Comments on: We All Knew This Day Would Come http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2009/03/27/we-all-knew-this-day-would-come/ Thought-Provoking Commentary for the Lawson Software Community Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:21:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: MTFF http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2009/03/27/we-all-knew-this-day-would-come/#comment-194 MTFF Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:12:30 +0000 http://lawsonguru.wordpress.com/?p=255#comment-194 When I first read the subject line, I thought the topic was about the newspaper industry. I have my opinion on that topic as well; however, I will reserve them for a later time. On the topic of expiring support for enterprise software, I have mixed feelings. I understand why software vendors need to do it, on the other hand, I am unhappy with the fact some vendors’ approach to “encourage” their customers to upgrade. I understand why the software vendor would need to decommission, because the support for multiple versions are just too costly for the vendor. At the same time, each upgrade generates more revenue either via the software itself or through consulting. A win-win for the vendors. For the customers, its a loss-loss, and at best loss-“maybe-win” situation. Why? It’s nearly impossible to measure the ROI of a software upgrade. Unlike most products we buy, enterprise software are sold with license AND maintenance. The maintenance contract entitles the customers to ‘free” patches and critical updated. This is akin to buying a car and buying the rights to have it repaired. When the warranty expires \ decommission date comes up, we have to pay out pocket / extra for the rights to repair our software. I know this model exists for Lawson and I applauded them for making it available. What is my point? If your company uses ERP system as a competitive advantage tool, then, stay in the cycle. If you are using your software for mundane back office tasks and rarely add new functionalities, take the extended support approach. Software upgrades should be a personal choice based on your needs. SQL Server 2000 was decommissioned, but, if you don’t need SQL Server 2005, or 2008, why should you upgrade? I tend to follow the don’t fix what’s not broken approach. When I first read the subject line, I thought the topic was about the newspaper industry. I have my opinion on that topic as well; however, I will reserve them for a later time.

On the topic of expiring support for enterprise software, I have mixed feelings. I understand why software vendors need to do it, on the other hand, I am unhappy with the fact some vendors’ approach to “encourage” their customers to upgrade.

I understand why the software vendor would need to decommission, because the support for multiple versions are just too costly for the vendor. At the same time, each upgrade generates more revenue either via the software itself or through consulting. A win-win for the vendors. For the customers, its a loss-loss, and at best loss-“maybe-win” situation. Why? It’s nearly impossible to measure the ROI of a software upgrade.

Unlike most products we buy, enterprise software are sold with license AND maintenance. The maintenance contract entitles the customers to ‘free” patches and critical updated. This is akin to buying a car and buying the rights to have it repaired. When the warranty expires \ decommission date comes up, we have to pay out pocket / extra for the rights to repair our software. I know this model exists for Lawson and I applauded them for making it available.

What is my point? If your company uses ERP system as a competitive advantage tool, then, stay in the cycle. If you are using your software for mundane back office tasks and rarely add new functionalities, take the extended support approach.

Software upgrades should be a personal choice based on your needs. SQL Server 2000 was decommissioned, but, if you don’t need SQL Server 2005, or 2008, why should you upgrade? I tend to follow the don’t fix what’s not broken approach.

]]> By: Phil Simon http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2009/03/27/we-all-knew-this-day-would-come/#comment-190 Phil Simon Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:00:35 +0000 http://lawsonguru.wordpress.com/?p=255#comment-190 I completely agree with this. But, a 5-year product cycle and a 2-to-3-year decommission notice is standard and perfectly acceptable for enterprise software. This is very much in keeping with other tier 1 and tier 2 vendors. Many Lawson clients just look at this as "unfair" in absolute terms, not realizing that other vendors essentially do the same thing. I broached this topic at MRLUG in my talk on Wednesday. Sure, clients can "go naked" (read: get by without vendor support) but it's a highly risky strategy. I completely agree with this.

But, a 5-year product cycle and a 2-to-3-year decommission notice is standard and perfectly acceptable for enterprise software.

This is very much in keeping with other tier 1 and tier 2 vendors. Many Lawson clients just look at this as “unfair” in absolute terms, not realizing that other vendors essentially do the same thing. I broached this topic at MRLUG in my talk on Wednesday. Sure, clients can “go naked” (read: get by without vendor support) but it’s a highly risky strategy.

]]>