Comments on: The 21st century ERP http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/ batting for the enterprise tech buyer Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:05:30 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Cloud Computing 101… Again | CloudAve http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Cloud Computing 101… Again | CloudAve Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:39:17 +0000 http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/?p=218#comment-38 [...] would have thought that the majority of us dealing with this stuff day to day but a post over on Enterprise Advocates got me wondering whether in fact I’d been naive in thinking this [...] [...] would have thought that the majority of us dealing with this stuff day to day but a post over on Enterprise Advocates got me wondering whether in fact I’d been naive in thinking this [...]

]]> By: dahowlett http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/comment-page-1/#comment-30 dahowlett Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:50:39 +0000 http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/?p=218#comment-30 That's an interesting idea and I would say a tentative 'yes.' But this is always a global v local issue. Might be worth checking out EuroCloud. Of course 'we' need the vendors. That's one reason why I like the idea of 'honest brokers' and participation by strong and knowledgable buy side participants. That's an interesting idea and I would say a tentative 'yes.' But this is always a global v local issue. Might be worth checking out EuroCloud. Of course 'we' need the vendors. That's one reason why I like the idea of 'honest brokers' and participation by strong and knowledgable buy side participants.

]]> By: timtribe http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/comment-page-1/#comment-29 timtribe Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:36:41 +0000 http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/?p=218#comment-29 But doesn't it have to be global? And doesn't it need the buy-in of SAP, Oracle etc? But doesn't it have to be global? And doesn't it need the buy-in of SAP, Oracle etc?

]]> By: dahowlett http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/comment-page-1/#comment-28 dahowlett Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:22:12 +0000 http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/?p=218#comment-28 @tim - elsewhere I have argued that ICAEW might fulfill those role in the UK. BASDA previously established machine to machine transaction standards. I'm told they are in growing use which is good news but as you can properly gather, the initiatives are disconnected. @tim – elsewhere I have argued that ICAEW might fulfill those role in the UK. BASDA previously established machine to machine transaction standards. I'm told they are in growing use which is good news but as you can properly gather, the initiatives are disconnected.

]]> By: timtribe http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/comment-page-1/#comment-27 timtribe Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:05:25 +0000 http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/?p=218#comment-27 Excellent article Dennis, you have pulled together some very cogent arguments. We do need a new ERP - have needed one for a while I think. I wonder if the only way that this can start is to have some univerally agreed transaction standards? There are many compelling reasons for this - not the least to allow inter-operability between applications and to reduce the cost of entry for startup ERP vendors. A role for an honest broker do you think? Excellent article Dennis, you have pulled together some very cogent arguments. We do need a new ERP – have needed one for a while I think. I wonder if the only way that this can start is to have some univerally agreed transaction standards? There are many compelling reasons for this – not the least to allow inter-operability between applications and to reduce the cost of entry for startup ERP vendors. A role for an honest broker do you think?

]]> By: David Terrar http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/comment-page-1/#comment-25 David Terrar Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:45:59 +0000 http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/?p=218#comment-25 Sorry - I don't see either SaaS or Cloud as any particular vendor''s marketing... and SOC is yet another term that has to be explained. Not with you on this one, but, hey ho - I've said my piece! Sorry – I don't see either SaaS or Cloud as any particular vendor''s marketing… and SOC is yet another term that has to be explained. Not with you on this one, but, hey ho – I've said my piece!

]]> By: dahowlett http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/comment-page-1/#comment-24 dahowlett Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:14:37 +0000 http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/?p=218#comment-24 @david - you know full well that I use SOC because it is LESS confusing. The industry has chosen to conflate the terms: as Larry Ellison said: 'Last year fuchsia, this year puce' wandering between SaaS, on-demand and cloud to suit the fashion moment. Plus I plan to wait and see if 'K' turns up next year ergo: SOCK. <br /><br />I don't plan to roll over any time soon to suit any vendor's marketing ;)<br /><br />...and anyway - there's always tags...(lol) @david – you know full well that I use SOC because it is LESS confusing. The industry has chosen to conflate the terms: as Larry Ellison said: 'Last year fuchsia, this year puce' wandering between SaaS, on-demand and cloud to suit the fashion moment. Plus I plan to wait and see if ‘K’ turns up next year ergo: SOCK.

I don't plan to roll over any time soon to suit any vendor's marketing ;)

…and anyway – there's always tags…(lol)

]]> By: David Terrar http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/comment-page-1/#comment-23 David Terrar Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:04:28 +0000 http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/?p=218#comment-23 This is a very interesting post, which I want to come back to, but first I want to comment on the jargon topic that Richard Messik so eloquently captured, both with his question to the panel at Softworld, and his subsequent blog post - too many of the Cloud vendors are talking alphabet soup and technicalities, rather than simple business benefits. But here is my concern - I think your recent posts on this topic are adding to the problem.<br><br><br>You've invented a new term SOC, standing for SaaS/On Demand/Cloud. The 3 are related, but Cloud Computing covers the whole topic. I think you should drop this new acronym because we already have too many confusing terms. Most organizations are happy to talk Cloud and as a sub text explain how that covers SaaS, Infrastructure as a Service and Platform as a Service. I've done some Googling, and the only references to SOC in this way are yours. That also means the more you use SOC, the less likely your posts on Cloud (or SaaS) are going to be found (so its counterproductive for your SEO too). I just don't think SOC adds value and suggest you start using Cloud - it will be less confusing for your business readers - or is it just me? This is a very interesting post, which I want to come back to, but first I want to comment on the jargon topic that Richard Messik so eloquently captured, both with his question to the panel at Softworld, and his subsequent blog post – too many of the Cloud vendors are talking alphabet soup and technicalities, rather than simple business benefits. But here is my concern – I think your recent posts on this topic are adding to the problem.

You've invented a new term SOC, standing for SaaS/On Demand/Cloud. The 3 are related, but Cloud Computing covers the whole topic. I think you should drop this new acronym because we already have too many confusing terms. Most organizations are happy to talk Cloud and as a sub text explain how that covers SaaS, Infrastructure as a Service and Platform as a Service. I've done some Googling, and the only references to SOC in this way are yours. That also means the more you use SOC, the less likely your posts on Cloud (or SaaS) are going to be found (so its counterproductive for your SEO too). I just don't think SOC adds value and suggest you start using Cloud – it will be less confusing for your business readers – or is it just me?

]]> By: dahowlett http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/comment-page-1/#comment-22 dahowlett Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:38:34 +0000 http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/?p=218#comment-22 @norman - as Brian said - those are add-ons so let the big boys just get that done. There is however an argument for keeping BI/GRC as a separately and loosely coupled app. eg Hara? @norman – as Brian said – those are add-ons so let the big boys just get that done. There is however an argument for keeping BI/GRC as a separately and loosely coupled app. eg Hara?

]]> By: normanmarks http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/2009/10/19/the-21st-century-erp/comment-page-1/#comment-21 normanmarks Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:23:12 +0000 http://blog.enterpriseadvocates.com/?p=218#comment-21 ERP evolved from stand-alone applications. My personal vision is that the applications that enhance the ERP (e.g., BI, visualization, access security, GRC, performance management) will become so tightly and seamlessly integrated that instead of talking about ERP we will be talking about the integrated enterprise system. ERP evolved from stand-alone applications. My personal vision is that the applications that enhance the ERP (e.g., BI, visualization, access security, GRC, performance management) will become so tightly and seamlessly integrated that instead of talking about ERP we will be talking about the integrated enterprise system.

]]>