December 10, 2007
Well of course it bleeding well is, which is why I was incredulous to even see that Michael Krigsman suggests that enterprise software doesn’t need to be “sexy” (and the term is misleading and ambiguous) the original post by Robert Scoble really used the word “sexy” when it should have user “user-friendly”, “intuitive” or “solution-centric”.
So with that redefinition in mind I was pleased to read the unreasonablemen’s post this afternoon, using their example of negotiating the nightmare that is SAP. The UM say;
Now SaaS application vendors understand this stuff. Mashup’s, customisable fields, business driven adoption (ie people use SaaS because it works, not because they bought it). If on prem vendors don’t get this, and more usable, nimble and functionally rich SaaS applications come along that make use adoption easier, they are going to be in trouble.
And this is the crux of the matter. My evangelism about SaaS isn’t some modern day cult of worship for the latest, greatest thing. Rather it is an appreciation for a solution that has one core requirement, that is to enable the user to achieve their objectives as quickly, easily and solution-centrically as possible.
So yes, all software be it desktop, on demand, enterprise, consumer or whatever has to have the user at heart. The fact that SaaS does as of design is bringing the whle issue to the fore and making some traditional software companies very worried indeed…