Retiring Shared Demo Tenant: Workday's still correctable blunder

PARIS 

As my blog followers have known for quite some time, I am a great admirer of Workday: the company, its people, its products, its culture, its customer service. Many of my posts are testimony to this admiration, as is my decision to spend most of my working time implementing the product for my clients. This being said, my blog followers also know that I am no blind vendor cheerleader: When deemed necessary, I would not shy away from criticizing Workday as I did in my Open Letter to Dave Duffield and Aneel Bhusri about their approach to Europe. 

Now has come the time to point the finger at Workday again. In exactly one month, as per the below notice, Workday will retire its Shared Demonstration Tenants, usually known in the Workday family of users as GMS, and offer a paid version. This is a Very Bad Idea and before I expostulate on it, let me first explain to the layman what GMS is and why it is so important. 

GMS - A unique demo environment
GMS was one of the great innovations that Workday brought. For someone like me whose experience of an HR vendor's demo environment was limited to the dreadful ADS by Oracle, this felt like heaven when I first sampled it. At long last here was a system which you could go to 24x7 to check, demo with minimal preparation, learn any feature you were interested in. And it rarely let you down as it was bug-free. Actually, for one my first global Workday implementations, then a wall-to-wall 20-year SAP shop with more 140,000 employees, I was tasked with traveling the length and breadth of planet Earth to visit the major subsidiaries to convince them to give Workday a try.

Without GMS, I doubt I would have been able to pull it off. I wanted to demo what Workday could provide but since our tenant had not yet been fed with setup and worker data, I couldn't rely on it. So, I decided to enlist the help of GMS, hiring employees in Spain, Romania, Brazil, Korea, Morocco, Argentina - etc. in a way that made sense to those companies. I made it obvious to my stakeholders that this was a shared environment, that it didn't include all their specific data and processes but it could give them a sense of what was possible with Workday. 

LOGAN FOR PRESIDENT!

And it worked! All the subsidiaries agreed to greenlight the project and we started on implementation. The rest, as they say, is history.

Critical for SMEs

If my example is a good one to show how useful GMS is for a large, global multinational able to throw millions at its Workday implementation, think then how vital it is for an SME company struggling with limited resources and a shoestring budget. These companies cannot afford the multiplicity of tenants that Workday would readily charge them for. And I'm not speaking here of the complexity to manage several tenants, which in and of itself is not an issue except when you don't have the resources to do that. In addition, without GMS the learning curve for talent becomes steeper. 

More than a marketing blunder, this is a sales disaster-in-waiting. After targeting the mid-market for a while, it is counter-intuitive for Workday to remove one of its major selling points to this very market segment. I don't know what Carl Eschenbach is up to, but I can't see Dave Duffield, Aneel Bhusri or Chano Fernandez signing off on this. 

Rationale for the paywall
Although some detractors are lambasting Workday for this grab for customer dollars, there are some good reasons for it which have to do with Workday's amazing success. Quarter after quarter the customer base grows, which means that what used to be a few hundred concurrent users of GMS has now evolved into thousands and thousands of users from customers and partners. This in turn has made accessing GMS ever more difficult with the below message one of the greatest sources of frustration of customer administrators and project consultants. 

 Hence Workday's offer to its customers: "Rather than have a free demo tenant which you can rarely use, why not have a paid one which will always be at your disposal?"

Unacceptable policy change
Well, as we all know, there's no such thing as a free lunch - and certainly not a free tenant. The current shared GMS is included in customers' subscription. It is therefore disingenuous, not to say dishonest, from Workday to claim that they're just putting an end to a free goodie. We all know that Workday comes with a premium price tag, which is justified by the second-to-none quality of its products, consultants and resources. So, this "free" GMS is actually NOT free. Customers are paying for it, and expensively so.

If Workday feels that time has come to charge those who want to use GMS, then it should be consistent and reduce the subscription rate by as much. Those who feel they cannot do with GMS will then pay the new tenant price which means that at the end of the day they will be paying basically the same they were paying before for exactly the same service. And those who didn't use GMS (not many companies but they exist) and who resented having to pay for a service they weren't using will actually enjoy the new policy because they'll be paying less for a similar service level. Win-win for all.

Of course, I can hear you say, "Not so fast. Those who pay separately but at the same rate as before are getting a better service because the tenant is theirs and it'll be working without the access issues we've been experiencing of late." Well, that argument is a poor one because Workday always boasted of how scalable its system is. So, why is GMS now having concurrent access issues? And what guarantees do we have that even with a private GMS if our user base grows we won't suddenly be faced with this infamous "maximum number of users reached" message? 

What's next? Charging for the use of EIB? Of Customer Central? 

What Workday should do
Based on the previous, there are only two acceptable options for Workday:

(a) Reconsider its position, admitting it has erred and just scrap this new policy (Workday has backtracked in the past on some controversial decisions as soon as enough noise comes from their customer base);

(b) Stick with it but then revisit its pricing policy along the lines of what I described in the previous paragraphs.

What should customers do
Two situations here:
1. Net new customer considering Workday:  Do NOT sign the purchase order. Put the decision on hold while waiting for Workday's final decision.

2. Current Workday customer considering a scope extension: Do NOT license any new product until Workday does either of the two options I mentioned earlier (and make them know in no uncertain terms what you think that option should be - after all, Workday always claimed it listens to the "Voice of the Customer"), so let them know that without GMS you cannot prove the ROI for a new product. Also, check whether one of your current modules or one you're considering (such as Extend) doesn't come with GMS.

Workday, like all software vendors, will take into account customer demands when they hit the bottom line. When Workday sees that its next quarter isn't as good as what it expected, then it will have second thoughts and will become amenable to its customers' views. But customers should not accept that Workday just turn into another Oracle or SAP fleecing its customers whenever it feels it has an opportunity. 

Workday already took a leaf out of its competitors' book when it started growing its product line via acquisitions and not organically, even though it always said it abhorred such an approach. It is high time the similarities stopped. 

(This is the latest in a Workday series of posts by the blogger. The most popular ones can be found on the right-hand panel. For a full list, scroll down to the list of all posts by year)