I think that every Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) offering should come with a mandatory label that reads: “WARNING: Does not easily or cheaply integrate with existing systems. Side Effects May Include: Lack of upgrade path, poor performance and a spider-web of dependencies. Please consult with your IT professional before implementing.”
Vendors should be unable to advertise on television or in magazines without putting this warning in big, bold letters. Heck, they should make people sign a waiver. And raise their insurance premiums.
Let me explain how I arrived at such a conclusion. Have you ever experienced one of those situations that left you wondering if someone had just given you a compliment or insulted you? I had a similar feeling after spending the last four days at the National Retail Federation (NRF) Really Big Show. It seemed like the most of the technology exhibitors were offering a “completely outsourced” service. Walking around as a columnist for StorefrontBackTalk (versus as an IT person), I was operating a bit undercover. A few vendors made comments similar to: “We help our partners by offering a completely outsourced solution so that IT is no longer a bottle-neck to achieving the results they deserve."
Whoa there, Silver; hold on a second. In every organization that I have worked for, the demand for the IT department has always been greater than the supply. No matter how large the staff or the budget, there just always seems to be more work than can be done. When many business units are looking to launch a technology, the IT department (or the steering committee) often tells them that the project will need to wait until a later date--when either the resources or the money is available. This is especially true in franchise environments, when the budgets don’t match the need because of the revenue model (I think I’ve harped on that topic enough to not go into more detail).
Have we come so far that we are now talking about IT “denying the business the results they deserve”?
I can imagine that this pitch is very well received by business units that are frustrated by not being able to implement technology that they feel will have significant impact on their business. I know that I would be extremely frustrated if another department was causing me not to achieve all the results that I could. But in the long term, these short-term fixes are only making it worse, and someone needs to make sure that our business partners know that.
As more outsourced point packages are implemented within an environment, the more the emphasis is placed on integration management. Integration is tough enough when all the systems are in-house. When you add disparate technologies (because the service providers don’t standardize on a single technology set just for you), separate companies (that now have to be coordinated with when there is any change) and feature overlap (each one of these products offers some functionality that another system already provides), it can really become a problem.
The IT team is now forced to spend more time and money on making sure that its systems all play nice with each other. Integration starts overtaking all of the other aspects of IT, and less time is spent on developing new offerings.
During a few conversations with other IT folk at the NRF show, we talked about how much time we spend managing existing systems versus implementing new ones. Some estimates were as high as 80 percent of resources and dollars are being used to maintain existing systems versus innovating and implementing new systems. That is much higher than the 50/50 or 60/40 split that everyone used to quote.
So what can we do? I strongly recommend that the IT people band together to implement this new warning label immediately. I’ll even start the petition. Be on the lookout for the “Fairness in IT Disclosure” Act and make sure that you join the cause. (Insert patriotic music here.) “I’m Todd L. Michaud and I support this message.” Please E-mail [email protected].