The on-premise titans trying to transition to on-demand face considerable challenges, well-documented in this blog and elsewhere. One of the most significant mistakes companies make trying to transition is pursuing a “hybrid” strategy. We’ve watched SAP and Oracle stumble into all sorts of problems trying to seek the middle ground, and now it seems Microsoft wants to join the party. Recently we were invited to listen to Microsoft’s new CRM pitch , designed to recruit existing Salesforce.com partners. The pitch centers on a benign-sounding notion, the “power of choice” (see screenshot at left). Microsoft’s lack of a choice (on-premise vs. SaaS) is the core issue. Choice when used in the context of technology architecture typically points to a vendor with a conflicted or transitional strategy. They’re not quite ready to make the full commitment, so they spread their attention, development, marketing, and operations resources across fundamentally different paradigms.
What is deemed a choice actually represents a company trying to provide two conflicted models. Would you expect the company who sold you a backyard well to be able to offer a water utility? Would you expect the company who sold you a diesel generator to be able to offer you the benefits of a utility company? Nick Carr did a good job exploding the general myth of “choice” as an alternative to “progress” in The Big Switch, where he extends the electricity analogy to the current age of IT technologies.
We recently blogged, and were quoted in eWeek, saying that companies like Microsoft build “physically and emotionally closed solutions.” This makes them unable to meet the challenges of tomorrow’s enterprises.
A sign of this and that a company doesn’t get SaaS is when it positions on-demand as a transition path to on-premise. This usually means:
- They are trying to not completely freak out their sales and management teams with the notion that their SaaS offering will cannibalize their traditional software.
- Their SaaS feature set is way behind their current on-premise product.
- They don’t want a customer to think they made the wrong choice in selecting their on-premise product last year.
- They still don’t get what SaaS means for their products, sales, operations and culture.
Microsoft was so brazen as to promote a financial incentive for partners who help customers move from on-demand to on-premise. Microsoft evidently considers this customer ripoff to be an “Opportunity for Success” for its partners (see second screenshot).
Again, the analogy to other utilities is useful: if a company tried to sell you the benefits of their electric or water grid as a “transition” to a bigger and better backyard well and generator, you’d have reason to question their commitment and ability to deliver the promised utility.
What could be more illustrative of this than Microsoft’s attempts to put thin web front ends on on-premise solutions? Look at the screenshot below. This solution is really nothing more than diesel generator hooked up to a electric grid and pretending to be a utility (although this solution is apparently good enough for some other companies ‘committed’ to on-demand). At best this type of solutions is a stop gap measure; more likely, it demonstrates a lack of understanding for what is required to deliver SaaS to tomorrow’s enterprise.