post

NetBooks: Integrated SaaS Suite for Very Small Businesses. Almost.

When I started this post 2 months ago, it had a more tongue-in-cheek working title: NetBooks – the Little Gem in Hiding – clearly a play on Dennis Howlett’s  post, NetBooks – a little gem.  That’s because despite Dennis’s positive review of this new SaaS solution for small businesses I found their website a major turn-off .   I did not find a feature-list, screen prints, demos: the closest they had was a contact form to request a scheduled demo.  Failure!  You can’t reach the “long tail” of the market via outbound sales; your site needs to be absolutely transparent, so potential customers can find all feature / price information at their fingertips, then just try-and-buy. 

But what a difference a few weeks make!  Having checked back, now NetBooks offers decent product information, online videos, in fact you can now set up a free trial account with sample data in minutes.  (While it looks like just another contact form, the process is automated, I received my email confirmation within a minute.) Self-navigation definitely beats just watching vid’s. Kudos to NetBooks for fixing a major shortcoming so fast!  (Note to self: don’t leave half-written posts, they may have a short shelf-life…)

Let’s look at the actual system now.  NetBooks aims to be an On-Demand integrated business management solution for small manufacturing businesses – in fact for other types of businesses, too, as long as they hold inventory and ship tangible products.  They cater for  what they call True Small Businesses (TSB), which I referred to as  VSB – very small businesses, the “S” in SMB / SME.  Typically companies with less then 25 employees, sometimes only 3-5, and, most importantly, without professional IT support, hence Software as a Service is a life-saver.

NetBooks tries to cover a complete business cycle, from opportunity through sales, manufacturing, inventory / warehouse management, shipping, billing, accounting – some with more success then others.  Manufacturing, Inventory, Shipping and their integration to Accounting appear to be a stronghold.  If you’re in sales, you’d like to see a Sales Catalog, if you’re in the warehouse, you want an Inventory List, and if you are in manufacturing, you need a Production Elements list: they are all one and the same, allowing you to define a product structure (Bill of Materials, BOM) with different physical characteristics, reorder points, pricing levels, warehousing requirements, marketing notes…etc.   In other words, different functions can update their own slice of the same information and it’s shared with others (of course in a small business several of these functions may very well be carried out by the same person.)

Not having any procurement / purchasing functions appears to be a glaring omission: after all, if you’re in manufacturing, you will likely need to buy some components / materials. 

Another function, nominally present, but rather weak is CRM.  I can set up a Revenue Opportunity list, track contacts, events, even financial terms per record, but what’s the point if I can’t turn these into a Quote, later a Sales Order?  In fact I have to start a sales order from scratch, and it does not update the opportunities: unless you close them out, they will show as prospects long after you shipped the order, invoiced the customer and received payment.

Sales Order creation appears to be  a watershed event in NetBooks: that’s when the system comes alive, integration gets better from here, with information flowing through nicely.  Completing the order creates a shipping document, confirmation of the shipment creates a a billing request, invoice.  Even external services are integrated well, like UPS for Online Shipping and PayCycle for payroll .  There’s a complete “document trail”, you can start from the accounting side, too: from Accounts Payable (invoice) you can trace all actions back to the shipping doc, sales order…etc.

I understand why Dennis with his accounting background considered this system a gem:

As an accountant by training I often make the mistake of taking the number cruncher’s view. On this occasion I don’t have to. The way NetBooks is organized, you enter it according to the role you fulfill. That means you only ever need use the screens that are pertinent to you.

Real-world people record their real-world transactions: manufacturing, physical movement of goods, and the system records the facts in Accounting.  NetBooks  is an accounting system at it’s heart, but one without the need to deal with accounting screens.  This should not come as a surprise, given Founder Ridgley Evers’s own background: he was co-founder at QuickBooks, the de facto standard for small businesses.

Most of the sample data in the NetBooks trial system appear to have come from Evers’s real-life business: Davero Ingredienti, a purveyor of olive oil products, and I think this very well represents the type of small business NetBooks may be ideal for: relatively stable, has a good repeat customer base, receives a  lot of inbound orders and needs to execute on manufacturing and shipping to these customers.  It badly lacks stronger Sales features, and a more flow-oriented thinking to support aggressively growing businesses.

The User Interface is nothing to call home about. You certainly won’t find the lively charts and dashboards seen at Salesforce.com, NetSuite, SugarCRM, Zoho CRM …etc.  But having a simplistic UI is one thing, making it outright boring is another, and hard to use is a capital crime.  In NetBooks you basically navigate through small text lists, then double -click on an item to drill down to more details, wait long (the system, at least the trial one feels very slow) for several overlapping screens to pop up. You have to close or move around some of these pop-ups to see what’s underneath.  And whoever came up with the idea of clicking on those tiny arrows should be banned from web design for life.  

 

Seriously, this isn’t just the lack of rounded-corners-gradient-colors web 2.0 goodness: the poor UI, the microscopic arrows to click on render NetBooks a pain to use. 

Although I’ve been quite critical in this review, I still like the NetBooks concept: give very small businesses an integrated system they previously could not afford. NetBooks starts at $200/month for 5 users, additional users seats are $20.  That’s a fraction of the current “gold standard” in the space, NetSuite – although the step up to NetSuite also brings a wealth of new functionality.  Finally, SAP’s Business ByDesign is worth mentioning: when it becomes widely available, it will be the most function-rich SMB SaaS solution – but their entry point is about where NetBooks’s upper limit is.

post

SaaS vs. Open Source for SMB’s? A No-Brainer.

(Update)
I have to take issue with Paul Gillin’s approach as he discusses whether SMB’s are better off with SaaS or Open Source Applications. If we equate Open Source to downloadable, on-premise installed software, I have no doubt, and have stated it before that the only good answer is SaaS. But, hold on, a few minutes later we’ll see these two options may not be mutually exclusive for long.

Paul analyzes several criteria:

  • cost
  • speed of deployment
  • customization
  • reliability
  • data ownership
  • vendor viability

These are all issues well-discussed on the web, and although Paul does not explicitly say, my reading is that he also leans towards the SaaS conclusion. The problem is that this criteria-by-criteria approach works well with a typical (mid-size) company where some level of IT expertise is present. Small Business America is very different from the web-savy geeky software startups; the majority are more traditional businesses with no CIO, IT department, in fact often without any IT support whatsoever. While the two main obstacles SMB’s face with any on-premise implementation are cost and (lack of) IT expertise, you can’t just translate the latter into cost – i.e. the cost of hiring full-time IT support. The opportunity cost of Management venturing into IT hiring and project decisions instead of focusing on their primary business makes this an impractical approach, leaving us with only one choice: SaaS.

Another issue not discussed in the article is integration. Open Source or SaaS, getting several packages work together requires IT and business process expertise, which typically means hiring expensive consultants. Therefore, I would go one step further: not only SaaS is the best choice for most SMB’s but they should seek to minimize the number of providers, i.e. the best choice is to use integrated All-In-One solutions.

The current undisputed leader in this field is NetSuite, but as they follow Salesforce.com’s footsteps and move upstream chasing midsize businesses, they leave an opening for up-and-coming challenger 24SevenOffice, which focuses solely on SMB’s, and covers a wider range of business functionality than the incumbent.

This is the situation today. Now, let’s revisit the original question: SaaS or Open Source? A tiny startup named SQLFusion is working on making that question obsolete. The dilemma with Open Source: a lot of good applications are available, but they are written by geeks for geeks… you really have to be quite knowledgeable to download and implement them. Example: at one of the startups I am advising I use SugarCRM over the internet. Starting to use it was a no-brainer, but when I looked at the prerequisites and the process of installing it myself, my head started spinning. No way, this is not for me! Open Source Fusion, which I hear is within days of opening for a limited beta will bridge the gap between availability and usability of Open Source Programs, by offering such apps to be used over the Internet. In true On-Demand fashion, maintenance, upgrades all happen in the background, one can start using the programs without implementing them. So it will no longer be SaaS or Open Source, but SaaS and Open Source.

The first incarnation of Open Source Fusion will provide access to individual applications, still leaving the integration dilemma for SMB’s, but the technology under the hood enables the company to later offer an integration layer between the key applications it serves up.

So the future is Open Source Software as a Service. Hm, here’s an ugly acronym: OSSaaS (?)

Update (3/6). Releated posts:

Update (5/23): Stefan over at The Small Business Blog discusses the issue; his company, WinWeb is expected to offer Open Source apps as a service soon.


post

Ad-supported On-Demand ERP? No Way….

(Updated)
Ad-supported content? Yes. Personal Productivity tools? Yes. Enterprise Software? No way. (IMHO)

There’s an interesting, Microsoft-induced debate at ZDNet re. the possibiliy of funding free On-Demand software via advertising:

It all started with Microsof app’s but from there it’s just a step to arrive to Gerge Colony of Forrester: I foresee a world in which even enterprise applications like financials, ERP (enterprise resource planning), and supply chain software will be advertising-funded.”

My take: that we have a lot of web-based content supported by ads is already a fact. Consumer software, personal productivity tools? Quite possible.

Enterprise Software is a different animal. Why? It is used by businesses, who have their own business processes and workflow. Clicking on ads would be a distraction from that business process, I can’t possibly see why companies would support it. True, there will be major changes in the delivery/ pricing model for enterprise software. When prices come down from the stratospheric heights set by Oracle, SAP et al and become more reasonable, a’la Salesforce, NetSuite, SugarCRM, 24SevenOffice, SmartCompany ..etc, my bet is companies would rather pay those prices then accept the productivity-loss caused by their employees clicking around the Net for hours a day…

Update (11/29) : SAP’s Jeff Nolan on Ad-supported Business Apps.

post

Open Source – Socialism? “Döm inte hunden efter håren”

(updated)
No, I don’t speak Swedish … but it’s cute:-) More on it later… The recent controversy around Shai Agassi’s remarks about Open Source prompted Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL to come forward with his own prospective.

But first things first, what was the controversy? “SAP Slams Open Source” – quoted CIO Today. SAP’s very own Jeff Nolan found himself in a rather invonvenient situation (at least initially) of having to distance himself from Shai’s perceived message: “I wasn’t at the Churchill Club event so I can’t comment on the context of Shai’s comments, but I do not agree with them if they are as represented in this article.”

In his speech at the Churchill Club Shai supposedly strongly came out against Open Source and equated it to “IP Socialism”. Hm…having grown up in a communist country I certainly don’t like the way it sounds… although if we look at what he actually said in the second half of this very statement, it actually makes sense: “IP socialism is worst thing that can happen to any IP-based society…If there is no way to defend IP, then there is no reason to invest in IP. Remember, this comes from the guy that invests over $1B in R&D. Jeff later listened to the full podcast of the session and realized the quotes were taken out of context. See more details and a link to Shai’s own blog at ZDNet.

My two cents: the traditional Enterprise Software model (mega $ licence fees, complex and costly implementations, expensive maintainence, questionable ROI) is not sustainable. Enterprise Software companies and their whole ecosystem (Implementation partners, 3–rd party plug-ins, etc) are experiencing Pricing and Innovation pressure not just from Open Source, but the increasingly adopted On-Demand model. One can’t really expect a SAP / Oracle ..etc Executive to be truly, entirely happy about the changes being forced upon them. That said, they can try to be obstructionists, or realize the world is changing with or without them – might as well go for the ride, take the challenge / opportunity to invent new business models and survive/thrive in the New World.

Marten makes the point that SAP is the latter group: SAP is the first and most significant ERP vendor to publicly, officially and in actuality embrace open source. SAP was the first enterprise ERP vendor to ship on Linux. SAP has an investment in Zend, the PHP company, and a strategic partnership with MySQL. By its actions, SAP is one of the great supporters of open source.”
On legacy software companies in general: “ At the end of the day, deeds count more than words. If you support open source, you will be supported by the millions in the open source community who are working hard to shape the future of the software industry. “

I fully agree with Marten’s views … but there’s one area where I’d take a step further: Perhaps open source can commoditize the infrastructure components and make applications more affordable.” Not just infrastructure, IMHO. Applications are next.
SugarCRM is a pioneer in commoditizing the application (CRM) market … yet they got outwitted themselves by their own ecosystem. The trend is unstoppable, even outside Open Source. A closed-source, on-demand company, 24SevenOffice offers its innnovative, fully integrated Web-based SMB suite for about a third of NetSuite’s prices, in fact they undercut Open-Source SugarCRM themselves, when comparing the On-demand version of their product.

As for the incoming tidal wave of Open Source Applications: CRM is just the beginning, the low-hanging fruit… there are literally hundreds of business-grade Open Source applications, ranging from accounting, manufacturing, purchasing, all the way to complete ERP-like solutions, or industry-specific point solutions, like patient management for health care, restaurant management .. etc. One of the reasons why they are not used widely is that they are “trapped in the land of the Nerds” (out-of-context quote by Joe Kraus of JotSpot at the recent SDForum Collaboration SIG event, but I just could not resist using it). Really. Most Open Source apps are difficult to implement, one has to be a real techie to navigate through the maze.

This is where companies like SQLFusion can help small businesses: by providing an easy way to create their web-presence, then offering a pipeline of pre-packaged Open Source applications that can be installed, used, kept up-to-date by a single click of the mouse they bring open source apps within reach of millions who otherwise would not have the expertise to use them. (disclaimer: I am affiliated with SQLFusion)

Update (11/16) Other points of view:

IP Socialism

SAP talks smack about open source

Bigamous contrition and open source faux pas

And now SAP looooves open source?

Big Brother

Update 2 (11/19) I’ve received inquiries about the title – it is explained in Marten’s article I linked to. Btw, it looks like Scandinavian style is in fashion.

Update 3 (11/29) Water into Wine: Monetizing Open Source via On Demand – great article by Rightnow CEO Greg Gianforte, obviously describing his company, but also a perfect fit to SQLFusion’s business model described in the last paragraph about. I love it, thanks, Greg! 🙂

Update 4 (5/10) The Stalwart woke up, blew the dust off of a half-a-year-old speech by Shai Agassi, and starts the Open Source as IP Socialism debate again. (hat tip: Jeff Nolan) Nothing new, why today? Anyway, perfect timing, anyone interested in the subject should come to the Who Pays For Software? New and Old Business Models event tomorrow, where Open Source will definitely be in the focus of a star-panel.

post

Not-So-Open-Source Applications

(Updates at bottom)

“Enterprise software vendors who leverage open source, subscriptions and grid computing to meet customer needs will emerge as next-generation industry leaders. “ – says John Loiacono, EVP, Sun Microsystems.

Jeff Nolan recommends caution: “… open source and subscription licensing, two completely separate trends that often get lumped together, are not silver bullets for emerging companies.” His post is well worth reading, and I agree with most of his logic, which refers to the traditional Open Source “business model”, if there is such a thing (we’ll come back to this later):

  • Open Code
  • Broad Support Community
  • Paid Sales & Marketing staff
  • Paid core Engineering
  • Product Available free
  • Revenue from support / training / consulting… i.e. services

He then rightly concludes that this model is basically a service business, so investors should beware, when we peel the hype layer away, they don’t find the hypergrowth software business there.

Yes … but … this may just have been the “beta version” of an Open Source business model – if we can even say that. In fact we really shouldn’t: Open Source is not a business model, it’s a software production model (and philosophy), says Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL (via Jeff Clavier). Absolutely.

The two examples Jeff uses, SugarCRM and Compiere could not be further away from each other – not only in terms of their product offering, but mostly their business model.

Compiere, for all I know is closer to that “beta model” of “trying-to-make-a-buck” on Open Source, or, if I may say, the idealistic, altruistic (?) Open Source company that makes ALL it’s products ( full ERP & CRM for the SMB sector) available for free, source code included. They even let Consulting/ Implementation Partners rebrand the product under their own name. They are the “nice guys” barely making a buck on support. (Sorry, Jorg, if I am mistaken.)

SugarCRM, on the other hand is not even a purely Open Source company, it’s a hybrid. (Hey, hybrids are popular nowadays ). “ It didn’t take me long to realize that there is a HUGE part missing in the open source version “ says Simon Romanski, director of information systems at Fulfillment America, quoted by ZDNet. The title says a lot: Commercial open source, a misnomer? Well, not a misnomer, but definitely commercial software: SugarCRM sells the Pro and Enterprise versions of their product, and also charges for the On-Demand version. Even the Open Source version can be “upgraded” by paying for extensions, e.g. the $39.99/user Outlook Plugin. Hm, I would not put my Sales Organization, no matter how small, on a CRM system without Contact synchronization. By the time we configure the basic needs of a small Sales Team, chances are pricing is on par with a truly commercial software company, e.g. 24SevenOffice .
So is SugarCRM using Open Source as a marketing gimmick, riding the fashion wave? I don’t think so. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with the business model… perhaps a little heavy on the hype, like the other guy selling software using the “No Software” slogan. SugarCRM is a successful hybrid that’s partly Open Source (development, support community, viral marketing) yet generates it’s revenue from selling software like any other company.

Only to prove Marten right.

Update (9/01): ZDNet’s SaaS blog has a good follow-on article on SugarCRM: Outwitted by its own ecosystem

Update 2 (9/01) The “Commercial Open Source” story reverberates; ZDNet’s Dan Farber follows on quoting Marc Fleury, CEO of JBOSS.

Update 3 (9/28): The Next Little Thing Isn’t Free by Sam Ramji

Update 4 (11/16) But is it really free? CIO Magazine

Hybrid Open Source Business Models by Zack Urlocker