How Complex Can SaaS Offerings Get?

Feb 14, 2008 by

It’s common place to equate Software as a Service with CRM, HR, or other “business function” style implementations. Although these implementations are not simple by any means, they generally do not require the computational rigor of an offering that performs complex mathematical analysis or photorealistic 3D rendering. In fact, it’s rare to hear that a company is pursuing this sort of “non-traditional” SaaS offering.

A recent discussion across two blog posts (this one and this one) sparked an interesting discussion about the viability of the SaaS model in the computer assisted design (CAD) space. The discussion revolved around issues like data access and security, but an important takeaway is to highlight that discussions are cropping up regarding application types that were traditionally considered “desktop only”. We see people discussing CAD, and even Adobe talking about bringing Photoshop online.

It’s my opinion that almost any application can be brought online these days, and that making those applications work well is a problem whose solution is rooted in good software engineering. SaaS offerings need not be restricted to applications that serve only horizontal business functions, but can branch out into non-traditional verticals such as CAD. I would even go as far as saying that in many cases, online versions may “out feature” and “out value” desktop counterparts. Take CAD for exampe: can every architecture and design firm afford servers that can perform photorealistic rendering? Probably not, but you can bet that a SaaS provider along with a massive render farm can give that sort of value to anyone on earth.

Do you feel my take on this is too agressive? Is it too early for traditional “heavy” client offerings to move to the SaaS model?

 

read more

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Defensively Architecting a SaaS Implementation

Feb 7, 2008 by

If you’re a SaaSBlogs regular, you’re probably a big fan of the SaaS delivery model. One thing you also probably know is that one of the downfalls of the delivery model stems from the fact that it increases overall cost of failure and cost of downtime since it moves usage from a decentralized (aka on-premise) delivery mechanism to a centralized one. Although this is a downfall, it’s not a good enough reason to avoid the model; SaaS’ pros significantly outweigh its cons. The value afforded by SaaS outweighs centralization issues. That doesn’t mean, however, that an ISV should ignore problems posed by centralization. After all, if architected poorly, downtime may affect all of your customers, which would in turn clog your support lines and negatively impact your growth rate. So what can an ISV do to alleviate the pitfalls of centralization? Focus on defensive architectures.

As a discipline, SaaS architecture can take lessons from ship building. Normally, small vessels (let’s say one that carries 8 passengers) have a single compartment hull; that is, the hull is a single volume of air designed to keep the vessel afloat. One strategy to move 4,000 people from port A to port B is to put them on 500 such small vessels. If a vessel were to hit an iceberg, it would most definitely sink since a hull breach would open that single compartment up to water logging. However, the problem would be localized and isolated, with a high degree of probability that the other 399 vessels will make it to port B without a problem. Consider this to be representative of the on-premise model.

Much like the on-premise model, however, this mechanism for moving people is grossly inefficient at best since it requires separate crew and supplies for each vessel. A more efficient way to move 4,000 people would be on one massive vessel, exploiting obvious economies. Despite any achieved economies, an ugly facet rears its head: a poorly engineered mega-vessel could lead to the deaths of all 4,000 aboard in one fell swoop! What happens if it hits an iceberg? Consider this to be representative of the SaaS model.

So back to the iceberg question: fortunately, engineers architect mega-vessels defensively; rather than a single compartment, single volume hull, mega vessels are divided into multiple airtight compartments (for example, the Titanic had 16). A hull breach may cause any single compartment to flood, but the system as a whole remains resilient. Any load borne by the breached compartment is implicitly offloaded to the remaining compartments of the hull, keeping all 4,000 passengers alive despite a massive system failure! This sort of defensive model is absolutely necessary in ship design, and is something that SaaS architects and engineers should adopt in their design approach. Your software now becomes a single, centralized heap that is “carrying” thousands of customers. Focus on compartmentalizing resources and supporting system failure, but try to keep any one compartment from being dedicated to some subset of your customers (i.e. when a compartment on a multi-compartment vessel is breached, some subset of the 4,000 passengers did not sink as a result!). Of course we all know how things turned out for the Titanic which confirms that if the breach is big enough it can still take down the entire system but the idea is to minimize the risk and realize all you can do is reduce the probability that an unforeseeable event will have significant negative impact.

 

read more

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

SaaS Adoption’s Secret Weapon: Hosting Providers

Feb 4, 2008 by

It’s common place to discuss SaaS adoption as being driven by either an ISVs need to remain competitive or tackle new markets, or by customer demand to move responsibility away from internal IT to an outsourced provider. I support this as being very true, and we can thank these two constituents as being the driving force behind recent adoption. But is that all of the muscle that the SaaS movement has? Absolutely not.

Two constituents that care the most, and bring a lot of strength to the table, are enablement companies like Apprenda (our company), and application hosters (not really a ‘word’ but we’ll make it part of the post’s vernacular). Hosting companies/managed application providers are often overlooked or underplayed when discussing SaaS. Generally, the world of hosting has become a collection of relatively bland offerings with focus on “old style” services (although there are atypical cases). Most hosters are looking for a new value proposition that can move them out of a low margin commodity and back into the lime light. Building a business around SaaS alleviates the “low margin” problem and if hosters spend more time and money taking SaaS more seriously, they may become SaaS’ next champion. The more ISVs and customers they can attract, the more they can extract from this high value market.

I don’t believe SaaS adoption is set to halt by any means. In reality, I think there is still plenty of room for adoption via a collective championing of the delivery model by hosters who are looking to leverage their multi-million dollar infrastructure investments and pump up that good ‘ole revenue dollars/deployed infrastructure ratio!

Do you think that hosters can play a larger role in driving adoption? Do you see the next stage of SaaS innovation coming from hosters?

 

read more

Related Posts

Tags

Share This