More acquisition activity in the identity space
Hot on the heels of last week's acquisition of
Credentica by Microsoft, Ping Identity (who I covered
here in an On The Radar report)
announced yesterday that it has acquired the Sxip Access business unit from Sxip Identity.
Sxip was early to spot the potential opportunity in providing organisations with a simple, easy-to-deploy single sign-on (SSO) solution for software-as-a-service (SaaS). Sxip Access was its response to that opportunity, combining provisioning capabilities with some Sxip hosted services and an appliance. The company had also cultivated relationships with the likes of Salesforce.com and Google (for Google Apps).
The acquisition of Sxip Access is a smart move by Ping Identity. Although it can be used to provide SSO for SaaS, PingFederate (the company's flagship multi-protocol federated identity offering) lacks some of the rapid implementation and deployment capabilities of Sxip Access. Part of the SaaS proposition is that organisations can get up-to-speed much more rapidly. Authentication and authorisation shouldn't hold you back: something that Sxip Access should help to prevent.
Back in September Ping began to actively target the SaaS opportunity, allowing providers to sell PingFederate-based SSO to their customers and share the revenue with Ping. Yesterdays announcement should accelerate this.
(As an aside, I do wonder whether we might see Ping's
SignOn.com user-centric identity offering heading in the other direction, given that Sxip is now fairly-and-squarely focused there).
Ping and Sxip, whilst they are comparatively small, punch above their weight when it comes to identity mindshare. I wonder whether this announcement might shake the much larger incumbent identity management vendors, none of whom have really articulated a credible SaaS proposition, into action. It should. SaaS buying decisions often bypass the IT organisation and the business buyers aren't (and in fact shouldn't be) interested in identity management: they want access. If a Salesforce.com recommends that the customer just needs to get their IT department to deploy this box and hook it up to the existing identity management solution so be it. Job done. With SaaS increasing in popularity, particularly in the SME segment where they have struggled to gain a foothold, the incumbents need a strong proposition or lose out to the likes of Ping.
Labels: google, identity, Ping, SaaS, Salesforce, Sxip
Time to be honest about SaaS
I thought that those of you who aren't recipients of our monthly newsletter might be interested in this commentary (penned by the other Neil) dissecting some of the problems with the definition (or lack thereof) of software-as-a-service.
Over the past few days we?ve been having an interesting debate here at MWD, in conjunction with the analysts at our close partner
Freeform Dynamics. The question came from Dale Vile at Freeform: what's a good definition of software-as-a-service (SaaS)? The reason for asking the question was that SaaS is a hot topic, and it's something that's considered as a major growth opportunity for a lot of technology suppliers; but although there are a fair few forecasts of growth in demand, it's difficult to get a clear idea of what's actually included in these forecasts. Of course, if there isn't a consistent view of what does and doesn't actually constitute SaaS then that's not really helping anyone. The approach we took to try and provide that consistent view was to look at a long list of things (ranging from Google Search, Google Maps and hosted wikis to Skype's VOIP and messaging services, hosted voice PBXs, online travel agency services and remote backup services), and say whether we thought they "counted" as SaaS offerings.
What came to the fore very quickly was that there was no crisp set of attributes that we could agree characterised SaaS offerings. SaaS isn't defined (as some would tell you) by a particular type of distribution or access technology, a particular technology architecture, or a particular approach to charging for usage.
Yes, SaaS offerings do commonly exhibit particular choices in these areas (use of the web for distribution and access; a "multi-tenant" architecture to efficiently separate the data and customisations of each customer from those of others; and some kind of subscription license). But crucially, these choices aren't unique to what most people would call SaaS offerings. Google's services, and countless millions of other online dynamic websites, have made those same technology choices for distribution and access ? and they're commonly lumped into that whole other can of slippery worms, "Web 2.0". Countless online portals (some hosted within organisations, others available to the public) allow users to personalise their experiences and use a multi-tenant architecture to store personalisation data efficiently and effectively. Lastly, all sorts of information- or IT-based capabilities are delivered on a subscription basis (not least, mainframe capacity, and analyst research ;-).
So what is it that marks something out as SaaS (or not)? The only answer that seems to tick all the boxes is that SaaS offerings are those which deliver online, hosted alternatives to things that we have historically experienced through the in-house purchase (or development) and deployment of software systems.
Let's take Customer Relationship Management (CRM) as an example. Historically, CRM capabilities were provided by software that was installed on premise, was managed on premise, supported one organisation, and was paid for through a perpetual license. When Salesforce.com delivers those CRM capabilities from a remote installation, manages them on behalf of multiple organisations, and is paid to do so on the basis of a monthly subscription, it needs a different name: that's "Software-as-a-Service". Following that example, remote backup/restore services, online word processing applications like Google Docs, the Zoho suite and (now Adobe's) Buzzword, and SAP's BusinessByDesign (formerly A1S) all count as SaaS offerings. Google Search and Facebook don't, because they're not delivering capabilities that you would ever have associated with on-premise, perpetually licensed software.
This helps us clarify SaaS' place in the IT industry, but we think it's a problematic conclusion, for three reasons. Firstly, most people use the label without really understanding how context-dependent it is (what you think of as SaaS is primarily defined by your own experience); secondly, if we continue down this road, there can never really be a consistent definition of SaaS that will work for everyone; and thirdly, this is a very IT industry- and supplier-centric way of looking at the world that is only likely to alienate or confuse a very important community ? "users" (the people who pay all our salaries).
Perhaps we need to call time on SaaS, and think of some clearer terms and definitions that can really help IT organisations and IT buyers work out how everything fits together. At the very least, as an industry we need to be honest about SaaS ? and explain that it?s an industry-driven marketing and positioning term that's primarily about separating "funky new stuff" from "boring old stuff".
Labels: Adobe, Facebook, google, SaaS, Salesforce, SAP, Skype, Web 2.0, Zoho
Has Microsoft got BPM? Part II
Back at the beginning of March I asked "
has Microsoft got BPM?". At that time I hadn't had the opportunity to get a briefing from Microsoft on its recent BPM moves, but now I have.
So - has Microsoft got BPM? Yes and no.
Microsoft is not about to become a fully-fledged BPM solution provider. Rather, Microsoft is attempting to do to BPM what it attempts to do in all the areas of enterprise software it's played in (think DBMSs, development tools, middleware, portals, etc etc) - commoditise the core technology and make it part of an integrated software platform that's digestible by mainstream medium-to-large enterprises. Sun wasn't the first company to realise that "
volume drives value" - it's taken a leaf out of Microsoft's book.
So a big part of the focus is on providing the technology foundation for BPM. Here Microsoft has a couple of formidable weapons:
- Office. Office is the defacto productivity suite in enterprises - and with Office 2007, is becoming the front end infrastructure for BPM scenarios in Microsoft's world, as well as a suite of apps. It's an environment very familiar to business people, so if those people are looking to get a BPM initiative started, Microsoft's proposition could look pretty attractive. [If you don't believe us about Office, see this research from our partner Freeform Dynamics.]
- Workflow Foundation. This is a core component of .NET 3.0 (the native programming model for Longhorn Server and Vista). It provides embeddable workflow execution services for both highly structured business process automation scenarios and less structured, collaborative scenarios. It's becoming the foundation of both BizTalk Server 2006 (which will drive structured process automation scenarios) and Sharepoint 2007 (which is more suited to unstructured, collaboration-focused processess). Workflow Foundation really is neat.
The big caveat, of course, is that all these weapons only really come into play if and when organisations buy into the current tranche of product releases - Office 2007, BizTalk 2006, Visual Studio "Orcas" and the Visual Studio Tools for Office (VSTO), and .NET 3.0.
Although all these pieces are either released or coming very soon, where customers have a significant investment in Microsoft in these kinds of areas, it's far from certain that they will upgrade or migrate quickly. Microsoft's success in engineering an integrated platform of software infrastructure is also a weakness, in other words - people who buy into it tend to have a lot of capabilities riding on it. That drives caution and risk aversion.
Microsoft's BPM foundation is mainly focused on the development and deployment of processes, and although BizTalk 2006 has some BAM capabilities (through integration with SQLServer OLAP and BI functionality) Microsoft isn't focusing primarily on providing tools for modelling and simulating, analysing or optimising processes. It's developed a coterie of "
Business Process Alliance" partners to fill in the gaps, and also to help it accelerate demand for the new versions of its key BPM foundation components. When it comes to Workflow Foundation in particular, the huge Microsoft-focused packaged application vendor (ISV) community which so effectively drove adoption of SQLServer will also be a key element of Microsoft's strategy.
So on paper Microsoft has a good BPM story - if you're prepared to put a lot of skin in Microsoft's game and if you're prepared to upgrade to the latest Microsoft infrastructure. The company isn't yet pushing the base technologies aggressively and directly to customers, but it is priming its partners and channels and these will drive uptake.
Another interesting angle to the technology piece of this story is the recently announced
BizTalk Services offering - a set of integration capabilities "in the cloud" which offer a hosted complement to on-premise BizTalk integration implementations. These services are designed to, in theory (it's early days), make the creation of highly federated, distributed service and process networks much more simple to develop and operate. It's a fascinating development that has some parallels with what Salesforce has been doing with the
Salesforce Platform Edition, and (a little less so) with what BT is attempting to do with
BT Integrate.
One last small thing though. If it's serious about BPM, at some point Microsoft's going to have to sort out the difference between
this BPM and
this BPM...
Labels: BPM, BT, Microsoft, SaaS, Salesforce, Workflow Foundation
