Vue Software

Archive for the 'Planning and Selection' Category

The Power of Trust

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (4 votes, average: 4.25 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

This summer I was sitting on a dive boat off the coast of Cozumel chatting with the dive master and about to dive Palancar caves when two distinct thoughts occurred to me. First, I trust this dive master. He is an expert in his craft, and I know he has successfully and safely led people on this dive before and second, I’m fairly certain I could lead people on this dive myself.

What led to that point where I felt like I was self-sufficient enough to a lead a deep dive that requires somewhat complex navigation? One that can have unpredictable currents and no signs or markers on the surface to indicate a starting point? Experience – the fact that I have done hundreds of dives and in particular have done the Palancar cave dive numerous times in a wide variety of conditions.

If it had been my first time in the water, I might have been able to get down to a reef, swim around, and surface hopefully without doing harm to myself. There is little to no chance, even with a map, that I could have found the right reef, found the caves, utilized my air efficiently, controlled my buoyancy and understood my dive charts well enough to have a safe dive. And ultimately that’s why you pay for a dive master or a guide – experience, knowledge and to minimize risk.

When it comes to selecting a software vendor, this holds true as well. There are numerous methodologies or “maps” that can be found with Google to give you some idea of how to do it yourself. If anyone would like to see the selection methodology that I utilize for my clients, please send me an email and I would be happy to share it with you. However, even with your vendor selection map in hand, quite quickly as you start to do research on the vendors in the space you will realize that there are a large number of companies that appear to have solutions to your business problem. A little farther on in the process, you might realize that there are vast differences in the vendor’s solutions. As an example - they all have some form of reporting but some are partnered with best-in-class third parties, some are integrated, some are very good at pixel-perfect static reports, while other are good at ad-hoc reporting or perhaps executive dashboards. How to interpret the cost to implement and maintain, the improvement or value-gap to current state, the trades offs between solutions, the ease of use and how others have used that particular reporting solution to add economic value to their companies are all questions that beg to be answered. This same analysis should happen across multiple dimensions of functionality and once you find a good match of functionality to prioritized requirements, the process has just begun. To go back to the diving analogy, you have only “found the reef.” So far I have just scratched the surface of the complexity and nuances of successful vendor selection, but at the end of the road your company needs to make a costly decision between multiple complex solutions to meet your complex business needs –sound risky to do without a guide?

If you are thinking about embarking on a vendor selection process that can be fraught with pitfalls, the first question you might want to ask is – “Based on experience can I lead this myself?” Next summer, I would love to be on a boat off the coast of an island that I haven’t been to before (Truk anyone?), chatting with an experienced dive master about a dive I have never done, and feel comfortable in the success and safety of the dive.

Justin Lane is a Sales Performance Management veteran and a colleague of mine at OpenSymmetry. He helps clients develop best in class Compensation Management Program processes and implement the underlying technology to support those processes.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility
Salary Equality Sucks and Goodbye Marx

Pricing Expectations for SPM Solutions; When ‘Expensive Solutions’ End Up Being ‘Cheap’

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 4.17 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

As my position offers a unique opportunity to work with companies at the early stages of an SPM selection process, I always amazed at the perceptions companies have as it relates to what the various systems will cost them from a ‘licensing’ standpoint all the way through and including implementation. Although vendors vary in the way they approach how they want to charge for their solutions (perpetual vs. Lease vs. on-demand…), it is always intriguing to our team when people include or exclude vendors based on what they feel the costs they might expect from a specific solution provider.

As an example, one of our clients had initially dropped 2 of the larger SPM solution providers from their selection effort (prior to our engaging) solely based on what their competition had said about them. Following a more formal evaluation where these two providers were brought back in against their (lower costing) peers, these two late entries happened to come in as the 2nd and 3rd cheapest solutions in the evaluation.

In the last year we have seen the SPM space recalibrate on a number of different levels from functional offerings all the way through how the providers sell and price their software. We have seen some providers flip back and forth on their pricing model a number of times in a 12 month period to the point a customer simply has to wait a few months and the deal they are looking for may come their way.

To keep anyone from making a mistake that could cost them the solution that would actually be the right fit at the right price… I would urge anyone looking at systems to have a direct discussion with the SPM provider about their pricing before you chose to drop them or keep them as part of your selection process (based on that set of criteria).

Rob Blohm is a partner at OpenSymmetry, a consulting firm specializing in sales performance management, and can be reached at rob.blohm@opensymmetry.com.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
When do you need Compensation Management Software?
Napoleon Bonaparte on Motivation and Recognition

The Haunted Winchester Mystery House

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 4.17 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

I spent last Thursday in sunny California (it probably ended up being a bit colder there than in Ottawa), to attend the Callidus Survive and Thrive: Secrets to Selling More Executive Briefing Series. I had the chance to finally meet Jason Angelos from Accenture and Mark Smith, CEO of Ventana Research in person, as well as Steve Apfelberg, Jock Breitwieser and several other people from Callidus Software I only knew virtually.

Jason’s presentation about trends in Performance Management, factors driving motivation, and best practices was very similar to the webinar I covered here. I’ll let you read that post if you want to refresh your memory Accenture’s point of view on what are the 3 factors driving behavior (Ability, Motivation and Context) and what are the levers to achieve performance objectives.

But this time, Jason started his presentation with a story about the Winchester Mystery House.

Here are a few facts about this Winchester Mystery House:

  • The mansion is located in San Jose, California
  • It took 38 years and $5.5 million dollars to build it (construction stopped in 1922)
  • The house has 160 rooms, 24,000 square foot, 10,000 windows, 2,000 doors, 6 kitchens, 40 bedrooms, 13 bathrooms, 47 fireplaces…
  • 149 builders were involved in its construction
  • No architect were involved and 0 blueprints or master plan were ever created
  • 65 of the house’s doors lead to blank walls
  • 13 staircases lead nowhere
  • 24 skylights are covered by floors

That sounds just like a large scale incentive compensation implementation; the implementation is broken down in many phases with a scope more or less defined, many contractors are involved on the project over its lifecycle, development is often an ongoing effort, the number of components involved often becomes very large and the project can be more complex than anyone had foreseen.

To avoid making a Winchester Mystery house of your implementation, we should learn that we need to plan very carefully before implementing any large scale project. You don’t want your SPM implementation to have ‘staircases’ going nowhere and ‘doors’ leading to blank walls. And you especially don’t want to become an ‘attraction’ for other companies to visit only to see how ‘messed-up’ your implementation is!

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
Implementation: In-House development versus Hiring Consultants/Outsourcing
Commission, Bonus or Entitlement?

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

When selecting a new SPM system - or any COTS system - people want a solution that will meet all their current needs…  but they also want a solution that will meet any of their future needs.  What are those future requirements?  They are unknown at the time of purchase.  It should not be a surprise that flexibility of a solution is often one of the top criteria for its selection.

But with great power comes great responsibility…  The more flexible a system is, the easier it will be to make design decisions during implementation that could potentially have a negative impact in the future.

Flexibility also often comes at a cost.  Many “less flexible” solutions (often SaaS solutions) are often less flexibility than other enterprise solutions.  However, they still meet all the requirements of most clients, and it is this lack of flexibility that can allow them to be deployed in a shorter time frame.

Companies should really consider how far in the future they really should be looking.  Are the requirements between today and 3 years from now really going to evolve that much?  Looking at a more than 10 year horizon for a piece of software is an eternity.  Furthermore, with an on-demand solution, it’s easy to switch to another solution at anytime… and with an on-premise solution, upgrades every 2-3 years will be required to maintain support from the vendor.

Finally, if for some reason your requirements are really so complicated that they are not supported by a leading SPM solution, ask yourself if your compensation plans really make sense.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
Super Bowl, Oscars and Olympics
Salary Equality Sucks and Goodbye Marx

Insurance Incentive Compensation Management Applications

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Insurance companies are often a world apart in incentive compensation. People are often being compensated differently than in other industries, hierarchies and contract structures are usually more complex, compliance requirements are often “crazy” and even the terminology is pretty different. Specific insurance-industry requirements have led many solutions to focus only on that vertical, and many other more generic solutions are adding insurance functionality and gaining more knowledge of that industry.

Earlier in December, Gartner released a MarketScope paper about Insurance ICM applications, profiling the 7 leading vendors in that industry.

Some interesting points mentioned in the paper:

  • 16 new ICM deals signed with life insurers globally, and 8 deals for property and casualty (P&C) insurers in 2008
  • Overall adoption of ICM solutions for insurance will remain steady through 2010, with 18 to 22 new deployments projected during the next 12 months for life insurers and P&C insurers globally
  • North America will continue to be the strongest geographic segment
  • When evaluating solutions, insurers should not discount the importance of the upgrade process.
  • Our rating for ICM applications for insurers remains Promising for another year

What’s interesting from this paper is that many of the solutions are so industry specific that I haven’t really talked about them on LeapComp. I talked a bit about some of them in the OpenSymmetry SPM Guide and I have an online demo recording for two of them, but I will probably try to review the missing solutions within the next few months.

So this year, 3 vendors got a positive rating: Callidus Software, SunGard, and Versata. The other companies profiled were CSC (Exceed), CSC (PerformancePlus), MajescoMastek, McCamish Systems, and SAP.

Another note in the report mentions “Varicent Software is the next likely entrant into the insurance vertical market, provided it has a successful 2Q09 implementation for a recently acquired Tier 1 insurer. Although Varicent did not meet the inclusion criteria for this year’s MarketScope, insurers should expect Varicent to build on its success and gain insurance market share.”  That’s another company which I have been talking quite a bit so far.

Just like with the “regular” incentive comp industry, with all the consolidation happening in the insurance industry in 08/09, with the increased level of interest in ICM solutions, the number of good options available and the forecasted upcoming major insurance ICM projects, it will be interesting to see how the vendors stack up next year.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
Accord/Loma Insurance Systems Forum
Insurance ICM Industry Market Overview

On-Demand vs On-Premise vs Hosted SPM Solutions; pros and cons

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

The problem with most on-demand versus on-premise SPM solution analysis is that they tend to be biased. The reason for that is that many the sources of those comparisons are the software vendors. A vendor with a SaaS solution will try to convince customers that SaaS is better than on-premise, and vice-versa.

So which model is most appropriate? The reality is that it varies on a case by case basis. A quick search for this comparison, at least in the CRM space, will display thousands of results which can be useful to make up y our mind.

On-Demand Pros

Convenience: The application can be accessed from anywhere… You can administer it from home, while on the road, etc. Your reps can also access their dashboards and performance from anywhere in the world.  It also means that the implementation team should be able to work remotely more easily, which will reduce the implementation expenses.
Worry-Free: No need to worry about the technical support of the application, applying patches, etc.
Focus on core business: No IT infrastructure to maintain in-house… you get to focus on what you do and not on keeping a system up and running.  You also don’t need to invest in expensive hardware.
Pricing Model: Avoiding a large up-front cost will allow to try an application without spending too much up-front. After a certain period of time it may be more expensive than purchasing a license, but looking at the total cost of ownership it may still be a viable option.

On-Demand Cons

Security: Valuable and usually very confidential business data resides with a third party company. SPM companies are making a big effort to keep this information “safe”, and that’s why most vendors are SAS 70 certified… but it’s still a valid concern for many companies.
Uptime: As discussed yesterday, uptime of SaaS solutions is usually pretty good, but one never knows when there can be a problem…  It’s happened to me more than once to work on an on-demand project where I was counting on a Friday night to finish up important implementation activities only to hit a maintenance window where the system was not available for a few hours.
Monthly cost: After a few years, the monthly cost of a SaaS solution may end up higher than it would have been by having purchased a license.
Flexibility: Can an on-demand really handle your compensation plans? Some will, some may not… but this is often a “gotcha”, particularly for companies with complex data integration requirements.

On-Premise Pros

Flexibility: On-premise solutions typically have an open databases, the technology stack is usually more flexible, and the configuration itself is usually also more flexible.
Hands-on control: Control over the maintenance windows, issue resolution, security, data, when patches are applied, etc.
Frequent upgrades:
Application updates are frequent and automatic.
Disaster recovery: SaaS companies will have a process in place to keep your data safe and redundant systems may allow the system to keep running even if the primary service crashes.

On-Premise Cons

Upfront Cost: The upfront cost is high, but the total cost of ownership might be a different story, depending on current technological capacity and existing infrastructure.
Implementation time:
It usually takes longer to implement an on-premise solution; not necessarily because they are on-premise, but mostly because many customers choosing the on-premise model have very complex requirements
IT expertise: On-premise systems require to have IT experts in-house.
Patches and upgrades: I mentioned automatic upgrades as a key benefit of an on-demand solution, so it should not be a surprise to find this here. However, what should be added is that most on-premise SPM vendors will only support their current and previous release. With major releases usually coming out every year, be ready to upgrade to a new version every 2 year!

Hosted:

On-demand is technically hosted, but many companies offer the option to buy a license as you would with an on-premise solution, but will host it for you. This is really identical to the on-demand model, except that the cost structure is different (upfront cost instead of an on-going monthly cost).  Not every vendor offer this option, but if they do, it could be worth considering if you are looking for the pros of an on-demand solution with the pricing model of an on-premise solution.

What are others doing?
Many people are using both types of solutions and as I mentioned, it’s a decision that must be made on a case by case basis. It looks like there is a trend towards adopting on-demand solutions. It should be no surprise that many vendors try to push their on-demand offerings since that in the long-term, it usually means more money for them.

Before making a decision about which of the SaaS or on-demand model is the right decision, THE big question is, can the on-demand solution handle your compensation plans, transaction volume and data integration requirements? If it can, the decision is really up to your cost break-even analysis and how you evaluate the other pros and cons of each model.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
When do you need Compensation Management Software?
LeapComp featured in Arcadia Solutions’ Q3 Newsletter