Posts Tagged ‘contract strategy’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Tuesday’s Tip: Call Vendors On Their Bluff About “Rev-Rec” And Software Maintenance Contracts

Published on September 29, 2009 by R "Ray" Wang
Vendor Sales Reps Keep Using An Age Old Excuse Out Of Habit Many organizations start their Q4 software maintenance renewals process in September.  This has led to a flurry of emails and phone calls about revenue recognition (a.k.a. "rev-rec") rules for software maintenance contracts.   Apparently, both customers and vendor sales reps suffer from mass confusion on this issue.  The result - a conservative but inaccurate stance from sales reps who use pat answer number 1 and tell existing customers that they can't discount their software maintenance because of rev-rec rules.  For good measure, they usually throw out all the real official sounding terms around AICPA Statement of Position (SOP) No. 97-2 and VSOE.  To customers, this reminds them of technical gobbleydegook and they glaze over this issue about software revenue recognition in despair. However what's true for how rev-rec works for license fees does not apply in most cases for software maintenance and support because:
  • Maintenance and support fees are adjunct or known as separate from license fees. Maintenance contracts may be based on license fee costs but these fees should be recognized as a separate stream of revenue.  More granular accounting will be required when licenses are bundled with one or more years of pre-paid maintenance, but the vendor should be able to carve out a value for this.
  • Post contract customer support (PCS) or what we call maintenance and support is ratable. Maintenance fees are recognized over the life of a contract.  For example, if you got a 1 year contract, then that's all you impact, not the entire license basis as some vendor sales reps would have you believe.
The Bottom Line - Call The Bluff And Ask The Sales Rep To Show You How SOP-72 Is Applied* Countering false claims on rev-rec will provide a key weapon in reducing maintenance fees in contract negotiations.  Challenge the vendor to explain their rationale.  When successful, clients can then ask the vendor to base maintenance fees on a reduced total account value without jeopardizing the vendor's insistence to hold to a maintenance fee percentage. Your POV. Have you encountered the rev-rec song and dance?  How have you pushed back on this issue?  Did you find any success with this technique?  Need some guidance?  Feel free to post your comments here or send me an email at rwang0 at gmail dot com. *standard disclaimers apply.  always check with your legal counsel and procurement experts before taking any action.
Copyright © 2009 R Wang. All rights reserved.

RSS feed for comments on this post. — TrackBack URL

News Analysis: Siemens Cancels SAP Maintenance Contract

Published on September 12, 2009 by R "Ray" Wang
Potential Announcement of * Siemens cancellation represents a shift in mood by one of SAP's most loyal customers What's been rumored for the past few months has now publicly been confirmed discussed.  Golem.de (Babelfish Translation in English) *Wiwo.de,(Wirtschaftswoche the German equivalent of BusinessWeek) (Babelfish Translation in English) reports that Siemens says SAP Tschüß (i.e. ciao, cheers, bye) in its September 12th posting.
According to the translated report, "Siemens is one of the largest SAP customers, reports the business magazine economic week (Wiwo): Over 160.000 Siemens coworkers used the software of SAP. For maintenance, to the support and regular software actualizations belong, require SAP 17 per cent of the license costs. For Siemens costs add up after analysts estimations each year on a middle two digit amount of millions."
*What should be made clear here is that Siemens appears to have submitted its cancellation papers to SAP.  However, the company will most likely not be doing a rip and replace of its core systems. It's just looking at alternatives for SAP maintenance or even maybe a better counter offer from SAP. Third party maintenance vendors emerge from the woodwork Of note, IBM, and HCL have been listed with Rimini Street as contenders for this third party maintenance (3PM) market.  SAP's system integrators traditionally have shied away or have been rumored to be given strong signals not to provide alternative support options for their vendor partners.  To date, this has led to just one public offering from Rimini Street.  While the process requires significant investment in engineering and support resources, the contenders each bring significant capabilities to the table.  And according to some customers, several other providers have already been providing third party maintenance services for SAP in EMEA. The bottom line - economic pressures will bring more enterprise software customers to consider (3PM) Almost all SAP customers have end of year maintenance renewal terms.  As these organizations review their maintenance contracts going into 2010, it will be important to consider the role of third party maintenance in decisions.  Customers seek strategies to free funding up so they can address economic shortfalls and/or invest in innovation. But don't expect vendors such as SAP to back off without a fight.  Beware of some tactics some vendors have used to cut customers off from the third party maintenance option:
  • Do not give away your third party maintenance rights. Review your contracts with your legal team for such similar anti competitive language.  Validate any suspicious terminology with the vendor
  • Avoid offers by sales reps to bundle contracts. Once bundled, you will lose the ability to choose what parts of the relationship you wish to change
  • Say "NO" to contracts that tie upgrade rights to current status of maintenance payments. Some blog readers report a new tactic emerging in the field where even after downloading upgrades to a perpetual license, some vendors are claiming you do not have such rights unless you are current on maintenance.  This flies in the face of the spirit and intent of a perpetual license.
  • Eliminate gag rule clauses in your contracts. Make sure you retain the freedom to work with third parties to assist in contract negotiations.  You'll also want to have the right to discuss some benchmarking with peers and other user group members.
Your POV Is your enterprise software contract up for renewal?  How has your vendor treated you to date?  Do you need assistance with negotiating such contacts?  Wonder why Neelie Kroes and the EU ( yes this is an election year) or the US Anti-trust team have not stood up for your consumer rights yet?  What are your user groups doing to assist you?  Post your comment here or reach me direct at r at altimetergroup dot com or r at softwareinsider dot org.  Put the power of expert contract negotiation advice to work or drop us a line.
Related posts 20090912 Deal Architect - Vinnie Mirchandani "Don't Cry For Me Germany" 20090912 Irregular Enterprise - Dennis Howlett "Siemens Cans SAP Support"
Copyright © 2009 R Wang. All rights reserved. *Slight changes were made with some factual review input from multiple sources. (18:30 GMT - 8:00)

RSS feed for comments on this post. — TrackBack URL

Tuesday’s Tip: Note To Self – Start Renegotiating Your Q4 Software Maintenance Contracts Now!

Published on September 1, 2009 by R "Ray" Wang
Labor Day (US Holiday) traditionally marks the end of summer BBQ's, the beginning of the fall conference season, and yes, the time to begin a review of your software maintenance contacts that expire end of year.   As clients prepare for this seasonal ritual, a few trends in 2009 should set the stage for negotiations:
  • Continued weakness in the economy. Vendor revenues continue to decline as new license sales drop and vendors become more dependent on support and maintenance revenues.  Customers looking to upgrade or commit to new apps can expect vendors to be more generous on the support and maintenance front.
  • Dated and inflexible architecture of legacy applications. Change in business models, workplace dynamics, and macro economic conditions apply new pressures to aging systems purchased pre-Y2K.  Customers seek paths to upgrade but are limited by economic pressures.
  • Vendor awareness of customer discontent with existing support offerings. Customers now seek to understand what value vendors deliver in their support and maintenance agreements.  Many vendors have proactively responded by improving service or making appropriate concessions.
  • Growing acceptance of third party maintenance (3PM) options. Vendors such as Rimini Street and Spinnaker have proven to the market that they can deliver 3PM to an array of ERP applications.  Cutting maintenance fees by 50% or more can free up funds for innovation or pay for the next upgrade.
Align your apps strategy before negotiating contracts - do your homework Contract negotiations strategy should be planned in conjunction with an overall apps strategy.  Begin the process 2 to 3 months in advance.  Make sure the teams have the proper incentives in place.  Take the following steps as you prepare for your maintenance renewals: The bottom line - follow the seven simple steps to successfully negotiating software contracts.
  1. Ensure that the right team is in place
  2. Identify the organization’s key business drivers
  3. Determine the product adoption plan
  4. Consider contract strategy implications of the software ownership life cycle
  5. Align contract strategy with product adoption
  6. Identify leverage points
  7. Prioritize key contract objectives
Your POV Looking to hear your best practices with software maintenance contract renewals.
  • Is your maintenance contract up for renewal at the end of the year?
  • Do you need help putting a strategy in place?
  • Have you conducted an apps strategy assessment?
  • Would you like to break free from your vendor but don't know what options exist?
Post your comment here or reach me direct at r at altimetergroup dot com or r at softwareinsider dot org. Copyright © 2009 R Wang. All rights reserved.

RSS feed for comments on this post. — TrackBack URL

Tuesday’s Tip: How To Properly Align Team Incentives In Software Contract Negotiations

Published on August 4, 2009 by R "Ray" Wang
In the first step of the original seven simple steps to successfully negotiate software contracts, the key is to have the right team in place.  To refresh everyone's memory from the March 8th, 2004 post the details for Step 1 are:
Step 1: Ensure that the right team is in place
  • Inputs:  Organizational chart and agreement on key roles.
  • Action items: Determine the key roles needed to conduct the negotiation. Business teams include the COO, Division VP’s .  Technology leaders include the CIO, enterprise architecture . Vendor management teams include the procurement experts, legal team, etc.
  • Deliverables: Responsibilities list for each role.
Having the right team in place is important.  However, dozens of readers point out the dire need to not only align incentives but improve transparency.   Some examples include views such as:
  • CIO's. "While the CIO needs to set the technology direction, we often find two types of CIO's - the buyer and the implementer.  Buyer CIO's get wined and dined during the process, hob nob at events, get all the attention and perks, then leave for another company to do the same thing.  Implementer CIO's get stuck with making the stuff all work, cost overruns, and 100's of tradeoffs in promised capabilities and all the blame for failure." - VP of Business Applications, Fortune 100 Company.
  • Procurement/vendor management teams. "The only thing that our Procurement VP and her staff seem to care about is the discount % and total savings.  Despite our need for a product that costs the same, we see her team favor the products that show her the most savings.  Its no wonder why vendors keep jacking up prices to create win-wins for companies like ours where procurement teams have considerable influence." - CIO, EMEA based Financial Services Firm
  • Line of business execs. "Often the business side of the house fails to consider the indirect and hidden costs of ownership.  Some solutions are sexier but cost 3 to 5 times more to integrate, maintain, and staff up for.  These guys forget that we pick up the tab when it fails to work well with other systems" - Enterprise Architect,  North American Transportation Company
The bottom line - all incentives in the contract negotiations strategy must align with product adoption strategy Prior to any contract negotiations, the right team should also take the time to align incentives to the overall business drivers.  Form must follow function and how the solution will be used should be paramount.  Four key criteria:
  1. Define success criteria. Start by determining what success criteria will be utilized.  Some metrics include implementation times, return on investment, savings in total account value (TAV), etc.
  2. Create transparency in objectives. Team members should lay out their incentives and how performance in their management by objectives (MBO's) will be impacted by different scenarios.
  3. Realign incentives for maximum alignment.  Once the objectives have been determined, the team should come back with incentives that reflect performance in short, medium, and long term goals .
  4. Codify and communicate metrics.  Final metrics and incentives should be made public to all team members and performance objectively tracked by an independent committee.
Your POV. Got additional suggestions and best practices?  Ready for the big maintenance renewal seasons in Q4? If you need assistance with your SAP, Oracle, Infor, Lawson, Microsoft Dynamics, or other enterprise software contract, send me a private mail.  We can assist with a contract negotiations strategy that aligns with your apps adoption strategy.   Please post your comments here or send me a private email to rwang0 at gmail dot com or r at softwareinsider dot org. Copyright © 2009 R Wang. All rights reserved.

RSS feed for comments on this post. — TrackBack URL

Monday’s Musings: Users Now Expect More Advocacy From Their User Groups

Published on August 3, 2009 by R "Ray" Wang
Many user groups currently meet the basic requirements... Today's independent and vendor sponsored user groups serve a key role in building community among a common interest group.  Typical mission and objectives often include:
  • Creating an environment to share information and best practices
  • Exposing issues and limitations with a vendor's product and partner solutions
  • Soliciting member feedback and concerns about vendor and other solution providers
  • Leveraging collective power to influence the product road map of the vendor and other solution providers
  • Facilitating networking opportunities for a vendor's greater community and ecosystem
  • Educating members on new capabilities
  • Creating a forum for the vendor and other providers to discuss new initiatives.
...yet market needs creates demand for stronger leadership on key issues Comparisons of the November 2008 survey with the latest July 2009 update show that user group members seek greater assistance (see Figure 1).  In fact, rapid vendor consolidation, continual economic pressures, and high pressure sales tactics increase membership demands that user groups increasingly serve as client advocates in working with the vendors.  Key trends from the 2009 H2 191 respondent survey show sharp shifts such as:
  • ~52% increase to negotiate license discounts
  • ~50% decrease to communicate vendor news and updates
  • ~30% increase to address product issues, bugs, enhancement requests
  • ~24% increase to fight for maintenance fee reductions
  • ~22% increase to influence product road maps
Other interesting trends include:
  • ~10% decrease to liaise with software vendor executives
  • ~7% increase to deliver training and educational sessions
  • ~5% increase to benchmark performance
  • ~4% increase to share product and technical knowledge
  • ~3% decrease to provide recruiting opportunities
  • No change to facilitate peer networking opportunities
    Figure 1. Users Now Expect More Advocacy From Their User Groups [caption id="attachment_2827" align="aligncenter" width="850" caption="Source: Software Insider's Point of View User Group Survey - Copyright © 2009 R Wang. All rights reserved."]Users demand more action from user groups[/caption]
The bottom line - users need to play a more active role in both good and bad times Beyond paying the membership dues, user groups are only as successful as their active membership.   The challenge - strike a good balance in meeting membership needs and involving the membership in participating in key initiatives.  As users, now's the time to play a key role in transforming the user groups to meet key requirements and putting one of the best checks and balances in play.   Get active, get engaged and ask key questions to find out how effective your user group is? Some key questions user group members should ask:
  • How well does the user group align with my organization's key initiatives?
  • Is the user group business model aligned with the ability to advocate for the membership?
  • Does the user group have the leadership to publicly and privately raise issues with the vendor?
  • Do officers in the user group receive special privileges for their companies that members may not be privy to and how does that influence their ability to advocate on behalf of the membership?
  • How much say does the vendor have in the user group's decision making?
  • How independent is the user group?  How much money is received from the vendor versus outside sponsorships?  How does that money impact decision making?
The bottom line - vendors can proactively add value by addressing shifting requirements Strong user group leadership teams quickly respond to changing membership needs and leverage the power of the users and clients to publicly and privately create checks in the balance of power.  The goal - improve the vendor-client relationship via the influence of the membership.   Savvy vendors can address the enhancement request issue, product road maps, and performance benchmarks by:
  • Dedicating executive resources to user group initiatives
  • Increasing transparency in the requirements prioritization process
  • Creating resources to share benchmarking information
  • Reporting more frequently on progress.
Your POV. Do you feel your user group has given you value?  What are you looking from your user group? As a user what would you like to see from your user group?  Are you a software vendor trying to design better user group programs?  Would you like advice on how your program compares?  Feel free to share your experiences here or send me a private email to rwang0 at gmail dot com or r at softwareinsider dot org. Copyright © 2009 R Wang. All rights reserved.

RSS feed for comments on this post. — TrackBack URL

Tuesday’s Tip: 3 Approaches To Return Shelfware

Published on July 21, 2009 by R "Ray" Wang
Declining demand and diminishing output increase the pressure for enterprises to reduce their software license maintenance costs.  As part of a larger enterprise apps strategy, shelfware reduction provides an area for significant cost savings.   However, shelfware reduction is often hard to achieve because many vendors impose:
  • Enterprise wide agreements. These "all you can eat" agreements incentivize customers to buy more than they need at a "good" discount.  Yet, the end result is the payment of maintenance on non deployed apps (a.k.a. shelfware").
  • Repricing clauses. Many contracts contain language that impose list price recalculations when users choose to return their licenses to the vendor.
  • Bundled contracts. Contractual language often prevents clients from unbundling their software as needed.  In addition, vendors have initiated focused programs to bundle licenses.
The bottom line - apply three shelfware maintenance fee reduction techniques Craft a win-win strategy based on your product adoption requirements and overall contract negotiations strategy.  Three proven techniques in order of improving win-win  shelfware reduction scenarios:
  • Return unused licenses. Vendors agree to take back licenses and proportionately reduce maintenance costs.  Customers lose future rights to those licenses.
  • Park unused licenses. Vendors agree to hold unsued licenses and not charge maintenance.  Customers still have rights to the licenses and will pay for maintenance when licenses are deployed
  • Apply credit to purchase of new licenses. Vendors agree to assign a value to shelfware.  Credit on used licenses will be applied to future purchses.  Customers lose rights to the original software but gain rights to new software and functionality.
Your POV. Having issues with returning shelf ware?  Which approach have you tried?  Ready to share with us your experiences to date?  If you need help with your SAP, Oracle, Infor, Lawson, Microsoft Dynamics, or other enterprise software contract, send me a private mail and we can assist with a contract negotiations strategy that aligns with your apps adoption strategy.   You can post here or send me a private email to rwang0 at gmail dot com. Copyright © 2009 R Wang. All rights reserved.

RSS feed for comments on this post. — TrackBack URL

Research Summary: An Enterprise Software Licensee’s Bill of Rights, V2

Published on July 14, 2009 by R "Ray" Wang
FORWARD AND COMMENTARY "An Enterprise Software Licensee's Bill of Rights (LB0R) V2" brings the 10th installment of an on-going series to provide clients with insight on how to better align their packaged apps strategies.  Version 2 of the LBoR updates the original groundbreaking list of 36 best practices for software licensing and pricing and provides a good check list for contract negotiations strategy.  Eleven new rights have been added that reflect support for new deployment options, cost savings beyond the current recession, mitgation from future lock-in, and client best practices. Other documents as part of the ongoing series on packaged apps strategy include:
  1. Why You Need A Long-Term Apps Strategy
  2. Forrester's Long-Term Packaged Applications Strategy Framework
  3. Does Your Apps Strategy Support Your Corporate Business Drivers?
  4. Packaged Apps Strategies Take A Back Seat At Most Enterprises
  5. The ROI Of Packaged Apps Instance Consolidation
  6. Five Steps To Building A Recession Proof Packaged Apps Strategy
  7. Shape Your Apps Strategy To Reflect New SaaS Licensing And Pricing Trends
  8. Third Party Apps Maintenance Rebounds
  9. Craft Your Negotiations Strategy To Reflect New Packaged Apps Licensing And Pricing Trends
  10. An Enterprise Software Licensee's Bill of Rights, V2
RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS A. Introduction Since publication in December 2006, the LBoR has played a key tool in enterprise software contract negotiations and packaged apps strategy for over 1000 of my software licensing, pricing, and contract negotiations at Forrester.  During the update of the LBoR, over 100 end users and 70 vendors contributed to the addition of 11 new rights.   This document remains a must read for all those engaged in software contracts. B. Research Findings Changing market conditions result in new rights Four themes emerged among the 11 additional rights added (see Figure 1):
  • Support for new deployment options. Virtualization and SaaS transcend interesting pilots and concepts and become the norm in mainstream adoption. Users will expect to achieve savings in virtualized instances, the ability to swap user and usage rights among new deployment options, and protection from SaaS vendor bankruptcies.
  • Cost savings beyond the current recession. Renewed focus on cost reduction drive enterprises to identify short- and long-term opportunities. These roles expect choice, value, and predictability in their vendor's support and maintenance programs.
  • Mitigation from future vendor lock-in in a less competitive environment. Consolidation results in less competition. Users should seek leverage in contract negotiations beyond the initial purchase.
  • Additional client input into best practices. More than 70 software vendors and 100 Forrester clients and Software Insider blog readers provided similar suggestions for improvements in the selection and implementation phases of the software ownership life cycle.
Figure 1. Eleven New Rights Reflect Changing Market Conditions and Client Input 11 New Rights in the LBoR V2
Figure 2. An Enterprise Software Licensee's Bill of Rights, V2 An Enterprise Software Licensee's Bill of Rights, V2
Recommendations - Use the bill of rights as the centerpiece in contract negotiations Now's the time to review existing relationships and renegotiate contracts using the LB0R V2 as a reference guide.  Apply seven simple steps to successfully negotiate enterprise software contracts and build a long-term packaged apps strategy:
  1. Assemble the right team.
  2. Identify the key business drivers.
  3. Apply the software ownership life cycle and the licensee's bill of rights.
  4. Determine the product adoption plan.
  5. Align product adoption strategy with contract negotiation objectives.
  6. Identify main leverage points.
  7. Finalize the negotiation strategy.
C. Report Links To read the details about each end-user right, seven simple steps, recommendations and the "What It Means" cycle, click here for the Forrester Report: An Enterprise Software Licensee's Bill of Rights, V2 . For media courtesy requests, please send me an email to rwang@forrester.com
Read other POV on the Enterprise Software Licensee's Bill of Rights
Your POV. Would love your feedback on the report.  Looking for help with your SAP, Oracle, Infor, Lawson, Microsoft Dynamics, or other enterprise software contract?   You can post here or send me a private email to rwang0 at gmail dot com. Copyright © 2009 R Wang. All rights reserved.

RSS feed for comments on this post. — TrackBack URL

Tuesday’s Tip: Do Not Bundle Your Support and Maintenance Contracts!

Published on July 7, 2009 by R "Ray" Wang
In the past 2 weeks, emails from 31 software insider readers highlight a growing and concerning trend with support and maintenance contracts.  Vendors concerns about support and maintenance contract retentions has led to new initiatives to consolidate contracts.  At first glance, this may appear to be proactive and beneficial to customers.  In fact, common rationale provided by the vendor sales reps seem benevolent:
  • Reduce the time and headaches of managing multiple contracts
  • Update existing contract provisions
  • Identify areas of non-compliance.
Keep in mind sales reps have been trained to push these new programs. The bottom line - users should keep their guards up when vendor sales reps suggest bundling While the above rationale make sense, bundling often create an all or nothing situation.  Basically, it eliminates your options to go with another vendor throughout the 5 phases of the software ownership life cycle (i.e. selection, implementation, utilization, maintenance, and retirement).  Convenience of one contract will be offset by 3 scenarios why you should never bundle your support and maintenance contracts:
  • Lump sum payment. Moving to one support and maintenance contract often means that the annual fees will be paid all at once.  If push comes to shove, customers can mitigate this by asking for partial payments or more regular payment plans.
  • Third party maintenance. Customers seeking to move off of their vendor delivered support and maintenance will find themselves unable to segment out specific products and solutions.  Individual contracts by products preserve the option to cancel as needed.  In very rare cases, customers have carved out the maintenance for significantly older releases
  • Replacement strategies. Leaving contracts separate allows for easy replacement of applications.  This strategy makes most sense when customers have become a vendor's customers by acquisition.  Leaving contracts separate enables the option to switch solutions, move to a SaaS option, or create more leverage in deals with the vendor.
Be aware of these new efforts to suggest consolidation of contracts.  There are very few benefits.  Should this be suggested to you, do not hesitate to reach out for advice on strategies to mitigate risk! Your POV. In the Enterprise Software Licensee Bill of Rights V2, new rights address this issue.   But for now, have you experienced such vendor tactics?  Did you manage to segment out your contracts?  Do you need assistance with your apps strategy and contract negotiations strategy?  Please post here or send me a private email to rwang0 at gmail dot com. Copyright © 2009 R Wang. All rights reserved.

RSS feed for comments on this post. — TrackBack URL

News Analysis: Infor Flex Reflects Proactive Maintenance Policy

Published on June 22, 2009 by R "Ray" Wang
Infor announced two new maintenance options for its customers today. These actions represent a proactive approach to provide its customers with new ownership models.  The key offerings include:
  • Flex Upgrade: customers move to the latest application version, no change to existing maintenance and support costs, little or no license fees POV: Support and maintenance fees should often cover the rights to future versions.  The key issue - can my vendor innovate quickly enough? Customer's should find progress in Infor's investment in Open SOA and MyDay.  These solutions will help clients find a path to modernization from their existing applications.   Flex upgrade allows customers to move at their own pace.
  • Flex Exchange: switch to another related Infor application of similar size and scope, no change to existing maintenance and support costs, nominal transaction fees POV: This offering provides access to Infor's portfolio.  A customer on one ERP product can migrate to another product with minimal switching costs.  Only a handful of vendors allow this today.  Imagine buying PeopleSoft ERP and switching for Oracle EBS.  Only one other vendor is unique in this - Microsoft Dynamics provides this today by allowing customers to move between its acquired products.
Each offering also provides discounted and bundled project services and incentive pricing for additional users, modules, and extended applications. The bottom line - Infor Flex provides unique value in a rapidly consolidating market In many recent surveys, the top customer priorities for 2009 include upgrading, updating, or replacing legacy applications.  Many enterprises face decisions as to which vendors to keep and upgrade with; and which vendors to jettison and migrate from.  Amidst this move to upgrade, many vendors have imposed maintenance support increases or vendor imposed upgrade time lines based on support costs.  Infor's policy adds a fresh perspective by offering choice, value, and predictability.  In fact, these new policies may engender good will among loyal customers and be just enough incentive to keep competitors from poaching existing accounts.   The only thing that would make this offering better would be flex down options for lower tiered options akin to third party maintenance, but that might be asking too much! Your POV Are you ready to flex?  What Infor products do you own?  Would you benefit from Flex UPgrade or Flex Exchange? Please post or send on to rwang0 at gmail dot com and we’ll keep your anonymity.
Related links See additional coverage from different POV's Infor's Flex Release Frank Scavo's Favorable View Vinnie Mirchandani's Preference for Flex Down Dennis Howlett's Pragmatic Perspective 2009622 IDG News Service - Chris Kanaracus “Infor Rolls out New ‘Flex’ Upgrade Policy”
Copyright © 2009 R Wang. All rights reserved.

RSS feed for comments on this post. — TrackBack URL

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »