lustratus REPAMA

Posts Tagged ‘marketing strategy’

I’ve been a bit busy recently and so instead of finishing off the complex REPAMA SAS into the “Cloud Computing / Cloud Software / Cloud Management / Application Services Management” study, I decided to produce a rough draft of the much simpler REPAMA into Force.com’s go-to-market strategy instead.

Whilst the segment analysis study only covers Force.com at the moment, I will add additional vendors/providers into the study over the coming weeks. If you have any suggestions who I should compare to/with Force.com, let me know.

I’m quite pleased with the result. Not because of any specific talent on my part but rather as I’ve already said here, Force.com’s marketing is a case study in how to take a new, disruptive technology to market. They understand their audience, they know what problems they solve and they know why they’re better/different. They communicate in clear language and they repeat their positioning strategy again and again and again consistently in all of their out-bound marketing communications. They’ve had successes and they’ve been able to document this and use it as proof of the claims they make. It’s been a joy to reverse-engineer it. That’s not to say that I think it’s perfect – they do tend to mix their audience and messages (audience strata mismatch) but it is very good indeed.

As I’m working through the cloud computing market and helping some vendors with their go-to-market strategies I’ve decided to share this and some  future studies on here because as I said in my ironic blog mission statement all those months ago, I want to highlight best practice in marketing communications and product marketing through this blog. So I thought it would be useful to share what value propositions and messages a market leader is using to address their prospects.

Anyway, below is the positioning statement that I’ve reverse engineered for Force.com’s proposition to end-user organisations. (I don’t plan to tackle the ISV or SI propositions yet)

It’s a little woolly and raw at the moment but even in that state it’s clear that Force.com knows its market, its competition and its USPs. The REPAMA SAS containing just Force.com at the moment can be found online at  Slideshare.net and is embedded below.

[slideshare id=2147195&doc=platformservices-generalpurpose-repamasegmentanalysisstudy0-90-091006182316-phpapp01&w=576]

If you’d like a copy of the slides let me know. For details of how to interpret the results of the REPAMA study please review the Lustratus REPAMA Guide.

Danny Goodall

I’ve completed the first draft of the cloud computing segmentation model upon which we will build our REPAMA studies.

As I’ve mentioned before along my journey to arrive at this model, I’ve found the cloud computing market to have quickly become crowded and confused. This is largely due to the ease at which “traditional” vendors have re-repositioned themselves to catch the cloud computing wave.

The other issue of course is that over time cloud computing will cease to be a new paradigm and will quickly become the way consumers and businesses avail themselves of computing services. So what I’m seeing here is a market in transition where just about every category in traditional software sales will have an offer in the cloud computing space until on-demand models becomes “the norm”.

So I guess it’s really not that surprising to see so many vendors present in the space. But at the same time it is very confusing for legitimate prospects to cut their way through the mass of terminology to then examine vendors and service providers who appear to have broadly identical capabilities and value propositions.  How do they decide the best way to take their first steps into cloud computing? It’ll be interesting to see what our REPAMA studies say about how each of the vendors/service providers’ takes their products to market.

Anyway, I’ve uploaded a set of slides to slideshare.net which I think is probably the best way to make the material available but if anyone wants a copy of the slides please let me know. The slides are embedded below.

[slideshare id=2017030&doc=cloudcomputing-marketlandscape-rev10-92-090918055244-phpapp01]

As I’ve said before, this segmentation model will undoubtedly develop and change over time as I look in more detail at the marketing efforts of the various vendors involved. The definitions for each of the functional areas are a little woolly right now. But at least I now have a structure that allows me to decide which segments and vendors/service providers I will include in our studies moving forward.

I’d like to once again acknowledge the significant role that Brad Buck, Peter Laird and Christofer Hoff played in helping to form the ideas on market segmentation and the role NIST has played in crystallising definitions on cloud computing and software/platform/infrastructure as a service.

Danny Goodall

Products and vendors included in the segmentation model are shown below. If you represent a vendor below and I haven’t represented your organisation correctly, or if you represent a vendor that isn’t included but should be, please contact me and let me know a little bit about your company and your proposition and where you feel you fit in the segmentation model.

10Gen MongoDB, 3Tera App Logic, Aconex, Advologix, Altor Networks, Amazon EBS, Amazon EC2, Amazon S3, Amazon SimpleDB, Amazon SQS, Amitive, Apache CouchDB, Apache HBase, Appian Anywhere, Appistry, AppJet, AppNexus, AppZero, Aptana, Aria Systems, Aster DB, Beam4d, Beowulf, Blink Logic, Boomi, Box.net, Bungee Labs Connect, Caspio, Cassandra, Cast Iron, Clickability, Cloud42, Cloud9 Analytics, CloudFoundry, CloudStatus, ClusterSeven, CohesiveFT, CohesiveFT VPN Cubed, ColdLight Neuron, Collabnet, Concur, CrownPoint, CTERA, CTERA Portal, DataSynapse, Desktoptwo, DirectLaw, DocLanding, DropBox, Dynamsoft, Dynect, Elastichosts, Elastra, EMC Atmos, Engine Yard, Enomaly Enomalism, enStratus, Etelos, Eucalyptus, eVapt, FathomDB, Fios, Flexiscale, Force.com, Gemstore Gemfire, Gigaspaces, Globus Toolkit, gnip, Google App Engine, Google Apps, Google BigTable, GridLayer, Hadoop, Hosting.com CloudNine, HubSpan, Hyperic, Hypertable, IBM Lotus Live, iCIMS, InfoBright, Informatica iTRICITY, Joyent Accelerators, JungleDisk, K2 Analytics, Kaavo, Knowledge TreeLive, LayeredTech, LiveOps, LoadStorm, LogiXML, LongJump, LucidEra, memcached, Mercury, mezeo software, Microsoft BizTalk Services, Microsoft SDS, Mosso Cloud Files, Mosso Cloud Servers, Mosso Cloud Sites, Mozy, MS Azure Services Platform, MSDynamics, MuleSource Mule OnDemand, NetDocuments, NetSuite, NewRelic, Ning, Nirvanix, Oco, Open.ControlTier, OpenCloud, opencrowd, OpenNebula, OpenQRM, OpenRSM, OpSource, OpSource Connect, Oracle Coherence, Oracle On Demand, Panaroma, Parallels, ParaScale, Parature, PingIdentity, PivotLink, Platform, Qrimp, Quantivo, Questys, rackspacecloud, Redi2, Reductive Labs Puppet, Responsys, Rightnow, RightScale, Rollbase, rPath, Salesforce.com, Scalr, Sertifi, Serve Path GoGrid, SkyTap, SnapLogic, SnapLogic SaaS Solution Packs, SOASTA, SpringCM, Sterna, StreetSmarts, Success Metrics, Sun Grid Engine, Symplified, Syncplicity, Taleo, TerraCotta, Terremark, TIBCO Silver, Tokyo Cabinet, Trigence, Vertica, VMWare vSphere, Vordel, Workday, Workxpress, Xactly, Xero, Xeround, Xythos, Ylastic, Zembly, Zmanda, Zmanda Cloud Backup, Zoho, Zuora, Mezeo Software, Workxpress, Trigence, AppZero, Platform, OneNetwork, SpringSource, Vaultscape

Attempting to classify and compare the various vendors in the various technical segments of the cloud computing market is tough.

And if I’m honest I’m struggling with the shear volume of vendors that apparently have cloud propositions. I find it amazing that so many vendors/service providers have apparently architected and built specific solutions for this space.

But between you and me, I’m not sure that every vendor/service provider now positioned in the cloud computing market has been beavering away producing a specialised solution. Some I’m sure have done that but others have just changed a name or added an adjective or modifier to a product name.

But one thing is for sure, they’ve all changed their marketing!

As I’ve blogged before, the press release boilerplate (“the about…” text that appears at the end of a press release as guidance for editors) is an invaluable tool for marketing analysts such as myself. As evidence, it is the equivalent of the smoking gun or the size 11 muddy footprints left on the dining room carpet in a detective novel.

As vendors evolve so their boilerplate changes. If a vendor started with a good strategy that only needed minor tweaks over time to turn them into a very successful business, so the press release boilerplate is only tweaked in a minor way over time.  But when a vendor is forced to significantly change course due to a lack of traction or success during their history, the changes are faithfully recorded in the evolution of their bolierplate text.

So when the name Cordys popped up in Google this morning associated with cloud computing I took a double-take. I knew Cordys as an early ESB turned BPM/Orchestration vendor, formed by Jan Baan. I obviously missed their re-positioning so I wanted to do a little digging to find out how they made the leap from one to the other. So I fired up my press release, article and archive research tool and this is what I saw.

On January 12th 2009 Cordys was a business process specialist who apparently hadn’t heard of cloud or “as a service” which was faithfully reflected in its boilerplate.

Business process management specialists form strategic alliance – Cordys and Inex establish Cordys BPMS Centre of Excellence in the UK

About Cordys – 12th January 2009

Cordys is a global provider of software for business process innovation. The industry-leading Cordys Business Operations Platform (BOP) consists of a complete suite for next generation Business Process Management (BPMS), Business Activity Monitoring (BAM) and an open, integrated set of tools and technologies including Composite Application Framework (CAF), Master Data Management (MDM) and a SOA Grid. The Cordys platform empowers customers to dramatically improve the speed of change, fundamentally altering the way they innovate their Business Operations to achieve a true customer-centric philosophy. Global 2000 companies worldwide have selected Cordys to achieve business performance improvements such as increased productivity, reduced time to market, higher security and faster response to ever-changing market demands. Headquartered in the Netherlands, Cordys is a global company with offices in the USA, the UK, Germany, China, India and Israel.

But 8 days later that was all changed and the new positioning was reflected in its  boilerplate.

Cordys award winning Process Factory now available as community platform free of charge Web-based application development and BPM accessible to the Open Community.

About Cordys – January 20th 2009

Cordys is a global provider of software for business process innovation and Enterprise Cloud Orchestration. The industry-leading Cordys Business Operations Platform (BOP) consists of a complete suite for next generation Business Process Management (BPM), Business Activity Monitoring (BAM) and innovative SaaS Deployment Frameworks (SDF), delivering a complete Platform as a Service (PaaS) solution. It includes an open, integrated set of tools & technologies including Composite Application Framework (CAF), Master Data Management (MDM) and a SOA Grid. The Cordys platform and its cutting-edge Cloud technology empowers customers to dramatically improve the speed of change, fundamentally altering the way they innovate their Business Operations to achieve a true customer-centric philosophy. Global 2000 companies worldwide have selected Cordys to achieve business performance improvements such as increased productivity, reduced time to market, higher security and faster response to ever-changing market demands. Headquartered in the Netherlands, Cordys is a global company with offices in the USA, the UK, Germany, China, India and Israel.

Now I don’t want to seem to be picking on Cordys unduly as there are many other examples of companies that have re-positioned to catch this wave. I’ve advocated, supervised or instigated similar populist strategies myself in the past and doubtless will do again in the future. Yes, I’m sure that with a provenance as good as Cordys/Baan this must have been part of a much wider initiative involving new product development and long-term strategies. Yes, I know that SOA/Orchestration does have an obvious if somewhat tangential connection to the cloud paradigm. But there was no apparent evolution to cloud, no obvious chain of functionality that led them to become a cloud service provider which makes me a little suspicious.

The issue however is that because it is this easy to become a cloud computing vendor/service provider the market has quickly become incredibly crowded. Until the cloud market starts to take some tangible form that is based on customer need/demand and not just vendor whim and spin, then it is going to make selecting and choosing a cloud or *aaS offer very difficult for legitimate prospects.

So I’ll add Cordys into the ever-growing list of cloud computing vendors and file them under platform services/integration. And when I get round to tackling that section of the REPAMA study, we’ll see how Cordys’ offer stacks up.

Danny  Goodall

Continuing the research I’ve documented in these pages…

…I’ve either stumbled across, been gently reminded or have been actively asked to include specific vendors in the list of cloud computing vendors.

So here’s REV 4.

The actual list of vendors is shown in the tag list below. Also included in the Wordle is a list of the categories and classifications from DRAFT 1 of our market segmentation model which I will post here soon.

Danny Goodall

As mentioned earlier in these pages I’m documenting my quest to arrive at a market segmentation model of the cloud computing market. This will allow me to perform a series of REPAMA competitive marketing studies into various vendors in the cloud computing space. I’m uncovering more and more interesting research as I go and one such piece is described below.

The smart people at NIST (The US Governmental agency responsible for something or other – standards I think) have released some interesting work on cloud computing. Aimed at reaching a common set of definitions around cloud computing and its use cases, but recognising that these will change over time, their work can be found here.

I’ve reproduced some sections below because I think they add something to my quest to segment the cloud computing market. That said, I think they’ve omitted, perhaps consciously, an important characteristic and that is the commercial arrangements around cloud computing – namely its pay per use nature.

Anyway here goes:

A Definition of Cloud Computing:

Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models.

Essential Characteristics of Cloud Computing

On-demand self-service. A consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with each service’s provider.

Broad network access. Capabilities are available over the network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, laptops, and PDAs).

Resource pooling. The provider’s computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand. There is a sense of location independence in that the customer generally has no control or knowledge over the exact location of the provided resources but may be able to specify location at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., country, state, or datacenter). Examples of resources include storage, processing, memory, network bandwidth, and virtual machines.

Rapid elasticity. Capabilities can be rapidly and elastically provisioned, in some cases automatically, to quickly scale out and rapidly released to quickly scale in. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be purchased in any quantity at any time.

Measured Service. Cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service.

Service Models:

Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to use the provider’s applications running on a cloud infrastructure. The applications are accessible from various client devices through a thin client interface such as a web browser (e.g., web-based email). The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, storage, or even individual application capabilities, with the possible exception of limited user-specific application configuration settings.

Cloud Platform as a Service (PaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to deploy onto the cloud infrastructure consumer-created or acquired applications created using programming languages and tools supported by the provider. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, or storage, but has control over the deployed applications and possibly application hosting environment configurations.

Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to provision processing, storage, networks, and other fundamental computing resources where the consumer is able to deploy and run arbitrary software, which can include operating systems and applications. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure but has control over operating systems, storage, deployed applications, and possibly limited control of select networking components (e.g., host firewalls).

Deployment Models:

Private cloud. The cloud infrastructure is operated solely for an organization. It may be managed by the organization or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise.

Community cloud. The cloud infrastructure is shared by several organizations and supports a specific community that has shared concerns (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations). It may be managed by the organizations or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise.

Public cloud. The cloud infrastructure is made available to the general public or a large industry group and is owned by an organization selling cloud services.

Hybrid cloud. The cloud infrastructure is a composition of two or more clouds (private, community, or public) that remain unique entities but are bound together by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability (e.g., cloud bursting for load-balancing between clouds).

I think this is a really nice and compact definition of cloud computing it characteristics and use cases. I particularly like the notes on deployment models which I certainly want to incorporate into my cloud computing market segmentation.

Kudos to Peter Mell and Tim Grance of NIST!

Danny Goodall

I’m continuing the REPAMA Segment Analysis Study into the Cloud Computing market attempting to arrive at a solid market segmentation and two things have become very clear.

Firstly, every vendor with a remotely related proposition appears to have added the word “cloud” to their product name, presumably in an attempt to bask in the reflected glory that cloud computing provides, perhaps in an effort to appease their investors. This means that there are a large number of vendors claiming to be part of specific segments that may or may not have legitimate claims. This makes the process I’m going through confusing and messy. And if I, as a marketing analyst am having problems, I wonder what sort of success a legitimate prospect would have in finding the product/service they need.

Secondly, the market is still in flux and as such nailing a clear segmentation down is, for some time, going to be like herding cats. This is a classic early market symptom where the market is currently led by vendors’ own ideas about what is needed and what is possible. Once the market starts to form properly and vendors align behind what their prospects and customers are actually buying, then the segmentation will become clearer.

But I have to start somewhere and the good news is that I’ve been corresponding with both Peter Laird of Tendril Inc. and Brad Buck of OpenCrowd and they both have given their blessing to this project and have offered to help if they can. Most importantly they are both happy for me to use their work on a cloud computing taxonomy/model, here and here, as a starting point for my cloud market segmentation.

One thing that I quickly realised was needed for my purposes was some form of professional services (human skills) offer. Plenty of large consultancies, smaller integrators and boutique IT shops offer consultancy services around cloud computing. Both Peter and Brad have rightly focussed on the categorisation of product capability and customer need in fleshing our “their” taxonomy. But to fully understand what propositions are being put together to service the cloud computing “need”, I must include cloud computing professional services.

So far I’ve identified the following list of services under the category of professional services. I suspect that it will grow some and be rationalised some before I finish.

• Strategy, planning and design
• Migration and implementation services
• Testing
• Security
• Cloud application design/porting
• Support services and training

I suspect that cloud application design/porting will be a relatively niche category for a while and that testing, security and support services may all become amalgamated as I carry on my research.

Another major category of cloud computing offer that has also presented itself is that of “Channel”. A number of organisations are white labelling, OEM’ing, reselling or otherwise fronting cloud vendors/service providers’ offerings. One concern that I have is that this sort of partnering is very common in hot early markets where one vendor with no cloud proposition hastily signs a partner agreement to simply tick a box. It does’t mean that either company will do any real business.  I’ll do some digging and and if it looks like a real enough category I’ll add it and blog on it soon.

Danny Goodall.

Just a quick note to say that I’ve updated the Lustratus REPAMA Guide to version 1.1. I’ve added three more studies that have been part of our analysis for some time but hadn’t quite found their way into the guide.

These are:

• Depositioning focus
• Differentiation strategy
• Perceived threat

All of these studies are concerned with interpreting how the vendors under scrutiny approach competitive differentiation in one way or another and are now explained in the guide.

The Lustratus REPAMA guide is available for download, and for the first time in HTML format. Click here for more information.

I’ve made a minor update and per some of the comments I received I’ve made the Wordle a little more readable – but not that readable as that’s sort of the point.

Danny Goodall

I’m going to maintain a wordle of vendors that appear to have an association with cloud computing. I will add to this during the course of my research.  Here’s the first draft.

Click for a larger version. Initial vendors supplied courtesy of the good people at Opencrowd.

Danny Goodall.

In putting together our REPAMA analysis into the go-to-market strategies of the vendors in the cloud computing space, we first must arrive at an agreed segmentation of the market. This blog documents that process.

OK so as I mentioned here, I am going to carry out a series of REPAMA Segment Analysis Studies into the cloud computing market. The desired end product is a series of reverse-engineered go-to-market strategies for a set of vendors in each of the categories within the cloud computing market. But first I need to decide on the segmentation of the various technical offers in the cloud computing space.  After that I need to decide which vendors fit into each of the different proposition segments. This series of blogs will capture my journey through this analysis.

Where to start? Well I thought that my colleagues Steve Craggs and Ronan Bradley at Lustratus Research (the market analyst part of Lustratus) would be able to give me a definitive answer on the segmentation of the cloud computing market but as Steve told me, right now there isn’t a universally agreed way of describing the various categories of propositions under the cloud computing banner. Whilst he feels their are some obvious high-level classifications, under there things are a bit grey.

The problem is two-fold. Firstly, it appears that as the cloud computing market is currently at an early stage (albeit using what now are some pretty mature technologies); the propositions have grown, merged, change direction and are only now starting to find live customers amongst enterprises; so categorisation has proved difficult.  Secondly, the analysts involved in this space each has a vested interest in classifying the market on their terms and importantly in a different way to their analyst competitors – a game they will play until the market matures.

So I decided that I would capture the opinion of the great and the good of analysts and vendors alike and come up with our own classification. And in doing this a number of existing works stood out.

1. Peter Lairds – On-Demand Blog Classification

Peter Laird’s “Laird On-Demand blog“, and in particular this post, documents his efforts to arrive at a market taxonomy for Cloud Computing together with a nascent list of the vendors that fit into each category. As you can see from the diagram on the right, Peter is a fellow fan of mind mapping (it’s how Lustratus collects, collates and generally makes sense of the raw data behind the REPAMA studies), his classification has a simplistic appeal that I like.

At the highest level Peter divides the cloud market into

• Infrastructure
• Platform
• Services
• Applications

I feel that this a good way of looking at the cloud market and one that works well for my purposes. I also like the way Peter has classified private and public cloud seperately.  From the perspective of the REPAMA analysis I will be conducting, this is an important distinction between the various vendors’ propositions. (This despite the fact that the same software and vendors may appear in both categories).

2. OpenCrowd Taxonomy

Another interesting approach is provided by OpenCrowd.  I don’t know OpenCrowd but they appear to be a RIA vendor but also deep thinkers who really understand the major trends in the markets in which they compete. They’ve looked at cloud computing and have come up with a very thorough classification as shown in the diagram on the right.

They see the market also categorised into 4 high-level categories:

• Infrastructure Services
• Cloud Software
• Platform Services
• Software Services

OpenCrowd has also gone to considerable effort to sub-categorise these high-level categories and also to identify specific vendors associated with those sub-categories. Again I like this approach for its thoroughness although having looked at some of the vendors in each of the categories, its clear that they have been placed there/asked to be placed there simply because they want to bask in the reflected glory of the cloud computing market, as opposed to having a dedicated or specific cloud focus.

3. Christofer Hoff’s Cloud Model

Finally, a more technical classification comes from Christofer Hoff in his highly entertaining and incredibly well thought out security-focused blog – Rational Survivability. In this entry Hoff publishes his architectural model which appears to be largely aimed at understanding the interaction, dependencies and relationships between the architectural components in a cloud architecture from a security perspective.

It’s useful to have an architectural model to work with as this helps to validate that the vendor-led offers into the cloud market as described above, have some basis in fact. Whilst it won’t figure in my market-led classifications I have added it here for completeness.

So I’m still in the process of collecting my ideas and I’d like to take bit of 1. and 2. above and merge them into something that better reflects the vendors’ perspectives of how they take their products to market. I also need to first ensure that both Peter and OpenCrowd are comfortable with me doing that. The model I arrive at will necessarily be far simplified too as for the purposes of my vendor to vendor comparisons, I need to ensure that I group vendors together that compete even if they don’t intellectually appear to fit into the same market categorisation.  Watch this space.

Danny Goodall.

• Infrastructure
  Public
  Private
  Infrastructure
  Platform
  Biz Users Platforms
  Dev Platforms
  Services
  Storage
  Integrate
  Enablers
  Applications