You are here: Home » SAAS » Softworld cloud computing: an opportunity wasted

Softworld cloud computing: an opportunity wasted

by Dennis Howlett on October 15, 2009

Softworld was an interesting experience for me this year. I was especially looking forward to the cloud computing session moderated by Richard Anning, head of ICAEW IT Faculty. Representatives in the chair came from FinancialForce.com (formerly Coda2Go), Mamut, NetSuite and Salesforce.com. On the face of it, this should have been a solid vendor panel, capable of articulating the benefits of cloud computing to a packed house of practitioners. Unfortunately, they dropped the ball.

As is all too common with technology companies, they walked on the easy path of talking technology, bits and bytes, multi-tenant this and that to an audience that could care less. Tech vendors need to understand: the only people who care about tech are other tech people – and even then that’s usually as a way of throwing bricks at one another. I have most of the session on video and will be editing the gruesome highlights in the coming days.

Only Dave Turner from FinancialForce.com and Bryan Richter of Mamut made a passable attempt to answer the business led questions around value from saas/on-demand/cloud. The NetSuite and Salesforce.com guys totally muffed it. For me the worst sin was when a questioner in the audience asked what should have been a straightforward question around HR and talent management. The honest answer would have been: ‘Talk to Taleo or SuccessFactors.’ Instead, the panel used the opportunity to continue pitching their wares. Unacceptable.

I’d argue that the panel as a whole was the wrong thing to put on. Practitioners are at a stage where they want honest case material, the good, bad and ugly. Gimme that set of cats to herd and it’s game on. That doesn’t come from vendors which have a vested interest in telling you the sun always shines. That comes from people who are working with this ’stuff’ and those of us who are buy side oriented. If the conference organizers had been minded, they could have assembled a panel of users that can tell the story. How do I know? I filmed a few of them and will be uploading to YouTube – again – in the coming days. If I can find users then conference organizers can but then this is a vendor led show. They pay the bills. Why would a conference organizer put on a person who might say something that doesn’t align to the vendor story? Simple: honest stories sell software but vendors prefer marketing puff. Is it therefore surprising that my colleague Vinnie bangs on about the millions of dollars wasted on that line item.

Richard Messik sums it up well with his post:

The subject was simple enough – what are the business benefits of Cloud Computing. However, left to the main Vendors that were speaking, the subject could just as easily been “Quantum physics for beginners”. There were so many acronyms and jargon speak used that to the unitiated the topic was the most complicated issue.

That’s saying something given that Richard is one of the very early saas pioneers but has the practical problem of bringing customers to the table. If your advocates are saying these things then imagine what the naysayers are muttering. As I was filming, one naysayer caught my attention and said: “What the heck are these people talking about? They’ve completely lost this audience.” They’d lost me as well. Part way through I stopped filming. It wasn’t worth the tape space. And I’m a geek!

GD Star Rating
loading...
GD Star Rating
loading...
  • Share/Bookmark
  • As someone who is just starting down the road to integration of Salesforce and Financial force I hear you loud and clear.
    If only technical people, and I've been one of them, could understand there's a subtle difference between "you can do this" and "this is how you do this" it would be quite refreshing. I already know what I can do before I even begin investigating a product further, by then I want to know how, and I want to know from a business application, not from a bits and bites perspective.
  • I liked the post. Having not attended, I can't say how bang-on it was, but I can relate to the language barrier of tech talk. Maybe we should lock these guys in a room and start detailed discussions into the Tax Act. See how they like it.

    I'll be posting a piece on the Indicee blog on Tuesday that addresses this exact point, the language barrier. This post is more fuel to the fire. I encourage you to check it out.
  • As a FinancialForce customer who was planning to be interviewed by Dennis at the event (I couldn't make it, sincere apologies for that) I find this discussion v interesting. We're using FinancialForce and happy, though my background is as a technology and property entrepreneur, with a computer science background so the tech talk is actually appealing to me, but I fully appreciate I'm in the tiny minority - most don't want buzzwords, but clear benefits. I wanted cloud accounting in Salesforce before I knew of what was then Coda2go, so was pleased to find it. for me the primary appeal of cloud accounting centres around the out-of-the-box integration of CRM and accounting:
    - One platform - lower tech costs and lower/no integration costs. e.g. same tech skills needed customise FinancialForce as customise Salesforce. No installation/servers/patches, just configuration, and you're off.
    - One system, less training, more information visibility, better decisions, better customer service. Stop the number crunchers hoarding data others can use. "Does the customer owe us money?" - everyone should have an answer to that question who communicates with them!
    - Immediate multi-site support. Multi-site Sage is horrific, I've used terminal server to do it, it works, but a pig in make-up. Our geordie dinosaur friends missed the boat entirely. I hate Sage's software with a passion, it's an insult to 21st century businesses. Homeworking alone makes Sage a useless product for a small business.

    FWIW I've never bought into the "cloud is insecure" argument (despite cock-ups by Sidekick and others before them) - security in many organisations is pretty poor anyway - wi-fi, USB sticks, simple passwords, bad physical security, etc.

    I should put these comments in the context of my being a startup guy - in the SME sphere the ability to have ONE system for marketing, adwords, sales, customer management, management reporting, operational process management, and accounting, ALL IN ONE PLACE, is so blindingly obviously beneficial I remain surprised so many small business still rely on Outlook/Access & Sage/Quickbooks. More apps like Kashflow coming, but lack CRM integration benefits and extendibility of force.com (even with its many faults). I am not qualified to comment on how FF & Salesforce compares to large-scale corporate systems.

    FF is an early stage product and there are certainly improvements I'd like to see, but pleased to see the closer relationship with Salesforce as it underpins the delivery of a solution serving a clear gap in the prior Salesforce offering.

    In FF's defence I should say they have certainly worked very hard with me as a customer to get me involved in the process, to talk about my experiences, and it's a shame that a commitment prevented me attending.

    Interesting discussions. Always hard to sell into a market where the PRODUCT isn't widely understood, it'll get easier as the benefits are more clearly defined, and adoption increases, which it, IMHO, inevitably will.
  • @Ollie - thanks for your thoughtful comment. I'll get to film you just as soon as we can get something coordinated.
  • I completely agree with you. It started so well when Richard Anning profiled the audience and set the scene, but the individual intros were too long and definitely incomprehesible to the non-technical. The session got better when we got in to the Q&A section and Dave definitely did best, but it was massive opportunity missed. At one stage the NetSuite guy mentioned a Gartner survey that suggested on premise IT infrastructure cost a company 3% of turnover whereas Cloud based solutions would cost 0.5% of turnover. I was surprized nobody wanted a reference to the source material or further explanation of a 6x difference - I assume that's for quite large companies. i'm glad you've quoted Richard Messik's post - he's been doing SaaS for many years, and it's great to see him layout the business case in such simple terms. A esson for any SaaS vendor.

    Explaining the business case is what the Intellect SaaS document to be publised on 28 October will be trying to do. I'm looking forward to some robust discussion about it later this month.
  • Dennis - as one of the participants, I have to agree that it wasn't the best of panels I've ever seen or been part of. Wasn't helped by the appalling circumstances (next door to the canteen with no wall between, and the sound guy constantly switching our mikes on and off so you couldn't really chip in a comment or have anything like a conversation... Will be talking to Softworld organisers about that!

    However, as vendors I think we are often guilty off using too much jargon - it's a disease that the IT industry can never seem to shake. Partly I think it's because of the wide range of audiences we are trying to address - in the 'cloud' space right now we are selling to highly sophisticated markets on the US west Coast who live it and breathe it, through to accountants and other users who are still sceptical that email is a useful business tool.

    But ultimately that's no excuse. We should be better at addressing individual audiences, and individuals, in language that they understand. As I was always taught - in communication, if someone doesn't understand me, it's my fault not his or hers.

    Must try harder!
  • @dave: I give you and Mamut credit for attempting to switch the conversation but honestly...it was a trap you all should never have fallen into...my answer as you know: bring on the customers !!
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: