Crappy case studies and other inappropriate language

In 1996 I was part of a small team that launched Information Week UK. A big part of the value proposition was a promise to buyers that product reviews would include buyer stories and experience. There is a reason for that. Organizations don't buy technology they buy solutions to business problems. I saw no point in writing up feature function lists if there was no way to relate that back to the buyer experience.

Guess what? Vendors fought tooth and nail to keep us as far away from users as possible. It made for a very tough job and a battle that in retrospect I lost. Fast forward to today.

Without divulging anything said by specific individuals last week's Constellation Research Advisory Board meeting was one of the best of its kind I can recall attending. There was unanimous agreement that without the voice of the customer, research carries limited value. That is now being infused into reports, anonymised where appropriate but reflecting real life.

As I catalog the many ways that SaaS/cloud/on-demand is delivering value it is saddening that vendors of almost all stripes seem incapable of coming up with customer validated stories. Whenever I have a conversation with Oliver Marks, who is both a Constellation partner and contributor to these pages, I ask the same question: where are the customer examples? It's really an extension of the same question I've been asking the 'social anything' crowd the last four years.

Oliver's answer sounds reasonable yet is logically flawed. He says organizations that are benefiting from technology enable collaboration will not talk for fear of giving away a competitive advantage. I've heard that a thousand times and yet I'm willing to bet a very large amount it is untrue.

In an age of standard applications for large scale organisations, the consumerisation of applications as exemplified by this in the iTunes store and the emergence of configurable SaaS applications, the case for differentiation based upon technology alone starts to narrow very quickly. As the old song goes: 'It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it, that's what getss results.'

So why do I still receive case study press releases that go something like this:

"ABC, the leading DEF vendor in the GHI (probably Gartner defined micro segment but given a vendor specific twist) market has implemented its whizz bang multi-core, in-memory, light speed running, iPad widget at XXX company.

Joe Hero at XXX said: "With ABC's whizz bang multi-core, in-memory, light speed running iPad widget we can now get stuff done. Beforehand we had a pile of home grown (and/or name your favorite target competitor here) cack that ran like treacle."

Jim Marketing-Bollix of ABC said: "We are proud to be associated with ABC which we are confident will enjoy humungous success rolling out our widget which is the marketing leading widget of its class...."

You get my drift.

My good friend Vinnie Mirchandani talks relentlessly about analysts, bloggers, journalists, media, consultants all being single points of influence on a 1,000 point scale. He is right - and he is wrong.

Experience teaches me that nobody speaks louder than customers. If I'm really going to rip and replace my 10 year old ERP then upon whom will I rely to get a straight answer? The perceived wisdom is that companies in the same market are unlikely to entertain one another. Another myth.

During my call with Vassar/Revstone yesterday, senior business analyst Janice D'Amico said that her company recently hosted some 25 similar companies, talking about the success of their Plex Systems implementation. She extended an open invitation for me to visit the plant and see for myself. How good is that?  When those same companies go back to their offices and ponder upon their buying decisions, who will they remember?

Put another way: when I recently attended an SAP customer panel event the words of one customer will be forever seared into my memory: "When I went looking, I did what all companies of our kind do - I asked my mates." The very people that some heap blame upon when things go wrong but who almost never give credit when things go right.

So where are 'we' collectively going wrong? I think a good clue comes out of a note Frank Scavo sent me. He's in the early stages of a substantial project. He said (and I paraphrase heavily):

• Companies don't care about their vendors. When they do it's in the context of problems.
• Company chiefs could care less about vendor roadmaps and strategic direction.
• End user leadership cares very much about technology but only when making major acquisitions.

Those same leaders are interested in how technology can help with:

• Competitive advantage
• Operational efficiency
• Customer care and service
• Technology investment funding
• Adoption strategies
• Best practice knowledge transfer

That should be no surprise to any vendor but it is telling that the vendors have failed to communicate the very attributes they believe their products and services deliver. There are numerous reasons why that might be the case, not least the well worn practice of promising short and delivering long. That is where the SaaS players continue to beat on-premise into the ground.

But I also think there is something else that needs fixing. Too often we use a language that only technology people truly understand. In my own world I worry that I have to be on my toes when spending time with SAPpers because they speak SAPenese. It is the same elsewhere. Now imagine you are sitting in the middle of a 'typical' IT landscape. There will be SAP, Oracle, Microsoft and a myriad of others all vying for attention, all applying their spin driven language specifics. Is it not time to stop and listen to users? Is it not time to start responding to them in the business language with which they are familiar? Is it not time to demonstrate a clear understanding of the industries you serve by expressing problems in their terms?

And, if as many believe, we are living through a period where business is becoming more driven by socially oriented behaviours rather than the proscritive world of process....then where the heck are the consistent and steady stream of cases to prove it? If you're a consultant trying to convince me otherwise, then think again. Show me the money. Or in this case, show me the customers with whom I can have that social interaction of which you speak.