Further info and resources from my website

Showing posts with label IBM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IBM. Show all posts

Sunday, May 31, 2015

System integrators for the cloud: boutique, majors and other firms

PARIS
Rushing to the cloud
As we move from traditional on-premise ERP projects to cloud-based environments the role of system integrators is changing radically. Gone are the days when Accenture or IBM could command hefty fees for unlimited mandays and run projects unchallenged by awestruck (and often ignorant) customers.

First, customers are now savvier about technology and no longer accept any proposal that comes their way lock, stock and barrel. Second, the SaaS model has put an end to the unfortunate tendency of integrators (henceforward referred to as SIs) to customize the business software out of recognition, indulging every customer's whim some of which were even encouraged by unscrupulous SIs. Now that customization as we've known it is dead, traditional SIs have had to reinvent a good part of their business - or risk becoming irrelevant in the long term. We all remember how, when SaaS first erupted on our radars,  all the large SIs ignored it, refusing to countenance the possibility that an HR project which required (so they had us believe) 18 months then could now be done in less than 12 months. But reality has this ugly habit of sticking around and the SI landscape has been affected irreversibly.

One evolution has been the birth of cloud-specific SIs. Workday, to mention the leading SaaS HR system, has spawned a growing ecosystem of boutique integrators such as DayNine in the United States or Kainos and Kloud in the UK to which one can add the smaller everBe partner in France or Appirio. These small outfits have several strengths: nimbler, more focused, less expensive. However, you also have to be aware that their smaller size means they may have limited bandwidth (for instance, if you need an expert on Absence Mangement they may have them but for Compensation you'll have to reach out to another company) and they tend  to be rather thin on the change management/ transformation/process reengineering side of things (without which your new HR project is unlikely to become a smashing success).

This is when, with a deep sigh, you may consider one of the bigger SIs of which there are two categories: the Indian powerhouses and the US majors.

The Indian SIs such as Wipro (my employer in 2013), Infosys and TCS have all created cloud practices, often as an adjunct to the current integration one they already had (SuccessFactors will, for instance, be part of the SAP practice for some.)  They tend to offshore most of the work which results in a lower budget.  However, distance can become an issue when the iterative design process involves countless meetings across time zones with different accents and cultures to contend with. Misunderstandings can easily arise and quality can differ markedly from firm to firm and across projects. To use an easy pun, testing your new system with an Indian-based outfit can become quite testing. Most of the Indian implementation partners are really just body shops and would still struggle with the the higher value tasks of process design and change management.

These tasks, on the other hand, are the forte of the three majors, all US-based: Accenture, Deloitte, IBM. (When PwC becomes a more significant player, I will add them in an update). Let's look at them in alphabetical order.

Accenture's strength lies in Fusion reflecting the strong relationship with Oracle. Accenture has more consultants trained on Fusion than any other SI and has carried out more projects. The quality of Accenture's HR consultants is also quite high evincing strong HR process expertise in all domains. Note that Accenture also leads when it comes to SuccessFactors.

Deloitte's HR credentials are as strong as Accenture's, but its focus is more on Workday. This reflects its strong HR system experience which dates back to its PeopleSoft alliance. I find them also quite good at local expertise.

IBM comes in third, and not only alphabetically, when it comes to cloud HR experience reflecting the dinosaur's reluctance to embrace the brave new world of SaaS. I found them to be quite unwieldy and at times a bureaucratic nightmare. I would recommend IBM only for the largest multinationals with a long experience of handling them. Otherwise it's no longer your project, but IBM's. Remember that these global brands have high overhead and  an oversupply of processes whose costs you the customer will have to bear. If you're looking for innovation (often the rationale behind your decision to go SaaS) you are unlikely to find it here. The pure-play SIs are a safer route.

Do as we say, not as we do


Interestingly, neither of the three major SIs has replaced its legacy SAP-based HR system of record with a cloud one. However, they are all implementing one of the three main cloud HR systems in some subsidiaries or regions of their own organizations. A big shift will take place when the three majors decide to throw in their lot with either Workday, Fusion or SuccessFactors. So far partner politics is proving stronger than cloud appeal.

One last thought. As you embark on an HR transformation project the bigger SIs will lobby you to provide help with the system-selection process, prior to bidding for the (far juicier) implementation work. They will swear on all the  saints of the Catholic calendar that they have in place a Chinese wall between their advisory and implementation practices. If you believe that you will probably believe that Diana and Elvis are living happily on Easter Island surrounded by their children. A fundamental principle of project governance is to avoid the advisor having a stake in the chosen system. Ignore this  tenet at your own peril.


(The blogger is currently helping a fast-growing, Nasdaq-listed, Paris-based multinational move from SAP to a cloud-based HR system) 

Friday, May 14, 2010

Looming Clash of Titans: SAP Acquires Sybase

PARIS
We, independent consultants/advisors, like to exaggerate our importance and claim a prescience mere mortals rarely display. I try not to fall in this trap (at least not too often) but I cannot avoid remembering a discussion I had with an SAP executive a couple of weeks ago. To counter Oracle's rise in the enterprise-software business, I asked her, what was SAP waiting to give the Redwood Shores-based competitor what  we French call "la réponse du berger à la bergère" and move into the database business. She shook her head saying that SAP liked to focus on its strengths and would remain happy to be the #1 business-software vendor, nothing more.

As if to prove her wrong (maybe she knew but wouldn't say, or maybe she wasn't in the loop - a distinct possibility), SAP has just announced it was buying Sybase for $5.8 billion. Officially this move is not aimed at Oracle but means to increase innnovation and extend SAP's access to mobile users. But in reality it is a defensive move against Oracle which has been treading on SAP's corporate-software toes since 2005 when it initiated its strategy of acquiring large software vendors. SAP's claims that its organic growth would be sufficient to counter Oracle's strengthening position soon sounded hollow and the Walldorf-based giant, taking a leaf from Larry Ellison's book,  decided to go on the acquisition path by buying Business Objects in 2007. That move was too timid as Oracle swallowed one big company after another and the product-maintenance confusion followed by the leadership shakeup, as Leo Apotheker left after barely one year as sole CEO, didn't help SAP's fortunes.

Things took a turn for the worse, from a competitive standpoint, when the German company's nemesis, Oracle, made a bold move by acquiring Sun, thus entering an entirely new market: hardware. Playing the ostrich was no longer a viable option and the Sybase acquisition will help rebalance the field a little bit as SAP will now compete directly against Oracle in more than just one market segment. It is clear that IT vendors' game is to branch into different segments of the IT business to become a Swiss-knife company able to provide its customers with software, hardware and services. It is clear that we are entering an increasingly ferocious stack war.

So far, Oracle still has a headstart over SAP and, if the past is any indication to go by, we can expect some shrewd moves from Larry Ellison, probably in the services space. So expect some strategic decision to be made by the SAP side next year or in 2012 at the latest. What I think would make sense would be for SAP and IBM to merge: IBM is strong in services/consulting, SAP (created by former IBM'ers, let's not forget) created the corporate-software business; both are actually close partners. Sure, now the two of them compete in the database space but that should not be an issue since (a) IBM's DB2 business is more of  a legacy one, the only one IBM retained when it decided to exit the enterprise-software business and focus on services; (b) Sybase and its mobile footprint make a more cutting-edge complement than a competitor (even if  overall Sybase is considered a bit dusty); (c) since in the database league tables Sybase ranks a distant fourth after Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, a merger of SAP and IBM should not raise serious objections from anti-trust regulators;  (d)  the two will compete more effectively against Oracle which, with its acquisition of Sun has become a serious  competitor to IBM which therefore need to make a move soon.

Yes, the more I think about it, the more an IBM-SAP linkup makes sense. If it happens, you read it here first.