spend matters spend matters About this site
Advertise with Spend Matters
Advertise with Spend Matters
 

July 29, 2010

 

Ariba's Legacy Base -- In Want of Kinder, Gentler Contractual Hands

Over on the Gartner blog site, Debbie Wilson has dangled out a few of the details from a $95 research brief that suggests she's been busy fielding inquiries from irked Ariba customers. What's their cause for such spend consternation? Debbie sums up what we've all been hearing in the market by noting that "Ariba's on-premises 8.2, and 4.4 and earlier products moved to Ariba's Retired Product Service Program on 30 June 2009, a year after it released its 9r1 product series." Moreover, "Ariba announced that support for versions prior to 9r1 ends 31 December 2010." Now, it would be easy to read this as a not-well thought out move designed to force the hand of older Ariba shops (Version 8.0 of Buyer dates back to 2002 timeframe if you're curious about some history here). Perhaps it isn't, but I did some additional homework and the situation is not black and white. Moreover, there appear to be segments of the market that are quite vocal in voicing their opposition to Ariba's plans and argue that Ariba was too quick to require a move, and others who seem to be accepting of an eventual migration approach. Debbie paints one extreme. Perhaps reality falls somewhere in the middle.



For example, I'm not sure if I entirely agree with Debbie that Ariba did not provide adequate notice of products and support earlier. In her post, Debbie writes: "Its [SIC] also a good heads up to vendors that it is in your best interest to help customers plan as far in advance as possible for upgrades". Did Ariba do this? If you talk to Ariba, they claim they did, providing 2 years advanced notice of any required upgrades. If you talk to some of their customers who are less than pleased, it sounds like they did not, or at least they failed to adequately communicate earlier in the process. I recently had the chance to speak to Ariba's Jon Stevens, who runs consulting services, and confronted him with a few recent examples that I've personally heard about where customers were quite irked at Ariba's forced migration plans. Jon told me that as early as 2008 at Ariba LIVE (April/May timeframe) that Ariba began to formally announce its upgrade plans. According to Jon, "we reminded customers at the time [about their original contract commitment]" which would require them to eventually move off unsupported products as new releases came out.

Jon shared that this upgrade/migration decision impacts 200 legacy installed Ariba customers. One of Ariba's guiding principles in these discussions has been to "be flexible with each customer" in their upgrade plans. Have they been? It sounds like in most cases they have because there doesn't appear to be more than a dozen vocal customers voicing strong opposition. However, I know of some customers who feel they were being "forced" or "pressured" into a situation where they did not want to go based on milestone migration dates and penalties in maintenance agreements. When I told Jon this, he suggested that any customer who feels this way should escalate the issue past their account executive and that Ariba is committed to maintaining flexibility and being reasonable in their dealings. He also mentioned that upgrading could save customers money because new releases are easier to manage internally, require less hardware and third-party support and are better integrated with the rest of the Ariba suite.

So what gives in this situation? Ariba is clearly behaving like an enterprise software company, forcing the contractual hand of customers, as is their right. But it's clear that they're not always handling it in the best of ways (some lessons from the Dave Duffield soft hands school of customer management might be in order). Yet, it's also quite obvious that the higher you go in the organization at Ariba, the more they appear committed to being flexible and maintaining relationships at all costs. What does this mean for customers?

In my view, Ariba customers need to remember that they're in the driver's seat here (despite how some reps might be treating them). If you're upset with how Ariba is treating you over the sun-setting on support and contractual upgrade requirements, the best way to approach the situation is to escalate the issue at Ariba, having done your homework and developed alternatives -- that you're willing to go with -- and then head back to the negotiating table. Don't get upset. Play the game.

Ariba knows that if they lose too many customers, it won't look good on the street. They also don't want a bunch of former customers telling their new vendors who have replaced Ariba to call folks like me to highlight the off-Ariba migration success stories. Simply put, if Ariba knows you're upset or are considering options, they'll do even more to not let that happen. But as is the case in any vendor discussion / negotiation like this, you need to truly be ready to run out of the spend management door, yelling "¡Ándale! ¡Ándale! ¡Arriba! ¡Arriba!" to have them put their best negotiating foot forward. Don't worry. They will. And if you're among those who are upset, it's clear from my conversation with Jon that the higher-ups at your favorite Sunnyvale vendor want to hear directly from you.

- Jason Busch


TweetBacks
Comments
tech spend lurker's Gravatar Procurement will always bitch and moan about vendors, tech or otherwise, if they don't get exactly what they want. Ariba is no saint with these practices but you need to look at who is pushing back on them. As a technology buyer who does not work in procurement but interfaces with them, I almost feel sorry for vendors.
# Posted By tech spend lurker | 11/4/09 6:21 AM
sir donald's Gravatar He who has not sinned cast the first stone. Typical behavior for a dominant SW provider. Typical comment from an IT maverick. And typical behavior from a run of the mill procurement department. Collaboration is the holy grail gentlemen. The sum of the whole is greater than the parts with the right leadership. Does the eye look at the ear and say "But you cannot see?"
# Posted By sir donald | 11/4/09 2:43 PM
Glad scheme based approval rules are gone's Gravatar As a customer on an older version, I don't have a big issue with them discountinuing support of pre-9R1 versions because, quite frankly, we don't receive a ton of technical support from them anyway (at least not for the last few years). We could probably accept the risk and live for quite some time without any support from them. The issue I have is the threat that they will turn off our access to the Ariba Supplier Network, effectively crippling our connection to the suppliers that we have worked so hard to establish connections with.

That said, I personally believe that they have given plenty of notice. Anyone that says otherwise needs only to login to the Ariba support site, check their old emails, review their contracts, etc.
# Posted By Glad scheme based approval rules are gone | 11/5/09 2:23 PM
Max's Gravatar Your analysis is fair enough. But for the sake of complete transparency, I think it's also fair to mention that Ariba is one of your associate sponsors.
# Posted By Max | 11/6/09 3:13 AM
Jason Busch's Gravatar Max,

I often try to point this out in posts, especially when they're erring to the positive side (it's always pointed out in my disclosures on the right, BTW). But maybe I should always note this specifically at the end of posts. I just haven't gone that far to think about it each time. Regardless, I have no problems throwing anyone under the bus if they don't deserve a free ride (or upgrading someone to first who has not paid a penny).
# Posted By Jason Busch | 11/6/09 3:36 AM
David Dobrin's Gravatar Jason, the major reason for all this pressure is to get customers to move to the on-demand versions of the software. By raising maintenance costs (something you don't mention) and by suddenly increasing the pressure on customers, they make the upgrade attractive.

Jon, of course, mentions this to you, and I can assure it is also being mentioned to every customer.

So is this a good, customer friendly thing, getting them onto the superior software and software delivery model for their own good? Or is this a way to increase the software subscription revenue that Wall Street uses to judge Ariba's success? I don't know. It depends on how you read the company. You know Bob. What do you think? Is he doing this to help the customers out or to bring the stock price up as quickly as he can?
# Posted By David Dobrin | 11/6/09 12:11 PM
Jason Busch's Gravatar David,

I think your argument is wrong in one respect -- many of the Buyer implementations are quite customized and the systems integration hurdles folks originally jumped through in some cases would make it all but impossible to move to SaaS. I'd guess that over 25% of the existing Buyer base would have a hard-time with the transition -- maybe more and at least 15-20% could not make it given the existing integration constraints of Ariba SaaS P2P.

These numbers are guesses. But as much as Bob wants this for Wall Street, I think it would be a harder transition for many than it looks. The CD upgrade is going to be Ariba's best shot at retaining a lot of these larger and more complicated deployments.

Over and out, captain. Sorry I missed you in Boston but I was scheduled back-to-back-to-back-to-back. How is our mutual Harvard Square friend?
# Posted By Jason Busch | 11/6/09 12:26 PM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us   © 2004-2010 Spend Matters, LP All rights reserved