Software Licensing & Master Service Agreements : Chicago Software Licensing Lawyer & Attorney : Sam Conforti Law Firm : Master Service Agreements, Negotiations, Outsourcing : Cook County, Illinois

As some of my readers may recall I posted an article to this Blog on October 12, 2009 entitled Microsoft Buys Core Technology to Boost Its ERP Offering. The article mainly commented on Microsoft’s most recent purchasing strategy to boost its Dynamic ERP product offerings. After reading my article, Houston Neal, Website Content Manager for Software Advice for Manufacturing contacted me and asked me to read and comment on his article entitled Microsoft Dynamics for Manufacturing – Understanding the Difference Between GP, NAV, SL and AX. Neal’s take on the current situation is that although Microsoft has tried to establish itself as a player in the ERP market space, enterprises may still be confused as to what product(s) would be suitable to which industry.

I have read Neal’s article and was quite impressed. I’m a person that likes to understand the history behind the product and/or company. Neal does a nice job of detailing the 8 year evolution of Microsoft’s foray into the ERP industry. He starts off with a sort of Gantt Chart that breaks down the different target markets for each of the Microsoft Dynamic products.  From the enterprise size, based on number of employees, it looks as though Microsoft has taken a comprehensive approach to the SME market space and taken aim on competing directly with SAP and Oracle in this space.

I particularly liked the section where Neal describes Microsoft’s initial purchases and the making of the Dynamics portfolio of products. First there was the Great Plains acquisition in 2001 which netted the Great Plains accounting application and the Solomon business management applications. Then there was the Navision purchase in 2002 which garnered not only the human resources and CRM applications, but also the Axapta product line from a recent acquisition by Navision.

So what is Microsoft to do with four different enterprise products (Great Plains, Solomon, Navision, Axapta) each written in a different language, running in different development environments, and using different databases? Neal takes us on a tour of the daunting task that Microsoft laid out for itself to convert all four products to a single code base, Project Green.

Neal includes an evolutionary chart of which Dynamic products have become the product of choice for which industry. He reminds us that over 9000 ISV’s are out there providing customization services and support for these products. He concludes his article by stating that growth in the Dynamic Product line appears evident.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

First I would like to apologize to my readers for the delay in posting this article. My goal is to post something of interest every 1 to 2 weeks, more often if events warrant it. Unfortunately, my schedule went a little haywire during the closing of the 3^rd quarter and so it has been difficult to meet my self-imposed deadlines. I think I’ve turned the corner.

Barbara Darrow, Senior News Editor for SearchITChannel.com, reports in her article entitled “Microsoft rolls partner technology into Dynamics AX ERP” that Microsoft has embarked on a purchasing strategy to build up its core technology of its Dynamic ERP offerings. The series of purchases (provisos not disclosed) included the following:

·         Fullscope Inc. – process manufacturing technology

·         Computer Generated Solutions Inc. – professional services solution

·         LS retail EHF – retail technology

·         To-Increase Denmark A/S – retail technology

Axapta, now called Dynamics AX, is one of the Dynamics ERP lines from Microsoft that competes directly with SAP’s SME offerings.   This mid market space, what Darrow identifies as the “white space”, is more often than not where VARs and ISVs do a lot of customization. This current round of technology purchases is seen as Microsoft’s attempt to add functionality while at the same time reducing the need for customization. It is probably safe to assume that SAP might not welcome this intrusion into the mid market, but the jury is still out on other VARs that perform application work in the space as to whether the additional functionality will be viewed as a help or a hindrance. Dan Fine, President of Fine Solutions, a Dynamics AX partner, stated:

"They've bought some key functionality for professional services and are putting it into the plumbing. That will let us extend our products more easily into various verticals"

He also remarked that time sheets and billing will be part of the offering.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The recession is upon us and from all reports it looks as though it is going to be a long one. I will leave to others to discuss and argue if the current proposed stimulus package is indeed a real stimulus package or just a spending bill that will do little to nothing in the short term. In my practice I am beginning to receive an inordinate number of requests from software licensee’s to either cancel maintenance or reduce user counts in an effort to lessen the annual expense. Chris Dowse and Ben Galison have written a very important Op-Ed piece for SandHill.com entitled Software’s Clear and Present Danger. They begin their article with a no nonsense approach to the subject of maintenance revenues:

“… the software industry’s cash cow, maintenance and support revenue provides high margins that are the funding engine for new product research and development. The maintenance revenue stream is also used as a basis for company valuations in mergers and acquisitions and financing arrangements.”

Dowse and Galison have identified three major reasons placing downward pressure on the maintenance stream:

1.       The customer’s perception of value has affected pricing, the basis for the maintenance calculation.

2.       The recession has caused customers to postpone purchases and upgrades.

3.       End User Monitoring (“EUM”) has created a new view into usage and so under-used applications are being targeted as a drain on ROI.

The approach that Dowse and Galison suggest as a remedy to the threat on the maintenance stream might seem simplistic at first blush. They suggest the Independent Software Vendor (“ISV”) become more customer-centric and strive to have a successful adoption of the software suite as opposed to the traditional implementation services. I suggest you read further and examine their three step approach and follow it in the sequence they suggest. It may be a bit of a paradigm shift for some ISVs, but at the very least it will take a lot of effort. I will try to summarize the three step approach, but please read their whole article to get the full impact. The three step approach is as follows:

1.       Create a Positive Customer Experience: This enhances customer loyalty which is the first step in protecting the maintenance stream. However, more importantly, Support and Services must concentrate on an effective adoption of the applications. A significantly improved customer interaction of the delivered applications can have a direct and positive impact on the customer’s ROI. This should also eliminate the fragmentation that occurs when their customer information gets locked in silos. An effective adoption of the software suite should enable delivery of this customer information across the enterprise. The ISV must encourage cross-functional dialog and empower their employees to identify their Customer problems.

2.       Understand Customer Usage: This has to be a proactive approach, hence my comment above that “at the very least it will take a lot of effort”. The ISV must strive to understand usage patterns and barriers to adoption. This is where the ISV should take advantage of the new EUM technology and use it to get past the reasons for downward pressure on maintenance. Once usage rates are indentified the ISV should intervene with perhaps more training or services. This activity could lead to new products and services to increase usage and eventually ROI.

3.       Deliver Business Value, Not Just Technical Service: Customers want and will pay for services that will lead to effective adoption. Traditional implementation services do not go far enough. Placing the focus on user adoption yields tremendous benefits. Dowse and Galison state it best: “Effective user adoption increases customer switching costs, enables value-based pricing that prevents price erosion, produces visible ROI for customer success stories to drive other sales, and provides a platform for upselling and cross-selling.” Another by-product of this approach is a lower amount of the lower margin traditional implementation services required.   The ISV’s service profitability should go up.

For another perspective on this topic see my November 24, 2008 post in this Blog: How to increase revenue in an Economic Downturn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks