Gartner: SaaS May Not Be the Panacea for TCO After All

Posted on February 23, 2009 by Sam Conforti

There is an episode in Seinfeld where Jerry and Kramer are having a disagreement on an accounting issue. Kramer claims that the Post Office can just “Write Off” an insurance claim as a loss. Jerry implies that Kramer doesn’t even know what a write off is. When Kramer retorts, “Well do you?”, Jerry confidently states in a tone of honesty “No, I don’t”. That’s when Kramer comes in and seals the deal with the irrefutable line, “Well they do, and they’re the ones writing it off”.

Well, my friends, I am afraid that there is a bit of accounting “know-how” required to fully comprehend the latest opinion from Gartner analyst Robert DeSisto. As Richard Adhikari reports in his article for InternetNews.com entitled Gartner Warns on SaaS’s Hidden Costs, the Total Cost of Ownership (“TCO”) may be great for the first 2 years since SaaS does not require an initial capital outlay for hardware and the licensing model is pay-as-you-go. However the accounting for on-premises applications flips this advantage since the large capital outlay eschewed by SaaS proponents comes into play in later years. You see the larger expense for infrastructure in the non-SaaS model can be capitalized and any self-respecting accountant will tell you that means this “Capitalized Expense” can be depreciated. In essence the depreciation expense becomes a “Write-Off” against revenues. Oh dear, if I have confused you either see Kramer’s explanation above (or) the September 29, 2008 posting in this Blog, SaaS Contracting: Tips Leading to the Decision and What to Include in the Agreement.

Adhikari includes a rebuttal to DeSisto’s capital expense argument from Raju Vegesna. Vegesna comes back with the fact that SaaS pricing includes maintenance, support, and upgrades. Other SaaS proponents tout the ease of implementation and the favorable pricing model. On the flip side, DeSisto cautions that enterprises requiring tight integration with existing systems might not have the quick roll-out as promised. In addition, although the SaaS pricing model is advertised as a pay for the computing resources used, a significant number of SaaS Vendors have opted for other pricing models. In particular, DeSisto points to Salesforce.com whose pricing requires the customer to purchase subscriptions for a period of time regardless of use. 

I think the jury may still be out on this one. What isn’t discussed at length in this article, but is only hinted at, is the fact that the SaaS model should be attractive to the smaller enterprise and/or the start-up, while the larger enterprises might well be served with the traditional on-premises model.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Growing Pains of On Demand

Posted on June 1, 2008 by Sam Conforti

 

There is a revolution of sorts going on in the computing world. I do not want to over-dramatize this fact; however I am reminded of author and pamphleteer Thomas Pain who wrote:


• “Lead, follow, or get out of the way”
• “These are the times that try men’s souls”
• “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph” (yes, this is drama)


Why all the drama? Well, I recommend you read Tien Tzuo’s article entitled The Global Transformation to On-Demand. Tzuo’s subtitle may aid in understanding my reference to the drama (i.e. “Why the world is moving to subscriptions and what it means for businesses”). This article should be read in conjunction with Daniel Druker’s article Different is hard: SAP - (Not Too Much) Business by Design.


Let’s start with Tzuo’s rather succinct history of the change in the paradigm from on-premises computing to subscription buying via the internet. Tzuo was on the cusp of the wave that brought in the SaaS business model. The guiding ideology for Tzuo and his contemporaries regarding SaaS is that


“ … software belonged on the Internet, not on a CD, and in that process it is transformed from a product that you buy to a service that you subscribe to.”


Tzuo’s analysis of why the trend towards subscriptions (i.e. On Demand or SaaS) rather than the traditional purchase or licensing model covers a broader spectrum than just the software industry. He explains that the internet has transformed the way people buy. The purchaser now has more options from more packages and as their needs change so can their subscription. Buyer’s remorse is eliminated.


“no large up front investment, no ongoing maintenance costs or hassles, no insurance costs – just pay for how much you use.”


Tzuo points out that there are significant differences between the processes for managing a subscription business versus the traditional product for sale business. These differences are:


• The ability to offer your product in parts, as well as full packages
• Invoicing and payment terms must be able to track the flexibility in the product offerings
• There are constant changes in the subscription and the revenue collection process becomes convoluted
• The metrics for this type of business differ from the usual billing metrics and so the ability to measure success and redirect efforts must adapt


The difficulties in managing a subscription business can be demonstrated by reference to the current situation at SAP and its announced delays and reduction in investment in its hoped for SaaS offering, Business by Design. Daniel Druker presents an in-depth analysis to the possible problems facing SAP. He lays out the trials and tribulations that a mega-corporation must face when trying to adapt to the changes in the industry. Instead of the purported technical issues facing this new service such as the “Mega-tenancy” model that a company the size of SAP is trying to implement, Druker sees the problem as the age-old issue of resistance to change. He labels this the “innovators dilemma”. The best and the brightest personnel shun the new innovation, especially if the promise of returns is far removed from the fundamental business model. It almost seems as though the company sets up its own barriers. A matrix organization, such as SAP, organized by country or region, is more inclined to focus on hitting their sales goals for the quarter or month and less likely to assist in the latest project.


In addition to the innovators dilemma, Druker also includes a discussion much like Tzuo’s differences between a subscription run business and that of the traditional product driven business model. Simply put, the business processes needed to run a subscription business do not yet exist, and when these new business processes do come on line, they will be incompatible with the existing business processes for a large enterprise software company.


Druker concludes by stating that, “SAP is an amazing, well run company”. It remains to be seen how well they will manage this latest innovation in the computing world.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,