When It Comes To Enterprise Software, It's The Contract, Stupid
Customers crying foul over big deployments gone awry often ignore the very language that defines the scope of the software offering or implementation. Here's how to smarten up.
So what's a customer to do? Take several steps to close the "expectation gap" during the sales process:
Understand that vendor salespeople don't know your business, its processes, and its nuances--no matter how much you educate them. Vendors are there to sell software features.
Before you ever speak to a software vendor, make sure your specific criteria regarding your business processes are clearly and specifically defined (more on that point later). It's not the job of the software vendor to define those for you.
Understand that the only warranty that exists in the license agreement you will sign is that the software will function as the publisher's documentation states--not to meet the particular needs or purpose of your business. The more specialized the application, the more this point applies.
Don't sign any license agreement until you have objectively and definitively determined that the data flow and product of the software "doing its thing" will work for you, in the manufacturing process, for instance, from "quote to cash."
Understand that your processes will change and there will be internal resistance to that change. That's the whole point of acquiring enterprise software, isn't it? You can't impose your business on the software; don't even try.
So how does this all relate back to the contract? As mentioned above, the contract defines the relationship between the parties. In 15 years of handling almost 300 failed implementations for several public and private software vendors, I've yet to have an opposing counsel call me and say, "Hey, Ken, my client is entitled to terminate the agreement and get its money back because the software doesn't function in the way your client describes it on Page 32 of the user manual." That never happens. When conflict and litigation ensue, customers invariably run as far from the contract as they can.
Customers that don't have the foresight to protect themselves invariably want to talk about everything but the contract. ("The salesman told me blah, blah, blah.") My response is always that the opposing lawyer's client received everything it was entitled to receive as defined by the contract it signed. The client never saw something in the demonstration that it didn't get, and my client isn't going to consider expanding the scope of the signed contract. These "misrepresentation claims" routinely get thrown out quickly.
Enterprise software can, if properly vetted before contract, do wonderful things for a business. But caveat emptor. Making sure that the enterprise software contracts you sign state exactly what you expect from the product will drastically reduce the cost, stress, time, and effort to streamline your business.
Kenneth J. Richard is an attorney and consultant who represents several software and other technology companies. For more information, go to www.ErpGoLive.com.
The Business of Going DigitalDigital business isn't about changing code; it's about changing what legacy sales, distribution, customer service, and product groups do in the new digital age. It's about bringing big data analytics, mobile, social, marketing automation, cloud computing, and the app economy together to launch new products and services. We're seeing new titles in this digital revolution, new responsibilities, new business models, and major shifts in technology spending.
Top IT Trends to Watch in Financial ServicesIT pros at banks, investment houses, insurance companies, and other financial services organizations are focused on a range of issues, from peer-to-peer lending to cybersecurity to performance, agility, and compliance. It all matters.
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on InformationWeek.com for the week of September 18, 2016. We'll be talking with the InformationWeek.com editors and correspondents who brought you the top stories of the week to get the "story behind the story."