Learnings of using software tools to run your business – Part 3

Moving information to SharePoint

Evaluation and ProcessIn my previous blog entry I gave the overall view how our Dynamics CRM 2013 account/contact entities have been used and what kind of Dynamics CRM 2013 custom fields I have used with those entities.

In this blog entry I will describe the process how we integrate to SharePoint 2013 Online (part of Office 365). The built-in integration between Dynamics CRM 2013 Online and SharePoint 2013 Online is not built in a way that satisfies my our needs and as I told you in my previous blog entry, I was not willing to do custom app development and maintain something I could not potentially support in the future.

The Dynamics CRM 2013 built-in integration today between these two systems do not utilize the benefits of the power of SharePoint so I decided to enable synchronization between Dynamics CRM 2013 entities and SharePoint 2013 Online custom lists. What this means in practice is that account and contact information from Dynamics CRM 2013 is synchronized with account/contact custom lists in SharePoint 2013. The synchronization is one-way where the Dynamics CRM 2013 is the hub and the SharePoint 2013 is the slave. My policy is that Dynamics CRM 2013 database with account/contact/project information is the “kernel” of our information and everything else pulls information from this source. Yes, I could have implemented two-way synchronization, but I wanted this to be simple and just tell people to maintain the CRM database with any new information or updates.

Moving information to SharePointTo initiate the synchronization, the only thing the end user has to do is to click the button “Move to DMS” and all of the needed fields are moved to a SharePoint list (account).

SharePoint Account listing

 

 

 

The synchronization can be defined in the settings of the synchronization tool that we are using and in our case it is 120 seconds. The tool runs in its own Microsoft Azure instance, which makes this solution completely cloud-based. I do not have to have anything installed on the laptop/desktop/mobile phone, everything runs automatically in the cloud. This is really the way I envisioned a solution architecture when I looked at the options what I had with the integration itself.

Let’s look at the use case itself. How does the end user act when working with both the Dynamics CRM 2013 and SharePoint 2013? First of all, I do not want all of the account/contacts to flow into a SharePoint list, just then ones that are relevant and associated with a document(s). Secondly, the idea is that CRM is not the UI for searching documents, it really is not optimized to do that in any respect. Once the account/contact is synchronized to a SharePoint list, the documents are entered into SharePoint and tagged to relevant people and accounts. The synchronization will refresh any updates on the account/contact records so there is no need to worry about getting updated information to SharePoint. Any search activity happens in SharePoint as that is really optimized for it.

I am not using the SharePoint list within Dynamics CRM 2013 whereby the account/contact record has no knowledge of the documents in the SharePoint site. In our case it has not impact as we work with larger projects and there are not that many clients at any point in time. The rule of thumb is that when any document is created, that is the time to click on the “Move to DMS” button in CRM as we want the account/contact information to move to the SharePoint repository.

The other rule that we have set is that a lead is converted (if lead is used) when a document is generated of any reason. Therefore, there is not a need to synchronize leads to SharePoint as it has been already converted to account/contact due to the requirements we have set.

I will dig into more detail of how we use SharePoint 2013 with its built-in content types and what kind of power we get from SharePoint itself. I have been extremely impressed with the content types and the inheritance structure that it enables for developers. However, it is very easy also to make the metadata structure too complex so what I did in my case, I really took time to learn/read and talk to SharePoint architects before I made my final decisions on the SharePoint structure I wanted to get in place.

In summary, our Dynamics CRM 2013 is the hub for our account/contact information and some of this information is synchronized to SharePoint 2013 lists using a Microsoft Azure instance. We do also maintain two other custom entities within Dynamics CRM (project and education events) and I will explain how these link to the over solution in future posts.

photo by:

Velocity of Business Models

velocity of business models

velocity of business modelsIt is amazing to see how the velocity of business models is changing the entire cloud landscape. I read  an InformationWeek article this morning about Gartner’s Magic Quadrant 2014 for cloud, its winners and losers and how for example Rackspace business model has change drastically the past year or so. Rackspace used to be the poster child in hosting and providing high value services, but now they are forced to look for new market segments besides the more traditional developer market that they have been aiming mostly according to the InformationWeek article.

The price decrease from larger players such as Microsoft, Amazon and many others have forced Rackspace’s of this world to look at their business model and try to figure out what to do to survive in the ever increasing competition.  It is not easy, no question about it. What is interesting to me at least from a research perspective is the speed of change that has definitely increased during the past years in software and IT business. If you look at service providers that used to manage internal IT infrastructure environments are now feeling the pressure of enterprises moving to the public cloud, whereby the service provider has to reinvent the business model as well.

Rackspace is not the only one that is feeling the pressure. According to the InformationWeek article, Dimension Data was in the Challenger Quadrant last year and has now been dropped to the Niche Player quadrant in the same way as Rackspace. WMware is listed as a Niche player this year, but Gartner cautions that they are offering services to managers that are responsible for virtualization and these managers are different from the business managers that want to build next generation solutions and these are typically the ones that will use public cloud such as Microsoft Azure. This is exactly what I have seen myself when working with both software vendors and enterprises. Enterprises especially were slow to move to Microsoft Azure, but that has really accelerated and even Gartner has noticed the rise of Microsoft Azure market share. This was also reported by Redmondmag where there are only two leaders in the Magic Quadrant, Amazon Web Services. and Microsoft. What is interesting in the new Magic Quadrant is that there are no challengers at all in the quadrant.

I think specialization is really what organizations such as Rackspace needs to do. All of my web-sites are based on WordPress and I have selected a hosting provider that is specialized in providing WordPress hosting only. WP Engine does WordPress only hosting and their site says exactly what I wanted “Hassle-Free WordPress Hosting“. What this means in real life is that they know WordPress inside out, they apply all of the WordPress fixes and monitor the security, take backups etc. Yes, all of this would be able to do on Microsoft Azure, but I would have to do it myself, but I am not in that business. I much rather have a premium hosting provider that I know is not all over the map and based on my experience, they really know what they are doing. I am running a solution on Microsoft Azure that integrates our Dynamics CRM 2013 Online and SharePoint 2013 Online and I will post another blog entry about this exciting integration case.

What is it that we should learn from this blog entry? The first learning is that nothing stays the same, even if you are a market leader or perceived as market leader. The second learning is that the change has definitely accelerated and this is causing bloodshed for the ones that have been resisting the change. The third and maybe the most positive thing is that the change is also creating new opportunities for entrepreneurs that identify gaps in the current offerings. We need to remember that business will continue, but maybe with new players. That is the name of the game.

photo by: jpctalbot

SaaS Channel Compensation

Channel Compensation models

Channel Compensation modelsSaaS Channel compensation is one of the hardest things that software vendors are facing today. If you have a nice traditional software business model with good software maintenance revenue and mature channel, you are reluctant to change or touch it. Let’s dive into some of the difficulties that software vendors are experiencing.

I am currently running educational sessions in SaaS channel development where my audience is given the task to present the business case of a channel partner for a given software vendor. We are using Business Model Canvas to model the business. The task that I am giving to my students is to represent the software vendor leadership team that is trying to recruit a channel partner to become a reseller. The way this is done is to present a Business Model Canvas to the channel partner management team.  If the software vendor management team can’t convince the channel partner of the benefits, then the business model is broken.  I have done this exercise with many software vendors and it is one of the most powerful ways to get the software vendor to think about the partner, not about themselves.

I have bad news for you. There are no exact rules what kind of compensation models a software vendor should have for its channel, but what is known is how to calculate whether a business can be profitable for the channel partner using different compensation models. Why is this? The biggest issue that software vendors have is that many of the processes and tasks that the channel partner has taken care of in the past, have now moved back to the software vendor. One of them is the monitoring the cloud infrastructure, provisioning the solution, upgrading the software etc. In the end of the day, it is all about roles and responsibilities that the software vendor and the channel partner have to agree on. The more the software vendor moves responsibilities towards the channel partner, the more margin the channel partner expects to get and this is very typical in the traditional software channel model. The software vendor delivered the CD or download to the channel partner, but in the new SaaS world, the instance is provisioned by the software vendor and the channel partner becomes the “middle man” between the end user customer and the software vendor. Let’s review some of the industry “standard” commission models and some implications around them:

SaaS Channel Margins

If you look at the percentages, the one that is missing is the typical 10% which is really more of an opportunistic percentage that anybody will give out regardless of business model. If you call a software vendor and tell them that you have a lead, they will pay you at least 5%, but 10% is not uncommon.

When you add an additional 10% (now the total is 20%) it adds more interest to the channel partner. The software vendor can not expect any active sales with this percentage and can’t really ask the channel partner to do any serious account management. This is mainly lead generation activity and typically there are other products that the channel partner is reselling as well.

If we add an additional 10 % (now the total is 30%), this is still too small to be able to build an organization and requires the channel partner to have many different products that they are reselling. Larger reseller with deep pockets to build and maintain an organization, 30% is doable.

When the percentage is 40% or more, the software vendor can expect investments from the channel partner and reporting responsibilities on pipeline to the software vendor channel account manager. This type of percentage is also doable for smaller channel partners that want to build a business around the solution and build a dedicated team.

The biggest surprise that most software vendors are facing when we discuss about the roles and responsibilities is the amount of additional work that the software vendor has to take on. In a pure SaaS channel scenario, the border of responsibilities are blurred and the end user customer ends up in many cases in direct relationship with the software vendor. This has been a big no-no in the past for channel partners as they have wanted to “own the client”. However, the reality is that the cloud is changing the roles and channel partners have to make changes in their models as well. This is a behavioral change that is taking place and can be compared with the changes that are taking place how software sales people are compensated. Nobody wants to change the way things were in the past, but the market and competition is forcing the change and the ones that keep doing the same thing as before, will eventually be on the loosing side. We have already seen this in many organizations.

Before talking about channel margins, the software vendor has to decide what kind of role they expect the channel partner to play and then define how much they can afford to give a way of the margin. Some software vendors have even decided that a channel is not an option in their new business model and this is of course an option if the company has the resources to build its business with its own direct sales and internet marketing methods.

 

 

photo by: woody1778a

Complexity of Building a SaaS Software Channel Program

Complexity of SaaS Pricing

Complexity of SaaS PricingIn my previous blog entry, I discussed about the complexity of channel development and channel alignment. I recommended for SaaS software vendors to use Business Model Canvas to compare the business model with the assumed business model of its prospective channel partner.

During the past few months I have spent time building a SaaS channel development educational program, a program that I wanted to be not only actionable, but providing information of all of the needed drivers that SaaS software vendors should be thinking about when building its channel strategy.  Call me old fashioned, but my  philosophy is to educate people of things that I have personal experience in. There are lots of consultants that “help” their clients doing things such as channel development, consultants that have never sold anything, but have read about it in books.  My strategy is to build something that is concrete and actionable (not academic) that my audience can use when thinking about their SaaS channels.

The way I initiated the development of the channel development alignment educational program in http://www.tellusacademy.com was to reflect on my own channel development experience (both as channel builder as well as reseller) and list the main things that I felt were crucial in getting channel partners to become excited. The way I started working on it was not from a traditional channel perspective. I asked myself a simple question: how is the channel partner going to make money? Once we identify this, we can worry about the software vendor (ISV) as without a profitable business model for the channel partner, there is no need to invest time and energy to plan something that will not work anyway.

If the financial success of the channel partner should be the foundation for the software vendor to evaluate the channel strategy, it is easy to assume that it is important for both the software vendor and the channel partner to understand how SaaS financial will change the business model and what kind of drivers each party needs to be thinking about. Therefore, I believe that every person working in the SaaS world needs to have a good and solid understanding in how the financial and operational model will change when running a SaaS business. I am sure that the CFO of the ISV and channel partner appreciates this.

I spent considerable time in reviewing the topics that both ISVs and channel partners should be thinking about. Besides having a solid understanding in SaaS financials, any vendor in today’s world has to be thinking about business model innovation and topics around that. How do we stay relevant today, tomorrow and next year? What is happening in our marketplace and what kind of actions do I have to take to ensure that my services or solutions are also appealing in the future? You would not believe how many organizations ignore this….it is amazing.

Another important factor to think about is to understand the expectations from the channel and ISV perspective. What can the ISV expect from the channel and what should the channel expect from the ISV? This is a also something that has changed in the last couple of years as channel partners have a tough time to adjust to the recurring revenue model from the traditional “one big lump sum model”. Besides this, traditional channel partners are not very good at account management and this is a huge issue for SaaS vendors as upselling and ensuring retention is a top priority to any SaaS vendor. The ones that have negative churn can say that they have been successful at least in the upsell to existing clients.

Channel roles and responsibilities is a topic that seems to be very unclear to both software vendors and channel partners. Basic questions such as “who is going to provision the cloud instance” is not clear and questions such as billing is also a question that many struggle with. Should the software vendor manage the billing or should it be the channel partner? What if the end customer does not pay the bills, should the software vendor still bill the channel partner and even take them to court for unpaid balances? In the traditional channel world we can argue that most of these types of questions could be easily sorted out due to known practices, but the SaaS/app world is still a bit unclear who does what.

Part of the channel profitability discussion should be a discussion of channel margins. In my course, I will give examples of a typical channel partner scenario where we will model one sales rep and his/her targets and what it means to the channel partner. This type of exercise is extremely health for any software vendor to see the reality of a channel partner and their desire to build a solid business. If you are a software vendor, have you modeled the channel partner business and how your solution might play in that space?

And finally, any software vendor will either become successful or fail and it is going to be based on the channel program that the organization is going to build and maintain. During my SaaS channel development course, I will also address the main drivers of channel management and key issues that an ISV need to be thinking about.

It was fun to create this course as everything is based on experience either from my own work or the teams that I have worked with for more than 20 years. As said, I do not believe in education of best practices if the person does not have any personal experience. This type of experience comes with blood, sweat and tears.

 

 

 

 

photo by: Sean MacEntee

Is the cloud killing your business?

Is the cloud kiling your business?

Is the cloud kiling your business?Cloud adoption is accelerating and it is also in the process killing many businesses. I read today an interesting blog entry “Are Cloud Vendors Cutting Out the Channel” and this article explains in great detail what is happening on the marketplace in respect to channel partners including value-added resellers (VARs) and MSPs. I remember vividly when Steve Ballmer suggested strongly a few years ago that Microsoft partners should really start adopting the cloud and a couple of years later, he stated that it might in fact soon be too late as the competition is already doing it. Pure channel partners with a business model to resell without adding any value will disappear from the markets.

I have recently talked to quite a few channel partners and the common message that I heard was that the markets are getting tougher and having a business without having a specialty or vertical experience might in fact kill the business sooner than later. I am seeing this also among software vendors that are refusing to adopt the cloud model. There are thousands of new pure SaaS entrants that want to be new market leaders in their domain and many end user organizations are refusing to go with the old-fashioned model where IT departments are the only part of organization that will be buying software and services. Based on the blog entry today, Tiffany Bova from Gartner concludes that many IT consumers are now “front-office buyers” from departments such as sales, marketing, finance, and human services. These departments are bypassing the centralized IT and this type of “uncontrolled” buying pattern will continue going forward in my opinion.

Microsoft management has been vocal to its partner network that every partner should by now be looking at cloud transformation and Kevin Turner (Microsoft COO) expressed his concern during Microsoft Worldwide Conference in Houston (July 2013) that only 3 percent of the company’s channel network was actively selling cloud services and this included products such as Windows Azure and Office 365. These numbers will change with time and I am convinced that there will be many partners that will experience the pressure the hard way. If the channel partner starts too late with the transformation, it might become irrelevant and have the wrong type of personnel with skills that do not match what the market wants. I am sure that somebody reading this blog will not agree with me, but I have seen already now quite a few channel partners that do not know what to do going forward. There is a real need to reboot the business model and rethink how the company will be surviving in the future.

I forecasted a couple of years ago that Sony will not survive the competition of e-books and devices due to many factors, Amazon Kindle being one of them.  A few days ago, I read that Sony will be exiting the business. Sony had its own e-book format and I was one of the ones that spent hundreds of dollars in books, which now will be converted to Kobo Android devices. I have no intention to buy any new devices. The reason I am sharing this is that even large organizations are forced to change the business model every now and then and consumers make wrong bets on the horse that they should be riding.

When I look at the global markets and what is happening around us, the change has accelerated in software domain and it has taken many by surprise. I would not be surprised that we hear bad news from many large industry dominant players in the software space that the transformation into new generation solutions has failed and consumers and businesses have adopted technologies that are more nimble and easy to use. It is very dangerous to ignore the trends and even more dangerous to think that market leadership means anything without hard work to maintain it.

Are you renewing your your business model before it is too late?

Business Model Change will cause many organizations to loose market share
Business Model change will cause many organizations to loose market share

Business Model change will cause many organizations to loose market share

Many organizations are feeling the pain of spinning-out-of-control with their business model. I have spent the last few weeks contemplating on everything that I have learned the past two years in software technology and I have to say that it has even got me off guard how quickly things are changing for companies. Organizations that used to have a solid business model are running into huge difficulties, and mostly not because of bad products, but more or less of not having understood the market correctly. Dallas Morning News wrote about Nintendo’s surprise profit warning today where they say that the game console Wii U has sold 70% less than expected. That is a huge miscalculation from Nintendo, but the issue is not just the console, it is that the market has moved on to games on smart phones and Sony and Microsoft has taken the market with more innovative products that appeal the current gamers. Nintendo is not on their own, we have seen this with many other sectors/players. Who would have thought 3 years ago that BlackBerry market share would drop to be almost non-existent?

What I have also seen happening is the struggle among system integrators and the current business model that is starting to fail them. I have had the luxury to serve not only software vendors and system integrators, but also end user organizations and what I am seeing clearly is an acceleration of interest in providing more cost effective, flexible with full support for mobility with a reluctance to customized and tailored solutions. This has a tremendous impact on system integrators specifically. My guidance to end user organizations is to look at the ecosystem players to identify the best-of-breed solutions, ensure that these solution vendors have defined an API strategy that enables seamless integration between modules without having to do everything from scratch. This is of course not something that many system integrators want to see as many of them have based their survival on selling hours, and doing it with long-lasting projects. The problem with this approach is that many of these long-lasting projects fail as smaller system integrators do not have the skills to manage projects and if the end user organization has negotiated a good contract with penalties, the system integrators ends up “paying for the solution”. I have seen this many times and specifically and this does not have a good impact on any ecosystem in the long run. This is one of the reasons why smaller system integrators have been “swallowed” by the larger ones as system integrators need scale.

Another way to differentiate from the masses is to be very specialized in a given vertical domain (or functional domain) where  you can command the pricing for your delivery. This is something that larger SIs have difficulties with as their scalability comes from using offshore and in these scenarios it is not easy to maintain highly skilled vertical experts where the client is prepared to pay a higher price.

The problem that I see in the market does not apply only for system integrators, there is a huge pressure mounting for traditional software vendors that are still making good money, but with new and exciting entrants popping up from different areas such as Silicon Valley, it is evident that many software vendors will have the same path as Nintendo and BlackBerry. I do not want to sound pessimistic or doom organizations to fail, but I have seen the signs of radical transformation and this is based on my numerous hours each week tracking the market, studying software and working with clients. Just look at the valuation of Dropbox from last week where the investment was based on 10 Billion dollar valuation. It is amazing to even think about this, but I think it is logical. It is a sign from the marketplace that things are changing and valuations are based on what people want and see as being the next wave of things.

Vendor ecosystems are also making huge bets on the next wave of computing. Microsoft is adding data centers around the world like recent announcement of Azure data center in Brazil. IBM is betting their farm on IBM Watson that is in the cognitive computing space and IBM’s acquisition of SoftLayer will increase the competition in the cloud space especially now when IBM announced that they will invest 1.2 Billion in data centers around the globe. What this means to me is that the acceleration of software solutions to the marketplace using new modern ways. This means that it is not good enough to “repurpose” what you have, but  you have to think about how your solution is going to be consumed and how it will fit into other ecosystem players. Think about Dropbox for example. The concept is very simple what they do and there are a myriad other players doing the same thing. They have understood the role of ecosystem and their technology is embedded in every app that is relevant and that has to include document sharing/distribution of some sort.

photo by: PSParrot

Software Vendor – are you moving your SharePoint Solutions to the App World?

sharepoint content typesSharePoint and its market penetration in enterprises can’t be denied. It is used by a massive amount of organizations and there are hundreds of thousands of developers building solutions using SharePoint as foundation for developing solutions. According to AIIM, one in two corporations are using SharePoint.

SharePoint is a popular platform for system integrators (SI) as well as independent software vendors (ISV). The former category typically sells custom application development services based on time and material or fixed cost projects. These solutions are typically “one-offs” even if the SI accumulates software assets in their internal code repositories. Effective SIs try to reuse these assets as much as they can, but that is unfortunately not a common practice among many organizations.

ISVs want to create productized solutions where the software assets can be reused in many organizations. However, creating real packaged solutions that can be deployed “as is” requires different skills than implementing customized solutions for different companies. I have seen quite a few system integrators struggling with productizing their offerings even if there is a real pressure for SIs to sell solutions due to price pressure on projects based on time and material. Creating solutions with real intellectual property (IP) provides a springboard to better profitability as well as higher hourly prices if the business model is built in the right way.

I have been part of organizations using SharePoint 2007 and 2010 in solution development but the architectural model and delivery methods have not been very flexible specifically for ISVs. For an SI that wants to sell time and material, the platform is perfect as some things are labor intensive and just need time to get done. Both of these releases of SharePoint (2007 and 2010) are built on “full trust” model while the new SharePoint 2013 is based on a new “app model” that Microsoft introduced in this new SharePoint 2013 release. What makes this model exciting is that it opens up the world for ISVs to reuse existing codebase as the foundation of the architecture is not to build intelligence in the SharePoint Server, but outside SharePoint. Besides this, Windows Azure is a perfect companion that can be used to house some of the solution. I am convinced that there will be quite a few solutions that combine technology from both SharePoint as well as Windows Azure.

SharePoint in some scenarios becomes the user interface (UI) to information and the logic resides outside SharePoint. An example would be a calculation engine that resides outside SharePoint and provides an API (Application Programming Interface) for other applications to consume. Microsoft guidance for SharePoint developers is to develop an App for SharePoint rather than classic solution whenever that is possible. There are of course many scenarios where this is not possible.

Most of the current SharePoint 2010 solutions have been implemented by using the “full trust solution” approach and these solutions can’t run for example in current Office 365 environment (with SharePoint 2013 Online). Microsoft enabled a new model in SharePoint 2010 (Sandbox) where some of the code would live in a “Sandbox” environment. However, the current recommendation is not to use the “Sandbox” approach due to different restrictions.

When I read about this new SharePoint 2013 app model first time, I thought about ISVs that have existing code assets that can be reused in different scenarios. I also got excited about this model as it provides a better experience for end users and IT to provide upgrades of the app in the same way as you would upgrade any tablet app. The application logic and the heavy-duty lifting can in many cases live in Windows Azure or even existing private hosting environments where the ISV just services new types of user experience to end users in a form of an app.

There is going to be lots of users in on premise SharePoint environments for quite a while, but starting to learn and review the possibilities in SharePoint 2013 environment should be a top priority for any ISV and SI that want to stay on top of the game.

 

What is all this talk about enterprise app stores about?

Iced tea at Georgia's, version 2We are moving into app economy and that is happening very fast. There are many predictions on the marketplace on this trend with Gartner forecasting that 25% of enterprises will have their own enterprise apps stores for managing corporate-sanctioned apps on PCs and mobile devices – all this within 4 years. Others are saying that this is already happening and it won’t take four years. Whatever the case is, ISVs needs to pay attention to this as CIOs in large organizations need to take control of the situation with deployed apps both in tablets as well as smart phones.

I think there is a big misconception in the word “app” when thinking about business models. Many relate an “app” to small apps used by smartphones with either free or almost free business model. These are mostly consumer-focused apps, but the trend is that consumers will be using their smartphones to conduct business using apps, but these apps will be connected to backend cloud solutions that bring the scalability and logic to the game. Look at an app as just the UI to full-blown solutions where end users can run their business with small devices or tablets and use the cloud infrastructure as foundation.

The forecast for App Economy is huge and according to APPNATION, App Economy is going to reach $151B by 2017. What it really means for ISVs and any software developers organization is that they need to really get a better understanding how app economy is going to impact them going forward. CIOs will be asking questions how an ISV will support enterprise app stores and how the ISVs will support these app stores with their solutions. I am a bit amazed how little there is discussion off apps in our workshops but I think this is going to change going forward. Based on the study by APPNATION, the majority of mobile device owners under 45 years are using video apps and this supports my previous blog entry of eLearning.

There will be a need for both consumer-oriented and enterprise-oriented apps stores and it will be a space that will bring new opportunities for many players. The competition in this space will be based on innovation of solutions that people want to use and the use is measured on how much content the apps consume from the cloud. It is not rocket science, but it is a new world that people need to get used to.

In the end of the day, apps will have to be monetized in one way or the other and that is where the subscription economy comes to play and organizations need to understand how to price their solutions and all this based on value pricing.

Pricing alone does not make your business model

Most software vendors (ISVs) struggle how to price their solution, specifically when moving the cloud. Many vendors are trying to “retrofit” the current model to the new cloud model, but this just does not work. You just can’t make your pricing to reflect your current business model where everything is based on higher cost structure such as Cost of Customer Acquisition (CAC), cost of having a different operational model in your organization such as support, marketing etc.

When I look back at all of the workshops that I have done in the cloud transformation field, each and every ISV has had to recognize that something has to change in the model and we use the Business Model Canvas to do a simple “sanity check” what kind of things the organization has to change to be able to make this transition. I am not talking about organizations that are “born in the cloud” but  organizations that typically have a successful traditional software business with good but declining maintenance and support revenue. Many of these organizations are now forced to rethink their current business model as smaller and nimbler organizations are “eating their lunch”.

This does not impact only ISVs, but also Systems Integrators (SI) that are used to the “big ticket” development projects and many end user organizations are tired to the ongoing and inflexible “platform” that has been created. This comes back to my previous blogs where I recommend organizations to go to the roots and identify what is “good enough” as a solution for people to be able to manage their business without having to deal with monster projects.

In the end of the day, pricing is just one small piece of the overall puzzle and therefore it is easy to say that without value, people are not willing to pay and if you do not bring value, your overall business model will never work. The Business Model Canvas has 9 building blocks and if one of these building blocks equal zero or is dysfunctional (some are not needed like channel), then the entire business will fail sooner or later. Check out the Business Model Canvas Structure that has been defined by Dr. Osterwalder:

Business Model Canvas

I am a believer in value-based pricing with the recognition that there are competition out there that will eventually force you to evaluate the pricing levels. Just look what is happening with Amazon and Microsoft on the cloud infrastructure front. It is a bloody battle but this is of course great for the consumers and businesses as the cloud becomes even more affordable and non-brainer as development platform.

 

It is no longer about the cloud only, it is about innovation of new generation solutions

I feel a bit ashamed of not  having blogged for a while, even if there has been so many different things that I should have shared along the way. The first 6 months of 2013 has been an amazing time for me professionally. I believe in life-long learning and I hope to keep up with all of the changes going forward and I really do not have a choice as I teach and educate people around the world in the topics I am passionate about. What could be better than that? I have also had a chance to educate top-of-the-breed software professionals in business modeling and this has included reviews of tens of companies and tens of different business models. Needless to say that it has been a great experience and I will now try to get at least some of my learning’s to blog entries.

I have to say that I have been in a very fortunate position to be able to work with top-of-the-breed software organizations around the world. The work has been mainly in the cloud transformation and this of course has forced me to really dig in deep into different topics like channel alignment, pricing of solutions, sales compensation model for sales teams, app strategies and many other very interesting topics.  I also decided to build a Learning Management Solution (LMS) site that includes videos and content for our clients to learn and consume at their leisure. This site www.tellusacademy.com has become my passion as I really love to get people educated and when I see them becoming excited, that gives me this personal feeling of joy (I come from a teaching family…..).

When I look at the current global situation of cloud transformation, it is easy for me to say that we are no longer just about the cloud. It is more about transforming your solution to take advantage of different device form factors with the assumption that the cloud will be there. Looking back at our business design sessions, specifically then more non-traditional software vendors, I feel that it is more about solution innovation more than ever and the search of minimal viable product (MVP) that a software vendor is bringing to the marketplace.

I think the road to solution innovation will just continue going forward and this was very evident in the Microsoft Worldwide Conference 2013 (#WPC13) in Houston a week ago when I listened to Microsoft General Manager Barb Edson and Technical Sales Program Manager Jeff Wettlaufer (excellent speech) speak about “Intelligent Systems” which is really about how Windows can be embedded to different types of environments and the speech showed an example of how a retailer can use Microsoft technology in showrooms. I am really happy that Karen Roberts (partner strategy) asked me to join the session as it was a perfect fit where we see the market going and software development overall. I would encourage you to check this out what the Windows Embedded division has to offer for partners. There are quite a few amazing examples of what can be done in different verticals.

I will drill down into a few interesting topics in upcoming blog entries and what I would like you to remember is that it really isn’t about the cloud anymore, it is about how to deliver simple, user-friendly solution experiences for people to consume and this of course using different types of devices. If you are not on this road already, you might be too late in the game and you will soon have the competition to eat you lunch.

Stay tuned for more…