Fusion

Are You Using the Right Criteria for selecting your new Service Desk software?

The market for Service Desk (SD) software has matured in recent years reflecting the shift from a basic Helpdesk to a Service Desk that acts as the front end for IT, providing communication to end users, processing service requests and being the focal point from more complex, integrated IT processes in the way that ITIL describes.

The market is divided between mid-market solutions and vendors and enterprise solutions and vendors. In my experience, many organisations rush to the selection of a solution based on functions and features rather starting with a higher level set of criteria. I believe these to be:

- Organisational complexity

- Asset and Application profile in the IT estate

- Complexity of IT processes

- Size of organisation

- Suitability of vendor.

Focussing in on the detail of these criteria will help ensure that you select Service Desk software that will not need replacing all too soon.

Against the Tide

BMC Software is performing well despite a tough operating environment and I remain optimist on BMC Software’s prospects this year. While the recent Q4 revenue figures showed a definite slowing in growth, it was still growth which is better than some of their competitors. License bookings around Business Service Management, BMC Software’s core proposition, increased 21 percent (and 34 percent on a constant currency basis) in the final quarter even if most of that growth has come from the Bladelogic acquisition in April 2008.

I believe that this robust performance is down to BMC Software’s increasingly integrated “ERP for IT” solution as companies look to IT “transformation” projects to improve efficiencies and cut costs. If BMC Software’s performance is sustained during the year and they continue to spend significant amounts on R&D (last year it is was $222M), then the gap with competitors like HP, IBM and CA will only widen.

“A fool with a tool is still a fool”

IT-enabled processes are key to the success of Service Management implementations.

The quote above appeared from a technology vendor around the time that ITIL was emerging into the mainstream. And it still seems to be true today!

It is clear that successful companies gain great benefits from implementing enterprise systems like Service Management (Harvard Business Review July 2008 – Investing in the IT That Makes a Competitive Difference) but many companies are failing to do so despite widespread adoption of ITIL and improvements in systems that align with it. Why is this?

We certainly believe that a consistent technology platform (e.g. an enterprise Service Management system) is the first and base requirement for success. You simply cannot run any reasonably sized IT department with piecemeal Service Desks across the business and different Change Management systems in each business unit!  The same mistakes are repeated and there is no common platform for propagating lessons learnt across the business.

But is a consistent technology platform enough? Certainly not, as time and again we see implementations failing not because of the systems but because of poor processes. Implementations are too technology centric and not enough attention is paid to the processes and the people.
¦lt;br /> Process needs to be embedded in the Service Management system, generating real value through process improvements that can now be delivered on that platform.  These Service Management systems are after all business applications, not software tools

A successful IT-enabled process, whether ITIL or not, has these characteristics:

• It is applied consistently across the business. People too often get trained in the technology but not the process and so everyone performs processes differently.

• It is embedded into the systems rather than an add-on. The process builds on itself and go can’t go forward without completing the prior steps.

• The process depends on systems but good systems don’t replace bad practices. Too many organisations buy new systems and customise them to deliver the old bad processes.

• The process is precise and based on instructions and not general guidelines. Lack of supporting work instructions and definitions mean that processes are performed inconsistently and reporting data cannot be relied upon.

Processes like this deliver results straightaway and allow you to refine them continuously over time, ensuring you are not a fool.

HP Software - Under Pressure?

In HP’s most recent quarterly earnings figures, HP Software revenues declined 7% while BMC Software announced 6% growth. BMC’s strong focus on Business Service Management should continue to produce results not only in terms of revenue growth but also R&D investment. Meanwhile I’m sure HP Software will have to fight hard to retain its share of corporate resources.

In Fusion we have always believed in a “focus” strategy where we have an unparalleled depth and breath of experience in our niche. Customers know we are committed because there is nothing else of us. In the same way, BMC Software’s Business Service Management strategy is fundental to their future and it gets full management attention and resurces.

SaaS - watch the downside

There is no doubt that Salesforce.com has been successful in the marketplace given the passing of the $1bn annual revenues milestone. Their results for the most recent quarter also indicate that they are making a good job in combating the effects of the recession. However the success of Salesforce.com does not mean all or even most SaaS will be successful. Why? Sales force.com has been around for 10 years and has undoubted scale, yet net profits are only 4%.  SaaS is a low margin business but requires lots of cash to build scale. Many SaaS vendors may not survive the recession long enough to prove their success.

Look at Netsuite, considered to be one of the most successful SaaS vendors, founded 10 years ago. It has annual revenues of around $150M but is not yet profitable (a very small profit last quarter on a non-GAAP basis) but has an accumulated deficit of $250M. The SaaS vendors that make it will need lots of cash funding to reach a decent scale. Some will be successful, most will run out of cash.