Finding alternatives

The bewilderment was visible to everyone who even glanced at the face; not that too many people were in the room, but everyone could clearly see the expression on the face of the Chairman. The trigger was the suggestion that the big ERP that has worked well for almost a decade should be discarded in favor of another one. The animated voice and high throughput beyond the normal diction made it difficult to comprehend the entire story. So I slowed down my friend the CIO of a fast growing enterprise and asked him to begin from where else, but the beginning.

Over the last year or so there was a rumbling of discontent about the lack of adequate support and the rising cost of licenses and annual support. The problem was brought to the forefront when after a version upgrade necessitated by end of support announcement, the system started behaving abnormally with earlier functioning features now working differently. Stability took a long time to achieve.

On the other side another function was struggling to support the continuously increasing license and support costs. The thought of additional functionality and modules was abandoned upon hearing the new licensing norms. This indeed creates a difficult scenario for the CIO and the CXO to contemplate the future. As the company grows, how to ensure that the efficiencies gained thus far are not lost ? How to control the ever increasing burden of Business As Usual ? The ratios of BAU to new initiatives were in favor but slowly sliding.

So the CIO called his team and started exploring alternatives. Can the already good discounts from the vendor be improved upon ? Is it possible to move away from per user license to something better ? What if we exclude a section of employees from the technology solution ? Would the enterprise technology architecture become complex if multiple solutions were deployed ? Would the cloud make any difference to the outflow ?

That is how the recommendation came up that the current technology stack be replaced with a competing product which offered (at least on paper) better TCO. And the CIO decided to raise the question with the management which led to the scenario above. The CIO had done his homework by talking to the respective functions and gaining their grudging nods. But the scale of change scared everyone.

We all know that change is not something anyone likes despite whatever pains may be currently plaguing the process, function or enterprise. It takes a lot of effort to even get the idea to gain traction. We discussed the merits and pitfalls of the proposal and agreed that there is no easy way out. The change will be transformational also providing an opportunity to kill a few “this is the way it is done here” kinds of processes. The TCO over the next 5 years with the projected growth did indeed demonstrate more than 30% reduction.

Reinvigorated the CIO agreed to push ahead armed with confidence that he was on the right track and that the change agenda will indeed benefit the enterprise in the long run. Would you do the same if faced with this challenge ?

The list price conundrum

With the economy tightening again and uncertainty across geographies, enterprise spending is once again under focus; this is giving rise to some interesting discussions. Driven by the CFO, CEO, and CIO who are exploring deferred investments or the usual doing more with less, the discussions translate into unrealistic (as griped by vendors) expectations from suppliers, vendors and partners to provide goods and services at higher discounts.

Result is rounds of moaning and groaning from either side citing their versions of reality and pushing the limit beyond the last transaction. The promise of future and making up the deficit in the long term does bend most; few who do not oblige sometimes are rewarded and more often it is an opportunity lost. The resultant business creates suspicion if earlier everyone was enjoying higher margins than they should.

In the IT world, I never heard of anyone paying list price on anything that they bought. In normal times discount levels used to range from the nominal 10% to in many cases as high as 70%. It was a rare one time transaction that enjoyed higher numbers. The list price was a marker to decide whose need was higher and who had more patience. Month end, quarter end and year ends provide opportunities offering higher levels of business and discounts. Again almost everyone recognizes this and plays the game.

In the last slowdown or recession depending on which part of the world or which industry you belonged to, a few companies breached 90%. There are anecdotes about free solutions being provided to a few marquee customers either as an entry price or to sustain business. Free is a paradigm shift though the way some vendors are hiking their annual maintenance charges, free does not seem too unreasonable considering that in 3-5 years you have paid as much as the initial acquisition cost.

So why do vendors continue to print a list price which has irrational numbers and then offer a discount ? Maybe to acquiesce human nature which revels on a deal ? Purchase managers and CIOs work on reducing prices every year. Volume typically adds to the discount but is not the only determinant. Benchmarking across the geographies I find that the level of discount rises from west to the east and then again slides with India and China being the trough. Despite this trend, I haven’t seen a gold rush to shift license contracts from other countries to take advantage.

The current uncertainty has once again brought budgets into focus. Slowdown in customer spending is already impacting retail consumption and thereby every industry. Going into budget sessions, the expectation is to once again lower expenses and investments. We still have inflationary trends is many countries and wages are going up for some, while cost of living continues to go up. But the question that haunts me is if there is indeed so much of buffer that every time the challenge is thrown, people find a way of adjusting to new baselines, then how did the same people allow higher expenses in easier times?

As goes the proverb, “Mother is the necessity of invention”, I believe that with every challenge new opportunities are explored and leveraged on operational efficiency. Technology evolution with new disruptions contributes to improvements; return ratios are however reducing and we are reaching a point where the stretch will reach a break point. We will achieve the pit bottoms sooner than later; the list price will then have to change. Whether it will go up or down is another debate.