The big debate - SaaS vs premise-based solutions. As the wave of SaaS increases with the recent announcement in Information Week of the largest SaaS order ever of 200,000 seats of Workday Human Capital Management Solution and in the wake of the stellar performances of such pioneers as Salesforce.com and Webex and upcoming applications like Adaptive Planning for business planning it seems SaaS is not only here to stay but it is making inroads on the likes of the giants of software like Oracle.
From a sales perspective, I have lived the dream having been the European end of PlaceWare (now Microsoft LiveMeeting). I saw at first hand the benefits of SaaS and how to sell against traditional premise-based solutions. More recently, a very prestigious headhunting firm claimed to me that SaaS salespeople are lesser mortals than premise-based ones as they command the massive, high ticket sales. Firstly, he had never sold either so it was a speculative comment and secondly I think he's wrong. The reason why SaaS is doing so well is that the salespeople are having to sell very differently and based on commercial values such as bottom line impact or long term, sustainable impact to the business rather than the technological, FUD-led selling of traditional software.
Here's a quick insight into the PRO's and CONs of SaaS - it isn't exhaustive:
PROs
* Cost of Trialing
It is easy and cheap to trial SaaS based solutions. You don't need to wait to have access to expensive quarantined networks, you can just get a few licences, choose some users and you can be up and running in a few hours at most.
* Cost of Deployment
Once trialed, the cost of deployment is relatively low for SaaS. No extra infrastructure is required, no mass software downloads from the IT department, no Helpdesk guys going around each desktop to make changes - SaaS is downloaded at login. There may be some firewall issues to solve and possibly some browser compliance annoyances but in the main, thousands of users can be switched on to the new application overnight.
* Cost of Maintenance & Upgrades
SaaS is served from the application source and delivered refreshed each time you login. This means routine bug fixes and even major upgrades can be made available to all users, simultaneously and as fast as they are made available. It means new features can be delivered faster and easier. For the application vendor, it means that, in general, most users will be on the same version and so legacy support is kept to a minimum. This helps keep costs down.
* Ubiquitous Availability
In the modern,geographically disparate world of global businesses, the idea that everyone will have the same image on their computer at the same time is increasingly unlikely and certainly much harder to maintain. SaaS means that as long as you can log into the web, your application is served to you refreshed at each login. It means you have access to the latest information while on the go and not have to wait for long downloads of new data if you are working remote.
CONs
* Ubiquitous Access
This means just that - you have to have the ability to log onto the web prior to having access to the application. While mobile computing is pretty much a reality it is not entirely ubiquitous as yet.
* Stability
One of the age old issues with SaaS is not just the stability of the application itself but the constant availability of internet access. Bandwidth fluctuations or even lack of availability of connectivity can have a direct impact on performance - still.
* Security
SaaS is hosted outside Corporate firewalls at highly secure and many times redundant hosting centres with the highest levels of security both physically and IT wise. However, this does not get over the fact that your sensitive Company date is stored on servers beyond your sphere of security and control. It is an act of trust.
* Single Points of Failure
We can argue that such points of failure are potentially ubiquitous in business today, such as a router getting into an illogical loop and needing to be reset. However, that router may reside within your network, on your premises and within your direct sphere of control. SaaS may have the same issues, but then it comes down to the performance of the SaaS provider and possibly other third parties to rectify problems and most certainly you are less in control. Further, such a single point of failure may affect multiple customers simultaneously.
* Integration and Compliance
SaaS brings huge benefits of being able to react quicker to market changes and build in new features and integrate with more applications faster. However, there may, at times, be drawbacks. Such new features may require updates to the operating system, a new release of something like messaging applications, a certain level of Office Software. Such things can, in the extreme, render the benefits not applicable or worse, even cause conflicts.
There are so many variables that it is difficult for SaaS Vendors to accommodate all, but therein lies a certain rub. In the race to overwhelm premise-based solutions, the real world can be awfully complex.
The Case on ROI
This is where the SaaS salesperson comes into their own. The cost of SaaS is an annual licence fee per user or concurrent user at best. It means that upfront costs may be cheaper than the equivalent premise-based solution but that fee is an annuity and repeats each year.
BUT, within that annual fee is all the maintenance and costs of upgrades. Premise-based solutions will have maintenance costs at typically around 20% of the seat cost per annum plus the cost of upgrades. THEN, comes the cost of infrastructure and deployment and this is where SaaS starts to move ahead. Typically, the speed and ease of deployment and lack of impact on the infrastructure will make SaaS easier on the bottom line.
One other aspect to consider - the cost of application support. Typically, the cost of support and training of users will not only be built in but actually the responsibility of the SaaS Vendor. But premise-based solutions will also have Helpdesk support and possibly even people assigned to application support; an overhead often missed off in calculations.
Each application fares differently, but the SaaS ROI and impact on the bottom line is developing a very strong case over premise-based solutions. What has happened at companies like Workday and salesforce.com is that chasm has long since been crossed and the impetus is there.
Ride the wave! I would love to hear views and actual experiences - let's challenge these views on SaaS v premise-based and ROIs from real users. Please post your comments.
Wednesday 4 June 2008
SaaS vs Premised-Based Solutions - A Shootout
Labels:
Software as a Service
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I posted the following comment in response to your question related to SaaS in Linked-In (http://www.linkedin.com/answers?viewQuestion=&questionID=244095&askerID=73729):
Question Details:
--------------------
SaaS vs Premise-based - The Big Debate. Which will win?
In my latest blog post http://calxeurope.blogspot.com/2008/06/saas-vs-premised-based-solutions.html I look at the recent phenomenal gains by Workday.com in winning the single largest SaaS deal yet with over 200,000 licences at Flextronics. Is SaaS having its day? Will it win out? Is there place for both?
I have tried to give a non-exhaustive list of pro's and con's but I would like to hear from real users, those thinking about, those who sell it and find out if the buzz will turn to reality.
Answer:
-------
I work for a large information services company. My business unit services financial industry.
Most (if not all) of our products that have been developed recently or are in the development are SaaS-delivered. Even the legacy products (mainframe-based, client-server based) have a SaaS-enabled delivery mechanism or are in the process of being reengineeded into a SaaS-enabled systems.
I believe there are compelling value propositions in SaaS-delivered model both for provider and for customer.
However, I believe current state of SaaS model is not sufficient to warrant widespread adoption of this model. Specifically, the following areas need to be addressed:
* Infrastructure: Overall network, security and management infrastructure need to improve significantly to allow pervasive SaaS penetration
* Cloud computing: Cloud computing need to become mainstream to allow service providers scale systems easily and just in time. Currently scaling the system as demand increases is a big headache for providers
* Disconnected model: SaaS-delivered systems need to be accessible (even if with partial functionality) when users are off-line. Not being able to use an application at all if the user is not connected to the network is a big drawback, especially for today's highly mobile workforce
Eventually, these issues will be addressed and we will have a more sustainable model, call it SaaS or not.
However, I don't believe that would be the only model that will be available. Considering the massive market for mobile connected devices, a different delivery and usage model can be envisioned.
Nigel,
my experience in this is as an IS leader in a large corporate. I've recently led the implementation and support of global solutions for HR - including SaaS and premise-based, as well as the "worst of both worlds" namely externally hosted clent-specific apps.
I've become a fan of SaaS and believe this will be the prevailing - but not the only - model. For example there are likely always to be organisations - such as government departments - that will not be able to tolerate their data residing outside. In some arenas, however, SaaS already prevails: a Gartner analyst told me this week that "80% of online recruitment is delivered by SaaS already" (not sure about that globally myself, but it might not be far wrong).
I think you've done a neat job. Nigel, in summarising the key PROs and CONs. I'd just make a few builds.
On the PRO side...
The SaaS model helps cut to the chase when it comes to demands for unnecessary local variations and bells-and-whistles customisations - things that bog down traditional on-premise projects and support efforts, especially when trying to standardise processes across countries/units. With SaaS, the solution is the solution. This is only truly helpful of course, if said solution is designed with the globe in mind and has adequate configurability - and if the supplier adds good stuff frequently and in pain-free fashion to keep the customer experience improving (a change management "must" in these standardisation scenarios).
Fundamentally I have found SaaS projects (and ongoing operations) to be much more predictable than on-premise in terms of cost, delivery schedule, performance in general. This almost certainly results from a number of the other factors you mention coming together. But it could also be that my benchmark in this is my experience with Taleo - an SaaS company whose talent management products (and whose people) I rate very highly.
On the CON side...
I would not underestimate the difficulties that can occur to do with (in)compatibility with in-house infrastructure set-up. If nothing else, the testing required needs to be thorough and can be much more onerous than expected.
Likewise, the upgrades might not be as straightforward as it seems. Yes, it's a different ball-game than on-premise, but don't underestimate the training, testing and other end-user related activities that still need to be carried out (and often with costly consulting assistance from the provider).
And in cases where technical issues threaten success, I have seen situations where there's more or less a stand-off between parties, each convinced the problems must lie on the "other" side of the firewall. This is particularly the case with the "worst of all worlds" scenario where the supplier's environment is customer-specific of course, so that the point of failure (if it is on the supplier side) will not be affecting other customers.
While on the topic of these hybrid solutions, the other big problem is that the provider will charge you - in addition to hosting fees - a whole lot more for developing, managing and changing/adding your customisations than you would pay your own resources or agents to do this (assuming you could hire them). You could say they have you over a barrel on this one in fact, especially if you need to change the supported business process/rules frequently.
But I'm straying off the point now.
Post a Comment