratio (See Table 1).
We believe that vendors that are best positioned to survive fierce competition will have to exhibit certain core competencies. Competitive costs (low and flexible software license pricing and implementation costs) and outstanding global service (proven fast implementations and customer loyalty) will remain important requirements for success, particularly in the lower end of the market. However, focus will be the key factor for survival. Vendors that will survive the next three years will have focused their business and product on particular industries, preferably those with a current low penetration (federal government, insurance, healthcare, transportation), instead of a more generic, horizontal approach. Winning ERP products will demonstrate deep industry functionality and tight integration with best-of-bread 'bolt-on' products in a particular vertical. Seamless interfaces to other vendors' products will be a matter of course (to achieve real-time collaboration among business partners' disparate systems, as well as to more easily penetrate a competitor's client base with their 'bolt-on' components), as well as growing partnerships with renowned system integrators, consulting companies, and application service providers (ASP).

Buyers will increasingly realize that architecture plays a key role in how quickly vendors can implement, maintain, expand/customize, and integrate their products. An adaptable architecture is the least common denominator for a flexible ERP system. Although a component-based architecture is not an explicit requirement for ERP flexibility, component-based applications generally provide greater flexibility than their monolithic counterparts. Further prerequisites for flexibility will be abstraction of technical complexity (manifested via the use of intuitive tools, aids, or wizards that guide user through a set of steps to achieve a desired end result) and an intuitive, easy-to-use user interface.

Global financial capabilities (including support for the Euro), advanced planning and scheduling (APS), product configurators, supply chain management (SCM), customer relationship management (CRM), e-Commerce, business intelligence (BI), and component (object-oriented) architecture will remain the order winners for the next 2 years. After that period of time, we believe these functional and technological features will be demoted into commodities (order qualifiers), whereas the vendors' financial viability, their service & support capability, and their strategy for improving their products and services over time will become winning criteria.

The large players (i.e. the Big Six) have inherent advantages and incentives to develop needed competencies: their installed base, their market clout, and their ability to commit resources to development. To separate themselves from the rest of the pack, they will either (1) have to use those internal resources to develop their own extended products and capabilities, as SAP has done, or (2) have to buy/use someone else's superior technology/product, which was the route generally pursued by other large vendors.

Small vendors should either (1) try to develop the above mentioned required competencies and build up as much market share as possible, either under their own steam or by means of mergers & acquisitions, thereby strengthening their position, or (2) align themselves with a major vendor.

Geac Upgrades Accounting And Human-Resources Apps -- SQL Release 6.0 Simplifies Purchasing And HR Services For Midsize Companies

Geac SmartEnterprise Solutions released an updated version of its human resources and accounting applications for midsize companies at the beginning of January. SQL Financials and HR Release 6.0 are available immediately, as are a set of employee self-service applications that integrate with the suite. Geac SmartEnterprise, a division of Geac Computer Corp., acquired the SQL suite last year from Clarus Corp. The company says a key benefit of HR Release 6.0 is tight integration with the Clarus eProcurement suite, an application available separately through Clarus that simplifies and controls the purchase of office supplies and services by individual employees. Used with Geac's SQL financial suite, eProcurement enables a seamless purchasing process that links requisition activity directly to accounting systems, such as budgeting and accounts payable.

In addition, the rollout of a new component of the SQL HR suite called HRPoint gives users access to HR, benefits, and payroll information through a Web browser. Geac says HRPoint can reduce administrative costs and improve HR service to employees by eliminating paperwork and phone calls. Beth Price, Geac's human resources management systems product manager, says the SQL product line is aimed at companies with less than $1 billion in annual revenues, which typically require less complex tools than the high-end packages offered by Oracle, PeopleSoft, and SAP. SQL Release 6.0 and HRPoint are compatible with the latest versions of Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle database platforms. Financial and HR packages start at $40,000 per module, while HRPoint starts at $70,000. Pricing varies according to the number of licensed users.

Geac has proven itself an adroit and disciplined acquirer of application software businesses. The latest announcement of its expedient incorporation of Clarus' former product line is the most recent example. Furthermore, the mission-critical nature of its solutions makes the company a "first call provider" in some esoteric markets whose customers turn to it first for further system enhancements (See user recommendation). Geac intends to mine its existing large client base. While we believe that Geac's product strategy against the largest ERP vendors is shrewd, one should not discount fierce competition coming from its nimble mid-market competitors, like Lawson Software and Great Plains. These vendors have been offering self-service applications via the Web for over a year. Geac also trails these vendors with its CRM capabilities, which may prove detrimental to its new license revenue growth.

We generally recommend including Geac in a long list of an enterprise application selection to mid-market and low end tier 1 companies (with $100M-$1B in revenue), based on a very deep understanding of customers' needs within the following industries: Library Systems; Construction Systems; Property Management Systems; Hospitality Systems; Public Safety Systems; Publishing Systems; Manufacturing & Distribution Systems; Real Estate Systems; Cash & Securities Reconciliation Solutions. Other industries might also benefit from evaluating the above mentioned Geac point solution, bearing in mind inevitable integration issues with other systems in place.

Experiencing the Customer Experience: Listening to, Learning from, and Acting on the Voice of the Customer

There's a new three-letter acronym making the rounds out there—and it's already getting on my nerves. The acronym? CEM. The term? Customer experience management.

To be sure, the underlying idea is attractive. There is certainly value in a positive customer experience, and it's worth exploring the many ways in which one might design, optimize, and support this practice. Who's against giving customers a memorable and meaningful experience?

Sounds a lot like customer relationship management (CRM) all over again. Look, I am a total pragmatist. While I have made my career as a professional consultant, I'm about as far from a traditional consultant as you can get. While other consultants are rolling out elaborate CEM methodologies for their corporate clients, I have focused on providing practical, cost-effective advice on this subject.

Companies of all sizes would like to improve the customer's experience and reap the benefits. But companies should understand that the matter is far less complex than the experts would have them believe.

Consider the case of one of my clients who really "gets it" when it comes to delivering on the customer experience.

The company, Benjamin Studios, is located in downtown Atlanta, Georgia (US), in a hip and historic loft development that once housed the Hastings Seeds factory. It's a four-year-old company that is captained by a highly successful, thirty-seven-year-old serial entrepreneur named Benjamin Nowak.

The idea for Benjamin Studios was inspired by the explosion in digital photography and self-expression. As more "do-it-yourselfers" processed digital prints at home, less photos were being taken to traditional photo processing labs for professional finishing. Consumers have become fanatical about capturing all of their "magic moments" in life through the convenience of personal digital photography. Therein lies the opportunity for Benjamin Studios and its current line of retail product offerings. Consumers enjoy the option of transforming some of their best digital photos and memories into lasting works of art that can be displayed in sizes from 14" x 10" to life-size murals. The retail photofinishing industry is excited and supportive of this service because it sees the Benjamin Studios' offerings as a revenue replacement strategy for the traditional photofinishing business (prints). While some of Benjamin Studios' sales are direct to the consumer, most of its business comes through relationships with professional photographers, portrait studios, and national retail photofinishing chains, such as Ritz Camera.

During the past year, the company has been engineering some new products for the retail channel in a pilot program with one national chain. The pilot was scheduled to launch in seventy stores. In order to secure the full-scale rollout of over 1,000 stores, it was critical to Benjamin Studios to ensure that both the product and the customer experience be engineered for maximum success.

Here are a few steps Benjamin Studios took during the year to get its customers committed to its offering, and how the company used its customers' input to engineer a compelling product and deliver an engaging customer experience.

The Product Engineering Approach: Capitalizing on Customer Feedback

The product challenge was to take what was already a successful business focused on the high-end professional market, and engineer a particular offering that could be positioned in the retail market space. After about a year of product engineering, Benjamin Studios produced an offering it felt was ready for launch in a pilot program at the retail level.

From the start, dialogue was established between Benjamin Studios' customer (the retail chains) and the retail consumer. Merchandising displays were set up in every pilot store, and a representative from Benjamin Studios was sent out to spend a significant amount of time at each facility. The studio representative was charged with facilitating the dialogue and capturing its essence.

First, a discussion was initiated with the retail chain to determine the optimal placement and arrangement of the display. The studio representative would offer significant input, including suggestions and examples of how the display location had played a key role in the success of sales in other facilities. All feedback on samples, order forms, and other support items were documented—and frequently incorporated—before the next display went into the next store.

Next, a training session was conducted to educate management and key associates about the product so they would understand it and be able to effectively present it to their customers. Part of this training included handing out sample products and order forms to these store personnel. When the formal training session was complete, the studio representative would remain on-site to help store personnel hone their presentation and selling skills. This was also a crucial opportunity for the studio representative to observe and record consumers' reactions, comments, and questions.

At the end of the session, a debriefing was held with store management and associates to gain feedback on the sales scripts, order forms, and other supporting material. Again, every attempt was made to incorporate their feedback before the next store was set up.

Benjamin Studios' objective was to insure it was learning how to make its customers successful, while at the same time participating with them in the development, shaping, and design of the in-store consumer experience. The company did not wait until all stores were rolled out before acting on the feedback it received store by store throughout the process. It embraced a dynamic, iterative, and collaborative approach to product design and in-store merchandising. And, as expected, the company's sales training and support contributed positively to the image of the stores.

While this example seems simple enough, and may almost seem like pure common sense, Benjamin Studios took actions that few companies ever do. First, it seized the opportunity to acquire customer feedback from the very start. Too often when a company plans a new product or service offering, it is not as concerned about the customers' feedback as it is with getting the product rolled out and sold. All too often, companies fail to start learning from the customer until sales have failed to meet expectations. That becomes the point at which focus groups, interviews, and other means are deployed to learn what is working and what isn't. However, an extraordinary amount of money and resources can be wasted in the meantime—assuming one can even recover from initial missteps.

In this case, Benjamin Studios began to gather useful feedback and insight from day one. It also established an open dialogue and a trusted relationship with the stores. The result? Solid sales, low account maintenance costs, and a continued stream of new and constructive ideas.

Secondly, it had the confidence in its customers to take action on their feedback. It takes "guts" to listen to your customer and then to take immediate and tangible action. Too often, companies assume they know better than their customers. After all, they've spent so much time and effort developing the product or service.

But this is where companies are frequently wrong. Yes, a company's engineers, sales professionals, and marketing staff should all be intimately involved in the design, development, and rollout of new offerings. However, truly successful companies aren't afraid to let the customer drive. The immediate actions taken by Benjamin Studios as a result of customer and consumer input allowed the company to craft an optimal solution by the time the thirtieth store was online. The company got it right for its customer early on by learning and acting in the moment.

The Customer Experience Approach: Identifying and Acting on Value Drivers

In my opinion, there are two key elements to delivering a customer experience that meets or exceeds the customer's expectations. You need to understand what it is customers value and how effectively you meet those criteria. Benjamin Studios is a compelling example of how to effectively deliver and continuously improve on the customer experience.

During the pilot of the national rollout, studio representatives continued to meet with store management from the national chain to receive feedback on the product and program overall. The retail chains were impressed with the actions Benjamin Studios had taken to support the pilot stores, and were convinced that the new product line was poised to be a success.

But Benjamin Studios wanted to develop a more formal feedback loop to complement its current efforts. The company decided it needed to ask precise questions about what the stores and their customers valued, and how the products and services stacked up against their expectations. But how did Benjamin Studios find out what the stores and their customers valued? They asked, of course.

Prior to getting any feedback on performance, Benjamin Studios asked store managers and sales associates probing questions about what they value. Once the company had a strong sense of these value drivers, it set out to see how well it was performing against these expectations. A similar process was deployed with retail consumers who visited the store.

Armed with the value drivers and the terms of the pilot program to guide them, Benjamin Studios put together a customer feedback survey (see scorecard and rankings from the actual survey in figure 1). From the customer value discussions, the stores identified the top four value drivers as Customer Service, Store Setup and Training, Order Handling, and in-store Merchandising. Benjamin Studios also sought additional feedback on overall value and satisfaction to create its scorecard.

The store managers were asked to rate their satisfaction with the overall "value" for the items listed on a scale from one to ten (with one being equal to no value at all, and ten being equal to outstanding value that exceeds expectations). As you can see from the actual results, Benjamin Studios performed exceedingly well in its initial survey.

Store # 202 204 301 321 342 389 432 456 489 502
Customer Service 9 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 9 10
Store Setup and Training 7 8 9 9 9 7 9 8 8 10
Order Handling 6 9 10 8 7 9 10 9 8 9
Merchandising 8 9 10 9 9 9 8 10 7 9
Perceived Customer Satisfaction 8 9 10 10 9 9 9 10 9 9
Customer's Perceived Value 10 9 10 10 8 8 10 8 9 10
Growth Potential 10 9 10 9 7 7 8 7 8 9
Overall Store Satisfaction 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9

Figure 1. Customer Feedback Survey (scorecard and rankings)

Looks like it's time for Benjamin Studios to declare victory and move on, right? Well, not if you're Benjamin Studios. Sure, these results were certainly something to celebrate. With performance at this level, the company seemed well on its way to a triumphant national rollout. But the studio did not throw a party, and it was not willing to rest on its laurels.

Benjamin Studios felt that, based on these results, there was room for improvement with store setup and training. As a result, in-depth interviews were conducted with store personnel to determine what actions could be taken to further increase the level of value that in-store personnel were experiencing in these areas.

Within a week, Benjamin Studios was taking action to improve the training for the next set of stores based on specific feedback and suggestions. It also created a simple selling guide and desk reference to better assist the stores in selling and supporting the offerings. As studio representatives began to revisit the stores and deliver the newly created selling guides, they made a point of telling the managers and sales staff that this new tool was created as a direct result of their feedback. Needless to say, the stores were very impressed with the responsiveness of Benjamin Studios, and were obviously motivated to continue providing feedback and insight that would help support the company's proposed national rollout.

Ultimately, Benjamin Studios did get the national contract and, as mentioned, is now in the process of "on boarding" close to 1,000 stores across the US. I would suggest the company is poised for success.

The Power of Customer Participation

As this case illustrates, customer involvement and feedback can be tremendously powerful factors in the development of a successful customer experience. Companies of all sizes can seize this opportunity, just as Benjamin Studios did, if they remember these points when involving customers in the design of the experience.

First, ask and you shall receive. You will be surprised at how much insight current and prospective customers are willing to give you if they believe it will benefit them. Your job is to convince them that it will, and then deliver on that promise.

Secondly, have the "guts" to follow your customer's lead. Make sure you are asking the right questions, that you thoroughly understand the answers, and that you are committed to taking action. Nothing frustrates a customer more than being asked for his or her input and opinion only to find out it has not been taken into consideration. If you let a customer know what became of his or her input (even if specific action was not taken), then you are building goodwill.

Understand you customers' value drivers. It is not enough to provide customers with the goods and services they need. You must differentiate yourself from the competition. You must deliver a customer experience that is personally compelling to your customers. You must see value through their eyes, not necessarily yours. Finally, you must relentlessly strive to understand how your performance stands up against your customers' expectations. Surveys, interviews (formal and informal), and good old-fashioned observations are some of the ways to make sure your performance meets or exceeds customers' expectations.

CEM need not be a mystical new consulting methodology that defies our comprehension. Rather, it's about mindset, attitude, and empathy. It's about collaborating, learning, and taking action. That's how we close the value and performance gaps that separate us from our customers. That's how we design and deliver a successful customer experience.


Microsoft Dynamics AX 4.0 for Manufacturing Environments

For supply chain management (SCM) to be effective, an integrated enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is essential. Using an ERP system depends on many design factors that make the system easier (or sometimes harder) to learn and use. The recently published book Managing Your Supply Chain Using Microsoft Dynamics AX outlines the design factors related to using Microsoft Dynamics AX. This is the second part of an article covering the design factors related to system usage in distribution and manufacturing.

System Usage in Manufacturing Environments

Manufacturing environments transform purchased materials into saleable items. In addition to the above-mentioned factors for distribution environments [see Microsoft Dynamics AX 4.0 for Distribution and Manufacturing Environments], the major factors shaping system usage include the definition of product structure for standard and custom products, variations in production strategy, project-oriented operations, service-oriented operations, and lean manufacturing practices.

Definition of Product Structure for Standard Products Master bills and master routings define product and process design, and are assigned to relevant manufactured items. A manufactured item can have multiple bill and/or routing versions. Different versions can apply to the quantity being manufactured. Each master bill and routing, and each assigned version, requires an approval to support subsequent use in planning, costing and orders.

Bill of Material Information. Each component defines an item, a required quantity, a component type and other information such as the source warehouse, scrap factors, effectivity dates and the corresponding operation number. The component type indicates whether a manufactured component is make-to-stock, make-to-order or a phantom, and whether a purchased component is buy-to-stock or buy-to-order. The BOM Designer provides a graphical tool for bill maintenance. The component item's auto-deduction policy determines whether consumption is auto-deducted or manually issued. A negative component quantity indicates a by-product component. The component's required quantity can also be based on a calculation formula that employs measurement information about the component and its parent item. A manufactured component can optionally specify a bill version and/or routing version that should be used to produce the component.

Routing Information. Each routing operation defines the operation number, the work center (or work center group), the time requirements and other information such as a scrap percentage and operation description. Each operation also specifies a master operation identifier that can optionally provide default values. The routing operation inherits some information from the designated work center such as the cost categories, auto-deduction policies, and alternate work center information that can be overridden. Separate cost categories and auto-deduction policies apply to setup time, run time, and output units.

Each work center belongs to a work center group, and has a calendar of working times. It can be designated as having finite or infinite capacity for scheduling purposes. For block scheduling purposes, a work center's calendar can indicate blocks of working time with a related property, so that similar operations are scheduled together to minimize setup times.

Order-Dependent Bill and Routing. A production order has a separate order-dependent bill and routing that initially reflect the assigned master bill and routing, and the user can manually maintain this information.

Box: Scheduling Logic based on Routing Information

A production order can be scheduled using forward or backward scheduling logic, with calculation of a variable leadtime based on its routing information. The system supports several advanced scheduling techniques based on routing information. For example, the scheduling logic can assign a specific work center within a work center group or assign an alternate work center to shorten production leadtime. Additional factors considered by scheduling logic include the following.

* Finite capacity
* Finite materials and the linkage of components to operation numbers
* Block scheduling (based on properties) to minimize setup times
* Primary and secondary resources required for an operation
* Crew size requirements
* Production quantity determines which bill and routing version to use
* Work center efficiency and loading percentage
* Cumulative scrap percentages in a multi-step routing
* Parallel and serial operations
* Operation overlap
* Time elements for transit time and before/after queue times
* Remaining time for setup and run time
* Synchronization of reference orders linked to a production order

Planned Engineering Changes Planned engineering changes to an item's bill of material can be identified using three different approaches: the date effectivities for a component, the assigned master bills (bill versions), and the specified bill version for a manufactured component. Planned engineering changes to an item's routing can be identified using two approaches: the date effectivities for the assigned master routings (routing versions), and the specified routing version for a manufactured component. With a date effectivity approach, the specified date on a production order determines which routing version, bill version, and components will be used as the basis for requirements.

Definition of Product Structure for Custom Products The system supports two additional approaches for handling custom products manufacturing: option selection for a configurable item, and a rules-based product configurator for a modeling-enabled item.

Option Selection for a Configurable Item. The user defines its product structure via an option selection dialogue. The master bill defines a bill of options for a configurable item, consisting of common and optional components. The master routing defines common routing operations. The custom product can reflect a multi-level product structure, with option selection of items at each level and direct linkage between production orders.

Rules-Based Product Configurator for a Modeling Enabled Item. The user defines its product structure via a user dialogue defined in a product model. After completing the user dialogue, the product model automatically generates a new master bill and routing, and assigns these identifiers to the originating sales order or production order. It also assigns these identifiers to the modeling-enabled item, or to a newly created item number. The sales price can reflect a cost-plus-markup calculation based on components and operations, or a price calculation within the product model that reflects responses in the user dialogue. The custom product can reflect a multi-level product structure, with direct linkage between production orders.

Calculation of Costs and a Sales Price for a Manufactured Item A BOM calculation function uses bill and routing information to calculate the costs, sales price, and net weight for a manufactured item.

* The cost calculations for purchased material components can be based on each item's inventory cost or its purchase price trade agreement information. The calculations amortize fixed costs over the accounting lot size for manufactured items.

* The sales price calculation reflects a cost-plus-markup approach using the profit percentages assigned to purchased material components and to routing operations.

Production Strategy A make-to-stock production strategy means that an item's production order is indirectly linked to demands via due dates. A make-to-order production strategy reflects direct linkage, where the end-item's production order is linked to the sales order line item. A make-to-order production strategy can also apply to the item's manufactured components. That is, a component type of production means the system automatically generates a production order directly linked to the parent's production order. Likewise, a component type of vendor for a purchased item means the system automatically generates a purchase order directly linked to the parent's production order. Replenishment of stocked components can be based on order point logic or purchase forecasts, and safety stock can be used to buffer anticipated variations in forecasted demand.
Coordinating Manufacturing Activities Planning calculations synchronize production activities to meet demands, and provide coordination via planned orders and suggested action messages. Production schedules and load analysis by work center also act as coordination tools when routing data has been defined.

Planned Production Orders. Planned production orders reflect warehouse-specific planning data for an item, the item's bill and routing information, and the previously described scheduling logic. The user can create production orders from selected planned orders, or use a firming time fence so that the system automatically generates the production orders for an item.

Suggested Action Messages. Planning calculations generate two types of suggested action messages termed actions and futures, as described earlier.

Production Schedules and Load Analysis by Work Center. The production schedule and load analysis represent the same information, and provide coordination at each work center.

Reporting Manufacturing Activities Several types of production activities can be reported against production orders. These activities include started quantities, component usage, and parent receipts. The activities also include reporting of operation time and unit completions when routing data exists. Auto-deduction can apply to material components and routing operations.

Lean Manufacturing Practices The system supports lean manufacturers with auto-deduction of material and resources, orderless reporting of production completions, daily production rates that reflect projected or historical usage, and constraint-based scheduling of manufacturing cells. Delivery promises also reflect the daily production rate.

Project-Oriented Operations Project-oriented operations involve budgeting and tracking actual costs related to material, capacity, and expenses, and handling the project invoicing on a time-and-material basis or a fixed-price basis. The planning calculations can include the project-specific forecasts for material and capacity, as well as the project-specific sales orders.

Service-Oriented Operations Service orders provide coordination of field service and internal service personnel, and close integration with projects. Each service order defines the resource requirements � for material, labor and expenses � that serve as the basis for estimated costs. Materials can also be identified for shipment to the customer. Repair history can be recorded against the bill of material for items being serviced. Detailed information can also be recorded about the symptoms-diagnosis-resolution of repair problems. Actual resource consumption drives project accounting for invoicing purposes. Service agreements define resource requirements for periodic services, and provide the basis for automatically creating the service orders to perform the services.

Integration with other Applications

The integration with other applications includes e-commerce, CRM and accounting.

Integration with E-Commerce E-commerce builds on the natural design of an ERP system since it provides electronic communication of basic transactions. Dynamics AX provides integrated e-commerce functionality in several ways, including Biztalk transactions and an enterprise portal. The enterprise portal expedites deployment using a role-based approach, such as roles for customers, vendors and employees. The customer role, for example, supports customer self-service so that customers can place orders and even configure custom products. Other roles support information retrieval and task performance by remote users, such as sales tasks to create new quotes, sales orders and customers.

Integration with Customer Relationship Management (CRM) The ability to manage customer relationships is fully integrated with standardized functionality for supply chain management. For example, the CRM activities can lead to sales quotations and sales orders. A campaign can be associated with a project so that all costs can be tracked by project.

Integration with Accounting Applications The integrated accounting applications include payables, receivables, general ledger, and fixed assets.

How One Vendor Addresses Support and Maintenance Issues

SAP is one of the major enterprise resource planning (ERP) vendors that is addressing the concerns of its user base regarding support and maintenance (S&M) issues. These issues are detailed in a previous series on S&M: Will User Enterprises Ever Get Onto an Easy (Support and Maintenance) Street?, Support and Maintenance: No Longer the Software Industry's "Best Kept Secret"?, What Is the Value Proposition of Support and Maintenance?, What Are the Support and Maintenance Options?, and Alternative Software and Support Maintenance Options.

Among these issues are

* High support costs—particularly for users of heavily customized, and thus highly functional, mature enterprise systems
* Costly upgrade requirements—an issue for users not interested in new "nice to have" features added to their older, stable systems
* Extended or lifetime vendor support programs—these programs can force customers to pay more over time for less service
* Penalty fees—to be reinstated on the current stable release after a customer discontinues maintenance

To summarize: Customers need support, but the vendors are often not providing them with what they need. And if they are providing support, the price is often unjustifiable. For these customers, the "one-size-fits-all" vendor approach to S&M is unacceptable. At the same time, many customers realize it will take at least a decade for market battles to play out over system architectures, new middleware, and service-oriented architecture (SOA) technology standards, as experience teaches us, see Architecture Evolution: From Web-based to Service-oriented Architecture. Lastly, many customers are concerned that choosing one vendor will leave them with a potentially weak or unviable solution in the coming shake out.

Although existing enterprise systems' customers are a locked-up audience, they can be only to a point. If vendors continue playing hardball, the repercussions will likely be defections. Ultimately, enterprise software licensees should understand that they have a choice of software S&M providers. Options do exist for any company contemplating discontinuing the maintenance of an application product, and users should first talk to their vendors to review their options.

What Then Are SAP's Options?

In an effort to maintain the customer status quo, SAP's top S&M program, SAP MaxAttention, is offered to customers whose operations demand mission-critical customized support. The tailored program for each customer includes a permanent on-site support team, an executive sponsor, and SAP Safeguarding, consisting of a service portfolio that is able to manage the risks involved in complex implementation projects.

The SAP advisory personnel will have to exude deep industrial experience, business insight, and multidisciplinary skill sets. They will not only have to be well versed on the mix of SAP's functional and technical features and interdependencies, but they will also need to have similar knowledge of partner products. If possible, it would be ideal for the advisory personnel to have knowledge of the complete playing field, including the competitive offerings.

Early in 2006, SAP expanded its support services to meet customers' changing demands. SAP introduced SAP Premium Support to mitigate some of the above conventional S&M contractual pitfalls, and to underline its commitment to continual S&M evolution and growth. Premium Support provides a new option between SAP Standard Support, a fairly competitively priced basic support package, and SAP MaxAttention, the vendor's high-end support package, tailored to meet the very specific needs of large global enterprises. The Premium Support plan offers quick issues resolution, annual information technology (IT) assessments, and a designated support advisor who serves as a personal, day-to-day contact for support-related topics.

For users interested in "pick and choose" options, SAP is able to cover a subset of a landscape with its option Partial Landscape Coverage, while the components of the Premium Support offering remain intact. For more information, see No Yawn Intended: Enterprise Applications Giant Introduces a Mid-tier Support Choice

To mitigate the challenge of forced upgrades, early in December, SAP announced its first enhancement package for mySAP ERP, and disclosed further details of innovations being delivered under its evolved roadmap for the flagship product suite. This enhancement package is part of the license and maintenance agreement, and is now available to customers running mySAP ERP 2005. Customers are now able to use new enterprise services and functionality in an uninterrupted way. This allows the customers to direct business process innovation while maintaining the stability of their core ERP systems.

Further, SAP enhancement packages for mySAP ERP meet customer requirements for support innovation without disruption to day-to-day business operations. This makes it simpler and faster for SAP's clients to adopt new product functionality, industry-specific features, and enterprise services, while protecting them from the complexity of multiple upgrades.

Enhancements to mySAP ERP will be made available through 2010 as extensions to mySAP ERP 2005 in a series of optional enhancement packages. SAP hopes these enhancement packages will stabilize its planning cycle by cutting future migration costs for new releases and give customers the time to get used to enterprise SOA technology. The foundation must be laid by implementing mySAP ERP 2005. When this is accomplished, businesses will be able to leverage the next generation of ERP software and enterprise services architecture.

User enterprises will have to conduct a thorough analysis to decide whether to upgrade to this foundation product from their current platforms. However, this release cycle and strategy simplifies the implementation of new upgrades, and it matches the needs of customers that typically want to plan and perform an upgrade every five to seven years.

The optional enhancement packages enable customers to "switch on" only the new features and functionalities they want, and can be configured in a modular fashion. This should enable SAP clients, without the disruption of multiple major system upgrades, to easily take advantage of nonstop innovation. SAP's first upgrade package includes hundreds of enterprise services that enable functional enhancements for human capital management (HCM) and financials applications, as well as specific industry upgrades for retail and manufacturing industries.

SAP plans to provide two or three enhancement packages per year that will contain functional and technical upgrades as well as enterprise services for mySAP ERP. Each of these so-called value packs will focus primarily on addressing specific customer business requirements. The packages will concentrate on areas such as simplifying user interface (UI), helping companies effectively manage their enterprise talent pools, improving financial collaboration, and expanding on the broad, industry-specific capabilities in mySAP ERP.

The enhancement packages will also include enterprise services (software components) for particular business scenarios. The explanation of these services is included in the enterprise service repository. This repository includes not only the definitions of the services, but also composites where available, and all the information required for SAP clients to get up and running quickly.

This information is delivered via an interactive Wiki format. In addition, there is a variety of software tools to implement, manage, and upgrade the applications. SAP bundles the above software tools into SAP Solution Manager, while, in contrast, other vendors provide a variety of separate tools for upgrade management.

Depending on the extent of the tools provided, customers may use third-party tools for requirements such as change management and performance monitoring. Upgrade tools, however, may have limited (if any) value for customers that upgrade infrequently.

Conclusion and Recommendations

More choice, non-enforced migration, and personalized attention are definitely good signs. Prospective and existing customers, especially those with a majority of IT assets belonging to SAP, should evaluate their service agreement options.

It is advantageous for every customer that their vendors thrive. The vendors are then able to keep abreast of the latest product developments. The difficulty is in the details. Every user company should conduct thorough studies to determine whether it is worthwhile for them to opt for the entire package, considering that SAP support is available in a piecemeal format. Customers would benefit from approaching SAP and asking for more concrete examples of product developments, such as advisors' deliverables, proof of concept, early adopters' benefits, or conflict of interest preemption, for example.

There is no universal solution to the problems inherent in customer software S&M contracts, but prospective clients should carefully review the fine print to understand the implications of any long-term contract, and what effect any new or revised licensing and service contracts will have on their future business costs.

The time has come for support users to be alert and ensure they are not buying functionality they do not really need, even if vendors offer tremendous discounts on additional modules. More recommendations regarding weighing possible options and alternatives are discussed in Alternative Software Support and Maintenance Options.

On Demand Delivery Compels a Compensation Management Vendor

Amid many of the intriguing trends in enterprise applications in 2006, one of the most prominent was the "point of no return" awareness and increased adoption of the on demand, or software as a service (SaaS), business and deployment models (see Software as a Service Is Gaining Ground). What's more, 2006 was also the year of increased awareness and growth for the still new enterprise incentive management (EIM)-incentive compensation management (ICM) software category (see Sizing the Enterprise Incentive Management Opportunity—And the Challenges Ahead).

It is interesting to note that EIM and related compensation and performance management applications have not only been amenable to multi-tenanted and subscription-based, on demand deployment modes, but they also feature the on demand functionality that, at the very least, matches the capabilities of on-premise counterparts (see Software as a Service's Functional Catch-up). Such applications are arguably parts of the human capital management (HCM) category (see Thou Shalt Manage Human Capital Better), but they are also closely affiliated with both the financial management and accounting systems, as well as customer relationship management (CRM) systems. Possibly the best example of this concept is the case of one vendor that recently decided to become solely a SaaS provider once spinning off its renowned, traditional EIM offering.

Centive Genesis

Centive, a Burlington, Massachusetts (US)-based and privately held company, was originally founded as Incentive Systems, Inc. in 1997. The company was an early entrant in both the EIM and the on demand sales compensation software arenas. In 1999, Incentive Systems shipped its flagship product, INCENTIVE, which closely coincided with the emergence of the new enterprise application category EIM-ICM. Soon after, most industry analysts adopted this new software category name, issued reports determining its market size, and began promoting EIM-ICM as a critical component of any company's success strategy.

From its early days, Centive has been recognized for its vision of bringing automation, financial controls, accuracy, and full audit capability to the incentive compensation process—all with the idea of helping user companies drive their performance and revenues. Centive's EIM and Sales Performance Management (SPM) solutions have since been empowering user companies to motivate and align employees, partners, and channels with corporate goals, thereby driving increased performance, revenue, and profitability.

For the past decade, automation of ICM has been, and continues to be, the vendor's core competency. This vision, combined with the vendor's attention to meeting market requirements, has resulted in the success Centive enjoys today in terms of industry magazines' awards and accolades, customer satisfaction, and financial stability. To that end, in 2001, Incentive Systems received the first EIM product award from the Customer Interaction Solutions magazine, while in 2002, the company was named in the prestigious Upside Hot 100 company list.

In mid-2002, Incentive Systems launched Centive/EIM (subsequently renamed CompCentral)—possibly the industry's first EIM platform to be deployed on a true Internet-based architecture. The solution featured Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) and thin client-based, n-tier (multi-tier) architecture (to learn more, please see Architecture Evolution: From Mainframes to Service-oriented Architecture). As part of this launch, the company then changed its brand from Incentive Systems to Centive.

In 2004, Centive completed what is still the largest deployment of a commercial EIM system at AIG Sun America, with more than 78,000 commissionable payees (largely independent insurance agents). CompCentral is a sophisticated and flexible EIM solution with an installed base that includes about 30 of the Fortune 100 companies, such as Computer Associates (CA) and Liberty Mutual.

Also in 2004, in recognition of the need for automated sales compensation management in the mid-market and of the growth of the SaaS delivery model, Centive began development of a brand new sales compensation system. This system was designed to meet the budget and functional requirements of the mid-market, which the vendor considers as those companies with 50 to1,500 sales associates. This new, more affordable, subscription-based, on demand, and multi-tenant solution, Centive Compel, was launched as generally available (GA) in May of 2005.

Like its on-premise counterpart product, Centive Compel allows user organizations to leverage sales compensation as a strategic tool to drive sales performance while providing the financial controls needed to meet compliance initiatives. Although not as scalable and "infinitely configurable" as CompCentral, Centive Compel offers a wide range of features—an affordable subscription pricing model, a best-practice compensation plan framework, good Web-services-based integration capabilities, full audit tracking, and the reporting and analysis capability needed to drive sales performance—all while meeting compliance requirements for the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) regulations.

As examples of how the solution helps with SOX compliance (see Important Sarbanes-Oxley Act Mandates and What They Mean for Supply Chain Management), the product will provide accurate commission and bonus calculations; invoke repeatable, programmable workflow and process controls; maintain a full audit record of any and all changes to plans, configurable structures (that is, territories, quotas, and organization hierarchies) and plan documents, as well as management and payee approvals; provide full reporting on transactions and results; and maintain a "temporal" data model to support plan versioning over time—all within a secure environment hosted at a tier one, SAS 70 Type II-compliant hosting center.

Compel is not merely a tool to calculate sales commissions. It is also a business performance solution that should motivate sales representatives, and provide sales and finance executives with near real-time access to key performance indicator (KPI) data and analysis to help them steer their organizations toward optimal performance levels. This can be achieved by the ability of financial executives to build actual sales plans, to change these plans as needed, to create organization structures with roll ups, and to handle commission splits, special incentives, prior period adjustments, etc.

The product requires far less training than on-premise EIM products do, and can be fully deployed in less than sixty days, often ensuring a smoother implementation and more rapid return on investment (ROI). Compel subscription terms extend for one, two, or three years, whereas pricing is per seat, with discounts offered for prepay, volume, and multiyear subscriptions.

The GA product launch came after the Compel beta program launch in the fourth quarter of 2004. This was soon after Centive had reportedly witnessed an overwhelming response from small and midsized organizations seeking a comprehensive, yet easier-to-implement solution to automate sales compensation management. Compel's GA also followed the successful completion of the beta program in April 2005 and the announcement of Centive's alliance with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) to provide application hosting services. New customer acquisition advanced significantly under the Centive Compel Early Adopter program, which initially included customers in a range of vertical markets, including technology, telecommunications, manufacturing, and life sciences.

Divesting the On-premise Offering in Favour of a "Compelling" SaaS Solution

Since 2005 or so, Centive has gradually decided to focus solely on the SaaS market opportunity. To that end, in September 2006, the vendor announced that Berggruen Holdings, a private investment firm with over $1 billion (USD) worth of assets, together with a seasoned enterprise software executive team, had acquired the CompCentral business unit and turned it into the newly formed Incentive Technology Corporation (ITC). The acquisition of the CompCentral business included the intellectual property related to the CompCentral application, as well as a dozen or so Centive sales, services, and engineering resources assigned to that business unit. ITC then pledged to further develop and market the CompCentral application and to continue to provide existing customers with the highest level of customer care.

The strategic decision to sell the CompCentral business unit came as a result of Centive's great initial success and market momentum with its on demand sales compensation management system, Centive Compel, since to date, more sales representatives subscribe to Compel than any other equivalent, competitive system. With the sale of the CompCentral business unit, Centive has since been focusing on maintaining its leadership position in the on demand, sales compensation market, and on expanding its solution set to include other high-value, on demand solutions.

While CompCentral has provided Centive with a strong financial position to support the development of its on-demand business, the sale of CompCentral also provided its thirty or so legacy customers with the focus and care they deserve, and which they should now receive from ITC. The infusion of cash from the CompCentral sale will likely be used toward growing the company and exploring buy or build scenarios to expand Centive's on demand solution suite, growing the partner channels globally, and increasing sales and marketing staff.

Centive is a privately held, venture-backed company that has received funding from a few well-respected venture capitalists (VCs), such as Polaris Venture Partners, Venture Strategy Partners, and Key Venture Partners. The company has been quite conservative in its spending, has consistently met its financial goals, and remains financially stable. Prior to the CompCentral sale, the $10 million (USD) investment in mid-2005 has been used to drive further innovation and adoption of Centive's solutions. Led by the most recent investor, Key Ventures Partners, and joined by existing Centive investors, Polaris Venture Partners and Venture Strategy Partners, this round of funding demonstrated confidence in Centive's long-term strategy following several strong quarters of continued corporate, customer, and technology growth.

This is part one of the series On Demand Delivery Compels a Compensation Management Vendor. In the next part of this series, a more in-depth look will be taken of Centive's product suite.