Why doesn´t this surprise me
March 16 2006
Over at Paul Mooney's blog, he's shared the contents of an e-mail from a Notes customer. The customer describes their experience with Microsoft and the Application Analzyer for Lotus Notes:
had to setup a workstation to run the analyser and before Microsoft came in I ran the analyser on all our apps (approx 500 and my results were 100% completely different than the results Microsoft presented. I had approx 200 apps in quad 3 and approx 300 apps in quad 4.Actually, I have a proposal, which I haven't vetted with IBMers but suspect I could make happen.
Microsoft had all the apps in Quad 1 and Quad 2, mostly in Quad 1.
We have all custom apps created since notes 4, we don't use standard templates and at least 300 have workflow in them.
I am basically hung out to dry here. How do I compete with the reporting Microsoft did?
What if IBM, or an IBM partner, offered to come in and run the tool for this customer? If indeed the results being presented are different than the "out of the box" Analyzer results, at a minimum it will raise questions. It may be that the reporting tool needs some tuning to run accurately in a customer environment, but if Microsoft's results are so different, the rest of the discussion get challenged.
The sad news here is we have an exact scenario that both Paul and I suspected would play out: a customizable tool gets different results depending on who runs them. This from the vendor who wants to be the customer's partner for the future.
Post a Comment
- 2
Rick Sizemore | 3/16/2006 10:47:34 AM
I'd say if you run the tool internally and get very different result than MS reports with the same tool, and management decides to go with MS. Then you make sure you include a performance section in the contract that MS is responsible for converting all applications for a fixed fee. That way if there is an over run, which there will be, it's on their dime.
Of course, just having to justify the delta in difficulty should give any sane person pause as to whether it's a good idea or not.
At them end of the day, you still just have email with Exchange, you need 10 other products to replace Domino, so you end up with both for the next 5 year....the positive TCO was what exactly....?
- 3
Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 3/16/2006 11:11:13 AM
@2 Rick, as I said on Paul's blog, fixed fee isn't good enough here...MS could always over-run the fee but take longer than committed to get it done. And either way, it still doesn't matter, when they get to the point in the project where it is clear they can't do what was promised, they will be past the point of no return. Which is the point.
- 4
Bill Brown | 3/16/2006 3:15:48 PM
Get the config file used, run it yourself to prove that they didn't just edit the results, and then analyse the config for how they are skewing the results.
- 5
Rick | 3/16/2006 3:41:57 PM
At the risk of sounding cynical, it sounds to me as if the folks at the top have made up their mind and are basically looking for "data" to support their conclusion.
So ask them to pick an app that they've decided falls into Category I and convert it. Consider it a "pilot" project. I suspect that, regardless of the result, the move to MS will grind on.
- 6
Ben Rose http://www.jaffacake.net | 3/16/2006 5:58:08 PM
Just invite MS & IBM to the same meeting room and ask them to present their own case.
If either party fails to show then you've proved your point.
I'm a big fan of getting competing vendors in the same room, it's like hustings at an election.
- 7
David Bell | 3/16/2006 6:51:29 PM
@6 - can we bring our yellow gloves for this tete-a-tete ?
- 8
Gennady | 3/17/2006 1:01:06 AM
The sad thing that it has come to this.
This tool would be irrelevant if IBM were the aggressor converting Exchange sites.
In my opinion IBM has to do what MS is so great at doing -- create some great software bundles and really go after competitors.
More sites with Notes/Domino more opportunities to sell IBM services.
Just improving the software does not work. OS/2 was better than Windows. 123 was better than Excel. Gupta and PowerBuilder were better than Visual Basic.
When the product has lost the status of industry standard even giving the product away would not get many new clients.
- 9
Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 3/17/2006 3:14:11 AM
I don't even get what value Microsoft are trying to provide... take your Domino apps and convert them to Microsoft apps. Spend time and money, and you get what exactly? To make it worthwhile there has to be a return on investment that first cancels out the cost and effort of migration, and then continues to improve the business applications and the cost of ownership in the future. That's basic business sense. Any other vendor coming in with a zero-value proposition would be shown the door.
IBM ought to do this... create a SharePoint application analyser. Run it against some SharePoint applications, and let it report that it'll be easy to convert them to Domino and improve them at the same time. It'll be no more believable than Microsoft's tool, and maybe it'll get people thinking about the level of credibility. On the other hand, I'd like to believe that IBM wouldn't stoop so low.
- 10
Sean Jennings | 3/17/2006 5:53:10 AM
To extrapolate upon the yellow boxing gloves campaign... it seems at times IBM is boxing skillfully and abiding by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, whereas MicroSoft is wearing knuckledusters and and punching below the belt like a streetfighter...
- 11
Axel | 3/17/2006 6:36:21 AM
Agree with Gennady & Darren:
IBM could build a similar tool for Sharepoint. As there are rumours that this product won't receive update until 2007 it might be worth the effort.
Alternative would be to really have good material to show people that such tool is 100% snake oil.
I think that any person with a bit of real IT experience will never believe that mumbo jumbo about automatic tool & 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quadrant.
Nevertheless there are certainly managers in whose perception of "professional IT" such tool might fit fine.
- 12
Thomas Schulte | 3/17/2006 6:57:25 AM
And this is the latest message from Microsoft.
"Do not build better products but throw your money at making people believe you are better than your competitors."
{ Link }
Announced in germany as
"Microsoft startet Marketing-Offensive gegen IBM"
Translated:
"Microsoft starts marketing-campaign aimed at IBM customers"
by one of the most read IT Periodicals.
{ Link }
The best summary is the first paragraph. If anyone wants i will translate it.
- 13
Adam Brown www.isw.net.au | 3/17/2006 6:58:54 AM
@8 I agree regarding the bundling. IBM should be able to leverage of its existing hardware and software clients to promote more of its own solutions. While this does happen sometimes ti seems to me that some of the bundling/offers is really missing the point. A case in point is Tivoli's Storage Manager Express. This product is targetted to compete head to head with products like Symantec/Veritas Backup Exec. The pricing is great but it is purely for Microsoft environments. ie If you have exchange you can buy TSM Express. If you have Domino you need to buy the more expensive TSM Standard Edn. I find it incredible that if you have a microsoft solution you get better pricing from IBM than you do if you already have an IBM product.
IBM has a fantastic opportunity to leverage off its existing client base however pricing like this certainly doesn't help.
- 14
Patrik | 3/17/2006 8:29:36 AM
To convert Notes apps to Microsoft land seems like utter madness right now. Why PAY for extended customer lock in!? Exchange, Sharepoint etc. is Windows only. Domino runs on both Windows and Linux and soon Notes will as well. And even if you don't even consider to migrate to Linux, it is still soo good to have that nail in the eye of MS when negotiating license fees.
As for the App analyzer it is complete and utter FUD. That has been proven. And no company with the slightest self respect should release such a moronic tool (IMHO). But none the less the stupidity of people in general and in upper management specifically is very easy to underestimate sometimes. And these obviously fabricated results can sadly be taken seriously by some I'm afraid.
- 15
Nathan T. Freeman | 3/17/2006 9:25:51 AM
@14 - This kind of abuse of position will remain the standard as long as public corporations are not required to independently audit IT expenditures. If and when CIOs become responsible for ROI to boards, then you'll see some of this change. But until then, it's all essentially a kickback scenario, where MS can effectively bribe a CxO to be an all-MS enterprise with all kinds of special perks. Since it's not his money at stake, and no one has to really reflect IT ROI on financial statements, it makes no difference. It's nice to get box seats to get crap like box seats to sporting events on someone else's nickel. And you're not going to get fired because you trusted the richest entrepreneur on the planet. At least not until the company start hemmoraging money.
Truth is, there was a time when the same thing happened with IBM. It's the nature of disconnected ownership. It's not likely to change unless shareholders start demanding audits of operational expenditures beyond pure financial statements. The only thing that IBM can really do is to either a) shame those decision makers into acting honestly in the best interests of the enterprise; or b) create an atmosphere of expectation by shareholders that these kind of expenses have justifiable ROI.
Everything else is just a classic moral hazard problem.
- 16
David Price | 3/17/2006 9:41:40 AM
On the same subject as bundling, Lotus should build components and databases that make the transition from Outlook/Exchange to Notes/Domino really transparent. I am thinking about adding a voting feature similar to the message pad. I know OpenNTF is a good place to start but I think Lotus should contribute/support this idea.
How typically Microsoftian. Afraid of not seeing themselves in the upper right quadrant of anything.