Weapons of SaaS Destruction
On-demand software must overcome three hurdles to improve enterprise adoption.
By Richard Levy, Mitratech
Sep. 22, 2009
Though Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) has broken through and become accepted as a software delivery platform for many large enterprises, the rate of adoption is still pretty low. According to a Goldman Sachs study of IT spending, 39% of companies are not deploying any SaaS, while 43% are deploying less than 5% of their software through SaaS. What's holding up the move to SaaS, especially in cases where the delivery model is clearly advantageous from an economic point of view?
The problem is that many IT managers sit in judgment of SaaS based on ideas that don't necessarily hold up under scrutiny. When the SaaS option arises for an enterprise software project, they lob "weapons of SaaS destruction" at the concept until it dies and the world is kept safe for on-premises installation for the time being. In a lot of cases, this is an unfortunate outcome that on-demand vendors must work to overcome in the minds of today's IT professionals.
The Three Weapons of SaaS Destruction
Having once been a serious SaaS skeptic myself along with my past experience with the old software time share days, I address this issue with personal experience. After nearly three decades of on-premise software development and delivery, I began to transition numerous Fortune 500 clients to the SaaS version of a critical business application.
To be clear, I am not a constant advocate of SaaS. Only a charlatan would claim that SaaS is superior to on-premises in every situation. There are an abundance of scenarios where the on-premise options are preferable for a host of reasons. However, when I hear knee-jerk objections to SaaS from corporate IT decision makers, I hope that they will be open to re-examining some of their dearly held convictions about the technology.
In my opinion, there are three basic weapons of SaaS destruction: security, flexibility, and cost.
1. Security
With the avalanche of news in recent years about data thefts and security breaches, it is understandable that IT managers would be nervous about the security of their data when it is stored at a third party provider. However, this concern really needs to be thought through carefully. The reality is that most legitimate SaaS providers, especially those subject to SAS70 Type II audits, are usually a great deal more secure than their corporate subscribers. Plus, the costs associated with attaining this level of infrastructure security along with the skilled resources needed makes matching the security of a good SaaS operator an expensive undertaking.
-
The problem is that many IT managers sit in judgment of SaaS based on ideas that don't necessarily hold up under scrutiny. When the SaaS option arises for an enterprise software project, they lob "weapons of SaaS destruction" at the concept until it dies and the world is kept safe for on-premises installation for the time being. In a lot of cases, this is an unfortunate outcome that on-demand vendors must work to overcome in the minds of today's IT professionals.
The Three Weapons of SaaS Destruction
Having once been a serious SaaS skeptic myself along with my past experience with the old software time share days, I address this issue with personal experience. After nearly three decades of on-premise software development and delivery, I began to transition numerous Fortune 500 clients to the SaaS version of a critical business application.
To be clear, I am not a constant advocate of SaaS. Only a charlatan would claim that SaaS is superior to on-premises in every situation. There are an abundance of scenarios where the on-premise options are preferable for a host of reasons. However, when I hear knee-jerk objections to SaaS from corporate IT decision makers, I hope that they will be open to re-examining some of their dearly held convictions about the technology.
In my opinion, there are three basic weapons of SaaS destruction: security, flexibility, and cost.
1. Security
With the avalanche of news in recent years about data thefts and security breaches, it is understandable that IT managers would be nervous about the security of their data when it is stored at a third party provider. However, this concern really needs to be thought through carefully. The reality is that most legitimate SaaS providers, especially those subject to SAS70 Type II audits, are usually a great deal more secure than their corporate subscribers. Plus, the costs associated with attaining this level of infrastructure security along with the skilled resources needed makes matching the security of a good SaaS operator an expensive undertaking.
-
