CIOs will force SaaS vendors to limber up and get more flexible about contracts in the post-pandemic world

Research group Forrester has predicted Software-as-a-Service providers will have to adapt their commercial models and offer more flexible deals in response to economic changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. A strategy paper from Ted Schadler, principal analyst for application development and delivery professionals, …

[Duncan Macdonald]

How long till ServiceNow goes extinct ?

By telling all its customers that its contracts are non-cancellable and refusing to alter terms, it is building up so much ill-will that many (probably the majority) of its customers will never use ServiceNow again. Others that might have used ServiceNow will have seen how it treats its customers and will find an alternative supplier.

[Arctic fox]

Re: How long till ServiceNow goes extinct ?

A very good point. The market concerned is growing explosively and in such circumstances vendor lock-in is not a medium to long survival strategy for the vendor concerned. They need to understand that their company's future depends on their acceptance that this is a buyers market and that they must employ terms and conditions that reflect this. The current attitude of the company would suggest that they would be better named "DisserviceNow".

[Throatwarbler Mangrove]

Re: How long till ServiceNow goes extinct ?

Sure, that's why no one uses Oracle anymore and they went out of business.

[whatawookie]

Sevicenow costs

SN licensing is an art form and requires a degree in Calculus and Trigonometry to understand. There are true-ups and compliance checks. The contract negotiations take many months . They are like Oracle and Microsoft(onsite) in complexity. There has got to be a simpler way. Add 300 users costs go down add 300 users costs go up, it is not that hard. SN is needlessly complex for a giant Mysql database and old javascript.

[Throatwarbler Mangrove]

Re: Sevicenow costs

Licensing simplification almost always benefits the customer and not the vendor, which is why it seldom happens.

[a_yank_lurker]

Agile Nonsense

When I see someone touting 'Agile' as the only methodology for a business I know the writer is an idiot who does not understand what agile truly is. Agile as it was intended was not a methodology but a mindset. The core idea was various key stake holders will be in direct communication with the developers as the project unfolds. It postulates correctly that while a general spec can be written rather quickly often key details can only be determined as the project progresses. Thus, the need for direct communication between everyone so the project can move forward in a timely manner. The communication, while often regular, needs to be based on the project's requirements not some arbitrary lunacy. Agile is not about 'minimum viable product', '2 week sprints', 'scrums', or any other nonsense the 'Agile' methodology requires. The key is mindset of communication between people some relatively junior in the hierarchy with others whose input is needed without being excessively fastidious about chains of command or necessarily formal involvement of immediate management.

[SJG]

Re: Agile Nonsense

Fully agree. "Agile" should be seen as one aspect of software engineering, not the complete story. To take this to the extreme, I would be very reluctant to get on a fly-by-wire plane whose control software had been driven primarily by user feedback and developed without a detailed specification. Software engineering is a complex and broad topic, let's not dumb it down into agile is good, everything else is bad.