SAP’s technical strategy
I just posted an extensive discussion of SAP’s technical strategy over on the DBMS2 blog. Key takeaways include:
1. SAP is serious about SOAs and, in most regards, openness.
2. SAP’s strategy does not gladden the hearts of top-tier DBMS vendors.
I also dinged them for being clueless about how to succeed in text search, but hey — nobody’s perfect, and there’s still time for them to fix the problem.
One interesting aspect of their strategy that did not fit into the above-mentioned server-oriented post is their take on UI. They said again and again and again that it is important to provide a high degree of UI freedom in accessing the same underlying application services. (Except that they usually referred to the services as — no surprise here — “business processes.”) This is a reversal from their prior belief that a transactional screen — or a portal page — was sufficient for everybody.
In general, the enterprise software industry is getting a lot more sophisticated about and competitive in it’s work on UI. I should post about that soon. (The point has come up repeatedly in my work on BI, with SAP, Business Objects, and others.)
| Categories: DBMS vendors and technologies, Enterprise applications, SAP, Usability and UI | 2 Comments |
SAP — the Un-Oracle
I just spent a couple of days at the SAP Analyst “Summit.” And while all large software companies have quite a bit in common, I came away with the renewed feeling that SAP and Oracle are about as different as two huge, competitive software companies in similar businesses can be. Read more
Oracle’s perennial confusion about analytic technology
Oracle is badly confused about analytic technology, and indeed long has been. It would be tough for me to coherently explain why without being, well, confusing. So I’ll just list a series of data points, which hopefully should suffice to illustrate the point.
- Classic BI tools have at various times fallen under the purview of the app dev tools group and the app server group.
- Data mining, stemming from a Thinking Machines, Inc. acquisition, is under a whole other group on the East Coast.
- That group is now collocated and somewhat integrated with the group that oversees the MOLAP database capability, which came in via a different Boston-area acquisition (IRI/Express).
- While Oracle brags of its integrated BI stack, enterprise reporting is an exception.
- Discoverer 1.0 (Oracle’s original BI tool), was one of the most impressive new products I ever saw. But then BI technology at Oracle almost stagnated. The reason seems to have been largely a series of platform ports – client/server, Java client, thin client, etc. Other BI vendors faced the same problems, however, and they now have products generally agreed to be ahead of Oracle’s.
- Oracle didn’t seem to have a coherent analytic apps strategy even before the Peoplesoft acquisition, which obviously just confused things further. (Of course, neither does SAP, really, Dennis Moore’s passionate insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.)
- ETL/data integration is of course a historical Oracle sore spot.
That’s even before getting to Oracle’s problems in data warehousing itself, where it can’t beat Teradata and DB2/mainframe at the very high end, and low-cost options like Netezza are a looming threat as well.
What’s particularly ironic is that some of Oracle’s core marketing pitches have a lot to do with analytics. The whole integrated stack story? Doesn’t make much sense when you’re only talking OLTP; only with analytics in the picture is it coherent. The whole scalability story? A few huge websites and the like aside, that’s mainly about data warehousing now.
Obviously, Oracle has the potential to be a titan in analytics. But it doesn’t have its act at all together yet.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Business intelligence, Data mining, DBMS vendors and technologies, Oracle | 3 Comments |
Why Oracle doesn’t “get it” about apps
Since the mid-1980s, Oracle has put huge investment and market strength behind its apps efforts. Given those resources, success has been extremely limited. Obviously, there are many reasons for this run of (relative) failure, including a lot of internal management/cultural/political issues. But much of the problem can be summed up in one short phrase: Oracle doesn’t fully understand the importance of business process.
The majority of an application can be created by the following three-step process:
1. Design the right database.
2. Automatically generate the add/change/delete/query/report functionality.
3. Add other BI/analytic functionality as needed.
And Part 3 is a relatively recent addition in most cases.
But that’s not the whole story. What’s left over can be described as “business process,” which is where SAP shines. And Oracle underrates business process. To see what I mean, go to SAP’s web site, search on “business process,” and look through the first few pages of results. Then try the same exercise on Oracle’s. There’s a dramatic difference. Siebel’s and Saleforce.com’s sites also talk much more about “business process” than Oracle’s does.
So far as I can tell, Oracle has always believed that if you design the right database — and create the obvious interfaces to it — you’ll have a great application. I remember Larry Ellison seeming to believe that in very early days, before Jeff Walker led the first high-investment Oracle apps effort. The whole CASE-model-based vertical apps strategy of the early 1990s clearly depended on that premise, and probably failed because of the premise’s flaws. And finally, I remember a bizarre conference call in connection with the release of some generation of Oracle’s app dev tools in the late 1990s, which Larry touted as one of the most important events in the entire history of software. I can’t imagine him saying that unless he thought that these tools would automatically generate your apps for you. But they couldn’t actually do that – and the extent to which they couldn’t was almost exactly the extent to which they didn’t capture the business process aspects of the app.
So will Oracle overcome its longstanding business process blind spot, now that it’s made such a huge bet on apps? It well might. But until it does, Oracle’s prospects in the app business aren’t good at all.
Related links
Is Oracle headed for hard times?
A lot of you probably remember me writing about Sybase in 1994. (And yes, Tony Percy did admit at least that Gartner sped up its research drastically after I published, so as to follow me into print a month or so later.) Well, I’m not at that level of certainty yet this time. Indeed, I haven’t even sold all my stock in the company I’m worrying about. But I do increasingly find myself wondering: Is Oracle headed for hard times?
My nonobvious reasons for concern fall mainly into three large areas (follow the links for more detail on each):
- Oracle may be losing its edge in DBMS. Or at least (to brutally mix my metaphors), there are some cracks in the colossus.
- Oracle has never “gotten it” in applications.
- Oracle is perennially confused in analytic technology, which is becoming ever more important.
Obvious reasons for concern include the difficulties of integrating large acquisitions, general slow growth and price pressure in the technology sector, and a rolling management transition at the top of the company.
I’m far from ready to call the turn with assurance, however, because Oracle also has some formidable strengths. It indeed holds an excellent position in its core DBMS business, and by the numbers is very strong overall. Charles Phillips was once the best software stock analyst ever, which may make him the single person with the greatest understanding of software industry strategic dynamics. And Larry Ellison, detached as he may seem (and actually be) at times, has an amazing track record of making good decisions before it’s too late.
So I’m not yet predicting that Oracle will fall; I’m just pointing out some of the key issues it has to address if it is to remain prosperous.
| Categories: DBMS vendors and technologies | 1 Comment |
Autonomy/Verity merger
As posted in the Text Technologies blog, I’m skeptical yet slightly hopeful about the combined Autonomy/Verity company. Each of those companies sells overall technology that’s less than the sum of its parts. Maybe the merged company will be big enough to wake up, add what’s missing, and grow the enterprise text search market beyond its current level of:
1. Collection of niche markets plus
2. Unimportant universal technology add-on
| Categories: Analytic technologies | 1 Comment |
Subjects in which I’m particularly interested
Throughout my 24-year career as an industry analyst, my top-level question has always been: “What aspects of the industry/sector/market/company are worst understood, or most overlooked?” Most commonly, the answer lies somewhere in the overlapping areas of technology, market positioning, and ongoing sector consolidation. And any discussion of technology and positioning depends heavily upon the way customers actually adopt and use new stuff.
It’s no different now. Most of my efforts recently have been devoted to DBMS (like always), text technologies, and analytics in general. In DBMS I’m making the very strong technological case that vendor consolidation is overrated, and that we’re in an era when 1000 specialty database flowers will bloom. The survivors will eventually all be tied together by XML-based SOAs. (Some of my friends at big DBMS vendors are not very happy with me right now.) My arguments against the prevailing wisdom may be found at a specialty blog on database management techology, called DBMS2. I plan to add more positive comments on the interesting new technologies soon.
In text technologies, there are a whole lot of point products. Despite booms in certain areas, such as text data mining, these are only scraping the surface of user requirements. What’s needed – and surely coming – is a dramatic evolution into one or more much larger product categories. How long that takes is unknown, however; right now the two pillars of the market (search and text data mining) are as industry segments go quite far apart. I also have started a specialty blog to track this area, with the simple name of Text Technologies.
My most active area of research these days is probably analytics. Certainly it’s my oldest interest of the three I cited, dating back to my student years, when I basically focused on decision theory for my dissertation and post-doctoral research. I think that, after decades of false alarms, the center of gravity in enterprise computing has REALLY shifed from OLTP to decision support. At least, that’s true at the larger enterprises; SMB are still playing catchup in the transactional area.
While I think there are lots of interesting technological issues in analytics – and indeed no enterprise analytics vendors’ product line is close to fully-baked – what really matters here is understanding the users. Vendors blithely claim that they’re going to foster a whole cultural transformation, in which top-to-bottom decision-making will suddenly become rational and numerate. Yeah, right. In tracking the evolution of the analytic technology business(es), nothing is more important than being realistic about how this stuff is and will be actually used.
I plan to write about these and other areas in the days and months ahead. Stay tuned – and, as always, if you would like to disagree with or add to what I have to say, please please let me know. My research, as always, depends on you.
About this blog
The Monash Report analyses enterprise software and related industries. It is a successor to the Monash Software Letter and other Monash Information Services publications of the 1990s.
About the author
Curt A. Monash, Ph.D., has been a highly influential software industry analyst and participant since 1981. His writings have received extensive praise from industry leaders, including Larry Ellison’s remark “Curt Monash’s publications provide unmatched insight into technology and marketplace trends. I have read them avidly for over a decade” Fuller biographical information about Curt can be found at his Monash Information Services bio page. (Note: The Monash Information Services site hasn’t been updated for a year or two, and accordingly needs a bit of freshening.)
Curt’s views, including some historical observations, may also be found in Text Technologies (covering text mining, search, speech recognition, text command-and-control, and other linguistics-related software sectors), Software Memories (personal reminiscences and other historical notes about the last three decades or so of the software and internet industries), and DBMS2 (covering developments in enterprise database management and XML-based SOAs).
Curt’s primary email address follows the template FirstnameLastname@Lastname.com, although disguising it that way is tantamount to closing the pantry door after the spam has already gotten in. Thus, please put a distinctive title on your email, so that your email won’t mistakenly be thrown out with the bad stuff. Mentioning “Monash Report” would be one excellent idea.
| Categories: About this blog | Leave a Comment |