7 ms·

As a product person in the enterprise space, I think there's a lot of good things in this article. BUT, there's a couple of things that I think reflect Steven'

As a product person in the enterprise space, I think there's a lot of good things in this article. BUT, there's a couple of things that I think reflect Steven's background at Microsoft and are common assumptions in the Enterprise space that no longer hold universally true. - There's a lot of talk about "IT" as a group that you sell to, which by and large only still exists at the highest end of the market, and even then largely as a group whose buy-in you have to get past in order to complete the deal. Many technologies these days are sold directly to the LoB, and IT's only involvement is a security audit, data recovery strategy, and integrating the new app into SSO. - The downside of this is that many, certainly not all, organizations are a lot less mature than they used to be when it comes to rolling out technology. After all, if all you have to do is log into a web portal and start doing things, what prep do you need? Consequently, your implementations will be a lot more successful if you can show up and tell prospects how to roll out your software, or migrate away from a competitor - I find that a lot of these organizations are less mature when it comes to understanding "roadmap vision" - they're a lot more aligned to, "What can I do now?" and "What will I be able to do in six months?". There's nothing wrong with that, but selling vision that might represent an aspirational dream for three years out can conflict with the short-term vision of the stakeholder In general, I think the disconnect comes from the fact that IT in a lot of organizations grew to a sufficient size that the justification for (some of) their existence was implementing and managing the implementation of enterprise software. To do this they built processes and procedures that mitigated risk, helped them plan, migrate effectively, train people, etc. Those same processes also created jobs where the sole purpose was to justify their existence and increased overall complexity.

petercooper 11y ago
Do you write anywhere about this stuff? If not, I would love to read it if you did :-) In my minor experience with selling to enterprises, the three points you raise hit home.
- napoleond 11y ago
  Since there is no there way to indicate this to GP: ^^ What he said!
- mattzito 11y ago
  I have a terrible, unmaintained blog at http://mzi.to http://mzi.to that I keep promising to myself I will do something with. My bio isn't even accurate there at the moment. So if I do start writing about it, it'll be there.
jackgavigan 11y ago
> Many technologies these days are sold directly to the LoB, and IT's only involvement is a security audit, data recovery strategy, and integrating the new app into SSO. Don't forget "trying to deal with the fallout a businessperson buys something without consulting IT". Classic facepalm situation. It's a good idea to make sure that all the stakeholders (including IT) are involved at an early stage, to make sure that any obstacles to deployment can be avoided (or, at least, spotted in advance). An engaged, friendly IT department can help grease the skids for an enterprise sale; a hostile one can scupper it. > ..these organizations are less mature when it comes to understanding "roadmap vision" - they're a lot more aligned to, "What can I do now?" and "What will I be able to do in six months?" I think this is partly down to a certain amount of skepticism regarding salespeople's promises. > Those same processes also created jobs where the sole purpose was to justify their existence and increased overall complexity. I think that's a little bit harsh (but not necessarily untrue!). Any organisation that grows above a certain size is going to have bureaucracy and red tape. For organisations of a certain age, the legacy IT infrastructure (and particulrly the extent to which business processes rely on it) presents a challenge to change (including deploying new products).
- mattzito 11y ago
  > It's a good idea to make sure that all the stakeholders (including IT) are involved at an early stage, to make sure that any obstacles to deployment can be avoided (or, at least, spotted in advance). An engaged, friendly IT department can help grease the skids for an enterprise sale; a hostile one can scupper it. It's true, but I think it depends somewhat on the product and space, right? "Enterprise software" can encompass a wide variety of tech, from SAP on one end, to database and app platforms in another direction, to marketing tech in a third, and so on. If you're running on-premise, IT has to be involved. If you're touching IT-provided services like email, file sharing, etc, IT has to be involved. But if you're not touching IT centrally, they're often not involved, beyond the validation points about security, etc. In the space in which I currently work, for example, IT is almost never involved. In a previous life selling application and infrastructure management products, IT was almost always the direct customer/implementor. There's a huge spread, so I think everyone has to be clear about which scenarios we're talking about. > I think this is partly down to a certain amount of skepticism regarding salespeople's promises. Sometimes I think it's skepticism, I think it's also that IT orgs tend to have a longer history with the concept of "partnering" with a vendor, which often involves a combination of skepticism, optimism, professional services, and a willingness to settle. When you deal with a different business unit that maybe has less experience with building and implementing Product, sometimes they don't see/embrace that approach. > think that's a little bit harsh (but not necessarily untrue!). Any organisation that grows above a certain size is going to have bureaucracy and red tape. For organisations of a certain age, the legacy IT infrastructure It was certainly more terse than I intended, I was running out of time before a meeting started.
HenryTheHorse 11y ago
Great points. I am in exactly the same space (enterprise/B2B) and your last two points about IT resonated with me. F500/1000 have IT teams that only specialize in managing vendors and ensuring compliance and governance. IMHO, the lack of roadmap thinking comes down to IT not being able to translate the Business roadmap into technology terms. Too many CIOs still insist on seeing a product roadmap without first talking about business goals.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  > Too many CIOs still insist on seeing a product roadmap without first talking about business goals. Maybe because they have had too many experiences in which they articulated the business goals first, and then the product roadmap they hear about is magically a perfect match. Then 6 months into the deal they find out that--whoops--what they heard from the salesperson is not the real, or really achievable, product roadmap. Yes, enterprise salespeople do not always tell the truth. It's rarely outright lying; usually more of an issue of selective emphasis, or making what they think are reasonable extrapolations from what they know.

petercooper 11y ago

Do you write anywhere about this stuff? If not, I would love to read it if you did :-) In my minor experience with selling to enterprises, the three points you raise hit home.

napoleond 11y ago
Since there is no there way to indicate this to GP: ^^ What he said!
mattzito 11y ago
I have a terrible, unmaintained blog at http://mzi.to http://mzi.to that I keep promising to myself I will do something with. My bio isn't even accurate there at the moment. So if I do start writing about it, it'll be there.

jackgavigan 11y ago

> Many technologies these days are sold directly to the LoB, and IT's only involvement is a security audit, data recovery strategy, and integrating the new app into SSO. Don't forget "trying to deal with the fallout a businessperson buys something without consulting IT". Classic facepalm situation. It's a good idea to make sure that all the stakeholders (including IT) are involved at an early stage, to make sure that any obstacles to deployment can be avoided (or, at least, spotted in advance). An engaged, friendly IT department can help grease the skids for an enterprise sale; a hostile one can scupper it. > ..these organizations are less mature when it comes to understanding "roadmap vision" - they're a lot more aligned to, "What can I do now?" and "What will I be able to do in six months?" I think this is partly down to a certain amount of skepticism regarding salespeople's promises. > Those same processes also created jobs where the sole purpose was to justify their existence and increased overall complexity. I think that's a little bit harsh (but not necessarily untrue!). Any organisation that grows above a certain size is going to have bureaucracy and red tape. For organisations of a certain age, the legacy IT infrastructure (and particulrly the extent to which business processes rely on it) presents a challenge to change (including deploying new products).

mattzito 11y ago
> It's a good idea to make sure that all the stakeholders (including IT) are involved at an early stage, to make sure that any obstacles to deployment can be avoided (or, at least, spotted in advance). An engaged, friendly IT department can help grease the skids for an enterprise sale; a hostile one can scupper it. It's true, but I think it depends somewhat on the product and space, right? "Enterprise software" can encompass a wide variety of tech, from SAP on one end, to database and app platforms in another direction, to marketing tech in a third, and so on. If you're running on-premise, IT has to be involved. If you're touching IT-provided services like email, file sharing, etc, IT has to be involved. But if you're not touching IT centrally, they're often not involved, beyond the validation points about security, etc. In the space in which I currently work, for example, IT is almost never involved. In a previous life selling application and infrastructure management products, IT was almost always the direct customer/implementor. There's a huge spread, so I think everyone has to be clear about which scenarios we're talking about. > I think this is partly down to a certain amount of skepticism regarding salespeople's promises. Sometimes I think it's skepticism, I think it's also that IT orgs tend to have a longer history with the concept of "partnering" with a vendor, which often involves a combination of skepticism, optimism, professional services, and a willingness to settle. When you deal with a different business unit that maybe has less experience with building and implementing Product, sometimes they don't see/embrace that approach. > think that's a little bit harsh (but not necessarily untrue!). Any organisation that grows above a certain size is going to have bureaucracy and red tape. For organisations of a certain age, the legacy IT infrastructure It was certainly more terse than I intended, I was running out of time before a meeting started.

HenryTheHorse 11y ago

Great points. I am in exactly the same space (enterprise/B2B) and your last two points about IT resonated with me. F500/1000 have IT teams that only specialize in managing vendors and ensuring compliance and governance. IMHO, the lack of roadmap thinking comes down to IT not being able to translate the Business roadmap into technology terms. Too many CIOs still insist on seeing a product roadmap without first talking about business goals.

snowwrestler 11y ago
> Too many CIOs still insist on seeing a product roadmap without first talking about business goals. Maybe because they have had too many experiences in which they articulated the business goals first, and then the product roadmap they hear about is magically a perfect match. Then 6 months into the deal they find out that--whoops--what they heard from the salesperson is not the real, or really achievable, product roadmap. Yes, enterprise salespeople do not always tell the truth. It's rarely outright lying; usually more of an issue of selective emphasis, or making what they think are reasonable extrapolations from what they know.