Towards the end of last week, I became uncomfortable with the discussion around GRC, dominated as it was by SAP. They’re not the only player in town. Unfortunately, Oracle, the other potential 800lb gorilla, is something of a shrinking violet when it comes to talking to folk like me. Despite what some might think and crabby though I can be, I’ve always believed in giving any company a fair shake. Especially when it has a real story with real meat. Oracle – or should I say Hyperion – is one of those – IMO. The name on the front door may have changed but most of the key people are still there.
In the past, I’ve spoken with Frank Buytendijk, a thoroughly engaging person with a terrific narrative that captures the imagination, has the ring of truth and ‘just makes sense.’ Am I overblowing the stories Frank tells? You be the judge. Here’s a clip from One Version of the Truth:
In the field of data warehousing and business intelligence, the problem most projects deal with is trying to create the “one version of the truth”. Rarely has it been successful, and most efforts have been misguided.
That’s refreshing and reminds me of the old maxim: put six accountants in a room with a trial balance and you’ll likely get six different sets of accounts and at least six different interpretations. I’m not sure GRC can ever address that problem, hence another reason for independent audit. As an aside, I didn’t realise it until today but I’m on Frank’s ‘List.’
Howard Dresner is on the Hyperion bench. My view: Howard was one of the Gartner Titans in the world of business intelligence during the 1990s and a person to whom I would readily turn. In a recent article, Decision Context: How to Avoid Flying Blind he says:
While tracking performance data is essential, it’s not enough if companies want to remain competitive and relevant in the future. Professionals need to continually ask themselves original questions—questions outside of their day-to-day reality—that can lead to fresh thinking, new business opportunities, and readiness for unplanned events.
Again, great narrative in support of what I see as a compelling story. In more technical terms I see it as a situational combination of risk and governance but with the flexibility that real decision takers need.
At the end of last week, I had the opportunity to speak with Mike Malwitz, Hyperion’s director of product marketing. Some of his thinking on risk can be found here. His position on reporting and compliance is here. Lengthy pieces but well worth the effort.
Hyperion’s approach is one characterised by what they believe is a flexible approach to the many problems that GRC embraces. Mike believes it represents better value where the organisation is complex, has many different structures and entities. I have a lot of sympathy with this view because it relates to something I find every day – exceptions. And a buoyant M&A market.
During the conversation, Mike mentioned Pirelli. This is a company I know well, largely because of work I did with TIBCO some while back. They’re a substantial SAP shop but they’re also one of the 4,000+ SAP customers that use Hyperion solutions. When you look through Hyperion’s recent case study and positioning lists, it quickly becomes apparent that many of their customers are going through some sort of significant change.
What does all this mean? Is there an either/or approach to GRC? SAPs argument has been well rehearsed but at present it comes down to a roadmap supported by an architecture. Oracle’s is more what I would call the ‘bag of bits’ approach. Both are characterised by long lead times and significant investment. Both are challenged to prove value although at this stage, I’d give Hyperion a lead based purely on the depth and quality of available case studies. Whether that remains true as it is absorbed into the Fusion programme is another matter for speculation by others. Whether SAPs approach is competitive seems to depend in part on whether the enterprise buys the roadmap.
