Is SaaS really better for users?

Michael,

It is an interesting question, but in some ways I am not sure relevant. To me, it is like asking if leasing a car is a better driving experience. (Yes, I realize in a car example the person experiencing and paying is the same). An actual end user should not really care. As a matter of fact, to an end user, everything is SaaS, it is just a matter of who is the provider: My IT department or someone else - as long as it works and helps 'me to get my job done, I am happy'

SaaS is a delivery model, which if done right could enhance the end user experience if that model allows the IT organization to be nimble and keep up with the pace of change better. If the IT organization can do that on premise, then it does not matter.

Mitch

I think also end user benefits from SaaS. SaaS enable collaboration, which is not possible with traditional softwares, keeps cost down and should have a better learning curve than ever...

everything we do in IT is eventually for the benefit of the end users , with SaaS IT will out source the administration headache from their operations thus they will focus more on the end users customization requirements thus they will deliver a better service for them.

Mitch,

You make a great point, but the industry keeps telling us that SaaS is better for users. Perhaps the question really becomes, does SaaS enable certain user functions, experience, or process that is inherently better than on-premise? Would love to get your thoughts on that question.

Michael,

To extend the car leasing metaphor a little further, it allows you to trade in for a new experience more frequently. Now, purists will tell me the metaphor is starting to be stretched too thin. But, I think it is relevant, as SaaS allows the users to benefit from enhancements to the application that I would suggest might take longer if the solution is on premise. IT departments would likely take longer to add new features and functions that would enhance the experience for the end users - but this is not fact, and could be unfair to many IT departments who release application frequently.

My question back to you is the following: "What Industry?" Those who sell SaaS, say SaaS is better, those who have On-premise, say that is better - what do those who offer both say? When all I have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....

Mitch

It's no panacea to major problems related to culture, data, internal politics, inconsistent policies, etc. But, all else equal, it does relieve IT of an obvious burden.

From a users experience standpoint unless the on premises version is different than the SAAS version, there is no difference. User should not care so long a their needs are taken care of. SAAS does differ to business users in many different ways:
1) SAAS tends to be more costly over longer periods of time,
2) With SAAS the user can only get new non customer features when the SAAS provider adds them to their release
3) With SAAS in theory the existing IT staff should have more time to spend on other projects
4) SAAS can at times be more difficult to provide customization or data exchange

Interesting dichotomy that you presented: end users versus IT. I doubt that end users care about whether an application is delivered on premises, off premise, or even via carrier pigeon. What they are concerned about is being able to access information in an easy manner whenever they need it.

On the other hand, IT has to provide services to users at a low cost. SaaS has the potential to help smaller companies offload some of the deployment and maintenance issues associated with complex computer applications to third parties. Theoretically, they can deliver more sophisticated systems to their users in a more timely manner.

However, there are some potential downsides. Companies do not have as much control over their application as they did in the past and may find themselves in need of functionality that their vendor cannot deliver. Downtime can be a problem. There have been high profile instances where SaaS services have been offline for hours. Also, companies need to look carefully at the wording in their contracts, which is often weighed to limit the supplier’s liability.

Like any other technology, companies have to be careful because SaaS may not make sense for everyone. But there have been a number of cases where it enabled SMBs to deliver more sophisticated applications to their users than they could have if they tried to develop them themselves.

It's interesting how often proponents of SaaS will cite cost as an incentive. Quite often, the monthly cost of a SaaS application will accumulate to something substantially higher than an outright purchase of a perpetual license in a very short timeframe. It isn't unusual for this crossover on the cost curve to happens inside as little as 12-18 months and buyers should be asking themselves if this makes sense to them, particularly if they intend keeping the software for a number of years and the alternative of a perpetual license also entitles them to ongoing software upgrades (usually for a notional maintenance fee, included in the comparative cost analysis). The other big question is: who owns my data and what do I have to do to get it back if I end my contract with the SaaS vendor?

Geoffrey, thanks for bringing up an important point. On the surface, it appears that SaaS is cheaper than on-premise. However, if we take a long view, say over five years, on-premise can be less expensive. The comparisons are difficult, because you have to consider more than just license vs. subscription costs. Aside from the obvious, a real comparison must also address maintenance and support, IT staff, and other indirect cost variables as well.