Category Archives: rants

When It Comes to Tech, Sometimes I Think Analysts Should Get Out of the Game

Especially if they don’t have a degree in technology! Even if they have 30 years in the tech industry, because, at some fundamental level, they just don’t get it and ultimately end up making a suggestion that not only makes everything more complicated than it has to be but confuses the heck out of the average person.

So why am I ranting again? Supply Chain Brain republished an article by a Gartner analyst on Suite Versus Best of Breed: The Argument Rages On that, to be honest, impressed the hell out of me until I got to the second last paragraph. The author nailed the pros and cons of enterprise suites before beautifully exposing the advantages and disadvantages of of best-of-breed with the precision of a master craftsman and then concluded, with deft clarity, that best-of-breed vs. integrated suites is not a good basis to guide application selection (which is a reality that not all technology analysts seem to be aware of). But then, just when I was about to applaud Gartner for publishing such a fine piece, the author not only goes on to say that the solution is a “new model” (which is scary in itself as most analysts have no idea what a real “model” is or that there’s a big difference between “framework” and “model”), but goes on to say that the model is something called pace-layered application strategy. WTF?!?

I’m a PhD in Computer Science with fifteen years designing, building, leading, and consulting on the design, architecture, integration, and implementation of enterprise software systems, with expertise in algorithms, data stuctures, computational geometry, optimization, mathematical modeling, relational databases, automated reasoning, and some areas of semantic technology … and I didn’t have a sweet clue as to what he was talking about. (So how is an average non-technical person supposed to know what this means?)

So I made the mistake of looking it up. Of course, the first result from a Google search is a Gartner page to a locked article that describes pace layering as a “new methodology for categorizing applications and developing a differentiated management and governance process that reflects how the applications are used and their rate of change”. Buzzword Bingo anyone? The next few results are no better — all buzzword summaries of this “great new thing” that you apparently can’t get any information about unless you’re a Gartner client (surprise, surprise) [unless you’re really good with Google].

So I decided to take a step back and look up pace layering before I dove deeper into the Gartner grief. According to this post by James Governor over on RedMonk on why applications are like fish and data is like wine, pace-layering is an idea from Stewart Brand where complex systems can be decomposed into multiple layers, where the layers change at different rates. The “fast layers” learn, absorb shocks and get attention; the “slow layers” remember, constrain and have power. One of the implications of this model is that information architects can do what they have always done — slow, deep, rich work; while tagging can spin madly on the surface. This is a good way to build systems, and embodies the best practices of a hybrid agile development model where one team iterates rapidly through a UI and the business logic, through regular interaction with the end users, to hammer out what it is that the system really needs to do while another team slowly builds a powerful, flexible, scalable and robust back-end that can accomodate an evolving business landscape. But there is a big difference between best-practices for building a system and best-practices for selecting a system.

First of all, you can’t implement an enterprise system in a couple of weeks, test it out for a few weeks, and then throw it away if it doesn’t work. Implementations (and integrations) take considerable time and investment. Secondly, there are no “fast” systems in the average enterprise. Once you implement something, you typially have it for years either because it takes that long to see value or it takes that long for the enterprise to agree on something new. Thirdly, the hybrid agile development approach that pace layering describes does not care if you are developing a system of record, a system of differentiation, or a system of innovation whereas Gartner’s pace-layering application strategy relies on a company being able to make this distinction because each has characteristics that apparently suggest ERP / Suite vs. Standalone Module / Best of Breed vs. Modified Best of Breed / Custom App.

And while each of the characteristics (on page 17) that Gartner identified in their recent webinar on “ERP Strategies: Exploit Innovations in Enterprise Software” (PDF slides) are important considerations in technology selection, there are two major problems with the approach.

  1. Technology selection is never that simple across the board.
    If the organization is a large enterprise that is slow to adapt to new technology and implements new systems infrequently, then an ERP suite from an established, stable, vendor that has been around for ten years (and that is likely to be around for ten more) is probably the best answer. But if the organization is a small, new, (but) growing enterprise that is quick to adapt to new technology and always looking for, and implementing, new solutions, then the best solution might be a new best-of-breed application from a smaller provider that is more cost effective and innovative (because, in the worst case, if the vendor goes belly up, the organization can always move to a new solution, and, if the new solution was 1/10th the cost of the ERP, still save a bundle even when the migration costs to a new system are factored in).
  2. It’s not about the framework — it’s about the solution
    and if you follow a framework, sooner or later you’ll choose the wrong system — and pay dearly. For example, the pace layer governance framework recommends best of breed for a function where differentation is key. This says that if you want to implement next generation sourcing strategies, you need a best of breed system. Not true. Many next generation sourcing strategies have nothing to do with technology. They are about business value, and with the exception of true spend analysis or decision optimization, can be accomplished with commodity e-Negotiation functionality, which even the ERP suites have in spades. If the organization is technologically behind, or needs a lot of support, it should probably go with a suite from a big player with the resources, and experience, to support it and then bring in a consulting firm, with access to (and expertise in) best of breed products to help with the spend analysis and decision optimization, where and when required.

In other words, another framework is not the answer. The answer is, as it has always been, identify your needs, identify the functions that the potential solution systems implement, and find the best match. Suite vs. Best of Breed vs. Custom App. vs Yet Another Confusing and Ridiculous Model be damned.

Vendor Lies

ComputerWorld recently ran a great article on tech relationships gone wrong entitle “lies my vendor told me” which is a must read for anyone buying technology because, you guessed it, some vendors will lie (lie, lie) to get that sale.

We can scale to that level of service.

Just ask the retailer who grew four hundred percent in 4 years only to lose 48 hours of uptime during the critical Christmas season.

Yes we have expertise with this third party system that our product can be configured to run on.

Just ask the publishing company which fell for the vendor’s claims hook, line, and sinker when it said that it had expertise to install and configure remote Citrix systems which its product could be configured to work on (but which it had never done itself).

Yes you need a firewall.

Even though you have no critical data and no data worth stealing.

Of course your IT department can support this!

Why else would we say that you don’t need their involvment? (Could it be because they know for a fact your IT department can’t support the application and that, if you ask, the deal is squashed.)

Yes our cloud platform is mature!

Even though we just bought it from a third party, who threw it together with glue and copper wire, and neither party has any idea how to properly build, maintain, and provide a cloud platform.

That’s Right Ariba, CombineNet, Emptoris, Hubwoo, Oracle, and SAP — I Called You Out!

To get right to the point, as far as I’m concerned, unless you have something to hide, there’s no reason not to give SI a demo of your publicly available solution. Because, despite what you may think, or what some misinformed individual might have told you,

  • I’m not going to steal your IP.
    Unless you show me the code, there’s no way I could steal anything. (And since I only need to see the application working to do a review, there’s no reason I’d ever need to see under the hood.)
  • I’m not going to expose your secrets.
    While I’m always interested in what’s coming down the pipe, for the purposes of a product review, I only care about what you have now — (about to be) released in(to) the public domain. There’s not much secret there — and while I may ask about company performance, plans, etc., if they’re still hush-hush, you don’t have to tell me.
  • I’m not biased against you.
    I might think a few select individuals who (used to) work for you aren’t very bright, but I know that one bad apple doesn’t spoil the bunch and even if I think that your marketing or communications team could use an upgrade, I know that these aren’t the people building or deploying the product in your customer sites. Thus, any personal opinions I have about a few marketing or communications people aren’t going to affect my analysis of the product and delivery.
  • I’m not going to give you a bad review
    unless you give me a PowerPoint demo. If you don’t believe me, look through the hundred plus reviews I’ve done over the last four and half years and try to find one bad product review. While it is true that not all of them are glowing, it’s also true that in each and every review I looked for the positives and the differentiators and did my best to give a fair and balanced review to anyone who took the time to give me a demo.  SI’s #1 goal is to inform its readers, and nothing informs them more than a fair, open, review of your solution (that’s totally free to you).
  • It is in your best interest.
    Even if you are an 800lb gorilla, this doesn’t mean that every buyer is going to associate you with best-of-breed in the application category they are looking for or going to invite you to the table without reading some objective analysis. While it’s true you don’t need the exposure as much as a number of other mid-size and smaller vendors in the space need it, and that it’s unlikely I’m going to get a call from you along the lines of “thanks to your post I just got a six figure deal I wouldn’t have known about otherwise as we’d never have been invited to the table or thought to call this company who reached out to us” (and, yes, I have gotten calls and e-mails like this), every product review post contributes to the snowball effect. The more blogs you’re reviewed on, the more likely it is that the larger mid-market companies you want so badly (as the top tier is getting crowded) are going to put you on a short-list.

If you decide to change your mind and give me a demo, I’ll make myself available to the best of my ability through the end of May. It’s up to you.  Just remember that for every company that won’t give SI a demo, there are dozens that will. (So many, in fact, that if I put out an open call, I can get more requests in a short time than I can handle because a fair review takes a significant investment of time on my part.) Plus, I always have something to write about, and, in the worst case scenario, if asked, I can always recommend your competition instead. Your call.

Is There Any Room In The Space for an E-CHAOS Vendor?

When it comes to openness, there are three primary types of vendors. There are the self-promoters that openly talk about their capabilities with pride, with confidence that they are, at least in one way, the best at what they do and that some customers will see that value and buy from them. There are the modest types that don’t talk much, but don’t hide when you ask questions. Then there are those that try to hide behind proprietary technologies and processes, aging patents, and trade secrets, often knowing that what they have is not even as good as the company down the street, that the patents are outdated and reaching end of life, or that the trade secrets have been public knowledge for years.

However, because this third group hasn’t been innovating (as fast as their peers), have a large (and expensive) Sales & Marketing organization, have high manufacturing costs (because they haven’t upgraded facilities or capabilities), are top heavy (with too many chiefs and not enough tribal members), and/or have high-shareholder expectations, they have to do something to maintain their revenue stream and/or profit margin, and since openly flaunting what they have won’t do the trick (on its own), they have to hide behind patents, proprietary technologies, and trade secrets, even if the latter turn out to be nothing more than a lot of hot air in the end. (For example, there are still spend analysis vendors today trying to sell their mapping algorithm with its “secret sauce“, when the “secret sauce” has been publicly known for two decades.)

I call this third group of vendors E-CHAOS vendors because, in my mind, they bring chaos and confusion to what would be an otherwise orderly and well understood space, and usually attempt to do so with heavy use of the electronic medium (because it’s cheap and reaches a wide audience quickly) that includes copius amounts of press releases, extensive media coveage of those press releases, and regular self-serving webinars.

And I personally don’t think there’s any room for these vendors anymore. Thanks to the recession and jobless recovery we’re overworked and stressed to the max, especially since we have to increase productivity by 2.3% year after year or fall (further) behind on the global stage. As a result, as far as I’m concerned, we don’t have time for vendors who hide behind smoke and mirrors and won’t put their money where their mouth is when its time to step up to the plate — especially if they expect you to spend seven figures on a solution. And, as far as I’m concerned, just giving you a demo doesn’t count. First of all, you’re not the expert. You don’t know what to look for, what to ask, or when you should insist the vendor go off script. Heck, for all you know, it could be a video of fine-tuned “in-development” functionality that never makes the final cut (because that was the only example where it worked). Secondly, you don’t know what you need to see to make apples to apples comparisons. (And while you can compare apples to oranges, the comparison isn’t that meaningful, and only possible if you have a lot of time and the right analytics expertise on your team, which you probably don’t.)

And, most important, why should you put up with this when for every vendor that tries to hide behind closed doors, when an analyst or blogger tries to put them under public scrutiny, there are dozens who’ll gladly welcome anyone into their glass atrium with open arms? You shouldn’t! If you can’t go to your favorite analyst or blogger and get an objective third-party review of a solution that is going to cost you an investment of six or seven figures, and you have other options, the first thing you should do is strike that solution from your list because you can’t afford to not know what the vendor is trying to hide. Maybe all the vendor is trying to hide is a bloated organizational structure with too many chiefs and sales people which requires a high revenue stream, and, thus, a high sale price, to maintain and that’s okay if the vendor can deliver value appropriate to the purchase cost (because it’s fine to spend 1M to save 10M as no one’s going to argue with that ROI), but what if the solution is missing a fundamental capability and you don’t discover that fact until integration time?

Thus, from now on, not only will SI not cover any solution from an E-CHAOS vendor, include such a vendor on any potential solution lists, public or private, or make any further attempts to reach out to these vendors (since SI has had an open policy since day one and has NEVER refused a demo request that follows the rules), but it will also not cover any vendor in the modest category (or the open category if such vendor snubs SI, because then the vendor isn’t truly open in SI’s view), include such a vendor on potential solution lists, or make any further attempts to reach out to that vendor if the vendor won’t give SI a demo. Because, frankly, without a demo, there’s really no way to tell the difference between a modest vendor and an E-CHAOS vendor.

And, as per yesterday’s post (where I mentioned I would not be reviewing the vendors in the Forrester Wave in detail because too many fall into the small group of vendors that have refused SI a demo), this means that SI will no longer be including the following vendors in its recommendations or covering their solutions until such time as they change their minds and give SI a demo (because even though SI honestly believes these vendors have good solutions, belief is not enough — you need proof):

Emptoris
CombineNet*1
Hubwoo
Ariba
Oracle*2 (Sourcing/Procurement) and
SAP

If you really want coverage of the first four, you can go to SpendMatters, as long as you don’t expect much more than a services / business analysis for some of them (because that’s all I’ve seen in the past). For the last two, you can try the Enterprise Irregulars. While Oracle and SAP are finicky with whom they’ll open up to, they will open up to a few bloggers. But, until these guys open up more, just don’t look here.

*1 Yes, CombineNet recieved some fairly extensive coverage a few years ago, but that was when a different regime was in charge.
*2 Oracle is a top commercial database in my mind, and the doctor‘s generally preferred ERP solution, but Oracle is off the sourcing/procurement list until I get more than a white-paper to base a recommendation on.