Feb 28, 2008
One of the main services that I provide my clients is help with software selection. Usually the first piece of work is to clarify requirements and establish a short list of software to consider. Then I am often asked to manage the selection process. In this role I have two goals: to help all the products make the best impression possible (when they look good, I look good for bringing them in), and to make the choice easy for my client. I do the latter by helping each supplier present to their strengths. When different products have different strengths (and they always do) the demonstrations help the client identify which of their requirements are the most important and what compromises are acceptable.
During the selection process, each vendor frequently asks in direct and indirect ways who they are up against. I understand why they want to know. I have been in their shoes and I know it is nice to know "the enemy" and where your relative strengths and weaknesses are. They also want to know if they have a chance and how they should price. However, I tend not to provide that information and this is why... I want each vendor to focus on the client and what they bring to solve the client's problems. I don't want them to worry about the strengths of their opponent because that leads to two behaviors. First, it causes them to try to exploit a weakness of the other products by drawing attention to features or characteristics that the other products lack (whether they are relevant or not). Second, it causes them to try to disguise their weaknesses by downplaying the importance of a feature or pretending their capability is actually better than it is.
The net result is that every vendor's pitch turns into something like "we are just as good as they are but better." To the client, the products start looking the same and, as I mentioned earlier, that is not what I want.
I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this. Please discuss...
Feb 27, 2008
Congratulations to my former colleague Jeff Potts for being named Alfresco North American Contributor of the Year in Alfresco's Content Excellence Awards! Jeff leads the content management practice for Optaros, which won the award for International Partner of the Year. Optaros client Endeca won implementation of the year. You can hear the case study here.
Rivet Logic won the North American Partner of the Year. They have been doing a bunch of projects using Alfresco's new WCM capabilities. Amplexor took honors for European Partner of the year.
The awards will be presented at the Alfresco Community Conferences in San Jose, CA (March 12) and Barcelona, Spain (April 22).
Feb 27, 2008
I just got word that there is 3 for 2 discount at the upcoming Content Convergence and Integration conference in Vancouver. Buy two full price registrations and get the third free. To get the discount call 1-604-696-1993, ext. 1.
Feb 27, 2008
Alkacon Software just announced that they are holding open training for OpenCms. At the moment, the five day classes are only being delivered in Cologne but, with sufficient demand, they may be held in other venues.
The curriculum is designed for developers with sections on writing templates and using the OpenCms API. Presumably, end users get an abbreviated customized training on their own implementation.
OpenCms is one of the better documented open source CMS projects and I hear that a book on the new version 7 is in the works. I have not been to an onsite OpenCms training, but the establishment of public training indicates that Alkacon has a repeatable and formal training curriculum.
A partner network and user community exist in the U.S. but not to the same level as Germany and the rest of Europe. A big part of that is that OpenCms development and services primarily revolve around Alkacon Software and Alkacon has not pursued the U.S. market aggressively. Perhaps Alkacon will partner with a few of the U.S. systems integrators to deliver the training as Alfresco has done with Rivet Logic.
For more information on OpenCms, the OpenCms evaluation from the Open Source Web Content Management in Java report is available for individual purchase on the reports page.
Feb 26, 2008
I have been planning some trips for upcoming conferences. Here is my schedule for the next couple of months.
There are also some conferences that I would love to attend but will sadly miss. In particular:
I might try to make it to the Web 2.0 Web Expo in NY September 16-18th.
Anything else I should be thinking about?
Feb 26, 2008
I just read Kris Buytaert's blog post "Honest Open Source", which talks about how customers can trust open source consultants to recommend suitable software because, unlike commercial software, there are no incentives for selling licenses. His point balances on the fact that most open source products do not have partner programs to pay consultants when they implement the solution. While some open source companies use other methods of encouraging their partners to recommend their products[1], the business influence over technical decisions is certainly less than in commercial software. You may remember the case of Accenture taking kick-backs while having the Department of Justice pay them for a "Vendor Neutral" product selection. With millions of dollars of licensing revenue at stake, scruples are going to be tested.
Still, even without kick-backs, people have their biases. Developers like to use software that they know. Working with known technologies improves efficiency and reduces risk. When you are doing a fixed bid proposal, this is very important. I pretty much beat this point to death here. Most of the open source consultants that I know are affiliated with a project on both a business and an emotional level. At a business level, most of their work is associated with the project. On an emotional level, they believe in the community and the software. They are usually pretty candid about their connection and position their opinions accordingly but sometimes the passion gets in the way. You could say, bias through passion is more honest than bias through reward but to the customer it is still bias.
My advice is to talk to different companies and accept their partiality. Have them defend their opinions and disclose their affiliations. I find that talking to the consultants that will be staffed on the project is the best way to get a straight answer. They know better than to over-promise on the technology platform because they are going to be around when the truth is revealed. It is going to be their fault if implementing a feature turns out to be difficult and they will be left holding the bag.
[1] Readers of Open Source Web Content Management in Java know about these strategies.
Feb 25, 2008
[Correction: as you can see in the comments, John Eckman pointed out that pulseofoss is the work of Raven Zachary (451 Group) and Michael Richardson - not Optaros.]
I have been getting into Twitter lately. At first I thought it was a waste of time but now I really like how less than 140 characters and a brief moment of attention can make you feel "up to date" with someone.
To give you an idea of how short 140 characters is, Twitter would have cut me off the previous paragraph after the word "feel." For some, 140 characters is enough to speak volumes. My former Optaros colleague John Eckman has totally mastered the medium.
I also like how companies are starting to use Twitter as a low key publishing tool. CMSWire also has a good feed pointing out news flashes and links to good articles. Optaros just launched a feed called pulseofoss.
Now I have yet another reason to buy a smart phone.
Feb 25, 2008
I just read Martin Aspeli's CIO Magazine article "You Used Python to Write WHAT?" I, myself, wouldn't have dared to write an article about a programming language for a non-technical audience, but Martin actually pulled it off. The article nicely covers some of the history, core concepts, and uses of the Python language without succumbing into the temptation to get into the techy details - perfect to send to a CIO that just needs enough information to feel comfortable with the language. Nice job Martin!
Feb 21, 2008
I didn't see the press release so I was surprised when I opened up the latest piece of junk mail from Comcast (I couldn't resist the headline "Business Class TV" .... I still don't know what it means). Comcast is now offering hosted SharePoint and Outlook to their business cable internet subscribers. They are calling the bundle "Microsoft Communication Services" and I think it serves a nice niche of small companies trying to collaborate amongst themselves and with their clients. However, many companies have already solved this problem using the various Google applications, Basecamp, and ZOHO. One interesting difference is that applications like Google Docs, ZoHo, and the hosted wikis take users out of the Microsoft Office Suite while MOSS (for good reason) is tightly bound with Office. The reliance on Office is not so much of a problem for most companies today because they have standardized on the suite. But "Officeless" collaboration is clearly a vulnerability for Microsoft going into the future.
Feb 20, 2008
There has been an interesting thread on the CM Professionals mailing list discussing the efficacy of an RFP. Many participants cited frustration with an RFP process that wastes people's time with unnecessary formality and the pretension of an even contest. I think everyone who has been in business has witnessed the act of an RFP being distributed after the contract has been awarded. The RFP process, as it is commonly practiced, suffers from four major flaws:
- Buyers make their choices harder by forcing suppliers to submit identical proposals. I hate the expression "comparing apples to apples." What if you would prefer an orange? You want the vendor to show their individuality.
-
Vendors are suspicious of the RFP process and try to limit their exposure by expending energy qualifying the deal and their chances rather than investing in their proposal. You don't get anything but canned demos and copy-paste responses until you have reached a short list.
-
Companies with good products are too busy to respond to blind, widely distributed RFPs. The issuer of these RFPs tend to be flooded by responses from marginal companies with struggling products.
- The RFP process is, by nature, adversarial and not a good way to start a partnership. Imagine finding a spouse with an RFP.
That said, you need some kind of process to keep you from falling in love with the first pretty user interface you see. There are some good aspects of an RFP that are worth keeping. You need some kind of document that communicates your requirements and your selection process. It is important that all the candidates have the same baseline information to tailor their sales process. My process for selecting a CMS uses an RFP in this way. I don't send an RFP to more than three vendors that I think are a good match for the requirements. I am sure to communicate this fact to the candidates. Vendors that have worked with me before know that if I contact them, they should jump right to the short list stage of their sales process when victory is in sight.
While the RFP contains the baseline, vendors should be invited to ask questions to help them produce more compelling and tailored proposals. Their ability to ask the right questions (and actually listen to the answers) is a differentiator. I want them to understand as much as they can about my client so they can put together a great proposal.
The required written response to an RFP should be lean. Less time invested in the written response means that the vendor can put more work into preparing a customized demo that will resonate with the audience. The goal is not for the client to lock themselves in a room and read proposals. You want to engage with the vendor. If you have been selective about who is participating, you can spend the time with each vendor that you are evaluating and get to know each other.
While the RFP itself is not dead, the old RFP process has certainly outlived its use. The RFP should not be a restrictive conduit for communication. It should be a starting point for a dialog. The RFP should not be an open call for the market to stand forward and identify itself. The issuer of an RFP should already understand the market and be selective as to who it invites.
Software selection should be an active process, not a passive one. It takes investment and education from both sides to meet in the middle.