The  Business  of  Being  a  User:    How  Reference  sites  figure  in  the  

new  poli9cs  of  so:ware  acquisi9on  Neil  Pollock  

University  of  Edinburgh,  UK  

Sampsa  Hyysalo  Aalto  University,  Finland  

OrganizaCon  wide  InformaCon  systems  (IS):  ERP,  CRM  etc.  

•  Used  to  be  built  for  an  organizaCon,  sCll  clunky  •  “Octopus”  that  spreads  its  tentacles  throughout  an  organizaCon  (AccounCng,  HR,  Manufacturing,  Sales,  Procurement,  R&D…)    

•  Code  recycling:  packages  – Generic  core  e.g.  SAP  r3  – Higher  educaCon  module  –  InstallaCon  …  with  hundreds  of  configuraCons,  customizaCons,  add-­‐on  SW,  bolt-­‐on  SW  

–  Evolving  and  being  updated  at  each  level    

Background:    Pollock  &  Williams:  SoXware  &  OrganizaCon.  Routledge,  2008  

•  AccumulaCon  of  funcConality…  win-­‐win..then  •  From  “generificaCon”  by  requirements  workshops  

–  Management  by  community  •  Witnessing  difficulty  and  conflicCng  needs  

–  Management  by  content  •  Process  alignment  •  Working  the  Acetate  etc  social  tricks    

•  …To  generifiers  –  To  get  your  requirement  accepted  by  supplier  …  it  needs  to  

appeal  to  many  sites  (otherwise  you  need  to  maintain  and  upgrade  it  at  your  own  expense).    

–  Et  voilá  users  seek  generalizability  in  and  among  themselves  –  Those  willing  to  change  their  organizaCon  the  most  to  fit  the  

technology  and/or  commission  addiCons  to  become  heard  more  

Business  of  being  user  

– Why  would  IT  users  carry  out  what  are  oXen  highly  burdensome,  Cme-­‐consuming  tasks  on  behalf  of  vendors?    

– What  exactly  is  the  role  they  are  performing  in  the  doing  of  these  acCviCes?    

Marketing • writing formal recommendations on behalf of vendors assuring prospective customers about the abilities, resources, commitment, and so on, of the vendor

• presenting ‘success stories’ at various industry forums (industry conferences, user group meetings, and the like).

• providing feedback to the vendor about how its sales efforts are progressing and how they could be improved

Demonstrating the system

• demo the newly installed software to prospective customers beyond what is mandated by the contract and despite the fact that the suppliers compensation does not cover the full cost of demos.

• striving to become “flagship” installation that would run the whole suite of vendors’ modules, despite itself not necessarily having use for all of them.

Designing parts of the system

• providing their own programming as part of the package, many times without gaining any royalties or other compensation for it

Constructing the value of the system

• helping to construct the value of functions for prospective customer organizations

• educating (lobbying) the vendor about the market, where they are located and how the package ought to be further developed within this market.

Findings  in  brief:  what  reference  sites  do  

Data  &  Analysis  

•  MulCple  data  sources  over  a  ten  year  Cme  span:    –  IT  Director  of  ‘Big  Civic’  University  gave  us  full  access  to  his  email  for  over  the  period  of  a  

year:  ConversaCons  with  the  vendor,  his  university  colleagues,  other  reference  sites  and  prospecCve  customers.  (several  large  ring  binder  folders)    

–  We  were  also  able  to  interview  members  of  the  ‘Big  Civic’  IT  project  team  and  observe  them  in  meeCngs  with  each  other  and  with  vendor  staff    

–  Focus  group  with  university  managers  involved  in  the  project  where  we  presented  iniCal  findings  from  our  study:  further  debates  about  their  experiences  as  reference  sites.    

–  Interviews  with  a  number  of  SoXCo  employees  about  their  relaConship  with  specific  customers.    

–  Interview  other  reference  sites  and  customers  involved  with  SoXCo.    

–  Ahendance  at  various  industry  forums  &  SoXCo  user  group  meeCngs  &  industry  events  where  SoXCo  was  ahempCng  to  market  its  soluCons.    

•  Analysis:    –  InducCve  data-­‐handling  step  by  step  a  kin  to  open,  axial  and  theoreCcal  coding  in  

Grounded  Theory  (Glaser  &  Strauss,  1967;  Clarke,  2005)  –  Themes  elaborated  within  the  length  of  the  final  arCcle  a)  illustraCve  of  larger  bodies  of  

data  as  well  as  b)  ones  that  were  not  sufficiently  discussed  previously  within  IS  research  

Not  asking  requirements,  but  sales  value  potenCal  

“What  would  be  the  potenCal  benefits  or  (measurable)  value  in  implemenCng  a  soXware  soluCon  to  address  these  pain  points?  For  example:    Improve  responsiveness  now,  and  retenCon  rates  later,  by  having  a  single  view  of  all  student  data.      •  *  Improve  student  experience  by  20%.    Improve  effecCveness  of  recruitment  using  all  channels  (including  self-­‐service).    •  *  Enhanced  recruitment  efficiency  &  producCvity  10-­‐20%    •  *  Increase  retenCon  by  10%    Improve  compeCCveness  in  the  prospecCve  student  "market"..    •  *  Improve  response  rate  by  20%    •  *  Reduce  costs  by  10-­‐20%    Maximize  use  of  resources  to  support  insCtuConal  recruitment  and  retenCon  goals.    •  *  Enhanced  standing  of  University    (email  sent  from  a  SoXCo  ExecuCve  to  BigCivic  IT  Director).”  

…and  in  response  within  Bic  Civic  Thank  you  for  delivering  such  a  comprehensive  and  professional  report.  I  would  suggest  a  couple  of  addi9onal  points  should  be  added  on  the  Benefits  sec9on:-­‐    1).  How  much  Time/Resource  was  consumed  in  processing  an  ApplicaCon  under  the  "old"  system.  How  much  Time/Resource  is  consumed  under  the  "new"  system?  I  now  understand  that  50%  of  applicaCons  are  being  received  electronically  now.  How  much  admin  Cme  has  been  saved  across  the  University?    2).  Now  that  consistent  and  accurate  management  informaCon  is  available  immediately  (via  the  BW  reports),  what  is  the  VALUE  of  this  informaCon?  How  much  management/admin  Cme  is  saved  in  the  creaCon  and  distribuCon  of  this  informaCon?  How  can  this  be  quanCfied?      3).  How  can  [BigCivic]  get  a  reasonable  comparison  between  the  numbers/quality  of  the  applicaCons  which  we  are  processing  this  year  compared  to  what  might  have  happened  if  we  were  to  have  conCnued  with  the  "old"  systems?    4).  What  is  the  value  (if  any?)  of  our  new  posiCon  as  the  [SoXCo]  ‘lighthouse’  HE  insCtuCon?  Can  we  extract  any  beher  value  from  this  (and  our  IPR  within  the  E2R  applicaCon)?  Please  note  that  I  would  find  it  difficult  to  place  a  value  on  this  or  give  any  evidence  that  it  has/will  be  of  benefit,  but  it  might  have  a  substanCal  payback  if  managed  properly  (email  from  BigCivic  IT  Director  to  BigCivic  accountant).  

Contradictory Logics: Tensions and games within user and vendor organizations

Selling  vs.  day  job  

Although  clearly  we  wish  to  help  other  universiCes  and  [SoXCo],  I  feel  I  need  to  make  the  point  that  if  we're  out  promoCng  e2r  to  others,  we're  not  focusing  on  the  day  job  here,  and  the  consequences  of  this  for  the  University  could  be  significant.  Unfortunately,  there  is  no  evidence  that  our  budgets  will  increase  to  provide  us  with  a  lihle  more  capacity.  Maggie,  for  example,  has  a  huge  job  outwith  e2r  and  she's  had  to  put  a  lot  of  it  on  the  back  burner  for  the  last  few  months.  I  don't  think  it  can  stay  there  in  the  longer-­‐term.  If  we  answered  Malcolm's  [from  So:Co]  queries  in  any  real  depth,  it  would  take  quite  a  lot  of  9me,  and  if  this  request  is  followed  by  similar  ones,  we  could  be  in  some  difficulty.    

Ambiguity  over  influencing  the  vendor  

What  I  find  it  hard  to  know,  perhaps  I  should  do  some  more  reading  or  whatever,  is  exactly  how  important  we  are  to  them.  How  that  relaConship  is,  I  know  Paul  is  always  saying  ‘this  is  the  market  they  are  moving  into  they  really  need  you  to  know.  But  they  are  a  great  big  global  company  and  Higher  Educa9on  is  a  miniscule  liNle  bit  of  what  they  do.  They  might  just  as  easy  say  ‘oh,  we’re  not  going  to  concentrate  on  that’.  I  mean  I  don’t  have  a  grasp  of  that    so  I  am  just  buffeted  around  by  different  arguments  depending  on  who  I  have  just  heard    (taped  discussion  of  BigCivic  project  team  meeCng).    

Monetizing the Reference Site Relationship: The Standard Package or a Special Partner in Value Creation?

Please  note  IF  [IvyLeague]  want  to  visit  us  then  I  need  to  see  a  resource  plan  for  the  visit.  I  have  given  an  assurance  to  [the  Student  Registrar]  and  the  Vice  Chancellor  that  we  will  NOT  divert  [BigCivic]  resources  in  [So:Co]  marke9ng  efforts  without  prior  approval.  Therefore  I  need  to  know:-­‐  a)  How  many  FTE  days  will  be  required  prior  to,  during  and  aXer  the  [IvyLeague]  visit  -­‐  note  that  these  days  must  also  include  key  Users  (eg  Maggie…Colin…etc);  and  b)  What  [SoXCo]  will  be  offering  to  us  in  recompense.  Note  that  the  MINIMUM  So:Co  compensa9on  must  be  "one-­‐hour  for  one-­‐hour".  If  they  do  not  agree  then  you  must  inform  [IvyLeague]  that  we  will  NOT  be  available  for  anything  other  than  telephone  conference  calls  (email  from  the  BigCivic  IT  Director  to  the  SoXCo  Account  Manager).  

The  standard  package  …  binds  the  hands  of  front  line  collaborators  

Hi  Paul:…I  appreciate  your  understanding  regarding  the  compensaCon  for  the  customer  references.  I  certainly  appreciate  all  you  do  to  support  us,  but  as  you  can  see  we  have  a  standard  ‘package’  for  this  which  we  have  to  adhere  to.  I  will  go  ahead  and  give  the  ‘green  light’  to  the  visit  from  the  Norwegian  customer  ([LoanFirm])  based  on  our  standard  reference  bonus  (which  I  believe  is  £1,000  per  visit  to  be  paid  on  consulCng  and/or  training)  (email  from  a  SoXCo  ExecuCve  to  the  BigCivic  IT  Director).    

yet…  user  organizaCon  not  reduced  but  sought  to  enhance  their  role  as  a  reference  site.    

….I'm  not  sure  if  this  is  an  appropriate  9tle,  but  the  concept  should  be  that  [BigCivic]  set  up  a  server  containing  ALL  [So:Co]  modules  and  populated  with  real  University  data.  This  would  then  be  useable  as  a  demonstrator  environment  for  any  University  wishing  to  see  So:Co  products  (we  would  also  be  happy  to  undertake  a  support  role  if  [So:Co]  wanted  to  demonstrate  their  products  to  prospec9ve  customers).  We  are  very  aware  that  we  are  disappoinCng  visiCng  UniversiCes  when  we  demonstrate  the  funcConality  which  we  have  bought  and  are  using  but  we  can  not  demonstrate  the  func9onality  which  we  have  bought  but  don't  use  (eg  CRM  and  Business  Warehouse)  and  we  can't  demonstrate  the      func9onality  which  we  haven't  bought  (eg  ESS  and  others).  I  appreciate  that  [BigCivic]  will  need  to  devote  significant  resources  -­‐  I'm  guessing  that  it  may  take  1  Full  Time  Equivalent  person  to  ensure  that  this  system  is  kept  up  to  date,  that  the  data  is  refreshed  and  that  we  know  how    to  use  the  parts  of  the  system  that  we  do  not  have  in  produc9on  (eg  ESS,  Grants  Management  etc).  However,  I  think  that  the  investment  by  [BigCivic]  will  be  well  worthwhile  -­‐  especially  if  it  helps  [SoXCo]  gain  more  Campus  Management  customers  (its  very  lonely  AND  worrying  to  be  the  only  University  in  the  UK  with  CM!).    

&  symmetrically  at  SoXCo  

Paul,  Thanks  for  this  note  &  the  senCments  embodied.  Your  email  is  helping  me  to  apply  pressure  within  [So:Co]  UK  (and  AG)  to  get  adequate  resources  to:  1)  Compile  a  compelling  CRM/CM  proposal  (I'm  trying  to  get  Joachim  to  [BigCivic]  -­‐  unfortunately  he's  on  hols  at  present  -­‐  watch  this  space);  2)  Sell  Campus  effecCvely  in  UK  HE.  If  we  can  organise  20/21st  I'd  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  meet  up  on  the  20th  to  explain  where  we  are  at  in  resourcing  terms.    

MulC-­‐level  games  within  and  between  user  and  vendor  organizaCons  

•  the  BigCivic  pressure  (lehers,  emails  etc.)  had  an  effect.  In  parCcular,  it  was  put  to  use  by  the  SoXCo  Higher  EducaCon  team  to  argue  for  more  resources  within  the  global  SoXCo  organizaCon.    

•  As  a  result,  SoXCo  has  seemingly  finally  decided  to  direct  more  resources  towards  the  higher  educaCon  sector.  

•  However,  these  resources  will  in  turn  require  further  effort  by  BigCivic  as  a  reference  site  (in  training  up  the  new  SoXCo  person  on  the  parCculariCes  of  the  higher  educaCon  terrain).    

•  …  and  even  though  some  within  the  BigCivic  organisaCon  may  be  disgruntled  about  commizng  even  more  Cme  and  resource  to  help  SoXCo,  they  are  seemingly  not  in  a  posiCon  to  refuse  the  offer.    

Discussion:  why  reference  sites  do  it  

•  Users  have  relaCvely  lihle  control  over  the  future  evoluCon  of  packaged  enterprise  soluCons,  developed  for    swathes  of  customers  

•  Even  their  own  addiCons  and  customizaCons  need  to  be  redone  (at  their  expense)  upon  upgrades  and  version  

•  User  organisaCons  are  increasingly  segmented  according  to  the  size  of  the  market  they  represent  

•  “Angry  Orphan”  –  “Favourite  relaCon”  •  They  can  legiCmate  this  qua  mulCple  modes  of  valuing    

To  Conclude  •  ParCcipaCon  as  a  means  for  a  producer  

–  Gain  knowledge  it  cannot  access  or  create  –  Create  needed  collaborators  in  design  and  markeCng  –  Manage  the  diversity  of  user  collaborators  –  Educate  /  domesCcate  its  customers,  IT  professionals  in  user  

organizaCons  –  Gain  legiCmaCon  and  credibility  in  the  market  

•  ParCcipaCon/cooperaCon  as  a  means  for  users  –  To  wield  influence  over  package  development  –  Gain  some  programming  effort  –  ProacCvely  retain  the  package  more  suited  for  themselves  –  Increase  the  say  of  “community”  they  belong  to  –  Hamper  some  of  their  compeCtors  requirements  being  met  

•  MulC-­‐level  games  /  ecology  of  games  …  at  a  cost  

QuesCons  for  Discussion  

•  What  other  “grey  zone”  forms  of  parCcipaCon  have  you  encountered?  

•  What  other  perspecCves  would  be  viable  for  understanding  parCcipaCon  processes?  

•  When  does  parCcipaCon  cease  to  be  parCcipaCon  ?  (re:  e.g.  expoitaCon,  poliCcal  tacCcs…)