8th Annual Accounting and ERP survey

September 1, 2006 from CAmagazine and written by Michael Burns – It’s hard to believe we are now in our eighth year for our annual accounting and ERP vendor survey. Interest continues to grow and most vendors want to be part of the survey. This year, we have new or updated responses for 50 systems as of June 2006. The systems cover the entire spectrum – from QuickBooks and Simply Accounting to mid-market systems from Sage and Microsoft to high-end products from SAP and Oracle.

Each year, we expand the survey to cover more functionality. Our objective is to include functions that differ from one product to another. This year we have added service management, commitment accounting, project accounting, back order fulfillment, forecasting, freight calculations, warehouse management functionality and backflushing.

Watch out for the maintenance contract

July 2006 form CAmagazine – “Companies on the hunt for a new system typically do an ex- haustive analysis of various options before they make a tentative selection. Once they do, the subject of maintenance inevitablyrears its head. For some strange reason, vendors wait until the very end of negotiations before they bring up the subject. They might even treat it as a mere formality. The question is, should you sign the contract as is?

The short answer is no. Everything should be negotiable, including the maintenance contract. Usually, vendors will ask you to pay maintenance on the list price. But in a competitive situation, they might allow you to negotiate using the discount price.

Maintenance usually runs about 18% of the licence fee. But the contract could include escalation clauses, such as standard cost of living increases. At the very least, make sure there are no increases for three years. A ceiling should be provided after that.

In the fee, only a small portion goes toward actual maintenance. Most of the fee goes into R&D. Any vendor that does not invest heavily in R&D will not be able to compete with more nimble companies that leverage new technology. You want your vendor to be successful; otherwise, it will be purchased for its customer list, not its product. That will leave you with the task of converting sooner or later to a new system.

So you do need to pay the vendors something. But is that something worth the price? You might not want to upgrade every year, especially if you have customizations that will need to be adapted to the new system. You might be able to live quite happily without new features that add complexity or require more computing power. Some vendors will require you to upgrade whether you want to or not. But you can negotiate the length of time you can wait before upgrading.

But there may be compelling reasons to keep current. Your chosen vendor might also be working on new software that won’t be available for years. This new software might be chargeable unless you keep current with upgrades and pay your maintenance fees. Some vendors will not support their clients unless they stay relatively up to date. The vendors would argue — rightfully — that problems encountered may be fixed in the newer release.

Maintenance and support can mean very different things to different vendors. One vendor might give you unlimited annual telephone support, while another might give you none. What’s more, even “unlimited” support has some limits. Vendors need to protect themselves from taking endless calls from poorly trained customers. They will also vary in their responsiveness. It won’t do you much good if your vendor takes several days to get back to you for a critical problem.

Let’s assume you have unlimited support and your contract includes an adequate response time. Will you get your money’s worth? During the implementation, your support questions will probably be answered by the implementation consultants rather than the vendor’s support department. You should ask for a break on maintenance fees during this period. However, the vendors will say you are getting support indirectly, since the implementation consultants are calling them instead. The vendors have a point but the consultants won’t be making as many calls. And once the system is up and running, support calls should be less frequent. Some vendors will allow you to purchase a bundle of support hours to be used as required.

Vendors have a good thing going with their maintenance fees. Today an investment in business systems should be a 10-year proposition. Ten years at 18% of the purchase price isn’t bad. Vendors are more willing to discount their licence price than their maintenance price. But remember: everything goes on the table before your signature goes on anything.

Internal Controls — A Review of Current Developments

August 2006 from International Federation of Accountants – This review summarizes key internal control frameworks, highlights recent legislation, and discusses the role of internal control in enhancing corporate governance. It is a 19 page document and we will just quote some of the more interesting paragraphs “… As the severity of high-profile corporate accounting failures has increased steadily over the last decade, there has been a corresponding increase in the development of new legislation, standards, codes and guidelines to assist organizations in improving their corporate governance. While these standards and guidelines originated from a variety of sources, they share a core principle: that good governance, by its nature, demands effective systems of internal control.

Recognition of the critical importance of internal control is evident in the key frameworks and guidelines on the subject. In the 1990s internal control frameworks such as the COSO1 (USA), Turnbull2 (UK) and CoCo3 (Canada) emerged, some of which have recently been reviewed and updated or supplemented. In addition, there are many other publications on the theory and benefits of internal control…

As internal control frameworks, COSO, Turnbull and CoCo complement each other. They each see internal control as a process/set of processes designed to facilitate and support the achievement of business objectives. Each of the frameworks takes the wider approach to internal control covering consideration of significant risks in operations, compliance and financial reporting. Objectives such as improving business effectiveness are included, as are compliance and reporting objectives. The narrow approach to internal control is usually restricted to internal control over financial reporting…

SOX focuses on one specific aspect of internal control, that related to internal control over financial reporting whereas, as been previously noted, the key internal control frameworks such as COSO, Turnbull and CoCo take a wider business-led approach and cover all controls. Assessments of internal control using the SOX definition are less likely to focus on the business benefits that can result from a review of the wider aspects of internal control and the related processes for risk management…

By covering all material controls and linking internal control to risk management, it allowed companies to focus on the most significant risks facing them. By setting out high-level principles rather than detailed processes, it required boards to think broadly about their company’s risks and enabled them to apply the guidance in a way that suited the circumstances of their company.”

180 View – We believe that internal control should consider business effectiveness. In this way, the control review will provide more value. As well, there should not be a significant increase in time spent as long as the reviewer has the expertise in compliance as well as efficiency and effectiveness.

Oracle defies the naysayers

August 15, 2006 from BusinessWeek – “In 2003, when Oracle Chief Executive Larry Ellison announced his intention to buy PeopleSoft, he was declaring war on a number of fronts. Not only did he have to contend with PeopleSoft CEO Craig Conway, who railed against the deal for more than a year, but he was also stepping up a battle with his counterparts at SAP, the largest seller of so-called software applications, which run everything from businesses' accounting to their call-center operations.

Early on, Ellison made it clear Oracle (ORCL) was buying PeopleSoft and other companies with the immediate goal of becoming the No. 2 player in applications, and ultimately capturing the top spot. "SAP is a formidable company, but we have a shot at catching them," Ellison said back in April, 2004 (see BusinessWeek.com, 4/4/05, "Larry, You Picked a Nasty Fight").

Then there was Ellison's tussle with the many naysayers—SAP (SAP) and PeopleSoft executives among them—who warned Oracle wouldn't sufficiently support PeopleSoft products and that it would stumble in an ambitious project, code-named "Fusion," to knit together a string of acquisitions, ultimately sending PeopleSoft customers into SAP's arms.

IMPRESSIVE GAINS. These days, the digestion is well under way. And according to new data from AMR Research, Oracle has done a much better job keeping acquired applications customers and winning new ones than many early critics expected.

According to the numbers, Oracle made impressive gains in one of the fastest growing categories of applications: Human capital management, or HCM, includes software for human resources departments that automates tasks like performance reviews and handles paperwork around hiring new employees. Oracle took over the top market share slot for the first time, thanks to its PeopleSoft acquisition, according to AMR. By the end of 2005, it had 25% of the market, while SAP had 23% -- though the lead will narrow in 2006, when SAP's share will rise to 24% as Oracle’s holds steady, AMR says.

PeopleSoft had been the gold standard for HCM, so the gain isn't entirely surprising. But the jump was larger than if PeopleSoft and Oracle's premerger revenues were lumped together. In 2004, Oracle sold $324 million of HCM software, and PeopleSoft sold $864 million. But in 2005, the combined company sold nearly $1.4 billion in HCM software. "One plus one actually equaled two-plus," says Jim Shepherd of AMR.

LONG ROAD. When it came to customer relationship management, or CRM, the share gains weren't quite as impressive, because Oracle's acquisition of Siebel, a leader in CRM, didn't close until 2006. Still, in 2005 Oracle moved from the sixth largest seller of the software, which helps manage salespeople and call centers, to No. 3, just behind SAP and Siebel, in 2005. This year, AMR expects Oracle will rise to No. 2, with 14%, just below SAP's 17%.

Oracle still has a long road to surpass SAP in applications overall. HCM and CRM make up less than 30% of overall applications revenues marketwide. And because research firms count market share differently, not everyone grants Oracle the top spot in any category. In a statement, SAP noted that AMR takes into account services revenues, not just licenses and ongoing maintenance, which gives Oracle an edge. Further, it said, "any gains…Oracle has made in enterprise software are a temporary situation, based on their flurry of recent acquisitions designed to gain market share." The statement called further gains "unsustainable."

Still, Oracle clearly has the wind at its back. The company posted a banner fourth quarter on June 22, with applications revenue up an impressive 83%. And the stock price has been flirting with its 52-week high of $15.50, closing Aug. 14 at $15.29, up 2%. Meanwhile, SAP had a rare earnings stumble on June 13 when it said it would fall short of analysts' expectations for the second quarter. Analysts said the miss suggests Oracle could be finally eating into SAP's market share. "If that's not a momentum shift, I don't know what is," says Jesper Andersen, Oracle senior vice-president of applications strategy.

SLUGFEST AHEAD. Analysts give Oracle props for overcoming early customer fears that the company would kill PeopleSoft's superior applications. Instead, Oracle has offered lifetime support for the software customers had already bought. "That really took a card off the table the SAP guys could play against them," says Credit Suisse First Boston analyst Jason Maynard. "Oracle is demonstrating to customers this applications thing is a real and serious market for them," he says.

And, as Oracle and SAP begin to slug it out in the few remaining up-for-grabs industries, such as retail, banking, and telecommunications, strong footholds in human resources and customer care will be a big bonus. To service businesses, that software is more important than manufacturing-friendly software that manages things like when to ship how many widgets to which customers.

The challenge for Oracle will be maintaining the momentum, beyond integrating acquisitions. In core applications software, SAP has more than double Oracle's market share. And SAP is adept at execution. Without any acquisitions, it's expected to increase revenue at least 15% this year. "Next year will really be a neck-and-neck race (in these two sectors) for Oracle and SAP," Shepherd says. "While PeopleSoft really did bump them up to the top, they are by no means pulling away."

After all, that's the real battle between SAP and Oracle: Not how many customers you have, how much of their IT budget you can get. Almost every large company already has some Oracle or SAP somewhere, and these aren't systems that are easily or cheaply replaced. Ellison may yet make good on his promise to become No. 1, but expect a long bruising battle for both companies. Oracle may have acquired its way to No. 2, but it'll have to become No. 1 the old-fashioned way: closing deal after hard-fought deal. And there, SAP has historically had the edge.

180 View – We were one of the naysayers. In January 2006, we wrote “We think that Oracle has bit off more than it can chew. Creating one system for the best of Oracle, PeopleSoft and JD Edwards is going to be a huge job and you can't please everyone at the same time. There is also a lot of uncertainty right now, which is scaring potential new customers away.” It looks like we underestimated Oracle.

Systems Union is acquired by Infor

August 3, 2006 from Computer Business Review – “Extensity was created in March 2006 following the acquisition of Geac Computer Corp Ltd by Infor's backer Golden Gate Capital. Geac's ERP assets were consumed by Infor while its financial and business-performance software was used as the basis for the newly formed Extensity. At the time the Geac assets were split as a consequence of Infor's commitment to supplying ERP for selected verticals within the manufacturing and distribution sectors. It was felt performance-management represented a different class of application that did not have a home within Infor. The decision to bring the assets into the Infor business suggests a changing belief system, although Infor described it as an acceleration of its strategy.

Meanwhile, Extensity was in the process of acquiring Systems Union Group, a UK-based provider of financial and performance management solutions. Infor has continued with and concluded the Systems Union transaction so now it is also part of the Infor business.

"We are broadening our offering to include solutions that will enable our customers to improve performance throughout the organization," said Jim Schaper, chairman and CEO of Infor. "Companies can now choose fully integrated solutions for specific industries as well as best-in-class standalone solutions from one provider."

This trio of acquisitions means Infor will now have annual revenue of $2.1bn and approximately 70,000 customers, and will be the undisputed leader in terms of market share and revenue within the growing mid-market sector. It will also have something like 40 different applications, using different code bases and system architectures, and the cost of backing its "never sunset an application" policy.

The Atlanta, Georgia-based company has also added substantial debt to its balance sheet. The two-stage transaction was financed through a combination of cash on balance sheet and committed debt financing. The aggregate facilities are comprised of a $150m revolving credit facility, a $2.25bn term loan facility, and a $1.425bn senior subordinated bridge facility.”

180 View – It’s too bad that Systems Union was not able to survive on its own. Hopefully it will be one of the survivors in the Infor world of software.

Onyx acquired by Made2Manage

June 6, 2006 from Managing Automation – “In a marked expansion of its enterprise applications rollup strategy, Made2Manage Holdings Inc., the holding company of ERP vendor Made2Manage Software Inc., today disclosed an agreement to buy stand-alone CRM software vendor Onyx Software Corp. in a cash transaction valued at $92 million.

180 View – What’s interesting is the merger of ERP and CRM. It is now difficult for some CRM companies to be successful as a stand alone offering.

Strategic Systems - This overused term is at risk of losing all meaning. What’s truly strategic?

August 25, 2006 from CIO – “The word strategic is used so freely these days that it’s at risk of losing all meaning. People attach the S-word to their pet project hoping it will help gain others’ approval. “Ooh ... ahh ... wow ... it’s strategic!” people are supposed to say. “Yes, let’s do it without any further justification!”

With such overuse, the word has come to mean little more than “nice”—a bland superlative. He’s a nice guy. This project is strategic. Yawn. This is a serious problem, because it’s imperative that IT and business leaders know what truly is strategic in order to focus scarce resources on really important, high-payoff initiatives…

When we discuss “strategic systems,” we generally are referring to IT solutions that contribute directly to clients’ business strategies. IT solutions create business value at a number of levels.

As IT climbs the stair-steps, it contributes successively more strategic value. Up through Level 3, the benefits are simply enhanced productivity. At Level 4 and above, technology allows the business to do things it otherwise could not do—termed “value-added” benefits.

Operations
At Level 1, IT is just keeping things running. While this has value—indeed, most firms cannot survive without it—no initiatives at this level can be considered strategic. For something to be strategic, it has to be a means to some new end, not just essential to maintaining the status quo. This doesn’t mean that investments to “keep the lights on” are unimportant by any means; it just means they’re not strategic to IT or to clients.

An example of an investment at Level 1 is the replacement of IT infrastructure that’s at the end of its life.

IT Efficiency
At Level 2, investments in IT pay off by making future IT products and services less expensive. These initiatives may be strategic to IT (if the IT strategy is focused on lowering costs, which isn’t always the case, as discussed above). But Level 2 initiatives will not be considered strategic to the business.

Examples of a Level 2 investment are a migration to a new infrastructure platform that will significantly improve IT’s cost structure, server consolidations, process improvements like ITIL, and IT organizational improvements.

Business Efficiency
Level 3 initiatives spend money on IT to save even more money by making clients’ business operations more efficient. These investments are only strategic if the clients’ business strategy focuses on reducing costs. That’s a big if. Unless clients are in a commodity business where product cost is the primary buying criterion, clients’ strategies are more likely to focus on innovation, product differentiation through features or quality, market image or customer satisfaction.

Examples of Level 3 systems are those that improve bargaining power with suppliers (such as supplier e-commerce), increase inventory turns, reduce administrative workloads and optimize logistics.

ERP generally delivers value at Level 3 (with spin-off benefits at Level 2). Even most business process improvements that are triggered by the implementation of ERP do little more than improve efficiency, though certainly there are examples of higher levels of value when ERP is triggered by strategic changes in the business rather than the other way around.

Business Effectiveness
Level 4 investments in IT make clients more effective. IT tools may enhance individual creativity, thinking and decision-making abilities or communications effectiveness. IT solutions may also enhance collaboration within teams, or improve corporate-wide alignment. By helping clients do their jobs significantly better, IT may create value within any business strategy.

Examples of IT solutions that deliver Level 4 value include the gamut of end-user computing tools when they’re applied to specific human thinking and collaboration needs. My first book, The Information Edge, included 60 case studies that illustrate Level 4 benefits. Mary Boone’s follow-on book, Leadership and the Computer, described a series of case studies where end-user computing tools enhanced executives’ ability to lead their organizations.

IT business applications may also deliver Level 4 benefits. For example, at Abbott Laboratories, an Electronic Laboratory Notebook helps chemists share research findings in the drug discovery process, precluding redundant experiments and improving collaboration. It also helps secure Abbott’s intellectual property by documenting discoveries in an organized form.

Customer Relationships
Level 5 solutions enhance the relationship between the corporation and its external customers, improving customer satisfaction, loyalty or reach.

Customer loyalty programs, pioneered by American Airlines’ frequent flier program, are a classic example of Level 5 systems. A great example of this concept is WelcomeAddition.com, provided by the Abbott Nutritionals Division. It gives new and expectant parents access to a wealth of information about pregnancy and babies’ first years. Participants can connect with other new parents, read articles and research questions, and interact with baby experts. The site encourages healthy living while building loyalty to Abbott’s infant nutritional line of products.

As another example, my stock brokerage firm provided me with a trading tool that allows me to monitor markets, analyze strategies and enter trades. Now that I’ve got it set up the way I like it, I’m not going to move my portfolio to another brokerage house to save just a few cents per trade.

ERP and CRM may deliver benefits at this level if they allow separate business units to come together and treat customers holistically (rather than viewing them as a set of separate contracts)—an IT patch for a corporate sales function that’s divided by product line rather than by customer.

With regard to customer reach, e-commerce delivers Level 5 benefits by allowing firms to enter new market segments without a physical presence.

Product Value
Level 6 is the most lucrative, and the most elusive, form of strategic value. At this level, IT enhances the value of the corporation’s products to external customers.

When IT is part of the product, this level is obvious. Examples are found in any IT service provider. ADP provides payroll services, and any improvements in its payroll applications improve its product. At the consumer level, Internet banks are learning that the ease of use and capabilities of their websites are as important to customers as their rates.

A very interesting example of Level 6 value is found in the automobile auction industry. Two major companies auction fleets of used cars for manufacturers and rental companies. Since the price they get for the cars is equivalent—it’s a highly efficient market&151;they compete on service. A significant portion of their service is the information they provide to their customers about the market and the transactions. In other words, they compete based on the ability of their information systems to package and format data coming from the auctions in a way that’s most useful to their customers.

180 View – We take a different approach in identifying strategy. We ask our clients to define their critical success factors (CSFs) - what they must do well in order to be successful. Strategic value is directly related to the extent IT allows an organization to achieve its CSFs.

Inside Microsoft Windows Vista Release Candidate

September 2, 2006 from PC Magazine – “It's been a long time coming, but Windows Vista Release Candidate 1 is finally here. As Microsoft starts to collect feedback from a broad spectrum of users in one of its largest test programs ever, the company will soon be in a position to decide whether the product is solid enough to meet announced ship dates of November for enterprise customers and January 2007 for consumers.

Earlier this week, I started using Vista build 5568, a version that Microsoft says should be virtually indistinguishable from the actual RC1 code. Since recent Vista revisions have been focusing on improving performance, compatibility, and stability rather than adding features, there's not a lot to highlight that's truly new. Instead, I've compiled a walkthrough of 100 screen shots recapping what Vista looks like from top to bottom.

The most pressing question for RC1 is whether it shows that Vista is good enough to ship. In my experience so far, it's getting a lot closer, but it's not quite there yet. Microsoft representatives acknowledge that the term "Release Candidate" might be slightly confusing, as it implies a non-zero probability that the code might be what actually goes into production—which clearly isn't the case for RC1.

With build 5568, I've encountered recurring problems when resuming from sleep, anomalous network behavior, and some performance issues. That said, for the most part, the experience is remarkably good—enough so that I'm thinking I may finally be able to start using Vista as a production platform. Most of the flaws I've encountered are minor nuisances rather than showstoppers.

Some of the improvements RC1 offers over beta 2 are substantial. Installation proceeds much more quickly—about 30 minutes on a newly-formatted partition, versus an hour or so in the past. My hardware devices have all been recognized during or immediately after the installation process. (Microsoft claims to have dramatically improved hardware support lately, particularly for wireless devices, printers, Serial ATA controls, and Media Center tuners.)

The UAC (User Account Control) security feature has been tuned to be far less intrusive—it can no longer steal focus from an active application, for example—and there's an easy way to turn it off if you find it unbearable. RC1 also lets non-administrator users install ActiveX controls approved by corporate IT.

Bundled applications like Windows Media Player 11 that were flaky in earlier builds have so far proved solid. Of a few dozen third-party software packages, only a couple have shown overt compatibility issues.

Vista now exhibits a level of interface polish and consistency that wasn't present in earlier versions. In some cases, it seems like minor features whose capabilities weren't quite solidified have simply been removed.

On the whole, I've found performance and stability in the builds leading to RC1 to be tolerable—and dramatically better than beta 2—but not yet what I'd expect from a release-quality product. Resuming a machine from sleep is especially slow, and I sometimes encounter cases where the Windows shell lags.

Although Vista doesn't explicitly include a lot of the core features that Microsoft initially touted, from the WinFS file system to the NGSCB (Next Generation Secure Computing Base) security infrastructure, it nevertheless incorporates a substantial portion of their capabilities and is clearly a step beyond Windows XP in many ways. But whether it's really ready to ship in the next couple of months will depend on what the larger ecosystem of PC software and hardware developers, system OEMs, enterprise customers, and consumers has to say about its experiences with RC1.”

180 View – You will hear a lot more about Vista over the months ahead.

The Fundamentals of Search Engine Optimization

July 12, 2006 from Market Position – “The fundamental concepts behind Search Engine Optimization (SEO) are understood by most search engine marketers, but those new to the subject should find this article to be very useful.”

180 View – SEO is critical – if you have a web site and you are not attracting many visitors, read this article. It would also be a good idea to get some professional help. We don’t do this kind of work but will be able to recommend companies that do.

Choosing the wrong software

August 29, 2006 from InfoWorld – “The road to new software can follow a strange and convoluted course. I was feeling optimistic as I began a new consulting engagement for a national retailer, as part of a team developing an RFP (request for proposal) for a new HR/Payroll application. True, there were 12 divisions, and each one required a detailed process-flow-and-requirements definition. But having met with the key users in each area, I was confident we’d be able to sort everything out. In addition, we enjoyed the support of the VP in charge of HR, which helped us avoid many of the stalling tactics that typically occur during such efforts.

Months later we ended up with two three-inch binders of requirements, which we mailed out to vendors. Then we waited for their responses. Two vendors I’ll call “HRC” and “Acme Software” made the cut. Several weeks later they came in to show off their performing dogs and ponies.

The IT people immediately saw the technological advantages and superior functionality of HRC’s Windows-based offering. We also saw that Acme was trying to sell us a hasty retrofit of their mainframe software sitting in “a window.” Unfortunately, the users we were working for thought both offerings were essentially identical. In fact, since Acme had a persuasive representative with vast experience in payroll, and as our user team had a strong payroll (vs. HR functionality) bias, the retailers were starting to lean toward Acme.

Then, Harry, our project manager (whom I knew for a fine programmer, but no politician) surprised us all with a brilliant play. For some reason, he was always at odds with Bob, the key HR staffer who was leading the evaluation. Harry and Bob always took opposite positions. Anyway, during a lunch break, I overheard Harry confiding to Bob how much he liked Acme’s offering. A few minutes later, back in the conference room, the user team flipped its position and voted for HRC -- our IT team’s choice!

From that point on, the evaluation moved steadily forward to select the vendor we knew would be superior. I thought we were home free. No such luck.

HRC submitted a two-page license agreement to be reviewed by the legal department and the users. By the time the negotiations were completed, the document had blossomed to 26 pages of performance guarantees, special clauses, and a dazzling array of stipulations.

Just as this process seemed to be winding down, we received word from the corporate executives that the deal was off! Too expensive, we were told; we’d have to purchase too much high-end hardware to support the system.

We were devastated. Our baby was dead. All we had to show were two three-ring binders of requirements. And I was out of a job. As it turns out, those binders were important. Several months later the information they held was used to redefine job descriptions and create critical enhancements to the existing in-house HR software.

Ultimately, 60 developers were hired to handle that workload. Sadly, I wasn’t one of them. But that’s not the end of the story. Nearly three years later, after a change of CIOs, a new management team (which still had a bias for payroll functionality) took over the reins of power. And guess what? They went right out and bought Acme’s HR/Payroll package.”

180 View – This article is a good case study of what not to do:

1. There is something terribly wrong if you have “two three-inch binders of requirements”. You’re not designing a system from scratch. You should be including only what’s important and what differs across systems.
2. The RFP was mailed. It should be sent electronically as a turnaround document.
3. Only 2 vendors made the cut from the RFP. You should be doing more diligence before cutting it down to only 2.
4. The 2 vendors “came in to show off their performing dogs and ponies”. The vendors should be given instructions to tailor the demonstration.
5. “Just as this process seemed to be winding down, we received word from the corporate executives that the deal was off! Too expensive, we were told; we’d have to purchase too much high-end hardware to support the system.” – Whatever happened to total cost of ownership? This should have been understood earlier in the process.
6. “Ultimately, 60 developers were hired to handle that workload. Sadly, I wasn’t one of them.” The so-called consultant had no business participating in the selection process if he also wanted to be involved in the implementation.