A note to Enterprise Software Vendors, FWIW

I don’t focus on product launches or ‘breaking news’ here on Pretzel Logic. I have a full plate on the work front.

The two exceptions when I not only cover but downright celebrate product innovation are:

  • If I see traditional application or enterprise 2.0/social software vendors having the chutzpah to even attempt performance acceleration via the combination of process + social. You still need a strategy and plan but it makes execution a hell of a lot easier if the software is designed to account for context. See this on Chatter, for size.
  • When enterprise 2.0 products take existing business functions in the enterprise and improve insight and diagnostics for managers to improve decision making and reduce business risk. See this on new opportunities that social software bring to improve Employee Performance Management.

That said, I’m fortunate to see plenty of demos and hear how the product does in fact accelerate organizational performance and why my readers or clients should care.

I’ve only recently taken to getting briefed by vendors but I spent many years in technology sourcing starting with my days as the practice lead of west coast tech strategy consulting group at marchFIRST (USWeb/CKS) and that continues until today. And our firm(s) remained retained through system deployment so we couldn’t skip town after presenting a vendor recommendation in a pretty PowerPoint to the customer. As a result, separating wheat from chaff when a vendor is presenting is second nature to me.

After sitting through presentations and demo after demo here’s one situation that I see over and over again. To the degree that you are doing this, I hope you consider this as constructive feedback. Here goes…

Stop raving about your product in the context of it’s last incarnation.

Over exuberant product managers, often weighed down by the baggage of the last version get very excited about why this version is better. And how it does so much that the previous version did not do. And quickly proceed to declare it as ‘game changing’.

If it’s game changing, it better be game changing in the context of:

  • first, performance objectives that are keeping customers in your target market up at night
  • second, the competitive landscape and installed base at the customer and in that context, how compelling your offering is to successfully overcome the switching cost of moving to your application. Hard cost as well as soft costs (culture & change management)

Your last release or update is already obsolete in technology years and for the most part, its a pretty weak baseline to benchmark against. Whilst its tempting and human nature to realize “how far you’ve come”, customers don’t buy based on that. They might appreciate the progress. But its not enough to cut the check. Same goes for influencers and analysts that can spread the word for you.

What’s ironic is that good product managers in fact start with market and competitive research to build a business case. Then move on to understanding how new features and capabilities change the existing release. But when they present and showcase, they forget all that hard work done to assess the opportunity and gaps in the market. And proceed to do a feature shoot out with their previous version.

After a decade of buying big ticket software and not necessarily seeing the ROI, buyers are more sensitive to ensuring stringent vendor evaluations than ever. This is one simple but very rectifiable measure. 


Written on: 04-07-10 · Written by: Sameer Patel · 6 Comments »

This entry is filed under Enterprise and Social Sofware. Connect on .

  • http://twitter.com/michaelkieran Michael Kieran

    You make some good points here Sameer.
    I can't speak for my employer (Socialtext), but I think our use of agile development (releasing a new version once per month) shifts the focus from “game-changing features” to continuous improvement. And it lets the product management team create three-month and six-month roadmaps that are reliable (in terms of customer expectations) but flexible, in the face of dynamic change in the market for enterprise software.

  • http://www.nitinbadjatia.com nitinbadjatia

    As Michael states below, I think this is reflective of an earlier time, one where constant improvement wasn't the norm. It also reflects an outmoded philosophy of marketing, which unfortunately, is still followed by to many enterprise vendors.

  • http://www.twitter.com/sameerpatel Sameer

    Hi Michael
    Thanks for the comment. Honestly, in my experience, HOW its developed has little to do with how its marketed. Regardless of waterfall or agile, when its time to present new releases, there is still too much comparison with legacy versions and legacy thinking. No doubt an existing customer wants to hear why the new version is better than the old one. But to pull the trigger, they need to know how it sets them up to play in the market better.

  • http://www.twitter.com/sameerpatel Sameer

    Hi Michael
    Thanks for the comment. Honestly, in my experience, HOW its developed has little to do with how its marketed. Regardless of waterfall or agile, when its time to present new releases, there is still too much comparison with legacy versions and legacy thinking. No doubt an existing customer wants to hear why the new version is better than the old one. But to pull the trigger, they need to know how it sets them up to play in the market better.

  • http://www.twitter.com/sameerpatel Sameer

    You're right. It may reflect an earlier marketing philosophy. Though again, nothing to do with how development takes place. Thats my observation at least and the impetus behind this writing post.

  • http://www.air-jordan-21.net air jordan 21

    Here elaborates the matter not only extensively but also detailly .I support the
    write's unique point.It is useful and new balance a20 Navajo benefit to your daily life.You can go those
    sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by friends.Personally