Seriously, do you even began to count the massive consequences of doing that? In most cases, the replacement is plenty of steps back, need for more customization, and new lessons learned. The concept that someone may be willing to change vendors willingly just baffles me.

Having said that, there are few instances when a vendor stops performing as needed, their roadmap goes in a different direction that organization, they got acquired (or a partner that provided a core component got acquired), or it just -- it just does not work. Then you should consider it.

Also, in very few instances, if the vendor lied about their ability to do something - but only after you tried to make it work (most everything in this world can be made to work).

What I am trying to say: unless 1) it is an essential requirement for the business, 2) the incumbent cannot support or adapt to the need, and 3) you have tons of money, people, time, and resources to waste -- don't do it. The pain of getting a vendor in the first time is only compounded when changing a vendor by factor of 10.

My experience, YMMV.

Steve Christensen

Chairman/CEO, Babbleware Inc.

Posted on Sept. 20, 2011

Recommended by:
Esteban Kolsky

Esteban's response is right on the money. Never.

The legacy system being considered for replacement is likely missing a few critical pieces of functionality, data, process and/or technology. Any new enterprise system is equally going to miss bits and pieces that your business requires. To rip out your heart (enterprise software) because you want to buy a new pair of shoes (new strategy) is bordering on insane. IF, IF your heart stops beating and you have no choice then you must take drastic measures which may include a transplant. Steve Majors crashed, destroyed his body, got new legs, one new arm, a new eye and improved hearing...but he still had the same heart (just having fun with the analogy).

By focusing only on those missing pieces the legacy system can be maintained. I do not recommend open heart surgery to be able to have a new pair of shoes, either. In other words, don't modify, integrate OR replace the legacy system to meet the constantly changing landscape of your business. Take Esteban's advice: make your strategy happen and complement your legacy application...always.

Michael Krigsman Replied on Sept. 20, 2011

Steve, I totally agree with your points. I particularly like your line: "To rip out your heart (enterprise software) because you want to buy a new pair of shoes (new strategy) is bordering on insane."

That said, crazy things happen in the world of enterprise software and it's hard to be shocked after observing all the various failures. But still, I think vendor replacements are relatively unusual, as Esteban says. Product replacements are far more common.

I have seen vendor replacements following large failures, however. When a system doesn't work, the customer often thinks it was the software's fault, so they may dump the old vendor and try again with a new one. Hopefully, they will get it right the second time around, after having had the first implementation as a practice run, so to speak!

Steve Christensen Replied on Sept. 20, 2011

Michael - Constellation Research reports that the average enterprise system is 11.5 years old. The average...meaning many are older to offset all of the 'new' systems purchased in the last 3 - 5 years. Those numbers indicate that product replacements don't happen that frequently either as a percentage of the population. I do agree that they are more frequent than vendor replacement.

Certainly the failure of any project is shared with the customer, systems integrator/consultant and the software company. The percentage of blame may vary case by case but the software rarely doesn't work...it just doesn't work the way the customer thought/needs/expected/was told. Then reality hits. Any company that throws out a vendor to pursue another vendor not only paid way, way too much for a practice run...they also fail to realize their own culpability in the projects failure. If I was Vendor #2 I'd be less excited about the oppportunity to replace my competitor and more interested in a post mortem to assess blame.

Michael Krigsman

CEO, Asuret Inc.

Posted on Sept. 19, 2011

Esteban, it seems the entire vendor community and most enterprise customers do not agree with your position that changing vendors is almost always a mistake. Nonetheless, the problems and risks you raise are certainly real.

Therefore, why do so many organizations make precisely the kind of vendor changes about which you warn?

Show 4 more replies

Michael Ebwongu Replied on Sept. 21, 2011

Mike
A lot of great learning from all, Esteban, and others. The consensus seems to be on step by step improvements of the existing system than overhaul or termination. Improvements i mentioned are a learning opportunity for both the vendor and customer, which in my opinion is strengthening.

Michael Krigsman Replied on Sept. 28, 2011

The consensus seems to say, don't ever change enterprise vendors unless you absolutely must. Given the disruption changes cause, that makes sense. It also explains why enterprise vendors do everything possible to maximize lock-in and ensure the ongoing revenue that comes from service and support.