[Info-vax] VSI has a new CEO

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 8/3/2021 12:56 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 11:03 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/2/2021 10:10 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2021 6:56 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On an interesting side note I read an article on LinkedIn today that
>>>> talked about how moving to these pre-packaged systems like SAP (or, in
>>>> the case of the University I worked at Banner) it becomes necessary to
>>>> change the way you do business to match the package you bought rather
>>>> than using an in house system designed to match the way you had been
>>>> doing your business.  One more thing I said as long as 30 years ago.
>>>
>>> Yes, SAP has ruined more than one business.  When one's business
>>> practices provides some "edge" that makes one successful, perhaps a
>>> Harvard Business School type might think it's possible to "go
>>> generic", which is why we need to "nuke" the HBS.
>>
>> But such systems being replaced by standard packages rarely is
>> what gives that edge. They just supports what gives that edge.
> 
> When those custom systems that support the company practices, I'd argue 
> they are part of that edge, and SAP usually is not.

SAP is a lot of things.

But a lot of that is irrelevant for the customers.

>> Let us take VSI. What will determine their success? Some items
>> in arbitrary order: getting VMS x86-64 out in good quality soon,
>> modernizing VMS over the coming decade, convincing customers
>> that VMS is a good solution, providing good support on VMS
>> etc.etc.. What will mean practically nothing for the success
>> of VSI: the system that handle their salary payout, the system that
>> keep track of the employee vacations, the system that stores their
>> documents, the system that stores their email etc.. So what does
>> VSI do for those supporting systems? They either buy a standard
>> solution or outsource to keep cost down.
> 
> This begets a good question.  Are those "standard" systems generic, or, 
> a customized solution that has many users?

There are generic systems for all of that. Most ERP systems
has a payroll module. There are generic HR systems. There are
certainly generic document and email systems.

> Many years ago I was tasked with designing a payroll system.  I did so, 
> but, the lesson was, use ADP or some such for payroll, they have custom 
> systems to do the job right, and with yearly changes to taxes, they 
> spend lots of money to keep their applications current.

There is a big SaaS market for such services: ADP, SalesForce etc..
Even SAP are also doing SaaS today.

> I would suggest that any organization that offers services or 
> outsourcing (same thing) is not running generic software, but highly 
> customized software designed to do the required job.

I think your are making an artificial division.

Company X make some software XX that unmodified can do
function ABC for thousands of different customers. They
sell a copy to each of those customers.

Company Y make some software YY that unmodified can do
function ABC for thousands of different customers. They
offer it as a service to each of those customers.

I think XX and YY are equally generic. The genericness
depends on the level of customization not on the business
model.

(YY may in fact be quite different from XX as Y may likely
want to have a single instance of YY support multiple
customers, but that is a different topic)

>                And that isn't SAP.

SAP sell both software and service.

And to get back to the original point: if the customers
are willing to do things the SAP way, then they may
be happy. But if customers want to do things their way, then
they will end up having to pay NN or NNN million dollars
for customizations and the business case may fail to materialize.

Arne