At Sage Summit 2015 earlier this week, new CEO Steven Kelly announced the company would drop the moniker ERP from its product names. Sage NA CTO Himanshu Pasule followed up by announcing that ERP is dead. This announcement produced a mixed response. There was some applause (ding dong the wicked witch is dead!) There were some shrugs (I don’t really care what you call it.) In conversations with clients I got some eye rolls and one actually said, “This too will pass.” My reaction? Yes, we need new ways of designing, delivering, consuming and innovating ERP. But you don’t say the automobile is dead just because there are some old clunkers still on the road.
Of course proclaiming ERP to be dead is not new news. Headlines along these lines started appearing shortly after Y2K (which proved to be somewhat of a non-event.) They were attention grabbing for a while and then they began to fade away, only to reappear periodically. So… with this revival does Sage intend to stop selling products that have been labeled “ERP?” No. It just won’t call them that anymore, explaining that instead of standing for Enterprise Resource Planning, what ERP really means is “Expense, Regret, Pain.”
Thanks to Derek du Preez of Diginomica who actually captured Mr. Kelly’s quote: “We believe ERP is a 25 year old industry term, characterised by cost overrun, and in some cases even business ruin, that has been imposed on you for the benefit of others.
“To the finance directors of the world, ERP stands for Expense, Regret, Pain. Sadly our industry has a long history of invasive, disruptive initiatives that have been carried out at the expense of their customers.”
Hearing this or reading it, you somehow get the sense that all ERP implementations are failures. I would disagree and can share some very impressive results from those I have determined to be “World Class.”
You also might get the sense Mr. Kelly was implying this involved some malicious intent – certainly not by Sage, but by all those other ERP vendors. Personally I think a lot of ERP vendors did the best they could with the technology they had available at any given time. But that technology is nothing like what is available today, just as the Model T is nothing like the Masserati, or even the Ford Taurus today.
Old, monolithic ERP solutions have been notorious for being hard to implement, harder to use and sometimes impossible to change as business conditions and businesses themselves change. Over time they have grown more complex and more unwieldy. I agree we need to fix that. Today the industry must find new ways to design, develop, implement and run these systems if they are going to keep pace with the rapid evolution of both technology and business today.
We need solutions that are easier to consume, using new ways of engaging users, over a wide range of devices. We need software that can be easily extended and/or configured without invasive customization that builds barriers to innovation. And we need more innovation, but it must be easier to consume with less disruption to the business. And finally, we need better integration capabilities.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should if you have been following me for the past couple of years. This just happens to be how I describe and define Next Generation ERP. Type that in the search box on my blog and you’ll get lots to choose from, starting with this first post. Could I have labeled it something other than ERP? Sure, I could have named it with the symbol . But if anyone referred to , they would always add, “used to be called ERP.” So I didn’t bother. Maybe we could start just calling it “the software previously known as ERP.” It seemed to work for Prince for a while, but ultimately he went back to being known as Prince.
Some are suggesting it be called Business Management Systems, although that too is far from new. Many have tried using this term in the past and it just hasn’t caught on, largely because those using the term tended not to have a complete ERP solution and were also targeting very small companies that typically lived in fear of ERP. So that sort of sets a precedent, and not one that is to Sage’s advantage.
And in an industry so enamored of acronyms, Business Management Systems would become BMS. So perhaps the reason it never caught on was in part based on the fear we would soon lose the “M” and we all know what BS stands for… again, not particularly advantageous.
In the end, ERP is simply a convenient label for software that runs your business, although I do use a more specific definition:
ERP is an integrated suite of modules that forms the operational and transactional system of record of the business.
This includes the customer order, which seems to be missing from Sage’s declared focus on the “Golden Triangle” of accounting, payroll and payment systems. Indeed it is typically the management of the customer order that sets a full ERP apart from a financial/accounting only solution. While some of Sage’s products are definitely accounting only, Sage assures me the intent was not to exclude the customer order and does include the full system of record in its Golden Triangle. So customers and prospects can feel safe in assuming at least some of the Sage products will continue to deliver on my definition of ERP.
Note also that my definition is intentionally quite broad. It needs to be, simply because the operational and transactional needs will vary quite significantly depending on the very nature of the business. You can’t run a service business like a manufacturing or distribution business. Retailers, government and non-profits all have their own unique requirements.
ERP evolved from MRP, which was originally short for material requirements planning, but later expanded to become manufacturing resource planning and then eventually grew beyond the realm of manufacturing to encompass the entire enterprise – any kind of enterprise, in any kind of industry. While some ERP vendors do have a very narrow vertical focus, others have taken a more horizontal approach. This has resulted in broader solutions designed to satisfy so many different needs that any one company winds up using only a small fraction of the full functionality. Not only are they encumbered by all that functionality they don’t use, but also there still might be gaps in meeting their specific requirements. So ERP winds up being too much and not enough, all at the same time.
This situation is also clearly exasperated by the fact that the footprint of ERP has grown to the point where it is getting more and more difficult to determine where ERP ends and other applications begin. Functions like performance management, talent and human capital management, etc, that used to sit squarely outside of ERP, today might sit either inside or outside that boundary. To be considered part of the ERP solution they must be seamlessly integrated. That used to mean tight integration that required the whole system to move forward in lock step, which made it rigid and very hard to upgrade. ERP users increasingly felt like they were steering a battleship, understandably so.
Expanding footprints, combined with a broader range of industries means complexity no longer grows linearly, but exponentially. Which I believe is the real problem Sage is attempting to solve. Changing the label won’t fix that. Taking full advantage of enabling technology and changing the way you design, develop, package and deliver it will.
I also believe Sage is making tremendous progress in making these changes, but that progress and the value actually being delivered to its customers is being overshadowed by the rhetoric around the death of ERP. Sage’s journey began several years ago under the guise of “hybrid cloud.” In a nutshell, this approach left on-premise ERP solutions in place and surrounded them with cloud-based connected services. The advantage was to allow customers to migrate pieces of their information systems to the cloud over time.
But there was yet another advantage to this approach, one that I wrote about most recently in describing Sage’s approach to Next Generation ERP. This component-based approach allows Sage to deliver more innovation by extending or complementing existing solutions rather than continually mucking around in the original code base. Today seamless integration can be delivered without old-style tight integration. A more component-based approach is typically referred to as “loosely coupled.” If you aren’t familiar with that term, you might want to read through my 4-part series on Next Generation ERP. For purposes here it is suffice to say that this approach allows you to consume more innovation, with less disruption.
Sage began to take a more component-based approach to development with its “hybrid cloud” strategy. Not only did this facilitate the addition of features and functions without invasive changes to the original code base(s), it also allowed Sage to develop new features and functions once and let different products and product lines take advantage of that effort. That means more innovation and easier integration.
This is also something Sage is getting better at in general. It began to implement rapid application development (RAD) methodologies about two years ago and is really starting to hit its stride. Its goal is to offer two upgrades each year. Of course, the real question will be whether its customers can and will pick up these new releases at an increased pace. According to the results of the 2015 Mint Jutras Enterprise Solution Study, 30% of respondents running on-premise or hosted solutions still skip releases and 11% would actually prefer to stay where they are forever.
This changes however as companies move to a SaaS deployment model (Figure 1). It is much easier to deliver more innovation, more frequently in a SaaS model. And there are fewer barriers to consumption because the SaaS provider does all the heavy lifting when it comes to upgrading the software.
Figure 1: Approach to Consuming Innovation in a SaaS Model
After several years of promoting the concept of “hybrid cloud,” with an on-premise ERP at the core, Sage is moving more aggressively to SaaS, although it is still fully supportive on on-premise deployments. Sage X3 is a perfect example. As of its 7.0 release about a year ago, X3 became a true multi-tenant SaaS solution, although it does provide single tenancy at the data base level (which allows for portability between on-premise and cloud and supports extension of the data model). More recently it announced the official launch of Sage X3 Cloud on Amazon Web Services (AWS).
With this introduction, Sage will be competing more directly with SaaS only ERP providers. Those SaaS-only solution providers that offer multi-tenant solutions are able to deliver more innovation, with higher frequency, because they have the luxury of only having to maintain one line of code. Those that offer both cloud and on-premise versions must minimally support multiple releases (and often offer solutions on different databases and operating systems). Sage has indeed been gearing up for this and the proposed 6-month release cycle is evidence of very good progress.
Further evidence of Sage’s ability to innovate faster is the introduction of several new products including Sage Live, a brand new “real time accounting solution” built on the Salesforce1 platform and brought to market in months, not years. While existing customers don’t benefit directly from this product, they do benefit indirectly. Not only does this demonstrate Sage’s ability to apply RAD methodologies and new technologies (like those capabilities provided by the Salesforce1 development platform), but presumably other product like X3 will indirectly benefit from components developed for Sage Live that might easily be incorporated into the X3 landscape. As Himanshu described, “First the very high end, luxury cars introduce heated seats and pretty soon they become a standard feature.”
Let me repeat my initial reaction to Sage’s proclamation of the death of ERP: Yes, we need new ways of designing, delivering, consuming and innovating ERP. But you don’t say the automobile is dead just because there are some old clunkers still on the road. When it comes to solutions that help (or hinder us) in running our businesses, there are a lot of clunkers on the road today. Many were hard to implement, and are even harder to use and sometimes impossible to change as business conditions and businesses themselves change. Over time they have grown more complex and more unwieldy. I agree we need to fix that. Solution providers, including Sage, have made some great strides in doing that.
Those still driving those old clunkers should definitely think about trading them in. Those with some pretty good engines should look to turbo-charge them. ERP is a convenient label for the software that runs businesses across the globe today. Does it really need a new name? If so, I think we should call it Fred.